BT 715 . A53 1820 4* 0<^j5>3 s<*®rb>9 ^,;:’:i~~yiTp^>&: - - iTi~^ ^ ,jfr 3^>9^gg3>9*.^gs>ag^-g g» v* # ) . • “ • ; v- • ’ 'v‘- waiDira 3 A;}b.. r r.'-r-u Vt* OT K3H iO JJlV'.'ftltT i ' * ..* W16 *'h. ' , at " <*£ «|f W -IK «15A ,-. •-■■rttf -tn*T •" -># ZkW'i- : ■ **■•'-’ . V ,.*■;<■ ,.x i £ -t.; • *<*'•' ’v ■ ■■"" ' ■•''' ' ' ■-..rij.. t » . • . '..:..^V : ' ' ■■ : ; ,:; * jtAtsmnnt a-.:., xa *(”'••< * *£*.». • JO a^*OH* »*. t8035tt^A 4 ■ - ""v' " "* ;- m ttSW* f *■ ESSAY 12? WHICH OP A POSITIVE DIVINE EFFICIENCY EXCITING THE WILL OF MEN TO SIN, As held by some modern ~ Writers, is CANDIDLY DISCUSSED, AND SHEWN TO BE 3. UNPHILOSOPHICAL. 2. INCONSISTENT WITH TOE PLAIN AND OBVIOUS SENSE OF THE HOLT SCRIPTURES, AND OF COURSE A DEPARTURE FROM THE SIMPLICITY OF THE GOSPEL; AND 3, A NOVEL DOCTRINE, UTTERLY REPUGNANT TO THE FAITH OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH IN ALL PAST AGES. BY THOMAS ANDROS, A. M. Pastor of the Church of Christ in Berkley , Mass. Prove all things, hold fast that which is good . St. Paul. Felix, qui potuit rerum cognoscere causas.,.. .Virgil. BOSTON: Printed for samuel t. Armstrong, BY CROCKER & BREWSTER, No. 50, Cornhiil. JuJy, 1820, ' -tir 1 * ;■?. ■■ s t: Ifm- >• •• ■' ■' . . | tntvif.^r ***** b<* «“,M" |J . ... . • V . 5*W> bv>* *** ,a ?l ..,-i b »■ .■■•-. <*:w ••’ - ■!' ";'s 1 ’ 1; W •' v;' . . ?£\ «. •<• a ..i, •. • • . . *. i •: ■ * "i“» ff ’/■(>* r:.)3d c : ■; ; ' , . , . . » v? ■ -■.•<- m * ■ ■• •-• ■'*• - ■- CONTENTS, INTRODUCTION. Pugt Stating some circumstances, which drew* the author reluctantly into the discU3siou, - SECTION I. 'Hie question stated, “Does God operate directly on the heart of fallen man, and excite him by an inward positive influence, to yield to the motives and allurements to sin, which, in the course of divine providence, are presented to his view?” - 1.1 SECTION II. The standard by which this, and all other questions in theology and morals, are to be ultimately decided, i. e. the obvious sense of the word of God, as determined by the common laws of exposition, ------- 24 SECTION III. Two positions, that may be adjudged as the main pillars of the system of direct efficiency, considered: viz. 1. That motive in no possible case can be the cause of volition. 2. That those passages of Scripture which speak of a divine agency in hardening the hearts of men, &c. are to be understood as perfectly par¬ allel to, and as expressive of, a direct influence, as those which ascribe the production of holy exercises to God, - - S2 SECTION IV. In which it is shewn, that the theory under examination is contrary to analogy and sound philosophy, so far as any regard is due to the most sober and cautious reasonings of this kind, 51 CONTENTS. it SECTION V. Texts of Scripture, which solemnly warn us not to ascfibe to • \ God, our being inwardly excited and moved to impiety and wickedness, - - - - - - 58 SECTION VI. Texts whieh positively declare, that moral evil does not come from Gcd, - - - - - 6:1 SECTION VII. The language of the Scriptures, in which all holiness in saints is ascribed to the agency of the Holy Spirit, necessarily excludes the idea of a direct inward divine efficiency in the production of sinful exercises, - - - - - G9 SECTION VIII. The power and influence which the Scriptures ascribe to Satan, in the production of moral evil, utterly irreconcilable, upon just and sober principles of interpretation, to this modern notion of divine efficiency, - SECTION IX. What is said in the Scriptures of God’s giving up sinners to their own hearts’ lusts, and suffering them to walk in their own ways, inconsistent with the idea of divine efficiency, under con¬ sideration, - - - 90 SECTION X. Tins notion of divine efficiency, a novel doctrine, unknown to the Church of God iu all past ages, - * - 95 CONCLUSION, . . - 104 APPENDIX. Containing a Discourse on Col. ii, 8. “Beware lest any man spoil you through Philosophy.” - 115 INTRODUCTION. STATING SOME CIRCUMSTANCES, WHICH DREW THE AUTHOR, RELUCTANTLY, INTO THE DISCUSSION. It is well known to the Christian public, that New England, for more than half a century, has been famed for discussing the plainest evangelical subjects, in a deep, abstruse, meta¬ physical way; so that simple, honest, and well informed Christians, have oft been perplexed and confounded with incomprehensible mys¬ teries and difficulties, where none seem to have been apprehended by the sacred writers. In various instances, new phil osophical the¬ ories have been invented, and attempted to be grafted on the simple and precious truths of « i. 1 .p . , the Cos pci, as very important, 11 not essential to the system; and, by elaborate discussions, and excessive refinements, the humble spirit *1 INTRODUCTION. vi and life-giving power of these truths, have been, as by a chemical fire, carried off by subli¬ mation. Hence a New England divine, in Eu¬ rope, had well nigh become a term of reproach. In a sarcastic tone, they have been spoken of as acute divines, with whom, in the metaphysical palestra, few would presume to contend. One, who it seems did not condemn their specula¬ tions without examination, and who was willing to allow them credit for every real improve¬ ment in elucidating evangelical subjects, thus writes from London: “The religious people of Old England look upon me as a New England divine, which is to them in general no recommendation.’’ — Again he says, “I mean not to offend, but it appears to me, that the pride of reasoning and confi¬ dent speculation is as much the danger of re¬ ligious people in North America, as antinomian laxity and selfishness, is of those in Old Eng¬ land. Religion came from God in full perfec¬ tion, and can never be improved, though it may be spoiled by philosophy: and the nearer our sentiments and expressions accord to those of the holy prophets and apostles, the purer will be our religion. The pride of self-wisdom is as congenial to our fallen nature, and as opposite to Christianity, as any other kind of selfishness; “for the wisdom of this world is foolishness >vith God.”# » Far be it from me to deny that respect and honor, which is due to many of the writings of * Thcolog. Mag. for Dee. 1798. p. 421. INTRODUCTION. Vli New England divines. I have been as much attached to these, as any mere human compo¬ sitions. I have read them with much delight, and, as I hope, real profit. The nature of original sin; the nature of holiness; the highly important distinction between natural and moral ability; the nature of the atonement; the sin¬ fulness and inefficacy of unregenerate doings, &c. these subjects were never more justly stated, and clearly illustrated, than by American di¬ vines. But not satisfied with refining the pure gold, and dissipating some mists that render the rays of eternal truth less effulgent and power¬ ful, some have extended their speculations on various points so far, as to savor of an awful intrusion into the unsearchable depths of the ways of God, and thereby to endanger the spiritual interests of men. Of the truth of this fact, many have had a painful sense, who, still, as to any public testimony against it, have held their peace; hoping that these things would never be attempted to be imposed upon our belief, as important articles of divinity. Dr. Benedict, of Plainfield, Con. one of the most excellent of men, my preceptor in divin¬ ity, and other sciences;- to whose friendship I am greatly indebted; a profound scholar and great textuary, assured me, he would not have written some things to be found in the works of a few New England divines, for his right arm; alluding particular! v to the point which is the main topic of this Essay. YUl INTBODUCTIOSf. Dr. Griffin, in the dedication of his Park- Street Lectures, has hinted at some of the speculations of this new divinity. “In these discourses,” says he, “you will find no reasonings on points foreign to godliness — no theories about the origin of sin, — no chal¬ lenge for a conditional consent to be damned, — no perplexing speculations about taste and ex¬ ercise, but the fundamental and practical truths of our holy religion,” &c. — To those, to which there is here an allusion, we might add many more, quite as foreign to godliness. But among them all, the point to be examined in the following sheets holds a distinguished place. But had even this been suggested only as a mere philosophical prob¬ lem, and not magnified into an important article of Christianity, it might have been left to rest undisturbed in the works of philosophers, as a mere lusus of their speculating temper. — More than twenty years ago, I remember to have discussed this point with that able and judicious divine, the Rev. Samuel Niles, of Abington. The ground that I then attempted to maintain, was, that waving all questions regarding its influence on the character of the Deity or moral agency of man, such an immediate divine efficiency in the excitement of men to sin, was false in fact. — No doubt but his peculiar views of the subject descended with him to the grave. And nothing has yet occurred to shake, but much to confirm my belief. But what I have to remark is, that in this great and good INTRODUCTION. ix man, whom all who knew him must venerate and love, I never discovered the least disposi¬ tion to consider it any way essential to correct views of Christian doctrine and piety. But the views of some in regard to this subject, seem now to be widely different It may pos¬ sibly originate from an unhappy jealous sensi¬ bility in my own temper, but certainly so it ap¬ pears to be. This newT theory sometimes seems disposed to arrogate to itself the glory of some wonderful improvements in divinity, and to as¬ sign those a low place in the church of God, as to wisdom and discernment, who do not ap¬ prehend the truth and importance of this novel speculation; for novel it most certainly is. Well do I remember the time, when Dr. E.’s Sermon on Phil, ii, 12, was handed about in manuscript; and it was then said, “the world was not prepared to receive the new divinity it contained; it is not yet time to publish it.” But this is not all. Had I not a strong con¬ viction, that this principle, connected with some other speculations equally unfavorable to pi¬ ety, have had a powerful influence to prej¬ udice multitudes in this country against the Gospel; that it has aided the cause of infi¬ delity, and especially that of Arminianism and Unitarianism, and that of Sectarians in gen¬ eral. Had I never heard candidates perplexed with this question before ordaining councils; had it never been affirmed in my hearing, that this notion of divine agency, had now become the line of demarcation between the friends of sound doctrine, and those who march under X INTRODUCTION. the banner of its foes; that those who ques¬ tion the truth of the sentiment, are pleading the cause of the ungodly, and arming them against the government, universal and partic¬ ular providence of God; that a denial of it comes but little short of Atheism; at least it can rise but little above Maniecheism; that the most distinguished and pious divines, and theo¬ logical institutions, who do not make it a prom¬ inent feature in their instructions, are very lax in their principles,— nay, had it never been suggested, that the silence of great the¬ ologians, who do not adopt the theory, is owing to this, that they know it cannot be re¬ futed, whether tested in the light of Philoso¬ phy or Scripture; had I never heard any such suggestions, [ might have remained silent. And indeed if I had, still I might have deemed it my duty to have held my peace; for neither do any other divines, or divinity-schools, need my poor efforts to vindicate their principles or practice. But I am called to speak in self- defence. A few thoughts on the subject, in a small volume of Sermons lately published un¬ der my name, have brought on me the frowns of some i greatly esteem. I ought, if possible, to satisfy them, that I have a Scripture warrant for what I have advanced. Nor is this all: the v i *■ theological atmosphere in which my lot is cast, is of such a nature, as possibly to generate the thought in a preacher’s own charge, that if he shrinks back from this grand point of philoso¬ phy, he can hardly be fit to instruct in any other doctrine. INTRODUCTION". XL In this state of things, I have, with great re¬ luctance, been induced to obtrude my thoughts on the Christian public; and I appeal to the Church of New England, whether the cause I advocate is that of Christian truth and simplic¬ ity, or not. To speak with the independence and confidence of a Christian, who has the Bible for his guide, I claim as my right. But if I speak m an angry or disrespectful manner of any man, let me bear the full weight of the cen¬ sure I may deserve. This is my motto, “But speaking the truth in love.” Eph. iv, 15. And this is my comment “Cursed be the line, how well soe’er it flow, That tends to make one worthy man my foe.” Being confident I have nothing in view, but the advancement of pure evangelical truth and piety, I commit what I have written to the blessing of that great Being, who is able, and will overrule all things for his own glory. ' If there be any, who have so completely surrendered up their understanding, and even the Bible, to human systems, as to deem it, if not a kind of sacrilege, yet proof sufficient, that he, who presumes to question any of the positions of the great and admired authors of them, must be wrong if not impious: — persons of this description may think it refutation enough to recollect the name of a favorite writer; we do not expect they will be our readers. But of all others who may conde¬ scend to examine what we have advanced, we INTRODUCTION, • • XU would not only solicit their patience and candor, and an interest in their prayers, but the forgive¬ ness of all they may discover amiss, in matter or manner. THE AUTHOR, Berkley, Nov, 23, 1819. SECTION * THE QUESTION STATED. Time and labor are utterly lost in any discussion, if we fail of that perspicuity which is necessary to give the reader a clear apprehension of the point in debate. If, through mistake, his eye is fixed upon one position, while our object is to establish another, we may greatly injure him, by seeming to prove, what in fact is false, or to disprove, what in our own judgment is of high importance to be believed; or we may excite his disgust towards us as opposers of a doctrine, which rests on the fullest evidence, and so impair his Christian fellowship with us, and put it out of our power to be useful to him in future. Had this been duly attended to, — had persons in their religious conferences clearly perceived each other’s meaning, and the point aimed at, a great deal of useless contention, heat and bitterness, would have been avoided. If any one should condescend to read what follows in these sheets, I beseech him, therefore, here to pause and reflect, till he has obtained a clear idea of the question before us, if such a thing be possible from my manner of expression. It is too common a thing, for persons to connect with one question a 2 14 SECTION I. great many others, and to consider a writer as de¬ nying all those, if he denies this one. — As a caution against a measure fraught with so much injustice, we would here mention a number of things, which are to be laid out of the present discussion, and which it is not our design to prove or disprove. The point then to be examined is, not, whether God has, according to his own infinitely wise coun¬ sel, predetermined all events, that come to pass; even all the volitions, actions, and characters of his creatures, whether good or evil. This is conceded. It is not whether there be two independent, eternal, beings; the? one, the author of all good, the other, the author of all evil. A person must be hardly pressed for matter of cavil, to charge this upon our system. The question is not, whether, the eternal purpose of God, ensuring the existence of moral evil, reflects any dishonor upon the divine character, or lessens the demerit of sin. Were this the matter in debate we should take the negative. Nor is it, whether God has power, consistently with the moral freedom of man, and the grounds of praise and blame in regard to his actions, to pro¬ duce evil volitions in his heart, by an immediate, in¬ ward positive efficiency. For here it is conceded, that, if the holy exercises, which God produces in saints be morally good and praiseworthy, we see not why the evil exercises of sinners would not be crim¬ inal, though produced in the same way. Nor is the question about the manner, how moral evil first gained existence in the mind of angels once perfectly pure and blessed; nor how moral corrup¬ tion, or sinful desires, first entered into the heart of the primitive parents of our race, who were orig¬ inally formed in a state of perfect moral rectitude. The question assumes human nature in its state of deep and awful depravity, and may be thus expres¬ sed, ‘‘Does God operate directly on the heart of fallen man, and excite him by an inward positive SECTION I. 15 influence, to yield to the motives and allurements to sin, which, in the course of divine Providence, are presented to his view?” The advocates of this doctrine, affirm with us, (at least in words,) that God does not bring into existence the evil exercises or volitions of men with¬ out the use of motives, or means adapted; but, then, if we would not misunderstand them, it must care¬ fully be observed, that in their view7, no motives, means, instruments, or second causes, have any power to produce volition, without this inward di¬ vine influence. The mind can only look at these motives; it cannot move a step to choose them, until this choice is excited by a positive direct influ¬ ence on the heart. The justice of this remark will appear from a few citations. “It hence appeareth, that there is an utter impropriety in saying that the mind is gov¬ erned and determined by motive.” West on Moral Agency, p. 61. “But God knew that no external means wTould he sufficient of themselves to form his (Pharoah’s) moral character. He determined to operate on his heart, itself, and cause him to put forth certain evil exercises in the view of certain external motives.” Dr. Emmons’s Ser. on Exod. ix, 16. “As these and all other methods to account for the fall of Adam, by the instrumentality of second causes, are insufficient to remove the difficulty, it seems ne- cessary to have recourse to divine agency, and to suppose that God wrought in Adam. Satan placed certain motives before his mind, which by a divine agency took hold of his heart, and led him into sin.” Ibid. Ser. on Phil, ii, 12. “An object presented to the mind is a motive to choose, but it is the immediate agency of God alone that can cause the mind to act when the motive is presented,” — “Not that God does not work by means, hut that means in themselves have no effi¬ cacy.” W. R. Weeks’s Nine Sermons, pp. 32, 42, SECTION I. 3 6 What do these writers intend by "means in them- selves?” Is this the idea, that means independently of God have no energy? If so, who will contend with them? Do they suppose that any man, who believes the Bible, would advance such an idea, as that God ever made any creature to exist and act independently of himself? Or do they mean that God has never imparted to created agents, instru¬ ments or second causes, an influence, energy, or ac¬ tivity, sufficient, under his upholding and all-controll¬ ing Providence, to produce any effect, or at least any moral effect; or that it is impossible he should give or impart any such energy or activity? In this case 1 would ask them, how they came by this knowl¬ edge, and how they prove the truth of such a specu¬ lation? In regard to Adam’s choice of the forbidden fruit, according to Dr. Emmons, God knew that no external means would be sufficient. But how did the Dr. discover that God knew this in Adam’s or Pharoah’s case? In relation to Adam’s case it seems by God’s own declaration, that he knew the contrary; for he says to Satan, a dependent agent, an Instrument, ‘‘Because thou hast done this,” and denounces a curse upon him for it, and says not one word about working by his own immediate agency on Adam’s heart itself. Do not the Scriptures undertake to account for the fall of Adam by the instrumentality of second causes? And does not Dr. Emmons reflect equally upon the inspired writers, as on others, when he says, “These and all other methods to account for it by the instru¬ mentality of second causes are insufficient. — It seems necessary to suppose God wrought in Adam,” i. e. by a direct influence on his heart he moved him to his first act of rebellion. But how came the Dr. to discover a thing which none of the inspired writers ever advanced? To me at least, there is something awfully pre- ' sumptuous and unbecoming creatures, who are of SECTION I, IT yesterday and know nothing, to talk of the divine agency and the inefficacy of means, as these writers do.— -Are not the ways of God in this matter an unfathomable deep, a mystery which extends infi¬ nitely beyond the reach of our capacities? Do we know exactly what energies God may impart to second causes? How far he works by instruments, or his own immediate agency. Can we comprehend the manner of the dependence of rational agents and other creatures, on the Creator? Do we know how he holds them all under his absolute control, and brings all their energies, passions, and actions, to unite in one grasd point, the accomplishment of his own benevolent purposes? Here I take it God is incomprehensible. Christ says, even in regard to a blade of corn, “It grows up thou knowest not how.” And says Solomon, “As thou knowest not what is the way of the spirit, nor how the bones do grow in the womb of her that is with child; even so thou knowest not the works of God, who maketh all.” It appears, Mr. Weeks is rather too fast, when he so roundly and confidently asserts, that it is not motive, or any second causes, but the immediate agency of God alone, that can cause the mind to act. When these writers speak of God’s working by means, there is great danger of their readers being misguided. According to their theory, means are absolutely nothing. Motives are no means of mov¬ ing rational creatures to act, and it is absurd for them to talk of them as means; for a means utterly destitute of efficacy and adaptedness, is no means at all. According to Mr. Weeks, a motive is no more the cause of the mind’s choice in any case, than the waving of my hand is the cause of the sun’s rising. And who would not say, I talked absurdly, if ! were to say that the waving of my hand was a means of the sun’s rising this morning? A nd if it is t he im¬ mediate agency of God alone that causes the mind to act, then motive is as absurdly said to be a means IS SECTION t. here, as the waving my hand in the other case. To understand the scheme aright, we must then con¬ ceive of it as affirming, that God uses means to exe¬ cute his decrees, and yet he uses no means at all. To give you my views as differing from this theory. Suppose God creates an hand of mere lifeless clay. This hand he moves and causes to appear to do many things, but after all, there is absolutely no energy, or efficiency in it, to do any thing. God by an immedi¬ ate influence or agency does all. This if I can com¬ prehend it, is the notion of means entertained by the theory we oppose. To come up to our views, you have to give life, intelligence, the power of choice, activity to this hand, if it be an accountable agent, or if it be an irrational object, you must give to it its appropriate energy, whatever it be, attraction, mag¬ netism, electricity, instinct, &c. and then though it be equally dependent and under the absolute direction and control of the great First Cause, yet nothing further is necessary to its producing its proper effects, but the preservation of these energies, and affording them opportunity and excitement to action. To guard against evasion of the real question, and perplexing the subject with what is quite foreign to it, we add another remark. The advocates of this new theory pretend, that they do not undertake to decide, in what manner it is, God operates in the production of moral evil. The modus operandi they concede is incomprehensible. But is not this really denying, or evading the mat¬ ter in debate? The manner in which they assert God moves the wills of sinners to choose evil, is the substance of all, about which there is any question. It is a plain declaration of the Scriptures, that God hardens the heart, blinds the mind, sends strong delusion, &c. But this is to produce moral evil, and this fact we readily admit. This therefore is not the point at issue. But it lies in this. One side affirm that no energy imparted to second causes, no arrangement, or direction and application of mo SECTION I. 19 lives or instruments, is sufficient to move the minds of wicked men to choose evil, or to excite in them unholy volitions. Over and above all power and efficiency, that can be given to second causes and instruments, a direct positive divine influence must be applied. The other side believe, that under the infinitely wise and powerful arrangement and dis¬ posal of second causes and instruments, the effect is produced without any such positive divine efficien¬ cy. In this view of the question, it is impertinent to say, they do not undertake to decide how God moves the wills of fallen men to sin, — for they have already declared how on one hand he does not do it, by the instrumentality of second causes, and on the other, that he does it, by a direct operation on the heart, causing motives and second causes to take effect. — By not deciding as to the mode of divine operation in the production of moral evil, if any thing after this is meant, it is something utterly foreign to the ques¬ tion, viz. that the manner in which this direct and positive agency is applied to the heart, is what they do not undertake to explain. In regard to regeneration it is one question, whether the heart be renewed by an immediate divine influence, producing an effect, to which light and all other means are incompetent; and quite another question, how this divine influence applies its power to the heart. So in regard to the subject in hand. This repre¬ sents the saint and the sinner as standing precisely on the same ground, as to the necessity of a divine influence to produce the exercises or volitions, which pertain to their different character®? Accordingly, I have heard the question thus stated by divines, and answered in the affirmative. ‘‘Does God as directly move persons to sin, as the Holy Ghost moves saints to holy exercises.” The fact, whether God does thus move sinners, is the 'ques¬ tion, and not the manner of hi# thus moving them. 20 SECTION I. Here then you have a view of the point to be ex¬ amined. The doctrine we shall aim to establish, is the doctrine of the divine Providence, in regard to the existence of moral evil, as heid by the reformers, and expressed in the confessions and creeds of the orthodox protestant churches. This doctrine utterly denies the existence of any such positive divine agency on the hearts of wicked men, and affirms, that since man comes into the world agreeably to the constitution established with Adam, with an heart fully set in him to do evil, God does no more than uphold him in this nature, and for wise and good purposes, so dispose and manage the affairs of the world, that motives, temptations, and excitements to sin, fall in his way, and that by these he is moved to all the evil he commits. And thus by an infinitely powerful and wise arrangement and direction of second causes, God turns his heart whithersoever he will, and governs all his thoughts, passions and actions. This is the Calvinistic view of the subject, as it stands opposed to that particular article of New England divinity under consideration; and is thus expressed in the Confession of Faith by the Assem¬ bly of Divines at Westminster, approved by the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland, and adopted by the Synod of the Churches of New Eng¬ land. — Vide chap . v. Of Providence ‘‘The Al¬ mighty power, unsearchable wisdom, and infinite goodness of God, so far manifest themselves, in his Providence, that it extendeth itself even to the first fall, and all other sins of angels and men, and that not by a bare permission, but such as hath joined with it, a most wise and powerful bounding, and otherwise ordering, and governing of them, in a manifold dispensation, to his own holy ends: yet so as the sinfulness thereof proceeded only from the creature and not from God, who being most holy and righteous neither is nor can be the author, nor approver of sin.7* SECTION I. Having thus stated the question, the discussion may here be arrested, by what may be deemed a very sage inquiry, and sufficient to render all further re¬ mark, quite impertinent and useless. — “Since you grant, that moral evil in every instance is the result of a divine eternal decree, what matter is it how it is brought into existence? “If it was the will of God it should exist, it amounts to the same thing, whether it be produced by a direct efficiency, or simply by the instrumental¬ ity of second causes.” But will the objector abide the consequences of such a principle? May not in¬ finite wisdom and goodness be concerned in the manner of executing a divine decree as well as in the decree itself? Is there no choice in the mode of operation, in carrying into effect a pre-determined event? God from everlasting determined, that the world should exist. But does it hence follow', that it was a matter of perfect indifference, whether this wrork should all be executed by one instantaneous fiat, or go on progressively for six days? God pre¬ determined the deliverance of his chosen people from Egyptian bondage, but did it hence follow, that it was a matter of no moment whether he took them all out of Egypt and set them down in Canaan, in the twinkling of an eye, as he w ill change the bodies of the living at the last day, or whether he should have proceeded and manifested his glory in their re¬ demption as he actually did? It was doubtless God’s eternal purpose, that Paul should go and preach at Rome, but could it be inferred from this decree that it was a matter of utter indifference, whether he w as carried there as a prisoner and ex¬ perienced a distressing shipwreck, or whether he went by land in the full enjoyment of liberty, expe¬ riencing no opposition or sufferings? It is the eternal purpose of God, that the elect shall be saved, but w ill you hence insist, that it is no matter how he saves them, whether by an act of 22 SECTION I. absolute mercy, or by a Redeemer? It is equally his purpose, that all who are saved shall be justified, but dare you affirm, that since he has decreed they shall be justified, it is a matter of trivial consideration how they are justified, whether by works, or the propitiatory death of a Mediator? Such kind of reasoning as this, would reduce the whole system of the marvellous grace of God in providing a Savior, to a thing of no importance. Here it is not enough to know God has decreed to save, but we must know how he executes this decree and submit to it, or lose eternal life. Is it not then infinite presumption to say, since God has decreed the sinful exercises of men, it is matter of no importance, whether he produces them by a direct efficiency, or simply by the instrumentality of second causes? God may see it to be infinitely unwise and unfit for him to produce moral evil in the former way. If both methods, in your view amount to the same thing, it may appear far otherwise to him, who seeth not as man seeth. It may be with divine truth as with a divergent line, though its obliquity be at first scarcely per¬ ceivable, yet if you pursue such a line, it will at last recede to an immense distance, and produce inter¬ esting results. The difference between the Trinita¬ rian and the Unitarian, begins in a distinction abso¬ lutely incomprehensible. One affirms, God is abso¬ lute unity in his essence. The other affirms, there is a distinction of persons in this essence, though to define it, mocks all the powers of the human intel¬ lect. These two lines by some are supposed to be parallel, or if divergent, the obliquity is small in¬ deed; but pursue them and what is the result? By the decision of the most learned, pious, and candid Trinitarian writers, Christianity is essentially cor¬ rupted- And who can say but the result of the the¬ ory we oppose, would be as fatal, were it as openly, constantly, and zealously preached to all descriptions of people, as the divinity of Christ? SECTION I. 23 The pride of man is never more manifest than when it thus presumes to pronounce one method of divine procedure as fit and proper for Deity as an¬ other. You may say, it was a matter of perfect indiffer¬ ence, whether the battle of Waterloo should have commenced two seconds earlier or later, but God might see that results of boundless moment depended on its beginning just when it did. So in regard to the question before us* results of infinite moment may depend on sin not being the effect of a direct influence on the heart, but of the operation of in¬ struments and second causes. “Know thyself, presume not God to scan.” But if you establish the point at which you aim, can you state any particular in which the interests of real religion will be promoted by it? This question will be briefly considered in the con¬ clusion, after we have set before the reader the evi¬ dence in support of our views. We will here only add, if the Calvinistic view of this subject, differ in so trifling a degree from the Hopkinsian, why do those, who think differently from us, make so great a matter of it, ^because we cannot adopt their theory? And why all this zeal to make men Hopkinsians in this point? Why has a new and numerous edition of Mr. Weeks’s Nine Sermons been sent forth, as if some vast interest were at stake? SECTION II THE STANDARD, BY WHICH THIS AND ALL OTHER QUESTIONS IN THEOLOGY AND MORALS ARE TO BE ULTIMATELY DECIDED. All rules set up for the trying of such questions may be reduced to two. One is, the reasoning faculty of man, deducing conclusions, principles, rules, arguments and mo¬ tives, from the light of nature; or the will, the jus¬ tice, wisdom, pow7er and goodness of God, as display¬ ed in his works of Creation and Providence. This is denominated the religion of nature, natural theol¬ ogy, moral philosophy, Ac. The other is the volume of revelation. In this God has, by express and clear declarations, exhibited to our view, what we are to believe concerning him, and what duty he requires at our hands. Now between these two standards, when rightly applied, there never can be any opposition. For no just inference from the works and Providence of God, will ever be found to be inharmonious, with the conclusions of revelation. — But through the weakness of the human understanding, and perverse¬ ness of the heart, the reasoning faculty of man may lead him into conclusions utterly incompatible with the doctrines of revelation. In this case, as the latter is unspeakably more clear and intelligible, and contains many important truths, which are not dedu° SECTION II. 25 cible from (lie works of nature, it must be resorted to as the supreme Rule, and all the conflicting deci¬ sions of the other, however just they may seem, must give way to it. ]f the understanding, wisdom and goodness of God be infinite, there can be no appeal from his plain and positive declaration. He can neither deceive, be deceived, or mistaken. “He is light, and in him is no darkness at all.” In the nature of things, the revelation he has given us, must be the supreme tri¬ bunal, before which every moral question must be decided. v It is the rule, by which all, who possess it, must be tried at the last day. Tins authority the Holy Scriptures now claim to themselves. “All Scripture is given by inspiration of God and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished to every good work.” 2 Tim. iii, 16. “And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone.” Eph. ii, 20. The first of these standards is supreme to all na¬ tions and individuals destitute of revelation. But the moment revelation is put into their hands, the light of nature becomes subordinate or is absorbed in it. And all its decisions must be tested by it. The most celebrated and perfect systems of theology and morals, adopted by ancient wise men, could not stand this test. Hence it is said, “God hath made foolish the wisdom of this world.” In regard to revelation, there are but two points, in respect to which the reason of man is called to exercise itself. The first is, to consider the proofs, by which its claim to be from God, is supported. The only remaining question is, what is the meaning of the different words, sentences, and phrases, in which it is delivered. And in deciding this point, the great query is, what sense of any particular word, sentence or phrase, is to be taken as the true 2(i SECTION If. sense. Here is a wide field opened for the wild fancy, distempered taste, and unruly passions of men, to rove abroad in. One may insist, that the inspired writers were all philosophers, and to come at the meaning of their writings, we must with met¬ aphysical acuteness, descend far below the surface. If we would have the true, it must be some far fetch¬ ed, deep and exquisite, sense! Would men of such ex¬ traordinary powers speak in the language of the vul¬ gar, and in a manner level to the capacity of chil¬ dren, — in knowledge and learning. This, to be sure, has not been the glory of philosophers, though it may be of him, who came to die for the vulgar. And as he died for them, it would not be surprising should lie speak in a language adapted to their capacities and acquirements, when endeavoring to communicate to them the words of eternal life. Another, like some ancient commentators, may fancy the whole Bible to be an allegory. And having obtained the grand clue to the riddle, every word and sentence must be squared by this. Another looks for a figure or a mystery in every thing, and wanders off, in an endless aphelion from common sense. Another, avows, that there are no figures in the Bible; every thing is to be taken in a literal sense; and becomes as great and foolish a wanderer, though in an oppo¬ site direction. But the only true answer to the question, is this. The plain, most natural, and obvious sense, which considering the nature of language, and the scope of the writer, would most readily offer itself to the mind of a sober, judicious and upright inquirer after truth, is the true sense. God has spoken to men in their own language. If he had spoken in a dialect perfectly superior and un¬ known to men, it would have been no revelation at all. It is only in a language that they understand, and in writings subject to the same general rules of interpretation, as other compositions in that lan¬ guage, a revelation can be made. If an entire new SECTION II. Z7 set of rules or principles of interpretation are to be adopted in explaining the terms and phrases in which a* revelation is conceived, it can he no revelation to us, till by another revelation we are told what these are. If then it he admitted that the Bible is a revela¬ tion of the will of God to men, it must also he ad¬ mitted, that we are to explain the grammatical sense and real meaning of it, as we do that of any other book written in the same dialect; and the most natur¬ al, easy, and obvious sense, considering the nature of human language and the scope of the writer, must be the true. It is by the Scriptures, explained by this rule, the question under consideration is to he decided. If the justice of this rule of interpreta¬ tion be not admitted, then divine revelation must be given up, as too uncertain, vague and equivocal, to determine any thing. It is well known that by la¬ bored criticisms, strained interpretations, and far fetched senses, the most opposite and absurd systems may be supported by the Scriptures. But the justice of the above rule of interpretation is capable of the most convincing moral demonstra¬ tion. This point is handled in a very able and judicious manner, by a writer in the Panoplist, to which I would refer the reader, as a piece, w hich ought al¬ ways to lie upon the same shelf with his Bible, and to be often reviewed.* When we assert, that the Scriptures, interpreted agreeably to this grand rule, are the supreme stan¬ dard to which reason itself is to bow7, our meaning is this: — Not, that there is any thing in religion or in the doctrines and principles of the Holy Scriptures, that is in itself absurd, or contrary to the truth and fitness of things, or to the conclusions of the Infinite Reason. — -Not, that we are prohibited employing t’ie faculty of reason in studying them, and searching af¬ ter the great doctrines, duties and discoveries, which * Pan. Nos. 5 and 6, for 1816. £8 SECTION II. they contain. We are certainly no farther religious, than our belief and practice are reasonable. The religion of revelation is, in all its parts, a reasona¬ ble belief, “a reasonable service.” Our idea is this, that no researches or conclu¬ sions of reason, however they may be dignified by the name of philosophy, and struck out by men of the greatest celebrity, for genius and learning; and however seemingly compact and demonstrably just the various intermediate steps of the argument may be; and however clearly and irrefutably they seem to follow from their premises; are to he admitted as true, if they contradict the obvious meaning of Scripture. Though the fallacy of the reasoning can¬ not he discovered by the most acute human investi¬ gation, yet it must he allowed, there is a fallacy some¬ where in it, and it must he rejected as falsehood. If the rule be not thus extended, if one single deduc¬ tion of reason he allowed to stand as true, in opposi¬ tion to the Scriptures, then human reason is exalted, and the word of God is put down, as the supreme standard or test of truth. To add weight to our views in regard to this point, permit us to avail ourselves of the statement of Mr. Faber, whose learning and ingenuity are well known, by his writings in the Christian world. “Admit no conclusion in any system,” says he, “to be valid, unless the conclusion itself, as well as the thesis from which it is deduced, be sufficiently set forth in Holy Scripture. We must prove all things by Scripture and hold fast that which is good; regard¬ less, of the even opposite conclusions, which might seem by a train of abstract reasonings to be legiti¬ mately deduced from our several articles of belief By adopting such a plan we may forfeit the honor and glory of a systematic conrinnity; but if men con¬ tinue to dispute and draw out fine trains of metaphys¬ ical reasonings, even to the very end of the world, it requires not the gift of prophecy, to foretel that they SECTION II. w will be just as wise at the close, as they were at the commencement.” I am no enemy to reasoning in religion; it is neces¬ sary at every step. But when it plainly militates against the obvious sense of Scripture, however much it be gloried in by men, and however infallible they may deem their conclusions, it must without hes¬ itation be rejected on the self-evident principle, that the foolishness of God is wiser than men. This reasoning pride sticks close to our nature. We are loth to stoop to be told our duty in plain words and like obedient servants go and do it. We wish to have the credit of making ourselves wise. Hence many infidels, incorporate with their writings line sayings derived from the Scriptures, as their own, while they despise that blessed volume. So the professed Christian preacher, may ascend the desk, to teach and make his people wise by his mighty strength of reasoning, and only quote the Scriptures as a kind of collateral aid. He may not come forward, armed in power and argument, bor¬ rowed from the book of God; nor may he think a clear and apposite text of Scripture to be the most overwhelming reasoning. “What Matthew says or Mark, the proof but small, What Lock or Clark asserts, good scripture all.” More fully to explain what we mean, let us now exemplify this great rule of interpretation by apply¬ ing it to a few’ plain cases. According to the reasoning of Dr. Clark in de¬ monstrating the being and attributes of God, one great argument for the unity of his nature is, that the necessity by which he exists, must be infinitely extended and uniformly the same. It is not possible to conceive, there should be any cause either to limit or divide this necessity of nature. He must there¬ fore be one, simple, infinite, absolutely united essence. JNow this reasoning seems to exclude all possibility 30 SECTION II. of a distinction of persons in the Godhead, and no mere human reason can refute the argument. But this argument contradicts the Scriptures, and is therefore to be rejected as false. Their testimony, that God exists in Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, must be admitted, in spite of the most plausible deduc¬ tions of human reason. It is the opinion of some, that sinful and holy affec¬ tions cannot co-exist in the human mind. During the prevalence of an holy exercise, there is no possible emotion of the soul towards that, which is evil. But although the reasoning by which this theory seems to be defended, does not admit of being over¬ thrown by an opposite course of abstract arguments; yet we reduce it to absurdity and falsehood by a very easy process; it is contrary to what is writ¬ ten. “1 find then a law, that when I would do good, evil is present with me. But I see another law in my members warring against the law of my mind,” &c. Rom. vii, 21, 23. “Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin, for his seed remaineth in him, and lie cannot sin, because he is born of God.” The Aristotelian philosophy strongly maintains the eternal existence of matter, and the absolute im¬ possibility of creation. But one text of Scripture lev¬ els all the arguments of its self-confident advocates in the dust. — “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” Gen. i, 1. It is a common tiling for the most renowned Chris¬ tian philosophers, and the great Bishop Butler among the rest, to insist upon it, that human nature is not, previous to regeneration, divested of all right affec¬ tion. But a very few words from St. Paul proves them all to be in a great mistake. “There is none that doeth good, no not one.” “There is no fear of God before their eyes.” Rom. iii, 12, 18. If it should be objected that revelation cannot be a standard by which to test abstract philosophical the¬ ories, because it is manifest, that it is itself nothing SECTION II. 31 more than a system of doctrines and rules of a prac¬ tical nature, founded on some antecedent principles of which the inspired writers give no account, but have left them to the decision of mere human sagacity and penetration, we would reply in words to be found in one of Mr. Foster’s Essays. * 7 5 ent and opposite effects, is in all respects the same.’" — But this observation of the Doctor is a mere palliative to the imagination, of such as lie might conceive would be startled at his theory. — -For after having asserted that no second causes or mo¬ tives excite the wills of men to choose evil, but the positive and direct agency of God, to what can it amount? He has made the two cases of producing sin and holiness perfectly the same, so far as we can have any ideas respecting the subject. This pallia¬ tive is not worth a straw. — It relates to something, with which our present discussion has no concern. It is not the inode of such a direct operation, but the operation itself we deny. 4. The theory under consideration, appears to be a great corruption of the Gospel, as it confounds the work of the Holy Spirit on the hearts of saints with the physical or general agency of God. By this agency all things were originally created, organ¬ ized and constituted, what they are in all their vast variety, and by it, they are now upheld or preserved in their different natures, properties, powers, facul¬ ties, relations, order and succession; and are con¬ stantly held under the absolute dominion and gov¬ ernment of Jehovah, and in his Providence, so di¬ rected and managed, as that they never move or act, but in conformity to his infinitely wise and benevo¬ lent designs. To this physical agency, the apostle al¬ ludes in these words. “For in him we live, move, (or are moved,) and have our being.” And it is in respect to the same agency, God thus speaks in the prophet. “I form the light and create darkness; I make peace and create evil; I the Lord do all these things.” In regard to this kind of agency, all objects in the uni¬ verse are equally dependent. The largest globe, and the smallest atom, the highest seraph, and the meanest insect, the most perfect saint, and the vilest sinner, the brightest angel, and the blackest devil, all here stand upon a level.” 76 SECTION VII. Out can the Gospel be understood, by those, who have no idea of any other divine agency but this? Js it not the peculiar glory of this system of Grace arid Salvation, that it reveals an agency or in¬ fluence, by which sinners are converted, sanctified, and prepared for endless felicity? — The object of this agency is not to create or uphold creatures in being, but purely to operate upon their moral and ac¬ tive powers, and excite them to will and to do that which is just and good. If, over and above the general agency of God, the Gospel did not bring into view the Holy Ghost, as exerting this agency upon men dead in trespasses and sin, it would be devoid of one essential glory as the words of eternal life. Now this latter kind of agency, must, therefore, be kept distinct from the former, in some very inter¬ esting and important respects. This remark is strongly confirmed by various considerations. 1. The business of the Holy Spirit is to produce in men nothing but virtuous and holy exercises. — I conceive no one will, in an unqualified manner, assert, that pride, blasphemy, malice and spite, are the effect of the direct operation of the Holy Ghost on the hearts of men. a. It is expressly asserted in the Scriptures, that the world, or men, who remain impenitent and unbelieving, have not this Spirit dwelling in them. «fAnd I will pray the Father, and be shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for¬ ever. Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him, for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you.5’ John xiv, 16, 17. Now is it not obvious that this agency of the Spirit is here distinguished from that general agency of God, which extends alike to all created objects, and of which we may say w ith Mr. Pope. It SECTION VII. — V i'i r( Warms in the sun, refreshes in the breeze. Glows in the stars, and blossoms in the trees, Lires through all life, extends through all extent, Spreads undivided, operates unspent.” An influence, which is confined to God’s little flock, or extends only to comparatively a very few objects in the creation, cannot be the same with that which “extends through all extent.” 3. If the agency of the Holy Ghost is not distin¬ guished from the physical or general agency of God, then it will follow that both beasts, sinners of man¬ kind, and devils, have the Holy Spirit dwelling in them: — For it is declared that he shall dwell in saints forever. — And if this is the same as that general agency, by which he works all things according to the counsel of his own will,” it must apply to all created objects, both good and evil; for in God they all live, move, and have their being. But who will presume to say that the Holy Ghost dwells in wild beasts, wicked men and devils, just as much as in saints? Thus we-seethe Gospel revelation cannot be under¬ stood, unless ihe agency of the Holy Ghost be distin¬ guished from the general agency of God.— But jn what respects is the former to be considered as distinct from the latter? if the Scriptures make a distinction it is a real one; it is not merely imaginary. Upon (he truth of this we mast presume, even though we were utterly unable by our reason to trace out this differ¬ ence. For it may be like ten thousand other subjects above the reach of our faculties, at least in the pres¬ ent state of our existence. But we conceive it is a subject, which the Scrip¬ tures have not left utterly in the dark. 1. The distinction between the influence of the Divine Spirit and the general agency of God, does not relate merely to the effect produced. To explain Jude 19; “These be they, who separ¬ ate themselves, sensual, having not the spirit.” Mr. Williston says, “They are not the subjects of holy in¬ fluence. The spirit does not dwell in them, in his #7 78 SECTION VII. office as sanctifier. His theory and his language im¬ ply that he might dwell in them as an agent, and be the efficient cause or direct mover of their hearts to all the abominations with which they were defiled.-— But here I would submit it to the judgment of every candid and serious student of the 13ible, whether he can believe that this is the sense in whicli Jude in¬ tended to be understood, viz. “The Holy Ghost does not dwell in these sensual, debauched separa¬ tists, to sanctify them, or to excite them to holy desires and actions, yet as God, he does dwell in them, and work directly on their hearts to move them to all ungodliness?” His meaning must be, that the Holy Ghost dicL not dwell in them as an agent to produce any exercises by an immediate operation on the heart. 2. The distinction does not lie in this, that God the Father may act so independently of the Holy Spirit, as that he could produce in sinners all their evil exercises, and yet the Holy Spirit have no agen¬ cy in it. — So that it could with truth be said, that al¬ though God works all wickedness in men, yet the Spirit works no evil in them, but good only. For as we have already stated, the several persons in the Trinity do not act independently of each other. — What one does the others do. — If God ex¬ cites sinners to wickedness by a direct operation on the heart, then the Holy Spirit does the same. S. In order to leave to the Holy Spirit any thing to be his peculiar work, (here must be something to which the general physical agency of God does not extend. For in this general agency by which all things were originally created, and are now upheld, directed and governed, the Holy Spirit operates as one God with the Father. \s to this agency, beasts, and birds, and men, and devils, live, and move, and have their being, as much in God the Spirit, as in God the Father or Son. But the peculiar work of the Holy Spirit is confined, as we have already seen, to saints. If, therefore, there is not a sense in which SECTION VII. 79 divine agency extends to saints and not to sinners and devils in general, (hen there neither is, nor can be any sense in which 1 lie Spi it dwells with them and not with other objects, or with impenitent sinners. Now 4. What is this peculiar work, which God per¬ forms in saints, which lie does not perform in carnal, worldly and impenitent minds? — If he per¬ forins any thing in the former, which he does not in the latter, then the work of the spirit in saints may be a peculiar divine work, but if not, it is not a di¬ vine work restricted to saints, and lays no foundation for it to be said in truth, that he dwells with them, and not with impenitent sinners. — To produce in some way moral exercises in saints, is not this pecul¬ iar divine work.— For it is said, God hardens the heart and blinds the minds of sinners. — But tSie pe¬ culiar appropriate work of the Holy Spirit is to pro¬ duce virtuous and holy moral exercises in saints by a direct operation on the heart. To produce an effect, to which no means or second causes in the universe are competent, and which God never makes compe¬ tent to this purpose. But in operating to harden the hearts of men, God works by means or second caus¬ es, and gives to these means a power competent to the effect, without any such direct operation on the heart of sinners. — Here then we find a peculiar di¬ vine work to be performed by the Holy Spirit, and though the other persons of the divine Trinity are included in the operation with the spirit, yet it is a peculiar work, a work which God performs on no other object in creation. And here we also see how the spirit dwells with saints, as he does not dwell in any irrational object or unholy and reprobate beings. For no heart does God by a direct operation on it, move to any moral exercises, except that of saints.— If he superintends, restrains, moves and governs, wicked men or fallen spirits, turning their hearts what way he pleases as the rivers of water are turned; yet it is not in the same way. — Now this dis- HO SECTION VII. tinction is entirely confounded and done away by the theory vve oppose. Mr. W. R. Weeks in p. 39, of his Nine Sermons, on the Decrees and Agency of God, explodes it as a great error, that any should have thought it “neces¬ sary, that God should put forth an immediate agency to cause all the good actions of his creatures, but not their wicked actions.” This is equal to a positive assertion that God by his immediate agency causes not only, ail the virtu¬ ous exercises of saints, but all the impious exercises of sinners and devils. Here then in this theory all rational creatures in the universe, both good and evil, are placed on one common level, and there is no room to assert that God operates in one more than another. It is nothing peculiar to saints that God should dwell in them and produce their exercises. For he docs the same as to sinners, — As God, and as an agent, sinners have the Holy Ghost dwelling in them as much as real Christians. A little further on in the book he produces a num¬ erous train of texts, to prove that God by his imme¬ diate agency, works all things in the natural world, and then all things in the moral world; and consid¬ ers all that is said of a divine agency in the produc¬ tion of -moral evil, as intending an inward direct in¬ fluence on the heart, as really as when the good exer¬ cises of saints are ascribed to a divine influence. And thus resolves all the influences spoken of in the Gospel into this general physical agency of God. Now if this be the case, how is it any more a pecu¬ liar work of God to produce holiness in good men, than sin in wicked men? The Christian world have hitherto supposed God dwelt in a peculiar manner in saints, but Mr. Weeks Isas found them all to be in a mistake, for lie works in sinners, just as really and directly as in saints. And there is not the least possible ground for James to affirm that true wisdom cometh from above, while SECTION VII. 81 the impious wisdom of sinners cometli not from above. Nor is there the least possible ground for the distinction that Paul makes, when lie ascribes all vir¬ tuous and good exercises to the spirit as the fruit of liis operation, and places the works of the flesh in contrast to those, as what are not to be considered as the effect of his operation on the hearts of men. See James id 14— IT* Gal. v, 19 — 23. SECTION VIII. THE POWER AND INFLUENCE, WHICH THE SCRIP¬ TURES ASCRIBE TO SATAN IN THE PRODUCTION OF MORAL EVIL, UTTERLY IRRECONCILABLE UPON JUST AND SOBER PRINCIPLES OF INTERPRETATION, TO THIS MODERN NOTION OF DIVINE EFFICIENCY. Some have supposed, there was no such real intel¬ lectual spiritual agent, as Satan. All that is said of him is in conformity to Jewish prejudices, or a mere personification of the wicked passions or lusts of men. Others admit there is such an intelligent agent but seem almost to deny his influence upon the moral state and character of man. But the following texts settle this point, and abun¬ dantly prove, that there is such a being, or personal agent. ‘‘Again the Devil taketh him up into the Holy City, and setteth him on the pinnacle of the temple, and saith unto him, If thou be the Son of God, cast thyself down; for, &c.” “Again the Devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sliew- cth him all the kingdoms of the world, and saith unto him, All these things will I give unto thee, if thou wilt fall down and worship me.” “Ye are of your father the Devi3> and the lusts of your father ye will do; he was a murderer from the SECTION VIII. « q G O beginning, and abode not in the truth; because there is no truth in him. When lie speaketh a lie, ho speaketh of his own, for he is a liar and the father of it.” — “And all the devils besought him, saying, Send us into the swine, that we may enter into them; and forthwith Jesus gave them leave; and the unclean spirits went out and entered into the swine, and the herd ran violently down a steep place into the sea, (they were about two thousand,) and were choaked in the sea.” Mark v, 12. Now what is the plain obvious sense of these pas¬ sages? Certainly, that there is really such a being, agent, or person, as the Devil. If this is all mere alle¬ gory, and not plain history; if there never was any real tempter, who spake to Christ as here repre¬ sented; if there never was any such being as the Devil, who abode not in the truth; if there was no reality in the devils entering into the swine, and then running them down violently into the sea, &c. then nothing can be known by the Scriptures. We may as well say, every thing that is said of the sufferings, death, resurrection, and ascension of Christ, is all mere figure, or allegory. With respect to the extent of Satan’s power to produce evil of any kind, the following limitations of it, are most plainly taught in the divine word. 1. Satan, together with all his angels, is a cre¬ ated being, and is no less dependent on the power of God, for the continuation of his being, his powers and faculties, than the minutest object of all God’s works. Here all creatures, great and small, stand upon a level. 2. Satan, however great and powerful, is abso¬ lutely under the alkwise government and control of Jehovah.— He is bounded and limited, by the infinite power and goodness of God, and can no more go beyond these limits, than the feeblest insect that inhabits the dust. We read that God raised up Pha- roah, that he might declare his glory in or by him. 34 SECTION vnr. In like manner, in his providential government, lie hath raised up the Devil and all his angels, that he might make them the means of declaring his glory, his power, wisdom, justice, and goodness. But notwithstanding the Devil is thus dependent and under divine control, he may still be a great being, and have a great and powerful agency in the production of evil in this world. — We know not how great a person Satan is. For aught we know, he may be as great a creature as the Arians make Christ to be. No bounds can be set to the power of God, as to the degree of essence and capacity he may give to a created dependent being. We would by no means ascribe to so malignant an agent, more power than he really possesses. But certain I am, it is no mark of a deep understanding of the word of God, or of sound wisdom, to treat the idea of Satan’s power to do evil with contempt. He has power to bring natural evil upon men, and is some¬ times permitted to do it, to a great extent; as Job was given into his hand, and was dreadfully afflicted by his power and malice. But it is the reality and extent of his power to produce moral evil, that we are here concerned to state. And here the Scriptures furnish us with the following conclusions. — 1. The introduction of sin and wickedness into this world, is ascribed to his agency. — The Scrip¬ tures mention no other agent or cause, in this la¬ mentable affair. — The woman herself said, “The serpent beguiled me, and 1 did eaf.” God himself charged the mischief upon the Devil, and cursed him for it Upon what is said of the agency of the Serpent, or Devil, in the 3d chap, of Gen. effecting the fail of man, we take the w7ords of Christ and St. Paul to be the most proper comment. Matt, xiii, 38. “The field is the world; the good seed are the children of the kingdom; but the tares are the children of the wicked one. The enemy that sowed them is the SECTION Till. 85 Devil.*’ 2 Cor. xi, 3. But ( fear lest by any means, as the Serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ.” — But this account of the fail of man, does not satisfy the curious research of many. They seem to think there is a difficulty here, which ought to be solved, and which all that Moses, Christ, and Paul, have said about it, does not reach. They have not said enough. — No agency is here brought into view, sufficient to account for the rise of sinful exercises in an heart previously perfectly pure and holy. I conceive, it is a conclusion warranted by the Scriptures, that means, motives, instruments, second causes, &c. without a positive, immediate, divine efficiency, are sufficient to the temptation and seduction of a creature perfectly holy, or hitherto sinless; although they are insufficient to restore again the image of God to one who lias become an apostate, a rebel, a slave to sin. If I am not able to defend this thought on the ground of revelation, I apprehend no one can disprove it on that ground. When Christ says of the Devil, “When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own, for he is a liar and the father of it.” Does he mean no more by “his own and the father of it,” than, that such an exer¬ cise was his own exercise, and not that of another creature? — Does it not appear, that it was our Lord’s design to caution his disciples against look¬ ing beyond the agency of second causes, to account for the existence of falsehood and wickedness? Is it possible any candid sober man on earth, can think that the Son of God would have us to believe, that, notwithstanding what he has here said, God works immediately in the heart of the Devil, every lie, and is the real father or author of it? Regardless of all that philosophy may suggest respecting the ab¬ surdity of a self-determining power, and the impos¬ sibility of motives being efficient causes, &c. ( im¬ agine we are bound by what our Lord here says, not to go beyond the power of second causes, as 8 86 SECTION VIII. swayed by the Infinite First Cause, to account for the apostasy of creatures once sinless, or perfectly holy. — But with some it seems a plain principle of philosophy, to which even the Scriptures must yield, that it requires as extraordinary and direct a power to make an holy being sinful, as to make a sinful being holy. — Many theories have been invented to explain this difficult subject, — difficult, because man will be meddling with what is absolutely above his comprehension, and w hat God has not thought fit to reveal. Most of these theories, have aimed to account for the origin of moral evil, without introducing a positive divine efficiency, or even admitting that it was comprehended in the eternal purposes of Jeho¬ vah. But have any of their different schemes afforded relief to the inquiring mind? If they have seemed to remove one difficulty, they have plunged us into many more still greater? — And after all, I would inquire, what right any man has to add any thing to the account of this matter given by the sacred writers? Was it not adding to the scripture account, for Milton and others to pretend, God could not have prevented the fall of Adam, without destroying his moral freedom? And is it not equally to add to the Scripture account, to say, as Dr. Emmons does, that Satan presented motives to the view of Adam to sin, which motives could indeed have no possible power to move his will, or to excite a w rong choice; that the agency that produced the effect, was God himself, directly moving the heart of Adam to choose evil. Do the Scriptures in accounting for this event, give us the least hint of this kind? Is this the plain obvious sense of what they say upon the subject? Because the philosopher can see no other wray to account for the event, does this prove this solution to be correct? There may be another, though we be not able to perceive it. This is the source of numberless errors among philosophers. ‘‘There is no other way to account for the phenomena.” The Manickean says, there is SECTION VIII. 87 no other way to account for the existence of moral evil, except upon the principle of the existence of a benevolent and an evil God. — Because, we can¬ not account for the fall of Adam, or of the once sinless angels, without introducing a divine direct efficiency, to move their wills to sin, are we war¬ ranted to set up this principle as truth? — l trow not. 2. All sinners of mankind, since the apostasy, are in the Scriptures represented as under the power and influence of the Devil. — And such language is used, as cannot be reconciled to this modern notion of divine efficiency in the production of the evil exercises of men. “But if I cast out devils by the spirit of God, then the kingdom of God is come nigh unto you. Or else how can one enter into a strong man’s house and spoil his goods, except he first bind the strong man.” Matt, xii, 28. Here Satan is a strong man, holding possession of the heart as his residence. “And that they may recover themselves out of the snare of the Devil, who are taken captive by him at his will.” 2 Tim. ii, 26. “Wherein in time past ye walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now workcth in the children of disobedience.” Ep. ii, 2. Now is this the obvious sense of these texts, that Satan cannot move the wills of sinners by motives, nor any other influence, to evil; but when it is said, he is the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience, we are to understand, that God is that spirit, which directly moves and excites every sin¬ ner to impiety and mischief? The Bible is truly written in a strange style, if this is the obvious sense. 3. Satan is represented as the agent, who moves sinners to outward gross crimes and abominations. An evil spirit from the Lord, i. e. the Devil by divine permission, instigated Saul to attempt the murder of David. Calvin says, it would be blasphemy to say this was the spirit of God. When David committed the great sin of numbering the people, the Devil is 88 SECTION VIII. said to provoke him to it. As it was God’s purpose to punish him and the people, he is also said to move David; but it was by suffering him in a degree to fall under the power and influence of the Devil. — When Judas betrayed the Lord of life and glory, it is said, Satan entered into him. Peter says to Ananias, “Why hath Satan put it into thy heart to lie to the Holy Ghost?” But is it the obvious mean¬ ing of this declaration of Peter, that God stood by Ananias, and moved him, by a direct operation on his heart, as Dr. Emmons says, in respect to God’s .hardening the heart of Pharaoh. — When the Bible says, Satan puts it into the heart of a wicked man, are we always to understand, that God is meant in¬ stead of Satan? — For the doctrine we oppose, as¬ serts, that neither Satan, nor any other second cause, can incline the heart of even the greatest sin¬ ner to do evil? 4. The Devil in the word of God, is represented as the grand agent in effecting the great apostasy from Christianity, under the man of sin, the Bishop of Rome. “Whose coming,” says Paul, “is after the working of Satan, with all signs and lying wonders, and with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish.” 2 Thess. ii, 9. This apostasy was an engine of Hell to oppose Christ, and to destroy mankind. It is compared to a fierce and cruel wild beast, and the Devil was the Spirit who lived and acted in this beast. “And there appeared another wonder in heaven, and be¬ hold a great red dragon; having seven heads and ten horns, and seven crowns upon his heads. And there was war in heaven, Michael and his angels fought against the dragon, and the dragon fought and his angels, and the great dragon, that old serpent the Devil, and Satan was cast out.” And this same dragon is said to give power unto the beast. He is also said to deceive the whole world. 5. The Devil is so eminently the cause of all wickedness that prevails in the world, that in order SECTION YIII. 89 to the introduction of the peace, order, religion, and felicity of the millennial state, he must be confined in the bottomless pit, and suffered no more to go out. Rev. xx, 3. 6. Nay, such is bis power to produce wickedness in the world, that he is no sooner released out of this pit, than he again succeeds to deceive the nations, and to draw them into war among themselves, and against God; and to repeat all the abominations which prevailed for thousands of years previous to the millennium. Rev. xx, 7, 8. Finally, so great is the power of Satan repre¬ sented in the Scripture, to produce sin and destroy mankind, that the grand object of Christ’s incarna¬ tion was to destroy his works. — “For this purpose was the Son of God manifested, that he might de¬ stroy the works of the Devil.” 1 John iii, 8. From all these considerations, it is exceedingly evident, that the Devil, though not an independent, is a very great being, and has a real and tremend¬ ous power to excite, seduce, and draw men into sin. — To say, that neither he nor any other second causes, have any power to draw away men into wickedness; that after the Devil, motives, tempta¬ tions, and second causes, have spent all the power God ever gave them, they cannot excite the will of man, in a single instance, to choose evil. This is never done, and never can be done, but by a direct, inward, divine efficiency upon the heart. This, in our humble opinion, is one of the most plain and obvious perversions of the word of God, that the arrogance of human philosophy has ever yet dared to broach. It is utterly irreconcilable with what is said in the sacred volume, of the power of Satan to produce moral evil, unless it be by some strained interpretation* and philosophical refinement, that sets aside the plain and sober sense of Scripture. *8 SECTION IX. ft WHAT IS SAID IN THE SCRIPTURES OF GOD’S GIVING UP SINNERS TO THEIR OWN HEARTS’ LUSTS, AND SUFFERING THEM TO WALK IN THEIR OWN WAYS, INCONSISTENT WITH THE IDEA OF DIVINE EFFI¬ CIENCY UNDER CONSIDERATION. It lias been usual with the most eminent divines and pious Christians, to speak of the sins and crimes of men as taking place by divine permis¬ sion. — But the terms to permit, to suffer, or not to hinder, are now by some considered as pretty little palliating terms, invented to keep the agency and counsel of God in the government of the world, out of sight,— -But in regard to the use of such lan¬ guage, I have three things to observe. 1. It is well adapted to that modesty, diffidence, and reverence, which becomes frail children of the dust, when they speak of the awful mysteries, of the counsels, ways, and providence of the Most High. — Which is most becoming, to say, that, for some wise purpose, God permitted the rebellious angels to fall into sin and guilt, and to bring eternal ruin on themselves; or to say, that, by a direct positive effi¬ ciency, he moved their hearts to hate him and trample down his authority? — l should think that the former mode of expression savors much more of piety and sound wisdom than the latter. SECTION IX. 91 David’s exclamation is, “Lord, my heart is not haughty, nor mine eyes lofty; neither do 1 exercise myself in great matters, or in things too high for me.” Psal. cxxxi, 1. On this point, the judicious and candid Dr. Smal¬ ley, exactly coincides with us in sentiment. “I see no occasion for the supposition of God’s being thus the author of ail evil, nor any good ends it can answer. Could it be seen how evils might be accounted for, without supposing them any part of the creation of God; and how God might have an absolute dominion over all events, without being the immediate cause of bad things; no good man, I con¬ clude, would wish to conceive of him as being thus the proper source of darkness and evil. “And indeed, were it so that our weak minds were unable to comprehend how God can work all things after the counsel of his own will, or how natural and moral evil could ever have been, without believing that God is as much, and as immediately, the cause of evil as of good; yet it might be more modest, and more wise, to leave these among other incomprehen- sibles, than to have recourse to so bold an hypothesis for the solution.” — Smalley, Ser. 6. p. 95. I shall not undertake to say, because I do not know, what that is in a good man’s mind, which causes him to delight to speak of God as the effi¬ cient cause, that moves the hearts of men to all wickedness. Dr. Smalley, you see, concludes no good man would wish, if he could avoid it, to hold such kind of language. 2. This language is agreeable to sound reason and philosophy. — It does by no means imply, that moral agents, or physical causes, ever act indepen¬ dently of the preserving power, amfallwise control¬ ling agency of the Providence of God. — When a thing is said to be permitted, all that is meant, is, that from preceding acts of creating power, and providential direction, an event will take place, except it be prevented by another divine act, put forth for that purpose. 92 SECTION IX. God having created the lions, into whose den Daniel was thrown, and preserved them with their natural appetite for blood, they would have devoured the prophet, had not God, by another act, interposed to prevent it. And this may take place continually, in the ordinary course of divine Providence, without any appearance of a miracle. Thus, had not the Duke of York, in the retreat out of Holland, been jostled aside, and a soldier stepped into the boat before him, that ball which killed the soldier, would have killed the Duke, the commander in chief. But here God permitted the soldier to be killed, but would not permit the life of the general to be taken. AH other things being formed, preserved, and di¬ rected as they were, the ball would inevitably come in that line; but by another omnipotent providential disposal, God took him out of the way, and so would not permit, but hindered his being killed. "When Satan entered paradise, and all the circum¬ stances of the temptation were brought about, if God did not interpose by another act, Adam would be seduced; but God did not interpose, and so he permitted him to fall. $. Th is language is conformable to the style and manner in which the Scriptures oft speak of the ways of God. “But my people would not hearken to my voice; and Israel would none of me, so I gave them up to their own hearts’ lusts; and they walked in their own counsels.” Psal. Ixxxi, 11, 12. “He suffered no man to do them wrong: yea, he reproved kings for their sakes.” 1 Chron. xvi, £1. The Hebrew term, which in this passage our translators have rendered “suffered,” Junius and Tremellius render ‘‘permisit,” or permitted. “Tie suffered not the devils to speak,” Mark i, 34. “Who in time past suffered ail nations to walk in their own ways.” Acts xiv, 16. The Greek term in this last passage answering to suffered, is tictat which is an inflexion of the verb saw, and rendered by Schrevillius^Sino,” permit, And as in ages past, so the views of the Christian world continue to be the same on this subject to the present day, if we except those, who have adopted a different theory on this side of the Atlantic. Dr. Thomas Scott, in his Family Bible, a work highly esteemed by the Christian public, in his notes on Exod. iv, 21, hath these words. — ‘‘Harden. God. never communicates hardness, or wickedness to the heart of man by a positive act. For he cannot be tempted of evil; neither tcmpteth he any man. But when provoked by atrocious crimes, he gives up a man to his own heart’s lusts; he permits Satan to de¬ ceive, entice, and blind him; and he takes off his providential restraints, by which many are kept from wickedness, because they have not opportunity or power to commit it, or dare not through fear or shame. When a man is thus left, commands, warn¬ ings, judgments, deliverances, every truth in Scrip¬ ture, and every dispensation in Providence, prove the occasion of increasing obstinacy and insensibil¬ ity, pride and presumption.” In the Christian Observer, a work published in England, and celebrated on both sides of the Atlan¬ tic for its piety, learning, candor and excellent Spirit, the doctrine of ascribing the wickedness of the heart of men, to a positive divine influence is considered as going an awful length.— -See vol. 16, p. 395.-— “This suspicion will be heightened, if we push each train of reasoning to its utmost limits. For as Mr. Faber proves, we may even go on the one side to the awful length of concluding, that God is effectively the author of sin, and that virtue and vice are mere names,” &c. To this section we may subjoin a few remarks, 1. The consent of all great and good men in all ages of the Church, that God does not by a positive efficiency, move the hearts of men to sin, is a strong SECTION X. 102 % presumption, thr-t this is not the doctrine of the Bible, and that there is something in this sacred volume that cannot be easily reconciled to this idea. And what is this but such solemn declarations of the Holy Ghost as these, ‘‘Let no man w hen he is tempted, say, 1 am tempted of God,” &c. “All that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father.” “This wisdom cometh not from above, but is earthly, sensual, devilish. ” 2. The failure of the attempts of Divines in past ages, to account for the introduction of moral evil upon philosophical principles, does by no means prove the truth of this new theory. — The speculations of Calvin, President Edwards and others, on this sub¬ ject, it will not be pretended, ought to satisfy the philosopher.— But it is believed, that the Christian ought to be satisfied with such light as the Scriptures impart, and not to attempt to explain on principles of mere abstract reasoning, what is not revealed and is above our comprehension. Here the reasonings of men may do much hurt,* good they never do. 3. As in all past ages, the Church of God has un¬ derstood these texts, which speak of God’s hardening Use heart and blinding the minds of sinners, &c. as relating to his providential disposal of events, so it is in an high degree certain that this will be the doc¬ trine of the Church in general in all future ages.— As to the pious and godly, who are not seduced by attachment to some favorite philosophical theory, they will always find enough in their Bible to keep them right in this point. And as to such as make no pretensions to vital godliness, and even deists, they, in general, are kept aloof from this mistake by a kind of natural horror, at the idea of God’s working di¬ rectly on their hearts, and moving them to all the crimes they commit. Mon. Denon, in his account of Buonaparte’s ex¬ pedition in Egypt, relates the following anecdote. — * An Arab hoy about fourteen years of age, was de¬ tected in theft in the French camp, and brought im- SECTION X. 103 mediately to General Desaix for trial. “Who excit¬ ed you to this criminal deed,” says the General. The instant reply of the lad, was, “God moved me to do it?” The general for a moment seemed to be struck dumb, with a kind of pity and horror; but presently exclaims, “Wretch! let him go,” as if one, who could utter such a sentiment, was too ignorant or infatuated to be made an object of criminal justice. 1 do not offer this as an argument,but as an instance of the fact, that there generally is, even in wicked men, something that is shocked at the idea, that the one true God does move men, by a direct operation on the heart, to sin, and that this will operate to prevent their falling into the mistake. CONCLUSION. If all that lias been stated in this Essay in refutation of the new principle examined, did no way concern the interests of vital piety, evangelical truth, sound or healing doctrine, our time, we concede, must have been poorly applied. If the vehemence of my zeal in any point exceeds due bounds, it is in disgust against that spirit of controversy, which would sacrifice the peace and unity of the church of God, to what is of no more importance to the salvation of sinners, than the breadth of a Jewish philactery. But by the view of the subject which we have at¬ tempted to defend, we conceive the following inter¬ esting advantages are gained. l. The purity and simplicity of the Gospel of Christ is hereby preserved. This simplicity consists essentially in two tilings. First, in preserving unmixed and unsophisticated, those ideas and views of divine things, which are revealed in the holy scriptures. If these undergo any shade of addition or alteration, so far the gospel is corrupted. In preaching the gospel, its truths ought to be held up to view, and caused to flow forth, pure as the waters oflife from the throne of God and the lamb. Iri this case they become a tree of life, whose leaves are for the healing of the nations. But alas! though the visage of eternal truth, when first she descended from on high, was CONCLUSION. 105 clothed in perfect radiant light, yet how is it de¬ formed by the disgusting embraces of fanaticism, sectarianism, or the dogmas of a proud, self-suffi¬ cient philosophy. Nor is it one of the least distor¬ tions of her fair form, to speak of God as the direct efficient cause, working in ungodly men all their abominable lusts, — teaching that neither the devil, nor any motives or second causes, can pos¬ sess a power under the providence of God to do this, 2. But not only does the simplicity of the gospel consist, in preserving unmixed its infinitely precious and holy truths, but in the language and style in which we speak of these things. We are indeed not to cherish any superstitious attachment to mere words and phrases, as though there was a wisdom and sanctity in them, entirely independent of those ideas, of which they are the symbols; yet that there is a choice of words and expressions even in the transaction of secular affairs, no considerate man will deny. May not principles and plain facts, be discoursed of in language obscure, uninteresting, and unconciliating? Nay, is not the nature of lan¬ guage such, as that by a little variation, men may breathe into it their own unhallowed feelings and passions? So dark is the mind of fallen man, and opposed is his nature to what is perfectly holy, pure, and divine, that the doctrines of Christ cannot well pass through his lips in a new dress, with¬ out contracting defilement, as the most limpid stream will assume a tincture of those strata, over which it flows.-— But from all these defects, the language of the inspired volume is in the highest degree exempted. — For holy men of old spake as they w7ere moved by the Holy Ghost. And he taught them all as he did Solomon, to seek out acceptable words, — words of truth and soberness, — words in the best manner adapted to promote the great end of a divine revelation. — A material departure from the language of inspiration in speaking of divine things, tends to introduce incorrect views of those things. ! 06 CONCLUSION. And if any one lias any thoughts on religion, which . will not bear a scripture dress, they are to be sus¬ pected as fallacious. — Now in preserving the sim¬ plicity of the gospel, its style and manner of ex¬ pression is to be preserved as far as can be. — St. Paul inveighs against ail mere words of man’s wisdom, and declares be spake and taught in the words which the spirit of God dictated. “And I, breth¬ ren, when I came to you, came not with excellency of speech, or of wisdom, declaring unto you the testimony of God. And my speech and my preach¬ ing was not with enticing words of man’s wisdom. Now we have received not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given us of God. Which things also we speak, not in the words which man’s wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth: comparing spiritual things with spiritual.” Now to speak of God as the spirit which worketh all wicked¬ ness in men, — to represent him as standing by them and moving them to rebel, to blaspheme, to oppress, persecute, and murder, — to declare that the Devil has no power in any way to stir up, or put wicked¬ ness into the hearts of sinners, — that even the most powerful second causes, or temptations, or allure¬ ments to pride and wickedness, can avail nothing. For man can no more work wickedness than holi¬ ness, except he he inwardly and directly moved by the power of God. if this is not a departure from the style of scripture, J know not what could be. — . And to hold up these sentiments to view, a great part of what is said of the power of the Devil and other tempters and temptations, is a very inconven¬ ient style. 2. We avoid one great occasion of stirring up the hearts of men to speak reproachfully of the ways of God and the ministry of his word. — The native en¬ mity of the human heart against God and divine truth is sufficiently great. We need take no unne¬ cessary methods to awaken it into impious and bias- CONCLUSION". a or phemous activity. — But this appears to be the. case with some, who 1 would not say, seem to have a greater zeal to make God the author of all wicked¬ ness, than all piety and holiness. — If a man will publicly teach, — that when the scriptures speak of God’s hardening the heart of sinners, and blinding their minds, &c. — that this is not a special, judicial act, punishing them for former sins; that it does not commonly relate to some peculiarly guilty and obstinate persons, or cities, or nations; but that these expressions are to be equally applied to God’s dealing with all sinners, of all ages and descrip¬ tions, — that he does not harden and blind them by giving them up to the power of their own lusts, the dominion of Satan, &c. hut stands by them, and working directly on their hearts, moves them to every crime they commit. — A man that teaches in this manner, must expect that censure and opposi¬ tion should follow him wherever he goes. — He may deem it persecution, hut among his persecutors and such as would have been so, had they lived in his day, he must reckon the mass of good men in Chris¬ tendom now on the stage, and the pious ami godly of all past ages. A great deal of the opposition and outrage against some preachers in New England, has been excited by exhibiting for the pure gospel, a series of unprofitable human speculations, f have no idea that the great and soul saving doctrines of repentance towards God, and faith towards our Lord Jesus Christ, will ever be enforced by pressing on sinners this new idea of divine efficiency. — This, and various other refinements , are more calculated to excite in men a suspicion of their accountability, extinguish a sense of remorse for sin, and to induce a state of incurable moral torpor and insensibility, than to arouse them to a sense of guilt and danger, and cause them to flee from the wrath to come. — Least of all can i conceive, that this view7 of divine agency is a good qualification in one, who goes to proclaim the word of life to the benighted heathen. 108 CONCLUSION. What judicious and sober Christian, would be willing to contribute his money to support a missionary, to go and testify to the pagan world that the God of Christians has, for wise reasons, not only permitted the fall of man and all his consequent wickedness, which is true; but more than this, that he works in men, by a direct influence on the heart, all the abominations which have, heretofore, been attributed to the De\il? Who can imagine, that pagans are to be converted by such ministrations as these? The ltev. James Trail, in an address to the Car¬ lisle Auxiliary Missionary Society, speaking of the awfully degraded moral state of the Hindoos, ob¬ served, “It is a common practice with them, to rid themselves of all present remorse and future respon¬ sibility, by directly referring their profligate prac¬ tices to the suggestions of the Deity himself. — Re¬ peatedly have 1 observed the operation of their dead¬ ly principles. “What could 1 do?— -How could I help it? — God put it into my mind,”— -I have again and again heard urged, by these benighted people, as an excuse for their delinquences.” — What could a missionary of these modern notions of divine effi¬ ciency do with such a people? Would they be able to follow him through the whole system of wire drawn metaphysics, to prove, that though God be the immediate author of all our most abominable lusts, yet this does not at all militate' against re¬ sponsibility, or the criminality of such exercises? I fear such a missionary would be a miserable witness for God. 5. Another important point gained is, we avoid running the Scriptures into a plain and irreconcil-' able contr adiction. One passage introduces the Spirit of Inspira¬ tion as saying, “I form the light and create dark¬ ness: I make peace and create evil: I the Lord do all these things.” Isai. xlv, 7. Another passage affirms, “All that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is CONCLUSION. 109 not of the Father.” Another queries, “Is there evil in the city and the Lord hath not done it?” Again another, speaking of the corrupt passions and abominable lusts of men, avers, “This wis¬ dom descendeth not from above, but is earthly, sen¬ sual, devilish.” Jam. iii, 15. Here is a most pal¬ pable contradiction among the inspired writers, if moral good and evil are both alike the effect of an inward divine operation on the heart. But by the views of the subject which we recommend, this diffi¬ culty is easily avoided. The first text, and all of a similar complexion, are to be understood of an outward providential disposal. The last, of a direct positive operation on the heart. In the first of these ways, moral evil comes from God; but never in the latter. — We con¬ ceive this seeming contradiction in the Scriptures can in no other way fairly be disposed of. If so, a point of great interest is gained. 4. Wc reserve to ourselves a method of explain¬ ing this awful dispensation of Jehovah, hardening the hearts of men, sending them strong delusion, &c. by which the judgment and conscience of the sinner is most easily gained and his objections silenced. The native opposition of the human heart, ever has been, and ever will be, active and ingenious in its reasoning against the most pure and sin-humbling truths of the Gospel. And it ever will be the duty of the friend of Jesus to repel and refute these objec¬ tions. But there is a right way, and a wrong way, to answer objections, as well as to prove and illustrate evangelical truth. — In regard to those, who admit the inspiration of the Holy Scriptures, all their cavils are to be met with arguments deducible from this infal¬ lible guide. To quit this ground and to aim to subdue our antag¬ onist by the power of mere abstract reasoning, is as great a folly as for a general of an army unneces- lft 110 CONCLUSION. sarily to quit a strong redoubt, and to meet a power¬ ful enemy in the open field. There is nothing in the divine conduct, that more commonly provokes the cavils of wicked men, than God’s being said to harden the heart, to blind the eyes, &c. But if we adhere closely to such Scriptur¬ al views of the subject as we contend for, it is com¬ paratively an easy matter to deal with the objector. This, as we have already observed, is a special dispensation of God. It is, as the Scriptures repre¬ sent it, a punishment for former disobedience. In this light Calvin, and all the most distinguished prot- estant divines have considered it. — Calvin, and ac¬ cording to him Augustine considered, the original de¬ pravity of all men, as apenalevii. It was the punish¬ ment of Adam, for his first act of disobedience; And there is nothing in this more difficult to reconcile to the justice and goodness of God, than that chil¬ dren should now suffer in their moral character, and be exposed to divine judgments for their parent’s sins; an event which every moment happens in the Provi¬ dence of the most High. — It is certain, the children of pagans inherit all their father’s ignorance, super¬ stition and impiety. This is as difficult for me to ex¬ plain, as that the posterity of Adam should be curs¬ ed with depraved hearts for his disobedience. Now that God should harden the heart of those who have hated knowledge and would none of his reproof; that lie should give them up to the delusions they have chosen; is so plain an act of justice, that even bold transgressors cannot well object against it. Besides, what according to Scripture and plain fact are the ordinary means by which sinners in the Prov¬ idence of God are hardened? Are they not such as These: — His great love and bounty, in bestowing on men worldly prosperity, riches and honors; defer¬ ring the punishment of their sins, and with much long-suffering giving them space to repent. Fre¬ quently laying aside the rod, and removing the judg¬ ments, with which he had begun to correct them, as CONCLUSION. Ill in the case of Pharoah, who when h^ saw there was respite, he hardened his heart yet ifiore. — Sending his prophets and ministers to tell them their errors and mistakes in religion, and solemnly and affection¬ ately to call them to repentance, by which their enmity and rage are provoked, as was the case in regard to the leaders of Israel, when Christ preached to them. But are not all these acts of great mercy and kindness? Shall the sinner’s eye be evil, because God is thus good, even to him. If the sinner is harden ¬ ed by such means, it is perfectly evident he can have no pretence to find fault with his Maker? He must admit he is under infinite obligation to praise God for those very means by which he is har¬ dened. For they are not only acts of mercy in them¬ selves, but they present the divine character to view in an amiable light, and arc powerful arguments to produce repentance. It is true indeed that God har¬ dens men’s hearts by giving them up to the entice¬ ments of wicked companions, the sophistry of false teachers, and the influence of the devil.-— But if this be a judgment upon them for their refusing to he guided by the word and Spirit of God, their love of the company of sinners, and their predilection for er¬ ror and falsehood, who can with any shadow of rea¬ son impeach the justice of it? — But docs not he de¬ spoil himself of all this armor to silence the caviller and vindicate the ways of God, who lays out of the question the idea of hardening being a special act of providence, and denies the power of all second causes and instruments to excite the wills of men to evil?— This man we conceive quits plain Scripture ground, and goes to meet the enemy in the strength of his own metaphysical armor. All he can do is to talk of the abstract nature of moral agency, human liber¬ ty, virtue and vice consisting in mere exercise and not in its cause, &c. The great leader of the darkness of this world was never yet much terrified and driven out of the field by such a mode of attack. 112 CONCLUSION. But says one, who is fascinated by the fine polish of this metaphysical panoply, you have not yet done with the objector. If you have, he has not done with you, and you may yet need the aid of the weapons you so lightly esteem? By no means, the cause which can¬ not he defended on plain Scripture ground, we believe God never intended should be defended. — We know very well, the sinner, though foiled by the blow just now given, may rise again and with vehemence urge, Why did God originally give me an heart that should be capable of being hardened in the way you have stat¬ ed; or why did he not exert his omnipotent power and grace to soften my heart into repentance under these dispensations of love? But do the Scriptures here abandon us, and suggest no reply. — If they suggest a reply, it is certainly a true one, and it is the best that can be given, and we can have no occasion to go for help to the most illustrious champion of philo¬ sophical warfare. And happily for the Christian, St. Paul was assailed by this very objection, and I con¬ ceive I am bound to believe he took the best method to repel it. And what was it? It was indeed a sum¬ mary one, but none more pungent and powerful could be devised; he pointed the objector to the infinite Jehovah as an absolute and holy sovereign, who hath mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth! And suggests whether the sovereign Lord and owner of all things, has not as much right to dispose of the objects of his crea¬ tion, as the potter has to form his clay into such vessels as pleases him! “Hath not the potter power over the clay of the same lump, to make one vessel unto honor and another unto dishonor?” If the caviller is tempted to take the last step of audacious impiety, and impeach the justice of his Maker in the awful retributions of sin, and say, “Why doth he yet find fault, who hath resisted his will,” still the Scriptures stand by us and tell us what to say. “NTav, but who art thou, O man, that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say unto him CONCLUSION* 113 that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus.’’ If this plain, solemn, appeal to the understanding and conscience does not silence the voice of objection, nothing will do it? He who imagines he can do bet¬ ter by his abstract reasoning than Paul has done, will find himself miserably deceived. It would flat¬ ter the pride of a presumptuous opposer of the sove¬ reignty of God, to suggest that Paul treats him with too little ceremony, and to deign to take him on his own ground iti a train of labored deduction, but it would probably only confirm him in his impiety. He that knows that God does a certain thing, and is not satisfied that it is just, is not to be reasoned with any further. — For God’s doing it is the highest possible proof of its wisdom and rectitude* So thought the Psalmist, when he exclaimed, “I was dumb, I opened not my mouth, because thou, Lord, didst it.” Thus we see that there is nothing which any boasted philosophical theory can do, but the Scriptures can do it a great deal better. We shall now put a period to our labors in a few' words. We cannot pretend that any thing like complete justice is done to the subject. A con¬ sciousness of the want of ability, a pressure of family afflictions and cares, and professional duties, forbad every anticipation of that kind. We are conscious of having aimed at nothing hut a correct statement and iilucidatioii of evangelical truth, and to free it from the embraces of a beguil¬ ing and injurious philosophy. If any thing we have said, shall tend to produce this effect, and to exalt and magnify the authority of the Holy Scriptures, and to persuade men that the best philosophy, the most precious wisdom, is the sincere milk of the w ord of God received into a good and honest heart, we shall be amply rewarded. Should any one object to the metaphysical discus¬ sions contained in this volume and attempt by ab¬ stract reasonings to prove them incorrect, 1 shall take no notice of it. [have not introduced them to *10 114 CONCLUSION* establish any point, except this, that by them no point in divinity can be established, so as to command any high degree of confidence. But should any one prove by plain arguments, drawn from the word of God, that when James says of vicious and impious exercises, “This wisdom descendeth not from above, but is earthly, sensual, devilish;” and of good exercises, “But the wisdom that is from above is first pure, then peaceable, &c.” he means that sin and holiness come both alike from a direct divine influence on the heart of men, I shall be bound to reply or confess my error. But nothing but proving this to be the meaning of the apostle shall ever be considered as worthy of any notice. APPENDIX, (Containing the Sermon alluded to on p. Id.) MODERN PHILOSOPHICAL MIXTURES, DEGRADING THE CHARACTER, AND DEFEATING THE MORAL INFLUENCE OF THE GOSPEL, DETECTED. Col. ii, 8. Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy. In these words the Apostle has nothing to do with natural philosophy, any farther than it overleaps its proper bounds, and purposely deviates from its own path, to arm itself against true theology. It is moral philosophers whose systems are so pernicious. — < Of these there are three general classes; pagan phi¬ losophers, who in the midst of universal darkness sought in vain to find out God; infidel philosophers, whose great endeavor is to extinguish the light of rev¬ elation, and restore the ancient empire of spiritual ig¬ norance and wickedness; and Christian philosophers, who labor with vast ingenuity and mighty zeal, so to pare down and fashion the Gospel of Christ, as that it shall harmonize with their self-invented systems. In this discourse, our principal business will not be with philosophy, considered as an open enemy, but as a treacherous friend. --For, since the Christian era? this splendid form has not only arrayed itself in open hos¬ tility against evangelical truth, but it has endeavored to incorporate itself with it, and extend its triumphs under a name so truly glorious. In this way immense injury has been done to the cause of Christ, by some oi his professed followers. For ages the church languished under the evils brought upon it by the philosophical spirit of Origen. — Of the celebrated Dr. Cudworth it is said, “his attachment to the platonic philosophy has thrown an air of mysticism over some of his metaphys¬ ical opinions; and his doctrine of the plastic nature is supposed by Bayle to have given great advantage to the 116 APPENDIX. atheists,”* Philosophy consisting of theological and moral opinions, which depraved men have struck out for themselves, independent of the teachings of the word and spirit of God, is no less to be dreaded wheth¬ er it come in the character of a friend or foe. Though it usurp the name of Christian truth, still it retains its destructive nature. The nature of things does not change with mere names. It is philosophy in the hands of Christians, by which we are most likely to be seduced. Against an open enemy we should be more on our guard. There is no reason to question the fact, that in all Christian countries, the philosophical notions of multi¬ tudes constitute one of the chief obstacles to their be¬ lief of some of the most important principles of reveal¬ ed religion. Our first duty will therefore be to exhibit marks by which this spirit may be detected among the professed friends of the gospel — Our second will be to state rea¬ sons why we should avoid it. The following are all the indications of it, we shall have time now to notice: 1. It grounds its belief, even of what it admits to be revealed truth, rather upon the presumption that it is demonstrable by mere human reason, than upon simple divine testimony. The doctrines of the gospel are to be received as true, because God has declared them to be so — This is the highest possible evidence we can have of the truth of any proposition. God can neither lie nor deceive; nor can he be mistaken. His word, therefore, taken in its plain, obvious sense, is to be admitted as infallible truth, though it overthrow all human systems, and confound the boasted wisdom of man. But how many are there, who have a spirit within them revolting against God’s testimony. Hence so much cavil against the mysteries of reve¬ lation; so much hesitancy and doubt on the ground that the doctrine is above our comprehension; or we do not see how its harmony with other acknowledged truths can be made out; or wherein its real adaptedness to the purposes of piety and virtue consists. He that receives the Bible as the word of God, receives every truth it contains, not because he can prove it by an appeal to reason, or comprehend it in all its extent and bearings^ * N. Eden. Ency. yol. vii. p. 323. APPENDIX. nr but because God has proclaimed it to be truth. With this ground of belief he is perfectly satisfied: Nothing short of this can constitute a believer in revelation. He that will believe nothing contained in the Scrip¬ tures to be true, but upon the principle that it agrees with his own antecedent notions of the character, coun¬ sels and ways of God, and the nature of virtue, does not believe in revelation at all. The Bible is not his guide, God is not his teacher. Pie may be a philosopher, but he cannot be a Christian. 2. Another indication of this philosophical spirit, is its attempts to explain Christian doctrine in such a man¬ ner that a world lying in wickedness shall no longer pretend ip discover inconsistency and absurdity in the system. To a truly enlightened mind, an upright and holy taste, the gospel appears to be not only the power but the wisdom of God to salvation, and it will, when rightly explained, always command the approbation of such a taste. If it appears in a different light to any per¬ son, the error is in his own mind. To set things right, he must experience a great change in his own views and temper. But the wisdom of this philosophy is to bring the Gospel down to the ideas and dispositions of men, untaught by the Divine Spirit. Thus a strong plea is set up for expunging the doctrine of the Trinity from our faith, because unbelievers pronounce it absurd and incredible, and so it becomes in their view a mighty obstacle in the way of propagating among the nations a religion of perfect wisdom and beneficence. But to succeed in this attempt, we must not stop at this doc¬ trine. We must proceed in the work of expunging till not one essential principle of the gospel is left. It must be made what it is not, before a world lying in wickedness would cease to object to it as unreasona¬ ble. By natural men, men unrenewed in the spirit and temper of their minds, no view of religion can be admit¬ ted as correct, which does not flatter the mistaken no¬ tions, which they have imbibed of their own native goodness, wisdom, and self-sufficiency. They have no idea of Paul’s meaning when he says, “If any man among you seemeth to be wise in this world, let him become a fool that he may be wise.” — Those of all men most effectually counteract the design of the Christian revelation, who undertake toreformthe Gospel, instead ns APPENDIX. of reforming the corrupt taste and errors of the woricl. If the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God, then to reduce the Gospel to their view is to turn it into a system of folly. Dy those very doctrines which the natural man re¬ ceived! not, and to which an unconverted world has, and always will most object, all the triumphs of the Gospel over the Pagan nations have been achieved. Has the Arminian, the Arian, or Socinian system, any thing to boast of, compared to the wonders prodweed by the Gos¬ pel in the three first centuries, before any considerable attempts were made by heretics to obliterate from the Christian creed the doctrine of man’s utter depravity and moral impotence and of a triune God? 3. Another very decisive mark of this spirit, is its at¬ tempt to incorporate with the Christian system such no¬ tions of human liberty and moral agency, as flatter the native pride and self-sufficiency of the human heart, and exclude the necessity of the influence of the Divine Spirit, in the production of holy exercises. Who can entertain a doubt, whether it be Christianity or philoso¬ phy, that pleads for a self-determining power in the will of man, as essential to the existence of virtue or vice; and insists that an act of choice, to possess a mo¬ ral nature, must arise in our minds independent of all previous bias to such a choice; yea, independent of the influence of motives, or any external cause whatever; that such a choice must be contingent, or absolutely disconnected with all grounds of a previous certainty of its existence. Than these, no speculations ever could be more sub¬ versive of the whole doctrine of the scriptures. Such a thing is a denial of the absolute dominion of Jehovah over the exercises and actions of his creatures. It gives to man an entire moral independence of his Maker, so that nothing as to his present character and conduct, or future destination can be decided by the Divine will and counsel. At one stroke it annihilates all the predictions of the Holy Scriptures; for these relate chiefly to the future volitions, actions, designs and enterprises of men: but if they were utterly contingent: if there could be no previous ground of their certain futurity, how would it be possible they should be fore- known, or fore-, told, even by the highest possible wisdom. APPENDIX. 119 It tends also directly to atheism; for, if those impor¬ tant events, the volitions and actions of men, may come into existence, without any cause, ground or necessity of existence, why may not other things do so? Why might not the whole creation exist thus uncaused? Then what proof have we, that there is a God? It turns man in upon himself as self-sufficient and having no resources or aids to virtue, but what are com¬ prised in his own free will. It rejects the operations of the Divine Spirit in the production of human virtue, as unnecessary and impossible; for according to this theory, if we were moved by any extrinsic cause what¬ ever, to will or to do, our best actions could not partake of the nature of virtue. 4. This philosophic spirit is also to be detected, by a disposition to introduce into the creed of Christians, useless refinements, as important articles of theology. There is no science, which is not capable of being carried, by ingenious and speculative minds, (o a refine¬ ment of knowledge utterly beyond the bounds of utility. It is so in regard to Divinity. Set out from what point you will, and you may proceed in drawing consequen¬ ces, first from some important truth, and then from con¬ sequences themselves, till you arrive at principles and maxims, as inapplicable to the purposes of human life, duty, and happiness, as the ancient doctrine of substan¬ tial forms. The objection against these refinements, is not that they are impossible; they may be true; (for it is a matter of no importance how you esteem them, whether realities or fictions,) but that they cannot be applied to any practical purpose, in relation to our duty or happiness. Suppose all to be true, which Mr. Stew¬ art and other metaphysical writers tell us of the incon¬ ceivable velocity of thought, and of the vibrations of the human will. Let it be conceded that it is impossible that there should exist at the same instant of time, in the mind, an holy and a sinful exercise or desire; yet this is a refinement of knowledge, that can be of no practical use to a Christian. Let philosophers talk, and write, preach, and say what they will; the Christian will ever think, and feel, and pray, and act, as though the flesh and spirit did ac¬ tually co-exist in his soul, and war against each other. So I have no doubt Paul thought and felt, when he ifio APPENDIX. said to the Galatians, “The flesh lusteth against the spirit, and the spirit against the flesh, and these are contrary one to the other, so that ye cannot do the things that ye would;5* and when he said of himself, “I find then a law, that when I woujd do good, evil is present with me.” The doctrine that the will is a pendulum, that swings with infinite rapidity, and that as oft as it vibrates, the Christian changes into a perfect saint, or perfect sinner, is a discovery, with which I presume this great apostle was never honored. 5. Another indication of this philosophical spirit, is its presumptuous attempts to explain what God has seen fit to leave covered with a veil of impenetrable darkness. Of this kind there are subjects innumerable; for there is nothing that exists, but what in some re¬ spects is a mystery; some question, relative to it may be started, that none can solve. Indeed, there are none of the counsels, works, or dispensations of God, that wre can trace but a little way, before we are lost in the un¬ searchable depths of his wisdom and power.— Though this sentiment be universally admitted in words, yet such is the pride and inconsistency of man, that he is amazingly loath to make it a practical principle. There are some points as untraceable, as any thing pertaining to God, in regard to which he seems to say, “I will not stoop to worship a being I cannot comprehend.5* Among these, the origin and cause of the continuation of moral evil, holds a conspicuous place. It is beyond all question, difficult to explain, how the first sinful exer¬ cise should gain existence in a creature, whose previ¬ ous state of mind was that of perfect holiness. Here philosophy has of late begun to soar with untrembling pinions. It comes to its conclusion by a short course, where it fancies no deception can be concealed. — “In such a mind itself, there could be nothing predisposing it to sin. The effect must be produced by some exter¬ nal cause. But previous to the existence of all moral evil, such an agency must be an holy agency, and who should this be but God himself.55 And thus, this hith¬ erto unrevealed and unsearchable mystery in the works and ways of God, is boldly resolved into the immediate positive Divine efficiency, working inwardly upon the moral powers of creatures, and moving them to sift. To be sure this is a summary mode of adjusting this APPENDIX. 121 awful question; but before we subscribe to it as on ar¬ ticle of pure, humble, evangelical piety, we beg leave to pause and inquire, what saith the Scripture? If it accord with this infallible rule, it must be admitted:— if it be philosophy, we must beware of it. In regard to the agency or influence, by which all effects in the natural and moral world are produced, the following statement seems to comprehend the sub¬ stance of the light which the Scriptures afford. 1. They abound in declarations of the physical agen¬ cy of God. I3y this agency all things were originally created, organized, and constituted what they are, in all their vast variety; and by it they are now upheld, or preserved in their different natures, properties, powers, faculties, relations, order and succession; and by it they are constantly held under the absolute dominion and government of Jehovah, and in His Providence so di¬ rected and managed as that they never move or act, but in conformity to his infinitely wise and benevolent de¬ signs. — To this physical agency, the apostle alludes in these words, “For in Him we live, move, (or are moved,) and have our being.” It is in allusion to the same kind of agency, God is said to have raised up Pharaoh and determined and gov¬ erned all his designs and actions, in the fulfilment of his own wise counsels. In the following passages where the expressions are very strong, and in all similar pas¬ sages, no other kind of agency seems to be attributed to Gcd. “I form the light and create darkness; I make peace and create evil. I the Lord do all these things. ” “And if the Prophet be deceived, when he hath spoken a thing, I the Lord have deceived that Prophet.” “Why hast thou baldened our heart from thy feai ?” “He turn¬ ed their hearts to hate his people.” — In regard to this kind of agency, all objects in the universe are equally dependent. The largest globe and the smallest atom, the highest seraph and the meanest insect, the most perfect saint and the vilest sinner, the brightest angel and the blackest devil, all here stand upon a level — In God, as they had their origin, so they have the continu¬ ation of their being. 2. In the same Divine volume there is much said re¬ specting a moral influence or agency. The object of this is not to create or uphold creatures in being, but purely to operate upon their moral and active powers, n 122 APPENDIX. and to impel them to think, feel and act, agreeably to the will and pleasure of the agent, who exerts this kind of influence. But of this influence there are two grand sources mentioned in the Bible. The first is the agency of the Holy Spirit in the pro¬ duction of holy affections, volitions and actions. It is to His operations the apostle alludes, when he says to saints, “For it is God which worketh in you, both to will and to do of his good pleasure.” The second is the agency of Satan. He is represent¬ ed in the Divine word as possessing a mighty power over the mind of sinners. He is said to work in the heart of the children of disobedience, and to lead them captive at his will. He is styled the god of this world, the tempter, kc. Neither the personal greatness of the devil, nor the extent and limits of his power over the minds of men, can be precisely ascertained. — We may rest assured, as the Holy Spirit himself exercises no in¬ fluence inconsistent with the moral freedom and ac- countabilityof man,soneither is Satan permitted to do it. Nor has he ability to search the heart; for, this is God’s prerogative. But notwithstanding all necessary limita¬ tions, his power is unquestionably great, as he holds the whole world of ungodly men under his influence. By these three kinds of influence, all effects are produced, and all operations are carried on, that transpire either in the natural or moral world. It is a matter of immense Importance in religion, that we should not confound one with another; that we should not attribute to the physical agency of God those holy exercises, which are produc¬ ed by the moral influence of the Divine Spirit; nor ascribe to our Maker those evil exercises in sinners, which the Scriptures place to the account of the god of this world. The Gospel scheme of light and wisdom must necessarily he obscured and perverted by such a step. We may be led not only to speak falsely but ir¬ reverently of God; yea, to ascribe to his internal moral influence on the minds of men those very wicked and abominable suggestions and exercises, which the whole Christian world i'©r ages, (if we except a few bold and daring philosophic spirits,) have been in the habit of ascribing to the devil. As to the production of mill¬ ions of events, effects and actions, no other agency is APPENDIX. 123 necessary to account for their existence, but the phys¬ ical agency of God. You choose to take and eat the orange, that is placed within your reach; to this action what influence is ne¬ cessary more than the natural agency of God in uphold¬ ing you in the possession of the different powers and properties of your nature, and by a providential dispo¬ sal bringing about all the circumstances necessary to the action. Considering what your taste is, the nature of the fruit, and your knowledge of its agreeable qual¬ ities, and other things leading to the action, it natural¬ ly follows in this conjuncture of circumstances. What occasion is there to superinduce a Divine moral influ¬ ence, and to say you could not touch the fruit, till over and above all this natural agency, the faculty of your will was moved by the immediate finger of God. It is neither sound philosophy nor Divinity, to have recourse to more causes than are necessary to explain the phe¬ nomena. This remark is applicable to an endless train of human actions. In all that God is in the Bible said to do, in the pro¬ duction of moral evil, we conceive no other Divine agen¬ cy is necessary, or is intended, than the natural agen¬ cy before described. In proof of this statement we have two arguments from the word of God to produce. First, inspiration positively denies that sin, error and wickedness proceed from a Divine moral influence. What else can be the natural construction, the plain import of such passages as these, “For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace as in all the churches.” This persuasion cometh not of Him that calleth you.” Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God; for God cannot be tempted of evil, neither tempt- eth he any man.” “For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world.” There is then, notwithstanding all that is said of God’s hardening the heart, creating evil, blinding the eyes, Sec. a sense in which no moral evil is from him. Here is a distinction between good and evil as coming from God, and doubtless an important one. Every thing both good and evil is from God, as by his natural agency he upholds and governs the world with absolute sway. But, nothing morally evil is from him, as work¬ ing by an inward moral influence on the minds of men, 124 APPENDIX. and disposing them to work wickedness. This sense of the passages will be confirmed when it is considered, that these evil exercises are ascribed to quite another cause. And secondly, is it not a plain fact that when sinners are spoken of as about to do, or having com¬ mitted any flagrant acts of sin, they are said to be mov¬ ed to it by Satanic influence. When Judas formed the resolution to betray the Lord of life, it is said Satan entered into him. To Ananias, Peter says, “Why hath Satan filled thine heart to lie to the Holy Ghost.” It is true, it was in the Divine counsel, that all things respecting Judas and Ananias should come to pass as they did. But between purposing that a thing shall have existence, and doing that thing, there is in respect to God an infinitely important difference. Did God pur¬ pose the existence of sin? But there is some difference between this and his executing this purpose by commit¬ ting sin himself. There is also a wide difference be¬ tween doing a thing and the manner of doing it. If you say God, as a providential event, led Ananias to lie to the Holy Ghost, still there will be a wide difference between permitting Satan to stir up in him a disposi¬ tion to lie, and doing this himself by an inward moral influence. To say this influence was from God, is to assert what was false in fact, and to confound the agen¬ cy of God with that of the devil. As a providential event God determined that the heart of Pharoah should be hardened; but does this warrant us to say God stood by Pharoah, and moved him by an inward moral influence on his mind to diso¬ bey his order? By no means; to me the inference ap¬ pears as unjust as it seems bold and irreverent. I pre¬ sume, my hearers, with you it will not admit of a ques¬ tion, but that, if St. Peter had undertaken to inform us, by what inward moral influence Pharoah was moved in his rebellion against the command of God, he would have said, it was the same malignant spirit by which Ananias was moved. I am sensible that on the principles of influence we have staled, philosophers say we cannot account for the introduction of sin into the moral world.— Be it so: which is most becoming, a confession of ignorance in regard to this point; or to say when the angels first sinned, God stood by them and moved them to hatred and rebellion? APPENDIX. 125 Does the word of God thus explain it; or does it leave the question unanswered? If the latter, why not leave the subject where the Bible leaves it? David says, I meddle not with things too high for me; — what it this should be a matter too high for us; what if it should be among those secret things that belong to God and not to us? Does philosophy put on a self-sufficient smile, as though there was nothing here to puzzle a wise man? “It is the remark of an eminent person that Divinity consists in speaking with the Scriptures and going no further.” Or to come clown to our world; when Adam first sin¬ ned, how do the Scriptures account for it? Do they say that God by an internal influence moved him to revolt? We hear nothing of this. The awful event is ascribed to Satanic influence, subtilty, craft and malice; and there the Scriptures leave the matter. Shall we say this affair was never understood by any of the inspired writers? That the Holy Ghost left the honor of bring¬ ing truth here to light to the genius of modern meta¬ physics? Even the great St. Paul seems to have had no idea that God stood by Eve and moved her to lust after the forbidden fruit. To the Corinthians, he says, “But I fear lest by any means as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ.” If the notion which we oppose be correct, it seems as though the Scriptures were afraid or ashamed to own the truth in relation to the subject; for they ascribe the fall of man to Satanic influence, and there they stop. The same charge seems also to lie against the Almighty himself. In the prophet, He says, “O Israel, thou hast destroyed thyself; but in Me is thy help.” But if it was by sinful exercises they were destroyed, as all must admit, and by holy exercises they would be helped, and God was just as much the immediate, cause of one as the other; what ground for this distinction? lie was as much the author of their destruction as their lie 1 p. Nor was their ruin a whit more from themselves than their recovery. Help and destruction were both alike from God, and both alike from themselves. But do the Scriptures thus trifle and make a difference where none exists? But will it be said, it is expressly declared that God moved David to number Israel and Judah. As an #H 126 APPENDIX, event in Providence, lie, no doubt, determined and brought it about. But did he stand by him and work inwardly upon his heart and incline him to this sin. No, the devil did this; for in another place we read “And Satan stood up against Israel and provoked Da¬ vid to number Israel.” — David was then carried away by the remains of his own pride and the temptations of the devil. If God works inwardly on the minds of sinners to will and to do evil, then why does he not do the same in regard to the devil himself. But what man without an inward horror at his own temerity could come forward in a public assembly and say that God stands by Satan and moves him to all his lies and murders. This would be infinitely more than Jesus himself presumed to say. For speaking of Sa¬ tan he goes no farther than this, “When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own; for he is a liar and the father of it.” The devil in all he does is never represented as being under any moral influence out of himself. To represent him, or wicked men, his children, to be inwardly moved to all their iniquities and abominations by an inward Divine influence; if this is gratifying to the pride of philosophy, it must be grating to the ear of piety. There is a kind of natural horror in all men, who believe in the existence of God (excepting a few bold and adventurous philosophic spirits) at the idea of God’s standing by sinners and moving them to sin. If a murderer were arraigned before the tribunal of jus¬ tice, and it were there declared in the indictment, that he was inwardly moved and instigated by God to imbrue his hands in his neighbor’s blood, how would the au¬ dience be surprised and shocked! — Nor will it ever be otherwise while the fear of God remains on earth. It is to be hoped the advocates of the doctrine we oppose, will not charge us with denying the govern¬ ment and providence of God, because we do not hold that God stands by devils and sinners, and inwardly moves them to all the crimes they commit. We hope they will not arrogate to themselves the honors of be¬ ing persecuted for Christ’s sake, because their doctrine may meet with some opposition. Nor ;er. them be too confident- that it is either zeal for God, or love to souls that leads them to advance such bold sentiments, and to tell us in their discourses and prayers, that they believe APPENDIX. 127 God himself to be that spirit, which works in the hearts of the children of disobedience. It deserves their serious consideration, whether they are not hereby arming sinners with still greater prej¬ udices against religion, and destroying their own use¬ fulness, It is to no purpose to say, it is no more incon¬ sistent with the moral freedom of men for God to work in sinners unholy exercises, than to produce in saints such as are truly virtuous. The question is not what God can do, but what he actually does perform. I am strongly persuaded the view of scriptural influ¬ ences, we have exhibited is correct, and shall add no more under this article, than my solemn protest against that philosophy, which declares it is God, who works in sinners to will and to do all the abominations with which they are ever defiled. 2. In the next place, we are to suggest a few rea¬ sons, why we should beware of philosophy. The first is, Christians have no need of it. They are blessed with a perfect fulness of divine wisdom and knowledge in the Scriptures; a light able to make them wise unto salvation, and to fit them for every good work; and what more do they need? This is Paul’s argument, “In whom (Christ) are hid all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge; and this I say lest any man should beguile you with enticing words.” Surely, Christians may apply to the light of revelation, these memorable words of the more than half infidel Rousseau; “That philosophy has not been able to do any thing, which religion could not have done better; and religion has done much, which philosophy could not have done at all.” Can we expect any philosopher to arise, who by wis¬ dom shall furnish us with more just and sublime con¬ ceptions of the nature, attributes and government of the Most High; a more perfect system of moral virtue, or with motives and sanctions more weighty to enforce the practice of it; or with a new and better way to ob* tain the pardon of sin, peace of conscience, and eter¬ nal life! It will not be pretended. What need then have Christians of any principles rules or systems, the product of mere abstract reason, and not the plain dic¬ tate of the word of God? But are there not some questions of immense importance, which revelation has left untouched? Does it any where discover to us 128 APPENDIX, the harmony between the fore-knowledge of God and human liberty? Does it clearly define the nature of moral agency and the grounds of moral obligation? It may be replied without fear of just contradiction, that no man was ever yet more persuaded of his being a moral agent and accountable to God for all the volumes of philosophy, designed to explain the subject. God in the Holy Scriptures and in the dispensations of his providence treats man as being accountable. He him¬ self is conscious of his own liberty, and feels responsi¬ ble. And as to every thing relating to the subject more than this, ages of abstract discussion have left it just where they found it. Let a man plunge in and wade through the whole ocean of learned and ingen¬ ious speculations in relation to the question, and he may come out a skeptic, deny all accountability, or with Lord Kaims maintain that our consciousness of liberty is altogether delusive. But he will not obtain any great¬ er sense of the certainty, the propriety and justice of a judgment to come.— Just, when you 6ce a young man begin to assume the airs of a philosopher, you have reason to tremble for his faith. Not that faith is unrea¬ sonable, but that the wisdom of this world is foolish¬ ness with God. We have so much boasted of our reason, and been so much in the habit of deciding every thing in religion by philosophy, that the authority of the Bible is in a great measure lost* If we do not return to this light, as the sole standard, the peculiar and essential doc¬ trines of Christianity can no longer be defended. In our controversy with Unitarians, we are compelled to take this ground and declare we can stand on no other. We treat their opposition of science, falsely so called, with just disdain. Let us carry this principle through. Let us act in the same manner in regard to every oth¬ er theological discussion; then we shall be consistent; then Christianity will triumph. It was by an appeal to what is written that the Lord of life in his temptation, toiled the devil. He was too great a philosopher to have been confounded by any other weapon. When the Christian is convinced it is God who speaks in the word, and he understands what he says, there is an end to inquiry. — The next thing is action. If philosophy here interferes, it is only to draw a veil over the meridian sun, to perplex, puzzle and delay. APPENDIX. 129 We cannot with absolute precision fix the point, where light ends and darkness begins; but of nothing can we be more sure, than, that there is an essential distinction between them. The same may be said of evangelical and philosophical preaching. In the first the business of the preacher is to ‘‘Negotiate between God and man” “ - • — - the high concerns, “ - of judgment and of mercy.” But the latter indicates a mind too much disposed to exalt and amuse itself by the acuteness and beauty of its own self-devised theories and systems. And as all preaching carries in it a spirit peculiar to itself, so like a dry and scorching wind, it evaporates the living power of religion. * It is a stranger to the sublime and vigorous impulses of that charity whose only luxury is to do good. _ It mourns not over the moral desola¬ tions of the world; nor can it admit the sublime con¬ ception, that the pious Watts in composing a hymn for an infant, exhibited a greatness that outshines all the glory of the proudest mere metaphysician. 2. If any thing could induce a truly wise man to be jealous of these speculations of human reason on di¬ vine subjects, one would think the shocking absurdi¬ ties and abominable errors, into which those have run, who have boasted most of philosophy, must do it; — - who have asserted that the works of creation in all their glory do not evince that the hand that made them is divine! or that they originated from an Almighty designing cause! Who have asserted that the distinction between right and wrong, virtue and vice is a mere fancy! Who have maintained that death is an eternal sleep! Who have asserted that self-murder, fornication, vain¬ glory revenge, 8cc. are no crimes? Infidel philosophers. Who have denied the existence of the material world, and affirmed that it had no being, except in our internal perceptions and feelings! Who, agreeably to this theory, have implicitly maintained that man had no body; nay, that he had no soul, excepting in idea and volition! Who have asserted the divine benignity was so great as to render it impossible for the Deity to inflict the pun¬ ishment, denounced in revelation against incorrigible offenders! Who have maintained that it is God himself, that worketh immediately in the hearts of the children 430 APPENDIX. of disobedience, and moveth them to all the blasphemy, treachery, cruelty, war and murder, that ever disgrac¬ ed and afflicted the world? Christian philosophers. Let us then beware of both. 3. Let it also be considered that no important point in Divinity has ever been discovered, determined and enforced by men unenlightened by the word and spirit of God. What did all the philosophers do, antecedent to the coming of Christ? The world by wisdom knew not God. In the benign splendors of Christian light, their most perfect systems were turned into folly. Nothing respecting the moral character of God and true holiness was right as taught by them. And are the speculations of modern infidel wise men, more con¬ genial with the doctrines and spirit of the Gospel? And what valuable discoveries have Christian philoso¬ phers to boast of, that were not derived from the Bible? What more has the whole tribe of philosophers done, from age to age, than to prove each other’s sys¬ tems false, as they have arisen in succession? Some seem disposed, so to mould and explain Chris¬ tian doctrine, as that it shall correspond with their ab¬ stract theories of the human mind. But were anv speculations evermore uncertain? How many volumes have been written to explain the manner in which the mind conceives of external objects? This subject has been a matter of controversy from the earliest periods of literature. But Dr. Reid has lately proved the whole train of philosophers and metaphysicians, for four thousand years or more, including, even Clarke, Locke and Newton, to be in an error; — yea, to have employed themselves all this time to explain a subject, that lies beyond the limits of human knowledge, and about which a Locke can know no more than an untutored peasant.* In respect to so important a power as that of conscience, how discordant and uncertain are the opinions of the most acute writers? Some have considered it as an original, distinct faculty of the mind, and have given it the appellation of the moral sense. Among these are Shaftsbury, Hutcheson, Reid, See. Others have assert¬ ed it is not a distinct faculty, but that the operation of * Stewart’s Elem. Phil, Hum. Mind, pp, 86 — 88. APPENDIX. 131 various powers of understanding and will were con¬ cerned in every moral conclusion, and that the sense of right and wrong which we experience is the effect of the joint influence of these powers upon the general principle of self-love. In regard to the ground of praise and blame there is the same discrepancy of opinion. One predicates it altogether of taste or propensity, and affirms that the exercises of our will have neither vir¬ tue nor vice in them, any more than the motions of our body. Others again affirm that nothing is capable of deserving praise or blame but these very same exercis¬ es of the will. Some have considered ail the emotions of the mind. love and hatred, hope and despair, joy and sorrow, as nothing but exercises of the will; (though the absurdity of this be somewhat apparent) while ot h¬ ers have considered the affections and will as very dis¬ tinct powers. But if they can decide nothing by their abstract rea¬ soning, respecting such important principles of the hu¬ man mind, to what does all their wisdom amount? What reliance is to be placed upon it? They find man in the Holy Scriptures assumed as an accountable agent; that his present conduct will decide his future and eternal destination; and happy if their philosophy does not en¬ feeble the power of these essential doctrines; add any thing to their energy it cannot. 4. The speculations of men on divine subjects, whose light is derived from themselves, and not from the Scriptures, can never be incorporated with the Gospel and become one system with it. Here the pantheon of pagan deities and the pantheon of philoso¬ phy stand upon a level; as before the coming of Christ, philosophers never did any thing towards introducing the light of the Gospel, so they can now do nothing to improve it. Graft their ''speculations upon it and you corrupt it. It is of such a peculiar heavenly nature and spirit, that it must ever stand by itself. The tints of the rose of Sharon, like that which adorns the fields of nature must be hurt by the most exquisite touches of a mere human pencil. To open, explain, prove and apply Christian doctrine in St. Paul’s way, ‘‘comparing spiritual things with spiritual,” and to trace the analogy of nature and reve¬ lation, may afford ample scope to the Christian, poet, orator, critic and divine; but for them to attempt to 132 APPENDIX. improve the light actually contained in the sacred vol¬ ume by theories of their own devising — this is for night to offer its aid to increase the splendors of the day. 5. We shall only add that mere philosophy never yet produced a single truly amiable and virtuous char¬ acter. There is in all ages, a pride in its nature which renders it incompatible with the production of such fruit. It is an observation of Dr. Johnson, that no such thing can be found in all the history and poetry of the ancient Gentile world. This is also true of the writings of mere philosophers of modern times. They are all of one spirit; they approximate no nearer to God and true holiness, while they follow any other but Christian light. The Christian philosopher may indeed be both holy and humble, if he hath not suffered his philosophy to eat out the bowels of evan¬ gelical truth;— but no part of his holiness or humility is to be ascribed to his philosophy. The less he'philos- ophizes, and the more he sits at the feet of Jesus, with an entire dependence, and learns of him, the better. Take heed then and beware of philosophy, even in its most specious form. Satan will tell you, as he did Eve, it is good to make one wise; but his object is the same, by pride to lead you to revolt from divine teachings. Let the Bible then be to your understanding what the sun is to the day, all its light. As the stars are utterly lost in his superior splendors, so should we consider all mere philosophy as lost in the effulgence of revela¬ tion. Let this be a lamp unto your feet, and a light unto your path, and you will go right where philoso- phe rs and metaphysicians may mistake and die. This revelation r eeds no other commentator to make it a savor of life unto life, but the inward teachings Of the Divine Spirit, and the light which one part reflects upon another. May we alt be blessed with that dis¬ cernment, which he gives. Then as to our hearts the darkness will be passed, and the true light will shine. And now unto the King, Eternal, Immortal and In¬ visible, the only wise God; be glory and honor, power and empire, world without end. Amen. THE END. Erratum. — In p. 38, 1. 10, for plication read application . % DATE due CA ''LOAD "KiNTeo tN