these, is natural ability, not moral; and we have at the same time, and in close connection with this natural ability, an inability which is altogether moral. And what is very singular in our use of words, we say this inability, which is moral in distinction from what is natural,-is still natural, i. e. naturally belongs to us, or belongs to us in our natural state; or, in other words, we are naturally depraved, naturally inclined to moral evil.

Seeing, then, that the words ability, inability, natural, and moral, are taken in so many senses; how obvious is it that we must exercise constant care, if we would use them so as to avoid whatever would be ambiguous or obscure.

But I have a little more to say as to moral power. Understood in the common sense, moral power is that power which exerts a moral influence, or produces effects of a moral nature. Thus we say of a Whitefield or an Edwards, that he has great moral power; that is, power to exert a great moral influence upon others, or to produce great moral effects. We say too that wicked men have moral power. And we moreover say, that both holy men and wicked men have natural power to exert a moral influence, that is, to do good or to do hurt to their fellow men? In this case, it would certainly require some care to trace out the difference between natural power, and moral power; though the common difference between natural ability and moral is so obvious.

But what is moral inability in relation to the principal subject before us? Is it the want of moral power, in the sense above described? No. The sinner, who is the subject of moral inability, may still have a high degree of moral power. His moral inability consists in his strong aversion to holiness: but his moral power does not consist in his love of holiness, as we might suppose, but in his power to exert a moral influence upon others.

But why is the depravity of the sinner, or his inflexible bias to evil, called inability? Because it has an evident analogy to inability in other cases, and in the literal sense. Inability, in the original, literal sense, hinders a man from doing that to which his inability relates. For example: his inability to walk effectually prevents his walking. Now as the sinner's wickedness of heart, or aversion to holiness, effectually hinders him from doing what God commands, it is called inability. And it is called moral inability, because the hinderance it puts in the way is of a moral nature; it is sin,-moral evil; not a natural and innocent infirmity. But moral ability or power, as denoting the opposite of this, is not commonly used.

Now what a remarkable circumstance it is, that while natural inability and moral inability are opposite to each other, and utterly exclusive of each other; we still speak of moral inability as natural to man! Our inability to obey God is not natural inability; and yet it is natural!

The farther we proceed in examining this subject, the more deeply must we feel, that there is danger of leaving a vague, if not an erroneous impression on the minds of men, by some of the language in common use, and that the utmost care is necessary to guard against confusion. Suppose that a preacher says strongly and without qualification, that sinners are perfectly able to obey the Gospel; that they can repent and believe; that they have in themselves complete power to do the will of God. How can we know what he means? You show in your Sermon, and others have shown, that the terms, expressive of ability and inability, are used in different senses; and you make it appear how important the difference is, and what weighty consequences depend on our treating the subject so as to be rightly understood. But do preachers and writers always express themselves so as to be rightly understood? When they affirm that the sinner can do, or is in himself perfectly able to do all that God requires, how can it be determined whether they refer to that ability (as it is called) which consists in the combination of faculties belonging to a moral agent, or to an ability which is opposite to the inability which the Scriptures attribute to the sinner? If any one understands them in the former sense, his conception of the subject is right; if in the latter, he is mistaken; and his mistake may endanger his most important interests. I maintain therefore, that ministers of the Gospel, instead of treating this subject carelessly and unguardedly, as though it were impossible for them to be misunderstood, or as though they were willing to be misunderstood, ought to do all in their power in the way of caution, to prevent a wrong impression, and to convey the truth clearly and without mixture to the minds of their hearers.

If I am asked, what is to be done by ministers in order to prevent mistake, and to guide their hearers into the truth; my first answer is, let them take pains to understand the subject thoroughly themselves. Some appear to imagine that the whole subject of man's ability and moral agency, treated in the most metaphysical manner, is exceedingly easy to be understood; that it is encumbered with no difficulties; that they have a perfect comprehension of it, and can answer any questions about it with the greatest readiness, and with full confidence. Whereas, if they would go a little below the surface,

and learn to reason profoundly; if they would read Locke, and Edwards, and Tucker, and other able writers on the Will, and on Moral Agency, and bring themselves to think, as well as read; they would by and by come upon difficulties which would try their strength. Men find nothing hard or difficult in this and other kindred subjects, because they never take pains to go into a thorough examination. Patient inquiry, intense thought, and clear, accurate knowledge, are very apt to make men modest, and candid, and cautious; while self-confidence and rashness are the genuine offspring of ignorance.

If we have examined this subject well, and attained to a tolerable understanding of it, we have seen that the terms relating to it, are used in a great variety of senses, and that, in different parts of the same discussion, their meaning is frequently shifted. We shall find much care necessary to prevent the confusion which is apt to be occasioned in this way. And as the words employed have, by use, become capable of so many senses, we must labor in each case to make the particular sense we wish to express, obvious and definite; and this we may do. For although words, taken in their various applications, have many senses; it does not follow from this, that it must be a matter of doubt what their meaning is in any particular place. The nature of the subject may show what the meaning is; and may show it clearly. Some discriminating epithet, or the general train of thought, or some other circumstance, may show the meaning, and may show it as definitely and satisfactorily, as if words were used which have only one sense. If then we use words which have various senses, we must take special pains to use them in such a manner, as to avoid ambiguity:-for words, however various their senses as used on different occasions, are not ambiguous in any particular place, if it is evident from circumstances what meaning they are there intended to have.

The following are among the principal circumstances, which may give to the words ability, power, can, &c. a definite meaning, notwithstanding the variety of senses which they bear in the different places where they are used.

1. The meaning of these words may be made obvious and definite by a consideration of the particular error which the preacher is aiming to confute, or the mistake he is aiming

to correct.

Take the following example. The preacher knows the plea which sinners often make either in their words or their thoughts, to excuse themselves for neglecting the duties of religion; that is, the plea of inability. By this plea, they attempt to palliate their guilt and justify themselves in impenitence. They cher

ish the idea, that they are subject to an inability which frees them in a great measure, if not wholly, from their obligation to obey the divine commands. The preacher, from an anxious desire to correct so hurtful a mistake, tells them that their plea is groundless; that they have no reason thus to consider themselves as unable to do what God requires; that they are subject to no such inability; that they have all the power which is necessary; and that they are perfectly able to comply with the divine commands. Now although the words he employs are used in different senses, and although it would be difficult to determine merely from the expressions themselves, what is the sense intended; yet this may be determined from a consideration of that hurtful mistake which the preacher aims to remove from the minds of those whom he addresses. Sinners, conscious that such is the state of their own minds, might very naturally be led to put a definite construction upon the preacher's words, and a construction corresponding with his intention. The obvious meaning of his language, in these circumstances, might be this;-that sinners have no such inability as they suppose, none which can furnish the least excuse for their impenitence; that they have an ability which is the opposite of the inability which they plead,-an ability which puts them under obligation to obey God, and takes away all excuse for disobedience. The ability spoken of would thus be understood to be what is called natural ability, that is, the possession of all the powers and faculties necessary to complete moral agency. The language employed by the preacher, though in itself unguarded, yet coming in contact with such a state of mind in sinners, and used professedly for such a purpose, may have a desirable effect upon them,-may be the means of taking away their false refuge, and producing in them a just sense of their guilt, and their obligation to put away their sins and obey the Gospel. And doubtless many a pious and devoted minister, who makes a free use, and what I think an unguarded and incorrect use of such expressions as those I have repeated, does it from a benevolent regard to sinners in such a state of mind, and for the purpose of producing an effect upon them so necessary to their welfare :-though I am persuaded that other language might be used, which would be better suited to answer this purpose.

But if this kind of representation may, in the case I have mentioned, have a favorable influence, it is very likely, in other cases, to have an unfavorable influence. If a minister were to speak in private to persons in just the condition I have described, or if the whole congregation addressed by him, were made

up of such persons, or if he should make it evident that he confined his remarks to such; he might perhaps use the language under consideration with comparatively little danger. But he speaks to various classes of persons, who are in a very different state from that above mentioned. And what effect is likely to be produced upon them?

Look at the case of those, who, in the spirit of pride and selfsufficiency, indulge the thought, that they are, of themselves, in all respects able to obey the law and the Gospel; that they are possessed of all the power of every kind which they need, and that they are in no degree dependent upon any special influence of the Holy Spirit to prepare them for heaven. The number of those who indulge such a feeling is undoubtedly great. The feeling is one which takes deep root in the carnal mind, and which it is very difficult to eradicate. What now is the portion of truth, best adapted to be useful to those who are under the influence of such a feeling?-best adapted to subdue the loftiness of their hearts, and lead them to cry for mercy? Shall they be told, in accordance with the suggestions of their own proud hearts, that they have a sufficiency of power for all the purposes of duty, and are perfectly able, of themselves, to work out their own salvation? Would not such a sentiment, inculcated upon them in such circumstances, be likely to confirm their self-confidence, and increase their spiritual blindness? Did Christ or his Apostles advance such a sentiment when they addressed themselves to persons of such a character? Far otherwise." No man can come unto me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him." This was said with special reference to the self-righteous Jews.-Again; "How can ye believe, who receive honor one of another?" "The carnal mind is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be. So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God." These, among others, are truths which should be exhibited to the proud and self-sufficient, being evidently adapted to expose the deceit and wickedness of their hearts, and to convince them that no efforts of their unsanctified nature can be pleasing to God, and that unless they are born again, they cannot see his kingdom.

Look at another class of persons, namely, those who have been seriously attentive to the subject of religion, and have had convictions of sin, and have made many efforts, such as awakened but unrenewed sinners often make, to obtain deliverance, and have at length come to the full persuasion, that they are dead in sin, and must perish forever, and that justly, unless God in his great mercy shall interpose to save them; a state of mind similar to that of Brainerd, just before his conversion.