As Providence has lately, by removing my situa

tion, deprived me of the pleasure of your company, I hope that defect may be in some measure supplied by writing. The subject of our two last interviews, on the total depravity of human nature, has much occupied my attention. I feel it to be a fundamental principle in religion; it is that, take it how we will, on which almost all other principles are founded. I have objections to your ideas of this doctrine, I confess; and you desired me, when we were last together, to place them in the strongest light I was able. The principal things which have hitherto occurred to me may be reduced to the following heads:

First The Scriptures appear to speak with approbation of some actions performed by unregenerate men, and even God himself is represented as rewarding them. It appears to have been thus in the case of Ahab, when he humbled himself; and the Ninevites, when they repented at the preaching of Jonah; as also in the case of the Young Ruler in the gospel, whom our Lord is represented as having loved; and the discreet Scribe, whom he assured that he was not far from the kingdom of heaven. Now if all the actions of unregenerate men are of the nature of sin, these must have been so; but if these were so, how are we to account for the favourable manner in which they were treated ?

Secondly: The common sense of mankind unites to attribute many excellencies, and amiable qualities, to persons whom, nevertheless, we are obliged, from other parts of their conduct, to consider as destitute of true religion. Is it not right and amiable, even in the sight of God, so far as it goes, that children are dutiful to their parents, and parents affectionate to their children; that men are obedient to the laws, benevolent to the poor, faithful in their connexions, and just in their dealings? And is it not evident to universal observation that these are things which may be found in characters who, nevertheless, by other parts of their conduct, evince themselves to be strangers to true religion?

1

Thirdly Every man is possessed of conscience, which bears witness to him in unnumbered instances of what is right and wrong; and this witness is known -to have considerable influence even on wicked men, so as to impel them to the performance of many good actions, and to deter them from others which are evil.

Fourthly: If all the actions of unregenerate men be not only mixed with sin, but are in their own nature sinful, then whether they eat or drink, or whatever they do, they sin against God: but eating and drinking, in moderation, appear to be mere natural actions, and to have in them neither moral good, nor moral evil.

Lastly: If all the actions of unregenerate men be in their own nature sinful, surely there can be no ground for a ministerial address, no motive by which to exhort them to cease from evil and do good; nor any encouragement afforded them to comply with any thing short of what is spiritually good. It has been very common for even the advocates of salvation by

free grace to distinguish between moral virtue, and true religion; the former they have allowed to exist in a degree in unregenerate men, and have thought it their duty to encourage it, though at the same time they have insisted on the necessity of what is superior to it. But your ideas of total depravity would go to destroy this distinction, and render what has been usually called moral virtue, no virtue. "This, (I remember an ingenious writer once observed,) is not orthodoxy, but extravagance." For my part, I would not speak so strong; yet I cannot but say, you seem to carry things to an extreme. I am free to own, however, that I feel the difficulty of answering what you advanced in the last dialogue. Every truth is doubtless consistent with other truths. Happy should I be to obtain satisfying and consistent views on this important subject.

Some religious people hereabouts, to whom I have repeated the substance of our conversations, do not at all appear to be interested by them. They seem to me to be contented with a confused and superficial view of things. I wish I could transfer my feelings to them. Did they but know the worth of just sentiments in religion, they would thin! no labour too great to obtain them. They seem to be averse to the pain which accompanies a state of hesitation and suspense, and therefore decline to examine all those difficult subjects which would produce it: But then they are of course equally unacquainted with the pleasure which arises from the solution of these difficulties, and from obtaining clear and satisfactory.views of divine subjects. Surely it were criminal' indolence in us, as well as meanness, if, rather than be at the trouble of drawing from a deep well, we are contented to sip

muddy waters from any puddle that presents itself. Your answer to the above will much oblige,

Your affectionate friend,

CRISPUS.

LETTER THE SECOND.

On the Total Depravity of Human Nature.

149

[In Reply to the Objections of CRISPUS.]

My Dear Friend,

I

RECEIVED yours with pleasure. It is quite agreeable to me to supply, as well as may be, the defect of personal intercourse by a free and friendly correspondence. Your thirst after truth is pleasing.Would to God we were all more of that temper which seeks for wisdom with the ardour of those who dig for hidden treasures! I intend it not as a mere compliment, when I say, that you have stated your objections to the doctrine of total depravity, in as plausible a manner as I ever recollect to have seen them. I will endeavour to give them all the weight they possess.

The point in dispute betwixt us, you will observe, is, Whether an unregenerate sinner can be said to perform any part of his duty, or to obtain in any measure, the approbation of his Maker? And I hope you will consider that this is, for substance, the same thing as, Whether the carnal mind be wholly enmity against God, or whether it be in any measure subject to the law of God, or indeed can be? You allow, I think, that whatever excellencies such characters possess, the love of God is not in them, no, not in any degree.

Their amiable qualities, therefore, be they what they may, must be something quite distinct from love, or any of its operations. But as love is the fulfilling of the law, it must comprehend the whole of moral excellence; and consequently there can be no moral excellence in the sight of God without it.

You first reason from the cases of Ahab, the Ninevites, the young man whom our Lord is said to have loved, and the scribe who was declared to be not far from the kingdom of heaven. In answer to which, I would observe: Though the great God knoweth the secrets of all hearts, yet in the government of the world he does not always proceed upon this principle. He has sometimes thought fit to reward men for their actions, not because he approved of them as actions of theirs, but merely because they tended to subserve his own great and wise designs. God rewarded Nebuchadnezzar for his long siege against Tyre, by giving him the land of Egypt; yet Nebuchadnezzar did nothing in this undertaking which in its own nature could approve itself to God. The only reason why he was thus rewarded was, that what he had done subserved the divine purposes in punishing Tyre for her insulting treatment towards the people of God *. God also rewarded Cyrus with the treasures of Babylon, the hidden riches of secret places, as they are called f, not because Cyrus did any thing that was pleasing in his sight; his motive was the lust of dominion: but because what he did effected. the deliverance of Judah, and fulfilled the divine predictions upon Babylon.

And as, in the great system of the divine government, actions may be rewarded which have no appearance of innate goodness; so others may be re+ Isa, xlv. 3.

* Ezek. xxvi. 1-7. xxix. 17. 20.