first became denominated a Christian principle, it is easy to discover the school from which it emanated. It still bears the strong marks of its original character, as it was handed down from one heathen philosopher to another, till finally, in the 5th century, it was taken up as an argument against Pelagius, who believed that grace was given in proportion to our merits.* Much pains have been taken, much zeal and talent displayed, to soften its original features; but still it is not materially changed. The eternal necessity bears the same strong, inexorable character, that it did in the darkest ages of the world.

On the introduction of the Gospel dispensation, an important change was to take place in the visible church, as well as in the effusions of spiritual blessings. The institutions which had been given to the Jews, were to cease, and in the coming-in of the Gentiles, the former distinctions were to be removed. In order to prepare both Jews and Gentiles for this important change, the apostle brought into view the Divine prerogative, and the designs of the Almighty in making these distinctions. When we consider the strong prejudices of the Jews, and the ideas which had prevailed among the Gentiles, to the time at which the apostle wrote, we shall see the necessity of the labours which he used, to break down the middle wall of

* "We may safely call this doctrine a novelty, seeing the first four hundred years after Christ, there is no mention made of it: for as it is contrary to the Scriptures' testimony, and to the tenor of the Gospel; so all the ancient writers, teachers, and doctors of the Church, passed it over with a profound sileence. The first foundations of it were laid in the latter writings of Augustine, who, in his heat against Pelagius, let fall some expressions, which some have unhappily gleaned up, to the establishing of this error: thereby contradicting the truth and sufficiently gainsaying many others, and many more and frequent expressions of the same Augustine. Afterwards was this doctrine fomented by Dominicus, a friar, and the monks of his order: and lastly unhappily taken up by John Calvin, (otherwise a man in divers respects to be commended,) to the great staiuing of his reputation, and defamation both of the Protestant and Christian Religion." BARC. APOL, p. 111..

partition. And this is the way in which the Epistles to the Romans, Ephesians, &c. were understood at the time. The Gentiles were encouraged and emboldened to flock as doves to their windows, and the believing Jews received them as fellow heirs of the same precious promises.

I say, this appears to have been the understanding of the passages alluded to at the time-because such was the effect; and the doctrine of election and reprobation, as now held, did not become obvious till several hundred years afterwards.

The Jews had been a peculiar people; because to them had been committed the "Oracles of God," and many favours, designed not only for their benefit, but for the benefit of the whole human race. And now the time for the general diffusion of these benefits had arrived. At the same time, these favours, or this election, (for they were chosen,) did not secure salvation to the individuals of the Jewish nation-far from it. Many, very many of them, lay under a heavy load of condemnation; and finally, even the nation, as a body, was rejected. Nor did these peculiar favours to the Jews, even during the continuance of that dispensation, exclude the Gentile world from the saving love of God. The apostle bore testimony that

"the works of the Law were written in their hearts;" that there were "glory, honour, and peace, to every man that worketh good, to the Jew first, and also to the Gentile; for there is no respect of persons with God." Rom. ii. 15, 10. The apostle has not left the subject without a sufficient guard against misconstruction. In the Epistle to the Romans, and in the part of it in which he treats of election, (chap. xi.) he thus clearly asserts, that it is not unconditional: "Thou wilt say then, the branches were broken off, that I might be graffed in." But this idea he corrects, by telling them, "Because of unbelief they were broken off," "and thou standest by faith." Here it was

the unbelief of the Jews, and not the secret will of God, that was the cause of their being rejected. To the (elect) Gentiles, he was equally explicit: "Be not high minded, but fear." But why tell them to fear, if their salvation and every thing connected with it, were fixed beyond the possibility of change? The apostle tells them: "For if God spared not the natural branches, take heed lest He spare not thee." He does not give them any reason to believe, that it made no difference whether they took heed or not; which must have been the case, if the doctrine of unconditional election and reprobation is true. "Behold, therefore, the goodness and severity of God! on them which fell, severity;" (because their fall was their own act, and not his ;) "but towards thee goodness, if thou continue in his goodness, otherwise thou also shalt be cut off." But this was without object or utility, unless there had been a possibility both of their "continuing in his goodness," and of their being "cut off." "And they," said he, directing his attention to the Jews, "if they abide not still in unbelief, shall be graffed in, for God is able to graff them in again." All this would have been without meaning, if an irrevocable decree had rendered it impossible for them to believe and be accepted. He might, with much composure of feeling, have resigned both Jews and Gentiles to the operation of the "eternal necessity," "Fate," or "decrees," whichever we may call them. The apostle mentions the exercises and self-denial into which he was led, "lest that, by any means, when he had preached to others, he himself should become a castaway." 1 Cor. ix. 27. How much below the dignity of the subject, and the character of the apostle, must such expressions have been, if the thing itself had been impossible! Imagine, for a moment, the ideas we should form of a man, who should surround himself with candles at mid-day, lest the light of

the sun should become extinct; or an inhabitant of the mountains, who should employ himself in building towers like Babel, lest the ocean should break in upon him; or a mariner at sea, who should hide himself below deck, lest the rocks of invisible mountains should fall upon him. And yet, if the doctrine in question is true, the whole strain of admonition and caution, which bas run through every dispensation of God to mankind, is equally inconsistent with the condition of man. Why should we use precautions, lest impossibilities should happen? The proposition carries its own refutation with it; and we only need to see it in its simple, genuine character, to reject it.

It must be borne in mind, that whenever the apostle makes use of the terms, election or reprobation, these are not to be understood as unconditional, or wholly independent of the faithfulness or unfaithfulness of the individual, when they relate to individuals, or have reference to a future state of existence; for the terms are often applied to nations or national concerns.

Thus, the Jews were chosen, that through them the knowledge of the true God should be preserved, through a dark and idolatrous age. The Law, the Prophets, and the Messiah, came through them. This was an election. But they were individually and nationally judged according to their obedience. On the coming of the Messiah, it pleased Divine goodness to call in the Gentiles to an equal participation of the light of the Gospel. This also was an election; but the Gentiles stood by faith and faithfulness, as evidently appears from the passages already quoted from the Epistle to the Romans.

The apostle Peter also establishes the same important truth, in that short but comprehensive admonition to the believers, "Give diligence to make your calling and election sure:" which is predicated on the clear understanding,

that their election was not sure without this diligence on

their part.

With these sentiments of the apostles before us, as directly applied by them to the term election, it is easy to understand what is intended by the expressions: "According to the election of grace," "The purpose of God according to election," &c. as it is evident that this is conditional. And why should any find a difficulty in the idea of conditional election; since election is nothing more than a choice? And who is there that cannot comprehend so simple a proposition, as that we cannot become the chosen of God, and obtain communion and fellowship with Him, but in obedience to Him? For if obedience is indispensably necessary, then obedience must be a condition on our part. This was further illustrated in the parable of the Supper. For we may remember that the invitation was given, without ambiguity or counteracting arrangements. No secret impediments were created by Him. He sent the invitation. There was no moral or physical impossibility in the way. Nothing prevented the attendance of those first called, but their own voluntary choice. They chose to be "excused," and "one went to his farm, and another to his merchandise." They were, therefore, justly left to their own choice, and thus entered into the state of reprobation.

The general strain of Scripture promises, both in the Old and New Testament, is conditional. "If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted? and if thou does not well, sin lieth at the door." Gen. iv. 7.

"Behold I set before you this day a blessing and a curse: a blessing, if ye obey the commandments of the Lord your God, which I command you this day; and a curse, if ye will not obey the commandments of the Lord your God, but turn aside out of the way which I command you this day, to go after other gods, which ye have not known." Deut. xi. 26, &c.