without sin, the Son of God only excepted. And from sin being universal, we must infer that it is inbred, that the whole of it is not merely by slow degrees, acquired, (for then many would totally escape its pollution;) but natural; an evil necessarily arising from our present constitution.—That a thing is natural, when we find it to be universal, is an inference which we usually draw in other cases. I find that all men discover a propensity to take food, that they all discover a propensity to avoid pain, and pursue pleasure; and I infer that this propensity, from being universal, is not merely acquired, but natural. Did I see a particular species of trees always bearing a particular kind of bad fruit, however they were managed, and in whatever soil they were planted, I should then infer that it was natural for such trees to bear such fruit. Or to employ a more apposite illustration; if I saw a particular family uniformly afflicted with a particular disease; if the disease descended from father to son, from generation to generation, whatever might be the place of their abode, and whatever might be their circumstances, I should cer

tainly infer that this particular disease was natural to this particular family; that it was not acquired by accidental infection, but inherent in their constitution. May I not infer, then, with equal justness, that the strong propensity to sin, so apparent in all our race, in all ages, in all places, and in all circumstances, is natural likewise. If our depravity is not natural, how is it acquired? -Is it by education? Ah! how many children do we see, who have received a virtuous education, become as bad as those who have received a vicious one! How many parents, after all their wisest and kindest efforts, have reason to exclaim with the great Parent of the universe," What "could have been done more to my vine"yard that I have not done in it? Where"fore, when I looked that it should "bring forth grapes, it brought forth wild "grapes*?”—And if not by, what we commonly call, education, is it then wholly acquired by example? To account for it by example, would be accounting for depravity, by depravity itself. How come depraved

*Isaiah v. 4.

and depraving examples to be so prevalent; and how come we to be so, apt to receive their baneful influence? Were there not something radically wrong, we should not be so strongly and invariably inclined to follow what is evil, rather than what is good. If our depravity then is not originally acquired ether by education, or example, I still ask, how is it acquired? Perhaps, some will say, being driven to this as their last resort, that it is acquired from the frame and constitution of the world in which we live. Our nature, it may be said, is, in itself, innocent and good; but the world exhibits such scenes, and is full of so many and so strong temptations, and these have so powerful influence upon such weak creatures as we are, that the result is a propensity to sin and misery. But what is this but a full confession of the humbling truth which I am now endeavouring to establish. What is it but a full confession that we are much more inclined to yield to temptation than to resist it, and that we are totally unfit to act our part aright in the station assigned us by the Deity? In other words, is it not justifying this language of inspiration;-the wickedness of man is great in the

earth, and the imaginations of his heart are, naturally, evil.

But here, the self-righteous may object, that granting that all mankind are depraved, and naturally depraved, yet can they be so much so, as they have now been represented?—I reply to this, that the goodness of a moral being, is the sum total of all the moral qualities which should belong to that being; and as in the natural body, when one member suffers, the whole body suffers with it, so when one of those constituent qualities is either lost or impaired, the whole moral system is disordered. He who offends in one point, is guilty of all. He who contemns the authority of God in one instance, can never be said, while he does so, to hold it in due reverence in any other. other. And if Divine grace prevent not, this moral disease must not only always exist, but increase. The corrupt heart can never regenerate itself: without the interposition of God, all its imaginations must continue to be evil *.

* But here it may be said,-Is not this statement of the universal depravity of human nature inconsistent with the ncon

But surely man did not originally come, as he now is, from the hand of his Creator. A good God could not have made him originally evil. Accordingly, the Scriptures tell us that He made him good; in his own image, adorned with knowledge, and righteousness, and holiness. But Adam rebelled against God, lost his primeval innocence and glory, subjected himself to punishment, and with himself, all his offspring. Is this

trovertible opinion of the best and most enlightened men who, from their enlarged views of the Divine goodness, and their just estimate of the human character, maintain that there is not only more happiness than misery in the world; but likewise more virtue than vice?—To this, I answer, that the inconsistency is only apparent, for there may be more virtue than vice in the world, and yet, commonly speaking, more vicious than virtuous characters in it.-Moral character is the sum total of moral habits; and for a character to be accounted virtuous, all the habits must be on the side of virtue, whereas to make a character be reputed vicious, though not perfectly so, only one vicious habit is necessary. In the worst character the number of virtuous actions greatly exceeds that of vicious ones. For instance, the greatest liar speaks truth much oftener than falsehood, and the most cruel character acts oftener kindly than he does cruelly.-Hence, it is abundantly evident, that there may be more virtue than vice in the world, and that notwithstanding this, the number of vicious characters may vastly preponderate over the virtuous ones.-This explanation, I trust, will give, to the considerate, complete satisfaction.