frame not taking away the liberty neceffary to moral action, and the fin lying in the consent given to the folicitation. It is however certain, that all actual fin fhould be confidered as voluntary, being fo in its nature. But fome fins are faid to be involuntary, when they are from inattention, and fometimes when they are the effect of long habit, fo that they are done without deliberation and without reflection. These are not any way excufeable on that account; because that want of attention is a very great fin, and the power of habit has been contracted by acts of wickedness.

3. There are fome fins of ignorance, fome against light; light in general is an aggravation of fin. Ignorance, total and invincible, takes away all fin; but ignorance may often be easily prevented; and fometimes ignorance may be fo circumftanced as to aggravate fin, as when it arifes from an averfion and hatred to the light. This is nearly connected with the opinion of the innocence of error. There are great numbers who will needs have it, that error in judgment cannot be criminal, if the perfon is fincerely of that opinion which he profeffes or avows. This is called by Bishop Warburton, the mafter prejudice of this age. But it is plain that error muft just be confidered as ignorance. To say that a perfon mistakes his duty with perfect innocence, is to fuppofe God has not given fufficient means of discovering and distinguishing truth from falsehood.

There are feveral other divifions of fins that may be introduced; fuch as fins in thought, in word, and in deed. Filthinefs of the flesh and of the spi

rit; occafional and reigning fins. But as they have little difficulty in them, fo the explanation of them is no way neceffary to the explaining of evangelical truth; for which reason I will not difcufs them.

There are fome maxims in eftimating the morality of actions, that, though generally admitted, carry fome difficulty in them when applied univerfally; as for example, that a fin is the more highly aggravated when it is committed with little temptation; and that a virtuous action is more laudable, when it overcomes the greatest temptations. If we extend this to inward, as well as outward temptation, which is commonly done, it seems to take much from the merit of true holiness in eminent faints, and to annihilate altogether the excellency of the divine holinefs. The maxim muft therefore either be a mistake or mifapplied. One of the contraries that flows from it is certainly true, viz. that an action is not praise-worthy, in proportion as the contrary is vicious. It is one of the highest degrees of vice to be without natural affection, and to neglect the common care of family and relations; but to take care of them, has but very little that is praiseworthy in it. Whenever we find difficulty in these things, it is but reasoning them up to the question of liberty and neceffity, the dependence and activity of the creature, where we fhould always ftop fhort, as being above our comprehenfion.

There is one thing very remarkable, that in the Scriptures the fin of our nature is always adduced as an aggravation of our guilt; but loose persons in principle and in practice, are apt to produce it as an extenuation of the actual tranfgreffion which

proceeds from it. Nor, I believe, is there any way by which men can be taken off from fuch views, but by a thorough work of conviction, and the power of divine grace.. Therefore a minifter of great piety and judgment once faid to me, "No man will cordially believe the doctrine of falvation by grace, contained in our Catechifm and Confeffion, unlefs he is born of God. I can fhew by reafon, that the fall of man, and the corruption of our nature, is contained in the Scripture. I can fhew that it is entirely correfpondent with the course of nature and the system of Providence. But we need hardly expect that it will be received and approved till the pride of the heart is brought down, and the finner laid at the footstool of divine mercy."

Another remark I fhall make, and this alfo bor-rowed from a friend, that every error or departure from the truth might be traced back to a want of conviction, and not having a due fenfe of the evil of fin. Notwithstanding all the boaft of concern for moral virtue, and the repeated objection that the doctrine of falvation by grace leads to licentiousness and favours immorality, it is an unhumbled spirit that makes such persons oppofe the truth. Selfrighteousness is eafily traced back to this; all the merit of works may be reduced to it. Had fuch perfons a proper sense of the extent and spirituality of the law of God, they would never think of trust-ing in themselves that they are righteous; and did they feel the obligation upon every intelligent creature fupremely to honour the living and true God, they would fee the evil of refusing it, but would

never think of pleading any merit from an imperfect performance of that which is fo perfectly due.

In the last place, as to the inability of man to recover himself by his own power, though I would never attempt to establish a metaphyfical system of neceffity, of which infidels avail themselves in oppofition to all religion, nor presume to explain the influence of the Creator on the creature, yet nothing is more plain from Scripture, or better supported by daily experience, than that man by nature is in fact incapable of recovery without the power of God fpecially interpofed. I will not call it a neceffity arifing from the irresistible laws of nature. I fee it is not a neceffity of the fame kind as constraint; but I fee it an impoffibility fuch as the finner never does overcome. A late author in Scot

land thinks he has difcovered the great wheel that connects the human system with the universal kingdom of God: that this race of creatures were fuffered or ordained to come into existence, to be a ftanding monument to all other intelligences through the univerfe, that a rational creature once departing from his allegiance to his Creator, never could again recover it, but by his own almighty power and fovereign grace.

WE

LECTURE XVI.

Of the Covenant of Grace.

E now come to fpeak of the covenant of grace. This, taking it in a large sense, may be said to comprehend the whole plan of falvation through Jefus Chrift. I am not to mention every thing that belongs to this fubject; but before entering directly into the conftitution of the covenant of grace, it will be proper to speak a little of the doctrine of fatisfaction for the guilt of a crea

ture.

As to the first of these-Was fatisfaction or fome atonement neceffary? Would it have been inconfiftent with divine juftice to have pardoned finners without it? Might not the fovereignty and mercy of God have dispensed with the punishment of fin, both in the finner and in the Surety? The agitation of this question, and the zeal that is fhewn by some upon it, I cannot help faying, feems to arife from an inward averfion to the truth itself of the fatisfaction, and the confequences that follow from it. What does it fignify, though any one fhould admit that God by his fovereignty might have difpenfed with demanding fatisfaction, if notwithstanding it appears in fact, that he has demanded and exacted it? that without fhedding of blood there is no remiffion," and, "that there is no other name," &c. Whether it has been fo ordained, becaufe to have done otherwife would have been inconfitent