"the earth, and it grieved him at his heart." Genesis "VI, 5, 6. And speaking of Onan he asserts, that "the thing which he did displeased the Lord: whereupon he slew him also. (Genesis XXXVIII, 10.) And we learn from Nathan the prophet, and from Gad the Seer, two grievous offences committed by David, which greatly displeased the Lord. Had Gad the Seer, then been but an Hopkinsian, and in conformity with his belief, have given thanks to the Lord for David's crime in numbering Israel. Had Nathan been of the same sect, and offered up praise for the defilement of Bathsheba, and for the murder of Uriah. And had Moses been of the same denomination, and sung praises for Onan's offence, or ascribed the atrocities of antediluvian sinners to their Creator in pæns of praise, whilst the Creator's heart was grieved for having conferred existence on such self perverted transgressors. And had Jeremiah, in unison of full chorus, congratulated almighty God, because his prophets were disregarded, his laws trampled upon, his entreaties despised, the abominable thing that he hated, insultingly perpetrated by a brutish generation, and all this too, as done by such a divine exciting agency, as properly made all these actions the actions of God himself: Surely, there would in each of these cases, be reason to apprehend more provocation to God Almighty, from such insidious thanksgiving, than from all the united crimes of the first mentioned offenders: Unless the blindness of an invincible prejudice, like the veil on the heart of persecuting Saul of Tarsus; might have diminished their guilt, into a

pardonable sin of ignorance, done in unbelief. And had our translators but duly weighed these things in their own minds, assuredly they would have shrunk from so rendering the writings of St. Paul, as to have made him to have uttered sentiments so horridly impious!

Nor would this gross impropriety have ever occurred, had due attention but been paid to the preceding verse, viz, “know ye not, that to whom ye yield "yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to "whom ye obey, &c." This surrender of their liberty and persons to the bondage of sin, is here charged wholly upon themselves, as their own sole act. Neither Adam, nor Satan, nor any other being, is in any wise implicated therein. And as this act of surrender, in yielding themselves to bondage was solely their own act, so the consequent bondage was also, solely their own bondage. But it was not so in respect to their emancipation. This was not their act, but the act of God. And therefore, as they, and they only had been blamed for their own misconduct, so God, and he alone, is here praised for his act in conferring on them, through the gospel, so great a salvation. Their slavery under sin, was no cause for praise to any being, but was an abundant cause for heavy censure upon the authors of it; whilst their deliverance, through redeeming love, and the energy of the spiritual baptism, called forth apostolical thanksgiving and praise.

The doctor's selected scripture passages, in proof of the "idea," that "the scripture ascribes all the actions of men to God, as well as to themselves," having

thus proved utterly abortive in respect to his design; permit me, sir, to invite you to follow him in his further attempt, to establish this same absurd and impious idea in his most extravagant comment on Phillip

ians 11, 13.

The text.

"er.

"For it is God which worketh in you

both to will and to do of his good pleasure." The comment. "Men are no more capable of act"ing independently of God, in one instance than anothIf they need any kind or degree of divine agency in doing good, they need precisely the same kind "and degree of divine agency in doing evil. This is "the dictate of reason, and the scripture says the same. "It is God, who worketh in men both to will and to << do, in all cases without exception."* And this agency he equally extends to the devil, thus, "neither satan, nor wicked men, can do us any harm, but "under the agency of him, who governs their hearts "and hands." Such are the extravagances of these assertions that they rather deserve contempt than minute investigation. But lest any should construe silence into inability to reply, I shall consisely point out their absurdities.

The leading fallacy, and that which gives birth to every other fallacy, in the above monstrous positions, so unqualifiedly asserted shelters itself under the ambiguity of the terms dependence on divine agency. Divine agency, and dependence thereon have each a variety of significations. It is one kind of divine

* Sermon on Genesis 45, 5, Pages 39, 40. † Ibid, page 48.

agency which creates, and another which upholds in being, what is already created, and the latter is dependent on the former, for if nothing were created, it would be impossible to exert upholding agency, as there would be nothing for it to exert itself upon. Here one species of divine agency is dependent on another; viz. on a previously existing species of divine agency. And that they are each distinct species of agency, is undeniable; for mere upholding agency would never originate any thing; and creating agency continued would never cease its prodigies of new existences. Now on both of these species of divine agency, created existences of whatsoever kind or nature, animate or inanimate, natural or spiritual, intelligent and rational, or otherwise, are all absolutely dependent both for being, and for continuance in being.

Divine agency, partially suspending the laws of nature in the performance of miracles, and such agency in the suspension of the natural operation of human faculties in visions, extraordinary revelations and such like, I shall pass over as having no relation to this sub. ject. But there is another species which is so interestingly and essentially important, that it should never be lost sight of, viz. the influence of divine agency through the medium of divine revelation, for this is incessantly operating, although (the operation, or) agency that gave it existence, is itself ceased. And thus it is with all exertions of creating agency; the act that produced, ceases; but the thing produced, continues as long as deity is pleased to uphold it in existence.

Now, although God is not continually imparting new scripture revelations of his will, to mankind. Yet while he continues the Bible as the hallowed repository of the rule of our faith, and practice: while he therein exhibits his law and its penalties, his gospel and its promises. Whilst he explicitly therein, as sanctioned by the infinity and immutability of his truth and pow. er, justice and mercy, presents before mankind the consequences both in time and in eternity of obedience and disobedience, there is through this medium of divine revelation, a perpetual operation of divine agency on mankind, wheresoever this revelation is providentially conferred. And this brings us precisely to the very point under consideration. In the light therefore shed on this subject by the foregoing incontrovertible principles, we now will test the doctor's presumptuous affirmation, that "men are no more capable of acting independently of God, in one instance, than another. (That) if they need any kind or degree of divine

agency in doing good, they need precisely the same "kind and degree of divine agency in doing evil.” Here then lie exposed to view, both the artifice and fallacy of this rash affirmation.

The artifice consists in an implied appeal to every man's common sense to extort from him a confession that all men, good and bad, are alike dependent for ability to act, upon divine creating and upholding agency: but as all men either will not or cannot perceive the nice distinction between power to act, as im parted by the forementioned agency, and excitement to act by another kind of agency, wholly distinct from