be said that our choice has no cause, the difficulty will still remain. For if the blame belongs to the cause, and our choice has no cause, the blame belongs no where. But every one feels that there is blame worthiness somewhere, and that it does not belong to God, but to the creature. The blame worthiness, therefore, does not lie in the cause of the choice, but in the nature of the choice itself. And since we really choose, and our choice is our own, and the blame worthiness lies in the nature of the choice itself, the blame belongs entirely to us, let the cause of our choice be what it may. When God works in us to will and do, we really will and do, as much as if we were independent. Our actions are our own, and the criminality of them, if they are wrong, belongs entirely to us. And this every one feels, in his own breast, however some pretended philosophers have endeavored to persuade themselves to the contrary. Every one feels, in his own breast, that when he acts voluntarily, he is a proper subject of praise or blame, according as his actions are right or wrong. If he voluntarily does that which he knows he ought not, he is condemned of his own conscience, and all the metaphysical subtleties in the world cannot make him feel that he is not to blame. God "moved" David to number Israel; but David said, “I have sinned greatly in that I have done and now I beseech thee, O Lord, take away the iniquity of thy ser

vant; for I have done very foolishly." He was conscious of doing wickedly, and God's having moved him to do as he had done, did not in the least degree diminish his guilt and desert of punishment, in God's view or his own: and he was punished in a terrible manner by the pestilence. God hardened the heart of Pharaoh, that he should not let his people go; but when he punished him for refusing to let them go, Pharaoh said, "The Lord is righteous, and I and my people are wicked. I have sinned against the Lord your God, and against you." Pharaoh did not feel any the less guilty, because God had hardened his heart, and caused him to do these things. And God did not consider him any the less guilty, but punished him in a most exemplary manner. Judas felt guilty, when he had betrayed his Lord, though he did neither more nor less than was before "determined" and "written" of him.

Peter

felt guilty, when he had denied his master, though it was not only decreed before hand that he should do so, but Peter knew it before hand, for our Lord had told him that he would deny him. And God every where in scripture considers and treats persons as guilty, when doing things in themselves improper, though they are acting under his decree and agency. "He turned the heart" of the Egyptians "to hate his people, and to deal subtlely with his servants," Ps. 105. 25, but he punished them for their wickedness in so doing. He "put

66

in the hearts" of the kings of the earth "to agree and give their kingdom unto the beast," but he punished them for so doing, as appears from the context. He made use of the king of Assyria, as "the rod of his anger," to chastise a wicked people, and represents himself as employing his own agency, in the use of this instrument, as really as the man does, who moves a saw, an axe, or a rod, with his hand. But, nevertheless, God considers him as guilty, and says, Isa. 10. 12. Wherefore, it shall come to pass, that when the Lord hath performed his whole work upon mount Zion and on Jerusalem, I will punish the fruit of the stout heart of the king of Assyria, and the glory of his high looks." God "stirred up" the neighboring nations to come against Israel and Judah, and then sent the king of Babylon to destroy them for their wickedness in so doing; and then he "stirred up" the Medes and Persians to punish Babylon. Indeed, from the whole tenor of the scripture history, it is evident, that it is God's usual manner, to make use of the ambition, pride and cruelty of one nation, to punish the same wickedness in another; and when he has done so, to punish the instrument of his vengeance in the same manner. And this method of divine

administration meets the approbation of the inhabitants of heaven. For when John saw in

vision the third angel pour out his vial upon the

rivers and fountains of waters, which turned them

to blood, denoting the terrible slaughter of the enemies of the church, by each other's hands, he says, Rev. 16. 5, 6. “And I heard the angel of the waters say, Thou art righteous, O Lord, which art, and wast, and shalt be, because thou hast judged thus; for they have shed the blood of saints and prophets, and thou hast given them blood to drink; for they are worthy." And thus, reason, scripture, common sense, and the conscience of every man, agree in declaring, that men are guilty and deserving of punishment, notwithstanding they act under the decree of God, and do no more than what he causes them to do by his powerful agency.

There are some also, who make this objection against the doctrine supported in these discourses, who answer it themselves, and maintain the very principles against which they bring the objection. For they admit that God causes all the good actions of his creatures. They agree with us in saying, that God works in the saints to will and to do, of his good pleasure. But free agency is as necessary to holiness as it is to sin. A machine cannot be holy, any more than it can be sinful. If, then, God works in the saints to will and to do that which is right, and they are holy, he may work in the wicked to will and to do that which is wrong, and they be sinful. If God's agency does not destroy the agency of the saints, it does not destroy the agency of sinners.

If.

while God works in the saints to will and do, they can do that which is praise worthy, and acceptable in the sight of God; then, while God works in sinners to will and to do, they can do that which is blame worthy, and deserving of punishment. And thus, many of those who make the objection destroy it themselves.

Objection 3. It is said, that the scriptures represent sinners as hardening their own hearts, fitting themselves for the day of wrath, and effecting their own destruction. But this doctrine represents God as hardening their hearts, and fitting them for destruction. And therefore, this doctrine is contrary to the scriptures.

Answer. It is true that the scriptures represent sinners as hardening their own hearts, destroying themselves, and the like. But this objection takes it for granted that the agency of God and the agency of the creature cannot both be employed about the same thing, when the doctrine supported in these discourses is, that they are both employed about the same thing. One passage of scripture declares that Pharaoh hardened his own heart, and another passage declares that God hardened his heart. Both are true, and they are perfectly consistent with each other. For, it does not follow, because Pharaoh hardened his own heart, that therefore God did not harden it, nor because God hardened his heart, that therefore Pharaoh did not harden his own heart. The doctrine sup