£* ,—42 REESE LIBRARY • ly THK UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA. Received. ^-'nO CW^ ,ss ^ Accessions No. ^^T^ 2rQ Shelf No - /^ / •^ ^ c ' /r Digitized by tine Internet i(Vrcliive in 2008 with funding from IVIicrosoft Corporation > ./ h / i^ ..'i, .:•-/: Iittp://wyvw.archive.org/detai1s/essav;ofinativedep00woodj?iq ^/. When, therefore, sin occurred, we cannot say thfe^fls i^^^ ^ V was anything incredible in it, or anything inconsistent with man's having been originally holy. And his original holiness cannot be mentioned as diminishing at all the evidence of his apostacy, or as presenting any obstacle in the way of believing it. Difficulties may exist, and difficulties not to be solved, respecting this matter. But what has now been stated is plain truth ; and we ought to remember it ; namely, that man, though at first holy, was changeable, and was exposed to the influence of circumstances, which might induce him to sin ; and that, as there is evidence that he actually sinned, we are to admit the fact without hesitation, and can never consider it as incredible, that a moral agent, in a state of probation, should transgress the divine law and fall under its penalty. Thirdly. The chief reason which prevents men from rightly understanding and receiving the doctrine of human corruption, is, their blindness to the excel- lence of the divine laWy and their ignorance of their own hearts. ' The moral law is the standard of character. If we are conformed to its requisitions, we are holy ; if not conformed, we are sinners. But men in general have no proper discernment of this perfect law, and no prac- tical regard to it, as the rule of their actions. Their eyes are directed to other and very different standards, according to which they can think highly of them- selves, though in truth they are guilty and vile. Every human being is in himself an example of de- 16 PRELIMINARY CONSIDERATIONS. pravity. And he must learn its nature and malignity by a careful survey of his own heart and life. While he neglects to examine himself, and to judge of his moral feelings and actions by God's holy law, argu- ments from Scripture and experience will fail to con- vince him of the truth, or at best will give him only an intellectual conviction, a dry, speculative notion of what his heart does not feel. Here is the great hin- derance to the reception of that humihating doctrine which we hold respecting the moral corruption and ruin of the human race. Men are occupied with other concerns and do not look into themselves. Or if at any time they do this, they disregard the only true standard of moral actions, and the only just measure of their obligations, and substitute another standard, which leads them to overlook their moral dehnquencies and the utter alienation of their hearts from God, and to form an opinion of themselves which will gratify their self-love, and free them from the pain of self- reproach. They are like a man who, having a de- formed countenance, induces a painter to make such a picture of him as shall conceal his deformities, and please his vanity by imaginary beauties, and then looks at it as a true picture of himself. The fact that most men reject the doctrine of human depravity and guilt, or form so very inadequate and erroneous a conception of it, is so far from being a con- futation of the doctrine, that it is in reahty a striking illustration of its truth. Fourthly. It is in no degree inconsistent with the PRELIMINARY CONSIDERATIONS. 17 doctrine of depravity, as set forth in the Scriptures, and as maintained by evangehcal Christians, that men in their natural state possess and exhibit many amiable, commendable and useful qualities. Men stand in various relations. Their character must of course be viewed in a variety of hghts, and in each must be estimated according as it is conformed or not to the rules of conduct arising from these various relations. They may have attributes corresponding to some of these relations, such as the natural relations of domestic and social life ; and in reference to these rela- tions merely, they may be considered both amiable and useful, and even praise-worthy; while they have nothing which corresponds to the high relation they bear to God and to his spiritual law, and to their fellow men as sub- jects of that law. Accordingly the natural affections of parents and children, and what are commonly called the social affections and sympathies, are just as consist- ent as bodily appetites are, with the fact that man is without holiness, i. e. without that affection which is required of him in relation to God and a moral govern- ment. What then becomes of all that the deniers of human corruption have said of the lovely simplicity, the freedom from guile, the dutifulness and affection of children, and the sympathy, good will, gratitude, jus- tice, and generosity which men in their natural state often exhibit. It is admitted that they may have all these lovely and useful and commendable dispositions, and that, in regard to all the common domestic and social relations, those who have these dispositions are to 18 PRELIMINARY CONSIDERATIONS. be regarded in a very different light from those who are destitute of them. But, after all, these natural dis- positions, however amiable, and however useful their fruits, do not touch their relation to God, and to the immortal beings who compose his moral kingdom. And, for aught that appears, they may be as really destitute of that holy love and obedience, which is due from them in this paramount relation, as if they had nothing which corresponded to their other relations. I say they may be as really destitute of holiness. I speak not of the degree of positive wickedness. For doubtless the extinction of the natural affections shows an extreme degree of depravity. Indeed, there is nothing but the practice of wickedness for a long time and with uncommon violence, which can extinguish the amiable and useful dispositions belonging to us as domestic and social beings. Accordingly, when the apostle speaks of persons as " without natural affections," his object evidently is, to describe those who are sunk to the lowest degree of vice. To sum up all in a few words-; the natural affections, however cultivated and improved, and however attrac- tive the forms in which they may be exhibited, do not constitute holiness, and are often found where no de- gree of holiness exists. Indeed they are so deeply' rooted in the nature of man, that they cannot be eradicated, except by the influence of extreme wicked- ness, nor always even by this. My last remark is, that no theory intended to PRELIMINARY CONSIDERATIONS. 19 account 'philosophically for the fact that man is depraved^ can free the subject from difficulty. As I shall enlarge upon this view of the subject in another place, I shall treat it briefly here. It will be found, I think, on careful inquiry, that the common belief of the orthodox relative to the doctrine of de- pravity, is exposed to no greater objections than any other belief ; that all the attempts which have been made by philosophical reasoning to avoid or even to diminish the difficulties attending the subject, have effected but httle ; and that man's universal sinfulness is, after all, left as it was, a well known^ dreadful fact^ — a fact ^ whether explained or unexplained^ as certain as our existence. Now as no hypothesis which has been invented for the purpose of accounting for man's depravity, and freeing it from objections and difficulties, has answered the purpose ; are we not brought to this conclusion ; that depravity is a fact xchich chiefly concerns us not in an intellectual^ hut in a moral view ; that we are to make use of the doctrine for practical purposes, and that it is the part of Christian wisdom to receive those par- ticular views of the subject which best agree with the current representations of Scripture, and with what experience and observation dictate, to what- ever speculative objections those views may be ex- posed. I have said this for the purpose of clearing the way, and making the object of inquiry as simple and plain as it is in other branches of knowledge. In physical 20 PRELIMINARY CONSIDERATIONS. science we inquire for facts ; for example, we inquire whether all bodies have a tendency to the centre of the earth, or to the centre of the solar system ; how tliis tendency shows itself, and acccording to what laws it is regulated. We inquire, what peculiar tendency or power the loadstone has, and in what manner it operates. The same in every branch of natural science. Here we suffer ourselves to be encumbered with no hypothesis and no preconceived opinion. And if any one should say to us^ this or that thing, which is made known as a fact, is very strange and unaccountable, entirely different from what we should have supposed, and liable to difficulties which cannot be solved ; it would still be of no avail. We should be satisfied with clear evidence, and should unhesitatingly believe the truth of facts, made known by our own experience or that of others. What if they should appear strange and unaccountable, and should be attended with insolvable difficulties? To creatures who are just beginning to learn, everything may be strange and unaccountable. We know that many things with which we are familiar, and concern- ing which we have no difficulties, are very strange and attended with insurmountable difficulties to a little child ; and that they were formerly so to us. What a pity it is that men cannot be brought to exercise as much reason and common sense on the subject of religion, as they do on other subjects ! In every department of natural science, they readily admit facts, however new and however contrary to their pre- DEPRAVITY PROVED. 21 conceived opinions. But when they come to the subject of reUgion, on which they are least of all capa- ble of knowing anything except what God teaches them, they hesitate to admit what the word of God and common experience make perfectly plain and cer- tain. They doubt and even deny a doctrine which rests upon obvious facts, occurring around them and within them every day and hour of their lives. What can be done to convince men of the unreasonableness and folly of such a course, and to prepare them to re- ceive with simplicity whatever God makes known to them as truth ? CHA PTER II. General remarks on the evidence of depravity arising from human conduct. — Scripture proof of the universality of sin. It may be proper to commence the argument in sup- port of the common doctrine of depravity, by a few general remarks on the evidence which arises from human conduct. This is a kind of evidence which is sanctioned by our Saviour himself. " By their fruits ye shall know them. Do men gather grapes of thorns or figs of thistles? — A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit; neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit." On this principle we ground all our judgments of ourselves and others. External actions are the only evidence of character which can fall under our observation, in re- 3 TSA DEPRAVITY PROVED spect to our fellow men. And external and internal actions furnish the proper evidence of our own char- acter. Now the general current of human actions is such in regard to the divine law, as to afford conclusive and overwhelming evidence of man's moral corruption. If we turn our thoughts to the history of human conduct in the antediluvian world, and since, we shall see that man has been a sinner. If we survey the conduct of man at the present day, in every situation and at every period of life, we still find evidence of the fact that m^ari is a sinner. And this fact is made still more evident to each individual by his own moral feelings and actions. Who among men, who among the wisest and best of meji, can survey his own life, even for a single day, without being constrained to feel that man is a sinner ? Or if a doubt should be felt in his mind re- specting the sinfulness of som^e other 9nen, could he be in doubt respecting his own sinfulness? Everyone who attends seriously to his own inward exercises and outward actions, and compares them with the standard of God's law, must acknowledge that, whoever may be free from guilt, he himself is a sinner. The evidence which arises from human conduct in favor of the common doctrine of depravity, is exceed- ingly various. It is exhibited in all conceivable ways. Indeed the wickedness of the human heart has forced itself out in ways which, had it not been for our knowledge of facts, we should have pronounced im- possible. FROM man's conduct. 23 This evidence exists in a very high degree. The actions of men are not such that we are merely able, by careful examination, to discover some taint of moral evil in them. They have an obliquity which is palpa- ble and prominent. They have a deep stain, like scarlet and crimson. The evidence from human conduct is constantly exhibited before our eyes. Should we at any time forget the history of past ages, and begin to think that man is not so depraved as has generally been sup- posed ; we should soon be awakened from our dream, by the fruits of depravity in those around us, and especially in ourselves. Whether we are associated with our fellow creatures in the common business of life or in the concerns of religion, we cannot fail to witness in them, whoever they may be, clear indica- tions of moral corruption. And if we are separated from the society of men and live in solitude, we shall still have evidence of this corruption from what takes place in ourselves. Wherever we may go and what- ever we may do, this evidence will be continually pres- ent with us. From the history of human conduct, we have then evidence of depravity, which is various, powerful, and constant. Indeed the evidence is so great, that it is difficult to imagine how it could be increased. There is, it is true, an effort among men, and we may often be conscious of such an effort in ourselves, to draw a veil over the naked deformity of sin, and to put on the semblance of goodness when the reaUty is wanting. 24 DEPRAVITY PROVED But even this affords additional evidence of the sinful- ness which cleaves to our character. Deceit, or an unwillingness to appear what it is, must be regarded as one of the most hateful properties of the depraved heart. And the more we are in the habit of searching out the deceitful workings of sin, and the various false refuges which it invents, the more deep will be our conviction of its power and malignity. Is it not then difficult to conceive, how the evidence of man's de- pravity, arising from his actions, could be increased ? It is, to say the least, so great, that w^e must be the subjects of singular obstinacy and blindness, not to he convinced, and of singular pride, not to be humbled. The evidence already brought into view, even if there was no other, proves the moral depravity of man as clearly, as the evidence of facts prove any principle in natural science. Even the law of gravitation can- not be proved more certainly than " the law of sin''^ in man. If the law of gravitation is proved by the fact that all bodies, when left without resistance, show a tendency to move towards the centre of the earth ; the moral depravity of man is proved by the fact that, when left to himself in circumstances which lead to a Idevelopement of his moral character, he always shows a propensity to sin. The appearances of human na- ture from the first apostacy to the present time, and from early childhood to old age, evince the existence of a deep-rooted moral disease. That the nature of man has a wrong bias, or tends to evil, is seen and ac- PROM man's conduct. 25 knowledged by all who have the care of children and youth, or who seriously endeavour to persuade men to conform to the rule of duty. It is proved by all the restraints which discreet parents feel themselves obliged to impose on their children, and rulers upon their sub- jects; especially by those restraints which good men find it necessary to impose upon themselves. The facts which indicate the existence of moral evil in man, are as various and clear, as those which ever indicated any bodily disease. I would just add, that the more perfect our acquaint- ance with (he conduct of men, and especially our own conduct, the deeper will be our impression of the cor- ruption of human nature. It is not like a case in which a partial acquaintance with the symptoms of the disease excites fears which are allayed by a more per- fect acquaintance. It is rather like a case in which our first observation might lead us to apprehend that a person is the subject of some infirmity, still however leaving us in doubt whether there is any serious disor- der, or what the disorder is, but our continued obser- vation of the symptoms gradually increases our appre- hension, and finally makes it a certainty that the pa- tient has a disorder of the most alarming character, and incapable of being cured, except by the speedy applica- tion of extraordinary means. 26 DEPRAVITY UNIVERSAL. Depravity Universal. The evidence from Scripture that all men are sin- ners^ will now be considered. And it should be kept in mind that this evidence is nothing less than the tes- timony of that Being who perfectly knows what is in man ; who is no respecter of persons, and who is per- fectly qualified to be our Judge. It is the testimony of a benevolent Creator respecting his creatures, and of a holy and merciful Father respecting his children. In such a testimony we may be sure there will be no par^ tiahty and no injustice. The particulars of the divine testimony in proof of the universal sinfulness of our race, will be presented in the following order : 1. Passages expressly asserting the universality of sin. 2. Passages setting forth the sinful conduct of indi- viduals and natio7is. 3. Representations of other subjects which imply the universal sinfulness of man. 1. Passages expressly asserting the universality of sin. Those which are found in the writings of the Apostle Paul, are very direct. Rom. 5 : 12 — 19. " And so death passed upon all m.en,for that all have sinnedJ^ The passage clearly implies that all who die are sinners, or that the sinfulness of men extends as far as their mor- tality. A variety of expressions follow this, showing DEPRAVITY UNIVERSAL. 27 that all the posterity of Adam are in a state of sin and ruin. This is repeatedly affirmed in ch. iii: "We have before proved," says the Apostle, " that both Jews and Gentiles are all under sin ; as it is written : There is none righteous, no, not one. There is none that un- derstandeth, there is none that seeketh after God. They are all gone out of the way ; they are together become unprofitable, there is none that doeth good, no, not one." He then comes to the conclusion, that " all the world are guilty before God ; so that by the deeds of the law no flesh can be justified in his sight;" which would not be true, if any were free from sin. The declaration of God by the prophet Jeremiah, [ch. 17: 9,] conveys the same sentiment. " The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked ; who can know it?" The sense is unlimited. It is not the heart of one man, or of one society of men ; but the heart J — the human heart universally. This sense is confirmed by the next verse. " I the Lord search the heart ; " the heart universally. And as there can be no limitation in this case, there can be none in the former. The heart which God searches, is that which is deceitful and desperately wicked. In Eccl. 9 : 4, we find a similar expression. " The heart of the sons of men is full of evil." So, Gen. 8: 21 ; "The imagination of m,an^s heart is evil from his youth." What does the anatomist mean, when he gives a description of the form and uses of the hearty as a part of the human body? And what does the writer on mental philosophy mean, when be speaks of 28 . DEPRAVITY UNIVERSAL. the mind, the understanding, the willj and the con- science 7 Does not the form of expression always de- note that what is said relates to man as a species, and is true of the species universally ^ unless there is an express or implied limiiation? But it may be said, there is such a limitation, inasmuch as the same wri- ters who declare that all are sinners, all corrupt, — that there is none that seeketh after God, or doeth good, no, not one, also speak frequently of those who are righteous, of those who seek God and do good. To set this matter right, we have only to make the Bible its own interpreter. How does the sacred vol- ume account for the fact, that there are some who form an exception to the general character of man, and, in the midst of a wicked world, are holy and obe- dient ? Does it teach that they are so hy nature 7 No. It unequivocally ascribes the character of those who are holy, to the new creating influence of the Divine Spirit. They were "by nature children of wrath, even as others. But they are ^^born again ;^^ they "are washed, they are justified, they are sancti- fied in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the /Spirit of their God." They are what they are, "6y the grace of God." Now if they were holy by nature, the texts which declare that there is none righteous, would evidently be subject to limitation. But as those who are holy, are not so in their natural state, and become so only by the renewing of the Holy Ghost, they furnish no exception to the universal sinfulness of man, as he is by nature. Whatever men may be- DEPRAVITY UNIVERSAL. come, in this world or in the next, by redeerale^^^iSacfe- ^J'^ tifying grace, they are all, in their natural state, with- r a out exception, dead in sin. And it is not to ^iH^ forgotten that even those who are holy and obedient, are so only in a very imperfect measure, having much remaining sin. So that if any say they have no sin, "they deceive them^elves," and " make God a liar." 2. I argue from those texts which set forth the sin- fulness of individuals and nations at particular times. Such as Gen. 6:5; "And God saw that the wicked- ness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually." This passage shows what was the char- acter of the human race before the flood. "The wickedness of man was great." To the same class belong all the passages which describe the impiety and wickedness of Jews and Gentiles at different periods. These passages are very numerous, and are found in the writings of Moses and the Prophets, in the Psalms and in the New Testament. It is indeed said, in the way of objection to the com- mon mode of reasoning from such texts, that they relate to men in particular places and at particular times, and to those who were subjects of an uncom- mon degree of depravity, and that it would be very unjust to understand them as descriptive of the char* acter of the whole human race. This objection can be obviated by considering the manner in which the subject is treated by writers in the New Testament. They refer to the account given 30 DEPRAVITY UNIVERSAL. in the Old Testament, of the depravity of men in former times, as descriptive of the character of the human race generally. Tiie prophet Isaiah said : " Who hath believed our report, and to whom is the arm of the Lord revealed?^' And in Isaiah vi, God said to the prophet : "Go, and tell this people; hear ye indeed but understand not, and see ye indeed but per- ceive not. Make the heart of this people fat, and make their ears heavy, and shut their eyes." In this commission God signified what was the character of the people to whom the prophet was sent, and pointed out the fearful effect which his ministry would have upon them. The words related, primarily and di- rectly^ to those who were contemporary with the prophet Isaiah. But in the New Testament, these words are repeatedly referred to as descriptive of the character of the Jews under the Gospel dispensation. Take the following instances. John 12: 37 — 40; "But though he had done so many miracles before them, yet they believed not ; that the saying of Isaiah the prophet might be fulfilled, which he spake; Lord^ who hath believed our report, and to whom, is the arm of the Lord revealed? Therefore they could not believe, because that Isaiah saith again; He hath blinded their eyes and hardened their hearts, that they should not see with their eyes, nor understand with their heart, and be converted, and I should heal them.^^ Thus the writer of the evangehcal his- tory took two passages which described the stupidity and wickedness of the Jews, at a former period, and DEPRAVITY UNIVERSAL. 31 applied them to those who were contemporary with him. The Apostle Paul did the same to the Jews in Rome. In his final address to them, in order to make a deep impression of their guilt, he said ; " Well spake the Holy Ghost by Esaias the prophet unto your fathers;" — repeating the same words from Isaiah vi, with the manifest and cutting implication, that the words described their character, as well as the char- acter of their fathers. In his epistle to Titus, Paul, in the same way, takes a passage from the poet Epi- menides, and applies it to the Cretans of his day. " One of them, even a prophet of their own, said : The Cretans are alxoays liars^ evil beasts, sloto bel- lies. This witness is true: wherefore rebuke them sharply, (fcc." The passage from the poet not only suggested that the Cretans were depraved, but that they were characterized from age to age by particular forms of depravity. But the example of the Apostle in Romans iii, is most directly in point. In making out the proof that all men are sinners, he enumerates the several forms of wickedness which had been exhibited by men in particular places, and at particular times. The argument is unquestionably good. And of course, it is just and proper for us to regard all the particular instances of wickedness which the liistory of any por- tion of mankind brings to view, as indicating what is the common character of the species. In several of the Psalms, particularly the v, x, xiv, xxxvi, and xl, and in Isaiah lix, the writers described the sins which prevailed in their day. "They are corrupt, they have 32 DEPRAVITY UNIVERSAL. done abominable works ; they are all gone aside," (fee. The passages are indeed descriptive of the Jewish character in times of great degeneracy. But the Apostle makes use of these very passages to set forth the character of the Jews in his day. And indeed he fails as to the great object of his reasoning, and the conclusion at which he arrives is false, if the passages he quotes from the Old Testament do not contain, substantially, a true account of the character of man- kind universally in their natural state. For he ad- duces the passages for the very purpose of proving that all the world are guilty before God. It is a connected chain of reasoning ; and unless the texts cited are, as to the substance of them, justly applicable to the whole race of man, the reasoning is without force, and the conclusion, that all are guilty and in need of sal- vation by grace, is broader than the premises. But when depravity is thus predicated of all men alike, it by no means implies that all have the same degree^ or exhibit the same forms of depravity. This was not the case even with those of whom the Psalmist and the prophet Isaiah originally spoke. The truth of the passages quoted, and the propriety of reasoning from them as the Apostle does, need not be supposed to imply more than this, namely, that all men in their natural state are unholy and disobedient, and so, as to wickedness of heart, are substantially alike; or that they have the same moral nature^ the same wrong propensities, the same elements of m,oral evil ; and that the variety of characters existing among men is DEPRAVITY UNIVERSAL. 33 not to be accounted for by any essential difference as to moral nature, but by their different bodily consti- tutions, by the different circumstances in which they are placed, and the different influences under which they act. It may possibly be thought that, as the passages quoted related to the Jewish nation in former times, the Apostle meant to apply them merely to those Jews who had a similar character in his time, and that it would be improper to consider them as a proof of uni- versal depravity. I admit that the primary design of the passages related to Jews ; but the Apostle shows that his argument was meant to have a wider range. His conclusion is, that "the whole world," whether Jews or Gentiles, are guilty, that is, convicted of sin, and so must look for justification by grace, not by works. I would not deny, that in coming to this conclusion he might refer to what he had said to the Gentiles in ch. i, in connection with what he had said of the Jews in ch. iii. Nor would I deny that he might take it for granted, and as what would not be called in question by those to whom he wrote, that the Gentiles were as wicked as the Jews, and as worthy of the charges which he recited from the Old Testament. On this ground, his making good his charge against the Jews, was, by obvious consequence, making it good against the Gentiles. If any should allege that the passages quoted were meant by the Apostle to be applied only to the unbe- lieving' and ungodly part of the Jewish nation ; my 4 34 DEPRAVITY UNIVERSAL. reply is, that the Apostle's design was to show, that there is only one mode of acceptance with God, namely, by faith in Clirist, in contradistinction to salvation by works. And was it not true of believers^ as well as of others, that there was no way of justification for them except by grace ? Had they not been sinners ? And were they not sinners still? Does not the Apos- tle, in the next chapter, speak of Abraham and David, as those who were justified in the gratuitous way, that is, pardoned ; — implying, that they were transgres- sors? So that what the Apostle here asserts of all men, is not to be limited to the unbelieving and un- godly, but is to be considered as justly applicable to all who were ever in a state of sin, that is, to the whole race of man, without exception ; as he says, verse 23, " for all have sinned and come short of the glory of God," — and so need the grace of the Gospel. There can be no reasonable doubt, therefore, that the passages quoted in Romans iii, from the Old Tes- tament, are a true description of the character which, for substance, all men naturally possess. These pas- sages show that, whatever may be the different forms _of character among men, they all, without exception, '^^ agree in this, that they are sinners. And if these pas- sages are to be regarded in this light ; it is evidently proper that other similar passages should be regarded in the same light. Accordingly, the account given of the wickedness of the antediluvian world, and of par- ticular portions of mankind in different ages, may be produced as a true exhibition of the natural character DEPRAVITY UNIVERSAL. 35 of man, a developement, varied by circumstances, but siibstantialbj the same, of man's unrenewed heart. What if men, who are educated in a Christian land, and under the influence of Christian instruction, are free from the odious forms of vice described by the Apostle ? Are they not " by nature children of wrath even as others?" In forming a correct judgment of their case, we pass by what is fair and lovely in their visible conduct ; — we pass by all the diversities of their intellectual and social qualities, and fix our eye upon the moral affections of the heart. In these ele- ments of evil all agree. And although they have not, by formal outward acts, committed theft, murder, (fee, they all have in their unrenewed hearts what may be called the principles or seeds of these hateful vices. And admitting them to be alike in these original affections, we can satisfactorily account for all the varieties of character existing among them, by the in- fluence of circumstances. Who can suppose that the different degrees of wickedness, and all the varieties of character among men, are to be traced back to a dif- ference in their moral nature, or their original moral dispositions? Nothing could be more unreasonable, or contrary to the word of God, than this. It is clearly suggested by common observation and experience, and especially by Scripture, that human nature, as to its grand moral features, is always the same; and that the wickedness committed in any age or countr}', is a true exhibition of what is in man as a species. Were it not so, the writings of historians, whether sacred or 36 DEPRAVITY UNIVERSAL. profane, would be of little use to us. We have been taught to regard it as one of the pecuHar advantages of history, that it gives us lessons respecting human nature, or makes us acquainted with what is in man, and so is calculated to profit us as individuals of the species. But of what advantage would history be to us, if it gave a description of the dispositions and ac- tions of those who have no common nature with us, and to whom we bear no moral resemblance? On this supposition, why did the Apostle John refer to the conduct of Cain, for the purpose of counselling and warning those to whom he wrote? Why did the Apostle Paul say, "Whatsoever things were written aforetime, were written for our learning ? " And why did he bring into view the ingratitude, unbehef, mur- muring, and obduracy of the Israelites in the wilder- ness, for the purpose of admonition to his contempora- ries? Suppose men in former times were chargeable with various kinds of wickedness; what is that to us, if we have no tendency in our nature to the same wick- edness? History has been regarded as a faithful mirr ror in which we may discern the features of our own character, even those which were before unobserved, and may learn the dangers against which we ought to guard. But on the supposition above made, history could no longer be used for these important purposes, but must be considered merely as a gratification to our curiosity. Nay more, those texts in which the sacred writers make the most general declarations respecting the sinfulness of man, must be limited to those tq DEPRAVITY UNIVERSAL. 37 whom the writers originally applied them. If they said " that which was born of the flesh is flesh," and that " they who are in the flesh cannot please God ; " they must have said it of the carnal race of men who lived at that time ; but it by no means proves that men at the present day arc in this condition. If Christ de- clared that "except a man be born again he cannot see the kingdom of heaven," — and if the Apostles spoke of all Christians as actually renewed by the Divine Spirit ; we cannot, upon this principle, consider such passages as intended to show what the natural state of man is, and what is necessary to the Christian character, at this period of superior light and refinement. Indeed, if the principle involved in the objection is correct, we cannot conclude that any Scripture precept is obliga- tory on us. For all the commands of God contained in the Bible, were given to men who lived in former times. And how can those commands, which were given to generations of men long since passed away, show what God requires of us7 Those who were spoken to by Moses and the Prophets, and by Christ and the Apostles, were required to repent of sin, and to love God with all their hearts, and their neighbours as themselves. But when has the inspired teacher said, that these requisitions related to men who should live in the nineteenth century ? In fact, all parts of the Bible were addressed to men of other times and in other circumstances; and how can any of its doctrines be applicable to us ? How can its precepts bind us ? And how can its promises animate and comfort us ? % 38 DEPRAVITY UNIVERSAL. All the good which the sacred vohime can now do, is to teach us what mankind were, and how God treated them in former times. To all these extremities should we be carried, if we should admit the supposition which we haA^e been considering. For the same principle which would free us from the high charges of de- pravity and guilt found in the Bible, would authorize us to set aside all the other doctrines connected with that of human corruption, — would prove us to be free from the obligations of all the precepts of the Bible, and would entirely deprive us of its gracious and cheering promises. And so the sacred volume would be to us an antiquated, obsolete, and useless book. I well know it is maintained by all sober men, that the general instructions, and precepts, and promises of God's word, relate to us as really as to those who lived in the time of the Prophets and Apostles. But on what prmciple are they to be so understood 1 How is it that we directly conclude, that all men now living are bound by the moral precepts contained in the Bible ? — that wherever we find human beings, we feel it to be proper at once to address to them the offers and the promises of the Gospel, and to call upon them to repent and believe ? It can be on no other principle than this ; that as to whatever is necessary to constitute accounta- ble beings, and as to the essential qualities of moral character, all men are alike. This is a principle which we almost instinctively admit. Who doubts that the human beings whom he meets for the first time, even if it be in the most distant part of the world, have the DEPRAVITY UNIVERSAL. 39 same rational and moral faculties with those men whom he has familiarly known ; that they possess, and will, as occasion prompts, exhibit, self-love, pride, a disposition to resent injuries, and all the other moral affections which he is conscious of in himself, or has witnessed in others around him ? And who does not feel it to be proper and necessary in all his intercourse with men, whether familiarly known to him or not, to act on the principle that they are subject to all the depraved affections which the inspired teachers charged upon the wicked world in their day? If a man should act on any other principle, he would be considered as deficient in the knowledge of human nature. And if any one should think his own heart free from that de- pravity which has misguided and ruined others, he would show that he is ignorant of himself. This leads me to say, that the propriety of consid- ering the description of human sinfulness found in the Bible, as of universal application, is evident from the experience and consciousness of every sober, reflecting man. Let such a man read what the sacred writers affirm of the wickedness of individuals and of nations ; and then look into his own heart, and ponder well the emotions which have been excited and the principles which have operated there ; and must he not be satis- fied that he has within him, the elements of all that the Apostles and Prophets charged upon the wicked world ? Nay, it will not be difficult for him to discover in himself a real moral resemblance to those who have been stigmatized by the most hateful vices. 40 DEPRAVITY UNIVERSAL. I appeal to those who have been accustomed to look into their own hearts. You know a man who is guilty of a heinous crime, — theft, adultery, or murder; and you know all the unpropitious circumstances of his case from early childhood; the wrong instruction he has received, the corrupting manners of his associates, the influence of wealth or poverty, of excessive indul- gence, or irritating severity, which has operated upon him, — yea, the whole combination of hurtful causes by which his moral faculties have been perverted, and his heart prepared for acts of wickedness. Now had you been placed in the same circumstances, would you not have been likely to commit the same crime? Have you not already, in many instances, done that which is equally contrary to the divine law? And have you not a painful consciousness of those unholy dispositions, which, had there been no influence to subdue or restrain them, and had they been elicited and strengthened by temptation, might have made you a Cain, a Pharaoh, a Saul, or a Judas? Are you not convinced that you have in yourself the elements of the same moral deformity ? and that it is owing, not to the natural purity of your hearts, but to the influence of the Divine Spirit, or to the restraints of Divine Providence, that you are not actually num- bered with the most vile and wretched of the human race ? 3. I argue from those representations of Scripture which teach the depravity of all the human race by inan'ifest irnplication. DEPRAVITY UNIVERSAL. ff^^*» ^ J" ^^^^ W ■ ^>> <, Those passages which teach the necessity I5f regeil- * <> < eration, or which assert that the obedient and pious *5 ^ have been regenerated, clearly imply that all men ^J^J^, naturally in a depraved state. For, if any human — ' — ^ being is not depraved, surely he does not need to be born again. He is holy and obedient without regen- eration. The first passage I shall quote is John 3: 1 — -7, containing the discourse of our Saviour with Nico- demus. The four thousand years which had passed away from the creation, had furnished abundant evi- dence of the natural character of man. A thorough experiment had been made of the disposition of the human heart in a great variety of circumstances. Commands and warnings, promises and threats, favors and judgments, displays of wonderful mercy and of tremendous wrath, had been repeatedly tried. Jesus stood upon an eminence from which he witnessed the w^hole developement which had been made of human nature, and all the affections of man's heart. And he set forth the grand result, — the momentous truth which the history of all ages had taught, and which, without the history of past ages, was perfectly mani- fest to his heart-searching eye, when he said to Nicodemus; "Verily, verily, I say unto thee, except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God''' It is evident that the change here spoken of, is a moral or spiritual change; because it is to prepare men for a spiritual kingdom. And it is necessary for all men, E&v ^ir^ tic, etc. ^^ Except any 42 DEPRAVITY UNIVERSAL. one is born again." No human being, who is not regenerated, can enjoy the blessedness of Christ's kingdom. And so it is most clearly implied, that every human being is in a state of moral depravity, which renders him unfit for Christ's kingdom. To illustrate the necessity of a spiritual renovation, our Saviour added, " That which is born of the flesh is flesh." This implies that the children of men are the subjects of such sinful propensities as render them incapable of holy enjoyment. And as this state of depravity is the direct and certain consequence of our natural birth, it of course belongs alike to all. The various places where the duty of repentance is en- joined, or the necessity of it asserted, imply the same doctrine. For how can repentance be regarded as the duty of men, or as necessary to their salvation, unless they are sinners ? The sinfulness of all mankind is imphed in the work of redemption, particularly the death of Christ and the dispensation of the Spirit. The reasoning of the Apostle is, that ''if Christ died for all, then were all dead," i. e. dead in sin. If any of our race were not sinners, they would need no atonement, and Christ's death could have no relation to them ; for he is everywhere represented as having died for sinners, the just for the unjust. Redemption by the blood of Christ, for those who are free from sin, would be totally incx)ngruous. The same is true as to the work of the Holy Spirit. The Spirit is sent to convince men of sin, to quicken them, to make them holy, to DEPRAVirV UNIVERSAL. 43 shed abroad the love of God in their hearts. But what need of all this, nay, what place for it, in regard to those who are not sinners ? Unless the heart is impure, what occasion is there for purification ? Un- less the mind is darkened by sin, what occasion for special divine illumination ? And unless man, in his natural state, is depraved, what necessity is there of his being renewed by divine influence ? If then there IS any being, who has no sin, he can have no concern with the special work of the Holy Spirit, and for him to ask for sanctifying influence, or for others to ask it for him, would be unreasonable and senseless. The universality of sin is implied in the fact, that all men die. Death, including the dissolution of the body, is the penalty of the law. Natural death is a great and appalling evil, and when inflicted upon those who are the subjects of God's government, is a mani- fest token of his displeasure. If men had been per- fectly obedient and holy, they would not have suffered death. This is fully confirmed by the Apostle, in Rom. 5: 12 ; "By one man sin entered into the world, and death hy sin ; and so death hath passed upon all men, for that all have sinned." Death came in as the result of sin, and extended as far as sin and no farther. The Apostle speaks, verse 14, of those who lived from Adam to Moses, and teaches that death reigned over them also, and consequently that they were sinners, though they had not sinned in the same manner that Adam did. The reasoning of the Apos- 44 DEI^RAVITY IJNIVEtiSAL. tie is perfectly clear, and the conclusion certain : Death befalls all men ; therefore they are all sinners. In proof of the universality of sin among men, I might say. that the fact has been acknowledged by all nations ; that the structure of civil laws, and the ad- ministration of civil government, have always pro- ceeded on the principle of human corruption ; and that no government, whether civil or domestic, would be fitted to its end, or have any prospect of success, if it should overlook human corruption. I might say, too, that no man ever attempted in earnest to govern him- self by the rules of right reason, without finding abundant and mortifying evidence of his own moral depravity, and that the farther any one goes in the work of a just self-government, the clearer will he find the evidence of "a law in his members warring against the law of his mind," i. e. of a corrupt disposition of heart opposing his reason and conscience, and urging him to transgress the divine commands. The best men on earth have been sinners, and are the subjects of sin still. "If we say that we have no sin, we de- ceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us." CHAPTER III. Total depravity explained and proved. Having shown that all men, without exception, are sinners, 1 shall next inquire, what is the degree of sinfulness which belongs to unrenewed man? TOTAL DEPRAVITY. 45 This is an inquiry entirely distinct from the pre- ceding. For the fact that all are sinners, does not necessarily imply that they are sinful in any par- ticular degree, and certainly not that they are totally sinful. We well know that all who are renewed are still the subjects of sin, though they have a degree of holiness. The total depravity of man in his natural state, is to be considered altogether as a matter of fact ; and to be proved by appropriate evidence. But before entering on the proof of the doctrine that man in his natural state is totally sinful, it will be important to obtain a clear and correct idea of the meaning of the doctrine. Explanation of Total Depravity. The doctrine relates to man as a moral being, sub- ject to a moral government ; and accordingly the de- pravity predicated of him is a moral depravity. And it is to be farther remarked that moral, in relation to this subject, is used in its highest sense. The word is not unfrequently applied to those affections which attend our domestic and social relations, and to the conduct which those affections prompt. Such affections, generally called natural affections, may in- deed be regarded as of a moral nature in a secondary sense. They possess a higher excellence than the animal appetites, and more directly involve our moral interests. But the word moral, as commonly used 46 EXPLANATION OF with regard to the present subject, respects the high standard of God's holy law, the sum of which is, to love God loith all the hearty and our neighbour as ourselves. So far as we are wanting in this affection for God, and our fellow men, and so far as we have an affection of a contrary kind, we are morally depraved. And if we are entirely destitute of the holy love re- quired by God's law, and if all the affections we have in relation to that law are of an opposite nature, then we are totally depraved. According to this view of the subject, the objectiori most frequently urged against the doctrine of total depravity is manifestly without force. To disprove the doctrine, the objector alleges that men in general possess many amiable and useful qualities, and that very few go to that degree of wickedness which they are capable of reaching. We acknowledge the facts alleged, but deny that they are of any weight in opposition to the doctrine. The simple question is, whether a moderate degree of wickedness, and the existence of the amiable and useful quahties referred to, may consist with the entire absence of that holy love which God's law demands, and with the pre- dominance of an opposite affection. If they may, then the facts alleged by the objector are not con- clusive against the doctrine of total depravity. For the doctrine, properly explained, affirms only that man in his natural state has no holiness, and that the affections which he exercises, so far as they relate to the high standard of God's law, are wrong. The doctrine admits that man without regeneration may li'OTAL DEPRAVITY. 47 possess a great variety of dispositions, and perform a great variety of actions, which are lovely and im- portant, — which are indeed what they ought to be, so far as they respect his domestic and social relations in the lower sense. But the doctrine asserts that, notwithstanding all these, unrenewed man has no holiness and is the subject of total moral depravity. And if any one thinks it best to use the word moral in the lower sense, and to say, that the amiable natural affections above mentioned are morally good ; it is sufficient for us to say, that in regard to this subject we use the word moral in a different sense. It may perhaps appear strange and almost incredi- ble to some, that so many estimable and lovely qualities should be found in those who are entirely without love to God. But it is a well known fact, that a high degree of domestic and social affection is often found in those who are most distant from religious principle. Besides, the natural affections manifestly relate to a different standard, have a different nature, and are designed for different pur- poses, from religious affection. They may therefore exist where this higher affection is wanting. That spiritual, holy love which God's law requires us to exercise towards our fellow men, does indeed imply the existence of love to God ; and love to God im- plies love to men. It is so because the affection in both instances 'is of the same nature, and the exercise of it in both instances indicates the same state of mind. — Accordingly the second command is like to 48 EXPLANATION OP the first, and every one who loves his brother as the law requires, loves God also. But it is not so with the natural affections. We cannot say that every parent who has a tender natural affection for his offspring, has a holy affection for God ; or that every one who has a heart to sympathize with the afflict- ed, has a heart to feel for the interests of Christ's kingdom. The natural affections and sympathies have no more necessary connection with hohness, than the animal appetites ; and it is as really contrary to fact, to say, he that has natural affection loves God, as to say, he that has the appetite of hunger, loves God. So our Saviour taught. To a youth, who possessed amiable sensibilities, attractive manners, and a fair rharartpr in thft world's view, he said; " One thing thou lackest;" and that one thing was, love to God. That lovely youth idolized the world. It ought to be remembered that we are as ready as those who entertain the laxest views of religion, to acknowledge the beauty and utility of those domestic and social qualities which naturally belong to man. But we are admonished by the word of God and by common observation not to put them in the place of religion. The proof of the doctrine of total depravity is found in the representations of Scripture and in the consciousness of enlightened Christians. There is indeed no text which affirms in so many words that all men in their natural state are totally TOTAL DEPRAVITY. 49 sinful. But there are many texts which clearly im- ply this. Christ said to the unbelieving Jews ; " I know that ye have not the love of God in you : " and he even charged them with hating God. All unbelievers, by not receiving Christ, give the same evidence of disaffection to God, as the unbeliev- ing Jews did. And as it is a plain doctrine of the Bible that no one believes in Christ unless he is born of God, it follows that all the unrenewed have a heart to reject Christ, and of course that they are without love to God. -^ In accordance with this the Apostle says ; " The carnal mind is enmity against God." By comparing this passage with John 3 : 6, we learn that the carnal or fleshly mind is that which we have naturally. " That which is born of the flesh, is flesh." And as the carnal mind is thus the certain consequence of our natural birth, it of course belongs to all men. The only remaining question is, whether the enmity implied in the carnal mind, is exclusive of love. And of this there can be no reasonable doubt, as the Apostle says without qualification, that they who have the carnal mind, are in such a state that they cannot be subject to the law of God, and cannot please God ; which would not be the case, if they had any degree of holy love. The representation often made in Scripture that unconverted men are dead in sirij fairly implies that they are destitute of holiness. For holiness is spiritual life. And if unrenewed sinners had any degree of *5 50 EXPLANATION OF this, they could hardly be said to be dead, and dead too in such a sense that they need to be quickened or made alive by supernatural power, according to the representation in Ephesians ii. This leads me to say, that the necessity of regen- eratiotij as asserted by our Saviour, (John iii,) is an obvious proof of man's total depravity. " Ye must be born again." " Except a man, [except any one] be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of heaven." Why is such a change universally necessary, if men in their natural state have any degree of holiness? The Bible proniises heaven to those who have holi- ness, or love to Christ, in any degree. Even one who gives a cup of cold water to Christ's disciples from a right motive, has the promise of a future reward. The existence of holiness in man is in Scripture attributed to the renewing of the Holy Ghost. In all its branches and in all its degrees, it is the fruit of the /Spirit. It is perfectly obvious then that man, in his natural, unrenewed state, is wholly destitute of holi- ness, and that his moral affections are all sinful. In support of our doctrine I might urge the failure of the most powerful motives to induce unrenewed man to turn from sin and believe in Christ. When the persuasive considerations of the Gospel are clearly presented before the mind of a sinner, they would certainly influence him to the exercise of penitence, faith, and love, if he had any degree of moral recti- tude. What could be a more decisive proof that his moral nature is entirely perverted, than the fact that TOTAL DEPRAVITY. 51 the amiable and glorious character of Christ is held up before him, and yet excites no love ; that when the condescending kindness and grace of God are de- scribed to him, he feels no gratitude ; and that he renders no cordial obedience to that law which is holy, just, and good? What greater evidence of man's total moral corruption could there be than this, that he is not persuaded to forsake sin and follow ./ ti f\ Christ, either by the threat of eternal rhisery or the'"^^'*'^^ offer of eternal blessedness? 'tfmJ^iA I appeal for proof, finally, to the experience and'%. ^y^ consciousness of the enlightened Christian. When he reflects upon the exercises of his own heart, and compares them with the demands of God's perfect law, he is satisfied that in him, naturally, there was no good thing, that he was wholly alienated from God, and that the first existence of holy affection in his heart was the fruit of regenerating grace. And he is equally satisfied that he is still dependent, and must continue to be dependent for all holy affections, upon the sanctifying influence of God's Spirit ; and that, if that Holy Spirit should be wholly taken from him, he would sink at once into a state of entire moral pollu- tion. If any Christian afiirms that he had any holy affections, or performed any holy actions, in his natural state, it must be because he uses words in a very vague sense, or because he has not properly reflected on the nature of that divine law which is the standard of holiness. 52 NATIVE DEPRAVITY. CHAPTER IV. J^Mive depravity. Explanation of terms. — Marks which distinguish other things allowed to be natural or native. — These marks belong to man's sinfulness. Having considered the depravity of man as uni- versal and as total^ 1 now proceed to inquire whether it is native. The dottrine of native depravity has been held by all orthodox churches in Europe and America, both Lutheran and Calvinistic. It is contained in all their creeds. It is distinctly asserted even in the creed of Arminius. It is a prominent article in the only public confession of faith ever adopted by the Congregational churches in New England, and by the Presbyterian and Dutch Reformed churches in America. It is maintained also by the Episcopalians, the Methodists, and the Baptists. The opposite doctrine has been held by no respectable society of men in Christendom, except Pelagians and Socinians. Among those who profess to maintain the substance of evangelical truth at the present day, there are a few individuals who set aside the common doctrine of native depravity ; but they are not so much as one to a thousand of those ministers and intelligent Christians who unhesitatingly believe the doctrine. And yet some of those few individuals, though they still profess to adopt the com- mon orthodox creeds, represent the doctrine of native depravity as a doctrine which was bred in an age of ignorance and superstition, and as destined to vanish NATIVE DEPRAVITY. 53 with other forms of ancient error. Yea, they some- times speak of it as though it had aheady past away from the minds of all enlightened Christians. And I am sorry to add, that instances are not wanting in which professedly orthodox men treat the doctrine with ridicule and scorn. Whether all this is just and proper, and indicative of a becoming state of mind, I leave to the judgment of others. We must Indeed acknowledge that the great body of Christians, being uninspired, have been, and are still, liable to error; and their opinions have no authority to bind our faith. The word of God is our only sure guide. This divine word we must examine for ourselves. And in present circumstances it is important that we should examine it with special care, guarding against preju- dice, opening our hearts to conviction, keeping our minds candid and patient and our feehngs unruffled, and looking continually to God for the guidance of his Spirit. And if we would be established in the _ truth and secure the benefits of Christian faith, we ^^-^-^^ must resolutely avoid the pernicious habit of ruminat-^,«f*^^^ ing perpetually on objections and difficulties, and must ^ y^ give our undivided attention to the evidence which supports the truth. '^ Ab the topic now introduced is the principal one which is to be discussed in this Essay, I shall consider it more at large. And to avoid ambiguity, and to prepare the way for a fair investigation of the subject, I shall briefly explain the terms, commonly employed in relation to it. 54 NATIVE DEPRAVITY. The word depravity^ relating as it here does to man's moral character, means the same as sinful- ness^ being the opposite of moral purity or holiness. In this use of the word there is a general agreement. But what is the meaning of native or natural! Among the variety of meanings specified by Johnson, Webster, and others, I refer to the following, as relat- ing particularly to the subject before us. ^^ Native. Produced by nature. Natural^ or such as is according to nature ; belonging by birth; original.^^ Natural has substantially the same meaning : " produced by nature ; not acquired." — So Crabbe. " Of a person we say, his worth is native^ to designate it as some valuable property born with him, not foreign to him or ingrafted upon him ; "but we say of his disposition, that it is natural, as opposed to that which is acquired by habit." And Johnson defines nature to be ^^the ?iative state or properties of any thing, by which it is discrim,- inated from others.'''' He quotes the definition of Boyle ; " Nature sometimes means what belongs to a living creature at its nativity, or accrues to it by its birth, as when we say a man is 7ioble by nature, or a child is naturally f or 10 ard. " This," he says, " may be expressed by saying, the man was born 50." After these brief definitions, which come to nearly the same thing, I proceed to inquire, ivhat are the m^arks or evidences lohich show any thing in vnan to be natural or native ; and hoio far these "marks are found in relation to depravity. NATIVE t)EPriAVITY. 55 What then are the evidences that any thing belong- ing to man is natural or native? What are the circumstances which mark that which is so? There will be some evident advantages in pursuing this inquiry, in the first place, in relation to those things concerning which our minds cannot be subject to any prepossession, or wrong bias. Having the advantage of an impartial, candid state of mind, we shall be likely to arrive at a just conclusion. And then we can apply the same reasoning, and bring the same impartial state of mind, to the subject before us, and so have the same prospect of coming to an equally just conclusion. 1. One of the marks which we should expect to find belonging to a native attribute or quality of man, is, its being universal. There are indeed charac- teristics of particular individuals or famihes, which we consider to be native, although they are not found in men generally. But if we say that any attribute natw^lly belongs to man, as a species, or that it belongs to human nature^ it would seem to be implied that it is universal ; unless some special change occurs in individuals touching that particular attribute. Thus we consider memory to be a natural attribute of the human mind, as it is universally found in man, except in those instances in which its operation is prevented by some disorder. It is specially in favor of supposing that a particular attribute is natural to man, if it is not only found in all men of the present generation, but has been 56 NATIVE DEPRAVITY. found in all the individuals of the human race from generation to generation in times past. This would show clearly, that the attribute intended does not arise from any particular causes which operate at one time or in one part of the world more than an- other, but from a cause which affects all alike ; that it belongs to the very nature of man, or certainly results from it, so that wherever human nature exists, there this attribute will exist. 2. Another circumstance showing a particular attri- bute to be natural to man, is, its developing itself in early life. If any thing begins to manifest itself very early ; if without exception it comes out in visible operations and fruits as soon as the bodily and mental powers of individuals render them capable of such operations ; in other words, if it is developed as early as there is opportunity or capacity for its develope- ment ; we consider this as a proof that it is natural to man, or a native quality. 3. It is a circumstance which affords additional proof that a particular attribute or quality is natural to man, if it is evident that it is not owing to any change which takes place in him subsequently to his birth. Should we be able to trace the particular thing which is early exhibited l^y any individual, to a change which occurred in him still earher ; we should consider it, not as a native property, but as attributable to that change, or perhaps more properly, to the par- ticular cause from which the change resulted. But if there is no reason to suppose any such change pre- NATIVE DEt»RAVITY. \c-'' '' ^^7. ^^i'oret lovdaioi^ Jews by birth, native Jqws; and so in the classics. Secondly. It is also used both by the Jews and classics to denote the original, inborn, and peculiar properties, attributes, or nature of a thing or person, the naturalis indoles, or affectio, as Rom. 11: 21, 24." " The term natural is used in this doc- trine in opposition to what is acquired, or first produced or occasioned by external causes. It denotes that for which there is a foundation in man himself"* " We * So Dr. Nathaniel Taylor, in his Concio ad Cleram, speaking of the sin of man, says, " The cause is in his nature, not in his cir- cumstances." He says also, "All the world ascribe an effect to the nature of a thing, when no possible change in its appropriate circimistances will change the effect." 84 SCRIPTURE EVIDENCE say for example, that such a man has natural saga- city, that a disease is natural to another, that he is by nature a poet, &c. because the qualities here spoken of, are not ihe result of diligence, practice, or external circumstances." He says, " Some prefer the word innate, a term which, as well as the other, is Scrip- tural." He refers to the elder Pliny's use of the word congenitus in the sense of innate, and Cicero's use of nativum ; and then adds ; " It is with justice that a quality which had its origin at the same time with man, which is found in him from his earliest youth, and can be wholly eradicated by no effort, is denominated natural. In this sense we speak at the present day of innate or hereditary faults, virtues, and excellencies." Knapp's Theology, vol. 2, pp. 65, 67. A careful comparison of Eph. 2: 3, with the one before considered, (John 3: 6,) would confirm all that has been said. Christ expressly represents our carnal, depraved disposition, as arising from our birth. " That which is born of the flesh, is flesh;'-' just as holiness arises from our renewal, or the second birth. And here the Apostle says, we are children of wrath, (and by implication sinners,) by fiatnre. The general idea is manifestly the same, The words of David, Ps. 51: 3, have generally been referred to as evidence of native depravity. " Be- hold I was shapen in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me." A similar representation is made in Ps. 58 : 3, where the wicked are said to " be estranged from the womb," and in Isa. 58 : 8, where OF NATIVE DEPRAVITY. 85 men are called " transgressors from the womb." The sense of the text, Ps. 51: 3, may be determined, first, by the general scope of the passage. David is deeply impressed with his own sinfulness, makes humble con- fession, and prays for purification and forgiveness. " Wash me thoroughly from my iniquity and cleanse me from my sin. For I acknowledge my transgres- sion, and my sin is ever before me. Against thee, thee only, have I sinned, and done this evil in thy sight. — Behold 1 was shapen in iniquity (fcc." Then he recognizes God as requiring purity of heart, and prays that he would impart it. " Purge me with hys- sop," &c. The declaration, verse 3, stands thus in the midst of the most humble confessions of moral pollution, and the most fervent supplications for cleans- ing ; and it doubtless has a meaning correspondent with the general current of thought in the place. When the same writer says of the wicked, that they are estranged from the womb and go astray as soon as they are born, and the prophet says, " I knew that thou wouldst deal very treacherously, and wast called a transgressor from the womb, " they evidently intend to make a strong impression of criminality. It is the same as though they had said of the wicked, that they have not only sinned in particular instances and under great temptation, but have always been wicked^ si7i- iiing from the very beginning of their existence; in the forcible language of Scripture, sinning from the wombj or as soon as born. Now what is more natural than to consider David in Ps. 51, as reflecting, *8 ^ ,K/^c 86 SCRIPTURE EVIDENCE first, upon the particular transgression he had com- mitted ; then turning his eye upon the fountain of pollution within, and upon the various exhibitions of it in his past hfe, and acknowledging with shame and penitence and self-loathing, that he had been sinful all his days; that he was even born in sin. Just as we sometimes say of a proud, selfish, malicious man, to aggravate the hatefulness of his character, he has had that vile disposition ever since he was horii. It is his very nature ; he was horn so. The language in which David charges himself with being so sinful from the beginning of his life, is undoubtedly figura- tive, and expressive of strong emotions. But because he expresses the thing very forcibly, and in language which goes beyond what is customary where there is no emotion, shall we coldly explain away the obvious sense of the passage, and overlook that consciousness of deep pollution which the words reveal? The best means of understanding the passage is, to possess the same state of mind with David. If any of us were in his circumstances, and had his conviction of sin, his penitence and self-loathing, and his desire for purifica- tion, it would become perfectly natural for us to utter our feelings in the same impassioned language. But the sense of the words before us, which is so apparent from a consideration of the drift of the pas- sage, will be still more satisfactorily seen by comparing this text with the other passages before mentioned, where the same truth is set forth in a more didactic form, and in language which admits of a more exact # OF NATIVE DEPRAVITY. 87 and rigid interpretation. David utters the sense he has of that deep depravity of his heart which had been acting itself out all his days, by saying, that he was born in iniquity and conceived in sin, i. e. was sinful from his birth and by his birth.* Paul teaches that w^e are children of wrath " fty nature;" and Christ teaches that a carnal mind, an earthly, sinful disposition, is born with us; — " That which is born of the flesh is flesh.^^ And to remove every reasonable doubt, compare all these texts, and others bearing on the same subject, with the general fact which every attentive observer of human nature has noticed, namely, the putting forth, of a wrong spirit of mind in early life. On the whole I think it will appear to every one who examines the subject with candor, that, even with- out revelation, we have as much evidence in this case, as we have in other cases where no one has any doubt. Take those things which are usually regarded as natural to man, — native attributes or quahties of his mind. Take, for example, intelligence, a disposi- tion for society, and parental affection. Why are these regarded as native properties of man? Evi- /,- dently because they uniformly and spontaneously develope themselves when his bodily and mental powers become capable of making such developement, sx ♦Professor Stuart says, *'It may be that David means to say here, / am sinful^ and descended from a transgressor. I am a degenerate plant of a strange vine.^' A^ if^ \rKii^L :iy^ pi^^f-o^- OO SCRIPTURE EVIDENCE and when the proper occasion for it occurs. What other evidence have we that these are natural to man? And is there any other proof than wliat I have above suggested, that it is natural to man to have a soul, or that he is born with a soul ? Is it said by way of ob- jection, that there is no appearance of depravity in man for some time after his birth ? This is admitted to be true. And is not the same true of reason, of the social and sympathetic dispositions, of parental affection, and even of the existence of the soul? Some of these are indeed developed very early, as the existence of mind, and reason, and a social disposition. But other properties which are natural to the mind are developed at a later period ; and the parental affection can hardly be said to come into distinct operation before the parental relation exists. And yet who ever hesitated on this account to consider parental affection as natural to man? Is it not just as evident that this affection results from the nature which man receives at his birth, as it would be if it began to operate as soon as he is born? Such is the argument for native depravity, even without calUng in the -evidence from revelation. But when this is added, the proof, I think, is in the highest degree convincing. I have at present only one additional view of the subject to present. Suppose we had the same evidence of the opposite fact, as we have of native depravity; suppose that human beings were univer- sally holy, as Jesus was ; suppose the feeUngs OF NATIVE DEPRAVITY. 89 * developed in early life, and afterwards, were, in every man, uniformly right ; suppose that all the temptations to sin with which mankind are beset from the begin- ning of their life, should fail, as they did in the case of our Saviour, of producing the least moral pollution ; and suppose, in addition to all this, we had a declara- tion of an Apostle, that all men are hy nature objects of divine complacency and heirs of heaven, and a declaration of Christ, that that which is born of earthly parents is holy ; and accordingly suppose we found that there had been good reason for the inquiry among thinking men, how can that which is born of a woman be impure? and that an eminent saint, while contemplating with complacency his own uniform goodness of heart, should exclaim, that he was conceived in purity and brought forth in the holy image of God ; and suppose, once more, that if there were any instances of sjp, they were instances of a change from a previous state of holiness, brought about through the influence of some malignant being ; suppose all this to be the case ; should we hesitate a moment to say that man is naturally holy 7 or that moral purity is his native character 7 Do we hesi- tate to say this of Jesus, the son of Mary? And if evidence like this would prove the doctrine of man's native purity^ why does not the same kind and degree of evidence on the other side prove the doctrine of his native depravity ? And if any are not con- vinced of the truth of the doctrine by evidence like this, 1 beg leave to ask, whether any conceivable ^ ( 9D CONSEQ,UENCES OF DENYING evidence would convince them ? Let them tell what that evidence is. Let them describe the proof which y they would think it reasonable to require, and which would satisfy them of the truth of the doctrine. Do any say, the doctrine is such that it is impossible to prove it ; no evidence whatever would convince us of its truth ? With such persons arguments would be in vain. ^^ day, which is intended for moral beiftgs, and app^ ^ r ^ tains wholly to a moral government? And \{ "^ * ^ those who die in early childhood, are not to be raised ^^ from the dead, then what John says, " I saw t dead, both small and great, stand before God," must be understood in quite a limited sense ; for those who die in infancy make no inconsiderable part of the human race. Such a notion as this would occa- sion great difficulty. How would parents feel, how ought they to feel, in respect to children who live and die without souls, and who of course do not belong to the family of rational and moral beings, and to whom death will be an eternal sleep? What would parents do with their natural affections^ which in their very nature imply that their offspring have, not only the same animal nature, but the same intelligent, social, and moral nature with themselves? How should they regulate their 'prayers for their children ? Or rather, could they with propriety pray for them at all? And if they pray at all, for what should they pray ? And what would be the meaning of religious rites in relation to those who have no souls? Hut I have said enough, perhaps too much, on such a subject. For who will deny that human beings are born with souls, — born rational and moral agents? But some admit that men are born rational and moral beings, but do not admit that they are born subjects of moral depravity. But if mankind are born intelligent and moral agents, and yet are not subjects of depravity at the commencement of their being, then one of two 9 >^ 94 CONSEaUENCES OF DENYING things must be true; they are either holy^ or they have no character at all^ i. e. are in a state of indif- . ference as to holiness and sin. Rational and moral beings cannot be supposed capable of existing in more than three states ; a state of holiness or moral purity, a state of sin or depravity, and a state of tieutrality, in which they are neither holy nor sinful. But human beings as they commence their existence, are not holy. This is proved by evidence too clear to be resisted; and it is a point in which all who believe the Bible are agreed. If then they are not morally depraved, they are in a state of neutrahty, having nothing either morally good or evil. Our present business is to ex- amine this position and see what difficulties attend it and what consequences would seem to flow from it. Here then we have a being with a rational soul, — one born a moral age?it, without any disposition, either right or wrong, and without any bias or ten- dency either to good or evil ; — a moral nature but . no moral character ; not even the first elements of it ; ' ' a rational and immortal mind existing in no state either of holiness or sin. — There seems to be some difficulty too of another kind, and still more important. A rational being, a moral agent, is of course a subject of moral government. From his very nature he is under law. But according to the supposition, this being, who is by his very nature under law, has no relation to law ; and has nothing which the law can pronounce either good or bad, — nothing which can be either approved or disapproved by the final Judge, NATIVE DEPRAVITY. 95 Now suppose he dies ia early childhood. As he is born a moral agent, a subject of moral government, he will exist hereafter, and will be called to judgment at: the last day. But what can the judgment day have to do with him 'I What sentence, either favorable or unfavorable, can be passed upon him? He is neither righteous nor wicked, — neither pure nor impure ; has no character, and is in no moral state, unless a change has taken place in him between death and judgment. Accordingly he cannot be admitted to heaven, because he is not holy ; nor doomed to hell, because he is not sinful. Again ; if man is not the subject of moral depravity from the first, then there is a period, longer or shorter, at the beginning of Kfe, during which regeneration is not necessary, nor even possible. It is not necessary, because there is no impurity to be removed, no sinful disposition to be subdued, no moral deficiency to be supplied. And as to the holiness which God requires, — what is there to hinder it when the proper time for it shall arrive, and a suitable object shall be presented to vi9w? Evidently there can be no need of the renewal of the heart in order to the exercise of holi- ness ; for the heart, remaining in its native state, in which there is nothing wrong, will, we should think, have right affections when it has any. In such a case how is regeneration even possible? The change implied in regeneration is a change from sin to holi- ness. But according to the supposition, man, at that period of his existence, neither has nor is capable of )9^ CGi-^r- - h' ll c^....:.. ■^.^ ^i . n.'.'i^- 96 COXSEaUENCES OF DENYING liaving any thing either sinful or holy, either morally right or wrong. So tliat to suppose a change from the one to the other would be absurd. And if no moral change is necessary or conceivable during the first period of life, then it would be manifestly unsuitable to pray that a child during that period may have the influence of the Spirit to sanctify his heart ; and all the fervent, agonizing supplications which pious parents have offered up to God, that their infant children might be born again, and so fitted for the kingdom of heaven, liave resulted from mistake, and have been in vain. If infant children are the subjects of no depravity and no moral deficiency, — if they are in no sense sinners ; then how is their state different from what it would have been if Adam had not sinned? And what is the meaning of Rom. 5 : 15, and what follows ? Farther; if the children of men, during the first period of their life, have no depravity ; if they are in no sense sinners; then how are they capable of receiv- ing the special benefits of Christ's death and media- tion? And if they die during that period and go to the state of the blessed, how are they indebted to Christ for salvation? He died for sinners. He came to seek and save that which was lost. The Apostle says, " if one died for all, then were all dead ; " i. e. dead in sin. Thus he makes the design of Christ's death reach to those, and those only, who are sinners^ or in a state of spiritual death. Accordingly if there are any human beings who are not sinners, for them \ NATIVE DEPRAVITY. 97 Christ did not die. For, unless the Apostle was mistaken, if Christ died for them, they were sinner§»..-- If he died for all, then were all dead. It would be contrary to the uniform representation of God's word to suppose, that the death of Christ, or the redemp- tion which he accomplishes, relates to any who are not sinners. Theorizers may say what they will ; this plain truth will come out, namely, that if all those who die during the first stage of their existence, (and a vast multitude they are,) die without any sin, they are saved, if saved at all, in a different way from the rest of mankind. They owe nothing to Christ as Redeemer. He did not die for them. And they can never join in the song of the redeemed ; " Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood, — be glory and dominion forever and ever," They can never sustain the same relation to Christ with the redeemed, and can never have the same emotions of gratitude to him. The two great bles- sings which flow from Christ's work as Redeemer, are forgiveness and sanctijication. If the doctrine of native depravity is not true, those who die in infancy are incapable of receiving either of these blessings, There can be no forgiveness where there is no guilt, and no sanctification where there is no depravity of heart. If mankind are not naturally depraved, what significancy would there be in the baptism of infant children? Would not this divine institution becomeX totally unmeaning ? As this ordinance is commonly understood, it denotes purification, i, e. spiritual renew- / t <\- 98 CONSEatJENCES OF DENYING / al, considered either as already effected, or as necessary. But it could not have any significancy, if infant children were not in any sense depraved. And if any one who denies native depravity administers this rite to children, he will probably show that he does not know what he is doing. He may pray that God would bless the children, and preserve their hfe, and make their parents faithful. But unless he forgets himself and his piety prevails over his unscriptural speculations, he will not pray, as is usual, that w^hat is signified by the washing of water, may be accom- plished in the souls of the children, that they may now be renewed by the Spirit and made the children of Gocl, and that whether they hve to adult years or die in infancy, they may thus be prepared for the king- dom of heaven. And if the same Christian minister is called to pray for infant children who are about to die, he will not, — (unless his piety prevails over his speculations,) — he will not earnestly pray that they may be renewed by the Holy Spirit, and that the blood of Christ may cleanse them from sin. He will not look to redeeming grace to save them. He cannot do this consistently tvith his denial of native depravity. At the present day you may have witnessed more than once, how a minister who has renounced this doctrine is embarrassed and straitened, when he prays for infant children, either publicly or privately. He does not honestly regard them and feel for them as belonging to the ruined race of man, upon whom death or the sentence of condemnation k%u NATIVE DEPRAVITY. 99 has come through the offence of one; and he does not pour out his heart to God that he would grant them the blessings of redemption. He does not commit them in faith to the Lamb of God that taketh away the sin of the world. So, alas ! does vain philos- ophy turn man aside from the simplicity of the Gospel, and check the spirit of prayer, and chill the warmest /r - affections of the soul. Q.-^-^x. ^ Such as I have now described, appear to me to beio>ti consequences of denying the native depravity of man. I might mention still more. Some of those who deny this doctrine, are so bold and independent as to avow these consequences, at least the most important of > -<^. them. Now in view of these consequences which seem plainly to flow from such a denial, 1 find great reason to be jealous over myself, and to guard my judgment, my imagination, and my heart, against either neglecting or going beyond the dictates of God's holy word. q. "^O^L^i^V ^*^<^ LL (JU^ y. . CHAPTER VI. t'^x^^^ Common objections to native depravity inadmissible. In the preceding chapters the doctrine of man's natural depravity has been stated, and the evidence which supports it briefly exhibited. And in addition to this, some of the consequences of denying the doctrine have been adverted to. Before leaving the subject it may be proper to consider the objections 100 COMMON OBJECTIONS which are commonly urged against the doctrine. But before entering upon a particular consideration of these objections, let us pause a little and inquire what is the nature of the objections usually brought against our doctrine, and how far objections of this kind are entitled to our serious regard. I cannot but think that we are in danger of being perplexed and led into hurtful mistakes by admitting objections of every kind to be brought against a Scripture doctrine, and allowing them to have influ- ence upon our faith. My meaning may be illustrated by an example. A man is tried for the murder of his wife, and by evidence which is clear, abundant, and unquestionable, is proved to be guilty. But the counsel for the accused bring forward various objec- tions to the fact of his having committed the deed. They argue, first, that it is extremely improbable, and even incredible, that a man endued with reason and conscience, should commit such a crime ; especially that a man, endued with self-love, and a desire for his own safety and happiness, should commit a crime which would certainly expose him to ruin. Secondly, they argue that it is specially unreasonable to suppose that a man should lay violent hands upon the wife of his bosom, the mother of his children, and long the object of the tenderest affections of his heart. Thirdly, they argue that the man had a good education, was brought up in a good family, was esteemed and loved by his friends, and knew the happiness of domestic and social life; and that it cannot be supposed that he INADMISSIBLE. 101 should voluntaril}^ break all the ties which bound him to his relatives, and sacrifice all tlie pleasure he might enjoy in their friendship. Fourthly, they say, how can we believe that a benevolent and powerful God, who directs and controls all events, would give a man up to do a thing so horrible and destructive, or that a just and compassionate God would suffer a harmless and lovely wife to fall a sacrifice to the violence of her husband ? These and other like objections are urged to discredit the fact proved, and to make it out that the man cannot be guilty of the crime laid to his charge. But the learned and upright judge tells the advocates for the accused, that their arguments are irrelevant and of no loeight ; that objections of such a kind are roholly inadmissible in a Court of Justice. He asks them whether they have any thing to allege against the character of the witnesses, or any thing to invalidate the testimony they have given. The advocates for the prisoner at the bar reply, that they have nothing in particular to allege in that way, but that they verily think the witnesses are somehow mistaken, and that the man cannot be guilty of such a crime. The judge says to them ; " We do not inquire for your opinions^ but for facts. These speculative objections which you urge with so much warmth, have no force, being mere conjectures, empty notions, matters of imagination or feeling, which have no agreement with the rules of justice. The Court cannot consent even to take such objec- tions into consideration. They ^xq inadmissible, 102 COMMON OBJECTIONS How plausible soever tbey may be, they can avail nothing against testimony and facts. They are excluded by the laws of evidence." The principle involved in this statement is of great importance, and should be carefully observed in regard to every doctrine of revelation and even of natural religion. When, for example, we have clear and conclusive evidence, from within or from without, of the being of God, of his providential and moral government, and of the truth of the Jewish and Christian Scriptures, we believe these doctrines; we believe them confidently, notwithstanding any objec- tions which can be urged against them. But suppose the objections are such that we cannot obviate them ; in what way do we dispose of them? We say, these objections are nothing but speculative opinions, the product of an irregular imagination, perhaps of a proud, unsubdued heart. And what can they avail in opposition to legitimate evidence and facts ? The infidel comes forward with his objections to the exist- ence and government of God. Are we able to meet them and to show directly that they have no force 'I No; but we regard them as inadmissible. Why? Because they are of such a nature, and used for such a purpose, — mere opinions, dubious speculations, arrayed against clear evidence and facts. The Socinian urges a multitude of difficulties which lie against the doctrine of the Trinity. Are we able fully and satisfactorily to solve them? No; we do not pretend to this. How then do we proceed ? We hold INADMISSIBLE. . 103 that the difficulties insisted upon by the Socinian, being made up of mere speculative opinions and conjectures, cannot be admitted to have any weight in opposition to plain Scripture evidence ; that, having satisfied ourselves that the Bible is the word of God, our inquiry is, whether the Bible teaches the doctrine, not whether there are any speculative difficulties attending it. We proceed in the same way as to the atonement, the resurrection, et ceetera. And this is the only safe and correct mode of proceeding in regard to the subject now before us. The doctrine that man is by nature entirely sinful is supported by the clearest evidence from the word of God and from well-known facts. Our depravity has as many marks or evidences of being natural as any of the attributes or qualities of our mind. First ; it is universal. Secondly; it shows itself very early, — i. e. just as soon as we become capable of acting it out. Thirdly ; it cannot be attributed to any change which takes place in man subsequently to his birth. Fourthly ; it operates spontaneously, like other natural qualities. Fifthly ; it is hard to be resisted and subdued. Sixthly ; such obviously is the nature and condition of mankind, that we can certainly predict that all who are born into the world during the present and every future generation, will sin, and sin only through their whole moral existence, unless they are created anew by the Spirit of God. These marks of native depravity are presented before us by the word of God and by observation and experience. I hold that this iki 104 COMMON OBJECTIONS evidence is sufficient to establish the doctrine. If any proper objection is made, it must be made against , , this evidence. But if no one can show any fault in P^^ X the evidence, tlien the doctrine is proved. Does any one affirm that the evidence is defective? Let him show wherein it is defective. What better evidence, nay, what other evidence could the doctrine have, supposing it to be true? Review the whole argument again, and examine every part carefully. Take each of the marks of native depravity above mentioned by itself, and see whether it is not as clear an evidence as could be supposed, in case depravity did certainly belong to man. It is universal. Could it be more evidently universal if it actually belonged to the moral nature of man from the beginning ? It shows itself early. If it were in fact a native quality, could it show itself earlier than it now does? Does it not take the very first opportunity which the state of the body and mind affords, to act itself out? And does it not, as it were, press for such an opportunity, even before the season for moral action fully arrives ? Does not the principle of evil thrust itself out in a partial and broken manner, before a capacity exists for any more perfect forms of transgression ? * * ** In combatting the doctrine of innate ideas, Mr Locke, following Aristotle, has compared the human mind to a sheet of white paper, on which characters of different descriptions maj subsequently be written. By those philosophers who deny the innate depravity of human nature, the comparison has frequently been applied to the mind in regard to its moral state, its dispositiong inadmissiblf:. 105 Again ; moral evil in man is not owing to any change which takes place in his disposition .or character subsequently to his birth. If this is true, is it not a clear proof that depravity is a natural, original property of man? Most evidently moral depravity belongs to him afterwards, when he becomes capable of showing what he is. Now if he afterwards has a depraved disposition, and if no change takes place in his disposition subsequently to his birth, then this depravity of nature belongs to him from the first. Is not this evident? Our first parents were depraved. But the Scriptures show that their depravity implied a change in their moral state. They were first obedient and holy. After a time they disobeyed. That act of disobedience was their fall. Before, they stood. They were upright. The act of sin mentioned was their first sin. Accordingly we never say that their depravity was natural. If they had possessed the same disposition from the first, as they showed when they violated the divine command; and tendencies. It will be a juster comparison, if, in this respect, we liken the mind to a sheet of paper on which have been written characters in sympathetic ink, which are not discernible by the eye, till, by approximation to the fire, or by some appropriate chemical application, they are brought out into legible distinctness. So is it with the principles of evil in infancy. We may not, for a time, be sensible of their presence ; and may be delighted with the smiling harmlessness of the little babe. But the principles are there ; and require only the influence of circimi stances to bring them into prac- tical and visible manifestation, a manifestation, which, to the eye of even a superficiahobserver, commences at a very early period." Wardlavo^s Christian Ethics ^ p. 98. London Ed. 10 106 COMMON OBJECTIONS if that had been only the developement of a heart disincHned to obey God, which they had always possessed, we should say their sinfulness was natural, that it originally belonged to them, that they com- menced their existence in a state of moral depravity. But there is clear evidence that this was not the case. Now how is it with their posterity? Is there any evidence that their first state is a state of moral purity? that they are originally inclined to good? What evidence should we expect if this was actually the case? We should expect the evidence of facts. We should expect to see a natural inclination to good unfolded in acts of goodness, as soon as men are capable of such acts. We should expect to see an early developement of those right feelings which are the first principles of holiness, — just such a devel- opement as was made hy the child Jesus. He began his existence as a man in a state of perfect moral purity. His nature was holy from the first, and he acted out that pure and holy nature very early, in the w^ay of loving and obeying God. The good tree bore good fruit. This was the visible evidence he gave of his native purity, — his original disposition to goodness. It was just such evidence as would naturally be expected. And it is what we should now expect of human beings generally, if they were born in a state of moral purity, — unless they were corrupted after they were born, and before they were capable of visible moral actions. But do the children of men show any such signs of a nature INADMISSIBLE. 107 originally pure and holy? I demand then of any who may assert the native purity of man, that they produce some plain proof of such purity. And if there is no proof of this, then clearly there is no proof of any moral change in man after his birth, in order to his being depraved. If it is said, as it is said by Dr. John Taylor and Dr. Ware and others, that we are originally without any moral bias one way or the other, — neither inclined or disinchned to holiness or to sin, — that we are perfectly neutral; here again I call for evidence. What proof might we naturally and justly expect were this the fact? If the minds of men were at first as much inchned one way as the other, certainly we should expect they would show this. And if in some circumstances, that is, in cir- cumstances strongly tempting and urging them to sin, they were to bend that way ; in other circumstances as strongly urging them to holiness, we should expect they would bend the other way. But our expecta- tion would be sadly disappointed. For the children of men, though supposed to be equally inchned both ways, all actually incline one way^ and that the wro7ig xoay ; — all of them, as soon as they are capa- ble, yielding themselves servants to sin; — Jesus only excepted, not one of the whole race, unless born again, ever inclining to the way of holiness. I say then, there is no such evidence as we should naturally look for, to prove that men commence their existence in an indifferent, neutral state, inclined neither one way nor the other. Of course there is no evidence .■O''^' i 108 COMMON OBJECTIONS against the common position, that the depravity which shows itself in early hfe is natural to man ; as there is no reason to suppose that it is the result of a change either from an original state of hohness or from a neutral state. The evidence in favor of our position is then, in this respect, subject to no abate- ment ; nor is it conceivable bow it could be greater than it is. Another evidence in favor of considering our NftN, depravity native, is, that it operates spontaneously. ^ r It operates thus in early life, and ever afterwards. Is «u/ not this such evidence as we should naturally look for ( to prove human depravity to be natural? Is it not the same proof that we have that any thing else is L vj natural? Does not this principle of evil which we ^^ Adam ;" and speaks of this as what precedes moral action : and with him agree Smalley, Hart, Backus, and the whole body of ministers and Christians in Connecticut who were his contemporaries. And Dr. Nathaniel Taylor has published it as his belief " that all mankind, in consequence of Adam's fall, are horn destitute of holinessj and are hy nature totally depraved,^^ Other expressions of his on this subject may explain what he means by being born destitute of holiness, and being hy nature totally depraved. Speaking of mankind in their present fallen state, he says: "Such is the nature of the human mind, that it becomes the occasion of sin in men in all the appropriate circumstances of their existence." Accord- ing to him, then, it is something in the mind itself in the very nature of the mind, which proves the occasion of sin. He calls this " a tendency to sin," and a tendency in the very nature of the mind. Various passages are found in Stuart's able Com- mentary on the Romans, which assert the same doc- trine. He says; "Men are born destitute of all disposition to holiness." He speaks often of the " fallen nature and degenerate condition of Adam's posterity." Of infants he says ; " that their natural, unregenerate state is a state of alienation from God, and one which needs the regenerating influence of the DISPOSITION, PROPENSITY, &C. 167 divine Spirit ; that if they are saved," (which he hopes will be the case,) they must have " a taste " or " rehsh for the holy joys of heaven implanted in their souls." And he asks : " Is there nothing then which Christ by his Spirit can do for infants, in implanting such a taste! ''^ He speaks of those who die before \ rj they contract actual guilt in their own persons, and says ; " they still need a new heart and a right spirit,^^ — (just what all sinners need,) not prospec- tively/, but now. And after making, perhaps inadver- tently, some free remarks, which liave commonly been understood to be in opposition to the common doctrine, he takes special care to inform us, that he believes all Adam's posterity to be born into the degen- erate slate above described, and that he has meant to advance nothing at variance with this doctrine. We see how general is the belief, that mankind are naturally inclined to sin, that they are born with a ^ tendency to sin, a tendency existing in their very -— ^^ nature, previously to moral action ; and that this dis-^ position or tendency constitutes their native state. The question now returns, whether it may not be chiefly with a view to this degejierate nature of Adam's posterity, that God speaks of them, and in his government treats them as sinners, from the very beginning of their personal existence, and previously to any actual transgression. This view of the sub- ject Dr. Dwight particularly maintains in his system of Theology. He rejects the idea that God inflicts 168 IS A PROPENSITY TO SIN SINFUL ? such sufferings as infants endure, " on moral beings who are perfectly innocent," and argues from the suf- ferings and death of infonts, "that they are contamina- ted in their moral nature, and born in the likeness of apostate Adam ; " — "a fact," he says, " irresistibly proved, so far as the most unexceptionable analogy can prove any thing, by the depraved moral conduct of every infant who lives so long as to be capable of moral action." This is the opinion which has generally been main- tained by evangelical writers. I bring it forward here as an opinion which is not to be hastily dismissed on account of any speculative difficulties attending it To say the least, it may he true. In our very nature^ in the state of our minds from the beginning of our existence, God may see a moral contamination, a corrupt propensity, which, in his infallible judgment, renders it just and right for him to treat us as sinners. In the native character of Adam's posterity, there may be that which is of the nature of moral evil, — essen- tially the same moral evil in God's view, with that which is afterwards made visible to us by its devel- opements. And may it not be on this account princi- pally, that infants suffer and die? ' ^^-M^- But there are some who object to calling any thing sinful^ or morally corrupt^ except actual transgres- sion. They generally admit that man has a disposi- tion or propensity to sin before moral action commen- ces; but they deny that such propensity is of the ^ nature of moral evil. 5^^-A, .-^tv. ^^L.v Z- DISPOSITION AND EXERCISE. 191 man is not intended to be separate, and cannot be considered and treated as separate from moral action. Though his disposition is wrong, (wrong as a dispo- sition^) he is still to be treated according to his actions, — his actions being the true expression of his disposition. His being treated according to his actions, is then, after all, the same thing as being treated according to his disposition. The former is made the express rule of the divine conduct towards man, for the obvious reason, that actions are directly visible to conscience, and can be compared with law by the subjects of law, and so are the proper grounds of recompense. In the divine government, then, dispo- sition is in fact treated as morally wrong, only as developed in action, and as thus made visible to those who are the subjects of that government. We cannot doubt that a government which is addressed to con^ science, must be administered in this manner. And when Calvin spoke of our natural pravity as deserv- ing the divine vengeance, must he not have intended to speak of it as developed in rnoral action ? Evidently then, the two views which have been taken of the subject in this and the last chapter need not be regarded as opposite and clashing views. They are only different views of the same subject, contem- plated under different aspects. Man, at the com- mencement of his existence, is, according to one view, characterized from his disposition, and is regarded as a sinner as soon as he is born, on account of his invaria- 192 DISPOSITION AND EXERCISE. hie propensity to sin. But then, according tojhe other view, this propensity to sin is inseparably connected with sinful -emotion, and is soon followed by it, if not in ev- ery instance before death, doubtless immediately after. The temper of the mind is thus developed, and the way prepared for a retribution which all will see to be just. On one scheme, man is judged according to his actions ; on the other, according to his disposition as developed in actions. And what is the difference? If the disposition 19 pronounced to be sinful, it is pronounced to be so relatively/ to the action to w^hich it leads. And if the action is pronounced sinful, it is relatively to the mind, and the disposition of mind, from which it proceeds. Each is invariably related to the other, and in our sober contemplations, and in the nature of the case, each is involved in the other. If any man ascribes moral qualities to either, as entirely separate from the other, he is mistaken. He does not follow the nature of things. And if any one confines his attention to either, exclusively of the other, does he not betray the want of enlargement in his habits of thinking ? And let me add, if any one forgets that all moral attributes and qualities do, in strict propriety, belong to the intelligent person, the agent himself^ and are to be ascribed to him, and to him only, he forgets an obvious and essential truth ; and forgets it, so far as I can see, for no other reason, than because it is so obvious. Most clearly it is the mind, or rather the 'man himself, that is sinful. Man, a being DISPOSITION AND EXERCISE. 193 whose nature is essentially active, has this character.- He is sinful. And this sinful being acts ; and being sinful himself, he acts sinfully. This is the sum of the whole matter. And now, candid reader, if you find that I have in any instance written particular passages, which, taken by themselves, seem to be erroneous or defective ; let the general current of thought, as far as may be, help to correct the error, or supply the defect. You cannot but be sensible, that some parts of the subject which I have presumed to discuss, are involved in great obscu- rity, and that it is almost impossible for us to say any thing respecting them, without the danger of falling into some mistake ourselves, or of- being misappre- hended by others. In regard to any representations or reasonings which may appear inconsistent with each other, I have only to say, that I have sometimes aimed to exhibit such considerations as might suggest themselves to my mind, either in favor of a particular point, or against it, without expressing and sometimes without having any decided opinion of my own. And I have done this for the purpose of inducing others to examine the subject for themselves. Fur- ther : you will perceive that I am as Hable as other men, to take different and seemingly opposite views of a subject, in consequence of contemplating it from different positions, or in different relations. In such cases, you will, I hope, endeavour to find out a candid and fair construction of what is written, such as you *17 194 DISPOSITION AND EXERCISE. would think due to yourself in like circumstances. But let nothing prevent you from guarding with the utmost watchfulness, against any error, and against whatever might tend to error, in this performance. There is no sentiment more deeply fixed in my mind, than that my views of every subject are very limited, and that on such a subject as that which is brought forward in this Essay, it would be inexcusable presumption in me to think myself free from mistakes. The subject is encompassed with difficulties which I pretend not to be able to solve. Objections will doubtless arise in your mind, against what I have written, particularly in these two chapters. I could urge objections my- self ; and would gladly take my place at the feet of any man, who could satisfactorily answer them. But where shall I find the man who is quahfied to do this? We ought always to approach this subject with an humble mind, remembering that the natural and total depravity of which we speak, belongs to us, and striving with all diligence to be rid of that prejudice against the truth, which is one of the most common inmates of the depraved heart. What becomes us in these circumstances is, not dispute and strife, but serious, earnest inquiry after the truth, pursued with patient, persevering labor, with kindness towards those who differ from us, with a cordial readiness to be convinced, and with prayer to God for the guidance of his Spirit. If we inquire after the truth in such a manner, we shall obtain good to ourselves, and shall DISPOSITION AND EXERCISE. 195 contribute to the good of others, though our inquiries may for the present fail of complete success. We have the comfort to believe, that the knowledge which Christians have of divine truth is progressive. It will undoubtedly be growing in clearness and comprehen- siveness, to the end of time, and forever. When Christians come to associate profound humility, un- quenchable zeal for improvement, and the spirit of prayer, with the exercise of their mental powers, they will soon outgrow their errors, and their intel- lectual and moral httleness, and speed their way towards a state of perfection. And if, even after attaining to the perfection of that higher state to which they now aspire, they find, as they doubtless will, that some subjects or parts of subjects lie beyond the reach of their intelligence ; their very perfection will teach them to acquiesce in their ignorance. CHAPTER X. Remarks on the words innate, transmitted, hereditary, constitutional, imputed. It would accord best with my views of what is proper and useful, to confine my remarks and reason- ings to the doctrine of human depravity, just as it stands in the Bible, and to its practical uses, avoiding altogether the discussion of the abstruse, metaphysical questions which are everywhere agitated at the present day. I cannot but approve the sentiment of Howe 196 INNATE* in the following passage, taken from his Living Temple. " As for thenn that could never have the gospel, or infants incapable of receiving it, we must consider the Holy Scriptures' were written for those that could use them, not for those that could not ; therefore to have inserted in them an account of God's methods of dispensation towards such, had only served to gratify the curious and unconcerned, not to instruct and benefit such as were concerned. And it well became hereupon the accurate wisdom of God, not herein to indulge the vanity and folly of men." But as men cannot be kept from agitating questions of a metaphysical nature on this subject, and as many of the opinions which they form, are, in my apprehension, not only erroneous, but of hurtful tendency ; I have thought it expedient to join with them for a time, in the consideration of these speculative matters, and to endeavour to show, that there is nothing in the results of thorough philosophical investigation, which is at all unfavorable to the commonly received doctrine of human corruption. Before closing this Essay, it seems necessary that I make a few remarks on the meaning of the words innate^ transmitted, hereditary, constitutional, (fcc. and on the propriety of applying them to the depravity of man. The word innate, together with the words which Johnson uses to explain it, are applied as freely to the qualities of the mind, as to any thing which pertains HEREDITARY. 197 to the body. Thus writers speak of innate integrity, innate eloquencej iiihorn passions, inborn worth, in- bred affection, not as personally innocent and pure^ but as depraved and EFFECT OF ADAm's SII^. 205 sinful beings. This opinion is maintained by Cal- vin, Edwards, Dwight, and Orthodox divines gener- ally. And this is the view of the subject w^hich I consider as more conformable to the word of God and to facts, than any other. As to those who deny the doctrine of native depravity, and the doctrine of imputation, and the doctrine of John Taylor and the Unitarians, and yet profess to believe that we are depraved and ruined in consequence of Adam's sin, I am at a loss to know what their belief amounts to. They say, Adam's sin had an influence; but they'' deny all the conceivable ways in which it could have an influence, and particularly the ways which are most clearly brought to view in Rom. v., and in other parts of Scripture. Is not their belief merely negative ? If I am asked, whether I hold the doctrine of impu- tation ; my reply must depend on the meaning you give to the word. Just make the question definite by substituting the explanation for the word, and an answer will be easy. Do you then mean what Stapfer and Edwards and many others mean, namely, that /or God to give Adam a posterity/ like himself and to impute his sin to them, is one and the same thing ? Then my answer is, that God did in this sense, impute Adam's sin to his posterity. This is the very thing implied in the doctrine of native depravity. By the doctrine of imputation, do you mean, that Adam's sin was the occasion of our ruin ; that it was *18 206 the distant, though real cause of our condemnation and death ? I consider the doctrine, thus understood, to be according to Scripture. Do you mean that we are guilty^ that is, (according to the true, original import of the word,) exposed to suffering on account of Adam's sin ? In this view too I think the doctrine Scriptural. Do you mean, that God visits the iniquity of our common father upon his children, through all generations ? This too accords with the truth. But if the doctrine of imputation means, that for Adam's sin alone, God inflicts the penalty of the law upon any of his posterity, they themselves being perfectly sinless, then the doctrine, in my view, wants proof There appears to be no place for such a doc- trine, seeing all Adam's posterity are from the first morally depraved. And if they are allowed to be so, I know not why any one should think that God makes no account of their depravity in the sufferings which he brings upon them. The Apostle does not use the word impute in relation to the subject ; but he does teach, in the plainest manner, that the fall of Adam spread depravity and destruction through the whole human race. The particular word which shall be used to express this doctrine, is not essential ; and as the sacred writers do not express it by imputation ; why should we be strenuous for that particular word 1 Nevertheless, as it is the name which has generally been given to the doctrine in Orthodox creeds and systems of divinity, and as the word may have a PROPAGATED AND CONSTITUTIONAL. 207 meaning in no small degree analogous to what it has in Rom. 4 : 6 ; I can see no reason for any great zeal against it. Considering the common meaning of the word, J think it not well adapted to the "subject, and have never used it. But Calvin and Edwards and other distinguished divines have used it. The great object is to get a right understanding of the doctrine itself, as set forth in the word of God, and to express it in a just and impressive manner. Do you ask, whether depravity is propagated 1 my answer is, that human beings are propagated, and are propagated as they are, fallen, corrupt. "Adam begat a son in his own likeness." This contains the whole doctrine, if likeness includes, as undoubtedly it does, likeness in regard to moral dis- position and character. The word propagated is not generally applied to depravity, and is evidently not so well suited to the subject, as natural, or native. But it is neither uncommon nor unscriptural to speak of depravity as coming in the way of natural generation, or natural descent. Is the depravity of man constitutional? The chief objection against the use of this word in relation to the subject before us, seems to rest on the assump- tion, that the word means nearly the same as joAy*- ical ; or at least something opposite to moral. But this assumption is unauthorized. The word, consti- tutional, may relate to the constitution or appointment of God, or to the nature or constitution of man. )^C 208 CONSTITUTIONAL. Now was it not the constitution of God, that is, the principle or plan which he established, that the posterity of Adam should bear his moral image 1 Is there not, in fact, such a connection between him and them, that condemnation and death were brought upon them by his one offence ? And did not God constitute this connection ? Was it not his appoint- ment, that "by one man's disobedience the many were constituted sinners 7 " And is it not the established order of things, that children, from generation to gen- eration shall resemble their parents as to the substance of moral character ? Evidently then the depravity of man takes place according to the divine institution; and, in this sense, it is constitutional. And is not this a very obvious and proper sense of the word 1 But the word may also relate to the nature or consti- tution of men. And if their depravity is founded in their nature, or constitution, may it not properly be called constitutional 7 I do not now speak of their bodily constitution, but . of the constitution of their mind J their moral constitution, their nature as moral beings. We have a m,ental and m,oral constitu- tion, as well as a corporeal. Now if depravity con- sists in our moral constitution, or directly and certainly flows from it ; we may in this sense call it constitu- tional, — just as we •call it natural, because it is founded in our moral nature, or flows from it. The word however is not used by us, but by those who differ from us. To discredit our doctrine of native J I ^vl fetLl^ f Ar\ wtu^: CONSTITUTIONAI// " ^^209 ^ \ . . u . ^„ UKIYE.HSITY] depravity, they say that we hold i\^a-eonsttt2ihonal^^ / depravity. Be il so. Do not thei/ nbl^^iFje same ? % '•*'' They maintain, — certainly the most respectable of them maintain, that the cause of sin lies in the nature of fnan, not in his circu^nstances. And what is the difference between the nature of man, and his constitution^ whether taken physically, or^, morally ? And what is the difference between their calling depravity natural^ meaning that it results not from man's circumstances, but from his nature^ and our calling it constitutional^ meaning that it results from man's moral constitution ? If there are objec- tions against this, there are against that. But there is no need of logomachy. Those who believe human depravity to be native, do not think it best to call it constitutionnlj because the word is liable to be misun- derstood. They are belter pleased witli the language of Scripture, or with that which is evidently conformed to it. On the whole, it is evident, that the words native^ innate^ hereditary^ &c. may all be used to designate some quality or circumstance of man's depravity, with as much propriety, as they can be used in relation to any thing else. They should, however, be well explained, and most of them should be chiefly confined to systematic theology. The language best suited to the purposes of popular instruction and devotion, is that which is most scriptural. But there can be no reasonable objection against the moderate use of tech- 210 ALL THEORIES nical or scientific terras in the more elaborate theolog- ical treatises. I know indeed, that an opposer of the common doctrine may collect together all the epithets ever used by Orthodox writers, and, by making them up into one overloaded sentence, and by contriving to give them a gross and offensive sense, may excite prejudices against the doctrine, and thus prevent many from learning what the Scriptures teach. In like manner, opposers of the doctrine of election have often labored to make it odious, by drawing out in fearful array a great variety of words which have sometimes been applied to it, and so managing the matter as to give the words a meaning not at all suited to the nature of the subject. But Christian divines and philosophers will easily see the difference between argument, and declamation ; between appeals to reason and piety, and appeals to passion and prejudice. What we want on such a subject, is candid, sober, thorough discussion, based upon sound principles of reason, and upon the infallible word of God. CHAPTER XI. Every other theory as much encumbered with difficulties as the Orthodox. The spirit of cavilling. Proper influence of the doctrine of native depravity. It will help us to form a right estimate of the spec- ulative objections which have been urged against the doctrine of native depravity, if we find that all the EXPOSED TO DIFFICULTIES. 211 Other views which have been entertained of the state of man are liable to similar objections, and some of them to objections of still greater weight. I think it no difficult task to make this appear. I shall intro- duce my remarks, by quoting a passage from Whate- ley's Essays on the writings of St. Paul. This writer zealously advocates the Arminian views respecting the purposes of God and the state of man. And yet, with a candor and impartiality which are seldom found either among Arminians or Calvinists, and which, should they generally prevail, would expel the bitter- ness of controversy from the ministry and the church, he writes thus : " Before I dismiss the consideration of this subject, (i. e. election,) I would suggest one caution relative to a class of objections frequently urged against the Cat- vinistic scheme, those drawn from the moral attri- butes of the Deity ; which, it is contended, render the reprobation of a large portion of mankind an absolute impossibility. That such objections do reduce the predestinarian to a great strait, is undeniable, and not seldom are they urged with exulting scorn, with bitter invective, and almost with anathema. But we should be very cautious how we employ such weapons as may recoil upon ourselves. Arguments of this descrip- tion have often been adduced, such as, I fear, will crush beneath the ruins of the hostile structure the blind assailant who has overthrown it. It is a fright- ful, but an undeniable truth, that multitudes, even in 212 ALL THEORIES Christian countries, are born and brought up under such circumstances as afford them no probable, often no possible chance of obtaining a knowledge of religious truths, or a habit of moral conduct, but are even trained from infancy in superstitious error and gross depravity. Why this should be permitted, neither Calvinist nor Arminian can explain ; nay, why the Almighty does not cause to die in the cradle every infant whose future wickedness and misery, if suffered to grow up, he foresees, is what no system of religion, natural or revealed, will enable us, satisfac- torily to account for. In truth, these are merely branches of the one great difficulty, the existence of evil, which may almost be called the 07ili/ difficulty in theology. It assumes indeed various shapes; — it is by many hardly recognized as a difficulty ; and not a few have professed and believed themselves to have solved it ; but still it meets them, though in some new and disguised form, at every turn, — like a resistless stream, which, when one cliannel is dammed up, immediately forces its way through another. And as the difficulty is not one, peculiar to any one hypoth- esis, but bears equally on all, w^hether of revealed, or of natural religion, it is better in point of prudence, as well as of fairness, that the consequences of it should not be pressed as an objection against any. The Scriptures do not pretend, as some have rashly irpag- ined, to clear up this awful mystery ; they give us no explanation of the original cause of the evil that EXPOSED TO DIFFICULTIES. 213 exists ; but they teach us liow to avoid its effects ; and since they leave this great and perplexing question just where they find it, it is better for us to leave it among "the secret things which belong unto the Lord our God," and to occupy ourselves with the things that are revealed, and which concern us practically; — • which belong- unto us and to our children, " that we may do all the words of God's law." In accordance with these candid remarks of Whate- ley, I expect now to show, that the various hypotheses which have been maintained by different writers as to man's depravity, are as really open to the pressure of speculative objections and difficulties, as the common Orthodox doctrine. And if this is the case, then it must evidently be a fruitless thing for any one to attempt to rid himself of difficulties, by shifting off the Orthodox doctrine, and adopting some other in its stead. And it will be the dictate of true wisdom to inquire, not what doctrine is free from difficulties, but what is most agreeable to the word of God, and to the results of experience. We shall perceive this to be a matter of great practical importance, when we con- sider, that the principal reason why a great number of men have rejected the doctrine of native depravity, has been, the force of speculative objections, particu- larly those which arise from a consideration of the moral attributes of God ; and that the principal effort of such men has been, to find out some scheme, which would not be open to similar objections ; — 19 214 ALL THEORIES an effort which we shall see has entirely failed of success. I shall now advert to some of the prominent hypoth- eses which have been maintained respecting human depravity, by those who have denied the common Orthodox doctrine. One of these is, that there is in the character of man a mixture of moral good and evil ; and that this m^ixture commences early^ and continues through life. This may be thought to be a very rational and liberal view of the subject ; and as those who adopt it escape some of the difficulties which respect the theory of native and total depravity, they seem to think that they are free from difficulties alto- gether. But is it so? Are they not met by various texts of Scripture which plainly teach, that the unrenewed heart is entirely destitute of holiness? And do not these texts stand as difficulties in their way ? They have also to encounter the difficulty arising from the testimony of the most intelligent and pious men, whose experience and deep inward consciousness con- firm the common doctrine of depravity. And finally, their scheme is exposed to as real a difficulty as the common doctrine, in relation to the infinite benevo- lence of God. For if it is inconsistent with his benev- olence, that a race of intelligent beings, who are wholly dependent on his will, should exist from the beginning of life in a state of total depravity ; is it not also inconsistent with his benevolence, that they EXPOSED TO DIFFICULTIES. 215 should be found in a state of partial depravity? Will a God of infinite power and goodness certainly guard his offspring against total depravity ? Why then will he not guard them against being depraved at all 1 Is not any degree of depravity a great and destructive evil? And how can we suppose that God will suffer so destructive an evil to take place, w^hen he is able to prevent it? Is there no difficulty here? And if you take upon you to say, that God is not able to prevent the depravity of men ; is there no difficulty in this, — that the God of heaven and earth is unable to keep men pure from sin, when he is infinitely wise and powerful, and has the hearts of all men in his hand, and can effectually guard them against whatever would have any tendency to corrupt them? You cannot avoid difficulties by adopting the opin- ion that the sinfulness of man, whether partial or total, commences at a later period^ than what the common doctrine implies. For if we have reason to conclude that the goodness of God will certainly pre- serve us from being sinners at the heginyiing of life ; why may we not conclude that it will preserve U3 from being sinners afterxoards 7 Besides this, you will have to encounter another difficulty ; that is, you must contend with the sacred writers, who teach with great clearness, that all men are sinful from the first, and need the grace of Christ to sanctify and save them. Do j^ou object to the common doctrine, that sinners turn it into an excuse, saying, if God has brought 216 ALL THEORIES US into existence in such a state, how can we be culpable ? And may not the ground which you take furnish as real an occasion to sinners to exculpate themselves? May they not say, if our Almighty Maker has so formed us, and so ordered our circum- stances, that we shall at some period of our hfe, cer- tainly fall into sin ; then how are we to blame ? Say then, if you will, with Dr. John Taylor, that the consequence of Adam's fall is only this, that we are placed in circumstances which particularly expose us to sin and which render obedience difficult ; and that we are corrupted by the influence of bad example. The objector is still ready with his questions. Why did the Author of our being, and the Disposer of all our circumstances, place us in such a state of temptation and exposure? If he wished us to be obedient, why did he take pains to render obedience so difficult ? If he wished to preserve us from sin, why did he voluntarily expose us to it, especially at that early period, when we are incapable of enduring severe exposures, and when he knew how unhappy would be the result ? What kind father would wil- lingly subject his children, in the tenderness of child- hood, to trials and dangers, for which they are not prepared, and which he knows will be too great for them to endure ? Is not God kinder than the kindest of earthly parents ? And will he so constitute the whole race of man, and so expose them to the perni- cious influence of bad example, and other corrupting EXPOSED TO DIFFICULTIES. 217 circumstances, that certain ruin will ensue, — and all this on account of the one offence of Adam? Thus if in your treatment of the doctrine of native depravity, you open the door for speculative objections and cavils, you will find a host of them arrayed against every opinion which you are able to advance on the subject. The fact is, that there is no truth in morals or theology, which will not be swept away, if the objections which are urged by worldly men and cavillers are allowed to be valid. But the theory which may seem to deserve the most particular consideration, is the one which has of late been the subject of discussion in our religious commu- nity. If you adopt this theory, you deny that man has any native sinfulness, any original sinful pro- pensity, or innate moral depravity. You maintain, however, that we come into the world with various appetites and propensities which, though not sinful, are the occasions of sin ; that these appetites and pro- pensities gain strength by early indulgence, and become predominant, before any sense of right and wrong can have entered our minds ; and that, when our moral agency commences, they are an overmatch for our reason and conscience, and in every instance certainly lead us into sin. You hold that we are bora in such a state, that we shall sin, and only sin, until we are regenerated ; that we are born destitute of holiness, and of all disposition to holiness, and that we have in our own nature a ground of certainty that *19 218 ALL THEORIES our first moral acts, and all that follow, will be sinful, unless we are born again ; and finally that we are brought into these circumstances not by any fault or ^ny concurrence of ours, but in consequence of the offence of Adam. In adopting this scheme, you adopt the leading features of the common Orthodox doctrine, except one ; namely ; you deny that our native pro- pensity to sin is a sinful propensity. You differ also from John Taylor and the Unitarians in one thing, namely, in holding that all the moral acts of men in their natural state are sinful. My«ole object is to show, that your maintaining this hypothesis exposes you to objections and difficulties of nearly the same kind and degree, with those which have been urged against Edwards, and the Calvinists generally. And if this is indeed the case, then any one who adopts this scheme instead of the doctrine of the Calvinists, for the sake of avoiding difficulties, will find himself disappointed. In the way of objection to the common doctrine, you say ; the Apostle does indeed teach that there is a con- stituted connection between Adam and his posterity, and that his offence brought ruin upon them ; but he does not teach what the connection was, nor how it produced such an effect. He does not tell us that a sinful nature is propagated, or that we inherit it from Adam. — Now if it be as you say, that the Apostle does not teach in what manner Adam's sin produced this woful effect upon us ; surely he does not teach Exposed to difficulties. 219 that it did it ia the particular manner which your theory imphes. You ask, where the Bible asserts that, on account of Adam's fall, a sinful nature is communi- cated to us at the beginning of our existence. And 1 ask, where it asserts that Adam's fall affected us in the manner you describe, that is, by bringing us into being with such appetites, and in such circumstances, as will certainly lead into sin as soon as we are moral agents ? If you say, the Bible does not tell how it was that Adam's sin affected us ; why do you under- take to tell this? Are you authorized any more than Cgilvinists are, to point out the manner in which Adam's sin had an influence upon us ? Have you any more right than they, to go beyond what is writ- ten? But you have another objection to the common doc- trine. You say, it is totally incompatible with the jus- tice as well as goodness of God, to bring moral corrup- tion and ruin upon the whole human race, merely on account of one offence of their common progenitor, without any fault of theirs. And is there not just as much reason to urge this objection against yo%ir theory ? You hold that God brings the whole human race into existence without holiness, and with such propensities and in such cir- cumstances, as will certainly lead them into sin ; and that he brings them into this fearful condition in con- sequence of the sin of their first father, without any fault of their own. Now as far as the divine justice 220 ALL THEORIES or goodness is concerned, what great difference is there between our being depraved at first, and being in such circumstances as will certainly lead to depravity the moment moral action begins? Will not the latter as infallibly bring about our destruction as the former? And how is it more incompatible with the justice or the goodness of God to put us in one of these con- ditions, than in the other, when they are both equally fatal? Do you say, that our natural appetites and propensities and our outward circumstances do not lead us into sin by any absolute necessity ? But they do in all cases certainly lead us into sin, and God knows that they will, when he appoints them for us. Now, how can God, our merciful Father, voluntarily place us, while feeble, helpless infants, in such cir- cumstances, as he knows beforehand will be the certain occasion of our sin and ruin ? Do you say, it is our own fault, if we sin? True. But why does God, who desires our holiness and happiness, place us in circumstances, which will not only ex- pose us to this fault, but which he knows will most certainly involve us in it, and so end in our destruc- tion ? Do you say, the doctrine of a depraved nature, as held by Edwards and other Calvinists, makes God the author of sin? Even if this were so, (which however I do not admit ;) still how does your theory help the matter? What difference does it make either as to God's character, or th^ result of his proceedings, whether he constitutes us sinners at first, or knowingly /tvA^^fe .J..-U- I^Ai^'Vtv^- ('1^ EXPOSED TO DIFFICULTIES. 221 places us in such circumstances, that wa shall cer- tainly become sinners, and that very soon ? Must not God's design as to our being sinners, be the same in one case, as. in the other ? And must not the final result be the same? Is not one of the conditions supposed, fraught with as many and as great evils, as' the other? What ground' of preference then would any man have? Suppose half of the human race should- be born in a depraved, sinful state ; and the other half, without holiness, and with such appetites and propensities as will be too powerful for reason and conscience to control, and so will certainly bring them into a depraved, sinful state, and that so speedily, that they never exist a single moment, as moral agents, in any other state. Would these last have in any respect the advantage of the former ? And if the two condi- tions supposed are equally calamitous and destructive, / then how is it more consistent for God to bring men /r -^ct-a into one of them, than into the other ? And how can ^?tco^^ it be more easily reconciled with his goodness that he "^^^-^ should bring death and condemnation on Adam's pos- '-*-* terity on account of his sin, in the way which you suppose, than in the way which Calvinists suppose? Let intelligent, candid Unitarians, who do not believe either of these schemes, say, whether one of them is not open to as many objections, as the other ? Do you say, all the feelings of our hearts revolt at the idea, that God gives us a depraved, sinful nature at our birth, and that no man can believe this without resist- 222 ALL THEORIES , ing and overcoming his most amiable sensibilities ? And do not our moral feelings equally revolt at the idea, that G* d creates us without hohness, and gives us at our birth such appetites and propensities, as he knows will forthwith bring us into a state of deprav- it}?^ ? And have we not as much occasion to resist and overcome our amiable sensibilities in this case, as in the other? When you hold that God has so ordered things that we come into existence, destitute of any disposition to holiness, and with natural appetites which will always get the start of reason, and will be quite an ove mat h for it when moral agency begins, and which will certainly involve us in sin and ruin ; — when you hold all this, you are obliged to set aside your amiable sensibilities and all the natural feelings of your hearts, as unsafe guides in such a matter as this, — you are obliged to overcome these natural feel- ings as really in maintaining this scheme, as others are in maintaining the Calvinistic scheme. Prompted by these natural sensibilities, you make an outcry against the common doctrine, as though it implied something hard and injurious in God's treatment of his creatures. Whose act is it, you say, that gave us this sinful nature ? And how are we to blame for that nature which God created ? And whose act is it, we may ask, that brings us into existence destitute of holiness, and with a nature which certainly leads to sin ? And how are we to blame for that which, according to the laws of the human mind, invariably and certainly ■ -to ' '^- EXPOSED TO DIFFICULTIES. 223 follows from an act of God, or from that state in which lie places us without any concurrence of our own 1 Do you say, the Calvinistic doctrine imphes a phys- ical depravity? But your doctrine is much more liable to this charge ? Calvinists ho d that depravity originally and essentially lies in our moral nature. But you hold that it, arises altogether from those appe- tites and prop nsities which are not moral, but phys- ical. Thus you tra -e depravity to a physical source. /£.c^ /i You make the fatal danger of our condition lie origi- nally in physical appetites. — But you may perhaps "^ / think that you can avoid the difficulties of the Calvin- istic theory by alleging, that sin comes not in reality from our natural ap[ etites, nor from any external circumstances, as its proper cause, but from our free will, and that the acts of this free will are entirely our own, and that we are justly responsible for them. But on the principle which you have sanctioned by your objections against the Calvinistic theory, we may ask ; who gave us our free loill 7 And who gave us such a free will, as would uniformly and certainly choose sin? Why did not God make our free will such, or ' at least place it under the influence of such circum- '^ stances, that its choices should be right instead of wrong? Might not God do this without interfering at all with the nature of a free will? Did he not give to the elect angels such a free will, and place it under such influences, that its choices would certainly be A Ch:::r-r. 224 ALL THEORIES right ? And does he not so renew the wilJ of sinful men by his Spirit, and so direct the causes which act upon it, that it shall now begin to put forth exercises which are right, and shall finally put forth those which will be perfectly right, and that certainly and for- ever ? And has not God done all this, and is he not continually doing all this, without interfering with the nature of free will? Why then, if God desires our holiness, does he not give us such a will, as shall freely conform to his law? Has not God a free will in directing this affair? And is not his free will attended with omnipotence? And if he had chosen to give us a will to put forth right volitions, could he not have done it? Why then did he not give us such a will? And if he has given us a different will, — a will that certainly acts wrong ; how does he show his desire for our holiness ? And how are we culpable for the acts of such a will, more than a comet is for its erratic motions ? Who gave us this erratic will ? Thus it is, as Whateley says ; " The difficulty is not peculiar to any one hypothesis, but bears equally on all?" — And yet I hold that the difficulty is of no avail, and proves nothing at all, except our ignorance. It will be evident I think from all which has been said, that the speculative objections which have been urged against the fact of our depravity, whether that fact is contemplated in the light of the common Ortho- dox theory, or of any other, cannot be regarded as of any decisive weight. The spirit of cavilling, from EXPOSED TO DIFFICULTIES. 225 which they originate, would, if permitted to prevail, demolish the whole fabric of religion. See how it poured forth its malignant sarcasms and sneers against every thing sacred, in the writings of Voltaire and other French atheists ! See how it operates in the infidels of our own country ! With those who in- dulge this spirit, just and sober reasoning has no influence, and truth becomes a dream. Let Chris- tians then, take care not to give any countenance to it. It belongs not to them. Its proper residence is, the carnal mind which is ejimity against God — the heart of impiety and atheism. Be it then your watchful care, candid reader, to guard against that spirit of mind, which shows itself in such objections and cavils, as have been noticed in this chapter. How sharply the sacred writers rebuked this spirit ! They saw in their day, that the thing formed proudly rose up, and said to him that formed \\^ ^^ why hast thou made me thus?^^ The Apostle regarded this question as the utterance of an impious, rebellious heart. A man who has this spirit of objec- tion may pretend to feel a respect for the perfections of God. But in reality he denies them. He takes a matter of fact, a well known principle in the divine administration, and says, that it is inconsistent with God^s moral attributes ; — which is the same as to say, that God cannot he a just and good Being, if he does what he actually does. This is the radical fault of the objector in this case. He ought to learn 20 /w d Ia^ \ \ 226 ALL THEORIES, &C. what God's character is, and what is just and right, by learning what God does. Whereas he takes upon him to determine, what God can or cannot consistently do, by his own mistaken notion of what is just and right, vainly assuming that God is altogether such an one as himself. A man who acts on this principle, is at war with the divine administration and the divine character. I am aVare that you may make an objection of a more practical kind against the common theory, namely, that it tends to stupify conscience, and to pre- vent a proper sense of the evil of sin. But in truth, who will be most likely to be deeply affected with the evil of sin, — he that considers it as arising from the innocent appetites and propensities of our physical nature, or he that considers it as originating in the corrupt disposition of our moral nature, — the sinful- ness of our heart ? What do facts show 'I Had not Calvin, Owen, Watts, Edwards, Brainerd, and others of hke sentiments with them, as wakeful a conscience, as deep a sense of the hatefulness and inexcusableness of sin, and as active and successful a zeal in opposing it, as those who have denied the native sinfulness of man ? I have another suggestion. Would you test the truth of the different theories which are held on the subject of our depravity ? Inquire then, which of these theories most naturally leads its advocates to fall in with the current language of Scripture, and to PROPER TENDENCY OF THE DOCTRINE. 227 speak just as the sacred writers do in respect to the depravity of man, and the necessity of his being renewed by the divine Spirit? Which theory leads its advocates to quote most freely the affecting representa- tions of the Bible as to the deplorable state in which the posterity of Adam are born, to give to those repre- sentations the most natural sense, and to dwell upon them with the greatest earnestness? To which of the theories is the solemn, impressive language of inspiration most obviously and perfectly adapted? This plain test of truth may, in many instances, turn to great account. In closing this Essay, I shall just touch upon the proper, practical tendency of the doctrine of native depravity. This can be ascertained only by finding what its influence ie upon the minds of those Chris- tians, who seriously embrace it as a doctrine of the Bible. Go then to one of this number, to one who is intelligent and devout and given to reflection, and inquire what is his manner of thinking on this sub- ject, and the effect which the common doctrine has upon his feelings : and let him speak for himself. "There was a time," he will say, — "and I remem- ber it with shame and sorrow, — when my heart was full of objections against the doctrine of our native and entire sinfulness. The thought, that God brings us into being in a fallen, ruined state, occasioned me great uneasiness. And my inward disturbance continued, until the Spirit of God, as I humbly 228 PROPER TENDENCY OF THE DOCTRINE. trust, subdued my pride, and inclined me no longer to confide in my own understanding, but to sub- mit implicitly to the wisdom of God. First of all, I adopted it as my maxim to believe what- ever God makes knoion in his word, and to be satisfied with lohatever he does in his providence. I determined to reject no truth, because it trans- cends my intellectual powers, or because it is attended with speculative difficulties which I cannot solve. I soon saw that the doctrine of man's native and total sinfulness is taught in the Bible, and is con- firmed by experience and observation. The habit which I formed of contemplating the doctrine itself , as set forth in the word of God, gradually enabled me to dispose of the difficulties attending it very satisfacto- rily. I have been brought to look upon sin, whether in disposition or in act, upon sin itself wherever found, and in whatever form, and however occasioned, as an evil and bitter thing, altogether blameworthy and hateful. Considering myself as the subject of this evil from the beginning of my hfe, as born in sin, and contemplating the outgoings of my depraved, sinful heart in sinful actions, I abhor myself, and repent in dust and ashes. A deep conviction of sin has banished from my mind all philosophical specula- tions and questions of controversy. My great concern is to obtain deliverance from the power of sin, and to be renewed in the spirit of my mind. I offer daily and fervent prayer to God, that he would sanctify me PROPRR TENDENCY OP THE DOCTRINE. 229 wholly ; that he would increase my faith, and work in me all the good pleasure of his goodness. The belief which I have, that sin is natural to man, and that it extends its deleterious influence through all his facul- ties, excites me to great watchfulness and unceasing efforts against its subtle and powerful operations, and to a humble reliance on the help of divine grace. Viewing myself as by nature a child of wrath, and as deserving the whole penalty of the violated law, I am led to exalt the infinite grace of God in redemption) and to give glory to the Saviour who bestows eternal life on sinners, even the chief. And when I come to consider, that this utter ruin is brought upon the human family by the offence of Adam, their federal head, I bow before that righteous Sovereign, whose judgments are unsearchable, with a full persuasion, that all his ways, though past finding out, are perfectly holy, just, and good, and that sin belongs wholly and exclusively to man. Without the shadow of a doubt I believe, that what God does in constituting us sin- ners in consequence of the offence of Adam, he does in perfect consistency with his infinite holiness and goodness, and without the least infringement of our moral agency. I have done with the impious ques- tion, why doth he yet find fault 7 or, why hast thou made me thus 7 Who am I, that I should call in qtfestion the wisdom or the rectitude of God's conduct? In a word, when I consider that I belong to a race of rebels, that I am " the degenerate plant of a strange 230 PROPER TENDENCY OF THE DOCTRINE. vine," and that the heart of every man is like my own, I see that all the world is guilty before God, that no flesh can glory in his presence, and that salvation is wholly of grace." Such are the thoughts and feelings which arise in the mind of a Christian, who is led by the holy Scrip- tures, and by his own spiritual convictions, cordially to embrace the doctrine of native depravity, and to make it a subject of devout meditation, and who rises above his speculative difficulties, not by a mere intelr lectual process, but by the power of holy affection. It seems fo me exceedingly manifest, that whatever objectors may say, the proper tendency of the doctrine, when rightly received, is, to exalt God^to humble maUj and to make the Saviour precious. And happy shall I feel myself to be, if I have been enabled so to treat the subject, as to contribute to this most desirable effect. ■c^> Ji ^^A^ ^^'-^,^! /^1-V ^U) JU^''' ^ ir L UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LIBRARY This book is DUE on the last date stamped below. Fine schedule: 25 cents on first day overdue 50 cents on fourth day overdue One dollar on seventh day overdue. REC'D Lr 3CT 1 0'63 -3 H* RECCIVED |<|IR3 . 70 -1 Pf |,OAr4 DEPT JULin9^8lT ^ LD 21-100to-12,'46(A2012s16)4120 /i!^ '^i-^'^^u UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA UBRARY