passage itself, and its connexion, are directly opposed to the notion, that men are born without any moral character. He was too sagacious, to suppose, that universal depravity originates without any cause, or that it is simply the consequence of that moral agency, which was no less the property of Adam before the fall, than it is now of his posterity, and belongs alike to all accountable beings, whether holy or sinful, in all worlds.

In the paragraph immediately preceding this passage, Dr. Bellamy says, "We are born into the world not only destitute of a conformity to the law, but are naturally diametrically opposed to it in the temper of our hearts. The law requires us to love God supremely, but the native bent of our hearts is to love ourselves supremely. The law requires us to love our neighbour as ourselves, but the native bent of our hearts is to be inordi nately selfish." Supreme self-love, or which is the same thing, seeking supremely our own happiness, is here declared to be the essence of sin, or the temper of heart which is diametrically opposite to the requisitions of the law. Some may affirm, that such self-love is not sinful, that it is an "innocent susceptibility," a part of our "constitution," and even the spring of virtue; but these individuals must, of course, agree with Dr. Bellamy in the opinion, that it is a native propensity; and, as he differs from them, in that he believed it was criminal, I do not see how they can help admitting, that he regarded moral depravity as an attribute of human beings, even from their birth. We have always considered it as a sound rule of interpretation, (and the present example confirms us in the justness of our opinion,) to endeavour to ascertain the scope of an author's discourse, before we decide peremptorily on the meaning of an insulated

sentence.

Unfortunately for the Reviewer, the words immediately following the passage on which he lays such stress, are quite as decisive of Dr. Bellamy's meaning as those just quoted"And now that these dispositions are, as it were, thus born with us, is as evident from experience, as any thing of this kind can be; for these are the earliest dispositions that man's nature discovers, and are evidently discovered before little children are capable of learning them from others.* Yea,

"How much earlier they exist, than they are disclosed to observers," remarks the Reviewer, "he (Dr. Bellamy) does not say." True, but he does

it is plainly the very native bent of their hearts, to love themselves above all; to make their ease, comfort, and happiness, their last end, and their all; and to seek for all from the creature, or, in other words, from that which is not God."

The Reviewer imagines, that he sees in page 219, the elements of that system, which attributes our sinfulness to the operation of our innocent appetites and susceptibilities, excited, in the absence of positive moral rectitude, by a world whose influence must be ensnaring; and he intimates, that he and Dr. Bellamy, with whom he couples Edwards, have adopted the same philosophy in accounting_for the moral depravity of mankind. But what does Dr. Bellamy actually say?

"God only creates the naked essence of our souls, our natural faculties, and power to think, and will, and to love and hate; and this evil bent of our hearts is not of his making, but is the spontaneous propensity of our own wills; for we, being born devoid of the divine image, ignorant of God, and insensible of his glory, do, of our own accord, turn to ourselves, and the things of time and sense, and to any thing that suits a graceless heart, and there all our affections centre; from whence we natively become averse to God, and to all that which is spiritually good, and inclined to all sin. So that the positive corruption of our nature is not any thing created by God, but arises merely from a privative cause."

This, the reader will be pleased to observe, is introduced by Dr. Bellamy, as an answer to the objection, that, “If we are natively sinful, God made us so, and by consequence is the author of sin." It is to be noted also, that his very language imports, what many would account an unwarrantable supposition, that God might have made us holy from our birth; and therefore, we become sinners in consequence of our being left to ourselves. The same doctrine he elsewhere more explicitly teaches.* Indeed, the phrase, say, that they are born with us, that is, exist as early as our birth. The quasi form of the expression in the above quoted sentence, it is manifest, from comparing it with other passages already adduced, was not intended to intimate any doubt in the writer's mind, as to the time of the actual commencement of moral depravity, in the descendants of Adam. What right then, has the Reviewer to say as he does, that Dr. Bellamy means "merely that these disposi tions exist as early as their subjects are capable of exhibiting any visible tokens of them ?"

See, for example, p. 221.

"a privative cause," supposes the possibility of such a positive act on the part of God, as might have hindered `men from sinning, without any infringement of the laws of the nature he had given them; and this accords with various passages, already quoted from the writings of Dr. Bellamy. His view of the subject differed, therefore, in a material point, from that of those who affirm moral depravity to be the certain consequence, aside from any divine act in withdrawing gracious influences, of our physical constitution, our external circumstances, and the free exercise of our powers of moral agency. The same thing is manifest, from his resolution, in the paragraph immediately succeeding that just quoted, of the present arrangement, not into any stubborn necessity in the nature of our faculties as influenced by the world around us, but entirely into the sovereign will of God. Would the Christian Spectator have reasoned in the same manner? In answering the objection, "That it is not consistent with the divine perfections to bring mankind into the world under such sad and unhappy circumstances,"-Dr. Bellamy refers to the words of the apostle, "Nay, but O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say unto him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus ?" All his reasoning, in reply to this objection, proceeds upon the assumption of God's sovereignty in that constitution, which connects the universal sinfulness of our race, with the disobedience of Adam. He affirms that, in consequence of our being "born devoid of the divine image, ignorant of God, insensible of his infinite glory, we are naturally disposed to love ourselves supremely," &c.; "that this temper is direct contrariety to God's holy law, is exceedingly sinful, and is the seat of all wickedness. Now," he adds, "to say it is not consistent with the divine perfections that mankind should be brought into the world, as in fact they are, is wickedly to fly in the face of our almighty Creator, and expressly charge him with unrighteousness. If we cannot see into this dispensation of divine providence, yet we ought to remember that God is holy in all his ways, and righteous in all his works, and that the judge of all the earth will do right."* But who would think of adopting this

On the subject of native depravity, Dr. Bellamy's opinion seems to have coincided very nearly with that of Turretin, who says, Instit. Theol. tom. i. sec. 9, Q. 12, $ 8, 9, Licet anima sine ulla labe creatur a Deo, non creatur tamen cum justitia originali, qualis anima Adami ad imaginem Dei; sed cum ejus carentia in pœnam primi peccati. Ut hic distinguendum sit inter animam

method of vindicating the Pelagian notion of the character and state of infants?

In regard to the extent of moral depravity in unregenerate men, Dr. Bellamy maintains, that it is total, implying utter enmity against God, and all true goodness. Thus he says, p. 222, that "their very best religious performances are sinful;" and p. 223, that "they are done in a manner directly contrary to the law of God;" that "there is not the least hope in the sinner's case, but what arises from the sovereign mercy of God;" that there are no "promises" made to unrenewed men; that they are "dead in sin, cannot be subject to the law, cannot please God ;" and p .225, that "a sinner cares not a jot for God, and if he had ever so many motives, he would only serve himself, but not serve God at all;" and p. 226, that the "great earnestness of awakened sinners makes them feel and find that they are enemies to God, and dead in sin; and hereby a foundation is laid for them to see the justice of God in their damnation, and so the reasonableness of God's having mercy on whom he will have mercy."

As it regards the nature of the sinner's inability, Dr. Bellamy resolves it entirely into a wrong state of heart, affections, or will. In this he agrees, not only with Edwards, Hopkins, Smalley, and the New-England divines generally, of the last half century, but with Augustine, that great champion of the doctrines of grace, and a multitude of European theologians of later times. Indeed, after all the controversies which have been had upon the question, nearly all parties at this day will agree, that the inability of the sinner is a crime for which he deserves punishment, and not a mere calamity, like idiocy or madness, paralyzing the force of all commands, and releasing its subjects, so far as it extends, puram, impuram, et non puram. Illa pura dicitur, quæ ornata est habitu sanctitatis; impura, quæ contrarium habitum injustitiæ habet; non pura, quæ licet nullum habeat habitum bonum, nullum tamen habet malum, sed creatur simpliciter cum facultatibus naturalibus; qualis supponitur creari a Deo post lapsum, quia imago Dei amissa semel per peccatum, non potest amplius restitui nisi regenerationis beneficio per Spiritum Sanctum. Quamvis autem animæ creentur a Deo destitutæ justitia originali; non propterea Deus potest censeri auctor peccati, quia aliud est impuritatem infundere, aliud puritatem non dare, qua homo se indignum reddidit in Adamo." While Turretin affirms, that our sin is to be attributed to a privative cause, he most unequivocally teaches that, had God pleased, he might have created us with a holy nature, so that our "natural faculties," instead of leading us into sin, would have been implicitly regulated by the principles of obedience. It is also his doctrine, that the want of original righteousness implies, in itself, our utter ruin, and that it cannot be restored without regeneration. Our character, at the very beginning of our existence, therefore, is, according to him, entirely different from what it would have been, had Adam never sinned.

from all blame. The Bible most manifestly attributes men's want of ability to obey, to the strength of their disinclination, or, the dominion of their wicked prejudices and passions. Hence, while it affirms most explicitly, that no man can come to Christ, except he be drawn by the Father; that the natural or unrenewed man cannot know the things of the Spirit; and that a new heart, repentance and faith, are his gifts; it, at the same time, in the most solemn manner, charges the ruin of sinners upon their inexcusable aversion to holiness, and their unwillingness to be saved on the terms proposed in the Gospel. That Dr. Bellamy held to a real, though criminal inability, on the part of sinners, is unquestionable; but this is nothing more than maintaining, in other words, the total moral corruption, and obstinacy in rebellion, of the unrenewed heart. Hence he says, pp. 148, 149, "As to natural capacity, all mankind are capable of a perfect conformity to this law. The sinning angels have the same natural capacities now, as they had before they fell. Adam, after his fall, had the same soul that he had before, as to his natural capacities. When sinners are converted, they have no new natural faculties, though they have a new temper. The law is exactly upon a level with our natural capacities. There can be nothing to render it, in any measure, a hard and difficult thing to love God with all our hearts, but our being destitute of a right temper of mind, and having a temper that is wrong; and therefore, we are perfectly inexcusable, wholly to blame, that we do not."

How much Dr. Bellamy's views differed from those of some writers, who allege, that whatever is such an inabil ity, that it cannot be overcome by any thing less than almighty power, must, of course, be a merely physical inability, and consequently innocent, the following extracts will suffice to show.

"If a sinful creature's not being able to help his being of a bad temper, does in the least free him from blame, then the more vile and sinful any creature grows, the less to blame will he be.-If we are so averse to God that we cannot love him; and if our bad temper is so strong, so settled, and rooted, that we cannot get rid of it; this is so far from being matter of excuse for us, that it renders us so much the more vile, guilty, and hell-deserving. The more unable to love God we are, the more are we to blame."—p. 155, 156.