THE PHARISEES' VIEW OF HUMAN NATURE.

BY REV. W. N. BARBER.

"Thou wast altogether born in sins, and dost thou teach us?"-JOHN IX,

34.

It would, perhaps, be difficult to frame language more expressive than our text, of the total depravity of man. It must be confessed that the advocates of that hacknied doctrine have one passage of scripture on their side of the question, of the strongest character. Indeed, it not only teaches that man is born wholly corrupt by nature, not capable of doing a good deed or thinking a good thought, but that he is totally depraved before he is born. "Thou wast altogether born in sins, and dost thou teach us ?"

Say you that this is old fashioned preaching? No matter how old fashioned it is, I reply, if it is only true; and be it true or false, it is but the echo of our text; for that asserts as plainly and strongly as language can, that from the crown of his head to the sole of his foot, man is but one mass of moral corruption.

But stop! Whose language is this, that man is altogether born in sin? Did it fall from the lips of the Holiest, that Divine Instructer who never erred? No. Was it spoken by one of his apostles, a man who preached as he was moved by the Holy Spirit? No. Was it originally uttered by an aged patriarch, one whose white locks indicated much wisdom and experience? No. Who was it, then, that_gave birth to the language of the text? I will tell you. It was the old Jewish Pharisees! a sect that arose about one hundred and fifty years before Christ, that wore broad phylacteries, or rolls of parchment containing fragments of the law, upon their garments,-a sect that thought themselves righteous and despised others, they gave utterance to our text, they said, "Thou wast altogether born in sin." That is, they said it to a young man who had become convinced that Jesus possessed super-human power, and had been testifying before them accordingly.

One day, when the Saviour was walking the streets of Jerusalem, he met with a young man who had been blind from his youth up; and then it was that he performed one of his miracles of mercy. "He spat on the ground, and

وو

made clay of the spittle, and he anointed the eyes of the blind man with clay, and said unto him, Go wash in the pool of Siloam. He went his way, therefore, and washed, and came seeing.' When his neighbors witnessed this miracle, as was perfectly natural, they opened their eyes in astonishment, and asked what had been done to him. He told them in plain terms, and they brought him before the Pharisees.

Behold him now before these dignified doctors of divinity for examination! In the first place, after having previously examined his parents, who certified that he was born blind, -they asked him how his eyes were opened. He replies,"A man that is called Jesus made clay and anointed mine eyes, and said unto me, Go to the pool of Siloam and wash ; and I went and washed, and received my sight." They raise another question, whether this Jesus is not a sinner. He answers, "Whether he is a sinner I know not; one thing I know, that whereas I was blind I now see. Then they reviled him as being a convert to the religion of the Son of Mary. He speaks once more in the Saviour's behalf, but they turn from him with contempt, and give utterance to the words of our text, "Thou wast altogether born in sins, and dost thou teach us?" O presumptuous youth! A man wholly corrupt by nature, undertake to teach those learned, religious, malicious, pious, persecuting Pharisees! Audacity, where is thy blush!" They cast him out," says the Bible, that is, expelled him from the synagogue or church.

Men, lacking argument to meet an opponent, often, very often, resort to abuse. This has been the case in all ages of the world. Many a man, finding himself worsted in a controversy, has lost his equanimity of temper, and, in an angry mood, called his opponent an infidel, or some other bad name. The Pharisees did not attempt to refute the young man's statement, that Jesus had given him sight; this they knew too well could not be done, so they sneeringly called him a man altogether born in sins, and hurled him from the bosom of the church. Barnes has some good remarks on this subject, which I take from Paige's Commentary. "When men have no arguments," says he, "they attempt to supply their place by revilings. When they are repressed by arguments, they reproach their adversaries with crime, and especially with being blind, perverse, heretical, disposed to speculation, and regardless of the authority of God. And especially do they consider it great presumption that one of an inferior age and rank should presume to advance an argu

ment in opposition to prevailing opinion." The disposition to say hard things against poor human nature, has not been a characteristic of any one age of the world. Sects exist, even in these enlightened days, who do the same thing. Often do we hear human capabilities spoken of contemptuously, and human nature sunk to a level with Satan.

Now the doctrine taught in the Bible is, that all the elements of human nature are good. Those scripture exhortations, commanding us to refrain from evil, to keep our lips from guile, to visit the widow and fatherless in their affliction and keep ourselves unspotted from the world, are all built upon the supposition that man is capable of doing good, for surely the divine Being never would command us to do good unless we were so empowered.

The Deity is not inconsistent. He does not deprive us of limbs and then command us to run, he does not cut off our hands and then command us to labor. Neither does he deprive us of all power to refrain from evil and work righteousness, and then command us to do the same. No; it is because he has given us a nature above the devils,—because he has endowed us, in a measure, with angelic powers, that he commands us to do good unto all men as we have opportunity.

Conversion, about which so much is said, is not the miraculous creation of a new nature. It simply consists in cleansing that which we now possess, and in bringing us to God. The temperance enterprize rests upon the supposition that man has moral capabilities. The inebriate is not told that he cannot reform. No; he is told that he can reform if he will, that the moral strength is within him.

And who does not see that a sense of being able to accomplish something virtuous, is calculated to stimulate man to noble and godlike action? We must feel that we can accomplish our purpose before we cen go to work with a good resolution. The soldier, with the impression that he is able to conquer the foe, goes to battle with a stronger nerve than the man does who expects defeat. "As a man thinketh in his heart so is he," is as true now as it was in the days of the wise man. Let a man think that he can become a scholar, and he applies himself to books till the work is accomplished. On the contrary, convince a man that he is a fool, and it goes far toward making him foolish. So convince a man that he is altogether born in sin, and you annihilate every stimulus to virtuous effort. It discourages him.

As he thinks so he acts. "I cannot do anything good," he mentally exclaims, "and I will not attempt it."

Look at the Pharisees! They thought men totally depraved, and what was their character? Read Matthew, 15th and 23d chapters, and see. They were proud and revengeful, greedy of wealth and influence; ambitious and haughty, and oppressors of the widow and orphan.

We have now touched upon two particulars. First, the doctrine that man is altogether born in sin came from the lips of the Pharisees, instead of Christ or the apostles. Second, the sentiment has a degrading effect upon the morals of its believers. Total depravity serves directly to make man the very degraded thing which he believes himself to be."

66

Before closing this short article, let us consider one more point bearing on our subject, namely, that the conflicting opinions of theologians, in relation to the point before us, lie at the foundation of two systems of government. Total depravity lies at the foundation of the argument of the monarchist, while the opposite sentiment is the basis of republicanism. What says the monarchist? That man is not capable of ruling himself. He is as wholly inclined to evil as the sparks are to fly upward. Hence, we must not leave him to himself. Let him make his own laws and he will go to ruin at once. Therefore we must see to him; we must con

trol him; we must keep him under our wing." In all Europe there is not a tyrant who does not teach this doctrine. And how does the doctrine of total depravity work, when laid as the basis of politics? I answer,-just as it does in religion; it blesses the few and degrades the many. Look at England. She is monarchical,-she goes upon the principle that man cannot govern himself; and how do her laws operate? I say again, they bless the few and degrade the many. The few eat dainties, while the many starve. The few go clothed in broadcloth and fine linen, while the many are thankful to cover their nakedness with rags. The few live in indolence, while the many work like slaves. "To the rich she is a paradise; to the middling class a purgatory; to the poor a hell."

Now a republic is reared on the basis that man is capable of self-control. It begins not by supposing him opposed to all that is good, but as capable of striking out a code of laws protecting and exalting, of laying the foundation of important institutions, of supporting the gospel voluntarily, of seeking and finding his own good and the good of all. "Providence has

assigned you," says George Combe to the people of the United States, "the duty of proving the experiment, whether man be or be not a rational and moral being, capable of working out his own way to virtue and enjoyment, under the guidance of Reason and Scripture, unfettered by despotic power and unchained by law-enacted creeds." But Mr. Combe warns us against letting the doctrine of the Pharisee bear sway. "A religious creed," says he, "founded on the opinion that man is wholly defiled in all the faculties and parts of soul and body, may be adapted to a monarchy, which, acting in the spirit of this dogma, denies political power to millions, and supports religion by statutes, enforcing these, if necessary, by bayonets, but it may be very unsuitable to you, whose whole social arrangement rests on the assumption that man is, by nature, a religious, moral, and intellectual being."

I close this subject by exhorting those who profess to possess moral capabilities, to make their faith manifest by their works.

Dummerston, Vt., 1846.

REMARKS ON ROMANS VI, 7.

BY REV. RUSSELL STREETER.

LONG ago, a respected brother in the ministry requested the writer's views of the noted passage," He that is dead is freed from sin." Having bestowed some thought upon the subject, the following remarks are offered for publication.

66

The main difficulty in the way of a right and uniform understanding of the text, consists in the fact that we do not know in what sense the author uses the term "is dead," in this place. "Death," as well as life," is a word of various signification and use in the Scriptures, especially, perhaps, in the writings of St. Paul. Sometimes it means natural or physical death; sometimes spiritual or moral death, or dying in trespasses and sins; and again, as in the chapter before us, it means another sort of spiritual death,the dying to spiritual death, or becoming "dead to sin," but alive to holiness. Nor was the apostle very careful to be