this absence alone of original righteousness is original sin itself, since it alone is sufficient for the commission and production of every actual sin whatever."

The scriptural view of the subject is, that Adam by sin forfeited the gift of the Holy Spirit for himself and his posterity, and this privation, as a necessary consequence, resulted in the loss of holiness, happiness, and every spiritual good, together with real involvement in all the evil implied in spiritual death. As death, with putrefaction and corruption, flows directly from the privation of natural life, so moral evil or depravity immediately and necessarily results from the absence of spiritual life. So we perceive there was no necessity for the direct infusion of moral evil by the Almighty. It was only requisite for the Holy Spirit to be withdrawn, and moral evil, like a mighty torrent when the flood-gate is lifted, deluged and overwhelmed the soul.

The following, upon the subject of the "retraction of God's spirit from Adam," is from Mr. Howe. "This we do not say gratuitously; for do but consider that plain text, Gal. iii. 13, 'Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us; for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree; that the blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles through Jesus Christ; that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith.' If the remission of the curse carry with it the conferring of the grace of the Spirit, then the curse, while it did continue, could not but include and carry in it the privation of the Spirit. This was part of the curse upon apostate Adam, the loss of God's Spirit. As soon as the law was broken, man was cursed, so as that thereby this Spirit should be withheld, should be kept off otherwise than as upon the Redeemer's account, and according to his methods, it should be restored. Hereupon it could not but ensue that the holy image of God must be erased and vanished."

We conclude upon this point with the following quotation from Mr. Watson's Institutes. Speaking of Adam, he says, " He did sin, and the Spirit retired; and the tide of sin once turned in, the mound of resistance being removed, it overflowed his whole nature. In this state of alienation from God, men are born with all these tendencies to evil, because the only controlling and sanctifying power, the presence of the Spirit, is wanting, and is now given to man, not as when first brought into being as a creature, but is secured to him by the mercy and grace of a new and different dispensation, under which the Spirit is administered in different degrees, times, and modes, according to the wisdom of God, never on the ground of our being creatures, but as redeemed from the curse of the law by him who became a curse for us."

II. In the next place, it is objected to this doctrine, that, "As we have

souls immediately from God, if we are born sinful, he must either create sinful souls, which cannot be supposed without impiety, or send sinless souls into sinful bodies, to be defiled by the unhappy union, which is as inconsistent with his goodness as his justice. Add to this, that nothing can be more unphilosophical than to suppose that a body, a mere lump of organized matter, is able to communicate to a pure spirit that moral pollution of which itself is as incapable as the murderer's sword is incapable of cruelty."

To this objection we reply, that, however weighty it may have been considered by many, it rests entirely upon a vulgar assumption, which cannot be sustained; viz., that we have our souls immediately from God by infusion; that such is not the fact, but that they descend from Adam by traduction, we are led to believe from the following considerations:

1. It is said that God "rested on the seventh day from all his work" of creation; consequently it is unreasonable to suppose that he is still engaged in the creation of souls, as the bodies of mankind multiply upon earth.

2. Eve was originally created in Adam. God made Adam of the "dust of the ground," and infused into his body a living soul; but when Eve was afterward produced, she was not properly created; she was made of a part of Adam's body, and there is no account of God's breathing into her the breath of life, as in the case of Adam. She was called woman because she was taken out of man. Now if Eve derived her nature, soul and body, from Adam, why may not the souls of his posterity descend from him?

3. If we do not derive our souls by natural descent, neither can we thus derive the life of our bodies, for "the body without the spirit is dead."

4. We read in Gen. v. 3, that fallen " Adam begat a son in his own likeness, after his image." Adam was a fallen, embodied spirit ;—such also must have been his son, or he could not have been "in his own likeness."

5. Our Saviour said to Nicodemus, "That which is born of the flesh is flesh." We have in another place shown, that by the term flesh here in the latter instance, we are to understand our fallen, sinful nature. If so, it must include the soul. Again; it is written, "Ye must be born again." Now if the soul is not born with the body, how can its renovation in conversion be called being "born again?"

Some have thought that the doctrine of the traduction of human souls tends to materialism. But this arises," says Mr. Watson, "from a mistaken view of that in which the procreation of a human being lies,

which does not consist in the production out of nothing of either of the parts of which the compounded being, man, is constituted, but in the uniting them substantially with one another." Since, therefore, the traduction of the human soul is more rational and scriptural than its immediate creation, the objection to the doctrine of the native pollution of the soul, which we have been considering, is shown to be groundless.

We need not be told that the view here taken of this subject involves mysteries. This we admit. But is it therefore erroneous? Who can understand the mysteries of the new birth? and yet we receive the doctrine as true. Why, then, should we reject the doctrine of the natural descent of the soul, merely because we cannot comprehend how it is that all the souls as well as the bodies of his posterity were created in Adam, from whom they are derived by descent?

III. In the third place, the doctrine of the native total depravity of man has been objected to from the fact, that there is frequently to be found much moral good in unregenerate men.

In reply to this, we would observe, that all the good claimed with justice as belonging to unregenerate men, can be satisfactorily accounted for, without denying that all men are by nature totally depraved.

1. There may be much seeming good, much negative virtue, in society, originating from the fact that many of the various vices of mankind, from their very nature, to some extent counteract each other. Thus the passion of avarice may lead to the practice of industry. The love of fame may lead to acts of ostentatious benevolence, &c.; but in such cases, the principle of action is not spiritually good.

2. Selfish motives may frequently lead to acts of seeming virtue; a mere love of self-interest induces many to endeavor to secure for themselves a good character, on account of the standing and influence which it will give them in society; all this may be perfectly consistent with the view we have presented of the native corruption of the soul.

3. In the next place, the character of man may appear much better than it really is, merely because surrounding circumstances have not called into open action the latent principles of the soul. The seed of evil may be there, but it may not come forth and exhibit itself, merely because those exciting causes calculated to call it forth to action have not been brought to bear.

4. But, lastly, that acts really praiseworthy, and founded upon principle not wholly corrupt, have frequently been performed by the unregenerate, we are compelled to admit. But all this can be satisfactorily and fully explained, without impugning the doctrine of total depravity. We are not left entirely to ourselves, and to the unbridled influence of our corrupt nature. Through the atonement of Christ, a day of grace is

given to men, the Holy Spirit is sent to visit the hearts of sinners, "dead in trespasses and sins," and the "true light lighteth every man that cometh into the world;" so that all that is spiritually and really good in principle among men, is to be attributed, not to nature, but to grace. It comes not through the first, but the second Adam.

IV. In the last place, it has been objected that the doctrine of innate depravity is inconsistent with the principles of a righteous administration, in the case of INFANTS.

The objection now presented has, perhaps, been more earnestly and repeatedly urged, and more confidently relied upon, by the advocates of the native innocence and purity of man, than any other. And as a proper understanding of the character and condition of infants is so vitally essential to a correct view of the entire doctrine of human depravity, we shall devote the remainder of this lecture to the investigation of that interesting topic. The following are the principal theories which have been advocated upon this subject.

1. That infants are born perfectly innocent and holy.

2. That they are born without any moral character whatever, and alike indifferent to good and evil.

3. That they are born with a strong bias to evil, though not totally corrupt.

4. That they are born in a state of sinfulness and guilt, amounting to total depravity; and that, notwithstanding the atonement of Christ, some of them, dying in infancy, may perish everlastingly.

5. That they are born in a state of unholiness, but, through the atonement of Christ, in a state of justification or innocence, and that, if they die in infancy, they will be infallibly saved.

6. That they are born in a state of pollution and guilt, but that, through the atonement of Christ, all who die in infancy will infallibly be saved.

It will be readily perceived, that while the difference between some of these theories is very slight, between others it is vastly important. In this place we would remark, that what we conceive to be the true Scripture doctrine is contained in the last mentioned theory. The first, viz., that infants are born perfectly innocent and holy, is the doctrine of Pelagians, Socinians, and Unitarians generally; and has already been sufficiently refuted.

The second, viz., that they are born without any moral character whatever, and alike indifferent to good and evil, and the third, viz., that they are born with a strong bias to evil, though not totally corrupt, have both had their advocates among semi-Pelagians, Socinians, Unitarians,

and some of the new school Presbyterians of the United States, and have already been sufficiently refuted.

The fourth, viz., that they are born in a state of sinfulness and guik, amounting to total depravity, and that, notwithstanding the atonement of Christ, some of them, dying in infancy, may perish everlastingly, has been advocated by none but Predestinarians. The latter branch of this . theory, which avows the possibility of infants perishing everlastingly, is the only portion of it inconsistent with what we conceive to be the Scripture doctrine; and it shall presently be considered.

The fifth, viz., that they are born in a state of unholiness, but, through the atonement of Christ, in a state of justification or innocence, and that if they die in infancy, they will infallibly be saved, has been advocated by some Arminian divines. That part of this theory which avows the native innocence or justification of infants is the only portion of it which we conceive to be erroneous, and it will be presently considered.

The sixth, viz., that they are born in a state of pollution and guilt, but that, through the atonement of Christ, all who die in infancy will infallibly be saved, has been advocated by the leading divines of the Arminian school, and contains what we believe to be the Scripture doctrine; and so far as it differs from the fourth and fifth theories, we shall proceed to its investigation.

Observe here, that so far as this theory differs from the first, second, and third theories, it has already been considered, in the investigation of the doctrine of innate total depravity; therefore, its discrepancy with the fourth and fifth theories is all that is now before us. It differs from the fourth theory in that it avows the infallible salvation of all who die in infancy. It differs from the fifth theory in that it avows the native guilt of infants, in opposition to their native innocence or justification. We will attend to these two points in order.

1. We shall endeavor to show that all who die in infancy will infallibly be saved.

The possibility of the eternal destruction of any who die in infancy is so directly at war with what we conceive to be the character of the Divine attributes, and so shocking to the human feelings, that it is really astonishing that the sentiment should ever have received the least countenance. Few, indeed, even of those whose general system of theology required it, have had the hardihood openly to avow it; yet it has had some bold and confident defenders. In the "Westminster Confession of Faith," the standard of the Presbyterians of the United States, we find the following declaration: "Elect infants, dying in infancy, are regenerated and saved by Christ through the Spirit, who worketh when, and where, and how he pleaseth." Here, although the