cannot cease from sin." 2 Peter, ii. 14. This language expresses a strong propensity to licentious pleasures not inability to repent.

On a certain occasion the Israelites professed a determination to serve the Lord." Joshua replied Ye cannot serve the Lord; for he is a holy God." This remark was probably occasioned by an apprehension that the people had not duly considered the holiness of God's service, and from a wish that they might act more deliberately on that solemn occasion. For when Joshua had done discoursing on this point, they renewed their promise, saying- "The Lord our God we will serve, and his voice we will obey." Joshua made no further objection; and it is immediately added — "So Joshua made a covenant with the people on that day." See Joshua xxiv. 19 — 25.

In several instances cannot is used to express integrity, or strong attachment to a good cause. In reply to the solicitations of an impudent woman, Joseph said "How can I do this great wickedness and sin against God." This was the same as saying, I cannot do this great wickedness. It was expressive of his integrity of heart, and his abhorrence of crime.

When the Sanhedrim commanded the apostles to preach no more in the name of Jesus, they replied "We cannot but speak the things which we have seen and heard." Acts iv. 20. Thus they expressed their ardor in the cause of Christ,

It is said of God-"He cannot deny himself.' 2 Tim. ii. 13. Again-"It was impossible for him to lie." Heb. vi. 18. I would here ask, Can

any intelligent man believe that the inspired writers meant to assert any kind of inability in God? If not, why should any infer from such language that God is the subject of a moral inability?

I may now bring together two texts in which the word cannot is used to express very opposite feelings of mind.

"We cannot but speak the things we have seen and heard."

"I have married a wife, and therefore I cannot come."

In each of these cases, ardor of mind was strongly expressed; but how striking the contrast! I would now ask, is there any thing in either of these cases to which the term inability can be properly applied? And is it not to be regretted that the words moral inability have been applied to cases of the cannot in which no inability was intended to be expressed?

Let it be observed that the text last quoted is found in a parable; and its literal reference was to going to a great supper. Suppose then a similar case among us. A man of eminence has made a great supper, and invited many guests. To this invitation one of the men replies - "I have married a wife, and therefore I cannot come." What reflecting person would deem it proper to say that this man is under a moral inability to go to the feast; and that a special influence of the spirit is necessary to enable him to go? If this would not be proper in the case now proposed, why should we deem it proper in reference to the same words as they are employed by the Saviour? Attachment to worldly objects and sensual pleasures were repre

sented by him as the principal reasons why the gospel invitations are disregarded, without the least intimation that men are the subjects of inability to come, which cannot be removed but by a supernatural work of the Holy Spirit.

CHAP. VI.

Several Causes of the Prevalent Impression.

That a general impression exists on the minds of people in our country, that man's capacity to obey is not commensurate with his duty, will probably be neither denied nor doubted. Some of the causes ́of such an impression have already been considered. Others may now be briefly noticed. These may be found in correlative opinions which, I think, have resulted from misapprehensions respecting the origin and nature of human depravity, and the necessity of regeneration.

It has been a common opinion that the depravity of Adam's posterity has been the effect of God's displeasure on account of his offence; that on this account his posterity had entailed on them the curse of a nature wholly sinful, from which all their sinful volitions proceed. But, in my opinion, this is a false view of the subject, and grossly reproachful to God. It is my belief that the posterity of Adam become sinners as our first parents did, not by possessing a sinful nature prior to their first sinful volitions, but by yielding to animal propensities, in

violation of the commands of God. If the sin of Adam can be accounted for without the hypothesis of an antecedent sinful nature, why may we not account for the sinful volitions of his offspring on similar ground?

It has also been supposed, that mankind by nature love sin as sin, and are thus led into courses of vice. But surely it was not from love to sin as sin, that Adam became a transgressor; nor can I discover the least reason for supposing that it is so with his offspring. Men are generally led to violate the commands of God by the hope of some pleasure or profit, as the fruit of disobedience. This accords with the account we have of the motives by which Eve was induced to steal the forbidden fruit; and I suspect that every thief can say, it was not love to theft as theft by which I was first induced to steal. It is very true that, in some cases, the expected pleasure or profit accompanies the sinful act; but it is, I believe, the pleasure or profit which operates as the motive to disobedience. Let any man reflect on his own sinful acts, and ask himself, whether he was induced to commit them from love to sin as sin?

It has also been supposed that regeneration would have been unnecessary, had it not been that men are by nature totally depraved; and that such is the extent of their depravity, that a supernatural influence of the divine spirit is necessary to effect the change. But in what part of the Bible do we find such an account of the necessity of regeneration? Christ indeed said, "That which is born of the flesh is flesh." But he did not say, That which is

born of the flesh is sin. Yet how many reason on the subject as though he had made this assertion unquestionably and unequivocally! What he did say furnishes a reason why regeneration is necessary; because by being born of the flesh we have only animal life, and to enter the heavenly kingdom we need spiritual life. This we have by being born of the spirit. Were it true that men come into the world cursed with a nature wholly sinful, it would be natural to suppose that nothing short of miraculous agency could effect their renovation. But if backsliding Christians may be renovated from their wanderings by the power of gospel truths, and the common influences or aids of the spirit, why should we imagine that supernatural influences are necessary to effect the regeneration of an impenitent sinner. When a person is in a state of backsliding, what is he better than an impenitent sinner. It is very true that on the day of Pentecost, when three thousand persons were supposed to be converted, miracles were wrought prior to the inquiry, "What shall we do?" Nor is it doubted that the miracles had great influence to excite attention, to convince the multitude that Jesus, who had been crucified, had also been raised from the dead, that he was the true Messiah, and that it was of high importance to become his disciples. The accounts of that day afford abundant evidence that the apostles were on that occasion the subjects of miraculous influence, by which they were enabled to speak in languages which they had never studied; but no intimation is given that miracles were wrought in the hearts of the three thousand converts, to enable