tinctly exhibited; for the Pelagians strenuously maintained that all sins were actual, or consisted in acts; but the orthodox maintained, that besides the acts of sin, there existed a corruption of nature,an inherent moral disorder in the faculties, which, for convenience, they denominated "original sin."

Having shown that the doctrine of those who oppose original sin is not contained in scripture, nor can be proved from it; we now proceed to demonstrate, that it is absolutely repugnant to the testimony of God, in his word; and therefore is a false doctrine, which should be exterminated from the church.

66

The first testimony which we adduce is from Genesis v. 5, “And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually ;" and Gen. viii. 21, "For the imagination of man's heart is evil from his youth." The objection to this testimony is, "that this is only spoken of adults, and only shows that there is in man a proneness to go astray; but nothing is here said respecting a hereditary corruption of the human heart." But is it not evident that if all the thoughts and imaginations of the heart are constantly evil from youth upwards, the nature of man must be corrupt? What stronger evidence could there be of a corruption of nature than the fact that all men sin and do nothing else but sin, from the moment that they are capable of actual transgression? An effect so universal can never be accounted for by imitation, for children begin to sin before they have much opportunity of imitating the sins of others, and even when the examples before them are pious and good. If from the fruits of holiness we may infer that the tree is good, then certainly on the same principle, from a production of bad fruit it is fairly concluded that the nature is evil. "A good man out of the good treasure of his heart bringeth forth that which is good; but an evil man, out of the evil treasure of his heart, that which is evil." "Out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh." Our next testimony we take from Rom. iii. 10. "There is none righteous, no not one.' Now if man's nature be not corrupt, how can it be accounted for on any rational principles, that all men, without the exception of one, should be unrighteous? To this proof, indeed, Albert Pighius excepts that it relates to the Jewish nation, and not to the whole race of man. But this is contrary to the express design of the apostle in this passage, which was to prove that both Jews and Gentiles were all under sin and wrath, and all stood in absolute need of salvation by faith in Christ. And in the preceding verse he explicitly declares that he had "proved both Jews and Gentiles, that they are all under sin." And his general conclusion is, "That all the world may become guilty before God," Indeed, if the nation of the Jews only was referred to in this passage, yet it might be fairly inferred that all other nations. were in the same corrupt condition; for why should it be supposed that universal depravity should be confined to this one people? And history confirms the sentence of the apostle, for it represents

other nations as wicked as the Jews. The apostle must, therefore, be considered as describing the moral condition, not of one nation or one age, but of human nature in all countries and at all times; so far as it is not restored by Christ.

66

66

A third testimony for original sin is found in Rom. vii., where Paul, in strong language, describes the power and depth of indwelling sin, as experienced by himself, now in his renewed state. He calls it "a law of sin and death," as working in him "all manner of concupiscence;" as "deceiving him." And he speaks of it as an abiding principle-" sin that dwelleth in me." As an evil ever present with him in all his exertions to do good; as a law in his members warring against the law of his mind;" so that he exclaimed, "O wretched man that I am, who shall deliver me from the body of this death?" The Pelagians, it is true, will not agree that Paul is here speaking in his own person, but pretend that he personates a Jew under conviction of the duty which the law requires, but sensible of his inability to comply with the demands of the law. But that the apostle is here giving us his own experience is evident from all the circumstances of the case; which opinion is not only held by Augustine in his controversy with Julian, but was maintained by the fathers who preceded him, particularly Cyprian and Hilary.

Other testimonies not less direct and conclusive are, Job xv. 14, "What is man that he should be clean? and he which is born of a woman, that he should be righteous?"

Psalm li. 5, “Behold I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me."

John iii. 3, "That which is born of the flesh is flesh."

Rom. v. 12, "As by one man sin entered into the world,—and so death passed upon all men, because that all have sinned." On this text it is worthy of remark that it is not only asserted that the punishment of death hath passed upon all men, but the reason is added, namely," because all have sinned;" so that the fault and punishment, the guilt and pollution, are by the apostle joined together. Rom. v. 19, "For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners."

Rom. viii. 7, "Because the carnal mind is enmity against God, for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be."

Ephes. ii. 3, "And were by nature the children of wrath, even as others."

And as infants die, as universal experience teaches, it is evident that they must be chargeable with sin; for Paul clearly represents sin as the cause of death—of the death of all men. "And the wages of sin is death."

It would be tedious to enumerate all the objections which Pelagians and others make to the interpretation of these texts. The specimen given above may be taken as an evidence that they never can succeed in proving that their doctrine is consonant with the testimony of God in the holy scriptures.

Hitherto we have disputed with those of the Papists and Ana

baptists who deny the existence of original sin altogether; but now we come to consider the opinion of those who acknowledge original sin, but insist that it is not anything inherent in man at his birth, but only the guilt of another's sin imputed. This opinion is maintained by some of the papists, who think that original sin is nothing else than the debt of punishment contracted from the sin of Adam, but that nothing of the pollution of sin is propagated by natural generation. A.D. 1542, Pighius, after the conference which was held at Worms, expressed his opinion in writing as follows: "Original sin does not consist in any defect, nor in any vice, nor depravation of nature; not in any corrupt quality nor inherent vicious habit in us, but solely in our subjection to the punishment of the first sin; that is, in contracted guilt, without anything of depravity in our nature."

It is a sufficient refutation of this doctrine that it is nowhere found in scripture, and nothing should be received as an article of faith which cannot be proved from this source. Its abettors do indeed endeavour to establish it by an appeal to the Bible, but they are obliged to beg the very point in dispute, as will soon be made to appear.

Pighius, the chief advocate for this opinion, brings forward Rom. v. 12," By one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin.” Rom. v. 15, "By the offenee of one, many are dead." Rom. v. 16, "For the judgment was by one to condemnation." Rom. v. 17, "For by one man's offence death reigned by one." Rom. v. 18, "Therefore, as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation." In all these texts, says Pighius, the apostle attributes condemnation to the sin of Adam, and nothing else. To which it may be replied, that when the apostle declares that "sin had entered into the world," he does not mean, merely, that Adam had become a sinner, but that it had come upon all his descendants; that is, upon all men in the world; for he does not say in this place that guilt had entered, but that sin had entered into the world. And this is not left to be inferred, but is expressly asserted in the same verse: "in whom all have sinned;" or, "for that all have sinned." Moreover, when he declares that all are subject to death and condemnation by the sin of one, it is a just inference that they are all partakers of his sin, and are born in a state of moral pollution. In the 19th verse it is said, "By the disobedience of one many are constituted sinners;" now to be constituted sinners, includes the idea not only of being made subject to the penalty, but partaking of the nature of sin; for they who are entirely free from the stain of sin, cannot with propriety be called " sinners." Again, the apostle in this chapter teaches, that "while we were yet sinners Christ died for us, to deliver us from death and reconcile us to God" certainly he died for none but sinners: but if infants are not sinners then Christ did not die for them, nor do they belong to him as their Saviour; which is most absurd.

"But," says Pighius, "infants being neither endued with the

knowledge of the law, nor with freedom of will, are not moral agents, and are therefore incapable of obedience or disobedience; they cannot therefore be the subjects of sin, and cannot be bound to endure the penalty of the law on any other account than for the sin of another."

Answer. Although infants have not the exercise of free-will, and are not moral agents, yet they possess a nature not conformable to the law of God: they are not such as the law demands that human beings should be, but are depraved; "children of wrath," and guilty on account of their own personal depravity for the authorized definition of sin is àvopía, that is, whatever is repugnant to the law of God.

But they insist further, "that God being the author of nature, if that be depraved, he must be the author of sin."

To which we reply in the words of Augustine: "Both are propagated together, nature and the depravity of nature; one of which is good, the other evil: the first is derived from the bounty of our Creator, the latter must be attributed to our original condemnation. The first has for its cause the good pleasure of God, the latter the perverse will of the first man: that exhibits God as the former of the creatures, this as the punisher of disobedience. Finally, the same Christ for the creation of our nature, is the maker of man; but for the healing of the disease of this nature became man."

Again, this doctrine may be refuted by express testimonies from scripture; and ought therefore to be rejected as unsound. Gen. v. 3, "Adam begat Seth in his own image." Job xiv. 4, "Who can bring a clean thing out of an unclean?-not one." Psalm li. 5, "For I was shapen in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me." Rom. v. 19, "By the disobedience of one man, many were made sinners." Ephes. iii. 2, "And were by nature the children of wrath, even as others;" that is, we were born subject to condemnation, because born in a corrupt state. From all which passages it appears that original sin does not consist merely in guilt or liableness to punishment, but in a moral depravation of the whole nature; and that it is not contracted by imitation, but by generation. Paul often speaks of that which we call "original sin" under the general name of "sin." In Rom. vi. 8, he speaks of the "old man" being crucified; of the "body of sin" being destroyed; and in chap. vii. he speaks of being "sold under sin," of no good thing dwelling in his flesh; of evil being present with him when he would do good; and of being led captive by "the law of sin" in his members.

Another cogent proof of the heterodoxy of this doctrine may be derived from the baptism of infants, which certainly supposes that they are conceived and born in sin.

It is also worthy of observation that spiritual regeneration is, in scripture, continually put in contrast with "the flesh," and with our

fleshly birth. But where is the propriety of this, if the flesh is naturally free from stain?

And finally, the catholic church has ever held an opinion contrary to the one which is now opposed. Augustine, in his second book against Pelagius and Cœlestius, expresses most explicitly what we maintain: "Whosoever," says he, "contends that human nature, in any age, does not need the second Adam as a physician, on the ground that it has not been vitiated in the first Adam, does not fall into an error which may be held without injury to the rule of faith; but by that very rule by which we are constituted Christians, is convicted of being an enemy to the grace of God."

It is again disputed, whether concupiscence, or that disease of our nature which renders us prone to sin, is itself of the nature of sin. This the papists deny; we affirm.

They allege that whatever exists in us necessarily, and is not from ourselves, but from another, cannot be of the nature of sin; but this is the fact in regard to concupiscence, ergo, &c.

Answer. In a merely political judgment this may be correct, but not in that which is divine. And if the principle here asserted was sound, it would prove too much it would prove that even the acts of concupiscence are not sinful: for there is a sort of necessity for these, supposing the principle of concupiscence to exist in the soul.

It is next objected, that that which is wholly the work of God, as is the whole nature of man, cannot be corrupt, and therefore whatever belongs to this nature as it comes from the hand of God, cannot be otherwise than free from sin.

If there were any force in this argument, it would prove that there could be no such thing as sin in the universe, for all creatures are not only dependent on God for existence at first, but for continuance in being every moment; and if the power of God could not, consistently with its purity, be exerted to bring into existence the children of a corrupt parent, in a state of moral corruption, neither could it be to continue their being, which equally requires the exertion of omnipotence. But the truth is, so far as human nature or human actions are the effect of divine power, the work is good the essential faculties of the mind and members of the body are good, and the entity of every human act is good; but the evil of our nature is received by natural generation, and is the consequence of the fall of our first parent, and the sinfulness of our acts must not be ascribed to God, "in whom we live and move," but to the perversity of our own wills.

But they allege that God inflicts this depravity on the race of men, and therefore it cannot partake of the nature of sin, without making God its author.

To which it may be replied that God inflicts it, as it is a punishment, but not as it is sin; that is, he withdraws all divine influence, and all the gifts of innocence with which the creature was originally endued in just judgment. Does not God in just displeasure