ness. Even so, ye also outwardly appear righteous unto men but within ye are full of hypocrisy and iniquity." Besides, if you will only consider in what total depravity consists, you will not, I appre. hend, find any peculiar difficulty in seeing that the characters which you have named, may be the subjects of it. Sim. If I will consider in what total depravity consists! Pray, then, tell me what you and others who so often use this term, mean by it. Tell me, if you please, in the first place what you mean by depravity. Sim. But have you no difficulty in reconciling this view of total depravity with the apparent honesty, kindness, liberality, soberness, and general morality, which I have just named as traits in the characters of some with whom we are both acquainted. Jus. None at all. You will yourself allow, that a man may be honest and kind and liberal and sober and generally correct in his outward deportment merely from selfish motives; it is impossible to tell exactly how far motives of interest, a regard to reputation, the fear of punishment, and other considerations of a similar nature, may in any case, restrain the selfThe law re-ishness or depravity of man. Jus. By depravity I mean that selfishness, which is a transgression of the law of God. Sim. Why do you affix the term total to this selfishness or depravity? Jus. Because, it has the entire possession of the heart. While mankind are in an unregenerate state they have no supreme love to God, and no disinterested love to their fellow creatures. On the contrary, all their affections, desires and purposes are under the controul of that selfishness which, in its nature, is opposition both to God and man. But we might, I think, expect at least as much apparent goodness from the influence of these things, as we actually see among mankind, even upon the supposition that they are totally selfish. Indeed when we consider how many and how val uable are the advantages attending an upright deportment, it is truly astonishing that even selfishness itself, does not produce a greater degree of morality than is found to exist. This can be accounted for I apprehend only upon the principle that every strong passion hastens precipitately to its own gratification, uniformly preferring a present good of less value, to a future good of greater value.— Now if in view of the restraints which a wise providence has pla ced upon the depravity of man, we might expect a higher degree of morality than really exists, how absurd is it to attempt to prove from what there is, that the hearts of men are not totally depraved ? Sim. I know that much of the apparent goodness of mankind may be traced to selfish motives, and I would not contend that there is any thing truly good in that which has its origin in selfishness. But there is in some of the unregenerate a tenderness of feeling, a nobleness of spirit, & an amiableness of character, which does not appear to me to arise from selfishness, and which I cannot help view ing as inconsistent with total depravity. Jus. That these traits of character are known to exist among those who give an unequivocal evidence of a change of heart. I readily acknowledge. Whether they are the effects of self-love, or not, I deem it unnecessary now to determine, as I presume that you will not yourself contend that they arise from that supreme love to God and disinterested love to man, in which all holiness primarily consists. If there is nothing in these traits of character which is truly holy, they are no evidence against total depravity, whether they can be shewn to have their origin in selfishness or not. Now that they may not be holiness, and that they may have nothing in them of the nature of genuine holiness, will be perfectly evident to every one who will duly consider the three following facts. 1. These traits of character are often seen in irrational creatures, which are incapable of holiness. The Lion has a noble spirit. The Lamb has a mild and amiable disposition, and deep feeling for others of their species in distress, is common to animals of almost every description. 2. Those who in other respects appear to be entirely destitute of holiness, often exhibit these traits of character in a very striking degree. The youth, who is for getful of his God, and engaged with all his heart in the pursuit of pleasures which God has forbidden, often has much in his appearance that is interesting and amiable.— The wretch, who blasphemes his Maker, often feels for a fellow creature in distress, and would generously grant him relief. 3. The traits of character above mentioned, are often the immediate cause of sin. How often is tenderness of feeling in parents, the cause of that excessive indulgence of their children which is contrary to the commands of God and ruinous to the best interests of men ! How often does what is considered by the world as nobleness of spirit, lead the subjects of it to disdain the meekness which the gospel inculcates, and to adopt as their guide the most ruinous maxims of the world! To this are to be attributed those laws of honor, which encourage the taking of revenge, and influence multitudes to decide their differences, by the pistol or the sword. How often are those qualities, which serve to render character amiable in the view of the world, the very same which influence the subjects of them to seek the applause of men, rather than the approbation of God! Now are these traits of character, which are found in bad men as well as good-in beings who are incapable of holiness as well as in rational creatures, and which are as often, to say the least, the means of leading mankind to the commission of sin, as to the practice of holiness, any evidence of true holiness, in those in whom they are found? Is it not an indubitable fact that many in whom all those traits of character are seen, are entire strangers to the exercise of that supreme love to God which the law requires? Are they not conscious themselves, and are not all around them satisfied, that they love the world more than God? With all their kind sympathies and tender feelings, would not nine out of ten of them acknowledge, that they love themselves more than their neighbors ? And should they be met with the provocation of an enemy, would they not, instead of loving him, and praying for him, and doing him good agreeably to the nature of true benevolence, and the commands of the Saviour, meditate and seek revenge in exact accordance with the nature of supreme selfishness, and the general spirit of this world? But I need not remind you, who are so well acquainted with the scriptures, that if any man love the world the love of the Father is not in him;" or that all affection to our fellow creatures, which admits of hatred to enemies, is destitute of every thing like the nature of holiness. Sim. I confess that there is something in these suggestions of yours which is new to me, and which seems to deserve my serious consideration. But let me tell you, that I cannot receive the doctrine of total depravity, because it appears to me inconsistent with the free agency of man. Jus. I suppose you admit that some degree of depravity is consistent with the free agency of man? Sim. Certainly. I never thought of questioning the fact that mankind are free and accountable agents, nor the truth, that they are in some measure depraved. Jus. Do you then believe that the free agency of all mankind is partially destroyed. This appears to be the necessary consequence of admitting that they are partially depraved, if depravity, as you have intimated, is inconsistent with free agency. Sım. You misunderstand me, I do not mean to say that every degree of depravity is inconsistent with free agency, but only that total depravity is so. Jus. I understand you perfectly. You suppose that total depravity is inconsistent with free agency; but that partial depravity does not interfere with it at all. Your assertion is perfectly intelligible.But you will pardon me, my friend, if I tell you that it is not consist- pravity or sinfulness in selfish af. fections, than in any others.— It is because they are capable of exercising these purely benevolent affections, which the law of God requires, that they are sinful or depraved in the exercise of those which are selfish. The exercise of totally sinful affections is no more inconsistent with free agency, than the exercise of per fectly holy affections. ent with itself. Few positions, I apprehend, can be plainer than this: If depravity when total, that is when the heart is wholly under its influence, entirely destroys the free agency of man ; then it must interfere with his free agency, when it is but partial, and that too in proportion to its influence. If he is depraved in a small degree, his liberty is slightly impaired. If he is exceedingly depraved, as all admit that some are, his free agency must be exceedingly impaired. On the other hand, if a slight degree of depravity leaves a man in the entire possession of free agency, it is impossible to see how this can be impaired by a greater degree. And if under the influence of a great degree of depravity, he retains all the freedom of which he is capable, it certainly requires more acumen than I possess, to perceive how this can be destroyed by total depravity. Our conceptions on this subject may be assisted by considering again, for a moment, in what depravity consists. If depravity consists in the exercise of sinful affections, or in that selfishness which is opposite to the supreme and disinterested love which the law of God requires, there is no appearance of its being inconsistent with free agency. On the contrary, the existence of this depravity always implies the exercise of free agency. If mankind were not free agents, there could be no more de Sim. But is not this total depravity on which you lay so much stress a native depravity? I have certainly heard it so represented. If I were to admit, as you are confident I must, that total depravity is no more inconsistent with the free agency of man than partial, I certainly cannot admit that na tive depravity is consistent with it. Jus. The terms native, and by nature, have indeed often been used in connexion with this subject and for one I am disposed to think, that they convey a very important idea, which no other language could more readily or definitely convey. At the same time I am aware that each of these terms is liable to be misunderstood and abused. When I speak of native depravity, I do not mean a depravity which has an existence previously to the exercise of moral agency, or which ever exists or can exist but as the effect of free moral agency. I do, indeed, think this depravity to be natural, and in this opinion I am supported by very high authority. Paul speaking of himself and the Ephesians as they were before their conver- that they must be under a fatal ne sion, says, "In time past we all had our conversation in the lusts of the flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and were by nature the children of wrath even as others." In supposing that they are naturally sinful or depraved, I do not, however, suppose that they are so without that which is essential to their sinfulness or depravity. Their being naturally sinners no more proves that they are not active, free, or voluntary in their depravity, than the fact that some are naturally eloquent and that others are natural singers proves that they speak and sing involuntary, or from an imperious necessity. The plain truth on the subject appears to be this. It is natural for mankind as soon as they become moral agents to sin voluntary. Sin always implies voluntariness or free agency. The common saying that mankind are naturally sinners, does not mean as some seem absurdly to suppose it does; that they are obliged by the constitution of their nature to sin, whether they choose to do it or not. But it means, that with all necessary power to he holy, they are naturally inclined to sin. Sim, I cannot possibly see how any one can be criminal for what is natural to him. Jus. Not even, I suppose, if it is natural for him to be criminal. Sim. But if mankind are wholly inclined to sin; and that to as you suppose from the first moments of their free agency, it appears to me cessity of sinning, which must exculpate them from all blame. Jus. You seem to forget my friend that sin and blame are always inseparable. Why do you speak of of men's being under a fatal necessity of sinning as though it could not be as natural for them to act freely as it is to sin when it is well understood between you and me that there is no sin or depravity which is not the result of free moral agency. If you will look at the subject with little more attention, I am persuaded that you will see the impropriety of intimating as you have several times done, that a person wholly inclined to sin cannot be to blame. This is certainly nothing less than saying in other words, if a man is sinful to the extent of his capacity he becomes perfectly innocent and loses all capacity to sin; or if he is criminal for all his moral exercises and conduct there is no criminality in any of them. Why you should consider the supposition that mankind are inclined so early to sin as an objection to the doctrine under consideration, I cannot perceive. It is in my apprehension as easy to see that their first moral exercise may be wrong, as that any of their subsequent moral exercises may be wrong. Nor do I see any thing in the suppositon that the moral exercises of sinners may be constantly sinful, more absurd in itself, or inconsistent with their freedom and accountableness than in the supposition that these |