JAN ;: sec T> DISSERTATION NATIVE DEPRAVITY y BY GARDINER SPRING, PASTOH OV THE DEICK PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH IN THE CITY OF NEW-YORK. NEW-YORK : PUBLISHED BY JONATHAN LEAVITT, 182 BROADWAY. JOHN T. WEST, PRINTER. Entered according to Act of Congress, in the year 1833, by John T. West, HI the Clerk's Office of the Southern District of New- York. DISSERTATION. Within a few years past, the attention of the churches has been drawn to some novel specu- lations in theology, the nature and tendency of which have excited not a little alarm. With what ingenuousness and frankness of mind, they have been introduced to the consideration of the pub- lic, different men will probably form a different judgment, as they have been more or less ac- quainted with the history of these discussions. The error to which I am about to refer in these pages, was, I distinctly remember, a few years ago, but delicately hinted at, and very modestly, though assiduously suggested in pri- vate conversation. The first assault upon the Doctrine of Native Depravity was from the New- Haven School, and in their own covered way to the field. Some few ministers of the gospel, in high standing, and hitherto supposed to be attached to the doctrines of the Reformation, began to speak with an indefiniteness and loose- ness on this subject, to which they had not been accustomed. They were not prepared either to affirm or deny ; but their minds seemed to be in a state of painful hesitation and scepticism. Tlierj could not tell; they did not know, what the Bible taught in relation to the native cha- racter of our fallen race. Ask them whether men are born sinners, and they would tell yoUj we do not know. Ask them whether infants pos- sess any moral character, and they would reply, we do not know. Ask them whether they are accountable beings; and they would tell you, we do not knoic. Ask them whether they need the washing of regeneration, and the renewing of the Holy Ghost; and they answered, we do not know. Ask them what becomes of infants when they die ; and they said we do not know. Ask them whether death in relation to infants, is by sin; and they still say, loe do not know. But this period of hesitation and scepticism has gone by. The scriptural doctrine of native depra- vity is now boldly denied. Plain and palpable efforts are now made in a number of reviews of the works of Bellamy, Edwards and Dwight, the design of which is to set aside their views on this and other kindred doctrines. For a considerable time past, it has been unhesitatingly maintained, that all mankind are born destitute of moral character, and are neither holy, nor sinful — that though they are destitute of original righteous- ness, they are free from sin, and have no moral corruption of nature or propensity to evil — that they are perfectly imiocent— that they have no more moral character than animals — and, that they come into existence in the same state in wliich Adam was before his fall, and in which the holy child Jesus was when he was born in the manger.* We should have no particular motives to dis- turb men in these notions, if we did not believe them to be both false and dangerous. But con- fident of this, we are not at liberty any longer to be silent. We sincerely hope the time has come, when this subject will undergo a faithful discus- sion. If we are not deceived, truth is very precious to us ; and we care not how, or through whose instrumentality, we find it. If the doc- trine on which we propose to submit a few re- marks in the following pages, be not found in the Bible, we have no such attachments to it, and no such habits of thinking, as to be unw illing they should all be broken up. We will surrender our- selves to no theory, no adventurous speculations, no previous mode of tlmikmg. But if we know ourselves, we mean to bow to the decisions of God's holy w^ord. To the laio and to the testi- mony; if IDC speak not according to these, it is because there is no ligJit in us. Most cheerfully do we join issue with a writer whom we very highly esteem, on the other side of the question, and say, " Speak conscience — Christian kind- ness — God's Holy Word — and I ask for no more." * Vid. The Christian Spectator, and Stuart on the Romans, sparsim. In opposition to the views we have recited, our object in this dissertation is to show that Infants are Sinners. — It will greatly facilitate our inquiries, to pre- sent as clear and intelligible an illustration AS WE CAN, of what WE MEAN BY THE DoCTRINE OF Native Depravity. The Bible affixes a defi- nite idea to the word Sin, and a well defined character to the term Sinner. In one place it declares. All imrighteousncss is sin. In another it says, To him that knoioeth to do good, and doeth it not, to him it is sin. And in another it says, Sin is the transgression of law. It is obvious that sin is predicable only of an intelli- gent being, and that in such a being, it consists in the transgression of law. It is, as the origi- nal word denotes, missing the mark of duty — variation from rule — deviation from the right line. It bears relation to some standard. Where there is no law, there is no transgression. Sin is not imputed ichere there is no law. Wherever, therefore, there is a deviation from law, there, and only there, is sin. Sin is something which lias positive exist- ence. It is not, as has been affirmed, a mere " principle of defectibility ;" a negative existence, nor does it consist in the mere want, or absence of holiness.* We hold it to be a A-ery plain * This notion of sin was adopted by the late Dr. Williams, of England, and Dr. Wilson, of Philadelphia. truth, that there is no such thing as sin, if it be not some positive existence. A block of marble, a lamb, or an idiot, is destitute of holiness ; but their want of holiness is not sin. There is no such thing as the mere want of holiness in an intelligent, rational creature. This moral vacuum is never found in the mind. In every mind that neglects to conform itself to law, there is a rea- son, a motive for this negligence ; and that is, the soul is pre-occupied by its own self-indulgent and sinful inclinations. The mind is like a line or rod which has two faults ; one is, that it is not straight ; the other is, that it is crooked. It is as essential to the nature of mind, to be posi- tively holy, or positively sinful, as it is to the nature of a line or rod, to be positively straight, or positively crooked. A being invested with the faculties of perception, reason, and conscience, is under law ; and he must either positively fulfill or positively violate it. There is no such thing as the failure to fulfill, without positive violation. The Scriptures no where contemplate any such state of moral character, as the mere defect of holiness, or negative transgression. He that is not with me is against me. All unrighteousness is sin. Sin would be a very harmless thing if it consisted in the mere defect of holiness. What is mere negation, but nothing 7 It is neither a cause, nor an effect, and has neither moral quality, nor agent. No being can cause it, none can com- 8 mit it ; nor is it any thing unles.s it has positive existence. Sin is an intemial emotion of the mind. It consists in the disposition, the moral feelmgs or inclinations of the soul. External conduct, actual or overt transgression is sin, only because it is the expression of wrong feelings of heart. Iniquity that lies concealed in the heart, is as really iniquity as though it w^ere acted out ; nor would its sensible forms of transgression ever exist but for the iniquity of the heart. Sin consists in a su2)remehjscljishs2nrit, whether it be acted out or not. Love is the fulfilling of laic. Not every kind of love ; for men may love God and their fellow men from a supreme regard to themselves; and this would imply that they love themselves more than either. The law forbids a spirit that is supremely selfish, and denounces it as crime, and as the sum and sub- stance of all wickedness. Thou shalt not covet. There is nothing kind or honorable ; equitable or ingenuous ; pure, lovely or true, that termi- nates in self, or that can be gratified when self is on the throne. Selfishness is that ^^rmci/^/e of wickedness, that vitiated moral taste, which is antecedent to all other internal emotions, and inclinations of wickedness ; which is the source and foundation of them, and which gives them their moral character. This is the spirit which is the germ of enmity against God. This is the spirit which unbridled and unrestrained, sinks men to all that is earthly^ sensual and devilish ; which comprises and binds together the most depraved affections, and abject vices ; which stimulates to every unhallowed emotion, and incites to every foul deed. There is nothing that countervails the pure and lovely spirit of the divine law, which is not the legitimate offspring of that mother monster, Supreme Selfishness. Sin therefore, from its nature, is a moral and not a natural or physical evil. It is not pain nor suffering. The famine, the earthquake, the pes- tilence, are evils: but they are natural evils; and no man thinks of accusing or criminating them. We contemplate them with horror and dread, but we never contemplate them as the subjects of blame, nor think of reproving or punishing them. But sin is a different tiling. It is criminal, and blameworthy We reprove, condemn, prohibit and punish it. It is in its own nature detestable and odious. God hates it infinitely, wherever it is found, in every degree and forever. This is what we mean by sin. I know of no other sin in the empire of Jehovah except this. When we say that men are sinners, we mean to say, they are the doers and perpetrators of this foul deed. Some give expression and palpable- ness to this odious spirit ; some cherish it simply within their own bosoms, and are unable to exhibit it to the eye of men ^ome commit it 10 under great aggravations, and in great enormity ; and some in modifications so mild and alluring, that it looks like innocence and virtue. Nor is the vile nature of sin altered by any considera- tions of age or infancy in the being in whose bosom it dwells. What constitutes that living thing, that busy existence, the human soul, a sinner at the age of three-score years and ten, essentially constitutes it a sinner from its birth. Our illustration of the doctrine of Native Depravity therefore, will not, we think, be misun- derstood. We mean by it, that every child of Adam is a sinne?^, and from the moment he becomes a child of Adam. He may not be a sinner in the eye of men, but he is a sinner at heart, and in the sight of God. He sins, not in deed, nor word, but in thought. The thought of foolishness is sin. An infant is not a giant, either in form, or wickedness ; but he is a sinful infant. In body and mind he is a little infant. And so in sin, he is a little infant — a man in miniature — not the bold and striking portrait, but the perfect miniature of fallen, sinning man. The question. Whether infants are capable OF MORAL CHARACTER, is vital to tliis wliole dis- cussion. And here we have to make and illustrate but a single enquiry. Has the infant a soul — a rational, immortal soul? Of the period of its mere animal existence, we do not predicate moral character. It is not the investiture with a mere animal frame, that constitutes the being human ; 11 but the mysterious union of the body and the soul : and of every such existence moral character can be predicated. If God has breathed into its nostrils the breath of life, and it has become a livifig soul; though its body is a little thing — a mere mass of organic matter fitted up for the living spirit to dwell in, and to die, and return to dust when the spirit takes its flight to her own eternity, yet is it a spiritual, acting existence, and possesses a character as really as it will possess it in the ages of eternity. Of the essence of the human soul, even in adults, we know nothing. Of the properties essential to its existence, we know all that is necessary for us to know, from our own conscious- ness, and the testimony of Him that made it. So far as we have any thing to do with the soul in moral science, and especially in the present discussion, it consists of natural faculties and moral dispositions. Its natural faculties are Per- ception, Reason, Conscience and Memory. We call these natural faculties^ in distinction from moral dispositions, because they are independent of the Will, and belong to the intellectual and not to the moral character. We perceive, reason, remember, and approve or condemn our moral conduct, whether we wish to do it or not. The moral dispositions are those internal operations, or emotions of the mind, which can be compared with a rule of action, commanding what is right and prohibiting what is wrong — and that whether 12 it be written or unwritten law, natural or reveal- ed, the law of reason and conscience, or the law ol God. They constitute what the Scriptures mean by the heart in distinction from the natural facul- ties and the external conduct. Nor is there any holiness or sin except what is found in these moral dispositions. Take away these, and if we except the essence of the soul, there is nothing left but the natural faculties, nothing which de- serves praise or blame, nothing which a rule of action either requires or forbids, Its natural faculties, and moral dispositions therefore, com- prise all that is known concerning the soul, as the subject of divine government. Now these natural and moral properties are essential to the souVs existence. They belong to the infant of a day old, as really as to the man of eighty. Who ever heard or conceived of a living immortal soul, without natural faculties, and moral dispositions ? Every infant that has attained maturity enough to have a soul, has such a soul as this. It is a soul which perceives, reasons, remembers, feels, chooses, and lias the faculty of judging of its own moral dispositions. Conscience belongs to the soul as really as per- ception and reason. This a late and distinguished writer acknowledges, though in tlie same discus- sion he denies that infants are capable of sinning. His words are, " It may be said with truth, that moral sense, conscience, reavson, judgment, are all attributes of the natural man; that they are 13 pura natiiialiar* One of the obvioii.s distiiic tions between men and the inferior animals is, that men have a conscience. Inferior animals have no faculty of distinguishing between right and wrong, or moral good and evil, and no moral sense. This is what renders them incapable of moral action. Nor can any growth or enlarge- ment of the faculties they possess, any superadded strength to their perceptions, their memory, or their preferences, or any improvement in their imitative powers, or instinct, impart this faculty of moral discernment or moral sense. But the youngest human soul possesses this, as the imme- diate gift of its Creator. There is no more reason to believe that an infant is destitute of conscience, than that it is destitute of intelligence, or even of a soul. Conscience belongs to the soul, as really as veins, arteries, muscles and membrane belong to the body. It is a remarkable fact, that even those who deny the doctrine of Infant Depravity, cannot give a definition of the human soul, without investing it with such attributes as render it impossible for it not to possess a moral cliaracter. A writer who denies this doctrine, in giving an account of the human soul says, " It is the nature of the human soul, to perceive, to compare, to judge. God formed it to be a thinking being. The power of choosing or refusing in the view of motives, and with a knowledge of right and wrong, is that moral nature which every * Stuart on the Romans, Excursus 5th. 14 accountable being receives from the hand of his Creator."* Hence those who have denied a moral character to infants, have by their own philosophy, been led to deny or doubt whether infants have any souls at all. Nor is it any evidence that infants are destitute of a moral character, that it is not strongly indi- cated by external symbols. A man in a swoon furnishes no external indications of a moral character; no, not so much as an infant. Sir Isaac Newton, wasted and emaciated and pros- trated by typhus fever, so that he cannot move a limb or muscle, or even speak, furnishes no exter- nal indications of moral character ; no, not so much even as an infant ; nor can he make himself heard, or make his wants known, half so well. And yet who doubts that adults under all this physical prostration, have a moral character? Neither intellectual nor moral character are always visible to the eye of sense. What if an angel stooping from his high abode, should look down upon such men as Dr. Fitch, and Dr. Taylor, and say within himself — Who are these men that inhabit yonder planet, and what are they doing that they make so much noise in the world'? I cannot discover any operations of mind or heart in them. It may be that their intellectual and moral powers may be hereafter developed; but I doubt very much whether they are capable of moral action. They have, it is * Christian Spectator for June, 1829, p. 348. 15 true, " no original righteousness ;" but they are quite '' inrwcent, innocuous" and most certainly do not possess any intellectual or moral character ! Would not his Creator reprove his presumption and scepticism, and tell him that these apparently abject creatures are very distinguished men, and a very different order of beings from what they appear to be in the judgment of one who has ventured so rashly to decide on their endow- ments? — And is it not possible that an angel may be as far above Dr. Fitch and Dr. Taylor, as these distinguished men are above infants? The little infant may have a moral character, though the opposers of the doctrine of Native Depravity do not believe it ; he may have a moral character, though it were known only to angels ; or even only to the great and heart-searching God. And this view of the subject is the only one which accords with the account the Scrip- tures give of the moral character of infants. If there be any such deficiency in the intellec- tual or moral constitution of an infant as incapa- citates it for moral character, it must exist either in the nature of that constitution, or the degree of it. If it be in its nature, then is the soul of man from its very nature incapable of moral character, nor is there any thing in its spiritual and immortal existence, that ensures its moral character at any future period. It is an imma- terial, immortal spirit ; but it has no powers of moral character, and never can have without 16 possessing new faculties and a new nature. And what sort of soul is that which must be thus transformed before it can be capable of a moral character 7 But if the deiiciency is found in the measure and degree of this intellectual and moral constitution, so that the soul requires no new faculties, but simply growth and enlarge- ment; how is this deficiency to be supplied 7 There would be no difficulty in answering this (luestion, if at its original creation the soul were in any degree capable of moral exercises. But by the hypothesis under consideration, it is not capable of moral exercise in any degree, and requires growth and enlargement to become capable. How then is this spiritual, immortal existence to become capable of moral exercises'? Mind does not grow like a vegetable. It cannot be enlarged by granulation, or by any gradual ac- cession to its bulk and size. It erpands and becomes vigorous only by action. But if the hy- pothesis on which we are animadverting be true, it is impossible for it ever to become more ex- panded and vigorous. It is not capable of exer- cise in the least degree. It has nothing to begin with. I ask then again how is this deficiency to be supplied? If this hypothesis be true, it never can be supplied, but must either be endued with new faculties, or remain inactive and inca- pable of moral character forever. If then every human being possesses at its birth, an immaterial, immortal soul, he is at the instant of his creation 17 capable of possessing a moral character ; and is from his nature a moral and accountable being, under a law which he either obeys or trans- gresses. If his moral feelings are not right, they are wrong ; and if he is not a holy and virtuous being, he is a sinner. Should it be said that even upon the principles here contended for, it is impossible for the soul of an infant to possess a moral character until after it is created, and therefore some time must elapse between its creation and its moral character, and therefore it cannot literally commence its exist- ence a sinner ; we are constrained to say this is a mere metaphysical quibble. As well might it be said, there is some conceivable time between the creation of matter and its essential properties, as to say there is some conceivable time between the creation of mind and its moral character. The sun, for example, is the source of light and heat ; and at the instant of its creation, it shines and warms. No more is there a measurable period of time between the creation of the sun, and the emission and diffusion of its beams, than there is a measurable period of time between the creation of the soul and its accountable charac- ter. There is no more difficulty therefore in conceiving an infant to be capable of moral cha- racter, than there is in conceiving an adult to be so. Under the uniform government of the Most High, who has ev^ery where established the laws of mind as well as of matter, and who governs 18 the intellectual and moral as well as the physical universe, moral dispositions and moral character, though differing greatly in degree, are essentially the same in both, and are the uniform result of the same intellectual and moral constitution. And if it be not so, in what light are we to con- sider infants as the creatures of God ? What are the rights of their Creator ? What are their own responsibilities ? Obviously, he has no rights over them except as a mere sovereign. Moral govern- ment, he has none. — Nor have they any moral responsibilities. And what becomes of them as the creatures of God, if they die in infancy? They have no moral character. They are re- .sponsible to no tribunal. They are not annihi- lated, because the soul is immortal. Either then, they must remain through interminable ages de- void of moral character and responsibility, or form their moral character in another and future state of existence. But we rest not the argument on the ground of human philosophy. Our appeal is to the testimony of God. Has God revealed the doc- trine of Native Depravity 7 This is the question. The Bible informs us that Native Depravity IS A C0NSEQ,UENCE OP THE APOSTACY OF OUR FIRST ANCESTOR. I find in the Bible such declarations as these. Through the offence of one, many are dead. Judgment 2vas by one to condemnation. By one man^s offence, death reigned by one. By the offence of one, judgment came upon all men 19 to condemnation. By one man^s disobedience, many icere made sinners. In Adam all die. What is the import of these declarations ? Is it not, to say the least, that such is the connection between the apostacy of our first ancestor, and the character of all his descendants, that it might have been predicted from the day of his apostacy, that every one of his descendants would come into the world sinners ? Is it not, that the uni- versal sinfulness of mankind is to be ascribed to the first oflfence of the first man ; and that his apostacy introduced sin and death among all his natural descendants, from generation to genera- tion? Our minds need not here be perplexed with systems and theories, if we assent to this great fact that for his apostacy a righteous God has determined to bring all his posterity into the world sinners. By the doctrine of the imputa- tion of Adam's sin, many of the Reformers meant that innate moral depravity of heart, and consequent condemnation, which came upon all his posterity by his first offence. This appears to me to be the doctrine of imputation, and the doctrine of Native Depravity, as they are taught in the passages we have just recited. By the wise appointment of a righteous God, this pri- mitive sin constituted all his posterity sinners. When he fell, prospectively considered, they fell; and from the moment of his apostacy, the entire race, of every age and every condition, down to the last infant that should be born on the earth, 20 rose up to the view of the divine mi«ul, as lost and ruined by their iniquity. Such is the condition to w^hich the first apostacy introduced the race. We have in these texts then a declaration of the doctrine of Native Depravity. If sin and condemnation come upon all the posterity of Adam, then are they sinners as soon as they be- come his posterity. If not, then multitudes of his posterity never become sinners at all, because they die in their infancy. It is supremely frivo- lous to say, that " Adam's sin was connected with the sin and consequent condemnation of all his posterity,"* if a large portion of his posterity live and die without being sinners in any sense. How can this be true, if infants are innocent ? If this concession means any thing, it must surely mean that by the disobedience of Adam, all icill become sinners^ if they live long enough ! But this is not the doctrine of Paul. This is not the doctrine of Christ, when he says. That ichich is horn of the fleshy is flesh. This was not the doctrine of the Patriarchal age, when it was demanded, Who can bring a clean thing out of an unclean? What is man that he should be clean, and he that is bor7i of a ivoma7i, that he should, be righteous? Nor is this the doctrine of any of the analogies of nature ; where we see that all creatures, throughout the vegetable and animal kingdoms, which come into being in a series of generations, produce each its own likeness. Nor + Vid. Stuarl'B Excursus. 21 is it tlie doctrine of tlie intellectual and moral kingdoms; where, without some counteracting influence, all the peculiarities of intellect, genius, temper and moral disposition, distinguish the son and the sire. Nor was this the doctrine taught in the early history of our race, when in the Mosaic narrative of the birth of Seth, it is said, Adam, begat a son in his oivn likeness^ after his image; plainly recognising the humbling fact, that the children of Adam were born with the same depraved character with their apostate father. That there is this connection between the sin of Adam and all his posterity, is obvious from the plain declarations of Paul in the pas- sages above recited, and cannot be denied without impugning their obvious meaning. The opposite of this position is, that a large portion of Adam's race live and die, and death passes upon them without their possessing any moral character whatever. Nor is it any argument against this general consideration, that in nothing is the resemblance between the parent and the child so strong and so uniform as in moral depravity ; for this only proves the peculiar strength and uniformity of this moral bond, and the peculiar accordance of facts, with the doctrine of the Bible. Nor is it any objection to this view of the subject, that the moral character of infants depends not on their immediate ancestor, but on their connection w ith Adam : for God reveals the one. and not the 22 other. Neither the Bible nor experience shows that there is any natural connection between the piety of the father, and the native character of the son. All that is said on this point is only reasoning against Paul.* And we may also remark, that it is altogether an assumption that Native Depravity is uniform and invariable, in all circumstances, ages and individuals, and is incapable either of diminution, increase, or modi- fication. This cannot be proved. And if I mis- take not, it is generally conceded that it is capa- ble of all ; and often expresses itself in wonder- ful accordance with the peculiar moral tempera- ment of the depraved parent.! Again : The Bible affirms that the children OF MEN are all gone aside, and are altogether become filthy ; that the heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked; and that MAN is a being so abominable and filthy, that he drinketh in iniquity like water. The Bible affirms, that all have sinned and come short of the glory of God ; that Jeivs and Gentiles are all under sin ; that by the deeds of laio shall no flesh be justified ; and that the whole world is guilty * Vid. Stuart's Excursus. t Dr. Stuart does not fairly allege the objection against President Edwards m his Commentary on Rom. 5: 19. p. 241. He says, " President Edwards must on his own principles admit, that we should a?^ have fallen, had we like Adam been placed in a state of holiness. The corruption therefore, by his own arguments, would have been just as universal as it now is, if all men had been placed on trial in a state of innocence." This does not follow. Adam was for a season, perhaps a long season, perfectly holy. But this is not true of any of his posterity. According to Dr. Stuart, they fall as soon as they are eapable of falling. How then are the cases parallel? 23 before God. Now a plain man who desires his decisions should be formed by God's Holy Word, w^ould, one would think, view these and similar declarations, as including the entire race from the youngest to the oldest, and from the first apostacy, down to the end of time. If infants belong to the children of men; if they have a heart and soul ; then from the moment they are human and the descendants of Adam, are they sinners. The reply to this has been, that infants cannot be included in these declarations, because from the nature of the case, they are iiicapahle of sinning ! This is a very compendious way of settling the question. The man who makes this declaration, sits in the chair of philosophy, and prejudges the case. He first decides that infants are incapable of sinning, and then he comes to the Bible to inquire what God says concerning the moral character of infants. He first decides that infants are incapable of sinning, and then every text must be interpreted according to his previous decision.* But who knows best whether infants are capable of sinning 7 the God only wise, or the presumptuous objector? The history of the church, and the present state of it in our country are melancholy proofs of the pernicious influence of false philosophy in limiting and defining the import of God's Holy Word. No man has a right to say, with the Bible in his hand, that infants are incapable of sinning. No man can * Vid. Christian Spectator, Review of Harvey and Taylor. 24 prove upon the principles of sound philosophy, that infants are incapable of sinning.* The Bible informs us that men are born in INICIUITY, AND CONCEIVED IN SIN. Beholcl, I lOttS shapcn in iniquity, and in sin did my mother con- ceive 7ne. Can there be any doubt as to the im- port of this confession 7 The object of this psalm, one would think could not be mistaken. It ex- presses the feelings of a genuine penitent, and is strikingly descriptive of the remorse, self-abase- ment, confusion and anguish of soul, he felt in view of his sins. Nor was it enough for him to confess his outward sins, without bemoaning his inward defilement. Nor did he know where to stop in this confession, until he had gone back to the very commencement of his existence, and confessed that he was horn in iniquity, and in sin did his mother co7iceive him. A late writer, as we conceive, unhappily, inquires in respect to this text, '' To whom then does the iniquity spoken of in this place belong 7 To the mother or the child ? I venture to say that exegetical conside- ♦Prof. Stuart, in his 5th Excursus, subjoined to his Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, frequently affirms that infants are incapable of sinning"; and yet in the same discussion, p. 541, helms the following remarks: "What- ever then may be the degradation in which we are now born, degradation compared with the original state of Adam, we are still born onoral agents ; free agents ; with faculties to do good, yea, all the faculties that are needed. Elsewhere he says, "Plainly they may be moral and free agents, before they can read the Scriptures!" We leave the author to vindicate himself from this palpable inconsistency. To us it appears, that if we are born moral agents — free agents, it is no unsound conclusion that we are born capable ol smning. The author must have forgotten the ancient authority of Plautu«, that "a man cannot sup and blow at the same time." 25 rations alone considered must leave this case doubtful." But what is there either in the nature of the case, the scope and connection of the pas- sage, the circumstances or history of the writer, or the analogy of faith, that encourages such an interpretation? Is it, that David was not the offspring of lawful and honorable wedlock '? No. Is it that there is any recorded reproach against his parents in the sacred history? No. Is it that it is the special duty of men to confess the sins of their mothers 1 Is it that in their most hum- ble and penetential frames, good men are prone to bewail the sins of their parents as well as their own.* Or is it that infants are incapable of sin- ning ! We have known that error had made rapid strides in the land ; but we had not thought it had come to this. The Bible inquires. Who can bring a clean tiling out of an andean ? Uliat is mem that he should be clean, and he that is horn of a woman that he should be righteous 7 Arminians and Pelagians have said, that the subject referred to in these passages is the natural frailty of man, and not his moral impurity. But with what evi- dence of the truth, common sense and piety must judge. Turn to the 14th and 15th chapters of * I have had access to the first Enghsh Commentaries, and not a few of them, who all agree in referring this text to the sin of the Psalmist himself. Rosen- muller, a neologist, says of this 5th verse, "Haeret in naiura tola viea, jam unde ab ertu meo, et innnata mihi pravitas. Dicit itague vates, se tunc etiam, cum a viatre conciperetur, uteioque gestaretur, peccato fuisse uifeclum." We may not agree with RosenmuUer as to the use he makes of this text, but tins alters not his interpretation. P 26 Job, and read theiri, and then say, vvhetlier the writers are not speaking of man's moral impu- rity. And if they are so, then are they speaking of man's original corrupt nature; and then do they prove that every man who is born into the world is a sinner.* It is true that the persons who utter these sentiments are Eliphaz and Job ; and though throughout the most of this book they are engaged in a discussion in relation to the government of God, in which each expresses different and opposite sentiments, and therefore both cannot be true ; yet do both throughout the whole of the discussion adopt this undisputed truth, the moral corruption of men from their birth. This therefore was the received doctrine of Job and his three friends, who were the most venerable men, and men most distinguished for their piety in the world. And here let it be remarked, that the writer of this book of Job lived within a few generations of the flood. And it is not probable, if the sentiment that infants are innocent had been handed down by tradition from the days of Adam and Noah, and had gene- rally prevailed with the early patriarchs, that the doctrine of Native Depravity would have been so clearly recognised by all parties in this discussion. The Bible declares that The wicked are *Rosenmuller does indeed consider the former of these passages, as an appeal ad misericordiam, but he at the same time recognises in them, the doctrine in question. " Quid, inquit, hominem punis, ob pcccata ad quas suapte natura est proclivis, et quae ex vitiosa indole naturte suae, quuin immundus sit origine, vitarenon potest?" 27 ESTRANGED FROM THE WOMB : THEY GO ASTRAY AS SOON AS THEY BE BORN, SPEAKING LIES. Ill re- marking on this text, the author to whom we have before referred says, 'When this latter affirmation, in its literal sense, can be made out, then may we take the former part of the verse in its literal sense."* No doubt the latter affirma- tion is figurative ; and what does it denote if not that all men naturally possess a deceitful charac- ter ? But where is the necessity of considering the former part of the verse in a figurative sense? If the passage will bear a literal sense, we ought to understand it literally. If the nature of the subject, or the scope of the passage, or other texts of Scripture require a figurative meaning, we are justified in giving it such a meaning, but not without. The writer just referred to says, " It is a good rule of interpretation, never to de- part from the usual sense of words, unless there be an imperious reason for it." There is no such necessity in the present instance. No comment can add to the declaration, " They are estranged from the icomb, they go astray as soon as they be ftom."t The Bible informs us, that The imagination of mail's heart is evil from his youth. The Hebrew word rendered youth, will justify the rendering, childhood and infancy. It designates ♦ Vid. Stuart's Excursus. t Rosenmuller in expounding this text says, "Abalienati sunt impii ab omni piptatis et jiistitisB cTU'a inde ah utero, male agunt inde a natiritafe sua ; nialitia lisest innata." 28 the whole period of early life, from infancy to mature manhood ; and therefore may be applied to any portion of this period as the context may require.* In this passage it seems plainly to mark the earliest period. So true is it that man thinks, devises and loves wickedness from his birth. The Bible tells me that That which is born of the flesh is flesh. The bearing of this text on this subject has been strenuously denied. It must be admitted that the original word here translated fleshy when taken by itself, is used in a great variety of senses in the Scriptures.! The word often means onen, and frequently with the ♦ The word here used Dniyj designates the whole period of early life, from infancy to mature manhood ; and therefore may be applied to any portion of this period. Sometimes one portion, sometimes another, and at others the whole is included. It is a derivative from Ijrj which is used for an infant, a lad, a young man ; as in Exod. 2:6. " Behold the babe wept." Heb. n33 ijjj-nin Judges 13 : 5. "The child shall be called a Nazarite /rom the womb"-— Heb. "lyjn And again in the 7th verse. So in 1 Sam. 1 : 24, "And when she had weaned him she took him up — and the child was young." The Heb. here is peculiar 1j;J~njf Jn the child, a child, i. e. small or young, which seems to show that young child was the original and proper nieanmg of the term. In other cases it is used for boys, youth, and even men. Of Joseph, Gen. 41 : 12, and Solomon when king, 1 Kmgs 3 : 7. The abstract, CDniyj has therefore as the context requires, either the sense of childhood and infancy, or of youth. Gen. 46 : 34. " Thy servants have been shepherds from our childhood." Such expressions, however, as " wife of thy youth"—" guide of my youth"— " reproach of my youth," &c. are very common ; and in all these, the same word Dmj»JI is employed. It depends, therefore, on the context, what particular portion of early life is included by it. In the passage to which we have referred, we have said it seems clearly to mark the earliest period. Rosen- muller renders it, pueritia, and explains the sense thus, Itaque novis quotidie opus forct diluvus et plagift gcneralibvs ad eos perdendos, qviim per- petua sit eorwfti et innata malignitas. tSee BretscluK'idor \\w\ Snhleusncr. 29 accessory idea of frailty, and often with that of moral depravity, and hence for that depravity itself. The question is, which of the various senses of the word best suits this passage 1 Does it here mean man considered merely as an animal — flesh and blood — or man considered as morally corrupt"? We have no hesitation in affirming it means the latter. 1. Because in all doctrinal passages of this kind, this is the common meaning of the word in the New Testament. 2, And principally, because this sense alone suits the context. The declaration, That which is born of the flesh is flesh, is not introduced in answer to the question of Nicodemus, in the 4th verse, JIoio can a man he horn ichen he is old, &c. as though it stated that flesh and hlood cannot inherit the kingdom of God. That question is answered in the 5th verse, in which Christ says, " Verily, I say unto thee, except a man be born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God ;" and in which he tells Nico- demus that it is not a natural birth that he means, but a spiritual. And then the ground of the necessity of this great moral change is given in this 6th verse. And what is it ? Not that man is flesh and hlood ; but that all born of the flesh are carnal, that is, corrupt. And since this is the case, the Saviour argues, as all born of the flesh are flesh, or carnal, and all born of the Spirit are spirit, or spiritual ; therefore, Marvel tiot that T said unto thee, ye must he horn again. Surely 30 if moral depravity is the ground of the necessity of the new birth, this 6tli verse, vs^hich states that ground, must express tliat idea. Besides, in the third place, the opposition between the words flesh and spiiit requires this sense. Those born of the Spirit are spiritual, not in a sense opposite to flesh and blood, but in a moral sense. If the word Spirit here expresses moral charac- ter, so must the word flesh. Whoever therefore is from the stock of fallen Adam, is a fallen sinner. The plant is of the nature of the seed. Like begets like. Whatever be the moral cha- racter of men in their unrenewed state, such is here declared to be the character of their offspring. And the Bible tells me, that. All men are by nature the children of wrath. The word tran- slated nature means by birth. We icho are Jews by NATURE, and not sinners of the Gentiles. So the Gentiles are spoken of as Gentiles by nature, that is, they were born Gentiles. In the same sense essentially is the word used in the following passage. " For if God spared not the natural branches," &c. Our English word physical is derived from the Greek word here translated nature. Sometimes the word means the nature of a thing — its natural constitution, or innate disposition.* The examples of this sense of the word, are very numerous in the New Testament * Schleiisner deliiies it, ortus, origo, generatio, natritas. Bretschneider defines it, natum rei alinipis, qiinin liabel ox nntvitate — indoles naluralis. 31 and elsewhere.* Paul clearly refers the fact that all are children of wrath to what he calls nature.'\ Let any man read the context, and he will have no doubt as to the huport of this passage. If Paul had been speaking of a man who was born a prince ; if he had been speaking of men who were born Jews or Gentiles; he would have used this language, and did use it. But he is speaking of the moral, depraved character of men — men oiicc dead in trespasses and sins — men who in lime past walked according to the course of this world — men who once fulfilled the desires of the flesh and of the mind ; and he says of such men, they were by nature children of wrath even as others. Men are here declared to be children of wrath from their birth, as really as they are else- where declared, to be Jews by birth, or Gentiles by birth. Could the doctrine of Native Depravity be more forcibly expressed, than by such a decla- ration in such a connection as this '? We have dwelt longer on the scriptural argu- ment than will interest many of our readers, and " Vid. Tlie Lexicons. t TSKva ^vasi ipyvs- The precise form of the dative here may be matter of doubt. It may express the ground or reason, and then the passage would mean, on account of our native character or disposition, we are children of wrath. Vid. Romans, 11 : 20. They were broken off on account of unbelief. See too, Romans 5 : 17. But it may express the respect in which we are children of wrath. Tlien it would read, As to our native character or disposi- tion, we are children of wrath. Or it may express the cause; and then our being deserving of wrath, would be a reference to