"and ruin to himself, but also threw down our nature headlong into like destruction;" so that " very in"fants themselves bring their own damnation with "them from their mothers' womb, who, although "they have not brought forth the fruits of their ini

quity, yet have the seed thereof enclosed within "them." (Calvin.) For "sin becomes propagated "into the world by natural generation, grows with "the growth, and strengthens with the strength of "man." (Clarke.)

It would seem from the above assertions and theory of depravity, that sin originates from seeds, and is rather to be considered as a real being, than as the action of a being. It seems also to be rather an animal than a vegetable existence; for according to the above doctrine, it is not only propagated by natur. al generation, but in its growth, holds exact propor. tion of increase, to the augmenting size and strength of the human body. And as the bodies of infants are here affirmed to have these seeds, as sufficient causes of their damnation, inclosed within them from their mothers' womb, we may thence well conclude, that infants of largest size have in them the largest quantity of these seeds, and consequently are deserving of the greater damnation. And according to this criterion, we must suppose Sampson, Saul and Goliah to have been more wicked than either Cain, Pharaoh or Judas. This wonderful theory of material iniquity, unmasks a new world, brings into view a species of existences which Adam never saw, and unto which he never gave a name, (as he did to the cattle, to the

Fowls, and to Eve whom he named woman when in Eden) and furnishes for contemplation, not to moralists alone, but likewise to philosophers, a non-descript monster, composed of neither body, soul nor spirit, but which riots to the "ruin " of them all. Had Moses but been well versed in this ingenious divinity, he would perhaps have speculated on the origin of the sinning angels; and have discerned some seeds of sin both in them, and in our first parents, even before they "brought forth the fruits of their iniquity.”

And had the Apostle James but been inducted into these mysteries of Calvinism, he would not have taught that sin comes into existence, "When every man is tempted, enticed, and drawn away by his own lust." (1, 14). But zealous for its propagation by natural generation, he would perhaps have discovered it in Abraham's begetting Isaac, and in Zachariah's becoming the father of John the Baptist. And to confirm the whole theory, would perhaps have remarked on the quickened energies of embrio sin, when the depravity of nations troubled Rebecca. Genesis xxv, 22, 23. And still further, have established the favourite point, by the leaping of the corrupt babe in the womb of Elizabeth. But not to pursue too far, so preposterous a theory, we will now return to sedate argument. And for this you are not wholly unprepared. For by adopting Doctor Spring's definition of sin, as being a "personal quality," you thereby attempt to justify the Calvinistick construction of David's words, "Behold I was shapen in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me." And this text

so explained, you endeavour to sustain by numerous other selected texts, supposed by yourself most favorable to your own purpose. Nine of these selected texts and inclusive of that of David's confession, I shall endeavour to notice in due order. You have indeed specified a few others, and still more might be added to the same purpose; but those nine being generally most resorted to as the strongest holds of depravity, in the Calvinistick hereditary sense, should they prove insufficient to support your cause, it would be but in vain to adduce more; because the same train of reasonings which should detach the texts proposed, from being supporters of your cause, would in like manner detach all others of a similar signification. But as preparatory to this discussion, I would first briefly animadvert on your adopted definition of sin, as being a personal quality." This definition, however accordant with your views, is utterly discordant with St. John's ideas on the same subject. His definition is, "Sin is the transgression of the law." Surely transgression of law, is not a quality, but an act of a person. If sin is a quality, it is not a quality of a person, but a quality of an unrighteous action. This act violating divine law may be negative, or positive, and internal, or external. It may consist of an undue indulgénce of some one affection, through consent of the will, in desire, word, or action. But the agent thus acting, must previously have been endowed with personal moral ability of controul over such affection. For guilt must ever hold exact proportion with ability to obey, and with abuse of such ability in disobedi

ence. Every transgression thus committed, of a known divine law, is sin in its strictest sense, and according to the true and proper signification of that term. There are, however, other significations of the term which are scriptural. Christ is said to have been "made sin." (2 Corinthians, v, 21;) although neither sinful, nor a sinner. But when made a sin offering, he then was treated, as though he had been a sinner. Another example occurs in Romans v, 12, 14, in which this term is used in a qualified sense, "As by one man, sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned: death reigned, from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come." Here sin, when applied to Adam's offence, is used without any qualification of the meaning. It in this case implies real sin deserving of all the penalty of law. But when so used as to be ascribed to all upon whom death hath passed, and of course, so as to involve even infants and ideots, then its meaning becomes figurative, and implies only, that by subjection to death, they are treated as if sinners in reality. And which is done not to punish them as personal transgressors; but through them to express divine disapprobation of Adam's disobedience. And whilst the divine wisdom, thus subjects persons not actually guilty to sufferings and death, because of the sin of Adam, so it is done with a design of ample remuneration through Christ, who as the antitype of

Adam, as the figure, will at the resurrection impart to them a better life than that which they had lost.

Nor can this distinction betwixt sin really such, and sin only figuratively called such, be refuted, until such time, as that reason shall become absurdity, and absurdity become reason. And from the whole it conclusively follows, that sin, is not a personal quality, but a personal act, in violation of divine law; and is in no other sense a quality, but so far as it may appertain to forbidden action.

David's confession we are now first to consider. "Behold I was shapen in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me." (Psalm L1, 5.) If this passage is to be understood literally, then so far as human agency was concerned in the iniquity of the affair, Jesse and his wife were the only efficients, but as they were honourably and lawfully united in marriage they transgressed no law; and entailed no disgrace on their posterity. And had they even been unmarried, although they would then unhappily have bastardized David and their other children, yet their sin would exclusively have been their own. This they could not have transferred to, or have entailed upon their posterity. For these, although base born, would still personally have been innocent. If this subject is to be considered figuratively, it will not avail to go back to Adam and Eve; because they were as lawfully and as honourably united in wedlock, as Deity Himself could thus have united them. So that no odium

of this kind came upon their issue. But it was far otherwise with David in respect to his descent from