tain its integrity inviolate (*). When therefore they contemplated the effects of the fall, by confining the evil to a corporeal taint, and not extending it to the nobler faculties of the soul, they regarded man as an object of divine displeasure, not because he possessed that, which was offensive, but because he was defective in that, which was pleasing to the Almighty. While, however, they laboured to diminish the effects, they augmented in equal proportion the responsibility of the first transgression, asserting, that all participated in the guilt of Adam. He, they said, received for himself and his posterity the gift of righteousness, which he subsequently forfeited; in his loins we were included, and by him were virtually represented : his will was ours, and hence the consequence of his lapse is justly imputable to us his descendants (5). By our natural birth therefore, under this idea, we are alienated from God, innocent in our individual persons, but guilty in that of him, from whom we derived our existence; a guilt, which, although contracted through the fault of another, yet so closely adheres to us, that it effectually precludes our entrance at the

gate of everlasting life, until the reception of a new birth in baptism.

Thus they contended that the lapse of Adam conveys to us solely imputed guilt, the corporeal infection, which they admitted, not being Sin itself, but only the subject-matter of it; not peccatum, but, according to their phraseology, fomes peccati, a kind of fuel, which the human will kindles or not at pleasure (6). It required, however, no common talent at paradoxical solution to prove, what was pertinaciously held, the innocence of that occult quality, which disposes to crime without being itself criminal, which, void of all depravity, renders the mind depraved; that metaphorical fuel of the affections, which, although not vicious in its own nature, yet, when inflamed, generates vice in the heart, upon which it preys.

Such was the outline of the doctrine upon this point maintained in the Church of Rome, which was always discussed with much metaphysical detail and many abstract distinctions. The tenet of the Lutherans, on the other hand, when neither ignorantly misconceived, nor wilfully misrepresented, is remarkable for its simplicity and perspicuity, is congenial with every man's feelings, and divested of all subtleties within the scope of popular comprehension. If its object is sometimes mistaken, we cannot be surprised at the circumstance, when we recollect to what it was opposed; to scholastical speculations, which appear to the modern eye the deepest gloom of night, so that it necessarily becomes less distinct by being intermingled with darkness. Equally, however, averse from the fastidious philosophy and fanciful theories of their opponents, they wished rather to prove instructive than amusing, to propagate Scriptural truth than metaphysical refinements, and to exalt the glory of God than the credit of their own abilities.

Avoiding all intricate questions upon the subject, they taught, that Original Sin is a corruption of our nature in a general sense, a depravation of the mental faculties and the corporeal appetites; that the resplendent image of the Deity, which man received at the creation of the world, although not annihilated, is nevertheless greatly impaired; and that in consequence the bright characters of unspotted sanctity, once deeply engraven on his mind by the hand of the living God, are become obliterated, the injury extending to his intellect, and affecting as well his reason and his will, as his affections and passions. When therefore they contended, as frequently they did, that our nature is corrupted, they contrasted the position with the scholastical doctrine of its integrity: and when they urged its total corruption, they opposed the idea of a deterioration in one part only, and even that consisting of a propensity void of sin. To conceive that inclination to evil incurs not in itself the disapprobation of Heaven, appeared to them little better than an apology for crime; or at least a dangerous palliation of that, which the Christian's duty compels him not only to repress, but abhor (7).

Yet while they argued, that in consequence of this depravity we are to be considered by our natural birth as the children of wrath, they admitted, that by our new birth in baptism we all are made the children of grace. When, however, on this occasion they pressed the necessity of complying with a Gospel institution, we must not suppose them to have understood that expression in its strongest sense, as excluding from every hope of mercy those, whom involuntary accident or incapacity

has prevented from participating in the Christian Covenant.

For arguments are not wanting to prove, that, although they were anxious to select language, which could not be misrepresented, as insinuating with the Anabaptists the inutility of Infant baptism, they nevertheless subscribed not in this respect to the more contracted doctrine of their adversaries. Luther expressed himself upon this subject so clearly and explicitly, that we ought neither to doubt his creed, nor withhold the tribute justly due to the humanity of his feelings, and the liberality of his sentiments. Although infants, he remarked, bring into the world with them the depravity of their origin, yet is it an important consideration, that they have never transgressed the divine commandments; and since God is merciful, he will not, we may be assured, suffer them to fare the worse, because, without their own fault, they have been deprived of his holy baptism... The known rule, he likewise added, of extending favours and restraining rigours, may in this case be applied greatly to the glory of a Being, disposed by nature to pardon and pity, so that we must not conceive Him to be too severe

F