On this ground therefore your principle is proved false. The end proposed by it is not obtained, and therefore it is not good. No doubt but God sought the greatest good of the universe, consistently with his own nature, and the nature of man-and consistently with these natures, the greatest good is obtained, because man refuses to have more-A part of the human family choose death in the error of their ways. And to have made man a necessary agent, would have been to make him any thing besides an intelligent creature. What would have been the result of such a state of things, we cannot tell, because we have no fact to reason from. if God have decreed all things, and that consequently all things are according to his will; and if, nevertheless, a part are miserable after all, it argues either a want of goodness or power; so that all you say about the "greatest good of the universe," amounts to nothing.

But

13. To say that the Almighty could not make all men happy, is to limit his power; and to say he would not, is to circumscribe his goodness. Because, on your principle, the agency of man is out of the question; for your doctrine totally destroys this characteristic of man, and renders him incapable of acting any otherwise than irresistible decrees dictate.

14. What would be said of the father of a family, who should place one half of his family in such circumstances, that they must unavoidably be miserable all the days of their lives; and then, in excuse

for his conduct should say, "I have done thus to seek the greatest good of my whole family." But had you not property enough to support them all comfortably?" Yes; but my other children would not have beheld my particular kindness so conspicuously, unless I had also manifested my indignation. against a part of my family." Supposing any of these poor reprobated children should presume to complain of their hard fate, and it should be said to them, "Your benevolent father is just and good, you must not complain, nor presume to question his justice or goodness. He makes you miserable that the rest of your brethren may be more happyHis steady fixed purpose,' is to seek the greatest good of his whole family.' Your kind father therefore does not delight in your misery, although he made a decree before you were born, that you should never obey him, and that your present misery should be a consequence of that disobedience, which you could not avoid. To obtain an end so benevolent as the greatest sum of good' to his whole family, you yourselves, on second thoughts, must acknowledge is worthy of so holy a man as is your father, notwithstanding the apparent defeatment of the end, in the complete misery of one half of his children. Moreover, your brethren could not be so happy as they are, unless they beheld your father's displeasure in your confinement in torments." Now the only difference between this father, and your deity is, that the latter has unlimited power and authority, and therefore can and will inflict everlasting tor

ments upon the reprobated crew, who, according to your statement, are made bad, to obtain good, and made miserable, to obtain happiness for the

elect.

15. In congruity with your system therefore, you never can make it appear that God seeks or obtains "the greatest good of the universe." The atonement you admit is full and sufficient for all the human race; and therefore there is no deficiency, but goodness to give, and power to apply the merits of Christ's death, in order to make all eternally happy. The same power and goodness manifested to the reprobate, which you say is exerted towards the elect, would as effectually change their hearts, and make them holy and happy. For, according to your doctrine, the elect are totally depraved, "up to the moment of regeneration," and of course they take no active part in their conversion. And the reprobates cannot be more than totally deprav ed; so that the same grace and power which was required to change the heart of the elect, would also change the nature of the reprobate. It therefore follows that, on your principle, if all are not good and happy, it is either because God cannot, or because he will not make them so; and either suppo sition impeaches the power and goodness of God. Your summum bonum argument therefore, respecting the "greatest good of the universe," deduced from the doctrine of foreordination, is fallacious.

16. This argument cannot be justly retorted upon us, because the scriptural doctrine which we plead

F

for, not only recognizes the power and grace of God in the conversion of sinners, but also his wisdom, justice, and holiness, which lead him to treat mankind as free, moral agents. Men are in a state of probation, life and death are set before them, and they are invited, though not compelled, to choose life, that they may live. We do not believe that God foreordained that man should fall, and then left him to himself, and to the subtilty of the devil, that the decree might take effect. This doctrine we abhor, because it contradicts scripture, violates reason, is contrary to common sense, and above all, reflects the greatest dishonour upon the resplendent attributes of Jehovah. If man were made free, to stand or fall, in his pristine state, he then unnecessarily brought misery upon himself. And if, after this, God has provided a sovereign remedy for Adam and all his posterity, which a part of them wilfully reject, it is just and good, wise and holy, that they should be condemned for their obstinate refusal. In this "scheme," we see that the greatest good is obtained to all the human family; because such is the wilful and rebellious conduct of sinners, that they will not have any more. But according to the doctrine of eternal decrees, the elect as obstinately refuse the offers of grace, as the reprobate, until they are overcome by omnipotent power; and could not this same omnipotent power, and irresistible grace overcome and the conquer reprobate? On your principle there would be no more justice, goodness, and power, in one case,

than in the other; for your doctrine asserts, The price is paid for all, the reprobate and the electThey all equally refuse to accept of mercy, until God, by an act of sovereign grace, and almighty power, conquers the elect. Can you assign any satisfactory reason, upon your principle, why the reprobate is not conquered also? You say, I suppose," Yes, because God has determined not to do so." But why has he so determined? Do you answer, as the disputant on the Hopkinsian "side" did? because he would. But is this answer sufficient to satisfy a serious inquirer, who wishes to know the truth? I repeat therefore my observation, that, taking your notion of decrees for our guide, the

greatest good of the universe" is not obtained.— The end therefore, which you propose to your system, being defeated by the system itself, it is on that account erroneous.

17. In p. 20, 21, you say, That it is "suitable" God should not be pleased with part of his work, viewed separately, and yet is "infinitely delighted with his system, considered as a complete whole." Do not all the parts go to make up the whole? and are not all the parts necessary for the perfection of the whole? Do you not moreover say, that every part is included in the "perfect plan,” and all according to the counsel of his will? Is he then displeased with those parts which are necessary to make the other parts perfect and complete? What particular part of his system is the Almighty displeased with? Not with sin, surely. For, accord