thus discriminating, he is not partial. Partiality is a capricious preference of one before another; and if it could be proved that the favor which God exercises toward the elect were the result of mere caprice, he would be chargeable with criminal partiality. Partiality is a disposition to favor one before another without reason; and if it could be proved that God has no reason for the eternal difference he makes between the elect and the non-elect, he would be chargeable with partiality. Partiality is an undue respect to the persons of men; and if it could be proved, that in the method of grace, God regards the elect rather than the non-elect, from an undue respect to them, or their persons, he could not be acquitted of the charge of partiality. God is not partial, because his sovereignty is neither arbitrary, nor capricious, but in all its diversified operations, under the guidance of unerring wisdom and infinite goodness. God is not partial, because, as the moral governor of the world, he uniformly treats men according to their real character and conduct. He does not, through any "respect of the persons of men in judgment," or through the unguarded influence of any private partialities, condemn and punish the righteous, nor approve and reward the wicked. When I see the sovereign of the universe_regard the prayers and alms of the devout Cornelius, a Roman centurion, with equal complacency as though he had been a Jew, I can repeat the sentiment of Peter: "Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons, but in every nation, he that feareth God and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him.”

Obj. 6. The doctrine of election represents God as unjust.

Ans. It will not be pretended, that he is unjust to the elect. If there be injustice, it is toward the non-elect: and if he is unjust to the non-elect, it must be that he treats them worse than they deserve. But how does he treat them? He casts them out into outer darkness, where is weeping and gnashing of teeth. And is this worse than they deserve? Is not this the just desert of every child of Adam? How then can God be accused of injustice, if in his great mercy by Jesus Christ, he is pleased to save a part of the human family, while he pun

ishes the other part in proportion to their deserts? If he would not be unjust in punishing the whole, surely he would not be unjust in punishing a part.-But, perhaps, I ought to blush for attempting to answer an objection so full of impiety, as to call in question the justice of God in the dispensations of his grace. I would rather repeat the answer of the apostle, "What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? God forbid!" This is enough to cover the objector with shame. "Who art thou, O man! that repliest against God!"

Obj. 7. If the doctrine of election be true, why can I not as well live in carelessness and sin, as in a punctual attendance upon the means of grace, and the duties of religion? I cannot alter God's eternal decree. To this I

Ans. You can live in carelessness and sin; you can cast off fear and restrain prayer; you can grieve the Holy Spirit and reject the Saviour-and you can perish! If you choose to leave your eternal salvation to the decree of God, without personal religion on your part, and without any efforts to obtain it, you will, beyond all question, die in sin and sink down to hell. If God has chosen you to salvation, through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth, does it follow that you will be saved, if you always reject the truth, and never become holy? Because God determined to save Noah by means of the ark, does this prove that the ark was not necessary, or that Noah would have been saved without it? Or might he have sat down with the scoffing world, and resolved not to be at the trouble of building an ark, because God had determined to save him and his family from the flood?— God never determined the end without determining the means necessary to obtain it. If the objector expects that there is any decree of election that will save him without his own personal holiness, he will find his expectation sadly defeated at last.

Obj. 8. If the non-elect, left to themselves, will never accept of salvation, and if God has not determined to make them willing to accept it, why are they exhorted to repent and believe?

Ans. Because they are sinners, and it is reasonable they should repent, whether elect or non-elect. Because there is a Saviour provided for them, and it is reasonable

they should believe on him. Because, they are able to do both. The doctrine of election does not take away a single power, does not infringe upon a single privilege, does not diminish the force of a single obligation. But more than this; though they never will yield the controversy with God, and though God has not determined to make them yield; yet all the exhortations to duty with which they are favored, answer a most important purpose. They illustrate the obduracy of their hearts, and prepare them to see, and acknowledge, and feel the justice of God, in their final condemnation. When they see themselves sinking into the pit, they will remember that they were once urged to believe and live; and they and an assembled universe will forever feel, that the justice of God shines brighter by all the calls of his mercy.

Obj. 9. But the doctrine is calculated to drive men to despair.

Ans. It might be calculated to drive men to despair, if there were any other way by which sinners are reconciled to God. But so long as it is true, that unless God bow the stubborn heart of man, by the efficacious and almighty energy of his own grace, and unless he always meant to do this, every living man must perish; we cannot see how the fact, that there is a part of mankind for whom he does this, and for whom he eternally designed to do it, should drive sinners to despair. No, the doctrine of election takes away all false hopes, and no others. It strips the sinner of all his self-righteousness; it disrobes him of all his vain pretences; it drags him out from all his hiding places, and throws him into the hands of a sovereign God; but it takes away no solid foundation of hope. But whom does the doctrine of election drive to despair? The people of God? I'ious parents? Faithful ministers? They would all be in despair without it. When cut off from every other hope, they can look up to God's unchangeable purpose to save, and there hang with comfort and delight. I ask again, whom does it drive to despair? Convinced and distressed sinners? It is upon this truth the desponding sinner throws himself in the last resort. He sees that if discriminating mercy does not raise him from the pit, he forever sinks. He feels that he must put his life in his hand, and cast

66

himself at the footstool of sovereignty, pouring out this sum of all his hopes, Lord, if thou wilt, thou canst make me clean!" No, the doctrine of election drives none to despair; throws none into discouragement, but the incorrigible enemies of God.

Still, some may object after all, that the doctrine of election is full of perplexity, needless and unprofitable, and ought not to be preached.

To this I answer, it is one of the plainest doctrines in all the Bible. It is simply God's determining to save whom he will, and making his own choice from among this lost world, according to his sovereign_pleasure. Surely there is no perplexity in this. But if it were a perplexing truth, this would be a reason for preaching, rather than not preaching it. Sometimes the minds of sinners, and young converts, and older saints, are embarrassed by difficulties of their own creating, when contemplating this doctrine. And one reason why, they are so, is because the doctrine is not frequently enough brought into view. When this truth is plainly and fully exhibited, it delights and nourishes the people of God. It is the sincere milk of the word: and both young and older Christians always feel uneasy, and restless, and unstable, till they are informed and established in this important doctrine of the gospel.

If the objector still thinks that this is a very unprofita ble doctrine, we have to make one inquiry. Is it contained in the Bible? If it is, we beg the permission to refer the objector to that unequivocal declaration of the Holy Spirit: "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, and for instruction in righteousness.' Observe, it is not "all scripture" except the doctrine of election; but "all scripture"-is "profitable." profitable." The same reasons exist for preaching this doctrine, and for viewing it profitable, that there were for revealing it.

But it is more tedious than difficult, to follow the objector through all his windings, and expose his ever-varying expedients to shake off the obligation to yield an implicit assent to this great and blessed truth. Some of the more common objections we have attempted to obvi ate. After all, there is a class of objections that will remain unobviated. They are the objections, not of the

head, but of the heart. It is easy to prove that God is a sovereign, but we cannot make wicked men submit to his sovereignty. It is easy to demonstrate the doctrine of election, but it is not in man to make the wicked love it. It is important, therefore, that we make a suitable appli- · cation of the whole subject. And,

1. From the view we have taken of our subject, we cannot fail to discover some of the reasons why the doctrine of election is so much and so violently opposed.— With multitudes, the very reason why they are hostile to it, is because they understand it. They see how it affects their interests for time and eternity. They see how it throws them into the hands of that God who "hath mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth." It is because they see it in a light that disturbs their sins and their hopes, that they hate it, and oppose it when it is preached. This was the case when it was preached by our Saviour. On one occasion, when he preached it with great clearness and power, very many of those who had for a considerable time followed him, "went back and walked no more with him." On another occasion, when he preached it in the synagogue at Nazareth, his hearers were so exasperated, that they made a bold and desperate attempt upon his life. This is the secret spring of disaffection to the doctrine; wicked men do not love the sovereignty of God; they murmur, and repine, and contend, because they are in his hands, as the clay in the hands of the potter, and because it depends on his mere good pleasure, whether they shall choose life or death; whether they shall go to heaven or hell. They cannot bear to submit to a sovereignty that is so absolute. They are not willing that the destinies of eternity should be in the hands of God. They wish to be above God. They wish him to alter his purposes respecting the salvation of men; and they are dissatisfied, because they cannot dethrone him; because they cannot hinder his working all things after the counsel of his own will, and because they know his counsel shall stand, and he will do all his pleasure. It is not, therefore, because the doctrine of election is not true, that wicked men oppose it, but because it gives them no peace till they are reconciled to God. It is because it arrays the holy God against them, and gives a death-blow to all their selfish