of his countrymen. When at the Foreign Mission School, pursuing his studies, a Christian friend, who was on a visit in the neighborhood, expressed a wish to see Thomas, and to converse with him on religious subjects. Thomas was sent for; and the gentleman was much gratified with his ready and judicious replies to many questions which were proposed to him on the scriptures. At length, his friend, to test his understanding still further, proposed the following question, which perhaps may, not improperly, be considered the Gordian knot in Divinity-"How could our First Parents, who were perfectly holy, yield to the temptation of Satan, and disobey the command of God?" After a short pause, "Ah," said Thomas, "I believe we have got beyond the Bible, now."

REMARKS.

A late learned president of one of our colleges, whose mind had been disciplined by mathematical and logical studies, was destitute of all relish for fictitious writings. But being prevailed upon, by his lady, who was fond of novels, to hear her read a fine passage from some work of the kind, he drily ask ed, "Well, and what does it prove?" Though I doubt not the authenticity of the above pretty anecdote of the young Sandwichislander; yet I feel inclined to ask the president's question, What does it prove? It may prove, that Thomas Hopoo, a youth from one of the darkest places of the earth, who had been a few months, perhaps, in the Foreign Mission School, was unable to untie "the Gordian knot in Divinity."This is not very strange, when so many Divines of mature age and reputed learning and orthodoxy, have chosen to relieve themselves from this labour, by the summary

process of the knife. The anecdote may prove, that in the Foreign Mission School, during Thomas's residence there, no instruction had been given respecting the manner of solving the Gordian knot, and no attempt made to show that the scriptures teach any thing respecting the cause of the apostacy of our First Parents. But it does not seem to prove, that there is nothing in the scriptures, respecting the origin of moral evil, or that those, who attempt to answer the question put to Hopoo, have, of course, "got beyond the Bible." Admitting that Thomas was a bright boy, and had made good progress for the time; still it is hardly supposable, that he had learned all there is in the scriptures, so as to be authorised to say, that those, who had got beyond him had got beyond the Bible. Though Hopoo had not been taught it, and many older and more enlightened persons are willingly ignorant of it; yet, after all, there may be some things in the Bible, which shed light upon what appears to some so dark, and which may enable those, who are skilful in the word, to give a satisfactory solution of the Gordian knot, and to account for the first, as well as for all the other sins of men. It is true, that in the very brief account of the apostacy, contained in the 3d chapter of Genesis, nothing is said respecting the effic ient cause of the first act of disobedience. It may be true, also, that we are nowhere told, explicitly, in scripture, how our First Parents could yield to the temptation of Satan.' But still, the scriptures may furnish sufficient information to enable one to give a rational and satisfactory answer to the question.The word of God comprehends, not only what the sacred writers expressly declare, but also, whatever may be deduced from their declara

tation of Satan, as to suppose, that their perfectly sinful descendants should make themselves willing to turn to God and comply with the terms of the gospel.

Admitting, therefore, that we are not expressly told, in scripture, how our First Parents could yield to the temptation of Satan;' still, if there are things in scripture, from which the cause of their disobedience may be justly inferred; those, who undertake to account for their apostacy, ought not to be considered, as having got beyond the Bible.' Whether there are such grounds of inference upon this interesting subject, in the sacred scriptures, it is certainly lawful, and may be useful, to enquire. In aid of such an inquiry, it may be observed,

1. From what is said in scripture, it may be inferred, that our First Parents, did not cause or incline themselves to yield to temptation and to transgress. They are represented as having been created "upright," i. e. perfectly holy.From whence it may be inferred, that, if they had power to change their own hearts and cause themselves to yield to temptation, they could have had no inclination to do it. All the feelings and affections of their hearts must have been utterly averse to the least compliance with the impious suggestions of the Tempter. Nothing could have appeared to them more hateful, than the idea of rebelling against their Maker, by eating of the forbidden fruit. It is, at least, as absurd to suppose, that our perfectly holy Progenitors should have made them

2. It may be inferred from what is said in scripture, that the arch Tempter did not cause or incline our First Parents to eat of the forbidden fruit. It is not intimated, in the account of the fall, that Satan did any thing more, than to entice or persuade them to disobey, by setting motives before their minds to induce them to eat of the prohibited fruit. And this, it clearly appears, from the exhortation of James, is all the power which the Adversary has in any case. James, iv .7. "Resist the Devil, and he will flee from you." But if the Tempter flees, whenever he is resisted, it must be evident, that he has no power to change the heart, or incline the will; for if he had this power, he would not fear resistance, when he could, so easily, remove the ground of it. Indeed, it might easily be shown, that it is altogether inconsistent with the representations of scripture, to suppose that any created being has power to turn the heart or move the will of another; a tremendous power, which he who possesses it has, and those,over whom he may exercise it, are in his hand, as the clay is in the hand of the potter.

3. It may be inferred from what is said in scripture, that God might have inclined or moved our First Parents to yield to the suggestions of the Tempter, consistently with their criminality and with his holiness. What God has done to their offspring, He might have done to them. The scriptures inform us, that God has, in many instances, inclined or moved mankind to yield to temptation and transgress his commands, in consistency with their

eriminalily and his holiness. Consistently with his holiness, God hardened the heart of Pharaoh, and inclined him to disobey his command to let Israel go; for which act of disobedience, Pharaoh was very criminal, as appears both from his own confession and his awful punishment. Consistently with his holiness, God turned the heart of the Egyptians, to hate his people and to deal subtilely with his servants; for which criminal conduct they were overwhelmed in the Red Sea. Consistently with his holiness, God hardened the spirit of Sihon, and made his heart obstinate, so that he came against Israel to battle, and was smitten before them, for his criminal hardness and obstinacy. Consistently with his holiness, God moved David to say, Go number Israel and Judah; which crime David, afterwards, humbly confess ed, and for which he was severely chastised. These are a few of the many instances recorded, of God's doing, what He represents himself as doing in all instances. Psalm, xxxiii. 13, 15. "The Lord looketh from heaven; he beholdeth all the sons of men. From the place of his habitation he looketh upon all the inhabitants of the earth. He fash

ioneth their hearts alike;" or as it is in the Septuagint, He fashioneth their hearts, every one. Prov. xxi.

9. A man's heart deviseth his way but the Lord directeth his steps." I. Cor. xii. 6. "It is the same God which worketh all in all." God, then, might have inclined or moved our First Parents to yield to the suggestions of the Tempter, consistently with their criminality and his own holiness.

4. It may be inferred from what is said in scripture, that there was a sufficient reason, why God should cause our First Parents to yield to temptation and transgress his pro

hibition. It is plainly taught in scripture, that the Justice and the Grace of God are exercised and. displayed upon guilty creatures only that the innocence, or guilt,of all mankind, was suspended on the conduct of their First Parent, or Public Head-that, in consequence of the apostacy, the whole human race are prepared, in this life, to be either vessels of mercy, or vessels of wrath, in the world to come.-From whence it follows, that if our First Parents had not been caused to transgress; all the glory, which will redound to God, and all the good, which will accrue to the universe, from the Atonement of Christ, from the work of the Holy Spirit, and from the exhibition of Divine Grace in the salvation of saints, and of Divine Justice in the perdition of ungodly men, would have been lost.

If the above remarks should be thought to have 'got beyond the Bible;' it is desired, that some one will have the goodness to show in what respect.

LACON.

From the Christian Mirror.

QUESTION ANSWERED.

"How can Christ be willing to renew

and save those people, whom he, as God

over all, is determined never to save ?"

The objection implied in this question, has been often obviated, and all the seeming difficulty which it involves, clearly and fully explained; but as the explanation may not have reached the eye or the understanding of all who have heard or felt the objection, there is need of repeatedly illustrating the subject. All that is necessary, in order to set the truth in a clear light, is to distinguish between desiring a thing in itself considered, and desiring it on the whole or all

things considered. This distinction is familiar in fact, though not perhaps in words, to every person. When a painful surgical operation is performed as the only means of saving a man's life, he is far from desiring the pain, in itselfconsider ed; but he does choose and desire to suffer it, all things considered: he chooses it as 'the less of two evils,' or as the only means of a greater good. To vary the illustration a little, suppose that the patient is a child, to whom his father says, "I have sent for the surgeon to amputate your arm. You appear reluctant to submit to the operation; and I would most gladly exempt you from it, if any other way could be devised to save your life. I have no pleasure in causing you to suffer pain; and I require you to do it, only because I believe it to be, on the whole, for the best." God is willing to save every human being from eternal suffering just in the same sense in which the father, in the case supposed, is willing to save his son from the temporary pain occasioned by the amputation of a limb. In itself considered, he desires the salvation of one man, as much as of another. In itself considered, he desires the salvation of him who is a child of perdition, as much as of him who is an heir of glory. But he knows that it is not best, all things considered, that every man should be saved; and being infinitely benevolent, he has "determined" to secure the greatest good of the universe, whatever partial evils may be necessary to the attainment of this object. It is his infinite benevolence, and that alone which prevents him from renewing and saving every individual of the human race. Why does God suffer sin and pain to exist in the pres-, ent world? Is he not "able and willing" to deliver men at once

from the dominion of sin, and to relieve and remove all their distresses? Was he not able to prevent sin and pain from entering aud polluting his fair and happy creation? Yes, both "able and willing," in itself considered; but, all things considered, he chose that these evils should have a place among his works, as being, in some way, absolutely necessary to the greatest good of the whole.

There are some important points of difference between this case of the child, above supposed, and that of the sinner who dies in a state of impenitence. The child suffers the pain of the surgical operation without any reference to his character as innocent or guilty. The sinner suffers only what he deserves, and suffers it as an expression of the holy displeasure of God on account of his sins. Again, the child suffers a smaller evil for the sake of his own greater good. But the evil which the sinner suffers, is rendered subservient, not to his own good, but to the good of holy beings.— God would be just in punishing him, though it were not a means of good to others; but as it now is, he is both just and benevolent in the infliction of punishment on wicked.

The expression, "Christ died for all," has become ambiguous; that is, it is used in two different senses. It is a pity that disputes should arise from the mere ambiguity of language. In one sense, Christ died for all; in another sense, he did not die for all. He, by his death, made an atonement which is adequate to the salvation of all, and which would have resulted in the salvation of all, if there had not been reasons, notwithstanding the sufficiency of the atonement, why it should not be actually applied to all. But he did not die for all, if

by this expression, we mean, 'for the purpose of saving all.' The atonement being ample in its provisions and unlimited in its nature, its benefits are properly offered to all; and every one who will except the offer, by complying with the conditions on which it is made, will share in those benefits; but to them who refuse to except, it will prove a curse instead of a blessing, by increasing their guilt and aggravating their condemnation.

From the Utica Christian Repository.

PRAYER Of faith.

I differ from my neighbour on the subject of the prayer of faith. He appears to think the difference is one of very great consequence; and sometimes uses language which seems to imply a doubt whether any one can be a Christian who does not come into bis views on the subject. I have formerly thought the difference of some importance, indeed, in its practical influence, but not so essential as he appeared to think it. And when one said my neighbour's view of the prayer of faith was a fundamental error, and one which was subvervise of the whole gospel, I thought it rather an extravagant speech, and one to which I was not prepared to assent. On further examination, however, I am disposed to think the difference is of more importance than I had been aware of; and that those who set out with this difference, and pursue it into all its consequences, must be found widely asunder in the end, so widely as to embrace different gospels, and worship different Gods.

What, then, is the difference with which we set out? and how does it lead us so widely asunder?

These questions I will endeavour to answer, according to the best in

formation I have. If 1 should fail of stating my neighbour's views correctly, I hope he will point out wherein I fail. I shall state them as I suppose them to be; and shall be glad to be better informed, if, in any thing, 1 misunderstand them. As to the consequences to which I think they naturally lead, I shall state them as they appear to me, without meaning to impute to him any more than he avows. If he does not avow them all, I hope he will show why they are not, as they appear to me, the necessary and inevitable consequences of his theory.

The difference is not whether God is the hearer and answerer of prayer; which I believe as fully as he does.

It is not whether prayer ought to be earnest; I believe, as well as he, that we may be as earnest in it, as was the Lord Jesus, when the agony of his soul made him sweat great drops of blood falling down to the ground.

It is not whether prayer ought to be persevering and importunate; I believe as well as he,that the parable of the unjust judge and importunate widow, the friend that wanted to borrow three loaves, and other passages of scripture, are intended to teach us that men ought always to pray, and not to faint.

It is not whether prayer has any influence with God to obtain blessings; I believe, as fully as he can, that right prayer does prevail with God; and that every Christian, by means of prayer, has power with God, for the use of which he is responsible; and that no right prayer is ever made in vain, but is always heard and answered.

It is not whether there is not generally more reason to hope for the particular blessing prayed for, after it has been prayed for aright,