heart is evil from his youth." Job xv. 14-" What is man that be should be clean? and he that is born of a woman that he should be righteous?" John xv. 5-"Without me ye can do nothing." 1 John i. 8-"If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us." James iii. 2-"In many things we offend all"-and v. 8-"The tongue can no man tame; it is an unruly evil, full of deadly poison." Rom. iii. 19— "that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God." And add to these texts that remarkable passage in the seventh chapter of the Epistle to the Romans, to which I referred in the last lecture, as illustrative of the evil desires and propensities even of the renewed mind; and in which the Holy Apostle represents himself as in a perpetual conflict with the indwelling sin of his heart.

The eminent and justly celebrated Richard Hooker, in his "learned discourse of Justification," goes farther than is expressed in our Catechism; but not farther than its intended meaning and import, nor farther than the truth of the case. He not only maintains that we sin daily, but that there is not one thought, word, or deed, of our whole life, but what is imperfect, or mingled with sin. His language is a little antiquated, but it is very impressive. "Let, says he, the holiest and best things which we do be considered: we are never better affected unto God than when we pray; yet when we pray, how are our affections many times distracted! how little reverence do we show unto the grand Majesty of God, unto whom we speak! How little remorse of our own miseries! How little taste of the sweet influence of his tender mercies do we feel! Are we not as unwilling many times to begin, and as glad to make an end, as if in saying, Call upon me, he had set us a very

burthensome task? It may seem somewhat extreme, which I will speak; therefore let every one judge of it, even as his own heart shall tell him, and no otherwise; I will but only make a demand: if God should yield unto us, not as unto Abraham, if fifty, forty, thirty, twenty, yea, or if ten good persons could be found in a city, for their sakes that city should not be destroyed: but, and if he should make us an offer thus large: Search all the generations of men, since the fall of our father Adam, find one man, that hath done one action, which hath passed from him pure, without any stain or blemish at all; and for that one man's only action, neither man nor angel shall feel the torments which are prepared for both. Do you think that this ransom, to deliver men and angels, could be found to be among the sons of men? The best things which we do, have somewhat in them to be pardoned. How then can we do any thing meritorious, or worthy to be rewarded? Indeed, God doth liberally promise whatsoever appertaineth to a blessed life, to as many as sincerely keep his law, though they be not exactly able to keep it. Wherefore we acknowledge a dutiful necessity of doing well; but the meritorious. dignity of doing well, we utterly renounce. We see how far we are from the perfect righteousness of the law; the little fruit which we have in holiness, it is, God knoweth, corrupt and unsound: we put no confidence at all in it, we challenge nothing in the world for it; we dare not call God to reckoning, as if we had him in our debt-books: our continual suit to him is, and must be, to bear with our infirmities, and pardon our offences."

In closing this lecture, in which our Catechism expressly declares that no mere man, since the fall, is able perfectly to keep the commandments of God, you may expect that I should say something of a contro

versy which has long been going on, and is not yet terminated, in our country, in regard to what is denominated "natural and moral inability." My first remark is, that the wording of the point in controversy appears to me to be unhappy, and calculated to produce confusion of thought and expression; because it will be allowed by both parties in this controversy, that the moral inability spoken of, is natural to the whole human race since the fall of Adam-That is, it is a part of our nature.* An eminent and discriminating writer,† on this subject, has said justly, "That is physical necessity which is the invincible effect of the law of nature; and it is neither less natural nor less unsurmountable, if it is from the laws of spirit, than it would be if it were from the laws of matter." AgainThe parties in this controversy are agreed in another point; namely, that all actual sin is voluntary, and therefore criminal and inexcusable. Those, indeed, who contend for the difference between natural and moral inability, in reference to the sinful actions of men, endeavour to represent those with whom they contend, as opposing human liberty and accountableness. But the opposite party deny this unequivocally, protest against their being charged with a consequence of their system, which they affirm is not fairly drawn, and maintain that, although they may account for human guilt in a manner different from their opponents, yet they as fully and extensively admit and insist on its existence and criminality; and make the free offers of the gospel, and urge their acceptance, as sincerely and earnestly as any others. Once more-Both parties, if they maintain other Calvinistic

Perhaps the New Haven school of

Theology should here be excepted; but if so, let it stand by itself on the present

occasion.

† Witherspoon.

sentiments, as the most of them hitherto have done, say explicitly, that not one of Adam's fallen race ever yet did, or ever will, make use of his moral ability to renounce sin and accept the salvation proffered by the gospel of Christ, till disposed and inclined thereto by the renewing influences of the Holy Ghost: And those who deny the distinction in question, think and say, that it seems to be a singular kind of ability, which no child of Adam ever did, or ever will exert, although urged to it by the strongest possible motives that can be presented to an intelligent beingwill never exert this ability, till an influence comes on his mind from an external source. They think too, that the assertion of this moral ability leads to the denial of the necessity of divine influence-one of the plainest and most important doctrines of the gospel-and that even those who admit the necessity of this influence, do often, in preaching, so leave it out of view, as to make the people think that the speaker does not regard it as indispensable. Neither is it admitted, that a full sense of dependence on God, when real and rightly understood, has any tendency to discourage effort, or to dispose to a neglect of the use of means. On the contrary, it is maintained that nothing is so encouraging to a soul that truly perceives its helplessness, as to point it to an Almighty deliverer; that nothing will make it cry for help so earnestly, importunately, nor with such a prospect of success, as this very feeling of helplessness in itself; and that means are never so likely to be diligently and effectually used, as when they are represented as deriving their efficiency from the blessing of God, sought for in the way of his appointment-in the use of the means prescribed in his holy word. On the whole then, although I admit fully, that there is

a plain difference between moral and natural inability, such as would instantly strike you all, if I should ask one of you to rise from his seat, and request of another to fly in the air-yet when applied to the subject before us, I think it altogether improper-a distinction without a difference. The disposition to do right, is as essential to right doing, as understand ing, judgment, conscience, or any other natural faculty of the mind; and if every man in his natural state is without this disposition, he has a natural inability-which is at the same time a moral inability-to act rightly. The word of God also, as seems to me, is directly opposed to this distinction; as in the declaration of the Saviour, "No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him;" and of the apostle Paul-"The carnal mind is enmity against God, not subject to his law, neither indeed can be;" and in a great variety of passages of similar import. I conclude the present Lecture, with a quotation from Dr. Witherspoon, in which my own views of the topick before us are correctly expressed" As to the inability of man to recover himself by his own power, though I would never attempt to establish a metaphysical system of necessity, of which infidels avail themselves in opposition to all religion, nor presume to explain the influence of the Creator on the creature; yet nothing is more plain, from Scripture, or better supported by daily experience, than that man by nature is in fact incapable of recovery, without the power of God specially interposed. I will not call it a necessity arising from the irresistible laws of nature. I see it is not a necessity of the same kind as constraint; but I see it an impossibility, such as the sinner never does overcome."

WITHERSPOON ON REGENERATION.

(Continued from p. 288.)
Conclusion.

I shall now close this discourse with some practical improvement of these important truths. Several reflections have, indeed, already been interwoven with the particular branches of the subject, and the light which they throw on other parts of religion pointed out. I shall, therefore, at this time, only make a few observations upon the whole, and proceed to a serious address to all my readers on this most interesting subject. And,

1st, From the various truths above established, and the order in which they have been opened, we may see the indissoluble connexion between salvation by the grace of God, and holiness in heart and conversation. We may see their equal importance and their influence upon one another. There are many who attempt to divide those things which God hath inseparably joined. Many insist only on the duties of the law of God and our natural obligations to obedience; and are hardly brought to any mention of the righteousness of Christ, as the ground of a sinner's acceptance before God. Nay, some scruple not to affirm that the doctrine of justification by free grace, or a sinner's being found in Christ, not having his own righteousness, weakens the obligation to holiness, and tends to introduce licentiousness of practice. But from what has been said in the above discourse, we may learn, not only in general the absolute necessity of a change, but how this stands connected with the purchase and gift of salvation, the character and work of a Redeemer. It will plainly appear, that a change in some respects is necessary to bring us to, and in others is the necessary effect and consequence of, the acceptance of salvation.