men to be saved, even those who are reprobated and damned,"-DR. EDWARDS on the decrees b. 1. c. iii, p. 211.

Now, where do we see this first and original decree of God come to pass? Is it yet to come, are we to look for a jail delivery? The learned Dr. like the rest of the eminent advocates for the doctrine, sometimes runs one way and sometimes another, just as the wind of fancy wafts him. His trumpet evidently gives an uncertain sound. When men's assertious are so flatly contradictious, it is a speaking evidence that they know not what they say nor whereof they affirm.

For a man to tell us that the creatures fell," because God had decreed their fall;" and that "God did from eternity decree the commission of all the sins of the world," that he, by his decree, makes the event certain," that, "what is decreed by God cannot be put by, by man. No man can resist the will of heaven.”

66

That God's will alone makes the difference, and consequently that the decree of damnation is absolute." "Those shall certainly and infallibly perish who were designed to it by the eternal ordination of heaven, or else the grand end propoed by God would be frustrated." When on the other hand he asserts and declares that "the whole race of Adam, were in a salvable state at first, and that "God had originally designed their happiness,"-and that "the first and original decree of God was to make them happy," and that "God wills all men to be saved even those who are reprobated and damned."

For a man, I say, to make such irreconcilable asser

tions, as the above, is but a "darkening of council by words without knowledge," and betrays, either a WANT OF HONESTY, or, a want of understanding.

TWELFTH.-Another objection against the decreeing of sin, is, that it militates against the divine justice, and of this the advocates of the doctrine are well Hence whenever they attempt to defend the divine justice in punishing the creature for sin, they take special care to keep the decreeing of sin out of court. Hence says DR. EDWARDS, B 1, c. 4, p. 175.

aware.

"Mau is the free cause of his own sin and damnation. He by his own voluntary choice prefers the ways of wickedness to those of Godliness, and chooses the path of destruction rather than that of happiness, and therefore it is fitting that his choice should prove his punishment. He makes himself incapable of heaven and eternal felicity, and what can be more reasonable than that he should be excluded from them."*God never makes use of his absolute sovereignty, to condema innocent creatures to eternal misery, or to inflict punishment without a cause. In this matter he acts not as an absolute Lord, but as a just judge."

Now I have not a word to say against the above language in point of doctrine, as it appears to me to he a clear statement of the case. But where is the decreeing of sin in the statement? and where is there room for it? If the free cause of siu be verily in man, If sin be his own voluntary choice; where is there. room for the decree of the creature's fall, and the decree of all the sins he has committed, and for which he is doomed to eternal punishment? Now this same Dr. E. tells us, that, 'God decreed their fall,' and that He did from all eternity decree the commission

E

of all the sins in the world,' and that The eternal decree is the necssary cause of the futurition of evil acts' and that The acts inevitably follow on the decree,' and that the decree fixes the event or issue of the thing.'-See p. 125.

Now if the doctrine contained in the latter sentences be verily true, i e, if the creature's fall was decreed, and every subsequent sin be also irrevocably fixed by divine appointment, however can the Dr. assert that

sin is his own voluntary choice? What volunteer choice can that creature be possessed of, whose every idea, thought and act, is chosen for him, and immutably fore-fixed in the eternal purpose?

Why does the Dr. flinch from his principles and hold forth a contrary doctrine in the condemnation of the Sinner? The case is evident, the decreeing of Sin makes against the divine justice, in the condemna. tion of the creature necessitated to Sin by divine ordination; therefore the doctrine of the decreeing of Sin, is kept out of court during the examination, conviction, and condemnation of the Sinner, and that by every defender of the doctrine.

Hence says Mr. Tucker "Was it unjust in God to create rational agents, who only could be capable of sinning? Was it anjust not to make them impeccable? Was it unjust to adorn them with every moral excellency, and a capacity to have continued in their pri mitive rectitude? Was it unjust to require a test of their obedience,-a test too, the least possible, and the most easy to be complied with? Could there be any injustice in leaving them to the freedom of their own will, as they had power sufficient to stand, though free to fall? Had there been no test or precept given,

obedience or disobedience would have been impossible. And was it unjust to exact the penalty threatened when voluntarily incurred? Certainly the Justice of God cannot be impeached on account of any of these things."T- -R, p. 230.

Now in all that is said in this defence, there is not the shadow of a hint concerning the divine willing, decreeing, or working of sin in the hearts of men; Nor is it possible for either Mr. Tucker, or any other man, to maintain the doctrine of the divine decreeing of sin, without destroying the principles held forth in this defence. The decreeing of Sin, and the asserted capacity of the creatures to have continued in their primitive rectitude, are un-reconcileable positions. The decree binding them to Sin, leaves no freedom in their own will, or power, or possibility to stand.— This Mr. T -r, was perfectly aware of, and therefore cautiously avoided the difficulty, by flinching from, or rather concealing his rotten unscriptural principles, and replacing them with such as were sound, and according to truth. Just as a dishonest shopkeeper conceals his bag of deceitful weights, and replaces them with such as are just, while the inspectors are in the shop.

Mr. TR very pompously asserts,

"God punishes no man, but for Sin. Therefore not the decree, but Sin is the cause of punishment; and consequently, the punishment is just."-T-R, p. 156.

Mr. T. might have said, "Man can commit no Sin but what is decreed, nor can he fail to commit the Sin that is decreed; therefore, not the man, but the decre

Ea

is the cause of Sin; and consequently, the punishment of the sinner is unjust."

THIRTEENTH. The doctrine of the divine ordination of Sin, is not a Bible doctrine; it is of Heathen Origin, and God has evidently rejected it, and stamped it as a lying forgery; and that both in the old and new testament. I therefore reject it as such.

That the doctrine is Heathenism, and not Bibleism, is evident from its being spread throughout the heathen nations, long before the books of Moses were written. Egypt, Canaan, Chaldea, Greece, &c, were full of the doctrine of fatality; witness their observers of times, their astrologers, star-gazers, monthly prognosticators, &c.

Idolatry, fatality, and the divine ordination of Sin, are all of a stamp. Hence when the Jews swerved from the living God, and set up idols, and transgressed after all the abominations of the heathen; we find among the rest, this most abominable and heathenish doctrine, "The divine ordination of Sin," make its public appearance in the house of God. As appears from the following reproof. "Behold, ye trust in lying words, that cannot profit, Will ye steal, murder, and commit adultery, and swear falsly, and burn incense unto Baal, and walk after other Gods whom ye know not; and come and stand before me in this house which is called by my name, and say, we are delivered to do all these abominations? Is this house which is called by my name become a den of robbers in your eyes? Behold, even I have seen it, saith the Lerd."-Jer. vii, 8, 11.

Thus, this heathenish doctrine, this limb of paganism