to resolve to make that welfare a consideration paramount to every other, I should have good hope, nay an assurance, that the time which is indispensably necessary for the education of their offspring, would be kept free from entrenchment. Either by their own act or by their influence on legislation, their children would be preserved from severe labour until their bodies were in some good measure prepared, and their mind informed, disciplined and strengthened.

J. R. B.

ART. IV. AN INQUIRY INTO THE DOCTRINE OF THE INNATE CORRUPTION OF HUMAN NATURE ; BEING AN EXAMINATION OF THOSE PARTS OF SCRIPTURE ON WHICH IT HAS BEEN FOUNDED.

In the present times, it requires no small amount of moral courage to attempt openly to inquire into the truth of any doctrine, announced as infallible by those who have obtained the privilege of directing the religious concerns of Christians. Society is so deeply impressed by the belief that inquiry is not only unnecessary, but sinful, as to make it imperative on every one who dares to think for himself, and to make known opinions differing from such as have been promulgated, to reconcile himself to a kind of moral banishment from among his acquaintances, and sometimes even from among his connections and relations. It is lamentable to think that a man dare not attach his name to any discussion calling in question the doctrines of men, lest he should offend and estrange those with whom he is connected by the ties of friendship, or bonds yet more dear. Jesus Christ said truly, he came not to bring peace, but a sword; and described correctly what the condition of families would be. The accuracy of his judgment of human nature, unenlightened and misdirected, is proved abundantly by the present state of the Christian world. The contemplation of this is painful; but the cause of justice and truth must not be forsaken.

Whatever degree of confidence may be given to men, who make Christianity their especial study, when we find such men differing widely among themselves in reference to points of belief, it is certain there must be something in the object of their study that is not clearly defined, and consequently not suited to the comprehension of all. Were this not the case, there could be no difference of opinion. The fact, however, being that there is, it is surely more becoming the dignity of man's intellectual nature that each individual should inquire for himself, than to prostrate his reason, which God has given to him, before other men, without inquiry, or having any rational foundation for belief. As the Psalmist says, "It is better to trust in the Lord than to put confidence in man."

There is no command more frequently issued from the pulpit than this,-Search the Scriptures. What is the meaning of this command? Is it that we should open the Bible, read it without reflection, and again shut it? Or does it mean that

we should read, examine whether what we read be true or false, and satisfy our minds in reference to what is worthy of belief, and what is unworthy? No person of sane mind and sound judgment, can hesitate to pronounce the latter to be the true meaning of the command. But it is nevertheless certain, that those who bid us search the Scriptures, if we come to any conclusion different from their own, and leading us to doubt the accuracy of their interpretations, instantly doom us to everlasting perdition. This is rather a summary mode of rectifying error; and it has its effect on all persons who dislike the trouble of reflective research, or who are incapable of it, or whose ignorance, arising from dogmatic or imperfect education, may have rendered them timid and superstitious. It is not calculated to raise those who employ such means to establish doctrines, in the estimation of the wise and prudent; because it indicates not only pride, and the absence of Christian charity, but a conspiracy against freedom of thought and liberty of conscience. And more than that, it indicates fear, lest obedience to their own command to search the Scriptures should lead to their own condemnation.

It is exceedingly unfortunate, that while the human mind is rapidly improving its powers, its efforts in a study so important as that of religion, should be disturbed by the notion, that certain ancient doctrines are unimpeachable, and the human authorities who framed them infallible. It is equally unfortunate that mankind should imagine those who have lived and are no more, to have possessed talents of superior power to those with which their posterity has been blessed; that they were more learned and able translators and commentators than any who might appear in after times. The disputes which were carried on in former times, when volumes were written of almost incredible number and bulk, about points of doctrine, as well as the differences that subsist at the present day, seem to be very inconsistent with the name given to that which contains the matter of dispute-revelation. That word strictly means an explanation, or a manifestation, of something not before understood. But as very different meanings are given to various parts of the Bible, and as the book specially called the book of revelation is the most dark and incomprehensible of all, it certainly appears very strange that the word should be applied to any thing doubtful, or unintelligible.

There is yet another thing that depresses inquiry, the kingly and legal sanction given to what is emphatically styled, the authorized version of the Bible. Kings and councils are no wiser than other men; and why the strong arm of power should

command that no meaning shall be given to the original language than that which power dictates, or that such command should be obeyed, is not easily perceived. Yet what is called established authority goes a great way with understandings that are darkened, and which blindly receive as true and faithful that which may be full of error. No inspired writer has given us the Bible in our language. We possess it on human authority alone.

Every one knows that the Roman Church, with the view to preserve uniformity of Creed, and consequently its power, not only withheld the Bible from the people altogether, but performed worship in a language which the people did not understand. Numbers of the priesthood were kept in ignorance, and many of them could neither write nor read. When, however, the Bible came to be known, disputes about its meaning arose, and various doctrines were founded upon the various interpretations and constructions which men chose to put upon its contents. Those points are not yet settled, and Christians are divided into numerous bodies, each giving particular interpretations, and condemning those of others as false.

In treating of the supposed innate corruption of human nature, it is proposed to assume the authorized translation of the Bible as correct, and to take its expressions as conveying no other meaning than that which the words are understood to convey in their ordinary and general acceptation. There is another authorized work to which it is necessary to refer, because it is the creed of the churches established in Great Britain, and which has for its title The Westminster confession of Faith,' because the doctrines it contains were agreed upon by a convocation of Divines which assembled at Westminster for the purpose of settling a creed. In this we have the texts of Scripture quoted, on which these divines affirm the doctrines of the confession to be founded, so that every one has the means of satisfying himself whether the doctrines adopted rest on just premises and just conclusions, or otherwise.

In order to understand clearly what is meant by the doctrine which declares man's nature to be corrupted and depraved, it is necessary that we should know what his condition was before he became corrupted. We surely ought to find means for ascertaining this in the same source whence the doctrine has been derived, and therefore let us examine it.

It is there said that God created man in his own image or likeness: as it is also there said that no man hath seen God at any time, it may appear difficult to imagine on what authority the historian of creation and of the earlier ages of the world

makes the affirmation. Many suppositions have been made respecting this matter; and as God is represented as a Spirit, a condition of being about which we can form no conception, divines have affirmed the likeness to be a spiritual likeness. But unless we can conceive what Spirit really means, and which we cannot, it is impossible to have any idea of a spiritual likeness. Though divines have announced that God has no body, nor parts, they continually speak of Him as having parts. There are passages in the Bible which seem to justify the historian in affirming that man was created in the image of God. Moses, in the history attributed to him, narrates that he had expressed to God a great anxiety that He should manifest himself to him. We read in the thirty-third Chapter of Exodus, at the twentieth verse, "And He said, thou canst not see my face; for there shall no man see me and live. And the Lord said, Behold there is a place by me, and thou shalt stand upon a rock; and it shall come to pass while my glory passeth by, that I will put thee in a cleft of the rock, and will cover thee with my hand while I pass by, and I will take away mine hand, and thou shalt see my back parts; but my face shall not be seen." It is said in the third chapter of Genesis, at the eighth verse, "And they (Adam and Eve) heard the voice of the Lord, walking in the garden in the cool of the day." From these and other passages we are led to perceive that, granting the history to have divine authority stamped upon it, God has a face, and hands, and feet. Therefore it was correct to say that man was created in the image of God, after His likeness. There is nothing so common in religious feeling and worship as giving Form to God. The same divines who, before they are admitted to the sacred office, are under the obligation to subscribe the Confession of Faith as their belief, never hesitate to preach that Christ sitteth or standeth at the right hand of God. Nor do they ever think of denying the affirmation of Stephen, and to which he owed his martyrdom, that he actually saw Christ so standing. To labour, therefore, in any attempt to give any other than a literal meaning to any portion of the Bible, is nothing less than to cast an air of doubt over the whole of it. Because if we admit the legitimacy of any attempt to explain, and to give other than a literal meaning to one portion, it must be admitted in reference to every other portion, and thus the whole might be

[* It is only as an "argumentum ad hominem" we can admit the truth of the statements and reasonings in the text: as applicable to the inconsistencies of Divines they are pertinent and forcible.-ED.]

VOL. III. No. 11.-New Series.

E