Is it not evident that a different interpretation of the passage is resorted to, because the "all things," cannot be limited to the work of creation?

I shall now proceed to suggest several reasons which induce me still to believe, that I did not give a wrong explanation of the text; and that it does mean, That God brings to pass every thing which is brought to pass, according to a filan, or scheme, devised by his own mind.

I. The context favors this, rather than the explanation given by Mr. B. The text is the last part of the verse; "In whom also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestinated according to the purpose of him, who worketh all things after the counsel of his own After the apostle had spoken of their predestination to such a blessed inheritance, as being according to the purpose of God, it was natural to protract the idea, and show, that God was doing every thing else according to his purpose, or the counsel of his own will. In the verse but one before the text, the apostle speaks of that which God purposed in himself. This is what we mean by the decrees of God, namely, The thing which he hath purposed in himself. The commands he has revealed, and these are the only rule to regulate our conduct but the purpose which he hath purposed in him. self, is the rule by which he regulates his own conduct. His conduct is all holy, and of course, in the spirit of his commands, his purposes relate to the particular ways which he sees it will be fit and proper for him, to display his glory.

II. Another reason why I am inclined still to adhere to the doctrine which was raised from the text is this that I cannot think my antagonist has done away the force of those passages which were called in to confirm that doctrine. One of these texts, and the first which he notices,is Luke xxii 22. And truly the son of man goeth as it was determined; but woe unto that man by whom he is betrayed. This passage was introduced to show, that the manner of Christ's falling into the hands of his enemies by the treachery of Judas, was according to the determination of God. Mr. B. supposes that this determination refers either to Judas or the Jewish Sanhedrim. See page 32, 33. In a note he has a criticism on the Greek word which is translated, determined.

He says, it is a participle of the present or imperfect tense, or paulo post futurum, and may be rendered, determining, or about to determine. This is quite a mistake, though I would by no means conclude an intentional one. The Greek participle, Orismenon, is in the passive voice, and can be found neither in the present, nor imperfect, nor in the paulo post futurum. It can be found no where but in the perfect and pluperfect tense. So that all the force of the criticism is lost, and the mere English reader obtains a correct idea of the passage. At least he will be convinced, that it does not refer to what Judas and the Sanhedrim were determining, or about to determine, by only comparing this with its parallel passages in the other Evangelists. See Mat. xxvi. 24: Mark xiv. 21: John xiii. 18. Matthew and Mark say, The Son of man goeth as it is written of him. It is not natural to suppose that this means, As it was writing, or about to be written by Judas. The quotation in John makes it evident, that one place where this had been written was Psal. xli. 9. By comparing all the Evangelists, we learn this important truth, That whatever thing was written in the word of God, as certainly future, was also determined. I shall suggest one more thing which is calculated to establish the interpretation which I before gave of this passage ;-the other part of the verse requires such an interpretation. The idea which lies upon the face of the text,seems plainly to be this; That though it is true,that Christ is coming to his end, just as God saw it would be best, and just as he determined; yet no thanks to Judas; his treachery is infinitely vile, and will prove his utter ruin. Is it not manifest, that the treachery of Judas was divinely determined? And if this was divinely determined, then there can be no weight in what is urged against the doctrine of a divine purpose in every thing. The reason why the author of the Letters would wish this deter mination to apply to Judas, rather than to God, is this ; that if it be referred to God,it will in his view impeach His character by transferring to Him the guilt of all the treacherous conduct of Judas. So he views it but that he ought not so to view it, I shall hereafter attempt to show. At present I would only observe, if this determination be referred to Judas, so as to preclude any

divine determination in the matter, it will take from God all the glory of the whole work of saving sinners by the death of his Son; for according to the sentiments we oppose, he never determined that his Son should be betrayed and crucified. Did God merely foresee that Judas and the wicked Jews would determine to crucify his Son? Does this comport with the language of the prophet? "Yet it pleased the Lord to bruise him, he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin." Does it comport with the language of the apostle Peter, Acts ii, 23. Him being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God?

This is the next scripture proof which our author seeks to take from us. But has he actually taken it from us? Does it not remain an unanswerable proof of the fixed purpose of God, that Jesus should be put to death just as he was? How expressive the language: "Him being delivered by the determinate counsel." Apply this language to his illustration of it, by sup posing that Gen. Washington foretold that faction would arise in the United States. Would it be proper to say, that these factions took place by the determinate counsel of Gen. Washington? Mr. B. says, "the determinate counsel and foreknowledge do not refer to his being crucified and slain.” page 36. I answer, this is evidently the very thing referred to. Peter meant to take the same method in reasoning with the Jews, which Christ took with the disciples going to Emmaus. He designed to show that it was necessary, that Christ should suffer these things which he had suffered. And as Joseph told his brethren, that what God meant for good, they meant for evil, so Peter told them, they had done it with wicked hands.

For

That striking passage Act iv. 27, 28. Mr. B. seeks to force out of our hands, by the power of criticism. of a truth against thy holy child Jesus, whom thou hast anointed, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles, and the people of Israel, were gathered together, for to do whatsoever thy hand and thy counsel determined before to be done. This passage he wishes to transpose in such a manner as to make it say, that Jesus was anDinted to do whatsoever the hand and counsel of God

determined before to be done, instead of Herod, Pilate, the Gentiles, and people of Israel's doing what his counsel had determined. But why did he need to resort to this transposition of the text? While he was seeking to get rid of the proper force the last passage, (Acts ii. 23,) he resorted to foreknowledge as the ground work of divine determinations. See page 34, 35. If God's determinate counsel concerning Christ's crucifixion, in the second chapter, was founded on this foreknowledge of the wickedness of Judas and the Jews, why does he not let the present text stand as it does in our translation, and say; That God's hand and counsel's determining before, what all these bad characters should do, means no more than that he foresaw what they' would do? But I have one or two objections to make against his criticism; 1. I believe that every Greek scholar who does not feel an interest in transposing the words, will say, it is more natural to read them in the order in which we find them. 2. The transposition proposed, evidently makes these devout worshippers lose the object of the quotation which in their address to God they had just made from the second Psalm → They tell God, that by the mouth of David he had said, "Why did the heathen rage and the people imagine vain things? The kings of the earth stood up, and the rulers were gathered together against the Lord, and against his Christ. For of a truth against thy holy child Jesus, &c." In the passage, which they introduced in prayer, it is foretold what would be done to or against Jesus, the Lord's Christ, and not what he would himself do. After they have quoted the passage in which it is predicted what the kings and nobles of the earth would do against the Lord and against his Christ, they proceed to apply it to what Herod and Pilate and others did to Jesus, by saying, "For of a truth against thy holy child Jesus, &c."

We cannot leave this text without making this remark; That the apostles considered the predictions of the Old Testament, not as things merely foreseen by the prescience of the Deity, but as things which his hand and counsel had determined before to be done. And this view they had of it, even when the things predicted were to be brought to pass by wicked agents,

such as Judas, Herod, Pontius Pilate, and other similar characters.

Since Mr. Bangs has said so much, both in the public Debate, and in his Letters, against the necessity of Christ's crucifixion, I feel myself bound to take some further notice of this highly important event. Mr. B. from p. 36th to 47th, is laboring more or less to prove, that there was no plan of God which made it necessary that Christ should be crucified; or that he should, in any other way be put to death. To do away the necessity of his being crucified, or in any other way put to death, he proceeds to show, that he did not die by crucifixion, or by any device of wicked men. Speaking of the death of Christ, he says ; "But if miraculous, as it certainly was, he did not die by crucifixion." p. 45. He then adds; "And this is farther evident from his own words, I lay down my life-I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again: And after having sufficiently suffered to answer the wonderful design of love; it is said, He gave up the ghost, or dismissed the spirit." I would reply to the last thing first: If the phrase, he gave up the ghost, prove, that Christ did not die by crucifixion, but in a miraculous way, it would also prove, that Abraham and Ishmael died miraculously, by dismissing the spirit;" for it is said of them, that they gave up the ghost. See Gen. xxv. 8, 17. As to what the Saviour said about laying down his life himself, and that no man took it from him, I do not see how we can well mistake his meaning. He undoubtedly meant to say, that, as the Divine Mediator, he was perfectly superior to his enemies. When they came to apprehend him, and Peter drew his sword in defence of his Master, he said to Peter, "Thinkest thou that I cannot now pray to my Father, and he shall presently give me more than twelve legions of angels? But how then shall the scriptures be fulfilled, that thus it must be ?" Mr. B. communicates the sentiment, if I understand him aright, (and it is not my design to misunderstand him,) that it was not necessary it should thus be. Ought we to understand the Saviour to say, that men would not actually be the instruments to take his life away; or only, that it would be through his voluntarily submitting to it? Christ was obedient unto death, even