Page images

interpreted as the language of common sense, that will be found to contradict it.

When Paul says of the "carnal mind," that it "is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be," he is not speaking of the essential mind, but that mind's exercises, as any Greek scholar will at once perceive; so that, instead of furnishing an objection, this passage is a strong confirmation of that for which we contend; as the reader will perceive, more satisfactorily, in a following chapter.

When the English translation makes the same apostle say, “the flesh lusteth against the spirit, and the spirit against the flesh; and these are contrary the one to the other; so that ye cannot do the things that ye would.It will be seen by every one, acquainted with the original, that the word cannot is not used by the apostle himself. He merely states the fact, that those in whom the conflict hetween the flesh and spirit is waged, do not the things they would. Such is the activity of the conflict, that a present purpose of will is succeeded and counteracted by another, before it is executed; but of what character the will is, nothing is said explicitly. To the context we must look for that. The Greek particle, translated so that, sometimes denotes design; and if, in this sense, it is to be here understood, the apostle's meaning is, that the influence of the Spirit in the believer, is vouchsafed to counteract and frustrate his sinful inclinations. This we prefer, as being most agreeable to the apostle's assurance, expressed in the previous verse. If it denotes merely the result eventually, nothing more can be inferred from it, than that the influence of the Spirit, which generates an holy inclination, is counteracted by corrupt desires and affections, so that it does not issue in the accomplishment of that to which he was inclined, or which he willed. The word here translated “would,” denotes not only the choice, or purpose, but that choice or purpose, as influenced by the affections, or feelings of desire. Our object is not Biblical criticism, in this work, and, therefore, we are not careful to decide, which, if either of the two constructions should be exclusively preferred. Neither view militates against the truth, which has been advanced in this chapter. Admitting all that those who cite it, as found in our translation, think it allirms, it proves too much, even for them.

1. Rom. viii, 7.

2. Gal. v. 17.

1. ένα μη α αν θελετε ταυτα ποιητε.-ινα Conjunctio casualis significano: ut Tonixws, indicans causam finalem, vel finem. Ita usurpatur. John xvi. 1, Mat. xix, 13, Marc i, 38, Luc i, 4.-Vide Schleusneri Lex.

3. Notat Apostolus non eventum sed causam finalem, agitque vel. 1. de vol. untate tantum prava, quod hanc Spiritus fronet, nec sinat facere quæ prata libido suggerit, vel quæ carni adlubescunt; vel 2, de voluntate tantum regenerata, quod hanc non sinat caro facere quæ vult bona-vel potius, ut suadet antithesis, de utraque: Quia inquit Caro et Spiritus contraria concupiscunt, hinc fit, ut non semper ea quæ vultis, tam in bonis, quam in malis etiam facere possitis --Vide Poli. Synop. ad loc.

For the assertion is made, not of the unrenewed, but renewed, and they must, therefore, maintain, that the latter, notwithstanding the influence of the Spirit, are utterly unable to do what they would. It is for them, tu reconcile this with other passages, and ward off the accusation of slandering the work of the Spirit; and also to explain the absurdities which they make the apostle speak. With these things, we have

no concern.

Neither can any thing, unfavorable to this view of human ability, be inferred from the apostle's experience, when he says, “That which I do katega bomoh the word is taken in a bad sense—the evil thing which I effect,) I allow not (approve not), for what I would, that do I not; but what I hate, that do I. If, then, I do that which I would not, I consent unto the law that it is good. Now, then, it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me. For I know

that in me, (that is in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing; for to will is present with me, but how to perform ( 79 xarayač:56er—the effecting-perfecting) that which is good, I find not..” It is evident, that the apostle cannot here use the word "will,” to denote a simple volition; for no one ever acts or does any thing, without some volition. The word is sometimes used, to denote the main and efficient—the leading and controling purpose;' and in this sense we suppose the apostle used it, in the context first quoted. His meaning, is, therefore, very plain. If he does not voluntarily and deliberately purpose to do evil; but on the contrary, if it is his fixed, and abiding, and studious purpose, to do what the law of God requires, it shows that the moral being—the I, whose character was to be estimated by this, its leading feature—did fully approve of the law of God, and that, therefore, of whatever deviations from it he was guiity, they were to be attributed to the influence of sin, which he personifies, and not to the deep and fixed principles of his renovated character. His will, in the main, was right, but it was resisted, counteracted, and ofttimes overpowered by various considerations, of which, he did not cordially and deliberately approve, nor of that which they led him to do. Here, again, we derive a confirmation of the views advanced, from the very objectiong urged against them.

1. Rum, viii, 15-18.

2. Such is the doctrine of the Catechism and Confession of Faith. By the corruption of man's nature, the answer to the 25th question of the Larger Catechism, says that “he is utterly indisposed, disabled, and made op. posite unto all that is spiritually good, and wholly inclined to all evil.” The plain grammatical meaning of these words is, that as man is indisposed, which term describes altogether a voluntary state of mind, he is disabled, and so made opposite to all good. Nor is the idea at all different, when it is said in chap. ix. Scc, 3 of the Confession of Faith, that “man by his The inability attributed to men, in the sacred Scriptures, is wholly that of will. Man will not do what God requires, and is abundantly willing to co-operate with him in effecting. All the solemn appeals, that are made in the sacred scriptures, to the consciences, sensibilities, and judgment of men, proceed on this assumption. And, indeed, we see not how it is possible to understand the many solemn, and tender, and heart-thrilling remonstrances of God, on any other. If man is physically disabled, and it requires an act of creative power, to give him the requisite capacities and ability, to meet the requisitions of God, so that he cannot believe, he cannot repent, he cannot obey, till power is first put into his faculties; God's withholding that creative power, is a procedure directly at war with His professions. All His remonstrances, and expostulations, and exhibitions of sorrow and concern, are a mere farce! He stands accused and convicted of insincerily, and no wonder that sinners should find it difficult, and impossible to believe in such a case.

But the ever blessed God is faithful and true. And when we consider, that the whole inability under which men labour in respect of God's requirements, arises out of the aversion of their wills-their determined and obstinate refusal and resistance of Jehovah's claims-how amazing do His grace and condescension appear, in that He undertakes by considerations addressed to their reason, and conscience, and heart, to persuade them to be reconciled, and turn to him in a life of holy obedience! Every word is big with

fall into a state of sin hath lost all ability of will to any spiritual good accompanying salvation; so as a natural man being altogether averse from that good, and dead in sin, is not able, by his own strength, to convert him. self, or to prepare himself thereunto.” It is inability of will that is here spoken of, and none else. The operation of this sort of inability which is Thoral can never upon any fair principle of interpretation, be construed into a denial of natural ability. 1. 9s7.c Mat. xvi. 25; xxiii, 37; Mark viii, 35; 1,43, 4; Luke ix, 24; xxiii, 20. import. All is radiant, and glowing with truth. No cloud of dark and fiend-like suspicion, settles on His throne. It is our boast and glory, that “the strength of Israel will not LIE.' And thus believing; having our minds divested of every foul and malignant conjeeture, that possibly God is not sincere, our souls are melted within us, in all the tender throbbings of heartfelt repentance, as we hear Him WEEP, EXPOSTULATE, BESEECH and SWEAR before and unto us, to induce us to believe and live.

Can it be for one moment admitted, that God does not mean exactly what He says? Say, incredulous and skeptical reader, is it all a vain show, when He delays his judg. ments, protests that he is lothe to inflict them, and that it is the very grief of his heart, that men will not turn to him, that they may live? Has he some private design you cannot understand, at war with his declarations, which destroys your confidence, when He so feelingly complains, “My people are bent to backsliding from ine; though they called them to the Most High, none at all would exalt him. How shall I give thee up, Ephraim ? How shall I deliver thee Israel? Ilow shall I make thee as Admah? How shall I set thee as Zeboim ? Mine heart is turned within me, my repentings are kindled together.” Is all this grief a mere theatrical display? Was all the heart rending sorrow of the Son of God a mere exhibition, when, with flowing tears, and a soul almost overwhelmed, He exclaimed, as he looked upon the guilty population of Jerusalem, "If thou hadst known at least in this thy day, the things which belong unto thy peace!-but!-now-they are hid from thine eyes.” "Oh, Jerusalem! Jerusalem! Thou! which killest the prophets, and stonest them that are sent to thee-how ofter Would I have gathered thy children together, as a hen gatheis her brood under her wings; but YE WOULD NOT.

1. Sunni. xv, 29. 2. Hos. x, 7, 8. 3. Luke, xix, 42

1. Luke, xii, 34.

« PreviousContinue »