He has given you full power to serve Him." See Lect. X. passim.

The inconsistency of these expressions with the Presbyterian Confession of Faith, with the word of God, and with fact, has been clearly shown by the Essayist; and we recommend his pamphlet to all who can obtain it, as a plain, temperate discussion of a very important subject. We really believe, (and Dr. G. to be a consistent Presbyterian should believe,) that "No mere man, since the fall, IS ABLE in this life, perfectly to keep the commandments of God,"-"either of himself, or by any grace received," "but doth daily break them in thought, word, and deed." Conf. and Cat. of the Pres. Ch.

Adam, in primeval innocence, was required perfectly to keep the law of God; and he had ability to do it, as the event proved, so long as God exerted a positive gracious influence upon him, to keep him from temptation, and no longer: so that a perfect and innocent man had not inherent ability to save himself. From the apostacy of Adam, our representative under the covenant of works, Jehovah declares that he considers us all to have been tried, and to have sinned in him; so that he pronounces every man to be incapable of salvation by his own perfect obedience. He does not, therefore, require any man since the fall personally to obey the covenant of work as the condition of his own salvation; while at the same time, to cut off all excuse, he assures mankind, that if any one shall perfectly do that which is right, he shall live therein. Nor does God eternally damn any man for not perfectly obeying the law as a covenant of life, by his own personal acts, although it is true that if a man is damned, he will be miserable in exact proportion to his transgression of, and want of conformity to, the law of God.

It is for not having perfectly obeyed the law in Adam, as our representative, and for having broken the covenant of works in him, that sentence of death has passed upon all men, for that all have sinned. This prepared the way, at once, for a better covenant.

Man was no sooner rendered unable to save himself, through the first apostacy, by perfectly obeying the moVOL. I. No. 3.

3 L

ral law, than God revealed a way of salvation, by which a man who is utterly unable to keep the law perfectly, may, even during the continuance of this personal inability, be pardoned, be accepted as righteous, and be entitled to heaven, through the obedience of the second Adam. Salvation, without any natural ability to keep the law perfectly in this life, God offers to all men, to whom he sends his gospel; it is with persons of this description that we have to do: and if they are not saved, it is because they reject offered mercy, and voluntarily continue in unbelief.

Here Dr. Griffin will interpose, and say; if a natural ability perfectly to keep the moral law is not essential to salvation in man's present state, certainly ability to believe on the Lord Jesus, and accept of his righteousness and salvation, is indispensable. This is granted. The Doctor then will say, every sinner has inherently a natural, but not a moral ability to believe and accept, without any supernatural agency of the Holy Ghost. We answer, that to believe in, and accept of, Christ, are moral actions, that require to the performance of them a moral ability, suited to their nature, and a moral ability alone. Such a moral ability Dr. G. will not say is natural, to a natural man. But the Doctor says, every sinner has a natural ability to perform these moral actions. He has then, a kind of ability, which is not of the kind required to per form them; and which, therefore, ought in this case to be called no ability; for it is as requisite that a moral action should have a moral ability to produce it, as that a natural action should have a natural ability. To secure his salvation man wants nothing but a moral ability to accept Christ as his salvation from sin and hell.

The fact is, that Dr. Griffin and others have written much upon this subject, without having any clear and definite views of ability or power. What is power? we would ask our metaphysician. If you cannot define the thing, define the term; and so far describe the thing itself as to let men know what you mean by the words which you continually employ. If you intend that a sinner has all the inherent mental faculties which are requisite for faith, and even universal, perfect obedience to the law of

God, we agree with you; for Adam had these before and after the apostacy; Christ had these; and every accountable moral agent possesses them. But Christ had something more than these faculties; for he had the moral ability to use them all aright, so as perfectly to keep the commandments of God in thought, word, and deed. This ability we have not.

When we use the word power or ability in relation to any action, we always include under it every thing which is requisite for the production of that action: and we affirm that any thing short of this is a powerless power, that deserves not the name of ability. We may illustrate the truth of this observation, by alluding to a faculty with which Dr. Griffin seems to be better acquainted than any other; we mean THE WILL. Now President Edwards has taught Dr. G. the difference between the faculty called the will, and an operation of that faculty, which is called a volition: he also has convinced him, we suppose, that the faculty may exist, while there is no ability, or power, to exercise a volition, in relation to certain actions; because no man CAN will, he correctly maintains, without a motive. The faculty itself, therefore, is not a power of volition; but the power requisite to an actual volition includes both the faculty and the apprehension of a sufficient inducement, or motive, to perform that volition.

Had President Edwards written upon a few other mental faculties, and their laws of operation, as well as he has done upon the will, the sect of Hopkinsians would never have arisen; and Dr. Griffin would now have been under no obligations to learn, that the existence of those natural faculties of the mind which are employed in believing, repenting and loving, is not of itself sufficient to constitute the ability of believing, repenting and loving

Without a motive no man can will, in any case; nor could he will, if he should apprehend a motive for doing so, without a faculty for volition. In like manner, no man can love God, without first apprehending him to be lovely; nor, should he have right apprehensions of his loveliness, could he love him, without a faculty for loving. Now it will be conceded, we imagine, by Dr. G. that an unre

newed man has no right apprehensions of the loveliness of the true God, until he is divinely instructed by the Holy Spirit. How then can any unrenewed man, not divinely and savingly taught of God, love him? Christ to the unrenewed is as a root out of dry ground, without comeliness in their eyes: how then can they love him, before their views of him are rectified? Verily, no man can come to Christ, except the Father of Lights illumi. nate his darkened mind, and so draw him, by cords of love. We are not sufficient of ourselves to think a right thought; and until we have holy thoughts, we cannot have holy feelings; until we have holy thoughts and feelings, we cannot have holy volitions; and without holy volitions, there can be no morally good actions.

Yet, says the Doctor, sinners have as much power to change their hearts, to love and obey God at once, as they have to alter at once any of their worldly or social dispositions; to exercise feelings opposite to their dispositions; or to yield to any motive which does not at present control them. By dispositions he appears to mean feelings. Let us examine then the natural ability of the natural man in relation to natural feelings and motives. Can a man, merely by willing to change his present feelings, immediately change them? The universal consciousness of mankind will attest that he cannot; and were our feelings immediately dependent on our volitions, we should never have unpleasant ones. Aye, and if our feelings could be immediately under the control of our volitions we could be happy in hell, in spite of God's purpose to punish us there, unless he should so influence our will, as to make us willing to have unpleasant feelings. We can by our volitions affect our feelings, only by regulating those thoughts, or other mental operations, on which, according to the laws by which Jehovah governs our minds, our feelings are dependent.

We are liable to have new thoughts, and particularly new views, or conceptions, about worldly and social things, we grant, and so soon as these are changed, by any exercise of voluntary self-government, our feelings in relation to them may change, but not before.

Dr. Griffin is equally unphilosophical in supposing

that a natural man has power immediately to yield to a natural inducement concerning some natural object, when that inducement is not at present the strongest, so as actually to constitute a controlling motive. He supposes that a man may at present will contrary to his present controlling motive in the case; which he must perceive is contrary to the fundamental doctrine of his favourite Edwards on the Will; and we add, to the experience of every reflecting man. We grant, that a moment hence, a new motive may be present to the mind, which shall change his volitions; and that the inducement which was not a moment ago a controlling motive, may from some change of view, or other circumstance, become the next moment a controlling motive: but all this is nothing to the purpose: for the Doctor's assertion is, that sinners have the same power to obey God, as they have to yield, in the common affairs of life, to any motive which at present, through the badness of their disposition, does not control them. We affirm that men have no power, either in spiritual or worldly things, at present to will, choose, or yield, in opposition to a present controlling motive. Let the state of a sinner's mind, however, be so changed that he shall have right views of the truth of God, and shall deem it good to obey God, and he will then have the requisite power for rendering holy obedience.

ARTICLE XII.-1. The Theory of Moral Sentiments, &c. By Adam Smith, LL. D. F. R. S. First American from the twelfth Edinburgh edition. Philadelphia, 1817. pp. 598. 8vo. 2. A Philosophical Treatise on the Passions: Second edition, corrected. By T. Cogan, M. D. Bath, Eng. 1802. pp. 369.

8vo.

3. An Ethical Treatise on the Passions, founded on the principles investigated in the Philosophical Treatise. By T. Cogan, M. D. Bath, Eng. 1817. pp. 495. 8vo.

"AN accurate analysis of the passions and affections," says Dr. Cogan, "is to the moralist, what the science of anatomy is to the surgeon. It constitutes the first principles of rational practice. It is in a moral view the ana