SERM.man; but every man is tempted, when he is XIII. drawn away of his own luft and enticed.

To correct which vicious inclination, let us humbly apply ourselves to God, that he would be pleased to continue to us the af fiftance of his grace, to keep our feet from every evil way, and lead us in the way everlafting, thro' Jefus Christ our Lord. To whom, &c.

1

SER

Let no man fay, when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man.

TH

HE method in which I proposed to SERM. difcourfe to you from these words XIV. of St. James, was this, namely,

I. To affert the truth of the Text, that
God is not the Author of fin: and
that by fhewing,

1. That God cannot be tempted with (or
to) evil. And

2. That, as the neceffary confequence of this, he doth not tempt. Then, II. To folve some of the principal difficulties which do feem to lie against it.

And,

Y 4

III. To

SERM.

XIV.

III. To draw fome useful inferences from the whole.

The two firft of thefe have already been dispatched in feveral preceding Difcourfes, wherein the doctrine of the Text has not only been fupported by clear and convincing arguments, but the objections which are made against it, either from mistaken fcripture or reafon, have likewise been removed; fo that we may now have leave to argue from the doctrine of the Text, as a fixed and fettled principle, and there remains nothing to be done by me, in the method propofed, but to go on in order,

in the

III. THIRD and laft place, to draw fome ufeful inferences from it. And

1. First, It will become us, from this proof which we have had of the folly and unreasonableness of charging God with being the Author or the Tempter to fin; it will, I fay, become us to take occafion from hence, to vindicate the justice and holiness of God in all his difpenfations.

There can be nothing of greater moment and importance to the honour of religion, or to its farther progrefs and reception in the world, than to entertain the moft high and honourable thoughts of him who is the Author of our Being, and the

Object

1

Object of our worship. For, if we should SER M. conceive of him, that he is altogether fuch XIV. a one as ourselves, capable of being blinded by prejudice, or biafs'd by corrupt motives, and withal of biaffing and inclining us to the like corruption and enormity, it would not be expected, that our obedience to him should stand on any folid bafis, or deserve a better name than fuperftition or hypocrify. Our fears of offending would, in that cafe, fpring rather from an inward confufion and amazement, than from awe and reverence. Our hopes of pleafing must be built upon fome whimfical conceits of our own, fince there could be no rational or certain rule of duty towards him, whose will is variable and inconftant, and not determined by its own neceffary and unalterable rectitude. Or rather, if we would keep confiftent with our own principles, we should have no hopes or fears at all, fince there is no room to judge men. either virtuous or vicious, if they be laid under fuch inevitable neceffity as fhould irresistibly constrain them either to comply or tranfgrefs, and leave them no liberty of choice or action.

If then we would keep up any fense of religion, it concerns us often and seriously to reflect upon the falfhood of this principle, by recollecting those invincible arguments, which may be urged in behalf of

the

SERM. the contrary doctrine taught us in the Text, XIV. and the weaknefs of thofe fallacies by which that principle itself is thought to be supported.

That God cannot be tempted with (or to). evil, is manifeft (as we have feen) from the perfection of his nature, there being nothing more infeparable from our notion of God as the most perfect Being, than the idea of holiness or purity; infomuch that we must first find out a way to reconcile contradictions, and make natural repugnancies confiftent, before we can advance, with any colour of probability, that this pureft and most perfect Being fhould approve of fin and imperfection. And how then should he be tempted with evil, which is fo directly contrary and repugnant to his nature? Can we fuppofe him mutable, and that he who is at prefent fo averse from fin, fhould, in a while, change his difpofition, and begin to be pleafed with it?

This again is inconfiftent with that notion of perfection which makes up our idea of God. Inconftancy and change may have place in fuch Beings as fee not the whole reafon and œconomy of things, but not in the great Author and Upholder of the univerfe, who cannot be ignorant of any thing that he has made, nor fee reafon to alter any of his meafures, upon account of new difcoveries, or fresh improvements.