take away the ftony heart out of your flesh;" the force of the Pfalmift David's prayer, ❝ Create within me a clean heart;" and many others of the fame import, but, above all, this doctrine of our Saviour, John iii. 3. “Verily, verily," &c. To all this you may add experience. The univerfal and early corruption of men in practice, is a standing evidence of the impurity of their original.

What is the hiftory of the world but the hiftory of human guilt? and do not children, from the firft dawn of reason, fhew that they are wife to do evil, but to do good they have no knowledge?

As to the nature of original fin, and the tranfmiffion of it, I think a few words may fuffice. We certainly discover in mankind, not only a difpofition without restraint to commit errors of a grofs nature, but in general an attachment to, and love of the creature more than the Creator. It may not be improper here to confider the question, whether the whole nature is corrupt, fo that whatever we do is fin. It will be, I think, very easy to settle this point, if the meaning of the inquiry be clearly understood. If the fupreme defire of the mind, and leading principle be wrong, then every thing that is directed by it must have the nature of fin.

Those who reprefent it in this light, do by no means affert that every act in every part of it is evil; fuch as, to speak truth, to do juftice, to fhew mercy, which certainly an unholy man may do. Nay, I fuppofe even the greatest finner that ever was, fpeaks twenty true words where he fpeaks one that is falfe. But what is meant to be afferted is that every action of an unregenerate man is ef

fentially defective as a moral duty, because flowing from a wrong principle, and tending to a wrong end. Let us fuppofe a man inflexibly fober and temperate from a concern for his health, or a covetous defire of sparing his money, and one should fay there is no true virtue in this. It would be ridicu lous to fay, that we affirmed that fobriety was not a virtue, or that the perfon concerned finned in being fober. This will appear by expreffing the fentiment in another form. Every body would understand and approve it, if we fhould fay, there is no virtue at all in that miser who ftarves his belly, or clothes himself with rags, only to fill his purse.

As to the tranfmiffion of original fin, the queftion is to be fure difficult, and we ought to be referved upon the fubject. St Auguftine faid it was of more confequence to know how we are delivered from fin by Chrift, than how we derive it from Adam. Yet we shall fay a few words on this topic. It feems to be agreed by the greatest part, that the foul is not derived from our parents by natural generation, and yet it seems not reafonable to fuppofe that the foul is created impure. Therefore it fhould follow, that a general corruption is communicated by the body, and that there is so close a union between the foul and body, that the impreffions conveyed to us through the bodily organs, do tend to attach the affections of the foul to things earthly and fenfual. If it fhould be faid that the foul, on this fuppofition, must be united to the body as an act of punishment or feverity, I would anfwer, that the foul is united to the body in confequence of an act of government, by which the

Creator decreed, that men should be propagated by way of natural generation. And many have fuppofed, that the fouls of all men that ever shall be, were created at the beginning of the world, and gradually came to the exercise of their powers, as the bodies came into existence to which they belong.

LECTURE XV.

Of Sin in general, and its Demerit ; and of Actual Sin, and its feveral Divifions.

F fin in general, and moral evil, we may ob

OF

ferve, that the Scripture uniformly reprefents it to us in the most odious light. Of God it is faid, "He is of purer eyes than to behold iniquity." It is faid to be that which his foul hates; to grieve him, to dishonour him, and to provoke his wrath. And though we must exclude from our minds every thing, in thefe frequent expreffions, that belong to human paffions or weakness, the juft and legitimate inference to be drawn from it is, the great and unfpeakable evil of fin.

As the evil of fin appears from every page of the facred oracles, fo it alfo appears in the cleareft manner from its effects, and the mifery that follows it. All natural evils are the fruits of fin; all the fufferings in the valley of terror fhoot from it. And if we lay down the righteoufnefs of Providence as a principle, Dr Butler has fhewn in his Analogy, that the punishment, and therefore the guilt of finis

very great; that fometimes very great and lafting fufferings are the confequence of acts one would think not the most atrocious. The contagion of fin, the rage of violent paffion, and the terror of confcience, in fome inftances, all tend to prove the evil of fin.

One can scarcely have a clearer idea of the evil of fin, than by comparing the effects of piety and virtue, fo far as our own experience has enabled us to form an idea of them, with the effects of univerfal corruption and depravity in any society.

Here, perhaps, it may be proper juft to mention the question, whether it is proper to say there is an infinite evil in fin? I would answer it thus, There is not a fingle argument againft it, only this, that the actions done in time by a finite creature, cannot have in them an infinite evil. But this is not the thing denied, for all the fyftems with one voice fay, that it is not infinite in all refpects, otherwise all fins would be equal, which indeed it is faid that the Stoics anciently have held. But as far as there can be meaning to us in the expreffion, it must be proper to say the evil of fin is infinite; not only because when we confider the several particulars that illuftrate the evil of it, we fee no end to them, but becaufe fin is properly an opposition to the nature, and a tranfgreffion of the law of God. Now his nature being infinitely excellent, and the obligation on us arifing from his infinite perfections in himself, his full property in, and abfolute dominion over us, being inconceivably great, I reckon that there muft be the very fame juftice and propriety in saying VOL. VIII.

M

that there is an infinite evil in fin, as an infinite goodness in God.

Sin is explained in general in our Catechism to be a want of conformity unto, or tranfgreffion of the law of God. In this definition of fin, it is divided into fins of omiffion or of commiffion. The law of God is a perfect rule, and every deviation from it is fin, whether in the matter of the duty, or principle from which it ought to flow. An action, to be truly good, must be complete in all respects. Hence fome obferve, that actions truly good are equally good, because they are perfect, they completely fulfil the law, and are performed at the very time when it was required. But fins are not equally evil, fome are very much aggravated in comparison of others from many circumftances eafy to imagine. Let one juft confider the diftinction of fins, with a remark or two upon each. 1. Sins of omiffion and commiffion. We are not to fuppofe that fins of omiffion are conftantly, and by their nature, less heinous than fins of commiffion. There are fome duties fo important, and the obligation to which are fo ftrong and manifeft, that the omiffion of them is an offence as much aggravated as any that can be named, and much more fo than fome fins of commiffion. A total and habitual neglect of God's worship, is certainly much more criminal than fome rash injurious expreffions, which are fins of commiffion. 2. Sins voluntary and involuntary. All fins may be faid to be in fome fenfe voluntary, as lying properly in the difpofition of the heart and will. Some are of opinion, that original fin itself is voluntary, the corrupt bias from the corrupted