think that they dislike it. For when it comes right in their way, and when it would be the most natural thing in the world for them to make use of the striking, impressive language of the word of God, they still avoid it, and substitute other language quite different and opposite. In the very place, where Christ and the apostles unhesitatingly say that the unrenewed sinner cannot believe and obey, these preachers unhesitatingly speak out, and say he can. Now, soberly, if I should discover any thing like this in myself; if when the inspired writers are accustomed to use one mode of speaking, I should be accustomed to use the opposite; if while Christ teaches that those who are governed by the love of worldly honor cannot believe, I should have a habit of saying they can believe; if while he teaches that sinners cannot come to him, except they are drawn of the Father, I should affirm the opposite; and while he declares that a bad tree cannot bear good fruit, I should boldly declare that it can; and if, in direct contradiction to the apostle, I should affirm that men in their natural state can obey the law and please God;-if I should detect in myself this.practice of shunning the language of the Bible and using the opposite in its place; I should think it high time for me to be alarmed at my want of reverence for the word of God, and to inquire seriously for the cause which had turned me aside. I know, for a certainty, that Christ and the apostles had a just view of our nature and relations. They understood human obligation, and the grounds of it. They understood moral agency, and the philosophy of moral agency. And yet, speaking in the words which the Holy Ghost taught, they declared that sinners cannot believe and obey. and that without Christ even Christians can do nothing, Yes, they affirmed this, repeatedly, and without qualification. And certainly they had a sound judgment, and a concern for the good of men, and knew, better than we do, how to teach divine truth, and how to guard against whatever would expose men to mistake. Nor do we find that they used different language at different times, sometimes saying that sinners cannot obey, and sometimes, that they can. And shall we take upon us to be wiser than the inspired writers, and to improve upon their language? I start back from the thought of any thing either in principle or practice, which implies that the words of inspiration are

1

not fit to be used in popular religious discourse, and which would lead us customarily to avoid them, and to introduce language of a different import, when speaking on the same subject, and in the same connection.

But "Inquirer" calls for an explanation of my language. This I shall endeavor to give. He first refers (p. 458) to several instances, in which can is used in Scripture, and common parlance, with an implied negative, signifying that the thing spoken of is "very difficult, very revolting or very improbable; and then asks, whether this is the sense in which I mean the word to be understood here. To this I must reply in the negative. And if "Inquirer" will go along with me a little in the examination, he will see the reason why I cannot adınit this to be the right sense of the word.

It is an acknowledged principle, that if a definition or explanation of a word is right, that explanation may be substituted for the word, without injuring the sense. Now let the correctness of the above explanation be tested by this principle. Say then that the cannot in the cases referred to merely signifies, as Inquirer expresses it, that the thing spoken of is "very difficult, revolting or improbable ;" and substitute any or all of these words in place of the Scripture word to be explained, and see how it will work. First, take the language of the prophet: "Can the Ethiopian change his skin, or the leopard his spots? Then may ye also, who are accustomed to do evil, learn to do well." The passage clearly and strongly implies, that the Ethiopian cannot change his skin, or the leopard his spots, and that those who are accustomed to do evil cannot learn to do well. Try now the explanation above proposed. Begin with the word difficult," thus: As it is "very difficult" for the Ethiopian to change his skin, and the leopard his spots so it is for those who are accustomed to do evil, to learn to do well. Next try "revolting" As it is "very revolting" for the Ethiopian to change his skin-so it is for the habitual transgressor to turn from sin to holiness. Finally, try "improbable:" As it is very improbable" that the Ethiopian will change his skin, so it is, that sinners, long accustomed to do evil, will learn to do well. Again: Take the text, John 15: 4, in which Christ says to some: "How can ye believe, who receive honor one of another, and seek not the honor which cometh from God only?" signifying emphatically, that such

66

66

persons cannot believe; and let it be explained as above. It is "very difficult" for them to believe, who receive honor one of another; or, it is "very revolting" to them; or it is "very improbable" that they will believe. Again: Take that momentous declaration of Christ: "No man can come unto me, except the Father who hath sent me draw him." As explained, it would read thus: It is "very difficult" for any man to come to Christ, except he is drawn of the Father; or it is "very revolting" to him; or it is "very improbable" that any sinner will come to Christ, without special divine influence. Again: "Without me ye can do nothing." Explained as above: It is "very difficult" for you to do any thing, or it is "very improbable” that you will do any thing, without me. Take one passage more, Rom. 8:7, 8: “The carnal mind-is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be." Explained: It is "very difficult and revolting" for the carnal mind to be subject to the law, and it is "very improbable" that it ever will be subject.- So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God." That is to say; it is " very difficult" for the unregenerate to please God, and "very improbable" that they will please him. Perhaps I have said more than is necessary to show, that this first explanation proposed by "Inquirer," essentially fails to give the true meaning of the inspired writers. And he is perfectly right in thinking it "very improbable,” that I understand the word cannot in such a sense.

66

Inquirer" proceeds to suggest another view of the subject, namely: "that the unregenerate man has actually no power to love God and be subject to his law," and that it is

66

actually and absolutely impossible" for him to do it. He seems to suppose that this is the view which I adopt. And the reader will see how easy it is for him to make out a meaning for me, and to state it in his own words, and then to urge very plausible arguments against it, as though it were really entertained by me.

But I am not quite satisfied with this account of the matter. On such a subject it is important to use language which is unambiguous and plain. But the phrases, "no power," and "actually and absolutely impossible" are ambiguous, being used in very different senses, and there is certainly a wide difference between "no power" or total inability in one of these senses, and in the other. Who is

1

ignorant of the distinction, which is so obvious and so commonly recognised, between a natural inability and impossibility, and a moral? On this subject, I go with New England divines. I was trained up under their influence, and I do heartily, though not with an implicit, or undistinguishing faith, coincide with them in opinion. The explanations given by Edwards, Bellamy, Hopkins, Dwight and Day, particularly by Smalley, and also by Andrew Fuller, do, in my opinion, afford all the satisfaction which can be had, respecting the sinner's inability. It is indeed true, that a subtle and skeptical mind may embarrass this subject by endless objections and cavils. But after all, we shall find that every important truth respecting it is obvious and certain.

There is what we call a natural inability, consisting in the want of those powers and faculties which are essential to a moral, accountable agent, and without which there can be no obligation to obey the divine law. This inability belongs to inferior animals, and to those who are the subjects of total idiocy or insanity. But no inability of this kind can belong to sinners. They are not the subjects of it in any degree. The fact mentioned by "Inquirer," namely, that God requires all men to obey his commands, does most certainly imply that they ought to obey, and of course that they have no inability which interferes with the justice of such a requisition, or with their perfect obligation to comply with it. I am far from holding that sinners have “no power" of any kind to obey, or that it is, in every sense, "impossible" for them to obey. As to those powers and faculties, or that ability which makes them fit subjects of a moral law, I maintain that they possess it, I would not say in some degree, but perfectly. They have what goes to constitute obligation, as completely as though they were holy. So that they have no need of any new mental faculties, or any increase of their natural ability, in order to their actual obedience.

It follows, that when the Scriptures teach, that sinners cannot obey, they must refer to the other kind of inability. And here I come to the explanation which "Inquirer" calls for. The inability of sinners is their strong disinclination or aversion to holiness; their settled, unyielding unwillingness and opposition of heart to do the will of God. This sinful disinclination, unwillingness, or aversion is such, that

SECOND SERIES, VOL. IV. NO. II.

19

it is not sufficient to say, it makes it "very difficult" for sinners to obey, or "very improbable" that they will obey. It is a certain hinderance to obedience, and will be for ever, unless removed by the renewing of the Holy Ghost. No motives presented to the mind, and no means whatever can overcome it without the regenerating influence of the Spirit. It is a disinclination and aversion of heart so strong and invincible, that it prevents obedience as certainly and effectually, as a natural impossibility could; so that the sacred writers are perfectly justified in calling it a cannot, and in representing a change by the divine Spirit as absolutely necessary to bring man to faith and obedience. This is the doctrine of the New England divines; it is the doctrine of the Christian church in all ages; and what is still more important, it is the doctrine of THE BIBLE. Is not this view of the subject very clear? We know there is a sense in which sinners cannot obey, because the word of God so represents it. It must be an important sense, or the inspired writers would not have asserted it so often, and so emphatically. And it must be an obvious sense, plainly suggested by the very nature of the subject, or the inspired writers would not have asserted it so directly, and left it, without any qualification, to be apprehended by plain common sense. Considering the nature of the subject of which they are treating, and the drift of their discourse, we are sure this must be their meaning. And we are sure they had good reason to express this meaning just as they did, and to say, that unrenewed sinners cannot believe and obey. And as sinners are, in this respect, the same in all ages, we have good reason to speak of them as the sacred writers did. And when, with this moral aspect of the subject before us, we teach, in the very language of inspiration, that sinners cannot believe and obey, we no more furnish an excuse for their unbelief and disobedience, than Christ and the apostles did. Indeed, the more strongly we affirm this, in the proper connection, the more impressively do we teach the great and inexcusable wickedness of sinners. For the inability of sinners is of such a nature, that the higher it rises, and the more absolute it is, the more heinous is their guilt. And we may at any time make this perfectly plain, if instead of the word cannot, we merely employ other words, which clearly express the same meaning. Thus, if instead