"Sensibility to the opinions of others," and "a feeling of injury when wronged," may and often do occasion reprehensible and sinful external actions; they may also occasion actions in which care is taken not to violate "the demands of known duty."

Sympathy for the afflictions of others" is the occasion of a vast multitude of external actions, which I should think any judicious man would hesitate to pronounce sinful.

The common "desire of happiness" will surely account for a large class of human actions, in which it would be difficult to find evidence of a violation of "known duty." In this class might be included the external actions of men while laboring industriously in their several occupations, to obtain the means of subsistence, and to provide for their families. It is true that men may be aiming at some evil purpose, while this is not perceived by human spectators. But when nothing of evil is perceived, I should doubt the prudence of telling them that all their external actions are sinful, and flow from enmity to God.

In each of the cases which have been mentioned, there may have been the omission or want of that love to God which is his due; but this does not prove that all those actions proceed from a sinful fountain-surely not, if the properties from which they do proceed are "neither sinful nor holy."

Suppose parents to have children which they think are yet unregenerate, but are nevertheless obedient to their commands, and amiable in their conduct to one another: could any good be expected to result

from telling these children every night that all their amiable actions through the day had proceeded from a corrupt and sinful fountain, and are deserving of God's endless displeasure? Would it not be much better to commend what appeared virtuous and lovely, and then express a hope that they would soon learn to act from love to God, and a desire to please and glorify him in all their ways. The former mode would be a direct method to prejudice their minds against religion, while the latter would tend to win their hearts and excite them to act from the higher motives.

The advocates for each of the theories which have been named, must, it appears to me, be chargeable with daily and gross inconsistency in their manner of treating their children and their neighbors, and in speaking to them and of them; at one time commending and approving what at another they declare to be nothing but sin, or rebellion against God.*

Before I dismiss this subject, it may be well to observe that the properties which the New Haven writers declare to be "neither sinful nor holy," are nevertheless among the favors of God which I regard as the sources of man's liability to sin. There is not one of them which does not expose us to many temptations. By the same properties, Adam in a state of innocency was exposed to temptation; and by yielding to the temptation, he became a sinner. So it has been with his posterity. By possessing the same properties, the Messiah " was in all points

* See the Illustration in Chap. xiv.

tempted like as we are;" but by duly resisting the temptation, he "was without sin"-nay more, he was a conqueror, and as such was exalted to the right hand of God.

The Christian Spectator for December 1830, contains some passages which appear to me not easy to be reconciled with the doctrine that children are totally sinful after they become moral agents till they are regenerated. In the review of Mr. Sprague's Lectures to youth I found much to commend. The first of the two paragraphs which I shall quote with approbation, was written by the Reviewer; the other he quotes from Mr. Sprague:

"On this subject, the well known susceptibilities of the youthful mind to deep and permanent impressions both of good and evil, is a topic full of persuasion. No pastor has ever assembled the young of his flock, and addressed them on the great question of their personal salvation, or has brought to their special attention any appropriate subject of doctrine or duty, without feeling that for peculiar effort, in this department of the pastoral office, there is peculiar encouragement."

"It admits of no question, that there is something in the very state of the soul, during the period of youth, which may be said, in a comparative sense, to favor the work of its own sanctification. The understanding not having been brought under the dominion of prejudice, is open to the reception of truth. The conscience not having had its dictates frequently opposed and trifled with, is ready faithfully to discharge its office. The various affections of the heart are easily excited; and more easily than at any subsequent period, may receive a right direction. Who will not say that there is in all this a most desirable preparation for becoming truly reli

gious; especially when the state of the soul to which referred, is contrasted with that almost invincible prejudice, that deep moral insensibility, which often results from long continued familiarity with the world."* C. Sp. 648.

NO. III.

Disputed Hypotheses on the existence of Moral Evil.

The perfection of God and the existence of sin, are both admitted facts; but how they are consistent with each other is a question of dispute. Two hypotheses are now before the public.

1. That sin was a necessary means of the greatest good; and was therefore admitted.

2. That sin was an evil incident to the best system of government; and therefore could not be prevented in any system as good as the one which God adopted. It is presumed that the advocates on each side will grant that the existing plan of divine government is as good as God could devise. But if sin was a necessary means of the greatest good, there seems to be no objection to the idea that, in

*

April, 1833. Two or three years have passed away since this article on Dr. Taylor's views was written. A principal hypothesis in his scheme I have lately examined in a more extended manner in the article entitled "Review of a Modern Substitute for a Sinful Nature." After writing that Review, I thought of suppressing this Number of the Supplemental Illustrations; but on re-examination, I found that the Review had very little in it which can be regarded as a repetition of what is contained in this article, and that this contains much that I was unwilling to suppress.

forming his plan, God made arrangements to insure the fall of Adam, and all the sin that has since existed, or will exist to eternity. But this view of the subject is shocking to many pious persons. For, in their opinion, it implies the direct agency of God for the production of what he forbids, and threatens to punish. Besides, if sin is a necessary means of the greatest good, it cannot be in all respects an evil. It must at least be a relative good. How else can it be a "necessary means of the greatest good?" If then another hypothesis had been or can be proposed, less revolting to the benevolent mind, and equally consistent with the perfection of God, it should not be rejected without a candid examination.

The second hypothesis is supposed to imply that it was impossible with God to form any plan of government, as good as the present, from which sin could be excluded. This seems like limiting the wisdom or power of God. But is it not limiting his goodness to assert the contrary? What but the want of goodness can be the reason, if he has not adopted as good a plan as his wisdom could devise? It may also be asked, does not the first hypothesis, as well as the second, seem to limit the wisdom or the power of God? If sin was a necessary means of the greatest good, neither the wisdom nor the power of God could have excluded it from any plan as good as the present; and this is all that seems to limit the wisdom or the power of God in the second hypothesis.

But while the two hypotheses appear to be alike as to setting bounds to the wisdom and goodness of the Creator, the second seems to me to have the advantage in some important respects.