upright in heart."* Again, "Shout for joy, ye that are upright in heart; all the upright in heart shall glory." "Mark the perfect man, and behold the upright, for the end of that man is peace."‡

In the midst of the general depravity which occasioned the deluge, it is said of Noah, that he was “a just man, and perfect in his generation." Although the mistaken friends of Job indulged their unjust censures against him, yet the sacred historian assures us, that he was "perfect and upright, one that feared God, and eschewed evil."|| And Solomon bore testimony of David, that he walked "in righteousness and uprightness of heart before God."¶

Many other passages might be quoted of a similar nature, and were we to adopt your mode of reasoning, we should infer from such declarations, that mankind are naturally perfect and upright. You would then be compelled to qualify and explain, in order to protect your hypothesis. Permit us to use the same liberty with the passages you have advanced, in order to protect human nature and its Author from being most unjustly libelled, and the contest will be terminated. We shall meet as friends on the centre of the plain; we shall mutually acknowledge that both Scripture and experience unite to represent mankind as imperfect creatures, as a wonderful compound of good and evil; that in the midst of much depravity great

* Ps. vii. 8, 10. † Ps. xxxii. 11. ‡ Ps. xxxvii. 37. § Gen. vi. 9. || Job, i. 1. ¶ I Kings, iii. 6.

excellencies are discernible; while many infirmities adhere to the characters, which the Scriptures themselves pronounce to be perfect.

LETTER IV.

Doctrine of Original Depravity can be reconciled neither with the Physical, nor Metaphysical Structure of Man. At variance with other Doctrines of the Calvinistic Scheme.

SIR,

Having attempted to remove those obstacles, which mistaken ideas of Scripture evidence, and of the acknowledged facts observable in human life, have opposed to your judging more favourably of human nature, and which have induced you to adopt the most inadmissible system mortals ever have invented, in order to solve apparent difficulties, we may now, it is hoped, without offence, approach the system itself; and we shall venture to examine, without reserve, whether it be consistent with reason or common

sense.

The hypothesis, which you urge upon our belief as the proper foundation of religion, natural and revealed, is that man was originally possessed of every moral and intellectual quality, before he had eaten the

forbidden fruit; that, in consequence of this act, the powers of his mind became darkened, his will perverted; that he was rendered prone to every evil thought and wicked deed; and also, that he communicated this corrupt and depraved disposition to all his offspring, without a single exception.

You must allow, that this total degeneracy of our natures can only be ascribed to one or other of the following causes; it must have proceeded from an absolute decree of heaven, or arbitrary exertion of divine power, introducing some immediate and miraculous change in the very constitution of our first parents, in consequence of their conduct; or from the agency of an evil spirit possessing inherent powers, or receiving permission from God, to contaminate the parent stock, and the germs of existence, with every evil principle; or the change itself must have taken place by the operation of some physical cause; that is, there must have been some natural relation between the offence of our first generate effects ascribed to it.

parents, and the deThese are the only

alternatives that present themselves.

1. The first of these positions does not appear to be maintained by any advocate for your system. The whole blame is universally laid upon man; and the consequences of his disobedience are considered as a just punishment for the abuse of his free will. It is even attempted to vindicate the wisdom and justice of God, in thus ordaining that the eternal fate of

myriads should be made to depend upon the single act of an individual, by the allegation, that if our first parents had proved obedient to this test, their posterity would have enjoyed perfection and felicity equal to the depravity and misery in which they are now involved. Indeed, the contrary sentiment could not be adopted without an accusation being brought against their Maker, of voluntarily becoming the immediate author of sin and misery; without supposing that the greatest miracle, ever wrought by Omnipotence, was called forth for the worst of purposes; that the Deity, finding himself disappointed in his gracious designs to render man perfect and happy, should, from a spirit of revenge, inflict the greatest curse upon man, which his all-comprehensive mind could devise.

2. Nor do they attribute to Satan any other power, than that of seduction. They suppose that this evil spirit, jealous of the felicity in reserve for the newly created favourites of heaven, determined to counteract the beneficent designs of the Creator. But that he was restrained from the use of any other means than that of artifice; that he perverted the judgment, vitiated the desires, and gained a complete conquest over the will of Adam and Eve, by his wiles; knowing that the natural consequence of their disobedience would be the ruin of themselves and their posterity.

3. Nothing remains, therefore, to explain this phenomenon, but the influence of physical causes. They, who admit the doctrine of hereditary depravity, are

compelled to believe, that the sin of our first parents so changed and contaminated their natures, that they were rendered incapable of procreating such a race of perfect and happy beings, as would have issued from their loins, had they continued obedient to the divine commands; that their natural powers were so instantaneously changed, as to communicate to their innumerable progeny the guilt of their own sin, and a propensity to commit every other.

Let us now examine whether this be possible.

Human depravity is ascribed by the hypothesis to the sin of Adam and Eve in eating the forbidden fruit. Whether we consider the account of the first transgression given us by Moses, as allegorical, or as a literal fact, criminality of conduct must equally consist in disobedience to the divine command. The disobedience was manifested by the commission of an act in opposition to the divine prohibition, which included in it a previous disposition, prompting to the commission, and a voluntary compliance with this disposition. Criminality cannot be attached to the act itself, simply considered; for, exclusive of the prohibition, it would have been no greater crime to eat of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, than of any other tree in the garden. Nor could guilt be imputed to the first impulse of desire; for although the height of perfection may consist in the elevation of mind above temptation, yet to check an irregular propensity, or rather a natural propensity, rendered