Page images
PDF
EPUB

tives 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 disposal of second causes and instruments, the effect is produced without any such positive divine efficiency.

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 question, 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 represents 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 characters.

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 question, and not the manner of his thus moving them.

Here then you have a view of the point to be examined. The doctrine we shall aim to establish, is the doctrine of the divine Providence, in regard to the existence of moral evil, as held 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 Assembly of Divines at Westminster, approved by the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland, and adopted by the Synod of the Churches of New England. Vide chap. v. Of Providence. "The Almighty 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 proceedeth 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."

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 remark, 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 instrumentality of second causes." But will the objector abide the consequences of such a principle? May not infinite 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 work should all be executed by one instantaneous fiat, or go on progressively for six days? God predetermined 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 will change the bodies of the living at the last day, or whether he should have proceeded and manifested his glory in their redemption 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 was carried there as a prisoner and experienced a distressing shipwreck, or whether he went by land in the full enjoyment of liberty, experiencing no opposition or sufferings?

It is the eternal purpose of God, that the elect shall be saved, but will you hence insist, that it is no matter how he saves them, whether by an act of

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 perceivable, yet if you pursue such a line, it will at last recede to an immense distance, and produce interesting results. The difference between the Trinitarian and the Unitarian, begins in a distinction absolutely incomprehensible. One affirms, God is absolute 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 intellect. These two lines by some are supposed to be parallel, or if divergent, the obliquity is small indeed; but pursue them and what is the result? By the decision of the most learned, pious, and candid Trinitarian writers, Christianity is essentially corrupted. And who can say but the result of the theory we oppose, would be as fatal, were it as openly, constantly, and zealously preached to all descriptions of people, as the divinity of Christ?

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 another.

You may say, it was a matter of perfect indifference, 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 instruments 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 conclusion, after we have set before the reader the evidence in support of our views.

[ocr errors]

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?

« PreviousContinue »