ambition of princes, the cruelty of tyrants, the desolations of conquerors, the intrigues of courtiers, and the more disgusting vices of private and humble life. And if we occasionally meet with a Cyrus or a Trajan, an Aristides, or a Cato, a Plato or a Socrates, we feel much the same agreeable surprise, that a traveller would, in discovering a verdant spot amid the arid deserts of Arabia. And, far as they fall below the standard of a christian character, yet are they the perpetual themes of infidel panegyric, and the dwarfish models of their imitation. And what is the natural inference from all this? Why that there is in man's heart an invincible tendency to sin, affinity to vice, that he is naturally and inherently depraved. We might account otherwise for a few isolated cases, or even for many such cases; but that all have gone astray even from the womb,' that all have sinned and come short of the glory of God,' and that too, under the superior light and obligations of the Gospel, and in despite of repeated warning and remonstrance from God's Holy Word to the contrary, prove that we are

८

.

Sprung from the man, whose guilty fall
Corrupts his race, and taints us all.'

2. The extent to which this corruption prevails in human nature, must now be the subject of a few observations. But let it be observed, that we are here to consider human nature, not under the meliorating influences of the Gospel, but as it is in itself abstractly viewed. The grace of God is certainly no part of our nature, and ought not to be included in our views when describing our natural depravity. For we are to consider man as an object of redemption, as a subject and recipient of those influences, and not as the original author of the virtues which those influences produce. If any should assert our incapability of regarding man apart from what is so entirely interwoven with his nature, we should meet the assertion with a denial. To us it seems just as possible, as to consider a canvass apart from the coloring of the artist, or to picture to ourselves a man divested of the intellectual attributes which form a part of his character. As we can, notwithstanding the actual combination and adherence, separate the parts from each other in idea, and consider each distinctly by itself, what are the attributes of the canvass without the painters skill, and what the peculiarities of a man without mental powers, so we may form an idea of what human nature is, without the grace of God.

With this understanding we hesitate not to avow our belief that the Scriptures assert it to be TOTAL; that, in our nature, there is no good thing,' that sin and only sin, is the birthright we inherit from Adam. The whole head is sick and the whole heart faint. From the sole of the foot even unto the head, there is no soundness in it.'

We do not deny that many men, not professedly religious, exhibit amiable dispositions, and virtuous traits of character, that some men are much worse in moral conduct than others; and that but few reach the utmost verge of practical criminality. But all this, we apprehend, is not inconsistent with the doctrine we assert. For there are many influential motives to restrain men from sin and stimulate them to the cultivation and practice of virtue, without the slightest reference to religion or the will of the Supreme Being. Human institutions, worldly views; and selfish purposes, have vast influence upon the conduct and pursuits of men. And multitudes are restrained from the indulgence of their vindictive passions, or gratification of their craving appetites, by the voice of the public, and the fear of worldly ill, who have no regard for the authority of God, nor any respect for his religion. And yet such persons are fain to give themselves full credit for their virtues, as if they were really virtuous for virtue's sake, and as if the whole had its foundation in the fear and love of God. Besides, one great doctrine of the Bible, is, that God has wrought all our righteousness in us,' that it is He who worketh in us both to will and to do of his good pleasure.' And when in the book of Genesis it is said My spirit shall not always strive with man,' it is very evident, that so long as man is corrigible, the Holy Spirit does strive with him. This doctrine turns the scales upon our opponents entirely, and reduces them to the necessity of showing, why, if men are naturally holy, they are not practically so; and whence it comes, that although the Holy Spirit strives to lead them to piety, we still discern in them so little fruit of it. Upon our principles the wonder is, not that men in general have some virtue, but that they have so little. And the fact itself proves that the human heart opposes the strongest resistance to the holy motions and influences of the divine spirit. Let it again be recollected, that the question does not turn upon our human virtues, or merely moral conduct, but, upon our religious character;-upon our piety towards God. It was the design of our Creator that we should love and adore him; that his service should be the delight of the heart and the occupation of the life; that every passion, thought and desire, should be responsive to his voice, and obedient to his will. It is very evident, therefore, that so far as we depart from this, we are fallen from our original holiness and integrity. And it is also very manifest, that men may sustain a good worldly character and practice many human virtues, and, estimated by human standards, gain the eclat of a good name, for men will praise thee, when thou doest well to thyself,'-while God is not, in all his thoughts.' And this is the view which the scriptures, take of human nature. It is asserted in our text. It is asserted in Gen. i. 5. before the flood, every imagination of the thoughts of

(

his (man's) heart was evil, only, continually.' It is repeated in Gen. viii. 21. nearly the same in words, and quite the same in sense, and that too, when none but those who were deemed worthy of being preserved in the universal inundation were in existence. The words are, the imagination of man's heart is evil from his youth.' The royal bard of Israel testifies, The Lord looked down from heaven upon the children of men, to see if there were any that did understand and seek God. They are all gone aside, they are all together become filthy; there is none that doeth good, no not one.' Psa. xiv. ii. 3. Jeremiah asserts, The heart of man is deceitful above all things and desperately wicked.' xvii. 9. The same doctrine is indirectly taught in all those passages which insist on the necessity of a change of heart, an entire moral renovation, before we can enter into the kingdom of heaven. For this reason, 'Ye must be born again;' put off the old man with his deeds,' and if any man be in Christ he is a new creature.' In those texts which we have cited, let it be observed, that they cannot, with any shadow of reason, be limited to any individual, or particular class or nation. They speak of MAN in the abstract, signifying all the family of man, they describe the moral nature of our species. This then is our character, by nature an enemy of God, indisposed to religion, devoted to the world, forgetful or negligent of eternity, living like an Atheist. They profess that they know God, but in works they deny him, being abominable and disobedient, and to every good work reprobate'— by nature children of wrath.'

This then, is the conclusion, that man is entirely fallen and in himself totally depraved; and whatever good may now be in him, or performed by him, is owing entirely to the grace of God through the atonement of the Saviour.

II. Having thus given the scriptural view, as we conceive it to be, of this doctrine, we shall, in the next place, answer some of the principal objections.

1. We have heard the opponents of this doctrine urge, that the Mosaic account is absurd; for that so small and trivial an act as the eating of an apple, should be followed by such consequences is unreasonable, and therefore incredible.' Those who argue thus, have not duly considered the case. We have already observed, that man, being constituted a moral agent, an accountable being, it was necessary that he should have some test of his fidelity. The divine wisdom and goodness selected 'the tree of the knowledge of good and evil,' as suitable for the purpose, yet admirably mild and facile in its nature. Now it must be manifest that the violation of this test, must have partaken as much of the essence of sin, as any act of greater magnitude could have done. It was a transgression of the divine law, an act of rebellion against God, a spurning of his

authority, a disregard of his word and commandment. And if we judge the magnitude and importance of particular acts, by the consequences which result from them, which we apprehend is the correct criterion, we cannot conceive of one more important than this, which our opponents deem so trivial and insignificant. For the consequences were not concealed from the offender. He had been forewarned of them, and his guilt was aggravated by the weighty obligations of obedience which he thus violated. The very circumstance that the act was, in itself, a small one, rendered the test so much the easier, and he was therefore less excusable, than it it had been more severe in its character, and of more difficult performance. The objection of our opponents, therefore, defeats itself.

2. It has been urged by another class of unbelievers in this doctrine, that as Adam propagated his seed after receiving the promise of the Redeemer, and having been restored to the divine favor, that the effects of the fall were done away, and his offspring consequently partook of his restored rather than of his lapsed nature.' This argument is more ingenious than solid, besides that it has the disadvantage of opposing all those passages of scripture, which ascribe to Adam the origin of human depravity, with its manifold consequences. If this objection were founded in truth, every man is the originator of his own depravity. What sense, on this principle, could be made of those passages we have already quoted from the 5th chapter of Romans? And how can it be true that in Adam all die,' by one man's offence death reigned by one? The argument then seems to lie between our objectors and the spirit of inspiration; for they cannot both be true. And whatever difficulty may be thought to exist in the subject, we certainly dare not seek to evade, by any metaphysical subtleties, the plain assertions of Holy Writ! And yet if we look at this objection a little closer, we shall not find such difficulty in it, as might at first be supposed. For although man was restored, we admit, to the divine favor, by the forgiveness of his guilt; yet, he never was restored to his primeval perfection. He still retained his fallen nature, and, consequently, his tendency to sin. Witness the facts that he was not restored to Eden, he was not allowed to eat of the tree of life' that stood in the midst of the garden; the earth no longer yielded its fruits spontaneously, but brought forth thorns and thistles' and had to be cultivated with the sweat of the brow;' that he became subject to death, with its sad forerunners, pain, sorrow, and disease. All these facts plainly show that man was not restored to his original holy and perfect nature. For it is impossible to believe that these consequences of the fall would have been inflicted and continued, if the fall itself had been perfectly counteracted. Consequently what

ever holiness man subsequently possessed, was acquired and not inherent, it was by implantation or infusion through faith in the promised sacrifice of the Messiah, and not natural or inherent. Being therefore no part of Adam's nature, he could not communicate it to his posterity. They must receive it, if received at all, from the same hand, that he did, and through the same gracious medium; namely, faith, in the atonement of the Divine Redeemer. Thus we perceive that there is a beautiful harmony between the voice of reason and that of scripture, and that the attempt to set the one against the other, is only but an effort to separate what God hath joined together.

3. An objection which has been insisted on, with as much vehemence as any other, is, that 'it is inconsistent with the benevolence of God to make man thus.' But let it be remembered that

6

this is no part of our system. Solomon in Eccl. chap. vii. verse 29. sets this in the proper light.' God made man upright, but they have sought out many inventions.' We were holy by his creation, we are unholy by an abuse of human free agency. So that we cannot blame God with our depravity, but Adam. Our objector continues, if he did not make us so, he suffers us to remain so, and I cannot see much difference.' This is indeed marvellous, as it holds to the supposition that their blindness is voluntary. The Divine Being may certainly suffer a thing to be done, without being chargeable with the guilt of doing it; otherwise he would be the author of all the sin that exists in the universe. Nor was he under any obligations, when man fell by his own voluntary act, to remove the consequences of his transgression. But why not,' says one, have destroyed the first pair, after their fall, and thus have prevented the propagation of a depraved species?' Suppose we should reply, we cannot tell; that undoubtedly God saw it would be most for his glory in the end, that it should be otherwise. This would be all the answer which could in justice be demanded of us. And yet a little more reflection may enable us to meet the objection more fully. First then: it will not be denied, we presume, that there were sufficient reasons for the creation of man at first. Secondly; we suppose it will not be questioned that man was made in the best possible manner, and on those principles of which, God most fully approved. To suppose that he might have been made better, would, in our estimation, be the same as to say that God did not make him in the best way; which would be inconsistent, with the Divine wisdom and goodness. Thirdly, we also apprehend, that man was placed in the most favorable, or suitable situation for the exercise of his free agency and moral powers. Now on the fall of man, suppose he had been destroyed,-things would have been in the same state that they were in, before man was created; and there