it by mankind, so far from yielding a proof that depravity is not total, afford the only foundation on which the doctrine There can be no such thing as sin without it; and if there be any blackness of darkness about sin, it is owing to its voluntary character.

can rest.

The doctrine of total depravity does not imply that all men are, absolutely, as bad as they can be. In this world all are under many restraints, beyond which, from selfish policy, they do not suffer their evil nature to break out. Where is the moral beauty of letting your neighbour's purse alone for fear of the penitentiary? Where is the heavenly sweetness of treating your family with kindness, lest by a different course you should make your home a hell, and plunge yourself into the depths of domestic misery and degradation? Satan has a wonderful variety of employments for his followers; some of which are to appearance less odious and disgusting than others; and some of them do outwardly seem not unfit "for an angel of light." One will wallow in the grossest vices, while another must have a more refined and elegant irreligion. But the "splendida peccata," of the one, are as truly abominable in the sight of God, as the coarser indulgences of the other. "Some men's sins are open before hand, going before to judgement;" and some men they follow after. Are there divers degrees of holiness among the spotless orders of heaven? and may there not be different grades of unrighteousness among those who are entirely depraved on earth? As in the kingdom of grace, may there not be in the reign of corruption, "diversities of operations, but the same spirit" of depravity "which worketh all in all ?" Men are men, let their stature be more or less.

Constituted as society is, no man can do all the evil that he would. He must do much that is unexceptionable, in order to be left at liberty to do aught that is wrong. Thus a nest of buccaneers may agree to proceed upon the principle of "honor among thieves." They may cheerfully obey the officers chosen from among themselves, treat each other with propriety and kindness, manifest the utmost intrepidity in each other's defence and rescue, sell their plunder at a fair price, and share the proceeds with perfect impartiality. And yet toward all who are not of their own crew, they may be men of violence, and lust and blood-horribly merciless, drunk with very excess of crime, and wholesale butchers of their race. If captured by the forces of any government, no court of admiralty before which they might be brought would acquit

them of guilt, or recommend them to the mercy of the executive, because of their good conduct toward each other. So it is with sinners who have cast off the moral government of God; they may be very upright in their treatment of each other; but when brought to the standard of the Divine law, it will be made perfectly manifest, that they were "enemies in their minds by wicked works."

Total depravity is no other thing than the state of the heart or affections in relation to the character, government and laws of God. When the doctrine is thus duly limited and defined it is hard to conceive what objection can be raised against it. The common objections derived from the morality and natural affections of men, certainly do not lay hold of it. When properly expressed and understood, it is an unobjectionable, though humbling and unwelcome doctrine, which scarce needs any positive proof of its truth, other than the self-knowledge of every sinner. The condition of the heart, when viewed in relations that are strictly moral, fully justifies and bears out the strong assertions of the Bible, that it is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked; that it is enmity against God, and while unchanged, is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be. Truly it is a blank of goodness and a blot of sin.

We now come to the other main question pertaining to this subject: Is depravity NATURAL to man?

What is nature? The nature of an object is that which makes it what it is, or determines what it will be, prior to any change effected spontaneously or by the influence of external causes. Nature includes the constitution, or those constitutional tendencies which operate according to established laws.

When we say that man is morally depraved by nature, we mean that previous to actual transgression, or any moral exercise whatever, he is such a being, that all the moral acts he will ever put forth, unless there be some specific change in him, will be sinful as a matter of course. A viper newly hatched is a harmless thing, but who will say that it is not by nature a venomous reptile?

Such is man's moral nature. We pronounce it corrupt, because we know it by its fruits." As we find the fruit to be universally corrupt, we are compelled to declare the tree corrupt, and naturally corrupt. If the things that "proceed from within, out of the heart of men" be evil, then the heart is not good, but evil, and if these things proceed naturally

from the heart, (that is, prior to any moral change in it effected by any cause whatever,) then the heart is naturally evil.

The "Essay" to which we have before referred, particularizes in an interesting and convincing manner, the principal marks by some or all of which, any thing is ascertained to be natural, of which marks we give the following summary. We expect that any attribute or quality of man which is native, will be universal; will be developed as early as circumstances may permit; will not be traceable to any change subsequent to birth; will operate freely and spontaneously; will be resisted or overcome with difficulty; and its future activity may be predicted with entire certainty. Each of these marks is found to be broadly and distinctly traced on human depravity, and their cumulative evidence irresistably proves it to be a native property of man. Who will say, that so far as his knowledge extends, it is not a universal quality of our race? Who that has ever watched for one year by the side of an infant's cradle, will assert that it is not early developed? Who will venture to point out the fatal moment subsequent to birth, when the moral nature of the infant was changed from holy, or from indifferent (if such a thing could be,) to sinful? Who that speaks intelligently will say, that depravity does not operate freely and spontaneously? Who that speaks from experience will affirm, that depravity may be extirpated with ease? And who will hesitate to predict with confidence, that depravity will in all cases manifest itself as soon as the moral nature shall act itself out?

If it be asked, how comes it to pass that man has such a nature? we have only to say, that this is inquiring for the origin of evil. This inquiry we refer to those who impose upon themselves by fancying, that they can answer it: and let them do what they please with it. Our business is with the fact itself, and not with theories to explain the fact. The sum of all that we really know about it is, that "by one man's disobedience many were made sinners." What more did the Apostle know? If more he knew, he did not see fit to reveal it.

But to return to the FACT. Is it spoken of as a fact by scripture? In reply, we shall advance a single text, Eph. 2: 1-3, particularly the close. This passage has always been much relied on to sustain the doctrine of total depravity. It is not less decisive in support of the doctrine of native depravity. It is often asked, whether there can be such a thing

as a physical, or physico-moral depravity? This term physical, as often used in modern metaphysics, is an unwholesome, mercurial word, glittering and elusive. In the lexicons it has a variety of senses, some of which are inappropriate to this subject, and in those senses we do not believe physical depravity. But if we may be guided by etymology we would say, that we believe in such a kind of depravity as is taught in the text now to be considered-" And were BY NATURE (poc) physically, children of wrath even as others." "Others" here, refers to the Gentiles, in common with whom, the Apostle includes the Jews he is addressing, as naturally children of wrath. These two divisions of the human race are often used in the Apostle's writings to comprehend the whole. The fact asserted, therefore, whatever it be, is universally true. Children of wrath is a Hebraism, like son of death, one condemned to die; and means such as are obnoxious to divine vengeance. Wrath is the intense and active displeasure of God at sin. It is the zeal of love, condemning and opposing what is opposite to itself, even as life struggles against death.

But our chief concern, is with the term pool. in the New Testament in the following senses:

It occurs

1. Nature, the natural state or condition of a thing, considered as it is in itself, in opposition to what is artificial, acquired, or compulsory. Rom. 2: 27, Shall not the uncircumcision which is by nature & poσews if it fulfil the law, etc. 11:21, For if God spared not the natural branches (rv κατὰ φύσιν κλάδων.) 11: 24, tris, For if thou wert cut out of the olive tree which is wild by nature (karà piou) and wert grafted contrary to nature (rapà piou) into the good olive tree, how much more shall these which be the natural branches (karà piou) be grafted into their own olive tree. Under this signification we rank Eph 2: 3, because the discourse is of the ordinary state of men in general, and of their natural propensities-the lusts of the flesh-the desires of the flesh and of the mind, or fleshly mind-under the dominion of which, previous to conversion, the Jewish Christians had lived, as also the Gentiles.

2. The established order of things, in opposition to what is unnatural or irregular. Rom. 1: 26; Into that which is against nature (παρὰ φύσιν.)

3. The circumstances of birth. Gal 2: 15, We who are Jews by nature (purs, by birth or descent.)

4. Species, kind, race. Jam. 3: 7, his, For every nature

moral character of any being, to learn that he is endowed with knowledge. This is not the proper criterion.

The doctrine of total depravity so far from implying that men are devoid of understanding, stands upon the opposite supposition. It is impossible to conceive of moral corruption in a creature which is not possessed of intelligence. Sin is solely the unreasonable act of a reasonable being. Man's guilt does not prove him to be bereft of reason; on the contrary, his guilt bears a close proportion to the vigour of his mental powers. As they say proverbially, The greater light, the greater sin. It is no clue to the moral character of any creature to know that he is an intelligent being. Nay, the higher the opinion we have of his intellectual powers, the more we dread him, till we learn from other sources, whether he will make a benevolent use of his powers.

This doctrine does not imply that men are destitute of conscience. What is conscience? Is it a relic of native goodness? Is it a spark of moral excellence? Or is it not rather a created part of the soul, conferring neither merit nor demerit on the creature? It is a mere faculty, which, without being, morally speaking, either right or wrong, enables us to distinguish right from wrong; just as the eye distinguishes light from darkness, without being either the one or the other. Should we witness the arrival of a winged visitor from another world, of whom we could only ascertain that he had a conscience, it would be impossible for us to determine from that fact whether he were an angel or a fiend. The possession of this faculty is not a test of meral character. Is not remorse of conscience the deathless worm of the second death? The truth is, that conscience, as God's vicegerent, reigns in every world; swaying in heaven the sceptre of peace over the spirits of the just; and in hell dashing the wicked in pieces with a rod of iron.

It cannot be inferred from the doctrine of entire depravity, that men would be without natural affection. Perhaps no point connected with the subject has caused more perplexity or mistake than this, or stands more in need of an original and fundamental investigation. Natural affection is an animal feeling, for it exists and powerfully acts in the brutes that perish. If natural affection were holiness, it could never become inordinate or excessive; it would