That is a question to which we have no desire to become partisans. Nor have we introduced the subject of congressional caucuses, so much with a view to discuss their propriety, as with a desire to offer a remark or two on the general subject of the presidential election. For two years

this subject has been publicly agitated; in the course of which, public decency has been disregarded, and public feeling_tri. fled with. Editors of newspapers, affecting to direct the public mind in so important and delicate a matter; and discovering quite as much party zeal as patriotism, and quite as little disinterestedness as modesty, have suffered their columns to be filled with gratuitous crimina tions, with political biographies and libellous discussions;-errors called up from the grave to which oblivion had consigned them, like evil spirits mustered from the shades, have been made to cluster round the most exalted individuals in the nation -confidential letters have been published to the world-grossly personal allusions and angry retorts have been made on the floor of congress,-and the subject has been insidiously interwoven with the discussion of important public measures. Now we ask what has been gained, either to the interests of the parties concerned, ór to the welfare of the nation, by a con. troversy so prematurely commenced, and so indecorously conducted? Has the public mind become any the better prepared for an election? Has the confidence of the people in any one candidate, beeu established or increased, or will the successful candidate be rendered any the more respectable in their estimation, by the calumnies which have been forged, or the "mournful reminiscences" which have been called up from oblivion? Ambitious men and partisans may feel an interest in thus agitating this subject, but we are much mistaken if the great mass of honest citizens do not regard it with disgust, and with disquieting apprehensions respecting its tendency and ultimate effects. If in anticipation of every presidential election, we are to be visited with a bold, defamatory, electioneering spirit, pervading every section of the Union and gathering rancour from the protracted strife of years, thinking men may discover in the following allusion to our country, less of the sober prescience of philosophy than of the visions of poetry.

-Who shall then declare

The date of thy deep-founded strength, or tell

How happy, in thy lap, the sons of men shall dwell!

The subject, has as much to do with our

respectability abroad, as with our tranquility at home. The progress of our great political experiment' is narrowly watched by the supporters of legitimacy in Europe; and every symptom of disorganization strengthens the hands of despotism.

An act has recently passed the legisla ture of South Carolina, prohibiting, under penalties sufficiently formidable, the entrance into that state of any free negro, or person of color, on board any vessel, as mariner, steward, or in any capacity what

ever.

This act in effect renders all persons of color incapable of citizenship in any part of the Union. It puts it out of the power of any State to enact a law which shall invest this prescribed portion of its popu lation with the privileges of freemen. The citizens of each State are entitled, by the constitution, to all the privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States. But according to existing laws at the South, no coloured citizen of any State any law of such State to the contrary notwithstanding-shall be permitted to enjoy the benefit of this provision. Laws may be enacted to make him free; but to give effect to them we must first literally bleach him into the enjoyment of freedom." This act of South Carolina and similar acts of other slave-holding states, demonstrate the bearing of slavery upon the free states, and ought to silence the complaint against them, that they intermeddle with a subject in which, politically, they have no interest.

That these laws are unconstitutional, would seem to be admitted even by those who make them. A proposition has been sent round to the different States by the legislature of Georgia, for an amendment to the. United States Constitution, providing that no part of that instrument shall be so construed as to authorize any person of color to enter any State contrary to the laws of such State. We do not see any necessity for this measure, says the New-York Advertiser, unless the legislature of Georgia mean to concede the point that the laws of many of the Slave States on this subject are unconstitutional. If this is their meaning, they had better, in the first place, repeal their unconstitutional acts; and then ask for further favors. We should like to know where the Slave States intend the free people of color shall go? Banished from every State, they must, for ought we can see, take to the ocean, there being no place of rest for them on the land.

THE

No. 4.]

To the Editor of the Christian Spectator.

HINTS ON SIN AND FREE AGENCY.

I am one of those, who from an early period of life, have taken a deep interest in theological discussions. These latter years, I have not been remarkably fond of what are called metaphysical discussions, in the science of theology; nor have I been particularly averse to them, when managed with judgment and moderation. My fondness for them in early life was perhaps somewhat great, because I had not then sufficiently learned how varying and inconstant they are; one generation rejecting, not unfrequently with scorn and contumely, what another had regarded as fundamental and all-important. The observation of this has taught me more moderation in respect to them, and less confidence in them. On the other hand, the objection to all deep and thorough discussion of difficult topics in religious doctrine, so often made by calling them metaphysics, I am well persuaded, originates in most cases from ignorance in regard to these topics, or from want of interest in them, or from opposition to religion in general.

The bible is not, indeed, a book of metaphysics, but it is filled with commands and prohibitions, which have an indissoluble conuexion with, and relation to our meta physical nature; and the reasonableness of which can in no way be demonstrated without an appeal to VOL. VI.-No. 4.

23

[VOL. VI.

the fundamental principles of that nature. In what way can it be shown that man is a sinner, if he be not a free agent? And can the question, what is a free agent, be well answered without any considerations of a metaphysical character?

This very simple view of the subject may serve as an apology, perhaps, for the interest which some of our ablest divines take, and have for a long time been accustomed to take, in discussions pertaining to the psychological nature of man. I intend it as a kind of apology, for the considerations which I am about to offer.

I have read, with no common interest, all our late publications on the subject of human depravity and original sin. My object is neither directly to review them, nor to call them in question bere. They have insensibly led my mind to think much on the questions, What is sin? How does it commence in our race? And where may we draw the line between what is sinful, and what is not? Questions surely of deep interest to every rational being, who is accountable to a God of purer eyes than to behold iniquity.

I have no great confidence in my own speculations on this subject. The practical part of it is easy; and happy is it for our race that a great part of them never have any doubts about it. When light is let in upon the understanding, conscience settles most of the questions that can be raised about sin, with perfect ease, and by a decision

that admits of no appeal. The most important part of religion can doubt. less never depend on nice speculation and tenuous distinctions; for then how could the great mass of mankind ever attain to it?

But still, it is not useless to inquire what knowledge we have, in respect to the topics above suggested. The late controversy between Dr. Wire and Dr. Woods, seems to have turned, at last, very much on the point, whether a disposition to sin constitutes the essence of sinfulness or moral guilt, and whether this disposition is native or acquired.

I confess myself to be somewhat embarrassed, whenever I attempt to get a definite idea of what this disposition means. Is it love of what is sinful—a desire to do what is sinful-an inclination to do what is sinful? If it be either of these, it seems to me necessary to imply an act of the will. What is love but the goings forth of desire after an object that is agreeable-the wishing it, or willing it? And what are desire and inclination but acts of the will craving any object, or wishing the accomplishment of it? If this be the meaning of disposition, then I see not how it differs from the views of all those who hold sin to consist essentially in volition.

But if disposition mean something still more recondite in our nature (if I may be allowed the expression) than love, desire, or inclination, then it must mean simply the aptitude of our nature to a thing, or the susceptibility of it in respect to a thing. For example, (if I may illustrate a moral subject by a comparison drawn from a corporeal appetite,) before we taste of honey, there is an aptitude in our physical constitution, which prepares us to love it, when it is applied to the palate; or we are physically susceptible of loving it although before it is actually applied, we cannot be said to love it: so in respect to a susceptibility of becoming sinful. We may have this, when we are not actual sinners.

Adam surely had this in a state of innocence. This is certain; because the event showed that he was susceptible of sin. The fallen angels had this in their pristine state; for they did sin. Beings perfectly innocent then may have it. They are not sinners because they are susceptible of becoming so. For ought that I can see, the human nature of the Saviour may have had this without any contamination. I do not aver that it had; but I can hardly refrain from asking; how could he be " tempted in all points as we are," if he had not such a susceptibility? And what temptation did he, after all, undergo in the desert, on the pinnacle of the temple, and on the mountain if he had no susceptibility in respect to the alluring objects presented by the tempter? His spotless purity, his perfect freedom from the contamination of sin, shine the brighter, when we consider him as overcoming, without a moment's doubt or hesitation, all the enticements offered to him. But where is the victory, and where the triumph, if these enticements were brought in contact with no suscep tibility of being moved by them? And how was his nature truly human, if he were entirely destitute of all our sympathies in regard to such objects?

This view of the subject is, I hope, at an infinite remove from that sentiment, which maintains the peccability of the Saviour's human nature, in the ordinary sense of that word. The desire or inclination to do what was sinful, he never entertained for a moment. "He was

without sin." But that while he tabernacled in the flesh, he had that susceptibility which Adam possessed in a state of innocence, and the fallen angels while in their pristine state, might be safely admitted, without any other consequence than an accession of glory to him, who, though tempted in all points as we are, remained perfectly free from the contamination of sin.