to credit his word. He giveth no account of his matters; he stands not at the tribunal of men. Daring worms, though they often bring him to their judgmentseat, and arraign and condemn him for his conduct, shall be fully answered from his tribunal, and receive the reward of their temerity and presumption. Without pretending to fathom this inscrutable subject, we may observe, that man's want of power is his sin. That he is unable to pay God, because he is unwilling to pay him. That he cannot do his duty acceptably to him, because he hates him. From the whole tenor of Scripture, we learn that man's inability is his sin; that though he is born in sin, he is charged with all the guilt of the conduct which he prefers in such circumstances. How this is so, is beyond the comprehension of man; and men only show their arrogance and folly, as well by replying for God, as by arraigning him. A thousand other things in the works and ways of God are not to be accounted for more than this; these philosophers themselves cannot deny, but man is the worse by his connexion with Adam. Whence does he derive these acknowledged imperfections of his nature? Whence is derived all the evils of his present state? Now, if it is acknowledged that the offence of Adam has subjected us to suffering here, how can it be proved that it may not subject us to suffering hereafter ? If it be just to make me suffer one half hour for the fault of another, it cannot be proved to be unjust to make me suffer to any length of duration according to the desert of the offence. We see from other things mentioned in Scripture, the sovereignty of God in charging the offence of our first parents on their descendants. Eve's daughters had no more hand in her sin, than her sons; yet, females to the end of the world, have peculiar miseries on account of their mother, Eve, being first in the transgression. It may be said, is this just? I reply, it is declared to be so in Scripture. If the Scriptures are the word of God, we must receive the account. In like manner do I reply to the other question.. The Scriptures plainly teach that the whole human race have been ruined by Adam's fall. I cannot give any other reason for it, than that

God has said it. It is more rational to deny the Scriptures, than to deny their plain meaning. Now, what can more clearly teach the injury the human race has received from Adam's first sin than the following Scriptures— Rom. v. 15, &c. With respect to the assertion of Doctor Reid, that insolvency frees the debtor till his ability returns. I observe, though it may be wise in human laws to free an insolvent debtor, yet, he is not free in the law of God. Not only does the injury still remain, but the inability is sinful, because it is voluntary. Our inability to pay God is voluntary. We do not wish to pay him, because we do not love him. Let any debtor be in the same state with respect to his creditor, and the philosophers themselves will condemn him. If the debtor, willingly, continues his inability; if he hates his creditor and does not wish to pay him, they will not approve of him. Such are the characteristics of the moral inability of man; he hates God, he cannot serve him, because he does not wish to serve him.

If philosophers have endeavoured to rid themselves of the debt by denying its extent, theologians have attempted the same thing by alleging that what is above our ability has been paid by Christ; for philosophers and divines, though, like the Sadducees and Pharisees, they may dispute among themselves, generally agree in their opposition to the truth, and by very different routes arrive at last at the same place. Christ, say the theologians, has lowered the demands of the law, and, now, accepts sincere, though imperfect, obedience, instead of complete conformity. This, as we shall afterwards see, is utterly inconsistent with the gospel and the work of Christ; and we have already seen that it is inconsistent with the law and the declarations of Scripture, with respect to salvation by the law. These Scriptures fully declare that whosoever will enter into life must keep the commandments, not imperfectly, though sincerely, but keep them in their utmost extent, with all the soul, heart, and mind. This way, then, of freeing men from the demands of the law, is opposed both to law and gospel.

That the law, the just and holy, and perfect law of God, was not given by him with the expectation that any of the human race would be justified by it, but that

on the contrary, it was given that by it the opposition of the mind of man to God's will and his enmity to him might be more fully proved in order to the condemnation of man, is clearly taught by the apostle PaulRom. vii. 5, &c. In this passage we see also that the law condemns men for desiring any thing contrary to it. "Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law; for I had not known lust, except the law had said, thou shall not covet," that is, I would not have known that the desire of any thing forbidden by the law is sin. Where, then, is the man who can say that he has never desired any thing contrary to the pure and holy law of God? Who can stand justified in this way? yet a sinful desire is condemnation. This view of the law convinced Paul of sin, and brought him under the sentence of death, "The commandment ordained to life, I found to be unto death."

Let philosophers and all men who speak of the moral worth of human nature, attentively consult the latter part of this chapter, and if they impartially use their understanding, I am confident they must perceive a vast difference between Paul's sentiments on this subject and their own. "For we know that the law is spiritual: but I am carnal; sold under sin. For that which I do I allow not: for what I would, that do I not; but what I hate, that do I. If then I do that which I would not, I consent unto the law that it is good. Now, then, it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me. For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing: for to will is present with me; but how to perform that which is good I find not. For the good that I would I do not: but the evil which I would not, that I do. Now if I do that I would not, it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me. I find then a law, that, when I would do good, evil is present with me. For I delight in the law of God after the inward man: but I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members. O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death? I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord. So, then, with the mind, I myself serve the law of God;

but with the flesh, the law of sin"-Rom. vii. 14-25. Now, I speak not of the natural and necessary meaning of the words and phrases separately. Without appealing to the particular decisions of the critical art, I appeal to the common understanding of learned and unlearned, to declare what is the general scope of this reasoning. Does it not evidently represent human nature as utterly sinful, and as utterly unable, not merely to keep God's law perfectly, but unable to do anything agreeable to it? How different is the general tone of the apostle's doctrine on this point, from that of the philosophers and moral writers? The sentiments of these parties so far from being by any mode of interpretation consonant to each other, are as opposite as the poles. How is it then, ye philosophers, ye scribes, ye disputers of this world, how is it that you can at all profess Christianity? surely, half the penetration that any of you possesses, would, on another subject, enable you to perceive that no two of you differ so much from one another as you all differ from Paul. How can you excuse Paul for his bold and unqualified condemnation of man? How can you brook his strong and offensive language? Though some of you may admit the fall in a qualified sense; though you may occasionally drop a concession about the injuries sustained by that event, yet you all speak of the moral worth of man, and instead of denominating him absolutely vicious, you choose rather the softer term, imperfect in wisdom and virtue. You speak of your virtuous man acting in such a manner, and as from this being confident of the approbation of his maker. Now, ye fools and blind, how is it that cannot perceive the difference between your systems, and the apostle's doctrine? Instead of moral worth, the apostle represents all men by nature as sold under sin. Speaking of himself as a natural man, and viewed without respect to the change effected on him by the truth, he says, "For we know that the law is spiritual, but I am carnal; sold under sin." Yes, this great apostle; this man whom the philosopher must recognize as virtuous from his youth; this man that the most popular theological systems must consider as religious from his cradle; this man that all must acknowledge as now a most eminent Christian, nothing behind the chief of the

you

apostles; even this man at the very time of writing these words, when he considers what he is in himself, confesses that he is sold under sin. What a difference between this man of wisdom, and the wise men of the Stoics. The Stoical wise man, seated on the proud eminence of perfect wisdom and virtue, disdains to be a debtor even to God, and, secure in the possession of his fancied elevated attainments, defies the assaults of gods and men; even the thunderbolts of Jupiter, that terrify the vulgar crowd, he despises. His happiness consists in his wisdom and virtue; for these he is indebted to none but himself; it is not then in the power of the father of the gods to dispossess him of his happiness. Now, how pusillanimous and abject are the sentiments of the apostle, compared with the sublimity of those of the philosopher? The Stoic would have considered the apostle's confession as the most unmanly whining; instead of acknowledging either sin or imperfection, he would have braved the right hand of Jupiter, and boasted of being able to retain his happiness in the ruin of worlds. Now, though modern philosophers do generally confess that the sentiments of the Stoics are overstrained; though they have considerably lowered the tone of the boastings of the wise and virtuous man; yet the Stoical wise man is still the object of their admiration, and their wise man differs from him only in the inferiority of his pretensions. Let us hear the most rational, the most modest, the most humble, and unassuming of all philosophers-Doctor Reid. Ye philosophers, I ask you this question, is there any modern system of philosophy that can put the confession of Paul into the mouth of the most imperfect of virtuous men? In what view could a philosopher consistently say, that any wise and virtuous man is sold under sin? According to their systems, in what view can this be true of the apostle, either now as one of the most eminent servants of God, or formerly, as one of the most virtuous, sincere, and religious men ?

With the most fearless confidence, ye philosophers, do I charge you with inconsistency, in admitting the Scriptures to be the word of God; you might as well attempt to harmonize the characters of God