“The law of God itself requires no creature to love him, or obey him, beyond his _strength_, or with more than all the powers which he possesses. If the inability of sinners to believe in Christ, or to do things spiritually good, were of this nature, it would undoubtedly form an excuse in their favour; and it must be as absurd to exhort them to such duties, as to exhort the blind to look, the deaf to hear, or the dead to walk. But the inability of sinners is not such as to induce the Judge of all the earth, (who cannot do other than right) to abate in his requirements. It is a fact that he does require them, and that without paying any regard to their inability, _to love him_, and _to fear him_, and _to do all his commandments always_. _The blind_ are admonished _to look, the deaf to hear_, and _the dead to arise_. Isa. xlii. 18. Ephes. v. 14. If there were no other proof than what is afforded by this single fact, it ought to satisfy us that the blindness, deafness, and death of sinners, to that which is spiritually good, is of a different nature from that which furnishes an excuse. This however is not the only ground of proof. The thing speaks for itself. There is an essential difference between an inability which is independent of the inclination, and one that is owing to nothing else. It is equally impossible, no doubt, for any person to do that which he has no mind to do, as to perform that which surpasses his natural powers; and hence it is that the same terms are used in the one case as in the other. Those who were under the dominion of envy and malignity, COULD NOT _speak peaceably_; and those who have _eyes full of adultery_, CANNOT _cease from sin_. Hence also the following language—_How_ CAN _ye, being evil, speak good things?—The natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God, neither_ CAN _he know them—The carnal mind is enmity against God; and is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed_ CAN _be—They that are in the flesh_ CANNOT _please God—No man_ CAN _come to me, except the Father who sent me draw him._—It is also true, that many have affected to treat the distinction between natural and moral inability as more curious than solid. ‘If we be unable, say they, we are unable. As to the nature of the inability, it is a matter of no account. Such distinctions are perplexing to plain Christians, and beyond their capacity.’ But surely the plainest and weakest Christian in reading his bible, if he pay any regard to what he reads, must perceive a manifest difference between the blindness of Bartimeus, who was ardently desirous that _he might receive his sight_, and that of the unbelieving Jews, who _closed their eyes, lest they should see, and be converted, and healed_; Mark x. 51. Matt. xii. 15. and between the want of the natural sense of hearing, and the state of those _who have ears, but hear not_.