ing but selfishness. acting for his own happiness, if he seek it in the heavenly system of universal benevolence, knowing that his own happiness is connected with the happiness of his fellow men, which induces him to do justly, and to deal mercifully with all men, he is no more selfish than he ought to be. But a man. acting for his own happiness, if he seek it in the narrow circle of partiality and covetousness, his selfishness is irreligious and wicked.

To which, I reply, a man

I know it is frequently contended, that we ought to love God for what he is, and not for what we receive from him; that we ought to love holiness for holiness' sake, and not for any advantage such a principle is to us. This is what I have often been 2 told, but what I never could see any reason for, or propriety in. I am asked, if I love an orange; F answer I never tasted of one; but am told, I must love the orange for what it is! Now I ask, is it possible for me either to like or dislike the orange, in reality, until I taste it? Well, I taste of it, and like it. Do you like it? says my friend. Yes, I reply, its flavor is exquisitely agreeable. But that will not do, says my friend; you must not like it because its taste is agreeable, but you must like it because it is an orange. If there be any propriety in what my friend says it is out of my sight. A man is travelling on the sands of Arabia, he finds no water for a number of days; the sun scorches, and he is exceedingly dry; at last, he finds water and drinks to his satisfaction; never did water taste half so agreeably before. To say, that this man loves the water because it is water, and not because of the advantage which he receives from it, betrays a large share of inconsistency. Would not this thirsty traveller have loved the burning sand as well

E

as he did the water, if it had tasted as agreeably, and quenched his thirst as well? The sweet Psalmist of Israel said, "O taste and see that the Lord is good." And an apostle says, "We love him because he first loved us." What attribute do we ascribe to God, that we do not esteem on account of its advantage to us? Justice would have been no more likely to be attributed to the Almighty than injustice, if it had not first been discovered that justice was of greater advantage to mankind than injustice. And so of power, were it of no more advantage to human society than weakness; the latter would have been as likely to have been esteemed an attribute of God, as the former. If wisdom were of no greater service to man than folly, it would not have been adored in the Almighty, any more than folly. If love were no more happifying to man than hatred, hatred would as soon have been esteemed an attribute of God, as love.

Undoubtedly the Almighty loves without an influential object, as it would be erroneous to suppose that an infinite being could be operated upon. He loves because his nature is to love. An apostle says, "God is love." The sun does not shine, because our earth influences it; it is the nature of the sun to shine. But all created beings love, because of influential objects; and they always love according to the influence which objects have on their minds and passions. It seems then, says the objector, that our vices are not to be attributed to the devil, but to the influence which objects have on our minds. Surely the reader ought to expect, that after I have denied the existence of a being, I should, likewise deny his power. Perhaps, however, the reader may be surprised, to find that I do not believe in the existence of a being so univer

sally acknowledged among christian people, and which perhaps, has been of as much advantage to some, as the Goddess Dianna was to the craftsmen of Ephesus. But I am willing to give my reasons for not believing with the multitude, in this particular. A created individual being cannot be in more than one place at the same time. But how many millions of places must this evil angel be in, at once, in order to perform the business which christians have allotted him? In order for me to believe in such a being, I must give him the omnipresency of the Almighty, which belongs to none, in my opinion, but my Maker. Again, to admit the existence of such a being, would be of no avail, as there is nothing for him to do. There is, says the objector; he tempts men to sin. But does he tempt men con trary to their passions and the influence of their motives? Answer, no. Then the temptation is of no possible consequence. Supposing a man to be exceedingly hungry, and an agreeable meal is set before him, and he invited to refresh; at that moment, the devil comes and tempts him to eat. What effect would the temptation have on the hungry man? Or supposing, in room of tempting him to eat, he should tempt him not to eat, would he be likely to succeed? But what means the scripture, which speaks of a devil? one who was a liar from the beginning, &c. I answer, I have no objection to believing, that there is such a devil as the scripture speaks of. He is called the old Serpent, and is the same I have described, which beguiled the woman in the beginning; and it is the carnal mind which is enmity against God. "I will put enmity between thee and the woman," said the Lord, between her seed and thy seed." An apostle says, "The flesh lusteth against the spirit, and the spirit

against the flesh, that ye cannot do the things ye would." And, that this was the first beguiler, we may learn, from the scripture, which saith, "Lust, when it conceived, brought forth sin; and, sin when it was finished, brought forth death." An apostle also says, "When a man is tempted, he is drawn away with his own lusts, and enticed. Any person, who is wholly dictated by a fleshly mind, may justly be called a devil, as in the case of Judas and Peter. As our Lord said to the Jews, also, "Ye are of your father, the devil; and the lusts of your father, ye will do." But says the objector, do you think our Saviour was tempted by the powers of the flesh, when it was said, he was tempted by the devil? I ask in my turn, for what is this particular circumstance introduced? If we cannot prove, from our own experience, that we are tempted by some other being than our own fleshly appetites, would it be any thing more than a speculative belief, to admit another tempter? But says the objector, that does not answer the question. Then let us look at his temptations; when he hungered, he was tempted; by what? and to what? Answer, by hunger, to turn stones into bread. Here was a fleshly appetite. When he had a view of all the kingdoms of the earth, and their worldly glory, he was tempted to avail himself of them. Here was natural ambition, such as gave rise to the victories of an Alexander. When on the pinnacle of the temple, he was tempted to cast himself down, as it was written concerning him, that God would give his angels charge over him, &c. Here was that passion which gives rise to presumption, and wishes to avoid duty. But it is said, the devil taketh him about, thus and so; not literally, however, for there is no mountain in the world that commands a prospect of but a small part

of the kingdoms of the world. The exceeding high mountain on which our Redeemer stood, when he saw all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them, was the mountain of human pride. Remember, when a person is on a mountain, the mountain is beneath his feet. So was this mountain of human pride beneath the feet of our sinless Redeemer; but at the same time, it gave him a prospect of all which the world calls great and glorious. In a word, the scriptures inform us, that he was tempted in all points as we are, yet without sin. If, therefore, we know how we are tempted, we know, also, how he was tempted. It is a sentiment of mine, that we ought not to argue that for truth, in matters of this nature, which we have no knowledge of, by experience.

Having illustrated the original cause, and the secondary causes of sin, I pass to take notice of its consequences.

In order to have our work plain before us, I observe, sin is the fruits of the flesh, which are opposed to that true light, which lighteth every man who cometh into the world. And St. Paul says, they are manifest. See Gal. v. 19, 20, 21. "Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these, adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulation, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies, envying, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like." These are the sins which our fleshly minds are daily producing, and their consequences are witnessed by a miserable world. By these sins, with their associates, mankind are rendered miserable indeed. Social and domestic happiness is frequently destroyed. Cold and cruel jealousy murders the soft and tender passions of love, as Cain slew his broth