Images de page
PDF
ePub

LETTER III.

ON THE TOTAL DEPRAVITY OF HUMAN NATURE.

[A further reply to the objections of Crispus.]

K, Feb..9, 1795.

My dear Friend,

I TAKE UP my pen to answer some other of your objections, as stated in yours of July 3, 1794. You not only reason from the case of Ahab, the Ninevites, &c. but, secondly, from the common sense of mankind, which attributes amiable qualities to persons whom nevertheless, on other accounts, we are obliged to consider as destitute of true religion. But let me intreat you to consider whether the common sense of one man can take cognizance of the motives which govern the actions of another; and whether therefore it can be any competent judge of the acceptableness of his actions in the sight of God, who sees things as they are. All the morality in the world consists in the love of God and our neighbour. There is not a virtue, nor a virtuous action in being but what is an expression of love; yet, as there are numberless actions which bear a likeness to those which arise from love, and as it is beyond the province of man to take cognizance of the heart, it is common for us to call those actions amiable which appear to be so, and which are beneficial to human society. It is fit we should do so; otherwise we invade the province of the Supreme Being, who alone is able so to judge of actions as perfectly to ascertain their motives. He is the God of knowledge, by whom actions are weighed.

It is right, no doubt, that children should be dutiful to their parents, parents affectionate to their children, and that every rela

tion of life should be filled up with fidelity and honour. But these duties require to be discharged in the love of God, not without it: nor is there any duty performed, strictly speaking, where the love of God is wanting. Read those parts of Paul's epistles, where he exhorts to relative duties, and you will find that he admonishes children to obey their parents in the Lord; parents to bring up their children in the nurture and admonition of the Lord; servants to obey their masters in singleness of heart, as unto Christ; and masters to be just and kind unto their servants, as having an eye to their master in heaven-adding, And whatsoever ye do, do it heartily, as to the Lord, and not unto men. Now all those persons whose behaviour may appear to be amiable in such relations, but who have not the love of God in them, do what they do, merely as anto men; and, consequently, fly in the face of the apostolic exhortation, instead of complying with it, even in the least degree.

I an

It may me asked, If a merely external compliance with relative duties be a sin, would the omission of them be any better? swer, No; but worse. There are as has been allowed before, different degrees of sin. To perform an action which tends to the good of society from a wrong motive, is sin; but to neglect to perform it, or to perform one of an opposite tendency, is a greater sin. In the one case we sin against God; in the other, against both God and our neighbour.

:

Thirdly You allege, that "every man is possessed of conscience, which bears witness to him in numberless 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." To this I answer, (1.) Conscience though necessary to the performance of both good and evil, does not partake of either the one or the other. Conscience is that branch of the intellectual faculty which takes cognizance of the good and evil of our own actions; but is itself distinct from both. It is simple knowledge, essential indeed to moral agency, being one of the principal things by which we are distinguished from the brute creation; but, as all duty is contained in love, good and evil must consist entirely in the temper or disposition of the heart; and the

mere dictates of conscience including no such dispositions, neither good nor evil can, strictly speaking, be predicated of them. Neither men nor devils will ever cease to possess consciences, witnessing to them what is good and evil, even in a world of misery, when, as all must allow, they will be utterly destitute of virtue or goodness. We read, it is true, of a good conscience, and an evil conscience, of a conscience seared as with a hot iron, &c. and so we read of an evil eye, of eyes full of adultery that cannot cease from sin: but, as there is neither good nor evil in the sight of the eye, only as it is under the influence of the temper or disposition of the soul, so neither is there in the dictates of conscience. If there be any virtue or goodness in wicked men, it consists not in their knowledge of the difference between good and evil; but with complying with the one, and avoiding the other.-(2.) That compliance with the dictates of conscience of which wicked men are the subjects, has nothing of the love of God in it; and consequently no real virtue. While conscience suggests what is duty, a variety of motives may induce men to comply with it, or rather with those actions which are usually the expressions of it; such as, self-interest, a sense of honour, the fear of reproach in this world, and of divine wrath in another and while they act in this manner, they are considered as acting conscientiously; but if love be the fulfilling of the law, where love is wanting, the law is not fulfilled; no, not in the least degree.

:

Fourthly You allege that "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 that eating and drinking in moderation appear to be natural actions, and contain neither moral good nor moral evil." When I affirm that all the actions of unregenerate men are sinful, I would be understood by actions to mean all voluntary exercises, and which are capable of being performed to a good end. Whatever is capable of being so performed is not a mere natural, but a moral action. That eating and drinking, and every other voluntary exercise, are moral actions, is evident; for we are exhorted, whether we eat or drink, or whatsoever we do, to do all to the glory of God. In an irrational being, it is true, these would

be mere natural actions; but in a moral agent they are not so; and the manner in which they are attended to renders them either good or evil. Every rational creature performs these actions either to the glory of God, (that is, that he may be strengthened to serve the Lord, and do good in his generation,) or he does not. If he do, they are virtuous; if not, there is a criminal defect in the end of them and, as the end or intent of an action is that which determines its nature, that which otherwise would have been lawful and laudable becomes sinful. To plow the soil is as much a natural action as eating and drinking; yet, as all such actions are performed by wicked men for mere selfish purposes, without any regard to God and the general good, they become sinful in the sight of God; and hence we read that the plowing of the wicked is sin.

Lastly: You allege, that "if these principles be true, there can be no ground for a ministerial address; no motive by which to exhort unregenerate men to cease from evil, and do good; nor any encouragement for them to comply with any thing short of what is spiritually good." If you mean to say that ministers, on this account, can entertain no well-founded hope of success from the pliability of men's hearts, I fully grant it. Our expectations must rest upon the power and promise of God, and these alone, or we shall be disappointed. But if you mean to suggest that therefore all addresses to unregenerate sinners, exhorting them to do good, are unreasonable, this is more than can be admitted. If a total depravity would take away all ground for a rational address, a partial one would take it away in part; and then in proportion as we see men disinclined to goodness, we are to cease warning and expostulating with them! But this is self-evident absurdity. The truth is, while men are rational beings they are accountable for all they do, whatever be the inclination of their hearts; and so long as they are not consigned to hopeless perdition, they are the subjects of a gospel address. Nor can it be affirmed with truth, that there are no motives for them on which they can be exhorted to cease to do evil, or learn to do well: the motives to these things exist in all their native force, independently of the inclination or disinclination of their hearts to comply with them. Nor is the

« PrécédentContinuer »