their relatives, unless the good of others is necessary to their own. And natural pity is an appetite created in us, to incline us to help and relieve each other in calamity and distress. And this is requisite to the preservation and comfort of the human race. But when persons in an afflicted, helpless state are relieved, then this appetite is gratified, and its end obtained; and it seeks nothing further, and will cease to operate, until another object of distress meets the eye, and excites pain in the beholder.

And all the appetites created in man, however many, are designed to move us to seek these particular distinct ends, necessary to our being and happiness in this world. But not one of them delights in happiness as an absolute good, or seeks it as an ultimate end. And if the human family were all as perfectly holy as Adam was at first, or as saints are in heaven, these appetites would not have been needful, nor have been created in us. For benevolence would have inclined all men to seck all the ends, which these appetites incline us to seek. But as God knew that holiness would be lost, he created those appetites in Adam and all his posterity, to supply the want of benevolence in some measure, while we live on this earth, Hence they will not be needed in heaven, where all are perfectly holy; and there they will never operate, if they exist. It is very evident, then, that not one of these appetites partakes of the nature of holiness or benevolence. Hence our having them

is no evidence of holiness in us, or any objection to the doctrine of total depravity. While Adam was perfectly holy, and governed entirely by his benevolent appetite, those other appetites would be regulated by it; and never be indulged to excess in any thing, or in the pursuit of their respective objects in any unlawful way, or in any manner inconsistent with the end and desires of benevolence. They would be so regulated and governed, as never to lead him to do any thing contrary to his benevolent designs and desires. Hence they would do no harm, Such order, and harmony prevailed in Paradise previous to the fall.

But when Adam ate the forbidden fruit, he forfeited the continuance of his benevolent appetite, and was deprived of it. Then he had no holiness existing in his heart, and was a sinner, spiritually dead, and totally depraved. For as holiness is the only holy principle existing in any being, as we have seen, the moment this was lost, he was perfectly destitute of every trace

and operation of a holy principle. And this is the principal thing intended by total depravity.

But his other appetites all remained in full vigor, not lessened, or impaired in the least degree. And all his posterity are born destitute of holiness, with the same appetites which Adam had. For he begat a son in his own likeness, the likeness he had after he sinned.-Now these appetites remaining in him, sound and unimpaired, were the only active principles in his heart. By them he would be governed in all his conduct. They were the laws of his nature, by which he would be as invariably governed, as he previously had been by his benevolent appetite. These appetites would lead him to seek the respective ends, which were pleasing to him. And as these appetites were not pleased, or had any feeling or desire for any other objects or ends, than those of a worldly nature, the world was now his supreme object, his god, and only portion. They inclined him to seek every object which pleased the appetites created in him, and still remaining.

Is it not easy then to see, that Adam and his posterity would love the world, its riches, honors, and pleasures; and seek them as their ouly, and highest portion and good; as we see in fact they have done ever since the fall? Will not every one go af ter the objects which please his appetites, without any regard to God's glory, or the happiness of their fellow men, any further than might be requisite to their own personal gratification ; just as we see they have in fact lived from age to age?—Indeed Adam, or any of his posterity, if they had understood clearly the principles and laws of our nature by which we are invariably governed, might have foretold, then, how all men would in general conduct through the whole of their lives, in case no renovation or alteration should take place in the laws of their nature. Adam might have said, my posterity will never seek each other's happiness, or the glory of God; they will never aim at any other, or higher, or greater good, than what the objects of this world will afford them. The world now is, and will be their god, their portion; and as such they will seek it. They will disregard the authority of God, his law, and government; and live in rebellion, robbing him of his due, and of every thing they owe to him. And if God send a deliverer to save them, according to what is implied in the promise that the seed of the woman shall bruise the serpent's head. they will reject him. For they cannot embrace and serve this Savior, un

less they renounce the world as a portion, and deny self, and keep his benevolent precepts. They will, therefore, unitedly say, we will not have this man to reign over us. And thus they will live and conduct, each one through his life, and perish. They will never any more return to their allegiance to the king of heaven, unless God should again restore to them that benevolent appetite, which we have lost by eating the forbidden fruit. All this any one, who understood the laws which govern moral agents, might have predicted. And all that is said in the bible, of men in their natural state, harmonises with the general representation.

And now those who deny total depravity are desired to observe carefully, that after Adam had lost the moral image of God, all his other appetites were placed supremely on this world; and the same is true of all his posterity. And if candid, will they not own that a supreme regard for this world is idolatry? And of course that all the operations, all the desires of their appetites, are sinful? They are represented in this light in the word of God; that mankind serve and worship the creature and not the Creator. It is true, that men love food, and all the means necessary to it. But this leads them to seek the world as their only portion. Parents love their children, and this leads them to seek their worldly prosperity only, and as their highest good. And all their seeming gratitude is no more, than their delight in worldly prosperity; and the pity they manifest towards objects of distress, aims at nothing more than freedom from the pain they themselves feel, when they behold distress; so that as soon as they are relieved, they manifest no more concern for their happiness. And as men have no love for God, or for the everlasting happiness of each other, they never aim at these ends in any of their conduct; and aim at nothing higher, than to gratify their personal desires. All their aims terminate in self gratification; and will, until a benevolent appetite is again restored.

Hence no holy principle is to be found in any unrenewed person. And all his appetites prompt him to seek the world as his portion without any regard for God or the happiness of his race; and of course are wholly sinful in all their operations and desires. If such characters are not totally depraved, such depravity cannot exist. And there is no way to evade this reasoning, unless we deny the first principles upon which it is founded. It must be denied, that mankind have that feeling

faculty, and those appetites, which have been described in these essays. If this be denied, then men are not agents, and of course not moral agents; our accountability is all a dream, and all vice and virtue, praise and blame, are banished from the world. But if it be admitted, that men have this feeling faculty, and such appetites, which constant experience and facts prove to be true; then the consequence inevitably follows, that men, in the sense explained, are totally depraved.

In discussing this subject, I have not quoted those texts which prove this doctrine. The reasons are, this has been often done by others; and my design was, to establish the doctrine as a true inference from a just theory of the human mind. I feel, that this end is now answered. The subject is, therefore, left to the judgment of all candid readers.

ESSAY XXVIII.

On benevolence or holiness.

"Without holiness no man shall see the Lord.”

Various and different opinions have been entertained concerning the nature of benevolence; and each one cannot be true in all its branches. On this subject, as well as others, truth and error are frequently blended together. Seeing opinions are so various, a candid examination of the subject is necessary. And the subject is very interesting and important; for holiness is a requisite qualification for eternal life. Persons may embrace false views of the nature of holiness and they may have that disposition in which they suppose it consists, and on this ground believe they are the heirs of heaven and with a false hope feel safe and secure. But at death they meet with an awful disappointment. For all men will be rewarded hereafter according to their real character, and not according to their opinions. Hence, as holiness is a requisite qualification for endless bliss, it is all important to have clear, distinct and just views of its nature.

In discussing this subject, I shall aim at truth, and endeavor to expose some errors concerning holiness, which have been advanced by great names.-I design to consider the subject extensively, and in its several relations. And,

I. Attempt to describe the nature of benevolence.-To understand the nature of benevolence, two things are necessarya distinct view of its seat in man, and of its ultimate end.—The mind is endued with several faculties. To which of them does benevolence belong? And ultimate ends may be numerous ; which, then, is the final end of holiness? To ascertain this is of the last importance. Because we cannot learn the nature of any active principle, until we know in what end it ultimately terminates.

By an ultimate end is meant that object, which is sought for its own sake; which is in itself a real, absolute good.-When we seek any object for the sake of another, it is not an ultimate, but subordinate object. An ultimate object is never sought for the sake of another beyond it; but for its own sake. Our views and affections centre in it; with it we rest satisfied; and they never extend beyond it, after some other or better object. When a person has attained his ultimate object, he has reached the end in which all his desires terminate; here he rests, with this he is satisfied; and this is the great source of his happiness.

And every moral agent, in this sense, must have an ultimate object or end. If he had not, he would seek one object for the sake of another, and the last for the sake of another further on; and in this manner would he proceed forever, and never arrive at any final end. This is not, and cannot be the case. There must be some object, which is final, and for the sake of which all other objects are sought. That every moral agent must have an ultimate end in view, which he seeks for its own sake, in which his happiness is placed, is a truth so obvious it is needless to spend any more time in proving it.

The next inquiry then is, what is the ultimate object or end of benevolence? If this can be certainly understood, the nature of benevolence will appear clear and distinct,—All will agree that whatever is the final end of benevolence, it must be an object which can be sought consistently with the glory of God, and the highest good of his kingdom. For all profess to believe that benevolence is friendly to God, and his holy kingdom; that it is not in its nature or operations hostile to the highest good in the least degree.