of the heart proceed murders. The moral evils, or sins of theft, covetousness, blasphemy, and pride are all the works of the heart; the flesh, or all the physical powers only perform actions as they are controlled by the energies of the mind, therefore the mind is responsible and blame-worthy for wrong-doing.

66

We are sensible, that the Bible sometimes denominates such criminal acts the works of the flesh; yet no wise interpreters of the oracles of God will consider the term flesh as meaning the body merely, but as referring to corrupt human nature, or the controlling power of selfishness. Look at Gal. 5. 19, &c. where you will discover that many of the vices there enumerated are the passions of the mind. Such as, "wrath," "strife," heresies," "envyings,” "hatred." That the corrupt propensities and carnal appetites of our nature exercise a controlling influence over our soul, is evident, for man in his corrupt state is "sold under sin" and is in bondage to wickedness. When tempted and drawn aside by our corrupt nature, with the voluntary consent of the mind, sin is committed by the mind. We shall find that the Bible speaks of a carnal or fleshly mind, and of individuals as carnal; does it therefore mean that the mind is a fleshly substance, and that persons are composed wholly of a corporeal body, without a spirit? Or must we understand, that men's minds are controlled by their corrupt nature, and wicked passions, that the powers of the mind are enslaved and governed by selfishness, and not by the spirit and truth of God? Undoubtedly the latter is the prominent idea of all the passages of the Scriptures referring to this subject. From this examination, we infer that all sin has its origin in the will of man, when performing, or consenting to the performance of wrong actions, and that all natural evil at first originated in the sin of Paradise, and now in the universal depravity of human nature.

3. Neither can we believe that the position is tenable, that the mind can not sin, or prompt to known and willful wrong-doing. We should rather plead, that without the mind no sin could be committed, any more than by the stone of the field, the clod of the valley, or the tree of the forest. Is it not undeniably true, that the will, the power of voluntary choice is the prime reason of human actions being praiseworthy or blameworthy? Without this, man could no more be a virtuous, or a vicious being than the slumbering rock. Abstract the mind, or soul from the body, will the corporeal organization perform any actions, either virtuous or sinful? To talk of sin as performed by the body independent of the mind, is to be guilty of doubledistilled stupidity, and downright nonsense. What is moral

evil or sin? It is the disagreement of the actions and life of a moral being with the revealed laws of the Deity. The Bible says, it is the transgression of the law. Then the law of God determines what is right, or wrong; and sin consists in actions which violate the will of Jehovah. Can all this be done without the agency of the mind? The reply is obvious, and decisively negative. Universalism declares, that the mind or soul can no more sin than the sun can send down floods of darkness intermingled with its light. There is so much dogmatism in this assertion as to outrage all reason and Scripture-it falls with its own absurdity.

The Prophet Ezekiel says, 18. 4. "Behold, all souls are mine; as the soul of the father, so also the soul of the son is mine; the soul that sinneth it shall die." Here we are favored with direct Scripture testimony, that the soul not only can sin, but does sin. Which shall we believe, Universalism, or reason and the Bible? We need not pause for a reply from the candid and honest-hearted.

Equally false is the following declaration

4. That the soul never consents to wickedness when sufficiently enlightened to discover the character of a certain action to be immoral and wicked.

In juxta-position stands the assertion, that the soul is guiltless, though it consents to a wrong action, when it is not sufficiently enlightened to discern the immorality of the action. Moral ethics teach, that the privilege of knowing what is right or wrong, is all that is necessary to constitute moral obligation. Willful ignorance is as guilty as willful sin. Paul affords an illustration of this principle. He did wrong things against the cause of Christ, and the votaries of His cause, and instead of being screened by his ignorance, it only afforded easier access to the mercy of God.

His language is, "Who was before a blasphemer, and a persecutor, and injurious; but I obtained mercy, because I did it ignorantly in unbelief." I Tim. 1. 13. The Saviour prayed, "Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do." Luke 23. 34. These wicked people had the privilege of understanding the claims of the Messiah and that they were fulfilling the Scriptures; but they were inconsiderate, heedless and profligate in their conduct, therefore they slew Christ with wicked hands-the prayer of forgiveness presupposes this.

But how preposterous, absurd and wicked is the declaration, that the soul never consents to sin when enlightened to discover its heinous character-Does the soul of the high-way robber consent to the act of plunder? Without a concurrence of the will he could not carry out the infernal suggestion of his mind-so teaches mental philosophy. Well, does the high-way robber not know, that his course of midnight depredations is infamous and wicked? Stern incredulity, we should conclude, would even answer affirmatively. Does the will of the murderer not acquiesce, while

employing the deadly weapon in the destruction of the life of his fellow, and does he not know, that the act is inhibited by the natural and moral laws of God? Who can doubt this; yet must we credit the reckless assertion that the soul never consents to willful and known wrong-doing? Does not the libertine choose the infamous career of blasting the reputation and fair character of his innocent and cajoled victim? Does not the perjurer pollute his soul with damning guilt while forfeiting his veracity in attesting to willful and downright falsehood? Does not the pirate stain his soul while reveling amid plunder and death on the high-seas? Look at the numberless atrocities committed. and delighted in by multitudes of the human race, possessing intelligence and judgment, and then attempt to reconcile, if you can, all these monstrosities with the daring assertion, that the soul never consents to sin. You might as well endeavor to effect a chemical affinity between gunpower and the igniting spark of the flint. The very stones would cry out in reprobation of such crude and demoralizing sentiments, if no remonstrance were uttered by rational intelligences. The heavens would clothe themselves with blackness, and the living orbs of light would veil their faces with sackcloth, if God could extort no denial of such ridiculous principles from living man. Need we add another word to expose this sentiment to the everlasting contempt of every inquirer after truth; or to arrest that person's attention and future scorn, who may have already

half believed in the creed of Universalism? We trust not.

5. Again; it is said, that the soul retains the integrity of its purer nature, though it may be in bondage to the carnal appetites of the animal nature.

This proposition is founded upon the antecedent absurdity, that the soul never consents to wrong-doing and is therefore guiltless and pure as Eden's bloom. Is it not

almost incredible that any reflecting man, can even by a reckless effort, lose sight of the present condition of human nature to that degree, and so far transcend the teaching of the Bible, as to declare that the soul remains as pure as ever, though in bondage to unbridled passions? Yet this is fact, and will baffle argument however logical and nice; but that men can believe it while under the influence of truth, we hesitate to confirm. Does the Bible unequivocally teach this doctrine, or demolish it with its truth-inspiring breath? We have read the writings of the Apostle Peter, and there we find a different doctrine. He says, "Seeing you have purified your souls in obeying the truth through the spirit unto unfeigned love of the brethren." 1 Peter 1.22. If the souls of men are purified by obeying the truth, then we should conclude, that they had become impure and unholy by disobeying the truth. If they had not been impure at first, they could not be purified. This passage therefore wages war with the above reckless position, that the soul never becomes polluted and guilty while enslaved by unbridled passions.

Paul declares, "Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron." I Tim. iv. 2. Is the conscience a part of the soul? Can it remain pure and unstained by sin when it has become seared with a hot iron, by speaking lies in hypocrisy? The only reply that can be given strikes in the face of the position we are controverting. Again the same writer says, "Unto the pure all things are pure; but unto them that are defiled and unbelieving is nothing pure; but even their mind and conscience is defiled." Titus 1. 15. How decisive this language, it needs no comment, to show its relevancy and adequacy to subvert the above anti-scriptural assertion.

The understanding of the wicked is darkened, their passions are bent on cruelty by malice, and their affections