God not to lead us into temptation, would be the same favour in effect as to forgive us our trespasses; and to deliver us daily from evil, as to give us our DAILY BREAD AND GRACE: the effect of asking the two former being to deprecate the guilt and punishment of sin; of the two latter, to implore the means and enjoyment of righteousAnd what we have to consider at present in relation hereto is 1, the Doctrine of Temptation and Evil; 2, the Part or Practice of resisting the one, and consequently avoiding the other.

ness.

§ 1. And here looking, as usual, first to the letter of the clause first mentioned, "Lead us not into temptation;" it certainly is one-considering its divine Object, to be placed among the many difficulties of Scripture, as well which have been reconciled by sound, pious and charitable criticism, as which have not been, nor ever will be, without something besides which men have not; and that is a natural comprehension adequate to the lofty meaning of revelation. But I am happy to add, that the difficulty now mentioned is not one of the irreconcileable sort; though there happen to be two contrary opinions on the subject that are more than difficult, for they are impossible, to be reconciled to its true doctrine; one against God's tempting any man however indirectly; the other against his doing any evil to any man, however the man may deserve it: and, as there is no error in religion scarcely so deleterious, "but some sober brow will bless it and approve it with a text," there may be some, I dare say, who will have their texts for approving such errors as these. Therefore, to explain the grounds and propriety of the deprecation which our Saviour here proposes, and its compatibility with any genuine texts of Scripture, which may be brought to undermine or contradict it, I shall have to consider, as far as my limits will allow, the Doctrine of Temptation and Evil in the first instance, and that, according to the same authorities: my way-to proceed,

by 1, an Inquiry into the Nature and Origin of Evil; 2, some Distinctions of the same; with a view to find 3, What sort of evil, and what share in its production, may be imputed to the Author of good.

1. With respect, therefore, to the Nature and Origin of Evil: supposing evil to be, and that, as it came not into the world originally, with its antagonist, when "God saw every thing that he had made, and behold, IT WAS VERY GOOD;" (Gen. i. 31 ;) it must, consequently, have had that which good has not had, namely, a beginning,-one might think with one's self, However, has evil begun, or with whom? THAT WHICH EVER WAS NOT, COULD NOT BEGIN OF ITSELF; who then might be its author-that is to say, the author of evil? Or, in other words, God himself being generally held to be the Author of all things, whether evil or good, and the good of all being ascribed to him invariably, to whom may we ascribe their evil? Beside what may be due to our own private, and, I trust, not unreasonable satisfaction, we owe this inquiry to the honour of God's holy name thus brought in question, and we owe it likewise to the honour of his written word; which would seem to contradict not only our modes of thinking, but its own plain assertions likewise in this particular instance, asserting one while, its divine Author to be the author of evil; another while, the party most opposite to him; another while, neither of these, but a mean party, or one between both. Thus, for example,

1, God, in his sacred person of Creator, is made to take upon himself the authorship of evil things or dispensations as well as good in this passage, "I am the Lord; and there is none else. I form the light and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I, the Lord, do all these things:" (Isai. xlv. 6,7 :) which is, as I said, taking upon himself the authorship of evil, and seemingly from the beginning, that is, from the creation. While, if one should go for to say, that evil was but a secondary or supple

imental production in respect of him, there might still be a question (with deference to the Author of good) respecting the good of evil. But,

2, As opposed to the Author of good, we read of a venomous beast, the old serpent, "being also more subtil than any beast of the field which the Lord God had made;" (Gen. iii. 1;) and how the poisonous commodity of which we are thinking was introduced into the world by him. Lastly,

3, Man himself is declared to be the author of his own evil works, and their evil consequences in conjunction with the old serpent. For example,-1, God said, “If thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door." (Gen. iv. 7.) And too surely so it was: as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin." (Rom. v. 12.) And thus began through the will of God so close a connection between sin and death, or evil doing, and evil suffering, from the centre of man's existence to the very outside, as no created being can either weaken or palliate.

It may seem rather irrelevant to shew punctually from Scripture, that there are these three parties concerned in the origin of evil, when our inquiry relates in strictness only to one of them: but such is not exactly the case; as we may find on a further consideration of the subject, of which

2. It will now be convenient, to make some Distinctions with a view to find WHAT SORT OF EVIL, AND WHAT SHARE IN ITS PRODUCTION MAY BE IMPUTED TO THE AUTHOR OF GOOD.

1, We find two sorts of evil especially among others: and these occur in the two parts of doing and suffering ; in every sort of which, whether it be material, spiritual, or intellectual, there seems as much evil as good, and rather more, also different degrees of intensity, namely in doing and suffering either way or by either medium-the material, spiritual, or intellectual aforesaid. Few men can be aware in this life either of the evil they do, or of that

which they may consequently be made to suffer,-so much are we here in the dark. For beside this distinction of evil doing and suffering which may also be called active and passive, or objective and subjective evil in relation to the doer or sufferer; may be conceived,

2, Another distinction of the same into positive and negative, as well as of final and mediate; being more to our purpose, or to that of the question which we are considering. For example, if the sun should burn, it would be a positive evil and painful INFLICTION: if he should withdraw his genial light and heat too long, it would be a negative evil and painful PRIVATION. Which shews the difference of these two sorts: while from the same example we may also conceive the distinction between final evil and mediate; as it would be a final evil, and end to our planet, if the sun should happen either to burn here unalterably, or to withdraw his shining entirely; but is only a mediate evil, when he just raises his fires toward noon-day, to give the crops a good roasting, and extinguishes them again toward night-fall for the refreshment of the weary beast, and of the green sward on which he reclines. So death itself may be likewise of either sort, that is either mediate or final, as it proves to be either temporal consisting in mortal agonies which, however excruciating for their continuance, are not of long duration,—or eternal in which those and far greater agonies shall be protracted equally with the existence of the sufferer or subject.

3. Applying these distinctions will help us to an important and seemingly certain solution of the problem, What sort of evil, and what share in its production may be imputed to the Author of good?

1, And first the biggest and most unsightly part of the difficulty may be obviated at once by a single recollection, to wit, of the majesty of God; and how there is One Sovereign at least who can do no wrong, and consequently order none. If therefore the Deity permit notwithstanding, or do not prevent what may be wrong; nay, if he

have expressly prompted and even enjoined in some instances actions that are confessedly wrong on his own principles or decrees; as, for example, prompting a pious and paternal king like David to number his people, even Israel; (Sam. II. xxiv. ;) which was a part only fit for their Redeemer, (Exod. xxx. 12,) also tempting Abraham to the unnatural purpose of immolating his only son without any fault or suspicion; which is still less, than his tempting, not merely an individual, but the majority of a nation, to immolate, not a son of their own merely, but the Son of God himself, his own dearly beloved and in some sort only begotten Son; whom, being delivered by THE DETERMINATE COUNSEL AND FOREknowledge oF GOD, (as St. Peter boldly reminds his murderers) "ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain;" (Acts ii. 23;)-if He is seen, not only aiming at single victims in this manner, but against entire families and communities, directing his people at one time to a general spoiling of their neighbours, (Exod. iii. 22, &c.,) and at other times sending them to a general and indiscriminate massacre of strangers by whom they had been never, or but slightly offended; (Deut. vii. 16, 24; Josh. xi. 20; Sam. I. xv., &c.;) if all this He is seen to do, and much more has done, which is not revealed to us; yet he still maintains the distinction between good and evil, and never more so perhaps than when he seems most to confound it,-so that "the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him," (Ezek. xviii. 20,) the same, notwithstanding.

For righteousness consisting in obedience to the Word of God, every word of his must be a pattern of righteousness from first to last, with all its revocations and exceptions and if he who said, "Thou shalt not kill," "Thou shalt not steal, &c." (Exod. xx.) should in his wisdom think fit to require on any occasion what is thus generally forbidden, his last word of course would stand good, like that of inferior potentates; the goodness of the means being

VOL. II.

BB