knowledge of God, cannot expect that more will be saved, than the number foreknown; and yet they seek the salvation of all. I would ask, Do they mean to frustrate the foreknowledge of him, who is without any variableness or shadow of turning.

Let it be further considered, that though Paul knew it was the purpose of God to cut off many of the natural branches from the olive tree; yet he did not consider all prayers and labors for the salvation of the seed of Abraham to be utterly in vain. He hoped still that he might save some of them.

II. One objection which Mr. B. raises against the doctrine of personal election, especially as drawn from our text, is the badness of Jacob's character, particularly before his conversion. He says, "Let any man of candor impartially examine the two characters of Jacob and Esau, and he will find as much to applaud, at least, in Esau, as in Jacob, previous to the conversion of the latter, which appears to have happened on his way to Padan-aram." p. 104. Grant this to be correct, and how does it furnish any argument against our doctrine? We do not pretend that the elect are, before their conversion, any better than others. On the contrary, we say that God, in choosing them to be monuments of his grace, has no respect to any good distinctions which exist in them that they are not chosen because of good works, but unto good works. What Mr. B. says about these two brothers, seems to confirm, instead of tending to weaken our doctrine of unconditional election.

From something which I find in Mr. B's. book, in close connection with the last quotation, I am led to conclude that he does not understand us when we speak of election as being unconditional. He has this sentence; "If, because Jacob is called the elect of God, he were elected to eternal life, without any regard to his faith and obedience, &c." Further on he says, "The question is not therefore as your readers might infer, whether our election to eternal life be predicated of works or grace; but whether the grace of eternal life, be unconditionally bestowed on some, and whether all the rest be unconditionally reprobated to eternal death, without any respect to their wicked works." p. 108. Now it is a matter of first importance, that writers in controversy, es

pecially in theological controversy, should not misunderstand, or misrepresent each other's sentiments. I have already shown, that by works, in the controversy concerning predestination, I did not mean the same as merit, but that I understood our opponents as building predestination on good works foreseen; such as repentance, faith, and new obedience. I would now ask, whether the quotations from Mr. Bangs' Letters, which have just been made, are not calculated to give his readers a wrong view of our sentiments? He says, "The question is, whether grace, the grace of eternal life, be unconditionally bestowed on some?" I think this is far from being the question. God bestows the grace of eternal life on none but penitent believers, but he bestows the grace of repentance and faith on those who are dead in sin; in consequence of which grace, they become alive, and now exercise repentance towards God, and faith in our Lord Jesus Christ. Let every reader understand, that Calvinists no more believe, that God has promised to admit men to heaven, without their being prepared for it, than the Arminians do; but Calvinists fully believe, that God has determined to prepare some men for his heavenly kingdom, without making something good, on their part, the condition on which he will begin this good work of preparing them.

III. One great objection which Mr. B. brings against the doctrine of personal election, is, that it implies personal reprobation. We acknowledge that it implies this. And his system of national election, necessarily implies national reprobation. If the posterity of Jacob, in distinction from the posterity of his brother, were chosen to enjoy the special privileges of revealed truth, and divine ordinances, then the posterity of Esau, in this thing, were reprobated, i. e. they were not chosen to these privileges. Now why are not the minds of our opponents embarrased with such a reprobation as this, seeing it so directly led to their eternal ruin?

The Arminians, as well as the Calvinists, believe that a part of mankind will be eternally wicked and wretched; and that the omniscient Being from eternity foreSaw that it would be so. They must therefore acknowledge, that notwithstanding he saw what their end would be, he chose, all things considered, to bring them into

existence. But they will say, The wickedness and wretchedness of the damned were not his ultimate end in their creation. And so say we; though my antagonist supposes us to say otherwise, as will appear by what follows; "We have no authority therefore for. concluding that God made Esau on purpose for destruction. Were we to allow that he was wicked as was Cain, it no more proves that this was the ultimate end of his existence, than it does that God can lie." p. 107. Ultimate end, must mean one or other of these two things; either first, that chief and highest end, the best good, or that which is most worthy to be proposed by all intelligent beings, as their supreme object or secondly, it must mean something which is desirable for its own sake, so that, though it be not the supreme good, still it is such an end as to make it suitable that certain other things should be subordinated to it. To these subordinate things it is an ultimate or last end. Bodily health, for example, is a real good in itself considered, when contrasted with sickness and distress. We send for a physician, and take unpleasant drugs, to the end that we may recover health. In this instance, recovery to health is an end, to which we subordinate other things, and to these other things it is an ultimate end, tho' it ought not to be the chief end; for there is something of more importance than our bodily health. It could not be, in any sense, proper to say, that the ultimate end of obtaining a physician was to get some of his bitter drugs, though this is the immediate end we have in view by obtaining him. An ultimate end must be some good upon which the mind rests, as that which serves, at least in some measure, to compensate for the use of means or subordinate ends for its attainment. If this definition of ultimate end be in any measure correct, it is very far from us, to represent the destruction of the wicked, as God's ultimate end. It is not his chief end, that is certain, for his own glory is his chief and highest end. "He hath made all things for himself; yea even the wicked for the day of evil." Prov. xvi. 4. Here is the very "thing concerning which we are now making inquiry. Here are the wicked, and here is their destruction, and God is said to make them for the day of evil, which is the same as the day of destruction;

but their destruction is not spoken of as his chief endhe has made them, among other things, for himself, that is, for his own glory. The greatness and holiness of God will be more displayed by having such characters, and by having them punished for their sins, than to have had no such characters, and to have had no such punishment.

The destruction of the wicked is not only, not God's chief end; but it is not in any sense an ultimate end. The holiness and the blessedness of the righteous are an ultimate end. The Lord rejoices over his redeemed church with joy, and rests in his love. He delights in his people, and he delights in their blessedness. He has promised that all things shall work together for their good. God does not, in the same sense, delight in the destruction of the wicked. As I live saith the Lord, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked. Ezek. xxxiii. 11. The doctrine of reprobation does not suppose, that God made the wicked "on purpose for destruction," nor that this was the ultimate end of their existence; because this would imply that their destruction is looked upon by the Divine Being as a good in itself, and chosen for its own sake, whereas nothing is wider from the truth. Pharaoh is a striking example of the doctrine of reprobation; but it is not intimated, that his Creator made him on purpose to destroy him, or that his destruction was the ultimate end of his existence. The representation is, that he was made on purpose to be the means of a more extensive display of divine glory. "For the scripture saith unto Pharaoh, even for this same purpose have I raised thee up, that I might show my power in thee, and that my name might be declared throughout all the earth." Rom. ix. 17. The same kind of reason is giv en in the 22nd verse for the reprobation of all that die in their sins, viz. that God might show his wrath, (his holy opposition to sinners) and to make his power known, (i. e. his power to punish rebels, and thus maintain the government of the universe.)

Under the article of reprobation, I shall make some reply to a perversion of my sentiments, which our author has made by means of an imperfect quotation from the Sermons on this point. " It is not," say you, “ as

signing a sufficient reason for their reprobation, to say, they were wicked, and would not accept of mercy." Now sir, either you, or Jesus Christ and the apostle Paul, are mistaken. Paul saith," The wrath of God cometh on the children of disobedience, because of their wickedness." You say, This is not a sufficient reason, Paul saith," &c. p. 112. After continuing this subject for a little while he demands, " Are then Dr. Hopkins and yourself wiser than Jesus Christ, and his servant Paul!" Did the author of the Letters understand me to say, that something besides wickedness was the guilty cause of the destruction of the wicked? Or to say, that their wickedness was not a sufficient reason of their deserving punishment? That the reader may have opportunity to judge concerning the correctness of the sentiment which Mr. B. thinks so opposite to the sentiments of Paul and of Christ, I will quote the whole sentence, a part of which is quoted in the Letters. Here follows the whole sentence : "It is not assigning a sufficient reason for their reprobation to say, that the reprobate were wicked, and would not accept of mercy; for this was equally true concerning those who are saved, until by the power of God they were made willing to submit." Did not my antagonist apprehend what I meant by a want of sufficiency in the reason? Does not the last part of the sentence make it perfectly evident? And to all who believe, that God has power to make rebels willing when he pleases, there must be force in it. It is well known that we believe, the Almighty has power to bring all the rebels in the world over to his holy standard. If this sentiment is correct, then it is evident, that it is not assigning a sufficient reason for their everlasting punishment to say, They were wicked and would not accept of mercy. It is assigning a sufficient reason for their desert of punishment, but not for their being treated according to their deserts, seeing millions of their fellow sinners will not be treated according to their deserts. If it should be said, their fellow sinners repented; it is true, through the grace given unto them they repented; and why was not this grace given to all the sinners in the world? It must finally be resolved into this, that it was not for the glory of God to bring them all to repentance, and