And

Thus we have laid the foundation or ground-work of our future discussion. And if the premises which we have laid are false, the whole superstructure will be a mere delusion. I mean, if our ideas are erroneous in regard to the nature and character of God, (for these are the only data which are essential to our final conclusions,) all our conclusions will be false. We may be erroneous, perhaps, in some other points, and yet our general system be correct; but if our ideas of the nature and character of God be erroneous, then our whole system of faith, being built on those ideas, must also be erroneous. these remarks will apply to all other systems in divinity, as well as to ours; and with the same or equal force. Now it will be obvious, even to the smallest capacity, who shall be capable of reading these lectures, that the character of God, as here stated, is essentially different from that which is found in all those creeds, which limit his grace to a part of the human race. Therefore, if any of those creeds be true, in this particular, our's must be false; and, vice versa, if our's be true, those must be false. And, furthermore, it appears to me, that no honest man, if he be fully convinced and persuaded in his own mind, can conscientiously do any thing either to support or propagate an error so important as the one alluded to above.

It is right, however, for all men to "prove all things, and hold fast that which is good.". The noble Bereans, of old, searched the scriptures daily to see whether these things were so; and in this they were more noble than those at Thessalonica. There is no harm, therefore, in imitating their example. But after any one shall be fully convinced, beyond all reasonable doubt, that the doctrine contained in these lectures is, generally speaking, false, I cannot ask him to support it, or do any thing to encourage it.The only favour I can ask of such ones, is, not to

E

persecute, either by word or action, those who sin cerely believe the doctrine true. And,

To conclude this lecture, let us take care that we ever give the same privilege to all, which we ask of others. We may take the liberty, and no doubt ought, to make use of every argument in our power to expose what we believe to be errour, and to propagate what we believe to be truth. But our weapons must not be carnal. Let us, therefore, use only the sword of the spirit, the word of God, which is mighty, through God, to the pulling down of strong holds.

Let us imitate our divine Lord and master, who had compassion on the ignorant, and those out of the way; meeting our brethren at all times in the spirit of meekness and brotherly love.

We have altogether the advantage of our religious opponents: for, according to the doctrine we preach, and in which we firmly believe, we must look upon them, however erroneous, and however sinful, now, as being heirs of the same eternal inheritance, subjects of the same grace, and objects of the same divine love, with ourselves. Whereas, on the other hand, and according to the doctrine which they preach, and which charity authorizes us to suppose they believe, we may be heirs of a kingdom diametrically opposite to the kingdom of Christ, in which they hope to gain admittance; for according to them, we may be subjects of endless wo, and objects of eternal hatred !— Hence, if they do not manifest all that love, all that cordiality and friendship towards us, which we feel towards them, we must impute it to the malevolence of their doctrine, rather than to the want of a good disposition.

But it shall be our aim to break down, if possible, these separating partition walls. To teach our oppo nents that we have all one common Parent, and all we are brethren. And the same God over all, is rich unto all, to whom be glory for ever. Amen.

51

LECTURE III.

For the creature was made subject to vanity, not willingly, but by reason of him who hath subjected the same in hope. Rom. viii. 20.

IT is proper to observe here, that the words in hope, in the text, not only in the Greek, but also in the Latin version, are placed in the next verse, and after the colon: and that the particle , rendered because, in the beginning of the 21st verse, is generally rendered that, and is so rendered in the 16th, 18th, and 22d verses of this very chapter. Taking thouvards in hope, therefore, into the latter member madesentence, as they stand in the original, a full and justifiable reason is given for the fact here stated, viz. the creature was made subject to vanity, not willingly, &c. in hope that the creature itself also, (or that even the creature itself,) shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God.

This glorious deliverance is not the subject of the present lecture; but will be taken up hereafter.

What is proposed this evening is, to consider the creation of man; his original state and standing; his natural and moral faculties; together with his sin and disobedience.

It must be obvious to all, even of the smallest capacity, that the original organization, or constitution of man, whatever it may have been, was just such as God was pleased to have it.

Nonentity, certainly, could not offend, Uncon,

scious matter, before it was organized into a conscious being, could not he displeasing to the Deity. Even so, man could not disobey, until he was not only conscious of his existence as a moral being, but also was made sensible of the law that was given him, and which it was his duty to keep. Man, therefore, existed in every sense as man, before he could have been a transgressor. The question now is, whether man (which is the creature here spoken of) was made subject to vanity, in his original constitution or creation, or whether he was made so afterwards, in consequence of transgression? I shall contend for the former; though the latter has been generally considered the truth.

And here, that I may not unintentionally wound the feelings of any, it may not be improper to premise a little, by apprizing the reader, (as I did the hearer,) that I shall be under the necessity of doing violence to my own consience, as well as to my own understanding and sense of propriety, and als

conceive, to the scriptures of divine truth, divine take different ground, and proceed in a very different channel, from what is 'considered orthodox in the Christian world. But whether I ought to follow the divine testimony according to my own understanding, or follow the vain traditions of men, the reader must judge.

If a person should be ordered by the government to erect a new and commodious edifice on the site of one very ancient, and perhaps almost rotten, (which, being in a tottering condition, and ready to fall of itself, must be taken down, in order to give place to the new,) the persons interested in this old building, seeing it beginning to shake, and the foundations giving way, would in all probability not only be alarmed, but also offended: for they do not yet believe that the new building will ever be erected; or, if it should be, they are apprehensive they

shall not like it so well as the old, to which they have been so long accustomed, and therefore, as this old building contains their last and perhaps only hope, they are loth to part with it. And can this be wondered at? Certainly not. It is perfectly natural. But if they could but only be convinced that the new edifice will not only be erected, but that they will have an equal interest in it, and also that it will be much better than the old, (inasmuch as it will accommodate the whole family, a quality that the old building, by man, was never thought to possess,) I say, let them be convinced of all this, and. they will not only be willing to see the old building demolished, but will help to pull it down themselves. But, (asking pardon for the above digression,) we shall return to our subject.

The creature was made subject to vanity. Now who made this creature? God? or man? Not man, certainly; for man must have been made before man could act. It is therefore equally certain that God made man subject to vanity as it is true that God made man at all.

If man was tempted, while he was in his original state, then he was subject to temptation. Did he fall? Then he was certainly fallible. Did he sin? Then he was capable of committing sin. And this too, in his first, original, and, what has been generally considered, holy state.

Now how was man tempted? The apostle James says (ch. i. 14.), "every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed." But if the first man was tempted in any other way, then here is an exception to this general rule. But if here was no exception, then it follows that our first parents were made with the same propensities which we, their children, possess. Which will bring me to consider,