027. CHAPTER 11 - THE EFFECTS OF THE FALL OF MAN- DEPRAVITY-THE DOCTRINE DEFINED AND PROVED.
CHAPTER 11 - THE EFFECTS OF THE FALL OF MAN- DEPRAVITY-THE DOCTRINE DEFINED AND PROVED. IN the preceding chapter we endeavored to prove, first, that the penalty attached to the Adamic law embraced death, temporal, spiritual, and eternal; and secondly, that Adam, in the transaction of the Fall, was the federal head and public representative of his posterity. The bearing these points have on the discussion of the effects of the Fall is so direct and important that we have deemed it necessary first to invite special attention to them. The subject which we propose discussing in the present chapter is, the effects of the Fall upon the moral state of Adam’s posterity; or, in other words, the doctrine of human depravity.
We will first illustrate what we mean by this doctrine, and then examine the evidence by which it is sustained. Some have denied the native depravity of human nature altogether.
I. HUMAN DEPRAVITY DEFINED.
Pelagians, Socinians, and others of kindred sentiments, have represented the human soul, at its first entrance on the stage of life, as being pure and spotless as an angel, or as Adam when first he proceeded from the hand of his Maker.
Others have contended that all men have suffered to some extent, in their moral powers, by Adam’s sin; but that there has not resulted a total loss of all good, but merely a greater liability to go astray, requiring a greater degree of watchfulness to retain the degree of good of which we are by nature possessed. The first theory is a total denial of depravity by nature; the second denies it in part. But that neither opinion is sustained by Scripture or reason, we hope to make appear in the course of this chapter. The true doctrine upon this subject, which we shall endeavor to sustain by evidence, is this: that all mankind are by nature so depraved as to be totally destitute of spiritual good, and inclined only to evil continually. This doctrine is thus expressed in the seventh Article of Religion, as set forth in the Discipline of the Methodist Episcopal Church: “Original sin standeth not in the following of Adam, (as the Pelagians do vainly talk,) but it is the corruption of the nature of every man that naturally is engendered of the offspring of Adam, whereby man is very far gone from original righteousness, and of his own nature inclined to evil, and that continually.”
It may be inquired whether, according to the preceding presentation, we may properly understand that man by nature is totally depraved. To this question we reply in the affirmative. Although some, who have been generally reputed orthodox, have hesitated to adopt the phrase total depravity, yet we think that, when properly defined, it expresses clearly and forcibly the Scripture doctrine upon this subject; and, if so, to object to its use merely because the term is not in the Scriptures, though the sense it implies is found there, is perfectly puerile.
Those who have opposed the doctrine of total depravity, have generally presented a distorted view of the subject, quite different from that for which its advocates have contended. They have represented total depravity as implying depravity in the greatest possible degree, in every possible sense. Thus they have argued that if all men are totally depraved, none, even by practice, can be worse than others, and none can ever become worse than they already are. Then they have appealed to the evidence of Scripture and facts, to show that some are more wicked and depraved than others; and that the wicked may “wax worse and worse.” This they have considered a full refutation of the doctrine of total depravity; and they have boldly raised the shout of victory, as though the whole system they opposed had been completely demolished; whereas they have only been playing their engines upon a fabric of their own invention, leaving the doctrine, in the sense for which its advocates contend, undisturbed by their arguments. No sensible advocate of the doctrine of total depravity ever contended that all men are personally wicked in the same degree, or that bad men may not still become worse; nor can such inference be fairly made from a correct representation of the doctrine. Were it contended that all men are by nature depraved to the greatest possible degree, in every possible sense, and that such must be their personal character, till changed by converting grace, such a consequence might with more plausibility be deduced. The task, however, may devolve upon us to show how the doctrine of total depravity can be understood so as not to involve the above consequences. This, we think, can easily be done to the satisfaction of the unbiased mind. Depravity may be total in more senses than one.
1. First, it may be total, because it extends to all the powers and faculties of the soul; so that every part of the moral constitution is deranged and tainted by iniquity and pollution. Not only the judgment, but the memory, the conscience, the affections, and all the moral powers of our nature, are depraved and polluted by sin. Now, can it be proved that total depravity, in this sense, involves the consequences above specified? Surely not. Does it necessarily follow that if all men are by nature thus depraved, none can be personally worse than others, or become worse than they now are? Most certainly it does not.
2. Secondly, depravity may be total, because it implies the absence or privation of all positive good. That this is one sense in which depravity is understood to be total by the advocates of the doctrine, we see from the eighth Article of Religion in the Methodist Discipline: “The condition of man after the fall of Adam is such that he cannot turn and prepare himself, by his own natural strength and works, to faith and calling upon God; wherefore we have no power to do good works, pleasant and acceptable to God, without the grace of God by Christ preventing us, that we may have a good will, and working with us when we have that good will.” This implies a total loss, by the Fall, of all spiritual good; or, in other words, a complete and total erasure of the divine image from the soul. But does it follow from this that all men are so bad that they can in no sense become worse? Surely not. All may by nature be totally depraved in this sense of the word, and yet some may be worse in their personal character than others, and may still “wax worse and worse” themselves.
3. Again, depravity may be total, because the entire capacity and powers of the soul, apart from grace, are filled, and continually employed with evil. That this is one sense in which the doctrine is understood, may be seen by reference to the seventh Article of Religion already quoted from the Methodist Discipline: “Man is very far gone from original righteousness, and of his own nature inclined to evil, and that continually.” Surely it does not follow from this that there can be no degrees in wickedness. May not the capacity and powers of the soul enlarge and gain strength by the practice of sin? and, if so, may they not, in the same proportion, contain and perform a greater degree of moral evil, and yet all the while be filled and employed with evil-”only evil, and that continually”? Thus we perceive that there are various important senses in which depravity may be understood to be total, and yet not be so understood as to exclude the possibility of degrees in wickedness.
(1) The apparent difficulty in reconciling the doctrine of total depravity with the admitted fact that there are degrees in wickedness, results, perhaps, entirely from overlooking the influence of divine grace upon personal character.
According to Scripture, the “true light lighteth every man that cometh into the world;” so that none are left destitute of at least a degree of saving grace, shining upon the benighted and polluted powers of their souls. This grace is designed to counteract the influence of the Fall; and if some are not so deeply depraved as others in their personal character, it is not because they are better by nature, but because they have, to some extent, been brought under the influence of divine grace, through the operation of the Holy Spirit. If the wicked “wax worse and worse,” it is because they more and more resist, and thereby remove themselves from the salutary influence of this enlightening and preventing grace.
Before any valid objection to the doctrine for which we have contended can be founded upon the degrees in the personal character of the wicked, it must be proved that this diversity results neither in whole nor in part from the agency of divine grace, in connection with the education, moral conduct, and agency of men, in rejecting or yielding to the gracious influence imparted, but that it is to be attributed exclusively to an original and native difference in the moral powers and character, as received by descent from our common progenitor. For this we presume none will contend; hence the objection under review cannot be sustained. The native moral character of man, and that character which individuals may sustain after having passed the line of accountability, and acquired an almost endless diversity in the modification of original character, accordingly as they have yielded to or resisted the influence of divine grace, are entirely distinct things. To argue, therefore, against the doctrine of the native total depravity of man, from the degrees in character which men personally acquire, is obviously fallacious.
(2) Again, to suppose, as the opponents of this doctrine are in the habit of contending, that total depravity implies the possession and exercise of every possible evil in the highest possible degree, is self-contradictory and absurd. This the very nature of the subject, when properly understood, will clearly evince. There are some evil principles so diametrically opposed to each other in their nature, that the one will necessarily work the destruction of the other. Thus, avarice may destroy licentiousness and prodigality, and vice versa. Excessive ambition cannot consist with indolence, etc. Now, to suppose that the same individuals shall be characterized by every evil in the highest possible degree, at the same time, is to suppose what is impossible in the nature of things, and what the doctrine of total depravity, as above defined, does not require. When we say that all men are by nature totally depraved, we do not mean that they are depraved in the greatest possible degree, and in every possible sense, so that none can become practically worse than they now are. But we mean, 1. That all the powers and faculties of the soul are depraved.
2. That there is a privation of all spiritual good.
3. That the entire capacity and powers of the soul are filled and continually employed with evil; and that all the good belonging to personal character has been superinduced by grace. This we conceive to be the scriptural and correct view of the subject. Let the impugners of this doctrine first inform themselves correctly in reference to its proper import, and then, if Scripture and reason are on their side, let them explode it as a silly fable, or sickly relic of the dark ages; but if this cannot be fairly accomplished, let not an important and sacred truth “be puffed away by sarcasm,” but let it rest firm upon the basis of Scripture testimony, corroborated as it is by important and indubitable facts, connected with the character and history of man.
II. PROOF OF THE DOCTRINE EXHIBITED.
Having endeavored, to some extent at least, to define the native depravity of man, as held by the great body of orthodox Christians, we proceed, in the next place, to the examination of the evidences by which it is sustained. Upon a subject of so great importance, as we might reasonably be led to hope, we shall find the evidence abundant and conclusive.
1. Our first argument upon this subject is founded upon the truth of two positions, already established in the preceding chapter: first, that the penalty of the Adamic law included death, temporal, spiritual, and eternal; secondly, that in this transaction, Adam was the federal head and representative of his posterity.
Now, if the above relationship existed between Adam and his posterity, it must necessarily follow that all the penal consequences of the first sin legally fall upon all mankind. In Adam all mankind were represented. Our common nature was seminally in him, and with him identified in the offense. As the acorn contains within its limited compass the substance, germ, or stamina of vegetable life, from which proceeds, without any additional exercise of creative power in the proper sense, the stately oak, with its numerous branches; even so was Adam our federal head, as it regards our natural existence. In him we were seminally created, and from him have we all proceeded, as naturally as the branch from the oak, or the oak from the acorn. As the very life of the tree is dependent on the disposition made of the acorn, so the very existence of his posterity depended on the preservation of Adam. Had he been annihilated the moment he transgressed, the multiplied millions of his posterity would have perished with him. From their state of seminal existence they would instantly have sunk back into nonentity, and never could have realized a state of conscious being. As we thus see plainly that, according to the very nature of things, he was the natural head of all our race, it will not appear unreasonable-nay, it appears almost to follow of necessity-that he should be constituted our federal head, in view of the law under which he was placed. As such, by his one offense, he “brought death into the world and all our woe.” Whatever the penalty attached to the law may have been, he incurred it as well for his posterity as for himself. On this point the inquiry has been instituted, whether the posterity of Adam stand chargeable to the full extent with his personal obliquity, and whether we are to be viewed as having been guilty of actual transgression, in the strongest sense of the word. In reference to this intricate point, it may be difficult to use expressions which may not be understood to convey ideas variant from the true representation of Scripture. We may, however, we think, say with safety, that neither the holy law nor its infinite Author can look upon things differently from their true character. God must look upon sin as sin, and upon righteousness as righteousness, wherever they are found. It would therefore follow, that the posterity of Adam, having never personally transgressed, cannot be viewed as personally guilty. The personal act of Adam cannot be imputed to them as their personal act. It never was theirs personally, nor can it by any fiction of law be so considered. As Dr. Watts has remarked: “Sin is taken either for an act of disobedience to a law, or for the legal result of such an act-that is, the guilt or liableness to punishment.” Now, is it not clear that the guilt and full penalty of Adam’s sin may be justly charged upon his posterity with out making his transgression their personal act? A nation or community may be justly chargeable with all the consequences of the act of their acknowledged head and legal representative as fully as though they had done the same thing personally; even so if, as we have seen, Adam was the legal head and representative of his posterity, they are justly chargeable with all the consequences of his offense, notwithstanding his sin cannot be viewed or charged upon them as their personal act. It is only theirs through their representative. The guilt and penalty necessarily resulting therefrom are, in the view of the law, justly imputed to and incurred by them. This is the scriptural view of the subject, and necessarily results from the relationship of federal head, which we have seen Adam sustained to all mankind. Unless he had sustained this relation to his posterity, his guilt could in no sense of the word have been imputed to them, without the most flagrant outrage upon the principles of justice; and unless his guilt had been imputed to them, it is impossible to justify the divine administration in visiting upon them the dreadful penalty. These three points, then, are so intimately interwoven in the nature of the divine government, that they necessarily hang together. Admit that Adam was our federal head, and our guilt and subjection to the penalty of death necessarily follow as legal consequences. Or, if we admit that we are involved in the penalty of death, this will necessarily presuppose our guilt; and if we admit our guilt, this will necessarily presuppose the above-mentioned relationship to Adam, as the only possible way of accounting for it. But it may, perhaps, be asked, What connection has all this with the doctrine of the native total depravity of all mankind? To which we are now ready to reply that the connection is direct; and the doctrine is a necessary and irresistible inference from the principles above presented. If all mankind are involved in the penalty attached to the Adamic law, then it must follow either that they are totally depraved, or that total depravity was not necessarily connected with that penalty. That spiritual death, or the loss of the divine image from the soul, (which are but other words for total depravity,) was included in that penalty, has already been shown in the preceding chapter. The argument, then, amounts to demonstration, that all mankind are by nature in a state of moral pollution, properly expressed by the phrase total depravity. As we have seen, death, in the fullness thereof, was the penalty of the law. “The wages of sin is death.” “By one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin.” Now, if all mankind are not involved in the penalty, we must flatly deny the word of God, which plainly and repeatedly represents death, in every sense of the word, as a penal infliction-a judicial sentence pronounced upon the guilty, as a just punishment for sin. Not only so, but it will devolve upon us to account for death, as we see it in the world, in some other way. And how, we may ask, is this possible? The Scriptures say, “Death came by sin;” and that, too, the “sin of one man.” As a judicial announcement of the penalty of a violated law, it, was declared, “Dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return.” This sentence most evidently reaches every child of Adam; therefore all are under the penalty; and as the penalty embraced death, temporal, spiritual, and eternal, and as total depravity, or a complete alienation of the soul from the “image of God,” or primitive holiness, is included therein, it necessarily follows, from their relation to Adam as their federal head, and the nature of the penalty in which they are involved, that all mankind are by nature totally depraved. (See Watson’s Institutes, Part 2., Chap. 18.)
2. We proceed, in the next place, to adduce direct declarations of Scripture for the establishment of the doctrine under consideration. The doctrine of the innate depravity of human nature is found in almost all parts of the Bible.
(1) We first adduce proofs from the Old Testament. The first passage we shall here present refers to the condition of man anterior to the flood. Genesis 6:5 : “And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.” Here we see the total depravity of the antediluvians expressed in language as forcible as could be framed for the purpose. “The heart of man is here,” as Hebdon has observed, “put for the soul.” This noble principle, formed originally for holy exercises, had become do deeply debased, that “every imagination of the thoughts”-that is, the entire intellectual and moral powers-had become totally corrupt; “only evil”-there was no moral good left-”continually:” this was not an occasional or even a frequent lapse into pollution, but it was the constant and uninterrupted state, not of a portion of the human family, but of “man,” the general mass of the race of Adam.
Again, turn to Genesis 8:21, and read: “I will not again curse the ground any more, for man’s sake; for the imagination of man’s heart is evil from his youth: neither will I again smite any more every living thing.”
Here we may observe two things are forcibly expressed:
(1) The total depravity of man in general. The term refers to the entire race; spoken at a time, too, when none but Noah and his family were living upon the earth.
(2) This total depravity is represented as characteristic of human nature not in certain stages or periods of life, but during the entire history- “from his youth” - that is, his infancy, or earliest period of his accountability. Here is not the slightest intimation that this depravity is acquired by education, example, or otherwise; nay, the supposition is impossible. If the principle of evil were not innate, it could not be affirmed to exist “from his youth,” for some time, at least, would be necessary for its acquirement. Nor could this affirmation be made of man, or human nature, as such, especially as the good example and religious precepts of the righteous family then existing, if the character of man is only corrupted by example or education, might certainly be expected to exercise a salutary influence at least, upon some of their posterity, so as to prevent their falling into this state of moral pollution.
Next, we turn to Job 5:7 : “Man is born unto trouble as the sparks fly upward.” Here the plain meaning is that a state of trouble is just as natural and certain to man as for “the sparks to fly upward.” Now, unless it can be shown that perfectly innocent beings are subjected to “trouble,” pain, and death, which the Scriptures declare to be the consequences only of sin, it will necessarily follow that man is born in sin and guilt. In Job 15:14, we read: “What is man that he should be clean? and he which is born of a woman, that he should be righteous?” The reading of the Septuagint here is, “Who shall be clean from filth? Not one, even though his life on earth be a single day.”
Again, Psalms 51:5 : “Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me.” Here, upon the supposition that man is born in a state of moral rectitude, the plain declarations of Scripture are subject to no rational interpretation, but must be shamefully evaded or boldly denied.
Psalms 58:3-4 : “The wicked are estranged from the womb; they go astray as soon as they are born, speaking lies.” Here, “estranged” and “speaking lies” certainly strongly express a state of depravity. “Estranged” - alienated from the “divine image;” “speaking lies” - going forward in actual sin; “from the womb, as soon as they are born” - not an acquired, but a native depravity. What other sense can the words bear?
Jeremiah 17:9 : “The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked; who can know it?” Here, total depravity is expressed in strong language. Observe, the prophet does not say, the hearts of the most abandoned characters; but “the heart of man” - the race in general, in their native state. He does not speak of it as partially, but totally, depraved - “desperately wicked.”
3. Quotations from the Old Testament might be multiplied, but we deem it useless, and shall now pass to the New Testament.
Perhaps one of the most forcible passages upon this subject is found in the third chapter of the Epistle to the Romans 3:10-18 th verses: “As it is written, There is none righteous, no not one: there is none that understandeth; there is none that seeketh after God. They are all gone out of the way; they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one. Their throat is an open sepulcher; with their tongues they have used deceit; the poison of asps is under their lips: whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness: their feet are swift to shed blood. Destruction and misery are in their ways; and the way of peace have they not known. There is no fear of God before their eyes.” The apostle here quotes from the fourteenth and fifty-third Psalms. A more glowing picture of total depravity it is, perhaps, impossible for language to paint. It applies to the entire race: “The Lord looked down from heaven upon the children of men” (the world at large); and here is portrayed the divine decision upon their moral character. That this description refers to the native character of all men, is evident from the fact that the language here used could not apply to the actual moral character of all men, in any age; for there have always been some who, in this sense, have been pronounced righteous, in the judgment of God himself. That the application and force of the apostle’s argument in this chapter may be more clearly seen, we will quote the 19th and 23d verses: “Now, we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law; that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God.” “For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God.” The apostle is here illustrating the doctrine of justification. His object is to show,
1. That all the world, both Jews and Gentiles, are in the same deplorable state of “sin” and “guilt.”
2. That there is but one plan by which any can be justified, that is, by the mercy of God, through faith in Christ Jesus. His whole argument is founded upon the universal depravity of man; and this must be understood to apply to the state of all the human family, not at any particular period, but during their entire history up to the time in which justification takes place by faith in Christ. If we deny this, his argument immediately becomes inappropriate and powerless. If men are by nature in a justified state, then how could the apostle argue, from their unholy and sinful nature, that all need justification, and that they can obtain it by faith alone?
Let it be observed that the expressions of the apostle, in this chapter, in reference to the state of man, are so general and so full in their extent and import, that two important points are established beyond dispute:
1. That he is describing the condition of the whole human family, in every stage of their existence, previous to their acceptance of salvation by the gospel. His expressions are, “Both Jews and Gentiles,” “all,” and “all the world.”
2. The condition in which he represents them is not one of innocence or righteousness, but of sin and pollution: his language is, “They are all under sin; all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;” and that “all the world may become guilty before God.” Now, we may confidently demand, what portion of the human family are not here included? And if they are not in a state of moral pollution, what meaning can be placed upon the apostle’s words? The testimony here is so pointed, that if the native depravity of man be not here taught, then shall we be compelled to affirm that “sin” is no more “sin,” and “guilt” is no more “guilt.” Our next proof is founded upon those passages which base the necessity of the new birth upon the native depravity of man.
Here the discourse of our Lord with Nicodemus is conclusive. John 3:3 : “Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.” Fifth, sixth, and seventh verses: “Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again.”
Here the necessity of the new birth is grounded upon the character with which we are born naturally. How, then, can this be, if we are born holy? Surely, if such were the case, so far from arguing therefrom the necessity of being born again, the rational inference would be, that as we had already been born in a state of holiness, there is no necessity for the new birth. That our Saviour, when he says, “That which is born of the flesh is flesh,” by the term flesh in the latter instance, refers to our native sinfulness and pollution, is clear from the fact that no other construction can be placed upon his words without making him speak nonsense. If we say that the word flesh is to be taken for the body literally, in both places, then the sentence only contains a simple truism, too puerile to be uttered by the lips of the blessed Jesus; and it would have been quite as instructive had he said, That which is true is true. Besides, how then could he have drawn from the fact that he announced, any argument for the necessity of the new birth? That the term flesh is frequently used in the Scriptures to denote the principle of corruption, or native depravity, in man, will appear from the following passages: - Romans 7:18 : “In my flesh dwelleth no good thing.” Romans 8:13 : “If ye live after the flesh, ye shall die.”
Galatians 5:17 : “For the flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh.” In the eighth chapter of Romans, the apostle uses the term as expressive of a principle of unholiness opposed to the Spirit, and enlarges upon the subject so clearly as to furnish an admirable comment on our Lord’s words to Nicodemus. Fifth to the eighth verse: “For they that are after the flesh do mind the things of the flesh: but they that are after the Spirit, the things of the Spirit. For to be carnally minded is death; but to be spiritually minded is life and peace. Because the carnal mind is enmity against God; for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be. So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God.” In 1 Corinthians 2:14, a parallel passage reads: “The natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God; for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.”
Now, let the quotations from the apostle be taken in connection with what our Saviour said to Nicodemus, and the argument is full and conclusive that every man who is literally born of the flesh inherits from his birth a carnal, unholy, or depraved nature, so directly opposed to the Spirit and every thing good, that in that nature, or while he walks after it, he cannot please God, and therefore he must be born again. How different this from the teachings of those who speak of the native purity of man, and represent a sinful disposition as the result of example or education! The Bible doctrine most evidently is, that we are born with an unholy or sinful nature - that the principle of evil is as really and deeply engrafted in our natural constitution as that of poison in the egg of the serpent. As certainly as the young viper will be naturally poisonous and disposed to bite so soon as its native powers are developed, so will man, as he advances to maturity, be possessed of an evil nature of enmity to God, which will ever lead him in the way of sin, until the “old man be crucified,” and he be “born again.” If the tree be evil, the fruit will also be evil; if the fountain be impure, it will send forth a corrupt stream. The root of sin is inherent in the very nature of man. “Out of the heart of man,” or from this native principle of unholiness, proceed all manner of wickedness and abominations. Such is the doctrine of the Scriptures.
4. We proceed in the next place to notice that this doctrine is confirmed by experience and observation.
Aside from the clear testimony of Scripture to the doctrine of the native depravity of man, it receives abundant corroborative proof from our individual experience, and from the history of the world. The principal evidence of this kind may be embraced in five important facts, which are thus stated by Mr. Watson:
“1. The, at least, general corruption of manners in all times and countries.
2. The strength of the tendency in man to evil.
3. The early appearance of the principles of various vices in children.
4. Every man’s consciousness of a natural tendency in his mind to one or more evils.
5. That general resistance to virtue in the heart which renders education, influence, watchfulness, and conflict, necessary to counteract the force of evil.” The above facts are so evident that we scarce suppose it possible for any one of common intelligence and candor to deny them. To account for them on any reasonable principles, upon the supposition that man is not by nature depraved, is, in our opinion, utterly impossible.
Socinians, Pelagians, and Unitarians, have generally admitted their truth, and their utmost ingenuity has been exerted to show that they can be reconciled with their system. A brief notice of their efforts on this subject may suffice.
(1) To account for the general prevalence of wickedness, reliance has been placed on the influence of example and education.
Here a little attention, we think, will show that the difficulty is not solved, but only shifted to another quarter. If man be not naturally depraved, it will be just as difficult to account for bad example as for wickedness itself; yea, more: bad example is but another name for wickedness. Therefore, to say that general wickedness is the result of general bad example, is the same as to say that general wickedness is the result of general wickedness; or, in other words, the cause of itself, which is a manifest absurdity. Farther, we might ask, How was it, upon this principle, that the first example of the various species of moral wickedness originated? Whose example taught Cain to hate and murder his brother? Whose example taught the first idolater to worship an idol? And so we might pass over the entire catalogue of vices, and show that, according to this system, they never could have originated. That we are naturally imitative beings, to a great extent, we readily admit; but if this alone leads to a course of wickedness, it would follow, upon the same principle, that there should be quite as much potency in good as in bad example. But, we ask, is this the case? Why did not the piety of righteous Noah lead all his sons and their descendants, from generation to generation, in the pathway of duty and obedience?
Again, is it not frequently the case that the children of pious parents fall into habits of immorality? If example alone shapes their character, surely the pious example of their parents, which they see almost constantly before their eyes, should be more powerful than the wicked example of others more remote from them, and perhaps but seldom witnessed. Allow to example all the influence it can possibly wield, still it would follow that if man is naturally innocent and pure, there should be more virtue than vice in the world; but if, as some contend, the soul is naturally indifferent - a perfect blank, tending neither to good or evil - then we might expect to find virtue and vice pretty equally balanced. But the fact of the world’s history is contradictory to all this.
(2) But now look at the second fact - the strength of the tendency in man to evil. Who has not felt this in his own heart? “When I would do good, evil is present with me.” The turbulence of evil passions is such that one wise man has said, “He that ruleth his spirit is better than he that taketh a city.” The strength of this native tendency in man to evil is so great that, to counteract it, an effort is required; the cross must be taken up, right hands cut off right eyes plucked out, and a violent warfare upon the impulses of our own nature must be waged. Now contemplate the absurdity of supposing that bad example could originate this tendency to evil. If such were the case, good example would produce a similar tendency to good; but such is evidently not the fact. The native tendency of the human heart is invariably to sin; so much so, that in no case can it be counteracted but by the crucifixion of “the old man.”
(3) The third fact is the early appearance of the principles of various vices in children.
Although entirely separated from their species, native instinct will lead the young lion or tiger to be fierce and voracious; and, with equal certainty, pride, envy, malice, revenge, selfishness, anger, and other evil passions, have been found invariably to spring up at a very early stage in the hearts of children, whatever may have been the example or education with which they have been furnished. Nay, they have more or less frequently exhibited themselves before the opportunity could have been afforded for the influence of example. Now how can this be accounted for but upon the supposition that the seeds of these vices are sown in our nature?
(4) The fourth fact is, that every man is conscious of a natural tendency to many evils.
All men are not prone alike to every species of vice. Some have a strong constitutional tendency to pride, others to anger, others to cowardice, others to meanness, and others perhaps to avarice or sensuality. Now, if we deny the native depravity of man, we necessarily deny this constitutional tendency to one vice more than another; for if man has no native tendency to evil in general, it is clear he can have no native tendency to any particular species of evil. Every whole includes all its parts.
(5) The fifth fact is, that general resistance to virtue in the heart, which renders education, influence, watchfulness, and conflict necessary to counteract the force of evil.
Vice in the human soul, like noxious weeds in a luxuriant soil, is a spontaneous growth. It only requires to be left alone, and it will flourish. Not so with virtue. Its seeds must be sown, and, like the valuable grains produced by the assiduous care and toil of the husbandman, it requires an early and persevering culture. Hence the necessity of a careful moral training - the value of a good education. What powerful influences are requisite to be wielded in the promotion of virtue! Motives of gratitude, interest, honor, benevolence, and every consideration that ought to weigh with an intelligent mind, are presented as incentives to virtue. The closest vigilance is necessary at every point to keep the object of good from being entirely forgotten or neglected; and, withal, a perpetual conflict must be kept up with surrounding evil, or the thorns and thistles of vice and folly will choke the growth of the good seed, and lay waste the blooming prospect. Why, we ask, is this the case? Deny the doctrine of the native depravity of man, and it is utterly unaccountable. If example were the only influence, and man had no greater tendency to evil than to good, might we not as well expect to find virtue the spontaneous and luxuriant growth, and vice the tender plant, requiring all this toil and care for its preservation and prosperity?
Those who have endeavored to account for these facts on the principle of education, find in their undertaking no less difficulty than those who attribute them to the influence of example. Education, in too many instances, it must be confessed, has been greatly defective; but never so bad as to account for all the evil passions and sinful practices of men. So far from this being the case, its general tendency, defective as it may be, is of an opposite character. Men are generally wicked, not so much for the want of good precept, as in spite of it. Instruction has generally been better than example; so that, if bad example cannot account for the proneness to evil in men, much less can education. Who taught the first murderer his lessons in the crime of shedding his brother’s blood? Which of the prevalent vices of mankind had its origin in imparted instruction? What crime is it that can only exist and prevail where special schools are established for its culture? The influence of education, it must be admitted, is very great; but the difficulty to be accounted for is this: Why is it that man is so ready in the school of vice, and so dull in the school of virtue?
Deny the doctrine of our native corruption, and why might we not, with far more reason, expect that education should produce general virtue than general vice? Thus have we seen that experience and observation only confirm the Scripture doctrine of the native and total depravity of man.