jection is the shell of a theological monstrosity unparalleled in hideousness. It supposes that God will exercise his right in a wrong manner. It is worse, for it supposes that God's right to confer benefits on the undeserving is A RIGHT ΤΟ DO WRONG. The disputant supposes that it is wrong in God to confer favors upon any of his creatures beyond their due, and in the whole argument forgets, that he himself is a condemned, and undeserving character.

Take an illustration of this. Suppose Newgate, or any other prison, to be thronged with criminals under sentence of death, and regarded by all honest men as justly condemned. It is known in the constitution of the realm, that the king has the prerogative of reprieving and pardoning any criminal he pleases. The actual exercise of this prerogative to pardon has no injurious aspect upon the condition of the condemned criminals. Rather, the existence and the exercise of such a prerogative is pure and entire good. It is not a prerogative to inflict tortures on them, but its very design and aspect is to confer good. Suppose such a prerogative not to exist-the exclusion of it would not improve the condition, or better the prospect of any one criminal. You, therefore get no accession of good by excluding the king's prerogative. But allow it to be introduced, and you immediately secure a splendid amount of good. Suppose the king, in the exercise of his prerogative, to pardon any number out of them, and you gain so much good. Will the gaining of so much good be really a wrong to the rest? Try to answer these questions. How does this good wrong them? Does it make their case worse? Does any thing befal them, after all, worse than what was justly due to them? Would they have been better off, had there been no prerogative exercised?"

Your conscience will not answer these questions in the affirmative, but your heart says, "I should not LIKE the king to pardon other offenders and pass by ME." Yes, that is the real truth, that is an accurate statement of the case. All your opposition to the exercise of di

vine sovereignty proceeds from what is implied in the little word "ME." And yet, why not you? Have you not deserved to die? Have you any claims upon his prerogative? Is God not to exercise his prerogative because you do not LIKE others to have more benefits than you? Examine yourself, and you will discover that it is only when you do not consider yourself as a criminal justly condemned, that you quarrel with the exercise of God's sovereign prerogative.

God is perfectly independent of the whole universe, and all-sufficient for his own happiness and glory. It is the glory of his nature and of his character, that all the good in the universe is the product of his own good pleasure, and that he works and produces good freely, without constraint, and without necessity. His grace is free, unbiassed and uninfluenced. He can give or withhold his favors without any impeachment of his character. He can confer his benefits when, how, and on whom he pleases. God always claims to himself the free exercise of his sovereign right, to have mercy on whom he will have mercy. He could neither see, nor foresee any good in man that should induce or deserve this exercise of sovereignty, for God hath chosen men unto obedience, and not for obedience; and that they might be holy, and not because they were so. If he exercised this prerogative in consequence of any previous good in man, his grace would be turned into dis-, tributive justice, salvation would be of works, and boasting would not be excluded. If God exercise no sovereign prerogative, but only acts according to previous conditions in man, then the glory of his grace would depend on the capricious will of man, and he would be doing and working nothing because that it was the good pleasure of his will. The scriptures assure us that this sovereignty is exercised not according to works of righteousness which we have done, but according to God's own counsel and good-will.

III. The atonement is an honorable ground for the

exercise of sovereignty in the special communications of divine influences.

The whole mediatorial work of Jesus Christ is so worthy and so meritorious that it deserves that some measures should be taken to ensure it from entire failure. It is not to be expected, in the administration of moral government, that God should give us an account of his sovereign measures, or to supply us with direct reasons for the discriminating speciality that is visible in the communication of divine influences. It is enough for us, that is, it is enough for all the ends of our accountableness, to be assured, that God is under no more obligations to provide divine influences for us, than he was to provide an atonement for us; and that as the benefits of the atonement are available to all applicants, so "the supply of the Spirit" is accessible to all who "ask" it.

Nevertheless God has condescended to "set forth" the infinite dignity and transcendent worthiness of the atonement as supplying an honorable ground, and a just vindication, for the exercise of speciality in divine influences. The atonement is a measure of such ineffable worth, that it inherently deserves that its ends. should be accomplished; and that it should not be, like other measures and expedients in divine government, liable to entire failure. To this splendid expedient God has, through the church, called the attention of principalities and powers in heavenly places; and all these Intelligences watch the movements of this measure, and diligently observe its bearings on the interests of the universe. If, then, a measure of such grandeur and dignity entirely fail, the universe may, in amazement, ask the Creator, "What wilt thou do to thy great name?"

The entire failure of the Eden dispensation would have clouded the divine character, had it not been rescued by the introduction of a compensative atonement. The entire failure of the Sinai experiment would have reflected dishonor on the divine glory, but it was re

deemed by the establishment of a "better Hope." But if the atonement itself ENTIRELY fail, what shall then vindicate the honor of the wisdom, and power, and grace of God? How awfully disastrous will be the upshot of moral government? It would shatter every world in the empire of God, and stun all intelligences "in all the places of his dominions."

The disastrous upshot would not have been effectually prevented by leaving the atonement entirely to the liberty of free agents; for in such hands the failure would be entire and total. The measure of its success, therefore, is entrusted to the sovereignty of divine grace, and not to the sovereignty of human capriciousness. This arrangement makes the

measure

of success certain. "It is of faith, that it might be of GRACE, that the promise may be SURE to all the seed."

All who believe the doctrine of divine influences take it for granted, that the atonement is capable of entire failure, for they assert that the blood of Christ will save none, unless the Spirit apply it. This is the very thing we are now pleading for. Nothing can prevent this entire failure but the determination of God to impart sovereign influences to make some men differ from others, and to give unto them for the sake of Christ to believe in him. And God's great defence against the charge of arbitrariness or capriciousness in this sovereign speciality is, that the atonement of Christ DESERVED that it should not entirely fail. If any sinner be disposed to complain of God thus sovereignly applying the benefits of the atonement in any special case, conscience must flash conviction in the breast of that sinner, that God has only used for its designed purpose that very atonement, which the sinner has been invited and commanded to use for that purpose, but which he voluntarily rejected, and spurned as the off-scouring of all things.

25

IV. The exercise of divine sovereignty in the special communications of divine influences is an HONOR to the atonement.

The Christian church has been deluged with boisterous discourses and turbid volumes to prove that the speciality of divine sovereignty is a disgrace to the atonement. Against this most formidable flood I would unfurl a banner lifted up by the hand of the Redeemer himself. "In that hour, Jesus rejoiced in Spirit, and said, 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, "Luke x,

FOR SO IT SEEMED GOOD IN THY SIGHT.

21, 22.

The Lord Jesus Christ views the difference in the spiritual conditions of men as the special product of the sovereign agency of God; and considers the exercise of divine sovereignty as a perfectly satisfactory account of the matter. He further regards this sovereign speciality as a positive "good" to the universe, and as entitling God to "thanks" and praise. It is true that this account of the matter shocks the hearts, and disturbs the theological systems of many good Christians, but it does so, only so far as their hearts and theological sentiments differ from the heart and the doctrine of Jesus Christ. This view of the case perfectly satisfied Christ; why, then, does it not please you?"Let the mind that was in Christ be also in you.'

There are four considerations that ought to induce us to rest satisfied in the sentiments which satisfied Christ.

1. The Lord Jesus Christ perfectly understood this subject. "No man knoweth the Father but the Son." He thoroughly KNEW the mind and the plans of his Father. The sentiments which he expresses in the above passage are not his guesses and conjectures— but he completely knew the whole truth of the case.— If the argumentum ad verecundiam be valid any where it must be here.