trine of the Text we have already efta- SER M. blished, the folution whereof, being pro- XI. pofed for the SECOND general Head of our Discourse, must now be referred to fome other opportunity.

Now to God the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, be all honour and glory, henceforth for

evermore.

Amen..

SER

SERM.
XII.

SERMON XII.

Objections againft the foregoing
Doctrine answered.

JAMES i. 13.

Let no man fay, when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man.

H

AVING, in a former Difcourfe, afferted the Truth of the Text, by fhewing,

1. That God cannot be tempted with (or to) evil. And,

2. That, as the neceffary confequence of this, he doth not tempt.

I now proceed in the

II. SECOND place, to folve some of the principal difficulties that may feem to lie against it. And

1. First,

1. First, Let us confider those objections SER M. which may be made against the first affer- XII. tion, that Cod cannot be tempted with (or to) evil. And these I judge will receive a very eafy answer.

The first pretence of this kind is taken from thofe texts of fcripture, which either fpeak hiftorically of God's being tempted as a thing already done, or else prohibit as a thing poffible. Thus God complains of the Ifraelites in the wilderness, Numb. xiv. 22. that they had tempted him ten times. To which he refers again by the Pfalmift, Pfal. xcv. 9. Your fathers tempted me, proved me, and faw my works. Thus Abaz makes profeffion for himself to the Prophet Isaiah, in the viith chapter, at the 12th verfe, I will not tempt the Lord, And the prohibition in the law is grounded on a former temptation, Deut. vi. 16. Ye shall not tempt the Lord your God, as ye tempted him in MafJah. Which is plainly referred to by our bleffed Saviour, Matt. iv. 7. It is written, thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God.

The answer to all this will eafily appear, if we confider the fcope and occafion of these paffages refpectively. However God may wifely make trial of our faith and conftancy, both for our own improvement and the benefit of others, yet it must be an argument of great impiety in us to want a proof of his goodness and veracity, who

SERM. is determined by the happy neceffity of his XII. nature, to do nothing inconfiftent with those attributes.

When therefore we become guilty of fuch impiety, and, either by expecting farther proof of his Perfections, or elie by refusing such obedience as would naturally arife from belief of them; when, either of thefe ways, we exprefs our diftruft and diffidence, or again, when we prefume upon having more done for us, than we have any authority or just ground to expect ; then are we faid, in the fenfe of fcripture, to tempt God, as feeming to want fome more extraordinary evidence, in order to confirm our trust and confidence in him, or even raifing that we have into prefumption.

So God himself explained the cafe of the perverfe Ifraelites. They have now tempted me (fays he) thefe ten times, and have not bearkened to my voice. Such was the pretence of Abaz, that he would not afk a fign of his deliverance, left he fliould tempt the Lord; i. e. left he thould feem to dif truft God's ability or purpofe to fulfil his promife, or demand a farther demonftration of it than was neceffary.

And that the prohibition in the law of Mofes (not to tempt the Lord) is of like import, may appear as well from the temptation at Majah, which is there referred to, * Numb. xiv. 22.

as

as from our bleffed Saviour's application of SER M. it in the New Teftament. We are told, that XII. Mofes called the name of the place Maffah and Meribah, because of the chiding of the children of Ifrael, and because they tempted the Lord, Jaying, Is the Lord among us, or not*? Which clearly fhews us that their temptation lay in this, that they question'd or doubted in themfelves, whether they were under the fpecial care and protection of Almighty God. This was founded in their unreasonable expectation of greater things to have been done for them immediately; and from hence that negative precept of the law was by our Saviour juftly retorted back upon the Devil, when urging a Text of fcripture to perfuade him to throw himself down from the top of the Temple, in expectation that the Angels fhould af fift him. It is written again, fays he to him in return, Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God.

From all this it is evident, that this tempting of God, which is fupposed or prohibited in fcripture, cannot be underftood of his being feduced or enticed to any thing evil or criminal, and therefore can be no way inconfiftent with St James's alfertion in the Text, that he cannot be tempted with (or to) evil.

*Exod. xvii. 7.

Secondly,