truth ascribe to man in his fallen state, a certain class of divines were induced to divide moral and religious duties into two classes, natural and spiritual; comprehending under the latter, those which require spiritual, or supernatural assistance to their performance; and under the former, those which demand no such assistance. Agreeable to this distinction, they conceived it to be the duty of all men to abstain from the outward acts of sin, to read the Scriptures, to frequent the worship of God, and to attend with serious assiduity to the means of grace; but they supposed that repentance, faith in Christ, and the exercise of genuine internal devotion, were obligatory only on the regenerate. Hence their ministry consisted almost entirely of an exhibition of the peculiar mysteries of the gospel, with few or no addresses to the unconverted. They conceived themselves not warranted to urge them to repent and believe the gospel, those being spiritual duties, from whose obligation they were released by the inability contracted by the fall.

These conclusions were evidently founded upon two assumptions; first, that the impotence which the Scriptures ascribe to the unregenerate is free from blame, so as to excuse them from all the

duties to which it extends. In oppostion to this, the Author of the following Treatise has proved, in a very satisfactory manner, that the inability under which the unconverted labour, is altogether of a moral nature, consisting in the corruption of the will, or an aversion to things of a spiritual and divine nature, that it is in itself criminal, and that so far from affording an excuse for what would otherwise be duty, it stamps with its own character all its issues and productions.

In considering the moral character of an action, we are naturally led to inquire into its motive, and according as that is criminal, laudable, or indifferent, to characterise the action whence it proceeds. The motive, however, appears no otherwise entitled to commendation, than as it indicates the disposition of the agent; so that in analizing the elements of moral character, we can ascend no higher than to the consideration of the disposition, or the state of the will and of the affections, as constituting the essence of that portion of virtue or of vice whichr we respectively ascribe to it. To proceed farther will only involve us in a circle, since to whatever we might trace the disposition in question, should we be induced, for example, to ascribe it to the free exercise of the will, that exercise would fall under

the same predicament, and be considered either as virtuous or vicious, according to the disposition whence it proceeds. When the Scriptures have placed the inability of mankind to yield holy and acceptable obedience in an evil disposition, or in blindness and hardness of heart, they have conducted us to the ultimate point on this subject, and have established the doctrine of human criminality upon a basis which cannot be shaken or disturbed, without confounding the first principles of moral discrimination. Though it is manifest this impotence is entirely of a moral nature, totally distinct from the want of natural faculties, it is equally evident, that to whatever extent it exists, while it actually subsists, it is as an effectual impediment to the performance of holy actions as any physical privation whatever, and on that account, and that alone, may, without absurdity, be styled an inability. This important distinction was not altogether unknown to our earlier divines, though they neglected to avail themselves of it as fully as they ought. It is clearly stated by the great Mr. Howe in his Blessedness of the Righteous, as well as adverted to by Mr. Baxter in several of his practical works. But the earliest regular treatise on this subject it has been my lot to meet with, was the

production of Mr. Towman, an eminent nonconformist divine. In his dissertation on moral impotence, as he styles it, he has anticipated the most important arguments of succeeding writers, and has evinced, throughout, a most masterly acquaintance with his subject. This work is mentioned in terms of high respect by Nelson, in his Life of Bishop Bull, who remarks that his thoughts were original, and that he had hit upon a method of defending Calvinism against the objections of Bull and of others, peculiar to himself. His claim to perfect originality, however, was not so well founded as Nelson supposed. Since his time the subject has been fully discussed by the celebrated Jonathan Edwards, in his Treatise on the Will, and the distinction defended with all the depth and precision peculiar to that amazing genius.

Another principle assumed as a basis by the high Calvinists, is that the same things cannot be the duty of man, and the gift of God; or, in other words, that what is matter of promise can on no occasion be the matter of obligation. The Scriptures frequently affirm faith and repentance to be the gift of God; hence it is concluded that they cannot be obligatory on the unregenerate, a conclusion diametrically opposed to innumerable passages

in the Old and New Testament, which insist, in the most peremptory style, on true conversion and at lively faith as the most essential duties, which other passages are equally express in exhibiting as matter of promise. A new heart will I give them, says the Lord by Ezekiel, and a new spirit will I put within them, and I will take away the heart of stone and give them an heart of flesh; the same prophet cries, Make yourselves a new heart, for why will ye die, ye house of Israel? in exact accordance with the language of St. James, wash your hearts ye sinners, and cleanse your hearts ye double-minded. The burden of our Saviour's ministry, as well as that of his forerunner, was, Repent, for the kingdom of God is at hand; while St. Peter, who perfectly knew the genius of Christianity, affirms that Christ is exalted to give repentance and the remission of sins. Circumcise your hearts, said Moses, and be no longer stiff-necked; the same Moses had been previously commissioned to declare, the Lord thy God shall circumcise thine heart, and the heart of thy seed. Now the circumcision of the heart we are taught by St. Paul, in his Epistle to the Romans, to regard as the distinguishing feature of the truly regenerate of him who is a Jew inwardly,