deeply engrafted in our natural constitution as that of poison in the egg of the serpent. As certainly as the young viper will be naturally poisonous and disposed to bite, so soon as its native powers are developed; so will man, as he advances to maturity, be possessed of an evil nature of enmity to God, which will ever lead him in the way of sin, until the "old man be crucified," and he be "born again." If the tree be evil, the fruit will also be evil; if the fountain be impure, it will send forth a corrupt stream. The root of sin is inherent in the very nature of man. "Out of the heart of man," or from this native principle of unholiness, proceed all manner of wickedness and abominations. Such is the doctrine of the Scriptures.

III. We proceed in the next place to notice, that this doctrine is confirmed by experience and observation.

Aside from the clear testimony of Scripture to the doctrine of the native depravity of man, it receives abundant corroborative proof from our individual experience, and from the history of the world. The principal evidence of this kind may be embraced in five important facts, which are thus stated by Mr. Watson:

"1. The, at least, general corruption of manners in all times and countries. 2. The strength of the tendency in man to evil. 3. The early appearance of the principles of various vices in children. 4. Every man's consciousness of a natural tendency in his mind to one or more evils. 5. That general resistance to virtue in the heart, which renders education, influence, watchfulness, and conflict necessary to counteract the force of evil."

The above facts are so evident, that we scarce suppose it possible for any one of common intelligence and candor to deny them. To account for them on any reasonable principles, upon the supposition that man is not by nature depraved, is, in our opinion, utterly impossible.

Socinians, Pelagians, and Unitarians, have generally admitted their truth, and their utmost ingenuity has been exerted to show that they can be reconciled with their system.

A brief notice of their efforts on this subject may suffice.

1. To account for the general prevalence of wickedness, reliance has been placed on the influence of example and education. Here, a little attention, we think, will show that the difficulty is not solved, but only shifted to another quarter. If man be not naturally depraved, it will be just as difficult to account for bad example as for wickedness itself. Yea, more; bad example is but another name for wickedness. Therefore, to say that general wickedness is the result of general bad example, is the same as to say that general wickedness is the result of general wickedness; or, in other words, the cause of itself, which is a manifest

absurdity. Further, we might ask, how was it, upon this principle, that the first examples of the various species of moral wickedness originated? Whose example taught Cain to hate and murder his brother? Whose example taught the first idolater to worship an idol? And so we might pass over the entire catalogue of vices, and show that, according to this system, they never could have originated. That we are naturally imitative beings, to a great extent, we readily admit; but if this alone leads to a course of wickedness, it would follow, upon the same principle, that there should be quite as much potency in good as in bad example. But, we ask, is this the case? Why did not the piety of righteous Noah lead all his sons and their descendants, from generation to generation, in the pathway of duty and obedience? Again, is it not frequently the case, that the children of pious parents fall into habits of immorality? If example alone shapes their character, surely, the pious example of their parents, which they see almost constantly before their eyes, should be more powerful than the wicked example of others, more remote from them, and perhaps but seldom witnessed. Allow to example all the influence it can possibly wield, still it would follow, that if man is naturally innocent and pure, there should be more virtue than vice in the world; but if, as some contend, the soul is naturally indifferent, a perfect blank, tending neither to good nor evil, then we might expect to find virtue and vice pretty equally balanced. world's history is contradictory to all this.

But the fact of the

2. But now look at the second fact, the strength of the tendency in man to evil. Who has not felt it in his own heart? "When we would do good, evil is present with us." The turbulence of evil passions is such, that the wise man has said, " He that ruleth his spirit is better than he that taketh a city." The strength of this native tendency in man to evil is so great, that to counteract it, an effort is required; the cross must be taken up, right hands cut off, right eyes plucked out, and a violent. warfare upon the impulses of our own nature must be waged. Now, contemplate the absurdity of supposing that bad example could originate this tendency to evil. If such were the case, good example would produce a similar tendency to good; but such is evidently not the fact. The native tendency of the human heart is invariably to sin; so much so, that in no case can it be counteracted but by the "crucifixion" of "the old man."

3. The third fact is, the early appearance of the principles of various vices in children. Although entirely separated from their species, native instinct will lead the young lion or tiger to be fierce and voracious; and with equal certainty, pride, envy, malice, revenge, selfishness, anger and other evil passions, have been found invariably to spring up at a very

early stage in the hearts of children, whatever may have been the example or education with which they have been furnished. Nay, they have more or less frequently exhibited themselves before the opportunity could have been afforded for the influence of example. Now, how can this be accounted for but upon the supposition that the seeds of these vices are sown in our nature?

4. The fourth fact is, that every man is conscious of a natural tendency to many evils. All men are not prone alike to every species of vice. Some have a strong constitutional tendency to pride, others to anger, others to cowardice, others to meanness, and others perhaps to avarice, or sensuality. Now, if we deny the native depravity of man, we necessarily deny this constitutional tendency to one vice more than another; for if man has no native tendency to evil in general, it is clear he can have no native tendency to any particular species of evil. Every whole includes all its parts.

5. The fifth fact is, that general resistance to virtue in the heart, which renders education, influence, watchfulness, and conflict necessary to counteract the force of evil. Vice in the human soul, like noxious weeds in a luxuriant soil, is a spontaneous growth. It only requires to be left alone, and it will flourish. Not so with virtue. Its seeds must be sown, and, like the valuable grains produced by the assiduous care and toil of the husbandman, it requires an early and persevering culture. Hence, the necessity of a careful moral training;- the value of a good education. What powerful influences are requisite to be wielded in the promotion of virtue! Motives of gratitude, interest, honor, benevolence, and every consideration that ought to weigh with an intelligent mind, are presented as incentives to virtue. The closest vigilance is necessary, at every point, to keep the object of good from being entirely forgotten or neglected; and withal, a perpetual conflict must be kept up with surrounding evil, or the thorns and thistles of vice and folly will choke the growth of the good seed, and lay waste the blooming prospect. Why, we ask, is this the case? Deny the doctrine of the native depravity of man, and it is utterly unaccountable. If example were the only influence, and man had no greater tendency to evil than to good, might we not as well expect to find virtue the spontaneous and luxuriant growth, and vice the tender plant, requiring all this toil and care for its preservation and prosperity?

Those who have endeavored to account for these facts on the principle of education, find in their undertaking no less difficulty than those who attribute them to the influence of example. Education, in too many instances, it must be confessed, has been greatly defective; but never so bad as to account for all the evil passions and sinful prac

tices of men. So far from this being the case, its general tendency, defective as it may be, is of an opposite character. Men are generally wicked, not so much for the want of good precept, as in spite of it. Instruction has generally been better than example; so that, if bad example cannot account for the proneness to evil in men, much less can education. Who taught the first murderer his lessons in the crime of shedding his brother's blood? Which of the prevalent vices of mankind had its origin in imparted instruction? What crime is it that can only exist and prevail where special schools are established for its culture? The influence of education, it must be admitted, is very great; but the difficulty to be accounted for is this:- Why is it that man is so ready in the school of vice, and so dull in the school of virtue? Deny the doctrine of our native corruption, and why might we not, with far more reason, expect that education should produce general virtue than general vice? Thus have we seen that experience and observation only confirm the Scripture doctrine of the native and total depravity of man.

QUESTIONS ON LECTURE IX.

QUESTION 1. What is the Pelagian and So- 113. cinian notion of depravity?

2. What other erroneous sentiment has obtained on the subject?

3. What is the true doctrine upon this sub-14. ject?

4. Is man by nature totally depraved?

5. What distorted view of this doctrine have its opponents generally presented?

6. Does total depravity imply depravity in every possible sense, and to the greatest possible extent?

7. In what respects may depravity be understood to be total?

8. Wherein appears the absurdity of representing total depravity as implying depravity in every possible sense and degree?

9. What two positions, already established, form the basis of the first argument

10. How does it appear, that Adam was the natural head and representative of his posterity?

15.

16.

How does it appear that our relation to Adam, our guilt, and our subjection to the penalty of the law, are inseparably connected?

In what way do these facts prove our native and total depravity?

What passages are brought from the

Old Testament to prove this doctrine ? From the New Testament?

17. Do experience and observation confirm this doctrine?

18.

What five obvious facts are here appealed to?

19.

20.

21.

11. Do his posterity stand chargeable with 22. the personal obliquity of his offence?

12. In what two senses is sin taken, according to Dr. Watts ?

How have Pelagians and Socinians endeavored to account for these facts? How does it appear that they only shift, without solving, the difficulty!

If men were naturally holy, what kind of example might we reasonably expect to be most prevalent? If the moral character of man were naturally indifferent to good and evil, what might we expect to be the state of actual character?

How does it appear that education cannot account for these facts? Admitting the influence of education to be ever so great, what would be the great difficulty still remaining?

LECTURE X.

DEPRAVITY-OBJECTIONS, STATE OF INFANTS.

HAVING Contemplated the evidences by which the doctrine of the innate depravity of man is sustained, we propose, in the present lecture, an examination of several DIFFICULTIES, with which the opposers of this doctrine have considered it encumbered.

I. It has been urged by the advocates of original innocence, that this doctrine of total depravity makes God directly the author of sin, by alleging that he has judicially infused into the nature of man a positive evil, taint, or infection, which descends from Adar. to all his posterity.

To this we reply, that, although some advocates of the doctrine have so expressed themselves as to give seeming ground for this objection, yet a close attention to the proper definition of depravity will entirely free the doctrine from any difficulty from this quarter. The doctrine of the native depravity of man, as taught in the Scriptures, does not imply a direct infusion of positive evil from the Almighty. The positive evil here implied is rather the necessary consequence of a privation of moral good; as it has been aptly expressed by some, it is "a depravation resulting from a deprivation."

This view of the subject is sustained by the following remarks from Arminius: " But since the tenor of the covenant into which God entered with our first parents was this, that if they continued in the favor and grace of God, by the observance of that precept and others, the gifts which had been conferred upon them should be transmitted to their posterity by the like Divine grace which they had received; but if they should render themselves unworthy of those favors, through disobedience, that their posterity should likewise be deprived of them, and should be liable to the contrary evils: hence it followed that all men who were to be naturally propagated from them, have become obnoxious to death. temporal and eternal, and have been destitute of that gift of the Holy Spirit, or of original righteousness. This punishment is usually called a privation of the image of God, and original sin. But we allow this point to be made the subject of discussion;-beside the want or absence of original righteousness, may not some other contrary quality be constituted as another part of original sin? We think it is more probable that