other ancestors. For in Deuteronomy xx111, 2, 3, we read, that "a bastard or moabite should not enter into the congregation of the Lord; even to their tenth generation." And under even both of these most mortifying odiums was David born: For he was the tenth from Phares the incestuous bastard of Judah and Tamar, and the third from the Moabitess Ruth, by her husband Boaz. And so great was the reproach of Judah's illicit commerce with Tamar, that "Josephus, the Jewish historian, was ashamed to mention it, as bringing a disgrace on the father of his nation." (Orton.) But if the historian felt so much for the credit of his nation, what must have been the sensations of the Royal Culprit, humbled under Nathan's rebuke, the past, the present, and the future, stood before him. The ignominy of ancestors surpassed by his own personal self depravation. Uriah's bed defiled, his blood treacherously shed, and shed by that prince, who should have defended his honour, and rewarded his valour, were acts of treason against his God, which extorted the confession, "against thee, thee only have I sinned;" but this was only figuratively true; for in reality, besides his sin against God, and besides his foul offences against Uriah, he had rendered Bathsheba an adulteress, and had bastardized his own and her issue in the babe whom the hand of death snatched from infamy. He had tarnished the character of the mother of Solomon; scandalized morality and religion, and brought a sword up in his own house. Oppressed under all this weight of sin and shame, he again figuratively exclaims, "Behold!

I was shapen in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me;" meaning his mother Tamar. In this view of David's acknowledgment of a sinful origin, we have at once, a scriptural, rational and consistent evidence of its propriety, founded on a series of unde niable and indubitable facts; but if we attempt to affix the meaning usually annexed to it, of inbred sin, original sin, or of depravity in embryo, in the unformed fœtus, we are immediately but bewildered and lost, in a maze of absurdities and contradictions; for David's words neither assert nor imply that his mother had conceived or made him a sinner. Your supporting texts shall now be noticed in their arranged order.

Second.

"Were by nature the children of wrath even as others." (Ephesians 11, 3.) But who were these others? and who those like them, who were the children of wrath? Were they really infants, or little children? If they were, your point is proved; but if they were only self corrupted adults, it will prove against you. It will serve as evidence, that this depravity originated among mankind otherwise than by Adam's apostacy. St. Paul's account of these persons, Ephesians II, 1-3, is this; "and you hath he quickened, who were dead in trespasses and sins; "Wherein in time past ye walked according to the "course of this .world, according to the prince of the "s power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the "children of disobedience: Among whom also we all "had our conversation in times past, in the lusts of "our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the

mind; and were by nature the children of wrath, " even as others." Now, sir, it is undeniably evident, that the persons here spoken of were adults. Adult corrupt Jews were the children of wrath; and the others, of an equally corrupt nature, were adult Gentiles: even such persons as under the stimulating influence of the lusts of the flesh and of Satan, had fulfilled the desires of the flesh and of the mind; and it is impossible that infants or little children should have been of this description. The degraded state of nature in which they thus were, was not the same as that in which they were born. The nature inherited at birth is mentioned in Romans 11, 14, 15. "For "when the Gentiles, who have not the law, do by na"ture the things contained in the law, these, not hav ing the law, are a law unto themselves. Who shew "the work of the law written in their hearts, their "conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts, "the meanwhile accusing, or else excusing one anoth"er." From this state of nature, endued with such power and knowledge, they fell, into the nature which was "dead," and which constituted them the "children of wrath." This was accomplished by sin, which, when "finished, brought forth death." It was not one sin only, that effected this lamentable depravity, but a course of sin, for they "were dead in trespasses and sins.” Adam's one offence subjected them to temporal wrath, but their own many offences to the wrath to come; "for the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men.” And in the judgment day, agree

ably to gospel declaration, none shall come into condemnation but for their own deeds, done by themselves, in their own bodies. Infants and little children are, of course, incapable of guilt or of condemnation in that approaching day of righteous retribution. And from hence, were there no other proof, it would follow, that the above adult Jews and Gentiles were in nature degenerated from the nature which they inherited at their births.*

Third.

"Adam begat a son in his own likeness, and after his own image." Not being disposed to remark on a common perversion of this text, by a false comment often made, that Cain the murderer, was this son, we will hear what Moses says of the birth of this illustrious son, and his true character; and what is truly worthy of special observation is, that his birth and character are twice distinctly mentioned, and so mentioned as being interestingly important. The first account is in Genesis IV, 25, 26. "And Adam "knew his wife again; and she bare a son, and called "his name Seth. For God, said she, hath appointed "me another seed instead of Abel, whom Cain slew. "And to Seth, to him also, there was born a son; "and he called his name Enos: then began men to "call upon the name of the Lord." "Eve must "have received on this occasion, some divine commuGL nication, else how could she have known that this son was appointed in the place of Abel, to continue

* See note at the end of this letter.

"that line by which the Messiah was to come? And "it is worthy of remark, that Seth's posterity alone "continued after the flood; when all the other fami"lies of the earth were destroyed. "tenth descendant from Adam, (Clarke.)

Noah being the through Seth."

As the holy line was to be thus preserved through Seth, and the whole earth to be repeopled by his posterity, Deity saw fit to exhibit another edition of the history of man, which excluded all mention of Cain and Abel, and placed Seth under Adam, as the distinguished progenitor of the succeeding generations. This occupies the whole fifth chapter of Genesis, the three first verses speak thus: "This is the book of "the generations of Adam. In the day that God cre"ated man, in the likeness of God made he him: "Male and female created he them, and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created. "And Adam lived an hundred and thirty years and "begat a son, in his own likeness after his image, and "called his name Seth." Now, sir, permit me in this view of the subject, to introduce here your two next supporting texts, that we may the better discover their scriptural correspondence.

46

Fourth. "Who can bring a clean thing out of an "unclean? not one;" and fifth, "What is man "that he should be clean? and he who is born of wo"man that he should be righteous?" The case of Seth with other scriptural examples must furnish replies.