finite atonement for sin, and yet no sin washed away; a Redeemer, without any redeemed; a mediatorial King, without any subjects; and a glorious Head, without any body. But if the purpose of God according to election is not built on good works foreseen, but upon the mere benevolence of his own heart, then it will stand. As many as are ordained to eternal life will believe. The Redeemer will see of the travail of his soul and be satisfied: Because all that are given him of the Father shall come to him. He is assured that his elected people, however rebellious they are by nature, shall become willing in the day of divine power. He will work, and who shall let it. The most rebellious hearts are in his hand, and are turned at his pleasure. Perfect rebellion, and infinite ill-desert, do not, in a single instance, frustrate the purpose of God. Notwithstanding these, his house shall be filled with guests, and with the very guests he chose before the foundation of the world.

PART II.

There will now be an attempt to answer some objections which are frequently made against this view of the doctrine of election.

I. It is objected, that this view of the doctrine destroys the accountability of creatures. "Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? for who hath resisted his will?" This objection we find in the chapter from which our text is taken; from which it appears, that the scripture view of the doctrine had the same objection made against it, which is made against the doctrine as it is now held. Did the apostle

answer the objection by saying, that the purpose of election was conditional, and that God did not always accomplish his will? No, he silences the objector by asserting, that God had as absolute a right over men, as a potter had over his clay; and also by showing that he endured with much long-suffering the vessels of wrath, which at length became fitted for destruction. Although it be true, that God is not frustrated by the rebellion and impenitence of men; yet they have their own character, which is distinct from his character. It is the choice of the reprobate, that Christ should not reign over them. How unreasonable it would be for the devils to find fault with Christ for not giving them a place in his kingdom, when, at the same time, they are voluntarily engaged in seeking its destruction by every scheme which their hellish policy can invent. How unreason

able it would have been for the Jews, who hated their King with such a mortal hatred, that they were instant with loud voices requiring that he might be crucified, to have found fault because they were not chosen to be his willing subjects. And would it have been reasonable, that Voltaire, Hume and Paine, together with others of their character, who have, with all their learning, wit and influence, sought to destroy the Bible and the Church, and to bring into contempt the Nazarene---would it have been reasonable, that they should enter their complaint, that they had not been chosen to become the cordial friends of that hated Bible; the zealous members of that despised Church; and the devoted disciples of the contemned Nazarene? Did not these men,

of choice, oppose Christ and his religion? And is not this true of all who perish? The faithful and true Witness has declared, "He that is not with me is against me."

II. It is objected to the view which has been given of the purpose of election, That it makes God appear partial, and a respecter of persons.

Partial is derived from the word part, and implies a selfish regard to a part, in distinction from a disinterested regard to the good of the whole. A part may either be regarded or disregarded, from a desire to promote general good. We may separate a limb from the body, whose continuance would endanger the body; and, on the other hand, all our members may be employed in preserving a single limb, whose continuance, it is judged, will be useful to the body. All the regard which we pay to a part is not partiality. When fire breaks out in a city, they may pull down a certain building, or they may take peculiar pains to preserve a certain building, with a regard to the good of the whole city, and not be chargeable with being partial.

Impartialty, or having no respect to persons, requires that all innocent persons should be justified; but it does not require that all guilty persons should be pardoned. Impartiality does not forbid that the guilty should be pardoned, when this can be done in consistency with general safety. If extending pardon to a part of the guilty, is more consistent with general good, than extending it to the whole, then this is not partiality: But on supposition, that extending pardon to the whole of this character, would diminish the hap

piness of the community at large, it would be a proof of partiality if they were all to be pardoned. It is therefore agreeable to the common sense of mankind, that while a sovereign has no right to put a difference between his obedient subjects, he has a right among his rebellious subjects, to extend his pardons to as many, or to as few, as he shall judge will conduce most to the benefit and prosperity of his kingdom. God is no respecter of persons, because that in every nation, and among all the different classes of society, he that feareth God and worketh righteousness is accepted of him." God is not partial, because he saves as many sinners, as will promote the best good of the universe. This we know, because it is said, the Redeemer will see the travail of his soul, and be satisfied. If God were to save one more than would promote the best good of the universe, this would be a partial thing; it would be a regarding of the good of a part, in opposition to the good of the whole. God is not chargeable with partiality, because that in determining the persons, as well as the number of his elect, both men and angels, he is influenced by the most enlarged benevolence. It was not partiality to these individuals, but a regard to the greatest good of the universe, which led him to predestinate them to eternal life. If this greatest and most desirable good had required, that Satan should have been put among the elect angels, instead of Gabriel, it would no doubt have been so done. If God would have been more glorified, and the kingdom of holiness made more perfect, by saving Judas instead

of Peter, then Judas instead of Peter would have been effectually called and prepared unto glory. I thank thee, said Christ, 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.

III. It is objected, that this view of the doctrine of clection is calculated to encourage sin, and the neglect of the means of grace. If the purpose of God, according to election, is not of works, but of the good pleasure of him that calleth, then we are just as likely to be called in from one place and pursuit as from another.

To this we reply, 1st, It is true that God will call in all his elect. Paul was a chosen vessel; therefore, though he was going to Damascus, not to hear the word, but to destroy those who preached and those who believed it, yet divine mercy overtook him. 2nd, Although election be an act of sovereign grace, still means are not thereby rendered useless, or unimportant. They, who are chosen from the beginning, are chosen "through sanctification of the Spirit; and belief of the truth." The truth must come into their view. The Lord had much people in Corinth, therefore he sent to them, and continued with them, the great apostle of the Gentiles. The divine purposes cannot fail to be accomplished; yet they are to be accomplished in the use of certain means. In general, these means are used, while to us the end is not with certainty known. When Paul went to the city of Corinth, it is probable, the inhabitants heard that there had a