DISSERTATION II.

DIFFERENT SENSES IN WHICH THE SUPREME

BEING MAY BE SAID TO BE THE CAUSE OF EVERY THING. THE LANGUAGE OF SCRIPTURE.

PREVIOUSLY to the discussion of those passages of Scripture which have been proposed to be considered in the first place: the different senses, in which the Supreme Being may be said to be the cause of every thing, must be distinguished; with an endeavour at the same time to explain the language of Scripture bearing on this point; and in particular the different senses in which he may be said to be the cause of evil.

God, as the author of nature, is the cause of all causes; and the producer of all effects, by the power with which he hath endued the subordinate causes of performing their several operations. It may be said therefore in one sense, that whatever is done in the world, he is the doer of it1. He is also the moral governor of the world, which he declares to be in a state of probation; the individuals of which he will

1 Origen cont. Cels. well distinguishes between the direct will of God and the effect of his power. Lib. vii. p. 377. Cantab. 1658.

4to.

punish or reward according to their doings. Now of what he does in this character, he must be said to be the doer, in a very different sense from that, in which he was said to be the doer of every thing in the former case. This distinction may be illustrated by St. Mark's account of the devils entering into the swine. "And all the devils besought him, saying, send us into the swine, that we may enter into them: and forthwith Jesus gave them leave, and the unclean spirits went out and entered into the swine." Now the event is the same, and the effect upon the minds of the spectators and owners, both as a proof of the power of our Saviour and as a punishment upon the keepers of swine in the Holy Land, whether he ordered or only permitted the devils to execute their malicious purpose; yet considered with respect to him, the fact itself bears a very different character. In the one case, it was barely not restraining the malice which those spirits delighted to exert, because of the incidental good which he saw would follow from it (for which malice they were justly objects of punishment,) but in the other, they would directly have been his agents executing his command; and so far from being amenable to punishment on that account, would have been so, if they had refused to do it.

Our mode of speaking has reference to the

2 Mark v. 12, 13.

ture.

66

distinction above mentioned; but it is neglected and confounded in the language of ScripHow, otherwise, can you account for the inconsistency which appears, when God addresses the Israelites, Why will ye die, O house of Israel?" as if it were their own act; and yet the apostle affirms that it is written, "God hath given them the spirit of slumber; eyes that they should not see, and ears that they should not hear." When, again, God says, that he had sent the Assyrian" to destroy the Israelites; and then declares he will punish him for doing it. But with this distinction in mind, there is no real inconsistency. Sin and death were the choice of the Israelites themselves; the stupidity, by which they were prevented from taking warning by God's judgments, was no farther the act of God than leaving them to the ill consequences of the choice, which they had made. And he might justly, as moral Governor, call the Assyrian to account for what he did to please himself, in opposition to his rules of justice and mercy; though for wise purposes of his own he had suffered the natural consequences of his proceedings to follow, in the oppression of the weaker. The great point of religion impressed upon the mind of the Israelites was the absolute supremacy of Jehovah in every

' Ezek. xviii. 31.

5 Isaiah x. 4. 7. 12.

4 Rom. xi. 8.

thing, and his providential interference in every circumstance, which could affect the welfare of their family or people. From whence the transition to that expression was very easy, which describes those actions of men, as his doing, of which he only overruled the event. Thus Joseph says to his brethren, Gen. xlv. 8. "So now it was not you, but God, that sent me here:" by which he does not mean to deny that his brothers had sent him thither, for he expressly says so, ver. 5; but to ascribe the whole to his providence, who had so wonderfully made use of their sin to the preservation of their whole family. As Origen Philocal. c. 26. p. 100. explains St. Paul's phrase, Rom. ix. 16. "Probably then the holy apostle, seeing our choice to be much less efficacious than his power in procuring good, says in the conclusion, it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God, that sheweth mercy;' not as if God shewed mercy without the willing and the running, but, as if the willing and the running were nothing in comparison of the mercy of God; and therefore the apostle, as he ought to do, ascribes the honour of the good to the mercy of God, rather than to the willing and running of man." At all times the family of Jacob was the favoured nation; preserved, when obedient, and punished, when disobedient; and the Gentiles were cast off for their wickedness. This simple and strongly marked outline of religion, did not

с

require them to make any distinction between the things permitted by the Almighty to happen in his dominion and under his controul, which were the consequence of the misbehaviour of his creatures, and those things of which he was the immediate agent. Neither were they in the habit of expressing this distinction by their language; for they used their transitive conjugations or voices indifferently, either for simple permission or actual causation.

On which point it will contribute to make the argument clearer, in this and some other parts of these Dissertations, to those, who are not acquainted with the original language of the Old Testament, to say, that the Hebrew and all the languages of that family, the Chaldee, Syriac, Arabic, and Samaritan, have forms, not only for expressing the active and passive voices of the Europeans, but also other forms, which they call conjugations; but which, agreeably to the technical expressions of our grammarians, might more properly be called voices. By these they give the meaning of cause or permission to the original' verb; for instance, the word, which in its simple form signifies "I stand," in these derivative voices assumes the meaning," I make or cause to stand," or, "I permit to stand;" for the same form has either signification. Thus Isaiah lxiii. 17. "O Lord why hast thou made us to err from thy ways and hardened our heart from thy fear?" might as truly be rendered, "why hast