variance with several of the foregoing schemes, is nearer akin to them than its advocates are willing to admit. If the love of God and man be left out of our religion, it matters but little what we substitute in its place. Whether it go by the name of reason or superstition, religious ceremony or evangelical liberty, all is delusion; all arises from the same source, and tends to the same issue. Good men may in a degree have been beguiled, and for a time carried away with these winds of false doctrine; but I speak of things, and their natural tendencies, not of persons. In short, we may safely consider it as a criterion by which any doctrine may be tried if it be unfriendly to the moral law, it is not of God, but proceedeth from the father of lies.

Crispus. What you have observed seems very clear and very affecting but I have heard it remarked, that some of these systems naturally attach their adherents to the works of the law.

Gaius. This is very true; but there is a wide difference be tween an attachment to the law, and an attachment to the works of the law as the ground of eternal life; as much as between the spirit of a faithful servant, who loves his master, loves his family, loves his service, and never wishes to go out free; and that of a slothful servant, who though he hates his master, hates his family, hates his employment, and never did him any real service, yet has the presumption to expect his reward.

Crispus. This distinction seems of great importance, as it serves to reconcile those scriptures which speak in favour of the law, and those which speak against an attachment to the works of it.

Gaius. It is the same distinction, only in other words, which has commonly been made respecting the law as a rule of life, and

as a covenant.

Crispus. Will you be so obliging as to point out a few of the consequences of denying the law to be the rule of life, and representing it as at variance with the gospel?

Gaius. First: This doctrine directly militates against all those scriptures which speak in favour of the moral law, and afford us an honourable idea of it; such as the following:-O how I love thy law!-The law is holy, and the commandment is holy, just, and

good.—I come not to destroy the law, but to fulfil it.—Do we make

void the law through faith? God forbid; Yea, we establish the law.—I delight in the law of God after the inner man.—I with my mind serve the law of God. Secondly: This doctrine reflects upon God himself for having given a law under one dispensation, which is at variance with a gospel given under another. Thirdly: It justifies the sinner in the breach of the law. There can be no evil in sin, but in proportion to the goodness of that law of which it is a transgression. Fourthly: It is in direct opposition to the life and death of the Saviour. By the former he obeyed its precepts, by the latter endured its penalty, and by both declared it to be holy, just, and good. Every reflection, therefore, upon the moral law, is a reflection upon Christ. Fifthly: It strikes at the root of all personal religion, and opens the flood-gates to iniquity. Those who imbibe this doctrine talk of being sanctified in Christ, in such a manner as to supercede all personal and progressive sanctification in the believer.

DIALOGUE VIII.

ON HUMAN DEPRAVITY.

Crispus. I thank you, Gaius, for your observations on various important subjects; and now, if agreeable, I should be glad of your thoughts on the painful but interesting subject of human depravity.

Gaius. An interesting subject indeed! Perhaps there is no one truth in the scriptures, of a more fundamental nature with respect to the gospel-way of salvation. I never knew a person verge toward the Arminian, the Arian, the Socinian, or the Antinomian schemes, withont first entertaining diminutive notions of human depravity, or blame-worthiness.

Crispus. Wherein do you conceive depravity to consist?

Gaius. In the opposite to what is required by the divine law. Crispus. The sum of the divine law is love; the essence of depravity then must consist in the want of love to God and our neighbour; or in setting up some other object, or objects, to the exclusion of them.

Gaius. True; and perhaps it will be found that all the objects set up in competition with God and our neighbour may be reduced to one, and that is self. Private self-love seems to be the root of depravity, the grand succedaneum in human affections to the love of God and man. Self-admiration, self-will, and self-righteousness are but different modifications of it. Where this prevails, the creature assumes the place of the Creator, and seeks his own gratification, honour, and interest, as the ultimate end of all his actions. Hence, when the Apostle describes men under a variety of wicked characters, the first link in the chain is-lovers of their ownselves. VOL. IV.

6

Hence also the first and grand lesson in the Christian school is-to deny ourselves.

Crispus. Almost all evangelical writers, I believe, have considered men as utterly depraved; and that not by education, or any accidental cause or causes, but by nature, as they are born into the world.

Garus. They have. This was manifestly the doctrine generally embraced at the Reformation, and which has been maintained by the advocates for salvation by sovereign grace, in every age. Crispus. Yet one should think, if men were totally depraved, they would be all, and always alike wicked.

Gaius. If by total depravity you mean that men are so corrupt as to be incapable of adding sin to sin, I know of no person who maintains any such sentiment. All I mean by the term is this: That the human heart is by nature totally destitute of love to God, or love to man as the creature of God, and consequently is destitute of all true virtue. A being may be utterly destitute of good, and therefore totally depraved. (such, it will be allowed, is Satan,) and yet be capable of adding iniquity to iniquity without end.

Crispus. I should be glad if you would point out a few of the principal evidences on which the doctrine of human depravity is founded.

Gaius. The principal evidences that strike me at this time may be drawn from the four following sources: scripture testimony, history, observation, and experience.

Crispus. What do you reckon the principal scripture testimonies on this subject?

Garus Those passages which expressly teach it; such as the following:-And Goa saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.— God looked down from heaven upon the children of men, to see if there were any that did understand, that did seek God. Every one of them is gone back, they are altogether become filthy: There is none that doeth good, no not one.-Both Jews and Gentiles are all under sin; as it is written, There is none righteous, no not one. Destruction and misery are in their ways; and the ways of peace have they not known. There is no fear of

God before their eyes. The carnal mind is enmity against God for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be.—The whole world lieth in wickedness.-Among whom also we all had our conversation in times past, in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind; and were by nature the children of wrath, even as others.-Those passages also which teach the necessity of regeneration. If men were not essentially depraved, a reformation might suffice; but if all be corrupt, the whole fabric must be taken down: Old things must pass away, and all things must become new.

Crispus. What evidence do you derive from history in favour of this doctrine?

Gaius. If our limits would allow us to survey the history of mankind, from their first apostacy to this day, the amount would go to prove what the scriptures affirm-that the whole earth lieth in wickedness. The circumstances and changes among mankind have been various. They have greatly differed in their manners, customs, and religions: one age has established what another has demolished; in some ages they have been enveloped in ignorance, in others irradiated by science; but in all ages, and in all circumstances, they have been alienated from the love of God.

Crispus. The history of the world, though it appear to favour the doctrine in question, yet seems to be too large and complicate an object to be viewed distinctly. Suppose you were to single out one nation as a specimen of the whole.

Gaius. Very well; and suppose this one nation to have been attended above all others with mercies and judgments, divine laws, special interpositions, and every thing that could have any tendency to meliorate the hearts of men.

Crispus. You seem to have in view the nation of Israel.

Gaius. I have; and the rather because I consider this nation as designed of God to afford a specimen of human nature. The Divine Being singled them out, crowned them with goodness, strengthened them with the tenderest encouragements, awed them with the most tremendous threatnings, wrought his wonderful works before their eyes, and inspired his servants to give us a faithful history of their character. I need not repeat what this