The following paragraphs present well the Old-school view of the subject. "It has long been a boast, in cer- tain quarters, that it is the glory of American theology that it has enabled us to hold fast to the doctrine of in- ability, and yet so to explain it as to make the sinner inexcusable, and to prevent him from abusing it to pur- poses of carnal apathy and desperation. This happy result, which the Bible ascribes to the Holy Ghost, is supposed to be accomplished by showing men that they have full natural abiUty to fulfil God's requirements; that they have no inability, but simply a want of wiU, or puri^ose, or inclination, to obey the Gospel, which they have full power to remove, if they will. While this language is used by many in a sense which, as ex- plained by themselves, at all events coheres with the doctrine that man has lost all ability of will to any spir- itual good accompanying salvation, it is used by others to express and vindicate the dogma that men are per- fectly able to make themselves Christians at pleasure. This is Pelagianism, without even a decent disguise. Yet it is this very class who make the most of the dis- tinction in question. They think it a convenient and safe shelter for their doctrines that man can make him- self a new heart. This class claim that, Edwards was the inventor of this distinction ; that it is the distin- guishing characteristic and special property of his fol- lowers; that therefore they are the true Edwardeans, because they are the patrons and inheritors of this his grand discovery in theology. It can easily be shown, however, 1. That whatever of truth is connected with this distinction was famiUar to theologians not only be- fore the time of Edwards, but from the time when the heresies of Pelagius first occasioned thorough discussion of the subject of sin and grace. 2. That Edwards did not regard himself as introducing any novel doctrines or discoveries on the subject. A formerly distinguished champion of New-school doctrines recently said in a public speech, with great truth, ' that the common idea that the power of Ed-ivards's system Ues m the distinc- tion of natural and moral ability is a fallacy. This was well understood before his day. It lies in his views of spiritual light, which constitute the key to his whole treatise on the Religious Affections.' All who have read this treaUse, or his sermons on the ' Natural Blind- ness of jMen in Religion,' and on 'The Reality of Spirit- ual Light,' must concede the justness of this statement. The great prmciple of his work on the Affections is that ' they arise from divine illumination.' The amount of truth contained in the proposition that man is natiu-allj'- able, but morally finable, to obey God's commands, may be thus stated: I.Man is really imable to do things spiritually good without divine grace. But this inabil- ity is moral, because it pertains to oiu- moral nature. It does not exotxse, because it is our sm; and the greater it is, the greater is our sin. 2. This corruption and inabil- ity do not destroy any of the faculties of will, aflectiqn, or inteUigence, which are essential to humanity, mor^- agency, or responsihilitj'. They only vitiate the state and action of those faculties with reference to things moral and spiritual. All power remams which would
INABILITY
528
INCANTATION"
be requisite to the fulfilment of God's commands if we were holy. Any hinderance, or want of power or op- portunit}", which would prevent us from lidfilling any command of God if we were morally good, excuses the non-performance of it, and this alone. So far, then, as the assertion that we have natural abiUty is intended to express the fact that we have no disability but our sin, or tliat is excusable, it expresses an important truth. So far as it is used, or is adapted to conv^ey the idea that we have ability to remove our sinful corruption •wdthout the prevenient and efficacious grace of God, or that our inabihty, though moral, is such that we can resume it by the strength of our own wiU, or that it is not by nature, it contains a dangerous error. It is not only contrary to Scripture and all Christian experience, but it is inconceivable that any state or act of the un- regenerate will of man should make him a holy being. The corrupt tree cannot bring forth such good fruit. Nay, as all Christians find to their sorrow, they cannot, although partially sanctified, by any power of their wiUs, exclude all corruption from their souls. The flesh lusteth against the spirit, so that they cannot do the things that they would. When they would do good, evil is present with them. Though they love the law of God after the inward man, they have a law in their members warring against the law of their minds. How, then, is this indwelling corruption, having the entire masterj' of the sinner, removable by his will? And does the phrase ' natural ability,' according to its nat- ural import, fairly express, or, rather, does it not express more than the truth, in regard to the power of the sin- ner? Is it not, unless carefidly explained, adapted to mislead him? That cannot properly be called ability to do things spiritually good, to piurify our coiTupt na- tures, which is not adequate to produce the residt. Man has not such an ability, whatever adjectives we affix to the word. He has only the facidties which would ena- able him to do his duty if he were holy. Is it not best, in plain terms, to saj' so ? Have we a right to do oth- erwise than spealv the truth in love ?' " — Princeton Re- view, July, 1854, No. x, p. 512 sq.