YOU doubtless remember, that in a late conver­sation you told me that you could not see but that Mr. Hopkins had proved that sin is a created existence, as really as any thing else which does exist: and that it must be so, unless we hold that a sinner has a power to act independent upon God; which must be very absurd to suppose.

But, my friend, in that conversation I discovered that you were going so rapidly down the torrent, that friendship induces me to offer you some further thoughts on the subject: and I do it without delay, lest before this arrives, you are plunged in the gulph of error past all recovery.

Remember this, that when a proposition is laid down, which is false in its own nature, it is not all the seeming proof in the world that can be offered, will ever make it true; and those who undertake it, will have a hard and difficult task, and be found in a circumstance somewhat similar to a man I once read of who undertook so strenuously to prove the heathen to be christians, that in the issue it was said, that he proved himself to be a heathen. A man [Page 5] who undertakes to prove one error to be a truth, will in truth prove himself to be guilty of two, if not ten, before he has done.

But as I have not had opportunity to read Mr. Hopkins's system, I don't pretend to know precisely what he has wrote on the subject; but the general nature of what the advocates for this novelty ad­vance, or can advance, I have heard often enough, and I think the whole may be confuted in the lump: being all but a lump of folly and nonsense, to sup­pose that sin is a thing created.

I would not have you, my friend, take this letter to be a reply to Mr. Hopkins, any more than to others who imbibe the same sentiment, as I find many do, who of late are ready to boast, and even to triumph, that they have such a champion and bold advocate for the doctrine as they say Mr. Hop­kins is. Those who have read him, and like his sentiments well on this point, say that he don't keep hid, or act the cowardly part at all; as they own Mr. West did, when some years ago he wrote on the subject.

Doubtless you remember, Sir, that some years ago I published a little piece, entitled, Old Divinity preferable to Modern Novelty. And one of those novelties which I then opposed, was this whimsical notion which asserts, that God creates Sin: And I supposed I said enough then, to convince any one who will be governed by Scripture and reason, that sin is not a created existence. However, I did not say every thing then that might have been said, to evince the folly of that idle whim; Therefore, I shall add a few things further now. And,

1. If we allow that sin is a created existence, it [Page 6] overthrows the doctrine of Adam's fall; and it is never worth while for us to tell any more about it. His fall was no more than any other man's fall, who sins; as we may see by and by.

According to Old Divinity, there was real truth, and much propriety, in speaking of Adam's fall as something awfully great and dreadful: For Adam was made originally in the moral image of God, holy and upright, and put under a divine constitu­tion, holy, just and good, called the covenant of works; which secured life to him and his posterity, upon conditions infinitely reasonable and right; but by and according to which, one sin forfeited every favour and blessing: And Adam being left to the freedom of his own will, fell from the state wherein he was created by sinning against God. And as Adam's holiness, his original righteousness, or the moral image of God, in which he was created, was the greatest favour given him by creation; much greater than his own existence would or could have been without it, it being absolutely essential to his happiness: Therefore, by eating the forbidden fruit, Adam forfeited this, as well as every other favour; and as God was pleased to take the forfeit­ure at his hands in this respect, so Adam died spiri­tually; and his race are born destitute of original righteousness in consequence of that sin: So there­by both Adam and his race became mortal; for in Adam all die, so by the disobedience of one man judgment came upon all men to condemnation. O how sad, awful and dreadful, was the fall of Adam indeed!

But I find that the advocates for this novelty which asserts that God creates sin, say that spiritual [Page 7] death was no part of the penalty with which Adam was threatened, in case he should eat the forbidden fruit: But to answer wise ends and purposes, they say, God took away Adam's holiness in a way of sovereignty, and by his divine power created the radical sum of all moral evil, in him, and by his positive agency produces all the evil volitions that Adam ever exercised, or any of his race, from that day to this, or ever will exercise to the end of the world: And without this, they say, that neither Adam, nor any of his race, could ever have sinned at all. So that according to them, Adam did not fall by sinning; for he was down before ever he was guilty of any transgression. He did not fall from the estate wherein he was first created by sin­ning against God: For according to them, God had took him out of the estate wherein he was first created, and put him into another state infinitely worse, before he sinned. So that Adam was no more to blame for the loss of his holiness, than an innocent man is to blame for being robbed of a sum of money. He met with a great calamity, but was guilty of no crime.

When God created Adam holy, he exercised ho­liness: When God took away that holiness, and created sin in him, he exercised sin. So that ac­cording to this novelty, Adam met with a dreadful conversion;—was converted from being a very good man, to that of a very bad one; and this effected by the mighty power of God: For Adam was as passive in this change, as good converts are in their regeneration.

According to genuine Calvinism, a man is passive in his regeneration: That is, mankind in this fallen [Page 8] state, are considered as so entirely depraved and corrupt, there is nothing so good and virtuously in­clined in them by nature, as to concur with the divine spirit in producing that blessed change: But when the change is wrought by divine power and grace, the man becomes active in gracious and holy exercises. So I may say, upon their plan, when this dreadful change was a going to be wrought in Adam by divine power, to make a sinner of him, there was nothing in his perfectly holy nature so wickedly inclined, as to concur in this awful work; but infinite power was above him, and too strong for him, and when it had overcome every virtuous disposition, comprized in the moral image of God, and created vicious ones in him in lieu thereof,— Adam becomes active in sinful exercises, and so a voluntary sinner.

2. I observe, that if we allow or assert that sin is created, we must be led to deny the true definition of sin, as given in our catechism, agreeable to the scriptures. Old Divinity asserts, "that sin is any want of conformity unto, or transgression of the law of God." Now it is evident, that the Assem­bly of Divines, which compiled the catechism, look­ed upon the law of God to be so broad and spiritual, that it requires a right state of heart, a right tem­per of mind, as well as a life rightly conducted. That as a rule, the law enjoins what mankind should be, as well as what they should do, viz. That we should be holy both in heart and life: Therefore they say, that "sin is any want of conformity unto this law,"—meaning in heart, spirit, temper and disposition, as to the full extent of all that inward purity and holiness which the law requires. And [Page 9] what can be more true than this? For if the law of God, as a good and just rule, requires of us positive holiness, in full perfection: then any want of on­formity to this law is sin. But the advocates for this novelty say, want of conformity to the law is not sin: A mere destitution of holiness is no sin. For sin, say they, consists in positive opposition to God, and enmity against him. And they harp much upon this, and triumph in what they say, as sup­posing it to be demonstration, viz. That sin is not a negative, but a positive: A negative is nothing; but sin, certainly, is something. And to prove that sin is not a negative, they often bring similitudes from the brutal and inanimate part of the creation, and say there is no holiness in this thing, or that, and yet no sin; because there is no positive opposition to God.

I have often had similitudes of this nature brought to me, to prove that sin is not a negative, viz. Let us suppose, here is a chest large and capacious enough to hold a good deal of treasure; but there is no clothes in it—there is no silver nor gold in it —and there is no holiness in it;—neither, say they, is there any sin in it; because there is no positive enmity to God. But as silly as the similitude is, if they will prove that that chest always was, and now is, under moral obligations to be brim full of holi­ness, and then prove, that for that chest to be wholly empty, or entirely destitute of any holiness, is no sin, the similitude would be to their purpose. But how can it be, my friend, that rational crea­tures, and those too who profess to be sagacious and uncommonly discerning, will allow that we are under moral obligations to be perfectly holy, and [Page 10] then say entire destitution of it is no sin? I say, how can this be? Why, my friend, I can tell you how it can be, and how it actually does come to pass, viz. The advocates for this novelty having pre determined that there is no sin but what is created: But they, with all their learning, wit and wisdom, cannot make out that a want, or des­titution, is creation; and therefore they have been led to this necessity, to say, that want of conformity to the law of God is no sin.

I grant that there is positively such a thing as sin, and yet sin is not, properly speaking, a positive. There must be a positive, which is an original that is right, in order to furnish us with a rule to know what is wrong. If there is nothing antecedently right, there can be nothing wrong; for wrong is the reverse of right: Now right is a positive, an original; and wrong is the negative of that positive. Well, then, what is this positive that is right and truly original? It is holiness. The holiness of God is absolute perfection in him, and the foundation of all moral obligation upon his, and all rational creatures to conform thereunto, as the only right and proper standard: Therefore, when God com­mands us to be holy, he gives us the reason for it: Be ye holy, saith he, for I am holy. If God were not holy, we should not be under any obligations to be holy: Neither should we have had any rule or standard of holiness to conform unto. By posi­tive holiness, creatures conform to the rule that is right: and the want of positive holiness is a devia­tion from that rule. Now, for a rational creature to be holy, is to be right; and not to be holy, is to be wrong; which is sin▪ For a man to be right, [Page 11] supposes he was made so by creation; but to be wrong, supposes he came so by degeneration. To be fully right, supposes holiness in perfection: to be wrong, in any degree supposes a defection. And for any to assert, that degeneration and defec­tion is creation, is the first born of non-sense: And to say that degeneration and defection is no sin, is no better.

But to remark a little upon this plea they make, —that sin is not a negative, because a negative is nothing, and nothing is no sin: for sin is something. Now, on supposition that such a thing was possible, that man could, and really should, do nothing for a limitted space of time, yet the law of God re­quiring him positively to do something the same space, his doing nothing would be his crime, and not his excuse: For if the unprofitable servant could plead he had done no harm, yet he must be condemned, for that he did no good; duty being something positive.

If one was to tell me, that he supposed that the negative of being was nothing,—non entity, or non-existence—I should suppose that he was sincere. But when I hear men professedly acquainted with language in divinity, say, that the negative of po­sitive holiness is nothing; that is no sin—his ho­nesty looks suspicious, though perhaps he may be sincere being so sanguine in the belief that there is no sin but what God creates. As the positive and the negative are the reverse of each other, there is no great difficulty in understanding what the negative is;—if we know what the positive is, [...] is the reverse of it.

[Page 12]But seeing the advocates for this novelty, can't see any thing criminal in a negative, I will omit the word, and make use of some others that may answer as well: And I may say, that things in ge­neral have their opposites; and we may learn much of the nature of things by their opposites. Light and darkness, life and death, holiness and sin, are the opposites of each other: So that if a man has no light, he is in darkness; if he has no life, he is dead; if he has no holiness, he has sin, or is a sinner.

Now let us suppose there is a man this hour who has natural life, the next hour he has lost it entire­ly. The question is, whether the man is dead? or whether there is some creation work to be wrought in order to kill him effectually. Or, we will sup­pose, here is a man who has spiritual life, or holi­ness in perfection, as much as Adam had, when he was first created; but he soon looses it entirely, let him loose it how he will; either by forfeiture, or in a way of divine sovereignty, God takes it from him, if he has lost it: The question is, whether he is not spiritually dead, in consequence of that loss without the addition of a creation to kill him in this sense? And is not spiritual death a state of sin▪ Where, then, is there any room for creation to make a holy man become a sinner?

The case is very different on the other hand▪ Let us suppose here is a man spiritually dead,—dead in trespasses and sin; how shall he be quickened and made alive spiritually? The scripture is plain,— [...] resurrection power,—by creating power. And those who are quickened with spiritual life, are said to be [Page 13] risen with Christ, created anew, &c. But now is a resurrection power, and creating power, neces­sary to be exerted, in order to bring these quickned souls back again into a state of spiritual death? No, very far from that; for if it was not for the gospel constitution, and the power of God engaged to pre­vent it, souls quickned with spiritual life, would fall back again, of their own accord, into a state of spiritual death. And to prevent this from actual­ly being the case with saints, God, who has began the good work of grace in their hearts, carries it on, and they are kept by the power of God, thro' faith, unto salvation.

Now if Adam, being left to the freedom of his own will, fell into a state of spiritual death, (and the saints who are quickned with spiritual life would fall into a state of spiritual death also, if they were not, by the power of God, kept from it),—how foolish must the assertion be, that men can't sin, but by the exertion of creating power producing of it? When divine power and grace must constantly be engaged to prevent it.

If the advocates for this novelty will prove that there was and is a wicked Deity who existed of a necessity of nature from all eternity, and that sin is essential to his very nature, or essence, and that all sin in creatures, is created by him, or that he is the great Efficient positively producing of it, then I will own that sin is as truely a positive and an original as holiness is.

3. If we allow, or assert, that God produces sin by his positive agency, or that he creates it; then I remark, that sin is the gift of God to them who [Page 14] have it. 'As God gave me my existence by creation, the powers and faculties of my soul and body, which I am to be thankful for, and improve to his honour and glory: so if God does create sin in me, in or­der that I may be furnish'd with ability to exercise it, then it is as truely the gift of God as my exist­ence is, or any other thing he gives by creation.' And this is so true and undeniable, that there is no getting from it. Let the advocates for this novelty wrangle and twist ever so much, they must come to it at last, and own that sin is as much the gift of God to them that have it, as faith is, or any other sav­ing grace, to those who have them. Although I will freely concede if that will oblige them any, that sin is not so good a gift as some other of the gifts of God are, yet as truely his gift.

Now I wish these gentlemen who assert that God creates sin, would be so kind as to tell me whether I ought to be thankful to God for this gift, and pray to God for strength to improve it well, that when he has given me one talent of it I may so improve it, as to gain five more. And as you, my friend, seemed to be almost proselyted to the sentiment, I would ask you what you think an holy soul in the exercise of grace, who feels disposed to give God thanks for all his gifts; I say, what do you think he will do, when in his thanksgiving he comes to mention the gift of sin? wont he hesitate and bog­gle here, or what will he do?—Methinks he will express himself in language like this following, viz. ‘O Lord God Almighty, I feel myself overwhelm'd in debt to thee, for thy manifold favours, and have a disposition, by thy grace, to give thanks to thy great name for all thy gifts of nature, pro­vidence [Page 15] and grace. I give thanks to thee, O my God, for the gift of my existence, that thou hast given me a rational soul, with all its noble pow­ers and faculties. I give thanks to thee for my bodily structure, with limbs and members so per­fect and entire. I give thanks to thee, O God, for the creatures thou hast made for my use and comfort. I give thanks to thee, O Father of all mercies, and God of all grace, for the gift of thy Son to become my Saviour and Redeemer. I give thanks to thee, O God, for the gift of thy spirit, to apply the great salvation to my soul, which Christ has purchased. I thank thee for the gift of regenerating grace, for the gift of faith, for the gift of repentance and pardon; yea, O Lord, I give thanks to thee for the gift of eternal life, which thou hast promised in thy word, to all them that believe. O Lord, every good and perfect gift comes from thee, and they are more than I can enumerate. What shall I render to the Lord for all his benefits? But, O Lord, there are some who profess to be teachers in thy name, who tell me that thou dost give sin to the children of men by thy creating power; must I be thankful to thee for this gift? O no, the holy fervours of my soul, under the influence of thy grace, will not admit of it; what shall I do, then, in this strait? shall I be unthankful to thee for any of thy gifts? this I would not be; but I can't be thankful for the gift of sin, but must pray that God will never curse me with such a gift. O Lord, be not angry with me, if I pray to thee in the words of Daniel to Belshazar, let thy gifts, of this nature, be to thyself, and give thy [Page 16] rewards to another. O no, I cannot pray so, for I love my neighbour as myself; and by thy grace prevailing in my heart; I love my enemies. Therefore, I cannot pray that God will bestow that devil like gift of sin on the worst enemy I have in the world.’

But how do you think, my friend, that a sinner, who loves his sin, and determines to pursue the plea­sures of it, as his chief happiness, all the days of his life; I say, how do you think such [...] would pray, if he should speak out the language of his heart, and in the full belief of this novelty that God does create sin?—I think we may naturally suppose that the language of his heart, fram'd into words, would be as follows: ‘O Lord God Almighty, as I am told by my teacher, and I firmly believe his doc­trine, that in thy sovereigty thou wast pleased to take away the holiness originally given to Adam, and didst create sin in him, in lieu thereof, and by thy positive agency didst produce every evil volition in Adam he ever had, and likewise doth the same in me, and in all Adam's race, and will continue to do so as long as the children of men exercise any sin; so that in consequence of my being deprav'd and corrupted, by the sin which thou hast created in me, and dost daily produce by thy positive agency, I delight in wickedness exceedingly. I roll sin as a sweet morsel under my tongue, and refuse to let it go. I would not ex­change the pleasures of sin, for the rivers of plea­sure which flow at God's right hand forevermore. And if I am not truely thankful to thee, O God, for all thy gifts; yet this darling gift, sin, glad­dens me to the heart. And although, by thy [Page 17] creating power, thou hast form'd me for the work and business of sin, and hast given me a general propensity that way▪ yet of myself I am so weak and feeble, as to works of wickedness, that I can't get so much as one evil volition excited by all that I can do; no, nor by all the help the devil can afford me.—Therefore, as sin is my delightful element, I sincerely pray that God will conde­scend to afford me help herein, and grant such measures of his almighty agency, which will be effectual to produce evil violitions, in thick succession, in me, that I may be very fruitful in ways of sin, and abound in the works of wicked­ness, and herein equal any servant of the devil on earth. But, O Lord, if in thy divine sover­eignty thou art pleased to withhold those influen­ces of thine, which are absolutely necessary to produce sin, and I remain in a great measure bar­ren as to fruits of wickedness; I must submit to the sad mortification of remaining a little, poor dwarf of a sinner.’

4. I remark upon this doctrine, which asserts, God doth create sin, or produce it by his positive agency, that no man ever did, will, or can exer­cise true genuine repentance while he has the full belief of this doctrine plain in his view, and realized before him.

In true repentance, a man acquits God wholly from blame, and takes freely the whole blame to himself; and if God is so good, kind, and gracious as to pardon him, he don't know how to pardon himself; his sins appear so unreasonable, and his [Page 18] crimes so aggravated and heinous. But if I believe God created my sin in me, and produced it by his positive agency, and thereby made me voluntary in the exercise of sin; I cannot take the whole blame to myself, let my temper of mind, or disposition, be ever so good and holy. As on the other hand▪ when God creates good dispositions, and produces gracious and holy tempers in the saints, and there­by makes them voluntary in good and virtuous exer­cises, they don't take the whole praise of their own voluntary exercises to themselves; for they know of right, the principal and chief praise belongs to the Great Efficient, who produced them. "Not unto us, not unto us, but to thy name, O Lord▪ be the glory," is their united language. There­fore if a man really believes, that by the creating power of God, exerted upon him, sin is produced and he thereby is made a volunteer in the exercise of it, he must counteract his reason, bribe his judg­ment, and turn fool, in order to take the whole blame to himself.

5. If we allow, and maintain, that God creates sin, I remark, that it has a natural tendency to pre­judice mankind against some very important doc­trines of the Bible, more than otherwise they would be. If you tell sinners of the rising generation, and in some places more especially, that they must be­lieve the depravity of human nature in this fallen state, that they lie wholly at the mercy of God, and that he has a sovereign right to have mercy on whom he will▪ Tell them of the doctrine of special grace, justification by faith, the perseverance of the saints, and such like: Then they will immediately [Page 19] conclude that they consent to these things, they must go further, and believe, that God does create sin; because that now-a days there are so many that teach the one, teach the other also. But thirty or forty years ago there was no such doctrine held in our country, as all know who lived in that day, and paid any proper attention to divinity. All our Calvinistic divines rejected the idea with abhorrence, that God created sin; as is well known, from the first settling of this country, down to President Edwards and Dr. Bellamy▪ which two late and no­ted divines, bore an ample testimony against this vile and pernicious novelty so much imbibed of late; which in the close of this letter I shall cite their own words to shew.

But of late, that there are many who have art­fully tried to connect this novelty with the doctrines of grace, cannot be denied, and have prejudiced people against the truth abundantly. The rising generation often say,— ‘What! will God forbid sin, and then create it himself? will he produce it in men by his own positive agency, and then damn them for it? If you call this one of the doc­trines of grace we will quit them; we don't think that there is any thing worse, if so bad, in Ar­minianism, Deism, nor Universalism.’ And hence many fly to those sectaries for refuge, to shun this vile and abominable doctrine. And the advo­cates for this novelty are eventually driving the country fast into Deism, and Universalism.

6. If we allow that God creates sin, and produ­ces it by his own positive agency: then I remark, that Moses, and Paul, and other writers of the [Page 20] scriptures, have manifestly slandered the devil, by laying that to his charge that he never was guilty of: for if God created sin our first parents, and in their whole ace, and produces, by his positive agency, all the evil volitions and exercises they ev­er have, (as this novelty asserts,) then mankind would have sinned, and continue to sin, just as they did, and do, if there had been no devil in the uni­verse. And what is it, then, laid to the devil for, that he is the cause of mens sinning?

When Moses undertook to give us an historical account of the sin of our first parents, in eating the forbidden fruit, he don't so much as hint, that God created their sin, or produced it by his own positive agency. But by divine permission, the devil, by subtilty and craft, deceit and lies, really deceived Eve, and effected the fall of our first parents. And Paul says, "I fear lest by any means, that as the serpent beguiled Eve thro' his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted,' &c. And another writer of scripture says, after the sop satan entered into Judas, and then he was ready, and sought op­portunity to betray his Lord. And Peter says to Ananias, "why hath satan filled thine heart to lie unto the Holy Ghost?"

Now, why should there be such a combination among the inspired writers, to lay this heavy charge upon the devil, as being guilty of influencing and causing men to sin, if God creates and produces it himself?—For my part, I don't think it is right to belie and slander the devil, because he is a bad crea­ture: no, give the devil his due: and if he has been slandered and charged wrongfully, let him [Page 21] have justice done him. And altho' the advocates for this novelty have virtually, and for substance, acquitted the devil of this charge, by laying it upon God: yet if their doctrine be true, they ought to see to it that they procure, in the devil's behalf, a more explicit, public, and honourable acquitance than they have yet given him.

7. If we allow, and maintain, that God creates sin then I remark, that it must give such an idea of the character of the ever blessed God, that is too shocking to admit.

Some have supposed, that if God had left Adam in a state of pure nature, when he was first created, and had not put him under any covenant or consti­tution at all, if he had continued a thousand years in perfect obedience, as he owed all that obedience to God, he could not thereby have brought God into debt to him: so they suppose God might have annihilated him after a thousand years of perfect ho­liness and happiness, and have done Adam no injus­tice at all. And this point I don't mean to con­trovert: but we know that according to scripture, Adam was not thus left. God was pleased to put him under a divine constitution, called the covenant of works, the tenor of which was, do and live, diso­bey and die. Now in these circumstances, if God had inflicted the calamity of natural death upon Ad­am, while he continued obedient, it would have been a violation of the constitution on God's part; therefore he infinitely abhorred to do such a thing. How then could God inflict upon Adam a calamity a thousand times greater than meerly natural death! which he really did if he took away his original [Page 22] righteousness, and created sin in him prior to his eating the forbidden fruit? this would have been inflicting death upon his soul a dreadful calamity, when he was guilty of no crime.

Adam's holiness was the true life of his soul, and absolutely essential to his happiness. Therefore, to suppose that God did thus rob, plunder, and I may say, murder the soul of innocent Adam, is too shocking to admit. Did God create Adam holy, and enjoin it upon him to keep, maintain, and ex­ercise it upon the pain of eternal death? And then in a way of divine prerogative and sovereignty, take it away from him, and create and produce sin in him, and thereby cause him to become a voluntary sinner, and then plead a right in justice to send him to hell, for the very sin that he himself produced? who can possibly believe this, that is not in a delirium?—If we could see a conduct, in any one instance, among the children of men, any thing similar hereunto, eve­ry body's indignation would be excited. As for in­stance, and to come as near to it as we can:—Let us suppose an earthly King comes to his throne, and is received by all his subjects with acclamations of joy, and entire loyalty in their hearts; and when he is established in his kingdom he promulgates his good and wholesome laws, with a promise, that if his subjects will continue in their loyalty and obedi­ence, he will protect them in the enjoyment of all their reasonable liberties and privileges; but if any of them turn rebels and break his laws, they shall be punished with death. To this, all his subjects heartily say, amen. And thus they live in mutual peace and happiness, and a prospect of always con­tinuing so.

[Page 23]But now, let us suppose, (for here we can speak only by way of supposition, for the thing in reality can't be▪)—but I say, let us suppose that this King have an easy access to the hearts of his subjects, and by the arm of his power takes away the spirit of loy­alty from a number of his subjects, and creates, and produces in them a spirit of rebellion, and thereby causes them to be voluntary in their rebellion; which as soon as ever it appears, the king declares they shall be punished with death, and brings them upon trial, rebellion is proved against them, and the sentence of death is past upon them.

But here we will further suppose, that one in the capacity of an attorney undertakes to plead for these condemned rebels, and addresses himself to the king in the following manner:—"May it please your Ma­jesty, to hear me a few words in the behalf of these condemned rebels, as you know that I am acquain­ted with the whole affair. These men were once loyal subjects, and cordial in their obedience, and would ever have remained so if you had let them alone, and suffer'd them to have acted out their na­tive disposition: but you know that you took away from them that spirit of loyalty by the arm of your power, and created in them that spirit of rebellion they now have, and you positively excited and pro­duced every exercise of it they ever had; and seeing this is undeniably the case, I think you ought to mitigate their punishment, or excuse them entire­ly."—No, says the king: 'tis no matter how they came by their rebellious dispositions, rebellion in its own nature, merits death, and hang'd they shall be;—and puts the sentence into execution.—Now [Page 24] in this supposed case, every body would cry out against this king, and condemn him for a wicked ty­rant and subtile knave, that deserved hanging more than any of his rebellious subjects. And yet this blasphemous novelty charges all this upon God. I wonder its advocates are not ashamed to appear in such a cause, which might well make the devil blush to espouse personally; and so he hides behind the curtain, and sets them to do the work for him.

8. If we allow that God creates sin, or produces it by his positive agency, then I remark, that a christian has got another, greater, harder, and more difficult piece of work to do than ever was known before. Christians always knew that they had got to strive and watch against sin, and all temp­tations leading to it, and hence to maintain a con­stant warfare against the world, the flesh, and the devil.— The world, with its alluring charms, will ensnare and draw the christian into sin, if he is not watchful and very much on his guard.

The flesh, that is, corrupt nature, the unsancti­fied part of even regenerate men,—is a dangerous enemy; and the christian must be active by the grace of God to crucify the flesh with the affections and lusts, and thro' the spirit to mortify the deeds of the body; or by this enemy he will be drawn into sin.—The devil, the avowed adversary of mankind in general, and of true christians in particular, is going about as a roaring lion, seeking whom he may devour: and the christian soul is called to resist this adversary, stedfast in the faith; and for his encou­ragement, the Apostle tells him▪ "Resist the devil and he shall flee from thee, and satan shall be bruis­ed [Page 25] under your feet shortly."—So that the christian has a prospect of getting the victory over these po­tent enemies, the world, the flesh, and the devil, but, O! what will the poor christian do, when he has Infinite Power to resist, and war against! when God comes to create sin in him, and with his almigh­ty agency determines to produce it, and thereby cause the christian to give his consent to sin. O ca­lamity indeed! prior to the exertion of this creating power, the christian had acted in character; sin­cerely hated all sin, and longed to be entirely deli­vered from it. Yea, he had exerted himself man­ully, and had got considerable victory over his spi­ritual enemies, the world, the flesh, and the devil. And he meant and intended, prayed, and hoped, to keep the conquest he had gained, and to gain more and more daily. But, O! alas! for the poor chris­tian; what a dreadful disappointment did he meet with, when the creating power of God was exerted, and the positive agency of the Most High, produ­cing a change in the bias and disposition of his soul to such a degree, that it was not all the habits of grace, or principles of love to God and holiness, which were to a good degree prevalent but a little before, that could now prevent the christian from yielding and consenting to that which is sin! And when the christian soul comes to reflect on what he has done, he is ready to wring his hands in despair, and say, O, alas! I never can get victory over sin, so long as God keeps creating of it in me. I had, and long have had, courage to war against all the powers of hell; but to strive against, and resist the creating power of God, will be entirely fruitless, if not high­ly presumptuous.

[Page 26]9. The last remark I shall make upon this novel­ty, which asserts that God creates sin, is, that if some of the warmest advocates for it, who are anx­ious to have it spread, and be universally received, will contrive matters so as to send, from among themselves, some missionaries down to the dark re­gions and preach this novelty there to the fallen An­gels: and if they should happen to be credited, and their doctrine be believed, I doubt not but my con­jecture will prove to be a truth, viz. That it would make the devils rejoice, and set them all a praying, if not praising God, with the same tempers and de­vilish dispositions they now have; it would suit them so well to the very heart.

But my friend, you will say, that now I am ex­travagant: What! will the devils pray? why yes, when they can have a prospect of answering their own ends by it. We read that the devils pray'd, or besought Christ that he would suffer them to enter into the herd of swine, that they might drive them head-long into the sea, and thereby prejudice the whole country against Christ.

But if you scruple the truth of my conjecture, I will point out to you an instance wherein we may naturally suppose the devils will be ready to pray to God, if they can be made to believe that God cre­ates sin, or produces it by his positive agency. You know, sir, that tis the constant work and business of the devils, to endeavour to tempt mankind to sin, in order to bring them down to destruction.—There­fore, when they have laid their train of temptations before men, to induce one to commit murder, ano­ther to commit adultery, & others to lie, steal, roo, &c. and as the devils are very desirous of success; [Page 27] and believing that if God don't create sin in these men in this very juncture, and produce evil voli­tions in them by his positive agency, so that they will voluntarily comply with their temptations; all their attempts will prove abortive, and their labour will be but in vain. Therefore we may naturally suppose, that in the belief of this novelty, the de­vils will pray in language like this following, viz.— ‘O Lord God of infinite knowledge and power, thou seest what a train of temptations we have laid before these men, to induce them to commit the several abominations we wish and desire they might; and thou, O Lord God of infinite power, art able to give us success, and all our labour will be lost and in vain if thou dost not: as when Christ's ministers preach the Gospel, and do their utmost endeavour to bring sinners to repentance and holy exercises, all their labour will be lost and in vain, unless thy divine power does attend, and thou, by thy positive agency, dost produce holy tempers, dispositions and exercises: even Paul may plant, and Apollos water to no pur­pose, unless God will please to give the increase. And so, O Lord, it is with us weak and feeble devils; we need thy help and assistance, as much as Christ's ministers do; and unless thou wilt be pleased to afford it, satan may plant, and belze­bub himself may water in vain, for it is thou, O Lord, only, who art able to give the increase. And altho' we know thou art determined to build up the kingdom of Christ in the world, yet thou hast power enough to build up our kingdom too, and if they are in direct opposition the one from the other, no matter for that, for the scriptures say, thou canst do every thing. Now, there­fore, [Page 28] O Lord God Almighty, be pleased to ex­ert thy power, and create sin in these men sev­erally; and by thy positive agency, cause them to comply with our temptations, and hell itself will rejoice with our sort of malicious joy, if we don't in a formal manner keep a day of thanks­giving. And what, O Lord, has embolden'd and encourag'd us thus to pray unto thee, in hopes of success, is a novelty lately imbibed in hell, which teaches us that God does in reality create sin, and produce it by his positive agency. This is good news for us: we expect now, our work will be facilitated much; for when a migh­ty auxiliary from heaven will assist hell, and In­finite Power engage on our side, we may expect every thing. We need but put the point of the nail where we wish to have it enter, and one blow struck by Almighty Power will drive it up to the head.—But, O, alas! while we are thus speak­ing, our faith in this novelty begins to stagger, considering the rise of it; for we must own that it was invented and propagated by men on earth, which we ourselves deceived; and if we ourselves should be deceived by it, the deception would be doubly develish.’

But in as much as the advocates for this novelty pretend in general to have a great veneration for the writings of president Edwards and Dr Bella­my; I shall, (as I said,) cite a few passages from their works, which will shew what they thought of this novelty.

President Edwards says, ‘It was meet, if sin did come into existence, and appear in the world, it should arise from the imperfection which pro­perly [Page 29] belongs to a creature, as such, and should appear so to do, that it might appear not to be from God as the Efficient."—And he further says, If sin had not arose from the imperfection of the creature, it would not have been so visible that it did not arise from God as the positive cause.’ —(His Book on the Freedom of the Will, page 377, London Edition.)

Again he says, ‘That there is a great difference between the sun's being the cause of the light­someness and warmth of the atmosphere, and brightness of gold and diamonds by its presence and positive influence; and tis being the occasion of darkness and frost, in the night, by its motion, whereby it descends below the horizon. The motion of the sun is the occasion of the latter kind of events, but it is not the proper cause, efficient or producer of them. No more is any action of the Divine Being the cause of the evil of mens wills. Sin is not the fruit of any agency or influ­ence of the Most High.’—(The same Book page 363, 364.)

From these passages I remark three things:

1 That Mr. Edwards supposed, that sin did arise from the creature; that God was not the effi­cient, or producer of it.

2. He supposed, that it was a matter of impor­tance, that this should appear to be the case.

3. That it was a settled point with him that in fact this doth appear to be the case.—And how it ever came to enter into the heart or head of any man, to think otherwise, is very strange, in one view of the case; but not so strange, when we consider that [Page 30] fondness for novelty, and a pleasing conceit of knowing more than ever was known, stimulates ma­ny in the present day, who, in their own view, leap at stars, but fasten in the mud.

I have seen numbers, of but ordinary abilities, and of but short opportunities for the study of divi­nity, who yet will not hesitate to say, without a blush, they know more then President Edwards did; but to attone for their arrogance, they will give him credit in part. They will allow that Mr. Ed­wards was eminent in his day, but it is now a day of greater light: And beside, say they, we that come after him, have the benefit of his writings, that when we come to stand upon his shoulders, no wonder that we can see further than he did. But I rather suspect the truth of the case lies here; Mr. Edwards was a tall man, and when they presum'd to clamber up upon his shoulders, it carried them so much out of ther proper sphere, and higher than their capacities were able to bear, that it caused their heads to swim, and their brains to turn, till they were struck with a fit of delirium, and never have come out of it since. And 'tis no uncommon thing, for people in a delirium, to take a fancy that they know every thing.

I proceed now to cite a passage from Dr. Bel­lamy's writings upon this point. He is speaking of us as we are now, fallen creatures, and not of Ad­am as he was originally made. And he says, ‘God only creates the naked essence of our souls, our natural faculties; a power to think and will, and to love and hate; and the evil bent of our hearts is not of his making, but is the spontaneous pro­pensity of our own wills: For we being born de­void [Page 31] of the divine image, ignorant of God, and insensible of his infinite glory, do of our own ac­cord turn to ourselves, and to things of time and sense, & to anything that suits a graceless heart, & there all our affections center; from whence we natively become averse to God, and to all that is spiritually good, and inclined to all sin. So that the positive corruption of our nature, is not any thing created by God.’—(True Religion deli­neated, page 171).

But after all that has been said, I suppose that there are some that will neither be reason'd, nor ridicul'd out of their errors; but like those spoken of by the Prophet, "who hold fast deceit and re­fuse to let it go." And not only so, but I expect they will put on a cloak of Gravity, and pretend that I have been guilty of a great deal of wicked­ness, in not treating such a subject with more seri­ousness.—To which I answer,—

1. That I believe there are more serious and weighty arguments in the foregoing performance, than the advocates for this novelty desire to see, or know what to do with.

2. When the prophet Elijah once had a call to have concern with matters and things, (1 Kings 18.27.) which were really ridiculous, he treated them in such a manner, as was calculated to make their ridiculousness appear more glaring; altho' some might be ready to charge him with levity. And I verily believe this novelty, which charges God with creating sin, is as ridiculous as any person or thing the prophet Elijah had to deal with. And with an honest mind I have attempted to make it appear.

3. But if the advocates for this novelty, still per­sist that I have been very wicked in the manner of [Page 32] handling this subject,—I have this to tell them, viz. That if their doctrine be true, I have not, neither in matter nor manner, committed a whit more sin than God created in me, or produced by his positive agency. And I never will blame any man who commits no more sin than what God creates in him: If he is guilty of no other crimes, I think he is very excusable.

But I shall tire your patience, my friend; and therefore shall add no more than this one remark, viz. That execrable monster William Beadle, who murdered his family and himself, with great delib­eration, at Weathersfield, a few years ago, firmly believed that he was positively influenced by God to do all that: For he had it in contemplation three years, and got fully established that he was influen­ced by God to do it, before, it seems, he dare un­dertake it; as appears by his own private writings, made public in the sermon preached at the funeral of his murdered family.

But you will say, my friend, that he had renoun­ced the christian religion, and professed to be a Deist: 'Tis true, he did so; and I think it is as true, that that it is not fitting that any man should profess to believe that God, by his positive agency, does in­fluence men to sin; until that they have first re­nounced the christian religion as Beadle did.

But, my friend, before you fully adopt this no­velty, I wish you to answer one question that I shall now propose, viz. That if God does create sin, and is the great efficient of it; then, when Christ sub­dues it in his redeemed people, what truth or sense can there be in saying he destroys the works of the devil,—when it is manifest, that it is one branch of God's workmanship that he destroys?