same pleasure as the fragrant rose. I admit that the nearer objects approximate to each other in likeness, or value, the difference in their choice will be proportionably less; but they must be exactly alike in order to be rendered perfectly indifferent. And as long as there is a choice, although it may take but little to alter it, yet without that little, the choice is as certain to be followed as though the difference were ever so great. For if the difference were ever so great, the choice could be no more than certain to be followed; and if it be ever so little, it will be certainly followed, unless something be flung in to turn the scale; in which case it would not be followed, though the difference should have been ever so great.

These observations show that our actions are as much limited in a moral sense as they are in a natural; and if limited in themselves, they must be limited in their consequences, so far as they depend at all on us as their natural or moral causes.

Of these facts there could not remain even the shadow of a doubt, were there no scripture to support them; (and especially, there being no scripture against them ;) but I shall be able to show that this doctrine is as scriptural as it is reasonable. "It is not in man that walketh to direct his steps." (Jer. x. 23.) "A man's heart deviseth his way, but the Lord directeth his steps." (Prov. xvi. 9.)

Now we know that, in a certain limited sense, a man does direct his steps; and he can be said to do this with as much propriety as he can be said to do any thing, or that he is a moral accountable being.— But yet there must be a sense in which he does not direct his steps, and this is the only sense in which the above passages can be considered true. Now in what sense can this be? Unless it be in relation to those consequences which are entirely hidden from man, and therefore he has no design about them, I am unable to tell in what sense it can be. The Lord

so directed the steps of Joseph's brethren, that by their means Joseph become lord of Egypt, whereby much people were kept alive. This was what those

wicked brethren by no means devised. Thus their wicked hearts devised their way, but the Lord directed their steps.

From the above, it will be seen that all the moral faculties of man are as limited, in their very nature, as his natural faculties: and hence, the consequences of all our moral actions, whether in themselves good or evil, are as limited as the consequences of our natural actions, which we know, or at least have every reason to believe, are limited to time; and, so far as it respects the individual who performs them, to his own natural life. But we shall see more of this in our next discourse.

4. It is admitted that all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God, (i. e. in the sense of scripture ;) yet, nevertheless, we must except him who knew no sin, but was holy, harmless, and undefiled.So we can truly say, in the language of the prophet, "All we, like sheep, have gone astray-and the Lord hath laid on him the iniquity of us all." (Isa. liii. 6.) But if it be clearly indicated in the scriptures that there are some who have not sinned, we are under no more necessity, from the above quoted passage, of supposing that each individual of the human race has sinned, than we are of supposing, from a similar passage, that each individual of Judea and Jerusalem went out to John, and were baptised of him in Jordan. We have no evidence that either Enoch or Elijah ever committed sin; but the evidence is much more clear that they did not, being exempted, so far as we know to the contrary, from all the consequences of sin; even from death, the wages of sin. And it is unreasonable to suppose that children, (I mean infants,) although they are subject to death, ever commit sin: Christ says, "of such (i. e. while in a state

of infancy) is the kingdom of heaven." He says nothing about their repentance; and it is difficult to conceive how that they are capable of repenting, or that they have any thing to repent of; yet of such is the kingdom of heaven.

It has been difficult for many to account for the suffering which those little innocents often endure, without admitting that, in some sense or other, they are sinners. Hence, while some have supposed them guilty of Adam's transgression, or what is commonly called original sin, (the absurdity of which has already been shown,*) others, to get rid of that absurdity, have run into another, equally glaring.The idea to which I allude appears to have been borrowed from the Egyptian, Pythagorean, or Platonean philosophy, and, like many other absurd notions, has been incorporated by some into the Christian faith.

This hypothesis supposes that all mankind have existed in some prior state, of which we have now no knowledge or recollection, and in that state became transgressors, i, e. sinned; in consequence of which, this world was made, and we were sent here to inhabit mortal bodies as a punishment for the sins we, as individuals, committed in this pre-existing state. This sentiment has been stated at large in a work entitled, "The Science of Sanctity," published not many years since by a learned clergyman in the state of New Hampshire, and is still held by some, as has been understood, even in this city; but it is a supposition, resting more on hypothesis than any solid argument, or evidence from the scriptures. It requires little more than barely to be stated, to be exploded by every rational being who is determined to believe nothing without first seeing sufficient evidence (either directly, or else from the analogy of things) in its favour.

* See the note pages 57, 58, and 59.

The above hypothesis appears to me about as rational as it would be for a parent to correct and punish his children for supposed crimes which they committed in their infancy, or before their remembrance; or, at least, which they have no recollection at the time they receive the punishment! The children are sensible of suffering, but they know not for what! If there be any justice in such kind of punishment, I know not on what principle it rests. But as few, I apprehend, will ever undertake to defend a scheme so chimerical, I shall say no more respecting it.

To defend the propriety of suffering humanity, even where there is neither sin nor guilt in the individual who suffers, and reconcile it with the divine. benevolence, even to that very individual, it is only necessary to suppose, that some good, in some way or other, though at present it may be entirely beyond the understanding of mortals to conceive how, will be the result of such suffering; or, at least, the suffering may be necessary to prepare the mind for those future joys prepared for the sufferer, and without which they could not be so fully realized. It may be asked here, what evidence have we of this? Answer: The evidence arises from the nature of God, and the analogy of things.

It is believed that God, although omnipotent, could no more make human nature, without subjecting it to all the evils naturally incident to human nature, than he could make two hills without a valley between them. If we are at liberty to suppose that natural death was included in the denunciation of God against sin, which seems to be the plain scriptural account, and which but few will attempt to deny, then the sinner's being still permitted to live, and procreate his species, notwithstanding they are all subject to death, as he was, must be considered a matter of pure favour; for had the sentence been executed immediately, man would have

*

been extinct at once, and would have so remained, as he now will remain, were it not for a future resurrection. It is possible, however, after all, that the sentence of death was executed, only by withholding the tree of life, and not by making any change in the original constitution of man. For whatever we are to understand by the tree of life, it seems that man, by taking it, might have lived for ever. For the Lord said, "Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil. And now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever; therefore the Lord God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken." (Gen. iii. 22, 23.) As the tree of life is brought in remembrance again at the close of the book of Revelation, which is to bear twelve manner of fruits, and yield her fruit every month, (whose leaves will be for the healing of the nations, Rev. xxii. 2,) it is reasonable to suppose that this tree, whatever is to be understood by it, will support the eternal existence of man: but, being deprived of it, in consequence of sin, he was left to languish and die. But it may be proper to remark further, that, in every sense in which death must now be considered as unavoidable, i. e. by us, in no such sense is it designed as a punishment for our sins. It might have been considered in the nature of punishment to Adam, to know that he had been the means of introducing death into the world, by reason of sin and disobedience, but no punishment to the innocent sufferers, who did not sin after the similitude of Adam's transgression. So, in like manner, the man who brings distress and misery on his family by reason of his own sin, dissipation and wickedness, the distress and misery of his family is

*It is believed that man, in his original and present constitu tion is naturally mortal.