cence, in which state they must be considered till they are capable of understanding the law of God, instead of being taught that they are children of the wicked one, that God is their enemy, and that he is very angry with them, and with every body else, for a sin committed by their first parents, long before they were born, should be taught that they are in every sense of the word the children of God; that they are heirs of his kingdom, together with his Son Jesus Christ, who came into the world to teach them the knowledge of this glorious truth, and who, while he was on earth, suffered much for them, and on account of the truth which he came to teach; that Christ loved the world of mankind, and especially children, being considered in a state of innocence; and that they should, in consequence of these great privileges, endeavour to live as he lived; he being the great pattern and example of the Christian life. On this ground the best morality can be taught, and the best reason can be given for it. If a person's being born an heir to a crown is a good reason why he should be educated with a particular reference to his filling that important station, the reason will hold good here in a superlative sense. If a person's being absolutely destined to live in a certain country is a good reason why he should have a knowledge of that country, of its laws and government, of its manners and customs, it is on this ground we plead the necessity of every one's becoming acquainted with God, and with Jesus Christ, whom he hath sent, whom to know is eternal life. Now would a person be so likely to attend to these things, if he thought there were but a bare possibility, after all, of his obtaining this object; but that the probability was against him? No! But, on the contrary, just in proportion to his doubts and fears, he would be likely to slack in his vigilance.

If his preparation were to be considered the means, and the only means, by which he was to obtain this object, there would be, I must confess, some more encouragement; but he is told that this will depend after all entirely upon the will of another, who has already determined his destination, and who, at the same time, was

governed wholly from motives within himself, which have no real connexion with any thing which the creature can do.

From these, and many other considerations which might be mentioned, I am firmly persuaded that the doctrine for which I am contending is most conducive to good morality, even if that were our only object, of any that ever was advanced. It is often objected that this doctrine ought not to be preached, even if it be true. Without taking up any time to expose the futility of this objection, (for what can men preach better than the truth?) I will only add in this place, that the strongest reason I can give why it should be preached, is, because it is true. If it were not true, notwithstanding the temporary good it might produce, yet, the very circumstance of its not being truc, would be a good reason why it should not be preached. All admit that the doctrine would be good, O yes, nothing could be better, if it were only true; without ever considering that the very circumstance of its being good, is one great evidence of its truth. If it were acknowledged not to be good, it would be one great evidence in my mind that it is not true.

Now how does this statement stand when applied to a doctrine diametrically opposite to the one here contended for? In acknowledging this good, they acknowledge the one in which they believe, and which stands opposed to this, not good. Why then do they believe it true? If the doctrine be not good, can the author of it be good? and if the author be not good, can that author be LOVE? O forgive me, my religious opponents, I can assure you that I am seeking your best good, while I thus expose both you and your doctrine.

But it is time I had brought this lecture to a close. We find then the present state of man to stand thus: he is made subject to vanity, agreeably to his original constitution; he comes into the world perfectly innocent, in which state he is a fit subject for the kingdom of heaven; he is morally inclined to good, but nevertheless prone to evil; thus he stands in need of all possible instruction, of which he is capable of making a wise im

provement. But for the want of proper instruction in the first place, or by neglecting to improve by it in the second, he is liable to pierce himself through with many sorrows. Lest, however, those evils should be productive of events incompatible with infinite wisdom and benevolence in the glorious plan of the Deity; they are all circumscribed by HIS superior wisdom, power, and goodness; the development of which will be the labours of our future lectures.

69

LECTURE IV.

The soul that sinneth, it shall die. EZEK. Xviii. 4.

I AM this evening to speak of sin: its nature; its demerits; and its consequences.

That all mankind, generally speaking, as has been already observed, are sinners, both scripture and daily experience evince; and as sinners, it is equally true that all receive the wages of sin, which is death; the soul that sinneth, it shall die. All will agree, therefore, that to palliate sin, or to deny its existence, would be of no use; but would rather tend to extend its baneful influence. But while we would avoid this, on the one hand, so we should equally avoid magnifying it on the other; for this, so far from being of any use to the sinner, will only tend to drive him into despair.

On

The Christian clergy, for many centuries, have been generally agreed in the opinion, that sin, in its nature, is infinite, being committed against an infinite Being. this principle, however, all proportion in the degrees of sin is destroyed; for all sin is against God, who alone is infinite; i. e. as much so as any. But it is on this ground, and this only, that any one has ever attempted to prove that the demerits of sin are infinite, or that it deserves infinite punishment. The futility of these arguments, however, I am happy in believing, begins to appear; and in proportion as the light of divine truth breaks in upon the understanding, such absurd notions will be exploded. The child of two years old, who disobeys its parent, is a transgressor, no less than the one who is much older; but who would attach equal demerit to both? yet both sin equally against the parent.

In treating of the nature of sin, I shall endeavour to

be as concise as possible; and yet be sufficiently plain, so as to be understood. Sin," saith an inspired apostle, "is the transgression of the law." (1 John, iii. 4.) Sin, therefore, presupposes the existence of a law; and a law presupposes a legislator or lawgiver, whose intention in legislation, or giving the law, is supposed to have been thwarted, in order for the law to take cognizance of sin. For if the intention of the law (in which word I now include the lawgiver) be not thwarted, in what does the sin consist? What is the transgression of a law, if it be not acting contrary to the intention and design of the lawgiver or legislator? This will lead us to perceive at once, that God cannot be considered, in any direct sense, the legislator of that law which is transgressed by sin. For, to suppose which, we must suppose that his intentions, in the same direct sense, to have been thwarted; i. e. have become abortive! But who will undertake to say this? The moment we admit it, we admit that God himself is not infinite! which supposition involves the mind at once in such a labyrinth, as from which nothing can extricate it. For it is at once changing the glory of the infinite and unchangeable JEHOVAH into that which would be no better than an image, made like to corruptible man. Infinity can have no opposition. For that which is opposed is limited by that which opposes it.

Then, says the objector, there is not, neither can there be, any such thing as sin in the universe; as nothing can successfully oppose God.

But, stop! my dear sir, not so hasty! Would it not be more rational to say that sin is something very different from what has been generally supposed, than to say, if sin be not what has been supposed, then sin does not exist? For sin may exist, and be exceeding sinful too, and yet not be what thousands have imagined.

I shall therefore proceed directly to show what law is violated by sin; and also, who is the lawgiver or legislator of that law.

The law of a man's own understanding (which may be termed the law of God in the heart, because a man's own understanding is from God) is the law which is trans