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 Quinber 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 66 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 guilt in 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 guilt— the 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 affections 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 or 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 regenerations 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 on 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 visits 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

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 of three 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

large a proportion of them partake of the perverted moral influence of large cities. Of the great numbers of my acquaintance who have gone to New-York within five years, I do not know one who has become a Christian, or even a Sabbath School teacher. But I do know of many who have already cast off the saluatary fear of sin which they carried from home. And a number of parents are yearly called to mourn over the profligacy of their children, induced by the corrupting influence of a large city.

The Sabbath School presents a field of labor in which we in the country can lend a hand to our brethren of the city. It is by inducing young men who go from the country to become Sabbath School teachers. This is undoubtedly the best guaranty we can have for the morals of those who are not pious. It brings them into immediate connexion with safe companions of their own age, and furnishes them with a passport to the attentions of those who will prove real friends, and friends in need. And when we hear how many teachers become pious every year, we cannot but feel that we direct our young friends to a place which there is reason to hope may to them also prove the gate to heaven. I do not know that the city schools profess to exclude from this privilege any who are moral, on the ground that they are not pious.

Riding along in my wagon alone the other day, I overtook a young man on foot, and as is my usual practice, gave him an invitation to ride with me. I have found so much pleasure in this way, that I cannot help recommending it to other travellers. It has given me many opportunities to drop a word of advice to the young clerk or apprentice. And not unfrequently I have had the privilege of giving about the amount of a cup of cold water to some wayfaring pilgrim,

who will be acknowledged as among "the least of these my disciples." Such was the case in the present instance. On inquiry, I learned that he had just finished his apprenticeship in New York, and was on his way to visit his widowed mother in the country. He told me that a large proportion of the apprentices and journeymen of his acquaintance were dissipated, that when a young man came from the country, the first step was to go to the theatre, the next to the porterhouse, and the third to the brothel. He said that in the small circle of his acquaintance, he did not know one young mechanic who was a teacher in the Sabbath School. He considered a connection with the Sabbath School as the best preservative for a young man going to the city. He had been a teacher during his whole residence, and had found the meetings and labors connected with that employment, to be his principal comforts. He had derived some worldly advantage from the friendships formed there, but what he valued more was the religious improvement which he had found. He considered his fellow teachers to be his best friends, and had no doubt they would prove themselves so, if he should need their friendship in the hour of trouble.

Let me beg of parents, and ministers, and all Christians, that they will take special pains to introduce their young friends who go into the city to reside, to the Sabbath School, as the best guaranty of their moral safety. Their services are much wanted in these schools, and by so doing they may greatly aid their city brethren in their efforts to stem the torrent of vice and iniquity, and to introduce the holy religion of Jesus among those who are soon to have the control of that vast community.

And as "Prayer and pious talking will do any thing," would it