Mr. TUCKER also asserts that, "What ever exists or non-exists, as the effect of his power, or upholding it, must have being, or not being, only because God so determined.-And as his power cannot be exerted contrary to his will, he must will and decree whatsoever has being, and that immutably and eternally.-And therefore, if God has absolutely and immutably fixed and determined on the existence of any event, he must also have absolutely and immutably fixed and determined, all the means leading thereto, and on which that event depended."-p. 216. But what a different strain of argument is adapted by Mr. T. when he pleads against God being the Author of Sin. Hence his language, "If God can be considered as the Author of Sin, because he would not influence to prevent it, it will follow, that he could but be the Author of it, if it existed at all; and it will follow also, whether predestination be allowed or not, that he is the Author of every Sin that has been, is, and will be committed to eternity for it was in his power to prevent them all, but he certaiely withheld that power and influence necessary to such end."-p, 208. Let it be here noticed, that Mr T. defends this point by a crafty and deceptive variation of expression.* Would not influence to prevent Sin," is very different language, and holds forth a very different idea * Dr. WATTS very judiciously observes, that, "Little tricks and deceits of sophistry, by sliding in or leaving out such words as entirely change the question, should be abandoned and renounced by all fair disputants and honest searchers after truth.Error, though it can never be maintained by just reasonings yet may be artfully covered and defended.-We should make a wise distinction between solid reasoning and the mere superficial colours of it."-Dr. WATTS on the mind. And to determining Sin, decreeing Sin, executing, commanding and working all Sin; "would not prevent Sin," does not amount to this absolute determination, and actual working of Sin in the hearts of men. who ever asserted that God must be the author of Sin because he would not influence to prevent it? (None ever asserted this, but a Nicolaitan. But we do say and affirm, that if God ordained the being and existence of Sin, and executes that ordination by working Sin in the hearts of his creatures, then God must be the author of Sin.) If God had prevented Sin, or made it impossible for the creatures to have sinned, where would have been the use of giving the law, "Thou shalt not, &c?" It would be ridiculous to give a law to forbid a creature to do that which was * absolutely impossible for him to do. In such case, God might as well have charged the creature, not to pull down the sun, or not to deface the firmament, as to have told him not to do that which he had rendered impossible for him to do. And on the other hand, where could have been the justice in giving to the creatures a law, and binding them by an unfrustrable decree to transgress that law? SECTION III. "The Divine Permission of Sin." The divine permission of Sin, is a subject oftener spoken of than investigated. Pray, if a man may be so bold as to ask the question, What authority have we to talk about the Divine permission of Sin? Dr. EDWARDS says, L "It is granted by all, that God permits all the Sins that is in the world." But is there no higher evidence; is there no "thus saith the Lord" for the doctrine? The word of the I ord is better evidence on any point of divinity, than the word of all the men in the world. "Let God be true and every man a liar." And where there is not a thus saith the Lord to prove the point, I dispute that point, though all the men in the world assert it. We are not to establish doctrine upon the authority of men but upon the word of God. And if there be the authority of God for the divine permission of Sin, why not produce that authority? especially when men aise such a weighty structure upon this permission? It is granted by all, that God permits all the Sins that is in the world. Now, if he does this, (says the Doctor,) he wills this permission, because whatsoever he doth, he doth by the counsel of his own will; and consequently he did from eternity will or decree the commission of all the sins in the world, because his permissive will is his true and real will."-Dr. EDWARDS on the decrees, p. 104. This is but human assertion. Nothing is acted in the world without the will of God. His will either commands it, or permits it." "Whatsoever the Lord pleased, that did he in heaven and on earth."-CHARNOCK. According to this, whatsoever is done is not only permitted, but is done by the Lord. But "the just Lord will not do iniquity." "Shall not the Judge of all the earth do right?" "Even the Sins of the world his will permits them, his power assists in the act, and his wisdom orders th sinfulness of the act for holy ends. Not the most execrable villiany that ever was committed in the world could have been done without his permission.”CHARNOCK On Divine providence, p. 16, 29. Thus upon the ground of the Divine permission of Sin, they impute all Sin to God as the cause and worker thereof. Mr. TUCKER says, "I have before reniarked, that God neither impelled, nor tempted, by force or fraud, his creatures to sin. And therefore its being can be no impeachment of his holiness or justice. The bare permission was no active or blameable cause. If it were, God only cau be accountable for every Sin committed. For he permitted, when he had power to prevent. He still permits it, though he has ability to stop its progress in a moment, were it his pleasure. Therefore, though the nature of Sin is infinitely opposite to the nature of God; yet, his permission of it proves, that its existence is according to his sovereign will."-T L. 20, R, Do they then hold that permission signifies nothing more than not preventing; is this their general signification of permission? No; they merely hold forth this signification of the word as a bait for their trap, or a stepping stone to help them over a difficulty, while in general they hold forth the word in a much stronger point of view. They tell us : 1.—“The bare permission was no active cause."TUCKER, p. 150. 2.-" A will to permit in God is equivalent to determination."—Ibid. 3. "In whatsoever the permission of God is concerned, in the same is his actual volition concerned." BRADWERDINE. 4.-"Volition being in its own nature positive, a negative will is a contradiction in terms, and a permissive will is no less so."-T—————R, P. 115. La 5. His permission is a positive determinate ac of his will; as Austin, Luther, and Bucer justly observes."-TOPLADY vol. v, p. 254. 6.-" God's hidden will is peremptory and absolute; and therefore cannot be hindred from taking effect, God's will is nothing else than God himself willing; consequently, it is omnipotent and unfrustrable."-Ibid, vol. v, p. 192. 7.- Permission, to speak properly, is a virtual part of the decree itself."-Dr. JACKSON, vol. ii, b. 6, ch. xv. Hence, this bare permission, which is no active cause dwindles to nothing or swells up in omnipotence at their pleasure. Thus if God permitted Sin, this permission was equivalent to determination; so that Sin permitted of God, is Sin determined of God. For this permission (they say) is a positive determinate act of his will. And this positive act of his will, is not inactive, but effective in its motions, and absolute in its operations, and cannot be hindered from taking effect. "For God's will" they tell us "is nothing else than God himself willing;" consequently it is omnipotent and unfrustrable. So that the word permission, is like the mechanic wedge, i. e. thin at the point, but thickens, and widens its way as you drive it up to the head it is a bare permission to begin with, but an unfrustrable determination to end with; as such it forms a most essentia! tool in the hand of the craftsman. So much for the variation of the word permission. It is remarked by Mr. LOCKE that, Authors often change the ideas of a question, either by changing the terms, or by adding others to |