this charge. For it supposes that choices may spring up contrary to prevailing inclination, yea, "all opposing power." And yet the changes are ever ringing on this idea of compulsion contrary to their will, to bewilder careless theologians, and the more careless multitude.

They set it forth in glaring colours as stoicism, fatalism, heathenish destiny, and are abundant in such words as fatal necessity, adamantine bonds of fate, &c. They noise them abroad with great frequency, variety and emphasis, as if they were of vital importance to their cause.

Our present limits forbid any inquiry into the doctrines of the ancient Stoics and Fatalists. But we beg leave to say that these startling words neither answer nor constitute an argument. Neither do they prove the identity of our doctrine with any held by the Stoics and Fatalists: neither, if that were proved, does it of itself prove its untruth, unless every sentiment ever held by their schools is to be concluded false, to the suppression of all further inquiry; which few will be bold to assert. And if it be incumbent on some, is it not so on all, not to resort to "other means than truth and argument" in this controversy ?

It is much insisted on and reiterated, that if their doctrine be denied, then there is no further use of endeavours to attain virtue in ourselves, or of employing means, endeavours, and persuasions to promote it in others. This is plausible, and strongly seizes the sympathies of men. But let us examine whether this difficulty does not press with more crushing weight on their own scheme. For if the will be without bias or "correlation" to any object, if it be liable to choose either way, in spite of all motive and inducement, and all internal inclination, which Omnipotence itself can work, of what avail is it to employ means and persuasions with such an agent? Were it not as hopeful and rational to expostulate with the idle wind, which bloweth where it listeth, and none can tell whence it cometh, nor whither it goeth? But in the orthodox scheme, there are some characteristical susceptibilities in man to which appeals can be hopefully addressed. The impenitent even, if not peculiarly obdurate, can be persuaded to refrain from external impurity and vice; and by the efficacious grace of the Spirit can be "effectually softened, bowed and renewed, as to hear the word with gladness, obey, and live." Our only and our sufficient encouragement to preach the Gospel to every creature is, that God can make them willing to embrace it in the day of his power. Are there any who rely on any other encouragement? If so, let them avow it. If not, why tax our scheme with a perplexity which confessedly burdens their own?

Lastly and pre-eminently, the chief allurement by which this scheme has fascinated multitudes of young ministers, and others, is to be found in its vaunting airs of new light and discovery in religion, and being the only true philosophy. This after all is the occult enchantment, the magic wand by which it has spelled

throngs of votaries. And it is precisely this which needs to be dissipated, before a respectful hearing can be gained in behalf of the true system, however masterly and irrefragable the style in which it may be defended. That it has reared up a generation of preachers who pride themselves on their philosophic insight, and extensively given birth to a style of preaching, in which the dry bones of lifeless metaphysical subtleties have had an undue proportion to the milk and meat of God's word, which feeds his church, is undeniable. But in view of the foregoing considerations, it is for our readers to decide, whether the holders of this scheme do indeed exhibit that extraordinary philosophical acumen, that rare genius for solving metaphysical problems, that unexampled insight into the true structure of the mind, which they would fain pretend. We submit whether any theory ever advanced by the wildest sciolist, or most transcendent transcendentalist, surpasses this for crude absurdities, and glaring self-contradiction; and when we hear the flourish of trumpets about new light and unparalleled discovery, we submit to any one tolerably versed in the past controversies of the church, whether there be anything in this doctrine, or its attendant sisterhood of errors, which has not, from the time of Pelagius till now, alternately infested the church, and been exorcised from it, as God has seen fit to try his people, or to deliver them with an outstretched arm. And we submit also to men's sober judgments, without comment, the fulsome pretensions which have been so largely made to intellectual greatness and superiority, in the case of those competent to invent or defend such a scheme as this; as also the free imputations of dulness or insanity, or some other malformation, in the case of those minds which cannot perceive its beauties, or lend it their sanction. Indeed, any scheme which prides and vaunts itself much on its great display of metaphysical tact, and philosophic wonders, does so far forth evince its inconsistence with the glorious Gospel of the blessed God. For this is no philosopheme of men, but a testimony of God, which brings to naught the wisdom of the wise and the understanding of the prudent. It teaches us that "vain philosophy" "spoils" men. True philosophy takes the yoke and learns of Christ, as a disciple of his master. Spurious philosophy is an usurper in the city of the great King, commanding what Christ may and may not teach, and thus lords it over our faith.

It will be perceived that in the several heads of this disquisition we have barely struck and opened veins of thought, without exhausting them, each of which would yield a rich reward to the most patient and thoroughgoing inquiry. We have a deep and deliberate conviction, a conviction strengthened by every day's experience, that this point is the hinge on which the chief theological differences that agitate our Zion turn; and that there will be no relief, no sufficient check to those errors which have harassed the church, until the truth on this subject is clearly settled.

It seems too plain, indeed, to be questioned, that if it be essential

to moral agency, that it be a property of the will to choose either way in spite of all opposing power; that it be endowed with such independence, that no "evidence or proof" can exist that it will act in a given way, not even in anything which Omnipotence can do to direct it; then there can be no proof or evidence that anything which God does or forbears to do through all eternity, is the reason or cause, positive or privative, why moral agents act as they do act. Of course the doctrine of decrees is subverted. There can be no evidence of God's providential government; as concerns the actions of free agents or things depending upon them. There can be no evidence that any work of his Spirit upon the souls of men is the reason or cause of their turning to God. Indeed, no work of any sort can be the cause of such a change in them who have power to sin despite all opposing power, for it cannot produce the change until they permit it by the very terms of the statement. Thus an end is made of efficacious grace. With this doctrine, as all know, Divine sovereignty and the orthodox view of election stand or fall. If it is indispensable to moral agency that the infallible prevention of moral agents from sinning "may involve a contradiction;" that they should not be in a state which would be incompatible with their ever sliding into apostasy; "what evidence or proof can exist" that the saints will persevere unto salvation, or that the glorified saints and angels, and even God himself, may not lapse from heavenly purity? "For," as these writers say, "how can it be proved that a thing will not be, when, for aught that appears, it may be ?" be?" A fearful prospect this for all holy intelligences! And if nothing beside the actings of this power possesses moral quality, or can be sinful or holy, then surely there can be no native or hereditary sinfulness in men, if indeed there can be any of any sort.

Is it not then clear beyond dispute, that those cardinal points of the evangelical systems, which have been so much in controversy of late, are thus shaken by this notion of contrary choice which saps and mines the foundation on which they rest? To us this is past all doubt. Having often had occasion to reason with the advocates of this new scheme, we have found them uniformly taking refuge in this notion as their impregnable citadel. They have uniformly confessed that the whole controversy hinges upon it. Is it not then of vital importance to labour to establish the true philosophy on this point; and not merely prune away the branches of this poison-tree, but lay the axe at its root?

While we build not our faith on the wisdom of men, but on the sure testimonies of God, is it not lawful, nay, obligatory, to ward off the boastful assaults of a pretended philosophy, by showing that it is "philosophy falsely so called," evincing its folly, and humbling its pride? Has not this been the method of the most successful defenders of the faith? On this subject let the illustrious Edwards, though dead, yet speak, whose own immortal treatise on this very subject is a most noble example and confirmation of what

he says.* "There is therefore no need that the strict philosophic truth should be at all concealed; nor is there any danger in contemplation and profound discovery in these things. Indeed these things never can be well established, and the opposite errors, so subversive of the whole Gospel, which at this day so greatly and generally prevail, be well confuted, or the arguments by which they are maintained answered, till these points are settled. While this is not done, it is to me beyond doubt that the friends of those great Gospel truths will but poorly maintain their controversy with the adversaries of those truths; they will be obliged often to shuffle, hide, and turn their backs, and the latter will have a strong fort whence they can never be driven, and weapons to use, from which those who oppose them will find no shield to screen themselves; and they will always puzzle, confound, and keep under the friends of sound doctrine, and glory and vaunt themselves in their advantage over them; and carry their affairs with a high hand, as they have done already for a long time past."

Was this written near a century ago by so accurate a draftsman as Jonathan Edwards? If it truly delineates what then was, could it better describe what now is? Who more valiant for the truth, or mighty in counsel and act for its defence, than he? Shall we not heed his counsels as well as revere his name? There is no new thing under the sun. If his history was prophecy as to the danger, shall not his counsel be so as to the remedy?

Let his testimony admonish us all to burnish and gird on our armour for a victorious conflict with false doctrine, not only in its outworks but also in this its strong citadel. While there may be a presumptuous and perilous delving into the labyrinths of

"Fixed fate, free will, fore-knowledge absolute,
To find no end in wandering mazes lost,"

there is also a safe and prudent study of them which is necessary and profitable.

Particularly ought we to master and confound all reasonings and doctrines which go, or tend, to a denial of the possibility of "that which is the true system of administration in the city of God;" that it is possible, at least, that the Maker of all things should have his creatures at his own disposal; that he may work in them, to will and to do of his own good pleasure; that he doeth his pleasure in the armies of heaven and among the inhabitants of earth; that it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that showeth mercy. For of him, and through him, and to him are all things, to whom be glory for ever!

* Works, vol. ii., p. 300. New York Edition.

ESSAY XII.

THE INABILITY OF SINNERS.*

THERE has occurred within our recollection, a considerable difference in the manner of treating this subject, especially in addresses to the impenitent from the pulpit. It was customary formerly, for Calvinistic preachers to insist much on the helpless inability of the sinner. He was represented, according to the language of the scriptures, to be "dead in trespasses and sins," and utterly unable to put forth one act of spiritual life; and too often this true representation was so given, as to leave the impression that the person labouring under this total inability was not culpable for the omission of acts which he had no power to perform. The fact of man's being a free accountable agent was not brought into view with sufficient prominence; and the consequence was, that in many cases the impenitent sinner felt as if he were excusable; and the conclusion was too commonly adopted, that there was no encouragement to make any effort until it should please a sovereign God to work. And if at any time the zealous preacher urged upon his hearers in private the duty of repentance, he was sure to hear the echo of his own doctrines; we are incapable of doing anything until God shall be pleased to work in us "to will and to do of his good pleasure;" it is useless for us to attempt anything. We do not say that the inability of man was so represented by all as to produce these impressions, for we know that by some, not only man's dependence, but also his duty, was distinctly and forcibly inculcated.

Some excellent men, who saw the danger of so insisting on the inability of man as to furnish an apology for the careless sinner, borrowed a little aid from the Arminian scheme, and taught that if the sinner would do what was in his power, and continue faithfully to use the outward means of grace, the Spirit of God would assist his endeavours: and thus a connection was formed between the strivings of the unregenerate and the grace of God. But this was not consistent with the other opinions of these men, and involved

* Published in 1931, in review of the following work:-" An Inquiry into that inability under which the sinner labours, and whether it furnishes any excuse for his neglect of duty."