Thus he addresses Christians-"Dearly beloved, I beseech you, abstain from fleshly lusts which war against the soul." 1 Pet. ii. 11. On the same principle James accounts for our temptations. "Every man is tempted when he is drawn away of his own lust and enticed. Then when lust hath conceived it bringeth forth sin; and sin when it is finished bringeth forth death." James i. 14, 15.

That we derived from Adam such properties of animal nature as exposed him to temptation, 1 freely admit. From him we derived the animal appetites, propensities and passions, from which arise those desires, called fleshly lusts, But from the manner in which these are spoken of by Paul, I infer that they are not in themselves sinful; yet they expose us to temptation and sin, as we are assured they did the first human pair. They constitute the "outward man," the "self" to be denied in obedience to the gospel. Had they been properly denied by our first parents, we should never have heard of their transgression; and had they been properly denied by us, we should never have transgressed. If Adam became a selfish being by indulging his animal propensities in a forbidden manner, so we may suppose it has been with all his posterity.

It is, however, true, that in a figurative sense our fleshly propensities are spoken of as evil or sinful, because they are the occasion of temptation and sin, and are commonly indulged in the practice of iniquity. But in the same figurative sense the most valuable and important members of the body are represented as evil or sinful. "The tongue is a fire, a world of iniquity, an unruly evil, full of deadly

poison." James, iii. 6, 8. The poison of asps is under their lips. Their mouths are full of cursing and bitterness. Their feet are swift to shed blood." Rom. iii. 13, 14, 15. "Your hands are full of blood.' Isa. i. 15. "Having eyes full of adultery, that cannot cease from sin." 2 Pet. ii. 14.

But who will deny that all these members of the body, to which such evils are ascribed, are in themselves innocent and useful, and favors for which we should be very thankful to God? To the same divine benignity we should ascribe all the constitutional properties of human nature, prior to their being perverted and corrupted by voluntary disobedience. On this hypothesis the wickedness of man appears indeed far more odious and inexcusable than on any other which was ever presented to my mind. Yet at the same time I have the pleasure of beholding the gloomy cloud of man's liability to sin irradiated by beams of divine benignity.

On the commonly admitted hypotheses that God is perfectly and unchangeably wise and good, and that our first parents were holy beings prior to their apostacy, it has been deemed difficult if not impossible to account for the origin of evil or the first sin of the first man. But if I have given a rational account of the origin of human selfishness, I have also accounted for the origin of moral evil in the human family. Nor am I without a hope that this has been done in a manner which implies no impeachment of the wisdom or the goodness of our Creator, and which shows that neither a sinful nature nor the displeasure of God are at all necessary to account for the first transgression of Adam, or the first sin of any of his posterity.

CHAP. VI.

The Moral Disease as explained by the Messiah.

Physicians may be agreed in the fact that a person is affected with a dangerous natural disease, and yet differ as to its precise nature, its origin or predisposing causes, and also in respect to the proper remedies. One may be of the opinion that the disease was hereditary; another that it was imported from a foreign clime; a third, that it had its origin in uncleanliness or intemperance. A similar agreement and disagreement may exist among ministers of religion in regard to the moral disease which is so prevalent among mankind. The disagreement may have resulted from a want of due attention to what was said on the subject by the great Physician of souls. As he came to save us from our sins, it is reasonable to suppose that he did not fail to teach all that he deemed essential to be understood or believed by us, in reference to the nature, the origin and the proper remedies of our disease. If it radically consists in a derived sinful nature, inflicted by Divine displeasure on all the posterity of Adam, we may reasonably expect to find this view of the matter explicitly stated or clearly implied in some of the sermons, parables or conversations of our Savior. Especially so, if a belief in the doctrine be essential to saving faith, or that faith which worketh by love and purifies the heart. The same remarks may be applicable to every other hypothesis relating to the subject. Considering the character of Christ

as the faithful and true witness, and his avowed errand into the world, the expectation of finding somewhere in what is recorded of his teaching the views which are essential to the christian character and a correct faith, seems to me perfectly reasonable. What then did our Lord teach relating to the sinfulness of mankind?

In examining the writings of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, I have found the name of Adam once only. Luke traced the genealogy of the Messiah from Joseph, his supposed father, back to "Adam, who was the son of God." This is the only instance in which Adam is named in either of the Four Gospels. In all that these four writers have recorded of what was spoken by Christ, in his sermons, parables or conversations, I have not been able to find the least allusion to the sin of Adam or its moral consequences; and, so far as I have discovered, he was equally silent in regard to ar hereditary sinful nature transmitted by generation. It does not appear that he found any occasion to resort to such an hypothesis to account for human transgressions, or the ungrateful manner in which his messages were received by the unbelieving Jews. Several of his parables are supposed to have a direct reference to the manner in which the gospel message was treated during his own ministry; and in speaking on the subject he brings to view the nature of that depravity which occasioned his message to be so lightly esteemed.

In the parable of the great supper we are told that many were invited, who "with one consent began to make excuse. One had bought a piece

of ground, and he must go and see it. Another had purchased five yoke of oxen, and he must go to prove them. A third said, "I have married a wife and therefore I cannot come.

-

So in the parable of the marriage supper of the king's son, many guests were invited. But they all made light of it; and one went to his farm and another to his merchandise." In the parable of the sower, as explained by the Messiah himself, the hearers of the gospel are divided into four classes: The first class is represented by one who hears but does not understand, or does not consider or regard what he hears. The second class is made up of those who at first hear with joy, and seem to promise fair; but having "no root in themselves," no real relish for the truth, or disposition to obey it, endure but for a time. For when peril or persecution comes, they relapse or fall away. — The third class is composed of those who, while hearing the word, have their minds so occupied with the cares of the world, the allurements of wealth, and the lust of other things, that the word is choked and rendered unfruitful. Or as Luke reports the explanation, "When they have heard, they go forth and are choked with the cares and riches and pleasures of this life, and bring no fruit to perfection."- What could be more natural than these representations, as they apply to a great portion of those who hear the gospel at the present day? But there is another class of hearers.-The fourth class is made up of persons "who in an honest and good heart, having heard the word, keep it, and bring forth fruit with patience, some thirty, some sixty, and some a hundred fold.”