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 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 to provoke the resentment of their Creator; 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 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; otherwise work is no more work. In this passage the truth under consideration is asserted in the plainest manner, and confirmed by the strongest reasoning. So that if any submissionof 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 they are due, and here they ought to be paid. For Paul teaches and proves that our election to eternal glory, must be either entirely of grace, or entirely of works; grace and works being directly opposite. They cannot therefore, unite in producing the same effect, or in promoting the same end. Whoever, then, acknow..

ledges any such thing as an election of sinners to future happiness, must necessarily maintain; either, that the sole reason why they were 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 equally unworthy of the divine regards as any of those that 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 argument is inconclusive. There is no reconciling expedient that can be devised by the wit of man. We may attempt a coalition between works and grace, but it will be found impracticable; while, in so doing, our pride and folly 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, and performed by them. But, as such, it is an act of remunerative justice; or at least, of fidelity and truth; and cannot, without open violence to the common signification of the terms, be denominated an act of mere favour, or of pure benevolence.

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 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 supposition 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 this affair is inequitable. But such a supposition could not have been made, such a charge could ne ver have been laid against it, by any man of sense, or of the least reflection; if the Almighty in the decree of election, had proceeded to distinguish between 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 tenour of his ar guing 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 to 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 will have compassion on whom I will have compassion. From which memorable and an

cient oracle, he infers the following conclusion: So then, it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that showeth 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 rather adapted to mislead his reader, and to bias his judgment in fa

vour of error.

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, it is added; 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 faithful mirror, in which every opposer of divine sovereignty may see his face and read his character. The most horrid and shocking consequences that 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, reads thus : " According to the Calvinistic doctrine of election, men are mere machines. They are impelled to

D

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 praiseworthy 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, may 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 equal. ly unworthy of divine clemency. But, though 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 of another, equally guilty and alike miserable, considered in themselves; was the sovereign pleasure of God. No; he is far from giving any such hint; but immediately recurs to the supreme dominion of Him who formed the universe, as a consideration of sufficient importance, and sufficiently clear, to establish the point. So far from softening his former assertions, however harsh they might seem, that he at once confirms the truth he asserted, and illustrates the propriety of his language. In doing of which he suggests, that the objection, horrid as it is, cannot have the least force, or pertinency of application, except it were proved that the Majesty of heaven had not an absolute right to dispense his favours just as he pleases. But this