oring to reclaim the inmates of prisons and all other victims of vice. When I see the extent to which these efforts are carried, and the number of hearts and hands employed in them; I see that a mighty struggle is making in behalf of degraded and suffering humanity. When I consider the course of events, and find that progress is making, that this glorious struggle is every year more extended, more powerful, and more efficacious, and when at the same time I consider the promises of God; I am persuaded that it will issue in complete success. And having found that liberty attends in the train of our religion, I am equally and on the same grounds per suaded that she will become universal. I see too that the man who haughtily stands aloof and regards it with contempt, is in danger of being found guilty of despising the blessed and merciful work of God; and on the contrary that every person, however insignificant, who is heartily engaged in it, has cause to bless God for the spirit he possesses. Especially do I see that the members of the society which is assembled here to night, have cause solemnly and humbly to praise God, for having brought them into a relation to it so honorable and responsible as that which they sustain.

My Brethren, I have but one word to address to you. You have seen the result of a comparison of confessedly the noblest cause which unrenewed men are prosecuting, with that in which you are embarked. You are soon to be engaged in it more actively Be looking abroad on our miserable world and into eternity, and to the cross of Christ, and filling yourselves with his spirit. Be girding up your loins, and taking to yourselves the whole armour of God. And when you go forth to fight your short bat

tle for God and man, may He go with you and prosper you; and when you are called off from the contest, may He receive you to himself and to his blessedness.

To the Editor of the Christian Spectator.

E. M., a correspondent in your last number, agrees with me in the opinion, that Edwards "does not hold the doctrine of Physical Depravity," but supposes the method pursued by me to prove this point, is not warranted by Edwards's language. In offering a few remarks further on this subject, I would premise, that imperfect and incorrect notions of Edwards's views of our representation in Adam, are the principal source of disagreement respecting his opinions. His philosophical views on this subject are so diverse from those which commonly prevail-so foreign to all the ordinary conceptions of the human mind, that we are apt to let them glide from our thoughts, and to substitute our own, in the interpretation of his language.

His

Edwards then held the doctrine, that one being may, in the estimate of God and of truth, act in the act of another being. He did maintain that God in imputing sin to men proceeds not in every instance, on the principle of strict identity, but on the principle of his own sovereign constitution. doctrine may be thus illustrated. I am not strictly the same identical being which I was many years ago, the substance of my body, perhaps of my soul, having often changed; yet by God's sovereign constitution, I am even now held responsible for acts done many years ago, just as if the strictest identity had been preserved, in both body and soul. Thus, not strict identity in re, but a constituted identity, is the principle of the divine procedure. So, though Adam's posterity are not in

the strictest identity the same being with Adam, yet they are esteemed and accounted, according to God's sovereign constitution, just as if they were the same being. Though, most simply considered, we are entirely distinct and very diverse from Adam, yet we are so united by an established law or constitution of the Creator, that it is with us as if we were one with him. Adam and his posterity being thus considered as "one moral whole," -" one complex person,"—we are looked upon not only as transgressors of the same law, but as having committed in God's estimation the same transgression of the law, in number and in kind, as Adam. In a word, according to Edwards, we all, in the estimate of God and of truth, acted in Adam's act, and did what he did. If therefore Adam did knowingly and voluntarily transgress the law of God, then we, being as truly Adam in God's estimate as Adam was himself, did also in the same act, knowingly and voluntarily transgress the law of God.

The guilt of this act of Adam's posterity, the act done by us in Adam's act, as being one with him, Edwards calls "the guilt of the original apostasy,❞—"the guilt of the sin by which the species first rebelled against God,"-"the guilt of Adam's sin," "the participation of Adam's sin,"—" the imputation of Adam's sin," &c.

To all this I understand E. M. to express his full assent. Thus he says, giving Edwards's views, "They [Adam's posterity] are considered as existing with him, and sinning with him."" "Precisely the same sin which was imputed to Adam was imputed to them." "Such he [Edwards supposes to be the connection between Adam and his posterity, that his sin and their first sin are one and the same sin; his sinful disposition and their first sinful disposition are one and the same disposition.' VOL. II.-No. 1.

3

But E. M. asserts, and this is what I deem incorrect, that "so far was President Edwards from supposing that the only guilt of man when he comes into the world is the guilt of Adam's sin, in distinction from the guilt of having a corrupt heart, that he represents the last named guilt as existing first." According to this assertion, the reader will notice that Edwards held that men have two sorts of guilt, the first named being the guilt of Adam's sin, and "the last named" the guilt of having a corrupt heart. I might here ask E. M. where does Edwards distinguish, not the evil disposition, but the guilt of the evil disposition, from the guilt of Adam's sin? But let us attend to his proof on this topic. The amount of it is, an assertion of Edwards that "the evil disposition is first, and the charge of guilt consequent, as it was in the case of Adam."

Now if, as E. M. appears to understand the phrase evil disposition, in this instance, it means a disposition which has guilt pertaining to it independently of our connexion with Adam, or of what Edwards calls the guilt of Adam's sin, then it will follow, not that I have misrepresented Edwards in saying that the only guilt of the evil disposition is the guilt of Adam's sin, but that Edwards contradicts himself. For he does assert abundantly, as I had shown, that all the sin and the only sin of men at their first existence, is the sin of Adam's sin; that their guilt is one and simple," &c. But before we charge contradiction so gross upon Edwards, the inquiry arises, whether by evil disposition, he means a disposition which has guiltin itself independently of what he calls the guilt of Adam's sin? On this point I appealed to Edwards's definitions of his own terms; and I would ask, by what authority such definitions are to be disregarded by the interpreter of his language? How is it that when Ed

wards tells us, that by an evil propensity, &c. he means that which tends to MORAL EVIL, he is not to be believed? With this import of the phrase, it is easy to see how the disposition is first, and the entire charge of guilt consequent, as it was in the case of Adam.

But on this point, the language of Edwards in the very passage cited by E. M. is absolutely decisive. He says, "the first being of an evil disposition in the heart of a child of Adam, &c, is not to be looked upon as a consequence of the imputation of that first sin, any more than the full consent of Adam's own heart in the act of sinning; which was not consequent on the imputation of his sin to himself, but rather prior to it in the order of nature." I ask, was there any sin or guilt in Adam's consent of heart, except his sin? But according to Edwards, prior to the imputation of his sin, this consent of heart existed: Here then in the case of Adam was the full consent of heart having no sin in it, abstractly from and prior to the imputation of his sin. But as it was in the case of Adam, so in ours.

Again In what absurdity is Edwards involved, if we understand him as does E. M. According to E. M., Edwards speaks of an evil disposition having guilt in it, independently of the guilt of Adam's sin; and teaches that the guilt of the evil disposition is first. Now so it was in Adam; that is, Adam had an evil disposition, with guilt in it, independently of the guilt of his sin. This is not all. Edwards says, "the evil disposition is first, and the charge of guilt consequent." Has then the evil disposition, according to Edwards, guilt in it which is not charged, viz. the guilt of a corrupt heart, and also guilt which is charged, viz. the guilt of Adam's sin; and is this what Edwards means when he says, "the evil disposition is first, and THE charge of guilt consequent." Sin

in the disposition prior to the charge of guilt, and the charge of guilt consequent !

But E. M. himself asserts all that I maintain on this topic. He says that, according to Edwards, Adam's sin and the first sin of his posterity are one and the same sin. How can this be, and yet it be true, as E. M. asserts in the pssaage before quoted, that according to Edwards, the first guilt of Adam's posterity is the guilt of having a corrupt heart, in distinction from the guilt of Adam's sin?

But while E. M. thus supposes Edwards to ascribe a double guiltthe guilt of Adam's sin and also the guilt of having a corrupt heart, to Adam's posterity, let us hear what Edwards himself says. " If any have supposed the children of Adam to come into the world with a double guilt, one the guilt of Ad am's sin, another the guilt arising from their having a corrupt heart, they have not so well conceived of the matter." Is not this in palpable contradiction to the assertion of E. M., and will he excuse me. if I say that in representing Edwards as maintaining the doctrine of a double guilt, he has not so well conceived of the matter?

Yours, &c.

T. R.

P. S. The reader will perceive that on the principle that we are one with Adam, there can be no difference in manner, form, or nature, between his first sin and our first sin; but that, fortunately for Adam, while his posterity were one with him, he was not one with his posterity. The rule is defective quoad hoc-it does not work both ways.

To the Editor of the Christian Spectator.

IN his DISCOURSES on the Nature of Sin, and in his INQUIRY, on the same subject, Professor FITCH has labored to prove, what I should sup

pose would require no proof, except a clear understanding of words, that sin is, in all cases, reducible to the act of a moral agent, in which he violates a known rule of dutya description which is more briefly expressed in the scripture declaration, "Sin is the trangression of the law." And that sin is not imputed, when there is no law, is the declaration also of Scripture. In these points we shall agree; and I shall also agree that the opinion, that we sinned in Adam, is not correct; nor is it correct that Adam's sin is imputed to his posterity. But on some other points I have my doubts respecting the correctness of Professor F.'s theology.

He admits that men have souls ; and that the word heart is used in Scripture as synonymous with it. By this word, I have always understood that immaterial or spiritual being which is the source of the intellectual and reasoning powers of man, and that which renders him a moral and accountable being. This immaterial being or principle I have always supposed to be something distinct from matter, and that it may exist independent of it. This being I have always supposed to be the seat of the moral powers and affections of man, and that it has a constitution in which affections, good or bad, may have a permanent subsistence. Hence I have supposed, and on the authority of Scripture too, that in the unrenewed state of man, the soul or seat of the affections is alienated from God, and uniformly disposed to transgress his law, or, to use Professor F.'s phraseology, inclined to put forth wrong volitions; and that when this seat of the affections is renewed by the Holy Spirit, it is disposed to put forth holy volitions.

But I learn from Professor F., that "total depravity consists in nothing else than in all the continued volitions of the agent being actually wrong;" and he denies that

any disposition, itself moral, which is supposed to influence the agent to a given resolution, is itself, in its origin and continuance, at all distinct from a determination of the will in the agent. He attempts to prove that there is no seat of sinful affections, or, to use his own words, that there is in man no fountain, cistern, or reservoir, of evil affec tions which is to be purified in regeneration-and the frequent repetition of these words with a kind of emphasis that carries an air of triumph shows that he feels very confident of the superiority of his reasonings and opinions. Then to complete his theory, he affirms that the only change of heart in men known or required in the Scriptures, is, a change of volition, or choice-a change of determination from preferring the gratification of himself to prefer the gratification of God.

Now, Professor F. must consider the will itself to be the soul, or the soul itself must consist of a series of volitions, or upon his theory, the soul of man can have no connection with the moral character of man. This inference results necessarily from the position that there is no fountain of evil affections, but that all sin consists in wrong choices or volitions.

Again; he affirms that a change of determination,choice, or volition, is all the change of heart known ar required in the Scriptures. But each volition, choice, or determination of the will, is a distinct act, and if such choices or volitions spring from no common fountain, they can have no connection with each other. It results necessarily from this reasoning, that in regeneration, each volition is to be separately changed, and there must be as many regencrations as there are volitions.

This, Sir, appears to me sound logic, and the inferences to be fairly drawn from his own premises. EXAMINER.

LARGE CITIES.

I was much interested with Mr. Patton's sermon on this subject, and gratified also by the circumstance of its being published in the National Preacher. So wide spread an appeal on the subject will give it an interest which has hitherto been unknown. It will make the Christians of large cities realize more of their responsibilities and their privileges, and awaken them to new efforts, when they see the eyes of the whole nation thus expressly called to watch their movements. And Christians out of the city will also feel themselves called to take more concern in the progress of religion in our large towns, and to pray more fervently for the Holy Spirit to be poured out from an high upon those great fountains of influence. The effect of large cities upon the men of business who resort to them from the country is only hinted at in the discourse. But let me ask a citizen of Massachusetts how vast an influence Boston has exerted upon the country towns in this way. Hardly an obscure place can be found in which some enterprising merchant or intelligent representative has not been poisoned with Socinianism in this way. And in New-York the theatre exerts its influence upon almost every countryman that vis its the city. Persons who at home maintain a character for sobriety and respectability which utterly precludes a resident of the city from such scenes, yet are always led to visit the theatre when they go to New-York, and they carry home the idea that they have displayed a wonderful independence in so doing. Indeed one cannot deny that it requires no small hardihood in a person of religious education to venture so near the brink of

the bottomless pit. The last time I was in the city, I fell in company with a very respectable gentleman to whom an amiable but rather a vain cousin from the country, (who I happened to know.when at home, was much devoted to her growing family,) was boasting that she had been at the theatre the preceding evening. After declaring her satisfaction at such an opportunity she asked her friend how often he and his wife went to the play. With a little embarrassment lest he should wound the lady's feelings, he replied, "we never think of going unless it is once in a great while to accompany some friend from the country?" I hope she took the hint.

But I very much fear that a much broader hint would be lost on another class of persons, who drink in the poisonous influence of the city. I refer to those young men, of all employments, who make it a point to go once to the city, and stay long enough to visit the theatre two orthree times, besides other places of resort, and by way of finishing the influence of these things, spend a Sabbath which they divide between the Romish Cathedral and the Universalist meeting. The process of conversion is rendered so easy, by a visit or two to the theatre and other scenes of vice, that it does not take more than one sermon to send them home confirmed universalists.

There is another view, in which a revival of religion in a large city presents itself to us in the country. It is in the influence of city habits, upon the young men of the country who go there to reside, as clerks, apprentices, &c. The number of such cases is immense and continually increasing. They include the brightest and most enterprising of our youth. And yet how