The phrase original sin is very vague. It may denote, either the first sin, whether that be the first in the whole series of sins, committed by our race, viz: the first transgression of our guilty primogenitors; or, whether it be the first sinful act, in the series of transgressions, committed by any one of their descendants. Or, it may denote the original of sin; i. e. the fountain or source whence other sins proceed; and that, whether it be in reference to our first parents, the source of all the sins in this world, or in reference to any and every individual, the source of all the sins committed by them. Or, it may denote the sin of our original, whether it be the sin of every man's parents, connected with his origination, or the sin of our very first existence. Or, it may denote something which has the power to originate sin, and which is necessarily involved in our very being, from the first moment of its origination. In this last sense, as the Catechism intimates it was, in the days of the Westminster divines and previously, it is often used as the vulgar synonyme, for "the corruption of our whole nature." Who does not see, how perplexing and

the answer to the 4th question, which is, "What things came to us by that fall; (of Adam;) there is an evident distinction made between natural corruption and original sin. The answer is, “Original sin and natural corruption." In "the confession of faith, and doctrine believed and professed by the protestants of Scotland, Aug 1560," immediately after speaking of the transgression of our first parents, in eating the forbidden fruit, it is added, "By which transgression, commonly called original sin." The first sin of Adam was, in 1560, "commonly called" in Scotland, original sin." In 1590, still they distinguished between original sin and natural corruption. In the 6th sec. of the 6th chap. of the Westminster confession of faith, we read that “Every sin,” both original and actual, being a transgression of the righteous law of God, and contrary thereto, doth, in its own nature, bring guilt upon the sinner, whereby he is bound over to the wrath of God, and curse of the law. If original sin be represented as a transgression of law, it is not a sinful nature. "The Sum of saving knowledge" holds the following language on the subject: "Our first parents being enticed by Satan, one of these Devils, speaking in a serpent, did break the covenant of works, in eating the for

endless must be the disputes which will prevail, where a phrase, capable of such varied signification, is, employed? It is not found in the word of God, and therefore can claim no respect, as coming from inspired lips. It may, indeed, be consecrated in the technicalities of Theologians, but common sense would unquestionably suggest the propriety of abandoning it, when it is so liable to be misconstrued and misunderstood. We shall not, therefore, be at any pains to determine, whether it means the sin which is first in the series, or the sin that originates others, or the sin of our origin, or the "something" in our being, which has power to originate sin, or is the original of sin.

It may be profitable to inquire-Whether our very being, as we are born into this world, is itself sinful? Whether sin has its origin in any physical defect of our being, or other physical cause whatever? Whether there is any connexion between the first sin of Adam and our sins? What is the nature of that connexion? And what light may be thrown on this subject, by a careful examination of facts, in relation to the developments of human depravity? A so

bidden fruit; wherefore they and their posterity, being in their loins, as branches in the root, and comprehended in the same covenant with them, became not only liable to eternal death, but also lost all ability to please God; yea, did become, by nature, enemies to God, and to all spiritual good, and inclined only to evil continually. This is our original sin, the bitter root of all our actual transgressions, in Thoughts, Word and Deed." Here orig inal sin would seem to be represented as our being, by nature, enemies of God, and having lost all ability-something in the very being which we inherit by natural descent, and which is the root of all actual sins. Augus tine, who is quoted, with approbation, in the Biblical Repertory, says,"Original sin, therefore, ought not to be considered an infused habit, nor a habit acquired by repeated acts, but an innate disposition, derived from the voluntary transgression of the first man." The reader will notice the sentiments of Calvin and others, quoted on this subject; nor can he fail to perceive how very vaguely, and confusedly, and contradictorily Calvinistic confessions of faith, and Calvinistic writers spoke, on the subject of origi nal sin, when they incidentally undertook to define or to describe it.

lution of these inquiries shall be attempted in the remaining of this, and several succeeding chapters; inasmuch as the subject of depravity, when understood, serves indirectly to illustrate the nature of Regeneration.

It is strange that ever it should have been made a question, whether sin may be predicated of being or simple existence, since sin is undeniably an act of a moral character, and, therefore, can only be committed by one, who is possessed of moral powers; i. e. one who is capable of acting according as the law requires or prohibits. So far as personal unholiness or sin is concerned, we mean that which is contracted and exhibited by the individual person of whom it is predicated, the truth of this remark is obvious. For the very nature of sin implies an exercise of will. There can be neither obedience nor disobedience, where there is not an exercise of will. That will may be secured through the impulse of various feelings and motives, and they may determine its character; but all personal holiness or unholiness-i. e. the holiness or unholiness which characterizes a moral agent, involves, in its very nature, an exercise of will.

It is indispensably necessary, that we pay particular respect to the general characteristics, as a creature, or constitution of the being, when holiness or unholiness is predicated of it. An ox, or goat, as set apart and slain, according to the rites of Levitical sacrifice, was accounted holy. So also were the pots and vessels of the sanctuary. Other things were accounted unholy or unlcean. But no one will pretend, that the holiness or unholiness which is predicated of such things, is the same in character with that of rational, moral creatures, such as man. Nor will it be affirmed, that the holiness which was predicated of Israel, collectively as a people, set apart from other nations, is of the same character with that, which is attributed to the saints personally, as individual moral agents.

The holiness or unholiness of an individual moral agent, which we have called personal, has respect to the exercises of the will, as induced by the feelings of the heart, and the influential motives. These are the things which properly fall under the cognizance of law, and which the law is designed to regulate. Law, in general, is the declared will of a legitimate sovereign, designed to regulate the conduct of his subjects. It addresses itself directly to the capacities of their rational and moral nature, and requires from them a voluntary compliance with its demands. Its character is not changed, where God, our Creator, is the lawgiver; so that it is obvious, to every intelligent reader, that holiness, or sin which is its opposite, has a direct and immediate reference to those voluntary acts and exercises, which the law is designed to secure or prevent.

The law has neither respect to, nor is designed to regulate, simple being or created existence; but presupposes the existence of moral agents. How very absurd, therefore, is it, to predicate sin of that which does not fall under the cognizance of law at all! Simple existence, cannot, in the very nature of things, be sinful; for there is no law designed to prevent existence. And such is the common sense of mankind. No one ever thinks or feels, that it is a sin, that he exists, or that he was born, or that he was conceived; for these things, being beyond the control of man's will, and being properly the results of God's agency, if they are sinful, the sin must be his,-which is a thought too impious to entertain.

But while this will perhaps be admitted by the most zealous advocate of what is "commonly called original sin," there are forms of speech, and modes of illustration, adopted by some, which, if they do not imply that mere human existence or being is sinful, do certainly, that there is in the very soul of man "something," which has the power to originate acts of a sinful nature, and conse

quently, being their appropriate cause, may be itself denominated sinful, and viewed as affecting, by its very presence, the moral purity of the soul. Whether this cause of sinful acts, lodged in the very soul, is to be traced up to any defect of physical constitution, or to the actual inbeing or inherence of any habit, principle, bias or taint, which is the appropriate and 'immediate cause of sinful acts, or both, it is difficult precisely to determine, from the language and illustrations employed.

Dr. Owen evidently speaks of sin, "as aprinciple, or something which has the efficiency of a cause, and which exists in men anterior to any acts performed by them. He calls it "Indwelling sin," and has written an interesting practical treatise, which, where it is not rendered absolutely mystical, and unintelligible, through the influence of false philosophy, may be found profitable in the experience of christians. His remarks are founded on the figurative expressions of the apostle Paul, who, when speaking of his continual warfare with sin, personified it as sin that dwelleth in him, and represented its influence as a law in his members. Such expressions the Dr. seems to have understood, and interpreted in their literal sense, which can in no way be sustained, but on the supposition of a physical depravity. We give the reader his current comment on the apostles' language. "Sin that dwelleth in me. It is present with me. It is in my members; yet it is so far in a man, as in some sense it is said to be the man himself. 'I know that in me, that is in my flesh, there dwelleth no good thing. The flesh which is the seat and throne of this law, yea which indeed is this law, is in some sense the man himself, as grace also is the new man. Now from this consideration of it, that it is an indwelling law, inclining and moving to sin as an inward habit or principle, it has sundry advan