are the instruments of producing the whole" of the latter, whether they are "thoughts of the understanding," or "motions of the heart, the will or the body." . . And it is this distinction between the new disposition, and all holy exercises, which the ordinary use of the terms regeneration and conversion denotes; the former being employed to designate the effect produced by the regenerating influence; and the latter the first holy exercises which take place in the mind, and which are considered as the consequences of regeneration. As then, according to this representation, the agency of the Divine Spirit in regeneration does not produce any operation of mind whatever, it remains that it must be employed simply in producing a change in the physical constitution.

That such is the doctrine of the theory under consideration, is to be inferred moreover from the views it exhibits of the nature of depravity. As depravity is represented as consisting in a physical incapacity for holiness-regeneration, by which the mind is fitted for the exercise of holy actions, will of course be exhibited as consisting in such a change of the physical constitution as makes it capable of holiness.

Such are some of the modes in which, it is believed, the doctrine of a physical depravity is taught. It is now time to pause, and cast the eye back over the ground which has been traversed, and collect the result. It has been seen that the depravity of mankind is represented as an attribute of nature, in distinction from actions; as existing in the mind antecedently to its exercising any actions; and as being the cause that all its moral exercises are sinful,-as being conveyed from parents to children by propagation, in the same manner as other constitutional properties; as consisting in a want of adaptation in the powers of the soul to that class of exercises which are morally excellent; and consequently, as being such, that it renders men utterly incapable of holiness; such that no moral influence has any power or ten

dency to lead them to it; and finally such, that it is by producing a change in their physical constitution, that the Spirit of God fits them for acting in conformity to the divine will. What then is the result? Can any doubt remain that those who make these representations, inculcate the existence of a physical depravity? Can it be, after all this, that the idea that such a doctrine is taught is a mere illusion ?— a gratuitous freak of the imagination? What can be required to make out a demonstration that such a doctrine is inculcated? Declarations,-which according to the just meaning of language must denote such a doctrine? The passages quoted contain an abundance of such. Formal definitionswhich if any regard is had to the proper force of their terms, to the great principles on which they rest, or to the results which they authorize, cut off the possibility of their involving any other meaning? The reader has been presented with a multiplicity of such. Arguments,-whose whole force and propriety depend on the existence of such a depravity? Such is the character of the great mass of the reasoning which has been employed on the subject by the theologicalworld, for nearly three hundred years, to say nothing of what prevailed antecedently. What farther evidence can be necessary?

Is it said?" But those who make these representations,and it was true also of their predecessors,-hold and inculcate doctrines totally inconsistent with and subversive of this." Admitted. Such doctrines are indeed scattered thickly over the pages of their works, and form a conspicuous feature of their creed; and thanks be to God for it-they are the redeeming principle of their system, and what has drawn down the blessing of heaven on their ministry, and made it the instrument of so much good to the world. But the question is not at all, whether they do not believe and teach other doctrines subversive of this; but whether they do not inculcate this doctrine, whether the passages which have

been quoted, by the just principles of interpretation do not necessarily, not to say exclusively, involve it; whether it does not constitute the very substance and soul of their common declarations, statements, and reasonings respecting the subject? If such is the character of their arguments, definitions and language, the thing attempted to be made out is demonstrated. Their believing and teaching other doctrines inconsistent with this, no more proves that they do not inculcate this, than their inculcating this proves that they do not teach any thing contradictory to it. The sole thing in controversy is, what is the proper meaning of their language on the subject? what are the results to which their definitions, and the great principles on which their reasoning depends inevitably carry us? And can any one doubt what those results are?

But is it said? "Those who are regarded as inculcating the doctrine in question, do not view their system as authorizing the conclusions which that doctrine involves." Grant that it is so. Does it thence follow that it does not authorize those conclusions? Do men never hold and teach doctrines fraught,― without their perceiving it—with the subversion of many other important points of their belief? Do they never reason upon principles, which, if followed up legitimately, would force them to results from which they would recoil with surprise and alarm? But if those whom this controversy implicates do not perceive, that according to their method of exhibiting the depravity of man, it is a physical attribute; do they see that it certainly is not? see and feel with that calm and complete conviction which the light of demonstration produces, that the doctrine as they treat it cannot involve any thing of that nature? and that it adjusts itself entirely to all the other articles of their faith? How then is it that when called on to vindicate their representations, they so often content themselves with the reply? "We do not pretend to reason on the subject. We find the doctrine which we teach in the scriptures, and know therefore that it is true." Such is un

doubtedly their belief; but the inquiry is-Is not the consistency of their views with the word of God, an object simply of belief, not of perception; a thing taken for granted -not ascertained?

But is it said? "Be it so that the depravity of mankind is virtually exhibited as a physical attribute-still the error is not inculcated in such a manner as to be extensively imbibed, and productive of any very considerable evil. Its injurious tendency is intercepted by the truth with which it is intermingled." Is it so, then, that truth commands the conviction and approbation of men so much more readily than error? and even that truth which is most adapted to humble and alarm them, and which comes to them under the disadvantages of a virtual denial by their religious instructors-more readily than errors which are inculcated as doctrines of revelation, and are adapted to release them from the ungrateful feelings of blame and obligation? But what are facts? If the truths taught in connection with the doctrine in question entirely intercept the injurious influence it is adapted to exert, how is it that among those on whom it is inculcated, so many are found who have a variety of views and impressions which directly involve this doctrine? Whence is it, that-the testimony of their consciousness notwithstanding-the opinion has found its way into the creeds of so many myriads, that mankind are in every sense absolutely unable to yield any obedience to the law of God? Whence is it, that in certain sections of the church so much displeasure and denunciation have been excited, when it has been taught, that men can exercise holiness? that so far as capacity is concerned no obstacle to it whatever exists? Whence is it, that when the doctrine is advanced, that as it regards their physical constitution, mankind are not depraved, corrupted, nor infected with any thing that renders them obnoxious to the divine disapprobation, it is viewed as contradicting and subverting the doctrine of the scriptures respecting the character of men?

From what cause is it so common a fact, that persons during the period of inquiry and conviction which precedes their renovation, are perplexed to reconcile their obligations to comply with the Gospel, with their need of the regenerating influence of the Divine Spirit? And how comes it to pass, that among the perceptions which flash upon their eye in that decisive moment when they catch the first glimpse of God in his true character, and the feeling spreads over them that he is righteous, and they are vile;one of the most prominent is, that they are, and always have been perfectly able to act in conformity to the divine will? Is it irrational to regard these and other facts of a kindred nature, as the consequences of the inculcation of the doctrine in question? Are they not the effects which might be anticipated from the doctrine? Are they not known to exist very extensively, and to be productive, in at least many instances, of highly injurious-not to say the most fatal consequences? But the unhappy influence with which the inculcation of the doctrine must be fraught, will be made more satisfactorily apparent by glancing at some of the considerations which show it to be untrue.