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 favour 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 a 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. Whe ther 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 equally 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

the resolute assertor of Jehovah's honour was not willing to grant. This he could by no means allow, without denying the God that is above. He, therefore, boldly repels the confidence of the proud objector by a strong exclamation, and a mortifying query. Nay, but, O man! who art THOU that repliest against God ? Shall a worm of the earth, an insect, au atom, arraign his conduct who is Lord of the universe, and pronounce it unrighteous? Shall impotence and dust fly in the face of Omnipotence? Shall corruption and guilt prescribe rules of equity, by which the Most Holy shall regulate his behaviour toward the rebellious subjects of his boundless empire? Far be it! Woe to him that striveth with his Maker! Let the potsherd strive with the potsherds of the earth; but let not the despicable fragment presume to make war upon heaven; lest diyine wrath, like a devouring fire, break out and consume it.

The zealous and cautious disputant, having scverely rebuked the opposer's folly and arrogance, proceeds to confirm his assertion, and to illustrate the momentous truth by a familiar instance, and by appealing to the common sense of mankind. Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it; Why hast thou made me thus ? For example: Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel to honour, and another to dishonour ? none can deny it. Is this power allowed, by the common consent of mankind, to belong to the meanest artificer; and shall it be denied to HIM who is the Former of all things? Such a denial would be a monstrous compound of absurdity and blasphemy. The apostle now proceeds to apply his illustration. What if God, willing to show his wrath and to make his power known, having endured with

much long-suffering the vessels of wrath fitted for destruction, by their own rebellion against him, should, in the end, pour out his vengeance upon them; who shall dare to pronounce his conduct unrighteous? And, what if the same sovereign Being,. that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared. unto glory, determined to manifest infinite love in their complete deliverance from deserved destruction, who has a right to complain? Shall the eye of any be evil, because their offended Maker is good? Has he not an eternal right to do what he will with his own? Or, is he a debtor to any of his creatures ? if so, they shall be fully recompensed. Shall every petty sovereign, in the kingdoms of this world, be allowed to choose his own favourites; and, in certain cases, to manifest his clemency to some delinquents, while he leaves others to suffer the desert of their crimes, without being subject to the control of his meanest subjects in the performance of those sovereign acts? and shall HE who rules over all, be denied the exercise of his supreme, royal prerogative? Absurd, in supposition ! impossible, in fact!But though God bestows his favour on whom he pleases, yet, as he is an infinitely wise agent, he must always have the highest reason for what he does. Divine sovereignty, therefore, must not be considered as a blind partiality, or a dictate of mere will without wisdom; but as the exercise of an all comprehensive understanding, and of a will that is inflexibly right, ordering all the affairs of Jehovah's vast empire for the manifestation of his own glorious attributes. To conceive of a sovereign decree, as detached from wisdom and rectitude, is to picture to ourselves the conduct of a Turkish despot; not the appointment of Him that governs the world.