A. But "God, at first, made all rational beings perfect in holiness, and perfect in happiness; which, with me, is a satisfactory evidence, that such a state was most for his glory and their happiness." (p. 24.)

B. All the evidences you can have merely from this fact, must depend upon the truth of this proposition, viz. that "God always does what is most for his own glory and the good of the creation." And if this proposition is true, it will equally prove both, that it was best God should "create all rational beings perfect in holinesss," as he did at first; and that he should permit some of them to fall, as he did afterwards. I believe the proposition to be true and I believe both the consequences, which equally follow. You believe the proposition to be true, when you think it will serve your turn but at another time say, "I do doubt whether God in fact does what is most for his own glory."

per

As God intended before the foundation of the world to permit sin, for holy and wise ends, it was of the utmost importance, that he should do it under such circumstances, that the whole intellectual system might see and know that he did not do it, as looking upon sin as being good in itself, or as tending to good: yea, under such circumstances, that his mission of it might not, in the eyes of finite intelligences, lessén, but rather infinitely increase the horrors of it. Therefore, he not only created all holy, at first, but also "forbid sin under the severest penalties;" yea, actually executed the infinitely dreadful penalty on the sinning angels, who were the first transgressors, without mercy. And while he exercised mercy towards fallen man, he did it in such a way, as will finally, and on the whole, show his hatred of sin, as much; nay, more, than if he had treated them as he did the fallen angels. But while the whole tenour of his conduct. thus joins to set his hatred of sin in a most striking light, his actual permission of it, at the same time equally proves, that he did not think it best, to prevent it by his own immediate

instance, it overthrows this author's scheme, which supposes such a thing absolutely inconsistent with the divine perfections. (p. 8. 17, &c.) And that it makes God the author of sin. (p. 16.) And gives the greatest encouragement to all wickedness. (p. 28, 29.)

interposition. Which demonstrates, that he saw a better way than that to advance his own glory and the good of the system. In what respects his present method is better than that, I have endeavoured to show in my sermons. (p. 113. &c.) But while you take for granted, that God could not wisely permit sin, unless he looked upon sin, as in itself good; you run yourself into the utmost confusion; and even necessitate yourself to believe, either that God thinks sin a good thing, or that God did not act wisely, " did not do what was most for his own glory," in permitting it. (p. 13. 16, 17.)

A. "Best to stand, and best to fall, best to obey, and best to rebel; sound at least like contradictions." (p. 20.)

B. Many propositions may "sound like contradictions," which are perfectly consistent. For the same thing may be best, and not best, in different respects. As to the crucifixion of Christ, for instance, it may be said, it was best to be, and best not to be. For the death of Christ, considering the good to be brought out of it, was a most glorious event. But the death of Christ, considered as a murder committed by the spiteful Jews, was a very horrid crime. So it was best that Joseph should be sold, considered as one step towards that advancement, which God designed; but it was not best, considered as an effectual means to prevent his advancement, as his brethren intended it. So, it might be best that Adam should fall, if in the eyes of the OMNISCIENT GOD, the only proper Judge, his fall would give opportunity for infinite wisdom to bring more glory to God and good to the system, than otherwise could be: but it was not best, merely as an act of opeu rebellion against the Maker and Lord of all things; subjecting all this lower world to ruin.

A. But the Holy Scriptures assure us, God is so far from thinking is best that sin should be, that rather it grieves him to the heart. Gen. vi. 6. And it repented the Lord that he made man upon the earth, and it grieved him at the heart, viz. because they had become so exceeding wicked. Wherefore the Lord destroyed the earth by a flood. (p. 19. 25.)

B. That sin, in itself, is infinitely disagreeable to the divine nature, is granted. That it was nevertheless best, that sin should be, with a view to the good to be brought out of it by

God; and that therefore, God acted agreeably to all his perfections in the permission of it, is still affirmed. Nor do these words, considered with their context, militate against, but rather greatly confirm this truth.

For the true sense of those words is plainly this, viz. that the sinful state of mankind before the flood was in itself infinitely disagreeable to God, who is an infinitely holy and benevolent Being; and viewed therefore merely in itself, had the greatest tendency, in fact, to grieve and distress the HOLY ONE; and make him sincerely repent that ever he made the world. And therefore, were things always to be so, and no good ever to come of it, he never would have made the world; nor would he have continued it in being when made, to grieve his heart, and wear out his life with continual sorrow; infinitely vexed and grieved, crossed and disappointed, in continued series of wickedness, from the beginning to the end of the world. Therefore, as these words, in the strongest manner, express the infinite holiness and goodness of the divine nature; so they are quite favourable to the present truth. For,

.

If God does really look upon sin in this light, why did he ever make the world, as he knew how things would issue? Or, why did not he destroy all mankind at the general deluge, as he knew what they were, and how they would prove afterwards? (their imaginations evil from their youth. Gen. viii. 21.) and make a new world, and people it with a better race? Which he might have done with infinite ease. The plain and only answer which we can possibly give to these questions, is, that although sin was so infinitely disagreeable to the divine nature, considered in itself; yet, on the whole, he chose the present plan, with a view to the infinitely greater good he knew he could, and would bring out of all this evil. And so all this evil, in the issue, be but like the drops of rain, in which the rainbow is formed, when the sun breaks forth in his strength, (an emblem of the sun of righteousness,) and as the blackness. of a cloud after a storm, which does but add beauty and brightness to the rain-bow; which the Most High appointed as a token of his covenant, and which, perhaps as an hieroglyphic, was designed to suggest the true reason of God's continuing

the world in being. Therefore, when Noah after the flood offered sacrifice, a type of the great sacrifice of Christ; that seed of the woman, which was by heaven's high decree, to bruise the serpent's head, and by superior wisdom turn all his mischief to greater good, the only way to crush the head and for ever perfectly subdue that old serpent, which is the devil. I say, therefore, when Noah, according to divine institution, offered sacrifice, and brought into view the great Messiah, and all his glorious work, God was well pleased; good will come out of evil. And the LORD smelled a sweet savour; (in the Hebrew, a savour of rest. God's heart was now well pleased,) and the LORD said in his heart, (as being perfectly pleased with his perfect plan, upon the whole,) I will not again curse the ground any more for man's sake; although the imagination of man's heart is evil from his youth. Gen. viii. 21. As if he had said, "I know mankind will be as bad as ever. However, I will destroy them no more; but continue summer and winter, seed-time and harvest, for the benefit of the human race; because the seed of the woman will, in the issue, bruise the serpent's head, disappoint his whole scheme, and bring greater good out of all this evil.”

But to return to the sense you put on the text. It repented the Lord that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at the heart. But, dear sir, why repent and be grieved at the heart, that he made man; and yet after all continue this race in being! and so practically prefer the present plan before any other when, of all possible plans, he still had his choice; and the very best, by one word's speaking, you think, might with infinite ease have been, by him, brought into existence; and so, he be perfectly pleased for ever! Or, when all mankind, but eight, were destroyed by the flood, it had been an easy thing to have destroyed them; and so made thorough work and to have created another Adam and Eve, and effectually prevented their fall; and so have had all things perfectly to his mind. To be grieved with, and repent of his old plan, considered on the whole, and yet to go on with it at the same time, when, of all possible plans, he still had his choice, even at the flood, is perfectly inconsistent. Your sense of the words therefore, sir, cannot be right and unless

you will make the HOLY ONE of Israel inconsistent with himself, you must come into the sense which I have given.

But we have had enough, quite enough, of this kind of objections. I wish you would urge something more directly to the purpose. Pray, prove, if you can, either that God has not in fact permitted sin; or, that he is not an absolutely perfect being for if both these are true, a thousand objections cannot overthrow the doctrine of the wisdom of God in the permission of sin. Rather, you will be found fighting against God; which, as you own, is an "extremely dangerous" thing. A. I do not choose to say that, in fact, God has not permitted sin but this, I am bold to say, that there is not "one single scripture-text," which teaches, that God ever permitted sin, in one single instance, with a view to the good that he intended to bring out of it. (p. 3.)

:

B. Well, this is to the purpose indeed, were it true. But it is strange that a man, with his Bible in his hands, and his eyes in his head, should ever say so. Ye thought evil against me, says Joseph to his brethren. "Your design in what was done, was an evil design. But God's design, in what was done, was a good design. God meant it unto good." Which, it is plain, refers not to God's after-act, but to his original intention. God meant it, i. e. God meant I should be sold. He meant it as much as you did. Your scheme was to prevent my advancement. But God meant it unto good; i. e. “God intended that event should come to pass, to answer the good ends he had in view.' What can be plainer?

But if you want another instance, you may have it in Pharaoh. Where the expressions used are much stronger than such as I have been wont to use, (as indeed scripture expressions relative to this subject generally are,) and evidently take in some ideas over and above a mere permission, as I have explained that word. For God not only left Pharaoh to the hardness of his own heart, but ordered external circumstances so as, considering Pharaoh's temper, God knew would infallibly strengthen his obstinacy. Particularly, in suffering the magicians to imitate several of the miracles of Moses, and from time to time removing the plagues, and so giving opportunity for Pharaoh to regain his courage,