I think, Admiral, you will agree with me that our Saviour-he to whom the Spirit without measure was given-could not have used this kind of language, had he known that these very little children, owing to their being ingendered of Adam, were wicked and depraved; and that, so far from being proper objects for imitation, they deserved the wrath of God, and DAMNATION.

Adml. Your conclusion seems a just one, but its extent must depend upon the meaning you attach to our Lord's words. To understand them literally would be absurd. How do you explain them?

Capt. The safest way is to make Jesus his own expositor. At Matt. x. 40. Our Lord says, He that receiveth you, rcceiveth me. These words may

be differently applied. Taken in one sense; we may infer that they who recived the Gospel by the preaching of the Apostles would derive the same spiritual blessings from it as they would have done had they derived it from Jesus himself. Nay, from God himself: for he says, Whosoever receiveth me, receiveth him that sent me.

Adml. But, how can you apply this to little children? They cannot teach the Gospel.

Capt. It is, however, for this very purpose they are here set forth, viz. to teach humility, without which we cannot enter into the kingdom of heaven; for our Lord says, Whosoever shall humble himself as this little child, the same is greatest in the kingdom of heaven. Whatever may be the meaning of these words of Jesus, or the extent of their application, it would seem certain that the opinion of our Saviour concerning little children is totally irreconcileable with the IXth. Article of your Church. I would further observe to you that this is not an insulated passage, or one taken out of its This proper connexion. you will find if you compare the following texts viz. Matt. xviii. 2-5. xix. 13, 14. Mark x. 13-15. Luke ix. 47-48. and xviii. 15-17. All these are alike adverse the doctrine of Original, or Birth Sin. Happy would it have been for the Christian world, Protestant and Catholic, if their dignitaries had followed the advice given to the Apostles we should have heard of fewer wars; and soldiers and sailors might be employed in useful labours, instead of living upon those of the industrious and productive classes.

Adml. One would suppose that really pious and good men―men like Mr. Wilberforce-who firmly believe this doctrine would entertain a horror of marriage; and that the dread and fear of propagating devils, instead of innocent children, would perpetually haunt and distress them: and that the idea of the depravity of their offspring would alienate parental affection, one of the most sacred and delightful duties assigned to us by our gracious Creator. But human nature, with all its imperfections, seems to be a better guide than priests or scholastic theology: and, accordingly, we find that parents, instead of regarding their young ones as demons, sent to plague and torment them, rather hail them as angels sent from heaven to cheer them in their passage through this our mundane state of existence. Many delight to call it a vale of tears, and by their vices and folly often render

it so. Were this doctrine true, it would be so indeed; but it is plain that the great bulk of mankind do not believe in it: the innocence of a newborn babe is proverbial; and I think the proverb a true one.

Capt. The remarks you have made concerning the marriage of pious persons are not altogether groundless: a friend of mine, a man of piety, and well read in the Scriptures, has assured me that, when he first married, he felt great distress of mind from the dread of the eternal misery that probably awaited his future children. But my friend was a rigid Calvinist, a believer in predestination, as well as Original Sin. He has since become a Unitarian; entertaining more benevolent, and, I trust, more just views of the parental character of the Deity.

Adil. The doctrine seems to abound with irreconcileable difficulties. As I understand it, those who receive it believe that the sin of our first parents so changed and contaminated their natures that they were rendered incapable of procreating such a race of perfect and happy beings as would' otherwise have issued from their loins had they continued obedient to the divine commands, that their natural powers were so instantaneously changed as to communicate to their future progeny the guilt of their own sin, and a propensity to commit every other : and all this, as it would seem, contrary to the predetermined plan of an omnipotent, and all-wise God. Now, my friend, though I have been early taught to reverence the doctrines of our church, I cannot subscribe to this doctrine. It seems alike opposed to Scripture and common-sense-to the wisdom, as well as the goodness of God. I cannot believe it, however much I may wish to do so.

Capt. Your remarks are quite correct-they are by no means overdrawn. Let us then examine how far the thing is possible. Now, whether we consider the account of the transgression of Adam and Eve as related by Moses, as allegorical, or as a literal fact, it is disobedience to the divine command that constitutes their crime-the merely eating of fruit could be neither sinful nor the reverse. This, their disobedience, surely proves that they did not, previous to eating the fatal fruit, possess that original righteousness, knowledge, and holiness-that conformity to the divine image, which, it is affirmed by the orthodox, they lost by transgression. Their minds were rendered depraved by the determination of their will before they actually committed the deed which is said to have plunged all man kind in total depravity. This act of disobedience proves incontestibly that they did not possess the degree of righteousness attributed to them. Besides, they must have been equally guilty in the eyes of a just judge, had some miraculous interference prevented the actual commission of the crime. Their dispositions were depraved beforehand; their act of disobedience in eating the fruit positively proves it. On a careful perusal of the Mosaic account we can discover nothing to lead us to suppose that Adam and Eve possessed superior powers to ourselves to enable them to resist temptation. In this respect, and in their liability to sin, they appear to have been placed in exactly the same circumstances as we, their offspring, are at the present day. As to their original knowledge, righteousness, and holiness, though

sanctioned by priests, and evangelical commentators like Mr. Wilberforce, they want the testimony of Scripture-the testimony best deserving notice.

Adml. But, allowing all the orthodox assert concerning the total depravity of human nature to be true, a most weighty objection here presents itself. If we come into the world apostate creatures; indisposed to good, and disposed to evil; "prone to vice and disinclined to virtue; tainted with sin, not slightly and superficially, but to the very core," all this is our misfortune and a most dreadful one it is—not our crime. A just God can never punish us for being what he himself hath made us. David, so often quoted as affording proof positive of this doctrine, speaking of God, says, It is He that hath made us, and not we ourselves. What I most object to in this doctrine, is the argument it affords to sceptics and infidels to impugn the Christian religion. If this be a scriptural doctrine, it will, I think, be found difficult to answer the witty remarks of a noble poet.

O wearisome condition of humanity!

Born under one law, to another bound!
Vainly begot, and yet forbidding vanity;
Created sick, commanded to be sound.
If nature did not take delight in blood,

She would have made made more easy ways to good.

Now, my friend, I confess to you, I cannot satisfactorily auswer the remarks of this witty writer.

Capt. I think you will find this no easy matter; if, however, you wish to know the opinion of a learned and good man on the subject, I would refer you to your favourite author Abp. Tillotson. In his xxviiith Sermon, in answer to the objections made against true religion, he quotes these very lines, in order to expose their fallacy. I leave you to examine his arguments and to decide for yourself. To me they appear inconclusive. They are based on the supposed righteousness of Adam and Eve being founded on error, the conclusions drawn from them are probably erroneous. Nothing, indeed, can be more evident than that our first parents were not righteous, -they were neither righteous nor wicked-they had done nothing good or bad—nothing deserving the favour, or yet the wrath of God. In perusing the Sermon you will find no small difference between the opinions of Mr. Wilberforce and those of the good Archbishop, regarding the total depravity of man. When doctors disagree, who shall decide? This disagreement in opinion among the orthodox is not to be wondered at, for, according to their system, the doctrine appears to be attended with many insurmountable difficulties and absurdities.

We are gravely told by the learned divines of your Church that, All the Sons of Adam are, by the fall, under the wrath and curse of God, and so made liable to the pains of hell for ever. Can this be the Gospel? the glad tidings that Jesus came to reveal? If we are, indeed, placed in this calamitous situation, it seems natural that we should inquire at what parti

Some suppose the

cular period of our existence this curse commences. soul to be co-eval with the first germ of the body; and that long before its birth it is a responsible sinner, and heir of eternal misery, even though the body should never attain vitality. Hence fond mothers often experience great distress of mind when their children die unbaptized. Some advocates for this view of the doctrine gravely tell us that there are beings not a span long suffering all the torments of the damned; and all this on account of the first transgression of Adam ! It seems scarcely possible for a good man-a man zealous for the honour of God to read such things without mingled feelings of grief and indignation. It cannot, however, be denied that the IXth. Article gives a colour to such-like absurdities. Nay, to such a pitch of folly and impiety have some enthusiasts carried this doctrine is to propose washing away this hereditary pollution by uterine baptism. You ́may smile, Admiral, but this, revolting and preposterous as it must appear to every man of sense and feeling, was proposed in a learned assembly of the doctors of the Sorbonne.

Adml. It seems hardly credible that Christians of former days should have entertained opinions so contrary to reason and Scripture.

as

Capt. It seems so indeed; but many things whichwe now regard with feelings of self-complacency, may, perhaps, in future ages be looked upon with the same kind of astonishment we now feel at the doctrine of premature baptism, or transubstantiation Men from long habit, and old associations, have become reconciled to the doctrine of Original Sin, a doctrine incredible as that of transubstantiation. Do you believe that the priesthood possesses the power of washing away sin-the power of working miracles? I anticipate you will answer, No. But, I intreat you, first to read over the offices of baptism, confirmation, and ordination of priests All these bespeak their power to wash away sin-to regenerate mankind—and thus counteract the power of Satan. This miraculous power is with great clearness set forth in the order for visiting the sick. Here the priest claims this divine power of forgiving sins in terms the most unequivocal. By his (Christ's) authority committed to me, I absolve thee from all thy sins, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost! ! !

Protestant commentators identify the Pope and the Man of Sin, mentioned by St. Paul. (2. Thes. ii. 3, 4). They appear to be justified in so doing; but they seem to shut their eyes to the obvious truth, that in inculpating the Pope they condemn themselves. Does not the protestant priest who exercises this authority sit in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God? or a God; Oɛog, without the article. Does not every priest who receives ordination degrade himself; uuless, indeed, he believes in the wonder-working powers of a bishop? This, I believe, is the case with very few. Again, Does not the bishop who confers ordination identify himself with the Man of Sin; or, if you please, with the Pope of Rome?

Adml. It would seem that one absurdity-one departure from scriptural truth, will generally involve others. The absurdity to which I would draw your attention is this. The power and cunning of the evil one are largely

dwelt upon in the Liturgy, and other devotional compositions. Now, if man be already so depraved that he can neither think a good thought, nor perform a good action; if his best deeds are splendid sins, the seductions of Satan are not necessary; and his office a complete sinecure. Instead of walking about like a roaring lion, seeking whom he may devour, his whole business was accomplished by the success of his first enterprise. He and his agents must have been idling away their time in endeavouring to insnare those who were already secured in his net.

Capt. Your objections are very just: but there is another of a still more solemn and serious nature which here presents itself, and which I almost shudder to mention. If it be true that the nature of man is so universally corrupt, it will follow, when the Godhead became man in the person of Jesus Christ, that he must inevitably have partaken of our original hereditary depravity. If he remained untainted with Original Sin, it could not have been our nature which he took upon himself. As man, however perfect in character, and in conduct: yet, being a child of Adam, he was, equally with those he came to save, liable to the wrath of God, and the pains of hell for ever. However revolting such conclusions, they unavoidably flow from orthodox principles.

If the doctrine of Original Sin be true, and if the Son of God be also the son of man, being descended from Adam in the female line, he sinned in him, and fell with him in transgression. A doctrine involving such an absurdity can never be derived from the Scriptures of truth.

Adml. To believe that the human race is rendered liable to the permanent and inextinguishable pains of hell, and to the wrath of God for ever, on account of the transgression of their first parents, or in consequence of any taint they have received from them, seems to be, at the same time, a libel upon God, and an extravagance almost unequalled.

Capt. Having, I trust, shewn that the doctrine of Original Sin is not a doctrine of Scripture, it will follow that its eternal punishment is equally destitute of scriptural authority. The only sentence recorded in Scripture against Adam's disobedience is, In the day thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die. By what rule of interpretation can it be proved, that the death denounced in this sentence signifies eternal existence in a state of misery? The absurdity of such an interpretation may be inferred from the words of St. Paul who says, For as in Adum all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive. There is no passage in sacred writ from which it can be inferred that eternal misery was the punishment allotted to Adam, or to his offspring, on account of his transgression.

Adml. It would seem then, according to your statement, that neither the eternal punishment of Original Sin, nor yet the doctrine itself, can be found in the Bible.

Capt. I have stated to you my reasons for thus thinking; and I leave you to draw your own conclusions. Some men, in order to reconcile this, and other orthodox doctrines, with the goodness of the Deity, have argued, that there is one code of moral conduct for God, and another for man;