the sincere desire of his heart was gratified when he saw the champion fall. But when Saul and his victorious army returned in triumph, and the women came out of the cities to meet the king, singing and dancing, and exclaiming, Saul hath slain his thousands, and David his ten thousands, those elements which compose the demon of envy, were immediately called together, and kindled into a fury of horrid mien.

Let us now look at this whole affair; and let candor judge and decide whether David, by the help of God, in whom he trusted, was not the innocent cause of Saul's deadly envy.-It really seems that the subject is too plain to either need argument, or admit of doubt. But says the hearer; though this must be allowed, the question arises, wherein does the criminality of Saul's envy consist, if it were the effect of that which was innocent and good? The answer is ready-Saul's criminality consisted in his designing evil; and it was this evil design which led him to all the acts of injustice and cruelty which he committed against David and others, on his account. But another question here presents its demands; and it is one too of high consideration in relation to the general subject. Why does not this argument suppose the same criminality in the divine Being, who is allowed to be the cause of this criminal envy, as it attributes to Saul, in whose breast it burned? To this weighty question the answer is also ready. It is because the argument contends that the design which the divine Being had in causing this envy in Saul was a good design. The whole was designed and overruled by our heavenly Father for good, and was wholly dictated by that heavenly wisdom which is full of mercy and good fruits, and which is without partiality. We will here allow the objector to urge what to him may seem to be of weght, that as the argument allows that the divine Being intended and caused all the evil which actually took place, by the agency of Saul, if we

argue that the divine Being is innocent in this case, we should also allow the innocency of Saul. But to this we reply: there is a very plain difference in the moral character which the argument attributes to the Creator and to the creature. All the evil which actually took place was designed by the Creator for the good of all concerned; but in the design of the creature there was not the smallest particle of divine benevolence or good will; and it is the difference in the moral nature of those opposite designs, which constitutes the moral difference in the characters of the Creator and the creature. If it could be seen that Saul, in all his conduct which we have noticed, was actuated by a purely benevolent disposition, designing the whole for the ultimate good of all whom his acts concerned, and seeing at the same time how this good would be brought about by such means, we should see no cause why his entire innocence should not be allowed. But not being able to find this good design in Saul, nor the least shadow of evidence of its existence, we are compelled to ascribe to him the character of cruel, relentless envy.

The hearer is now, unquestionably, prepared to see that it is absolutely necessary to leave out of our creed the doctrine of infinite evil, or unlimited suffering, as it is impossible for such evil or suffering to be overruled for the good of those who endure it. As our argument contends that God is the innocent cause of the sin which men commit, and maintains this hypothesis on the ground that he designs all this sin and its consequent guilt, condemnation and suffering, for the ultimate good of all, we see that the admission of endless suffering would destroy every vestige of this system of reasoning, as it is not possible to conceive how suffering, which will never end, can result in the benefit of the sufferer. Sound reasoning, on this subject, will moreover show, that as the designing of evil, without intending it for good, constitutes the sinful or criminal cause, by allowing that the divine Be

ing ever was the cause of that which he did not design for ultimate good, we charge him with criminality!

:

The instructions of the blessed Saviour will assist us in illustrating the principle that the cause of moral evil may be innocent. The following are his words "Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, nay; but rather division; for from henceforth there shall be five in one house divided, three against two, and two against three. The father shall be divided against the son, and the son against the father; the mother against the daughter, and the daughter against the mother; the mother-in-law against the daughter-in-law, and the daughter-in-law against the mother-in-law; and a man's foes shall be those of his own household." In this passage the Saviour acknowledges that he came to effect divisions in families; to make fathers and sons foes to each other, and to set at variance mothers and daughters. But we cannot suppose that he meant to accuse himself of being the criminal cause of those deadly feuds and family quarrels ; nor can it be allowed, by any who know his spirit and doctrine, and who love the same, that he was the criminal cause of such unhappy divisions. We find the criminal cause of all such wickedness in the superstition and bigotry of the religious people of those times, in which the gospel was planted in our world. The doctrine of Jesus was as pure as the light of heaven; its favour was as free as the descending rain; it fell on the multitude like gentle dew on the grass of the field; the common people heard him gladly, and wondered at the gracious words which he uttered; but the bigoted priests, scribes and pharisees, who had made the law of God void by their traditions, found that the doctrine of Jesus, with all its precepts, would sweep away the whole system of their religion, if it should prevail. They were stung with jealousy, and fired with deadly envy against the blessed Son of God,

as was king Saul against David. Hence proceeded that spirit of hostility against the doctrine and religion of Jesus, which was the criminal cause of those unhappy divisions among the people, and which introduced into families the bane of discord and deadly hate.

Here it is necessary to mark the difference between the innocent and the criminal cause. Divine wisdom saw that all this enmity and opposition to the gospel were necessary for the fulfilment of the declarations of the prophets concerning the Messiah, that all things might be fulfilled that were written concerning him. The same divine wisdom designed all this opposition and persecution, which were carried on with such vehemence, for the purpose of promoting the cause of truth, which in its final effects would overcome and subdue the false religion which caused the scribes and pharisees to oppose it. This foreknowledge of God and his benevolent design, in all this vast concern, show most clearly that he was the innocent cause of the whole. But on the part of the active agents, who opposed and persecuted the gospel and those who promulgated it, we find no benevolent, no gracious design or purpose; but the most heated jealousy and inflamed envy which ever burned in the breast of the wicked. This spirit, and design to oppose and overthrow the truth, prove, as clearly as any thing can be proved, that criminality was found in the enemies of Christ. If on due examination we were able to discover that the chief priests, the scribes and pharisees, together with all who opposed Christ and his doctrine, understood that their exertions were necessary for the promotion of this doctrine, and that they designed it for that purpose, it would prove that they were the friends of Christ and his religion, and would establish their innocency beyond all dispute. But their evil design proves that they were the criminal cause of the miseries which their opposition to the religion of Jesus produced; but the gracious design of our heavenly Father, in

relation to all this enmity, and the acknowledged fact that he overruled the whole for the good of all concerned, prove that he was the innocent cause of all these events.

Another case, recorded in scripture, which presents our general subject in a light most convincing, is that of the envy and enmity of the brethren of Joseph towards him. A careful examination of the circumstances which produced their envy will quickly arrive at an understanding of their innocency. God, in his gracious wisdom inspired Joseph with dreams which he, in all the simplicity and innocency of childhood, related in the family circle. The dreams were easily and quickly understood by his brethren to indicate the future exaltation of Joseph, and the humble dependence of his brethren and their submission to his authority. For these dreams his brethren hated him; and the fire of their envy burned with such vehemence as to overpower the sweet sympathies of kindred affections, and to effect in their minds the murderous design of destroying their brother. If wickedness ever presented dyes of an appalling cast, we find those colours in the deception which those brethren practiced on their venerable father, when they presented him with the bloody coat of his son, of his beloved Joseph. How hard must have been their hearts not to relent when they saw the anguish of their father, and heard his exclamation, "It is my son's coat; an evil beast hath devoured him; Joseph is without doubt rent in pieces,-I will go down into the grave unto my son mourning." Only go one step back of the envy which was kindled in the breasts of those unhappy brethren, and all is peaceful innocency.-God was the innocent cause of this envy by inspiring Joseph with such dreams. Joseph was an innocent cause of the same envy by relating his dreams to the family. This envy was the criminal cause of that conduct which effectually destroyed the felicity of the sacred family circle, drowned the holy patriarch in sorrow's