SECTION VIIL

Containing remarks upon the sixth section of the Essay. p. 15-68.

Here, again, Mr. A quotes three texts, which he says, "positively declare, that moral evil does not come from God."

"For all

The first text is James i. 13, 14, which was particularly considered in the last section. The second text is I. John ii. 16. 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, but is of the world." Mr. A. is extremely confident, that the apostle's meaning, in this place, is, "It is not the Father, who worketh in you the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life." He is so sure that he understands the passage, that he would as soon believe John was an infidel, when he penned these words, as that he was a believer in the doctrine of divine agency. While we would express no doubt of Mr. A.'s sincerity, we must be permitted to entertain some doubt of his correctness. He says, "that in these words, the whole body of sin, every corrupt affection, every sinful desire and practice is comprehended." Now, this is more easily said, than proved. It seems not unreasonable to suppose, that by the terms, the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes and the pride of life, the apostle means, not sinful desires and affections of the heart, but

those things which are suited to be the objects of such desires and affections. This appears quite evident from the preceding verse, with which this is intimately connected, v. 15. "Love not the world, neither the things that are in the world. If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him." Here is an exhortation, "Love not the world, neither the things that are in the world." This exhortation is en

forced by a weighty truth.

"If any man love

the world, the love of the Father is not in him."

But, why is the love of the

world and of the

things in it, inconsistent with loving God? The

answer is in the text: world, the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world." The argument of the apostle appears to be this: "The things that are in the world, and that are suited to be the objects of criminal desires and passions, are not of the Father; they are created objects, of a nature totally different from God and infinitely beneath Him; they are not fitted to be the objects of supreme love; and to love them so, is idolatry, and utterly inconsistent with true love to God.' See Dr. Guise on the place.

"For all that is in the

flesh, and the lust of the

But, if it should still be thought, that, by the lust of the fle h, &c sinful desires and affections themselves, and not the objects of them are intended, the passage presents no difficulty. Such sinful desires and affections are not of the Father, but of the world; i. e. they are not after God not conformed to Him, not like the holy feelings of his heart, but are after the world, or

conformed to the spirit of the world, which is enmity against God. It is now left for the candid reader to judge, whether this text does not require, or, to say the least admit, an exposition entirely consistent with those numerous passages which so plainly teach the universal agency of God: If this passage were any thing to Mr. A.'s purpose, it would prove more than we should think he could consistently believe; it would prove that the world is the efficient cause of "the whole body of sin, of every corrupt affection, of every sinful desire and prac tice;" and thus, that powerful agency," which Mr. A. in his eighth section, ascribes to the Devil, would be entirely excluded.

6.

The third and last of the passages, which our author quotes, as 'positively declaring, that moral evil does not come from God,' is, I. Cor. xiv. 33. · For God is not the author of confusion." It is very doubtful whether by confu sion, in this place, any thing morally evil is meant. The apostle is correcting an irregular mode of speaking, into which the preachers in the Corinthian church had failen, inadvertently, perhaps, and innocently, that of speaking several at a time. This he calls confus on; but he does not say that God is not the author of it. The word author is not found in the original, but was inserted by the translators. And, we have no less right, and much more reason, to insert the word approver, or commander, or lover, than they had to insert the word author.

Mr. A. closes the section under review, with a singular observation: "And wherein lies so

great a distinction between author and efficient cause, I have yet to learn." Has he still to learn, that the word author is often understood to mean the same as doer, or actor? And when it is thus understood, can he not perceive, that its meaning is essentially different from that of efficient cause?

SECTION IX.

Containing remarks upon the seventh section of the Essay, p. 69-81, in which an attempt is made to show, that "the language of scripture, in which all holiness in saints, is ascribed to the agency of the Holy Spirit, necessarily excludes the idea of a direct inward divine efficiency, in the production of sinful exercises."

This argument, Mr. A. says, seems to be perfectly decisive of the question." We admit, that it not only seems to be, but must be decisive; if it be founded in truth and fact. But, of this we are not yet convinced. Mr. A. proposes to present his argument in "four particulars.' Let us consider each of these in their order.

1. The first particular is a "Contrast." Great things have been done by contrasts. We remember Mr. Ely's Contrast; in which it is made to appear, with the greatest facility imaginable, that Hopkinsianism is anti-calvinistick, and near akin to Sabelianism, Arminianism, and Universalism. It is no difficult thing to construct seeming contrasts, by putting scraps of passages together, according to their sound, without regarding their connexion and sense; and thus to frame arguments seemingly conclusive. Such is the contrast before us. Here are twenty passages, or parts of passages, placed in opposite columns, over against each