some of its parts. Such a failure may be owing to several causes; and, after an attentive examination of his Lordship's book, it appears to me that one of these causes is the misapplication of terms which are equivocal in their meaning. This appears in the frequent employment of the term power-ability-being enabled, &c. It being a plain case that without these, in one sense, man could not be the subject of divine law, or be responsible for his actions, though destitute of them in another sense, his Lordship often argues from the one to the other.

§ 2. When speaking of Cain and Abel, and God's address to the former, his Lordship says, May we not hence infer, that the immediate sons of Adam lived under a divine law, which 'they had the power of obeying and disobeying?'* They had no doubt a physical power,' a good rule, a merciful promise, and favourable opportunities; these were common to Cain and Abel; but had they alike that 'power' which consists in "a good inclination," or " a good and honest heart?" If each had this power,' then is not every man of his own nature inclined to evil," a point which his Lordship acknowledges. He allows, too, that 'a sincere disposition to obey the

* Refut. p. 5.

'divine will was all that was necessary, to enable a person to judge whether the doctrine preached by Christ was the invention of man or a reve'lation from God.'* Consequently, the Scribes, and Pharisees, and Rulers, who rejected Christ's doctrine, notwithstanding they had a practicable 'rule,' a plain testimony, convincing miracles, and favourable opportunities to obey the divine 'will,' were not 'enabled' to obey it, even in his Lordship's own sense of the term.

§ 3. His Lordship asserts, that Cain had the power of obeying,'-and yet he states, states, that ' a man cannot, by his own natural faculties and 'unassisted exertions, so counteract and correct the imperfection and corruption derived from 'the fall of Adam, as to be able of himself to acquire that true and lively faith which would 'secure salvation.' What is become, then, of Cain's power?' It is resolved into divine assistance. But if he was divinely assisted, where is the evidence of the fact? And if divine assistance does not secure a sincere disposition to obey the divine will,' why should man pray for that assistance, as his Lordship recommends, that he may be obedient? If Cain had divine assistance, which enabled' him to obey, and yet did not obey, of what use is it to

* Refut. p. 20.

+ Ib. p. 53.

pray for that which produces no effect? And if he had not effectual assistance, in what sense had he power,' or was enabled to obey,' except in another sense of power, which annihilates his Lordship's argument?

§4. Again, when speaking of the sin of Adam and the merits of Christ as co-extensive, his Lordship observes, the force of the argu'ment is destroyed, and the most acknowledged 'rules of language are violated, by so interpreting this passage, as to contend, that all men ' are liable to punishment on account of the sin ' of Adam, and that a few only are enabled to ' avoid that punishment through the death of 'Christ.'* Here the word 'enabled' is con founded with having objective or moral means of avoiding punishment through the death of Christ. Taking the word in this sense, which his argument requires, how could his Lordship consistently oppose even CALVIN himself, who admitted that every man to whom the gospel is presented is 'enabled,' in this acceptation of the term, to avoid punishment, through the death of Christ. His Lordship's quotation from the reformer proves this: ""God indeed affirms, that he wills the conversion of all men; and 'he destines his exhortations in common to all:

* Refut. p. 190.

'their efficacy, however, depends upon the spirit ' of regeneration."'* The means, as such, are sufficient, and such as becomes a moral governor to afford; but the other kind of ability, which consists in a sincere disposition to obey,' proceeds from the sovereign grace of God, whereby they are, properly speaking, 'enabled' to obey,

5. Sometimes the word cause is confounded with occasion, and an argument is drawn from the equivocal use of the first of these terms. Thus, for example, in the following passage: 'Can we then suppose that God, sees his 'rational creatures not only in need, but ob'noxious to death and misery, and yet refuses his aid to rescue them from impending ruin? The gospel, instead of being a proof of God's good will towards men,' would rather shew 'his determination, that they should add to 'their guilt, and increase their condemnation. • Instead of raising us from a death in sin to a life of righteousness, it would be the inevitable 'cause of more heinous wickedness, and of sorer punishment, to the greater part of mankind.'† His Lordship must allow, on the most indubitable evidence of plain facts, that the gospel does not raise from a death in sin to a life of righteousness the greater part' even of those who

* Refut. p. 536.

+ Ib.

p. 196.

read and hear it. With what consistency then can he say, that God refuses his aid' to those who are not raised from a life of sin to a life of righteousness by its aid? If the gospel would be the cause of more heinous wickedness, and a 'sorer punishment,' because it does not so 'raise' them, then on his own principle, 'it is such a cause. But, how can a proclamation of mercy be a 'cause' of wickedness and punishment? Surely on no scheme can it be more than the occasion of these consequences. The gospel, like its divine author, is "a stone of stumbling and a rock of offence" to the wicked: but to them who are well disposed, it is precious. To the one, it is "a savour of death unto death," to the other," a savour of life unto life." In short, in whatever sense we understand the word 'cause' in his Lordship's argument, without changing its import, it turns against himself.

6. The idea of salvation, again, is often confounded with the means of salvation, especially when connected with election, and a conclusion is drawn from the one to the other, which has no force except from an assumed equivocal use of the terms, thus rendering his Lordship's argument incompatible with his professed sentiments. Thus he states and infers: At the close of his first epistle, St. Peter

says, 'The church that is at Babylon, elected