divine person of the eternal Son."-T-R, p. 120.

Thus to palliate the poison, they tell us that all sin shall work together for the creature's good and for the Creator's glory. They assert, that Adam's Sin was decreed in order to be a mean whereby to display the holiness and justice of Jehovah."What is Justice," says Mr. T-r, "but the eternal choice of that which is right, and a fixed determination to give all their due?"-p. 90. But was it giving the creatures their due to decree their fall, to consign them to Sin; and thereby to take away their life, happiness and heaven, and sink them in ruin, death, and everlasting destruction? Can such a procedure be really choosing that which is right, and giving to all their due? Under such circumstances, whether does the creature look most like a criminal or a sacrificed victim? Neither the Divine justice in condemning, nor the Divine mercy in redeeming, can possibly be displayed upon so God-dishonouring, and Christ degrading a basis. Jesus Christ is not exalted for restoring that which he took away, but for restoring that which he took not away; "Then I restored that which I took not away!"

But Mr. T- -R asks the solemn question, "Did not the greatest Sin that was ever committed, eventually bring most glory to God, and most happiness to his people?"

This question exálts Sin high indeed, and that to the eclipsing of the glory of Christ. Is Jesus Christ to be set aside, and Sin to be exalted here as bringing most glory to God, and most happiness tohis people?

Was it Sin that caine down from heaven and gave life unto the world that did always those things that pleased God-that magnified the law and made it honourable-that laid down its life for the sheep, and gave itself a ransom for many? Was it Sin that redeemed us to God by its blood-that finished transgression, and brought in everlasting righteousness? Was it Sin that accomplished all this? If so, let Sin be highly exalted, and let it have a name above every "Woe unto them that speak good of evil, and evil of good, which put darkness for light, and light for darkness."-Is. v, 20,-Old version.

namé.

The advocates for the exaltation of Sin, argue, that if there had been no Sin there could have been no Saviour; if there had been no Sin there could have been no grace, no mercy, no salvation. Hence in order that Christ might be exalted as the Redeemer, (and that the church might need such a Redeemer ; and might need grace, mercy, and salvation, and that it might be privileged with these good things ;) It pleased the Father of mercies in his matchless wisdom and boundless goodness, to will the existence of Sin, and graciously to decree, and immutably forefix the fall of his creatures, and also to faithfully execute this decree, by working Sin in the hearts of men, and holily driving men on unto wickedness; that the benefit and blessed effects of Sin might redound to the good of the creature and the glory of the Creator. Hence says Dr. Edwards,

"There was, as it were, a necessity of our being concluded under Sin and wrath, in order to our

repairing to Christ for life. There could not have been a Redeemer, unless we had first sold ourselves. There could not have been a Saviour unless we had first been in a lost condition. To make way therefore for the covenant of grace in Jesus Christ, and the Evangelical dispensation, God was pleased to permit* the fall of our first parents, and thinks fit to suffer the commission of all the Sins in the world. For if there had not been the latter, there could not have been the former. And by this dispensation our present state is become far better than that of Adam. We are in a more eligible

case than if we had not fallen. Thus we have gained by the fall, and, (if I may so say) God has gained likewise; that is, the glory of his grace is unspeakably advanced by it.".-Dr. J. EDWARDS on the Decrees, p. 112, 113.

This I consider to be exalting Sin. Now the plain English of the Doctor's argument appears to me to amount to this, namely, that God ordained and worked the ruin of his creatures, in order to make way for the glory of his Son by redeeming the church.

* The words "permit" and "suffer," here made use of, are (according to the doctor's creed) synonimous with decree, for, saith he, "permission is a virtual part of the decree." So that when be talks about permitting the fall, and suffering the commission of all the sins in the world; it is the same in signification, as to say, that "the fall and all the sins of the world was decreed." Hence, he unequivocally declares, "God did from eternity will or decree the commission of all the sins of the world; because his permissive will is his true and real will." And again, says the doctor, "He might have bindered the Fall but he would not; the reason was because he had decreed their fall." So that when he makes use of the words "permit," and "suffer," as above, it is but, as it were, a trussing up the limbs of the beast, in order that the camel may be more conveniently swallowed.

And that the ordination of Sin was indispensibly necessary; for unless he had first ruined the creatures he could not have reedeemed the church. So that in order to obtain this revenue of glory to Christ, God sunk the creatures in ruin, that Christ might redeem the church from ruin. Or in other words, he threw down the object of his love and special regard, in order to have the honour of lifting her up; he rolled her in filth, that he might be glorified by washing her from her filthiness. And this sinking and saving, this ruining and redeeming, is to make manifest the boundless wisdom, matchless grace, and unexampled love of Christ to his spouse the church. Unexampled love indeed, and manifested in an unexampled way! But would not the love of Christ shine much brighter without this ordination of the fall? To me it appears that this decreeing of the fall, stamps such an indelible blot upon the work and atonement of the Redeemer, as effectually saps the glory of Christ and the honour of God in the whole economy of grace. The ordination of Sin would necessarily destroy the vitality and glory of the gospel.

But to glance again at the passage, which men have so perverted.

"All things work together for good to them that love God." The advocates for the exaltation of Sin, lay a special stress upon the "All things." "This (say they) is a comprehensive expression; it admits of no exception. The worst of evils, Sin, works for good to them that love God."

Now this appears to me to be doing violence to the

passage, it is forcing it to an unscriptural extent. How would other portions of the word appear, if taken upon the same extensive scale? For example the following. "But trust in the living God, who giveth us richly all things to enjoy."-1 Tim. vi, 17. The "all things" here, is equally as comprehensive as in the other text; but does it admit of no exception? Are we to say that God hath given us all sins, and carnal gratifications, richly to enjoy? If so, then believers have full and free liberty to walk in lasciviousness, lusts, excess of wine, revellings, banquetings, and every abomination gratifying to the flesh. For "God hath given us richly all things to enjoy."-" All things; this is a comprehensive expression; it admits of no exception." "All things are yours, and ye are Christ's." Will it do? does it sound like gospel truth? Is it in accordance with Apostolic preaching? No; the "all things which God hath given us richly to enjoy;" according to apostolic preaching, are, "All things that pertain to life and godliness."--2 Pet. i, 3. It is said of Jesus, "He hath done all things well."-Is Sin included among the "All things," here? No; "He did no Sin." The "all things" then must admit of an exception: to say otherwise is forcing contemptible perversion upon the sacred word. "All things were made by him;" shall we say, that Sin was made by him? "God saw every thing that he had made, and behold, it was very good."-Was Sin very good? "He that sat upon the throne saith, Behold I make all things new," Will there be new Sin in heaven?