by the magnitude of our endowments and the magnificence of our churches. The Synod of 1826 was weak in its wealth and its constituency, but it was glorious in its missionary zeal and self-denial. The Synod of 1876, inspired with the spirit of the men of '26, have numbers, intelligence, organization, wealth, force to make our church "fair as the moon, clear as the sun, and terrible as an army with banners." With not an exception, the ministers who met in Vincennes just fifty years ago, are gone. A year ago our venerable Johnston was the sole survivor, but he, too, has fallen asleep, full of years and glory. Brown, Scott, Bush, Hall, Dickey, Crowe and Giddings had all been summoned away, and Johnston alone lingered. And now he, too, has taken his departure to join the fellowship of the saints in heaven. And if we add another decade, bringing our church down to that period when she was about to be met by divisions, we find that the fathers who belonged to that pioneer period, with only here and there an exception, have joined the great church on the other side of the flood. A few men remain, crowned with the glories of long service in this field, like Carnahan, and Hovey, and Mills, and Chase, and Henry Little, and Hawley, and Kent, and Stewart, and Scott. But, one by one, they are passing away. We have just laid in his own new tomb the remains of our St. John, our dear and venerable Post, and also our patriarchal Ross. And thus they pass away into the heavens, but as the fathers of our church-the pioneers-leave to us the work they so well begun; and we shall prove our admiration of them by carrying forward with great zeal and power the work they loved and ennobled, to a glory they never dreamed of.

Art. V. TOTAL DEPRAVITY.

BY HENRY A. NELSON, D. D., Geneva, N. Y.

ASSUMING that human nature, as found in every individual specimen of it, is depraved, the degree or the intensity of this depravation becomes a subject of serious inquiry. If all mankind are morally and spiritually depraved, to what extent, or in what degree, are they so? If we must confess that our human depravity is universal, must we couple with this the confession that it is total? As God's ambassadors to men, must we not only affirm the universal depravity of mankind, but must we also insist that it is a total depravity?

In the very beginning of such an inquiry it behooves us to remember that what is true on this subject is likely to be offensive to those of whom it is true--to men generally-to ourselves. There can be no reasonable doubt that mankind are much more depraved than it is pleasant to them to believe or to be told. We certainly have a natural pride which repels the imputation of depravity, of perverseness, of sin. We ought not to think it strange if the natural pride of our hearts renders it difficult to accept the view of ourselves which our understandings may find to be actually given in the Bible. This liability is well stated by Dr. McCosh: "We are afraid to examine ourselves, lest humbling disclosures should be made. And when we have the courage to examine our hearts, prejudice dims the eyes, vanity distorts the objects seen, the treacherous memory brings up only the fair and flattering side of the picture, and the deceived judgment denies the sinful action, explains away the motives, or excuses the deed in the circumstances."

In all human jurisprudence this liability to too favorable judgment of ourselves is recognized and guarded against. Nothing could be proposed which would universally be pronounced more absurd than to allow any man a place on a jury - whose verdict would involve a judgment upon his own character. All literature, and all conversation, are pervaded by the sentiment that no power has gifted us, or is likely to gift us, with the ability "to see ourselves as others see us," or to see

*Divine Government, p. 362.

ourselves altogether as we are. It clearly is our duty to be carefully on our guard against prejudice in favor of ourselves, while we study the question now proposed.

The teachers of religion must also be faithful to the doctrine of the Bible as they find it, however distasteful it may be to those to whom they are sent. The surgeon must acquire fortitude to cut steadily and firmly, undeterred by the writhings or the cries of his patient. True kindness requires this of him. On the other hand, no doubt, this is a subject on which the truth may be spoken with unnecessary harshness; may be presented in a manner and in language needlessly offensive. Thus may hearers or readers be prevented from attending to truth, which it is necessary for them to receive in order to that conviction of sin without which they will not seek the Saviour.

It is our duty to understand this truth so thoroughly, and to learn to state it so justly and so well, that, on the one hand, we shall not needlessly repel men from the consideration of it; nor, on the other hand, shall we explain it away, take all its own proper pungency out of it, and reduce it to a soul-destroying opiate. With such care, and in such a spirit, let us proceed with the inquiry, Are all mankind by nature totally depraved? I. It is not true that all mankind are depraved in the highest degree that is possible. In other words, it is not true that all are as bad as they can be. This is not true, indeed, of any one of the race. On the contrary, the Scriptures themselves affirm of some very bad men, that they are still growing worse. "But evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving and being deceived."-2 Tim. iii: 13. This would clearly be impossible if they were already as bad as they are capable of becoming.

2. It is not true that all mankind are equally bad. Many passages of Scripture indicate various degrees of sinfulness or ill-desert in different persons and classes of persons. Particularly the scriptural representations of God's judgment show that it will be a discriminating judgment; that in the day of judgment it will be "more tolerable" for some than for others. -Matt. xi: 20, 24, x: 15. xii: 41, 42.

3. It is not true that every movement of unregenerate human nature is, per se, sinful. We have the record of our Saviour being much pleased with a man of whom, neverthe

less, He said that he "lacked one thing"; and the sequel constrains us to think that it was a fatal defect in his character. Mark x 21.

was

Says Dr. McCosh: "Does any man stand up and say, I in a virtuous state at such and such a time, when I was defending the helpless and relieving the distressed? We admit at once that these actions are becoming.

If we could judge these actions apart from the agent, we should unhesitatingly approve of them."*

Some one may say that if we cannot judge the actions apart from the agent, we have no right to judge the agent except by his actions, and that even God will judge every man "accord. ing to his deeds." This is true, for it is Scripture. But, doubtless, it is the whole of a man's deeds by which God will judge him, and we ourselves may find reason to question, in many particular cases, whether a man's doing a particular virtuous deed proves him to be, even at that time, in a soundly virtuous

state.

4. It is true of every unrenewed man that the ruling principle of his life is wrong. In the last analysis this ruling principle has ascendency over the whole man, over all the powers and susceptibilities of his being, and penetrates with its pernicious influence his entire character. The tendency of one in such a condition obviously is to grow worse. The natural proclivity is to evil. We are held back from this, or lifted out of it, only by some gracious power coming upon us from without ourselves; coming down upon us from above. The most amiable of young men, the most lovely of young women, the sweetest babe that smiles back its mother's smile, if left forever to the purely natural development of what is in it by nature, will (we have scriptural reason to believe) become as bad as Satan. The leprosy may yet have appeared only in one small, faint spot; nay, to human eyes it may yet be quite invisible, but being in the system, its malign power is equal to the fearful work of corrupting every member and organ, and reducing the whole body to a mass of loathsomeness. It possesses the whole body, and in due time will assert its possession. So does sin reign over the whole man. So does it possess and corrupt

*Divine Government, p. 360.

man's entire nature. Gen. vi:5; Prov. xxi:4; Eccl. viii: 2; Rom. vii: 18, viii: 7; 1 Cor. ii: 14.

We have spoken of the ruling principle of the unregenerate man's life being wrong, and vitiating his whole character. It is not unreasonable to ask us what that wrong ruling principle is. It may not be possible to give any simple and brief answer which is not liable to convey an erroneous impression. If required to answer in one word, the word shall be selfishness. We would define this as supreme regard for self. Yet it is not a regard for one's own true welfare. It often involves reckless disregard of this, or mad shutting of the eyes to it, and rushing on destruction, giving one's self up to present gratification, however destructive that gratification may be known to be. It is doubtful whether there has ever lived a more unselfish man, save the man Christ Jesus, than he who wrote as the foremost of his seventy famous resolutions, "Resolved, that I will do whatsoever I think to be most to God's glory, and my own good, profit and pleasure, ON THE WHOLE; without any consideration of the time, whether now, or never so many millions of ages hence; to do whatever I think to be my duty, and most for the good and advantage of mankind in general, whatever difficulties I meet with, how many and how great soever.' No selfish man ever had such a wise regard for his own welfare, ON THE WHOLE.

Perhaps we should be viewing our subject more advantageously from the opposite direction, viz.: if we should consider the want of any right governing principle in the natural man. Such a system of powers as the human soul is, working on evermore without a right governing principle, is as fearful an example of organized disorder as can be imagined.

We may not all agree in our statements of what should be the governing principle of the human soul. The difficulty of agreement, however, will be found with reference to the ultimate ground of obligation, and not in respect to the rule for man's practical guidance. That the will of God is right in every case, none will question, whether they think that right is constituted by his will, or is determined by his nature, or is the eternal principle to which his will and his nature eternally conform, and therefore deserve the supreme regard which he

*Life of Pres. Edwards.