to the Cafe of Sins of Infirmity: For the Excufe from Infirmity is made up of Willingnefs, and Want of Power; Willingness to obey, and Want of Power to withstand the Temptations and powerful Impreffions of Sin. In all moral Actions there is a Proportion between the Ability to perform, and the Guilt of not performing; and the one must be eftimated by the other: But, if we confiderourfelves as Chriftians, who do not depend purely on our own Strength, but likewife. on the Affiftance of God, the Measure of which depends on the Application we use to obtain it, the Terms of the Proportion will be altered, and the Guilt of our Difobedience will be measured by the Ability we might have had to perform our Duty. For, if we fail in Ability through our own Default in ufing the Means prefcribed by God to enable us, the Guilt of our Sins will be according to the Ability we might have had; and therefore the Excufe may be true, and yet infignificant. be true, true, that you had not Power to withstand the Temptations you fell under and yet this may be no Juftification, because it was your own Fault that you had not Power. The not obferving which, is the true Foundation of Men's relying fo much

It

may

for

upon

for Excufe their Infirmities. They are confcious to themfelves how violent the Temptation to Sin was, and how much it overpowered their Strength; upon which they ground their Excufe: But then they leave out of the Confideration, how much more Strength they might have had, if they had not neglected the Means of obtaining it. St. Paul tells us, We are not in the Flesh, but in the Spirit, if fo be that the Spirit of God dwells in us; and therefore we shall be judged, not according to the Strength of the Flesh, but of the Spirit, which we have, or may have, if it be not our own Fault.

A

Man may as justly be punished for not being able to perform his Duty, when he had it in his own Hands to make himself able, as for not doing his Duty when he was able. And there is not much Difference between these two; for it is one Part of our Duty tö enable ourselves to perform our Duty, and all the Confequences of our Weakness and Infirmity are justly chargeable upon the Neglect of it. This is but little more than what all Moralists have agreed in the Cafe of vicious Habits: It is hardly to be imagined, how great a Neceffity an ill Habit brings us under; yet no Man ever urged this as an Argument

R 3

gument to excuse Sin; but thought the first Neglect in fuffering the Habit to grow up, entitled Men very justly to the Guilt of all the Sin confequent upon it. If we know how to remedy our Infirmities, why do we still boast of them, or place our Security in them? St. Paul complains of a Thorn given him in the Flesh, for the Removal of which he thrice prayed; to which he had no other Answer from the Lord, than my Grace is fufficient for thee, for my Strength is made perfect in Weakness. Upon which St. Paul triumphed and gloried in his Infirmity. But how? Not as we glory in our Infirmities, ufing them as an Excufe for Sin; but, because through his Infirmity the Power of Christ rested on him. The Law of the Spirit of Life having then fo plentifully provided against this Weakness and Depravity of the Flesh, there can no longer any Colour of Excufe be had from it.

Next to this general Senfe of Infirmity come the particular Infirmities included in it. As every Disease of the Body is called an Infirmity, as our Saviour, when he healed the Sick of their particular Diftempers, is faid to cure their Infirmities; so, by the fame Analogy, every particular Sin may be called an Infirmity. Thus David, fpeaking

of

of his Distrust of God's Goodness, calls it his Infirmity. So the Author of the Hebrews, Speaking of the Jewish High-Priests, fays, the Law maketh Men High-Priefts which bave Infirmities. But in the Scripture it is no where used in this Senfe as an Alleviation of Guilt.

But the Sense of Scripture is the least thing regarded in setting up this Plea of Infirmity, which has been invented and used to shelter fome particular darling Sins, and seldom or never for the universal Imperfection of all, even the best of our Actions, in which Sense only it can be reasonably used; but that Men think not worth excufing. The Bosom Sin is the Thing to be defended: In which Cafe two Things are generally urged, a natural Paffion, and the Violence of the Paffion. A natural Paffion has the fame Author with Nature, and belongs to us as we are Men, and therefore not to be avoided. For the Violence of the Paffion, the particular Constitution and Temperament of Body are alledged, which expose some more to this or that Paffion than others perhaps are liable to. But it is the Misfortune of fome Arguments to prove too much, and, like an Arrow too ftrongly drawn, mifs the Mark by going be

yond it. What Sin is there that may not thus be excused? St. Paul reckons among the Works of the Flesh, Adultery, Fornication, Uncleanness, Lafcivioufnefs, Hatred, Variance, Emulations, Wrath, Strife, Envyings, Murders, Drunkenness, Revellings, and the like; then adds, they which do fuch Things fhall not inherit the Kingdom of God. Now try these round, they all immediately, or by Confequence, arife from Paffions which are called natural, and, as they meet with a fuitable Temper, fome may prevail in one, fome in another; and then either the Excuse is vain, or the Apostle's Judgment is vain, that they which do fuch Things fhall not inherit the Kingdom of God.

The Scripture ufes Weakness in another Senfe, as opposed to Knowledge; as weak Christians are those newly converted, and not yet confirmed in the Knowledge and Mysteries of Christianity: But this Sense is nothing to our Purpose.

So likewife Weakness is applied to them who have weak and tender Confciences, easily offended, who scrupled eating Meat offered to Idols, the Ufe of which the Apostle allows to fuch as had Senfe enough not to be offended at it. Their Infirmity was a nice