dren of wrath even as others. But God, who is rich in mercy, før his great love wherewith he loved us, even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ. By grace are ye saved!I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy; and will have compassion on whom I will have compassion !--He hath saved us, and called us with an holy calling; not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began. Fifthly: If your views be just, the justification of sinners by the work of their hands utterly falls to the ground. The foundation on which sinners in general build their hopes is something like this: They have more virtue than vice, more good works than evil ones that, as none are without fault, (and which they conceive affords a good excuse for them,) God will not be strict to mark iniquity; but will weigh the good against the evil, and so balance the account! But if all the works of unregenerate sinners be of the nature of sin, there is an end to all hope of being accepted of God on their own account. When ministers have endeavoured to dissuade sinners from a reliance on their own righteousness, I have heard them reason to this effect: 'Your good deeds are all mixed with evil, and therefore cannot be acceptable to God.' This I acknowledge is just, and that the least mixture of sin is an eternal bar to our being justified by our own righteousness but methinks if they could have alleged that all their works were essentially and entirely evil, their arguments must have been more effectual, as to the cutting up of self-righteous hopes. And such a doctrine would leave no room for the supposition of Christ dying to render our imperfect but sincere obedience acceptable to God, instead of that which is perfect: for, in this case, the idea of imperfect sincere endeavours in unregenerate men is inadmisible-there are no such endeavours in existence. These things I have been used to believe in time past; but if the principle in question be admitted, I find such solid grounds on which to rest them, as I never felt before. I shall leave you to conclude the subject and remain Affectionately yours, CRISPUS. LETTER V. CONSEQUENCES RESULTING FROM THE DOCTRINE OF HUMAN DE PRAVITY. [From Gaius to Crispus.] K-, April 9, 1795. My dear Friend, Ir any thing I have advanced in the course of our correspondence has been of use to you, I am satisfied. The inferences which you have drawn from the doctrine of total depravity, as far as they go, appear to me to be just. I shall offer a few others in addition to them and as I have some other necessary employments which require my attention, you will excuse me, if I propose with these, for the present, to close our correspondence. Your inferences relate to the bearings of the doctrine of total depravity on the Socinian and Arminian schemes; mine shall concern what I should call the Pseudo-Calvinistic scheme, or that view of the doctrines commonly called Calvinistical, which induces many, in the present day, to disapprove of all exhortations to sinners, except to merely external obedience, or things which contain in them nothing truly or spiritually good. If the foregoing principle be just, three things at least will follow; namely—that the distinction between moral virtue and true religion has less foundation in truth than is commonly supposed-that men in general are either obliged to perform spiritual actions, or allowed to live in sin and perform sinful actions-and that we ought not, as ministers, so to compromise matters with God's enemies, as to exhort them to merely external services. Let us particularly examine these consequences. They will be found to be more than a little interesting. First Let us inquire, whether the distinction between moral virtue and true religion be founded in truth. It is true, the term religion includes more than that of morality; as it is applied to doctrine as well as practice, and to the performance of things positive as well as moral: but if genuine morality be supposed to exist without true religion, such a supposition I conceive to be unfounded. It is allowed that what is commonly called morality, is very different from true religion; because much that goes by this name is not morality, nor any thing truly virtuous. Nothing is morality, strictly speaking, but that which is in some degree a conformity to the moral law; and nothing contains the least degree of conformity to the moral law, unless it include the love of God and our neighbour. There is, therefore, no such thing as morality in wicked men. On the contrary, the carnal mind is enmity against God, and is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be. That which constitutes the essence of genuine morality, namely, the love of God and man, contains the sum of practical religion. Repentance, faith, and every species of obedience, are but different modifications of love. If we love God, we cannot but repent of having offended and dishonoured him. If we love God in his true character, and bear genuine benevolence to man, we cannot but love a Saviour, and embrace a salvation which proclaims glory to God in the highest, peace on earth, and good will to The rejection of Christ by the Jews afforded a proof that they had not the love of God in them. If we love God, we shall love his image in those that are born of him. In fine; if we love God, we shall keep his commandments, and his commandments will not be grievous. men. It is common for professed Infidels, and other enemies to true religion, to cry up morality as something opposed to it; and hence, it may be, some have thought proper to cry it down: yea, many, who by their practice have proved themselves friendly to a holy life, have yet, on this account it should seem, found it necessary so to distinguish between morality and religion as to represent the former as something very inferior in its nature to the latter. But it ought to be considered, that the morality on which the enemies of true religion love to dwell is of a spurious kind; it does not consist in the love of God in his true character, or of men in such a way as to rejoice in what contributes to their greatest good. It is a morality essentially defective; it leaves God and religion out of the question, and is confined to what are called the social virtues, or things which every man in his dealings with men finds it his interest to promote. When we hear such characters cry up morality, instead of coldly admitting it to be a very good thing in its place, and insisting that religion is something of an entirely different nature, we ought cordially to allow the importance of genuine morality, and insist upon it, that if this were attended to, true religion could not be neglected. Such characters would then discover their dislike to our morality, as much as they now do to what is called religion. Such a statement of matters, though it might grate on their inclinations, must, however, approve itself to their consciences. Every man feels himself obliged to act upon the principles of morality. Let us then drive home that point in which we have their consciences on our side : let us say with the poet, "Talk they of morals, O thou bleeding love! While you speak of religion as something entirely distinct from morality, such a character will rest contentedly in the neglect of the one, and think himself happy inasmuch as you allow him to be possessed of the other. But could you prove to him that morality, if genuine, would comprise the love of God, of Christ, of the gospel, and of the whole of true religion, it would implant a thorn in his bosom, which he would find it difficult to extract. Secondly If the foregoing principles be true, it will follow that men in general are either obliged to perform spiritual actions, or allowed to live in sin, and perform sinful actions. In the voluntary actions of a rational creature, there is no medium between what is good and well pleasing, and what is evil and offensive in the sight of God. All our actions are, in some mode or other, the expressions of love, or they are not. If they are, they are spiritually good; they are acceptable to God through Jesus Christ. Whether we eat or drink, or whatsoever we do, if it be done to 10 VOL. IV. the glory of God, this is godliness. The actions performed may be simply natural, but the end to which they are directed, and which determines their quality, denominates them spiritual. On the other hand: If they are not, there is no possibility of their being any other than sinful. The want of love is itself a sin; it is a sinful defect relating to principle; and whatever is done otherwise than as an expression of love, let it wear what face it may, it is a sinful action. We ourselves esteem nothing in a fellow-creature which is not in some mode or other the expression of love. If a. wife were ever so assiduous in attending to her husband, yet if he were certain that her heart was not with him, he would abhor her endeavours to please him, and nothing that she did would be acceptable in his sight. Instead of its being a question, whether God requires any thing of carnal men which is spiritually good; it is evident, both from scripture and the nature of things, THAT HE REQUIRES nothing but WHAT IS SO. It has been alleged, that the obedience which God required of Israel by the Sinai covenant was merely external, and did not extend to the heart. Their government, it is said, was a theocracy: God acted towards them under the character of a civil governor; and if so, it is supposed he must forbear to take cognizance of the heart, which is beyond the province of creatures to inspect. That God acted towards Israel as a civil governor is admitted; and that it belongs not to a civil governor, in his executive capacity, to take cognizance of the heart, is also admitted. In the bestowment of rewards and punishments, he must act from what is apparent in the lives of men, having no other medium by which to judge of the temper of their hearts: but it is not so with respect to legislation or the formation of the laws. No civil government upon earth will allow its subjects to hate it in their hearts, provided they do but carry it fair in their conduct. The spirit of all laws, in all nations, requires men to be sincere friends to their country; but as there is no medium for mortals to judge of the heart but that of an overt act, it is fit that this should be the established rule for the dispensation of rewards and punishments. It was thus, I conceive, in the government of God over Israel. Every precept contained in the Sinai covenant required the heart, or, |