Mr. Weeks has produced a very long list of texts of this description; but what is all this to the purpose? He has still to prove that these texts relate not to the providential government of God, but to an immediate divine agency upon the hearts of sinners. But of this he has not given a shadow of proof from the word of God. That they prove, that the will, the decree, and unalterable counsel of God, are concerned in every instance of the existence of moral evil, we fully believe. But still the question remains to be decided, Does God execute his will or purpose in turning the king's heart, or the heart of other sinners, withersoever he will, by a direct operation on the mind, or by the intervention and agency of second causes?

The opposing doctrine says-God does not, and cannot exercise this absolute government and control, over the wills and passions of men, but by a direct influence on the heart. No direction or application of second causes or motives by his almighty power and wisdom, is sufficient to account for the event. To prove that the texts of the description of those just cited, can mean nothing less than this immediate or direct influence on the heart of wicked men, Dr. Hopkins, on the Divine Decrees, thus argues:*If the Scriptures, which have been mentioned, where hardening the hearts of men, blinding and shutting their eyes, and inclining and turning their hearts, when they practice moral evil, &c. if these Scriptures are to be understood, as meaning no more than that God orders their situation and external circumstances to be such, that considering their disposition, and the evil bias of their minds, they will without any other influence, be blinded and hardened; then all those Scriptures, which speak of God's changing and softening the heart, taking away the hard heart, and giving an heart of flesh, and causing men to walk in his ways, &c. may and must be understood in the same way, as not intending any special divine influence on the mind, &c."

With all due deference to so great a writer, and one who commonly reasons with so much correctness and power, I must be allowed to say, that his argument here is utterly inconclusive. If there was as much said in one case as in the other, about the necessity and reality of a divine influence, his argument would be good. But is not the very reverse of this true. In regard to saints, it is in the first place declared of them, when considered in themselves, that their hearts are fully set in them to do evil! Here then is a necessity of a divine influence to incline them to good, that does not exist in regard to inclining them to evil. For their whole nature is previously bent this way."There is none that seeketh after God, there is none that doeth good; no, not one.”

Is it not expressly declared in regard to the good exercises of saints that the effect is not of themselves. "It is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy." But where is it thus declared, that all the wicked exercises of sinners are not of themselves, but of God? Then is a man tempted, says James, when he is drawn away of his own lust. Christ says of Satan, "When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own." "Oh, Israel thou hast destroyed thyself." It is not the language of the Bible, when a man steals, lies, commits adultery, &c. to say it is not of himself, but of God. Therefore to represent, these two classes of texts as equally expressive of a direct, inward, divine agency on the heart, is a perversion of Scripture, and a very gross one. But into this error has Dr. Hopkins and Mr. Weeks both fallen.

3. It is expressly declared in the divine word, that no means, motives, or second causes, are sufficient of themselves, though applied in the course of divine providence, to produce the holy and gracious exercises of the new creature. "I have planted, Apollos watered; but God gave the increase."-"He that loveth, is born of God." But where do we find it written, that no arguments, no enticements, no

temptations to sin, are sufficient to lead men into evil conduct; where do we read, that Satan may tempt, wicked men allure, the world may fascinate, but all in vain till God moves the heart to do evil? Hence to explain what is found in the Scriptures of the agency of God in the production of moral evil, hardening the hearts and blinding the eyes, &c. of his doing this by the instrumentality of second causes, does by no means intrench upon the doctrine of a direct divine influence in the regeneration of sinners, and moving or exciting them to that, which is good. Nor is this idea more inconsistent, than the Armenian theory, which refers what is said of a divine agency, both in regard to the exercises of sinners and saints, altogether to the power and influence of second causes, as the Doctor asserts. In regard to this point we beg leave to add the following remarks:

1. Are the judgments of God unsearchable and his ways past finding out! Is it not then presumption, in a high degree, to say, the infinitely wise and powerful Jehovali, cannot give any such efficacy to second causes and instruments, as to turn the hearts of men, what way he pleases, without any other influence? He that dares to do this must not expect to be admired for his humility and great reverence for the Deity.

2. Is it not customary in the language of Scripture, to ascribe to an agent the performance of a work, which he executes by the instrumentality of others, merely because it took place according to his counsel and design.-Nathan said to David, "Thou hast killed Uriah the Hittite, with the sword."

But

would not he be guilty of falsehood, who should say David did it, not by instruments, but by his own immediate agency? So we conceive, that the wickedness which takes place in the world, hardening hearts, &c. is ascribed to God, because it is agreeable to his infinitely wise counsels and designs, to order things in his Providence so that it will come to pass; and he would be equally guilty of misrepresenting his ways,

who should say he brings it to pass by a direct agency, and not by the instrumentality of second

causes.

3. That it is by the instrumentality of second causes and instruments, that God works in regard to all, whom he is said to harden and blind, and not by a direct influence on their heart, is plain from this; that the same instances of moral evil which are ascribed to his agency, are in the same divine word explained to take place through the instrumentality of second causes. In 2 Thess. ii, 11, 12, it is said of some, who hated and abused the truth, "For this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie, that they all might be damned, who believed not the truth but had pleasure in unrighteousness." But in the verses immediately preceding, the great instrument, by which this was brought about, is expressly named-Whose coming" (i. e. the man of sin with this strong delusion,) "is after the working of Satan, with all power and signs and lying wonders, with all deceivableness of unrightcousness in them that perish, &c." In like manner, in all instances wherein God is said to harden the hearts of men, deceive and blind them, it is equally easy to point out the instruments by which it is done, and account for it all without any immediate positive influence upon the heart of the wicked. If it should here be objected that the good exercises of the virtuous are sometimes ascribed to instruments and second causes, as we read of saints being born of the word, &c. and therefore there is no immediate divine influence concerned in their production, it must be replied, as stated in a preceding article, that the Bible tells us, that in regard to the good exercises of saints, no second cause is sufficient; but it does not tell us that no second cause, enticement or temptation, is insufficient to lead wicked men into sin; but the contrary, that they are led away of their own lust, and that Satan leads them captive at his will.

4. It seems to be too much overlooked by those, who bring these texts to prove an immediate divine influence, as necessary in all instances to move the will of wicked men to choose and act, that the passages relate not to the ordinary, but special providential dealings of the Most High. Hardening the heart, blinding the eyes, &c. is a judgment inflicted upon men peculiarly wicked for former sins and transgressions. In the instance of strong delusion just referred to, it was for hatred and abuse of the truth, it was sent. Nor was it a procedure that related equally to all men, but specially to those, who had been thus guilty.

Now to apply these passages equally to all men, even, if they did imply an immediate positive divine agency, would be to misinterpret and pervert the Holy Scriptures. Thus we conceive these two difficulties, thrown in the way of our theory, are fairly removed; and if these be removed, the system of direct and positive efficiency as asserted by these writers, is entirely overthrown; for this is all they have to support it. God must move the heart of wicked men to sin, because motives in no case can be the cause of choice, or of the mind's acting. But this, as we have seen, is contrary to the opinion of the most profound researches of preceding philosophers, contrary to the plain dictates of common sense, contrary to the established laws of nature, and what is more, contrary to the constant and plain representations of the Holy Scriptures, which continually speak of created agents, second causes, and instruments, as acting upon and exciting the minds of men. because, when the Scriptures represent God as hardening the hearts of sinners, and turning them what way he will, it is a mere assumption, to say it must be by an immediate divine influence, yea it is a position of these writers, not only assumed without evidence, but in opposition to the most solemn declarations of the Bible, to the contrary, as we shall soon attempt to shew.

And