that is, whenever they do not at some future period, become the subjects of sanctification. Some children also, we are taught in the scriptures, are sanctified from the womb. Yet even these in some degree, and all others in a greater degree, exhibit from the dawn of moral action, evil affections, and evil conduct. They are rebellious, disobedient, unkind, wrathful and revengeful. All of them are proud, ambitious, vain, and universally selfish. All of them particularly destitute of piety to God; the first, and far the most important exercise of virtue. They neither love, fear, nor obey him; neither admire his divine excellence, nor are thankful for his unceasing, loving kindness. Vast multitudes are taught these duties, from the commencement of childhood; yet they cannot be persuaded to perform them, by any spe

cies of instruction hitherto devised. A virtuous mind would, of course, from the mere knowledge of God; without any known law; without any other motive except what is found in his greatness, excellency, and goodness to us-admire and love, reverence and glorify Him with all the heart. But no instance of this nature can be produced. I have been employed in the education of children and youth more than thirty years, and have watched their conduct, with no small attention and anxiety. Yet among the thousands of children committed to my care, I cannot say with truth, that I have seen one, whose native character, I had reason to believe was virtuous; or whom I could conscientiously pronounce, to be free from the evil qualities mentioned above. In addition to this, it ought to be observed, that no child unspotted with sin, is mentioned in the records of history. This, I think, could not be, had the fact ever existed."

DISCOURSE VIII.

John iii. vi.-That which is born of the flesh is flesh.

In the last discourse, your attention was called to the influence of the first sin on mankind, viewed as inherent; or derivation by ordinary descent, of depraved appetite from the parent of the species. In discussing the subject, we considered particularly certain passages of Scripture; those which have a direct bearing on this topic, and whose import is clear, in respect to the particular end for which they are adduced.

Whether the testimony advanced, and it is but a bare example, teaches that the depravity in view is entire, importing an utter destitution of holiness, is not very material in regard to my object. As a qualifying circumstance however, if the fact is important, it can easily be proved by the whole scope of divine inspiration on the topic for the oracles of truth describe our sinful race, as by nature, "turned aside, every one to his own way"

-"having no fear of God before their eyes"—and as being "given up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to do those things which are not convenient;" and in words to the same effect. But it is comparatively useless, to urge the point in a formal array of evidence, as those who hold to original sin, are easily convinced, that its dominion over our nature is complete; and that nothing actually remains to the soul, in consequence of its wide spread contagion but a bare immortality.

If the discussion on the ground of scriptural proof be satisfactory, as well, as confirmed by the result of proper observation, I close what was designed with laying down

two or three propositions respecting it. And what is offered in this attempt, may be viewed, both as an inference from what is scripturally asserted, and at the same time, admitting of a more particular and ample developement.

1. First. From what is proved in the last discourse, I infer, philosophically speaking, that a propensity to moral evil is a constitutional propensity of our race.

By such a property of our moral frame, I do not mean to teach, that sin is infused into our being, in virtue of a judicial infliction: or, that in respect to its faculties, as pertaining in any manner to its own essence, sin is any thing more than an accident of the soul. But the point affirmed is simply this: that a natural tendency, bias, habit, or whatever you please to term it, is a coexistent principle of our very nature. It pertains, that is, to the first formation of it, not in a primeval state, but in a fallen state and as a co-existent principle, irrespective of the particular circumstances, in which you can imagine it placed by God, will certainly lead on to sinful gratification.*

*The zeal which has been arrayed of late against the phrase physical depravity, as occurring in old writers, (adopting it in a particular sense in opposition to Arminianism,) is very singular and most of all, that it should be garbled with to the admiration of thousands, who were wholly ignorant of its use in this manner; and prosecuted with such life by a class of men, who profess to embrace in substance, the very creed which they inculcated!

But to my own mind, it appears, on the whole, a perfect piece of logomachy; at least, as called up by those who professedly admit that almighty power is requisite to change the heart. Making all allowance for our ignorance of metaphysical causation, or keeping in the range of sober inquiry, it is easily perceived, that the quality of an action may be considered apart, either from the subject, mode, or the act itself, The sinfulness of an act arising from its illegality, may be viewed as

In taking this position, we are countenanced, as thought, by a kind of analogical reasoning, which on topics of this nature, is wholly unexceptionable. This, I should suppose, can be made very apparent. It involves merely one principle, viz., "That that propensity belongs to the nature of any being, which is a certain consequence of its nature, in the circumstances in which it naturally is.” And what can be more obvious indeed, or even with the more captious, demand the immediate assent of an enlightened mind?

In applying this principle to any other subject of inquiry, we have no difficulty whatever in admitting its force. Take, for example, the properties of our nature which are confessedly constitutional. So far as they

foreign from the action; as certainly, no doubt, as many other qualities of acts performed by the soul which may be suggested: as much so, for example, as the qualities derived naturally from its simplicity, spirituality, incorruptibility, or any inherent attribute it may possess. The difference between the act of an agent, and the sinfulness of it, is shewn in a deranged person, who, in virtue of mental deprivation, may blaspheme his Maker: hut while the act abides the same, as its opposition to law, in that instance disappears, the sinfulness of it no more exists. It may also be elucidated, though in a humble analogy, by 'a respect to material bodies, which daily retain qualities separable from their nature; as, for instance, the quality of heat in a man's hand, or in the atmosphere he shall inhale. But this may be quite sufficient. It is hardly necessary to say, that the distinction between the act of any being and the sinfulness of it, should be retained for a very important purpose, viz., it may equally preserve the independence and sanctity of our Maker as concerned with the affairs of a corrupt race. in regard to that concurrence in human events, which pertains to his providential rule, it follows in its proper bearing on the creature, that God is not the author of any act, viewed complexly, as a sinful act; but that the qualifying epithet, derives its existence and importance purely in a relative respect to law.

For

See Wesselii Diss. Acad. XX. de natura 'Peccati; et Wesselii Præf.