act and from the desire of obeying his own inclinations, not through a deficiency of the requisite divine concurrence; he cause, in this respect, he abstains from an act as it is a natu ral good, but it is the will of God that he should refrain from it as it is a moral evil.

X. The preceding considerations relate to the BEGINNING of sin. In reference to the PROGRESS of sin, a two-fold efficiency of divine providence occurs, direction and determination. The direction of sin is an act of divine providence, by which God wisely, justly, and powerfully directs sin wherever he wills, "reaching from one end to another mightily, and sweetly ordering all things." (Wisdom viii, 1.) In the divine direetion is likewise contained [abductio] a leading away from that point whither it is not the will of God [intendere] to direct it. This direction is two-fold, unto an object, and unto an end. Direction unto an object is when God allows the sin, which he permits, to be borne, not at the option of the creature. towards an object which, in any way whatsoever, is exposed and liable to the injury of sin; but which he directs to a particular object that sometimes has been no part of the sinner's aim or intention, or that he has at least not absolutely intended. (Prov. xvi, 9; xxi, 1.) Of this we have a signal example in Nebuchadnezzar, who, when he had prepared himself to subjugate nations, preferred to march against the Jews rather than the Ammonites, through the divine administration of his divinations. (Ezek. xxi, 19-22.) Direction unto an end is, when God does not allow the sin, which he permits, to be conducive to any end which the creature intends; but he uses it for that end which he himself wills, whether the creature intend the same end, (by which he would not still be excused from sin,) or whether he has another purpose which is directly contrary. The vendition of Joseph into Egypt, the temptation of Job, and the expedition of the king of Assyria against the Jews, afford illustrations of these remarks. (Gen. 1, 20, 21; Job i & ii; Isai. x, 5-12.)

XI. The determination of sin is an act of divine providence by which God places [modum] a measure or check on his permission, and a boundary on sin, that it may not, at the

option and will of the creature, wander in infinitum. This mode and boundary are placed by the circumscription of the time, and the determination of the magnitude. The circumscription of the time is, when the space of time, in which the permitted sin could [durare] continue, is diminished and circumscribed so as to stop itself. (Matt. xxiv, 22.) In this part also, regard must be had to the act as such, and to the sin as such. (i.) God places a boundary to the duration of the act, when he takes the rod of iniquity from the righteous, lest they commit any act unworthy of themselves; (Psalm cxxv, 3;) and when "he delivers the godly out of temptation." (2 Pet. ii, 9.) (i.) God places a boundary to the duration of the sin when he "hedges up the way of the Israelites with thorns," that they may no longer commit idolatry; (Hosea ii, 6, 7;) when "He commands all men every where to repent," among "all nations, whom he suffered, in times past, to walk in their own ways." (Acts xiv, 16; xvii, 30.) A boundary is fixed to the magnitude of sin, when God does not permit sin to increase to excess and assume greater strength. This also is done with respect to it as an act, or as a sin. (i.) In the former respect, as an act, God hindered "the wrath of their enemies from swallowing up" the children of Israel, though he had permitted it to rise up against them; (Psalm cxxiv, 2, 3;) He permitted "no temptation to sieze upon" the Corinthians "but such as is common to man;" (1 Cor. x, 13;) He hindered the devil from putting forth his hand against the life of Job; (i & ii;) He prevented Shishack, the king of Egypt, from "destroying" the Jews, and permitted him only to subject them to servitude. (2 Chron. xii, 7-9.) (ii.) In respect to it as a sin, God hindered David from contaminating himself with the blood of Nabal and his domestics, which he had sworn to shed, and with whom he was then in a state of contention. (1 Sam. xxv, 22, 26.) He also prevented David from going forth to battle in company with the army of Achish, (xxvii, 2; xxix, 6, 7,) to whom he had fled, and "before whom he had feigned himself mad,” (xxi, 13,) thus, at the same time he hindered him from destroying his own countrymen, the Israelites, and from bringing disasters on the army

1

cerning either those sinners who are hardened, or those who are not hardened.

XIV. (2.) The PARDON or remission of sin is an act of the Providence of God, by which the guilt of sin is forgiven, and the punishment due to sin on account of its guilt is taken away. As this remission restores, to the favor of God, the man who had previously been an enemy; so it also causes the Divine administration respecting him to be afterwards entirely gracious, so far as equity and justice require. That is, through this pardon, he is free from those spiritual punishments which have been enumerated in the preceding Thesis; (Psalm li, 10-12;) and though not exempt from corporal chastisements, yet he is not visited with them through the anger of God as the punisher of sin, but only through [affectu] the desire of God thus to declare that He hates sin, and besides so to chastise as to deter the sinner from again falling into it. (2 Sam. xii, 11-13.) For which reason, the government of Providence with regard to this man is entirely different from that under which he remained before he obtained remission. (Psalm. cxix, 67; 1 Cor. xi, 32; Psalm xxxii, 1, 6.) This consideration is exceedingly useful for producing in man a solicitous care and a diligent endeavor to obtain grace from God, which may not only be sufficient to preserve him in future from sinning but which may likewise be so administered by the gra cious Providence of God, as God knows to be [congruum] best fitted to keep him in the very act from sin.

XV. This is the efficiency of Divine Providence concerning sin, which cannot be accused of the least injustice. (1.) For with respect to TO THE HINDERING OF SIN, that which is employed by God is sufficient in its own nature to hinder, and by which [deberet] it is the duty of the creature to be hindered from sin, by which also he might actually be hindered unless he offered resistance and [deesset, "was wanting to," or] failed of the proffered grace. But God is not bound to employ all the methods which are possible to Him for the hindrance of sin. (Rom. i and ii; Isai. v, 4; Matt. xi, 21-23.) (2.) But the cause of sin cannot be ascribed to the Divine PERMISSION. Not the efficient cause; for it is a suspension of the Divine

efficiency. Not the deficient cause; for it pre-supposed, that man had [potentiam] a capability not to commit sin, by the aid of Divine grace, which is either near and ready; or if it be wanting, it is [non presto] removed to a distance by the fault of the man himself. (3.) The PRESENTING OF ARGUMENTS AND OCCASIONS does not cause sin, unless, per accidens, accidentally. For it is administered in such a manner, as to allow the creature not only the spontaneous but also the free use of his own motions and actions. But God is perfectly at liberty in this manner to try the obedience of his creature. (4.) Neither can injustice be ascribed with any propriety to THE DIVINE CONCURRENCE. For there is no reason in existence why God ought to deny his concurrence to that act which, on account of the precept imposed, cannot be committed by the creature without sin; (Gen. ii, 16, 17; which concurrence God would grant to the same act of the creature, if a law had not been made. (5.) DIRECTION and DETERMINATION have no difficulty. (6.) PUNISHMENT and PARDON have in them manifest equity, even that punishment which contains blinding and hardening; since God is not wont to inflict it except for the deep demerit and the almost [deploratum] desperate contumacy of his intelligent creature. (Isai. vi, 7; Rom. i; 2 Thess. ii, 9-12.)

DISPUTATION XI.

ON THE FREE WILL OF MAN AND ITS POWERS.

Respondent, PAUL LEONARDS.

I. THE word, arbitrium, "choice," or "free will," properly signifies both the faculty of the mind or understanding, by which the mind is enabled to judge about any thing proposed to it, and the judgment itself which the mind forms according to that faculty. But it is transferred from the MIND to the WILL, on account of the very close [unionem] connection which

subsists between them. LIBERTY, when attributed to the will, is properly an affection of the will, though it has its root in the understanding and reason. Generally considered, it is various. (1.) It is a FREEDOM from [imperio] the control or jurisdiction of one who commands, and from an obligation to render obedience. (2.) From the inspection, care, and gov ernment of a superior. (3.) It is also a freedom from necessity, whether this proceeds from an external cause compelling, or from a nature inwardly determining absolutely to one thing. (4.) It is a freedom from sin and its dominion. (5.) And a freedom from misery.

II. Of these five modes of liberty, the first two appertain to God alone; to whom also on this account, aurssia, perfect independence, or complete freedom of action, is attributed. But the remaining three modes may belong to man, nay in a certain respect they do pertain to him. And, indeed, the former, namely, freedom from necessity always pertains to him because it exists naturally in the will, as its proper attribute, so that there cannot be any will if it be not free. The freedom from misery, which pertains to man when recently created and not then fallen into sin, will again pertain to him when he shall be translated in body and soul into celestial blessedness. But about these two modes also, of freedom from necessity and from misery, we have here no dispute. It remains, therefore, for us, to discuss that which is a freedom from sin and its dominion, and which is the principal controversy of these times.

III. It is therefore asked, is there within man a freedom of will from sin and its dominion, and how far does it extend? Or rather, what are the powers of the whole man to understand, to will, and to do that which is good? To return an appropriate answer to this question, the distinction of a good object, and the diversity of men's conditions, must both enter into our consideration. The GOOD THINGS presented to man are three, natural, which he has in common with many other creatures; animal, which belong to him as a man; and spiritual, which are also deservedly called Celestial or Divine, and which are consentaneous to him as being a partaker of