to disapprove others, as vicious and of ill desert; and having in it some elements not indisposed for certain acts of virtue.

This opinion appears to me most consistent: and I believe that on this moral part of the rational, i. e. of the natural faculties, the free agency and responsibility of man depends.

For

The assertion of St. Paul, which is commonly adduced on the other side, "I know that in me (that is, in my flesh) dwelleth no good thing;" literally, good dwelleth not, ἐκ όκει ἀγαθον: cannot go so far as to deny that human nature has " a spark of goodness" in it: inasmuch as the Apostle in the same verse alludes to one, when he proceeds to say, "to will is present with me; but how to perform that which is good I find not, the good that I would, I do not; but the evil I would not, that I do. I delight in the law of God after the inward man; but I see another law in my members warring against the law of my mind." Nor does it materially affect the argument, whether St. Paul is here speaking of the renewed or unrenewed man; since the same complaint was uttered beyond the sphere of spiritual advantages, video meliora, proboque; deteriora sequor.

For

With the inward man then, i. e. with the soul or rational faculties, and with the will resulting from their proper exercise, grace co-operates, without which the will could produce no good effect, "fruitlessly warring against the law of sin which is is in the members."

by which alone they become effectual, is beautifully described in the following verse: "And when he was yet a great way off, his father saw him, and had compassion, and ran, and fell on his neck, and kissed him."

The parables of the talents, and of the sower, some of whose seed fell on good ground, seem to me strongly to corroborate this doctrine, and to be quite irreconcilable with any other. Nor can I interpret, or indeed understand in any other way the Apostle's illustration, Heb. vi. 7, 8. "For the earth which drinketh in the rain that cometh oft upon it, and bringeth forth herbs meet for them by whom it is dressed, receiveth blessing from God: but that which beareth thorns and briers is rejected, and is nigh unto cursing; whose end is to be burned." In this passage, the earth, or soul, and the rain, or grace, are treated as distinct and separate.

I conclude by observing the inconsistency which inevitably entangles the supporters of the opposite principle. For example: "Man's will, since the fall, hath of itself no ability toanyspiritual act; every good motion of it must come from the grace of God preventing, accompanying, following it. There is not, therefore, in the will of the natural man any active power to work his own conversion. There are yet certain outward acts, pre-required; as, to go to the church, to sit reverently, to hear: in these we have freedom of will either way." -Hall, Via Media, quoted from Synod. Dord. Suffrag. Theolog. Brit. ad artic. quartum. Now, these acts, to go to church, to sit reverently, to hear, must be either good or bad, or absolutely indifferent in themselves, But it will not be argued that they are bad; neither can they be indiffer

duced by guilt and folly, as exclaiming, "I will arise and go to my father, and will say unto him, Father, I have sinned against heaven and before thee, and am no more worthy to be called thy son." The assistance which these first motions of the will arising from the sincere use of the understanding, instantly and continually receive, and

ed: they must partake of good, there fore; whence it follows that human nature cannot be entirely corrupt, even from the principles of those who assert it; and that it is, in a mode which we cannot explain, and in a degree which we do not pretend to define, an agent in its own improvement and renovation,

After all, the question as to any practical consequence is merely a question of words. Both sides acknowledge that an action not performed on a right principle, if the agent has the means of knowing the right principle, is unacceptable to God. The only question is, whether the action is therefore justly termed bad, and the agent totally corrupt; and it seems to me that those who insist on this have a hard battle to fight, when confronted with common sense.

The strong and unqualified language of the Homilies relative to the corruption of human nature, which is neither copied from Scripture, nor sanctioned by experience, is imitated by many pious persons whose scruples I greatly respect, under the notion that the mercy of Christ cannot be sufficiently extolled unless man is sunk to the lowest abyss; or the helplessness of mankind sufficiently declared, except by confounding them with the beasts that perish. But it is not necessary, or wise, or apostolical, to sacrifice one point in order to gain another. Besides, "corrupt men will be proud of a possession, how much soever it may be acknowledged a divine gift; as the Corinthians made the spiritual gifts bestowed for the use of the Church an occasion of pride

and division."*

The object of all preaching should be edification. That object is best affected, when the voice of the preacher strikes home to the conscience of the hearer. Now, a congregation must consist of two classes, in whatever proportion they may be mixed: one made up of those, who, having never embraced the Gospel as the hope of their salvation, are wandering at a greater or less distance from its doctrines and precepts; the other of those, who, having personally ratified the covenant of their baptism, have advanced by different degrees of progress in the road which Christ has set before them. The latter class, it is plain, can receive little benefit from the description of a state in which they are not, and perhaps ne

ver have been. It must be addressed to the former.

Yet it is very possible that these persons, reflecting with themselves ever so sincerely, may not recognise the strong portrait drawn by the preacher of their natural corruption. To the title of Christians, undoubtedly, they have at present only an hereditary claim: but they are conscious of amiable affections; they are not strangers to the emotions or the acts of charity; perhaps they cannot charge themselves with any gross or habitual sins: and the circumstance of their being in the Church, is, of itself, a presumptive proof that they have not renounced their allegiance to their Creator, or their hope in Christ, however unreasonably entertained. Such persons should be considered as standing at the gate, and requiring to be led onward into the temple, with firmness certainly, and with no compromise of the truth, but still with a tender hand. Of this character was the scribe who came to Jesus, and acknowledged, that to "love God with all the heart, and with all the understanding, and with all the soul, and with all the strength, and to love his neighbour as himself, is more than all whole burnt-offerings and sacrifices." Mark xii. 33.* This man was no convert, and came with no friendly feelings towards our Lord: yet does he not deter him by repulsive language, but says, in the most conciliating tone, "Thou art not far from the kingdom of God."

Again, when a certain ruler came to Jesus, "asking him, Good Master, what shall I do, that I may inherit eternal life?" and replies to our Saviour's first answer, that he had "observed all the commandments from his youth up;" Christ does not at once alarm him by declaring that all his obedience was of no value; nor justify us in thinking that his regular life, as far as it went, had not been more acceptable to God than the contrary conduct would have been; but rather, "beholding him, loved him: and said, One thing thou lackest: go thy way, sell whatsoever thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, take up the cross, and follow me." Mark x. 21.

In imitation of this divine example, St. Paul uniformly assumes the tone and language of conciliation. "King Agrippa, believest thou the prophets ? I know that thou believest." And then taking advantage of the concession, "Almost thou persuadest me to be a Christian," he proceeds, "I would to God that not only thou, but also all that hear me this day, were not only almost, but altogether such as I am!" Acts xxvi. 28. Neither does he employ himself in violent invectives upon nature in general; leaving it always understood, that it is corrupt, and must be renewed: but his strong language is directed against specific sins, and that open unrighteousness of the heathen world against which the wrath of God was revealed.

It is for the imitation of conduct bearing such high authority that I plead. Against actual sin, let the preacher enforce the condemnation with which the Scriptures abound, and unequivocally affirm that "they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God:" but let him not confound weakness of faith with notorious profligacy; let him not condemn the social and natural affections, but lead them to a higher object; let him not reprobate charity as if it were a vice, but show that "there is one thing which it lacketh," without which it is not acceptable to God.

It is sometimes considered as a proof of the advantage to be obtained from the habit which I am here presuming to discourage, that such preaching generally proves attractive to the lower classes. This, however, may be accounted for, without furnishing any justification of the practice. For, first, the lower classes, unless they are truly religious, usually are gross sinners, and, therefore, are neither surprised nor shocked at being supposed so themselves, and at the same time feel a sort of pleasure

which need not be encouraged, when they hear their superiors brought down to the same level: and, secondly, it seems to furnish them with a sort of excuse for their sins, to find that they are so universal, and so much to be expected of human nature.

The considerate minister will not court such dangerous applause: there is no edification communicated by exciting feelings of disgust in one side, and of malignant exultation on the other. St. Paul was aware that it was safer to persuade than to repel; and knew that even the passions and prejudices of the mind may become powerful auxiliaries to the work of grace, when rightly touched and skilfully directed. Even at Athens, shocked as he must have been at the profanation of sacred worship and ignorance of the Almighty Creator, by which he was surrounded, he does not break out into passionate exclamations against the impurity and senselessness of heathen idolatry, but takes advantage of a circumstance in that very idolatry, to bring over the minds of the people to the truth he came to deliver. Let no minister think it a proof of success, or of faithfulness to the Gospel, that he retains one class of his congregation, and disgusts the other; but rather, if such should unhappily be the case, let him examine his conduct with scrupulous anxiety, lest some imprudence even in the declaration of truth, some want of conciliation in his performance of the commission intrusted to him, may have deprived him of that blessed reflection and highest consolation, " I take you to record this day, I am pure from the blood of all men." Acts xx.

The spirit of these remarks is applicable to other doctrines. Many preachers take to themselves the satisfaction expressed by St. Paul, that he "had not shunned to declare the whole counsel of God," whose manner of declaring it bears very little resemblance to that of the Apostle. But this subject seemed particularly to require them. There is no more common occasion of divisions in a congregation, than the indiscriminate severity with which those are sometimes arraigned, who do not answer the preacher's idea of entire regeneracy: nor any more frequent or specious error, than the notion that enough cannot be given to Christ or to grace, unless the corruption of human nature be expressed in the strong

est terms.

That this notion is favoured by the language of the early reformers, can neither be denied nor wondered at. They wrote against the corruptions of a Church, in which Pelagian principles were not only tolerated, but received and acted upon. Their oppopents maintained the doctrines of merit and works of supererogation, They generally, therefore, argued in the spirit of Luther, who says, in his reply to Erasmus, "If we believe that Christ has redeemed us by his blood, we are compelled to confess that man was completely in a state of perdition, otherwise we make Christ of none effect; or if we do admit his efficiency, still we allow him to be the Redeemer of only a very bad part of human nature, and maintain that there is a better part which stands in need of no redemption."

Without attempting to define the limit of human corruption, or to point out the extent of natural power, we may safely affirm it to be no just inference, that because salvation is not of works, therefore man " is only given to evil thoughts and evil deeds;" or, because he is " very far gone from priginal righteousness," therefore "he is become the image of Satan." Neither does it follow that " any man should boast," even if it be conceded that there is a "better part of human nature." For, after all, "what hast thou, O man, that thou hast not received?" Suppose it allowed, that man is born with any good principle, any relic of the ruins of his original righteousness, he is not the author of this principle in himself, any more than of his own being: it came to him, together with "every good and perfect gift," from the "God and Father of lights:" and the real subject of inquiry is, not what man has by nature, but what God has left him,

after the fall. This reflection ought to mitigate the jealousy which is often felt, of leaving any crevice to admit human pride. Adam in Paradise was perfect; but he owed that perfection to his Creator: and the only doubt is, whether, after he had sinned, God entirely deprived him of his " own image," and of all the graces and excellencies with which he had been endowed; or whether he left some memorial of his high original still remaining, some traces of the glory in which he had been created, and from which he had fallen by transgression, still undefaced: whether any seed of virtue yet existed alive within him, after the soil had beome unkindly, and the climate unfavourable to its vegetation.

There is no doubt, indeed, which is the weaker side of the human heart: it is too much inclined to trust to itself, and be proud of its own powers; and requires to be continually reminded of what Scripture and experience equally prove-its natural enmity against spiritual things. But the justest argument may lose its force, when it is carried too far, or urged without discretion. Mankind, after the fall, were still the work of God, and the object of the Redeemer's love.

It appears, upon the whole, that three rules ought to be observed, in order to treat this subject with practical advantage: first, that we should so preach the corruption of human nature, as to show our absolute dependence upon the atonement of Christ for salvation, and upon the Holy Spirit for sanctification; secondly, that we so preach it, as to vindicate the ways of God to man, by proving that he offers a remedy co-extensive with the evil: thirdly, that we so preach it, as to make the hearer understand, that sin, however congenial to the de praved mind, is alike inconsistent with the original innocency of the human race, and with their final destination; inasmuch as they have been "bought with a price," and become the " sons of God, and joint heirs with Christ, and are expected to " be holy, even as he who hath called them is hos ly."