at any time have come into the visible church of their brethren the Israelites, as proselytes; and it is also true, that, prior to the Christian era, the Idumeans, another word for the Edomites, were actually incorporated with them. And when it is said, "Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated," we are not to understand that God hated Esau or his posterity absolutely, or as creatures, but only comparatively; for in this sense the word "hated" is often intended in Scripture. Thus Leah, Jacob's wife, is said to be "hated,” but the whole story shows that this was only in comparison of Rachel. So in Moses' law we read of a man having two wives, the one hated and the other loved; where we are not to understand "hated" absolutely. So also the man that is supposed to cleave to Christ, notwithstanding the opposition of father or mother, though he is said to "hate" them, surely it is to be taken comparatively only. But let us appeal to fact. As to this Esau and Jacob, God did not hate Esau absolutely, for, by the inspiration of God Isaac not only "blessed" Jacob, but he "blessed" Esau too, and God determined that "his dwelling should be the fatness of the earth, and of the dew of heaven from above." But yet, designing to have his visible church in the posterity of one of them, to show his sovereignty, he chose Jacob, the younger. God hateth nothing that he has made as his creature, but is good to all, and his tender mercies are over all his works."

66

COROLLARIES.

Having stated the Scripture doctrine of reprobation, or hardening, and having confirmed it by Scripture

testimony, we conclude this part of our subject with the following remarks:

1. That predestination to death is not mentioned in Scripture at all, nor is appointment to death any where considered but as the award of justice for disobedience.

2. That reprobation, or hardening, is never applied but to cases of worthlessness, or unpersuadableness, or demerit; and that the punishment of the reprobate will be no other than eating the fruit of his own doings, and reaping what he had chosen to sow. Moreover, that his own conscience will bear him testimony that he has been "contentious" against his Maker, and "did not obey the truth" manifested in his own mind," while he obeyed unrighteousness."

3. Since God as a Spirit is incapable of passion, and being absolutely independent of his creatures, and infinitely blessed in himself, can have no motive for doing wrong; there can be no imaginable reason assigned why as the Governor of the world he should act unjustly, or as the Sovereign of the universe he should punish unnecessarily; and that, therefore, it becomes us, whatever difficulties may present themselves to our shallow and limited capacities, to acquiesce in all his decisions, as perfectly holy, and just, and good.

And, lastly, seeing the gospel is preached to every creature-seeing a feast is prepared for all, and all are invited to partake of it—it is our highest wisdom, without delay, to accept the invitation; for then shall we not only be freed from the award of justice, but be blessed with all the blessings resulting from sovereign goodness.

CHAPTER III.

ON ELECTION AND PREDESTINATION.

THE SCRIPTURE DOCTRINE OF ELECTION AND PREDESTINATION, SHOWING THAT THE ELECTION OF SCRIPTURE IS NOT AN ELECTION OF EXCLUSION, BUT OF RESERVATION AND OF RELIEF, AND THAT THE PREDESTINATION OF SCRIPTURE RELATES NOT TO THE PERSONS OF BELIEVERS, BUT TO THEIR STATE.

SECTION I.

The Misstatements and Misconceptions concerning the Doctrines corrected and prevented.

ATHENAGORAS, one of our early Christian apologists, thus remarks: "As the farmer commits not his seed to the ground before he hath cleared it of such weeds as would hinder and stop the growth of the seed; nor the physician give the patient restoratives until he be cleansed of those ill-humours which occasioned the indisposition; so neither can truth be established till prejudices and false notions be rooted out of the mind." In accordance with this remark, we deem it expedient, before we enter upon the proof of the doctrine, to correct the misstatements and misconceptions respecting them. And first, as to election.

THE MISSTATEMENTS IN REGARD TO THE DOCTRINE OF ELECTION RECTIFIED.

That the Scriptures often speak of election, no one will call in question; but concerning the kind of election intended, there are different statements. Some

think it is an election of nations or places to the enjoyment of external privileges, such as an election of the Gentiles, in contradistinction to the Jews. Others, who admit that it is an election of individuals, and that to salvation, yet consider it is founded on a foreseen good use of their free-will, and the talent entrusted to them ; and others, such as Mr. Wesley, and the numerous body of his adherents, consider it as an election of believers as such, "of those whom he foreknew as believing in Christ;" and that the sovereignty exercised in this affair relates to the choice of terms on which he will accept sinners, and of persons only as qualified by believing. See Mr. Wesley's New Test. on Rom. viii., ix, and Eph. i. 4.

But how far the different views are correct let the reader judge. Is it then an election of nations, and of these to religious privileges? Of Gentiles, as some say, as well as Jews? If so, why does the apostle denominate the called "vessels of mercy"-why say that they were called "out of the Jews," and also “out of" the Gentiles? Why is it said that God "visited the Gentiles to take out of them a people for his name?" Why are some Gentiles in the same place, as at Thessalonica, for instance, said to be chosen unto salvation, while others would perish in their own delusion? True, at the end of the discourse in Rom. ix. the apostle adverts to the Gentiles, yet, that is only to show how God's sovereignty had displayed itself in the fact that individual Gentiles, outcast Gentiles, should be called and justified, though they had not followed after righteousness, while individual Jews, favoured Jews, had not obtained it, though following

after it (perversely, indeed): and it is not till the eleventh chapter that he treats of the national calling of the Gentiles. And as to an election to mere external privileges how does this consist with the declared condition of these elect? They are said to be those "that love God"-the "called"-"justified"—" glorified" vessels of mercy "to have obtained righteousness." They are such as "it is not possible to deceive," such as are "blessed with all spiritual blessings,"" chosen to salvation,"-" chosen to obedience," a "chosen generation," in opposition to those who are "disobedient and stumble at the word." These things express more than outward privileges; and doubtless it is the "elect" persons whom God had chosen out from among both Jews and Gentiles that are intended. And to this the Old Testament bears witness as well as the New. See Isaiah lxv. 8, 9: "Thus saith the Lord, As the new wine is found in the cluster, and one saith, Destroy it not; for a blessing is in it so will I do for my servants' sakes, that I may not destroy them all. And I will bring forth a seed out of Jacob, and out of Judah an inheritor of my mountains: and mine elect shall inherit it, and my servants shall dwell there." And who are we to understand by the "Jacob"-the "Israel"—so often said to be "chosen" in this book of Isaiah, but the remnant whom the Lord had "left," had "reserved?"

Again Is it an election founded on a foresight of a good use of free-will? If so, why should the apostle Paul, in Rom. ix., be so solicitous to prove that the calling was "of him that calleth," "according to the election of God"-that it was like God's