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 conscience, as well as to my own understanding and sense of propriety, and also, as I conceive, to the scriptures of divine truth, or else 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 rational. But could they 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 many, 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,

2. The original state and standing of man.

And, first, let it be observed, that there can be no sin in what exists in man originally, i. e. constitutionally; nor in all the temptations to which he is liable in that state. For sin consists not in being tempted, but in giving way to temptation. The great High Priest of our profession was capable of being touched with the feelings of our infirmities, and was tempted in all points like as we are, yet without sin. (Heb. iv. 15.) This shows that sin does not consist in temptation. The original state of man, therefore, was a state of innocence; though subject to temptation, and, through the imbecility and weakness of his nature, or want of experience, liable to err. Where, then, shall we find, or in what consisted, that original righteousness, which, it is supposed, man possessed, previous to his transgression? If this means in

nocence, it is what every child of Adam possesses when it is born into the world. But if, by original righteousness, any thing more than innocence be meant, what evidence have we that our first parents possessed it? This is often asserted, often referred to, and often appealed to, as a standing maxim in divinity; but where is the evidence on which this doctrine is predicated? I have diligently sought, but have not been able to find it.

In regard to outward circumstances, our first parents, according to the account, certainly had fewer temptations than any of the human race have had since their day, or, at least, since the giving of the law by Moses. Man has now to eat bread by the sweat of his face; whereas they were in a garden of delights, planted by the hand of their Maker, where every thing grew spontaneously for their comfort.* We are surrounded by various temptations, which assail us on every side, but from which we are both morally and religiously bound to abstain; they were both morally and religiously free, except one single prohibition! Now see the trial. Do we discover any serious struggles of conscience? any great conflict with the adversary? any attempt to resistance? No! Nothing of this kind! But no sooner were they told by that subtle deceiver, who was a liar from the beginning, that the forbidden tree was good for food; that it was to be desired; that God knew it was good to make one wise; and that they should be as gods, knowing good and evil, they take of the fruit thereof, and eat, and, seemingly, without hesitation. So far, therefore, from discovering a couple of righteous beings, struggling against sin, and with the greatest compunction of conscience, reluctantly yielding to unparalleled temptation, it looks a thousand times more like two innocent, inexperienced, and unsuspecting children led away by a deceiver; or else, perhaps, following the natural inclination of their own propensities.

As a contrast to the above, permit me to mention but one instance of the struggles and conquests of virtue

* That is, on the supposition that the account is literally true.

since that period. I shall select the memorable youth, Joseph, who was hated by his brethren on account of his dreams, as a pattern of moral virtue. See him at an early age (for he was but seventeen when his father made him the coat of many colours) taken from his father's family, and, of course, from his father's instruction, and by his wicked and treacherous brethren sold to a company of Ishmaelites, who carried him down into Egypt. Go with him to the house of Potiphar, see him sold as a slave to this military officer, in whose esteem there was nothing to recommend him but his virtue and faithfulness. See him rise, by degrees, in the esteem of his master; behold the confidence he places in him, in making him overseer of all that he hath. And now comes both his trial and triumph of virtue; and that too, over temptation unparalleled. It needs neither the pen nor the pencil to paint it; the simple fact speaks for itself; while the future imprisonment and history of Joseph is a sufficient testimony of its truth! Here is a trait of character more luminous in point of virtue and integrity, than can be shown during the original standing of Adam. And if this be not a specimen of righteousness, and even of complete holiness, what is it?

But it may be said, that Joseph had been renewed; as we read, the Lord was with him. (Gen. xxxix. 3.) Admitting this to have been the case, was he in a better condition than Adam was, while in a state of innocence? That Joseph, however, had been renewed in the sense of the orthodoxy of the present day, is much easier asserted than proved: for if he had been renewed, why have we not equal evidence that Ishmael was renewed, of whom it is said, the son of the bond-woman shall not be heir with the son of the free-woman; for it was also said of him, "God hath heard the voice of the ladand will make of him a great nation.” And again," Behold I have blessed him." (Gal. iv. 30. Gen. xvii. 20. xxi. 17, 18.) Does God hear the prayers of unrenewed men? or does he bless unrenewed men (according to the doctrine of the schools) or not? But we are not attempting to prove that other men have been either holy or righteous, since the

E

days of Adam; but only to show that Adam gave no evidence, neither is there any evidence, of his being any more holy or righteous, by nature, or in his original state, than other men.

66

There is one text, which may perhaps be brought as an objection to the above, and as proof of the original righteousness of man. (Eccl. vii. 29.) " Lo, this only have I found, that God hath made man upright; but they have sought out many inventions." Here I shall appeal to Dr. Taylor, whose erudition, as a Hebrew scholar, I am inclined to think, will not be called in question, as proof that the Hebrew word here rendered upright has no reference to any inherent righteousness or moral virtue; but would have been more properly rendered right, i. e. God made man just as he intended to make him, a rational intelligent being; capable of moral action, and yet liable to err; or, in the words of our text, God made man subject to vanity; and, of course, being subject to vanity, they have sought out many inventions. It does not necessarily follow, however, that all the inventions of men are vain; some are of a contrary character; for, man being made right, he is as capable of doing good as evil; and I must be pardoned for thinking that he is much more inclined so to do. I cannot but think, whatever may be the opinion of others, there are many more inventions in the world which are useful, and some very much so, than there are of those which are even useless, and much less, of those which are pernicious. The text under consideration, therefore, while it gives no proof of a state of original righteousness, superior to that state of innocence in which every one is born into the world, (as it will be perceived,) affords no proof of the supposed fallen state of man.*

It has been the labour of the clergy for many centuries to degrade the most noble creature of this lower crea

* The note from Dr. Taylor, which was intended to have been inserted here, (and for which I have written to my friend at New Hartford,) having not arrived, and not being able to find the work in this city, must be omitted. If it should be received in time, it will be inserted at the end of the work.