LETTER IV.

DEAR SIR,

THE character of God and man, are the two great foundation principles upon which the whole system of Christian Theology is built. The former is primary and of leading influence--but both are mutually connected by an inseparable relation. I shall not attempt, therefore to disjoin them, but treat of them in their connexion and in a collective view.

According to the views which a man entertains of the character of his God, will be his views of his own character; and the nature and complexion of every part of his religious system, both in faith and practice, will be conformable to these two fundamental articles of his creed. "Every man" saith the prophet "will walk in the name of his God." Were mankind agreed in these two points, they would not be essentially disagreed in any other.

Your late favour in answer to the remarks made in my former communications, I have received, and carefully examined its contents; and while opposed in my views of divine truth, I am pleased with the honest frankness with which you express the reasons of your dissent to the doctrines I have advocated. I shall now endeavour to give each of your objections in their order, a fair and candid examination, making the knowledge and establishment of truth the primary object of research.

The first objection offered, is stated in the following

terms;

"Your views of the total depravity of mankind, as a natural and necessary consequence of the original apostacy, while you disclaim the idea of imputed guilt, do, in effect, establish it, by the evil consequences to his posterity which you connect with Adams first sin. And how is this consistent with that Bible sentiment

which you adduce in illustration of the subject, that the 'son shall not be punished for his fathers sins"?"

A minutes candid attention to this query, will, I think, be sufficient to remove the difficulty. The objection arises from a mistaken view of the nature of punishment, and not making a proper distinction between it and guilt. Let it be determined, then, in the first place, what is punishment? And I hesitate not to say, that punishment must consist in something which is contrary to the choice, disagreeable to the feelings, and brings pain and suffering to the subject of it. It cannot, otherwise be punishment. It must, therefore consist, not in action but suffering-not in moral, but in natural evil. If so, the total depravity of mankind, as the consequence of Adam's transgression, and which consists in moral character solely, and implies in itself no suffering--cannot be, to them, any punishment--for it is the object of their choice, and perfectly agreeable to their natural taste. We know that God visits the iniquity of the fathers upon their children-this is expressly declared in the second commandment, that is, wicked parents shall have wicked children like themselves. This is according to the Adamic constitution, and an established principle of the divine government-but it is not punishing the son for his fathers sins.

Spiritual death is not punishment-but guilt. It is that which renders the subject deserving of punishment. Total depravity is indeed a great calamity to mankind. It is the cause of their misery, and of their eternal ruin---it is not a penal evil, but that for which they are punished. If it were punishment, such a case as this would be reasonable and parallel---a thief and a murderer are duly convicted of their respective crimes, and the Court awards sentence that the one shall steal, and the other murder again.

Your next objection is of a kindred character, though an appeal is made to Scripture authority. You say... "The moral purity of children is proved by our Saviours declaration in Matthew 18.3. “ Verily I say unto you except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven."

Now if conversion necessarily implies holiness in its subject, these words of Christ necessarily ascribe holiness to children--or there could be no justice, or propriety in similitude. Otherwise, the construction would be, Except ye be converted, and become totally depraved, and wholly at enmity with God, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.

This construction, my friend, give me leave to say, does not necessarily follow from the total depravity of infants--nor is their holiness either expressed or implied in this declaration of the Saviour. It does not arise from the immediate or remote connexion of the words--nor was it the particular instruction designed to be communicated by the comparison. A similitude does not imply likeness. in all respects, between the objects compared. They may be in their nature entirely different, yet in some of their visible properties, a general resemblance traced, and fitly applied in illustration of some particular truth, perhaps totally different from that of the object to which it is compared.-We have a striking example of this, in our Saviours parable of the unjust Steward, in Luke 16th and particularly in the 8th and 9th verses, where the parable is applied. "And the Lord commended the unjust Steward, because he had done wisely, for, the children of this world are wiser in their generation than the children of light. And I say unto you, make to yourselves friends of the mammon of unrighteousness, that when ye fail, they may receive you into everlasting habitations."

Here we see the unjust Steward is commended; and his conduct while in office, in providing for his future maintenance, when divested of his stewardship, held up as an example worthy the imitation of mankind ;-in illustration of whose circumstances and future prospects, the parable was spoken and applied. But for what was the unjust Steward commended? Was it for his dishonesty in wasting his Master's goods, or defrauding him of his just dues? Certainly not. In this point, the parable had no application. Christ did not commend him as an example in this view, but only in a comparative light, as being so far worthy of imita

tion by the children of light, as that they should by proper means take the same care and pains to secure the happiness of heaven, after this world, as the unjust Steward did by his dishonest practice, to secure a future living, after he had lost his stewardship.

And no more does the passage which you have brought, signify a similitude in all respects. By the necessity of our being converted, and becoming as little children, in order to enter the kingdom of heaven, it is no more implied that little children have any natural holiness, than in the other, that the unjust Steward was commended for his dishonesty; or that because he was proposed as an example for our imitation, therefore he was an honest and good man. They are

both parables or similitudes, and the extent of their instruction is to be learned, by viewing their design and occasion, and their connexion with other pertinent passages of scripture.

Let us then examine your text by these rules. The disciples applied to Christ with this question, "Who is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven?" Christ's answer was in the best manner calculated to inform their understandings, and correct their pride. "And Jesus called a little child unto him, and set him in the midst of them, and said, verily I say unto you, except ye be converted and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven."

The feelings and behaviour of a little child towards his earthly parent, are brought to illustrate the holy affections of the child of God. Though the seeds of depravity are sown in the very constitution of the human soul; and through that root of bitterness shoots up in the first opening of the spring of life; yet in little children, before the prejudices of others are imbibed, and their natural corruptions strengthened by evil example and vicious habits of adult years, nature then exhibits a fairer semblance of true virtue, than at any after period of an impenitent state. This comparison, therefore, of our Saviour implies, that, that spirit of dependence and filial love-that submission and respect to his authority-that attachment to his person, character and interest-that hope, trust, confidence fear and

gratitude which a little child exercises towards his pa rent, flowing from the source of natural affections-or, in connexion with this, from a natural smoothness and tractability of temper; are emblematic of the Christian temper towards God, flowing from a holy heart. But the natural are perfectly distinct from the moral affections; and therefore the exercise of them does not imply any holiness in the child.

Upon any other construction, this passage would be made to contradict those already adduced, which declare the natural total depravity of the human heart, in terms too plain to be misunderstood. A recurrence to one of these will be sufficient; and it is our Saviour's words to Nicodemus-" Verily, verily, I say unto thee, except a man be born again he cannot see the kingdom of God." Nicodemus expressing his surprise at the doctrine, Christ proceeded to instruct him in the nature of the new birth. "Verily, verily, I say unto thee, 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." Here the first and second, or the natural and spiritual birth are held up in contrast and distinguished by their nature and effects. By flesh here as in all other places of Scripture, where it is expressive of moral character, is meant the carnal mind. "The flesh lusteth against the spirit," we read, —that is, the exercises of the carnal mind are in opposition to those of the renewed spiritual mind. That which is born in the flesh, is flesh--evidently meaning, that by natural birth we are possessed of a carnal mind. What the carnal mind is, we are told, Rom. 8. 7. “ mity against God, and cannot be subject to his law"or in other words, that it is totally depraved. This is given as a reason of the necessity of the New Birth. Is not this alone sufficient to disprove the native moral purity of children. If they are naturally possessed of it, they need no regeneration--they may see the kingdom of God without being born again.

en

But should you say, that notwithstanding by nature they are destitute of holiness, yet the second birth immediately, or at the instant of baptism, succeeds the