1

divisible as matter, has been diffused over infinitudes of minds for successive generations.

Advocates for the spirituality of the human mind, are not agreed concerning the time when the immortal spirit commenced its intimate union with the corporeal frame. The question admits of two hypotheses, and each of them has its partizans. Some imagine that the corporeal frame alone, or merely animal life, is propagated by sexual commerce; and that at a certain period of vitality, the spirit of man is infused by a divine power into the animal system, in a manner unknowu to us, but according to some immutable law of his own appointment. Others maintain that the spiritual nature of man is contemporary with the corporeal, and that the germ of existence, in its earliest state, contains the two principles of animal and spiritual life.

The first hypothesis obviously renders the doctrine of hereditary depravity an impossibility. For the mind of man, the offending part, could not have been in the loins of our first parents when they committed the of -fence, and therefore could not have been contaminated by it. The spirit of every individual proceeding immediately from the hands of his Maker, must be as pure, as refined, and as free from sin, as the soul of Adam on the day of his creation-for the idea of Adam's perfection, in nature and character, before his transgression, is alone founded upon his proceeding from the hand of God; and the doctrine of hereditary depravity is alone invented to explain the manner in which a disposition to sin could be introduced into our moral natures:-According to >this hypothesis, therefore, the genuine doctrine of original sin must be renounced. For whatever pollution the soul may contract when compelled to inhabit the corporeal frame, this must simply be a sin of infection, not hereditary guilt. The spiritual part of man not being descended from Adam, has no other relation to him than that of residing in an abode which he had provided in the course of ordinary generation: and supposing this to be so insufferably vile as to pollute and deprave every soul that enters, that soul cannot be charged with hereditary

guilt, however it may pe pitied for being constrained to occupy so improper a dwelling.

The other hypothesis is not without its difficulties. Since "all the sons of Adam are by the fall, under the wrath and curse of God, and so made liable to the pains of hell forever," humanity prompts us to inquire when this unfortunate filiation commences? The advocates. for the propagation of our spiritual natures together with the corporeal, must admit that the extent of both sin and punishment, is, if the expression be permitted, infinitely infinite. The circumstance of being born into the world is merely incidental. As the soul existed coeval with the corporeal germ, it was a responsible sinner, and heir of eternal misery, long before its very foetus could be formed, and must remain in the wretched predicament, should it never have possessed a foetus, or should this never have arrived at its perfection of growth. Thus myriads and myriads of miserable embryos that never saw the light of the sun, will as infallibly be plunged into the flames of hell, as the most abandoned of our species i and every germ that possesses a physical possibility of existing in this world, shall without doubt, perish ever lastingly in the next ! ! !

Further, the abettors of this system ought to form pre cise ideas of the nature of sin, and of mental depravity, before they impute either to the inconscious principle. The only malady of mind consists in impaired or disordered intellects, depraved desires, and perverse will. The former is by universal consent pronounced to be a mis▾ fortune, not a crime, because the mind is purely and involuntarily passive and is not this precisely the case with the primitive temper and disposition with which we are generated? Allowing the definition of sin to be "any want of conformity unto, or transgression of the law of God," we ought to be perfectly clear in the position, that this transgression or want of conformity can be committed by the mind, before it enjoys any know ledge of moral obligation. If we should deem it ab surd to impute errors in judgment to mankind, before they are capable of reasoning, how can we suppose their

wills to be depraved before they had a will? or charge them with being guilty of Adam's sin, either in deed or by acquiescence, before they had power to act, or to testify consent?

The utmost that can possibly be ascribed to the human mind, is, that it is so formed as in certain circumstances it will indicate itself prone to the commission of evil. But such a conformation in itself has no more culpability, than the calamity of impaired intellects. Let the natural propensity be ever so strong, the subject may be as innocent of guilt, as the embryo of a tyger is void of cruelty, before it has acquired the instinctive ferocity of the dam. Virus itself is innoxious in an inert state. Nor could the inert virus of sin, supposing it to exist, be charged with demerit. This title must be suspended until it shall burst forth into actual transgression.

But the same mind is so formed, that in certain circumstances it shews itself prone to good also; and why may not this fact be admitted with equal propriety, as an evidence of the universal excellence of our natures ?Why may we not expatiate upon all the good observable in man, and pronounce him perfect, in consequence of his approved moral qualities, as legitimately as you stigmatize him with the character of universal depravity, from his bad ones? Let this statement convince you,' Sir, that the singular conformity of our natures cannot be, of itself, an indication of either virtue or vice; that it is equally void of merit or demerit, claims no reward, and deserves no punishment.

Does not the above examination fully prove, that the doctrine of hereditary mental depravity, considered either physically or metaphysically, is an absolute impossibility?

We shall now briefly shew, that it is equally inconsistent with some other theological tenets, which are also deemed sacred by its supporters. For instance:

If hereditary corruption be admitted, it will totally destroy all the subsequent temptations of Satan. If man be so depraved that he can neither think a good thought, nor perform a good action; if his ver best deeds are

enly splendid sins, there is no place left for the seductions of the evil one. His whole business must have been completed by the success of his first enterprize. He and his agents would be idling away their time in employing arts of seduction upon those who are already prone to every kind of iniquity; or endeavoring to captivate those who are already in their chains.

The doctrine of original depravity opposes with no less force, that of the true and proper incarnation of the Son of God. If it be true that our natures are universally corrupt, when the Godhead became man in the person of Jesus Christ, he must have taken our corrupt nature upon him; that is, he must also inevitably have partaken of this original hereditary depravity. If he remained untainted with original sin, it could not be our natures which he took upon himself. Admitting that the union of the Divinty with humanity, may have preserved the latter from actual transgression, may have checked and subdued every evil propensity, or may have prevented any from rising, yet the propensity must have been radically inherent in the person of Jesus Christ, as much as in ourselves. The divine nature must inevita bly have taken the human, as it actually exists. Christ Jesus, therefore, as man, however perfect in character and in conduct, yet being a child of Adam, he was, equally with those he came to save, "liable to the wrath of God, and the pains of hell forever!" The pen trembles as it traces these consequences; but they inevitably flow from your extravagant hypothesis ! The idea might be enlarged upon, were not the subject too revolting.

9

The position that our Saviour was born out of the ordinary course of generation, does not solve the difficulty, unless it can be proved that Adam's depravity ran in the male line alone, notwithstanding that Eve was first in the transgression. Mary, the mother of Jesus, being born of parents naturally depraved, must have partaken of their depravity, and this must have been communica ted to all her descendants, whether according to the Course of ordinary generation or not. It is maintained