and renew his opposition, &c. And God plainly intended by all, that things should be carried to such an extremity as they were, that he might the better answer his own holy, wise, and glorious ends. Yea, God expressly declares, that this was his design. Exod. xiv. 1, 2, 3, 4. And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying, speak unto the children of Israel, that they turn and encamp before Pi-hahiroth, between Migdol and the sea, over against Baal-Zephon: before it shall ye encamp by the For Pharaoh will say of the children of Israel, they are entangled in the land, the wilderness hath shut them in. And I will harden Pharaoh's heart that he shall follow after them, and I will be honoured upon Pharaoh, and upon all his host; that the Egyptians may know that I am the Lord.

sea.

When God first sent Moses into Egypt to Pharaoh, he told him before-hand, I am sure that the king of Egypt will not let you go, no, not by a mighty hand. And I will stretch out my hand and smite Egypt with all my wonders, which I will do in the midst thereof: and after that he will let you go. Exod. iii. 19, 20. And the whole scheme is opened in Chap. x. 1, 2. Where nothing can be plainer than that God had holy and wise ends in view in all he did. I have, says the Holy One of Israel, hardened his heart, and the heart of his servants, but for what end? that I might shew these my signs before him but to what purpose? and that thou mayest tell in the ears of thy son, and of thy son's son, what things I have wrought in Egypt, and my signs which I have done amongst them. And all for what? THAT YE MAY KNOW THAT I AM THE LORD -Compared with chap. ix. 16. And in very deed, says God himself, for this cause have I raised thee up, for to show in thee my power; and that my name may be declared throughout all the earth. But as it is of importance to know in what light the holy Scriptures set this subject, pray read and compare Gen. xv. 12-16. and xlv. 5-8. and 1. 20. Ex. iii. 18-20. and iv. 21. and vii. 3, 4, 5. 18. and ix. 12. 16. and x. 1, 2. 20. 27. and xi. 9, 10. and xiv. 1, 2, 3, 4. 8. 17, 18. Deut. ii. 30. Josh. xi. 20. 2 Sam. xii. 11, 12. and xvi. 10, 11. 21, 22. 1 Kings xi. 9, 14. 23. 26-39. and xii. 15. and xxii. 192 Kings 24. 20. 2 Chr. 10. 15. and xxv. 20. and xxxii. 31. Job i. 6-12. 21, 22. and ii. 1-6. 10. Psal. cv. 17.

23.

25.

Is. x. 5-15. Jer. xxv. 9. and xxvii. 1–7. and li. 20

Luke xxii. 21, 22. and xxiv. 25

Aets ii. 23. and iii. 18. and iv.

25. Matt. xxvi. 53, 54. 27. John xix. 24. 33-97. 24-28. Rom. ix. 18. 22, 23. and xi. 7-11. 1 Cor xi. 19.

Pray, read these " scripme, whether the doctrine

2 Thes. ii. 11, 12. Rev. xvii. 17. turé-texts," my friend, and then tell of God's permitting sin for wise, and holy, and good ends, be from heaven or of men.

A. As to the affair of Joseph, which you so much insist upon, I grant, it was by infinite wisdom over-ruled for good. But, however, it is not at all "to your purpose." (p. 6.)

B. But, sir, perhaps others will think it much to the purpose. For, if God has, in only one instance, permitted sin for wise and holy ends, it is at least possible, that he may have done so in all instances. And if he always acts like himself, no doubt this is, in fact, the very case.

Besides, if God did permit sin in the affair of Joseph, for wise and good ends, all your ten objections in p. 16, 17, 18, 19. are answered all at once; and indeed the substance of your book. Unless you will adopt the very absurdities you pretend to abhor, and maintain for truth, " that God was the author of that sin, and loved it; and that Joseph's brethren acted like the greatest saints in that affair; had no cause to mourn for their sin, nor their father to lament his want of success in the education of his children, or to be at all grieved for their wickedness. Yea, that their sin was no sin, but rather a virtue. And if Jacob or Joseph approved and admired the wisdom of God in that affair, it must argue, that they had very unworthy conceptions of God, to think he could not bring about his good designs without suffering so much evil; and had they been consistent with themselves, they must have turned infidels; or at least have discarded all those texts of Scripture which represent God as hating sin, being grieved with it, and angry because of it." If in fact God did permit Joseph to be sold, meaning it unto good; if this was God's scheme, in such a sense as that Joseph might justly say, GOD sent me hither; then may you do well to re-consider your own words, with application to yourself; " If the present scheme be God's, it would be extremely dangerous opposing it; and

A VINDICATION OF

at the hotest vanity, arrogance, and impiety." It is plain * 24" very viewed, and considered that whole affair as 4, as much as I do, and uses as strong expres

evos, as I bave any where done.

miu de impartial.

Only read Gen. xlv. 5—8.

A. Bat it is not parallel in one material circumstance. Mar, the case is wholly different, and therefore quite foreign the purpose. For all concerned in the conduct and consequences of that affair, were in a state of sin; and therefore deserved all the chastisements they received. They had all Blemishes in their characters, which may easily account for their sufferings." (p. 6, 7.)

ever

B. True, "They deserved their sufferings." Nor did God inflict pain, no, not the least degree of it, in any one instance, in the whole intellectual system, but in which it was

deserved,

as much as they deserved their sufferings. To be sure, we in this world" are in a state of sin," and deserve our sufferings, and need our chastisements, as much as they did. Nor did God begin to chastise us, until after we had become sinners,

If you should say, "that Joseph's brethren deserved to be chastised for their pride and envy; and that therefore God left them to themselves, to fall into that sin, that he might in the issue humble them, and bring them to a better mind :" this would overthrow your whole scheme. For according to this, God did permit sin for wise and holy ends; the very point that I affirm, and the very point that you deny.

Or, if you should say, " however, as they were sinners, God might justly leave them to sin; but God could not, consistent with justice, leave innocent beings to sin;" this would suppose, that God was obliged, in justice, to keep all innocent beings from falling. And consequently, that God's permitting sin was an act of injustice; and consequently, that God is not a just Being.

Or, if you should only say, that " that they had provoked God to leave them; but innocent beings had not;" it is easy to observe, that according to Scripture-account, God permitted Joseph to be sold, not so much in anger at Joseph or Jacob's family; as out of love to them, for their good. As it is writ

ten, God meant it unto good. God had his own glory and the general good in view, in that affair, just as I suppose he had in suffering our first parents to fall.

Or, if I should grant, "God suffered Joseph's brethren to fall into that sin, out of anger at them, as was doubtless the case with Pharaoh, when God suffered him to pursue Israel into the Red-sea :" yet it is plain that, in both cases, he had his own glory and the general good in view. And so both cases are analogous to his conduct relative to the whole system, for substance. And only granting, what none deny, that it was no injustice to innocent beings, for God to permit them to fall; there is no " material difference," which at all hurts the "parallel," for the "purpose," for which it is used in my Sermons. For this is my argument, as I just now stated it: "If in some instances God permits sin for wise and holy ends, it is possible he may in all. And if he always acts like himself, then, no doubt, in fact, he always does." (See my Serm. p. 94, &c.) An argument you have no way to answer, but by giving up the absolute perfection of the divine nature*.

A. But Joseph needed humbling, and to have his corruptions mortified: holy beings did not need to be humbled, and had no corruptions to mortify. (p. 7, 8, 9.)

.

B. Finite intelligences, holy as they originally were, needed to have their holy biasses further confirmed; as is plain from the apostacy of some of them. And they were capable of vast, and almost infinite improvements in knowledge, humility, holiness, and happiness; and the greater advantages for improvement afforded them, the swifter would be their progress; as was observed in the Sermons against which you object.

"Because God educes many happy consequences from moral evil in this state, therefore, he thought best that moral evil should be, &c.” (p. 6, 7.) is a false principle, this author says, I had laid down. But let the principle be true or false, it is all his own. I never laid it down: nor built any part of my reasoning upon it. My argument is stated above, in brief; and at large in my Sermon, (p. 94, &c.) and is entirely different; and, for aught appears, is absolutely unanswerable, on this side down-right atheism, or, which is the same thing, the denial of the existence of an absolutely perfect being. For, if there is such a being, he cannot but "always act like himself." And then the consequence is plain,

A. But I affirm, there might have been as great advanta ges for all divine improvements, in the intellectual system, if sin and misery had been for ever unknown, as on the present plan. (p. 10, 11.)

B. This, sir, you can never prove. And as the infinitely wise God has chosen the present plan, we ought, in honour to his wisdom, and as we would not give up the moral rectitude of his nature, to believe it to be the best. For, as St. Augustine saith, "unless it were good that there should be evil, it would by no means be permitted by the Almighty God, who is able to hinder the commission of that evil, if he would." (Enchirid. Cap. 95.)

A. But it is " to limit the Holy One of Israel," to say, that he could not manifest and communicate himself to finite intelligences on any other plan, so well as this. (p. 11. 18, 19.)

B. No, sir; but rather, if infinite wisdom has chosen the best, it is the highest arrogance in us to say there might have been a better. It is to set up our wisdom above God's. And to say that God did not mean to choose the best, is gross blasphemy; as has been fully demonstrated.

A. However, for my part, I cannot see any good end, but what might have been as well, nay, infinitely better answered, if sin and misery had been for ever unknown. (p. 9. 12. 19. 25.)

B. That is, you have lived in God's world, perhaps, these forty years, his works before your eyes, his word in your hands; and while the inhabitants of heaven, in the view of the divine conduct, are constantly crying, the whole earth is full of his glory; to you, it is all as dark as Egypt. You see no wisdom in God's present plan. Yea, it appears infinitely to God's dishonour, and to the damage of the system. So that you are even tempted to look upon almost the whole of it, as the "scheme of the devil." And when you see how God permits the devil to practise and prosper, you are ready to doubt, whether the Holy One of Israel so much as means to do that which he knows is most for his own glory.

A. But the hypothesis you go upon is entirely false, viz. that it was worth while, that all the misery which is or ever. will be in the system, should be merely to give holy beings a