SERMO N.

EPHESIANS 11. 3.

And were by nature the children of wrath even as others.

The Bible is a plain book. It speaks, especially on the subject of sin, directly to human consciousness; and tells us beyond mistake, what sin is, and why we sin. In the text, the Apostle asserts the fact of the moral depravity of mankind, and assigns its cause. To be "the children of wrath" is to possess the character which deserves punishment; in other words, it is to be sinners, or to be entirely depraved in respect to moral character. The text then teaches; THAT THE ENTIRE MORAL DEPRAVITY OF

MANKIND IS BY NATUure.

In illustrating this position, I shall attempt to show, First, In what the moral depravity of man consists; and Secondly That this depravity is by nature.

I. By the moral depravity of mankind I intend generally, the entire sinfulness of their moral character,—that state of the mind or heart to which guilt and the desert of wrath pertain. I may say then negatively,

This depravity does not consist in any essential attribute or property of the soul-not in any thing created in man by his Maker. On this point, I need only ask,does God create in men a sinful nature, and damn them for the very nature he creates ? Believe this, who can.

Nor does the moral depravity of men consist in a sinful nature, which they have corrupted by being one with Adam, and by acting in his act. To believe that I am one and

the same being with another who existed thousands of years before I was born, and that by virtue of this identity I truly acted in his act, and am therefore as truly guilty of his sin as himself,-to believe this, I must renounce the reason which my Maker has given me; I must believe it also, in face of the oath of God to its falsehood, entered upon the record.*

Nor does the moral depravity of men consist in any con stitutional propensities of their nature. Whoever supposed himself or others to be guilty, for being hungry or thirsty after long abstinence from food or drink; or merely for desiring knowledge, or the esteem of his fellow-men, or any other good, abstractly from any choice to gratify such desires? Who does not know that a perfectly holy man must be subject to all these propensities? The man Christ Jesus was subject to every one of them, for he "was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin."

Nor does any degree of excitement in these propensities or desires, not resulting in choice, constitute moral depravity. Suppose them then, in the providence of God, excited in any degree, and yet the man to prefer doing the will of God to their gratification; all will admit that it is the noblest act of obedience conceivable in a moral being. All will agree, that the man, who always triumphs over excited propensity, who duly subordinates all his desires of inferior good to the will of God, is a perfect man. It is the uniform sentiment of inspired truth, that this ruling of the spirit, this government of himself, imparts unrivalled glory to his character. We add the express declaration of the Apostle; "Blessed is the man that endureth temptation."

Nor does the moral depravity of men consist in any disposition or tendency to sin, which is the cause of all sin. It is

*Ezek. xviii. 3, 4.

important on this point to guard against error from the ambiguity of terms. There is an obvious distinction between a disposition or tendency to sin, which is prior to all sin, and a sinful disposition. I am not saying then, that there is not, what with entire propriety may be called a disposition or tendency to sin, which is the cause of all sin; nor that there is not, as a consequence of this disposition or tendency, what with equal propriety may be called a sinful disposition, which is the true cause of all other sin, itself excepted. But I say, that that which is the cause of all sin, is not itself sin. The cause of all sin itself sin! Whence then came the first sin? Do you say, from a previous sin as its cause? Then you say, there is a sin before the first sin. Our first parents and fallen angels were once holy. Tell us now, whence came their first sin? Do you still repeat, from a previous sin? And what sort of philosophy, reason or common sense, is this a sin before the first sin-sin before all sin?-Do you say there must be difficulties in theology?—I ask must there be nonsense in theology ?*

* The embarrassment which in some minds attends this part of the subject, seems to result from the different senses in which the word disposi tion is used. That this word, like most others, is used in different senses, is undeniable; sometimes denoting simply tendency or bias, and sometimes, the moral temper, the governing affection or predominant inclination of the mind. The manner of its use, however, if correct, always shews in which sense it is used. Thus if we speak of a disposition to sin, in the way of accounting for all sin, the case shews that we use the word simply in the sense of tendency; or as Edwards says, "a prevailing liableness or exposedness to such an event." For by the very mode of speaking, the disposition and the sin are so distinguished as to shew that we cannot mean, that the disposition is itself sin; it being spoken of as the cause of all sin. But if we speak of a sinful or wicked disposition, or a worldly disposition, or an avaricious dispo sition, or of a disposition as the cause of specific sinful acts, or if in any oth er way, we imply its sinfulness by our mode of speaking, then the predicate shews that we intend a state of mind which includes preference,--a supreme

The question then still recurs, what is this moral depravity for which man deserves the wrath of God? I answer it is man's own act, consisting in a free choice of some object rather than God, as his chief good-or a free preference of the world and of worldly good, to the will and glory of God.

In support of these views of the subject, I now appeal to the testimony of some of the ablest divines, of Apostles, and of common sense.

Says Calvin, speaking of our text, "our nature is there characterized, not as it was created by God, but as it was vitiated in Adam; because it would be unreasonable to make God the author of death."* Again, "natural depravity is not a substantial property originally innate, but can be imputed to none but man himself."-He says of sin expressly, "it is voluntary.""If they are convicted of any fault, the Lord justly reproaches them with their own perverseness." "He who sins necessarily, sins no less voluntarily."

The Westminster divines say, that "every sin both original and actual being a transgression of the righteous law of God &c." I ask, is not transgression, action? is it not something done, and done knowingly and voluntarily ?

Dr. Bellamy, speaking of the sinful propensities of man, says "they are not created by God with the essence of the soul, but result from its native choice, or rather, more strictly, are themselves its native choice. They are not natural in the same sense in which the faculties of our souls are; for they are not the workmanship of God but are our native choice, and the voluntary, free, spontaneous bent of our hearts."

or governing affection of the heart. Such, it is supposed beyond all question, is the usus loquendi; a due attention to which would have saved some theologians from no trivial amount of absurdity.