with the surer effect? We do not see by what right the man who preaches the doctrine of total depravity, can claim either the faith or the confidence of his audience.

We might have adduced many more proofs in support of our position, but those which we have adduced will be amply sufficient to convince the reader, that all our social institutions are founded on the universal conviction, that man is essentially a just and a good being, and that a practical belief in total depravity, would at once subvert the whole social order of society.

If we now from the social relations of man pass on to his domestic relations, we shall arrive at a precisely similar result. If man be a being totally depraved, and prone by nature to hate God and his neighbour, he must of necessity be an absolutely solitary being. What possible bond of union could exist between such a being and any other? What could induce such a man to connect his fate with that of a woman whom he hated, and of whom he knew that she was totally depraved, and would do him every injury in her power? Why should parents rear children? Why should the father toil, and the mother nurse and watch to promote their welfare, if these children were the objects of their hate, and would repay their trouble and care, by every possible attempt to work their injury and destruction? Surely nothing short of insanity could induce such a man to become a parent; and a race of totally depraved beings, must necessarily become extinct with the first generation.

We have thus endeavoured to shew that the doctrine of total depravity, as taught in the orthodox creeds and catechisms is not taught in the Scriptures, and is directly at variance with our experience, and with all the social relations of man. a subsequent number we shall examine some of the modes by which this doctrine is endeavoured to be established, and the moral tendency of a belief in it.

In

UNITARIAN ESSAYIST.

NO. VIII.

AUGUST, 1831.

MEADVILLE, PA. VOL. I.

ON ORIGINAL SIN-CONCLUDED.

ALTHOUGH Our orthodox brethren differ greatly among themselves on the subject of original sin, some of them holding that man is by nature totally depraved, and personally accountable for Adam's sin; others, that though not totally depraved, and though not accountable for Adam's transgression, yet that he is very far gone in evil; and others again, that this innate corruption is of a much slighter cast, yet there is one point in which they are all agreed, and that is, in attributing this moral degeneracy of man to Adam's first transgression. According to them, our first parent possessed originally an exalted and glorious nature, far superior to what man now enjoys, but lost it by eating of the forbidden fruit, in consequence of which all his descendants now come into the world with dispositions naturally averse from what is good and inclined to what is evil. Let us pause for a moment, and consider these points with the attention which they deserve.

With respect to the pretended glorious nature of Adam, we have already stated that the sacred scriptures are entirely silent with regard to it; and we would here add, that we find in them that which is entirely incompatible with this position. We read of Adam, that he took food and that he slept. Now the nature which required thus to be supported and renovated, could not possibly possess an inherent immortality, and therefore, with

respect to his animal nature, our first parent must have been exactly similar to what his descendants are. The same similarity we find between his and their moral natures. Under a common temptation, which many of his progeny better trained in this school of discipline would have victoriously resisted, and to which others, in imitation of their first parent would have succumbed, we find him departing from his integrity, and violating an express command of his maker. The only inference which we can draw from this is, that Adam was a man in every respect such as we are; and that his glorious nature, of which we find nothing in the bible, but concerning which we hear so much from the orthodox pulpits, is entirely the creature of a false theology.

There is a question connected with this subject, which well deserves our serious consideration, namely, how the first transgression of our first parent could have such an extensive and depraving moral effect on the whole of his posterity. It appears to us that there are but two ways of accounting for this, namely, either by supposing that there is a natural and intimate connexion between the moral actions of the father, and the moral character of his children, so that the latter are necessarily and unavoidably assimilated to the former; or by the supposition that God, by an arbitrary exertion of his power, in consequence of Adam's disobedience, at once changed his moral nature, and the moral nature of all his posterity, so as to render them all averse from every good, and inclined to every evil. Now the first of these suppositions is clearly inadmissible. The act of Âdam was in one sense a purely physical act. It was the mere eating of an apple. In this there was nothing sinful except so far as it was an infraction of a divine command, and such an act could not naturally produce such a powerful moral effect

on his descendants. We sec every day that worthy pious parents have very vicious children, and on the other hand, that very depraved parents have very virtuous children; and this shews that there is no necessary connexion between the moral acts of the parent, and the moral character of the child. Besides, it is not asserted by the friends of orthodoxy that there was any such connexion between the general conduct of Adam and the moral character of his descendants. It is commonly held that our first parent survived his expulsion from the garden of Eden for several hundred years. We are not informed as to the subsequent conduct of Adam, but as he was a rational being, every subsequent act of his must necessarily have been a moral action, either virtuous or vicious. Now it is not pretended that any of these subsequent actions had even the slightest influence on the moral conduct of his posterity, and hence we must take for granted, that the supposed innate depravity of mankind is not the natural and necessary consequence of Adam's transgression.

We are therefore necessarily brought to the second alternative, and must suppose, that in consequence of the disobedience of our first parents, God, by an arbitrary exertion of Almighty power so changed their natures, and the natures of all their posterity, that they should henceforth be averse from virtue and goodness, and inclined to vice and evil. There are some who have supposed, that there was a subtile poison contained in the fruit of the tree of knowledge, which by diffusing itself through the veins of our first parents, produced on them and on their posterity this deleterious effect. This supposition is entirely unsupported by aught we find in the scriptures, and so far from explaining the orthodox system, it only encumbers it with new difficulties, while it does not in the least alter the results to which that sys

tem leads us.

However poisonous we may fancy this fruit to have been, still it is impossible to conceive how a purely physical cause could produce such an extensive and lasting moral effect. But supposing for a moment that the apple in question possessed this wonderful demoralizing power, it would by no means alter the result to which we have already been led. The tree of knowledge and its fruit, were evidently only passive secondary causes in the whole of this transaction. It was God who created this tree and this fruit, as he created every thing else. It was God who fashioned this fruit, and imparted to it its properties, and it is therefore to Him that we must attribute the effects which the use of this fruit would necessarily produce.

In whatever manner we may endeavour to explain the doctrine of original sin, or innate depravity, this doctrine unavoidably leads us up to God as the sole efficient cause of man's depravity, and of all the moral evil that exists in the world!!!— A shudder comes over us as we write down the result to which this brings us, and we beg the reader to bear in mind, that this result is not our work, but the consequence of the system which we are controverting. Whatever of impiety is involved in it, belongs to the doctrine itself, and not to us. Our feeble efforts are merely used to make the public see this doctrine as it is, stript of the halo which a popular theology has thrown around it; and to vindicate the beneficient Father of the universe from the aspersions which that theology has thrown on his justice and goodness.

It appears that the orthodox of former times must have been to a certain extent sensible that the doctrine of original sin militated against the justice of God; and this led them to invent the doctrine of the so called covenant of works, which has since been adopted in modern theology. Ac