sins" on the ground of "such circumstances," as fully as I accounted for them by an invincible propensity to sin, or "a tendency which amounts to a fixed, constant, and unfailing necessity?" In what respect then is your hypoth esis less exceptionable than mine, either in relation to the condition of children, or the character of God? In regard to your claims on the question of free agency, of what use are faculties for free agency, if God has designedly placed the agents in "such circumstances as render it certain that they will not have any holy or obedient volitions till after they shall have served an apprenticeship to Satan in the school of total depravity? Can it be consistent with per fect benevolence or forgiving love in God, to place all the posterity of Adam in such circumstances as a mark of his displeasure against the first offence of the human race? 'The evils, natural and moral, which commonly fall to the lot of the children of ungodly and profligate parents, are natural effects of vicious examples and instructions; and as opposite effects are generally seen to result when children are wisely and faithfully trained up in the way they should go, we can see a good end, as the object of these arrangements in both cases. The sad results in the former case, are a solemn admonition to all parents to shun the ways of disobedience, lest they bring evil on their offspring. The happy results on the other hand, are adapted to encourage all parents to adopt and pursue the paths of wisdom and virtue, that it may be well with their children, and children's children. This divine policy, in both cases, is adapted to enlist the natural affections of parents for their children on the side of piety and virtue. But what good end can be perceived in such a constitution, or such an arrangement of circumstances, as is embraced in your hypothesis? It supposes every child of Adam confined to a state of "inevitable corruption," and total sinfulness, for no of fence of its own, and by such circumstances as are completely adapted to subvert all the pious efforts of godly parents to save their children from the paths of disobedience. It even tells godly parents, that however faithful, humble, and prayerful they may be, their infant children are just as sure to become totally sinful, as the children of the most impious, profligate, and abandoned parents in the world! But, my friend, by careful inquiry and observation, you may find, that both the word and the providence of God are adapted to encourage parents to "bring up their children in the nurture and admonition of the Lord." Any hypothesis which denies this, even implicitly, must be erroneous, whether mine or yours, or by whatever number of good men it may have been adopted. You have very justly represented some of my former hypotheses as absurd, and of bad tendency. I shall not be surprised, if within fifty years, a large portion of the clergy in New England, shall be agreed in classing your hypothesis with mine, as erroneous, and of pernicious tendency. Some may probably say, that it exhibits God as a most vindictive Being, disposed to revenge on innocent children the offence of the first man; a Being too who devised a supernatural and permanent establishment, for the purpose of suddenly transforming innocent little children into beings totally sinful. When this state of things shall occur, you may know how to sympathize with me and thousands of others, who have found that some doctrines, which were once thought essential, are even reproachful to God, and injurious to man. As I wish you to be seasonably aware of the danger of your hypothesis, I will state a simile for your consideration. 'ELIHU was a child remarkable for his intelligence, and for an amiable and obedient disposition. At length, however, he yielded to temptation, and exposed himself to punishment by disobeying a parental command. His conscience reproached him severely; and he was filled with grief, anxiety, and alarm. He soon made known his condition to a pious neighbour, in whom he had entire confidence. He stated all the circumstances of the case so far as they were known to him; and expressed his astonishment that he should be found guilty of such an act. In the course of conversation the neighbour assured Elihu, that his own father had planned all the circumstances by which he had been induced to disobey, to make it certain that he would transgress; and that his father had told him that such was the fact. If Elihu believed these declarations, what must have been his views of his father's character and conduct? Would he not think that he had now some excuse for his offence; and that it would be unreasonable in his father to punish him for an offence, which resulted from his own arrangements, to render disobedience certain? And, should the case be brought before an impartial court, would not the father be deemed the more blamable of the two? 'What then, my friend, will be the natural effect of teaching mankind, that their heavenly Father, to express his displeasure on account of Adam's sin, caused all his posterity to be placed in such circumstances as makes it certain that they will all sin and become totally sinful, as soon as they become moral agents? A little reflection may lead you to doubt whether your hypothesis is a revealed truth. If God had intelligence to form such a plan as your scheme asserts, and a heart to execute it, is it not reasonable to believe that regard for his own character would have disposed him to keep the affair a profound secret in his own breast? 6 to My doctrine of a sinful nature, or an invincible propensity to sin, you regard as placing mankind in a state of "overwhelming misfortune." But is being born with such a nature or such a propensity a greater "misfortune children than, after being for a time innocent, to be placed in such circumstances as insure that they will sin and become totally sinful as soon as they are moral agents? But, sir, is it not a dreadful doctrine,—whether it be mine or yours, which precludes all encouragement for pious parents to use means to save their children from total depravity? If holy Adam could sin without a previous sinful nature, or an arrangement of such circumstances as would render his fall certain, why should we resort to such hypotheses to account for the common and early transgressions of little children? I have become convinced that what I once called a sinful nature consists in such lusts of the flesh, such animal senses, appetites, propensities, and passions as exposed Adam and Eve to transgress. These properties are not in themselves sinful; nor were they implanted to render it certain that children will sin as soon as they are moral agents. They are favors, bestowed by God to render us capable of enjoyment and usefulness; but they are like other favors which expose mankind to temptation. When abused or unlawfully indulged, they are occasions of sin. 'Intelligent and reflecting men of the present age are in the habit of considering the different circumstances under which different children are born and educated, when called to estimate the nature of their actions, or the degree of criminality attached to such actions as appear odious or reprehensible. If, in consequence of the vices or the imprudence of his parents, a child is born blind, diseased, deformed, imperfect in his intellects, or the subject of any natural defect, allowance is made for such omissions or defects in his conduct as are supposed to result from misfortune, or the wickedness of his parents. So if by the ignorance or the wickedness of his parents, a child is denied the advantages of religious instruction, and trained up in ignorance of God, and under the influence of vicious examples, so as to be made to believe that revenge is noble and praiseworthy, it will readily be said that nothing good can be expected of him. If at seven years of age he should kill a brother, a sister, or one of his playmates, to revenge some wrong, when the affair is brought before a court, inquiry will be made in regard to the character of his parents, and the disadvantages under which the child had been placed; and great allowance will be made on the ground of those unfortunate circumstances. If it shall appear that his parents were capable of teaching the child the path of duty, but did not, a great share of the blame will be ascribed to them. From such facts you may readily infer, that your hypothesis, as well as mine, is very far from being adapted to impress the minds of children or of men with correct views of their sinfulness, or of the real nature of sin; that it tends to furnish an excuse for early transgression and depravity. Though I once had an unfavorable opinion of such Christians as denied or doubted the total sinfulness of little children, as a consequence of Adam's sin, I am now convinced that the more the minds of children are impressed with a belief that this doctrine is true, the more confused their ideas will be as to what sin is, the more they will see themselves as objects of pity, and the subjects of "overwhelming misfortune";—the more too they will excuse their real transgressions, and impute the blame of them either to Adam or to God. If you wish men or children duly to feel what an evil and bitter thing it is to sin against God, forbear to impute their liability to sin to the displeasure of God on account of Adam's transgression; and do what you can to make them feel that their sin consists in an ungrateful abuse of the kindness and manifold favors of the Lord.' - ART. VIII. A Family Prayer-Book, and Private Manual: to which are added Forms for Religious Societies and Schools. With a Collection of Hymns. By CHARLES BROOKS, Minister of the Third Church in Hingham, Mass. First Stereotype Edition. Boston: B. H. Greene. New York: C. S, Francis., 1833. 12 mo. pp. 349. THE Manual, the title of which we have placed at the head of this notice, was commenced in 1821. It has passed through several editions; and, in all, more than ten thousand copies have been called for. It has been noticed in most of our domestic Reviews, and in some of the English; and in none, we believe, has it been denounced. In comparing this edition with the editions which preceded it, we perceive many and various alterations. The prayers which, in former editions, were arranged for two weeks, have been divided and arranged for three weeks. The whole number of prayers in the volume is one hundred and sixty. In addition to the new ones among the Family prayers, there are more than sixty entirely new prayers, on different occasional and specific subjects. The whole volume, with the exception of a few pages, has been rewritten and newly arranged. It has occupied the leisure of the author for the last two years; it has received his last finish, and is now presented to the public in an unchangeable stereotype edition. It has been printed on paper of different qualities, so as to furnish copies to those who may wish for them, at a very low price. The type is unusually large and good; and the execution remarkably neat and accurate. So much for the history of the work, which is the subject of our notice. It is not necessary, perhaps, to say any thing further on the subject. The public has passed its decision, and we cheerfully accede to it, for we think that it has decided right. We feel happy that this Manual has been so extensively called for, and so extensively circulated. It indicates, we think, a favorable state of religious feeling in that class of Christians, which has so frequently been accused of neglecting the duty of prayer. We would not, by any means, attempt to strike a balance between the numbers of pray |