cannot repent; when they hear the doctrine of the new birth, darkened by words without knowledge, when every thing is covered with mystery; the depravity of nature, the infusion of a new holy taste or principle; the mysterious and mystical nature of sin and holiness, of depravity and of regeneration; this confounding of mind and matter, of body and soul, of heaven, and earth, and hell; they look upon it as unphilosophical, ridiculous, absurd and impossible; they turn away from such a loathsome exhibition of it, as something impossible for them to understand, and conclude that it is all a dream.

12. It is easy to see why 'revivals do not, and cannot prevail more extensively than they do. There is such a sticklishness on the part of many, for these crippling errors; such a constant effort to maintain these traditions of the elders, as to paralyze the influence of a great portion of the church. Many good men are halting and doubting whether they should reject them or not; and they are in that state of "betweenity," that they can heartily exhibit neither one thing nor the other. Many come out boldly, and strenuously, and hold up those dogmas, and while these are the topics continually held before the mind, it cannot be expected that revivals should prevail. It is true, that men have had great and powerful revivals who have held and sometimes exhibited these views; but it was not when they exhibited them, that their preaching took effect. But when happily they were inconsistent enough to lay aside these peculiarities, and come out with the pressure of the gospel upon the hearts and consciences of men. Take a parable. A lady who had been a long time under conviction, had often called on her minister, to know what she should do to be saved. He had as often reminded her of her helplessness, and dependance upon God; exhorted her to pray, and use the means, and wait patiently for God to change her heart. On the Sabbath, he would frequently call upon sinners to repent; but before he closed would be sure to caution them against self-confidence, depending upon their own strength; and would solemnly remind them that they had no power of themselves to repent and emorace the gospel. But one day, when this agonized woman was present, he happily forgot his accustomed inconsistency, and after pressing

sinners to immediate repentance, sat down without the usual addition that they could not. Before the last hymn had concluded, the gospel had done its work in the woman's heart; and after the congregation was dismissed, she was observed to stand weeping and waiting as he passed out to speak with him. As soon as he came near enough she exclaimed, my dear Mr. why did you not tell me of this before? Tell you of this before, replied the astonished pastor, why I have declared it to you every Sabbath. Yes, she replied, but always until now, you told me before you set down, that I could not repent. I hope said the pastor you have not gone on in your own strength; no, she replied, not in my own, but in the strength of God I have repented, and should have done it before had you not told me that I could not. This is the legiti mate tendency of cannotism, if they believe it, they certainly will not repent; and how can revivals prevail, how can the world be converted, while so many are vehemently contending for these traditions of the elders. These dogmas, are exalted into fundamental doctrines, and they are supposed to be heretics, who do not keep these traditions. Well might Christ turn upon them with the rebuke, "wherefore do ye make void the commandment of God by your traditions." Oh! when will the day arrive, when the spurious philosophy upon which these dogmas are based, shall be given up? When unanimity of sentiment, and clearness of views, and brotherly love shall prevail? then will righteousness run down our streets, and salvation as an overflowing stream.

11

1

SERMON IV.

TOTAL DEPRAVITY.

JOHN V. 42.-" But I know you, that ye have not the love of God in you."

THESE words were addressed by the Lord Jesus Christ, on a certain occasion, to those who professed that they loved God. I design, this morning, and in the afternoon, to establish the doctrine of total depravity.

In doing this, I design, in the first place to show what the doctrine of total depravity, is not.

And secondly, what it is:

And thirdly, to prove the doctrine, according to the definition. which I shall give of it.

And to conclude each discourse, with such remarks as shall appear appropriate, and necessary.

First. I am to show, what the doctrine of total depravity is not. 1st. It does not consist in any want of faculties to obey God. We have all the powers of moral agency, that are needed to render perfect obedience to God. If there were any want of faculties, in our nature, our responsibility would cease; and we could not be justly blamed, for not doing that, for the performance of which, we do not possess the appropriate moral powers.

2dly. Total depravity does not consist, in a mutilated state of our moral powers. Neither our powers of body, or mind, are in a maimed, or mutilated state. If they were so, our obligation to obedience, would be diminished, precisely in proportion to the imperfection of the faculties of moral agency, which we possess.

3dly. Total depravity, does not consist, in any physical pollution transmitted from Adam, or from our ancestors, to us. It is impossible that moral depravity, should consist in physical pollu

tion. Some persons have spoken of depravity, and of the pollu tions of our nature, as if there were some moral depravity cleaving to, or incorporated with, the very substance of our being. Now this is to talk utter nonsense. If such a depravity were possible, it would not be moral, but physical depravity. It could not be a depravity for which we were blame-worthy. It could not be a sinful depravity. It would be a disease, and not a crime. But again, 4thly. Total depravity, does not consist, in any principle of sin, that is incorporated with our being. The word principle, is used in two senses. It sometimes means a property,

or an attribute, of a substance, which has an inherent tendency to produce results agreeable to its nature. In this sense, depravity is not a principle, it is not a root, or sprout, or essence, or property, or attribute of any substance. It makes no part, either of body or mind. It does not belong to the constitution, but belongs purely, and exclusively to character: Moral depravity is a quality of voluntary action, and not of substance. If by principle, is meant purpose, preference, disposition, voluntary inclination to sin; then, in this sense, depravity is a principle; and in no other sense. 5th. By total depravity, is not meant, that any being is, or can be, sinful, before he has exercised the powers of moral agency.

6th. By total depravity, I do not mean, that there is any sin, in human beings, or in any other beings, separate from actual transgression.

I do not mean, that there is some constitutional depravity, which lies back, and is the cause of actual transgression.

7th. I do not mean, by total depravity, that there is the same disposition to sin, belonging to the substance of body or mind, that there is in a serpent to bite, or in a wolf to devour sheep. In other words, I do not mean, that there is a constitutional appetite, or craving for sin, implanted in the substance, of the body or mind.

8th. By total depravity, I do not mean, that men are as bad, as they can be, or as they might be, under other circumstances. If they were placed under circumstances, of less restraint, or of greater temptation, they would doubtless be worse than they are.

When we say, that men are totally depraved, we are sometimes