enants," translated from the latin by W. Crookshank, D. D. vol. i, b. 1, chap. 8, sec. 28, p. 183, he says "To make God the author of sin is such dreadful blasphemy, that the thought cannot without horror be entertained by any Christian."-"God neither is, nor in any respect can be the author of sin." After attempting to remove a difficulty that might seem to arise from the purposes and universal agency of God, he concedes that it is impossible for man in his present state of blindness to do it; and adds, "This is not the alone, nor single difficulty, whose solution the sober divine will ever reserve for the world to come."

Is this the way to treat authors, to cite them as defending what they view with horror and reject as blasphemy?

In Dr. Witsius's philosophical remarks, Mr. Weeks finds an advocate for his own theory. But would not this able divine, have rejected his own philosophy as utterly fallacious, if he had foreseen he should one day be quoted to recommend, what to him was evidently blasphemy? This may fairly be presumed from the strong terms in which he spurns at the doctrine, which he is arraigned to defend.

But what shall we say of the many and very respectable authorities Mr. W. has introduced to establish the reputation of Witsius as an eminent theological writer?

If Witsius never believed, nor wrote a syllable to defend the novel conception of Mr. W. concerning the divine agency in the production of moral evil, and if the distinguished names he has adduced never understood him to do so, I do not see how all this helps his cause. His readers however are liable to be misguided. It will not be unnatural for them to think, that Mr. Hervey, Dr. Livingston, &c. &c. were fully in sentiment with Mr. W. on the point under discussion. It would have been no offence to honor and integrity, had a note been inserted to let the reader know, that as to this particular notion

of divine agency, that few or none of these great names were on the side of Mr. W.

President Edwards. It will not be pretended, that this great and excellent man did not most thoroughly understand the Doctrines of the reformers and of Calvinistic divines in general, in regard to the decrees and efficiency of God, as they respect the existence of moral evil.-But this writer in his treatise on original sin, denies, not only for himself, but in behalf of other divines who hold the same doctrine, that they believe in a positive divine agency in the production of moral evil in any case. See part 4. ch. 2.

Dr. Taylor had insisted, that the doctrine of native corruption, made him, who is the author of our nature, the author of our sinfulness. "But with respect to this, Mr. Edwards replies, I would observe in the first place, that this writer, in his handling this grand objection, supposes something to belong to the doctrine objected against, as maintained by the divines, whom he is opposing, which does not belong to it, nor does follow from it, as particularly he supposes the doctrine of original sin to imply that nature must be corrupted, by some positive influence," &c.

In his treatise on the Will, to which he in this chapter refers, he has clearly stated how far he supposes a divine efficiency is concerned in the production of moral evil. And farther than this the Church of God did never go, till this new theory was introduced into New England.

"If by the author of sin, is meant the permitter, or not a hinderer of sin; and at the same time a disposer of the state of events, in such a manner, for wise and holy and most excellent ends and purposes, that sin, if it be permitted, or not hindered, will most certainly and infallibly follow. I say, if this be all that is meant by being the author of sin, I do not deny that God is the author of it." "There is a great difference between God's being concerned thus by his permission; or between his being the orderer of

its certain existence, by not hindering it, under certain circumstances, and his being the proper actor or author of it, by a positive agency or efficiency."And as in ages past, so the views of the Christian world continue to be the same on this subject to the present day, if we except those, who have adopted a different theory on this side of the Atlantic.

But

Dr. Thomas Scott, in his Family Bible, a work highly esteemed by the Christian public, in his notes on Exod. iv, 21, hath these words.-"Harden. God never communicates hardness, or wickedness to the heart of man by a positive act. For he cannot be tempted of evil; neither tempteth he any man. when provoked by atrocious crimes, he gives up a man to his own heart's lusts; he permits Satan to deceive, entice, and blind him; and he takes off his providential restraints, by which many are kept from wickedness, because they have not opportunity or power to commit it, or dare not through fear or When a man is thus left, commands, warnings, judgments, deliverances, every truth in Scripture, and every dispensation in Providence, prove the occasion of increasing obstinacy and insensibility, pride and presumption."

shame.

In the Christian Observer, a work published in England, and celebrated on both sides of the Atlantic for its piety, learning, candor and excellent Spirit, the doctrine of ascribing the wickedness of the heart of men, to a positive divine influence is considered as going an awful length.-See vol. 16, p. 395.-"This suspicion will be heightened, if we push each train of reasoning to its utmost limits. For as Mr. Faber proves, we may even go on the one side to the awful length of concluding, that God is effectively the author of sin, and that virtue and vice are mere names," &c.

To this section we may subjoin a few remarks.

1. The consent of all great and good men in all ages of the Church, that God does not by a positive efficiency, move the hearts of men to sin, is a strong

presumption, that this is not the doctrine of the Bible, and that there is something in this sacred volume that cannot be easily reconciled to this idea. And what is this but such solemn declarations of the Holy Ghost as these, "Let no man when he is tempted, say, I am tempted of God," &c. "All that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father." "This wisdom cometh not from above, but is earthly, sensual, devilish."

2. The failure of the attempts of Divines in past ages, to account for the introduction of moral evil upon philosophical principles, does by no means prove the truth of this new theory. The speculations of Calvin, President Edwards and others, on this subject, it will not be pretended, ought to satisfy the philosopher. But it is believed, that the Christian ought to be satisfied with such light as the Scriptures impart, and not to attempt to explain on principles of mere abstract reasoning, what is not revealed and is above our comprehension. Here the reasonings of men may do much hurt; good they never do.

3. As in all past ages, the Church of God has understood these texts, which speak of God's hardening the heart and blinding the minds of sinners, &c. as relating to his providential disposal of events, so it is in an high degree certain that this will be the doctrine of the Church in general in all future ages.As to the pious and godly, who are not seduced by attachment to some favorite philosophical theory, they will always find enough in their Bible to keep them right in this point. And as to such as make no pretensions to vital godliness, and even deists, they, in general, are kept aloof from this mistake by a kind of natural horror, at the idea of God's working di rectly on their hearts, and moving them to all the crimes they commit.

Mon. Denon, in his account of Buonaparte's expedition in Egypt, relates the following anecdote.An Arab boy about fourteen years of age, was detected in theft in the French camp, and brought im.

mediately to General Desaix for trial. "Who excited you to this criminal deed," says the General. The instant reply of the lad, was, "God moved me to do it?" The general for a moment seemed to be struck dumb, with a kind of pity and horror; but presently exclaims, "Wretch! let him go," as if one, who could utter such a sentiment, was too ignorant or infatuated to be made an object of criminal justice. I do not offer this as an argument,but as an instance of the fact, that there generally is, even in wicked men, something that is shocked at the idea, that the one true God does move men, by a direct operation on the heart, to sin, and that this will operate to prevent their falling into the mistake.