doctrine we oppose, can be made out, with even a shew of fairness. From a few passages, it has been extorted, however; and the candid reader of Scripture, may justly express surprise at the manner in which a sentiment, so inconsistent with its whole spirit and instructions, has been drawn from it. As I have before observed, most of the passages relied upon in the argument, contain vivid and striking descriptions of the vices of particular men, communities, or generations. Some only declare the general truth," There is no man that liveth and sinneth not." And scarce one can even by force, be made to allude to human nature itself, abstractly considered.

Three texts are cited always on this occasion; and they are all which I shall now notice. Both because the mode of interpretation which applies to these, may apply to every other which is referred to, and because constant use of these, shews the dearth of good proof sufficiently to indicate the weakness of the cause they are supposed to establish.

One of these passages lies in the 51st Psalm. David is there giving utterance to some very strong emotions of his heart, excited by the recollections of his own crimes. The whole piece is an exercise of private, personal devotion, and should be interpreted as such. Shall we take up his words and analyse them, as if they were the language, not of emotion, but cold philosophy? Shall we read his Psalm as a lecture, instead of an humble prayer of private penitence? If any one supposes David designed to be understood literally, when he says, "I was shapen in iniquity," then let him be consistent, and equally literal in such sentences as the following; "The

"Rivers of water

wicked go astray as soon as they are born, speaking lies." That is, infants speak as soon as they come into the world, and they speak lies too. run down mine eyes." Here you cheeks two channels or beds of rivers.

may imagine his

66

Purge me with hyssop." That is, take the herb hyssop and cleanse me. "Break the teeth of the young lions." "There is no soundness in my flesh, because of my sins." It is easily seen to what absurdities we are led by this mode of interpretaion; yet no reason exists for applying it to the words of the penitential hymn, which does not equally require its use in those just recited. The truth is, all these passages are properly regarded as the expressions, which naturally suggest themselves to the mind of an oriental poet, in a state of strong emotion; but not as literal representations of fact or opinion.

Ephesians ii. 5, is another text much relied upon in this argument. "And were, by nature, children of wrath, even as others." To whom is this said? To persons recently converted from idolatry; who had, in times past, "walked according to the prince of the power of the air, who were Gentiles in the flesh, and aliens from the commonwealth of Israel." This heathenish state with its attendant vices, Paul contrasts with the condition into which Christianity had brought them. The phrase, “by nature" occurs in another Epistle, in a manner which illustrates its meaning here. "We, who are Jews by nature, and not sinners of the Gentiles." Now it is certain Paul does not intend their nature as human beings, for that is peculiar to no nation, and makes us simply men, not Jews nor Gentiles. The latter clause proves that

we are to understand the former thus, if any proof were needed. For sin, as an attribute of man, is surely not limited by national divisions; and the phrase "sinners of the Gentiles" would have no sense, if we did not know that, by this title, the Jews were accustomed to distinguish idolaters from their own people. To be a Jew by nature, is to be one by parentage, education, and affinity. "Children of wrath, children of disobedience," are terms significant of the actual character of those to whom they apply, a character acquired by themselves, when they "gave themselves over to lasciviousness, and walked according to the course of this world." So Peter styles similar characters, "cursed children," indicating their liability to punishment for their vices. And, in like manner, virtuous Christians walk as "children of the light." If any one prefers to understand the Apostle as affirming that the Ephesians were proper subjects of divine wrath, on account of their birth simply, without any regard to their own subsequent conduct, he may enjoy his opinion. But he turns aside entirely from the argument of the writer, to hang a fond notion of his own upon the naked words.

The only remaining passage I shall notice, lies in the Epistle to the Corinthians. "The natural man receiveth not the things of the spirit of God." A wrong translation alone, occasions the least mistake here. The Greek word does not signify what the English term implies. Its true meaning is expressed in Jude xix, "sensual." So also in James iii. 15, "sensual" is the rendering. It is found in three places in this Epistle besides the passage just quoted. Paul, speaking of the human frame, says,

66

it is " sown an atural body." He means "a fleshly body." This expresses his sentiment more clearly; for "flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom." The Apostle, in the chapter containing the words under discussion, declares, respecting the future happiness of the good, that "eye hath not seen the things which God hath prepared for them that love him, but God hath revealed them unto us by his spirit." In reference to the same things, he afterwards says, the natural or sensual man, he who is immersed in sensual indulgences, receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God; that is, the things which he hath revealed unto us by his Spirit. They are foolishness unto him." Why? Because spiritual joys, the bliss of virtue, has no charms for the sensualist. "Neither can he know them." Why? "Because they are spiritually discerned." They are of a purely intellectual and spiritual nature; they are not to be understood, or valued by one whose gross mind is bound to the earth, and who has never experienced a felicity which has no relation to the gratifications of sense. His moral perceptions and taste, are blunted, obscure, perverse. He sees no attractions in the prospect of a happiness, whose nature he cannot comprehend,-whose worth he is incapable of appreciating. Let his mind be spiritualized-let it be restored to purity and virtue, he will then discern spiritual things.

Before I close this protracted discussion, allow me for a moment to advert to some popular charges, brought against those who adopt our views of the subject we have been considering.

1. It is often alleged that we diminish the evil of sin, make it a trifling matter, and are disposed to think most men good enough as they are. But how does this appear? Our argument concerns a false account of the origin, and a very exaggerated statement of the amount of sin among mankind. We leave room for the whole mass of facts which have been, or may be gathered out of human history, to prove that a man is a sinner, and a great sinner too. But we stand in front of these facts, and beg our opponents not to add to them a pile of their fanciful creation. We think that there is as much danger of overstating in a case of this kind, as there is where only an individual's reputation is concerned. We desire only to have the whole truth told. And beside the dark picture of guilt, we would hang that of virtue, and point to the one as well as to the other, when we are describing man. It surely does not af fect the magnitude of any evil to trace it to one, rather than another source. Or if it does, the evil of sin is enhanced by a doctrine which attributes it to every man's own folly, and perverse abuse of his nature, instead of deriving it from that nature itself, which, being a gift of God, ought to be presumed worthy of the giver. We do not make sin an infinite evil, for the same reason that our opponents do not make virtuous qualities infinite. There can be nothing infinite in a finite being. We do not deny that there is much wickedness among men; we believe that the whole world once " 'lay in wickedness." But we are unwilling, for the sake of accounting for this amount of guilt, to resort to a theory which makes God its author. No man, in his right mind, can regard sin as