vivifying influence. What advantage can the Bishop's view offer, which this does not comprehend? None. This includes no evil any more than his; but it includes more good. Does he hold a decree to make known the gospel ' of Christ,' and a gracious purpose of God, to 'make a conditional offer of salvation to men,

we.

through the merits of Christ?' So do we. Does he discard a purpose of excluding any? So do What then is the difference? His Lordship's predestination denies any divine influence that shall make the salvation of any individual certain; a doctrine assuredly fraught with the most dismal gloom, and inexpressibly degrading to the mercy and grace of God! Ours, on the contrary, while it takes away nothing, but allows every natural faculty, and religious advantage indiscriminately, which the other can possibly require, ensures the spiritual vivification, the renovation, the holiness, the voluntary and cordial obedience of some. And who are these? The very same persons as those whom the Bishop acknowledges will be saved! There is no dispute about how many, or how few. They are precisely those to whom the Judge will say, “Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world." On both schemes, the Calvinistic and the Anticalvinistic, they who attain to ever'lasting felicity' are identically the same. On

both schemes, men must have the same qualifications for heaven, and all shall be judged according to their works. "They that have· done good shall come forth unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation." We desire none to be brought to heaven in virtue of Predestination or Election, but those who are actually suitable in their state, temper, and conduct, to see God and to enjoy him for ever; in short, none but those who shall be introduced by the final judge. These we call the Elect: they reckon themselves, when they have done all, unprofitable servants, and cry out, "Not unto us, not unto us, O Lord, but unto thy name give praise." Had it not been for thy discriminating mercy and special grace, we should never have inherited these realms of everlasting felicity.'

§ 35. His Lordship supposes that there was no difference between Judas and the other apostles, except good works. If the Calvinists

say, that Judas was never in reality one of the elect, we may ask, what proof they can bring of any difference between him and the other eleven apostles except works?'* What we say is, that as Judas is not in heaven, he was not elected to be there; and all who are there,

*Refut. p. 209.

or ever shall be there, attained to that end, and to all the requisite steps leading to it, in virtue of a divine purpose, or "the election of grace." We allow that Judas was, in another sense, one of the elect; he was chosen to be an apostle, he was endowed with apostolic gifts, he was favoured with extraordinary privileges, and probably did many wonderful works in the name of Christ, which were also in a sense good,' as conducing to the good of men and the advancement of Christ's kingdom. What proof of difference, except works?'. If by 'works' be meant the root and branches of moral actions, the principle as well as the act, all the difference as to his state at any given time was indeed constituted by works,' for he had within him the germ of avarice, treachery, and ingratitude. If it be said, that his former good works were an evidence that he once had a good principle; I ask, what good work did Judas ever do which was a decided proof of a good principle of action? Are we to presume that he had it, except we can prove the contrary? What are we to conclude that men have supreme love to God, and a saving spirit of faith and repentance, until they break forth into dishonesty and treachery? Are there no hypocrites in the Church of Christ? And is there no difference' between a hypocrite and a sincere disciple, until the veil be drawn aside?

*

T

§ 36. There was one striking 'difference' between Peter and Judas, as to the divine pur

pose, independently of works.' Peter, having "the root of the matter" in him, notwithstanding his lamentable fall, was still an object of special care and preservation. "And the Lord said, Simon, Simon, behold Satan hath desired to have you, that he may sift you as wheat: but I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not." Peter had a spark, or a vital principle of faith, which the force of temptation was not suffered to extinguish. He, of whom it was said that he should "not break the bruised reed, nor quench the smoking flax, until he brought forth judgment to victory," took a special interest in Peter's recovery. "I have prayed for thee." And what was the subject matter of the prayer? "That thy faith fail not." Now what proof is there that Judas ever had a principle of lively saving 'faith?' Did he ever perform any 'work' that proved he was no hypocrite at the time, or that he had the true fear and love of God, with a sincere and decided attachment to Jesus? In short, good works are the best criterion whereby to judge of characters and principles in our intercourse with each other, and this our Lord has clearly sanctioned by his conduct towards Judas;

but it would be erroneous to infer, that there was no difference between Judas and the other apostles, except in works,' in the obvious and natural acceptation of this term, inasmuch as there is abundant proof that Jesus, who knew his heart, regarded him as a hypocrite, and a traitor, before any of the other disciples entertained a suspicion of his faithless principle. "For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were who believed not, and who should betray him.”* Had Judas possessed a principle of faith like Peter, why not pray for the former as well as the latter? If he never had a faith like Peter's, which was a heavenly gift, as every spiritual principle is, then more had been done for Peter than for Judas, independent of works." To imagine that such a favour was conferred on Peter rather than Judas, on the ground of their different good works foreseen, is subversive of itself; because no works are supposed to exist in future, but what sprung from the favour then conferred. The reward supposed is a good principle, the spirit of faith, without which it is impossible to please God; how then can this faith, without which no works are good, be the reward of good works? But if the difference be not of works, it must be of sovereign grace; whereby the other apostles were more highly

* John vi. 64.