associates, including "The Christian Spectator," have done much to diminish the reputation of what had long been regarded as the Orthodox and Calvinistic views on this subject, and have brought on themselves a considerable share of clamor and reproach. But the "Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans," lately published by Professor Stuart of Andover, contains a more full examination and refutation of those views than I have seen in any other New-England publication. He has done so well in exposing the absurdity of former hypotheses, that I cannot but regret that the one he advances as his own is not less liable to serious objections. To account for the supposed universal sinfulness of Adam's posterity, without the supposition that they are born with a nature wholly sinful, he has advanced the following hypothesis, which is several times expressed with some diversity of form:

"I admit that all are born in such a state, that it is now certain they will be sinners as soon as they are moral agents, and that they will never be holy until they are regenerated." - p. 240.

That they are in such circumstances that they will all sin as soon as they are capable of sinning, and never do any thing holy until they are regenerated." -p. 242.

"All come into the world in such a state, as makes it certain that their appetites, which lead to sin, will prevail; and that they never will have any holiness, until they are born again." p. 526.

The hypothesis of Dr. Taylor is expressed as follows:

"A ground of certainty exists in the mind of each individual of our race, that the first and all subsequent acts of moral agency will uniformly be sinful, previous to regeneration."

Such is the modern substitute for the ancient supposed sinful nature; and if the substitute can be supported by Scripture testimony, it may as fully account for all the depravity which exists among men, as the hypothesis of a propagated nature wholly sinful. It is, however, to be observed, that Mr. Stuart has not attempted to support his hypothesis by a course of argumentation. In his enumeration of the supposed evils or losses to which the offspring of Adam were subjected by his fall, he has introduced the hypothesis which I have quoted, as one of these evils. It will be my aim to

examine the subject with all the candor and respect due to the Professor, from one who formerly entertained a similar opinion, and whose present dissent originated in a conviction that the doctrine is not taught in the Bible, and cannot be reconciled to the more important doctrine, - "God is love."

That there are passages of Scripture which, literally understood, would imply that all mankind are sinners, including infants and idiots, I shall not deny; and there are a few texts in which children are poetically or hyperbolically spoken of as going astray from their birth, or as speaking lies as soon as they are born. Such passages have often been collected and arranged to prove, that children come into the world with a nature wholly sinful. But notwithstanding all such passages, Professor Stuart has boldly said, "All men pronounce infants to be innocent, until theory bids them to contradict this."* He has also shown that he is fully aware, that such passages were never intended to be understood in a strictly literal sense; and what he has said to invalidate their force, as used by Calvinists, is of equal cogency against applying them for the support of his own hypothesis. Indeed I have no belief that he would adduce such passages in support of his views, were he to attempt to support them by argument; for he appears to me to have adopted candid and judicious principles of interpretation generally.

In his remarks on Rom. v. 19, Mr. Stuart has the following passage:

"It seems to me impossible, without doing violence to the Scriptures, to deny that Adam's first offence is here asserted to have a connexion with, an influence upon, the sin and condemnation of all his posterity. But How is not said. Let the reader remark this well. Paul neither asserts that Adam's sin was propagated; nor that it was imputed to us without any act of our own; nor that it is ours merely by the force of example. Nor does he say, that hereditary depravity is the ground and cause of all sin; nor that we are condemned without being actual sinners." - pp. 539, 540.

On the same principle, and with the same truth I may add, Nor did Paul say, "that all are born in such a

* Page 543.

state that it is now certain they will be sinners as soon as they are moral agents." "Let the reader remark this well!" I have no disposition to deny, that the apostasy of our first parents was "connected with, and has an influence upon the sin and condemnation of their posterity," in the same manner as the apostasy and dissipation of virtuous parents, at the present day, tends to the ruin of their offspring.

Perhaps Mr. Stuart is not quite correct in his remark, "But How is not said." For in the very verse on which he was remarking, we read as follows, "For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous." Is not this equivalent to saying,We were made sinners by the disobedience of Adam, as we are made righteous by the obedience of Christ? I think it is.

So far, then, as men can know how they are made righteous by the obedience of Christ, they may know how they were made sinners by the disobedience of Adam. It is, I believe, by a moral influence in both cases, and not by supernatural means or agency. To me it is very clear, that we are not made righteous by having the obedience of Christ transmitted to us by ordinary generation"; nor by having his obedience imputed to us as our obedience; nor by being placed in such circumstances" as render it certain that we shall be obedient as soon as we are moral agents. I therefore cannot believe that it is in a way analogous to either of these, that children are made sinners by the disobedience of Adam; and I think I may safely appeal to the conscience, even of Professor Stuart, whether Paul's contrast in relation to the "How," does not bear as hard against his hypothesis, as it does against either imputed or propagated sinfulness.

Mr. Stuart has more than once suggested, that there are some who assert that the posterity of Adam become sinners "merely by the force of his example." On this ground he asks, "How can we account for the sins of such of his posterity as never knew any thing of his example?" This question was to me a little surprising; for what intelligent man does not know, that imitations of a bad example may have influence on thousands who never saw the original. But, in truth, I know not to whom the Professor refers; for I am not aware that any class of men suppose, that we become

sinners "merely by the force of example." It is surely not so with me. I believe that the posterity of Adam are born with such animal appetites and passions as exposed him to temptation and sin; but the danger is enhanced in proportion as they are exposed to the influence of evil examples and instructions. Is it then difficult to account for what we know of the wickedness of little children, who not only possess such animal properties as exposed Adam to sin, but are much exposed to the influence of pernicious instructions and examples?

No propensity in children is more observable than the propensity to imitate. This is an estimable property, if directed by good examples; but it exposes to danger when called into exercise by pernicious examples. I am, however, not aware that any valid evidence can be produced to prove, that little children in general are less disposed to imitate what is apparently amiable and good, than what is bad and hateful. But when I seriously consider to what extent children are commonly exposed to the influence of bad examples and instructions, how little care is generally, taken to preserve them from such influence, and how imperfectly the business of moral education has been attended to, or even understood; I am as much inclined to wonder that children are not generally worse than they are, as that they are so bad.

Few Christians will doubt that the example of Christ bas done much to make many righteous; and that the example of Adam has done much to make many sinners. But example is not all. The example of Christ, however, includes his preaching, as well as other parts of his practice. His doctrines, his precepts, his promises, his threatenings, his example, and his sufferings, have all had a salutary influence to make many righteous. So there may have been much in the example of Adam, besides his first sin, to make many sinners, even things of which we have no distinct knowledge.

Mr. Stuart has furnished me with one example which may be useful in illustrating this subject. While opposing Calvinistic views, he stated the following query:

"If a writer should say that millions in Europe have become, or been constituted profligates by Voltaire; would the meaning necessarily be, that his sin was put to their account? Certainly

not. It would be enough to say, in order fully to explain and justify such an expression, that Voltaire had been an instrument, a means, or occasion of their profligacy."—p. 538.

Surely Professor Stuart will not say, that the influence of Voltaire placed the "millions" in "such circumstances " as rendered it certain that they would become "profligates" as soon as they become moral agents. Why then does he imagine that the first sin of Adam had such an effect in relation to his posterity? In reference to the language of Paul on this subject, may I not borrow the language of Mr. Stuart," It is enough to say, in order fully to explain and justify those expressions, "that" Adam was an instrument, a means, or occasion of their" sin? I am unable to see why such an explanation is not as pertinent for setting aside the hypothesis of Mr. Stuart, as that of Calvin or Edwards.

On the whole, and after much reflection and inquiry, I may truly express the belief, that there is far less of mystery or of supernatural or arbitrary arrangement implied in Paul's comparison of Adam and the Messiah, than has generally been supposed; and that the better we understand the Scriptures, and the more carefully we observe the common effects of apostasy in parents, the less need we shall find for any of the shocking hypotheses by which writers have attempted to account for the fact, that "by one man's disobedience many were made sinners." And as little probably shall we need the hypothesis of vicarious punishment to explain "how" by the obedience of one many are made righteous.

There are, however, objections to the modern hypothesis which appear to me of a more serious nature than any thing which I have yet mentioned. These I shall now exhibit. Though I have not observed that either Mr. Stuart or Dr. Taylor has said that it is "by a divine constitution" that children are placed in "such circumstances" as render it certain that "they will all sin as soon as they are capable of sinning"; yet, if such be the fact, these "circumstances" must have had a designing cause; and the results thus produced are of a character so extraordinary, that no

*Rom. v. 14-17.