said, the light shineth in darkness, and the darkness comprehendeth it not; which plainly declares both that in the perverse and degenerate nature of man sparks still glitter which show him to be a rational creature, and different from brutes, because he is endowed with intellect; and yet that that light is suffocated by great grossness of ignorance, so that he cannot effectually extricate himself."

"Why does not [the mind] comprehend that light [which shineth in darkness?] Because its acumen, quicksightedness, as far as the knowledge of God is concerned, is mere darkness; for the Spirit in calling men darkness, devests them at once of all capability of spiritual understanding; for which reason it is declared that believers are born not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of man, but of God: as though it were said, the unregenerate man is not capable of such sublime wisdom as to apprehend God and divine things, unless illuminated by the Spirit."

"He, I say, [that is carnal] does not comprehend any of the spiritual mysteries of God. Why so? because through sloth he neglects to? No-even if he endeavours, he cannot at all; because it is spiritually discerned. But what does that mean? That these things being entirely hidden to human perspicacity, are made known by the revelation of the Spirit alone."

As the capacity of the mind for knowledge depends entirely on its physical nature-physical, because the understanding has no other-the defect here ascribed to it, is of course purely of that kind..

His belief in regard to the will was, that though it is not utterly annihilated, yet it has lost that power which Adam at first possessed, of exercising either good or bad volitions, and become incapable of any except those which are sinful. His language is,

"The will has not indeed perished, because it is inseparuble from the nature of man, but it is so chained by depraved lusts, that it is not able to aspire to any thing good."

"The will is held bound in such a subjection to sin, that it is not able to turn-much less, apply itself to that which is good."

And quoting from Augustine, "Man as he is corrupted by the fall sins indeed voluntarily, not unwillingly nor by compulsion-under the influence of strong passion, not by violent constraint-by the impulse of his own lust, not of external force ;-still, such is the depravity of nature, that it is not possible for him to be excited to any thing but evil." Inst. Lib. II. Cap. II. 12. 19, 20. Cap. III. 5.

His object in these passages was not to teach the fact that the will does not choose any thing good—but that the voluntary powers are become so imperfect in consequence of the fall, that they are physically incompetent to the exercise of good volitions; though still able to exert the opposite class. This is manifest from his language, and is demonstrated by his employing the fact, that it is so chained to lusts and subjected to sin as it is; that is, the fact, that it never chooses any thing good, to prove that it cannot make a virtuous choice.

He thus regarded the voluntary powers of the soul, as having participated equally with the intellectual, in the great and fatal change supposed to have taken place in consequence of the fall: a change which he imagined left the mind capable only of knowing that which is earthly, and choosing that which is unholy.

The same views are exhibited in the following quotation from the Catechism and Confession of the Reformed Dutch Church:

66

Being become wicked, perverse, and corrupt, in all his ways, he hath lost all his excellent gifts which he had received from God, and only retained a few remains thereof; which however are sufficient to leave man without excuse." "Are we then so corrupt that we are wholly incapable of doing any good, and inclined to all wickedness? Indeed are."

we

The theory of President Edwards exhibits this depravity as consisting in a want of adaptation in the nature of man to holiness. It represents human nature as such originally and in all cases, that-without a divine influence- it is utterly incompetent to any act that is morally excellent, destitute of the properties requisite for the exercise of such an act, and incapable therefore of being made to exert one by any combination of circumstances whatever; and consequently that there must be a superinduction on it, by the agency of the Spirit of God, of a new property, before it can be fitted for holiness. These views are expressed in the following quotation :

"The case with man was plainly this: When God made man at first, he implanted in him two kinds of princi ples. There was an inferior kind, which may be called natural, being the principles of mere human nature, such as self love, with those natural appetites and passions which belong to the nature of man, in which his love to his own liberty, honour, and pleasure were exercised. These when alone, and left to themselves, are what the scriptures sometimes call flesh. superior principles that were spiritual, holy, and divine, summarily comprehended in divine love, wherein consisted the spiritual image of God, and man's righteousness and true holiness, which are called in scripture the divine nature. These principles may, in some sense, be called supernatural, being (however concreated or connate, yet,) such as are

Beside these there were

above those principles that are essentially implied in, or necessarily resulting from, and inseparably connected with, mere human nature, and being such as immediately depend on man's union and communion with God, or divine communications and influences of God's Spirit; which though withdrawn, and man's nature forsaken of these principles, human nature would be human nature still; man's nature as such being entire without these divine principles, which the scripture sometimes calls spirit, in contradistinction to flesh. These superior principles were given to possess the throne and maintain an absolute dominion in the heart. The other to be wholly subordinate and subservient. . . . . These divine principles thus reigning, were the dignity, life, happiness and glory of man's nature. When man sinned and broke God's covenant and fell under his curse, these superior principles left his heart." . . . . For indeed God left him, that communion with God on which these principles depended entirely, ceased; the Holy Spirit, that divine inhabitant, forsook the house." "Therefore, immediately the superior divine principles wholly ceased: so light ceases in a room when the candle is withdrawn; and thus man was left in a state of darkness, woful corruption, and ruinnothing but flesh without spirit. The inferior principles of self-love and natural appetite, which were given only to serve, being alone and left to themselves, of course became reigning principles, having no superior principles to regulate or control them. The immediate consequence of which was a fatal catastrophe, a turning of all things upside down, and the succession of a state of the most odious and dreadful confusion. It were easy to show how lust every and depraved disposition of man's heart would naturally arise from this privative original. Thus it is easy to give an account how total corruption of heart should follow on man's eating the forbidden fruit, though that was but one act of sin; without God's putting any evil into his heart, or

implanting any bad principle, or infusing any corrupt taint, and so becoming the author of depravity"—An easy method indeed to escape the charge of teaching that God introduced such a principle on man's fall, by representing that it was implanted there originally, and was only kept in check by other constitutional properties which were upheld in existence by the presence of the Spirit, and which vanished from the constitution on the cessation of the Spirit's influence] Only God's withdrawing as it was highly proper and necessary that he should from rebel man being as it were driven away by his abominable wickedness, and man's natural principles being left to themselves, this is sufficient to account for his becoming entirely corrupt and bent on sinning against God."-His Works, vol. 6. p. 428, 429, 430, 431.

66

Two or three remarks will show the conclusions to which this theory carries us respecting the nature of depravity.

1st. It teaches that the physical constitution of man suffered an important change at the fall, by the subtraction of a portion of the attributes denominated "superior principles," with which it was originally endowed. By these superior principles the author undoubtedly meant physical attributes of the mind; not mere feelings or exercises. What propriety can there be in interpreting the superior, more than the inferior principles, to denote actions? Do the latter, if used in that sense, mean unholy actions? But they are expressly declared to have been in man in innocence. Can he have meant to teach that man exercised unholy actions in innocence, or sinned before the fall? Or do they mean holy actions? Why then are they depicted as essentially different in their nature from the superior principles? as destined to an office wholly subordinate? And why are they not also represented as ceasing, like the other class, on the departure of the Spirit's influence? Or why is man declared by being left with them alone--to have been "left in a state of darkness, woful corruption, and ruin?"