Page images
PDF
EPUB

and not upon the law given in paradise, to which perverted sense Mr. T―r. has applied it as above. The law which the apostle has in view in the above quotations, is that given on Sinai, which, "was added because of transgression;" not to be the cause. Not given to pure creatures that thereby they might become exceeding sinners; but given to fallen creatures, "that Sin by the commandment might become exceeding sinful." Or in other words, that sinners thereby might be convicted of the exceeding sinfulness of Sin. "For by the law is the knowledge of Sin;" not the principle and act. "I had not known Sin," says the apostle, "but by the law." He does not say, I had not been a sinner but by the law. -GAL. iii, 19, and Ro. vii.

But to leave Mr. T―r for the present, let us hear what argument other divines have to bring in support of this doctrine. In the Assembly's shorter Catechism I find the following question and answer, on Providence : Question 20th.-Does God's governing Providence include in it his immediate concurrence with every action

[ocr errors]

of the creature?

"Answer-Yes: God not only effectively concurs in producing the action, as to the matter of it, but likewise predetermines the creature to such or such an action, and not to another.-Is. x, 6. 7. Shutting up all other ways of acting, and leaving that only open, which he had determined to be done."-EZE. xxi, 21: 22.

Now I would wish to investigate, whether the above teaching be strictly, and scripturaly correct, as it respects every sinful act of the creature; or whether this, "Every action be not a stretch beyond what the law and the testimony will support.

I ask then, when our first parents sinned, were they shut out from every other way of acting; or in other

words, were they excluded from all other fruit excepting that which was forbidden? The word does not tell us so; it says "Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat :-But of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it."-GEN. ii. 16. 17. Where then is the shutting up of all other ways of acting?

I would ask again, when David committed adultery, what proof is there that God shut up all other ways of acting, and left that only open which he had determined to be done? Was there no way for David to escape Sin here; or was there not as much way for David to escape the act of adultery with his servant's wife, as there was for Joseph to escape the act with his master's wife? For ought I can see from the circumstances there was; and more in favour of David than of Joseph. As Joseph was situated in the same house, shut up as it were with the object; she had daily access unto him: David was not shut up with the object, he sent messengers for Bath-sheba and took her; and she came in unto him, and he lay with her.-2 SAM. xi. 4. David had no excitement to the act by intimation of desire from the object; but Joseph was solicited day by day, was persued into privicy, took hold of, struggled with, and that by his superior, his mistress; with the desire of her heart openly disclosed—“Come lie with me." But Joseph

"Harkened not unto her, to lie by her, or to be with her; but fted from her and got him out.-GEN, xxxix. 10.

Was there then a way for Joseph to escape and none for David? Men indeed tell us so; but the

cb

word of inspiration says "There hath no temptation taken you but such as is common to man: but God is faithful, who will not suffer you to be tempted above that ye are able; but will with the temptation also make a way to escape."--1 Co. x. 13, The "shutting up then of all other ways of acting," (as it respects Sin,) will not bear the test of the word.-"Ye make the word of God of none effect by your tradition."-MARK, vii. 13

But let us hear another advocate for the doctrine, namely, MR. TOPLADY. His language then in defence thereof is as follows:

"It is a known and very just maxim of the schools, effectus sequitur causam proximam: "An effect follows from, and is to be ascribed to, the last cause that produced it," Thus, for instance, if I hold a book or a stone in my hand, my holding it is the immediate cause of its not falling; but, if I let it go, my letting it go is not the immediate cause of its falling it is carried downward by its own gravity, which is therefore the causa proxima effectus, the proper and immediate cause of its decent. It is true, if I had kept my hold of it, it would not have fallen; yet, still, the immediate direct cause of its fall, is its own weight, not my quiting my hold. The application of this, to the providence of God, as concerned in sinful events, is easy. Without God, there could have been no creation; without creation no creatures; without creatures no Sin. Yet is not Sin chargeable upon God: for effectus sequitur causam proximam."-TOP. vol. v. p. 257.

Now I would ask, by what law is this maxim just? As to the dropping of a book or a stone, there is neither justice nor injustice in the case; but instead of a book or stone, suppose this author takes a child,

and holds it out of a garrat window; and was to say, my holding this child is the immediate cause of its not falling; but if I let it go, (if I willfully let it go in order that its brains may be dashed out by the fall, according to my secret purpose,) my letting it go, is not the cause of its falling: for effectus sequitur causam proximam.

Would justice say his letting go the child was not the immediate cause of its falling? Would justice ascribe the effect, (viz, the death of the child,) to the last cause that produced it? No, it would charge its death upon him that willfully let go the child, and justice would hang him for the murder. And I verily believe, that such as hold forth this maxim, and have the affrontry to pronounce it "very just;" would nevertheless be very loath to defend it, under such circumstances at the risk of their neck.

I would also observe, that the judge of all the earth, does not act, or judge by this maxim of the schools. The Lord did not charge the the death of Naboth, to the stones that actually deprived him of life; nor to the people who threw them; nor to the rulers of Jezreel, who condemned him; nor to the false witnesses, who witnesed against him; but he charged the act and guilt upon Ahab and Jezebel, who secretly willed and decreed the deed. Hence the prophet is sent expressly to Ahab, with a "Thus saith the Lord, hast thou killed, and also taken possession? Thus saith the Lord, in the place where dogs licked up the blood of Naboth shall dogs lick up thy blood, even thine."-1 KINGS. xxi. 19. 23. Here we see,

that, God ascribes the effect to the first cause, which set all the rest in motion, not to the last.

See also the death of Uriah; it was not charged upon the children of Ammon, who actually slew him; nor upon Joab, who stationed him in the front of the battle; but it was charged upon David, who secretly willed and decreed his death, and directed Joab to set him in the fore front of the battle in order that he might die. This in the sight of the Lord was murder; and the Lord charged it upon David as his own personal act:

"Thou hast killed Uriah the Hittite with the sword." -SAM, xii. 9. So that we see. God acts exactly contrary to the school maxim; and "We are sure that the judgment of God is according to truth."-Ro. ii. 2, And we may safely say: That which is contrary to it is a lie, and abominable in the sight of God, however highly it may be esteemed among men.LUKE, xvi. 15.

"He that deviseth to do evil shall be called a mischievous person."-PRO. xxiv. 8.

"Woe unto them that devise iniquity, and work evil upon their beds."-Mic. ii. 1. One of the six things that the Lord hates, is "An heart that deviseth wicked imaginations."-PRO. vi, 18.-ZEC. viii. 17. So that the school maxim is not a bible maxim, neither does it set forth a bible doctrine.

But a word upon the application, of this school maxim as to God being the cause of Sin, and I have done here. I would ask them, what analogy has the

« PreviousContinue »