the word hate is evidently used merely for inferior love of complacency, according with the inferiority of its object, by our Lord, as recorded, Luke xiv. 26. "If any man come to me, and hate not his father and mother, and his wife and children, and brethren and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple;" so here, though the word hated is used respecting Esau, and the word loved respecting Jacob, I do not think what they indicate is equally near in analogy to the passions of human persons expressed by these names; for the word hated seems to express merely the unknown reason in God of a lesser portion of earthly good, considered as the father of a people, than was the portion of Jacob.

Pedaiah. It seems indicated by Solomon,* that the Lord made the wicked for the day of evil; by Peter,† that some persons were appointed to stumble at the word, being disobedient; and by Jude, that some persons were before of old ordained, or were of old before written, to criminality, by hypocritically deceiving the godly. I infer, that even wicked persons, as persons, were directly elected and appointed, though not to regeneration, yet to special ends of the elector; which seems fully opposed to our author's representation of divine election.

Othniel. The warrant of these expressions is the indirect necessity, which is the result of the divine laws, or rules of conduct enforced by rewards and punishments, the extent of

their

Prov. xvi. 4.

+ 1 Pet. ii. 8.

Jude 1

their influence being before known unto God. These laws fully involve the divine choice of those persons who conform unto them. But the conception that the rest, or non-conformists to the divine laws, were also chosen of God to criminality connected with their evil end, is repugnant to the very notion of choice. True, God may voluntarily counterwork and overrule their abomination, criminality, and misery, as actually existing, yes, and chuse to do so; but whatever God counterworks and overrules, cannot be itself an object of his choice, no not even of his indirect choice. We read,* "The kingdom of heaven is like unto a net that was cast into the sea, and gathered of every kind; which, when it was full, they drew to shore, and sat down, and gathered the good into vessels, but cast the bad away." We readily conceive that the good fish were objects of the fishermen's choice, and that the rest, the bad, were not chosen of them.— Again, there is not the smallest indication in these passages that the persons, merely as persons, were appointed, or ordained, to the evils specified. And, lastly, these passages are evidently tropical expressions of God's decree, to judicially give up to sin and punishment a certain class of wicked persons.

Pedaiah. Some scriptures seem to oppose the doctrine of limited divine decrees and indirect election of persons, by ascribing unto God voluntary concurrence even respecting the evil of sin and suffering; for instance, Exod. vii. 13. "And he hardened Pharaoh's

heart,

Matt. xiii. 47, 48.

heart, that he hearkened not unto them; as the Lord had said." 1 Sam. ii. 25. 1 Sam. ii. 25. "They, (the sons of Eli) hearkened not unto the voice of their father, because the LORD would slay them." 2 Sam. xxiv. 1. "God moved David to number the people,-which was David's sin."

Othniel. We should not overlook what is said, Exod. viii. 15. "When Pharaoh saw there was respite, he hardened his heart;" nor what is recorded, 1 Chron. xxi. 1. "Satan stood up against Israel, and provoked David to number Israel." These expressions and similar passages of scripture, mark the dominion of God over evil, and, philosophically considered, indicate a full confidence in the writer, that these events owed their existence to indirect necessity, actual but indirect necessity; and that they were consequents of the sufferages, and objects of the foreknowledge, and consequently, so far as judicial, of the indirect purpose of God. That "God doth by effective operation move and determine men to wicked actions," to accomplish his purpose, is a suggestion too gross to be enter tained a minute. Shall he who " tempteth no man, and who cannot be tempted of evil," himself work the iniquity of finite beings? If the philosopher rightly thought the question, "whether parents ought to be honoured,' should be answered with a whip; how much more should such a calumny on the universal Parent be marked with detestation!

You might with as great plausibility urge our Lord's words, "Think not that I am come

to

to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword," &c. as recorded Matt. x. 34, 35, 36. I say, might urge these words of the Prince of Peace (who had before declared, Blessed are the peace-makers) to prove divine choice of wars and persecution of the saints. But if common sense, and moral sense, as well as the Spirit of God, keep us from such a prostitution of scripture, and lead us to attribute these unhappy consequents to the concurrence of the superior and required attachment of the disciples unto Christ-the indirectly necessary bigotry of some persons-and the malevolence of the most hardened class, as foreknown unto God and to our Saviour; why should we not as readily do similarly respecting the passages you have presented?

Pedaiah. If divine election of persons is but indirect or virtual election, I think we more rationally conceive it to be involved in, or the result of God's unlimited purpose, for his own glory, of whatsoever comes to pass.

Othniel. Were this supposed unlimited purpose of whatever comes to pass a fact, this purpose must originate in choice, and consequently be rightly resolved into unlimited choice with all its absurdities; for we rationally conceive that choice to create this world involved, or was the necessary antecedent of all consequent decretive volitions and consequent purposes respecting this world; and embraced no future event as its object, further than in its nature preferable to another or others.

Nehemiah. I read in Genesis, that God

repented

repented that he had made man :* I read in Numbers, "Ye shall bear your iniquities forty years, and ye shall know my breach of promise or the altering of my purpose:"+ And I read in Jeremiah, "If it do evil in my sight, that it obey not my voice, then I will repent of the good wherewith I said I would benefit them:"Certainly these passages are hostile to the hypothesis of universal decrees. What do you conceive their meaning?

Othniel. I conceive these expressions of the prophets to be hyperboles, ("a trope which lies without deceiving,") used to show that God has primarily respect to obedience of his commandments; and that human obedience and disobedience are before, in order of nature, personal appropriation of his decreed promises or threatenings.

Nehemiah. I claim leave to draw the attention of both my dear friends to another topic of our author. If I understand him, he does not assign a distinguishing discriminating love of some persons, merely as persons, in the Deity, as the origin of either their election, the atoning sacrifice of Christ, or their regeneration; I conceive he supposes, God did not love the elect persons before their conversion better than he loved the non-elect.

Othniel. Doubtless that is his opinion, and it is also mine. I know not a single text of scripture in point for establishing the hypothesis, that God from eternity was the subject of a peculiar love to some persons, which was

* Gen. vi. 6. + Num. xiv. 34.

the

Jer. xviii. 10.