that man is just what God made him. Man has a good principle and an evil principle abiding in him, which are symbolized by the trees of the garden, the one of life, and the other of the knowledge of good and evil; but the sword of the angel guarded the tree of life to prevent man from eating of its fruit, lest he should eat and live forever: was man therefore kept by the law of God from having any access to the good principle dwelling in his humanity? This must be the case, if this modern innovator is a correct expounder of the oracles of God. What consummate folly; the height of absurdity!

Mr. Ballou remarks, that "these conflicting laws of flesh and spirit have always existed in man from his first formation, and so long as they continue to exert their powers in opposition to each other, so long will sin remain, and continue to produce condemnation." Query: For aught we know they will be in opposition forever, if good and evil are changeless realities, will therefore condemnation and misery not continue forever?

"In our opinion," says the "Universalist Expositor," "every man, from the first to the last, comes into the world under moral circumstances precisely the same. We are ushered into being in the state of perfect innocency, with no guilt, or vice whatsoever; and from all that we can learn, this was the condition of the parents of our race, when they came from the forming hand of their Creator."

O. A. Skinner says, "We have the same natural and moral constitution which he had; [Adam] and consequently, the common opinion about the fall is altogether imaginary." "Adam had the same appetites and passions, the same propensities to sin, that his posterity have." According to this all are born alike, as pure now as Adam was when he came from the hands of his God-Adam was created with the same propensities to sin, that the children

of men now have.

tament, of the old

The representations of the New Tesman to be crucified, and the corrupt

members to be mortified are false. The immutable law of nature that like begets like, is unsound, unless it can be shown, that the Holy God is as depraved as man. sound theology or infidelity?

Is this

The same writer says, "We believe, that man is by nature, i. e. as he is born into the world, equally free from sin and destitute of holiness, no more inclined to vice than to virtue, and equally capable, in the ordinary use of his faculties, and the common assistance afforded him of either.” What a strange position man holds in the moral government of God, as much inclined to vice as to virtue, and perfectly destitute of either, and is just as able to choose and practise virtue as vice. Though the latter language is contradictory of what the same writer had said before, when he declared that men were born with propensities to sin, for men cannot have propensities equally strong to two objects diametrically opposed to each other in character; yet it clearly defines the position of Universalism on hereditary depravity.

Mr. LeFevre says of man, that his "moral character is the result of education, and is not an innate principle. When he comes into the world, his mind is unsullied as a sheet of white paper, without a single impression as to what is good, or what is evil, and consequently capable of receiving good impressions, or of being stained with blots." This was also the language of Abner Kneeland, before he avowed himself the champion of arrant atheism; and it is the echo of all this sort of teachers, so far as the knowledge of the writer extends. They all tread in the footsteps of their illustrious predecessors-they follow in the wake of their breathing and thinking organs, Hosea Ballou, Balfour & Co.

We ask every intelligent inquirer after truth, whether the position, that mankind are born as pure as Adam was when created, accords with the practical facts in the case as afforded by the life and character of the children of men? Are children as much inclined to virtue as to vice, to holiness as to sin? How comes it to pass, that all go astray; there is none that doeth good, no not one? If one half do not grow up in virtue and holiness, at least a small portion of mankind might reasonably be expected to do so; yet the Bible and matters of fact teach, that all are inclined to evil and practise vice naturally. If all are born as free from moral pollution as Adam was when formed in the image of God, then Adam's sin transmitted no influence to his posterity; or else his sin gave no different shade to his character, his character was the same before as after his transgression; or else the Scriptures are false, which assert that Adam begat sons and daughters in his own image. The above position, designed to destroy the doctrine of human depravity, is therefore repugnant to common sense and the Bible. We have been the more explicit and prolix in quoting the language of some of the Universalist fraternity to sustain their position, that our readers may discover that our arguments to confute this tenet meet the case in showing that modern Universalism is at war with the Bible and Reason. How can we attack the citadel of error, and demolish it, unless we understand the materials, and its construction? To go to war, you should know the policy of the camp, and the strong fortifications of the enemy.

Universalism denies the doctrine of human depravity, and teaches that all men are as free from sin and pollution naturally as a piece of white paper is free from stains and blots. But what say Reason and the Bible relative to this doctrine,

That mankind are not born as pure as Adam was when created.

The first man was made in the image of God, and God pronounced him, together with all things he had made, very good. If made in his image there could be no more bias to sin, comparatively speaking, than there was in God; but all his propensities and inclinations were strongly attached to virtue and holiness. How then did sin come into the world? Paul answers, Rom. v. 12. "As by one man sin entered into the world and death by sin." v. 18. "Therefore, as by the offense of one, judgment came upon all men to condemnation." v. 19. "For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners.' If the state of man when born is not different from what it was when man was created, then we do not know nor understand the import of the above scriptures. They most evidently teach that the sin and disobedience of one man, viz. Adam, exercised a mighty and controlling influence over his posterity.

How are children born? With what nature, and how inclined? What says inspiration? Isa. xlviii. 8. "For I know, that thou wouldest deal very treacherously, and wast called a transgressor from the womb." Hosea v. 7. "They have dealt treacherously against the Lord: for they have begotten strange children." Ps. lviii. 3. "The wicked are estranged from the womb; they go astray as soon as they be born, speaking lies." Ps. li. 5. "Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me." Eph. ii. 3. “And were by nature the children of wrath, even as others." Now if all this language is proper to teach, that all men are born as pure as a sheet of white paper, without any blot, then we cannot conceive what language would declare adequately innate depravity. We shall not enter very critically into the examination of the above passages, in order to reconcile them with the doctrine, that hereditary depravity is uncondemning and is not literally sin, for sin is a voluntary transgression of the law, be

cause it will answer our purpose fully, to show that they describe a state at variance with the state in which Adam was created. In consequence of the first transgression, Adam's posterity are born with a nature and bias of mind that preponderates on the side of sin, and will lead all invariably astray, as soon as actions are put forth with a knowledge of good and evil, and power to discriminate between the two. If this is not the obvious import of the above passages, then it will be very difficult to determine what it is. At any rate they teach a different doctrine than Universalism declares to be the natural state of man when born.

In order to investigate more fully the doctrine of human depravity, we shall be more particular to show, wherein it consists. There is a vast difference between hereditary and acquired depravity. The one is the state in which all the children of men are born; but the latter designates the corruption of human nature acquired by actual and voluntary sin. While the former is an involuntary and guiltless state; the latter is voluntary and condemning in its nature. The prophet Ezekiel has declared, that the proverb should no more be used, that the fathers have eaten sour grapes and the children's teeth are set on edge that children should not bear the iniquities of their fathers; but the soul that sinneth, it shall die.

We would make a few remarks, at first, negatively. Human depravity has not destroyed the moral powers of man, for then his natural image would be annihilated, and he would cease to be man; and if anything, he would rather be some other organized creature. So indefinite have been the conceptions of men on this subject, that they have imagined all the mental powers of man destroyed by human depravity, and that when he is regenerated, the Lord bestows upon him new powers of intellect; but, in reality,