Bible distinction between natural and moral inability-examples. 'With God all things are possible:' i. e. his natural power is equal to any act which is not in its own nature an impossibility. "God who cannot lie'—'by two immutable things in which it was impossible for God to lie.' Is God's omnipotence so limited that for want of power he could not utter falsehood? Is it not the infinite aversion of his holiness which constitutes the inability? The strength of Israel will not lie. Your new moons, and Sabbaths, and calling of assemblies, I CANNOT away with; it is iniquity, even the solemn meeting.' The cannot is explained to mean his aversion to hypocrisy in worship: therefore it follows, 'when ye make many prayers I will not hear.' It is said of our Savior, that he must needs go through Samaria.' Was he compelled to go through Samaria; or did he simply, for sufficient reasons, choose to go that way? 'He could not do mighty works there, because of their unbelief.' Did the unbelief of man overpower divine omnipotence, so that Christ had no ability to work miracles; or did it furnish to his divine wisdom. such reasons against it as made him prefer not to do -it, expressed by the phrase could not, i. e. chose not to do it? "Can the children of the bride chamber fast while the bridegroom is with them?' Doubtless they possess the natural ability. But the meaning is, will they choose to do it? Can they-i. e. will they? • Can ye drink of the cup that I drink of?' It was of suffering and of ignominy; and he meant not whether they could feel pain, and persecution, the cup Bible distinction between natural and moral inability-examples. and shame, (for he told them that they should,) but whether they were willing, and believed that they should continue willing to suffer with him- can ye,' i. e. are you and shall you be willing? 'If it be possible, let this cup pass from me.' Did our Savior doubt whether God had the power to deliver him instantly from suffering? He knew he could do it; and only, as man, was not certain whether the agony he had already suffered might suffice, or the expiation demanded more. The phrase, if it be possible, means therefore, if it be wise and seem good in thy sight-if thou art satisfied and willing, let this cup pass, &c.; but if otherwise, not my will, but thy will be done. Lord, if thou wilt, thou canst make me clean:' i. e. thou canst do it, if thou art willing, implying as in the case before, that he could not cleanse him, if unwilling, calling unwillingness inability. This This is a hard saying-who can hear it? means not that a sinner has no power to hear the humbling doctrine of total depravity? but, who, as we say, can bear it, i. e. be willing-be pleased with it? From that time, many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him. It was those that could not hear such sayings. 'Ye cannot drink of the cup of the Lord, and the cup of Devils.' The natural ability of man qualifies him to sit at either table; but, while he prefers the table of Christ, he cannot, will not prefer the table of devils. 'The carnal mind is enmity against God, not sub Bible distinction between natural and moral inability--examples. ject to the law of God, neither indeed can be. If this means a natural inability, how does regeneration help the matter, as it includes the creation of no new natural powers or faculties? But if it means that the carnal mind is one which, by its friendship for the world, is at enmity with God, then it is plain that the mind which prefers the creature to God, cannot at the same time prefer God to the creature, though the hindrance is not natural, but the inability of the will-a moral inability—a duty prevented by a contrary choice. 'And Joshua said, Ye cannot serve the Lord, for he is a holy God.' The people understood him to say, that they had no moral ability-no heart to serve him, because they were so sinful. But they replied, 'Nay, but we will serve the Lord'-we have the ability, because we have the will. "How can ye believe who receive honor one of another, and seek not the honor that cometh from God?' i. e. how can you believe, who prefer the praise of man more than the praise of God? who voluntarily set at naught Jesus Christ? 'The natural man cannot know the things of the kingdom of God;' but why can he not? what hinders? Ans. If our gospel be hid, it is hid to them who are lost, in whom the God of this world hath blinded the hearts of them that believe not.' 'No man can come unto me except the Father draw him'—i. e. by his hearing and being taught of God-making the reading, and especially the preaching of his word, the means of his effectual calling by his Spirit. This distinction not confined to the Bible, but universal. These examples, to which thousands might be added, decide that the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament, given by inspiration of God, do maintain the distinction between things whose existence is perverted for want of sufficient capacity in the agent, and things which lie within the limits of his capacity, and are only prevented by his choice-and that both are expressed by the terms cannot, impossible, unable, &c.-leaving it to the nature and connections of the subject to indicate the peculiar meaning-and never, except in theological controversy, or the cavillings of sinners, leading to any mistake. I have said that this use of the terms cannot, unable, &c. to indicate those things which men are able to perform, but do not choose to do, is not a phraseology peculiar to the Bible, but is a mode of speaking, into which the universal mind of man in all nations, ages, and languages has fallen—from the familiarity of conversational and business dialect, up to the most labored efforts of argument and eloquence. I ask my neighbor, who is on a sick bed, are you able to walk? and he replies, I am not. When restored to health, I inquire of him, can you assist me in my business to-day? and he replies, I cannot. I should be glad to oblige you, but my own business compels me to go another way—or in the language of the gospel, 'I must needs attend to my own matters.' How often when a man is provoked at the conduct of his neighbor, do we hear the indignant exclamation, it is too bad-I cannot bear it.' And how common is it to say of a man, strongly prejudiced Examples from theological writers--Edwards and Buck. by interest or passion-he cannot hear, cannot see, cannot understand—and of the miser, when the cry of the widow and the fatherless assails him--he cannot give. Gold is his god, and his heart is made of stone. The following examples from Edwards, and Buck, and a few other writers of eminence, will suffice both to illustrate the nature of the distinction between natural and moral inability, and the usus loquendi of theological, political, and literary authors. Edwards. To give some instances of this moral inability--a woman of great honor and chastity, may have a moral inability to prostitute herself to her slave. A child of great love and duty, may be unable to be willing to kill his father. A drunkard, under such and such circumstances, may be unable to forbear taking of strong drink. A very malicious man may be unable to exert benevolent acts to an enemy, or to desire his prosperity; yea, some may be so under the power of a vile disposition, that they may be unable to love those who are most worthy of their esteem and affection. A strong habit of virtue, and a great degree of holiness, may cause a moral inability to love wickedness in general, may render a man unable to take complacence in wicked persons or things; or to choose a wicked life, and prefer it to a virtuous life. And on the other hand, a great degree of habitual wickedness may lay a man under an inability to love and choose holiness; and render him utterly unable to love an infinitely holy being, or to choose and cleave to him as his chief good.' |