"whom we speak! How little remorse of our own "miseries! How little taste of the sweet influence "of his tender mercies do we feel! Are we not as "unwilling many times to begin, and as glad to make

66

an end, as if in saying, call upon me, he had set us 66 a very burthensome task? It may seem somewhat "extreme, which I will speak; therefore let every one "judge of it, even as his own heart shall tell him, and "no otherwise; I will but only make a demand:-If "God should yield unto us, not as unto Abraham:-)

66

-If

fifty, forty, thirty, twenty, yea, or if ten good persons "could be found in a city, for their sakes that city "should not be destroyed: but, and if he should make

66

us an offer thus large; search all the generations of "men, since the fall of our father Adam, find one

66

man that hath done one action, which hath past "from him pure, without any stain or blemish at all, "for that one man's only action neither man nor "angel shall feel the torments which are prepared for "both. Do you think that this ransom, to deliver "men and angels, could be found to be among the sons of men ? The best things which we do have "somewhat in them to be pardoned. How then can "we do any thing meritorious, or worthy to be re"warded? Indeed, God doth liberally promise what

66

66

66

soever appertaineth to a blessed life, to as many as

sincerely keep his law, though they be not exactly "able to keep it. Wherefore, we acknowledge a duti"ful necessity of doing well; but the meritorious dignity of doing well we utterly renounce. We see how far from the perfect righteousness of the

"law; the little fruit which we have in holiness, it is, "God knoweth, corrupt and unsound: we put no con"fidence at all in it, we challenge nothing in the world "for it, we dare not call God to reckoning, as if we "had him in our debt books: our continual suit to "him is, and must be, to bear with our infirmities, "and pardon our offences.” (x)

But many will say in opposition to all this, We • admit the fact of the great, though not universal, wickedness that prevails in the world: but we cannot 'assent to what you give as the Natural History of ⚫ it. We do not think it inseparable from man's pre'sent nature, but an accidental acquisition; we do not ❝ ascribe it to the influence of an hereditary taint, but • conceive it to be the effect of imitation and custom, of acquired habit, of corrupt example, of injudicious tuition.' This, by the way, is only saying in other words, that depravity is the effect of depravity. Let us, however, examine the matter a little more closely. That vile passions may in some be the result of im proper tuition or of imitation, I have no inclination to deny; but they cannot always be referred to such an origin. How often do we see children in the veriest infancy exhibit strong and unquestionable indications of boisterous tempers, of obstinacy, or impatience? How often do children of the most pious parents, who are so brought up as during the first six or seven years of their lives, never to witness any species of crime, any instances of ingratitude, of falsehood, or deception, or any indulgence in irascible passions, furnish painful (x) Hooker's Discourse on Justification, § 7.

proofs that they can be deceivers, wilful liars, ungrateful, passionate, malignant, and unforgiving? These instances, I will venture to say, occur very frequently when it is impossible to ascribe them to imitation. But suppose the contrary were admitted, the opposers of the Scriptural doctrine would gain nothing by the concession. For of whom could a child acquire iniquity by imitation, but of some one who was born before him? And whom did that person imitate, but some one born before him? And where must this series terminate? If you say any where short of the first man, you have to account for the remarkable phenomenon of sin's making its first inroad at the identical time, and fixing upon the identical person you have selected; and this will be found infinitely more difficult than extending the series to the great progenitors of the human race. Besides, does not the very circumstance of an aptitude to imitate evil, and rather to imitate evil than good, indicate something like that hereditary taint, which it is brought forward to contravene and supersede? Can an inherent tendency to imitate evil, an undeviating propensity to slide into vice, (unless the strong hand of moral discipline, or the suasive influence of Divine grace, prevents,) be fairly or rationally ascribed to any thing less than such a cause as that with which the Bible makes us acquainted? Pursuing this train, you will see that the Scriptural solution of the difficulty before us is reasonable; and that it has the farther advantage of showing, that moral evil was not, as some have been presumptuous enough to assert, produced by the Creator, but con

tracted by the creature, who, though he was endowed with "power to stand, was free to fall." (y)

Sceptical writers, who are solicitous either to destroy or diminish the authority of the sacred records, have usually selected three points at which to attack the Mosaic account of the Fall of Man. 1st. They ask, why was so strange an act of obedience as that of refraining from eating a particular fruit, exacted of Adam and Eve? 2dly. How could eating that fruit destroy the perfection of their nature, and entail guilt and misery upon themselves and their latest posterity? 3dly. Why should the earth be cursed for the transgression of man?

Supposing we were not able to furnish satisfactory answers to these questions, that circumstance would not justify any person in withholding his assent to the portion of sacred history to which they relate. "Secret

(y) Let it be recollected, however, that though our defection is a necessary consequence of the fall of our first parents, it by no means follows that if they had continued upright, we should. The notion of a covenant "that Adam should stand as well as fall for himself and his posterity," appears to me totally unsupported by Scripture. We obviously suffer by his fall; and, if he had stood, we might have been benefited by it in some way: yet some of his progeny, we know not how early or how late, might, by virtue of their freedom, have introduced sin and all its miserable attendants into the world. In this view it would rather seem that the fall of the first pair was a benefit to mankind; because the partial though extensive introduction of sin, might have caused many to perish irretrievably, there being no provision for their escape; whereas the foreseen universality of the disorder led, in the exuberance of the Divine mercy, to the gracious plan which furnishes us with a universal and all-sufficient remedy. But on such a topic it behoves us to speak with reverence: I have ventured simply to suggest this thought, because I have found it tend to remove from the minds of well-disposed but undecided men, one of their greatest objections to the doctrine of "the fall."

66

"things belong unto God:" and though he has been graciously pleased to reveal unto us every thing essential to our well-being here, and that is calculated to invite and draw us to eternal felicity hereafter, we have no reason to expect that all the questions, doubts, and speculations, which might be started by ingenious men should be cleared up by immediate revelation. When an apostle indulged in useless inquiries, the reply of his Master was, "What is that to thee? follow thou me;" (x) and if Jesus were speaking to many querists in our days, he might employ similar language. The difficulties, however, to which the present ques tions relate are by no means insurmountable. To the first it may be replied, that none but God can be absolutely independent: that dependance in a creature, without some criterion or test of that dependance, is unintelligible, or, in truth, a contradiction; because it ould in such case become with regard to that creature state of independence; that in a free and rational reature this test of dependance should be such as would often remind him of his dependance, and lead him to acknowledge it; that this acknowledgment could only be by obedience, that is, by some restraint of natural liberty; that the first and only man and woman upon earth could not be guilty of any of the crimes which arise from the connexion of human beings with society-were safely prevented by mutual affection, from committing any crime with regard to each other—and could therefore only sin by infringing upon the obedience due to their Maker. It seems (x) John, xxi. 22.