Shall we speak to such persons of their ability, as moral agents? For what purpose? All the ends to be accomplished by this, are accomplished already; for they feel their obligation to obey, and feel it deeply. They have done with all attempts to palliate their guilt, or to excuse themselves for continuing in sin. Why then should we declare to them their ability? Will any ability which they possess, or their consciousness of possessing it, ever avail in the least to their conversion, without the renewing of the Holy Ghost? We do not believe, nor can we make them believe, that it will; and if they should believe this, they would believe a dangerous error. Such persons need to hear, not of their ability to save themselves, but of Christ's ability to save them. Our message to them should be,-" Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world." Christ crucified is the doctrine eminently suited to their case. They feel themselves to be sick, and should be directed to the great Physician. The Saviour should be set before them in all his glory and fulness, and they should be invited, as poor and wretched sinners, and ready to perish, to trust in him alone, and to receive from him the gift of eternal life.

I refer to one more class of persons,-to humble, devout Christians, who have been taught over and over again, that they are not sufficient of themselves for any thing spiritually good, and that all their sufficiency is of God; who trust not in their own strength, but in the strength of Christ; and who ascribe to him whatever works of piety they perform, saying as the Apostle did; "Not I, but the grace of God which was with me." Such persons, (and their number in our congregations I trust is not small,) are far from being in a state of mind to relish the doctrine of man's ability, as sometimes set forth. Should the preacher tell them that they are perfectly able, of themselves, to render complete obedience to God's holy commands, and should they understand his language in the most natural and obvious sense; they might reply, that such a sentiment stands in direct opposition to their experience, their consciousness, and their prayers; and in opposition to those words of their Saviour, which they know to be true:- "Without me ye can do nothing." They might say, that they daily acknowledge the weakness of their faith and love and resolution, and ask God to strengthen them; that instead of thinking themselves sufficient, as they once did, to uphold and guide themselves, they rely upon God to uphold and guide them; and that they have a growing conviction that they always, and in all respects, need the aids of divine grace, and that they should 3

VOL. VI.NO. I.

be utterly disheartened in regard to their great work, did not their help come from the Lord.

Thus the case stands. There may be a part of a congregation in such a state of mind, that the language above recited respecting man's ability, addressed to them by a preacher, may correct a hurtful mistake, and make a salutary impression upon them. And our knowing that the preacher has persons of such a description in his view, and that he aims to correct such a mistake, would shield his language from ambiguity, and lead us to understand it in the very sense which he wishes to convey. But there are other classes of hearers, composing the greater part of common congregations, who are in widely different states of mind, and to whom such a representation of man's ability is not likely to be useful. This being the case, we ought certainly to exercise the most watchful care lest we should communicate to the minds of a large portion of our hearers a different idea from that which we ourselves entertain, and which we wish to communicate for their good. Both benevolence and honesty enjoin this care upon us.

2. A preacher or writer may prevent ambiguity and give to words, which are used in various senses, an obvious and definite sense, either by what stands connected with the words, or what precedes them, or by the nature of the subject.

To illustrate this, I will refer to a passage in your Sermon. (p. 11.) You speak of "the distinction between the ability of man as a free agent, and his inability as a sinner;" a distinction, which you say, is singularly plain and obvious. I take then the word ability. This word has many senses. In relation to the general subject of discussion, it has two senses; which you are accustomed to mark, in the common way, by the epithets natural and moral. But in this place neither of these epithets is used. You speak of "ability" merely. How do we know what kind of ability you mean? We know, first, from the nature of the subject. It is the ability of man as a free agent; that is, the ability which belongs to him as a free agent, and without which he could not be a free agent. But we know your meaning still more clearly by your previous explanations. You have told us expressly what the ability is which a free and accountable agent has; that is, such powers and faculties of mind as make him a fit subject of law, and put him under obligation to obey. And this possession of intellectual and moral faculties, commensurate with the requirements of the law, you have called natural ability. This is the kind of ability which any attentive reader would see to be what you mean in this place. I produce this as an instance, in which

the nature of the subject and other circumstances prevent ambiguity, and show clearly which of several meanings the word is intended to have.

In the same sentence you speak of man's "inability as a sinner." Here I determined the sense in the same way. It is the inability of man as a sinner; an inability arising from the fact of his being a sinner. This of course must be something very different from the absence of that ability just mentioned; for that is essential to his being a moral agent; and if that is wanting, he is not capable of either holiness or sin. But your previous explanations make it still more plain. You have told us that there is a moral inability, consisting in a sinful disposition, obstinacy of will, wickedness of heart; and that this is the inability to obey which belongs to the sinner. We are satisfied, then, that this is the inability of man as a sinner, of which you here mean to speak; an inability consisting in his "inflexible bias to evil." The nature and circumstances of the subject make this perfectly clear. And we can have no difficulty as to the meaning of any other sentence, which represents that man, as a free moral agent, has an ability to obey, and an inability, as a sinner; in other words, that man, as a moral agent, can obey, and as a sinner, cannot.

But in some places you assert the ability, and "the full ability of every sinner to comply with the terms of salvation." The question naturally arises, whether you assert this of a sinner as a sinner. This would be the more obvious import of the expression. But this would contradict the other representation, which attributes an inability to man as a sinner. How then are we to determine the sense of the word ability, as here used? It is indeed easy for me to determine the sense you wish to convey, because I am familiarly acquainted with your views on the subject. But the expression, taken by itself, might convey a wrong sense, and might lead your readers to say: In one place it is represented, that man, as a free agent, has ability to obey, and an inability as a sinner; but in this place, that he has full ability, not only as a free agent, but also

as a sinner.

I have noticed this as a passage where you have not guarded against ambiguity so well as you generally do. But I have done it mainly for the purpose of introducing a more general remark; namely; that some preachers at the present day frequently assert that a perfect ability to obey belongs to the sinner; that he is able to do, or can do all that God requires; while they say nothing at all to prevent their hearers from understanding them to mean that the sinner has an ability in eve

ry sense, and that he is subject to no kind of inability. If this were their meaning, they would set themselves in opposition to your Sermon, and to the common sentiment of Christian ministers, and to the word of God. If this is not their meaning, they should make it appear; for it is not well that preachers should have a particular meaning in their own minds, and express a different one by their words; or, that they should leave their meaning doubtful. If any man really believes what you have affirmed and what the Scriptures affirm, respecting man's inability to obey the divine law, that is, "his inability as a sinner," or, what is called his moral inability,--and will make it evident that he believes it, and will say nothing contrary to it, I will never complain of him for asserting that man has all the powers and faculties necessary to moral agency, and complete obligation to obey. Yea, he may say with my full concurrence, that so far as the powers of moral agency are concerned, man is entirely able to do all that God requires; and that were it not for his wicked, obstinate disposition, there would be nothing to hinder his obedience. But for preachers continually to represent, that man has all the powers of a moral agent, and can do what God requires, while they say nothing of his moral impotency, or, as you express it, his "inability as a sinner," is to give a very partial view of the subject, and to open the door for a pernicious error.

Permit me here to say that, in our addresses to common congregations on this as well as other subjects, it seems to me important, that we should make use of common language, in the common, popular sense. Any mixture here of the appropriate terms or the appropriate ideas of metaphysical science, breeds perplexity and confusion. The language of common life is the proper language of religious discourse. You say very justly, that " no language is more frequent in the common intercourse of men, than the terms unable, cannot, and the like, to express either slight, or determined and unchanging avesion; and that the same use of these terms pervades the Bible." And why should it not pervade our sermons? we speak of the same subject, in the same connexion, and for the same purposes, with the sacred writers, why should we not use the same kind of language? I admit that the sense of the words under consideration, as they are used in the Bible, is a secondary and figurative sense. But the nature of the subject and the circumstances of the case clearly show what the sense of the inspired writer is; so that the right impression is always made on the mind of the attentive and candid reader. The true sense, which is here the figurative, becomes the obvious

sense.

When

The word of God cannot be mended. It is inconsistent with a becoming reverence for Scripture to attempt to mend it. It is the practice of some preachers, whenever they refer to the passages of Scripture which teach expressly that "no man can come to Christ, unless he is drawn of the Father;" "that the carnal mind is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be;" "that they who are in the flesh cannot please God ;" and that those who receive honor one of another cannot believe ;—it is, I say, the practice of some preachers, whenever they refer to such passages, to avoid the language of the Bible, and to substitute another kind of expression. Instead of saying, "no man can come to Christ, unless he is drawn of the Father," they say, no man ever will come to Christ unless he is drawn of the Father. They say that the carnal mind is not, neither indeed will be subject to the divine law; and that they who are in the flesh will not do what is pleasing to God, or that it is a certainty they will not. They seem to be afraid to venture upon the simple and forcible language of the inspired writers. I do not think that you are exposed to so serious a charge as this. But there is here and there in your Sermon some ap pearance of your preferring another turn of expression, when the very language of Scripture would be exactly in place, and would express what you wish to express, more forcibly, and with greater effect, than any other. But no one can impute to you an intention to avoid Scripture language on this subject, seeing you not only make occasional use of it, but expressly justify it. Far be it from me to wish in the least to restrain the liberty of ministers, or to confine them to one set of expres sions, even to those which are found in the Bible, or to bring them in their judgement, or taste, or their manner of preaching, to conform exactly to any one standard,-and least of all to mine. But if any man who professes to believe and to preach the word of God, feels it to be necessary to avoid the language which Christ and the Apostles used on the same subject on which he is speaking, and in similar circumstances; it is certainly time for him to pause, and inquire whether all is as it should be. John Newton cautions Christians against entertaining such views on the doctrines of religion, as will make any part of the Bible unwelcome to them; and suggests, that if we find ourselves inwardly displeased with any of the declarations of God's word, we have reason to suspect there is something wrong in the state of our hearts. I say the same, and with double emphasis, as to ministers; whose office brings them into the closest connexion with the word of God, and who are justly expected to cherish the deepest reverence and love for it,