tary obedience to a righteous law, and sin in voluntary disobedience, it seems reasonable to suppose, that it is by the moral influence of Christ's obedience that many are made righteous. His obedience, however, is to be understood as including his preaching, his example, and all he did and suffered for us. And as it is by the moral influence of Christ's obedience that many are made righteous; so, I conceive, it was by the moral influence of Adam's disobedience that many were made sin

ners.

Persons who are made to sin are "made sinners," by whatever influence, or in whatever form, the effect may be produced. Though Paul is the only inspired writer who taught that many were "made sinners" by the disobedience of Adam; yet, in the Old Testament, we are told of many who were made to sin by the disobedience of other individuals. This is emphatically said of Jeroboam; and of several of his successors, we are told, that they "followed the ways of Jeroboam the son of Nebat who made Israel to sin." It was unquestionably by the moral influence of Jeroboam that he made Israel to sin, or caused others to transgress. Why then should it be deemed incredible, that it was by a moral influence that many were made sinners, by the disobedience of Adam?

Had the Israelites been the only people on earth in the days of Jeroboam, and had he, after obtaining his pernicious ascendency, lived nine hundred years to exert such an influence; to what depths of vice and degradation might not that people have been sunk by one man's disobedience! Suppose

that at the end of such a long reign, the Israelites had been dispersed, to people the four quarters of the globe, and carrying with them the pernicious habits they had formed, under the influence of Jeroboam: might it not very naturally have been recorded that" by the disobedience of one, the many were made sinners?"

If in the Scriptural use of language, a Jeroboam could make a whole nation to sin, by the moral influence which he exerted over them, - and if a Napoleon in our own age, and in a few years, could diffuse a deleterious influence throughout the civilized world; why should it be deemed unreasonable to suppose, that it was by its moral influence that the disobedience of Adam made his posterity sinners? Can we not much more philosophically account for the asserted fact by a moral influence, than by resorting to the strange hypothesis of propagating the moral qualities of a sinful act, by natural or physical generation? We can easily understand how children may be "made sinners" by the influence of the evil instructions and examples of their parents; and how, in this way, vices may become hereditary in families or communities. So we can understand how children may be made righteous, or trained up in the way they should go, by such instructions, and such an example as were exhibited by Jesus Christ; —at least, we may understand how these effects are produced, as clearly as we understand how any effects are produced by natural or moral causes. As well as we know how good husbandry produces a plentiful harvest, and bad husbandry a scanty harvest; we know how

good instructions and examples render children virtuous, and bad instructions and examples render them vicious. Experience and observation show us that such effects are the result of such causes, and are ordinarily to be expected. But neither observation nor experience, Scripture nor philosophy have furnished me with any proof that the moral character of a parent can be transmitted by physical generation. What may be called the physical traits of a man's character is often seen in his children, as the effect of generation; but moral`character is formed by a succession of moral acts; and this each moral agent forms for himself. Hence, every man must give account of himself unto God, and be rewarded according to his own deeds.

Paul, in writing to Timothy, used the following language "When I call to remembrance the unfeigned faith that is in thee; which dwelt first in thy grandmother Lois, and thy mother Eunice,and I am persuaded that in thee also." 2 Tim 1. 5. But who will say that Timothy derived his faith by ordinary generation? Had it, however, been sin instead of faith of which Paul thus spoke, as dwelling first in the grandmother, then in the mother, and then in the son, how constantly would this passage have been quoted as a proof of the popular doctrine!

In the New Testament, Abraham is represented as the father of believers, whether they be Jews or Gentiles. On the other hand, the devil is represented as the father of unbelieving and wicked men, perhaps as frequently as Adam is so represented. Such facts suggest a more scriptural mode of ac

counting for the moral qualities which appear in men, than that of supposing them to be derived by generation.

CHAP. VIII.

On the phrase "by Nature."

Christians must be aware, that such language as the following, has long been common in our land; "We are all by nature sinners' by nature wholly sinful"-"by nature totally depraved"by nature enemies to God". by nature children of wrath." Such language has been used to express the idea, that all the children of Adam come into existence with a constitutional sinful nature a nature wholly opposed to God-just as they possess any of the properties of human nature. This seems to have been done with as much confidence as if it were certain that the phrase "by nature” has this, and no other meaning in the Scriptures. It will now be my aim to examine impartially, whether such a use of the phrase is authorized by the Scriptures.

The word "nature" is twelve times used in the Bible; and all these instances are found in the common version of the epistles of the New Testament. In the opinion of Mr. Cruden, the word has eight significations, in the few instances of its use by the apostles,

The phrase "by nature" is, I think, not used by any one of the sacred writers, except Paul. He used it six times. In one instance, he used it in reference to the objects of heathen worship" which by nature are no Gods." Gal. iv. 8. In the other five instances, it is used in reference to men, either Jews or Gentiles. Of the five instances, one only has been supposed to teach that children are born with a sinful nature. This is found Eph. ii. 3. "And were by nature children of wrath, even as others." On this passage, Dr. Macknight has an important note, the substance of which, may be here quoted.

"And were by nature children of wrath. Nature often signifies one's birth and education. Gal. ii. 15. Jews by nature.' Also means natural reason and conscience. Rom. ii. 14. 'The Gentiles who have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law.' Also the general sense and practice of mankind. 1 Cor. xi. 14. Doth not even nature itself teach you.'- In the passage under consideration, nature is that second or corrupt nature, which men form in themselves by habitually indulging vicious inclinations. For the apostle speaks of men being 'by nature children of wrath' as the effect of having their conversation in the lusts of the flesh."

My own views of the passage, are in accordance with those expressed by Dr. Macknight. It is however my opinion, that the phrase "by nature," as used by Paul, generally had respect to the external condition, under which men were born and educated, in regard to the benefits of revelation; and not to any supposed constitutional or hereditary