entirely overlook, who suppose that Jesus intends to shew, that he is no greater than those who are addressed in the law. When Jesus says, 'If God adorns the flowers of the field, and feeds the meanest fowls of the air, will he not feed and clothe you, who are his children?' he surely does not mean to say, that pious men are of no more value in the sight of God, and have no more title to his care, than plants, and animals! No-the very object of the comparison is to set in a striking point of view, the superior worth of the children of God, and the consequent certainty that they will be provided for. So Christ, in the passage in question, and in the conclusion which it contains, does not affirm that he is only equal to the persons, whom Moses calls gods, but that he is far superior to them "one whom the Father hath sanctified and sent into the world;" an expression never applied to magistrates.

6. A critic, who well understands the Old Testament, will easily perceive, that Jesus does in fact introduce a very obnoxious proof, that he had lawfully affirm ed, what he had said respecting himself. He calls himself the person, whom the Father had sanctified, and sent into the world: and this is a mere translation of

age, who, agreeably to all which is said of him, was undeniably divine. Under this name, he often appeared to the Patriarchs, and manifested himself as Jehovah, the God of Israel. Jehovah says to Moses, 'I send mine angel (1) before thee, and my name is in him, i. e. agreeably to the Hebrew idiom; I am in him: Jesus says, The Father is in me, and I in him. How exactly the two descriptions agree!

With respect to objections drawn from other passages, where Jesus appears to represent himself as inferior, or subordinate to the Father, our difficulties may more briefly, and more easily be removed. One has only to remember, that our Savior was really man as well as God, and take care not to apply what he says of himself as man, to his divine nature. Thus, John xiv, 28, The Father is greater than I. In the context immediately preceding, he says, I go to the Father; and this he evidently spake of his human nature, for his Godhead was every where present; his human nature, then, was the subject of his consideration, when he made the expression in question.

Thus also the address, Why callest thou me good? There is none good but one, that is God; Matt. xix, 17. By this answer, Jesus does not deny that he is God; but rather inquires of the young ruler who addressed him, whether he had sufficiently considered the meaning of his address; whether he was willing to affirm, what his words strictly taken, imported; and whether he did acknowledge him as perfectly good, or as divine.

So also the following; That they may know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent; John xvii, 3. This appears, as if proper divinity were ascribed only to the Father, and that Christ is not the true God, in the same sense as the Father is. The force of the objection, however, lies only in the erroneous translation of the word annos, which here, as often elsewhere, does not mean true in the sense of real, very, but veracious, i. e. the God who fulfils his promises. In the same sense John uses this word, iv, 37, and xix, 35; and this sense only agrees with the context; for Jesus is speaking of the happiness, which his appearance on earth and the accomplishment of his work, procure for his followers. Eternal life,' says he, is connected with this, that they, whom thou hast given me, may now know that thou art the true God, the only God whose promises do not fail; the God, who hath performed, and will perform that nost great and difficult promise, the redemption of men: and not only know this, but know him, by whom this promise is fulfilled, whom thou hast promised to send, and hast actually sent; may know, or acknowledge me, Jesus, as the Christ, the true Mes siah. This was the eternal life, obtained by Jesus for those, and only those, whom the Father had given him; John, xvii, 2. On the contrary, the knowledge that Jehovah was the true, i. e. the real God, was possessed by the unbelieving Jews, of whom Jesus makes no mention in his prayer, and for whom, according to verse 9th, he does not ask any thing.

UPON my return home, I became possessed of your requests, and rejoiced in the proposal of them

partly as they would stimulate my mind to action; but especially as they afforded an opportunity to express my gratitude for your respect and friendship, and to hope that I might confer some spiritual benefit for the hospitality of your house-but as the observations "upon motives," to myself were familiar and accidental, and the conversation was soon interrupted, and succeeded by a variety of questions upon other subjects, I fear I cannot recollect them to my own satisfaction, nor answerable to your desire and expectation. As far, however, as is practicable, I will effect it requesting you, Sir, who probably possess the observations more distinctly, to retain them in mind; and when an opportunity presents, I will verbally supply deficiencies.

The conversation commenced with remarks upon Dr. H.'s sermon occasioning the question, How can we reconcile the moral agency of man with the decrees of God?

Upon this it was observed

that we have the evidence of these doctrines from different Sources. We have conclusive evidence of an established, universal system of divine government from reason and revelation. This is an object of faith. We believe it, or receive it as true, from the evidence of it addres. sed to our understandings. We have the knowledge of our moral agency, not from evidence externally exhibited-but from internal perception and reflection -from a consciousness that we think, compare subjects, form conclusions, choose and reject: and this evidence is direct and infallible.

We are as conscious

of those exercises in which moral agency consists, as we are of our senses, or our existence.What if we cannot investigate the consistency between God's eternal counsels, decrees, election and reprobation, and our moral agency? Is this a justifiable reason why we should reject either? Or shall this subject embarrass us, when we admit others, without hesitation, as intricate and embarrassing? How do our eyes see, or our ears hear? Does it distress us, that we see with our eyes and hear with our ears? Yet the mode of seeing and hearing is as incomprehensible, as the consistency between the decrees of God, and the moral agency of man-and when one person shall explain the how we see and hear, another will reconcile the moral agency of man with the absolute government of God.

Will you, Sir, permit it be to remarked, that God's counsels are not the objects about which moral agency is properly exerted. They are without our province

or sphere of action. Secret things belong to the Lord our God; but the things which he hath revealed. to us and our children. The former are not the standard of moral action, nor shall we be judged by them. In effecting his eternal counsels, or decrees, God has created the heavens and earth, formed an endless variety of objects, and produced natural and moral good and evil. He hath given us natural and moral existence, and subjected us to moral obligation and responsibility. He hath set life and death before us, referred them to our option, and suspended our eternal interests upon our spontaneous election; and these objects involve the great motives to moral action. Moral agency consists in spontaneous volition, or unrestrained choice. In the execution of his counsels, God exhibits the object, or motive, and we make our choice, and in making our election, do we not possess and exercise as perfect rational liberty, or moral agency, as can possibly exist? and this in perfect consistency with the absolute government of God? Has not this effected a reconciliation between these important, and supposed to be, discordant subjects? Will it be said, The choice of the object, or compliance with the motive, was decreed, and this destroyed the morality of it? It may be replied: True; the choice was decreed, and it was involved in the decree, that it should be the spontancous choice of a responsible, moral agent, and was so far from destroying moral agency, and the morality of the choice, that it positively confirmed them. Decrees are not motives, and

can excite no acts of the will; and as the decree is secret, and not perceived by the mind, it can have no influence upon the act, or choice, of the agent. The agent, consequently, is as free and moral with the decree, as he could have been if no decree had existed. Add even to this: The decree is God's act, and the choice the act of the agent; and the act of God in eternity, can never be the act of an agent in time. The decree undoubtedly respected the act, or choice, of the agent, and without it would have been ineffectual and abortive, and the agent, by his voluntary act, has given efficacy, or effect, to the decree of God.

When objects are represented as motives exciting volition, or an act of the will, it is to be particularly remarked, that this should not be understood of objects abstractly, or simply con. sidered, but in connexion with the state of the heart. External objects simply exhibited have no attractive influence to excite the choice of the will. They derive their influence, or efficacy, from their congeniality, or consent, to THE DISPOSITION OF THE HEART,

Hence the same object, present ed to persons of different and opposite inclinations and characters, will make different impressions, and produce opposite effects. That moral object, which irresistibly attracts one, infal!ibly repels the other. Propose attending a scene of worldly amusement, the theatre for instance, to an heavenly-minded saint, and he revolts from it with disgust; to an awakened sinner, and he reflects upon the scene with horror; to a vain, gay youth, and the prospect enraptures his

soul; and if there be mirth, music, and good action, the place is à sensual paradise. Propose attending public worship to a profligate sinner, and he instantly complains, What a weariness is it; to an awakened sinner, inquiring what he shall do to be saved, and he complies with avidity, in the hope of deriving relief and comfort; to a devout saint, and he immediately responds, I was glad when they said unto me, Let us go up to the house of the Lord.

If an avaricious person, with prospects of accumulating prop. erty, be unexpectedly disconcerted, he becomes inconsolable. Suggest, that it may be for his spiritual benefit, and you are a miserable comforter. Inform him how he may retrieve his disappointment, you are wise and good as an angel. If the outward circumstances of a saint be prosperous, and he be denied the gracious presence of God, his spirits sink, and he goes mourning all the day. Propose his affluence for his support; he replies, This avails me nothing; but if his circumstances be embarrassing and his prospects gloomy and 'dark as midnight, and Christ only whispers, Thou art mine, it is morning with his soul.

Of what avail, my dear Sir, are speculations, if they be not applied to the all-important subjects of religion? If moral objects derive their influence, and become stimulating motives, exciting the choice of the will according to the disposition of the heart, and this disposition is naturally, altogether corrupted and vitiated, it is infallibly certain, that for a heart with such a disposition, spiritual objects, a holy God, Christ, religion and heav

em

en, will have no attractions; they will be objects of its extreme disgust and aversion; and sinful objects will excite its choice, will be preferred, and braced with complacency, even at the hazard and in the view of interminable perdition. This exhibits the basis and propriety of Christ's solemn assertion of the absolute necessity of being born again-of having a spiritual and holy disposition formed in the heart; preparing us to prefer, choose, delight and rejoice in, a holy God, Christ, and heaven. This change must be effect ed immediately by the power and grace of God.

If the extension and amplification of the subject be offensive, I pray you, Sir, pardon the error-for truly, the request suggested a series of subjects, so grateful to the mind, that (especially when attended with the hope of explaining and relieving doctrines which perplex and confound many to their destruction) the pleasure of pursuing it could not be resisted nor abandoned.

This effort was commenced in the hope, and has been completed, and is now conveyed with desires and prayers, that God would sanctify and bless it, to preserve you from stumbling at the word; that he would reveal and form Christ, the hope of glory, in your soul; and make you wise to salvation.

I am, very dear Sir, your affectionate friend,

***

ON THE CAUSES OF ERROR.

To the Editor of the Panoplist. Sir, Ir the following remarks should be judged worthy a place in your useful publica

tion, you are requested to insert them.
Should you approve of the piece in the
main, while some sentences or expres-
sions seem objectionable, you are at lib-
erry to correct them. Wishing success
to your labors in the cause of Christ,
A. D.
I am yours, &c.

THOUGH man is the only terrestrial being, that is endued with reason, and a capacity of perceiving truth, yet we find by observation, that he is more attached to error than to truth. Reahe might find out and maintain son, which was given him that truth, is degraded, enlisted in the cause of error, and made use of in framing many absurdities disgraceful to human nature, and pernicious to the best interests of mankind. Man was formed upright, but he has sought out many inventions. Errors of various kinds have abounded in all

preceding ages, and they abound in the present If we look around upon the world, how few do we behold, who embrace the

truth! What a vast multitude of erroneous opinions are entertained by men! Opinions shocking not only to piety, but to common sense and humanity! If we consider, further, that all these erroneous opinions necessarily produce erroneous conduct; as necessarily as causes produce effects, and trees produce fruits of their own kind, will it not be well to inquire briefly into the causes of error, and learn by what means men are thus deluded, and made to embrace fool

ish, absurd and impious doctrines. By so doing only can we remedy the evil; for the fountain must first be cleansed in order to sweeten the streams. Let us then briefly inquire into the causes of error.

1. An innate aversion to the