sents man as a voluntary agent, and at the same time so perfectly dependent, that God is able to make use of his voluntary actions in every instance, (and that whether they be good or bad,) to bring to pass his holy designs. This is clearly taught in the two following texts: "A man's heart deviseth his way; but the Lord directeth his steps.' "There are many devices in a man's heart; nevertheless the counsel of the Lord that shall stand." Prov. xvi. 9; xix. 21. Hence it is, that the work of God is as perfect as his plan: for he always works according to his plan, without the smallest deviation. When the work of creation is considered as one great system, and when the work of providence is viewed in the same light; and when both are viewed in connection, we may say, "As for God, his work is perfect." Nothing can be put to it, or taken from it, without rendering it less perfect. In other words, it is the best system of creation and providence, taken as a great whole, which could have been contrived and brought into existence. The knowledge, benevolence, and power of the eternal God, have all been exercised in forming the plan and carrying it into effect. In creation, nothing was made but what He made; and in the whole system of events which have transpired, or ever will transpire, there is nothing fortuitous, nothing but what forms a part of the providence of God. All is brought to pass in a way, not only consistent with his infinite perfection, but in a way best calculated to exhibit that perfection to the admiring view of holy creatures in heaven and earth.

The two doctrines, which form this Article, have now been briefly considered. I trust it has been shown that they are not of human invention. There is much scripture which tends directly to confirm their truth, and there is nothing to invalidate it. We are nowhere warned against them, as against errors which dishonor God and endanger the soul. The abuse of these doctrines, and the erroneous inferences which it is supposed would be drawn from them, are taken notice of, and repelled, without a denial of the doctrines themselves, or an intimation that they were such as ought to be concealed. The purpose and agency of God are the very things that are in view when the apostle supposes an objector will say, "Why doth he yet find fault; for who hath resisted his will?" Rom. ix. 19. The objection assumes, that the apostle had taught that the will of God (not his preceptive but his decretive will) was always accomplished. Does he seek to remove the objection by asserting, that the will of God is sometimes successfully resisted? On the contrary, he proceeds to show that He has a perfect right to do his will, and that it illy becomes us to reply against a God of unlimited holiness and sovereignty. When, in another place, the same apostle introduces a caviler as objecting to his being judged as a sinner, for doing those actions which God was causing to redound to his glory, he tells him that his damnation is just; without so much as intimating, that his assumed position was false, namely, That by means of his sin God would get glory to his name, even an augmenta. tion of it. He merely condemns as corrupt and false, the inference which was pretended to be deduced from the doctrine, to wit, That sin was a harmless thing. Rom. iii. 5—8.

It will perhaps be said, that many things in the scriptures, do at least implicitly oppose the sentiments which are exhibited in this Ar

ticle. Three objections against that part of it relating to God's purpose concerning future events, have been noticed, and briefly answered: viz. first, That the doctrine is inconsistent with his absolute eternity; secondly, That it renders human effort useless; and thirdly, That it is inconsistent with divine holiness. But is not this doctrine, some will say, at war with all that part of scripture which represents certain events, as depending on means to be used by ourselves, and as liable to fail of happening, in case such means fail to be used? There is no real difficulty in discovering an agreement between those passages, which represent God as having an immutable counsel concerning such events as are dependent on means to be used by us; and those other passages, which speak of the very existence of these events as depending on the use of these means. The divine plan ever embraces the means as well as the end. For an example: God determined to deliver Israel from subjection to the Philistines, by the destruction of their boasting champion, Goliath of Gath. He also determined that his destruction should be effected by the instrumentality of David, whom it was his design, by such particular means, to bring to the scene of battle. Every circumstance was comprehended in the divine plan; such as this, that the giant should be prostrated by a stone, hurled from a sling. Nor ought we to doubt that the identical stone, which should do the execution, was selected by the wisdom of God. It may be proper to say; had not David been sent down to the battle, Israel had not obtained that signal deliverance. But the Lord, who had determined to grant that deliverance, inclined the heart of Jesse to send his son to the camp, to visit his brethren, at that particular juncture; and He inclined the heart of David, though but a stripling, to accept the challenge of the Philistine; and He it was who directed the stone to the spot where it would do execution.

It is objected, that God's universal decree and agency, seem to suppose but one agent in the universe; and therefore that these doctrines can have no agreement with those portions of scripture which represent men as voluntary actors, employing their own skill to contrive, and their own power to execute their plans. But if a military commander were to plan all the movements of his army, it would not follow that he was the only voluntary actor. His soldiers might exercise their free agency in adopting the plan of their general. This case does not, however, entirely illustrate the subject before us. The purpose of God is not a rule prescribed, by which we' should regulate our conduct: it is merely the plan of his own operation. "He worketh all things after the counsel of his own will." We lay plans and execute them with as much freedom as though no being were above us. But God is the only being, who carries all his plans into execution. It is said, "There are many devices in a man's heart; nevertheless the counsel of the Lord, that shall stand." Many of our devices go into effect; but not all of them. And when our devices are frustrated, His counsel stands; for though a man's heart deviseth his way, the Lord directeth his steps. The word of God, it is true, exhibits a great multitude of voluntary actors; yet but one of all these is represented to be independent in his actions. Should any say, A dependent, voluntary agent, (dependent even for his volitions,) is an absurdity; I would ask, wherein the

absurdity consists? Why should it be thought incredible, that God should be able to make a voluntary agent, whose very volitions are dependent on himself? To those who doubt of this, may we not say, Ye do err, not knowing the power of God? The scriptures clearly teach our dependence on God for our voluntary exercises. He is said to turn our hearts at his pleasure, and to work in us both to will and to do. This is the plain language of scripture and why should we not believe it? Is anything too hard for the Lord? It is the full extent of man's skill and power, to form a curious machine; but the wisdom and power of God are adequate to the formation of a voluntary agent; and when he is formed he can preserve him a voluntary and accountable agent, though he is as dependent for his exercises as for his existence.

There is another thing which appears like a still greater difficulty to many serious minds: The scriptures seem to speak of God as confining his efficiency to a particular class of free agents, namely, the humble and obedient, and as withdrawing his influence from those of an opposite character. Converts are represented as being indebted to the influence of the Spirit of God, for the commencement of their new character, and also for its continuance. They are subdued, and kept in voluntary subjection, by the power of God. It is true, that the recovery and sanctification of a sinner are attributed to God, as works of his special mercy; but this does not imply a denial of all divine efficiency in the actions of other men. It is ascribed to the power of God that the Red Sea was dried up, and that the waters of Jordan were cut off before the children of Israel; but when the waters of the sea and of the river covered their respective channels, they were as entirely dependent on the power of God, as when that power was manifested by a supernatural operation. The withdrawment of God's holy Spirit, is threatened as a dreadful calamity; but the execution of this threatening does not imply, that the men thus forsaken, are left in a state of independent agency, even as it respects their exercises of heart. God is still making use of all their actions, words, and thoughts, to advance the interests of the kingdom of righteousness; therefore he has all these under his supreme control. He is said, not only in general, to harden their hearts but to harden them to the commission of those particular sins which they actually commit. He does not conceal it, as though it were a thing dishonorable to his holy name, that he turned the hearts of the Egyptians to hate his people; and that he hardened the hearts of the devoted nations of Canaan, that they should come against Israel in battle, that he might destroy them utterly. And concerning the ten horns of the papal Anti-christ it is said, "For God hath put in their hearts to fulfill his will, and to agree to give their kingdom to the beast, until the words of God shall be fulfilled." Ps. cv. 25. Josh. xi. 20. Rev. xvii. 17.

When it is said, in the 37th Psalm, that "the steps of a good man are ordered by the Lord," we are taught this important truth, that the Lord has a special, providential care of good men, and that he orders their steps in mercy to their souls. But this declaration ought by no means to be so interpreted, as to exclude all divine direction in the movements of bad men. In reading the 10th, 45th, and 46th chapters

of Isaiah, we can not but notice, that the steps of the Assyrian and Persian monarchs, though not good men, appear to have been divinely directed, for the accomplishment of the designs of infinite wisdom: yet their steps were not, in the sense of the passage in the 37th Psalm, directed by the Lord. In like manner it is spoken of as the privilege of good men, to be led by the Spirit of God; while the wicked are given up to their own hearts' lusts: and yet these, when following their own hearts' lusts, are shown to be in the hand of God, as much as the clay is in the hand of the potter. Nothing can be farther from their hearts, than a design of acting in concert with the Most High; and yet it is a truth, which he considers honorable to himself, and consoling to his friends, that he has the management and control of his enemies, even of all the exercises of their rebellious wills.

But, it will be said, there is a certain passage of scripture, where moral evil is expressly declared to be a thing, in which the agency of God is not at all concerned. The thirteenth verse of the first chapter of James, I know, is often adduced for this purpose. It is as follows: "Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God; for God can not be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man. This is in harmony with all those texts which assert the perfect and unchangeable holiness of God. To be tempted with sin is an impeachment of the holiness of any one's character; for it supposes sin to appear attractive, or, as our vulgar expression is, to look tempting. God can not be tempted with evil; sin has no attractions to Him. "He is of purer eyes than to behold evil." Moral evil invariably appears to him vile and loathsome. And as God can not be tempted with evil, neither can he become a tempter to his creatures; for the very idea of being a tempter, as the word is here used, would imply that the side of sin is espoused, and that with a view to its success against the cause of truth and righteousness. To be a tempter, is to wish well to the cause of iniquity. The devil is the chief tempter; and in this he is imitated by all his children. In this sense assuredly God is no tempter. It is far from him to wish well to the cause of iniquity.

But the assertion, that God is not a tempter to sin, is not the same as to declare, that he has no efficient influence on those creatures which are sinful. Efficient influence is quite a different thing from temptation. Such influence exerted on the heart of a sinful creature, is not of necessity a sinful influence. Indeed character is not to be predica. ted of the influence itself, but only of its cause and effect. With respect to divine efficiency, we know nothing of the manner in which it is exerted. We can be informed concerning the motive which leads the Divine Mind to operate; and we can become acquainted with the effect which is produced. We are led by the scriptures, to contemplate the Divine Agent, as being governed by motives equally pure, in his efficient operations on the hearts of sinful, as on the hearts of holy creatures. The effect produced on the two classes of creatures, so far as the character of their exercises is concerned, is very different; but God is holy in all his works. Satan provoked David to number Israel; and yet God is said to have moved him to do this thing. Satan acted the part of a tempter, and as such was gratified with the sin which David com. mitted: but God did nothing which was of the nature of sinful temp.

tation; nor was he gratified with the sin committed, but greatly dis. pleased. Because it would be inconsistent for a holy God, to become a partner with sinners, it does not follow as a necessary consequence, that he must acknowledge their moral independence, and leave them wholly to a self-determining power of the will. Though he can evidently have no fellowship with the workers of iniquity; yet he can turn their hearts and control them, so that they shall not be able to frustrate, but be even made to further his wise designs. There is no want of harmony between these two things, namely, God's taking no part with sinners, as one of their company; and yet his making a benevolent use of their sin, in promoting the best interests of his holy kingdom.

I conclude that none will be so uncandid as to say, that the pious Scott, in his Commentary, has represented God as a tempter to sin, because he has said, "The first edict of Cyrus was procured by a secret operation of God on his mind;" and because he accounts for Pilate's pertinacious refusal to gratify the Jews, in altering the superscription on the cross of Christ, by saying, "It was doubtless owing to the secret power of God upon his heart, in order that this attestation of our Lord's character might continue; even on the supposition that Cyrus and Pilate were unregenerate men; the truth of which, particularly as it respects the latter, I conclude, none will dispute. Unregenerate inen perform no actions which are not sinful, for their motives are always unholy. If, without being a tempter to sin, God can employ a secret power upon the heart of a sinner at one time, he can undoubtedly do it all times. If God could have a holy motive in secretly moving the mind of wicked Pilate, there is nothing which renders it impossible or improbable, that a holy motive should lead him to control the actions and volitions of his enemies through the whole universe.*

* By making this reference to the commentary of Dr. Scott, I would not be understood to assert, that, on the subject of God's efficiency upon the hearts of wicked men, his representations uniformly agree with those which are exhibited in this Article. But in the cases referred to, and others which might be pointed out, (see 1 Sam. x. 3, 4, and 2 Chron. xviii. 31,) it would seem as if there were no difference in our views of the subject. In these instances, though the dependent agents were sinful, the pious commentator perceived their actions to have such an immediate connection with the glory of God, that he did not think he was doing any thing to eclipse his glory, when he represented him as operating on their minds in such a way as to secure the existence of those actions. On the contrary, he seems to have been cheered with the thought, that in the cases specified, the God of holiness had such complete control over the unholy minds of his creatures, as to cause them to accomplish his wise designs. And is it not common in such cases, that the friends of God have similar feelings? Do they not bless Him, who is the source of all good, for inclining the heart of a selfish, as well as of a benevolent man, to devote his property for the support of the poor, or for the spread of the gospel in heathen lands? Are they not also pleased with the thought, that it is in the power of God, by a secret operation on the mind of a sinner, to incline him both to read and hear the word, and to enter into the secret chamber to pray? When they hear the devout Ezra blessing the God of his fathers, for putting it into the heart of Artaxerxes, a heathen king, to beautify the house of the Lord at Jerusalem, they are not at all offended at the expression which he uses; nor do they feel any desire to have it so explained, as to imply no divine efficiency on his graceless heart. And why do they not? Because God inclined him to do good. But let it be remembered that God did not incline him to be good; for he was still, no doubt, nothing more than a natural man. Such a man is no more actuated by holy motives when he does good, than when he does evil: and as for God, he had equally good motives in turning the hearts of Egyptians to hate and enslave his people, as he had when he inclined their hearts to let them ga He was as holy and benevolent in putting it into the heart of Nebuchadnezzar to burn