wickedness has resulted from bad example and education, is to put the effect for the cause. The argument must stand thus: Men are generally wicked because example and education are generally bad, and example and education are generally bad because men are generally wicked. This leaves one or the other without a cause, for which we must resort to the corruption of human nature. If bad example, or bad education has caused the general wickedness of men, what caused general bad example and education at first? If it be denied that men are more inclined to evil than good, we have here an effect---the general corruption of example and education, for which there is no assignable cause; and if it be admitted that this general corruption of example and education be the result of a natural bias in man to evil, the argument is ceded, and the doctrine of the corruption of human nature is established. Other reasons might be rendered, why bad example and education cannot have produced the general wickednes that has prevailed in the earth, but enough has been said, on this point, to show, that until our opponents can invent some more rational cause for the general wickedness of mankind than they have yet been able to assign, it will remain a standing memorial of the corruption of our nature through the fall, to the entire overthrow of the Pelagian heresy.

of

III. Those scriptures, which represent all men as being li able to some sort of divine malediction, in consequence Adam's sin, clearly prove the corruption of human nature through the fall.

be

Rom. v. 15. "For if through the offence of one many dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many." The many, which are said to be dead, in this text, embraces the whole human family; for they form a perfect parallel, to the many, unto whom the grace of God is said to abound by Jesus Christ. All are then dead through the offence of one. By this one man, through whose offence all are dead, we are undoubtedly to understand the first man, Adam. Now, if by death, in the text, we are to understand the death of the body, which we have shown in the preceding chapter to be an effect of sin, it will follow that we die in consequence of Adam's offence; from which one of two

consequences must follow. First, the law inflicts a penalty on those who are perfectly conformed to its divine claims, or else, secondly, the one offence of Adam corrupted human nature so as to produce in his offspring a non-conformity to the law. Should it be said that men produce in themselves a non-conformity to the law, by their own personal sin, and that therefore the law does not inflict its penalty on those who are conformed to its claims, in the sentence of death upon all men, it is replied, first, that this would be to suppose that all men die, temporally, for their own offence, and not "through the offence of one," as the text affirms. Secondly, infants die before they are capable of producing in themselves a non-conformity to the law. Now, to suppose that the law inflicts a penalty on such as are conformed to its requisitions, would be subversive of all righteous government! The thought cannot be indulged for a moment. As the law, then, cannot inflict a penalty on such as are conformed to its claims, and as it does inflict a penalty on all, in consequence of Adam's offence, it must follow, that it produced in all his posterity a non-conformity to the law, which implies a lapsed and corrupt state of human nature. Should it be denied, that the death of the body is intended, in the text, and maintained that it is a moral death that is come upon all, "through the offence of one," the argument is ceded, this being the sentiment for which we contend; therefore, whether temporal or moral death, or both be understood, in the text, the argument remains conclusive. In the 16th verse, the Apostle says: "And not as it was by one that sinned, so is the gift; for the judgment was by one to condemnation." This clearly shows, that by the of fence of one man, Adam, judgment has come upon all, condemning them to death of some sort" the judgment was by one to condemnation"---and as we have seen, that the law could not condemn or inflict a penalty upon those who are conformed to it, the offence of Adam must have produced in his offspring a non-conformity to the law, or by it judgment could not have come upon them, condemning them to death either temporal or moral.

In the 18th verse, the Apostle expresses the same idea, if possible, in clearer language. "By the offence of one, judgment came upon all men unto condemnation." It is settled,

of

then, on the authority of inspiration, that condemning judg ment was passed upon all men, in consequence of the offence оне, i. e. Adam. All men thus condemned, were conformed to the divine law, or they were not; but if they had been conformed to the law, we have shown that they could not have been condemned, therefore they were not conformed to the law. There is then in man, a non-conformity to the law of God, which appears from the fact, that all men have fallen under its condemnation. Now, as condemnation unto death, came upon men, before they were guilty of personal sin, and does now come upon infants, who are incapable of committing sin, it follows that this want of conformity to the law of God, is an inherent defect in human nature, and as it cannot be charged upon the Creator, the conclusion is irresistible, that it was caused by the sin of the first man, the Father and federal head of the human family, by whose offence "judgment came upon all men to condemnation." The 19th verse gives a still more direct view of the subject. "By one man's disobedience many were made sinners." It will not be contended by those who deny the corruption of human nature through the fall, that many were made sinners, by a direct imputation of Adam's guilt to his offspring. How then were many made sinners by the offence of one? The only consis ent answer to this question, is found in the principles already laid down a corrupt state of human nature was produced by the sin of the first man, and inherited from him, by all men. Is it asked how men can be considered sinners, merely because they inherit a corrupt nature by Adam, which they have not caused, and which they cannot prevent; it is answered, that this inherited corruption of nature constitutes a want of conformity to the perfect law of God, which requires holiness in the inner part, the same 66 righteousness and true holiness?? which man possessed when he came from the hand of his Creator; and this want of conformity to the law is unrighteousness; a coming short of right, and "all unrighteousness is sin." 1 John v. 17. There is another sense in which it may be true that "by the offence of one, many were made sinners." "The offence of one" corrupted human nature, and this corruption of human nature leads to actual transgression. There is no other sense in which it can be consistently said,

that, "by the offence of one, many were made sinners." If, as some contend, human nature has not suffered by the fall, and if all sin consists in voluntary actions, "the offence of one man cannot have been the cause of the sinfulness of many. It would be futile to say that the first offence led to the sinfulness of mankind generally, by the influence of the example it furnished; for such was the nature of Adam's offence, and such the condition in which it placed him and his descendants, as to preclude the possibility of a repetition of the same act. Not only so, but what influence can Adam's offence have on the morals of men, in producing sin at this late period of the world? Most certainly none at all, unless it be by a bias to sin which it has produced in human nature. If men are now naturally inclined to sin, in consequence of a bias, which human nature has received through the fall of Adam, it is the very thing for which we contend; but if human nature is not thus inclined to evil, then many cannot have been made sinners by the disobedience of one, and the the Apostle stands corrected by the inventors of new doctrines.

IV. Those scriptures, which describe the unrenewed mind of man, clearly imply his native depravity. Jer. xvii. 9. "The heart is deceitful above all things and desperately wicked."

The strength of the argument, drawn from this and similar texts, which we shall introduce under this head, depends upon what is understood by the term heart. If by the heart is meant nothing more than the voluntary actions of men, the argument would lose much of its force; but if we understand by it the whole moral man, it follows that human nature itself is corrupt. Now, that by the heart is meant the mind, soul, or whole moral man, appears from the fact that those attributes and characteristics which belong to the soul, are ascribed to the heart, as will be seen by the following references. 1 Kings, iii. 12. "A wise and understanding heart." Rom. i. 21. 66 "Foolish heart." Ex. xxxv. 5. "Willing heart." Psa. ci. 4. "A froward heart " Matt. xi. 29. "Meek and lowly in heart." Prov. xxi. 4. "A proud heart." Psa. li. 17. "A contrite heart." Ex. vii. 14. "Hardened heart." Rom. ii. 5. "Impenitent heart." Psa. li. 10. "Unclean heart" Isa. xv. 4. "A fearful heart." Deut. xxviii. 47. "Joyfulness

and gladness of heart." Lev. xxvi. 16. "Sorrow of heart," &c. &c. The above quotations clearly show that the scriptures do not mean the volitions of the mind, exclusively, when they speak of the heart, but that the whole mind or soul is intended; for wisdom, understanding, humility, pride, contrition, impenitence, purity, joy, sorrow, peace, &c. imply powers, passions and qualities, which are not attributable to volition alone, or to voluntary actions, but which belong essentally to the mind or soul. By the heart, then is meant, not the affections or volitions only, but the soul or whole moral and intellectual man; or the seat of the understanding, will, or volitions, affections and passions. Now as the "heart,” which is the seat of the understanding, will, affections and passions, is said to be "deceitful above all things and desperately wicked," it follows that the whole man is depraved, and that entire human nature has become corrupt.

Gen. vi. 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."

This text clearly makes a distinction between the heart and the volitions, or thoughts and purposes of the mind; the former is the source or fountain; the latter are the streams proceeding therefrom. The expression, "thoughts of his heart," marks the thoughts, as not being the heart, but as belonging to the heart, or proceeding therefrom. Now as every imagination of the thoughts of the heart is evil, it follows that the heart itself must be corrupt. Can that heart, from whence proceeds evil without any mixture of good, and without any intermission of the evil, be free from evil itself? When the heart can send forth that which it does not possess in itself, and when an effect can exist without a producing cause, then, and not before, this can be true. Should it be still contended that the evil has its existence alone in the volitions of the heart, and that the thoughts are evil, not in consequence of the source from whence they proceed, but from the objects to which they tend; it is replied, that this does not in the least alleviate the difficulty; it still leaves us without a reason why the volitions should all be evil, and every thought tend to an evil object. Can every volition of the haman soul be evil, directing every thought towards an evil object, without ever once missing the mark; and still, the