nature.

Makes it evident that man's nature is corrupt as he comes into the world."-Edwards' Works, vol. 6. p. 163, 164.

Mr. John Wesley referred to the ninth Article of the Church of England as expressing his views on the subject of original sin; and in discussing the topic in the Minutes of Conference, employed the following language: "In what sense is Adam's sin imputed to all mankind? In Adam all die; i. e. 1st. Our bodies then became mortal;-2d. Our souls died; i. e. were disunited from God. And hence; 3d. We are all born with a sinful devilish nature; by reason whereof,-4th. We are children of wrath, liable to death eternal."

"I am willing to regard the sufferings of the irrational tribes as a public token of the depravation of their nature, and I must by analogy regard the sufferings and death of infants as a token of the depravity of a nature created for moral action."-Park Street Lectures, p. 14.

The Christian Observer, which inculcates the same view respecting human nature, represents it as being as much a doctrine of Arminianism as it is of Calvinism.-Vol. 3. p. 361.

What now is the doctrine relative to mankind with which these passages are fraught? And the single question to be decided is, what is the great subject to which they refer? Are they employed solely in delineating the manner in which mankind act? Or instead of that, is the physical nature of man the grand topic of which they treat? And can any one persuade himself they are occupied merely in announcing that mankind while unregenerate uniformly transgress the law of God? that their authors, had it been their sole object to state that fact, would naturally have selected such terms as most happily adapted to express it, and resorted to such propositions and arguments to sustain

it? that such terms, declarations, and arguments can have come from minds, which not only had no intention of teaching the doctrine of a physical depravity, nor any belief of the truth of that doctrine, nor any lurking impressions or principles which were virtually built on it; but which explicitly regarded the created nature of man as entirely free from all corruption, and so far as constitutional powers and qualities are concerned, perfectly capable of acting in accordance with the divine will? All this must indeed be satisfactorily made out before it can be shown that the doctrine in question is not inculcated in these passages. where are the materials for such a demonstration ?

But

But to subject the question to a more thorough trial. That the depravity delineated in these quotations is purely physical; a property of the substance of the soul, is appa rent.

I. From the terms used, which expressly designate it, not as a quality of actions, or a trait of character formed by the exercise of its voluntary powers, but as a property of nature; and of course therefore a physical attribute.

II. From the fact that it is represented as existing antecedently to the exercise of any actions, and while, therefore, beside mere existence, nothing but the physical properties of the soul can be predicated of it. Its antecedence to the commencement of moral action is more explicitly expressed in the following passages :

"Even infants themselves, although they bring their damnation with them from the womb, are condemned for their own, not for another's faultiness. For though they have not at that time produced the fruits of their unrighte ousness, yet they have the seed inclosed in them; nay, their whole nature is a mere seed of sin, so that it cannot but be odious and abominable to God."

"And being so vitiated and perverted in all the parts of our nature, we are already, on account of that corruption alone, deservedly held convicted and condemned in the presence of God."—Inst. Lib. II. Cap. I. 8.

The same views are exhibited by President Edwards. The object of his treatise on original sin was, to prove, from the fact that the moral character of man while unrenewed is sinful, that there exists a depravity in his nature which is the cause of his exercising those sinful actions, and which of course therefore exists antecedently to their being exercised. A passage from that work verifying this statement will be presented to the reader under the next head.

But if this depravity thus belongs to the soul antecedently to its exercising any moral actions, can any reasoning be necessary to show that it must be a physical property? Can any one fancy that at that period any thing belongs to the mind except its mere substance? In what sense can a thing, which by the definition, is neither one of its operations, nor a property of any of its operations, be imagined to pertain to it at all, unless it is a portion, or an attribute of its substance?

III. From the fact, that it is represented as the cause or source of all the sinful actions which mankind exercise. The representation of Calvin in the passages quoted from him is, that "it first makes us obnoxious to God's wrath, and then produces in us those works which the scriptures denominate the works of the flesh." Nearly the same expressions are employed in the Confession of the Reformed Dutch Church; and similar views are exhibited by President Edwards, whose language is,

"All mankind are in such a state,....that they universally run themselves....into eternal perdition;....from which Iinfer that the natural state of the mind of man is attended with a

propensity of nature which is prevalent and effectual to such an issue;" and "this tendency....does not consist in any particular external circumstances....but is inherent, and is seated in that nature which is common to all mankind, which they carry with them wherever they go."-His works, vol. 6. p. 139. 149.

The position here assumed, that depraved actions are an effect of which an antecedently depraved nature is the cause, was thus formally laid down by him as the foundation of his reasoning in his treatise on original sin, in proof that the nature of man is corrupt; and he accordingly alleged no other species whatever of evidence to demonstrate the depravity of nature, than the simple fact that the actions of men are sinful. His argument ran simply thus: The disobedience of men has a cause, and it either lies in their nature, or out of it. But it cannot lie in any thing out of their nature" in any external circumstances." Were it otherwise, it is incredible that amid the infinitely diversified circumstances into which men are thrown, they never assume such a modification as to give birth to holy actions. It must therefore be inherent and seated in that nature which is

common to man." And if the nature of man is the cause of his sinning, it must of course be depraved and odious, By proving therefore that all the actions of the unregenerate are depraved, he regarded himself as establishing the doctrine, that the nature of man is depraved. And by adopting a plan of reasoning which in that manner presented all the evidence that the actions of men are sinful, as proof of the depravity of their nature, he gave the doctrine a reality and prominence beyond what could have been imparted by a thousand mere declarations, and taught it with a plausibleness, energy, and efficacy which could scarcely have been attained by any other method.

The following language is employed on the subject by Mr. Wilberforce: "How, on any principles of common

reasoning can we account for it," [the fact that all men sin,] "but by conceiving that man, since he came out of the hands of his Creator has contracted a taint, and that the venom of this subtle poison bas been communicated throughout the race of Adam, every where exhibiting incontestible marks of its fatal malignity ?" "Such" [that all men are sinners,] “on a full and fair investigation, must be confessed to be the state of facts; and how can this be accounted for on any other supposition, than that of some original taintsome radical principle of corruption? All other solutions are unsatisfactory; whilst the potent cause which has been assigned does abundantly, and can alone sufficiently account for the effect. Thus then it appears, that the corruption of human nature is proved by the same mode of reasoning as has been deemed conclusive in establishing the existence, and ascertaining the laws of the principle of gravitation; that the doctrine rests on the same solid basis as the sublime philosophy of Newton."—Wilberforce's Practical View, chap. II. sec. I.

The reasoning found in the Park-Street Lectures on this topic, p. 12. 17, 18, and which will be quoted under a subsequent head, proceeds on the same principle.

Dr. Woods, in his controversy with Dr. Ware, expresses himself thus on the subject:

"The uniformity of the fact that men become sinners denotes that it results from the settled constitution of our nature, and not from any occosional or accidental cause. We reason thus respecting things which uniformly take place in the physical world; and why not in the moral world? If our becoming sinners is not owing to a steady law or principle of our nature, but to some accidental cause, we should in all reason expect to find some exceptions."-p. 159,

160.