cause. Now according to your doctrine, sin originates from God as its efficient cause; and from this it fol lows by fair consequence, that God is unholy." p. 26. If by an unholy effect be meant an unholy volition, that is, an unholy exercise of the will, it surely proves that there is an unholy heart from which it proceeds. But I hope Mr. B. did not understand me to say, that sinful volitions flowed out of the heart of Him who is perfect. God is not the cause of sin as a fountain is the cause of its streams. In this sense, evil does not proceed from him. Nor does sin exist any where, before it exists in the heart of the sinner. Here is the only place where it can be found. It is not first formed by the Divine Being, and then thrust into the creature. It exists in the creature alone, and there it exists as a thing of his own choice, and serves to stamp his character in the view of the omniscient God, and of all his intelligent creation.

acts.

There is no unholy effect while God is considered as the Agent, or efficient cause; i. e. all his acts are holy The Holy One does not sin. He hardened the heart of Pharaoh; but the hardening act in God, was not hardness, any more than though it had been a softening act. God as Creator made all kinds of animals, the noxious and poisonous, as well as the harmless and useful: But we do not think of inferring thence, that the Creator is possessed of all these different qualities. The scripture represents the Most High as a potter, making moral vessels of perfectly different sorts; some unto honor, and some unto dishonor; and as turning the hearts of good men; and also as turning the hearts of wicked men, even to hate his people. See Psal. cv. 25. But who infers from this, that when God turned the heart of the Egyptians to hate his people, that then God was not himself holy?

A wise being will act wisely; a benevolent being will have a benevolent object in view. In this sense the effect will be like the cause. The infinite wisdom of God leads him to act wisely, even to an infinite degree. He has never done a foolish thing. My antagonist charges me with imputing folly to God, because I speak of him as including the sin of creatures in his plan. It would seem as though he had forgotten what

is said, Psal. Ixxvi. 10, "Surely the wrath of man shall praise thee the remainder of wrath shalt thou restrain." The wrath of man, though folly in him, is put to the wisest use by Him who is wise in counsel.

In page 49, Mr. B. speaking of sinful actions, says, "Which the scriptures ascribe exclusively to wicked men and devils." The sin of these actions they ascribe exclusively to wicked men and devils, but otherwise they do not ascribe these actions exclusively to them. To this purpose I might quote many passages of scripture. The one just now referred to in the 105th Psalm is to the point-so is Rev. xvii. 17, " For God hath put in their hearts to fulfil his will, and to agree to give their kingdom unto the beast, &c." God said concerning the Assyrian monarch, who was his rod, that he would send him against a hypocritical nation. The action of going to Jerusalem, to do mischief and to seek plunder, was exclusively the action of this ambitious monarch; but his going there as a rod to punish a hypocritical nation, is ascribed to the God of Israel. The Lord carefully marks the difference between his own conduct, and that of the man whom he used as his rod ;"Howbeit he meaneth not so,”—i. e. the design of the man whom the Lord sent, and His design in sending him, were perfectly different.

It is thought by some to be totally inconsistent ; that God should be represented as hardening the hearts of men by any efficient operation, and at the same time be displeased with them for such hardness. But is it not just as difficult to understand how he should create a clean heart in us, by an efficient operation, and still be pleased with this clean heart? This argument will have force with those who believe that divine efficiency is employed in causing holiness to exist in our hearts; for surely the holiness, of which he is the efficient cause, can be no more our holiness, than the sin, of which he is the efficient cause, can be our sin. But in both cases it is as completely ours, so far as to give us a character, and render us amiable or hateful, as it we possessed holiness and sin, without any cause out of ourselves.

Mr. B. says, p. 54, "For it is impossible he should foreordain that in which he hath no pleasure." It is acknowledged that it would be inconsistent with the

perfection of God, that he should contrive a scheme of creation and providence, which was, on the whole, bad, and in which he could take no pleasure. It would be perfectly inconsistent, to suppose the Holy One should make an intelligent universe, which should be the whole of it, under the dominion of sin;-or to suppose that the God of love should lay a plan, which should ensure misery to all his creatures that are capable of being made happy. But is it not evident, that God has ordained particular things, as parts of his benevolent administrstion, in which he has no delight for their own sake, but only for the good brought about by them? It is appointed unto men once to die; but the Lord has no pleasure in the death, temporal, or eternal, of the children of men. He declares," I have no pleasure in the death of him that dieth :" And it is also declared, "For Tophet is ordained of old." Isa. xxx. 33. God takes no pleasure in our troubles, for he doth not afflict willingly yet trouble does not spring out of the ground, but is from the hand of God. The Most High has certainly no pleasure in the persecuting spirit, which wicked men have shown towards his people; and yet his people in solemn prayer are heard to say, “O Lord, thou hast ordained them for judgment, and O mighty God, thou hast established them for correction." Hab. i. 12. Therefore the argument of our author, That it is impossible God should foreordain that in which he hath no pleasure, loses all its force when brought into the light of revealed truth. He must either say, that God did not ordain these persecutors for judgment, and establish them for correction; or that he took pleasure in their wicked persecuting spirit ;—or else he must give up his argument as unsound. Our opponents can no more get along than we can, without frequently making a distinction between God's taking pleasure in things for their own sake, and taking pleasure in the good which they are the means of effecting. Thus, they will acknowledge, that the Lord chasteneth his children; -that chastening is his strange work; but that he hath pleasure in the end of this chastening, to wit, the sanctincation of his children. In this way we can see, that God determined that wicked hands should be employed in putting to death his well-beloved Son, not because he

delighted in the sufferings of his Son, or in the wickedness of the hands which put him to death, but in the infinite good which he designed thereby to bring to

pass.

I know that the sentiment of a universal divine efficiency, does not prevail as extensively, as the belief of a universal decree. But those authors, who are afraid to adopt the doctrine of a universal efficiency, seem at times to feel the necessity of admitting such a doctrine. Mr. Scott, in his Notes on John xix. 19-22, speaking of Pilate's refusing to alter the superscription, says, " Which was doubt. less owing to the secret power of God upon his heart, in order that this attestation of our Lord's character might continue." This secret power of God upon Pilate's heart did not produce any holiness, for he remained a totally depraved creature; his motive therefore must have been evil; but the pious author of the Family Bible, appeared to rejoice in God's efficiency upon the heart of a wicked man, in this instance, because he was struck with the holy design of God in exerting this secret power. Now why might not his mind, and the minds of all others be relieved, if they could only be made to understand, that there is always a perfect distinction between the agency of the Deity, and the action of the creature; and be tween His ultimate end, and that of the transgressor. With the doctrine of a universal divine agency in view, we can thank the Lord for all the good which we and others receive, even if a part of our favors are presented to us by the hands of graceless men. We can even thank the Lord for inclining the hearts of these men to show us favor. [See Ezra vii. 27, Neh. i. 11, and ii. 8, 18] With this same doctrine in view, we can see the hand of God in all our afflictions :-whether our property be consumed by the fire of God falling from heaven, or be plundered away by the Chaldean bands, we can say, "The Lord hath taken away." [See Jobi.] Mr. B. in seeking to get rid of the force of Isa. xlv. 5, 6, 7, so far as it appeared to militate against his scheme of doctrine, observes, "Plague, pestilence, sword and famine, are all the messengers of his vengeance which he sends upon cities devoted to wickedness. Every man ought to know there is a difference between moral and natural evil." p. 57. Mr. B. holds that it is cons

sistent for God to bring natural evil upon a wicked people. Among the natural evils which he enumerates, we find the sword is one; and he could not consistently have omitted it. See Ezek. xiv. 17, 21. Now we know the sword is a harmless thing if it do not have a hand to carry it. We know also that the hand which God commonly uses to bring the sword on any people, is a wicked hand. This was always the case when the Lord brought the sword upon the land of Israel. Here then according to the implied concession of our opponent, the Lord can govern, manage and direct moral evil, as well as natural. He can send an army of wicked men, whose sole object is mischief, to punish us, just as consistently as he can send an army of locusts and caterpillars. And if he can consistently send, or bring this army, then there is no inconsistency in supposing that he should determine to send them to make this, which is, on their part, a wicked invasion. And this would remove all the difficulty which is supposed to attend the sentiment, That the Holy One of Israel decrees the sinful actions of his creatures, and brings to pass what he decrees.*

3. Mr. Bangs argues, that the doctrine of a divine purpose about every thing which takes place, is unjust, as it would in effect be condemning the innocent."Now," says Mr. B. p. 18, " if God from all eternity foreordained whatsoever comes to pass, he ordained the condemnation of part of the angels, of Adam and all

* Mr B. thinks me to be inconsistent in speaking of God as foreordaining moral evil and being the efficient cause of it, and then talking about sinners being given up to commit iniquity. I think I am justified in using this different phraseology in speak. ing on this subject, since I have the Bible for my example. Compare Deut. ii. 30, "But Sihon, King of Heshbon would not let us pass by him; for the Lord thy God hardened his spirit, and made his heart obstinate," &c. with Psal. lxxxi. 12; "So I gave them up unto their own heart's lust." &c.

See also Ex. iv. 21; Josh. xi. 20. compared with Rom. i. 24, 26. Infinite wisdom saw best to make use of both of these modes of speaking on this deep subject, and I cannot see how it ought to subject any one to ridicule for imitating so perfect a model. When God speaks of giving sinners up to their own heart's lust, it implies that they possess a wicked nature, and yet it does not imply, that when they sin they act indepen dently of God.