without acting righteously; which is a most evident contradiction.* But as contradictions cannot be reconciled, we are compelled to admit, that men can have no moral character, good or bad, until they have formed it by their own voluntary actions; and that, consequently, it cannot be transmitted, by natural generation, from father to son.

But, it is said, we all bring into the world with us the seeds (some say the roots) of moral evil, and that those seeds or roots of sin are the fruitful source of all actual transgression! What the supporters of this notion can mean by seeds or roots of sin, they do not pretend to tell us, nor does it appear to be possible for any human being to form a conception of them. It is an opinion which, though sanctioned by high authority, and asserted with great confidence, is, nevertheless, unsupported by the evidence of either reason or revelation; and appears to have been invented solely for the purpose of accounting for the universal depravity of man. this purpose, however, it is both unnecessary and insufficient. Man's becoming a transgressor, is no proof of the previous existence of such seeds or roots of sin in his nature; for Adam became a sinner, who, it is presumed,

For

*And contradicts also the clearest declarations of holy writ. "He that DOETH [not he that is BORN in a state of] righteousness is righteous, even as he is righteous." 1 John, iii. 7. He that COMMITTETH [not he who INHERITS] Sin is of the devil," 1 John, iii. 8. Thus, we learn, from the volume of inspiration itself, that the moral character of man is not RECEIVED, either from Adam, or from his Maker; but is formed by his own actions.

had no such seeds or roots of evil lurking in his constitution, previously to his first act of disobedience. We have all the evidence, therefore, which the argument requires, that a moral agent may begin to sin, without supposing his nature to be previously amiss.

It will be said, that the views advocated in these pages, deny that man has lost the image of God, in which he was originally created. In reply, we may observe, that the image of God in man is two-fold, natural and moral. The former, he received at his creation: the latter was acquired after he came into being, the natural image of God, comprises the intellectual powers of man, his spirituality, immateriality, and immortality. In these respects he bears a resemblance to the natural perfections of the Deity. The moral image of God consists of that active benevolence, compassion, and rectitude of conduct, which, in their degree, resemble the moral perfections of the adorable Jehovah; and which constitute a holy being, In this latter sense, man was not-could not be, created in the image or likeness of God. He was formed with

* The mode of reasoning, and of interpreting the scriptures in support of the notion that man was CREATED in the MORAL image of God, will appear from the following extract :-Watson's Theological Dict, art. Adam. "This also may be finally argued from the satisfaction with which the historian of the creation represents the Creator as viewing the works of his hands as VERY GOOD, which was pronounced with reference to each of them individually, as well as to the whole: 'And God saw every thing that he had made, and behold it was very good. But, as to man, this goodness must necessarily imply moral as well as physical qualities. Without them he would have been imperfect as MAN; and had they, in their first exer

D

a capacity for becoming thus like his Maker; but before he had exercised his moral powers, he was neither holy nor wicked; because action is essential to the existence of those qualities of a moral agent. When we form a conception of a person's being morally good or bad, our invariable conviction is, that he is so constituted by the right or wrong use of his moral capacity. It must be granted, we think, that the first moral act of Adam might have been a sinful act, and, instead of making

cises, been perverted and sinful, he must have been an exception, and could not have been pronounced 'very good.' The goodness of man, as a rational being, must be in devotedness and consecration to God; consequently, man was at first holy. A rational creature, as such, is capable of knowing, loving serving, and living in communion with the most Holy One. Adam, at first, did, or did not exert this capacity; if he did not, he was not 'very good,' not good at all" Such is the reasoning employed in favour of CREATED holiness. If we mistak not, however, the above extract overturns the very point which it was intended to establish. Mr. Watson says, a rational creature, as such, is CAPABLE of knowing and serving God; but unless he EXERT OF EXERCISE this CAPACITY, he cannot have moral goodness: that is, he cannot be righteous or holy. Consequently, if moral goodness consists in the right exercise of the moral capacity, it follows, according to Mr. Watson's own showing, that Adam could not be CREATED in the moral likeness of God, could not be HOLY before he had EXERCISED his moral powers. "Hethat DOETH righteousness is righteous." 1 John iii. 7,

66

It is rather surprising that Mr. Watson, in commenting on the above passage of scripture, should have so entirely overlooked the literal and genuine import of the inspired writer. It is not said, "And God saw that every thing ANSWERED the PURPOSES of its creation, (as Mr. Watson's exposition would seem to require) and behold it was very good.' But, "And God saw every thing that he HAD MADE,' Now, according to Mr. Watson, God could not make holiness; for that consists in the EXERTION OF EXERCISE of man's moral CAPACITY. Of course, the declaration," and behold it was very good, "does not necessarily include the MORAL CONDUCT of Adam. God's works of of creation would have been "very good, " if Adam's

him like the holy and blessed God, would have stamped him with the image of the devil. * To deny this would be to deny the free agency of man in his primeval state, and the fact of such free agency, as demonstrated by his committing sin, after having obeyed, for a season, the mandates of his Creator.

The moral image of God was not a part of the nature or constitution even of Adam. He had it not by creation— did not, of course, bring it into the world with him;but acquired it by the proper exercise of that moral capacity, with which he had been endowed. It follows,

first moral act had been very bad; because his actions, whether good or bad, were nothing that God HAD MADE.

Mr. Watson supposes that, unless the first moral actions of Adam had been virtuous, he would have been imperfect as man-not very good-not good at all. If this reasoning be conclusive, it will prove that Adam, at the first, was not a free agent-not capable of virtuous action or its contrary! But if Adam was not free at the beginning, it will be impossible to show at what period of his subsequent history that blessing was bestowed upon him. Besides, if acting RIGHT WAS ESSENTIAL to his being a piece of good or perfect WORKMANSHIP, it is evident that the argument would apply, not only to his first works, but to those which he should ever after perform; and, according to such arguing, the FACT that Adain did wrong, proves him to have been, when viewed as a part of God's creation, "not very good-not good at all."

We contend, then, that man, in reference to his PHYSICAL constitution, and possessed of a CAPACITY for moral action, might, in conjunction with the other parts of creation, be pronounced "very good," whether, in the first instance, he acted right or wrong.

"He that committeth sin is of the devil." 1 John, iii.7.

D 2

therefore, that when holy Adam sinned, he lost this moral—this acquired image or likeness of his Maker; but could not possibly lose the natural image of God, in which he had been created, and which was essential to his being as an accountable agent.

As Adam did not receive the moral image of God by creation, so neither could he have transmitted it to his posterity, supposing him to have continued obedient and holy. He could, in that case, have done no more than communicate a capacity for moral action, the exercise of which would have been necessary to constitute its possessors holy or wicked. As, therefore, the exercise or use of the moral capacity is essential to holiness or sin, in rational, accountable beings, it follows, that neither the one nor the other can be transmitted, by natural generation from father to son.

The fair and obvious conclusion, therefore, is, that the moral image of God was lost by Adam when he broke the divine command; but could not be lost by his posterity, since it never was in their possession, in any intelligible or conceivable sense, either to be lost or retained. The moral capacity, as we have seen, was all that could be given to them; and this they could not lose, without ceasing, at the same time, to be rational and responsible creatures. And it follows also, that, if the descendents of Adam be accountable for their conduct, they all possess a capacity for righteousness,