> 
 
 AN 
 
 ii©^i\,ir 
 
 ON THE 
 
 INABILITY OF SINNERS. 
 
 FROM THE 
 
 EVANGEUCAL GUARDIAff AND REVIEW, 
 
 FOR FEBRUARY AND MARCH, 1818, PRINTED AT 
 NEW-YORK. 
 
 SECOJ^D EDITION. 
 
 BY A PRESBYTERIAN. 
 
 PHILADELPHIA: 
 PUBLISHED BY J. W. SCOTT, NO. 36, NORTH SIXTH STREET. 
 
 1819. 
 
AN ESSAY, &:c. 
 
 A O relieve the difficulty arising from the fact, that man is 
 required by the law of God to do what he is unable to per- 
 form, a distinction has been made by some valuable divines, 
 between natural and moral inability. When this distinction is 
 carelully explained, and nothing more meant by it, than that 
 man possesses the faculties ot aratic»«ial and moral being, which 
 render him accountable ibr his conduct; and that, although, all 
 these faculties are so corrupted and perverted by the lall, that 
 he has become unable to fulfil the will of God, yet he is inex- 
 cusable for every breach of the divine precepts to which his 
 depravity leads him; it is not likely to mislead by making 
 wrong impressions. 
 
 But this distinction, thus temperately and carefully stated 
 and illustrated, has been pushed by some writers and preach- 
 ers to an unwarrantable length. They do not hesitate to use 
 such unguarded expressions as the following: " Sinners have 
 full ability to repent and believe; they have ample power to do 
 the will of God; he requires from them nothing above their 
 strength." 
 
 Is this the language of sober theology? Can it be justified 
 by an appeal, either to Scripture or to Christian experience? Is 
 it not repugnant to both, as well to the Standards of our 
 
4. 
 
 Church? Is no danger to be apprehended that the use of such 
 language will mislead the mind from the truth, and foster in 
 sinners a spirit of self-sufficiency? Does it not, in fact, coun- 
 teract the design of that painful and humiliating work of legal 
 convictions and distressing terrors, which usually precedes re- 
 generation; and by which they are made experimentally to feel 
 how utterly unable they are to emancipate themselves from the 
 thraldom of sin, and how entirely dependent they are for this 
 great and necessary blessing on the sovereign and mighty grace 
 of God? 
 
 As the fundamental precept of his law, Jehovah proclaims, 
 " Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, with 
 all thy soul, and with all thy might:"* and has any unregene- 
 rate sinner ability to fulfil this great commandment, in all its 
 extent, and thus to keep the whole law? Where is the saint 
 living, sanctified as he may be by the grace of his God, who, 
 having reached this elevated point in obedience, has no more 
 reason to complain of the languor of his love; no more reason 
 to bewail the impotence of his depraved nature? Greater at- 
 tainments in religion than those of the holy apostle Paul, it is 
 presumed, were never made by any man; and did he imagine 
 himself possessed of full ability to keep the law of God per- 
 fectly, when in the bitterness of his spirit he exclaimed, *' Oh! 
 wretched man that I am, who shall deliver me from the body 
 of this death?" 
 
 For an answer to these interrogatories, let Presbyterians re- 
 fer to the Standards of their Church, and they will find how ex- 
 plicitly such ability in any of our fallen race is denied. In 
 reply to the eighty-second question, the Shorter Catechism as- 
 serts, " No mere man, since the fall, is able in this life, per- 
 fectly to keep the commandments of God; but doth daily break 
 them in thought, word, and deed." In reference to believers, 
 the Confession of Faith (Chap. xvi. Sect. 3.) affirms, " Their 
 ability to do good works is not at all of themselves, but whol- 
 ly from the Spirit of Christ." The larger Catechism, in an- 
 swer to the ninety-ninth question, states it as one use of the 
 
 * Deuteronomy, vi. 5, 
 
moral law to all ?nen^ ** To convince them of their disability 
 to keep it." And in reply to the question relative to man's 
 ability, it harmonizes with the Shorter Catechism, confirming 
 the truth by the introduction of a few additional terms. The 
 answer is thus forcibly stated: " No mere man is able^ either 
 of himself^ or by um^ ifrace received in this life, perfectly to 
 keep the commandments ot God; but doth daily break them 
 in thought, word, and deed " 
 
 Such is the language of that form of sound words publish- 
 ed and acknowledged by the Presbyterian Church as their stand- 
 ard of doctrine. But, from the decisions of these standards, an 
 appeal may be taken to the Holy Scriptures. Acknowledging 
 the supreme authority of divine revelation, to which all con- 
 fessions of faith must do homage, we are willing to meet the 
 advocates of man's ability at that bar from which can lie no 
 appeal. 
 
 What is the language of inspired writers on this subject? 
 Do they express themselves in terms calculated to nourish a 
 self-sufficient spirit in sinners, by ascribing to them an ability 
 to yield spiritual obedience, whenever they may be pleased to 
 put forth this hidden power? By no means. On the one hand, 
 they assert and maintain the high claims of Jehovali, by re- 
 quiring them to repent, to believe, and to obey; but on the 
 other, they teach them explicitly their weak, and ruined, and 
 helpless condition by nature, and their absolute dependence 
 on divine grace for the requisite ability; lest, in the pride of 
 their own imagined power, they should postpone attention to 
 duty, or, in attempting it, should fail, by resting on them- 
 selves, instead of looking to the Almighty for his proffered aid. 
 
 To the Jews our Lord said, " No man can come to me, 
 except the Father, which sent me, draw him;" and to his 
 apostles, when disclosing to them the source of all their fruit- 
 fulness in good works, and of all their ability to serve God, 
 " Abide in me and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit 
 of itself, except it abide in the vine: no more can ye, except 
 ye abide in me. I am the vine, ye are the branches. He 
 that abideth in me and I in him, the same bringeth forth much 
 
fruit: for without me ye can do nothing-.^^* This same truths 
 so humbling to the pride of human nature, is inculcated in the 
 writmgs of the apostles. " For," says Paul, " the flesh lusteth 
 against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh: and these 
 are contrary the one against the other; so that ye cannot do 
 the things ye would.''''] In another place, he says, " For 
 when we were xvHhout strength^] Christ died for us:" and 
 the same truth he inculcates in a subsequent chapter, where, 
 by a figure of Scripture, he ascribes the impotence of human 
 nature to the divine law; " For what the law could not do in 
 that it was weak through thtjiesh., God, sending his own Son 
 in the likeness of sinful flesh, condemned sin in the flesh. "^ 
 The constant recollection of this truth, so interwoven with his 
 experience, kept this great man humble amidst the triumphs 
 attending his labours: " Not that we are sufficient oi ourselves 
 to think any thing as of ourselves; but our sufiiciency is of God. 
 I laboured more abundantly than they all; yet not I, but the 
 grace of God that was with me. I live, yet not I, but Christ 
 liveth in me; and the life which I now live I live by the iaith 
 of Christ, who loved me and gave himself for me. To will 
 is present with me; but how to perform that which is good, I 
 find not.'^ 
 
 So plain and repeated is the decision of the divine oracles 
 against the ability of man to do the will of God. This deci- 
 sion will appear still plainer and more conclusive, if it can be 
 shown from the representation given in the records of inspira- 
 tion of the change produced by divine grace in a sinner, that 
 a new principle^ or power of action is communicated. How is 
 it described? It is new life: " You hath he quickened who 
 were dead in trespasses and sins."|| It is a new birth: 
 " Verily, verily, I say unto thee. Except a man be born again 
 he cannot see the kingdom of God."** It is a new creation: 
 " We are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good 
 works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in 
 them."f f Now, is it possible that so vast and radical a change 
 
 * John XV. 1. t Gal. v. 17. | Rom- v. 6. § Rom. Tiii. 3. || Ephe?. ii. 1. ^ 
 ** John iii. 3. tfEphee. ii. 10. 
 
can be produced in sinful man, by the mighty power of God* 
 without being attended by the communication of a new prin- 
 ciple oi action? He is born again; he is created anew; he 
 is endowed with new life; he is made a new creature in Christ 
 Jesus; and yet no new faculty, no new power is given to him 
 whicli he did not possess belore! Impossible. 
 
 True, he retains essentially the same faculty of under- 
 derstanding ^> hich he had previously to his regeneration: but 
 this faculty has been so changed and illuminated, that an in- 
 spired writer speaks of it as if the sinner had no understand- 
 ing before: '•*■ And we know that the Son of God is come, 
 and hath given us an understanding^ that we may know him 
 that is true."* " God, who commanded the light to shine out 
 of darkness, hath shined in our hearts, to give us the light 
 of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus 
 Christ.''! True, he retains essentially the same faculty of 
 will; but this faculty has been so changed and influenced by 
 divine grace, that it has received a new bias, and a power to 
 act in a holy manner: " It is God that worketh in us both to 
 wiil and to do of his good pleasure.":|; True, he retains es- 
 sentially the same system of affections; but this system has 
 been so renewed, purified, and elevated, that the change is 
 described as the exchange of one heart for another: " And I 
 will take away the stony heart out oi your flesh, and I will 
 give you an heart of flesh. "§ Can it then be doubted, whether 
 this spiritual life^ which quickens every faculty Oi the soul, 
 pouring light into the understanding, infusing a holy bias into the 
 will, giving sensibility to the heart, and turning the current of 
 the aflTections from earth to heaven, is a new principle, a new 
 power of action? Animal liie, and rational liie, are combined 
 in the same being, but they are principles and powers oi ac- 
 tion distinct and different from each other; and so is spiritual 
 life a principle, a power, distinct and different irom both. 
 
 The testimony of experience on the question harmonizes 
 both with the decision of Holy Scripture, and with the lan- 
 guage of our standards of doctrine. The sinner is awakened ^ 
 * 1 Jolin V. 20. t 2 Cor. iv. 6. J,PUil, ii. 13. § Ezek. xhti. 26. 
 
8 
 
 he sets about the work of reformation in his own strength, 
 vainly imagining he has sufficient for its accomplishment. 
 Does the experiment justify his lofty notions of his own i 
 ability? If he really possess adequate power, why is he cou« 5 
 strained to cry to God for help and strength? Why beseech i 
 the Lord to grant what he does not need? Pardon he cer- ' 
 tainly needs; and for pardon he may with great propriety ask; 
 but if he possess ample power to repent, believe, and do the 
 whole will of God, where is the consistency in praying for 
 grace to enable him to perform his duty? Every petition of 
 this kind surely contradicts the position controverted. Ah! 
 experience humbles the sinner's lofty notions. He makes trial 
 of his strength; he puts forth his hand to the mighty work; 
 and he finds his impotence. The uniform result of every ex- 
 periment furnishes a comment on those memorable words in 
 which God, while he teaches the sinner to despair of himself, 
 encourages him to hope in omnipotent grace: " O Israel, 
 thou hast destroyed thyself; but in me is thine help."* 
 
 When put to the test the faculties of siniul man prove in- 
 sufficient for the work required from him; and he learns the 
 mortifving truth that he is indeed unable to perform his duty: 
 not from the want of an understanding, but from the want of 
 an enlightened understanding; not from the want of a will, but 
 from the want of a subdued and holy will; not from the want 
 of affections, but from the want of sanctified affections. And 
 while his rational faculties are thus disabled by sin, he finds it 
 as impossible to repent and believe, as it is for a paralytic to 
 do the actions he was accustomed to do while his limbs were 
 sound and vigorous. 
 
 Is the correctness of this exhibition of Christian experience 
 called in question? Let it be compared with a statement 
 given by the pen of inspiration. Paul, like other natural men, 
 entertained, before his conversion, lofty notions of his natural 
 ability. " I was," says he, " alive without the law once:'* 
 meaning that while he was ignorant of the spiritual nature of 
 the law, and of the vast extent of its requirements, he doubted 
 * Hosea Jtiii. 9. 
 
not his power to keep it, and thus to merit its promised re- 
 ward. But how great a change was produced in his \ lews by 
 the light of the Holy Spirit! How was his pride abased, and 
 his impotence disclosed, when the true nature and M'ide dc- 
 '' mands of the law were presented to his mind! " But when 
 the comandment came, sin revived, and I died." Now the 
 experimtnt was made; now his boasted ahilitv was put to the 
 test. What was the result? So far from being able to keep 
 this holy law, he found, by woeful experience, that the applica- 
 tion of its rigorous demands to his conscience, served only 
 to irritate his lusts, to awaken his dormant sins, and to discover 
 to him his deep-rooted and dreadful depravitv. " Sin" he 
 confesses, '' taking occasion by the commandment, wrought in 
 me all manner of concupiscence:" and thus, *'^the command- 
 ment, which was ordained unto life, he found to be unto 
 death."* 
 
 It appears, then, whether the appeal be made to the stand- 
 ards of our Church, or to the testimony of Chrstian expe- 
 rience, or to the oracles of the living God, that siniul man is 
 unable to repent, to believe, or to do his will: and it follows, 
 that the language on which we animadvert, is a manifest de- 
 parture from the form of sound words used both in the Bible, 
 and in that book which we acknowledge as the Confession of our 
 Faith, and as containing a correct exhibition of revealed truth. 
 
 To justify themselves, preachers who use such language, 
 will recur to a favourite distinction, and say they mean, not a 
 morale but a natural^ ability. And why do not they keep in 
 view this distinction? Why use such unqualified language? 
 Why assert that man has iuU ability, ample power, when they 
 intend onlj- natural ability, in opposition to moral ability, of 
 which they affirm he is destitute? 
 
 jVoral ability, then, by their own acknowledgment, is ne- 
 cessary to the actual performance of obedience to God's holy 
 will, as well as natural ability; consequently the latter, sepa- 
 rate from the former, is not sufficient; and it is, therefore, im- 
 
 • Rom. vii. 
 
10 
 
 wan-antable to affirm, that sinners possess ability, full ability 
 to do whatever is required from them by the divine law. An 
 unregenerate man has a natural power to eat; God commands 
 him to eat to his glory: and can this man perform the action 
 of eating in a holy manner, while destitute of renewing grace, 
 because he has the bodily organs necessary for masticating 
 his food? By no means: he can eat, but he cannot eat to 
 the glory of God: he can do the natural action, but he cannot 
 do it in the holy manner in which God commands it to be 
 done. 
 
 A combination of two powers js necessary to raise a certain 
 weight. Here is the human, and there the mechanical, powerj 
 I assert, there is full power to raise the weight. Remove the 
 human and leave the mechanical power, or take away the 
 mechanical and leave the human power; I assert there is not 
 power to raise the weight. 
 
 But v/hat is meant by this natural ability in sinners to do 
 the will of God? Does It mean no more than that they are 
 endowed with the faculties of understanding, will, and affec- 
 tions, and are therefore accountable creatures? This is the 
 signification attributed to the phrase by Fuller, Smalley, and 
 others. Our objection to the use of this phrase, when em- 
 ployed to denote the possession of these faculties, shall be 
 stated in a subsequent pan of this essay. At present our de- 
 sign is to expose the impropriety of maintaining that sinners 
 have full ability to do all that is required of them by the law 
 of God. 
 
 If the possession of these faculties constitute the ability of 
 sinners, then they must be in such an unimpaired state as 
 really to enable them to lulfil the requirements of the law, 
 without the aid of any other power, or the mode of speaking 
 adopted by some divines, cannot be justified; because an 
 ability that is not sufficient to peribrm any work, certainly can- 
 not be denominated, with any propriety of speech, full ability, 
 ample power. But the advocates of this phraseology allow 
 the understanding to be blind, the will rebellious, and the affec- 
 tions perverse; and moreover maintain, that till sinners b( 
 
11 
 
 bom again, regenerated in a supernatural manner, created 
 anfcw by Almighty power, they never will repent, never will 
 believe, never will obey. Now, it these laculties must undergo 
 a supernatural change before sinners can obtain that moral 
 ability which is absolutely necessary to enable them to do 
 their duty, what becomes of their full ability, their ample 
 poweri' That the unregenerate possess the iaculties belong- 
 ing to human nature, which make them accountable creatures, 
 no one denies: this is not the question at issue; it is one 
 widely different, — Whether they possess full ability to do 
 whatever is required of them while all these faculties are cor- 
 rupted, disordered, and enfeebled by sin? This is the ques- 
 tion. If they be endowed with such ability, then they know 
 their duty in all its extent, and their understanding is not 
 blinded; if they be endowed with such ability, then their 
 hearts are free from enmit)', and burning: with supreme and 
 intense love of God: because, without such knowledge of duty 
 and such love to God, it is impossible to keep his holy law: 
 and to affirm a man to be possessed of present ability to keep 
 the law perfectly, and at the same time to affirm that he is 
 ignorant of its requirements, and destitute of love to the su- 
 preme Lawgiver, is a contradiction; for the law requires him 
 this moment to know his duty fully, and to act from perfect 
 and unabating love to God. But for such knowledge and 
 such love in unregenerate sinners they do not contend; on the 
 contrary, they allow them to be at once destitute both of the 
 one and the other: why, then, will they use language so 
 grossly improper as that which we censure; and, in opposition 
 to their own acknowledged principles, assert that men, blind 
 in their understandings, and in their hearts opposed to God, 
 possess full ability, ample power to fulfil all his good and holy 
 
 will! 
 
 Compare this ability with the work it has to perform. The 
 law requires them to know the Lord; but they know him not! 
 The law commands them to love God with all their hearts; 
 but enmity reigns in their hearts! The law requires them to 
 bow their wills submissively to its supreme authority; but 
 
12 
 
 their wills are rebellious! The law commands them to centre 
 all iheir affectioiis on Jehovah; but their affections are cen- 
 tred on the world! When ignorance shall become the source 
 of knowledge, and enmitv the parent ol love; when obedience 
 shall spring rom rebellion, and order from disorder, as their 
 natural fru ts; then, and not till then, will it be true, or con- 
 sistent, to affir-in, that an unregenerate sinner has full ability to 
 keep all the commandments of the Lord our God. 
 
 To maintain that fallen man has ability to do the whole will 
 of God, is to maintain that he has an ability superior to that 
 oi Adam in h.s primeval state g»f innocence and holiness. 
 When our first parent came rresh from the creating hand of 
 God, light, and love, and order reigned in all his faculties; 
 and, in the course oi iiis obedience, he had to struggle with no 
 inward darkness, or disorder, or corruption. Free trom every 
 deiect and weakness, his powers were periectly equal to the 
 work required .rom him by the law oi his God. 
 
 With such ability was the first man blest; and less than this 
 could not have been pronounced sufficient. Have, we ask, 
 his posterity such ability? Are their laculties in this perfect 
 state? Ail are depraved by sin: darkness, enmity, and dis- 
 order re gn in the soul. And yet with laculties, thus corrupted 
 and en eebled, it is asserted, that fallen man has ability to do 
 the v/hole v/ill of God; and in fact, to do more than was re- 
 quired jrom our great progenitor, while rejoicing in the full 
 possession of all those noble and holy endowments with which 
 he was enrched by the munificence of his Creator: lor he is 
 commanded to convert himself, — to make himself a new 
 heart, — to rise from the dead, — and to become a new crea- 
 ture! How extravagant the assertion! All this is his duty, 
 because his Maker requires it from him; but the work far 
 transcends his ability, and can be accomplished only by the 
 m ghty power of God. To convert the soul irom sin to holi- 
 ness, — to take away the stony heart, and give a heart of flesh, 
 — to raise the sinner from the dead, — and to create him a new 
 creature in Chnst Jesus, and adorn him with the lost image of 
 his Creator, — is described by inspired writers as the appro- 
 
13 
 
 prlate work of Jehoval): aiul it seems surprising that scnsil)le 
 men, contemplating the nature ot the work, and atirilmtine; the 
 glory of it to our God, and allowing it never was, and never 
 will be, accomplished by any son or daughter oi Adam, still 
 maintain the ability of man to be equ^l to it. 
 
 Jehovah proclaims to apostate man his entire duty, not to 
 inflate him with lolty notions of his own power, but to con- 
 vince him that he is fallen from his primitive rectitude; to 
 abase his pride, by teaching him his impotence and vileness; 
 to awaken his fears by a sense of his misery: and that feeling 
 his depravity, his wretchedness, and his utter inability to fulfil 
 the will of God, or to rescue himself from his deplorable cir- 
 cumstances, he may be constrained to look for deliverance to 
 that merciful Being Mhom he has offended, and fi'om whom 
 alone can come all-sufficient aid. 
 
 To the preceding discussion it may be objected bv some, 
 that the term natural has been used in a sense different from 
 what they choose to give it. We mean by it, thev may sav, 
 what it signifies, when we speak of the natural^ as distinguished 
 from the morale attributes of the Supreme Being. Let us try 
 the question on this ground; and inquire whether this signifi- 
 cation of the term will authorize the assertion that sinners 
 have full ability to do the whole will of God. 
 
 It is admitted by the objectors, that fallen man has not 
 vioral ability to obey the divine law: and consequently they 
 must allow it to be impossible for the unregenerate to yield the 
 required obedience; or maintain the absurd position, that they 
 can keep the law of love without love in the heart, serve the 
 Lord with a rebellious will, and delight in him with affections 
 under the reigning influence of sin; or that they can, in a 
 mojnenty regenerate and create themselves anew, and render 
 themselves perlect, as their Father in heaven is perfect. 
 
 The union of two powers, natural and moral, is necessary 
 to qualify a man for yielding obedience to the divine law: it 
 follows, therefore, that if one (the moral for instance) of the re- 
 quisite powers be destroyed, man is no longer qualified to yield 
 •bedience. His ability is gone. Natural ability to do natural 
 
u 
 
 actions may remain; but surely he has lost the ability which 
 was the result of the union of the two powers. 
 
 To illustrate this idea, let us recur to the distinction made 
 between the divine attributes of the Supreme. His natural 
 attributes constitute his power to do natural actions, or actions 
 corresponding to these perfections: his moral attributes con- 
 stitute his ability to do moral actions, or to do all in a right 
 and holy manner. Now, (if the reverence due to his glorious 
 majesty will allow the supposition,) let us suppose the Deity 
 deprived of his morale while he retains his natural^ attributes, 
 what would be the result? Manifestly this: He would still 
 possess the power of doing natural actions, but he would be 
 destitute of power to do moral actions. He would be capable 
 of astonishing the universe by displays of omnipotence, and of 
 confounding his creatures by terrible exhibitions of grandeur; 
 but he would be incapable of acting in that holy and just, good 
 and merciful, benevolent and lovely manner, in which our God 
 invariably acts, and by which he attaches to himself the heart 
 of every intelligent creature that wears his image. To affirm 
 that such a Being had ability to do moral actions, would be a 
 gross violation of correct language. 
 
 The case of man is parallel. When originally created, he 
 was endowed by his Creator with natural ability to do natural 
 actions, and with moral ability to do moral or holy actions; 
 but by his apostacy he was deprived of the latter, though not 
 of the former: and to assert, that man, in his lapsed state, 
 possesses ability to act in a Ao/j/, merely because he retains the 
 power of acting in a natural^ manner, is indeed absurd, and 
 setting aside the use of moral power altogether. While his 
 heart remained pure and uncorrupted, he had both the power 
 of speech, and the power of speaking in a holy way, by using 
 his tongue to the glory of its Maker; but when his heart be- 
 came polluted with sin, he lost the latter, though he retained 
 the former, power: he could still do the natural action, but he 
 could not do it in a holy manner; he could use his tongue in 
 speaking, but he could not use it, as duty requires, to the 
 glory of God. 
 
15 
 
 With this illustration the language of our Confession *A 
 Faith, perfectly accords. " Man by his fall hath wholly lost 
 all ability of xuill to any s/jiri/ua/^^^oo J accompanying salvation; 
 so as a ?iatural man, being altogether averse from that which 
 is good, and dead in sin, is 720^ able, by his own strength, to 
 convert himself or to prepare himself thereunto." Chap. ix. 
 Sect. 3. And what is more important, the statement harmo- 
 nizes with the language of Holy Scripture, as will appear from 
 the texts cited in support of this article in our Confession: 
 and as several of them have already been used in the course 
 of this essay, we shall here quote only one: " The carnal mind 
 is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, 
 neither indeed can be."* 
 
 In a recent publication, which maintains that sinners have 
 ample power to love God, and full ability to do his will, the 
 author explains his meaning thus: " But the ability which is 
 ascribed to them ought to be distinctly explained. It is a 
 natural abilit)'^ in distinction from a moral. By moral I mean 
 that which has relation to praise or blame:"f and by naturalhe 
 must mean that which bears no relation to praise or blame. 
 Here, then, he exhibits the nature of this full ability. It is an 
 ability which bears no relation to praise or blame; and yet 
 this is full ability to do a work which, in the highest sense, 
 bears relation to praise! What a correspondence between the 
 nature of the work and the nature of the power! 
 
 But where shall we find this ability? In what part of human 
 nature is it seated? Is it the understanding, or the will, or the 
 heart, or all combined? It can be neither of these faculties, 
 nor can it consist in the united force of all; because all these 
 faculties bear relation to praise and blame, and we are account- 
 able for the exercise of them. We are not blameable in having 
 an understanding; but we are blameable in having a blinded 
 understanding. We are not blameable in having a will; but 
 we are blameable in having a will opposed to the will of God. 
 We are not blameable in having a heart; but we arc blameable 
 in having a hard and stony heart. In what then, does this 
 • Rom. Tiii. 7. t Griflin's Lecture;-. 
 
16 
 
 ability consist? In our bodily organs? Has the sinner ful! abili- 
 ty to love and serv^e God, because he has hands and feet, eyes 
 and ears? Why, even these organs bear some relation to praise 
 or blame, and may be used either " as instruments of righte- 
 ousness unto God,'' or " as instruments of unrighteousness 
 imto sin." Indeed, we do not know in what this writer pla- 
 ces his full abilit}'; and from his definition or explanation, we 
 should despair of discovering in what faculty, either of body 
 or mind, it is seated. 
 
 The same writer concludes his argument thus: " There is 
 no difficulty in the way, but what you are to blame for^ — none 
 therefore but of a moral nature, — therefore no natural inabili' 
 ty^ — of course you must have na^z^ra/ />ozi;er." Here is a show 
 of argument. Let us examine it, and see if the author's rea- 
 soning will abide the test furnished by this syllogism. If the 
 sinner's inability be moral, that is, blameable^ the inference is 
 just that it cannot be natural, that is, unblameable. So far the 
 reasoning is sound. But is the conclusion logically drawn? 
 If it is, then the term natural^ in the conclusion, has precise- 
 ly the same signification which it has in the premises: in the 
 premises it means unblameable, and, consequently, in the con- 
 clusion it must mean unblameable. Let us then give this ex- 
 planation to the term in the conclusion, and it will read thus: 
 " Of course you must have natural, that is, unblameable pow- 
 er!" 
 
 Once more we ask, Is it logical to infer from the want of 
 one power the possession of another; or does it follow be- 
 cause the sinner's inability is blameable, he must have un- 
 blameable power? Can you prove from the fact that a man 
 has no disposition to relieve the wants of the poor, that he 
 must have plenty of money? May he not be alike destitute 
 of both? May he not have a hard, covetous, unfeeling heart, 
 while he is poor in his outward estate? 
 
 In every view that has been taken of this subject, the lan- 
 guage on which we animadvert appears incorrect; and we 
 are constrained to conclude, that our brethren who use it, either 
 do not express their own meaning, or inculcate an error. 
 
17 
 
 But we may be asked, Dd you deny the inalnlity of sinners 
 to be moral? We reply, li by that term be meant what is in- 
 excusable, sinful, we certamly do not; and, it is presumed, 
 nothinfj has been advanced in this discussion to countenance 
 any idea of the kind. In this point we unite with those vhosc 
 doctrine we condemn; and warmly inculcate tho important 
 truth, that the sinner has no excuse <or transgressing a holy 
 law, and being opposed in heart to his glorious Creator and 
 rightful Sovereign. The law still presses on him its righteous 
 demands in all their extent, notwithstanding his inability, and 
 refuses to debate an iota in lavour of the corruptions oi his 
 nature. 
 
 Having thus exposed the unqualified language used by 
 some preachers, we proceed to state our objections to the 
 more guarded, but exceptionable, language adopted by 
 others. 
 
 We have no design to contest the propr ety of making a 
 distinction between natural and moral ability. There is suffi- 
 cient foundation for it. Man, even in his I alien state, certain- 
 ly possesses natural ability to do many actions; and the asser- 
 tion of his inability to do holy^ by no means requires the de- 
 nial of power to perform natural^ actions. He has power to eat 
 and drink, to think and speak; to read and hear the word of 
 God, to meditate and pray: in a word, he has the iacultics of 
 a living and rational creature. While, therefore, we admit it 
 to be correct to say, he possesses natural ability to perform 
 actions which he really can do, we apprehend it to be incor- 
 rect to say he has natural ability to obey the whole will of 
 God: that is, to perform actions which he really cannot do. 
 
 The phrase is calculattd to mislead. It is very indefmite 
 in its meaning, and is actually used by different writers to sig- 
 nify very different ideas. Hence it is often hard to know what 
 it is intended to denote by those who use it. Common hear- 
 ers may very naturally suppose that it means full ability, and 
 that the sinner needs no other power to enable him to keep 
 all the commandments, but only an excitement to put forth 
 the ability which he already possesses. 
 
 e 
 
18 
 
 As the phrase is calculated to mislead, so it is unvvarrant- 
 ABLE. An infant child has feet, and the organs of speech; but 
 till he has acquired the art of walking and speaking, he cer- 
 tainly has not ability either to walk or to speak. A man has 
 a mind capable of becoming acquainted with philosophical 
 subjects; but till he has studied philosophy, he certainly has 
 not ability to discourse on such subjects. It would be deemed 
 absurd to assert that a child had natural ability to speak and 
 walk, when he had not learned the art of speaking and walk- 
 ing; or to assert that a man, entirely ignorant of philosophi- 
 cal subjects, possessed natural ability to discourse in a philo- 
 sophical manner. And it is not more absurd to assert, that 
 sinful man has natural ability to do holy actions, when he cer- 
 tainly cannot do these actions, till divine grace have given 
 him the requisite ability? For a child to learn to walk and to 
 speak, requires only time and practice; and for a man of un- 
 derstanding to learn to discourse on philosophical subjects, 
 demands only diligent study: but for fallen man to obtain abili- 
 ty to love and serve his Maker, requires an entire change of 
 his nature; a change produced, not by the exertion of any power 
 in himself, but by the mighty power of God. To affirm that 
 the child has feet, and may learn to walk, and that man has an 
 und-^rstanding, and may become a philosopher, would be true; 
 and to affirm that fallen man possesses rational laculties, and 
 may be made the subject of renewing grace, and be endowed 
 with power from on high to obey his Creator's will, would like- 
 wise be true: but to affirm concerning either that he has natu- 
 ral ability to do what in fact he has not ability to do, is, in 
 our apprehension, an unwarrantable use of language. 
 
 It is worthy of observ'^ation how the use of this phrase be- 
 trays its advocates into contradictory statements. In a recent 
 publication we find the following assertions: " The Gospel de- 
 clares that we are, by nature^ children of disobedience, having 
 NO POWER to please God;" — the sinner " is without spiritual 
 strength;'''* — ^he " never xvill come, and never can come to 
 Christ, without the special grace of God;"— he is " utterly 
 polluted and helpless:'*'' and yet the author lays it down as a 
 
19 
 
 "great and important principle in the Divine government 
 that more is never required than there is natural power ^ to 
 perlorm."* 
 
 The author oi another late publication, in order to prove 
 that regeneration is :x supernaturol work of divine grace, talc ea 
 a survey of all the laculties of human nature, and, from their 
 corrupt and disordered state, evinces that there can be found 
 in them no adequate cause from which this gieat and entire 
 cliange can proceed: antl after having established this impor- 
 tant truth by arguments tlius derived from the impaired and 
 depraved state of his natural faculties, he affirms again and 
 again, that the unregenerate man has full power ^ ample abUitij^ 
 to do all required from him by the will of God!f And conse- 
 quendy, as he is commanded to make himself a new heart, he 
 is able to regenerate himself. 
 
 Nor has Fuller escaped the rock against which others have 
 struck their adventurous barks. This will appear from com- 
 paring a few passages in his " Gospel worthy of all accepta- 
 tion:' "The law of God itself," (he asserts in p. 117) " re- 
 quires no creature to love him, or obey him, beyond his strength, 
 or with more than all the powers which he possesses:":}: but in 
 page 122, he states an objection to his doctrine thus: " It is 
 sometimes suggested, that to ascribe natural ability to sinners 
 to perform things spiritually good, is to nourish their self-suf- 
 ficiency; and to represent their inability as only moral, is to 
 suppose that it is not insuperable^ but may be overcome by ef- 
 forts of their own." Are not these passages contradictory? 
 The first asserts that sinners have strengdi sufficient to love 
 and obey God; but the second asserts that their inability to do 
 things spiritually good, or to love and obey God, is insupera- 
 ble^ and not to be overcome by efforts of their own. Stkength 
 sufficient, and insuperable inability! 11 If a man labour un- 
 der an insuperable inability to do any thing, he certainly has 
 not strength sufficient to do that thing, although he may have 
 strength to do many other things. Were the natural ability 
 of sinners sufficient to overcome their moral inability, then it 
 
 •Richard's sermon on tlip sinner's inability, f Griffin's lectures. +Conin'scd. N.V. 
 
20 
 
 might be asserted that they had sufficient strength to do things 
 spirituallv good, or to love and obey God: but that they have 
 not such strength is asserted by Fuller still more strongly, in 
 page 152, where, referring to our Lord's address to the young 
 ruler, who inquired what he must do to inherit eternal life, he 
 observes, '' that to which he was directed was the producing 
 of a righteousness adequate to the demands of the law, which 
 was NATURALLY impossible-" It was naturally impossible for< 
 this young man to fulfil the demands of the law, and yet he 
 was requ red to do nothing beyond his strength! It was natur- 
 ally impossible for him to fulfil the demands ol the law, and 
 yet he had natural ability to obey the law, or fulfil all its de- 
 mands!! 
 
 We have another, and an important objection to this phrase, 
 and that is, It does not answei the purpose for which it has 
 been coined. 
 
 It is inculcated by all who embrace the doctrines of grace, 
 as an essential truth, that man, in his i alien state, is unable to 
 keep the commandments of God. To this humiliating truth 
 it is objected, that it goes to set aside the obligation to obe- 
 dience; and it is confidently asked, as if the objection could 
 not be answered, How can it be just in the Creator to demand 
 from h'.s creatures an obedience which they are unaljie to 
 yield, and then to punish them for inevitable disobedience? 
 We meet the difficulty presented in this objection by recurrmg 
 to the fall of Adam, our federal head and representative. 
 Had man, we admit, been originally created in his present 
 state, the law by which he is governed, would indeed have 
 been disproportionate to his powers; but as he was at Jirst 
 made upright, free from every siniul bias, and endowed with 
 ample powers to yield the required obedience; and as by his 
 own wilful transgression he corrupted his nature, and thus, 
 by impairing his own powers, rendered himself unable to keep 
 the commandments or God; we contend it is just in our Su- 
 preme Legislator to insist on the obedience originally de- 
 manded irom him; because an inability contracted by wilful 
 apostacy, can neither diminish the right of the Creator to 
 command, nor lessen the obligation ot the creature to obevt 
 
21 
 
 With this reply the advocates of natural ability are not satis- 
 fied. They imagine a more complete and satisfactory answer 
 is given by the distinction they make between natural and" 
 moral inability. So think Fuller and Smailey. 
 
 Now, if it can be shown that this distinction contributes not 
 a particle of weight to the answer already given, nor sheds a 
 single new ray of light, it will appear to be oi' no value in refer- 
 ence to the objection. What, we ask, is meant by natural 
 ability? They answer, the rational facidties of man, his under- 
 standing, will, and affections. That man possesses these facul- 
 ties is not denied; and it is admitted also, that if he were 
 deprived of them he would cease to be a moral agent — an 
 accountable creature. No proof, then, is required to show 
 that he is endowed with these attributes; and if proof were 
 demanded, it would not be found in the bare assertion of his 
 natural ability. What is the question, then, at issue? Not 
 whether man possesses natural faculties, but how a creature, 
 possessing these faculties in a state so corrupted and disordered 
 by sin as to be rendered unable to obey the divine law, can 
 be justly required to yield an obedience beyond his ability? 
 Now, to affirm that man has natural ability to yield obedience, 
 is no answer to the quesiion; lor It amounts to nothing more 
 than to assert what is admitted in the question, — that he has 
 understanding, will, and affections. To give weight to this 
 phrase, and make it worth contending ior, it ought to signify 
 more than Fuller and Smailey ascribe to it; it should convey 
 what, it is to be apprehended, it does convey to many minds, 
 that fallen man has all the abilitv he needs, and labours under 
 no inability whatever to yield obedience. This is !elt by some 
 who rely on this distinction: and hence, it seems, they lay 
 aside the use of the qualifying term natural^ and assert the fiill 
 ability^ the ample potver of man: yet shrinking back from the 
 true import of their phraseology, they speak of the moral ina- 
 bility of man; because facts and Scripture compel them to 
 admit the truth. Such a reply, however, to the objection, 
 would not remove the difficulty; it would be an admission that 
 it was insurmountable, and an acknowledgement that inability 
 
22 
 
 of any kind would release man from the duty of obedience to 
 the law of God. 
 
 It appears, then, that the reply to the objection, by the advo- 
 cates of natural ability, when carefully examined, amounts to 
 nothing; and as the phrase does not answer the purpose for 
 which it was invented, it should, for this, and other reasons, be 
 discarded. The only reply to the objection is what we stated; 
 it is sufficient and satisfactory: and if the sinner, feeling his 
 inability, will still dispute the equity of the law in exacting an 
 obedience beyond his strength, he must settle the matter with 
 his Maker, who will doubtless bring forth his judgment unto 
 victory. 
 
 We urge but one more objection to this phrase. There is 
 just as much reason for ascribing to man moral ability to per- 
 form the required obedience, as there is to ascribe to him na- 
 tural ability. Were we to denominate the understanding, will, 
 and aifections, moral faculties, some might feel disposed to 
 dispute the matter with us; but as they must acknowledge that 
 man has a moral faculty or faculties, it is unnecessary for us to 
 defend our opinion; enough is granted to make out the truth 
 of our assertion. Man possesses both natural and moral facul- 
 ties; if, therefore, it be correct to affirm that he has natural 
 ability, because he possesses the former^ it must be correct to 
 affirm that he has moral ability, because he possesses the latter 
 faculties: the ground of the one assertion is just as good as 
 that of the other. 
 
 The sum of the preceding discussion may be stated in the 
 following propositions: 
 
 1. That fallen man is unable to obey the will of God. 
 
 2. That the faculties of understanding, will, and affections, 
 belonging to human nature, do not supply him with ability to 
 yield the obedience required; because these faculties are so 
 corrupted and disordered by sin, that, without the renovating 
 grace of the Holy Spirit, he can neither love, nor serve, nor 
 obey the Lord, as duty commands. 
 
 3. That his inability is mexcusable, or, if you please, moral, 
 because it arises from the depravity of his nature; and as this 
 
23 
 
 inability is inseparable irom a depraved nature, and is 
 born with the sinner, it may in truth be termed natural as well 
 as moral. 
 
 4. That although man has what may be called 7iatural^ in 
 distinction from moral ability, yet the possession of natural 
 ability, while it enables him to do many corresponding actions, 
 does not enable him to perform holy actions. 
 
 From this view of the condition of man by nature, the 
 course to be pursued by a minister of the Gospel is plain. He 
 is to declare the truth, and the whole truth. While he insists 
 on the requirements of the law, maintaining that it demands 
 perfect and sinless obedience; let him not be afraid, openly 
 and distinctly to announce the mortifying fact, that ' no mere 
 man, since the fall, is able, in this life, perfectly to keep the 
 commandments of God; but doth daily break them in thought, 
 word, and deed.' By inculcating the former truth, his hear- 
 ers will be convinced that their impotence, from whatever 
 source it may arise, is criminal, and furnishes them with no 
 excuse; because it does not release them from the obligations 
 of duty, nor procure in their favour any abatement in the de- 
 mands of God's holy law: and by inculcatmg the latter truth, 
 they will be guarded against a mistaken reliance on their own 
 strength, and admonished both of the necessity of depending 
 on Him whose strength is made perfect in weakness, and of 
 the duty of imploring, by earnest and importunate prayers, 
 that grace which is free and all-sufficient for perishing and 
 helplesss sinners. 
 
 On this plan acted the apostles; and it should be adopted 
 by every Christian minister. In the writings of these inspired 
 teachers we find the following propositions: 
 
 That man is an accountable creature. 
 
 That, by nature, he is unable to please God, or keep his 
 commandments. And, 
 
 That this inability, arising from the corruption of his nature, 
 is inexcusable. 
 
 But they never attempt to reconcile the seeming inconsist- 
 ency between the two last propositions, by teaching, or inti- 
 
24 
 
 mating that man, in his present fallen state, has ability to dt 
 all that is required of him by the law. Both truths they in- 
 culcate, and leave the difficulty to be settled between God and 
 the sinner's conscience. 
 
 Not satisfied with this scriptural statement, some divines, 
 in their endeavours to remove a seemin^^ inconsistency, have 
 produced a real contradiction; maintaining that man has abili- 
 tij for obedience, while they assert his inability. 
 
 FINIS. 
 
 Cwack Sf Prankish, Printers, 
 164, Mrth Third St. 
 
k 
 
ri 
 
 m 
 
 
 H^^I^HIS '- 
 
 SL^^P^Rfl 
 
 
 
 m 
 
 ^■k^^ 
 
 -^^w^^