a sinful act? 4. Is a holy volition a sinful vos lition, and a sinful volition a holy `volition? If then sinfulness is a sinful volition: if holiness is a holy volition; and if the same identical volition cannot be holy and sinful both, does it not inevitably follew that holiness and sin are never mixed in the same identical volition? If this is not demonstration, I will3 thank Mr. T. to point out the fallacy. And, if he cannot, he must be charged with advocating a theory which depends upon mixing holiness and sin as painters do colours, or as apothecaries do contrary ingredients. But, what fellowship hath light with darkness? and who can believe that any particular vo lition is made up, or composed of two contrary volitions? it is possible for the same person to be the subject of opposite volitions: But, is it possible for a person to be the subject of a volition, which is composed of two contrary ones? for to love and hate, to choose and refuse the same object in one and the same volition, it is the very first-born of absurdities.

We will close this section by examining the moral goodness of sinners before this inspired language recorded in the 78th Psalm. "When he slew them then they sought him: and they returned and inquired early after God. And they remembered that God was their Rock and the high God, their Redeemer. Nevertheless they did flatter him with their mouth and they lied unto him with their tongues. For their heart was not right with him, neither were

Now let it

they stedfast in his covenant." be remarked, that seeking God, returning to God; inquiring early after him; and remembering that God was their Rock, and the Most High their Redeemer, is the highest pitch of that moral goodness of sinners, for which Mr. T. pleads. For such goodness as this only, Mr. T. is an advocate in the present debate. But according to the bible, it was nothing but solemn flattery and a refuge of lies. For thus saith the Spirit of inspiration: "Nevertheless, they did flatter him with their mouth and lied unto him with their tongues, for their heart was not right with him. Mr. T.'s reply to this is twofold: and one part of it destroys the other. 1. He pleads that this passage is "Descriptive of the most treacherous and abandoned characters," who, agreeably to what he says of the Pharisees, "Neither had nor presented to God any serious desires of the blessings of his favour:" and charges me with perverting scripture in consequence of ranking them with his most solemn and devout sinners. But, 2. Being afraid to trust this answer, he pleads that "The charge of flattering and lying may be construed as referring to their after conduct in practically falsifying the serious resolutions, professions and vows which they made in time of danger and distress." Which of these answers he mostly depends on to support himself, I cannot tell. Nor is it of importance to ascertain. For, 1. If they were serious in their "resolutious, professions and vows which they made in the time

P

of distress," they belonged to his class of good sinners, and not to the class of hypocrites, who have no serious desires in their prayers, as he acknowledges respecting the Pharisees. His latter answer, therefore, destroys the former one. But, 2. To say that the charge of flattery and lying refers to their after conduct, will not stand the test. For, 1. It is just as evident from the passage, that they flattered and lied in the time of their distress, as that they prayed and vowed in the time of their distress. They are not charged with flattering and lyin afterwards, but at the very time of their appa rent devotions. But, 2. It is contrary to the common use of words to call breach of cove. nant flattering and lying; for breach of cove nant is unfaithfulness. It is therefore eviden that neither of his answers will obtain. Fo one of them destroys the other and the scrip ture destroys them both. It is as evident a any thing can be, that the men pointed ou in the passage, were as really serious and sol emn in their prayers and vows, as ever any sin ners were under heaven: and it is equally ev ident, that God called that devotion nothing bu solemn flattery and lying, which Mr. T. call moral goodness.

But, lest it should be thought that Mr. T is singular in his sense of the passage, name ly, that the charge of flattering and lying may refer to their after conduct in their breakins the serious promises which they made in tim of distress, it is worthy of notice, that Mr. Williams had advanced the same sentiment

in opposition to president Edwards. But the president viewed them as acting the part of hypocrites, because that at the very time of their distress they made their solemn promises and prayers without gracious sincerity. Accordingly he says, "It is mentioned as an evidence of their having lied or dealt deceitfully in their profession, that their heart was not right with God, and so proved not stedfast in God's covenant which they had owned.”

Humble inquiry, p. 35; and truth vindicated, page 90.

SECTION XIV.

The natural ability of sinners.

As our reply to Mr. T. was introduced, by a disquisition relating to the total depravity of sinners; so, we close it by a disquisition relating to the natural ability of sinners. For, as he necessarily denies the total depravity of sinners to lay his specious foundation; so he necessarily denies the natural ability of sinners to raise his specious superstructure.

As the term ability is used in very different senses, the several acceptations of the word must be ascertained, and carefully explained. For, as there is a wide difference between natural good, and moral good, and between natural evil and moral; so, there is a wide difference between natural ability and moral ability. And, if we do not carefully mark the distinction between them, we shall blend and confound things which differ, and grope in the dark, instead of communicating light.

1. Then; what is natural ability? natural ability is the intellectual, and bodily strength of man to perform every action which God requires of him. Ability relates to action : and all men, according to this acceptation of the word, are able to perform what God requires. For, God is infinitely reasonable in his requirements. It is as much impossible for God to require more of us than we have intellectual and corporeal strength to perform, as it is for him to be unjust. There is a perfect correspondence between the commands of God, and the natural ability of the subjects of his command. Accordingly he does not com-" mand the idiot to be a philosopher; nor those who are naturally blind, deaf and dumb, to see, hear or speak. Nor does he require infants to do the work of men: for, they are unable, God requires no natural impossibilities. But, he requires those actions and those only, which men are able to perform if they choose to obey him. Accordingly he requires children to obey their parents; parents to provide for their children; and the rich to give to the poor. In a word, God commands all men every where to repent, and love him with all the heart; because they have natural ability to comply with the command. And, I may challenge an instance, either under the law or gospel, of God's requiring men to perform, that which exceeds their natural ability. The command of God never exceeds the natural ability of Accordingly he says, "Are not my ways equal? And, "If there be first a willing

man.