System of Doctrines Contained in Divine Relation by Samuel Hopkins Chapter 4 Part 3 We ought to attend to this point and think and speak of it with care and caution and in the exercise of fear and reverence of the infinitely great and holy God, lest, under the notion of thinking and speaking for him, to his honor, our thoughts and words should really be against him and tend to his reproach. And this caution and reverential fear ought to possess the minds of those who make the objection under consideration, as well as of those who believe and assert the doctrine against which the objection is made. That is the doctrine of divine relation, system of doctrines. For if indeed God has foreordained whatsoever comes to pass, then all objections against it, however plausible they may appear, are really replying against God, and very dishonorable and displeasing to Him. But if on the other hand the objection be reasonable and well-founded, while they who believe the doctrine of God's decrees do really dishonor and displease Him. We are happy that we have a revelation from God in which this point, as well as every important one, is set in a clear and easy light so that no man can, with this in his hand, run into an error concerning it and be blameless. In the light of reason and this revelation, let the following things be well considered. It is of importance to observe here, and fix it as certain, that when the origin or cause of evil is inquired after, or is ascribed to God, or any other being, the moral evil itself is not meant by the origin or cause of it. The origin or cause of anything is necessarily before the thing which is the effect, and must exist and take place antecedent to the evil, and before the evil can exist. It is therefore certain that there can be no moral evil in the origin or cause of this evil in whatever and wherever it may be found. For to suppose the contrary is a direct and plain contradiction. Moral evil cannot be the origin or cause of moral evil. Any more than any effect can be the cause of itself. or a child to be the cause of his father. We, in considering what is the origin of moral evil, are going back to something which is antecedent to the evil, and where or in which no such evil does or can be supposed to exist, that is, to find the moral or the cause of moral evil. or why it does take place rather than not. We must go back, therefore, till we get to that in which there is no moral evil before we arrive to or can find that which is the origin or cause of it. If we find an existence, object, or exertion in which there is moral evil, we may be sure we have not yet found or arrived to the origin and cause of it, and must yet go a step farther back, even to that in which there is no moral evil, in order to find the origin of this evil. It hence follows that if man or any creature is, in any instance, the origin or cause of sin, meaning by cause, that which is antecedent to the existence of sin, and of which sin is probably the effect, well, that man or creature cannot be the sinful cause of that sin. there is no moral evil in any conceptions, thoughts, or exertions of such a creature which are necessary to take place antecedent to the existence of sin, and in order to it, whatever they may be, or if any be necessary. It is also certain that if God, the first cause of all things, be the origin or cause of moral evil, and this can be proved and may be asserted as a most evident truth, well this is so far from imputing moral evil to him or supposing that there is anything of that nature in him that it necessarily supposes the contrary. and that in being the first cause of moral evil, there is no sin, and therefore that he may be the origin or cause of it, consistently with infinite holiness, and exercise it in whatever exertions or influence may be necessary or implied in being thus the cause of sin. If any should say or imagine that the thought, exertion, or influence which tends to produce sin, and is in fact the cause or origin of it, it must be itself sinful or wrong. This is only to contradict himself, and to say that such exercise or exertion is not the origin of sin, but sin itself. Consequently, as has been observed, we must go farther back to find the origin of this sin till we find something in which there is no sin. And, according to this notion, we must go back without end, and never find the origin of sin, unless sin itself be the origin and cause of all sin, which is a contradiction. It therefore still appears demonstrably certain that if there be any origin or cause of moral evil, which is supposed by all those who inquire after it, there is no moral evil, nothing morally wrong in this cause, wherever it may be found and whatever it may be. Therefore, God in foreordaining whatsoever comes to pass, may be, in this sense, the origin and cause of sin, consistent with infinite holiness, and the contrary cannot be supposed without a contradiction. If it should be said, quote, there is no origin or cause of moral evil except what is in the evil itself, it is the cause of itself, so far as it has any cause. Therefore, the question concerning the origin of sin, meaning something antecedent to it, is groundless and vain, there being no such thing in nature. Moral evil has no cause, in this sense of cause." And upon this it may be observed, number one, if this be admitted, than the objection under consideration against the divine decrees for ordaining all actions and events as making God the origin or cause or author of sin, it falls to the ground and is given up. For, according to this, sin has no cause out of itself or previous to its existence. but this cannot be admitted. For, number two, if moral evil may exist without a cause, there being no thing antecedent to its actual existence, which had any more influence or tendency to the existence of sin than to the contrary, and there was no ground or reason of its existence, or why it should be rather than not be, antecedent to its actually taking place, then there is an end of arguing from any effect whatsoever to a cause. And we have not the least evidence that we ourselves, or anything around us, or the world, have any origin or cause. For if moral evil may exist without a cause, so may everything else which comes under our notice. And we have not the least evidence that there is a God as the cause of the things which we behold, which is not only directly contrary to the assertion of the apostle Paul, but to the reason and common sense of mankind in general. And why should one choose to embrace such an absurdity and assert that sin has no origin or cause, antecedent to its actual existence, and is the cause of itself, rather than to admit that God is the origin of it? Since by admitting this, it is not supposed that there is any moral evil in him. But the contrary is necessarily implied, as has been observed above. It will perhaps be farther said, quote, it is not meant that sin has no cause whatsoever in any sense, but that it has no positive cause. It has a negative cause, and God may be the cause in this sense. That is, he permitted moral evil to take place by determining not to prevent the existence of it. when he had the power to prevent it, had he been pleased to do it." Close quote. Upon this the following remarks may be made. Number one, if God could prevent every sin that is committed and yet has determined to permit all that takes place, which renders the event certain, then his determining to permit it is really decreeing that it shall take place, or foreordaining that it shall come to pass, so that the objection that God's foreordaining sin makes him the cause and author of it is not the least obviated by this supposition or scheme. and it may be worthwhile to consider whether any other supposed difficulty is removed by this. And this leads to observe number two. This does not in the least obviate what has been just observed upon the assertion that sin has no cause. For a negative cause is really no cause. Therefore to say concerning any evidence, it has no cause but a negative one, is really denying that it has any cause. This therefore makes sin to exist without a cause or reason of its existence, rather than of its non-existence. If the world has only a negative cause of its existence, then there is no cause of its existence and no reason can be given why it does exist. Moreover, this notion of a negative cause of moral evil supposes some positive cause by which sin would come into existence, a cause of sufficient force and positive energy to produce this effect. unless the operation of it be counteracted by God by preventing the existence of it by a positive energy, and therefore it has actual existence as an effect of this cause by the determination of God not to hinder it. If an effect will certainly take place upon a mere permission or not preventing it, It is necessarily supposed there is a cause sufficient to produce this effect, if not counteracted. And it must now be asked, well, what is the cause? Well, does it exist in God or in the creature? If in the creature, from whence is the origin of this positive cause? Is its origin in itself or in the creature? or must we go back to the first cause? If either of the former be admitted, then we are again involved in the absurdity of sin being the cause of itself, or of a cause and effect existing independent of the first cause. 3. Even this supposition that God is only the negative cause of moral evil, were it consistent, and did not leave any sin really without any cause, and yet relieves no difficulty respecting the existence of sin. Well, it'll be asked why God suffered sin to exist. In other words, why God allowed sin to exist when he could have prevented it. If we could account for its existence without any reason or cause of it, permitted or suffered to allow, allowed to, suffered means allowed guys and gals, if permitted or allowed to exist, that is if not prevented, well how shall we account for God's allowing it to exist? Well it is presumed all must agree in the following answer. Because he, on the whole, all things considered, saw it best, or chose it should exist rather than not. And if so, he must, he certainly did, choose things to be ordered so as to make its existence absolutely certain, and consequently did order them so, and did everything that was necessary to be done. previous to the existence of sin in order to render the existence of it certain. Indeed, if it be granted that God, on the whole, chose moral evil to exist, which all must grant who allow that he has permitted sin, and that this is a wise and holy choice, well such a choice implies is doing everything that is necessary in order to render this choice effectual, and that God is wise and holy in willing or doing all of this, whatever it may be, and all this is really nothing more than his choice or will that it should exist. As in all that God did in creating the world, so far as we can conceive, was to will its existence. Or say, let it be. There being a certain connection between his willing the existence of anything or event and the actual existence of it. He is in no other sense the origin or cause of anything. And in this sense it is granted by all who allow that he permitted it and that he is the origin of moral evil. While some may perhaps think all which has been now said of the origin or cause of moral evil may be evaded. and prove to be nothing to the purpose by observing that sin is purely a negative thing, that it is so at least in its original and foundation, and therefore has no origin or cause, or at most can have nothing more than a negative one. Well, on this it may be observed that if it be meant that sin is a non-entity and has properly and in truth no existence, and therefore is really nothing. And if this can be proved, then certainly a negative cause, or which is the same, no cause, is quite sufficient in this case, to account for that which is not an effect, and is really nothing. And the inquiry, and all assertions about origin, cause, or effect, are negatory and absurd. But what will any man say? Or can he believe that there is nothing positive in moral evil and that it has no positive existence? Well, if such a one can be found, he must, if he will be consistent, say and believe that there is nothing or that there is no such thing. For not positively to exist is non-existence. And what is this more than nothing? And why is not moral good or holiness a negative or a non-entity also? well reason and divine revelation join to assert it both and they assert both to have a real positive existence. Is there not as real positive existence and exertion in selfishness or self-love as in benevolence or love to God or in enmity against God as in the highest exercise of friendship to Him But it may not be urged that it is indeed granted that sin has something positive in it when it comes to actual exercise and is exerted in opposition to God and man. But is not this consistent with having a negative original or arising from a primitive cause? Well, that is quite the long question. And here is the answer. If there could be sin, where there is not in any sense the least exercise, which it will be difficult if not impossible to prove, still this must be nothing if a mere negative or privation and have no existence. And a privative cause is no cause. But, granting that a negative or primitive is a real cause, and that a negative effect is a reality, yet this does not account for this negative becoming a positive existence of its own accord without any positive cause. If that which is merely negative were any such existence possible, it may start into positive existence without any positive cause. then the whole world might come into existence without any positive exertion or cause. And this supposition therefore does not appear to help the matter in the least or to remove any difficulty. But it may still be asked, is not the true and only origin of sin overlooked in all that has been yet said? Is not the sinner himself the only true and proper cause of his sin as he produces it, and there is no other cause or author of his sinful exertions? Answer. Well, if in this question it be meant that he with whom moral evil is bound is the sinner, and that we must not look beyond him or out of him to find the sin of which he is guilty, but that he is in this sense the origin, cause, and author of all the sin that is found within him, it being his own action which he has exerted voluntarily and without any compulsion, and for which he only is blameable. If this be the meaning, it is granted the sinner is, in this sense, the sole cause and author of all the sin found with him, and we are not to look any farther for it. But still there is a reason why things were so ordered and disposed, as that he should thus sin rather than not. Something must have taken place previous to his sin. and in which the sinner had no hand, with which his sin was so connected, as to render it certain that sin would take place just as it does. This is the origin or cause of sin which the question we are upon respects, and concerning which inquiry is made, and in which it has been observed. There can be no sin, as by the supposition it takes place and is exerted before the existence of moral evil, of which it is the origin or cause, and in order to it. Therefore, if we find that the great first cause of all things is, in this sense, the origin of moral evil, by foreordaining whatsoever comes to pass, This does not suppose any moral evil in him, but the contrary, and is perfectly consistent with his infinite holiness, as has been before observed." Here comes an objection. By the way, the objection, for those who may not understand it or listening to this, he's going through a scenario of talking to somebody, okay? We have questions, answers, objections, and so on and so forth. Here's an objection to what was just said. But after all the above reasoning about the origin of sin, which seems to prove that the first cause of all things is, in a true and important sense, the cause of this evil, he having foreordained that it should take place, and disposed and done everything that was necessary to be done, antecedent to the existence of sin, and in order to it, by which this event was made certain, and that in all this there can be no moral evil, but the contrary, and yet it will appear to the common sense and feelings of men that to will the existence of sin, and to make any exertion or do anything in order to it, and consequence of which it does actually exist, is wrong and sinful, and therefore infinitely unbecoming the supreme and infinitely holy being. And to assert any such thing, or even to suppose God is, in any sense, the origin of sin, is shocking and fraught with impiety. Here's the answer number one. It may be that many under the gospel, by not attending candidly and without prejudice to this subject, and not thinking closely upon it, nor making proper distinctions, and by habituating themselves to a wrong association of ideas on this point, may be shocked at the above representation, and feel as if it carried in it a degree of blasphemy. And yet, this not be any evidence that it is not agreeable to the truth, and consistent with the highest degree of real piety and veneration for the Most High, and even the proper dictate and language of it. The Jews had, by education and otherwise, imbibed such prejudices in favor of their temple and worship and had habitually formed such an association of ideas that they thought and felt that Stephen was guilty of blasphemy when he intimidated or intimated that their place of worship should be destroyed and the customs which Moses delivered to them be changed. And they were shocked and stopped their ears when he told them that he saw the heavens opened and the Son of Man standing on the right hand of God. And when Christ said to the Jewish council, quote, Hereafter ye shall see the Son of Man on the right hand of power and coming in the clouds of heaven, close quote, Well the high priest was so shocked that he tore his clothes and they all cried out blasphemy. The present Jews and those of many generations past have thought it a piece of high impiety to pronounce the Tetragrammaton, as it is called, that is the sacred name of Jehovah, and shudder at the thought of doing it. and are to the last degree shocked to hear it done. This is the effect of a false association of ideas and superstition introduced by the force of education by which it comes to pass that the pronunciation of a name which was spoken freely and with the highest exercise of pious veneration of the deity by the prophets and holy men of old now considered by the Jews as an instance of shocking impiety. I think so too, but you know, hey, who am I? An unprofitable servant. If we look into the Popish world, we shall find innumerable instances of this kind. If a Protestant pay no veneration to the host, and refuse to bow and worship the God of Bread or the Bread and God when it is carried in public procession. The populace will be shocked with the degree of horror, and it will be no wonder if he gets a broken head for his impiety. And if he do not worship and pray to the Virgin Mary and venerate her image, but rather speaks against it as idolatry, Their pious feelings are most sensibly excited, and they abhor the impious wretch, while he considers himself to be following the dictates of true piety in all this and honoring the Most High. Well, from these and many other instances of the same kind, it appears that what is sometimes called the common sense and feelings of men is not to be depended upon in determining what is true or false, especially in those things which respect the deity. And more especially, when the dictates of this sense and feeling are contrary to the most clear dictates of sober, sound reason and to the plain and abundant declarations of divine revelation. For as that which is often highly esteemed among men is an abomination in the sight of So that which is a most important truth in his sight and honorable to him is, in too many instances, an abomination to men. And this leads to answer number two. That God did will the existence of moral evil in determining, at least, to permit it when he could have prevented it, had he been pleased to do it, must be granted by all who would avoid ascribing to him that imperfection, impotence, and subjection to that power, be it what it may, when introduced or which introduced sin, contrary to his will, which is indeed shockingly impious and real blasphemy. to every considerate and rationally pious mind. And we may infer from this with the greatest certainty that it is, all things considered, or in the view of the omniscient God, wisest and best, that moral evil should exist. For to suppose that it was his will that it should take place, or that he has permitted it when he could have prevented it, and yet that it was not wisest at best in his sight that it should exist, is beyond expression impious, and at once strips the deity of all moral good or holiness, and gives him the most odious and horrid character. But, if God did will and choose that sin should exist, this being on the whole most agreeable to His holiness or His infinite wisdom and goodness, this necessarily implies, as has been before observed, all that energy, exertion, and disposal of things that is necessary previous to the existence of sin in order to its actually taking place and without which could not have existed. For there is an infallible connection between the will of God that sin shall exist and the actual existence of it. And this will of God is the cause or reason why it has taken place rather than not. And if it be wise and holy to will and determine the existence of moral evil, it is wise and holy to order and do everything which must be ordered and done, antecedent to its existence, in order to its taking place, be that what it may. And not to order, dispose, and do all that would be contrary to wisdom and holiness. Therefore, to assert that God is, in this sense, and so far the origin and cause of sin, is so far from imputing anything dishonorable to Him, that it is the only way in which his infinite wisdom and holiness can be consistently asserted and maintained. And to assert the contrary is highly impious, and very opposite to the sense and feelings of the pious mind of him who is truly judicious, sensible, and discerning. The sum of what has been said on this point may be expressed in the following words. Moral evil could not exist unless it were the will of God and His choice that it should exist rather than not. And from this it is certain that it is wisest and best in His view that sin should exist. And in thus willing what was wisest and best and for ordaining that it should come to pass, God exercised his wisdom and goodness, and in this view and sense is really the origin and cause of moral evil, as really as he is of the existence of anything which he wills. However inconceivable the mode and manner of the origin and existence of this event may be, and however different from that of any other. And I will make a disclaimer here. You Presbyterians, you Baptists, whoever's gonna sit there and say, to say that God is the cause of sin, and that it's blasphemy, heresy, whatever, You're not paying attention to what Hopkins is saying. I'm going to leave it at that. Roman numeral number two. Divine revelation must be examined carefully to find in what light this point is there represented. Whether it does warrant any to say that God has foreordained the existence of sin. or that he is in any sense the origin and cause of it. This ought to be done with fear and reverence of these sacred oracles, with impartial upright hearts, and a religious concern and desire to think and speak according to this word, since they who do not, quote, have no light in them, close quote. words. In order to obtain the light which is contained in the Holy Scriptures respecting this subject, and believe me it's a difficult one, it's very difficult, it may be of advantage to observe the following particulars. Number one, according to divine revelation God super intends and orders and directs in all the actions of men, and in every instance of sin, so that his hand and agency is to be seen and acknowledged in men's sinful actions, and the events depending on them, as really and as much as in any events and actions whatsoever. Of this, every person must be sensible who has read the Bible with any proper attention and true understanding, as it is held up to view throughout the whole of it, and is suited to impress this idea on the mind of everyone who reads it. All the historic part of the Bible, and the predictions of events, whether great or less, to be accomplished by the wicked agency of man, and of innumerable particular sinful actions of men, are an incontestable evidence of this. So are all the acknowledgements of the divine hand and agency in the events brought to pass by the sinful conduct of men. which are too many to be particularly mentioned here. But the truth of this observation may perhaps be more fully illustrated and set in a stronger point of light by attending to the following passages of Scripture. The very sinful deed of the brethren of Joseph in selling him which was the necessary means of his going into Egypt, is represented as so ordered by God, as to be as really done by him, as if it had not been done by the hands and agency of these wicked men. Joseph says to his brethren that God did it, and that he had a particular and good design in it. God sent me before you to preserve you, a posterity in the earth, and to save your lives by a great deliverance. And so now it was not you that sent me here, but God who meant it unto good." And here's another quote. He sent a man before them, even Joseph, who was sold for a servant." It is said concerning Eli's wicked sons, this is in verse Samuel, that quote, they hearkened not unto the voice of their father because the Lord would slay them. It is here asserted that by God's ordering and direction They disregarded the admonition of their father as necessary in order to his destroying them. When Shimei cursed David, David acknowledges the hand of God in it, as much as if Shimei had done it in obedience to the divine command, or it had been done immediately by God himself. So, let him curse, because the Lord hath said unto him, Curse David. Let him alone, and let him curse, for the Lord hath bidden him." It is impossible David should express himself thus on this occasion unless he viewed Shimei's wicked conduct to be ordered and directed by God. so that his hand was to be seen in it, as in this sense, the origin and cause of what took place. And Absalom and all the men of Israel said, The council of Hushai the Archite is better than the council of Ahithopel. For the LORD hath appointed to defeat the good counsel of Ahithophel, to the intent that the LORD might bring evil upon Absalom." And this good counsel of Ahithophel was defeated by the folly of Absalom and the men of Israel. And yet it is said, God had appointed it to bring about his own purpose. His hand guided the whole affair and superintended every motion of the hearts of those wicked men. Quote, Wherefore, the king hearkened not unto the people, for the cause was from the Lord, that he might perform his saying, which the Lord spake by Ahijah the Shilonite of the Jeroboam the son of Nebat and thus said the Lord return every man to his house for this thing is from me." And here it is said that God so superintended and directed in this affair that he was the cause of that foolish and wicked conduct of Rehoboam and that it was from him as necessary to accomplish an important event which he had determined and foretold. And who can say that God is not in the same sense and as much the origin and cause of every instance of sin that he may accomplish his infinitely wise designs. Another one that you can look for is Micaiah the prophet. prophesying to Ahab in 1st Kings. Another example, well is this not or is not this passage alone a sufficient warrant for this? And if the divine character can be vindicated In what is ascribed to him in this instance, how can it be dishonorable him to say that he so directs and orders with respect to every instance of sin as that he is, in this sense, the origin and cause of it? When the enemies of Judah came to ravage and destroy that people and country, it is said God sent them. and the Lord sent against Jehoiakim bands of the Chaldees and the bands of the Syrians etc. and sent them against Judah to destroy it. Well surely at the commandment of the Lord came upon Judah or surely at the commandment of the Lord came this upon Judah to remove them out of his sight." Well, what can be the meaning of this unless it be that God superintended, ordered, and directed all the motions and conduct of these wicked men, and so made them his instruments to destroy Judah. Quote, Through the anger of the Lord, It came to pass in Jerusalem and Judah until he had cast them out from his presence that Zedekiah rebelled against the king of Babylon." Is it not here declared that God ordered the simple rebellion of Zedekiah against the king of Babylon and that his hand or agency was to be seen and and his anger with the inhabitants of Jerusalem and Judah was expressed in this. But Amaziah would not hear, for it came of God that he might deliver them into the hand of their enemies. And it appears from the story that it was owing to the pride and folly of Amaziah that he did not hearken to the admonition and advice of the king of Israel, and yet this was of the Lord. By his determination, direction, and superintending influence, it came to pass, in order to answer his own wise purposes, and his hand was to be seen in the obstinacy of a Messiah. as rarely as in any event which takes place by the immediate exertion of divine energy. And if this instance of sin was of God, then every instance may be, and most certainly is so. And we are warranted to assert this by the declaration before us as well as many others of the same tenor to be found in holy writ. In the tenth chapter of Isaiah, God, by His prophet, addresses the king of Assyria as the rod of his anger. and the executioner of his indignation against the hypocritical nation of Judah and Israel, and says he would send him to punish them, though he in going and doing the work would have no design or desire to accomplish the ends God intended to answer by his pride and cruelty. And therefore, After he had accomplished his ends by him, he would punish him for that wickedness of which he would be guilty, and which was necessary to fulfill the purposes of God. And while he was as really an instrument in the hand of God, and as much under his influence and direction, and as dependent on him in all his motions, as is the axe or saw in the hand of the workman. There is no need of any comment to show that this passage represents God as ordering, directing, and bounding the sinful actions of wicked men, like Judas, so that they are answering His ends in what they do, like our salvation. and his hand is to be seen and acknowledged in their sinful motions and actions, as really as the hand and exertions of the workman is to be seen in the motion of the axe or the saw by which he executes his designs. In the same manner God speaks of Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon, He says he would send and fetch him and the nations under his command and by him utterly destroy Judah and the neighboring nations and speaks of him as his instrument or weapon in his hands to lay waste and destroy. Quote, Thou art my battle axe and weapon of war. For with thee will I break in pieces the nations, and with thee will I destroy kingdoms, etc." To the same purpose are the following words, quote, Behold, I have created the smith that bloweth the coals in the fire, and that bringeth forth an instrument for his work. and I have created the waster to destroy." This is said to support and comfort the people of God in all their dangers and troubles from evil men, telling them that they had no reason to be afraid of them since they were made by Him to answer His ends. And they were absolutely in his hands, so that they should do nothing but what he ordered, and therefore could do them no real hurt." And before these days there was no hire for man, nor any hire for beast. Neither was there any peace to him that went out or came in because of the affliction. For I set all men, every one, against his neighbor." This warrants us to consider God's hand and efficacious influence in all the hatred quarrels and wars that take place among men. Quote, Wherefore I gave them also statuettes that were not good, and judgments whereby they should not live, and I polluted them in their own gift and that they caused to pass through the fire all that openeth the womb, that I might make them desolate, to the end that they might know that I am the Lord." This has reference to the statutes and judgments which they made for themselves and practiced in their abominable idolatries, etc. And yet God says he gave them this evil, these evil and destructive statutes and judgments. And he polluted them in these abominable sacrifices by which they polluted themselves. And this strongly expresses his superintendency and agency in all this. in order to answer a wise and important end. The crucifixion of our Savior and all the circumstances that attended it are expressly and repeatedly declared to have taken place in consequence of the divine determination and decree for ordaining them, and by his direction and superintending hand. It was so important and useful that this whole affair should have been viewed in this light. That special care was taken to keep it in view. Thinkest thou that I cannot now pray to my father and he shall presently give me more than twelve regions of angels? But how then shall the scriptures be fulfilled that thus it must be? Here's another quote. But all this was done that the scriptures of the prophets might be fulfilled. Here's another one. but behold the hand of him that betrayeth me is with me on the table and truly the son of man goeth as it was determined." Close quote. Here's another one. Him being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken and by wicked hands have crucified and slain. And now, brethren, I know that through ignorance you did it, as did also your rulers. But those things which God before had showed by the mouth of all his prophets, that Christ should suffer, he hath so fulfilled." Now Peter in these passages is careful to observe that the death of Christ was part of the divine plan, which he had in his wise counsel determined, and had particularly foretold by the prophets, and which he had now fulfilled by their wicked hands, as it was necessary to be viewed in this light, in order to understand it, and see the reason and importance of this memorable event, and not consider it is an argument of the weakness and disappointment of the Savior and his followers. Accordingly, the disciples kept this constantly in view and say in a solemn address to God, quote, For, of a truth, against thy holy child Jesus, whom thou hast anointed, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, when the Gentiles and the people of Israel were gathered together, to do whatsoever thy hand and thy counsel determined before to be done." If God had before determined or foreordained that all this should be done with every act of sin which was necessarily implied in its being done, and his irresistible hand and operation was to be seen and regarded in all this, and the church did see and particularly attend to this as matter of support, thankfulness, and joy, and devoutly acknowledged all this in a solemn address to God in order to glorify him, all which must be owned to be true. as long as this passage is allowed to stand in the Bible. Then there can be no impiety in believing and saying that God has foreordained whatsoever comes to pass and with his hand is executing his own wise purposes in his governing providence. ordering and directing all the actions of men, even the most sinful, as well as others, for his own glory and the general good, and that his hand is to be seen in every event and in every action of man, as really as if he was the only agent in the universe, yea, to view things in this light, and to have feelings and exercises answerable is for the glory of God, is suited to support and comfort all his friends, and is implied in true devotion. The System of Doctrines Contained in Divine Relation by Samuel Hopkins Chapter 4 Part 4. Number 2. The Holy Scriptures represent God as, in some way or other, moving, exciting, and stirring men up to do that which is sinful, and which in itself considered, and as done by them, is very displeasing to him. And again the anger of the Lord was kindled against Israel, and he moved David against them, to say, Go number Israel and Judah." This, to which God is said to move David, was a great sin in him and very displeasing to God. And the Lord stirred up an adversary unto Solomon, Hadad the Edomite. And God stirred him up another adversary, Rezon the son of Eliadah. There's another quote. And the God of Israel stirred up the spirit of Pur, king of Assyria, and the spirit of Tilgath Pilneser, and he carried them away, even the Reubenites and Gadites, and brought them unto Halah, etc. Here's another one. Behold, I will stir up the Medes against them, which shall not regard silver, etc. These passages express a divine agency, either immediate or immediate. on the minds of these persons, by which they were influenced and moved to those actions, and God is represented to be the first moving cause of what was done by them. And what he did, be it what it may, was antecedent to their volitions and actions, and the latter the effect of the former. And if their liberty and sin consisted completely in their voluntary exercises, as has been proved, then they were as free and as blamable, as if nothing had been determined and done, antecedent to their determinations and choice, and as necessary to their taking place, whatever it was. and whatever is implied in God's moving them and stirring up their spirits to act as they did, it was only in order to bring to pass His infinitely wise, important, and good purposes, or executing His holy decrees, and therefore was infinitely wise and holy. and directly contrary to the views, inclinations, and designs of these wicked men, and therefore consistent with his abhorring their doings, his displeasure with them, and punishing them for their wickedness. Number three, agreeable to the last particular, The Scriptures represent God as moving the hearts of all men, just as he pleases, and even when they do that which is sinful. Quote, Draw me not away with the wicked and with the workers of iniquity, which speak peace to their neighbors, but mischief is in their hearts. Close quote. Here's another one. From the place of his habitation he looketh upon all the inhabitants of the earth. He fashioneth their hearts alike." That is, he forms the heart of everyone equally, of one as well as another. Here's another quote. He turned their heart to hate his people, to deal subtly with his servants. Here's another one. Incline my heart unto thy testimonies, and not unto covetousness." Here's another one. Incline not my heart to any evil thing, to practice wicked works with men that work iniquity. Here's another one. For God hath put in their hearts to fulfill His will, and to agree and give their kingdom unto the beast until the words of God shall be fulfilled." These are the ten kings and their subjects mentioned in the preceding context who support or who join to support the beast and make war with Christ and his people. God is here said to put in their hearts to do this so far and so long as this is necessary in order to answer His ends and fulfill His infinitely wise and important designs. This cannot import less than that. God has the hearts of these kings. and all under them, so in his hand and under his direction that he turns them as he pleases to accomplish his purposes, so that he makes them answer his ends in all their opposition to him. And agreeable to this it is said, quote, the king's heart is in the hand of the Lord has the rivers of water. He turns it wherever he will." If God does turn the heart of the king, whithersoever he will, then his heart, his will, and choice is always and in every instance under God's direction and control. And there can be no motion, determination, or exertion of his heart, which is not as God wills it to be. Every turn of his heart then is an event which God wills should take place. and therefore foreordained that it should come to pass just as it does. And God, in thus turning the heart, is in this sense the origin and cause of every motion, choice, or volition in which the heart turns this way or that. And if the heart of the king is thus in the hand of the Lord, and he turns it whithersoever or wherever he will, then the hearts of all his subjects, yea, of all men, may be and actually are as much in the hand of God. And this is implied in the assertion under consideration. The heart of the king is mentioned, as he has great power and influence over others, and is most absolute and despotic, and commonly most obstinate and inflexible. Even his heart, as well as the heart of all others, is in the hand of the Lord, completely under his power and influence, and is turned by him just as he pleases. The same thing is asserted in many passages of scripture, some of which have been mentioned, as that of God's representing the king of Syria as sent by him to distress Israel and Judah, and as an axe or saw in his hand directed and moved by him to execute his will. He is speaking of other kings as raised up and sent by him. to be his servants, to do his pleasure, and putting it into their hearts to fulfill his will, etc. Like Cyrus rebuilding the temple. But in these words of Solomon, this is asserted in the most express and strongest manner of the heart of kings and of all men, so that it seems impossible not to understand or to evade the truth here expressed, as no words perhaps can be devised to convey it in a more clear, unequivocal, and decisive manner. All the objections made against God's for ordaining all the moral evil that takes place and His being in this sense and so far, the origin and cause of it, as has been asserted and explained above, do equally lie and are as strong against this passage and many others which have been mentioned under this and former particulars. 4. In divine revelation, an evil spirit which is in men and takes place among them is said to be from God. or to be sent or caused by him." Then God sent an evil spirit between Abimelech and the men of Shechem, and the men of Shechem dealt treacherously with Abimelech. But the spirit of the Lord departed from Saul, and an evil spirit from the Lord troubled him. And it came to pass on the morrow that the evil spirit from God came upon Saul." Close quote. Here's another quote. Now therefore the Lord hath put a lying spirit in the mouth of all these thy prophets. Close quote. That's what I was talking about. Micaiah and Ahab and first Kings. Quote. the Lord hath mingled a perverse spirit in the midst thereof, and they have caused Egypt to err in every work thereof." Whatever be meant by an evil, lying, and perverse spirit Whether it be no more than the evil inclination and exercise of the hearts of men, or an evil agent distinct from their spirits, exciting them to sinful exercises, God is, in these scriptures, represented as superintending and ordering this spirit to take place in men, as it did. And if he did this, and yet maintained his own infinitely holy character, and these men were, notwithstanding, completely free in their evil inclinations and conduct, and accountable and deserving of blame and punishment for them, which was most certainly the case, then all the evil volitions of men may be, in the same sense, manner, and degree, from God. consistent with all these. It is therefore easy to see that all objections against the doctrine under consideration may, with equal reason, be made against such declarations as these, which are found in the Holy Scriptures. Number five, God is said in the Scriptures to order, send, and effect the sinful deceptions and delusions of men." Quote. With him is strength and wisdom. The deceived and the deceiver are his. Close quote. Quote. Oh Lord, Why hast thou made us to err from thy ways? Here's another. And if the prophet be deceived when he hath spoken a thing, I the Lord have deceived that prophet. And for this cause God shall send them strong delusions. that they should believe a lie that they all might be damned who believed not the truth but had pleasure in unrighteousness." You can also throw in Isaiah chapter 6 verses 9 through 11 to those. According to these passages The divine hand and agency are concerned in all the errors and deceptions which take place among men, by which many of them run on to destruction. 6. In the Scriptures, God is many times said to blind the minds and harden the hearts of men. This is often ascribed to him in the most express terms, without saying anything to qualify, soften, or explain the expressions, or to intimate that they are not to be taken in their plain, natural meaning. These will now be produced as worthy of particular attention. And he said, Go and tell this people. Hear ye indeed, but understand not. And see ye indeed, but perceive not. By the way, this is Isaiah chapter 6 verses 9 through 11 I'm reading. Make the heart of this people fat, and make their ears heavy, and shut their eyes. Lest they see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their heart, and convert and be healed." We have this remarkable passage quoted in the Gospel of John in the following words and applied to the Jews in his day. Therefore they could not believe because that Isaiah said, he has blinded their eyes and hardened their hearts. that they should not see with their eyes nor understand with their heart and be converted and I should heal them." Actually that's not the Gospel of John. I think that's 1st John. Hear those words in Isaiah. Make the heart of this people fat and shut their eyes. They have the meaning of them given in the following words. He, that is God, has blinded their eyes and hardened their hearts. And God is here said to do what Isaiah was directed to do. For the prophet was infinitely unequal to produce the effect and could be only the instrument by whom God caused it to take place. And in this view and in no other, the evangelist appears to have given the true sense of the passage while he uses these strong and pointed expressions. Quote, For the Lord hath poured out upon you the spirit of deep sleep and has closed your eyes. They have not known nor understood for he has shut their eyes that they cannot see, and their hearts that they cannot, which by the way means ability, they don't have the ability, they cannot understand. Close quote. There's another quote. Israel has not obtained that which he seeks for, but the election has obtained it. and the rest were blinded, close quote, or hardened as in the original. Here's another quote. According as it is written, God has given them the spirit of slumber, eyes that they should not see and ears that they should not hear unto this day, close quote. Those passages are now to be produced in which hardening the hearts of men is expressly ascribed to God. And this is done more than 10 times in the history of Pharaoh and the Egyptians. Quote, but I will harden his heart that he shall not let the people go. Close quote. Here's another one. And I will harden Pharaoh's heart and multiply my signs and my wonders in the land of Egypt. But Pharaoh shall not hearken unto you." There's another quote. And he hardened Pharaoh's heart that he hearkened not unto them as the Lord had said. There's another one. And the Lord hardened the heart of Pharaoh And he hearkened not unto them, as the Lord had spoken unto Moses, and another. And the Lord said unto Moses, Go in unto Pharaoh, for I have hardened his heart, and the heart of his servants, that I might show these my signs before him, and that you may tell in the ears of your son, and of your son's son, what things I have done in Egypt. and my signs which I have wrought among them, that ye may know how I am the Lord." Here's another one. But the Lord hardened Pharaoh's heart so that he would not let the children of Israel go. And another. But the Lord hardened Pharaoh's heart and he would not let them go. And another. And Moses and Aaron did all these wonders before Pharaoh. And the Lord hardened Pharaoh's heart so that he would not let the children of Israel go out of his land. There's another. And I will harden Pharaoh's heart, that he shall follow after them. And I will be honored upon Pharaoh and upon all his host, that the Egyptians may know that I am the Lord. Another. And the Lord hardened the heart of Pharaoh, king of Egypt, and he pursued after the children of Israel, and another. And I, behold, I will harden the hearts of the Egyptians, and they shall follow them. And I will get me honor upon Pharaoh and upon all his host." There are other passages in which God is said to harden the hearts of men, which are now to be mentioned. But Sihon, king of Heshbon, would not let us pass by him. For the Lord thy God hardened his spirit, and made his heart obstinate, that he might deliver him into thy hands, as appeareth this day. And another, for it was of the Lord to harden their hearts, that they should come against Israel in battle, that he might destroy them utterly. Close quote. And another, O Lord, why hast thou hardened our heart from thy fear? Close quote. It might be safely and with good reason argued from these instances of God's hardening the hearts of men, that God hardens every heart that is hard and obstinate. As no reason can be given why he should do this in one instance and not in another, or there is the same reason why the hardness and obstinacy of men's hearts in general and wherever it takes place should be as really ascribed to God as these instances which are mentioned. And there can be no objection against his hardening the hearts of all men whose hearts are hard. That may not with equal reason be made against his hardening the heart of Pharaoh and others concerning whom it is expressly asserted. But this is made certain as the consequence is drawn to our hand by one under divine inspiration." Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth." Romans chapter 9. The Apostle in these words has reference to God's hardening the heart of Pharaoh when he mentions in the words immediately preceding. And from this instance of God's raising him up and hardening his heart, to answer his own infinitely wise purposes, he makes this inference, quote, Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he harden, close quote. Here, every one of mankind is comprehended in those on whom God has mercy, and those whom he hardeneth. And it is asserted that he hardeneth all those on whom he will not have mercy, that is, all whose hearts are hardened. And it must be further observed, number seven, in the sacred scriptures God has expressly said to form, make, or produce moral evil. Quote, The Lord hath made all things for himself. Yes, even the wicked for the day of evil. Close quote. Which by the way is one of the verses that are used in the sermon audio. Verse lookup thingy. And here God is said to make the wicked, not considered merely as men, but as wicked. For in this character, or as wicked only, they are the proper subjects of natural evil or punishment. What less can His making the wicked mean other than His having some hand or agency in forming their character as wicked? And this is any less or more Or, and is this any less or more than is willing that there should be such existences as wicked men? Because moral and natural evil are necessary, as necessary as any other existence, to answer the infinitely wise and important purposes of God in the brightest display of His perfections. He has made them for Himself to put them to His own use. and by them to manifest his own character, his holiness, hatred of sin, etc. Quote, I am the Lord, and there is none else. There is no God besides me. I girded thee, though thou hast not known me. that they may know from the rising of the sun and from the west that there is none besides me. I am the Lord and there is none else. I form light and create darkness. I make peace and create evil. I the Lord do all these things." Isaiah 45 verse 7. These words are addressed to Cyrus, who was not yet then born, but was to arise in the Eastern world and conquer the Babylonians and to release the Jews from their captivity and order the temple and Jerusalem to be rebuilt. He was born and educated where the God of Israel was not known and where they were taught that the good being who was the author of all good was not the only power that reigned, but that there was an evil being or principle which reigned so far as to counteract the good principle or being, and introduce all the evil, both moral and natural, which takes place, and of which he is the proper cause or author. the good principle or being they represented by light, and worshipped him before the sun or the fire, considering it the brightest emblem of him, and in a peculiar manner possessed or inhabited by him. The evil being, and the evil of which they supposed him to be the cause and author, They represented by and called darkness. There is an evident reference to these false and hurtful notions in which Cyrus was educated in the address to him, part of which has now been cited, in which Jehovah declares them to be great and dangerous delusions and repeatedly asserts that he is the only supreme God. I am the Lord, and there is none else. There is no other God besides me. I am the Lord, and there is none besides me." And then he asserts that he is the cause of all that which they ascribed to the evil being, which they believed in and feared. I form light and create darkness. I make peace and create evil. I, the Lord, do all these things." Does not God, in these words, expressly take to himself this character and assert that he is the origin and cause of all evil? Well if so, then we have no reason to be afraid to thank and speak of him as such. Carol Bob Jr. but may consider ourselves as promoting true piety and the honor of the only true God, while we believe and assert that all evil is the consequence of His determination and will, that it shall exist, and is completely dependent upon it, as without His will that it should take place, It could no more exist than anything else whatsoever. And no one can devise stronger terms or language to express this than that which is here used by God himself. And how this appears to be consistent with the infinite wisdom and holiness of the divine character, and most honorable to God, has been repeatedly shown in what has already been said on this subject. and therefore it need not be again repeated here. But it has been said by many that moral evil is not meant by darkness and evil in this passage, but only natural evil, or calamity and pain, Of this God may be and is the cause, but not of sin. To this the following reply may be made. 1. The opinion to which this passage has reference had respect to moral evil as well as natural. this was chiefly in view, as the former is the origin and occasion of the latter. And the evil being was considered as having the direction and disposal of moral evil, so that it originated from him as the cause. Therefore, if this was designed to be excluded in the passage before us which is spoken to Cyrus, and as reference to that notion in the East, respecting the cause of moral evil as well as natural, it must have been done by an express exception. But without this, and as it now stands, Osiris and everyone else must consider it as included and intended as well as natural evil. Nor can it be now excluded without doing violence to the text, and at the same time really gaining nothing by it. For if it be allowed that moral evil is intended here as well as natural, No more is really asserted than is expressed in many of the passages in the Bible, as everyone may be sensible who will attend to what has been before produced from the Scriptures under this head. 2. If it be granted that natural evil only is directly intended here, and yet this will necessarily involve moral evil. For a great part of the former which takes place among men is the natural and necessary result of the latter. It is affected by the exercise of men's selfishness and lusts. From whence come wars and fighting among you? Come they not hence, even of your lusts, that war is in your members? There's another one. But if you bite and devour one another, take heed that you're not consumed one of another. Therefore, the divine being has no direction and government of the wills and evil conduct of men, He cannot be said to create or produce, or even to regulate and superintend natural evil. If God does not will, direct, and order a war, which is completely carried on by the exercise of men's lusts, how can He be said to direct, will, and order the attendant or consequent natural evil? How does he cause or produce the one more than the other? Well, in this view, we may turn to the words of the prophet Amos. Quote, Shall there be evil in the city, and the Lord hath not done it? Close quote. Here, evil is mentioned without restriction, confining it to natural evil. But it would be supposed that Natural evil is particularly met here, and yet this implies moral evil, as the natural evil, the calamity, sufferings, and distresses which take place in a city, are chiefly the concomitants or fruits of vice and folly. And if the Most High has no concern or hand in directing, ordering, and producing the latter, How can he be said to produce or affect the former? Or how can it be said to be done by him, since it is the necessary attendant and fruit of the sin of men? And it is really done by them, and as they are really the cause of natural evil, as they are of their own sin, as the former is involved in the latter. Number three, it must farther be observed that if natural evil only be meant by evil in the above passages in Isaiah and Amos, and yet there is as great and the same difficulty in accounting for God's creating and doing this as there is in accounting for his determining and willing the existence of moral evil. or the same objections lie and may be urged with as much reason against God's willing, causing and producing natural evil, which are or can be made against his willing that moral evil should exist. Well, if this proposition can be demonstrated and made plain to everyone who will allow himself to think calmly on the subject, than all the objections which have been made against God's foreordaining whatsoever comes to pass, and all that is necessarily implied in this, will fall to the ground. And the ways and labor which have been taken to construe the scriptures mentioned above, so as not to imply that God is in any sense the origin and cause of moral evil, lest they should be understood in a sense dishonorable to him, will appear to be needless and unreasonable. Let this matter then be carefully considered. Natural evil is as really contrary to infinite goodness as moral evil is. While infinite goodness cannot be reconciled to it, considered in and by itself, but is infinitely opposed to it. and to suppose that God wills and causes it to take place for its own sake, and because he delights in it, in itself considered, is as dishonorable to him, and does as much impeach and deny his goodness as to suppose that he wills and causes moral evil for its own sake, and because he is pleased with it and delights in it. yea, to say that God causes natural evil to take place for its own sake, and because he is pleased with it, in itself considered, is to charge him with moral evil, or that which is infinitely contrary to infinite holiness or goodness, as really as to say that he causes moral evil because he's pleased with moral evil as such. And therefore, If when God says in the passage under consideration, quote, I create darkness and evil, I the Lord do all these things, close quote, this is meant to be understood of natural evil only. It cannot mean that God causes this evil for its own sake, for this necessarily supposes him to be an evil being. But he causes it to take place, he creates it, for some good end, and for the sake of the good, of which the evil is the occasion or means, and without which evil the good could not possibly take place, so that on the whole there is much more good or happiness than could have been, had there been no natural evil. If natural evil could answer no good end and were not necessary in order to this, it could not be created or made to take place or be permitted to take place by an infinitely good being who has the disposal of all things. But if it be necessary to answer the best end and to promote and produce the greatest good of the whole, then it may be not only permitted, but created, or caused to take place, consistent with infinite goodness. Yea, it is inconsistent with infinite goodness not to do so. And who does not now see that God may determine, order, and cause moral evil to take place, and in this sense create it consistent with His infinite holiness and goodness, if this be necessary for the greatest good of the whole, both moral and natural. Yea, that God could not be infinitely wise and good if, on this supposition, He did not order and cause it to take place. If the divine conduct can be vindicated in causing natural evil to take place on the same ground, it can be vindicated in causing moral evil to exist, and not one objection can be made against the latter, which may not equally and with as good reason be made against the former. For instance, if it should be objected against the latter, that to make God the origin and cause of sin is to suppose moral evil is in him. For there can be nothing in the effect which is not in the cause, and this may with equal truth and reason be said of natural evil. If God be the origin and cause of it, this supposes natural evil to be in him. and that he is infinitely unhappy and miserable. For there can be nothing in the effect which is not in the cause. Again, if it be objected that if it be agreeable to the will of God that sin should exist, and he chose it, should take place, and is therefore the origin and cause of its existence, then sin is agreeable to his will, and he is pleased with it. It may be, or it may, with as much propriety and as good reason be said, if God wills the existence of natural evil and causes it to take place, then he is pleased with it and delights in the misery of his creatures. Well, consequently, he cannot be a good, but rather a morally evil being. If the objector, to remove the difficulty that is urged upon him, should say that God does not cause natural evil for the sake of evil, but for the sake of the good end that may be answered by it, he may be asked, why this? Which is as true of moral evil does not equally remove the difficulty respecting God's being the cause and origin of that. If it solves the difficulty in one case, it must do so in the other. If God may order and cause natural evil, which in itself is infinitely contrary to His goodness to exist consistently with His goodness, then He may will and cause moral evil to exist, though it be in itself considered infinitely contrary to His holiness and most odious to Him. And no one can account for the former without giving as good a reason for the latter. Is it not very unreasonable and most absurdly inconsistent for men perpetually and with great assurance to object and urge that against the supposition that God wills and chooses the existence of moral evil which may be with as much reason urged against his willing the existence of natural evil while they allow that he does the will or that he does will and cause the latter And at the same time, can I tell how this is consistent with the divine perfections without offering a reason which equally proves the other to be as consistent? It has been said that if it be best, on the whole, that sin should take place as it is necessary to promote the general good then sin is a good thing, and the more sin the better. Now this may be with as much reason said of natural evil. If God ordered that to answer a good end, then it is a good thing, and the more of it the better. The inference from the latter is as well grounded as from the former. In truth, It is in both instances utterly unreasonable. That which is in itself, in its own nature, evil, may, by God, be made the occasion of the greatest good. And this is so far from altering the nature of the evil, or making it less an evil, in a self-considered, that if this should be the case, and it were possible, the end to be answered by it would be defeated, and there would be no evil to be the occasion of good. It is indeed a good thing that evil, both moral and natural, should take place, and the good of which this is the occasion swallows up the evil, and the whole taken together is the most complete, perfectly beautiful, and good system. But this alters not the nature of the evil, and it is still as evil, as contrary to all good, and as disagreeable and hateful, considered in itself, and as unconnected with the whole, as if it were not made the occasion of good, but of evil. But this has been often brought into view before, and it is again introduced to show the unreasonableness of the objection, and that it is as much against the existence of natural evil in order to answer a good end as it is against the existence of moral evil for the same end. The infinitely wise being most perfectly knows how much evil, both natural and moral, and what particular instances of it, are necessary in order to accomplish the greatest possible good. And all this takes place by His decree and will, and no more. The existence of just so much and no more is desirable, as it is necessary to accomplish the best end. but God will not allow any more to exist. The remainder he will effectually restrain. If he did not, and more than necessary is to answer the best ends should take place, it would be infinitely undesirable and evil and inconsistent with the divine perfections. Well how unreasonable then is it to say, quote, if evil be necessary for the good of the whole, and thus answers a good end, then the more evil the better." It has been further objected that if God wills the existence of sin, and it is therefore agreeable to his will that it should take place in every instance, when and wherever it does, then the sinner does not resist his will in sinning, and nor can be blamable for it, but rather ought to sin that good may come. Now let it now be carefully and with impartiality considered whether this objection may not with just as good reason be urged against God's willing and causing all the natural evil which takes place. If anyone by his sin caused natural evil to take place by oppressing and afflicting the widow and fatherless, or by murdering his neighbor, or in any other instance, he voluntarily does that which is agreeable to the will of God that it should take place, He has not resisted the will of God, but has complied with his will and designs. Therefore he cannot be blamed for it, but rather ought to do all this, since without his agency this natural evil would not take place, which God has determined should be done, because necessary to effect the greatest good and accomplish his own wise design. In short, If God be pleased with the existence of that natural evil which is affected by the oppressor, murderer, etc., then he cannot blame or be displeased with the oppressor or murderer for being also pleased with the existence of this evil and exerting themselves to produce it. Is there any way to answer this objection and remove the difficulty unless it be in the words of Joseph to his brethren, quote, As for you, you thought evil against me, but God meant it unto good." There was a direct and total opposition and contrariety between the will of God that this evil should take place. and the will and design of Joseph's brothers in desiring and effecting this natural evil, consisting in his being made a slave in Egypt. God ordered it and took measures effectually to produce the evil, not from any pleasure in the evil itself, but in the exercise of his infinite goodness, because it was necessary to accomplish the greatest good of which this evil was the occasion. He meant it unto good." But the brothers of Joseph thought and designed evil against him. They did it in the exercise of malevolence or ill will towards him, which was most unreasonable and was in the nature of it enmity against that good for the sake of which God ordered this evil to take place. and therefore was directly opposed to that benevolent will of God which determined and ordered this evil. Their disposition and will in this affair were just as opposite to the disposition and will of God in determining and willing the existence of this evil, as malevolence is to benevolence and goodness, or as evil is to good. and therefore must be displeasing and hateful to God. And they as blamable in his sight as if he had brought no good out of it and nothing but evil had taken place. As this is the only solution of the difficulty and removes the objection respecting God's willing and causing natural evil, it is easy for everyone who attends to see that it equally answers the objection against His willing and causing moral evil, and shows how the existence of both may be chosen and caused by God, not for their own sake, but for the sake of the good end answered by them, and consistent with His hating them both in themselves considered, so that in Him it is an exercise of infinite benevolence. and therefore directly contrary to the disposition and will of the sinner in sinning, and in willing and producing natural evil, and consequently shows how justly God is displeased with the sinner, and blames him for willing and choosing both moral and natural evil. These things have been observed to show that when God says, quote, I create evil, close quote, in the passage above cited, moral evil as well as natural may be intended, as there can be no difficulty or objection thought of if the former be included, which is not equally against the latter. and if the former must be excluded, as in consistent with the divine perfections, in any sense and view, to form and create it. For the same reason must the latter be excluded, and that moral evil must be intended, as well as natural, not only because nothing is said to exclude but because the occasion and design of the words do necessarily include both. The words of Paul the Apostle seem to claim a place under this head. Quote, Thou wilt then say unto me, Why does he yet find fault? For who has resisted his will? Nay, but, O man, who are you that replies against God? shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, why have you made me thus? Has not the potter power over the clay of the same lump to make one vessel unto honor and another unto dishonor? Upon these words the following observations may be made. Number one, The objection here introduced by the Apostle has reference to his assertion in the preceding verse and is grounded upon it. And whom he will, he hardeneth. And this same objection is made now and has always been made by men against the truth here asserted, which is that it is the will of God that all the hardness and obstinacy of heart which is found amongst men should exist just as it does. Therefore he has foreordained, according to the counsel of his own will, that it shall take place." So much at least is expressed in these words of the Apostle, and indeed no more than what is implied in this. For whatever God wills to take place has a cause of its certain existence. and this can be found nowhere but in the divine will. The objection is, quote, If all the sins of men take place by the will of God, and according to his will, then there can be no crime and sin, and man cannot be justly blamed for that, the existence of which is agreeable to his will. The System of Doctrines Contained in Divine Revelation by Samuel Hopkins Chapter 4 Part 5 Number 2 It is observable that the apostle in his answer to this objection does not say that the objector has mistaken his meaning. that he had not said that it was agreeable to the will of God that the hardness of men's hearts and every instance of obstinacy and sin should take place just as it does, and therefore the divine purpose and agency was concerned in all this, but implicitly grants that this is a truth and that he had asserted it. by not only not denying it, but proceeding to vindicate it in his answer, by which the meaning of his words is fixed, beyond a doubt. 3. In his answer, he is so far from palliating what he had said, or softening down his expression to which the objection is made, that he rather heightens it, and expresses himself in a stronger manner, if possible. Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, why have you made me thus? Has not the potter power over the clay of the same lump to make one vessel unto honor and another unto dishonor?" Well, the potter makes one vessel as really and as much as another. That which is made to dishonor and that which is made unto honor. And therefore, if the similitude is anything to the purpose and does not give a very wrong idea of the matter, well, which it is designed to illustrate, well, all sinners whose hearts are hardened, who are represented by the vessels made unto dishonor, are as really formed and made such as they are. hardened sinners, as the vessel into dishonor is made a dishonorable vessel by the potter. And God's sovereign right to do this is here asserted. And he who objects to this, the Apostle says, speaks against God. Besides, the Apostle expressly asserts that the hardened sinner is formed and made so by God. Quote, shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, why hast thou made me thus? Close quote. And thus the apostle speaks this out and repeats it in the most express and pointed language without fear of hurting anyone by it. and with assurance that he is espousing the cause of God, vindicating his rights and honor in opposition to an apostate world. The apostle, having asserted the sovereign right of God to form his creatures as he pleases, in the next words gives the reason of this, and mentions the important end he has in view. and answers, by making the wicked for the day of evil." What if God, willing or determined to show His wrath and make His power known, endured, with much longsuffering, the vessels of wrath, fitted to destruction? and that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy which he had aforeprepared unto glory." Well, the following things are suggested by these words. Number one, that God does not pardon sinners or punish them just for the sake of pardoning them and making them miserable or because he has any delight or pleasure in their sin and punishment. considered in themselves and unconnected with the end to be answered by them. But he does this to answer a wise and important end which could not be answered in any other way, and to produce a good which infinitely overbalances the evil which is necessary in order to it. 2. We are here told what this great, all-important end is, which God designs to effect, the good which is produced by the preserving sin, I'm sorry, persevering sin, and destruction of men, who are the vessels of wrath. It is the manifestation and display of his own perfection, quote, to show his wrath. and make his power known, and to make known the riches of his glory." That is, he does this for himself, for his own glory. And this perfectly coincides with the words of Solomon, which have been mentioned, and serves to fix the sense of them. The Lord has made all things for himself. even the wicked for the day of evil." 3. It is here supposed that what God does in hardening sinners and making them vessels unto dishonor, and enduring with much longsuffering these vessels of wrath fitted for destruction, is consistent with their being blamable for their hardness, and everything which renders them dishonorable. and with his being highly displeased with them for it, and that he may justly destroy them forever for their hardness and obstinacy in sin. This is supposed and really asserted in the words, for, in any other view, they would be inconsistent and absurd, as otherwise sinners could not be vessels of wrath fitted to destruction. Well, look, whatever men have thought and may think and assert, the Apostle Paul, and he by whom he was inspired, knew that both these are perfectly consistent. How these things are consistent does appear in his hope from what has been said above, and may be yet farther offered on this head. Having thus considered what is the language of Scripture on this point, and made particular remarks on the passages which have been adduced, some more general observations on the whole, in one general view of them, must now be made, hoping they may serve to throw farther light on the subject, and confirm the truth exhibited respecting it in divine revelation, which has been so difficult and intricate to many. 1. It appears from these passages of Scripture that God has foreordained all the moral evil which does take place, and is, in such a sense, and so far, the origin and cause of it, that he is said to bring it to pass by his own agency. Therefore, it is not bold or dangerous even to believe and assert this. But it is for the honor of God and tends to promote the good of men. And to believe and assert the contrary is directly the reverse. Bold, dangerous, dishonorable to God, and hurtful to man. It is safe to speak according to the scriptures. And so far as any man does not, It is because in that instance there is no light in him. Number two, if these scriptures be understood as many have chosen to understand them as importing only that God permits sin and so orders everything respecting the event that he permitting, well it will certainly take place just as it does. And this really comes to the same thing. Or if not, does not obviate any difficulty which has been fought to attend the representation which has now been made of this matter. I know I've preached it too that God only permits sin, but I've learned otherwise. For they who choose this way of speaking do represent God as willing that sin should take place or on the whole. preferring and choosing that it should exist rather than not. And this, as has been shown, implies all that is intended by his being the origin and cause of sin, and ordering and doing everything that was necessary to be ordered and done, previous to the existence of sin, in order to render it certain. in every instance where it does take place. His decree turns the point in favor of the existence of sin, and His agency makes it certain, without which it could have no existence. And if God determined to permit all the sin which does take place, and by His agency orders things so, that, he permitting it, it will be done, well this is liable to all the objections that have been or can be made against the assertion that all the sinful volitions of men are the effect of the divine agency. For the former makes sin as certain and necessary as the latter. and is no more consistent with the holiness of God and his hatred of sin to will the existence of it, and lay a plan to have it take place upon his permission, than it is directly to cause it to exist in the creature by any agency or exertion whatsoever, which is previously necessary to the existence of sinful volitions. And the former is not only liable to all the objections that can be made against the latter, but, so far as it differs from the latter, supposes an effect without any real origin or cause, and therefore involves the greatest difficulty and absurdity imaginable, as has been shown above. Well, why then is it not most reasonable, safe, and best to understand these scriptures in their most plain and obvious meaning? since by a strained or forced interpretation, no difficulty is removed and nothing is obtained, and by explaining away the most easy and natural meaning, new and inextricable difficulties are incurred. In short, There appears to be no rational or consistent medium between admitting that God, according to the scriptures, has chosen and determined that all the moral evil which does or ever will exist should take place, and consequently is so far the origin and cause of it. or believing and asserting that sin has taken place in every view and in all respects, contrary to his will, he having done all he could to prevent the existence of it, but was not able, and is therefore not the infinitely happy, uncontrollable, supreme governor of the world, but rather is dependent, disappointed, and miserable, Well, no one surely will adopt the latter. Then how can he avoid admitting the former? 3. If the scriptures which have been mentioned, where hardening the hearts of men, blinding and shutting their eyes, and inclining and turning their hearts when they practice moral evil, etc. Well, if these scriptures are to be understood as meaning no more than that God orders their circumstances to be such, that, considering their disposition and the evil bias of their minds, they will, without any other influence, be blinded and hardened, etc., than all those scriptures which speak of God's changing and softening the heart, taking away the hard heart, and giving the heart of flesh, opening the eyes of men and turning them from darkness to light, and from sin to holiness, working in them to will and to do, and causing them to walk in his ways, etc., may and must be understood in the same way, as not intending any special divine influence on the mind. as the origin and cause of virtuous, obedient, holy volitions, but only using his means with them in an external way, putting them under advantages and setting motives before them, so that if they be well disposed or will dispose themselves to obedience, they may be holy, etc. And to be sure, it cannot be argued from the expressions themselves that the latter express or intend any more real influence on the minds of men or divine agency by which God is the origin and cause of virtuous exercises than the former do with respect to men's sinful exercises. For the expressions are as unlimited plain and strong which speak of the former as those which are used for the latter. The Arminian and all of his caste understand the latter as they do the former, as intending no internal, decisive influence on the mind, turning the heart or will one way or the other, but ordering external circumstances, etc. And are they not herein more consistent than the professed Calvinist who insists that the latter cannot be understood as expressing less than that God, by his agency and influence on the minds of men, does actually produce all virtuous volitions as their real origin and cause? while he as confidently asserts that the former cannot mean any such thing, but understands them as the Arminian does? Well, were they consistent, they would give up the cause to the Arminian, and own that the latter expressions may well be understood as he understands them, and must mean no more if the former do not. And this is mentioned, it must be observed, as argumentum ad hominem to convince these professed Calvinists, or whatever they choose to call themselves, that they are really inconsistent, and in this point are taking a measure to strengthen their opposers rather than to convince or confuse them. And this here leads to another observation, number four. They who object to the divine agency being the origin and cause of sinful volitions, well because in their view this is inconsistent with freedom and moral agency, well in such volitions, and with any blame or crime in that which is the effect of such a cause, must if consistent with themselves, reject the doctrine of the divine agency as the cause of virtuous volitions and exercises on the same ground and for the same reason. If any kind or degree of supposed influence and agency which is anticident to a man's and the cause of its taking place renders such volition not free, and not the man's own volition and exercise, so that he is neither virtuous nor vicious in having and exerting such a choice, then there is no freedom or virtue in the exercises of those so-called good men, which are the effect of powerful divine influence, causing them to take place. But, if such agency and influence, producing virtuous volitions in men, be consistent with the freedom of men in such volitions, and they are as much their own exercises, and they are as virtuous, and as much as their own virtue, as if they had taken place without such previous influence, or as they could be, on any possible supposition, Well then, all this is as true of all contrary or sinful volitions of men, whatever kind of degree of influence and agency be exerted, antecedent to their existence, and as the cause of it. Well, this observation is made for the sake of those who make the above objection against there being any origin or cause of sinful volition. antecedent to their existence, supposing this is inconsistent with man's freedom and blame in such exercises. And yet they believe and assert that all virtuous exercises of men are the fruit and effect of divine influence as their origin, which efficaciously causes them to take place. and that these exercises are as really and as much their own, and as virtuous and praiseworthy, as if they had taken place without any such previous influence and cause, were this possible, it is desirable that this palpable, gross inconsistence of theirs might be discerned and attended to by them, upon which they would drop this objection, as completely without foundation or urge it equally against the virtuous exercises of men, being the effect of any previous divine efficacious influence as their origin and cause, and renounce it as inconsistent with the liberty of the moral agency of men, by which they will be consistent with themselves in this point, however inconsistent they may be with the Bible. Both the one and the other is indeed equally and altogether consistent with human liberty and with virtue and sin. No supposable or possible influence or agency, previous to the exercises of the will, which is the origin and cause of such exercises, can render men less free in such voluntary exercises or the less virtuous or vicious. And that because liberty consists and is exercised in willing and choosing, and in nothing that does or can take place antecedent to the volitions of men or as the consequence of them. And virtue and sin consist in the exercises of the will or heart, and in nothing else. and men are sinful or holy according to the nature and quality of these. These are most certain and evident truths, which has been in some measure shown above, and which ought to be always kept in view when attending to this subject. 5. There is a certain connection between God's hardening the hearts of men and shutting or blinding the eyes, whatever this may be or imply, and their voluntary hardening their own hearts and shutting or closing their own eyes so that when or wherever the one takes place, the other does also. When God is said to harden Pharaoh's heart, He is, at the same time, said to harden his own heart. God said to Moses that he would harden the heart of Pharaoh, and it is repeatedly said that he hardened his own heart, as the Lord had said, referring to his saying that he would harden the heart of Pharaoh. And so it is said, Pharaoh sinned yet more and hardened his heart. And in the first verse of the 10th chapter, the Lord said unto Moses, Go in unto Pharaoh, for I have hardened his heart, referring to the instance just before mentioned of Pharaoh's hardening his own heart. And hence it appears that whenever God hardened the heart of Pharaoh, he hardened his own heart. And whenever Pharaoh did harden his heart, God did also harden it. and that this is true of every instance of hardness or obstinacy of the heart, God hardens the heart, and the sinner himself hardens his own heart. It does not follow from this, as some have thought it did, that God's hardening the heart of Pharaoh and his hardening his own heart are one and the same thing. and this supposition is contrary to the representation and the express words. And here are two distinct agents who are said to be concerned and to act in producing one and the same event, without which it could not take place, meaning the hardness of Pharaoh's heart. As the agents are infinitely distinct and different, and their characters directly opposite to each other, so is their agency. That of God is holy, that of Pharaoh is sinful, yet the one necessarily supposes and involves the other. The agency ascribed to God is the origin and cause of the hardness of the heart, without which it could not take place, and of which it is the certain consequence. The agency ascribed to Pharaoh, and which is to be ascribed to every sinner whose heart is hard, is the effect or consequence of divine agency, and consists completely in this effect, that is, in hardness of heart. The heart cannot be hardened, or there cannot be a hard heart without the agency of the sinner hardening his own heart. for it consists in voluntary exercise, and therefore does not and cannot take place while men are completely passive and do not act or put forth those exertions in which hardness of heart does consist. When God made man a living soul, the effect produced consisted in man's activity. He lived. For life is not merely a passive effect, but is itself action. Man could not be made a living soul without life, or unless he lived, and he could not live unless he were made to live, so that the one is necessarily implied in the other. Yet, life is as really life and activity. or as man really lives, and it is as much his own life and activity as if he had lived without being created or made to live. Were this possible? Everyone cannot but see how false and absurd it would be to say that God's making man a living soul and man's agency in living are one and the same thing. because one necessarily implies the other. So that to assert one is, in effect, really to assert the other. To say that God breathed into man the breath of life implies that man lived, and does really assert it. And to say that man became a living soul, or lived, implies the divine agency in causing him to live. and does really assert it, though there be two different agents and two very different kinds of agency as distinct and different from each other, as if there were no connection between them, and the one did not imply the other. And this is applicable to the instance before us. When God hardens the heart of any man, that man certainly hardens his own heart. or that hardness is his own chosen obstinacy. And were it not so, he could have no hardness of heart or his heart could not be hardened. To suppose the contrary is an express contradiction. Audit is as much his own chosen obstinacy and his own crime. as he is as odious and ill-deserving as if his maker had no hand or concern in the matter. When God hardens the heart, or exerts any supposable or possible kind of degree of influence or power, of which sin or holiness in the creature is the consequence, this is so far from being or implying any necessitating influence, impelling or forcing men to sin or obey, that it is absolutely impossible there should be any such thing, antecedent to the actual existence of will and choice. And it is necessarily implied that the disposition, will, and choice in which the sinner's obstinacy consists is the exercise of freedom and his own choice. The will or heart is not capable of any such necessitating influence by which it is forced to act, in opposition to acting freely, because, as has been observed, exercise of choice or voluntary action and freedom are the same thing. To talk of a necessitating influence by which the will is forced to act which deprives a man of freedom is just as absurd as to say that a man is forced to live without having any life, and so as utterly to exclude it. But this has been considered before. To return, the observation to which we are now attending, that is to say, that whenever God hardens the hearts and blinds the minds of men, they do harden their own hearts and shut their own eyes, and the latter is necessarily implied in the former, as the former is implied in the latter, may be further illustrated and confirmed by several other passages of Scripture, which at the same time will serve to throw some light upon them. The Lord says to the prophet Isaiah, quote, Go and tell this people, Hear ye indeed, but understand not, and see ye indeed, but perceive not. Make the heart of this people fat, and make their ears heavy, and shut their eyes, lest they see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their heart, and convert, and be healed." These remarkable words are quoted, or referred to, no less than six times in the New Testament, and more often than any other text is quoted from the Old Testament. In the Apostle John's Gospel, it is expressed in the following words, quote, Therefore they could not believe, because that Isaiah said, He has blinded their eyes and hardened their hearts, that they should not see with their eyes, nor understand with their heart, and be converted, and I should heal them." In this quotation, the expressions are as they are in the prophet, though stronger and more decisively plain, if possible, representing the agency of God in blinding the eyes of men and hardening their hearts. He is said to do this, and it is ascribed to him as the cause. And nothing is said expressly of the agency of men in the matter. The Apostle Paul is supposed to refer to these words, together with other passages in the following passage, quote, The election has obtained it, but the rest were blinded according as it is written, God has given them the spirit of slumber, eyes that should not see and ears that they should not hear unto this day." And here he speaks, agreeable to the words in Isaiah, as the Apostle John quotes them, of God as the agent and of what he does, and he is represented as blinding men, giving them the spirit of slumber, eyes that they should not see, etc., and nothing is expressly said of the agency of men. But he quotes these words on another occasion in a different manner, quote, Well spake the Holy Ghost by Isaiah the prophet unto our fathers, saying, Go unto this people, and say, Hearing ye shall hear, and shall not understand, and seeing ye shall see, and not perceive. For the heart of this people is waxed, waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes have they closed. for fear that they should see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and should be converted, and I should heal them." In Matthew chapter 13 verse 15, these same words are quoted by the Lord Jesus Christ himself, just as the Apostle Paul quotes them here. For this people's heart is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes have they closed." Here they are said to close or blind their own eyes. They are represented as active in the matter, and their agency only is spoken of expressly, and the divine agency is not mentioned. Whereas in the passages above produced, these same words of Isaiah are made to express. not the agency of those who are blind in making themselves so, but rather the divine agency in shutting their eyes so that their being blind and unbelieving is ascribed to God. It is a question worthy to be considered. How these words in Isaiah can be consistently quoted so differently and be made to speak of the agency of the sinner hardening his own heart and closing his own eyes when the prophet expresses nothing but the divine agency in hardening and blinding them as they are quoted by the Apostle John and once by the Apostle Paul. It's not the only solution and satisfactory answer to this question contained in the observation made above. That is to say that whenever God hardens the heart and closes the eyes of men, they harden their own hearts and shut their own eyes, the one being necessarily implied and involved in the other. so that when it is expressly said that God hardens the heart of any man or has given him eyes that he should not see, as it is as really asserted, that the man himself hardens his own heart and closes his own eyes, as the latter is necessarily implied, it being the very thing expressly said to be produced as the effect of the divine agency. Therefore, When Isaiah speaks of God as hardening men's hearts and shutting their eyes, he equally asserts that these men harden their own hearts and close their own eyes, and may justly and with the greatest propriety be quoted as asserting both of them, or either the one or the other. While this is equally true of the light, wisdom, and holiness of good men. God is certainly the origin and cause of all this according to the scripture. He circumcises the heart to love him. He gives a new heart and puts a new spirit in them, creates in them a clean heart, and renews in them a right spirit. He saves them by the washing of regeneration. and the renewing of the Holy Ghost. He causes them to walk in his statutes, and to keep his judgments, and do them. Yet the Scripture speaks of them to whom God gives a new heart, and whose heart he circumcises, and whom he renews by his Holy Spirit, as circumcising their own hearts, making themselves a new heart. as those who have put off the old man and put on the new man, and renewed themselves in the spirit of their minds, and have cleansed and purified their own hearts. These passages may be reconciled by observing that the former speak expressly of the divine agency in the renovation of the hearts of sinful men, and reforming them to true holiness. The latter speak of the agency and exercises of men, implied in their renovation and holiness, and in which their turning to God and their obedience does consist, and which is necessarily connected with the former and involved in it. Whenever and wherever God gives a new heart, the man makes himself a new heart in that agency and those exercises in which a new heart consists. He renews and cleanses his own heart and circumcises it by turning from sin to God. Hating sin and loving God and in all that agency and those pure and holy exercises in which he conforms to the divine law and to the gospel and lives a holy life. All this is necessarily implied in what God does in giving a new heart, as it is the effect which he produces by his agency, and these are connected and involved in each other, as are the cause and effect. so that to assert one is equally to assert the existence of the other. The sinner's heart cannot be made a clean heart by the divine agency in any other way but by the sinner's cleansing his own heart, because a clean heart consists in those exercises of the man in which he does cleanse his own heart. It is a contradiction to say that God has circumcised the heart of a man to love him, and yet the man does not love him, or, which is the same, has not circumcised his own heart to love the Lord, and so of the rest. Therefore, when God says, He will give a new heart and put a new spirit within men, it is really asserted that they shall renew their own hearts. in the proper exercises and agency, in which a new heart and a new spirit consists, or that they shall walk in his ways. And, on the contrary, wherever a man or whenever a man makes him a new heart and becomes obedient, this implies all that divine agency by which God gives a new heart. And therefore, by asserting the former to exist, the latter is really asserted. If a man purifies himself and cleanses his own heart in pure, holy exercises, it is certain that God has created in him a clean and new heart. And to assert the former or the latter is really to assert both. Now here are two distinct agents, infinitely different. God, absolutely independent and almighty. And a creature, absolutely dependent for every thought and volition, having no power and sufficiency, that is not derived immediately from his maker. And the agency, or operation, is as distinct and different as the agents. The creature's agency is as much his own as in the nature of things it can be, and as it could be if it were not the effect of the divine agency, if this were possible. And the creature acts as freely as if there were no agent concerned but himself, and his exercises are as virtuous and holy. And it is really and as much his own virtue and holiness, and he is as excellent and praiseworthy as if he did not depend on divine influences for these exercises, and they were not the effect of the operation of God. Well, all this, it is presumed, is plain and must be evident to all who have attended to what has been said above on this subject. And there can be no difficulty respecting God's hardening the sinner's heart, and hardening his own heart, which does not equally attend God's making a new and clean heart, and at the same time the man renewing and cleansing his own heart. And no objection can be made against the former which is not as much against the latter. unless it be that in the latter instance moral good or holiness in the creature is the effect of the divine operation, but in the former it is directly the reverse, and moral evil or sin takes place in consequence of the divine determination and agency, which has been thought by many to be inconsistent with the infinite purity and holiness of God, It is presumed that what has been said above to this point is sufficient to obviate this objection and to show it to be completely without foundation, but this leads to another observation. 6. Though it be as expressly asserted in the scriptures which have been cited, and particularly considered, that God has determined the existence of all the moral evil that takes place and does by his own operation and agency cause it to take place, as it does, as it is, the true virtue and holiness which takes place in men is the effect of divine operation. Yet it does not follow from this that the manner and mode of divine operation, which is the cause of those different and opposite effects, is in all respects the same, and consequently no man has a right to assert this. Indeed, this in both instances is inscrutable by man and cannot be particularly explained. We know that what is produced in the latter instance is, as it consists in the exercises of the creature, conformable to the law and nature of God. In the former, what takes place in man is directly the reverse, contrary to God's nature and law. But as to the manner of operation as the cause of either, we are completely in the dark. as much as we are with respect to the manner of the divine operation in the creation of the world and the different and various existences. Look, all we know is that God willed their existence to be as they do exist, or said, let them be, with which their existence is infallibly connected. and he has really willed the existence of moral evil as of holiness in creatures, and the existence of both is equally the infallible consequence. And though the effects holiness and sin are in their nature and considered in themselves so infinitely different and contrary to each other, and the latter most odious and abominable, Yet, the existence of them both may be equally important and desirable and necessary for the glory of God and for the greatest possible good. And in this view, God willed the existence of both. In the exercise of infinite wisdom and benevolence, even the same kind of benevolence which he requires of creatures in his holy law, and which is opposed by the sinner in every act of sin. It hence appears that God's disposition and will respecting the existence of sin, which is the origin and cause of it, and His disposition and will revealed in His law requiring benevolence and all that is implied in it, and forbidding the contrary, are perfectly consistent and one and the same. And were it possible for him to will and to choose that sin should not exist, this would have been infinitely contrary to the divine law. And thus it appears that God is holy in all his works and ways. Even while he wills the existence of moral evil, and that there neither is nor possibly can be any moral evil in being thus the origin and cause of it. Now, the following questions and answers will conclude this subject. Thank God. Question. Does not the doctrine which has been advanced serve to strengthen and confirm the infidel? and others in their belief that man is not a moral agent and is not capable of sin or blame, whatever he may do? Well, many who reject divine revelation profess to believe the doctrine of universal necessity, that all things and events from the greatest to the least are fixed, so that there can be no alteration. and hence they infer that man has no liberty and is not a moral agent, so as to be in any degree criminal. And many who do not professedly renounce revelation profess to believe the absolute and universal dependence of all creatures and things on God. hence infer and say they are what God has made them to be. Therefore they are not answerable for what they are or do, nor are they justly blamable for anything in their character or conduct." We hear this all day long from all kinds of sinners and those who appear to be virtuous. these will think themselves supported by the doctrine of the decrees of God as it has been stated above. Is it wise or right to advance a doctrine which tends to produce such an evil effect? Had it not better be suppressed if it be true?" Which is a great question. I had the same question as I was reading this. Well, here's an answer. Number one, If the doctrine, as it has now been stated, be clearly and abundantly asserted in the scripture, which it has, and the whole be necessarily implied in the independence and supremacy of God, and the entire dependence of the creature, in all respects, which it is presumed, has been made evident, then there can be no good reason why it should not be asserted and vindicated. And it is certain it does not tend to any evil or produce any bad effect. And if it be improved to any bad purpose, and any groundless inference be made from it, it must be an abuse of the truth, and perverting it to an end to which it has no tendency, but rather the contrary. Here's another answer. Number two. There is no religious or moral truth revealed in the Bible which may not be improved to some bad purpose and has not been so improved by ignorant and wicked men. And if no truth ought to be explained and vindicated or mentioned which may be abused and will be perverted by some even to their own destruction, well then all religious truth must be suppressed and the Bible must be shut up. and no more to be open to the world. Answer number three, which by the way I had even considered not even continuing with this because of the complexity of it, but the Lord moved me to finish it. Answer number three, at the same time that the doctrine of the divine decrees has been stated and vindicated, it has been equally proved from scripture and reason that man is a free agent and accountable for his moral conduct, and in all respects as much so, and is as real and as much a moral agent as he could be on any supposition. And if this doctrine were not true, and no events or actions were fixed and certain before they actually took place, and is as much the former and author of his own moral character as he could be, were there no other agent concerned in them. And all his moral actions are as much his own and his own virtue or sins as they could be, if nothing were previously done or determined which rendered them certain. If any will abuse their own reason and the holy scriptures so much as to believe but one of these equally evident truths and reject the other, he must answer for it and suffer the consequences. But must one or the other of them be given up or suppressed lest men should abuse one or both of them? Let the scripture and reason judge. Answer number four. All the difficulty in this matter appears to be in reconciling the total, universal, and constant dependence of man on God with his freedom and moral agency and accountableness for his moral conduct. The scripture asserts both of these in the strongest manner from the beginning to the end in a variety of ways. The instances are too numerous to be all mentioned here. This dependence is represented by the potter and the clay, and man is asserted to be as dependent on God for the manner of his existence and in all his moral character and actions as the clay is on the potter for the shape and kind of vessel into which it is to be formed. and wicked men in all their actions are represented to be as much in the hand of God and moved by him as the saw, axe, rod, or staff are in the hand or power of a man who uses and moves them. The Apostle Paul says, quote, in him we live and move and have our being, close quote. and reason or true philosophy teaches the same. A creature cannot be made independent in any the least degree or respect whatsoever, because this implies a contradiction. For if a creature can be independent with respect to anything or in any degree, he may be so in every degree and in all respects, which is inconsistent with his being a creature. Therefore, the constant and entire dependence of man on God, his Creator, for existence, for every perception and thought, and every motion of body or mind, from the least that is possible to the greatest, is absolute and perfect in the highest degree and in every respect. According to Scripture and right reason, this is perfectly consistent with the moral freedom and agency of man, and he is as virtuous or vicious and as worthy of praise or deserving of blame and punishment as if he were not thus dependent, if this were possible, which it is hoped has been made evident. But apostate, proud man, feels as if he were, in a great degree at least, self-dependent, and inclines and inspires to be so. Well, this tends to lead him to wrong ideas and speculations on this point. and to prevent his reasoning properly upon it. And it is no wonder that great mistakes are made, and that many are led aside by false reasoning on the subject, and cannot be convinced of the truth. Or if they be in some measure convinced in their judgment, or at least silenced by unanswerable arguments, Yet they may feel as if it were not, and could not be true, and not submit to it, but oppose it in all the exercises of their hearts. They who are humble and feel their dependence on God are pleased with it, are most likely to understand these things, and to see the consistency of such dependence, and their freedom and accountableness to God for their moral conduct, and to be satisfied with it. And if they cannot remove every difficulty and speculation, and answer all the objections which are made to it, they nevertheless do acquiesce, and are pleased with being thus dependent, and yet completely blamable for every deviation from the law of God, and have no doubt of the consistence of these, though they may not be able to show how, or to reason out the matter with others." The meek will he guide in judgment, and the meek will he teach his way." I apologize for my dog barking in the background. They will approve of the sentiments and exhortation of the Apostle Paul and feel and act accordingly. They will, quote, work out their own salvation with fear and trembling, close quote. That is, the exercise of true humility and a sense and acknowledgment of their entire constant dependence on God for every exertion and motion of their will, knowing that, quote, He worketh in them both to will and to do, close quote. Here's another question. Do not the words of the Apostle James expressly deny that the divine agency is concerned in the existence of moral evil when he says, quote, Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God, for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man, close quote. Answer, to tempt and be tempted are to be understood in different senses as they are used in the scripture. God is said to be tempted and men are often said to tempt him. And it is said that he tempted Abraham. And in this sense he does tempt others and may tempt all men. Sometimes to tempt is taken in a bad sense, as it is in this passage, and means a sinful act, as it always does when Satan is said to tempt anyone. In this sense God does not tempt any man, for he is holy in all his works. To be tempted sometimes means only to be tried, and is consistent with the perfect innocence and holiness of Him who is said to be tempted. In this sense, God is said to be tempted, and the Lord Jesus Christ was tempted. Sometimes to be tempted implies moral evil and actually falling into sin. In this sense, the word seems to be used in the following passages, quote, Considering thyself, lest thou also be tempted, lest by some means the tempter have tempted you, and our labor be in vain, close quote. By the way, all these scripture quotes for this chapter and more context to what he is saying, I've already made into a PDF file that can be accessed after the sermon is finished. In this sense, the word is to be understood when James says, quote, God cannot be tempted, close quote. And in the same sense, he uses the word when he speaks of a man being tempted. And this is evident from his own explanation of it in the following words, quote, but every man is tempted when he is drawn away of his own lust and enticed, close quote. A man cannot be tempted in this sense but by the exercise and gratification of his own lusts, the existence of which is therefore supposed and necessary in order to his being tempted, without which he could not be so tempted. Therefore, a man is not nor can be tempted in the sense here stated. by anything that is or can be done antecedent to the existence of evil or lust in his heart. For the temptation applies to his lust and is suited to excite sinful exercises or lead men into sin. It is easy to see that God does not so tempt any man. and that his foreordaining whatsoever comes to pass and executing his decrees and ordering and governing all the actions of men does not imply this. All that God does is infinitely wise and holy, all of it, and he does not exhibit anything to the view of men or set anything before them in his word or works in false colors. or that has any tendency to deceive them or draw them into sin. But everything which he suggests to them in his word and providence has a contrary tendency, and it is perfect truth. And if men view objects in a wrong and false light, it is completely owing to their lusts, by which the light abused. Here's another question. Have not those who have been called Calvinists and have professed their belief of the doctrine of the decrees of God that he hath foreordained whatsoever comes to pass denied the divine agency in the existence of moral evil while they hold that God decreed to permit it and and is not this way of representing the matter safest and best to avoid the charge of making God the author of sin? And others who hold that God is the cause of every act and volition of the sinner have distinguished and said that He is the cause of them as natural actions and events, or so far as they are natural but not of the moral depravity of them, that this is completely from the sinner and he alone is the cause of it? Is not this distinction proper and necessary in order to avoid the above imputation? Well, that's a great question and I'm sure that's on the minds of a lot of you. Here comes your answer. Number one, it has been observed that Calvin and the assembly of the divines at Westminster assert that the divine decree and agency respecting the existence of sin imply more than a bare permission, that is to say, something positive and efficacious. They, therefore, who hold to only a bare permission, do depart from those who have been properly called Calvinists. and do not agree with the confession of faith composed by said assembly of divines, or with those numerous churches and divines who do assent or have assented to that confession of faith in England, Scotland, Ireland, and America? Answer number two, if by God's permitting sin be meant that sin will exist, If God do not interpose and hinder the existence of it by a positive exertion, and he only forbears such exertion and suffers it to take place, well, this involves a real absurdity and impossibility, as it supposes sin to exist without any proper cause and completely independent of the first cause. And if any one thing or event may come into existence independent of the first cause, every existence may do so as well. And there is no need of a first cause of all, and the being of God cannot be proved from any existence which men behold. But if it did not involve this impossibility, and any should think such an inference not just It does really remove no supposed difficulty with respect to making God the origin of sin. For if sin could not exist without the will and decree of God to permit it, and nothing but a bare permission were necessary in order to its existence, yet God, in determining to permit it, willed the existence of it. And this necessarily implies His choice and pleasure. that sin should exist in every instance in which it does take place, and that he orders things so that, he permitting, it will certainly exist just as it does. And this implies the whole of the doctrine which has been advanced, as has been before observed. to decree to permit sin in the case supposed is to will the existence of it. And this is liable to all the objections which can be made to the doctrine which has been advanced in this chapter, as making God the author of sin, etc. And nothing worse or more can be said against this doctrine as it has been stated above. which has not been said against the assertion which has been espoused by all Calvinists. That is to say, that God has foreordained whatsoever comes to pass. This has always been loaded by many with the greatest opprobrium which they could invent, asserting that it is the most blasphemous, horrid doctrine that was ever thought of. making God the sole author of all the sin in the world, and most unreasonable and cruel in punishing men or devils who, according to this doctrine, are perfectly innocent and incapable of sinning, etc., etc. And nothing will satisfy such objectors but to give up the doctrine of the divine decrees and admit man to be and act so as to form his own moral character, independent of God, and in every sense contrary to his purpose and will, if it be sinful? Answer number three. The attempt to distinguish between the sinful volitions or actions of man as natural and moral actions, and making God the origin and cause of them, considered as natural actions, and men the cause and authors of the depravity and sin which is in them, is, it is believed, unintelligible, and has no consistent or real meaning, and gives no rational satisfaction to the inquiring mind, unless, by making this distinction, it be meant, that in every sinful action, God is not the simple cause of it, But all he determines and does respecting these is the exercise of holiness. And all the moral depravity and sin consists in the volition and actions of men and is their sin and cannot be ascribed to God. Men being as much the cause and authors of their own sins as they could be if God had not done or determined anything respecting them. And this is the doctrine which has been vindicated in this chapter. and is not reasonable and candid to suppose that those worthy men who have made this distinction did really mean no more nor less than this? Look, on the whole, it is presumed there has nothing been advanced, as included in the doctrine of the decrees of God which is not necessarily implied in his independence and supremacy. His infinite wisdom and goodness, or holiness, and man's necessary dependence on Him, or that is inconsistent with the most perfect freedom of man and his moral agency and accountableness for all his moral exercises, and being justly blamable for everything in him which is contrary to the holy law of God. and that, consistent with this doctrine, as much depends on the will and conduct of men as if they were not dependent, if this were possible, and nothing had been done or determined respecting their volitions and conduct previous thereto, and that their will and conduct is as much their own, and is as deserving of praise or blame, is as virtuous or vicious as it could be, were they completely independent, and that there is nothing contained in this doctrine that makes God the author of sin in any bad sense, and so as to impeach the divine holiness, and that all this has been made evident. But if the contrary can be made to appear, this doctrine, with all that is implied in it, shall be given up, renounced. And that is a lot. Now we move to the improvement portion of the chapter. Roman numeral number one. From what has been said on this high and important subject may be inferred the truth and divine original of the Holy Scriptures and that the doctrine of the divine decrees is clearly revealed and so abundantly asserted therein. and the whole Bible is evidently formed on this plan. This doctrine is so agreeable to reason and so essential to rational and consistent conceptions of the character and perfections, the infinite felicity and absolute independence and supremacy and dominion of the Most High. And it is so desirable and important that infinite wisdom and goodness should dictate and form the plan of all existences and events, making one harmonious, making one harmonious, absolutely perfect system, of all possible ones, the wisest and the best, that it might be reasonably expected a revelation from heaven would contain this doctrine. in all its length and breadth, exhibiting it in a clear, incontestable light, and expressly or implicitly asserting the perfect consistency of it, with every truth respecting the divine character and conduct and the liberty and moral agency of man. If this doctrine were not contained and asserted in divine revelation, it would be perfectly unaccountable. And if the Holy Scriptures were formed on a contrary plan and in opposition to this doctrine, it would be an inseparable objection against it as coming from God. When the children of wisdom see this contained in the Bible, they approve and are satisfied and discern the divine stamp in this, as well as in other things, and a perfect harmony and consistence through the whole. It is true that many have supposed that if this doctrine were in the Bible, it would be an unanswerable objection against the authenticity and divine original of it, and have thought they have been supporting the credit of divine revelation by attempting to explain away those passages in which it is most expressly asserted, and to put another meaning upon them. But what has been gained by these attempts Has one professed deist been hereby brought to think more favorably of the Bible, or to believe this doctrine is not contained in it? Well, not one instance of this, it is presumed, can be produced. And have not impiety and infidelity prevailed most when and where the doctrine of divine decrees, as above asserted and explained, has been most opposed and discarded? All professed deists see the doctrine of the divine decrees and the fixed certainty of all events plainly asserted in the Bible. And some of them dislike this doctrine and make it an argument that it is not a revelation from God. Others believe and embrace the doctrine. and hence infer, contrary to the scriptures, that there is no such thing as liberty, moral agency, virtue, or vice, and therefore dislike and oppose divine revelation as much as the other. But In the Bible, the doctrine of the divine decrees for ordaining whatsoever comes to pass, and the consistency of this with human liberty, moral agency, praise and blame, reward and punishment, is asserted. And he who well attends to this will not only acquiesce and approve, amen, But in discerning the beauty and harmony of these truths, he will have evidence in his own mind that this is a revelation from God, as the corrupt heart of man, not guided by heavenly illumination, would not have represented the matter in this light. Thus, what the wisdom of man, the wisdom of this world, calls folly and rejects as such, the children of wisdom embrace, as wiser than men, even the wisdom of God, and see and adore the finger of God in forming such a revelation. Amen. Roman numeral number two. This view of the divine decrees and operations tends to enlarge the mind in high and exalting thoughts of God, and leads to adore Him as the first and the last, the Almighty, who worketh all things by the counsel of His own will, infinite in power and wisdom, doing what He pleases in heaven and on earth. And this view of the deity tends to lead the mind of man to humbling views of himself, as absolutely dependent on God. In all respects, amen. And as infinitely little and inconsiderable in comparison with God, and to see the reasonableness and importance of being devoted to Him, and seeking His glory as the supreme end, amen. In this view, the words of the Apostle Paul will be naturally suggested and espoused by the pious mind. Oh, the depth of the riches, both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are his ways and his judgments past finding out! For who hath known the mind of the Lord? Or who hath been his counselor? for who hath first given to him, and shall be recompensed unto him again. For of him, and through him, and to him are all things, to whom be glory forever. Amen." Roman numeral number three. This doctrine is the only foundation and a sufficient and ample one for the support comfort and joy of the pious friends of God in the midst of all the darkness, sin, and misery that take place. Quote, The Lord reigneth. Let the people rejoice. Close quote. Infinite wisdom and goodness clothed with omnipotence, reign, and Nothing takes place but what is important and necessary to accomplish the wisest and best end, the glory of God, and the greatest possible good. God will bring infinite good out of all the evil, and for this end he hath foreordained whatsoever comes to pass. Was not this a most certain truth, and to be relied upon, the pious mind? must sink in darkness, in the view of the evil that takes place, and could find no relief. But here is a source of comfort and joy, since all things are ordered in the wisest and best manner. Nothing could be added or taken away without rendering the divine plan less wise, perfect, and excellent. It belongs to the infinitely wise, almighty maker and owner of all things, and governor of all worlds, to order every event, especially the events of the moral world, and the moral actions of creatures, which are the most important. They must be determined and fixed by something, by undesigning chance, or by ignorance, or or by infinite wisdom. He who is infinitely wise and almighty can do it in a way perfectly consistent with the liberty and moral agency of his creatures, and this being every way most desirable, and the contrary supposition infinitely dreadful. When the friends of God see this is done by him, and that His counsel with respect to every event and all actions stands forever, and the thoughts of His heart to all generations. Will they rest in this and rejoice continually as I will. And no man can take this comfort and joy from them. Amen. Though the earth be removed or the mountains be carried into the midst of the sea, whatever events, and however evil in themselves take place. Yet they will not fear, but drink consolation at this river, the streams whereof make glad the city of God." Quote. Let the righteous be glad. Let them rejoice before God. Yea, let them exceedingly rejoice. Close quote. Roman numeral number four. This affords a solid stable foundation for the most unreserved implicit confidence and trust in God. He super intends in all things. He is in the heavens and hath done whatsoever he pleased. He will accomplish his own ends. and cannot be disappointed. Therefore, his friends may trust in him with the greatest assurance that whatever appearances there may be against it, he will accomplish his own ends, glorify himself, fulfill all his promises to his people, and make them most happy forever. Quote, O LORD of hosts, Blessed is the man that trusteth in thee." Therefore, Roman numeral number 5, this doctrine is suited to promote true piety and holiness, for this consists in loving God, entrusting and rejoicing in Him and His government and works, acknowledging Him in all our ways, in seeing His hand in all events, in submitting to Him and obeying Him. This doctrine is so far from affording any just ground of encouragement to sin, that so far as it is understood and cordially embraced, it forms the heart to hate sin and love the law of God. and to the most hearty, cheerful submission to his government. Existence proves this to be true, and the reason of it is very obvious. For they who see and approve of the wisdom of God in making all things for himself, in ordering all things, even the sins of men, for his own glory, must themselves desire and seek the glory of God, and this necessarily implies an approbation of the law of God and a cordial submission and obedience to it. Hence may be inferred the propriety and importance of preaching this doctrine. and explaining and vindicating it as it is revealed in the Holy Scriptures. Some who believe it is revealed in the Bible, yet think it ought not to be preached or spoken of as such a mysterious doctrine and is so difficult and puzzling to many, and a stumbling block to them rather than to their edification, and is liable to be misimproved to bad purposes. But such must be under a great mistake, as I was all this last week. It is dishonorable to God and to the Bible to suppose any truth which He has there revealed is of a bad tendency, and therefore ought not to be published. Yea, it is implicitly denying that the Bible is from God, and taking sides with the deist. Besides, there is a contradiction and absurdity in the supposition that it is a truth and yet has a bad tendency, for this is impossible in the nature of things. That which has a bad tendency is error and falsehood, but truth has a direct contrary tendency and effect wherever it is received. It is true this doctrine may be preached imprudently, and may be represented in a partial and improper light, and so that the hearers will not understand it. No one can be justified for preaching this or any other truth in such a manner. But this is rather a reason why it should, with all other important truths, be thoroughly and fully preached, so that they who are disposed to attend, and willing to understand, may have opportunity to be instructed. in the whole counsel of God. It is doubtless better, if there can be a better in the case, not to preach it at all than to do it to the half, just mentioning it sometimes. For this is not the way to have it understood, but tends to raise prejudices against it. But the best and only wise way is to preach it. and explain it clearly and fully to give persons opportunity, more privately, to propose any objections they may have, that they may be removed. And parents ought to be able and willing to teach it to their children, to explain it and show them the reason of it. And the evidence there is in the scripture of the truth of it. though they might not fully understand it in early age, yet a foundation would be hereby laid for their making improvement in understanding as they advance in years. So it is not so difficult a doctrine as many imagine who perhaps never understood it themselves through strong prejudices which they imbibed before they were well instructed in it. A child of 12 or 14 years old who is carefully instructed and will attend is capable of understanding and seeing the evidence and reasonableness of this doctrine, which must be believed as an important article of the Christian faith where the Bible is well understood. However, it may be now and has been rejected by many with the greatest contempt boldness and assurance. And thus ends the chapter. Again, I have copied the notes where scripture is quoted in this chapter, and I encourage you all to go through each and every one of the scriptures. Okay? There's also some more commentary in here on this, but I think Hopkins has made it pretty clear that the divines of the Westminster Assembly have made a great error. And hopefully, Lord willing, we can fix this. Okay? Because it's important that we discuss the whole counsel of God. No matter whether we think it to be blasphemy, heresy, or you know, troublesome to the glory of God. Okay? It's not so. We have to talk about these things. That being said, This is your narrator, Dwayne Lynn, signing off. See you at Chapter 5.