God requires. For, a just command never exceeds the natural ability of the subject. Therefore,

4. It is evident that the natural inability of sinners to repent and their dependence on the special grace of God for hearts to repent are precisely the same thing, or that he very unhappily confounds them or puts one for the other. For, while he uses the word dependence, it is very obvious to every discerning mind, that his theory intends natural inability. But, we all know that the dependence of man on God for repentance, and natural inability to repent, are not the same. For, we are absolutely dependent for hearts to repent; but we are not the subjects of natural inability to repent. The consequence is then plain, that Mr. T. unhappily mistakes the dependence of sinners for new hearts, for their natural inability.* We do not charge Mr. T. with designedly making a natural inability of dependence. But, we openly charge his theory with this gross, and most dangerous confusion. For, it is manifestly guilty: nor, do we assert this without ample evidence to support the charge. For, in p. 95, where he so keenly attacks my method of pressing the duty of immediate repentance, he says, "Your representations seem constantly to carry this idea, that there is a kind of sovereign energy, an almost irresistible charm in the very sound of Repent and believe this moment." And, to

Are not men entirely dependent in every action and thought? Who knows what will be his next motion or thought?

NATURAL INABILITY AND DEPENDENCE. 187

dispel the charm of this gospel direction, he flees to the sinner's dependence. For, he says,

66

If we only bring into view his dependence on divine grace to enable him to these exercises, and so the importance and duty of seeking it, the charm it seems is at once broken!" This is his method to break and dispel the charm and it must be exposed because it also breaks and dispels the sinner's obligation to immediate repentance! For, since he says (p. 93) that sinners Cannot the same moment possess the end and barely use means to obtain it," it is obvious that repentance, which is the end to be aimed at by them while destitute of holiness, is not their immediate duty, and that they are excused from it according to his theory, just as long as they barely use means to obtain it, because they are dependent. Their dependence therefore is a natural inability. For, it is naturally impossible for sinners to repent, within the compass of that moment which is spent in exercises destitute of repentance. In the same page he continues his note of admiration and says, this is the plain implication of my doctrine, namely, that "We must preach repentance merely as a natural duty, to be performed instantly by the sinner's own natural strength; else we in effect forbid and totally obstruct his penitent return to God, and tell him that he is under a natural and excusable inability to it! This representation would require amendments if his meaning were not obvious.

But to return; if my theory be wrong because it obliges the sinner to repent immedi

ately, for this reason, that he has natural strength to repent; the consequence is plain that he thinks his theory is right because it requires actions destitute of repentance in consequence of the sinner's dependence. And, this makes a natural inability of dependence. For the grand scope of the admiration is to shew that the sinner is destitute of natural strength to repent immediately.

Again he says, (p. 87) "It is the sinner's duty to consider his sad state, to seek the grace of repentance, till divine grace renews him, and not vainly to attempt to acquire it independently of the sovereign grace of the Most High." And, what is this but mistaking dependence for natural inability? for, if the sinner be not more dependent for repentance, than he is for a disposition to seek it while impenitent, why is he told to seek for it till Divine Power renews him, rather than to repent immediately? to the same purpose he adds, while treating of gospel-requisitions, "These commands being founded on the mediatorial plan of mercy are designed to encourage sinners to seek that grace which may enable them to a saving compliance, and not to put them upon a vain and hopeless effort to believe of themselves independently of special grace. "This also evidently makes a natural inability of dependence. For, if they are as dependent in one case as the other, it is as vain and hopeless to require them to seek that grace which may enable them to believe, as to require them to believe instantly.

NATURAL INABILITY AND DEPENDENCE. 189

Once more, when Mr. T. says, "The moral law binds the sinner to perfect repentance without affording him any strength to it," he fairly pleads the cause of the self-excusing sinner, who calls God a hard master, because he requires obedience of them who are absolutely dependent, and cannot obey.

same nature.

His defence contains many things of the But it is needless to cite any other instances. For, it is sufficiently obvious that he thinks himself authorized to direct sinners to perform actions which are destiute of holiness, merely because they are dependent on God for new hearts. He therefore evidently confounds natural inability and dependence in a very arbitrary manner. For, they are not the same any more than natural ability and dependence, and must not be blended or confounded.

5. It is evident that Mr. T.'s theory saps the very foundation of moral obligation, and entirely exculpates delaying sinners: for it really makes them the subjects of natural inability, because they are dependent. Sinners are therefore as blameless for not repenting immediately, as they are dependent. But, they are entirely dependent, and consequently are entirely blameless. It is as naturally impossible, according to his theory, for sinners to repent immediately, as it was for Egenus to obtain the physičian. For delaying repentance, therefore, they are not sinful; because no man is blameable for not doing that which exceeds his natural ability! this is the core of his theory,

ence.

which self-excusing, delaying sinners so much admire. For, it is as natural for sinners to plead that they cannot repent, because they are dependent, as it is for them to be the subjects of impenitence. It is not possible to advance a doctrine which more fully corresponds with the feelings of sinners, than the doctrine of their natural inability or excusable dependThey love it with all their hearts and always feel very uneasy when they are told that their inability to repent lies wholly in the mere opposition of their hearts. And, if Mr. T. had been the deputed advocate of the slothful servant mentioned in the parable, he could not please him better than by making a natural inability of his dependence. For what is more pleasing to the sinner, than to be told by his spiritual guide, that he cannot repent immediately; and that "It is his duty to consider his sad state, to seek the grace of repentance till divine grace renews him.” And since the sinner is willing to perform actions which are destitute of repentance, what is more grateful than to be told by his minister that this "is the only way as things are, to reach it."*

But,

thus Mr. T. instructs poor Admatolos, who feels no difference between absolute dependence and natural inability; and warmly opposes God, because he commands him to do that for which he is absolutely dependent.

Nothing can be more evident than that Mr. T.'s theory of dependence, or natural inability destroys the duty of immediate repentance. But, lest he should conclude from my charging * Page 134.