cribe sin exclusively to nature?-I answer, it is truly and properly ascribed to nature, and not to circumstances, because all mankind sin in all the appropriate circumstances of their being. For all the world ascribe an effect to the nature of a thing, when no possible change in its appropriate circumstances will change the effect; or when the effect is uniformly the same in all its appropriate circumstances. To illustrate this by an example: Suppose a tree, which in one soil bears only bad fruit. Change its circumstances, transplant it to another soil, and it bears very good fruit. Now we say, and all would say, the fact that it bore bad fruit was owing to its situation,-to its circumstances; for by changing its circumstances, you have changed its fruit. Suppose now another tree, which bears bad fruit place it where you will ;-change its situation from one soil to another, dig about it and dung it, cultivate it to perfection-do what you will, it still bears bad fruit only. Now every one says, the fact is owing to the nature of the tree, the cause is in the tree, in its nature and not in its circumstances. So of mankind, change place them where you

their circumstances as you may; will within the limits of their being; do what you will to prevent the consequence, you have one uniform result, entire moral depravity. No change of condition, no increase of light nor of motives, no instructions nor warnings, no any thing, within the appropriate circumstances of their being, changes the result. Unless there be some interposition, which is not included in these circumstances, unless something be done which is above nature, the case is hopeless. Place a human being any where within the appropriate limits and scenes of his immortal existence, and such is his nature, that he will be a depraved sinner.

When therefore I say that mankind are entirely depraved by nature, I do not mean that their nature is itself

sinful, nor that their nature is the physical or efficient cause of their sinning; but I mean that their nature is the occasion, or reason of their sinning-that such is their nature, that in all the appropriate circumstances of their being, they will sin and only sin.

Of this fact, I now proceed to offer some of the proofs.

1. I allege the text. It is here to be remarked, that the Apostle does not say, nor can he mean, that the nature of man is itself sinful. He is assigning the cause of all sin, and says it is by nature. If you say that he teaches that the nature itself is sinful, then as the cause must precede its effect, you charge him with the absurdity of asserting that there is sin, before sin.

The Apostle doubtless conforms his phraseology to common usage, and must mean just what every plain man, using the same language in any similar case would mean. His language too, must be understood with such restrictions as the nature of the subject and correct usage require. How then do we understand one another when using such language? We say the lion by nature eats flesh; the ox by nature eats grass; the tree by nature bears bad fruit; and so in a thousand cases. Now we mean by this this, that the nature of the thing is such, that uniformly in all its circumstances, it will be the cause or occasion of that which we assert ;-that the lion, for example, is of such a nature that he will eat flesh. So when the Apostle asserts, that mankind are by nature sinners, he must mean simply that such is their nature that uniformly in all the appropriate circumstances of their being, they will sin. He can no more mean that the nature itself is sinful, than we can mean in the example, that the nature of the lion is the same thing as the act of eating flesh, of which it is the cause. Still less can we suppose him to authorise the inference that the act of man in sinning, is not in some most important re

spects widely different from the act of a lion in eating flesh; so different that the one is sin, and the other not. This difference, the known nature of sin obliges us to suppose, it is intended not to deny, but to assume. The resemblance is simply in the certainty of the two things, and that which occasions this certainty; though in every other respect, especially in regard to the moral freedom and moral relations of man, the very nature of the acts spoken of, and the mode in which the certainty of them is occasioned, they are so diverse that the one is a moral act and has all the requisites of a moral act; the other cannot be a moral act.* The Apostle then, using language as all other men

* With respect to the difficulty in which the doctrine of depravity by nature has been supposed to involve the free-agency of man, it may be remarked, that it can result only from a misapprehension of the terms. When we speak of the depravity or sinfulness of man by nature, no one, who correctly interprets the language, can understand us to mean that nature is the physical or effi cient cause of sin, operating by absolute and irresistible compulsion. All that can be properly understood is, that nature is the occasion of sin, as a free act. The very nature of the predicate, sin, requires the restriction of the phrase to this import. Who ever supposes when we speak of God as by nature holy, or of angels as by nature holy, that we intend that their nature is a physical cause of which holiness is a physical effect? or imagines that we intend to assert that which every one knows would annihilate the very nature of holiness? The known nature of the predicate and common sense of the speaker forbid such an interpretation. So in the present case, the Apostle cannot be understood to mean, nor can any one merely from using similar phraseology be properly or fairly understood to mean, that nature is a physical cause of which sin is a physical effect. The known nature of sin, the predicate, as a free act, is utterly at war with such a notion; we have a right to presume that no one can be so wanting in good sense as not to know this; or so uncandid as to suppose that we do not know it and assume it, or as to impute to us the opposite and palpably absurd view of sin. And as none ought ever to attribute flagrant absurdity to a writer or speaker whose language, according to cor. rect usage, and just interpretation, expresses truth and good sense, (they pervert his language if they do,) they are obliged by the laws of interpretation, to understand nature in the present case, to denote simply the occasion of sin.

use it, traces the universal depravity of men to their nature, and thus most explicitly teaches, contrary to the Arminian view, that it is not owing to circumstances. If this be not his meaning he uses language as no one else uses it, and the world, critics and all, may be safely challenged to tell what he does mean.

2. The Scriptures in many forms, teach the universal sinfulness of mankind in all the appropriate circumstances of their being.

First. They declare that "the imagination of man's heart is evil from his youth." And I need not cite passages from the word of God to show in how many forms it declares, that there is none that doeth good, no not one; that all have gone out of the way; that all depart from God and yield themselves to sin from the first moment of accountable action—sinning so early, that in the figurative language of the Scriptures they are said to "go astray as soon as they be born speaking lies." Thus God in his testimony, from the beginning to the end of it, asserts this appalling fact, the absolute uniformity of human sinfulness, throughout the world and throughout all ages. Not a solitary exception occurs. Even those who become holy through grace are not noted as exceptions, and doubtless, because the object is to describe the char

But if nature is not a physical cause of sin, but simply the occasion of sin, then since nothing but physical influence or efficiency can be supposed in the present case to be inconsistent with moral freedom, the consistency between sinning by nature and sinning freely, is apparent. Let not an objector ask, how can even this be consistent with the moral perfection of God? He starts another objection, and one, to answer which belongs to him as well as to me. One thing then at a time; and the question now is, if nature is simply the occasion of man's sinning, why may he not sin freely?—Why not, as well as if circumstances or motives were the occasion? Why not, as well as God or angels be holy by nature, and yet be free?

acter which without grace, is common to all. One character then, if God's record be true, prevails with absolute unvarying uniformity, from the fall in Eden till time shall be no longer. Let the circumstances of men be what they may, the eye of God sees and the voice of God declares that "there is no difference,-all are under sin." Now I ask, why is not the exception made-why, without intimating a single exempt case through favourable circumstances, or tracing sin in a single instance to adverse circumstances, why through all the tribes of men, is all all sin-all depravity, in all the circumstances of their existence, according to God's testimony?—If then the absolute uniformity of an event proves that it is by nature, then does this uniformity of human sinfulness prove that man is depraved by nature.

Secondly. The Scriptures teach the same thing, by asserting the universal necessity of regeneration by the Holy Spirit. "Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God." Now I ask, how can the interposition of this Divine Agent be necessary to produce holiness in man, if light and truth and motives will do it? God send the Holy Ghost to perform a work, and declare the necessity of his mission for the purpose, when it might as well be done, were there no Holy Ghost? No, Brethren. Without the transforming grace of this Divine Agent, we are all 'dead men' for eternity. It follows therefore that man is such a being, or has such a nature that he will sin in all circumstances of his being, if God does not interpose to save.

Thirdly. The reason assigned by our Lord for the neces sity of the Spirit's agency, is equally decisive." That which is born of the flesh is flesh."-If the phrase "is flesh" is equivalent to the expression, is sinful, then this passage is a decisive testimony on the point under consi