PART III.

MAN'S CAPACITY TO OBEY,

CONSISTENT WITH DEPENDENCE, AND COMMENSURATE WITH

DUTY.

CHAP. I.

IN reading the Scriptures my mind has often been impressed by the following facts. Mankind are uniformly represented as entirely dependent on God, for their existence, their faculties, their sufficiency, for the success of their enterprises, and for every good and perfect gift; yet the commandments of the Lord are addressed to them as to beings possessed of adequate capacities to do whatever God requires. By pondering on these facts and comparing them with the language frequently uttered by ministers of the gospel, I have been led to suspect that incorrect views are entertained concerning man's capacity to obey, by a great portion of the Christians in our land. How many speak of man's capacity to obey in a form which seems to exclude the idea of dependence! Again, how many speak of man's dependence in a manner which implies inability to do their duty! If, however, it is as dependent agents that we are required

to obey or to act, why should not this dependence be acknowledged, and kept constantly in view? And if God has rendered us capable of obedience, why should our dependence be spoken of as though it implied inability? If men were required to obey without Divine aid, they might sit down in despair; for this would be impossible. Or if our dependence implied incapacity, we might regard God as a hard Master. But if God has endowed us with all the capacity which is necessary to do what he requires, and we are constantly dependent on him for this capacity, we surely ought to feel that such are the facts, and act accordingly. Paul, in addressing Christians, said - "Work out your own salvation with fear and trembling; for it is God who worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure." Philip. ii. 12, 13. Here our dependence is urged as a reason for our activity, or a motive to obedience not as implying any inability.

Should a parent require of his children to do what he knows is beyond their capacity, he would be deemed cruel. A king who should thus treat his subjects would be reproached as a tyrant. What then must be the effect of teaching and believing that God constantly requires such services as far transcend the capacities of mankind, whether saints or sinners! Can such views be habitually entertained without producing injurious effects? Surely not. Yet I may seriously ask, Are not such views very commonly entertained in our land, and in all Christian countries? Indeed what is more common than to hear even good people complaining of their inability to do their duty, or to obey the holy precepts of the gospel?

If it be a revealed

Another inquiry now occurs. truth, that the capacities of men are commensurate with their duty, how has it happened that the contrary opinion is so generally prevalent? In reply it may be said, that children commonly believe as they are taught; and a great portion of the children of our country have been taught according to the doctrines contained in the Catechisms of the Westminster Assembly of Divines. One of which is the following:- "No mere man since the fall is able in this life perfectly to keep the commandments of God; but daily doth break them in thought, word, and deed." The same Divines also taught, that among the dreadful effects of Adam's sin to his posterity is this-"the corruption of their whole nature, whereby they are utterly indisposed, disabled, and made opposite to all that is spiritually good, and wholly inclined to evil, and that continually." Such doctrines were deemed orthodox in New England till within the last sixty years. So lately as when I was a young man, if any one ventured to ask How can it be just in God to require obedience of men who by the fall of Adam were "utterly disabled?" the following was deemed a correct answer "God has not lost his power of commanding, though men have lost their power of obeying."

Within the last half century there has been a considerable change of opinion on this subject among those who have regarded themselves as the orthodox clergy of New England. The Calvinistic doctrine of" utter disability" has been pretty generally discarded; and a distinction has been adopted between natural ability and moral ability, or natural

inability and moral inability. By the help of this distinction ministers have felt authorized to say, that sinners have all the natural ability which is requisite to obey the gospel; that their inability is wholly of the moral kind, consisting in total depravity of heart, or opposition of will to God and their duty. But this opposition, this moral inability has been regarded as so total and so great, that nothing can remove it short of the omnipotence of God, or the supernatural influences of his spirit. A number of texts of scripture have been employed to prove these supposed facts, which I hope to examine impartially in a future chapter. I may here but briefly ask, Of what possible use can natural faculties be in regard to obedience, if on account of Adam's sin these faculties have been so subjected to the control of a heart totally depraved, that nothing short of the special* influence of the divine spirit can enable the sinner to repent? These natural faculties may indeed be of use as soon as the supposed supernatural aid is given; but till then, there seems to be a disability" as "" utter as was supposed by the Calvinists. And if the total depravity of heart is an hereditary curse, on account of Adam's offence, why is it not truly a natural defect or inability, as well as one that is of a moral nature?

* The terms special and supernatural I use as synonymous, and in reference to the opinion of those who suppose that the common influences of the spirit are insufficient for regeneration. But whether this opinion is well founded may be a question deserving of the most serious consideration. For the prevalence of this opinion may have done much to establish the idea of man's inability to obey the gospel.

CHAP. II.

The Title explained.

The Title of this work will naturally excite an expectation of an attempt to prove two propositions: I. That man's capacity to obey is consistent with dependence. II. That his capacity is commensurate with his duty. In man's capacity to obey, I mean to include every thing which is requisite to free agency, and a capacity for doing what God requires of each individual.

The capacity to obey must imply intellectual faculties for free agency, and such information as is necessary to understand what is required, and to distinguish between moral right and wrong, obedience and disobedience. If bodily or muscular strength is requisite to obey a particular command, this is given according to the requirement. So in whatever manner divine aid is requisite to constitute a capacity to obey, this aid is granted.

It is not, however, supposed that every being in human form has a capacity for moral obedience. Children are not supposed to be moral agents as soon as they are born; and some are idiots all their days. No moral precept can be obligatory on persons in such a state. It is also to be observed that among human beings, who are regarded as moral agents, there are endless varieties and disproportions in their different or individual capacities. While some of our race are perhaps in this state, but little lower than some of the angels; there are