fallen angels), it might be argued that they, too, having lost their "freedom of indifference," and having become corrupt and "inclined to evil continually" and invincibly, could have sinned no more. But he replies, that "the original act being their own and in their power, they were justly chargeable with the state of their wills and all the evils resulting from it." This conclusion is by no means self-evident. Suppose a man of choice to deprive himself of reason, would he be bound to perform moral acts, of which he has become utterly incapable; or could he be punished for not performing them, and made to suffer eternal torments for the neglect, just as though he were in possession of all the necessary powers of moral agency.* The same reasoning applies to the case of our first parents, after they had lost their freedom of indifference. Their first sin must. have been their last, but for grace!

*

That we have not been drawing a caricature of the doctrinal views of Arminian Methodism, is further apparent from the following extracts from the stereotyped volume of doctrinal tracts, which were originally bound with the Discipline. "We say, man hath his freedom of will, not naturally but by grace." "We believe that in the moment Adam fell, he had no freedom of will left." And after quoting Baxter and the Presbyterian Confession of Faith, ch. 9"God hath endowed the will of man with that natural liberty, that it is neither forced, nor by any absolute necessity determined to good or evil"-the writer (Wesley) adds — "Sure, here is as much said for free will as any man needs ter's Compendium of Methodism, pp. 288, 289. This is the same as to say that, but for gospel grace, Adam and all his posterity would not have been "fit subjects of either rewards or punishments!" Again: "The human family would be completely unmanned." Of course, they would have been "mere machines."

*For an able discussion of this point, the reader is referred to the "Biblical Repertory," conducted principally by the Professors at Princeton, N. J. See the July No. 1831.

to say, and perhaps more." In other words, the Presbyterian doctrine says all that need to be said on the subject. This candid admission of their great chief, should silence “the hard speeches" which are so commonly and fluently uttered against Presbyterians, denouncing us as denying free-agency, and representing man as a mere machine, which acts only as it is acted upon.

Among the great lights of modern Arminianism, perhaps no writer stands higher than Dr. Adam Clarke, the author of the Commentary. In addition to the quotations already given, the following are his sentiments upon the topics now under review: "Had man been left just as he was when he fell from God, he in all probability had been utterly unsalvable; as he appears to have lost all his spiritual light and understanding, and even his moral feeling." "As they (Adam and Eve) were, so would have been all their posterity, had not some gracious principle been supernaturally restored to enlighten their minds, to give them some knowledge of good and evil, of right and wrong, of virtue and vice, and thus bring them into a salvable state." * But if this be a true statement, our first parents, having sunk into a condition in which they had "no moral feeling, no knowledge of right and wrong," were no longer moral agents. Of course, they could perform neither holy nor unholy acts; they could sin no more, until grace restored their freedom, and enabled mankind to commit all the sin that has flowed from the first transgression. Thus God is represented as the author of all sin since the fall! The society of devils, moreover, according to this theory, is as pure from actual sin as that of the angels around the eternal throne! Nor is it conceivable that, on this scheme, there can be any punishment of a sinful being, who in the act of sin has blotted out conscience, moral fceling, and all sense of right and wrong, unless there be also punishment by grace!

*Discourses, p. 77.

The result of the whole is, that we have original sin which is no sin-depravity without fault, "inclination to evil" without criminality, the penalty of the law inflicted upon those who are not subjects of law, and wondrous grace" to deliver us from a punishment which we do not deserve!

And now, most reverend and worthy Bishop, permit me, in closing this Letter, to retort the language which you have commended as applicable to our system: "Truth constrains us to say, we have found what appears to our mind great confusion, perplexity and contradiction, arising out of the difficulties of the (Arminian) doctrine." * If you can invent any method of scriptural exegesis or logical reasoning by which it is possible to reduce this chaos to order and harmonize its repulsive and discordant elements, you will do more to earn an earthly immortality than all those who have preceded you in the same cause.

In our next Letter we hope to close the discussion of the important topic of Original Sin and its relations.

LETTER IV.

ORIGINAL OR BIRTH SIN. - STATE AND PROSPECTS OF INFANTS. - SCRIPTURAL VIEWS OF DEPRAVITY. - FREEDOM OF WILL NOT INCONSISTENT WITH THE TRUE DOCTRINE OF THE CONTROL OF MOTIVES.

REV. SIR-In order properly to understand the relations of "Original Sin" to the state and prospects of infants, espe cially such as die before they are capable of moral action, let us look briefly at several points which are conceded by Arminians.

i. "The full penalty of Adam's offense passed upon all *Foster's Objections, p. 29.

his posterity." Watson's Inst. vol. ii. p. 67. Of course, as he affirms, "the threatenings pronounced upon the first pair have all respect to their posterity as well as to themselves." p. 52.

ii. "The provision made in the gospel does not affect the state in which men are born-the fact of their being born liable to (temporal) death, a part of the penalty, is sufficient to show that they are born under the whole malediction." Watson, vol. ii. pp. 66, 58.

iii. "If it was righteous to attach that penalty to man's offense, it is most certainly righteous to execute it." vol. ii. p. 100. Of course, it would be "righteous to execute the full penalty" ("death temporal, spiritual and eternal,”) upon "the posterity of Adam."

No language could express more plainly the positions of Calvinists, than the three items just quoted. No terms could utter more explicitly the great scriptural truth, that by the fall, all mankind are under "the wrath and curse" of God"are born under the whole malediction"—and, of course, infants, as part of that "posterity," are justly liable to suffer "the full penalty."

But is not this the same as teaching the horrible doctrine of “infant damnation ?" By no means. Men may be liable i. e. justly exposed to great evils, which they will never suffer. So it was with all the redeemed now in glory, and so it was and is with all who die infants. Through "the grace of the gospel," they are washed, sanctified and saved. No Calvinist, so far as known to us, has ever denied this blessed and consolatory truth. Even Calvin, in reply to the objection that "infants who are incapable of believing, 'remain in their condemnation," replies thus: "I oppose a contrary argument. All those whom Christ blessed are exempt from the curse of Adam and the wrath of God. And as infants are blessed by him, it follows that they are exempted from death."*

*Inst. vol. ii. p. 520.

But the point of divergency where tho two schemes of doctrine separate is this: On what principle are infants saved? Arminians affirm, as was shown in our last Letter, that "the provision of a Redeemer" was demanded as a matter of right, otherwise the full execution of the threatening on the posterity of Adam would have been palpably unjust! The gospel, therefore, was a remedy for the severity, injustice and cruelty with which God's covenant threatened the children of Adam! Of course, the Arminian idea of grace is the payment of a just debt! To speak of the gospel as a method of grace and mercy, when both justice and goodness would have been sacrificed if the offer of salvation had been withheld, is the most absolute folly.

These remarks will prepare the way for a series of observations on the subject of the state and future prospects of infants.

1. The Romish doctrine represents the salvation of infants as dependent upon baptism. Hence Papists make it the duty even of women, the nurse for example, to baptize a newborn child, if death should be imminent.* Hence they have their limbus infantum, a place somewhere between heaven and hell, where unbaptized infants are supposed to remain in a state of insensibility. A sentiment nearly resembling this was held by some of the earlier Arminians, such as Episcopius, Curcellæus and others, who taught that persons dying in infancy always remain in an infantile state, having no more ideas in the future world than they had in this. Neither early nor later Calvinists have ever held such an unworthy doctrine as this, or one approaching so nearly to "infant damnation !"

2. Even Watson, though for the most part calm and decent in stating the views of his opponents, affirms that the Calvinistic system "brings with it the repulsive and shocking

* In his controversy with Hughes, Dr. Breckinridge hinted the actual existence of ante-natum baptism among Romanists.