My own belief however is, that David meant to apply the passage to himself, and to say thereby, that from the earliest period of his existence in which he could be a sinner, he was one. This is all that we can understand by it; unless indeed it refers not to actual, but to what is called original sin, i. e. something antecedent to and separate from all voluntary affection or action. It will be seen, in the sequel, that I am far removed from denying the substance of what is aimed at by asserting that we are sinners in such a sense. My present difficulty is not with the matter of simple historical fact, but with the name which is given to it, and with the manner in which it is considered and treated by some who take what they think to be a middle ground. When I have discussed so much of their views as the present occasion requires, I shall then come to the consideration of what is called original sin, imputed and inherent.

But since I have already said sufficient, as I would hope, to show reason why I cannot accede to the opinion of those who hold, that from the earliest stage of our being we are voluntary transgressors of the divine law, we may now dismiss this topic. In my examination of this opinion, however, and of the texts of Scripture alleged in support of it, I have said some things which should be adverted to, when we come to a subsequent part of these remarks and examine some of the positions of those, who maintain that there are two kinds of sin entirely diverse in their nature, the one wholly active, the other wholly passive. After having once endeavoured to give an explanation of several texts often appealed to by theologians of this class, I shall not deem it necessary again to repeat what I have already said, but shall merely advertise the reader that he may cast his eye again on some of the preceding remarks, in order to find a discussion of some texts which may seem to be wanting in the sequel.

Let us come, then, in the next place, to the examination of the texts most frequently alleged in support of the position, that we are charged by the Scriptures with a sin which is called original, and which is both inherent and imputed.

The simple question is: Whether the Scriptures entitle us to make such charges, or in other words, give such a view of sin? Gen. 6: 5 is often quoted for this purpose: "Every imagination of the thoughts of man's heart is only evil continually." On this text I remark, in the first place, that it is spoken of the antediluvians, who were so wicked that God was moved to

drown the world on their account. Then, secondly, it is something essentially of an active nature which is here characterized as sin; it is, every imagination, every fiction, formation of the thoughts of men, which is wicked. This, of course, exempts the case from the category of original sin; which precedes all voluntary thought, desire, or affection; and here. we might therefore rest the whole matter.

But it is said, that the passage applies to all men in the sense of charging original sin upon them, and is not designed merely for the antediluvians, because in Gen. 8: 21 it is declared, as a universal truth, that "the imagination of man's heart is evil from his youth." But if the first passage in Gen. 6: 5 applies in its full force to all men, as a charge of original sin at all times and in all places, then of course there was, and always had been ever since the fall of man, and is now, just the same, or just as much, reason for bringing the flood upon the earth that there was in the time of Noah. Why then did it not come sooner? Or why not since? And besides this; what means the imagination being evil from YOUTH? How can we force the word youth to designate merely the earliest period of infancy? What means the wife of thy youth? Prov. 5: 18. Mal. 2: 14. What means the children of thy youth? Ps. 127:4. Do men take wives and beget children in infancy?

Appeals then to such passages of Scriptures as these, are shortsighted appeals in the way of argument to prove native or infantile sin; for beyond all reasonable doubt such assertions cannot be made precisely and definitely to designate the earliest period of infancy.

Another class of texts however are appealed to with more confidence. They are such as follows: "That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the spirit is spirit," John 3: 6. "And were by nature the children of wrath, even as others," Eph. 3: 2. Here, it is said, are unequivocal declarations that by nature we are sinners, and that we are born such.

If by such an assertion any one means, that we are sinners ab origine in the sense of committing actual sin; then I must reply, that from the real state of the case, and because of the express declarations of Scripture elsewhere in relation to this subject, this position is inadmissible; as we have already seen. But if it be said, that the so-called original sin is asserted here, there may be some reason for doubt even as to this. I do not mean to say that I doubt of the fact, whether the thing usually

aimed at by asserting the doctrine of original sin, is something which is recognized by the Scriptures, (for this I do not doubt); but my doubt is, whether either the Saviour or Paul, in the present case, had the sentiment in question in their minds when they made the declarations before us. It seems to me to be a plain and obvious construction of the language employed in both cases, which interprets it as designating the unregenerate or natural state or condition of man, in distinction from a regenerate one. In order to convince Nicodemus of the necessity of a new birth, the Saviour declares, that men in the condition in which they are by physical birth and the nature connected with it, are carnal; i. e. before regeneration they do nothing which is holy and acceptable to God. And such is precisely the meaning of Paul, in saying that by nature we are the children of wrath, i. e. in our natural state or condition we are exposed to divine wrath, and have no claim to the merit of any deeds which are holy or virtuous.

Let those who press hardly here upon the words by nature, beware well of the consequences exegetical and logical of so doing. Paul, in Rom. 2: 14, speaks of "the heathen who have no law, as doing by nature the things contained in the law." What sort of a nature is it, then, which leads the heathen to obey the law? Might not a Pelagian take his stand here, and shew from this text, with a logic as good at least as that of the opposing party, that our nature would of itself always lead us to do right? Just as well, we are forced to concede, as one can quote Eph. 2: 3, in order to prove that our nature is itself a sin.

After all, the Pelagian, who should take such a stand, would have no solid ground for his position. The apostle, in Rom. 2: 14, means to say merely, that the heathen in a state of nature, i. e. unenlightened by revelation, may do the things which revelation demands. To suppose more than this, would be to suppose something which Paul did not mean to say. And so in the other case (Eph. 2: 3), the apostle means to say, that in our natural, i. e. our unregenerate state, we are children of wrath, i. e. exposed to divine wrath. Speculation about the time when, or the manner in which, sin commences or exists, plainly did not constitute any part of his design, when he wrote the sentences in question.

The advocates for native sin do not seem to me to be sufficiently aware, that with the very same principles of interpreta

tion which they defend and carry into practice, conclusions might be made out from the Scriptures exceedingly diverse from those which they undertake to establish, or would be willing to admit. As this is a highly important consideration; I must beg permission to illustrate the matter by a few examples from the Scriptures.

One passage has already been cited: When the Gentiles (or heathen) who have no law, do by nature the things contained in the law, Rom. 2: 14. I ask again: Might not a Pelagian here say, that the apostle teaches us, that men are by nature inclined to obey the divine law? It would at least be an interpretation equally sound with that which makes him say, in another place, that our nature itself is sin.

Turretin, Edwards, and most of those who hold the same views as theirs respecting native sin, appeal to a passage in Job 14: 4 in order to confirm their sentiment,-which runs thus: "Who can bring a clean thing out of an unclean ?" The passage is doubtless a common proverb; and in the connection in which it stands, it has reference merely to the frail, suffering, and dying state of man; and the meaning of the patriarch is: How can frail and dying man produce an offspring which is not also frail and dying?' Apart then from the uncritical proceeding of citing passages uttered by disputants in the book of Job as proof-passages of Scripture doctrine, it is enough to say, that the meaning of this quotation shows it to be clearly irrelevant to the subject before us. I should not have introduced it, therefore, had it not been so often cited as a proof, and had I not designed the mention of it as an introduction to saying, that if we are allowed to make the appeal to the same authority (the book of Job) in another passage, we may prove much more than those who appeal to the text just cited, would be willing to allow. Let us see how easily this may be done.

Job, in the earnest self-defence which he makes in chap. XXXI., among other things says: "From my youth, he [the orphan] was brought up with me as a father; and I have guided her [the widow] from my mother's womb," v. 18. Could not a Pelagian, now, as well take his stand here, and maintain the native benevolence of men, and their love of their neighbour even from the womb, as other theologians can take their stand on Job 14: 4, or on Ps. 51: 5, and maintain connate and innate sin from these? I see not what there is to hinder him, if such grounds of interpretation should be allowed to him as his oppo

nents assume; and why should they not allow him the same liberty which they themselves take?

I do not, indeed, for myself believe that in either instance any thing more is or can be meant, than that in the one case Job very early began his course of beneficence, and in the other David very early began his course of sin. What proves more than this, proves too much; and so it either proves nothing, or else it makes the Bible to contradict itself. We can admit neither of these last positions.

Of course it is not my object, in a brief essay like this, to cite and examine all the texts of Scripture to which appeal has at any time been made, in order to establish the doctrine of original sin. But I have selected those on which the greatest reliance has been placed; and if these do not establish the point in question, candid men will hardly contend that other texts cited for this purpose will constitute an adequate proof of the position assumed.

Let us look now, for a moment, at a different class of texts from any yet cited, and see what bearing they may have on the topic under discussion.

Apart from all controversial feeling, what shall we say to such texts as these: "Be not children in understanding; howbeit, in malice be ye children," 1 Cor. 14: 20? In the original, v xaxia is the expression corresponding to the words in malice. The apostle then seems plainly and beyond reasonable question to assume here, that children have not xaxia. By children he here means of course little children; for such is the proper meaning of the word naidia which he employs.

Again: "Verily I say unto you, except ye be converted and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven," Matt. 18: 3. What more or less can this mean than the following: 'If ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall enter into the kingdom of heaven ?'

Again: "Suffer little children to come unto me, for of such is the kingdom of heaven," Matt. 19: 14. "Jesus... taking a little child, placed him near to himself, and said to them [his disciples] Whosoever shall receive this little child in my name, receiveth me; and whosoever receiveth me, receiveth him that sent me," Luke 9: 47, 48.

Looking away now from all polemic views in any direction, what is fairly and honestly to be considered as the meaning of these repeated declarations? I do not ask, how we may, with