final happiness. For the Judge of all the earth must do right; and eternal misery was never designed to be the portion of any who believe and are holy; for peace and salvation are inseparably joined to such a state and such characters.* To have ordained such to happiness and glory, as were foreseen to be thus qualified, would therefore have been altogether unnecessary.

Further Election depends on the mere good pleasure of God, without any motive in us to influence the divine will. No other cause is assigned by Paul, when stating and defending the doctrine; no other reason is given by his divine Master. The former asserts that the King immortal' predestinated us according to the good pleasure of his will.' That' it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy. Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will.' And the latter with joy declares, 'I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes. Even so, Father, for so it seemed good in thy sight.' That revelation which is here designed, is no other than the execution of the divine purpose in election. And the only reason assigned by Him who is the wisdom of God, and perfectly acquainted with the counsels of heaven, why the mysteries of the gospel are revealed to some, while others of superior abilities and greater reputation among their fellow-creatures are left in absolute ignorance of them, and suffered to oppose them to their aggravated ruin; is the sovereign pleasure of Him who giveth no account of any of his matters.' Much to our purpose are the words of Paul, when professedly handling the subject and largely defending the doctrine of divine election. The children being not yet born,' and, consequently, neither having done any good or evil,' to obtain the approbation or provoke the resentment of their Creator; * John v. 24. 1 Pet. i. 9. Eph. i. 5. Rom, ix. 16. 18. Matt. ix. 25, 26.

'that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works,' or worthiness in the objects of it, but of the grace of him that calleth:' it was said concerning Jacob and Esau, as an instance of the divine procedure towards mankind in general, and as an evidence of the truth of the doctrine; the elder shall serve the younger.'* And again: There is a remnant,' a very small number, according to the election of grace.' This assertion the sacred disputant proceeds to confirm by the following nervous argument—an argument taken from the nature of grace, as contradistinguished to all works and worthiness of every kind. And if by grace, then it is no more of works; otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then it is no more grace; other-. wise work is no more work.'+ Here the truth under consideration is asserted in the plainest manner; here it is defended by the strongest reasoning; so that if any submission of judgment and conscience be due to the positive dictates of the infallible Spirit ; if any regard ought to be paid to a demonstrative argument urged by the Lord's ambassador, here it is due, and here it ought to be paid. Here we are taught, and here it is proved, that our election to eternal glory must be either entirely of grace, or entirely of works; grace and works being entirely opposite. They cannot, therefore, unite in producing the same event, or promoting the same end. Whoever, then, acknowledges that there is any such thing as an election of sinners to future happiness, must necessarily maintain, either, that the sole reason, why they are chosen rather than others, was their own superior worthiness, without grace being concerned at all in the choice; and so their election is an act of remunerative justice: Or, that they were considered equally unworthy of the divine regards, as any of those who perish; and so their election is an act of sovereign grace. One of these he must hold in opposition to the other. For if there be any other alternative, the Apostle's ar*Rom. ix. 11, 12. + Rom. xi. 5, 6.

man.

gument is weak and inconclusive. There is no reconciling expedient which can be devised by the wit of We may attempt a coalition between works and grace, but it will be found absolutely impracticable; while our pride and folly in so doing will be great, and our disappointment certain. For such an attempt would not only bring the greatest confusion into all our ideas about works and grace, but, as far as possible, destroy the very things themselves. Such persons as maintain the contrary hypothesis may, to save appearances, say that election is of grace; but if it be on a foresight of faith and obedience, there is in reality nothing of grace in it; for grace is free favour. On this supposition, election is no other than an appointment of a reward to its objects; on a foresight of the requisite conditions being prescribed to them and performed by them. And as such, it is an act of remunerative justice, or at least of fidelity and truth; but cannot, without open violence to the common signification of the terms, be denominated an act of free love and pure benevolence.*

Once more: That it is the design of Paul, when handling the subject in his epistle to the Romans, to exclude all consideration of human worthiness, and to resolve the election of those who are saved entirely into the grace of God as infinitely free and divinely sovereign, appears from those objections to which he replies. For the objections which are made, and the answers returned, are of such a nature as would appear quite impertinent, and without the least shadow of reason to support them, on supposing that God, when he chose his people, had any regard to their superior worthiness, in comparison with those who perish. The objections suppose, that the divine conduct in that affair is inequitable. But such a supposition could never have been made, such a charge could never have been laid against it, by any man of sense or the least reflection; if the Almighty, in the decree of election, had proceeded to distinguish be* Dr. Tuckney's Prælect. Theol. Part II. p. 81.

tween one man and another, according to their, personal qualities and moral worth.

The infallible writer having treated about God's distinguishing love to Jacob, and his rejection of Esau, starts an objection against the tenor of his arguing, and the truth he maintained; an objection, he knew, that was both plausible and common. What shall we say then; what will be inferred as the necessary consequence of our foregoing assertion? Will any one dare to conclude that there is unrighteousness with God, because he dispenses or withholds his favours according to his own sovereign pleasure? Far be it! Such a consequence will be held in the utmost abhorrence by all who revere their Maker. The Apostle, having rejected the shocking inference in the strongest manner, proceeds to confirm his assertions and prove his doctrine. This he does by appealing to the ancient scriptures. For He,' whose name is JEHOVAH, saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion. From which memorable and ancient oracle he infers the following conclusion: So, then, it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy.' .* Hence it appears, with striking evidence, that it was Paul's design to prove, not only that some of the fallen race were chosen in contradistinction to others, but also that those objects of the divine choice were appointed to glory, not in consideration of any thing which caused them to differ from others, but purely, solely, entirely, because it was the good pleasure of God to make them partakers of that mercy, on which they had not the least claim, any more than those who perish. For, on a supposition of the contrary, it does not appear that his quotation from the writings of Moses, and the conclusion he forms upon it, were at all to his purpose; but are adapted to mis lead his reader, and bias his judgment in favour of

error.

* Rom. ix. 15, 16.

The zealous and indefatigable teacher of heavenly truth, in prosecuting his subject, meets with another objection, which he is equally careful to obviate. For, after having asserted that Jehovah has 'mercy on whom he will, and whom he will he hardeneth'After which he adds, 'Thou wilt say then unto me, why doth he yet find fault' with any of his creatures, or blame their conduct? for who hath resisted his will,' or rendered his purposes void?—This objection exhibits a faithful mirror, in which every opposer of divine sovereignty may see his face, and read his character. The most horrid and shocking consequences which are now charged on the doctrine of eternal, unconditional, and personal election, are here included and reduced to a small compass. This objection, in modern style, stands thus: According to the Calvinistic doctrine of election, men are mere machines. They are impelled to this or that by a fatal necessity. They are no longer the proper objects of praise or blame, of reward or punishment. Adieu, therefore, to every virtuous action, and all praise-worthy deeds. Whether we be righteous or wicked here, whether we be saved or damned hereafter, an arbitrary will and a sovereign omnipotent decree are the cause of all.' Such persons, however, as are inclined to repeat the stale objection, would do well to consider in what manner the apostle refutes it, and how he treats the proud opposer of the sovereign prerogative of the great Supreme. The objection is levelled against the sovereignty of God, in making such an immense distinction between persons equally unworthy of divine clemency. But though it is bold and blasphemous to the last degree, the unerring teacher does not refute, or attempt to remove it, by informing the objector, That it was not his design, by the immediately foregoing assertion, to affirm that the sole cause of that infinite difference which shall subsist to eternity between the state of one man and another, equally guilty and alike miserable, considered in themselves, was the free, sovereign pleasure