The theory reprobated seems to forbid all radical work in the matter of moral renovation. It teaches the parent an utterly fallacious mode of procedure, in regard to the moral training of his child. Taking it for granted, that the heart of his child is pure by nature, his single aim is to keep it pure: to save it from "the evil that is in the world." The corrupter is not suffered to come near the angel object of his affections. The very atmosphere is purified around him. And still in due season (and early indeed is that season,) evil displays itself, corruption breaks forth, and the amazed guardian asks, "Whence hath he these things," seeing that he came not into contact with the wicked and the wickedness of the world? I will answer you, O parent! His heart was cONSTITUTIONALLY corrupt, and you knew it not. It was not good ground by nature; yet you presumed upon the excellence of its soil, and the value of its spontaneous product. This is the natural result; thorns and briars, tares and weeds; a harvest of iniquity here, maturing for the fire of judgment hereafter.

And in reference to adults, the same theory is dangerous, because it assigns a wrong cause of personal corruption, and proscribes an utterly ineffectual discipline of amendment. It saith, Fear not for your hearts, they are good enough. There is dignity, nobleness, generous virtue in nature; but take care of others, they will mislead and

destroy you! The scriptural caution would, however, be this, (and never may my lips utter or my pen commend another,)—take heed of the evil without. "Go not into the way of evil men,' for their "communications may corrupt good morals;" but especially take heed to yourselveslook well to the heart. By nature "it is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked:" grace must renew it, and its renewal prepare it for salvation.

The difference, then, between the two theorics is one of life and death. It involves the eternal interests of undying spirits. It is confessed on all sides, that the malignant pestilence of sin abounds, and speeds unnumbered souls to the second death. He who contends for its invariably foreign origin, who asserts, that by its infectious nature it is transmitted from realm to realm, from nation to nation, from man to man, and that, like the plague which desolates the East, it may be barred out by closing every door of communication with the external world, by excluding the atmosphere impregnated with death, surely overlooks the primary, proximate, and most formidable danger in his anxiety to provide against that which is secondary and more remote; while he who acts upon the principle, that although direct communication with others in whom it is rife, may accelerate its developement, and increase its malignity; still it is also self-originant, a disease which

springs up as it were from the very ground of our evil hearts, and congenial with the atmosphere which we individually breathe-will surely be doubly watchful," doubly armed." He will be on his guard against evil, both from without and within. The bark that would convey the infection from abroad shall find with him no harbour; while the causes and the symptoms of internal corruption will all be sought out and obviated. Which ever theory be supposed to be true, or though both be true, still he will be safe. His creed secures him. His spiritual city will not be made desolate. He will be as completely "separate from sinners," as though he were himself a saint, yet as watchful over self as though he were "the chief of sinners." And thus, although depraved in nature, and living in a corrupt and corrupting world, by watchfulness, prayer, and Christian circumspection, through the grace of God he will be enabled to "live godly, righteously, and soberly in this present world," "perfecting holiness in the fear of God."

CHAPTER V.

THE DEGREE OF DEPRAVITY.

"The wickedness of man was great in the earth, and every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually."

"From the sole of the foot, even unto the head, there is no soundness in it."

"For I know that in me, (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing."

"For the good that I would, I do not."

THUS far I will trust that the convictions of most of my readers have gone with me. Naturally and very greatly depraved we evidently are. This the Scripture declares, and experience verifies. Had men been content to stop here it had been well. The witness found in every breast, and the proofs glaring upon every eye, would almost have precluded opposition; leaving few to gainsay, and to these few no handle of objection.

It is the going beyond the warranty of Scripture, and the plain facts of the case, that has laid open the whole doctrine of depravity to reproach; and induced many to deny, in any degree, altogether, that which they could not admit to an

unlimited extent. The unauthorized assertion of that one specific, settling word, total, has probably done as much to prejudice men against even the sober statement of their depravity, as all the rank opposition of sceptic minds or ungodly hearts. My objections are to the phraseology used, rather than to the doctrine really intended.

The term total leads to misapprehension, expressing more than is intended to be expressed.

The term is exclusive, superlative; while the fact is held with certain reserves, exceptions, and modifications. To be consistent, either the doctrine should be avowed without qualification, or, if this may not be, the term should be restricted to the measure of the doctrine. Language loses all its precision, and ceases to be the just representative of thought, if the terms applied indicate either more or less than the mind intended. The question of consistency must be settled by those who use the term: their own explanations and modifications, however, relieve me from the necessity of combating at length the doctrine of totality in corruption: into the needless and fruitless controversy concerning which I have no desire to enter. A few of the inconsistencies which it involves may be mentioned in passing.

1. Total depravity, in strictness of speech, would be a perfectly hopeless and irremediable state. There would be left nothing to which a successful and saving appeal could be made;