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 effi: ciency. 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 exist= ence, 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 powerdefinitions 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

I

the propositions in which these terms are found, sound very differently to the common ear. 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

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.*

* A man was afflicted with the hydrophobia. When his paroxysms were coming on he was aware of it, and gave warning to his friends to be on their guard, that he might not injure them. Suppose, how

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.

If, 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 unfluence 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 natu

ever, he knew of a sure remedy, but voluntarily neglected to avail himself of it. Would he not in that case be guilty, not only of all the evils that might result to others from his malady; but also of self murder? And yet this man's madness was entirely beyond the direct control of his will.