a Sabbath of rest unto you, and ye shall afflict your souls, by a statute forever. And the priest whom he shall anoint, and whom he shall consecrate to minister in the priest's office in his father's stead, shall make the atonement, and shall put on the linen clothes, even the holy garments. And he shall make an atonement for (atone) the holy sanctuary, and he shall make an atonement for (atone) the tabernacle of the congregation, and for the altar; and he shall make an atonement for (atone) the priests, and for all the people of the congregation.'

From this passage, it must be plain, that whatever is meant by atonement, the same services were performed both for men and for inanimate things. The identical word, with the same obvious import, in the same connexion in the very same sentence, is applied to the tabernacle, the holy sanctuary, and the altar to the priests and to all the congregation. The conclusion is almost forced upon us, that the atonement was made with precisely the same view in reference to these dissimilar things; that if it was intended, to propitiate or appease the Deity in one case, it was designed to effect the same purpose in every instance there named."

But we are not left to infer the object; it is unequivocally expressed. We have already seen, that in atoning inanimate things, the very things named in the preceding quotation, the object was to cleanse them. That object is distinctly avowed, in relation to the persons specified above, in the following terms. Ver. 30. For on that day, shall the priest make an atonement for you, to cleanse you, that ye may be clean from all your sins before the Lord."

Such is the clear and explicit evidence, of the nature and objects of the annual sacrifice of atonement, among the Hebrews; which, if it be considered as typical of the sacrifice of Christ, gives no countenance to the common doctrine of atonement; but on the contrary, while it was designed for the ceremonial cleansing of all Israel, beautifully typifies the moral purity, and reconciliation secured to the christian by the power of the gospel.

In conclusion,- From the humble means brought to the examination of this subject, we feel authorized to say, that there does not appear to be a single passage in the Old Testament, which, when fairly construed, goes to prove, that atonement was intended for the reconciliation, propitiation, or placation of God; that there is not one passage, where the word

1

occurs, from which it is safe to infer that the atonement was made to God; that there is not one, which says, that the atonement was made by the sacrifice offered. It is always the priest, or offerer, that makes the atonement. And finally, that wherever the word occurs, it always relates to the condition of men, and the things used by men - is intended to describe and affect these and these only, and not the Deity. We do not mean to be understood, that there may not be passages which have another import; but if there are such, we have not been able to find them.

If the foregoing view of the Old Testament doctrine of atonement, be correct, the Hebrews are exonerated from the charge of having been inconsistent enough, to suppose that the true God could be influenced by the principles ascribed to the pagan deities. Their rites, unsophisticated by the classic meaning of the terms in which they are described, maintain throughout, the integrity of their law, and the dignity and immutability of the true God. Let it be the object of the Christian, living under a better dispensation, and in a more enlightened age, to attain as clear perceptions of the divine character as were enjoyed by the Israelites; and let him labor to divest his creed of the pollutions with which paganism has defaced the doctrine of the gospel.

S. R. S.

ART. XXXIII.

The Doctrine of Original Sin, its late Modifications, and final Abandonment by Orthodox Divines.

EVERYBODY knows it was an essential point in the orthodoxy of the last generation, that all mankind, since the fall,' are born sinners, totally depraved as to their moral nature. It is doubtless known also to most of our readers, that there seem to have been of late some material innovations introduced by our popular divines, in regard to this famous tenet. Their habitual language on the subject has become very indistinct and wavering, not to say contradictory, instead of being full and explicit, as formerly; and when charged, as they frequently are, with the absurdity of the old doctrine, they seldom

stand the shock with their wonted inflexibleness, but generally evade it, by denying the sentiment, or by retreating from all tangible ground into the obscurest regions of metaphysics. It may gratify a reasonable curiosity, to learn what occasions all this change of manner, what internal revolutions are taking place under these outward symptoms. Indeed, as members of the christian community, we owe it both to ourselves and others to know what hypotheses prevail among our fellow christians, or what are likely to be extensively received by them as fundamental principles in religion, that we may act with reference to the existing state of society, and especially that we may guard against living errors, instead of having our attention diverted to those that are obsolete. In the present article we shall attempt to point out the ground that seems about to be taken with regard to the particular point which we have mentioned. But as the old doctrine of original sin still affects the public mind to a considerable degree, and is even retained unaltered in some parts of our country, it is proper, first, to go back and state it as it was formerly received, and then trace its successive modifications down to the present day. Another motive, however, for preferring this method, is, that by following out the history of these changes, we shall see exemplified, in a light as instructive as it is amusing, the pertinacity with which the church adheres to the most glaring absurdities when they are once established; the reluctance with which the plainest decisions of common sense are, inch by inch, yielded to; the fondness with which names are retained long after the substance has been rejected; and, finally, the gradual but sure victory of truth over error, whatever forms it may assume to elude detection.

The boasted doctrine of the Reformation' on this point, was that all the posterity of Adam derive from him, by ordinary generation, a nature totally sinful, without the modern distinction between moral and natural faculties. Their entire nature is wholly depraved; and this corrupt state in which they are brought into being, constitutes their guilt, and makes them, from the very beginning of their existence, worthy of eternal damnation. It is the root of all their actual sins in after life, the germ, of which all their actual transgressions are but the developments. And then, in addition to the guilt of this original wicked nature, each individual has the guilt of Adam's fall imputed to him. Such is the condition in which mankind

come into the world. They have, moreover, lost all freedom to do good, and are free only to do evil, and that continually, until regenerated by the immediate interposition of almighty God. This was the doctrine which the chief Reformers laid down, and which was eventually received and maintained, by nearly all the protestant churches, in its most naked and appalling terms. Whoever, at the present day, departs from this standard, precludes himself from the boast of adhering to the 'doctrines of the Reformation.'

Should it be asked, whence this strange hypothesis arose, from what materials or by what process Luther, Calvin and their coadjutors formed such a scheme, the answer is, they did not form it, but took it entire from some of the early fathers of the Roman Catholic Church, on whose authority indeed they taught it, as well as on the alleged testimony of certain texts of Scripture which we shall have occasion to mention.

Somewhat more than a century after the Reformation, the famous Assembly of Divines met at Westminster, and reduced the orthodox religion to a creed, which was for a long time the standard of doctrine for Britain and America. By examining their labored definition of original sin, we shall see that this point had suffered no perceptible variation, from the time of Luther and Calvin. In their Larger Catechism, they say,

'The covenant being made with Adam, as a public person, not for himself only, but for his posterity, all mankind descending from him by ordinary generation, sinned in him, and fell with him in that first transgression.

'The fall brought mankind into a state of sin and misery.

'The sinfulness of that estate whereinto man fell, consisteth in the guilt of Adam's first sin, the want of that righteousness wherein he was created, and the corruption of his nature, whereby he is utterly indisposed, disabled, and made opposite unto all that is spiritually good, and wholly inclined unto all evil, and that continually, which is commonly called original sin, and from which do proceed all actual transgressions.

Original sin is conveyed from our first parents unto their posterity by natural generation, so as all that proceed from them in that way are conceived and born in sin.

"The fall brought upon mankind the loss of communion with God, his displeasure and curse, so as we are by nature children of wrath, bond slaves to Satan, and justly liable to all punishments in this world, and that which is to come.'

Such is the doctrine which formerly prevailed in all our churches, and which is still retained by some, especially at the South. In its support, a host of texts was adduced, most of which had no apparent relation to the subject. A few, however, seemed to resemble, in their language, some of these propositions ; and when a tenet has once become current, such a resemblance is enough to fix the application of any passage, how monstrous soever the idea. Thus, David says, 'Behold, I was shapen in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me;' this proved that mankind, since the fall, were born in sin. St. Paul reminds the Ephesians that they were by nature children of wrath, even as others;' this proved that our very nature, that is, the original constitution of our being as individuals, provokes God's wrath. It was in vain that the opponents alleged that these texts were susceptible of a very different and rational interpretation; in vain did they expose the absurdity and flagrant injustice of the doctrine itself. Their arguments were pronounced frivolous, sometimes wicked; and their disbelief of the mystery was treated as an alarming heresy.

6

It was impossible, however, that its advocates themselves should not feel the difficulties presented by so outrageous an hypothesis; and in spite of the anathemas by which it was guarded, a modification at length took place, and was gradually received by some, but rejected, with indignation, by others. About the middle of the last century, that profound metaphysician, President Edwards, revised the orthodox system at large; and among the rest of its tenets, subjected the doctrine of original sin to his acute and subtil treatment. He admitted, what had hitherto been stoutly denied, that no man can, in the nature of things, be guilty, except for his own act or indulgence. And yet he maintained, to the full extent, that all mankind are guilty of Adam's sin, and are, on that account, under the wrath and curse of God, &c. &c. How did he reconcile this contradiction? Why, by contending that in some physical or metaphysical sense, (nobody knows what to call it,) all mankind are one with Adam, so that his act is theirs. By the divine appointment, all the individuals of our race constitute but a single unity, like that of a tree, of which Adam may be regarded as the root, and his posterity, in different ages, the trunk, limbs, branches, leaves, &c. all partaking in the qualities and motions of the root. So it seems, he was aware that it would be unjust in God to hold us accountable for the