of God, elected to peculiar privileges, and that these were religious privileges, for to them were committed the oracles of God. Now let it be remembered, that these privileges were necessary to salvation; for "where no vision is the people perish." Salvation was of the Jews, and not of the Gentiles. Here then the sovereign election of Jacob's posterity, in distinction from Esau's, did most intimately relate to the things of eternity, and to the salvation of souls from eternal ruin. The posterity of Jacob were elected in distinction from the posterity of Esau, at least for a considerable period then future, much the same as the race of Adam was chosen to salvation, in distinction from fallen angels. So that I think we may with propriety repeat the sentiment which we advanced in the Sermons ; "If election and reprobation appear bad when applied to Jacob and Esau, as individuals, they must appear vastly worse when applied to them as the heads of two great nations.”

In the Appendix, p. 309, when Mr. B. in making some comment upon Rom. ix. 21, concerning the poiter's having power over the clay of the same lump, to make one vessel unto honor, and another unto dishonor, he observes; "The obvious meaning of the apostle is, that as the potter makes some vessels for more honorable uses than he does others, so God has raised up some nations, the Jews, for instance, formerly, and now the Gentiles, who are called to the exalted pri vileges of christianity, to higher dignity, and for more honorable purposes, than he has others " Is this the apostle's obvious meaning? How came he then, in the next two verses to say: "What if God, willing to show his wrath, and make his power known, endured with much long-suffering the vessels of wrath filled to destruction: and that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory?" Has not the apostle, in these two verses, evidently given us an example of the two kinds of vessels which the great Potter makes, some unto honor, and some unto dishonor? And are these vessels nations? And is the honor and dishonor national? Do we go to glory, or to destruction, as nations, or as individuals? The vessels of wrath are

*

Mitted to destruction, and the vessels of mercy are prepared unto glory. Is it not evident, that Mr. B. mistook the meaning of the text concerning the potter and the clay? And have we reason to think, that in the 15th verse of the same chapter, when God is introduced as saying, that he will have mercy on whom he will have mercy, it ought to be confined to men, considered only in a national capacity?

The author of the Letters thinks he oversets the idea of a personal election, by showing that the posterity of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, were denominated the elect, or chosen people of God. He observes that the apostles adopted the same phraseology with respect to the Gentile churches, denominating all the members of the visible church, the elect, the chosen people of God. See Pref. pp. 8, 9. I do not conceive, that this militates at all against the doctrine of particu lar election, as it is held by Calvinists. The church

under both dispensations is called Israel; but the apostle says, All are not Israel which are of Israel. Here the word Israel is used in two senses; according to one sense, it means the whole nation or visible church; and according to the other, it means such as are what they profess to be. The word Jew is used in these two senses, else the apostle would not have said, He is a Jew, which is one inwardly. The whole visible church is called the people of God; and yet people of God, is sometimes used in a more appropriate sense, to point out those who have a holy union to Christ. The word saint is expressive of sanctification, and yet this word is applied to the whole visible church; as appears in this passage, Psal. cxlviii, 14, "He also exalteth the horn of his people, the praise of all his saints; even of the children of Israel, a people near unto him." The apostle addresses the whole church at Rome as beloved of God, called to be saints. He has similar addresses to other churches. Now will any one pretend, because the terms, Israel, Jews, people of God, saints, believers, brethren, &c. are sometimes used in application to the whole visible church, that therefore they are never used in a more appropriate and confined sense? And is it not just as unsuitable to argue a gainst personal election, because the whole visible

sure.

church is called elect? As the apostle made a spiritual Israel within the visible Israel, so he evidently made a real elect to exist among the chosen people. "Even so then at this present time there is a remnant according to the election of grace.What then? Israel hath not obtained that which he seeketh for; but the election hath obtained it, and the rest were blinded." Rom. xi. 5, 7. Here the elect, do not mean the nation of Israel, but those from among the nation who obtain the salvation of Christ. Their embracing the gospel, does not seem to be spoken of as the cause of their election; but as taking place according to the election of grace. Here then is an elect number within an elect nation. Tho' all the members of the visible church may be considered as visibly the elect, yet they are reminded that this does not of itself make their election "Give diligence to make your calling and election sure; 2 Pet. i. 10. Jesus Christ, when speaking of the impostors which should arise, declares, "They shall deceive, if it were possible, the very elect." By the very elect, it is evident, he did not mean the same as the church of Israel, or. the same as the christian church, but that he meant the real elect, who were called with a holy calling, not according to their works, but according to the purpose and grace of God. Notwithstanding what my antagonist has said, I cannot think that personal election was a stranger on earth in the apostle's days; any more than personal calling, personal sanctification, and personal justification. Was it only in a national capacity, that men were then called; and in a national capacity that they were justified, and glorified? No, it was particular persons who were called, justified and glorified; then it was particular persons who were predestinated; for whom he did predestinate, them he also called, justified, and glorified. See Rom. viii. 30.

Having shown that the purpose of election relates to the salvation of sinners, and that it relates to them in their individual capacity; and also that the purpose of election is not grounded on good works foreseen-we now proceed to notice briefly some of Mr. B's. objections to our doctrine, which have not already been noticed. I. He thinks that the manner in which Paul

introduced the ninth chapter to the Romans, by declar ing the great concern which he felt for the salvation of his kindred, proves that he did not believe in the doctrine of unconditional election. "Can it be supposed," says Mr. B. "that he felt such an opposition to the eternal decree of God, respecting the reprobation of the Jews, that he wished himself accursed from Christ, if he could thereby prevent its execution?" p. 100. To this difficulty it may be replied, 1st. Divine decrees do not take away feeling, either from God, or his friends. God has no pleasure in the death of the wicked man who dieth. Even when the decree has brought forth, and the command is given, " Bind ye the unprofitable servant and cast him into outer darkness;" even then, he has no pleasure in his death. To punish, is his strange work. The Saviour wept over Jerusalem, devoted to destruction by the righteous judgment of God. After the God of Isaac had declared to the prophet Jeremiah his fixed purpose, to send his people into captivity, and thus cast them out of his sight, and had said, Therefore pray not thou for this people, neither lift up cry nor prayer for them, neither make intercession to me; for I will not hear thee; the prophet said, Oh that my head were waters, and mine eyes a fountain of tears, that I might weep day and night for the slain of the daughter of my people. Such feelings as these were perfectly compatible with a reconciliation to the revealed purpose of God concerning that sinful nation. The Lord was not displeased to see his servant so full of feeling on this occasion. These feelings were ever the fruit of that divine nature of which he had partaken. Things which are naturally or morally evil, holy beings are never pleased with for their own sake. They could never be reconciled to either class of these evils, except in view of the good which these evils are made the 'means of promoting. God is pleased with that scheme of providence which contained in it the death of his only begotten Son, not because he was pleased with seeing the agonies of his Son or the malice of his murderers, but because of the great good which he designed to bring about by the natural evil which he endured, and the moral evil which they committed. God is pleased with his scheme of providence, considered as one great

whole, though it included this natural and moral evil: but does it hence follow, that he was pleased with these evils for their own sake? To suppose him pleased with the agonies of his dear Son, when viewed by themselves, and for their own sake, would be to suppose him to be cruel, and even cruel to him, with whom he was well pleased. To suppose him to be pleased with the murderous spirit of his crucifiers, would make the most holy God to be no better than Pilate, Herod, and the Jews. There is therefore a complete foundation for the distinction now made, between being pleased with, and reconciled to, things in their consequences, and being pleased with them, on their own account. Christ was reconciled, all things being taken into view, with the casting away of the Jews, and yet the feelings of his heart, in view of this event by itself considered, were well expressed by his flowing tears, and by his compassionate exclamation-" If thou hadst known, even thou in this thy day the things of thy peace!" Paul's compassionate feelings for the Jews, and desire for their salvation from sin and ruin, as in itself a great natural and moral good, are very strikingly expressed in the beginning of the 9th, and again in the beginning of the 10th chapter of his epistle to the Romans. But this did not imply that he wished, on the whole, to have the divine purpose changed, even as it respected the casting away of the Jews. His reconciliation, and even his triumphant rejoicing in the whole scheme of divine providence, not excluding the blindness in part which had happened to Israel, are equally manifest. It is when he is just closing this solemn subject, that he exclaims, "O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! how unsearchable are his judg ments, and his ways past finding out !-For of him, and through him, and to him are all things to whom be glory forever. Amen."

A 2nd reply to the difficulty is this; It was the duty of the apostle to seek the salvation of sinners, while he found them in this world of hope. God has a sovereign right to have mercy on whom he will, but it is our duty to seek the salvation of all. The commission given to the servants, is, "As many as ye find, bid them to the marriage." Those who believe in the certain fore