adduced in support of such an idea. Where is the garden now Where is the tree of life now? Where is the tree of know ledge, of good and evil, now? Are these trees now growing on the earth as literal trees?. We are not informed in the scrip ture that this garden was carried off to heaven, or that ei ther of the trees was removed. It is written that God drov the man whom he had made out of the garden and placed cher ubims and a flaming sword at the east of the garden to pre vent the man from approaching the tree of life. If the gar den were literal, why could not Adam have gone into it on th north, south, or west side?" Treatise on Atonement, page 35

Mr. B. appears to argue, in this case, altogether by askin questions; but it should be recollected that if no answer coul be given to the above interrogations, they would not disprov the existence of a literal garden, since a mere want of infor mation on any subject cannot prove its falsity, or non-exis tence. It has often been said that "a novice may ask ques tions which a wise man cannot answer," though we do no consider this to be the case in the subject before us; we con sider Mr. B's questions perfectly capable of solution. If w understand him, he intends three objections to the literal ex istence of the garden of Eden in the extract we have abov given, which we will briefly notice.

1. Mr. B. appears to object to a literal exposition of the subject, on the ground that there is no evidence to support it He says, "I should be glad to be informed what evidence can be adduced in support of such an idea." In answer to thi we say, if no other evidence could be adduced, the text itsel is sufficient, until some evidence be offered to prove it to b figurative; since every document is to be literally interpr ed, unless good reasons can be rendered for a differ struction. Taking this view, Mr. B's call for evi vour of a literal construction, comes with a "

til some more cogent reasons shall be op side of the question than any thir discover in his perfor

ort of

y may

have their desires gratified by consulting the pages over which the reader has just passed.

2. Mr. B. appears to found an objection to a literal interpretation of the subject, on the circumstances that neither the garden nor the trees are now known to exist on earth. He asks: "Where is the garden now? Where is the tree of life now? Where is the tree of knowledge now? Are these trees now growing on the earth as literal trees?" That the garden now exists no one will pretend, but this is very far from prov ing that it never did exist. It is perfectly consistent to suppose, that when man was expelled from the garden, and the ground cursed for his sake, that it should decay and cease to bloom. If Mr. B's mode of reasoning be sound, it will disprove many other portions of the sacred history, for it would probably cost our opponents as much trouble to inform us where the land of Nod is, to which Cain retired, and where he built the city of Enoch, as it would for us to inform them where Eden was situated. When Mr. B. or any of his friends will inform us where Cain built his city, we will point to the place where Eden once bloomed; for, as Cain's settlement was east of Eden, Eden, in turn, must have been west of the city of Enoch, and when our opponents will point to the latter of these places, we will inform them by what rule they may find the place of the former.

3. Mr. B. supposes that if it had been a literal garden, from which Adam was expelled, he might have re-entered at another point. His language is: "It is written that God drove the man out of the garden, and placed cherubims and a flaming sword at the east of the garden, to prevent the man from approaching the tree of life. If the garden were literal why could not Adam have gone into it on the north, south, or west side?" To this a very plain answer is given in the language of inspiration. Gen. iii. 23, 24. "The Lord God placed at the east of the garden of Eden cherubims and a flaming sword which turned every way to keep the way of the tree of life." If then the flaming sword turned every way to guard the tree of life it must have cut off Adam's approach from every point. But it may be asked, why the cherubims and flaming sword were placed at the east of the garden. if they were intended to guard it on all sides? We answer,

because it was doubtless on the east that Adam retired, when God drove him out of the garden; but while the flaming sword was placed at the east, appearing in front of the garden, to guilty and retiring man, it turned every way to prevent his re-entering from another direction. On the subject of the cherubims, Dr. Clark has made the following remark. "These angelic beings were, for a time, employed in guarding the entrance to paradise, and in keeping the way or road to the tree of life. This I say, for a time, for it is very probable that God soon removed the tree of life, and abolished the garden; so that its situation could never after be positively ascertained." We trust we have now shown that the first man fell from a state of holiness and happiness, into a state of sin and misery, by an act of disobedience against God; we will therefore pass to what most readers will, doubtless, consider the more difficult part of our undertaking in this chapter.

Secondly, we propose proving that all men are now born into the world with a fallen and corrupt nature, in consequence of the fall of the first man.

1. We argue the general corruption of human nature from the fall and corruption of the first man, from whom all men have received their existence by way of natural descent.

We have shown, in the preceding chapter, that the first man was created in righteousness and true holiness, that he bore the impress of the hand that made him, and shone in the likeness of his divine author. Now as righteousness and true holiness constituted the moral character or nature of man, as he came from the hand of his Creator, it must follow that this divine image was designed for his descendants, and would have been communicated to them, had he not sinned and lost it himself, while all men were yet in his loins. If then the image of God, wherein the first man was created, was designed to have been transmitted to his offspring, it must appear reasonable that nothing short of a full possession of this image, can answer the claims of the law of our creation; for it would be absurd, to say that God created man in a higher state of moral perfection than is necessary, to answer the claims, and secure the glory of the moral government which he exercises over the human family; or that he bestowed on man a degree of moral holiness, which he did not secure from

desecration by the direct interpostion of moral obligation, or which might be squandered and lost on the part of man, without incurring moral guilt. It is clear, from this, that any state of human nature which comes short of that moral perfection, or that divine image which God bestowed, when he created man, must be regarded as a lapsed state, coming short of that righteousness which the perfect law of our Creator requires; and, consequently, a sinful state, "for all unrighteousness is sin." If, then, a want of the image of God, which consists in righteousness and true holiness, constitutes a fallen and sinful state, it only remains to show farther, that man does not, by nature now possess this divine image. Now, when Adam sinned, he must have lost the image of his maker; for it would be absurd to suppose that the image of God, consisting in righteousness and true holiness, could be possessed by man, and he be a sinner at the same time, guilty before God, and a subject of divine punishment. As well might it be said, that God could consistently condemn, and pour a divine curse upon his own image! As well might it be said that sin and holiness once formed a harmonious alliance! That Adam was righteous and truly holy, and unrighteous, polluted and guilty, at the same time. It is certain, then, that Adam could not have retained the image of his maker after he sinned, and being destitute of it himself, he could not communicate it to his offspring; for no being can comunicate to another that which he does not himself possess.

We have now shown that the image of God, wherein the first man was created, was designed to have been transmitted to his descendants, and that any want of it, on their part, constitutes a degenerate state of human nature. We have, also, shown that this image was lost by the first man, to whom it was committed, not only for himself, but also in trust for his offspring, and that he therefore could not transmit it to his descents who, consequently, cannot possess it by nature, or as the natural descendants of Adam Human nature, therefore, is degenerate and corrupt, coming short of that state of moral perfection which it possessed, when it came from the holy hands of God, glowing in the brightness of his own moral image.

II. In support of the doctrine of the inherent corruption of

human nature, we urge the universality of actual or outbreaking sin.

It will not be denied, that "all have sinned and come short of the glory of God," that "all are under sin," that "all have gone out of the way," and that "by the deeds of the law, no flesh shall be justified in the sight of God" Rom. iii. 9, 12, 20, 23. These pointed declarations of divine truth, must convince all who have any confidence in revelation, that all men commit sin, whether they have a corrupt nature or not; and if any should take the trouble to read these pages, who reject the scriptures, for their benefit we make an appeal to the consciousness of all men; and ask, where is the man who is not conscious of having, at some time deviated from the perfect rule of right? We think there is no danger of successful contradiction, when we assert that all men sin, and commence sinning too, as soon as they are capable of feeling the claims of moral obligation, or discerning between good and evil. This general overflowing of corruption, running through all the channels of human society, must have somewhere a cause or fountain from whence it emanates. That this fountain is the corruption of our nature, or the natural bias of the human soul to that which is evil, in preference to that which is good, we maintain on the ground, that it cannot be rationally attributed to any other cause. Why is it that all men sin as soon as they are capable? Those, who deny the doctrine of original sin, assert that it is the result of bad example, or a bad education, or both. Now, as these are the only reasons, or, at least, the most plausible reasons given by our opponents, if the ground is shown to be untenable, it will follow that we are to look for the fountain, from whence this general wickedness proceeds, in the corruption of human nature. Now, that neither bad example, nor a bad education is the cause of the general wickedness that prevails among men, must appear from one consideration. They themselves are dependent on a state of general wickedness for their own existence, as an effect is dependent upon the cause that produces it. Generally bad example and education cannot exist, without a pre-existing state of generally corrupt morals; for until men are generally wicked or immoral, example and education cannot be generally bad; hence, to say that general