rebellious world, subject to the influence of ignorance, with very limited and imperfect experience, and liable to the strong impulses of appetite and passion." "Instinct, animal sensation, constitutional susceptibilities create an impulse, which not being counteracted by moral considerations or gracious influence, lead the will in a wrong direction and to wrong objects. It was thus that sin was induced in our holy progenitors. No one can plead in Eve an efficient cause of sin resident in her nature (any prava vis) or operative power, sinful in itself, anterior to and apart from her own voluntary acts. And if she was led into sin though characteristically holy, and destitute of any innate propensity to sin, where is the necessity for supposing that the sins of her progeny are to be referred to such a cause?" "Temptation alone is sufficient under present circumstances."-Work on Regeneration, pp. 310, 379, 380.

Mr. Finney. "If it be asked how it happens that children universally adopt the principle of selfishness, unless their nature is sinful? I answer, that they adopt the principle of self-gratification or selfishness, because they possess human nature, and come into being under the peculiar circumstances in which all the children of Adam are born since the fall; but not because human nature is itself sinful. The cause of their becoming sinners is to be found in their nature's being what it is, and surrounded by the peculiar

circumstances of temptation to which they are exposed in a world of sinners." "Adam was created in the perfection of manhood, certainly not with a sinful nature, and yet an appeal to his innocent, constitutional appetites led him into sin. If adult Adam, without a sinful nature, and after a season of obedience and perfect holiness, was led to change his mind by an appeal to his innocent, constitutional propensities, how can the fact that infants possessing the same nature with Adam, and surrounded by circumstances of still greater temptation, universally fall into sin, prove that their nature is itself sinful? Is such an inference called for? Is it legitimate? What, holy and adult Adam is led, by an appeal to his innocent constitution, to adopt the principle of selfishness, and no suspicion is or can be entertained, that he had a sinful nature; but if little children under circumstances of temptation, aggravated by the fall, are led into sin, we are to believe that their nature is sinful! This is wonderful philosophy !"-Sermons on Important Subjects, p. 157.

Dr. Taylor." If no being can sin without a constitutional propensity to sin, how came Adam to sin? If one being, as Adam, can sin, and did in fact sin, without such a propensity to sin, why may not others?"-Spirit of the Pilgrims, vol. 6, p. 13, as quoted by Dow.

Querist. Do you accord, Dr. Taylor, with the sentiment just expressed by Mr. Finney,

that "infants possess the same nature with Adam" at his creation?

Dr. Taylor.-"Mankind come into the world with the same nature in kind as that with which Adam was created."-Ibid. vol. 6, p. 5.

Querist. What influence then has the fall exerted on the posterity of Adam?

Dr. Taylor." I answer, that it may have been to change their nature, not in kind, but degree."-Ibid. vol. 6, p. 12.

Querist. On the supposition that the nature of Adam and that of his posterity were alike in kind, why did not he sin, as soon as he commenced his moral existence ?

Dr. Taylor. "I answer, that the reason may have been, that his nature differed, not in kind, but in degree from that of his posterity."-Ibid.

Querist. On this principle, in what respect did the human nature of Christ differ from that of other children?-and if he possessed in his human nature, what other children possess, why did he not exhibit the same moral character?

Dr. Taylor. "I might answer as before, that his human nature may have differed from that of other children not in kind, but degree."-Ibid.

We have given the preceding quotations at considerable length, that those readers who may not have attended to the controversy, may perceive from their own statements, its various bearings and tendencies;

and how far those have gone who have been bold enough to follow out their principles to their legitimate and full results. We do not attribute to all whose names we have introduced, every sentiment which has been advanced by some of them-but it cannot fail, we think, to strike the mind of the reader that there is such an affinity between the several parts of the series, that the man who adopts one of the doctrines in this category, will be in great danger of ultimately embracing the whole. They all belong to the same system; and ought therefore to be introduced in stating the distinguishing features of the New Theology; though many who adhere to the system in part, do not go to the ne plus ultra of the scheme, as it is here exhibited.

CHAPTER IV.

REMARKS ON IMPUTATION, ORIGINAL SIN, &C., WITH REFERENCE TO THE VIEWS PRESENTED IN THE PRECEDING CHAPTER.

THE controversy respecting our connexion with Adam, and the influence produced upon us by the fall, commenced early in the fifth century, when Pelagius, a British monk, published opinions at variance with the common doctrines of the church. He and his followers entertained substantially the same

views which have been exhibited in the preceding chapter; though they adopted a method somewhat different to account for the commission of sin by little children, and went farther in their views concerning the influence of Adam's sin upon his descendants. They maintained that "the sin of Adam injured himself alone, and did not affect his posterity;" and that we sin only by "imitation." But their sentiments concerning the nature of sin, original sin, and imputation, were the same with those which distinguish the New Theology.

Concerning the first, Pelagius says, " And here, in my opinion, the first inquiry ought to be, What is sin? Is it a substance, or is it a mere name devoid of substance; not a thing, not an existence, not a body, nor any thing else (which has a separate existence) but an act; and if this is its nature, as I believe it is, how could that which is devoid of substance debilitate or change human nature?" "Every thing, good or evil, praiseworthy or censurable, which we possess, did not originate with us, but is done by us; for we are born capable both of good and evil, but not in possession of these qualities; for in our birth we are equally destitute of virtue and vice; and previously to moral agency, there is nothing in man but that which God created in him."-Biblical Repertory.

..

This question concerning the nature of sin was regarded as decisive concerning the other