and righteousness, included the coming of the Messiah, the blessings of the gospel day, and the salvation of all who shall have been redeemed by the Lord Jesus.

Joseph and Moses are among the most eminent of the typical Saviors, by whose obedience many have been made righteous. Joshua, Samuel, and several others are worthy to be enrolled among the individuals, by whose obedience many were made righteous, and who by God were made eminent instruments of good to mankind.

The prophet Daniel, who was himself a light of the world, and one of the best of our race, has said: "They that be wise shall shine as the brightness of the firmament; and they that turn many to righteousness as the stars for ever and ever." Dan. xii. 3. Instead of the word "wise" in this text, the margin of Bibles gives the word "teachers;" and there can be no doubt that wise teachers are the persons intended. Excepting the Messiah and Moses, perhaps no teacher ever did more good than Paul, or was the instrument of turning more of his fellow men to righteousness. To "turn many to righteousness" is, I conceive, of the same import as to make "many righteous."

و,

What a vast amount of sin and misery have often resulted from the disobedience'of one man! On the other hand, what an amount of righteousness and happiness have resulted from the obedience of other individuals! The solemn thought that, in every age, by the vicious conduct of one individual parent, many have been made sinners, and by the virtuous conduct of another parent many have been made

righteous, should have a powerful influence on the mind of every parent. The thought may be extended to every instructer of children and youth, every minister of the gospel, and every public ruler of a state or a nation. The more important and elevated the situation is, in which an individual is placed, the greater is his responsibility-the greater the mischief or the good which will result from his conduct.

Let it now be supposed that such views of moral influence should be adopted throughout christendom, and deeply impressed on the minds of people of every rank; let it be understood and felt, that both sin and righteousness may become hereditary, not by "ordinary generation," but by the moral influence of instruction and example; that by the disobedience of one many may be made sinners, and by the obedience of one many may be made righteous; what awful responsibility would be felt by every parent, every teacher of the young, every minister of the gospel, every magistrate or public officer! Each one would then feel that according to his own conduct he might be the instrument of ruin or of salvation to thousands of human beings, of the present or of future ages, and that the influence of his instruction and example may extend and grow wider and wider, through all future generations of men, and to eternity! How certain it is that the general diffusion and practical adoption of these views, would cause a wonderful reformation in all Christian countries, and soon convert the heathen nations to the Christian religion. When men shall understand and truly act under the influence of

such views, they will doubtless find that God is ever ready, by his spirit, to give effect to benevolent exertions. These views when understood and felt, will not, like the doctrine of total sinfulness by nature, have the torpedo effect to shock, benumb, and to discourage exertion; but, like the water which Christ gives, it will be in men a fountain of living water, springing up to eternal life.

NO. II.

New Haven Theory of Human Depravity.

In former days, the Calvinistic creed of human depravity, affirmed the corruption of man's whole nature, as the consequence of Adam's sin. This theory was modified in some important respects by the Hopkinsians of New England; by whose theory the corruption was limited to the heart or will of man, leaving the mental faculties unimpaired. Still it was admitted that the posterity of Adam are born with a nature or disposition wholly sinful. A still further modification has been advanced and ably supported by Dr. Taylor of New Haven and his associates. To state the hypothesis in authorized language, I shall take my extracts from a "Review of Taylor and Harvey," which appeared in the Christian Spectator for June 1829. In opposition

to the doctrine that the whole nature of man is corrupt or sinful, we have the following statement.

“But there are in the constitution of the mind, certain properties, tendencies or principles, which lie back of moral action, and belong to us simply as intellectual and sentient beings. Of this class are the natural appetites, as hunger, thirst; the social affections, as love of children-sensibility to the opinions of others—a feeling of injury when wronged-sympathy with the sufferings of others, &c.: and connected with them all is the desire of happiness, which belongs to us in common with all sentient beings. Now these from the nature of the case are neither sinful nor holy. They result from the inevitable condition of our being; and we can no more cease to be the subjects of them than we can cease to exist. All that is demanded by the claims of duty is to keep them in strict subjection to the rights of other beings, to our obligations to God and our fellow men. pp. 362-3.

دو

"Hence Dr. Taylor is led to state so emphatically that these constitutional propensities, even in their highest state of excitement, are not in themselves sinful. The sin lies wholly in that act of the will or choice, which decides on their gratification, against the demands of known duty." p. 364.

I am not perfectly satisfied that the latter extract is in all respects correct; nor that there is no danger to be apprehended from so broad an assertion. May not a person be so situated as to know it to be impossible for him to gratify an excited propensity, and hence have no "act of will" for that purpose, while the excitement is such as to involve an approved desire of forbidden gratification or pleasure? If such a desire is indulged and approved by the mind, is not this sinful?

In the first paragraph I see nothing objectionable; and I rejoice that such views of human nature have been proposed, and are acquiring belief. If I have not misunderstood these writers, the New Haven theory asserts that sin is a voluntary transgression of a known law, and that as infants are incapable of moral agency, they are incapable of sin; and that there is no such thing as a sinful nature antecedent to sinful volition, or moral action. They strongly assert that "nature is not itself sinful." Thus far I cordially acquiesce. These writers, however, have a second chapter to their theory of depravity that I also formerly admitted, but which, on reflection, has become to me hard to be believed, if not to be understood. The controversy between the New Haven writers and their opponents is concisely stated by the Reviewer in the following words:

"Dr. Taylor's position that man's nature is not itself sinful, and yet will certainly produce sin, and sin only, is rejected by Mr. Harvey as downright heresy. His fundamental principle is, that nature is itself sinful—the efficient and criminal cause of all sin." p. 343.

The following is also given as the opinion of Dr. Taylor:

"A ground of certainty likewise exists, according to Dr. T. in the mind of each individual of our race, that the first and all subsequent acts of moral agency, will uniformly be sinful, previous to regeneration. p. 375.

د,

It is supposed by these writers, that in moral agents there is a "governing affection," which the scriptures call the heart; that this governing affection is voluntary, and the source of particular voli