Page images
PDF
EPUB

always so understand it. If any rational, moral being should say of himself, or if another should say of him, that he cannot love the all-perfect, glorious God, we should be astonished at his baseness, and should exclaim: How desperately wicked must his heart be!

In regard to the expression of mine, above referred to, implying that the unrenewed sinner cannot call forth the affection of love to God and so be subject to his law, I might at once resort to the word of God, and show that the inspired writers make the same representation. The passages in which they familiarly do this, are so well known, that they need not be quoted. Now the single fact, that men, who spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost, frequently affirmed that unrenewed sinners cannot believe and obey, is, by itself, sufficient to justify us in using the same language on the same subject. What better reason can we have for any doctrine, or for any mode of teaching it, than that we find it in the infallible word of God? Can we have a surer standard than the Bible? Look at the texts, in which it is familiarly and strongly affirmed, that men, in their natural state, cannot believe in Christ, or be subject to the law; and tell me, whether the inspired writers used words correctly? Had they good reason to speak as they did? And when we speak of the same subject, and with reference to the same aspect of the subject, have we not good reason to speak in the same manner?Does the word of God need to be corrected or altered? It does indeed need explanation. But does it need mending? This then is the stand I take; and I do not expect to be moved from it. Christ and the apostles were right. They taught the truth; and the manner of their teaching was just and unexceptionable. They had satisfactory reasons for using just such language as they did. And they are good examples for us, as to the manner of giving religious instruction. It is allowed by all that their language was intended for common people, and suited to common apprehension. So that, whatever we may say respecting the proper language of philosophy or metaphysics, we are sure, that the language of the Bible is the proper language of those who preach the gospel. I am aware that some preachers at the present day are not accustomed to use the language of Scripture on this subject. Indeed they give us reason to

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 qualifica. tion. 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

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 adinit 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

"

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.

"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 "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

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.

66

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

« PreviousContinue »