denomination cannot long keep itself in countenance in maintaining a public adherence to a confession of faith, the great articles of which they are known to treat with ridicule and contempt. They have most solemnly denied any serious departure from this confession, but they have been obliged to carry it off with them. How they can maintain any discipline for the greatest errors, when so large a portion of them deny and ridicule the doctrines of original sin, regeneration, special grace, as they have always been received and are set forth in their standards,i s more than we can conjecture.

ART. VII.—Letters to a Southerner.

LETTER III.

Nothing bad in Man Himself.

BY THE EDITOR.

Ar our next interview, I ventured to propose my difficulties to the worthy clergyman with great frankness, and perhaps some degree of abruptness.

"My dear sir," said I, " you allow that all the moral acts of unrenewed men are sinful, even from the beginning to the end of their accountable agency. Now here are the most important effects, the most momentous events which take place in this lower world, whose influence extends through eternity, each meriting the curse of God's holy law -here is an effect regular, constant, universal, which appears in man at all times, under all circumstances and conditions, in all nations and ages, must there not be a cause or reason why these effects take place rather than the opposite? You say that you are sure that these effects will always continue. Now were it a fact that a die cast up some million times, should always fall upon the same face, would it not be natural to suppose that there was something in this beyond chance, that there was some regular cause for an effect so constant? Especially if you were certain that it would always continue to fall in this man

ner, it must necessarily be on the ground that you knew there was some reason or cause for its being thus rather than otherwise. Must there not be some cause or reason for those fearful events which have hitherto transpired in the moral world, and some reason for the certainty that they will always continue to be of the same character?"

The worthy man smiled at my earnestness, and replied, "We most readily grant that it would be in the face of a fundamental principle of philosophy to deny a cause for such a momentous effect; we grant that there is a reason why all man's acts are sinful and will continue to be so, but we utterly deny that it is owing to any depravity in man himself that he will always continue to sin."

"But," rejoined, I" you admit that there is something which makes the occurrence of these effects as certain as any natural cause does its own appropriate effects; you allow that it is something distinct from man's volitions; something which so far from being subject to these volitions, actually causes that they shall be what they are rather than the reverse." " "Certainly," said he, smiling. "Then rejoined I," here is something which, on your scheme, makes it as certain that all man's volitions will be sinful, as absolutely certain, as what you call physical depravity does in the scheme of the Calvinists."

"Exactly, sir. You begin to understand new divinity. Now mark the difference between the two systems. The Calvinist affirms that it is owing to some fault, some depravity in the man himself that he begins and will always continue to rebel against God; this we deny as utterly absurd' and blasphemous." "But, reverend sir, it is a fearful thing that a man will always sin against God, and live only to treasure up his wrath; you allow it is owing to something; if it be not the consequence of any thing faulty in man and yet owing to something, we should think it proper to call that something his misfortune, if it be not a fault. And surely it is the greatest imaginable misfortune."

"We care but little, young man, what you say a man's sins are owing to, provided you do not make them owing to any thing wrong in the man himself, and thus place depravity back of acts, and thereby make it purely physical. Now sir, you are prepared to understand our demonstration of the absurdity of the doctrine of original sin, or as we prefer to call it, physical depravity. If there be any depravity back

6

of acts, it must exist in human nature itself; and if it belong to nature, it must be natural or physical, and therefore innocent; for nature is God's work, and he is not the author of sin. Hear one of our writers-Christian Spectator, 1829, pp. 348, 349: As well might we affirm that it is the nature of a stone to fall, and yet that God is not the author of gravitation, as that nature itself is sinful, and yet that God is not the author of sin.' Again, to show that depravity cannot be propagated: 'For, we ask, who established the laws of propagation? Can a being come into existence of which God is not the author? *** every thing pertaining to such a soul which is not its own act must of necessity result from the act of the Creator.' You see then that this doctrine makes God the author of sin, in case sin is transmitted from Adam, because he is the author of the laws of propagation."

"I think I see the drift of your argument. If therefore depravity is predicable only of acts, and cannot belong to human nature, then your writers are correct in affirming that every child comes into the world with a nature as pure as that of the infant Redeemer; then the most abandoned miser, thief, robber, or murderer, is himself, aside from his acts, as pure as the angel Gabriel. Then the nature of the devil himself, is as pure and free from any moral pollution as that of God himself. Is that your meaning?" "Exactly, because if there be any depravity back of acts, it must be physical, and belonging to nature, and besides, God himself must be the author of it."

66

But, my dear sir," continued I," the laws of propagation have always been considered too great a mystery for verv confident reasonings respecting them. It is wonderful that the future tree should be contained, in miniature, in the seed of its predecessor, and one generation of plants only unfold the qualities of a preceding. In like manner we see that the father is unfolded in the son, with much likeness as to his intellectual and corporeal qualites, and with perfect similarity in those which have relation to the law of God-both being wholly depraved. Now though it has always been admitted that God has established the law, that man shall propagate his kind, both as respects physical and moral qualities, yet it is but lately that it has been urged as making him the author of sin. It appears to me, however, that this objection comes with but ill grace from one who admits that God has, in all ages, subjected man to the influence of some

thing, which makes it certain that all his acts will be sinful. Some of your writers indeed say that this something which is the reason of such effects is merely Adam's sin-but almost all declare that it is something beyond this, and the result of that sin; that it is something in man himself, viz. undue strength of constitutional propensities which is transmitted by propagation. But even were your reasoning more than plausible, the Hopkinsian and Deist, might without scruple admit its force, and yet appeal to facts for the existence of depravity inherent in human nature itself. But should it be urged against you, that depravity must be a quality or attribute which belongs to man, because it is universal; is developed as soon as circumstances will admit; cannot be traced to any change which takes place subsequent to birth; that it operates freely and spontaneously, and cannot be overcome but with difficulty; would not such an appeal to facts establish its existence ?"

"Our answer to this would be very short. We should admit the existence of the sinful acts, but deny the existence of any depravity back of them, and the cause of them; we deny that depravity is inherent in man-we allow indeed that there is in man a cause, or reason why he constantly sins, but deny that there is any depravity in that cause; that the innocent but perverse constitutional propensities impel man to sin, and that it would cost him much to resist them, is allowed by all our writers, and some of them consent to call depravity native because it exists in consequence of the actings of these innate affections; but we wholly deny that constant acts of depravity prove the existence of an inherent principle, in the same manner as the acts of the natural affections prove these to be innate in the mind. We grant that in general it is safe to draw a conclusion from the existence of a class of facts in the human mind, and infer the existence of some inherent permanent principle which is the source of them, but not so in the case of depravity; this would lead to the absurdity that sinfulness can belong to human nature itself. Now the great fundamental principle of our philosophy is, that virtuous acts are no evideuce whatever of any moral qualities in the agent himself; it is the height of absurdity to predicate such qualities of any agents whatever. We do not place any great stress on the argument, that to affirm depravity of human nature, would make God the author of it, because we assert that it is in the nature of things

impossible for God to create either holiness or sin in man; these being attributes which cannot, without absurdity, be predicated of him. Our writers are generally content to brand such depravity with the epithets of PHYSICAL-but they are much too mild; it is absurdity and blasphemy: you might as well affirm moral qualities of a stone, whiteness of thought, or eloquence of inorganic matter, as to predicate goodness or depravity of a moral agent. This is the plainest and most certain dictate of common sense."

"But, my dear sir," replied I," suppose we get what we consider an impartial decision of the common sense of mankind on the subject and afterwards should find the Bible on the opposite side of the question, what shall we do in that case? Would it not be best first to get the decision of God, and take it for granted that the common sense of mankind, as far as it is impartial, will side with us. It would be sad to have the Bible against us."

"You have not fully mastered our doctrine on the authority of the Bible. Have we not demonstrated that the Bible can never be against common sense? Have we not gone so far as to prove that it must always be interpreted so as to agree with common sense? We hold that common sense will instinctively pronounce that human nature cannot be depraved. This would make depravity physical. Inductive reasoning and consciousness can give us no light on this subject, but common sense is perfectly competent to tell, not only what does belong to a moral agent, but what ought to belong to one; not only whether there be any depravity in man himself, but whether there can be any. We refer the decision of this question then to common sense.'

"But, my dear sir,” replied I, "if you give up proof from reason and demonstration, and rest on the common sense of mankind to support your assertion that this doctrine of inherent depravity is absurd, I feel confident that you will find the common sense of mankind against you; all language has been framed on the supposition that holiness and depravity are qualities which may be ascribed to man as well as to his actions. You accuse the Church in all ages of deriving the doctrine of the depravity of human nature from their reason only, which is but another name for common sense, and not from the Bible: the contrary doctrine existed only a few years in the Church, and has never since been boldly asserted except by Dr. Taylor and his disciples. Even the