When or where have I affirmed, that there is any evil quality nfused, implanted, or wrought into the nature of man by any positive cause or influence whatever, either from God or the creature; or that man is conceived or born with a fountain of evil in his heart, such as is any thing PROPERLY POSITIVE?" Here, if language can do it, Dr. Tyler not only disclaims the doctrine of a mental property which is sinful, but the opinion, that men ARE BORN with any fountain of evil in the heart, such as is properly positive. In this, I fully concur with Dr. Tyler.

3. Dr. Tyler and myself are fully agreed, that there is what may truly and properly be called a bias, or propensity to sin, in all men. The Christian Spectator and myself have maintained from the beginning of this discussion, the doctrine of a tendency in man to moral evil. Our object originally was, to rescue this doctrine from what we deemed the misrepresentations and perversions of it by its opposers. For this purpose, we have aimed, after the manner of Edwards, to distinguish this ground or reason of the universal sinfulness of mankind, from a disposition to sin, which is voluntary and sinful, and also from a constitutional property of the mind; and to exhibit it as a propensity in the simple import of tendency, liableness, or proclivity to sin, resulting from constitutional propensities which were in man in innocence.* Accordingly, we have never hesitated to ascribe the sin of mankind to their nature, as the ground, reason, or occasion of it, in the appropriate situation or circumstances of their existence. From this statement, made in my letter to Dr. Hawes, and to which Dr. Tyler fully subscribes, I was careful to exclude a physical or constitutional propensity to sin; and to exhibit in that letter, and especially in my Concio ad Clerum, man's constitutional propensities to the inferior good, without the interposition of grace, as uniformly leading him into sin. We shall see, that Dr. Tyler now maintains the same view of this propensity to sin,-of its nature and its origin, which the Christian Spectator and myself have maintained to be the true doctrine of orthodoxy. Thus he quotes as expressing his views of the subject, several passages from Edwards, in which the latter asserts that as God withdrew spiritual communion, and his vital

*When this view of the subject was presented in the controversy with Prof. Norton, on the question whether God creates men with a sinful nature, it met the approbation of our orthodox brethren without a known exception. It was seen how effectualy the correction of this Unitarian misrepresentation enabled the friends of orthodoxy to refute Unitarian objections to the doctrine of depravity by nature; and while it was presented under these bearings, all approved it. The reader then can judge of the surprise which we felt, when some of our orthodox brethren undertook to inculcate suspicions of our orthodoxy through the community; and to exhibit those erroneous statements, and caricatures of orthodoxy which Unitarians have always made the object of their attack, as constituting the only true orthodox faith, on this important subject.

gracious influence from the common Head, so he withholds the same from all the members, whereby they came into the world mere flesh, and entirely under the government of the natural and inferior principles' that when God made man at first he implanted in him these natural and inferior principles-that the inferior principles of self-love and natural appetite which were given only to serve, being alone and left to themselves, of course became ruling principles.-Man did immediately set up himself and the objects of his private affections as supreme, and so they took the place of God.' If language can trace human sinfulness to principles which were created in man at first,-which were in him even when perfectly holy, I must think, that this is done in these statements of Edwards. In reference, then, to the view presented in these statements, Dr. Tyler says, "Now I ask, what have I said inconsistent with this? I have maintained that mankind come into the world with a propensity to evil. I have not undertaken to tell in what this propensity consists. Consequently, I have not said, that it does not consist in the very thing in which Edwards says it does consist." But Edwards says, it consists simply in those principles which God implanted in man when he made him at first; in that self-love and natural appetite which belonged to the nature of man while yet perfectly holy, these being left to themselves. This then is all, that Dr. Tyler now means by a propensity to evil.

Again; In a passage which has been often cited in this discussion, and in which Edwards gives his most formal account of hu man depravity, he traces it to those common natural principles of self-love, natural appetite, etc., wHICH WERE IN MAN IN INNOCENCE, when left to themselves.' But Dr. Tyler says, "I am not conscious of having made a statement on this subject which is not in accordance with the statements of Edwards." How Dr. Tyler could more explicitly admit, that the propensity to sin in man of which he speaks, consists in or results from those principles which were in man in innocence, I cannot conceive. I need not say, that this is the doctrine, uniformly maintained by the Christian Spectator and myself, on this subject.

4. Dr. Tyler and myself agree in every principle, on which I had hitherto supposed the main question to turn. I understand him now to admit, that mankind come into the world with the same nature in KIND, as that with which Adam was created. This appears from what I have already shown. But it is still more apparent in certain statements which he quotes with approbation from President Edwards. In these statements, the differ ence between Adam and his posterity as presented by Edwards, is this "When God made man, he implanted in him two kinds of principles. There was an inferior kind, which may be called natural, being the principles of mere human nature, such as self

love with those natural appetites and passions, which belong to the nature of man. Besides these there were superior principles, that were holy and divine, summarily comprehended in DIVINE LOVE-called in scripture THE DIVINE NATure. These principles may in some sense be said to be SUPERNATURAL, being (however concreated or connate yet) such as are above those principles that are essentially implied in or inseparably connected with mere human nature." Edwards says in further explanation, that these superior principles are not essential to the constitution of the human nature-inasmuch as one may have every thing needful to his being a man exclusively of them." He denies also,' that there is any alteration in the natural constitution, faculties or dispositions of our souls.' With these statements of Edwards, Dr. Tyler now declares himself fully to agree. What, then, according to these statements, is the difference between Adam and his posterity? Is it that the human nature of the one differed from the human nature of the other? Were those principles in Adam, which were in such a sense supernatural, as to be above those essentially implied in human nature-which are thus strikingly distinguished from those which belong to the nature of man-which consist in holy love-in a mental act or exercise, and which the scriptures call the divine nature, were these considered by Edwards, as a part of human nature in Adam? Did he maintain, that this divine nature in Adam, was a part of his human nature? I cannot suppose, that Dr. Tyler will say, that such was the meaning of Edwards. If Dr. Tyler, however, should insist that such is the meaning of Edwards, and such his own view of the subject; still the only question between him and me would be a question of words and not of things; i. e. whether divine love, or the divine nature, can be truly and properly said to be a part of the human na ture of Adam. Even conceding this, and consequently a change in human nature, it would by no means amount to a constitutional propensity to sin, nor to any propensity diverse from that which results from propensities which were in man in innocence.-The obvious amount, however, of Edwards' statement is, that God implanted by his grace holy love, as a supernatural principle,—and as a thing entirely diverse from the human nature,-in Adam as soon as he was created, and that in this respect only he differed from his posterity. But with this exception of what was thus supernatural in Adam; that is, in respect to their human nature, Adam and his posterity, according to Edwards, are alike; in other words, human nature in Adam, and human nature in his posterity are one and the same thing. In this plain exhibition of this point by Edwards, I suppose that Dr. Tyler and myself now fully concur. Again; I understand Dr. Tyler now to maintain fully and formally, that mankind not only may be, but are sinners by nature, VOL. V.

59

without a constitutional propensity to sin. I had reasoned thus;that as Adam sinned without a constitutional propensity to sin, and from mere propensities to natural good, so these propensities might prove the occasion of universal sin, to his posterity.* I had supposed, that in consequence of Adam's sin, the inferior propensities or principles in his posterity, might be stronger in degree than they were in him; that in this way, their universal sinfulness might be accounted for; and that thus it might be truly and properly said, that all mankind become sinners in consequence of Adam's sin, and are sinners by nature, without a constitutional propensity to

I understand Dr. Tyler now to admit the principle on which these deductions depend. He says, "Where have I said or intimated, that no being can sin without a constitutional propensity to sin? That Adam sinned without a natural propensity to sin, is admitted. Nor have I denied, that the posterity of Adam might sin, without a natural (constitutional) propensity to sin."-He goes further still, and admits as we have seen, that the universal sinfulness of mankind is truly accounted for by the mere destitution of the superior principles, and also by the propensites which were in man in innocence, being left to themselves. Now this is admitting that Adam's posterity not only may, but that they do in fact, become sinners, without a constitutional propensity to sin. Dr. Tyler maintains, therefore, that mankind not only may be, but are sinners in consequence of Adam's sin, and sinners by nature, without a constitutional propensity to sin.

Further; I understand Dr. Tyler also to maintain in his last

Dr. Tyler erroneously quotes my language on this point. He represents me as saying, "that Adam's posterity may sin without a propensity to sin." My language is," without a previous CONSTITUTIONAL propensity to sin."-The word constitutional being used for the very purpose of distinguishing a primary physical property of the mind, from a consequential tendency or propensity.

There is another mistake of Dr. Tyler which needs correction. He quoted a passage from me, and another "from the great champion of Arminianism, Dr. Taylor of Norwich," desiring his readers to compare them. This I considered as an argumentum ad invidiam. I accordingly replied to it, as a kind of reasoning which is entitled to no consideration; and also alleged, that so far as there was any coincidence between this champion and myself, it consisted in the undenia ble matter of fact, that Adam sinned without a constitutional propensity to sin. I might have replied still further, that there is the same coincidence between Dr. J. Taylor and Pres. Edwards; and I may now say between the former and Dr. Tyler-But says Dr. Tyler, let it be remembered, that in connection with my quotation from Dr. Taylor of Norwich, I quoted Edwards' reply. Of this reply Dr. Taylor is careful to take no notice." Dr. Tyler I am sure will regret this statement; for I took a very formal and explicit notice of this reply. I said, "Dr. Tyler here quotes a long passage from Pres. Edwards, the object of which is to show, that permanence in the effect, proves permanence in the cause. As have never questioned the correctness of this principle, I am not able to perceive the design of this quotation from Edwards." I considered this a sufficient notice of that, which had no relevancy. Indeed, in the very passage cited by Dr. Tyler, and in all that I have said on this topic, I have distinctly recognized a permanent

cause of the universal sinfulness of mankind.

communication, that the only reason, that the posterity of Adam do not exhibit the same moral character which Adam exhibited, is,—not that they have a different nature,-but that they are placed in different circumstances. I had considered Dr. Tyler as confounding the question, how we shall account for the fact that Adam did not sin, when all his posterity do sin,' with another and a very different question, viz. what is the true account of the latter fact?' I had maintained, "that whatever be the reason why Adam did not sin,-still if all mankind since the fall do uniformily sin, in all those circumstances which their Creator has appointed as the natural condition of their existence, then they are truly and properly said to be sinners by nature."-Now in what respect does Dr. Tyler dissent from this statement? The reason, and the only reason that Dr. Tyler now assigns, as we have seen, why the posterity of Adam do not exhibit the same moral character which Adam exhibited, is, in one instance, that they come into the world destitute of those superior supernatural principles which Adam possessed-in another, that the inferior principles in the posterity are left to themselves, while he also maintains with Edwards, that the human nature of Adam and the human nature of his posterity are alike. It is plain, then, that according to these statements of Dr. Tyler, the difference between Adam and his posterity, to which their difference in character must be ascribed, is, not a difference in their nature but IN THEIR CIRCUMSTANCES MERELY. And yet Dr. Tyler maintains, that all mankind are sinners by nature. In what respect, then does Dr. Tyler dissent from my statement, That since all mankind, without possessing a different nature from that of Adam, sin in all the circumstances which their Creator has appointed as the natural condition of their existence, they are truly and properly said to be sinners by nature?

Dr. Tyler, then, agrees with me in the views which I have always maintained of the doctrine of depravity by nature. We agree in the more general forms of statement; in those which are more specific both negative and positive; and also in all those principles of reasoning on which the discussion has been continued.-Similar remarks apply to the other principal topic, the theory of the divine permission of sin. Here, at least in respect to every main position, there is such an agreement in opinion, that to protract the debate, would seem to me to be impossible.

While I rejoice in these results of the present discussion, it is with deep regret, that I feel constrained to advert to the avowed object of Dr. Tyler in his last communication. This is no other, than to convict me of "palpable and gross misrepresentation." Had Dr. Tyler when he commenced his attack on me in the Spirit of the Pilgrims, come forward with the explanations which he has now made, there would have been no occasion for controversy be