thought good to do so; and therefore seeing he did not, we may gather thence, that it was his will, and consequently his decree, that Sin should be permitted. For what God actually doth or suffers to be done, we may gather what God decreed to do. If therefore God suffers Sin (which is agreed by all) he wills it, he decrees it."-Dr. J. E. on the decrees, c. iii, p. 102.

Now if it be agreed by all that God suffers Sin, then are we all agreed to contradict God, for God says "I have not suffered thee so to do." Is God or man to be credited? What says the Apostle, "Yea let God be true and every man a liar." Down then with this suffering, this permitting, and this holy ordaining of Sin, together with all its connected trammels; and let the word of God have free course and be glorified.

SECTION IV.

Foreknowledge and Decree.

It is held forth and insisted upon by the advocates for the divine ordination of Sin, that foreknowledge and decree are one in signification. Hence their language.

"There is no certain knowledge without the decree." "The foreknowlege of God and his decree, are reciprocal and inseparable.-We cannot tell how God can foreknow the things that are to come to pass, but by his decreeing them to be."-Dr. EDWARDS on the decrees, p. 21, 83.

"God must be infallibly sure of the things foreknown, or he could not be said to foreknow them. But whence could this certainty arise, if not from his own immutable will? His having determined them, must be the source, both of their certain existence, and of his own immutable knowledge. For, as a late great master in Israel has observed "Certain and im

Ма

mutable knowledge, is founded on some certain and immutable cause; which can be no other than the Divine will. God knows that such and such things will be; because he has determined in his will they shall be."-TUCKER, P. 215.

Now this argument is raised to support the doctrine of the divine and holy ordination of Sin. For though there is no word in the sacred page to prove the divine decreeing of Sin, there is ample evidence to prove the divine foreknowing of Sin. As it is written, "He that planted the ear, shall he not hear? he that formed the eye, shall he not see? he that chastiseth the heathen, shall he not correct? he that teacheth man knowledge, shall he not know? The Lord knoweth the thoughts of man, that they are vanity."-Ps. xciv, 9, 11. "O Lord, thou hast searched me, and known me. Thou knowest my down sitting and my uprising; thou knowest my thoughts afar off, and art acquainted with all my ways. For there is not a word in my tongue, but, O Lord, thou knowest it altogether."Ps. cxxxix, 1, 4. "Thus have ye said, O house of Israel: for I know the things that come into your mind, every one of them."-EZEK. xi, 5. "This people will rise up, and go a whoring after the gods of the strangers of the land whither they go to be among them, and will forsake me, and break my covenant which I made with them. For I know their imagination which they go about, even now, before I have brought them into the land which I sware."--DEU. xxxi, 16, 21.

So that by making foreknowledge and decree to be one and the same in signification, they thereby manage to forge out an artificial proof for the divine ordination of Sin. As for example, where it is said "For I know the

things that come into your mind, every one of them ;" to render the language, "For I decree the things that come into your mind every one of them;"' by this exchange of words they prove the doctrine. But this is forged evidence, and this forgery they circulate as genuine truth and if a man dares to deny the decreeing of Sin, they immediately charge him with denying the foreknowledge of God: for say they,

"Foreknowing is the general word for the Divine decree."-Dr. EDWARDS on the decree, p. 85.

Now if foreknowledge be indeed the general word for the Divine decree, why is it not generally used by the inspired penmen? If foreknowledge and decree be synonymous terms, and reciprocal, or interchangeable; we may justly substitute the one for the other. But how would it appear, were we to say, "when he gave to the sea his foreknowledge &c." Or to say "Woe unto them that foreknow unrighteous foreknowlelge?"-PRO. viii, 29. Is. x, 1.

"Foreknowledge is the general word for decree;" how does this general word shine in the place of decree; does it make the language into general sense, or into general nonsense?

We read of Darius making a decree; of Cesær Augustus making a decree; and of the Apostles delivering to the churches the decrees to keep. Suppose we substitute the word foreknowledge for that of decree in each place, as follows:

66

All the presi

King Darius live for ever. dents, of the kingdom, the governers, and princes the counsellors, and the captains have consulted to

мb

establish a royal statute, and to make a firin foreknowledge, that whosoever shall ask a petition of any god or man, for thirty days, save of thee, O King, he shall be cast into the den of lions."-DAN. vi, 7. "I make a foreknowledge, that in every dominion of my kingdom, men tremble and fear before the God of Daniel; for he is the living God."-DAN. vi, 26. "And it came to pass in those days, that there went out a foreknowledge from Cesar Augustus, that all the world should be taxed."-LUKE xxi. "And as they

went through the cities, they delivered them the foreknowledge to keep, that were ordained of the apostles and elders which were at Jerusalem."-ACTS xvi,

"Thus as foreknowledge is the general word for decree," it may be generally substituted by all such as admire this learned amendment; but for my own part, I prefer the original reading as it stands recorded in the sacred page.

God's foreknowledge and decree, are not one and the same, but two distinct things:-This appears from the following case in David's experience. "Then said David, O Lord God of Israel, thy servant hath certainly heard that Saul seeketh to come to Keilah, to destroy the city for my sake. Will the men of Keilah deliver me up into his hand? will Saul come down, as thy servant hath heard? O Lord God of Israel, I beseech thee, tell thy servant." (here was faith in God's foreknowledge.) "And the Lord said, He will come down. Then said David, will the men of Keilah deliver me and my men into the hand of Saul? And the Lord said, they will deliver thee up."

(Now if foreknowledge and decree are inseparably one and the same thing, David must here have been delivered up to Saul. But instead of this being the case, he and his men make their escape; having obtained this correct information, from the foreknowledge of God, he directly acts upon it.). "Then David and his men, which were about six hundred, arose and departed out of Keilah, and went whither they could go."-1 SAM. xxiii, 10, 13.

Did God here "know what would be, because he decreed what should be?" If so, how comes it that David is not delivered up? was God's decree frustrated? No; it was God's determined will to set David upon the throne of Israel, and he that purposed also accomplished it; notwithstanding all the malice and power of Saul.

God knows the thoughts and devices of all hearts. "Thou knowest my thoughts afar off," said David. "Thus have ye said, O house of Israel, for I know the things that come into your mind, every one of them.”EZE. xi, 5. But he does not say, I decreed them.The thoughts and purposes of men; and the thoughts and purposes of God, are distinct things: both are equally foreknown of God, but not equally decreed of God. "If this counsel or this work be of men it will come to nought but if it be of God, ye cannot overthrow it,"ACTS v, 38. There are men's councils, and there are God's councils distinctly spoken of in the word; the former never can upset the latter; but the latter upsets the former in ten thousand instances. "Behold they shall surely gather together, but not by