spirit of his Master, and to shed around him the ligat of a good example-the silent but effective influence of a devout, a holy and a useful life. M. L. H. DR. WOODS' VIEWS OF HUMAN ABILITY. [Concluded.] Dr. Woods' particular aim in treating upon this subject in his Letters to Young Ministers,' is 'to ascertain the best manner of inculcating moral obligation.' He does not appear to be so much concerned about the real facts of the case, the precise meaning of the words used, or the way in which they will be understood, as about the manner, the right way of presenting the subject. And this, he thinks, can be learned only from the oracles of God. If we would give men right views of their obligations, we must take the method which God himself has chosen.* To this general statement, there can be tion. But what use is to be made of it? infers from it, that we must use the very the sacred writers use. In this I cannot agree with him. First, because the truth itself is all that is essential, its dress being of little importance; and next, because it is not possible for us to use the very words that the sacred writers used. Dr. Woods does not himself; for he uses English words, and they used Hebrew and Greek. Now, unless he can establish the doctrine of the verbal inspiration of the original wri no objec Dr. Woods words that ters, and still more, the verbal inspiration of King James' translators, I see not how he can maintain his position. Will he undertake to decide for himself and for all others, that the words of our translation correspond exactly to those of the original? Will he say, too, that these words have undergone no change of meaning with changes of time and people? Will he say that they carry exactly the same meaning now to all who hear them? He does not pretend this. He admits, 'that our mode of instruction should be adapted to the ever-varying states of the human mind, and the evervarying circumstances of the world.' Still he insists, that in such a case as this we ought to use the same language that was used at first; and if the meaning of 'the words and phrases employed in the Bible' has changed, let them be explained, but let not others be used. Does Dr. Woods adhere to this rule in regard to all the words and phrases in the Bible, or does he take his choice? It was hardly to be expected that such a writer would fall into the common error of confounding a translation with the original, and I must again refer to it. It will be remembered, this is a question about words only the words able and unable, can and cannot, &c. It is not enough that we convey what we suppose to be the meaning of these words in other language. Dr. Woods insists that we ought to use the words themselves. In proof of this he says, 'the Bible is our standard both as to the matter and the manner of religious instruction. We are under sacred obligations to conform to this standard, because it is divine and infallible.' But is the translation also divine and infallible? If not, his labor might have been spared. If this be not evident now, it will be when we look at the passages quoted. The first is John vi. 44: No man can come unto me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him.' Read the next verse. 'It is written in the prophets, and they shall be all taught of God. Every man therefore that hath heard, and hath learned of the Father, cometh unto me.' If Dr. Woods would infer any kind of inability from this passage, it must be the inability to 'hear and learn.' It is precisely the same as if a teacher should say to his pupils, you cannot speak this language unless you learn it, and you cannot learn it unless your parents furnish you with books and opportunities. Is this human inability? Yet this is the first passage cited here, and usually the most relied on in this controversy. We have next a class of passages like the following: 'How can ye, being evil, speak good things?'-' How can ye believe, who receive honor, &c.' I am so utterly unable to understand how any one can find an argument for man's inability in such passages, that I cannot reply to them with becoming respect. Has Dr. Woods ever said to one of his students, 'How can you, being prejudiced, see the force of my arguments?' And did he mean to imply any peculiar inability? Will it be believed, that Dr. Woods next quotes and insists upon the passage in Rom. viii. 7, respecting the carnal mind, and that in 1 Cor. ii. 14, of the natural man? What are we to infer from the fact that so many keep their readers and hearers in ignorance as to the true meaning of those terms, and permit a doc trine and a system to be reared upon a false interpreta→ tion? Those two verses are among the strongest supports of the Calvinistic doctrine of man's naturally corrupt and disabled condition. I doubt if a number of the Spirit of the Pilgrims is published, in which some such use of these passages cannot be found. I doubt, moreover, if there are many, if any, orthodox societies in the country, who have ever been told, that the words carnal and natural, in those places, are capable of bearing any other meaning but that of man's state by nature. And yet is there a professor or minister in the land, who will risk his reputation as a scholar upon the assertion, that there is any allusion in those passages to man's state by nature? Will any one deny that the 'carnal mind' means the fleshly propensity as opposed to the spiritual, and that the 'natural man means the animal or sensual man-without any reference to a state by nature, except when they are used to describe the state of the Gentiles compared with that of christians? Must not these terms 'carnal and natural,' as applied to us, be used simply in reference to character, not nature-something that we have acquired, not any thing that we brought with us into life? If so, is not the common orthodox use of these passages nearly allied to handling the word of God deceitfully?' The whole meaning of the two passages, as a practical truth, is, that sensuality, corruption, wickedness cannot be pleasing to God, but must be enmity against him, incapable of receiving or knowing the 'spiritual things' which constitute his essence and his favor. We have now seen the strongest passages quoted here in proof of man's natural inability to believe and obey the Gospel. In remarking upon these and similar passages, Dr. Woods seems to me to concede all that the most liberal man can ask, and to overthrow his whole argument. He first asserts and shows that nearly, or quite as strong language, is used to describe the weakness and insufficiency of actual christians, even the disciples and apostles of our Lord, as is applied in the above passages to the unconverted. How then does this language prove the peculiar inability of men in their natural, unrenewed state? He then says, after noticing all the passages bearing on the subject,— 'it may help us rightly to qualify their meaning, to notice that the inspired writers, in the most unequivocal terms, require the sinner to comply with the divine commands, and charge it upon him as his own fault, and as what exposes him to just condemnation, that he does not comply.' I give this passage with the writer's own italics, and would only make the obvious remark, that after such an assertion it seems useless to contend for any inability in man, except such as belongs to him in every relation and every work. And this is what Dr. Woods next intimates. He says, it is clear that the inability spoken of 'consists in an unwil lingness or disinclination to do what is right,' and that this is the only inability. He then illustrates it by referring to the language we use in common discourse, where the 'meaning depends on the same principles.' For instance, a just judge, if you offer him a bribe, immediately says to you, 'I cannot listen to your proposal.' A covetous man called to contribute to a Bible Society, says quickly, I can't do it.' The fond mother says, |