degrees Sin thus advances; and as it advances, infatuates. The fcheme is laid down in my Text; where, in the Person of Doeg, we have the description of a finner Confummate; one that had fill'd up his measure, and was now ripe and overtaken with Judgment. For the first words of the Verfe, Lo this is the man, point out his miserable end, which, the Context will tell us, was deftruction and cafting out of the land of the living: And the reft of the words (on which I defign chiefly to infift) are his Characters, exhibiting the wicked courfe of life which brought him to that miserable end, (viz) He took not God, &c. The Character confifts of three Members, which are as it were the three Stations of the Broad way: The first being Alienation from God, the fecond Application to the World, the third Impiety profeft. And these three are Confequen. tial to each other, as well in the order of Nature, as of the Text, I begin with the first Member of the Character, He took not God for his ftrength. The order and importance of this Default will beft appear, if we enquire into the true measures of humane nature; and fee what ftrength she has in her self, and what fhe wants: and thence deduce the neceffity of our dependance upon God. From thofe that have searched into the ftate of humane Nature, we have sometimes received very different and incompatible accounts; as though the Inquirers had not been so much learning, as fashioning the fubject they had in hand; and that as arbitrarily as a Heathen Carver that could make either a God or a Treffel out of the fame piece of Wood. For fome have cry'd down Nature into fuch a defperate impotency, as would render the Grace of God ineffectual; and others, on the contrary, have invested her with fuch power and felf fufficiency, as would render the Grace of of God fuperfluous. The first of these Opinions wrongs Nature in defect, by allowing her no ftrength, which in confequence must make men desperate; The fecond wrongs Nature in excess, by imputing too much strength, which in effect must make men confident: And both of them do equally destroy the Reason of our Application to God for ftrength. For neither will the man that is well in conceit, nor yet the defperate, apply himself to a Phyfician; because the one cries there is no need, the other, there is no help. I prefume therefore that a more diftinct view of these two extreme Opinions may properly ferve to guide us into the notice of the true ftate of Nature, which lies between them both. As for the firft Opinion, which wrongs Nature in Defect, it was hatcht in the Heathen Schools upon this occa, fion. The Philofophers having confi dered the reproachful Nature of Sin, how B 3 that that in it self it was nothing but injury, turpitude, and folly; and in its effects, mischief, inquietude, and ill-boding fears; concluded juftly, that the Commiffion of it was bafe and infamous, and that the deliberate choice of a finful Acti on was a greater reproach to Reafon,than Reason was an Ornament to Man. But nevertheless finding themselves dipt in the common guilt, and too foft to refift the pleafing evil, but likewife too proud to own the reproach of it; they set their wits on work to contrive an expedient, how a Man might fin, and yet not be in the fault, and so be able to keep his Crimes and Credit too. The expedient they contrived was this, to maintain, That Sin was no voluntary Act, but a meer forced one and this they proved by two Mediums, Fate, and Matter as each of them introducing a neceffity upon humane Actions. From the first they argued, That all humane Actions were pre-determined by the irrefifti ble ble Power of an Eternal Decree, fo that Man did not purely act any thing of himself, but was a meer paffive Tool in the Hand of Destiny. From the second they argued, That though Man were allowed liberty of acting, yet he could have no liberty of Choice, because his Choice was always determined to the worfer fide by a certain infuperable malignity in matter, that is, by the pravity of his conftitution. Upon either of these accounts it follow'd,that Man was a meer impotent slave, always over-ruled by force, either from without or within; and therefore fince he could not poffibly help what he did, why fhould he be blamed for it? Rather let the causes be blamed to which he owed his neceffity. Thus did the Philosophers endeavour to bring Mankind off from the scandal of their faults by impeaching Nature; as an indulgent Jury will bring off a Murtherer by a Non compos mentis. As to their Hypothesis of the irresisti- ble |