and how far those have gone who have been bold enough to follow out their principles to their legitimate and full results. We do not attribute to all whose names we have introduced, every sentiment which has been advanced by some of them-but it cannot fail, we think, to strike the mind of the reader that there is such an affinity between the several parts of the series, that the man who adopts one of the doctrines in this category, will be in great danger of ultimately embracing the whole. They all belong to the same system; and ought therefore to be introduced in stating the distinguishing features of the New Theology; though many who adhere to the system in part, do not go to the ne plus ultra of the scheme, as it is here exhibited.

CHAPTER IV.

REMARKS ON IMPUTATION, ORIGINAL SIN, &C., WITH RÉFERENCE TO THE VIEWS PRESENTED IN THE PRECEDING CHAPTER.

THE Controversy respecting our connexion with Adam, and the influence produced upon us by the fall, commenced early in the fifth century, when Pelagius, a British monk, published opinions at variance with the common doctrines of the church. He and his followers entertained substantially the same

views which have been exhibited in the preceding chapter; though they adopted a method somewhat different to account for the commission of sin by little children, and went farther in their views concerning the influence of Adam's sin upon his descendants. They maintained that "the sin of Adam injured himself alone, and did not affect his posterity;" and that we sin only by "imitation." But their sentiments concerning the nature of sin, original sin, and imputation, were the same with those which distinguish the New Theology.

66

Concerning the first, Pelagius says, " And here, in my opinion, the first inquiry ought to be, What is sin? Is it a substance, or is it a mere name devoid of substance; not a thing, not an existence, not a body, nor any thing else (which has a separate existence) but an act; and if this is its nature, as I believe it is, how could that which is devoid of substance debilitate or change human nature?" "Every thing, good or evil, praiseworthy or censurable, which we possess, did not originate with us, but is done by us; for we are born capable both of good and evil, but not in possession of these qualities; for in our birth we are equally destitute of virtue and vice; and previously to moral agency, there is nothing in man but that which God created in him."-Biblical Repertory.

This question concerning the nature of sin was regarded as decisive concerning the other

two; and it was introduced by Pelagius with that view. Says he, " It is disputed concerning this, whether our nature is debilitated and deteriorated by sin. And here, in my opinion, the first inquiry ought to be what is sin?" &c. So it is regarded at the present time. Says Mr. Finney, " In order to admit the sinfulness of nature, we must believe sin to consist in the substance of the constitution, instead of voluntary action, which is a thing impossible."-Sermons on Important Subjects, p. 158.

Mr. Duffield, after stating several things which he supposes may be meant by the phrase original sin, gives as the views of the Westminster divines, that it denotes "something which has the power to originate sin, and which is necessarily involved in our very being, from the first moment of its origination." This he intimates was intended by the expression in our catechism, "the corruption of our whole nature." He then says, (after some preliminaries) " 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." "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 pre

vent." "How very absurd, therefore, is it to predicate sin of that which does not fall under cognizance of law at all!" Though he uses the phrase "being or simple existence," as that concerning which it is absurd to predicate sin, he refers unquestionably to the expression in the catechism which he had just quoted, and upon which he was remarking, viz. "the corruption of our whole nature." It is absurd therefore, according to him, to speak of our having a corrupt nature, since, as he maintains, all sin consists in voluntary acts of a moral agent, in violation of a known law. Hence the imputation of Adam's first sin to his posterity, and original sin, are rejected as unphilosophical and absurd.

Says Pelagius, "When it is declared that all have sinned in Adam, it should not be understood of any original sin contracted by their birth, but of imitation.". "How can a man be considered guilty by God of that sin which he knows not to be his own? for if it is necessary, it is not his own; but if it is his own, it is voluntary; and if voluntary, it can be avoided."

Julian, one of the disciples of Pelagius, says, "Whoever is accused of a crime, the charge is made against his conduct, and not against his birth." "Therefore we

conclude that the triune God should be adored as most just; and it has been made to appear most irrefragably, that the sin of another never can be imputed by him to little children." "Hence that is evident which

we defend as most reasonable, that no one is born in sin, and that God never judges men to be guilty on account of their birth."

"Children, inasmuch as they are children, never can be guilty, until they have done something by their own proper will.”—Biblical Repertory.

How striking is the resemblance between these views and the following remarks of Mr. Barnes: "When Paul," says he, "states a simple fact, men often advance a theory.

A melancholy instance of this we have in the account which the apostle gives, (ch. 5.) about the effect of the sin of Adam. They have sought for a theory to account for it. And many suppose they have found it in the doctrine that the sin of Adam is imputed, or set over by an arbitrary arrangement to beings otherwise innocent, and that they are held to be responsible for a deed committed by a man thousands of years before they were born. This is the theory; and men insensibly forget that it is mere theory." "I understand it, therefore, [Rom. v. 12,] as referring to the fact that men sin in their own persons, sin in themselves as indeed how can they sin in any other way?"-Notes on the Romans, pp. 10,

117.

We admit that this coincidence between the New School doctrines and Pelagianism, does not afford certain proof of their being untrue. It is however a strong presumptive evidence, since Pelagianism has been reject