the penalty, is sufficient to show that they are born under the whole malediction," viz. "death-temporal, spiritual and eternal." Thus, as he well reasons, by admitting the justice of temporal death, "we are in precisely the same difficulty as when the legal result is extended farther," viz. so as to include "liability to eternal death." Yet, of these same children of Adam, Bishop S. and Mr. Foster say: "They were born corrupt, and so cannot be guilty for this." So that "the whole malediction" rests upon the guiltless! Such are some of the confused, incoherent and contradictory statements put forth by these Arminian brethren. Such, a few of the curious logical results of this attempt to interline the Arminian scheme with scraps of Calvinism! The best method of escape from this entanglement, is to say, with some earlier Arminians, "That which we have by birth, ("birth sin,") can be no evil of sin," &c. "Infants are simply in that estate in which Adam was before the fall." Or, take the Pelagian ground, "Adam's sin hurt no one but himself!" "And death is threatened as a benefit to mankind!" It is needless to enlarge further upon the proofs of this singular feature of the Arminian scheme, viz. punishment without guilt. We must not omit, however, one other extract, which we take from Dr. Fisk, the ablest American writer on the subject, as follows: "Guilt is not imputed ("to man born depraved,") until, by a voluntary rejection of the gospel remedy, he makes the depravity of his nature the object of his choice." But, if this be true; if "guilt is not imputed" to children until they become old enough to choose or refuse "the gospel remedy," why do they suffer the penalty of "temporal death?" Why are they subject to the "privation of the image of God," as Arminius assures us, and which he terms "a punishment?" If "guilt is not imputed to them," how

* "Discourse on Predestination and Election," p. 30, Meth. Tract, No. 131.

can they be "born under the whole malediction," as Watson affirms. Did David teach this doctrine: "Behold! I was shapen in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me?" Did Paul teach that men are born guiltless? Of Christians of his day, he says: "We all were, by nature, children of wrath, even as others." Yet, according to the Arminian scheme, "guilt was not imputed to them," though they were, 66 by nature, children of wrath!" Indeed, as Watson most conclusively reasons, if these guiltless children may suffer "temporal death," with equal certainty may they suffer "eternal death"-"the measure or duration of the punishment may be a greater or less injustice, but it is unjust (and of course, impossible with God,) in every degree." It follows, therefore, that if Arminians taught the "horrible doctrine of infant damnation," they would not more surely charge the Creator with injustice than with their present notions, viz. "that corruption, misery and death are the sad inheritance of infants," while they are chargeable only with "sin which they could not avoid," or, rather, "guilt is not imputed to them at all!"

Thus, by the plain showing of its own most zealous defenders, the Arminian scheme is convicted of this great inconsistency, viz. "punishment without guilt;" i. e. "punishment without any just liability to. suffer!" Other strange features of the scheme we reserve for future Letters.

LETTER III.

ORIGINAL OR BIRTH SIN-ITS RELATIONS TO THE ATONEMENT-MEN BECOME SINNERS ONLY BY FREE GRACE.

REV. SIR We propose now to examine with some care the logical relations of "Original or Birth Sin" to the Atonement. The Scriptures abundantly teach that "Christ died for our sins"—"died the just for the unjust, to bring us to God." But it is demonstrable on Arminian principles, that the Redeemer came into the world, not "to save men from sin," but rather to put them into a capacity of sinning, since it is only in consequence of his death and the grace revealed in it, that guilt becomes chargeable upon any individual of the race, except our first parents. In proof of this position, observe the following: 1. All the posterity of Adam are born with "a corruption of nature," whereby they are "inclined to evil, and that continually." 2. These sore evils are as necessary and unavoidable as the event of natural birth. 3. No person is "to blame for a (corrupt) nature which was forced upon him; to which he never consented, and which he never could avoid. His first parent may be to blame, but he cannot be responsible." "No being in the universe can censure him;"* since it would be to blame and punish a person chargeable only with necessary and unavoidable sin, destitute of freedom of will, and " morally incapable of a good choice." 4. But through the grace abounding in the Atonement, "the destructive effects of derived depravity are counteracted." Man's "freedom of will" is restored; he is "graciously assisted to make a voluntary (i. e. a sinful) choice," and he thus becomes responsible and blame-worthy. But if no remedy-no grace-had been provided, man's condition as a fallen creature "would *Foster's Objections to Calvinism, p. 124. † Dr. Fisk, p. 30.

have been his misfortune, not his fault, and he would have been no more to blame than for having red hair.” *

Now, if these things are so, then it is plain that, independently of the death of Christ and the grace of the gospel, we could never have been chargeable with sin; and of course Christ did not die to atone for the sins of any of the fallen race, except our first parents, since, but for his death and the grace accompanying it, no others could have sinned, or at least, their sins being unavoidable, they would not have been 'responsible" for them. But if this is so, it will follow that the "grace of the gospel," instead of being any real favor toward mankind, is the greatest curse that could ever befall them. If, without the bestowment of grace, men could not have been held "responsible" for their conduct, they would have remained free from criminality; the righteousness of God could never have suffered them to be sent to hell; and his goodness, we may suppose, would have bestowed upon them eternal life. But now, alas! in consequence of the coming of Christ, and of grace being given them to deliver them from unavoidable sin and "merciless tyranny"—now they are all exposed to inexcusable blame

and endless ruin!

Again: If this derived depravity be necessary and unavoidable, where was the "grace" in Christ's dying to "counteract its destructive effects?" If we must suppose "the shedding of blood" in some way necessary to save man from being held "responsible" for unavoidable corruption; or in other words, to save him from "merciless tyranny," it would seem rather an act of justice, both to God and the creature. The Lord of the whole earth owes it to himself to Do RIGHT. To say, then, that "through the GRACE of the gospel all are born free from a condemnation which none but a tyrant could execute, is to confound all distinction between those rights which eternal justice exacts, and

* Reply to Fairchild's "Great Supper," p. 34.

the unmerited favors which grace freely bestows. It is in Fact to resolve the whole scheme of mercy into the payment of a DEBT, at least, so far as it respects all the offspring of Adam. But we need not say how utterly subversive is such a view of the first principles of the gospel, which is continually represented as the blessed fruit of the most distinguished love, as the "unspeakable gift" of pure, unmerited mercy. Thus does Dr. Fisk's great argument against the doctrine of decrees (whether correctly or incorrectly applied, we inquire not now,) recoil upon himself. Like him of old, who defied the armies of Israel, Arminianism loses its head by the stroke of its own favorite sword.

That these are legitimate deductions from Arminian premises, is obvious. "It has been established," says Watson, (vol. ii. p. 67,) "that the FULL PENALTY of Adam's offense passed upon his posterity." And he elsewhere admits that “Paul represents ALL MEN under condemnation, in consequence of their connection with the first Adam;" and, again, that "by one man's disobedience many were made, constituted, accounted and dealt with as sinners, and treated as though they themselves had actually sinned;" p. 397, 54, 55. The full penalty which has passed upon all men to their condemnation, he represents (p. 55,) as consisting in three things. 1. "The death of the body." 2. "Death spiritual"—"thus it is, the heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked." 3. "A third consequence is, eternal death;" or, as the language is varied on page 399, "a conditional liability to eternal death." Now, it will scarcely be denied that these are evils of the most awful character that can befall mankind, being nothing less than death temporal, spiritual and eternal. And we are told that they have passed upon men, as the "full penalty," or righteous "condemnation" of Adam's offense, in consequence of a connec tion with him which they could not escape, if they were born at all. Here, then, is a triple curse, including death tempo