The last and the mildest form which it seems to have assumed, one condemned by the great body of the orthodox, for an heretical mildness, is that of the New-Haven school.Any objections against this modification of the doctrine, will bear with greater force against any other form. To save ourselves from the unwelcome task of presenting other men's opinions, in any words except their own, we shall quote their own language.

We quote from the New-Haven Christian Spectator, itself a work of authority; and from an article apparently written with authority, on the differences between the new and the old theology. "What, then, is the real amount of difference?" they ask.-"Not that there is any want of certainty as to what the moral character will be, when they have a moral character, be that time when it may; for both parties alike hold that, that character will be sinful, and ONLY SINFUL. Not that Adam's sin has had no influence to secure the occurrence of this result, for both sides are perfectly agreed in this fact. Not that all men, when sinners are not justly punishable with eternal death. What then is the difference," it proceeds, "merely this, that some think men sin, as soon as they can sin, and that this is certainly very early, may be from birth, and at all events, must be soon after. They do not know so exactly when, as to be sure of the precise point of time. Others think that they do know, and that this moment is the exact moment of birth, or when a man becomes a living soul. This is precisely the whole difference-while both agree that men sin infallibly as soon as in the nature of things they can, unless prevented by divine grace." Ch. Spec. 5. 4. That is, all are agreed in the great point, that owing to Adam's sin, all men are born with a corrupt nature, which infallibly results in sin, and in sin only, as soon as man becomes capable of knowing the difference between right. and wrong; and this is so early, it says in another part of the article, that it is a proper use of language, to say in general terms, from his birth. The only difference is, whether men are to be at birth, called sinners, on account of their corrupt moral nature, or not till that nature has resulted in action, and the infant committed its first sin. In all other points, as it regards this doctrine, they are agreed.This they deem a difference of no moment, and it seems to us, that it is only a verbal difference. Here is a shrub, whose nature is poisonous. If it touches your hand, it will poison you. Its sap is poisonous, and always poisonous. But one party contends that it ought not to be

called a poisonous shrub, till it has poisoned some one-the other, that it ought to be called a poisonous shrub from the beginning, when it first appears above the earth. It is a dis-pute about words.

With respect to these differences, we have nothing to do. The only question is, whether the doctrine, in any form, is found in the scriptures. It would seem however, as if they who cannot decide on the nature of the doctrine among themselves whose creeds clash at every angle, ought to have some charity for those who suppose that this doctrine, like many other opinions, is one inherited from the dark ages, and which has no real authority from the scriptures, but only from long established creeds. That part of the orthodox faith, then, from which we dissent, is this, and we state it in its latest and most softened form, viz: that owing to Adam's sin, the natures of all men are so constituted, as to result in sin, and nothing but sin, always and entirely, till men are prevented from sinning, by the grace of God.

In the language of another high authority, that all remain wholly perverted and hopeless of recovery, without the grace of God;-and that they are dependent on Christ for at willingness to do any thing which will save their souls.* That is, men sin as naturally as they think-always sin, when they act at all-and cannot cease to sin, any more than they cease to think, till they are regenerated by the immediate influence of the divine spirit. Till they are thus wrought upon, and changed, their natures produce nothing but sin. For that change in their natures, they are entirely dependent on God; and till he produces that change, they are justly liable to eternal punishment. Now it is not contended, that this divine grace, without which there is no salvation, reaches and changes the hearts of all. Myriads on myriads are past by, and acting out the natures which God gave, go down to everlasting torment. What a view does this give of the character of God! To use the most qualified language, He who sees all things from the beginning to the end, creates men with an entire disposition to sin, and a total disinclination to do good; so that it amounts to a moral inability. No one will do good till arrested by the divine hand. Having thus created them, he casts them on the stream of time. They proceed on sinning, as naturally as they breathe, with a greater moral inability to stop sinning, than to cease from breathing. Proceeding according to the natures which God has given them, they

*Dr. Beecher.

float on, and no arm is stretched forth from Heaven to rescue, till the stream, rushing in impetuous progress, turns around a sudden point, and they are cast into the fiery and eternal waves of hell. All this, God has foreseen. He has given these natures. He has created them, so as to be dependent on his interposition, for even a disposition to save themselves, and He does not interfere to give it. Modify and soften the doctrine as much as you will, it comes round in the end to this. It represents God as loving sin and evil.Else why create men with a morally invincible repugnance to all good, and an equally invincible disposition to all evil?— Why, without arresting them, does He suffer them to proceed on, acting out the disposition he has given them through time, and to suffer eternal punishment for it hereafter? But it may be said, that men sin freely, and from choice. But what kind of freedom and choice is that, in which there is an entire disinclination from all good, and an entire disposition to all evil? a disposition so strong, as to produce a moral inability to do good. What kind of moral freedom is that, where men have to violate every principle of their natures, in order to do good. And what kind of a God is that, who has so constituted his creatures, that until he directly interposes to change their natures, they must, in order to be virtuous, violate every principle which he has implanted in their hearts?

God does not arrest and convert all. And we would ask another question. What, according to this doctrine, becomes of young children? Half of the world dies in childhood.Very few of these are sharers in a miraculous conversion.What becomes of the rest? We do not speak here of infants before they are moral agents. It is not to be imagined that any human heart believes in their damnation. If any one believes in infant damnation, we would not attempt to argue such a point. There is no argument that could touch the mind, that could believe a thing so utterly horrible and monstrous. We speak not of infants before they are moral agents -but of children, that have become moral agents-though the belief from which we dissent, supposes that they become moral agents so early-at so very early a period, that in general language, you may say from birth-and that for the first sin, they justly deserve eternal punishment. Take then, the young child; it performs its first moral act, acting from the instinct of its nature; that act is a sin. Suppose, as soon as it is done, that a blow should fell it to the earth-that an accident-a sudden disease should arrest its life. What becomes of this child? It is justly doomed to eternal punish

ment, says this belief. We speak not of infants before they are moral agents, but of young children that know the difference between right and wrong, and are moral agents. What becomes of the millions of such, that die without conversion, -amiable, affectionate, tenderly obedient, but never converted. What becomes of them? Doomed justly, says this faith, to everlasting punishment. From the threshold of existence-from the meekness and ignorance of earliest childhood,-launched into an eternity of wo-for that one, or ten, or one hundred moral acts-to groan forever beneath the wrath and curse, of whom?-their Father. Can an earthly parent imitate the divine? We have nothing, we know of nothing to say against a doctrine like this, but to state it. But we confess, if it be heresy to disbelieve it, our faith is a heresy. We cannot think that such doctrine as this was in the Saviours mind, when he took up little children, and laid his hands on them, and blessed them, nor when he uttered the words that men must become as little children, if they would enter into the kingdom of God.

The only proper authority for such a doctrine, is the scriptures. Can you find it stated there? Not at all. We find men condemned for great wickedness--for great ingratitude towards God, and great disobedience. We find some communities condemned for a universal degradation and depravity. We find men's sins and neglect of duty particularly spoken of, for it is the purpose of the gospel, not to utter praises of human virtues, but to point out men's sins and to save them from committing them. But this is a very different thing from saying that all men are wholly inclined to all evil, and averse from all good, by the constitution of their natures, and that this corrupt state of nature is owing to Adam's sin.

Let us refer to an imperfect illustration of some portions of the epistles. Public attention has of late been strongly turned towards the vice of intemperance. Many addresses have been delivered. It is represented as infecting the city and country like a pestilence-as lying like a nightmare on all the energies of the land, as a universal plague spot, blackening and corrupting all. No one doubts of the truth of this language, understood as all language is understood, qualified by the subject, the occasion, and the purpose. Now, where will you find in the Bible, more universal and unqualified language in relation to human sin, than you find in these addresses relating to intemperance? And yet, do the authors of these addresses mean to say, that all men are by nature intemperate,

and that this depravity of nature comes from Adam's fall.Do they even mean, in their most general expressions, to say that all men are intemperate, and are morally unable not to be so? And Paul, in those parts of his epistles often referred to, is speaking not of one vice, but of all. But when he describes it as most general, and most gross, he never utters any thing like this doctrine. We find the great wickedness of man often spoken of, but never find it spoken of as resulting from a depraved nature, inherited from Adam. And not finding this, we are not warranted in believing it.

This corrupt state of nature is attributed to the fall of Adam. Where do we find that Adam's sin had such an effect on our moral natures? All difficulty on such subjects, arises, in nine cases out of ten, from not looking into the scriptures, to see what is there stated. Let us look then at the third chapter of Genseis, and see the history of Adam's sin, and the curse pronounced on him. We have not space to examine this whole chapter, but will quote the curse pronounced on Adam-that our readers may see whether there be any reference to a covenant made between God and Adam, as the representative of his posterity; whether he pronounces a curse on his moral nature, disabling it from all good, and rendering it wholly disposed to all evil,-and whether such a moral curse is to descend to posterity. "And unto Adam he said, because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree of which I commanded thee, saying, thou shalt not eat of it; cursed is the ground for thy sake, in sorrow shalt thou eat of it, all the days of thy life; thorns also, and thistles shall it bring forth to thee; and thou shalt eat the herb of the field; in the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground, for out of it wast thou taken; for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return." That is a life of labor to secure a subsistence, and of liability to suffering--and finally life itself to terminate, and the dust to return to the earth from whence it was taken. This is the curse, and all the curse which was pronounced and on this stem has grown, increasing age by age, the doctrine of natural depravity. As Adam sinned, so all have sinned-all his descendents like him, are required to labor, and are liable to suffer; as Adam died, so have all, possessing the same mortal bodies, died. Through Adam, death was introduced into the world; he was the first fruits of death, as Christ was the first fruit of the resurrection, and of the life. As in Adam all die, so in Christ shall all be made alive. There is not a word said in this history, of any primitive and