imply, that other things may not be chosen out of regard to an important end, to be pro moted by them. Had God any pleasure in the sufferings of Christ? and still it is said, "Yet it pleased the Lord to bruise him; he hath put him to grief." When texts shall be produced, that directly affirm, that all the exercises of creatures are not from the hand of God, and that they may, in some sense or degree, act independently of him, we shall have good authority for what is objected, that our doctrine of creature dependence produces a discord in the sacred scriptures.

3. It will be further said, that if sinful exercises are the effect of divine power, it proves that God works against himself, in that he operates sinful volitions, and desires in the hearts of men, and, at the same time, exerts his influences to restrain or withdraw them from sinful purposes. Restraining grace is a phrase which has been much used in the christian world, and, I fear, either without proper authority, or else without a proper understanding of it. I have no ob jection to the use of it, provided a truth may be found in the word of God, which may be better expressed in these words, than in others. That God does restrain men from certain deeds, in one sense or another, is an undoubted truth. God restrained Abimelech from defiling Abraham's wife, as we learn from Gen. xx. "And God said unto im in a dream, Yea, I know that thou didst

in the integrity of thy heart; for I also

1

withheld thee from sinning against me: therefore suffered I not thee to touth her." Elihu also speaks of God's opening the ears of men and sealing their instruction, "That he may withdraw man from his purpose, and hide pride from man." Whether this means an external restraint, throwing obstacles in the way of one's executing the purposes he has formed, or a turning of the mind from one object to another; yet, in either case, it is not opposed to the doctrine, which represents all voluntary exercises as caused by a divine influence. If Abimelech had resolved upon an improper conduct towards Abraham's wife, and God interposed, by means of external occurrences, to hinder his fulfilling his intentions; this can be no proof, that Abimelech's heart was not turned by the hand of the Lord whithersoever he would. But if God restrained him by putting other things into his heart, this, instead of proving that his volitions were not implanted by the divine hand, would directly imply that they were. And if he was influenced, by a divine unseen hand, to put off a guilty amour, he might, by the same hand, have been influenced first to determine upon it.

There is no absurdity in this supposition, any more than there is in supposing, that he who made the fowls of heaven, formed the crook. ed serpent also. If God rest rains a man from shedding the blood of his neighbour, this does not imply that the object of it is to fill him with that brotherly love, which is essen

D D

Because a man some

tial to a good heart. times exercises murderous intentions against his comrade, and at others thinks only of picking his pocket, it no more follows, that such exercises cannot all be the effect of divine power, than that briers and thorns, and all other noxious vegetables cannot, because some are more or less injurious than others. On the whole, the doctrine of the universal moral, as well as natural,dependence of men, may be true, nothwithstanding any supposed inconsistency in it with the word, or providence, of God.

Again; it will be said, if the representation of dependence, which we have given, be just, sinners do actually perform the will of God, even in the most atrocious and of fensive instances of their conduct, and ought, therefore, to be commended, rather than. blamed. This objection, I conclude, will not be persisted in, provided it can be answered by express scripture; provided an instance can be found on sacred record, in which that identical piece of conduct, in which the will, of God is declared to be done, is expressly.. pronounced sinful. What was done by the Chaldeans, in the desolation of Jerusalem, is declared to be the work of God. God expressly declares, that he sent Nebuchadnezzar, whom he denominates his servant, upon this errand. When he was employed in this, service, was he not performing the will of God? How else could he be the Lord's servant? In this it is implied, that he perform

ed service to God. But how can this be true, if, instead of doing the will of God, he had frustrated it, in every particular? But though, as an instrument of divine vengeance upon an hypocritical nation, against which he was sent, he did what the hand and counsel of God before determined to be done, and, in this sense, did his will; yet it does not hence follow, that he was a virtuous character, or that he did his duty, or was intitled to any applause or approbation. On the other hand, it is unequivocally asserted that he incurred guilt in this hostile enterprise a gainst the church. In the 2d of Jer. it is said, "Israel was holiness unto the Lord, and the first fruits of his increase: all that deyour him shall offend; evil shall come upon them, saith the Lord." In agreement with

this text it is said in the 10th of Isa. "Wherefore it shall come to pass, that, when the Lord hath performed his whole work upon mount Zion, and on Jerusalem, I will punish the fruit of the stout heart of the king of Assyria." For the sin, which the Babylonians committed, in fulfilling the purpose and will of God against the land of Judah, they were punished by like judgments from the hand of God, when the spirit of the Medes was stirred up against them, and their land perished by the sword. That, I conclude, will be allowed to be according to the will of God, which his own counsel has determined to be done. But who ever imagined, that Peter meant to justify and commend the people of

In

Israel, together with Pontius Pilate, Herod, and the Gentiles, because they were gathered together to do what the hand and counsel of God determined before to be done? Their guilt was not the less for their being the instruments of providence in fulfilling an eternal decree. As if it had been foreseen, that men would reason according to the tenour of the present objection, and the Assyrian, in this way, be exculpated for vexing and distressing Israel, and to take off the force of the plea, God says, that tho' he himself meant a salutary chastening to his people, by sending a barbarous enemy against them, yet this was not in the heart of the enemy, but only to waste and destroy. like manner Joseph replies to his brethren ; "But as for you, ye thought evil against me; but God meant it unto good." To obviate the present objection, a distinction has been made between the preceptive and decretive will of God, against which some object, tho', I think, without proving it to be unfounded. All, I take it, will allow, that it is correct to say, that no event, which God decrees, is contrary to his will, or that it is his will it should not take place: but many things are decreed which are not commanded. instance, it was decreed, as we have seen, that Pilate, Herod, and others should conspire against the Son of God, to put him to death; but this was never commanded. How much soever we may do in fulfilling the pur poses of Heaven; yet if, in this, our mean

For