their convenience and interest; some governed by darling prejudices, and others, (not a few,) wrapped in the midnight gloom of ignorance, it is found, by designing men, but an easy task to lead the multitude at their will; and the history of the church, in all ages, and in all its sections, affords a voluminous comment on this subject. But if this comment be voluminous, there is another not less so: the readiness with which the great body of Christians, and all ambitious men, identify religion with their temporal interests, is the true source of that overbearing and furious spirit which has ever harrassed the church, endeavouring to bear down all before it. It is not the solemn scenes of eternity-the glory of the Almighty God-the interests of the Redeemer's kingdom-the salvation of immortal souls-the terrors of the coming judgment-the pure and supreme joys of an eternal heaven-nor the endless torments of hell, which form any part of the motives of their conduct, who would square down men's consciences to their particular views of truth. No! no! far other motives are at bottom; it is the base ambition of mounting on the empty blast of Fame-the rage after a poor and short-lived influence over men-the desire to be esteemed leaders and rulers over a large number of wretched beings, who are born for the awful destinies of eternity.

Were the love and fear of God the predominating principle of their hearts, all these angry feelings would melt away; their weapons would fall from their nerveless hands, and they would find much more cause to quarrel with themselves, than with their neighbours; and their resentment at those who differed from them, would suddenly change into apprehension and alarm for their own future prospects.

INVESTIGATOR.

THE TRIANGLE.

FIFTH SERIES.

No. I.

Depravity of Understanding considered, and concluded from the Fourth Series.

PART II.

Video meliora, proboque; deteriora sequor-Seneca.

THE holy scriptures, in relation to the impediments in the sinner's salvation, are far from placing the will and the understanding on the same footing. They nowhere represent the understanding as being as depraved as the heart or will, which I here use as synonymous terms, or as being the cause of the sinner's destruction. Directly the reverse of this breathes in every sentiment, and speaks in every page of the sacred volume.

While the depravity of the heart is universally set up as the first, the last, and the only cause of the sinner's ruin, the understanding, whether more or less enlightened, is declared to have sufficient light to leave the sinner "without excuse," and to make his destruction chargeable alone to his free and voluntary choice.

Were not the motive but too well known; were not this sentiment identified as an integral part of a hideous and loathsome scheme of antinomian tenets, where at every step the principles of eternal justice are sacrificed to the monstrous brood engendered by darkness and superstition, where benevolence and virtue are immolated at the shrine of selfishness, and where defor

mity itself is the only rule of proportion, it would seem surprising, that any one who had read the bible could pretend to draw, from that exhaustless storehouse of truth, a doctrine so opposite to the blazing light of experience, to the steady, constant, and universal voice of reason, and to the innumerable and express declarations of that sacred book.

There is, probably, not a sentiment which ever engaged the attention of the human mind, in which all mankind, in all ages and nations, are more unanimous, than that men know better than they do. A savage, a philosopher, a heathen, a christian, a jew, a mahometan, will readily grant it, and whoever is a spectator of human actions, cannot fail to know it. Ignorant as a man is, or can be, his passions and inclinations will overleap the bounds of his reason, and his own conscience will directly tell him so, and reprove him. Nor was ever a code of morality taught on earth which so completely imbibed the inclinations of the heart, as to annihilate the sphere of conscience, and supervene all the dictates of reason.

The scriptures teach, that where there is great light, or knowledge of duty, that there the guilt of disobedience is great, and so, in general, they apportion the degree of guilt to that of knowledge.

Judge Blackstone somewhere remarks, that a man, ignorant of human laws, who fails into transgression, may, through the imperfection of human administration, be holden to the legal penalty, but, nevertheless, cannot be, in the eye of society, or even of the law itself, impeached of moral or political turpitude, unless the transgression be of a nature which the universal laws of society forbid; which qualification supposes that he might have known better.

If a total ignorance of every thing whatever, amounting to the entire privation of reason, would exclude all accountableness, as is supposed to be the case with idiots and maniacs, or with beasts and incogitative machines, then a total ignorance of any one thing places a man, in relation to that thing, as though it did not exist.

I am fully aware of the famous, but senseless, dispute which is raised here. The objector says, "But supposing a man has de

stroyed his own knowledge, or caused his own ignorance, what then?" And this same cavil is introduced on the subject of inability, and, indeed, is a part of it; for they say, the sinner has destroyed his own ability-therefore, since he did it himself, he is still held to perform.

There is not room to enter into this subtle point of metaphysics here. Nor is it of much importance, since both the premises and the conclusion of the argument, as they use it, are false; for in the first place, sinners neither do, nor can, destroy their ability to obey God, further than consists in depravation of will; and, in the second place, if they could, the conclusion they draw would not certainly follow.

Supposing a man commits suicide, hangs himself, and goes out of the world, is he still under obligation to live with his family and carry on his business ?-A man cuts off his legs, is he after that under obligation to run a race ?—After a man has put out his own eyes, does he commit sin for neglecting to perform the duties which require eyesight?

This subject requires careful reflection; and I think but little penetration is sufficient to enable any man to perceive that one natural impossibility as effectually bars obligation as another. If I am the only pilot of a vessel, through a dangerous navigation, the man who destroys my eyesight, knowing the duty incumbent on me, is accountable for all the consequences that will follow; and it does not vary the case whether that act is done by me or another man. Whoever in that case puts out my eyes, commits no sin for not navigating the vessel, for he knows nothing of navigation. His sin consists in destroying the power to navigate the vessel, and incurring the evils of shipwreck; and the same will be my sin for the same reason, and no other; for after my eyes are out, I am no more able to do it than he is.

The Divine government is not so weak, capricious, or improvident, as to involve itself in the necessity of losing its dignity, or exacting impossibilities. The sinner who may in any manner destroy his own means or faculties of doing his duty in future is, no doubt, guilty of a great crime, but his crime is the same as would be the crime of another man, who had done