sert, we have no more freedom than the water which descends from the clouds. To adopt your sentiment therefore, and then talk about freedom and responsibility in man, is perfect nonsense. On this absurd principle his freedom is purely mechanical, for he can no more move in opposition to irresistible decrees, than he can reverse the eternal laws of order, unless you suppose him capable of breaking God's decrees; and in this case certainly the "eternal purpose," would not take effect. So that according to your principle all his thoughts, words, and actions are as immutably fixed, as the throne of God itself. How then in the name of reason, can you assert, that man is a free agent, and accountable for his conduct? Do you think merely because he feels no compulsion, he is therefore free? The water, the air, nor the fire feel any compulsive force, although governed by immutable laws-are they therefore free-agents, and responsible for their conduct? O sir, can you lay your hand upon your breast, and in the fear of God say, that the ideas you have advanced respecting man's responsibility, and the reasons for it, carry conviction to your own judgment? Pardon this appeal, sir,—it is hard to suspect a man's sincerity. But I sincerely confess, I can see not the smallest shade of difference, upon your scheme, between the reasons which are offered for man's accountability, and what might be given for inert matter.

Neither will it be of any avail to say that his actions result from his depraved nature. He is no

more accountable for this, on your principle, than the water is for its solidity, or the air for its transparency. For even this fallen, depraved nature, according to your scheme, was brought upon mankind by Adam, and upon him, by an almighty decree, made antecedent to his existence, which he could no more resist, or control, than he could dethrone the Almighty himself. And to make mankind accountable for that in which they had no concern, is as unreasonable, as to make your child of two years old accountable for the errors of your sermons. In fact, from the fairest principles of reason, inferable from your first principle advanced in the first page of your book, God is the immediate author not only of all the good, but also of all the evil ever committed by men or devils. And if this is not scandalizing the immaculate character of God in the most emphatical sense of the word, I know not what ought, in justice, to be so called.

Now if the Almighty cannot govern man as a free agent, it is because he lacks wisdom. But according to your scheme he either cannot or will not. For the doctrine of foreordination, and universal and irresistible decrees, is totally subversive of free agency. It is certainly a greater manifestation of wisdom to adapt a government to the circumstances and capacities of a world of free, responsible agents, than it is to compel them in all their actions, by an irresistible influence. Seeing therefore that God is infinitely wise, and that the doctrine advanced by you, sir, is subversive of that adorable perfection, it

C

must of consequence be false; and a false doctrine cannot originate from God.

3. In the third place, your doctrine militates against the holiness of God. If the Almighty be holy, as you must admit, nothing unholy can proceed from him. But there are many unholy events which take place. Do these unholy, sinful events originate from God? I suppose you will answer, No. But what says your doctrine? "God includes in his plan every thing which comes to pass." Does not sin come to pass? and who brings it to pass ? "The first is, That God brings to pass every thing which is brought to pass." God brings every thing to pass-sin comes to pass; therefore God brings sin to pass.

How will you avoid this conclusion? You cannot in any way fairly, but by denying your principle.An unholy effect must have an unholy cause; but sin, the effect, is unholy, and therefore must proceed from an unholy cause. Now according to your doctrine sin originates from God, as its "efficient cause;" and from this it follows by fair consequence that God is unholy. Such are the fatal consequences of your doctrine-it strikes at the holiness of God. But God is infinitely holy, and therefore that "scheme" which annihilates this essential property of the divine nature, cannot be true.

4. The goodness of God shines among his adorable perfections like the moon amidst the stars of heaven; and whatever has a tendency to tarnish its glories must be rejected. But your doctrine of

universal decrees, casts an impenetrable shade around it, until it is dispelled by the wafting rays of truth. While speaking of the precious elect, it is true, you unfold some of the glories of this pre-eminent perfection. You have, however, shrouded it in a mantle of darkness, by asserting that God before all worlds decreed, that one part of mankind should never be objects of his goodness, but were eternally doomed to never-ending torments to benfit the elect. What becomes of the goodness of God, while he is represented as dooming myriads of intelligent beings, not excepting the innocent child of a day old, to eternal torments, merely because he would? Do you say, not so; "they are sent to hell, because they were sinners." But according to your doctrine, they were as much doing the will of heaven while committing sin, as the saints are while surrounding the throne of God-For, you say God hath decreed all the sins in the universe, and that his decrees are perfectly according to his pleasure. And is it an act of goodness to punish his creatures everlastingly, for doing his will? Has not Jesus Christ said, that whosoever doeth the will of his heavenly Father, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven? And do you not roundly assert that all things are according to his will and pleasure? And considering the saying of Jesus Christ just alluded to, how will you prove that the reprobate is damned any more than the elect, agreeably to your "scheme." This therefore is another reason why your doctrine is false, because it annihilates the

goodness of God, and leads you to contradict Jesus Christ, the true witness.

5. Truth is always consistent with itself. If therefore we embrace a system of truth, it will not contradict itself and as God is a being of immutable truth, he can neither lie, nor contradict himself. But the system you endeavour to defend cannot be true, because it is self-contradictory. In the first place you say, every event is brought about by the Almighty; and in p. 11, you quote 2 Sam. xvii. 14, For the Lord had appointed to defeat the good counsel of Ahithophel, and then add, “ Ahithophel's counsel was frustrated, because it was contrary to the counsel of him who says, My counsel shall stand, I will do all my pleasure." Was not the counsel of Ahithophel an event? and you say all events are brought about by the Lord; and yet here you say, it was contrary to the Lord's counsel. Do you mean to maintain that the Lord's counsels are in opposition one to the other, as you intimate his decrees and commands are? In p. 4, you say, "That every event which occurs is a part of his perfect plan." Yet in the case of Ahithophel, which certainly was one of "every event," you assert that it was contrary to this "perfect plan," and of course not included in it. In p. 22, you say, "Nothing could be more abhorrent to his nature" than for the Jews to cause their children to pass through the fire to Moloch; although according to your former statement, it was "included in the perfect plan" "brought to pass by God," and according to "his