formity to law; of course a voluntary non-conformity must be meant, the voluntary non-conformity of an intelligent, rational, moral, free agent, for no other is capable of sin unless would maintain that inanimate substances, and brutes, and ideots, and madmen, are sinners." This is said, moreover, in the midst of an argument from scripture to show, that original sin does not consist in "a disposition or inclination that is connate, is antecedent to all choice and volition, and is in itself not only sinful, but the basis and ground of all subsequent sin." This fact sets the theology of Prof. Stuart, on the point in question, beyond a doubt. He holds that there is no sin BACK OF THE WILL; none that is not actual; no "connate," "innate," or " propagated" depravity; nothing, in short, but what the mind takes cognizance of as "its own act." To hold a moral being accountable for any thing besides that which is his own act, he considers inconsistent with the plainest principles of justice. On the subject of infant character, Prof. Stuart ventures much farther than we have ever done. We have chosen to say merely that whenever moral agency commences, then we are to date the commencement of sin. We have not undertaken to decide at what period this takes place, or denied that it may be at the commencement of our being. Prof. Stuart, however, does decide on the subject. The account of infants in Is. vii. 15, 16; in Jonah iv. 11; and in Deut. i. 39; compared with Rom. iv. 15. 1 John iii. 4. James iv. 17. Luke xii. 47, 48. John ix. 41. xv. 22-24. Rom i. 20, 21, 32, casts strong light on the explicit declaration of Paul in Rom. ix. 11. For the substance of these declarations of the scriptures, is, that "to him who knoweth to do good, and doeth it not, it is sin;" that where there is no such knowledge, i. e. "where there is no law, there is no transgression," for "sin is avoua,' want of conformity to law; of course a voluntary non-conformity must be meant, the voluntary non-conformity of an intelligent, rational, moral, free agent; for no other is capable of sin, unless we would maintain that inanimate substances, and brutes, and ideots, and madmen are sinners. Thus one class of texts above cited, teaches. Another class as clearly shows, that our sins bear an exact proportion, in respect to their heinousness, to the degree of light which we have, and the motives to holy obedience by which we are urged; all which of course implies, that if we were in a state in which we had no light, and were incapable of perceiving or feeling the force of any motives, then we should not be sinners. Another class, moreover, developes to us very clearly that infants are incapable of the knowledge in question. Even of the child Immanuel is this explicitly asserted; and the assertion is made, moreover, concerning him after his birth, Is. vii. 15, 16. The very same thing is explicitly affirmed also by Moses, concerning all the very young children of the Israelites: "Your children, which in that day had no knowledge between good and evil,' Deut. i. 39. To the same purpose is the text in Jonah iv. 11. It is the like view of little children, which the Savior presents, when he says to his disciples: "Except ye be converted and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven," Mat. xviii. 3. Again: "Suffer little children to come unto me, for of such is the kingdom of heaven," Mat. xix. 14. Mark x. 13. Luke xviii. 15, 16. So likewise the apostle Paul: "Howbeit, in malice be ye children," 1 Cor. xiv. 20. These comparisons do not imply that little children are positively holy. I know of no declaration in the bible of such import. But they do seem to imply, that they are innocent, (innocuous,) i e. that they are not the subjects of positively sinful passions and affections, such as malice, ambition, etc.; for on any other ground, how could they be made the objects of such a VOL. IV. 85 ALL MEN PRONOUNCE INFANTS TO BE comparison as they here are? pp. 542, 543. III. Original sin. On this subject also, Prof. Stuart's views perfectly coincide with ours. We have affirmed that all of the doctrine that is true and important to be maintained, is the simple fact of the connection of human depravity with Adam's sin. This fact we have always and strenuously asserted. The Pelagian doctrine that "Adam's sin hurt himself only," is no doctrine of ours. But we have rejected several theorics respecting the mode of that connection, viz. that it is by our being literally one with Adam, and sinning in him, that it is by propagation, and that it is by imputation, either literal or figurative. Prof. Stuart also maintains that the bible teaches "the connection of Adam's first sin with the sin and consequent condemnation of all his posterity," as "a preparatory or occasional cause." Proceeding to quote Rom. v. 15-19, he adds, "It seems to me to be impossible, without doing violence to the scriptures, to deny that Adam's first offense is here asserted to have a connection with, or an influence upon, the sin and condemnation of all his posterity. But How, is not said. Let the reader mark this well. Paul neither asserts that Adam's sin is propagated; nor that it is imputed to us without any act of our own; nor that it is ours merely by the force of example. Nor does he say, that hereditary depravity is the ground and cause of all sin, (how could he say this, when Adam sinned without it?) nor that we are condemned without being actual sinners. All this has been often said for him, and in his name; but he does not once say this for himself. Why now should we attribute to him our own theories, and then insist on their being a part of scripture?" Here he emphatically denies, just as we do, that the connection of our sin with that of Adam is by propagation, or by imputation; while, as we have said, the connection itself he fully maintains. Elsewhere, pp. 534-539 he takes up the theories, first of propogation, and then of imputation, and at considerable length, arrays against them difficulties in his view, insurmountable. In respect to the latter theory, there will be found to be a perfect agreement in all important particulars, between his sentiments and those which we formerly advanced in a review of the Biblical Repertory on Imputation. amal B Those who hold this theory usually maintain, that our depravity is not only emnate but innate, but that being such, it is also the punishment of Adam's sin which is imputed to us. There are, however, some very formidable difficulties in the way of this. For, (1) The sin, in this case, of Adam's posterity, i. e. their original Sin by the very ground of this theory, merely putative, not real and at is the punishment? Actual, to be sure, according to the stateIvor te this theory; and actual, indeed, in a tremendous debegins with our being; it is connate and innate, and conLe commencement of a misery which is naturally without end, but is, at the same time, the root and ground of all other sins which we commit, and which serve unspeakably to augment our condemnation and misery. Now can the human mind well conceive, that perfect justice would punish with actual and everlasting and inevitable corruption and misery, beings who are sinners only putatively, i. e. in mere supposition and not in fact? For myself, I can only say, that all the elements of my moral nature set themselves spontaneously in array against such a representation as this. It is one of those cases, which make it necessary for me to be made over again, and have new and dif ferent faculties, before I can admits its truth. Nor, (2) Can it be brought, in any tolerable measure to accord with the views which the bible gives of divine justice. How can we make it harmonize with the declarations in Ezek. xviii.? Or with many other parts of the bible of the same tenor? But this is not all; for, (3) The supposition contains a drepov porepov within itself. According to the tenor of it, punishment begins before the crime. It is coetaneous with the original elements of our being. It begins before distinct perception, and understanding, and reason, and moral sense, are developed. It begins antecedent to all sense of duty, and antecedent to all knowledge of moral rule. Such punishment, therefore, precedes transgression, for "where there is no law, there is no transgression;" and surely there is no law, where there is no moral sense, nor reason, nor understanding, nor perception. But how can justice make punishment precede transgression? "The soul that sinneth shall die," is the order in which heaven has placed the matter. Sin comes first; punishment is the fruit or consequence. By the theory before us, the reverse is the case. Punishment precedes all personal demerit; and sin follows on as the result of our punishment! Nor is this at all relieved, by saying that 'sin does precede punishment, in this case, inasmuch as it is Adam's sin for which we are punished;' for this is only affirming that putative or suppositious guilt, is followed by real and actual punishment. How does this diminish the difficulty of the case? p. 537. After this, we think it will not be said that we are any farther upon Pelagian ground than Prof. Stuart, on the point in question. The truth in the case is, that neither of us have taken that ground at all; but that both are equally liable to the charge of having done so. Both maintain that great evils came upon mankind in consequence of Adam's sin; both deny that the way in which they come, is by propagation, or by imputation, either of sin literally, or of any thing else; neither undertake to specify in what way those evils do come. Prof. Stuart, than whom, few in our country have studied the bible more, says that the bible does not tell; so say we. Now in making a list of teachers who have departed from the truth, on the subject of original sin, how shall we and Prof. Stuart be separated? IV. Election. On this point, Prof. Stuart rejects, as we do, both the Arminian and supralapsarian views, as is manifest from the following paragraphs. The question seems to be fully settled, by other texts of scripture, viz. that the merit or obedience of the xnroi, was not the ground or reason of their regeneration and sanctification. This would be assuming, that holiness existed before it did exist; that it was the ground of that, which followed only as a consequence. On the other hand; as to the decretum absolutum, as it has been called, viz., the determination that the xλ should be saved, irrespectively of their character and actions, one cannot well see how this is to be made out. So much must be true, viz., that they are not regenerated, sanctified, or saved, on account of merit; all is of grace, pure grace. If this be all that any one means by the decretum absolutum, there can be no reasonable objection made to it. But on the other hand; as God is omniscient, and therefore must know every man's character, through all stages of his being; as all things in their fullest extent, must have always been naked and open to his view; so we cannot once imagine, that any decree or purpose in respect to the xλrol can have been made irrespectively of their whole character. Such an irrespection (if I may use the word) is impossible. God has never determined, and from his holy nature never can determine, to sava any except such as are conformed to the image of his Son. All stands or falls together. A decretum absolutum, i. e. a decree which should separate these, or have regard to these, would be a different one from that which the apostle has stated; and I may add, different from what we can even imagine to be possible. pp. 566, 567. It will be seen by a reference to the preceding article, that our own views accord with these. The view which Prof. Stuart does take of the doctrine of election in general, and which, of course, applies equally to the specific purpose of saving a part, and a part only, of mankind, may be seen in the following paragraph. Of course, the reasons why God gives to these, and withholds from those, are with himself; they are not grounded on our claims or merits. Reasons be doubtless has, and these of the best kind; for who will venture to tax infinite wisdom and goodness with doing any thing without good and sufficient reason? But then these reasons God has kept to himself; he has not revealed them When this is the case, the apostle speaks of him as acting xarà v πρόθεσιν αὐτοῦ κατὰ τὴν ὡρισμένην βουλὴν καὶ πρόγνωσιν αὐτοῦ, etc. But nothing can be farther from truth, than to suppose that a Being of infinite wisdom and goodness ever acts arbitrarily, or without the best of reasons; although they may be, and often are, unknown to us. to us. -p. 382. With this we perfectly agree. That the reason why God bestows saving grace as he does, are "known only to himself," but that they are "wise and good," we have always maintained. Even in this very statement, however the general reason why he determined to bestow grace as he does, is actually given, viz. that it was best, i. e. most for the happiness of the universe, that he should pursue that course in this respect which he does pursue. The farther explanation is not given, viz. why it is best, that God should elect this, and not that individual; nor does it comport with reason to suppose that we can know. Thus we have followed Prof. Stuart through four of the great points on which theologians in our country have differed. On all these points, we may be permitted again to say, there is an entire agreement between us. Will the vials of theological wrath then be poured out on Andover? Will it be said, that the learned professor of sacred literature in that seminary, has entered on an underming process to destroy the orthodox faith? We trust not in New England. Yet why should the same form and the same substance of doctrine, subject to the imputation of "heretical tendencies," in one latitude, and escape notice in another? ERRATA. In the Memoir of Rev. Sutherland Douglas, p. 567, last line, insert the words "in the vicinity of," so as to read, he was born in the vicinity of Troy, etc. Page 625, line 14 from the bottom, for "possibility," read "probability." INDEX TO THE FOURTH VOLUME OF THE QUARTERLY CHRISTIAN SPECTATOR. ASSURANCE of their piety the duty of christians at the present day, 89. The Associations, voluntary, their uses and importance-Objectors exposed and their Brewster, David,' LL. D. F. R. S. his Life of Sir Isaac Newton, 109. Bridges, Charles, B. A. The Christian Ministry, with an inquiry into the causes Bacon, Lord, Works reviewed, 528. Christian Assurance-nature of, 91, 93; manner of attaining it, 93, 97; misap- Christian Ministry—an inquiry into the cause of its inefficiency, 207, 229, Christianity, the spread of it hindered by the want of systematic effort-by a belief Children, religious education of, 557. Dimmick's Sermon on the death of Mr. Amos Pettingell, 69. Dickinson's Prize Letters to Students. Students exposed to infidelity; to bad Douglas, James, on Errors in religion; all religion not founded in revelation re- Durant's Memoirs, 557. Douglas, Rev. Sutherland, Memoir of, 567. Divine permission of sin, 614. |