liberal, affectionate, forgiving, and magnanimous! In the name of every thing sacred, I ask, why do these Divines fly in the face of their Maker? Why do they pour contempt on that character which God delights to honour, and load with honours that character which God has branded with infamy? The most charitable account that can possibly be given of conduct so extraordinary, I had almost said impious is a deep-rooted prejudice against the Calvinistic "doctrine of election and reprobation.-On the same principle we can account for Dr. Clarke's extraordinary exertions to prove, that Judas will be saved. The Deity assures us, that it would have been good for Judas had he never been born-that he was the son of perdition-and went to his own place. Almost the whole of the one hundred and ninth Psalm is employed in denouncing vengeance on the head of the traitor. We are there particularly assured (if we translate into the future tense instead of the imperative mood), that when judged he shall be condemned; and that his very prayer should become sin.-But Dr. Clarke endeavours to prove that Judas was a true penitent, and shall finally be acquitted and saved! We do not deny, that the Scriptures teach a national election, or an election to the enjoyment of church privileges; but we maintain that the Scriptures also teach a personal election, or an election of particular persons, not only to external privileges, but to eternal life. Their number is as definite as if their names were written in a book. Of Clement and others it is said, (Phil. iv. 3.) that their names are written in the book of life. In various other Scriptures the heirs of glory are so represented. The Apostle John addressed his second epistle to the elect lady and her children, and mentions also her elect sister. "When the children of Jacob are styled God's "chosen ones," Dr. B. assures us, that it is not meant that 66 every one of the Israelites was chosen, but that they were "members of the chosen nation." Supposing that this sentence did not contradict the axiom, that " The whole is "equal to its parts." Supposing the assertion truestill it would not follow, that the election of which we are treating is not particular or personal-for Clement is an in dividual-the elect lady is an individual-and her elect sister is an individual. Particular persons are elected, and particular persons have their names written in heaven. (Luke, x. 20,)-Romans, eighth, from the twenty-eighth to the thirtieth verse inclusive, is an irrefragable proof of

particular election. "And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose. For whom he "did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed "to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn "among many brethren. Moreover whom he did predes"tinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them "he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also "glorified."

Dr. B. alleges, that in this beautiful passage the Apostle "Speaks of the Christian church at large.' Let us try the application. Are all the members of the church at large conformed to the image of God's Son? Are all the members of the church at large justified? Will they all be glorified? Surely not. The Doctor understands the clause" whom he called," as equivalent to-whom he “in"vited into the Christian church." Now, I ask, Did all things work together for good to such? By no means. Many were called and invited into the Christian church, who made light of the invitation, who said, "We will not have "this man to reign over us; this is the heir, come let us "kill him." Did all things work together for their good? Quite the reverse. "The King of Heaven sent forth his "armies and destroyed these murderers, and burned up "their city." Again, I would ask, Do all things work together for good to those who are not only invited into the Christian church, but who accept of the invitation, and be-. come church members? are all such justified? will all such be glorified? Surely not. It is therefore abundantly evident that the Apostle is not speaking of the "Chris"tian church at large," as the Doctor affirms, but only of a particular select number, or, in other words, the elect.

Dr. B. declares, that "if we cannot explain this passage "conformably to our Saviour's doctrine, we should rather "abandon it as unintelligible, than prefer the lower autho"rity to the higher." Plain language indeed! To apply the epithets higher and lower authority to the Holy Scriptures, which were all given by inspiration of God; and to express a readiness to abandon any portion of those sacred oracles, savours more of Deism than of Christianity. To do the Doctor justice, however, he must abandon the pas sage in question. He must either abandon it, or abandon his own favourite hypothesis. He must either abandon it,

or admit the doctrine of predestination against which he preaches so long a sermon. The Calvinist is determined neither to abandon this, nor any other passage of the sacred volume. To the Arian it may appear unintelligible, and must appear so, whilst he denies predestination; not so to the Calvinist. To him it appears a glorious chain of special privileges extending from eternity to eternity. His view of it is this-That those of the fallen human family, who were the objects of God's foreknowledge, or of his eternal distinguishing love,* he predestinated or foreordained to be conformed to Jesus Christ his Son, not only in suffering, but in holiness and happiness. Those same persons whom he thus predestinated, he in due time calls, not only externally by his word, but internally and efficaciously, by his Spirit. He calls them from darkness to light -from death to life-from Satan to God. "He persuades " and enables them to embrace Jesus Christ freely offered to them in the Gospel." The persons thus effectually called he also justifies. "He freely pardons all their sins, " and accepteth them as righteous in his sight, only for the "righteousness of Christ imputed to them, and received "by faith alone." Those same persons whom he thus justifies, he finally glorifies. He makes them "perfectly "blessed in the full enjoyment of God to all eternity." After ten thousand attempts to torture the passage, this appears to be its plain and unsophisticated meaning. Nor is the doctrine of particular election, thus plainly taught by the Apostle, at all inconsistent with the doctrine taught by our Saviour. Doctor B. may boldly insinuate that they

It is generally acknowledged by Divines-those who oppose as well as those who advocate the doctrine of predestination-that foreknowledge in the text implies love or favour. Knowledge is frequently put for love in Scripture." You only have I known of all the families of the earth." Other families of the earth, as well as the Jews, were the objects of God's simple knowledge; but the Jews alone were the objects of his distinguishing love, (Deut. vii. 6, 7, 8,) "The Lord thy "God hath chosen thee to be a special people unto himself, above all 66 people that are upon the face of the earth. The Lord did not set "his love upon you, nor choose you, because ye were more in number "than any people; for ye were the fewest of all people. But because "the Lord loved you."-It is to this distinguishing, uninerited love and gracious election that God refers when he says "You only have I "known of all the families of the earth." On the same principle, it is to the distinguishing, and electing love of God that the apostle refers when he says, " Whom he did foreknow he also did predestinate."

are inconsistent; but the insinuation is as groundless as it is impious. It appears to me that the doctrine of election and reprobation is taught by our Saviour in language nearly, if not altogether, as explicit as that of the Apostle. "I "have other sheep," says he, "that are not of this fold, "them also must I bring," &c.-"All that the Father " hath given to me shall come unto me. Thou hast given "him power over all flesh, that he may give eternal life to. as many as thou hast given him.-I thank thee, O Father, "Lord of heaven and earth, that 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. Rejoice, because, your names are written in "heaven. But ye believe not because ye are not of my "sheep."

As Doctor Bruce's commentary on the eighth of the Romans leads into this gross absurdity that the whole visible church will be saved: to avoid this consequence, Dr. A. Clarke adopts an ingenious expedient. As Rehoboam substituted shields of brass, instead of the golden shields which Shishack, King of Egypt carried away, so Doctor C. takes away the golden link of eternal glory, and substitutes the brazen one of temporal privileges! The clause, "Them he also glorified," he explains thus: "He has "honoured and dignified the Gentiles with the highest pri"vileges. He has rendered them illustrious by innumer"able gifts, graces, and privileges, in the same manner as

he had done to the Israelites of old." Thus, to get rid of Calvinistic decrees, this learned commentator “shrivels "into meagreness" the most beautiful passage in the whole book of God. That the word glorified refers not to temporal privileges, as the Doctor imagines, but to eternal felicity, is evident from the antecedent context, (verses 17, 18,)" And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint "heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that "we may be also glorified together. For I reckon that "the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be "compared with the glory which shall be revealed in us.” The various unsuccessful and contradictory attempts made by the enemies of Calvinism, to explain the passage in question, are a strong presumptive argument, that the Calvinistic interpretation is the true one.

Were the word election, in Scripture, applicable only to nations, but not to individuals, what would our opponents gain? It will be said, no doubt, that this election to ex

46

ternal privileges was very different from a particular election to eternal life. To show, however, that the difference is not so great as is generally imagined, I would ask, were not thousands saved in consequence of this national election, that would not have been saved had they not been elected? This question, I presume, will be universally answered in the affirmative. No person will venture to maintain, that as small a number of Jews obtained eternal life, as of the surrounding heathen nations of equal extent. Even Doctor A. Clarke, who affirms, that Esau had as fair a prospect for immortal glory as Jacob, will not be bold enough to assert, that the Edomites had as fair a prospect for glory as the Israelites. He will not venture to assert, that as many of the one nation were saved, as of the other. Happy art thou, O Israel, who is like unto thee, O peo"ple saved by the Lord?" Salvation was of the Jews. Now, if thousands of Jews were saved, that would not have been saved had their nation not been elected, all those thousands, whatever be their number, owe their salvation, their eternal salvation, to election-to a gratuitous election -an election, not of works, but of grace. The same may be said of those nations elected to the enjoyment of Christian privileges. Are not thousands saved in Britain and Ireland, that would not have been saved had they been left in a state of Heathenism? To what do all these owe their salvation? TO THEIR ELECTION to the free sovereign and electing love of God, who purposed from all eternity to sepa rate them from the rest of the world, and elected them to the enjoyment of those external privileges, by the means of which they are finally saved. Where now is all the noisy declamation against the doctrine of particular election? Does it not recoil on the opponents of the doctrine? Where is now the loud cry of favouritism and partiality? Was there no favouritism or partiality in electing a whole nation, whilst all the rest of the world was rejected? whilst all other nations were permitted to walk in their own ways? Has the Deity shown no favouritism or partiality in elect. ing the various nations of Christendom to the enjoyment of the privileges of the Christian Church, whilst all the other nations of the earth, enveloped in darkness worse than Egyptian, are left without God and hope in the "world." Did the Almighty discover no favouritism or partiality by so loving the world as to send his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth on him should not pe