Chapter VII: Part 7

These are the three systems which are presented to the inquirer after truth as the alternatives, and perhaps I may say the only alternatives of choice, in reference to this subject. It is true, the doctrine of _natural ability_ has been proposed as another alternative, holding an intermediate place between the doctrines of native impotency as first stated and of Pelagianism. And it may therefore appear to some, that I ought, in my enumeration, to have given this as a separate and distinct theory. My reason, however, for not doing this is, that there cannot, in my opinion, be such a resting place between the doctrines of derived constitutional depravity and Pelagianism. Natural ability that is any thing more than a name--that is, in fact, an _ability_, destroys the idea of constitutional depravity; and depravity that is any thing more than a name--that is, in fact, _constitutional depravity_, destroys the idea of natural ability. A striking proof of this is found in the fact that a great portion of those divines in the Calvinistic Churches who have been most decided in preaching up natural ability, have gone over and embraced the New Divinity, which, as we have seen, abjures the doctrine of constitutional depravity. The New-Haven divines are certainly gentlemen of talents and of close thought; and they have been following up this doctrine for a number of years, and it has landed them upon the logical conclusion that _there is no such depravity_. But we need not trust to the conclusions of the New Divinity advocates, to show that the notions of natural ability and natural freedom from guilt and sin necessarily and reciprocally imply each other. Why have Calvinists left their old ground of natural impotency, and resorted to the dogma of a natural ability? It is for the avowed reason that there can be no guilt without an ability to avoid it. But since the sin of his nature is unavoidable to the new-born infant, of course he can have no guilt, and by consequence _no sin_, until he is capable of an intelligent moral choice. Again: this same theory tells us that where there is no natural ability there is no moral character. But as the infant cannot be reasonably supposed to have ability to put forth an intelligent holy volition, he can have no moral character, and of course no sin.

The only way to avoid this conclusion in connection with the assumed premises is, to maintain that "the infant, from his birth, is a voluntary agent; and thus, in fact, to a certain extent, sinful." And would you believe, reader, that any reasonable man would resort to such an idea for the sake of helping out a theory? _And yet it is even so_. A paper lately published under the sanction of the New Divinity, purporting to be an inquiry into "what is the real difference between the New-Haven divines and those who differ from them," says, "The ground has of late been taken (if we understand the discussions on this subject) that mankind are literally _at birth_ voluntary and accountable agents, and actual sinners against God; that the new-born infant is a responsible subject of God's moral government, and actually sins with a knowledge of his duty, and in the same sense with the adult sinner violates moral obligation, does wrong, ought to be penitent, and to change its moral character." And as a proof that this is the ground now assumed, the same writer gives us a quotation from Rev. Mr. Harvey, who has been one of the most active in this state in opposition to the New-Haven divines, in which he says, "A moral being, for aught we know, may commence his existence in an _active_, _voluntary_ state of the will; he may be a voluntary agent from his birth, and thus, in fact, to a certain extent sinful, and that without supposing that _depravity is seated in any thing but the will_." This same writer also states that Dr. Spring, in a treatise on "native depravity," a work which I have not at hand, has advanced and defended the sentiment of "_actual_ sin from birth." And has it indeed come to this at last, that this natural ability, for which Calvinists have so strenuously contended, is nothing more than the power the new-born infant has to commit actual sin on the one hand, or "make himself a new heart" on the other! Alas for Calvinism! To what miserable shifts--yes, I must call them _miserable_ shifts--is this system driven! On this subject I will not express myself in accordance with my feelings. The respect I have for the intelligent, learned, and pious gentlemen who have advanced this idea, restrains me in this matter. Such a result, in the advocacy of a favourite theory, is however in strict accordance with the known obliquity of the greatest and purest minds. But while we respect the authors of such a theory, and while we feel the necessity of taking heed to ourselves, lest we also fall by the same example of prejudice, we cannot suffer our common sense to be imposed upon by such gross absurdities. In this, however, we see that, as before, in trying to maintain their _ability_, they gave up their _depravity_: so here, in trying to establish their _depravity_, they destroy their _ability_. Nay, what is still worse for this theory, this very attempt to prove that infants are "_actual_ sinners from their birth," is an indirect denial of the doctrine of derived depravity. Why do these gentlemen wish to establish this point? Why, forsooth, in order to show that men are _guilty_ from their birth, which is an acknowledgment, of course, that they cannot prove them guilty only by proving that they have intelligent moral exercise. Consequently it is a concession that this exercise is the occasion and origin of their guilt. This is not the first time that Calvinism, in trying to save itself, has gone over and joined the ranks of its opposers. Can the reader see the difference between this doctrine of actual sin from the birth, viewed in connection with its origin and bearings, and the New Divinity, which makes sin consist exclusively in moral exercise? Let these old-side Calvinists, then, sheath the sword of controversy which they have drawn against their brethren, and join in with them to defend, if possible, the Pelagian doctrine which, it would seem, after all, they hold in common stock. Has the Rev. Mr. Harvey been so active in getting up an opposition theological school in Connecticut to teach that the infant "commences his existence in an _active voluntary_ state of the will, and is thus (_on this account_) to a certain extent sinful?" This is clearly a work of supererogation--a useless expenditure of money and of talents. The New-Haven Theological School is capable--alas! too capable of carrying on this work, especially if Mr. Harvey and his friends will cease their opposition, and unite in their assistance. Does Mr. Harvey fear that the New-Haven divines will not begin their "_moral exercise_" early enough to make it _natural depravity?_ They have given assurances that they will not be particular on that point. Only allow that there is no sin previous to the first intelligent act of choice--previous to the corresponding power to make themselves new hearts, and they will be satisfied. They have said already that "this capableness of sinning, if it is not at the exact moment of birth, [and they do not affirm that it is not,] commences so early in their existence, that it is proper, for all the great purposes of instruction, to speak of it as existing from the beginning of their days." Hence we see nothing between these gentlemen on this point worth contending about. It will, however, be important that all who hold to conversion by motives and mere moral suasion should not put the commencement of these "moral exercises" so far back that the subject cannot understand Gospel truth; otherwise they may yet get into another difficulty as serious as the one they are trying to avoid. But to the subject. It has been very distinctly shown, I think, from the reasoning of the Calvinists themselves, and from the nature of the case, that there can be no such intermediate theory as they contend for, between the native impotency of old Calvinism and Pelagianism. But as this is an important point, I will illustrate it farther by an examination of the _seat_ of this Calvinistic depravity. It is seen, by the quotation above from Mr. Harvey, that he considers "depravity as seated in nothing but the will." And this is avowedly the sentiment of at least all those Calvinists who believe in natural ability. It is on this ground that they reiterate incessantly, "You can if you will;" "There is no difficulty except what is found in a perverse will." It is on this ground, also, that they tell us "a right choice is conversion." They do not say a right choice is a _condition_ or a fruit of the new birth; but _it is itself the new birth_. But to understand this subject clearly, it is important to know what they mean by the will. It appears to me they use this term with great indefiniteness, if not latitude of meaning. If they mean by this what I understand to be the legitimate meaning of the term "the mental power or susceptibility of putting forth volitions;" then to say that all depravity is seated in the will, is to be guilty of the gross absurdity of teaching that the affections have not a moral character. If by the will, however, they mean, as they frequently seem to mean, the affections themselves going out in desire after some proposed good, then indeed they establish the New-Haven theory, that all sin consists in moral exercise. Thus by placing all depravity in the will, whether by this is meant the power of willing, or the exercise of the affections, they, in the one case, exclude sin from the affections altogether, and in the other affirm the doctrine of Pelagianism. But if by the will they mean something different from either of the above definitions, then I frankly confess I know not what they mean. Should they however, change their ground, and place the seat of this depravity in the constitution of man's moral nature, as it exists anterior to any act of volition, then and in that case they throw the subject back on the old ground of natural impotency; for to talk of a natural power to change the moral constitution, as it existed prior to choice, and which constitution must, by the law of its nature, exercise a controlling influence over the mind, is the same as to talk of a natural power to alter one's own nature, or to unmake and remake himself. In this case we must have supernatural aid, or we must remain as we are.

We shall not be fully prepared to judge correctly on this subject until we have examined one more preliminary question, viz. What is the precise meaning that we are to attach to the terms, _natural_ and _moral ability_, as used by the Calvinists? To ascertain this, I have examined such authors as I have had access to, with care; and I have been particular to consult _recent_ authors, that I might not be accused of charging old and exploded doctrines upon our opposers; and _various_ authors, that I might ascertain any varieties that appertain to the different Calvinistic schools. In particular, the author of "Views in Theology;" Dr. Griffin, in a late work on "Divine Efficiency;" Rev. Tyler Thatcher, of the Hopkinsian school; and a doctrinal tract, entitled, "Man a Free Agent without the Aid of Divine Grace," written, it is presumed, by one of the divines of the New-Haven school have been consulted. There is among them all a remarkable uniformity on this point. If I understand them, the substance of what they say is, "Natural power consists in the possession of understanding, conscience, and will; and moral power is the _exercise_ of these faculties." Mr. Thatcher says this in so many words.--The tract alluded to gives this definition of natural power. Dr. Griffin says "their [sinners'] faculties constitute a natural ability, that is, a full power to love and serve God, if their hearts are well disposed." It certainly must appear, at the first glance, very singular to every mind not embarrassed by theory, that either the _possession_ of faculties, or the _exercise_ of faculties, should be called _power_. The idea of _power_ is supposed, by the best philosophical writers, to be undefinable, from the fact that it is a simple idea; but here, strange to tell, we have it analyzed in two different forms. Faculties are power--the exercise of faculties is power. Now, although we cannot define power, every one doubtless has a clear conception of it; and I humbly conceive that the common sense of every man will decide that neither of the above definitions embraces the true idea of power. The _exercise_ of faculties _implies_ power, it is granted; but every one must see that it is not power itself. And although the _faculties_ of the mind are sometimes called the _powers_ of the mind by a kind of borrowed use of the term power, just as the limbs or muscles are called the _powers_ of the body, yet it requires very little discrimination to see that as we may possess these powers of the body entire, and yet they be defective from some cause, as to some of their appropriate functions, so we may possess these powers or faculties of mind entire, and yet they may be defective in that moral strength necessary to a holy choice. Hence the possession of these faculties does not even _imply_ power adequate to a holy choice; much less are they _power itself_. I marvel therefore at these definitions of moral and natural power, and am thereby confirmed in the opinion advanced in my former number, viz. "That the whole of this distinction (of natural and moral ability) and the reasoning from it, proceed on the ground of a most unphilosophical analysis of mind, and an unwarranted definition of terms." This may seem a strong statement from so humble an individual as myself, in view of the many able minds that have adopted the opinions here opposed. But neither their opinion nor mine will weigh much, in this controversy, except as sustained by reasonable arguments; and by such arguments the present writer expects to stand or fall. Look then, reader, to both sides of this subject. Dr. Griffin himself seems to be at a loss how to explain himself on this subject. When he wishes to oppose the New-Haven divines, and guard against their error, he says, "If you mean by power, an ability that works without Divine efficiency, I hope I shall be the last to believe that." "And every body knows that the mass of the New-England divines, from the beginning, have acknowledged no such doctrine."

And why is _Divine efficiency_ necessary?--Because man has no ability that will "work," without it. Thus the moment he sets up a guard against Pelagianism, he throws himself back either upon our doctrine, or upon the old Calvinistic doctrine of "native impotency." There is no standing place any where else. The New-Haven divines are right, if natural ability is right; and the time cannot be far distant when the love of consistency will drive all, who hold to natural ability, either on to the New Divinity ground, or back to old Calvinism. From this remark the reader will see how much depends, if my views are correct, upon the proper adjustment of this question. It is in fact the turning point, which is to give a character to the theology of the Churches. Let us not then be in haste to pass over it. Hear Dr. Griffin farther. "Now if you ask me what is that power, which is never exerted without Divine efficiency? I can only say, that, in the account of the Divine mind, it is the proper basis of obligation, and therefore by the decision of common sense, must be called a power." The doctor had a little before told us, that this power was faculties--he is not satisfied with this; and what well instructed mind, like the doctor's, could be? It is something that forms the "basis of obligation," he knows not what it is. He merely infers there is such a power, because men are held responsible. But this inference will flow quite as naturally, by taking the Arminian ground of gracious ability, and save the other difficulties beside. At any rate, it will save the absurdity of holding to an ability, that will not "work," without being strengthened by Divine aid, and yet that this same ability is sufficient for all purposes of obligation without that aid.

We shall find equal difficulty, if we take up and examine this definition of _moral_ power. It is "the exercise of natural power." But these same writers tell us that, while we have this natural power sufficient without Divine grace to form a basis of obligation, "we are entirely dependent upon God's grace for moral power"--in other words, according to the definition of moral power, we are dependent upon grace for the _exercise_ of our natural power--and since natural power means the faculties of the understanding, will, and conscience--the statement is simply and evidently this: we are dependent upon Divine grace for the exercise of our understanding, conscience, and will, in making a holy choice. Why? Because the understanding, conscience, and will are so depraved by nature, that it is not in their nature to "work" in this exercise, without this Divine grace. Is not this holding the gracious ability after all? Is it singular then that Dr. Griffin should say, in another place--"They (sinners) are bound to go forth to their work at once, _but they are not bound to go_ alone: it is their privilege and duty to cast themselves _instantly_ on the Holy Ghost, and not to take a single step in their own _strength?_" Or is it any wonder that the Christian Spectator should say, that "this statement of Dr. Griffin brings him directly on the ground of evangelical Arminianism?" And is this the ability that "the mass of the New-England divines have held to from the beginning?" Not exactly. They only slide over on this ground occasionally, when they are pressed hard with Pelagianism on the one hand, and the old doctrine of passivity on the other. For the truth is, as before remarked, they have not a single point to balance themselves upon between these two, only as they light upon our ground.

There is still another difficulty in this moral power, as it is called. It implies the absurdity, that power to obey God is obedience itself. For a right exercise of our natural powers is obedience. But the right exercise of our natural power is moral power--therefore

Our moral power to obey God is obedience!! And this will give us a clue to the proper understanding of that oft-repeated Calvinistic saying--"You have power to obey God, if your heart is rightly disposed," or in short hand--"You can if you will." Now the verb _will_ here evidently means the right _exercise_ of the natural faculties--that is, as shown above, it means obedience. Hence the whole and proper meaning of this notable saying is--"You have power to obey God, _if you obey him_." "You _can_ if you _do_." This is a sort of logic which, when scanned down to its naked character, one would get as little credit in refuting, as its abettors are entitled to for its invention and use. And yet this is the logic which, in its borrowed and fictitious costume has led thousands in our land to suppose that Calvinism, as it is now modified, is the same, or nearly the same with Methodism.

There is still another striking solecism, necessarily connected with this definition of power. It supposes it to have no actual existence, until the necessity for it ceases. For in the order of cause and effect, natural power effects the act of obedience; and this effect of natural power, producing obedience, gives existence to moral power. Thus we have power to obey, super-added to the power that has actually obeyed! If, however, Calvinists say this is treating the subject unfairly, because their very definition shows that they do not mean by it any thing which _enables_ man to obey--I answer, that my reasoning went upon the ground, that it was what they call it--_power;_ and if they do not mean power, that is only acknowledging the position I started upon, that this Calvinistic power is no power at all. And here I ask, in the name of candour, What is the use of calling things by wrong names? What confusion and error may not be introduced by applying common and well defined terms in such a manner, that, when the things to which they are applied, are defined, it is seen that the terms thus applied are worse than useless; they directly mislead the mind! It is the direct way to bring Christian theology and Christian ministers into distrust and reproach.

One thought more, with respect to this moral power, and I will pass on. The doctrine of Calvinism is, if I understand it, that God controls the natural power of men, by means of their moral power. This some of them expressly affirm. And to show that I am not mistaken with respect to the others, let the reader carefully attend to the following considerations. What is it secures the fulfilment of the Divine decrees, in respect to the elect and the reprobate? Why do not some of the reprobates, in the use of natural ability, repent and get to heaven? Because they have not the moral power. Why do not some of the elect, in the use of the same ability, fall into sin and finally perish? Because God makes and keeps them willing in the day of his power--that is, he irresistibly imparts to them this moral power. Thus, by means of this, which he keeps in his own hands he executes his decrees. For God, of set purpose, so constituted this natural power, that it does not "work" without Divine efficiency. By moral power; therefore, natural power is controlled. Now, to say nothing here of the absurdity of efficiently and irresistibly controlling one power by another, and yet calling that other the essence of free agency, and the basis of obligation--look at the absurdity in another point of view. Since moral power is the exercise of natural power, the former must be the _effect_ of the latter. And since, according to Calvinism, natural power is controlled by moral power, it follows conclusively; that the effect controls its cause!! And since the cause must act, before the effect is produced, it follows that the effect, before it has an existence, acts upon its cause to produce its own existence!!! This is certainly a nullification of both cause and effect: Such are some of the difficulties of these definitions of power--definitions as contrary to the common understandings of men, and the common laws of language, as they are to sound philosophy--definitions which, if they were always understood, when the terms were used; would make the propositions in which these terms are found, sound very differently to the common ear. I trust therefore it has been made to appear, that "this distinction of natural and moral ability, and the reasonings upon it, are founded on a most unphilosophical analysis of mind and an unwarranted definition of terms," and that, after all the efforts of the Calvinists to find out another alternative, they will be under the necessity, if they would be consistent, either of going back to the old Calvinistic ground, of remediless impotency, or of advancing on to the Pelagian ground of the New Divinity; or they must accept of the Arminian theory of gracious ability. And that the reader may be prepared to make his selection, I will here remind him of the arguments adduced in favour of the latter doctrine, in the last number, while I next proceed to answer more specifically the objections that have been urged against it, which however for an obvious reason must be withheld until the next number.

NUMBER XII.

OBJECTIONS TO GRACIOUS ABILITY ANSWERED.

In consulting different authors to find the strongest objections that have been urged against our doctrine of ability by grace, I have fixed upon the doctrinal tract, already alluded to, entitled, "Man a Free Agent without the Aid of Divine Grace," as concentrating in a small compass, and in a clear and able manner, the sum total of these objections. I may not follow the precise order of this writer, and possibly shall pass over some of his remarks as of minor importance; but the substance of his reasoning shall receive such notice as I shall be able to give it.

1. The first objection is, in substance, this: that without being a free agent man cannot be _man;_ that free agency in fact enters into the very definition of an intelligent, morally responsible being; and therefore he must be such by nature.

This objection gains all its plausibility from the writer's definition of free agency. "It consists," he says, "in the possession of _understanding_, _conscience_, and _will_." Now we grant that the being who possesses these is an intelligent voluntary agent. But these faculties, as we have seen, may be disordered, so that, for all holy purposes, they may be defective. The understanding may be darkened, the conscience may be seared, the power to choose good may be weakened either positively or relatively. _Liberty_ is a distinct faculty of the soul; and as such is as subject to derangement as any other mental susceptibility. It has, we say, suffered materially by the fall; so that man has not his original aptitude or facility to good. And whether we consider this as a weakness appertaining directly to the faculty of the will itself, or whether we consider it a relative weakness, (which is probably the more philosophical,) resulting from the loss of a moral equilibrium in the mind, by reason of the uncontrolled sway of the passions, in either case the primary cause and the practical result are the same. Sin has perverted the soul, and given it an unholy declination from righteousness to an extent which none but God can rectify. With this view of the subject, the writer may call man a free agent if he pleases; but he is only free to unrighteousness, and not to holiness.

Our objector was aware that his argument might be disposed of in this way; and hence in a note he says, "Some writers speak of man, in his natural state, as _free only_ to evil. But in what does such freedom differ from mere instinct? With no power to do otherwise, how is he who murders a fellow creature more criminal than the tiger, or even a falling rock that destroys him?" The fallacy of this argument consists chiefly in a misrepresentation of our theory. Instead of holding that man "has no power to do otherwise," we believe, as much as this author, that man has ample power at his command to do otherwise; but that this power is of grace, and not of nature. Any farther supposed difficulties growing out of this view of the subject will be explained, I trust satisfactorily, as we advance.[6]

2. "Every man is conscious that he possesses the faculties which constitute free agency."--Here again we must keep in view the writer's definition. We shall find no difficulty in granting that every man is conscious that he possesses the faculties of understanding, conscience, and will; but that these, unaided by grace, constitute man free to a holy choice, is denied; and this is the very question in debate. To affirm it therefore in argument is begging the question.

It however, the author means to say, as his reasoning on this point seems to imply, that man is conscious of being a free agent, in the responsible sense of the term, this is also granted; but then this does not touch the question whether this power is of grace or of nature. But, says the writer, "When man, under the influence of grace, does choose the good, he is not conscious of any new faculty or power to choose, but only he uses that power in a different manner. The power or faculty which chooses evil and which chooses good, is the same power differently used." Whoever disputed this?--understanding by power a faculty of the soul, as this author evidently does. We all acknowledge that the soul gets no new faculties by grace; but we believe that the mind, in the exercise of its natural faculties, is assisted by grace to make a right choice. But, says the writer, in this connection, "Power to choose between two objects is power to choose either." If the writer means to say that power to choose either the one or the other of two objects _is_ power to choose either--this is an identical proposition: it is only saying, _If a thing is, it is_. But if he means to say, when two objects are presented to the mind, and the mind finds itself possessed of a power to attach itself voluntarily to one, that therefore it has the _same power_ to attach itself to the other, this is denied; and as no proof is given or pretended by the objector, nothing but a denial is necessary. On this point the founder of the Calvinistic school was undoubtedly correct--philosophically and theologically correct--when he said, "Man has not an equally free election of good and evil."

But that I may meet this objection founded on consciousness, full in the face, I am prepared to assert, and I think prove, that man, so far from being conscious that he has by nature adequate power to serve God, is conscious of the very reverse of this. What truly awakened sinner has not a deep conviction of his utter helplessness? How many experiences of intelligent and pious Calvinists could I quote on this point? As a specimen take that of the Rev. David Brainerd, who stands high in the Church, not only among Calvinists, but among all Christians who know him. I quote a passage from his experience quoted by Dr. Griffin: "I saw that it was utterly impossible for me to do any thing toward helping or delivering myself. I had the greatest certainty that my state was for ever miserable for all that I could do, and wondered that I had never been sensible of it before."--This passage is very strong; too unqualified, perhaps, but it is the natural language of a weak sinner, convinced, as all must be before they _can become strong_, of their utter helplessness without grace. How fully does such a one prove the truth of Scripture, that "the _natural_ man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness unto him, neither _can_ he know them, for they are spiritually discerned;" that "no man knoweth the Father, but the Son, and he to whom the Son shall reveal him." Hence the necessity that "the Spirit should take of the things of Jesus Christ, and show them unto them." Indeed, but for this darkness and weakness of the understanding, the penitent sinner would not feel the necessity of the agency of the Spirit: nor would it in fact be necessary. It is on this ground that the doctrine of natural ability has led to the idea of conversion by _moral suasion_. Thus it is evident that a man may be conscious of having an understanding, but at the same time be as _fully_ conscious that that understanding is too dark and weak for holy purposes, unaided by grace. The same is also true of conscience. Experience teaches us that it often becomes languid or dead, and needs quickening. Hence the Christian often prays--

"Quick as the apple of an eye,
O God! my conscience make;
Awake my soul when sin is nigh,
And keep it still awake."

Hence also we pray God to alarm the conscience of sinners. So also we learn from Scripture and experience that the conscience needs purging "from dead works," for the very object that we may be able "to serve God with filial fear;" we learn also that we may have "defiled consciences," "weak consciences," "seared consciences," &c. And here let it be noticed, that whether we understand these passages as applying to the regenerate or unregenerate, to derived depravity or contracted depravity, the argument against the objector will in every case apply with resistless force, viz. it shows that this faculty of the soul may become so disordered as to have its original healthy action impaired, and that in this case nothing can give it its original sensibility and strength but the God who made it. If sin does disorder the conscience, it disordered Adam's: and if he begat children in his own moral likeness, then his posterity had a similar conscience. And therefore it is necessary that, as by the offence of the first Adam sin abounded, so by the obedience of the second, grace may abound in a way directly to meet the evil.

Let us next examine the will. Are we not conscious that this also is weak? How repeatedly does the awakened sinner resolve and fail! until he becomes deeply impressed that he is "without strength!" He tries to keep the law, but cannot; for he finds that "the carnal mind is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed _can be_." Hear his complaint! and that we may be sure of taking a genuine case, let us select a Bible experience from Rom. vii; "I am carnal, sold under sin." (How much liberty to serve God has a bond slave to sin?) "That which I do I allow not; for what I would do that I do not, but what I hate that do I." "To will is present with me, but how to perform that which is good, I find not," &c. (See through the chapter.) Hear him finally exclaim, in self despair, "Who shall deliver me from the body of this death?" Why, Saul of Tarsus! are you not conscious that you have understanding, conscience, and will? Why make such an exclamation? Who shall deliver you? _Deliver yourself_. No! such philosophy and such theology were not known to this writer, neither as a penitent sinner, nor as an inspired apostle. "I thank God, through Jesus Christ my Lord."--"The law of the spirit of life, in Christ Jesus, hath made me free from the law [the controlling power] of sin and death."

Should any one say that the apostle was not describing his _conversion_ here, but his experience as a Christian believer, I reply: If any thing, _that_ would make the passage so much the stronger for my present purpose; for "if these things are done in the green tree, what shall be done in the dry?" If a saint--one who has been washed and renewed--finds nevertheless that his will is so weak as to need the continued grace of God to enable him to do the things that he would, much more is this true of the unrenewed sinner. If this account of the apostle's experience means any thing, _it is as express a contradiction of the doctrine, that we have natural strength to serve God, as could be put into words_. And I am bold to say that this is the experience of all Christians. And it presents an argument against the doctrine of natural ability which no metaphysical reasoning can overthrow--not indeed an argument to prove that we have not understanding, conscience, and will; but to show that, having these in a disordered and debilitated state, grace is indispensable to aid them, in order to an efficient holy choice. How often soever the judgment may be brought to a preference of the Divine law, it will as often be carried away by the strength of the unholy passions until it is delivered by the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ. _We are conscious therefore that we have not natural power to keep the Divine law_.

3. But it is objected again, "that the Scriptures require us to use our natural faculties in the service of God;" and hence the inference is, that these faculties are adequate to this service.

It is certainly no objection to our doctrine, that the Scriptures, dealing with man as he is, require him to use his natural powers to serve God. With what other powers should he serve him? I again repeat that the question is not, whether we have _mental faculties_, nor whether man may or can serve God with these faculties, but simply whether the command to obey is given independently of the considerations of grace. We say it is not; and in proof refer to the Scriptures, which give a promise corresponding with every command, and assurances of gracious aid suited to every duty--all of which most explicitly imply, not only man's need, but also the ground on which the command is predicated. And with this idea agrees the alleged condemnation, so often presented in the Scriptures: "This is the condemnation, that light has come into the world, and men have loved darkness." "He that believeth not is condemned already." "But they grieved his Holy Spirit, therefore he is turned to be their enemy." "How shall we escape, if we neglect so great salvation." These, and many other passages, show that the turning point of guilt and condemnation is not so much the abuse of natural powers, as the neglect and abuse of grace bestowed.

This point may be illustrated by Christ's healing the withered hand. He commanded the man to stretch it forth. What was the ground of that command, and what was implied in it? The ground of it was, that aid would be given him to do it; otherwise the command to stretch forth a palsied limb would have been unreasonable. And yet it was understood that the man was to have no new muscles, or nerves, or bones, to accomplish this with; but he was to use those he had, assisted, as they would be, by the gracious power of God. So man, it is true, is commanded to use his natural powers in obeying God; but not without Divine aid, the promise of which is always either expressed or implied in the command.

4. "The Scriptures ascribe no other inability to man to obey God, but that which consists in or results from the perversion of those faculties which constitute him a moral agent."

It is true, the Scriptures blame man for his inability--for inability they certainly ascribe to him, and why? Because where sin abounded grace has much more abounded. That sinners are perverse and unprepared for holy obedience up to this hour is undoubtedly their own fault, for grace has been beforehand with them. It met them at the very threshold of their moral agency, with every thing necessary to meet their case. It has dug about the fruitless fig tree. It has laid the foundation to say justly, "What more could I have done for my vineyard?" If the sinner has rejected all this, and has increased his depravity by actual transgression, then indeed is he justly chargeable for all his embarrassments and moral weakness, for he has voluntarily assumed to himself the responsibility of his native depravity, and he has added to this the accumulated guilt of his repeated sins.

5. It is farther objected, with a good deal of confidence, that Arminians, after all, make man's natural power the ground and measure of his guilt, since "no part of his free agency arises from furnished grace, but it consists simply inability to use or abuse that grace, and of course in an ability distinct from, and not produced by the grace."

Let us see, however, if there is not some sophistry covered up here. Arminians do not mean that man's ability to use grace is independent of, and separate from the grace itself. They say that man's powers are directly assisted by grace, so that through this assistance they have ability or strength _in those powers_ which before they had not, to make a right choice. To talk of ability to use gracious ability, in any other sense, would be absurd. It would be like talking of _strength_ to use _strength_--of _being able to be able_. This absurdity, however, appears to me justly chargeable upon the natural ability theory, taken in connection with the Scripture account of this matter. The Scriptures instruct us to look to God for strength; that he gives us "power to become the children of God;" that he "strengthens with might in the inner man, that we may be _able_," &c. This theory, however, tells us that we have an ability back of this; an ability on which our responsibility turns, and by means of which we can become partakers of the grace of the Gospel. This is certainly to represent the Divine Being as taking measures to make _ability able_, and adding power to make _adequate strength sufficiently strong_.--Such is the work of supererogation which this theory charges upon the Gospel, for which its advocates alone are answerable; but let them not, without better ground, attempt to involve us in such an absurdity. But the strongest objections, in the opinion of those who differ from us, are yet to come. They are of a doctrinal, rather than of a philosophical character, and are therefore more tangible, and will, for this reason, perhaps, be more interesting to the generality of readers. Let us have patience, then, to follow them out.

6. _Doctrinal Objections_.--On the ground of gracious ability it is objected that, 1. "As the consequence of Adam's fall, Adam himself and all his posterity became incapable of committing another sin." 2. "Every sinful action performed in this world, since the fall of Adam, has been the effect of supernatural grace." 3. "Man needed the grace of God, not because he was wicked, but because he was weak." 4. "The moral difference between one man and another is not to be ascribed to God." 5. "The posterity of Adam needed no Saviour to atone for actual sin." 6. "This opinion is inconsistent with the doctrine of grace." 7. "There can be no guilt in the present rebellion of the infernal regions." 8. "Is not this grace a greater calamity to our race than the fall of Adam?"

I have thrown these objections together, and presented them in connection to the reader, for the reason that they all rest mainly on one or two erroneous assumptions, to correct which will be substantially to answer them all.

One erroneous assumption of this writer is, that "there is no free agency to do wrong, which is not adequate to do right." This writer seems to think this a self-evident proposition, which needs no proof; for although he has used it in argument a number of times, he has left it unsustained by any thing but his naked assertion. This proposition has already been denied, and an unqualified denial is all that in fairness can be claimed by an antagonist to meet an unqualified assertion. Our object, however, is truth, and not victory. Let me request you then, reader, to look at this proposition. Can you see any self-evident proof of this assertion? If the Creator should give existence to an intelligent being, and infuse into his created nature the elements of unrighteousness, and give to his faculties an irresistible bias to sin, and all this without providing a remedy, or a way for escape, then indeed all our notions of justice would decide that such a being ought not to be held responsible. But this is not the case with any of the sinful beings of God's moral government.--Not of the fallen angels, for they had original power to stand, but abused it and fell--not of fallen man, for in the first place his is not a created depravity; but, in the case of Adam, it was contracted by voluntary transgression when he had power to stand; and in the case of his posterity, it is derived and propagated in the ordinary course of generation: and in the second place, a remedy is provided which meets the exigencies of man's moral condition, at the very commencement of his being. This it does by graciously preventing the imputation of guilt until man is capable of an intelligent survey of his moral condition; for "as by the offence of one, judgment came upon all men unto condemnation: even so, by the righteousness of one, the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life." And when man becomes capable of moral action, this same gracious remedy is suited to remove his native depravity, and to justify him from the guilt of actual transgression; for "if we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and cleanse us from all unrighteousness." It does not appear, then, either from the obvious character of the proposition itself; or from the condition of sinful beings, that "the same free agency which enables a man to do wrong, will enable him also to do right." Hence it is not true that Adam, by the fall, lost his power to sin, or that there is now no sin in the infernal regions. It is true, the writer tries to sustain this idea farther, by asserting that "_that_ ceases to be a moral wrong which is unavoidable; for no being can be held responsible for doing what is unavoidable." This is little better, however, than a reiteration of the former assumption. If the character and conduct of a being are not _now_, and never _have been_ avoidable, then indeed he ought not to have guilt imputed to him. But to say that there is "no moral wrong" in the case, is to say that characters and actions are not wrong in themselves, even where it would not be just to impute guilt. And this is an idea which is implied also in another part of this writer's reasoning; for he tells us that, according to the doctrine of gracious ability "every sinful action performed in this world, since the fall of Adam, has been the effect of supernatural grace;" and that "man needed the grace of God, not because he was wicked, but because he was weak," &c. This reasoning, or rather these propositions, are predicated on the assumption, that there is no _moral wrong_ where there is no _existing_ ability to do right: in other words, that dispositions and acts of intelligent beings are not _in themselves_ holy or unholy, but are so only in reference to the _existing_ power of the being who is the subject of these dispositions and acts.

But is this correct? Sin may certainly exist where it would not be just to impute it to the sinner. For the apostle tells us that "until the law sin was in the world;" and yet he adds, "Sin is not imputed (he does not say sin does not exist,) where there is no law." The fact there are certain dispositions and acts that are _in their nature_ opposite to holiness, whatever may be the power of the subject _at the time_ he possesses this character or performs these acts. Sin is sin, and holiness is holiness, under all circumstances. They have a positive, and not merely a relative existence. And although they have not existence abstract from an agent possessing understanding, conscience, and will, still they may have an existence abstractly from the power of being or doing otherwise at the time. If not, then the new-born infant has no moral character, or he has power to become holy with his first breath. Whether the subject of this unavoidable sin shall be responsible for it, is a question to be decided by circumstances. If a being has had power, and lost it by his own avoidable act, then indeed he is responsible for his impotency--his very weakness becomes his crime, and every act of omission or commission resulting from his moral impotency, is justly imputed to him, the assertion of our objector to the contrary notwithstanding. Hence it is incorrect to say there is now "no guilt in the rebellion of the infernal regions." It is of little consequence whether, in this case, you assume that all the guilt is in the first act, by which the ability to do good was lost, or in each successive act of sin, which was the unavoidable consequence of the first. In either case, the acts that follow are the measure of the guilt; and hence, according to the nature of the mind, the consciousness of guilt will be constantly felt, as the acts occur. For all practical purposes, therefore, the sense of guilt, and the Divine administration of justice will be the same in either view of the subject. The writer supposes the case of "a servant's cutting off his hands to avoid his daily task," and says, "this he is to blame, and ought to be punished;" but thinks he ought not to be punished for his subsequent deficiencies. But I ask, How much is he to blame, and to what extent should he be punished? His guilt and punishment are to be measured, certainly, by the amount of wrong he has done his master--that is, by every act of omission consequent upon this act, which rendered these omissions unavoidable. Therefore he is justly punishable for every act of omission; and you may refer this whole punishment to the first act exclusively, or to all the acts separately: it amounts to the same thing in the practical administration of government and of justice. Indeed, to say that each succeeding act is to be brought up and taken into the estimate, in order to fix the quantum of punishment, is to acknowledge that these succeeding acts are sins; else why should they be brought into the account at all, in estimating guilt and punishment? Take another case. The drunkard destroys or suspends the right use of his reason, and then murders. Is he to be held innocent of the murder because he was drunk? or was the whole guilt of the murder to be referred to the act of getting intoxicated? If you say the former, then no man is to be punished for any crime committed in a fit of intoxication; and one has only to get intoxicated in order to be innocent. If you say the latter, then, as getting drunk is the same in one case as another, _every_ inebriate is guilty of murder, and whatever other crimes drunkeness _may_ occasion, or has occasioned. Is either of these suppositions correct? Shall we not rather say that the inebriate's guilt is to be measured by the aggregate of crimes flowing from the voluntary act of drowning his reason? And so in the case before us. Instead then of saying, that on our principles "there is no guilt in the present rebellion of the infernal regions," I would say that their present rebellion is the fruits and measure of their guilt. Thus we see, that a being who has had power and lost it, is guilty of his present acts.

And by examination we shall find that by how much we enhance the estimated guilt of the first act, it is by borrowing so much from the acts of iniquity which follow. And will you then turn round and say, the acts which follow have no guilt? Why have they no guilt? Evidently because you have taken the amount of that guilt and attached it to the first act. And does this make these acts in themselves innocent? The idea is preposterous. As well may you say that the filthy streams of a polluted fountain are not impure in themselves, because but for the fountain they would not be impure; as to say that the current of unholy volitions which unavoidably flows from a perverted heart is not unholy and criminal.