Answer: It is very difficult for the human mind to conceive of the possibility of God's creating an infinite being like himself. For the Deity himself is no more than infinite; and as we receive of his fulness, (John, i. 16. Col. i. 19,) man could not have been infinite without possessing the whole of Deity, in which case he would not have been a separate being from him, but would have been identically the same being, which destroys the idea of creation. How, therefore, can we conceive of the possibility of two infinite beings, unless we can conceive of two infinities in one infinitude? Reason forbids the idea of an infinite created being, for an effect must be dependent on its antecedent cause, but an infinite being cannot be dependent. Then for a being to exist capable of multiplying and propagating its kind, he must necessarily be finite, and dependent on an infinite cause. And as man must necessarily be finite, so he must necessarily be fallible, or subject to vanity. And even admitting that mankind might have remained in a sinless state of perfection, yet they would have been as much dependent on God for that state as they are for their exist

ence.

For the proof of this, I need only refer you to the words of Christ, who, it is agreed, was without sin. "Verily, verily, I say unto you, the Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do :-I can of mine own self do nothing." (John, v. 19, 30.) Words could not have been spoken more expressive of dependence, in the strictest sense.

But I will now suppose that it was possible for God to have kept all mankind in a sinless state, as pure as Christ himself that God might have placed man in a state of as great perfection as human nature will admit, with a determination to keep him from falling. Yet, are we sure that this would have been for the best? Are we authorized to say that mankind would have been more happy, under these circumstances, than what they eventually will be now? To determine which, let us look a little into the nature of the happiness of mar

The happiness of rational beings depends on the enjoy ment, and not on the possession, of life. It is true, that a man must possess life, or he cannot enjoy it. But to possess the sensibility of life, without the capacity or ability of enjoying it, would be the greatest evil of which the human mind can possibly conceive. And for a person or being to enjoy life, he must be capable either of giving or of receiving benefits; or else be as he is, capable of both-of loving, and being loved. Hence we may see the propriety of the different grades in the circumstances of rational beings, or human nature. If all had been alike independent, (admitting that they must necessarily exist,) gratitude would have been entirely out of the question. There could have been no such thing in the universe. For if there had been no being in want, no being could ever have given or received a benefit. Some people have undertaken to tell how glorious and happy the Deity was before creation, and how glorious and happy he might have eternally been, even if he had never created intelligent beings. But if I can form any conception of the happiness of God before creation, it must have consisted in the glorious contemplation of his bringing an innumerable race of intelligences into existence, on whom he was determined to bestow infinite benefits. For I cannot conceive of a greater evil than a consciousness of an eternal self-existence, without being capable of giving or receiving a benefit.

The glorious attribute of mercy never could have been displayed, if sin had not been introduced into the moral system. It is not only necessary that finite creatures should be dependent; but it is equally necessary that they should feel their dependence, in order for them to be filled with gratitude and love towards their benefactor. And no man can feel his dependence without being made fully sensible of it, which he never could have been, without experiencing a lapse, or want, either in himself, or seeing it in others. It is true, it is not absolutely necessary that a man should experience death, in himself, in order to be convinced that he is mortal; but

were possible for a man to live to an advanced age,

without experiencing pain or sickness, and without seeing the effects of it in others, or hearing of such a thing as natural death, you would hardly be able to convince him, by words, that he was mortal; i. e. subject to death. If children were as capable of taking care of themselves, the first moment of their existence, as they are at twenty-one years of age, and were considered as free at that time, they would have no more regard for their father than for any other man. And on the other hand, parents feel the most tenderness towards their children, at the time when the children are mostly dependent on their parental care and attention.

If this mode of reasoning be just, which, I believe, none can deny, then what must be the paternal love of God toward his wanting children, who are wholly dependent on him at all times, and that too in the strictest sense? yea, and infinitely more so, than what the most helpless infant can be on its own mother? From these considerations, the love of God toward his wanting dependent children can be nothing short of infinite. And God has placed his creatures in the most likely situation to experience and enjoy his infinite love. By placing them in the lowest grade, in the most finite capacity possible, God can now display all his divine attributes upon them; at least, all that can be communicated to finite beings. This leads me to conclude that man will be more happy, eventually, than what he would have been, yea, more happy than what he could have been, if he had not been made subject to vanity.

I apprehend that a capital objection may be started here. It may be said that this doctrine opens a door to licentiousness. That, according to the premises laid down, the greater evil, the greater good!-the more sin a man commits, the more happiness he will enjoy in another world!! &c.

But stop. Let us not judge too hastily. It does not necessarily follow from these premises, that all must be equally vain, or sinful, in order to be equally happy. But it is only necessary that all should be alike subject to vanity, or sin. If ten men were to be equally

exposed to fall into a pit, infested with venomous serpents, nine of them should fall in, and one only be bitten by a serpent, the whole ten would experience the danger; and if the same hand of providence that prevented the one from falling should deliver the nine from the pit, and restore the one bitten to health, all would have reason to be thankful; the one that wholly escaped owes as much for his safety, as the one who was bitten does for his deliverance and restoration.

Let us now apply this similitude to our present subject. The more we can realize the benefits which we receive from God, the greater happiness we enjoy. And there was no other way, that we can conceive, whereby we could have realized the divine benefits so well, as first to be placed in the very lowest scale of being, and made subject to vanity, and then raised from this state to the perfect stature of a man in Christ Jesus. Hence the propriety of our being made subject to vanity. We are so constituted as to be able continually to participate in the goodness of God, by receiving moral instructions from every enjoyment of sense: our kind and benevolent Parent has been pleased to give us such moral lessons of instruction as our humble capacities are capable of receiving. And as we grow in knowledge and grace, so we are brought to have more and more of a realizing sense of the goodness of God-discover more and more of his wisdom and love-see more and more of the propriety of his subjecting us to vanity, to open a glorious door of hope-whereby he might make wonderful displays of divine grace, in delivering us from this state of bondage into the glorious liberty of the children of God. This brings me to the main subject of this lecture; viz.

To show that the self-same creature that was subjected to vanity, shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption, into the glorious liberty of the children of God.

1. And first, it may be observed from the above, that very little need be said under this head. For it is presumed that it has been shown already to the full understanding and satisfaction of the hearer, that this creature,

o was made subject to vanity, is the whole fabric of ra

tional beings; or the whole family of human nature. It is true the word is in the singular number, like the word creation, which, in its most unlimited sense, signifies the whole created universe. There is but one creation: even so human nature is oNE; of which Christ is the HEAD. And we know of no more than one human nature, although this nature may exist in a multiplicity of human beings; of which Christ is styled the first born from the dead.

Having established the idea of this creature beyond all contradiction or dispute, all I wish now under this head is, that my friendly auditors, as well as all others, should admit that the text itself is true. For, admitting the truth of the text, it proves all that we wish to have proved by it. "Because the creature itself (that is, the self-same creature) shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption." Words could not have been more conclusive or explicit. Whatever, whoever, and all that have been made subject to vanity, or sin, shall be delivered from the effects of sin and vanity, which is the bondage of corruption.

Now I am willing that any one should say that this creature does not mean all mankind, if he pleases. But it must be remembered, that if any beings can be pointed out, who were not included in the Tris, creation, or creature, spoken of in the text, there is no evidence to prove that such beings were made subject to vanity; and if not subject to vanity, certainly they could not become vain, and therefore they stand in no need of deliver

ance.

It is presumed that no one will pretend to say that we have not put a proper construction upon the text, so far, at least and it is also presumed that no one will dispute the truth of it, for if the text be false, I cease to be accountable. And if the truth of this text may be called in question, the truth of many more, purporting the same thing, might, with equal propriety, be questioned. As the following: "For as in Adam all die, even so (that is, in like manner) in Christ shall all be made alive." (1 Cor. xv. 22.) If the text under consideration be not true, I do not know as this is, as it was written by the