Brown is of the same school. He has laboured to prove that the material universe, after deriving its existence and laws from the Creator, performs its operations without his further interposition; that God wills its operations only as he formed it with such powers and lets it go on when he could suspend its laws; that no power is necessary for its preservation, power always bearing a relation to some

change." But what can that existence or power be which God does not support? What causes it to be this moment? God causes a thing to exist the first moment, but what caused it to exist the second? Its existence one moment was no cause of its existing another. What causes it then to exist now? God, by a previous act whose effect continues to the present time, but not by a present act. But what makes the effect continue to the present time if God's power is suspended? Is there any thing there to act in the place of God when he is withdrawn? any thing to cause the effect of a former act to continue when the Actor is no longer there? If you say, God imparted to the thing permanent existence, that is saying that God willed its permanent existence. Now as God's existence is not in succession, but in one eternal now, we must not think of him as willing a thing and afterwards ceasing to will it while the thing itself remains. What he wills he wills in one eternal now. And if at the creation he willed the eternal existence and laws of matter, he never ceases to will the same. And when we get upon the scale of creatures, and measure over successive days and hours and moments, we can say at every instant, God now wills the existence and laws of matter. And that

willing is all we know of his causal power. It was a neglect to notice this mode of God's existence, which led these eminent philosophers to distinguish between the power which gave being to the universe and its laws at first, and the power which continues their existence.

The same reasonings will prove that a created mind could not be made to go alone. Without the application of divine efficiency it may be reasonably bound, and therefore may have that power which is the basis of obligation; but nothing can make it independent in its operations: for independent action implies independent attributes, and independent attributes imply independent being, and independent being would be communicated self-existence.

If sinless creatures are not dependent on God for holiness, how will you account for the fall of any? and since some have fallen, what security is there that all will not apostatize? Let us consider this matter.

I have repeatedly said that the operations of the faculties are controlled by the affections and outward circumstances, outward circumstances throwing in motives adapted to the existing temper. And motives adapted to the temper and brought into the full view of the understanding, will infallibly draw forth affections agreeing with the state of the heart. For, thus presented to the intellect and thus adapted to the temper, they offer to the mind the greatest apparent good. And that exhibition, even according to Dr. Whitby, the pride of Arminianism, will certainly control the heart or will. These are his words. "To say that the greatest good proposed, the greatest evil threatened, when equally believed and reflected on, is

not sufficient to engage the will to choose the good and refuse the evil, is in effect to say, that which alone doth move the will to choose or refuse, is not sufficient to engage it so to do; which, being contradictory to itself, must of necessity be false." Thus while the heart is right and the mind free, proper motives, set clearly before the understanding, will certainly awaken right affections. And temptations to sin while the heart is right, will instantly be rejected. All these operations are voluntary and free; yet such is the indissoluble connexion between understanding, motives, and affections. How then can a holy being apostatize? Not until the heart ceases to be inclined to fall in with the motives which moved it before. That cessation cannot be produced by good motives, and before it takes place bad motives cannot operate. It cannot therefore be the effect of motives. It must result from some influence, or some withdrawment of influence, behind the scene. If it results from a positive influence, God must be the efficient cause of sin; if it results from the withdrawment of an influence, the influence withdrawn was that which before inclined the heart to holy action: and that is the very efficiency for which we plead. Without resorting to efficiency and its withdrawment, how can we account for the fall of holy beings? How even on the principle of the self-determining power? The whole of that power, according to Whitby, consists in an ability to decide whether or not to attend to and believe the truth presented :† but while the heart is right, the mind will certainly give attention and credence to the truth exhibited. A change of heart, or of the causal influence

* See Introduction.

+ See Introduction.

which acts upon the heart, must therefore be the first thing in the fall of a holy being. Without this change, no temptation, no delusive speech against the truth of God, thrown in in a moment of inattention, could work this fall. While the heart is overflowing with supreme love to God, no temptation to transgress can gain the ear; and no delusive speech can gain a moment's credence till faith in God has given way. You seek in vain for the origin of this change in motives bearing upon a heart warm with the love of God. The heart must first degenerate before the motives can touch it. The cause of all the causes must begin its action here. Dominant love would prevent the evil from beginning in the decay of attention or of faith, or in any obliquity in the views or decisions of the intellect. The habit of love itself, or the propensity to love, must fail, before any thing in the mind or in outward temptations can take hold of the heart to debase it. The first thing to be done is to dry up the fountain of that love, which no mere faculties or motives will ever accomplish. That can be done only by the withdrawment of the influence which produced it. Therefore if God has no efficient influence to withdraw, there is no accounting for the fall of a holy being.

This is exactly the argument by which I attempted to prove that no faculties or motives, without efficient power, will convert supreme enmity into the supreme love of God. The only difference in the two cases is, that inherent selflove will rise up into sin upon the mere withdrawment of divine influence, whereas there is nothing in the totally

15

depraved sinner to rise up into the love of God without his positive efficiency.

The conclusion to which we come is, that the fall of Adam and of the angels furnishes strong proof that a divine influence was withdrawn which had supported their love. But influence or no influence, they fell. And if they had not been kept by divine efficiency, neither are the inhabitants of heaven now kept. And if some fell, thus unsupported, what can prevent them all from falling? What makes it certain that Gabriel will not apostatize? If you say, God foreknows that he will not, foreknowledge finds a thing certain, but does not make it certain. How comes it then to be certain that Gabriel will persevere? Dr. Fitch answers, "We who hold to the defectibility of Gabriel and his need of the guards of God for protection and strength, would say, that now the smoke of torment, continually ascending from the everlasting pit,-so fills his heart with fear and reverence; and the Lamb that is in the midst of the throne, with the prints of crucifixion he bore, and the acclamations of the ransomed for their deliverance, so fills his heart with love to the excellence of his Maker; that his holy purpose of serving God is exalted and confirmed beyond all approach of prevailing temptation." Then God exercises absolute dominion by motives; and then he could have exerted the same over all his creatures and effectually prevented sin. But if he does not exercise absolute dominion by motives, all these new motives arising from the punishment of sin and the work of redemption

* Christian Spectator for 1832. p. 638.