in which we firmly believe, we must look upon them, however erroneous, and however sinful now, as being heirs of the same eternal inheritance, subjects of the same grace, and objects of the same divine love, with ourselves. Whereas, on the other hand, and according to the doctrine which they preach, and which charity authorizes us to suppose they believe, we may be heirs of a kingdom diametrically opposite to the kingdom of Christ, in which they hope to gain admittance; for according to them, we may be subjects of endless wo, and objects of eternal hatred! Hence, if they do not manifest all that love, all that cordiality and friendship towards us, which we feel towards them, we must impute it to the malevolence of their doctrine, rather than to the want of a good disposition.

But it shall be our aim to break down, if possible, these separating partition walls. To teach our oppo, nents that we have all one common Parent, and all we are brethren. And the same God over all, is rich unto all, to whom be glory for ever. Amen.

45

LECTURE III.

For the creature was made subject to vanity, not willingly, but by reason of him who hath subjected the same in hope. Rom. viii. 20.

IT is proper to observe here, that the words in hope, in the text, not only in the Greek, but also in the Latin version, are placed in the next verse, and after the colon: and that the particle , rendered because, in the beginning of the 21st verse, is generally rendered that, and is so rendered in the 16th, 18th, and 22d verses of this very chapter. Taking the words in hope, therefore, into the latter member of the sentence, as they stand in the original, a full and justifiable reason is given for the fact here stated, viz. the creature was made subject to vanity, not willingly, &c. in hope that the creature itself also, (or that even the creature itself,) shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God.

This glorious deliverance is not the subject of the present lecture; but will be taken up hereafter.

What is proposed this evening is, to consider the creation of man; his original state and standing; his natural and moral faculties; together with his sin and disobedience.

It must be obvious to all, even of the smallest capacity, that the original organization, or constitution of man, whatever it might have been, was just such as God was pleased to have it.

Nonentity, certainly, could not offend. Unconscious matter, before it was organized into a conscious being, could not be displeasing to the Deity. Even so, man could not disobey, until he was not only conscious of his existence as a moral being, but also was made sensible of the law that was given him, and which it was his duty

to keep. Man, therefore, existed in every sense as man, before he could have been a transgressor. The question now is, whether man (which is the creature here spoken of) was made subject to vanity, in his original constitution or creation, or whether he was made so afterwards, in consequence of transgression? I shall contend for the former; though the latter has been generally considered the truth.

And here, that I may not unintentionally wound the feelings of any, it may not be improper to premise a little, by apprizing the reader, (as I did the hearer,) that I shall be under the necessity of doing violence to my own conscience, as well as to my own understanding and sense of propriety, and also, as I conceive, to the scriptures of divine truth, or else take different ground, and proceed in a very different channel, from what is considered orthodox in the Christian world. But whether I ought to follow the divine testimony according to my own understanding, or follow the vain traditions of men, the reader must judge.

If a person should be ordered by the government to erect a new and commodious edifice on the site of one very ancient, and perhaps almost rotten, (which, being in a tottering condition, and ready to fall of itself, must be taken down, in order to give place to the new,) the persons interested in this old building, seeing it beginning to shake, and the foundations giving way, would in all probability not only be alarmed, but also offended: for they do not yet believe that the new building will ever be erected; or, if it should be, they are apprehensive they shall not like it so well as the old, to which they have been so long accustomed; and therefore, as this old building contains their last and perhaps only hope, they are loth to part with it. And can this be wondered at? Certainly not. It is perfectly rational. But could they but only be convinced that the new edifice will not only be erected, but that they will have an equal interest in it, and also that it will be much better than the old, (inasmuch as it will accommodate the whole family, a quality that the old building, by many, was never thought to

possess,) I say, let them be convinced of all this, and they will not only be willing to see the old building demolished, but will help to pull it down themselves. But, (asking pardon for the above digression,) we shall return to our subject.

The creature was made subject to vanity. Now, who made this creature? God? or man? Not man, certainly; for man must have been made before man could act. It is therefore equally certain that God made man subject to vanity, as it is true that God made man at all.

If man was tempted, while he was in his original state, then he was subject to temptation. Did he fall? Then he was certainly fallible. Did he sin? Then he was capable of committing sin. And this too, in his first, original, and, what has been generally considered, holy

state.

66

Now how was man tempted? The apostle James says (ch. i. 14.), every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed." But if the first man was tempted in any other way, then here is an exception to this general rule. But if here was no exception, then it follows that our first parents were made with the same propensities which we, their children, possess. Which will bring me to consider,

2. The original state and standing of man.

And, first, let it be observed, that there can be no sin in what exists in man originally, i. e. constitutionally; nor in all the temptations to which he is liable in that state. For sin consists not in being tempted, but in giving way to temptation. The great High Priest of our profession was capable of being touched with the feelings of our infirmities, and was tempted in all points like as we are, yet without sin. (Heb. iv. 15.) This shows that sin does not consist in temptation. The original state of man, therefore, was a state of innocence; though subject to temptation, and, through the imbecility and weakness of his nature, or want of experience, liable to err.

Where, then, shall we find, or in what consisted, that original righteousness, which, it is supposed, man possessed, previous to his transgression? If this means in

nocence, it is what every child of Adam possesses when it is born into the world. But if, by original righteousness, any thing more than innocence be meant, what evidence have we that our first parents possessed it? This is often asserted, often referred to, and often appealed to, as a standing maxim in divinity; but where is the evidence on which this doctrine is predicated? I have diligently sought, but have not been able to find it.

In regard to outward circumstances, our first parents, according to the account, certainly had fewer temptations than any of the human race have had since their day, or, at least, since the giving of the law by Moses. Man has now to eat bread by the sweat of his face; whereas they were in a garden of delights, planted by the hand of their Maker, where every thing grew spontaneously for their comfort.* We are surrounded by various temptations, which assail us on every side, but from which we are both morally and religiously bound to abstain; they were both morally and religiously free, except one single prohibition! Now see the trial. Do we discover any serious struggles of conscience? any great conflict with the adversary? any attempt to resistance? No! Nothing of this kind! But no sooner were they told by that subtle deceiver, who was a liar from the beginning, that the forbidden tree was good for food; that it was to be desired; that God knew it was good to make one wise; and that they should be as gods, knowing good and evil, they take of the fruit thereof, and eat, and, seemingly, without hesitation. So far, therefore, from discovering a couple of righteous beings, struggling against sin, and with the greatest compunction of conscience, reluctantly yielding to unparalleled temptation, it looks a thousand times more like two innocent, inexperienced, and unsuspecting children led away by a deceiver; or else, perhaps, following the natural inclination of their own propensities.

As a contrast to the above, permit me to mention but one instance of the struggles and conquests of virtue

* That is, on the supposition that the account is literally true.