and the devil, as to harmonize your systems with the apostle's doctrine. No two systems of the many that have been given to ascertain in what virtue consists, are as different from one another as all these systems are from the Bible. Whether philosophers place virtue and wisdom in sympathy or benevolence, utility, or the will of the magistrate, or in acting agreeably to the dictates of conscience, all agree in this, that man by the proper use of his own faculties may arrive at such degrees of wisdom and virtue as raise him to the most elevated rank, and secure the approbation and reward of his maker. Can this be denied to be common to the systems of Haller, and Hume, and Hutchinson, and Smith, and Reid, and the authors of every philosophical system of the human mind that has obtained any name in the world? If so, am I rash in asserting in the most unqualified manner, that all these systems are fundamentally erroneous; and am I rash in saying, that either our philosophers are not judges of human nature, or that our apostles were not? Where is the philosopher who would not be ashamed to talk of himself as the apostle did; such representations of human nature would hurt his delicate sensibilities for the honour of virtue. To attempt to utter such phrases, as sold under sin, would absolutely choke him. Though there is no eminent philosopher with whom I am acquainted who spoke so modestly of the pretensions of human virtue as Doctor Reid; though he can preserve his gravity and his temper in reasoning through hundreds of pages against all the madness and extravagance of those philosophers who denied the creation of the world; yet when he comes to speak of those who deprived men of all pretensions to merit, his venerable old face kindles into a blaze; yet this venerable philosopher, instead of considering himself at variance with the apostles, is even solicitous to introduce an observation in favour of Christianity. Like almost no other philosopher he speaks frequently of Jesus and the apostles, and he never speaks of them or the Scriptures but with the utmost reverence. He frequently adopts the Scripture phraseology, supports his reasoning sometimes by Scripture authority, and quotes large portions

from the Scriptures. After all, agreeably to this philosopher's views, how could the apostle say, "That which I do, I allow not; for what I would that do I not; but what I hate that do I." Could Dr. Reid have adopted this language to confess his sentiments of himself? How much less could he have adopted the still more humbling language, “For I know that in me, that is in my flesh, dwelleth no good thing; for to will is present with me, but how to perform that which is good I find not," &c.? Surely, then, our wise men are at variance with the Scriptures. It behoves them, instead of exerting themselves to prove Christianity, to overturn its authority before they attempt to establish their own systems. The wisdom of this world cannot consist with the wisdom of God. Either the doctrine of the Apostles or the systems of the philosophers must fall. Could the authors or abettors of any of the philosophical systems say, "In me, that is in my flesh, dwelleth no good thing"? The phrase, in my flesh, as may be seen by tracing it through the New Testament, imports in me by nature. The apostle's meaning, then, evidently is, there is naturally in me nothing good. Yes, ye philosophers, this most eminent Christian confesses that there was nothing in himself good, yet ye make the virtue of your virtuous man to be in himself, and to be his own proper production. It is the foundation of his merit, and of his expectation of reward. You suppose men capable of such degrees of virtue, by the proper exercise of their natural talents, as render them worthy of the attention, approbation, and reward of God. The Stoics could see no object more worthy of the attention of the greatest of their gods, than a just or virtuous man struggling under adversity. If the tone of modern philosophers is a little lowered (and in some it is not lowered), they still think that the virtuous man may throw himself on the justice rather than on the mercy of his Maker. I beseech all men to compare their views of themselves and of human nature with those of the apostle expressed in this passage. Certainly the great bulk of the world have not as humbling sentiments of their own state as the Apostle had of his. Let them think with themselves, then, whether the error is with him or with them.

But, if we wish to know the apostle's mind upon this important subject, let us examine the three first chapters of this epistle to the Romans, where he professedly set himself to prove, from fact and from the Old Testament Scriptures, the very point which I am now proving. To show that there is no possibility of salvation to any of the human race by works of law, he proves that all the world is become guilty before God. His meaning depends not upon single expressions or phrases, capable of being softened or otherwise understood. The whole scope and intention of his professed subject unambiguously holds forth his sentiments. He there, as obviously and as avowedly proves, the universal guilt and condemnation of men, as I am now attempting to prove these. In the first chapter he declares that in the gospel the wrath of God is revealed from Heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who hold the truth in unrighteousness. He shows that those nations who have not been favoured with the light of revelation are without excuse; for the works of God sufficiently declare his eternal power and Godhead. He declares that with professions of wisdom they became fools; and from the worship of God turned away to the most abject idolatry. For this cause, he assures us, God gave them over to the commission of abominations, that will for ever be the disgrace of human nature. Shall our philosophers boast of the virtuous propensities of our nature, when the wisest and most polished nations in the world, (at a time when ethical philosophy was the study and the boast of many sects with innumerable disciples,) have been given over to crimes so contrary to nature that they are almost incredible, and so abominable that they cannot be named-shall we hear of the virtues of human nature, when we know from history, and more authentically from Scripture, that men in general were devoted to these foul practices? Kings, statesmen, philosophers, orators, poets unblushingly speak of them as men devoted to these abominations. Virgil, the poet-that for virtuous sentiment is the boast even of the modern friends of virtue-unblushingly celebrates the unnatural passion, and pollutes his pages with imagery of his

favourite lays. According to the testimony of historians, this abomination was quite common. Roman emperors were given to it.

Several of the Socrates himself

has been charged with it; and the defences of his friends do not appear entirely satisfactory.

The apostle informs us that "even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient. Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers, backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, without understanding, covenant breakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful; who, knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same but have pleasure in them that do them." Now this is the picture of human nature in general. He is not referring to the character of individuals; but, by stating the general character of men, he shows that they are all under condemnation. He next proceeds, in the second chapter, to bring the Jews under the same condemnation; and concludes, in the third, that Jews and Gentiles were guilty before God. "What then? Are we better than they? No, in no wise for we have before proved both Jews and Gentiles, that they are all under sin. As it is written, There is none righteous; no, not one. There is none that understandeth; there is none that seeketh after God. They are all gone out of the way; they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good; no, not one. Their throat is an open sepulchre: with their tongues they have used deceit: the poison of asps is under their lips; whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness; their feet are swift to shed blood; destruction and misery are in their ways; and the way of peace have they not known. There is no fear of God before their eyes. Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law, that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God. Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight; for by the law is the knowledge

E

race.

of sin." Here we have the apostle's interpretation, with respect to the application and intent of the portions of the Old Testament that condemn the human He is careful to prevent the Jew from supposing that such passages apply only to heathens, or some very wicked people. What the law saith, it saith to them that are under the law; consequently this character must affix to all the Jews as well as to all the Gentiles. Now the end that the law has in view in giving this testimony is, that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God. But ye philosophers and ye Scribes, it seems that your mouths will not even yet be stopped. That you will still reply against the law and the prophets, against Christ and the apostles. The latter testify that all are guilty; you as flatly assert the contrary. I call upon all who are acquainted with the various writings on moral philosophy to consider whether the mouths of the sages are yet stopped-whether they do not still speak great swelling words of vanity—whether they do not still consider man on a good footing, and speak of his obtaining happiness here and hereafter by the proper use of his active powers. Are the mouths of the divines all stopped-do they not at this day as generally oppose this doctrine of the apostle as the Scribes and Pharisees did of old? Ask them if all the world is become guilty before God. They may not so flatly deny the guilt of human nature as the philosophers, but most of them will explain and soften in such a manner, as to represent man still in a tolerably secure state. If he does these things, and avoids those, he may still live, notwithstanding any injury he has received by the fall. If he has fallen, he is not so much damaged but that he may raise himself, if he properly exerts his remaining strength, or, with due attention, employs the help offered to him. But every modification of this kind is contrary to the apostle's conclusion from the guilt of men. The guilt of all men is such as utterly to prevent their justification by law. "Therefore," says the apostle, by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight."

66

What, then, can any man reply in defence of human nature, upon the supposition that the Scriptures are the