mind. To these motives the will in the exercise of its self-determining power yields or refuses to yield, and the good man alone makes himself to differ from others who enjoy common grace.

The Semi-Arminian theory differs from the latter only in name, and in a greater confusion of language. According to this system God affords a portion of spiritual aid, producing something more than light, and something less than holiness. If that aid is improved He will afford more, and so on till the change is complete. This undefinable influence between an enlightening and a sanctifying one, the mind, though utterly destitute of "true holiness," is capable of improving so as to meet with divine approbation, and in reward to receive more; but it is capable, by the self-determining power of the will which that influence does not controul, of misimproving the grace, and so losing the effect. God really does more for one than another, because one has better improved His grace, though with an unholy heart; but he would do as much for one as another if all would improve alike. The real difference is made, not by discriminating grace, but by one's improving divine influence better than another, through the self-determining power of the will which that influence did not controul. This theory rests its weight on three columns; the self-determining power, progressive Regeneration, and the dogma that God approves of unholy deeds; all which, I persuade myself, have been proved to be but

shadows.

Men go through life the dupes of names. I beg to know what can be meant by an influence which produces something more than light, and something less than holiness? Does it enlarge the understanding? Does it strengthen the memory? And if it did, what then? What has an enlargement of natural powers to do with a change of heart? Satan in natural powers surpasses any saint on earth. But of a moral tendency, what other influence can there be, than that which informs the conscience or improves the heart? in other words, than that which enlightens or sanctifies? Do you say it is an influence which would lead to holiness if the will did not resist? But what other can that be than an enlightening influence? Come fix a microscopick eye on this single point. What influence can you conceive of between that which presents motives to the will, leaving it unconstrained, and that which bends the will by constraining power? Do you say there may be a pressure of power which the will resists? But upon your principle what right has power to encroach upon the freedom of the will by undertaking to compel it? If I have no right to bring a man by force to the house of God, I have no right to exert the least muscular strength upon him, or to assail him in any other way than by motives. But who knows that such a pressure is made if no effect follows? Who can be conscious of a divine influence but by the effect? But if there is an effect, what effect? What effect pressing in the direction of holiness? Do you say there is thoughtfulness, solemni

ty, and distress? But these are natural effects of light carried home to the conscience. Do you say it removes prejudice? But how except by light, since it leaves the heart unaltered? Do you say it restrains from passion and sin? But how except by motives, (and by regulating perhaps the tone of the body, and the disposition of outward circumstances,) if the heart remains the same? This intermediate influence must then be an illusion unless it is something which makes the heart better without holiness. But it has appeared in a former Lec- · ture, that in the nature of things the heart cannot be made better till it is supremely fixed on God. I have another question on this subject. What aid can the mind need other than light, when the selfdetermining power is fully competent to settle the issue? If the will cannot determine itself to good without other aid, what becomes of the boasted self-determining power? Of course I cannot comprehend what more the sinner is to receive for, improving the grace. More what? More strength? But what do you mean by more strength? Do you mean more natural powers of body or mind? But these are not needed upon any plan, certainly not upon yours, for the will, you say, is fully competent to determine itself. Do you then mean moré moral strength? But moral strength is holiness, of which the sinner possesses none till Regeneration is complete. Do you mean more strength of resolution and desire? But what are resolutions and desires that make the heart no better?. Do you

of reason and knowledge, it manifests no special power at all.

But after all the question chiefly turns on these two points, the supreme selfishness or total depravity of the human heart, and the nature of holiness. No one who admits this view of the native character, and believes that holiness is a simple principle, not a compound formed out of preexisting properties, can doubt that there is a moment when it is first introduced. What is the character of the natural heart? and What is holiness? are the two questions which on this subject must divide the world. For if holiness is a simple principle, and first introduced in Regeneration, especially if it is a principle of supreme love to God following supreme selfishness, nothing can be plainer than that the change is as sudden as the entrance of the first drop that falls into a vessel, or the first ray that penetrates a dungeon.

This doctrine however does not militate against the idea of an antecedent preparation in the conscience, wrought by the means of grace and the enlightening influences of the Spirit. But on this subject 1 shall have occasion to treat in a future Lecture. At present I shall content myself with two inferences from the doctrine already established.

(1.) It inevitably follows from the foregoing exposition that none of the feelings, or actions, or duties, (as they are called,) of the unregenerate, (so far as they partake of a moral nature, that is,

so far as they are entitled to praise or blame from the moral Governour of the world,) are otherwise than sinful. They are sinful, or holy, or neither. If neither, they receive no praise or blame from the moral Governour. For whatever may be said of God in the character of temporal head of the Jewish nation, or as accommodating, in these days, His visible dispensations to visible characters, yet as moral Governour He praises nothing but holiness, or real conformity to His law, and blames nothing but sin, which "is the transgression of the law." For to govern ACCORDING TO LAW enters into all our ideas of a righteous Governour. That some of the feelings and actions of the unregenerate are of a neutral character is not denied, but these are to be set aside as of no account. The rest are either sinful or holy, But they are not holy, for the beginning of holiness is Regeneration of course they must be sinful.

It is not denied that the form of their actions is often right; and if the form by itself is respected in the divine law, it is, as far as it goes, real obedience. But is the form so divided by the divine law from the disposition, that, standing alone, it constitutes any part of obedience? If so, the form without the disposition must constitute some part of transgression; and then, in the eye of the divine law, a man in part commits murder who kills his neighbour by accident, or in a paroxysm of madness. The truth is that no action is rewarded or punished by God or man, (un