natural generation from Adam. They regard the constitution inherited from Adam as in itself sinful, and the cause of all actual transgression. They make no distinction between physical and moral depravity. They also distinguish between original and actual sin. Original sin is the sinfulness of the constitution, in which Adam's posterity have no other hand than to inherit it by natural generation, or by birth. This original sin, or sinful nature, renders mankind utterly disabled from all that is spiritually good, and wholly inclined to all that is evil. This is their account of moral depravity. This, it will be seen, is substantially the ground of Dr. Woods.

It has been common with those who confound physical with moral depravity, and who maintain that human nature is itself sinful, to quote certain passages of Scripture to sustain their position. An examination of these proof texts must, in the next place, occupy our attention. But before I enter upon this examination, I must first call your attention to certain well settled rules of biblical interpretation.

1. Different passages must be so interpreted, if they can be, as not to contradict each other.

2. Language is to be interpreted according to the subject matter of discourse.

3. Respect is always to be had to the general scope and design of the speaker or writer.

4. Texts that are consistent with either theory prove neither. 5. Language is to be so interpreted, if it can be, as not to conflict with sound philosophy, matters of fact, the nature of things, or immutable justice.

Let us now, remembering and applying these plain rules of sound interpretation, proceed to the examination of those passages that are supposed to establish the theory of depravity I am examining.

Gen. 5: 3. "Adam lived an hundred and thirty years and begat a son in his own likeness and after his own image, and called his name Seth." It is not very easy to see why this text should be pressed into the service of those who hold that human nature is in itself sinful. Why should it be assumed that the likeness and image here spoken of was a moral likeness or image? But unless this be assumed the text has nothing to do with the subject.

Again. It is generally admitted that in all probability Adam was a regenerate man at the time and before the birth of Seth. Is it intended that Adam begot a saint or a sinner? If, as is supposed, Adam was a saint of God, if this text is

any thing to the purpose it affirms that Adam begat a saint. But this is the opposite of that in proof of which the text is quoted.

Another text is, Job 14: 4. "Who can bring a clean thing out of an unclean? Not one." This text is quoted in support of the position of the Presbyterian Confession of Faith that children inherit from their parents by natural generation, a sinful nature. Upon this text I remark,

1. That all that can be made of it, even if we read it without regard to the translation or the context, is that a physically depraved parent will produce a physically depraved offspring.

2. That this is its real meaning is quite evident when we look into the context. Job is treating of the frail and dying state of man, and manifestly has in the text and context his eye wholly on the physical state, and not on the moral character of man. What he intends is: Who can bring other than a frail, dying offspring from a frail, dying parent? Not one. This is substantially the view that Professor Stuart takes of this text. The utmost that can be made of it is, that as he belonged to a race of sinners, nothing else could be expected than that he should be a sinner without meaning to affirm any thing in regard to the quo modo of this result.

Again. Job 15: 14. "What is man that he should be clean, and he that is born of a woman that he should be righteous." 1. These are the words of Eliphaz, and it is improper to quote them as inspired truth. That Eliphaz uttered this sentiment, let what will be the meaning, there is no reason to doubt; and there is just as little reason to receive his doctrines as truth. For God himself testifies that Job's friends did not hold the truth. But,

of

2. Suppose we understand the text as true, what is its import? Why, it simply asserts, or rather implies the unrighteousness or sinfulness of the whole human race. He expresses the universality of depravity in the very common way including all that are born of woman. This certainly says nothing and implies nothing respecting a sinful constitution. It is just as plain and just as warrantable to understand this passage as implying that mankind have become so physically depraved that this fact together with the circumstances under which they come into being and begin their moral career, will certainly, (not necessarily) result in moral depravity. I might use just such language as that found in this text and naturally enough express by it my own views of moral depravity;

to wit, that it results from a physically depraved constitution and the circumstances of temptation under which children come into this world and begin and prosecute their moral career; certainly this is the most that can be made of this

text.

Again, Ps. 51: 5, "Behold I was shapen in iniquity and in sin did my mother conceive me.” Upon this I remark,

1. It would seem, if this text is to be understood literally, that the Psalmist intended to affirm the sinful state of his mother at the time of his conception and during gestation. But,

2. I make a remark that is applicable to all the texts and arguments that are adduced in support of the theory in ques. tion; namely, that to take this view of the subject and to interpret these passages as teaching the constitutional sinfulness of man is to contradict God's own definition of sin and the only definition that human reason or common sense can receive, to wit, that "sin is a transgression of the law." This is no doubt the only correct definition of sin. But we have seen that the law does not legislate over substance requiring men to have a certain nature, but over voluntary action only. If the Psalmist really intended to affirm that the substance of his conceived fœtus was sinful, then he not only arrays himself against God's own definition of sin, but he also affirms sheer nonsense. The substance of an unborn child sinful! It is impossible! But what did the Psalmist mean? I answer, this verse is found in David's penitential psalm. He was deeply convinced of sin and was, as he had good reason to be, much excited, and expressed himself, as we all do in similar circumstances, in strong language. His eye, as was natural and is common in such cases, had been directed back along the pathway of life up to the days of his earliest recollection. He remembered sins among the earliest acts of his recollected life. He broke out in the language of this text to express, not the anti-scriptural and nonsensical dogma of a sinful constitution, but to affirm in his strong, poetic language that he had always been a sinner from the commencement of his moral existence, or from the earliest moment of his capability of being a sinner. This language is the strong language of poetry. To press this and similar texts further than this, is to violate two sound rules of biblical interpretation, to wit:

1. That language is to be interpreted according to the subject matter of discourse. And,

2. That one passage is to be so interpreted as not to con

tradict another. But to make this text state that sin belongs, or may belong to the substance of an unborn infant is to make it flatly contradict another passage that defines sin to be a transgression of the law of God.

Some suppose that in the passage in question the Psalmist referred to and meant to acknowledge and assert his low and despicable origin and to say, I was always a sinner, and my mother that conceived me was a sinner, and I am but the degenerate plant of a strange vine, without intending to affirm any thing in respect to the absolute sinfulness of his nature. Again, Ps. 58: 3. "The wicked are estranged from the womb, they go astray as soon as they are born, speaking lies." Upon this text I remark,

1. That it has been quoted at one time to establish the doctrine of a sinful nature, and at another to prove that infants commit actual sin from the very day and hour of their birth. But certainly no such use can be legitimately made of this text. It does not affirm any thing of a sinful nature, but this has been inferred from what it does affirm, that the wicked are estranged from their birth. But does this mean that they are really and literally estranged from the day and hour of their birth and that they really "go astray the very day they are born, speaking lies?" This every one knows to be contrary to fact. The text cannot then be pressed to the let ter. What then does it mean? It must mean like the text last examined, that the wicked are estranged and go astray from the commencement of their moral agency. If it means more than this, it is not and cannot be true. And besides, it would contradict other plain passages of scripture. It is affirming in strong, graphic, and poetic language the fact that the first moral conduct and character of children is sinful. This is all that in truth it can assert, and it doubtless dates the beginning of their moral depravity at a very early period, which it expresses in very strong language, as if it were literally from the hour of birth. But when it adds that they go astray speaking lies we know that this is not and cannot be to be literally taken, for, as every one knows children do not speak at all from their birth. Should we understand the Psalmist as affirming that children go astray as soon as they go at all, and speak lies as soon as they speak at all, this would not prove that their nature was in itself sinful, but might well consist with the theory that their physical depravity together with their circumstances of temptation led them into selfishness from the very first of their moral existence.

Again, John 3: 6. "That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.” ́

Upon this I remark.

1. That it may, if literally taken, mean nothing more than this, that the body which is born of flesh is flesh, and that that which is born of the Spirit is spirit, that is that this birth of which he was speaking was of the soul, and not of the body. But,

2. It may be understood to mean that that which results from the influence of the flesh is flesh in the sense of sin, for this is a common sense of the term flesh in the New Testament, and that which results from the Spirit, is spirit or spiritual in the sense of holy. This I understand to be the true sense. The text when thus understood does not at all support the dogma of a sinful nature or constitution, but only this that the flesh tends to sin, that the appetites and passions are temptations to sin, so that when the will obeys them it sins. Whatever is born of the propensities, in the sense that the will yields to their control, is sinful. And on the other hand whatever is born of the Spirit, that is, whatever results from the agency of the Holy Spirit in the sense that the will yields to Him, is holy.

Again, Eph. 2: 3. "By nature children of wrath even as others." Upon this text I remark,

1. That it cannot consistently with natural justice, be understood to mean, that we are exposed to the wrath of God on account of our nature. It is a monstrous and blasphemous dogma, that a holy God is angry with any creature, for possessing a nature with which he was forced into being without his knowledge or consent. The Bible represents God as angry with men for their wicked deeds, and not for their nature. 2. It is common, and proper to speak of the first state in which men universally are as a natural state. Thus we speak of sinners before regeneration, as in a state of nature, as opposed to a changed state, a regenerate state, and a state of grace. But by this we do not necessarily mean, that they have a nature sinful in itself, but merely that before regeneration, they are universally and totally morally depraved, that this is their natural, as opposed to their regenerate state. Total moral depravity is the state that follows, and results from their first birth, and is in this sense natural, and in this sense alone, can it truly be said, that they are "by nature children of wrath." Against the use that is made of this, and all this class of texts, may be arrayed the whole scope of scripture that represents