scorners delight in their scorning, and fools hate knowledge? Turn you at my reproof; behold I will pour out my spirit unto you, I will make known my words unto you."* This is the language of merciful wisdom to the human race: and shews the compassion of God towards the ignorant and wicked; the obligations of men to turn to God by submission and repentance; and, a gracious promise annexed, which would be fulfilled upon their compliance.

§ 6. As the promise of divine favours is proposed to men on an equitable condition, the alternative of refusal is accompanied with an awful threatening. "Because I have called, and ye refused, I have stretched out my hand, and no man regarded; but ye have set at nought all my counsel, and would none of my reproof; I also will laugh at your calamity, I will mock when your fear cometh; when your fear cometh as desolation, and your destruction cometh as a whirlwind; when distress and anguish cometh upon you. Then shall they call upon me, but I will not answer; they shall seek me early, but they shall not find me: for that they have hated knowledge, and did not choose the fear of the Lord. They would none of my counsel, they despised all my reproof. Therefore shall they

* Prov. i. 20-23.

Y

eat of the fruit of their own way, and be filled with their own devices. For the turning away of the simple shall slay them, and the prosperity of fools shall destroy them. But whoso hearkeneth unto me shall dwell safely, and shall be quiet from fear of evil."* In this awful passage of God's holy word, we observe these particulars: First, that the persons addressed, however wicked, must possess all the requisites of moral obligation: Secondly, that a refusal of what is in itself so reasonable, deserves the severest punishment: Thirdly, that the nature of this punishment is the righteous opposition of God to their wickedness, that they eat the fruit of their own way, and are filled with their own devices: Fourthly, that there is a period beyond which God will not wait to be gracious. Slighted mercy to the end of life, leaves the wicked in fear, distress and anguish.

7. The question again returns, Who believes the report? The answer is, They to whom "the arm of the Lord is revealed." They who are made "willing in the day of his power." They into whose hearts a divine light shines, that they may be enabled to recognize the voice and design of divine wisdom. All men to whom the call and the warning are addressed ought to submit and obey, but all yield obedience and

* Prov. i. 24-33,

submission. On what rational or scriptural principle can we found the difference of result? If we renounce the divine prerogative of shewing additional mercy to some, of taking away the heart of stone and giving a heart of flesh, of putting his fear in their hearts, and of opening them by his gracious influence to receive the truth,-are we not chargeable, at the same time, with an attempt to contract the exercise of his beneficence? What can be a greater affront to the supreme Majesty, than to fix the limits of his bounty by our own imperfect.

standard?

§ 8. The question is not, Why does not God impart converting grace to all? For our opponents do not think it right that he should impart it to any, until they shew of themselves first a willing mind. The proper question therefore is this: Why should we suppose that God does more, in the way of preventing internal grace, for some, than for others, while all, in themselves considered, are supposed to be equally undeserving? The true answer is, because his favours are his own, and he has a sovereign prerogative" to do what he will with his own." For this reason the fallen angels have no right to reclaim against God, that he has provided a Mediator, and a plan of mercy through him, for the recovery of myriads of the human

1

race, while no such provision is made for the restoration of any one of their number. And for the same reason the major part of the human race, immersed in idolatry and superstition, will have no ground to object, in the day of final judgment, against their Maker and Judge, that they were not favoured with the message of reconciliation, that they had not the same motives presented to them to induce them to repentance and conversion.

§ 9. That God in the character of a Judge has "no respect of persons," but gives to every one his due, is fully acknowledged. In this view, he regards neither high nor low, rich nor poor, princes nor peasants, Jew nor Greek, Christian nor Mahometan, Barbarian nor Scythian, bond nor free; but in every nation he that feareth God and worketh righteousness is accepted of him. If we assert, however, that no one is enabled to believe, repent, and obey, more than another, we deny to God the prerogative of a Benefactor. If we accuse him of unworthy partiality, on supposition that he communicates to some more than to others a principle of grace, whereby they are spiritually enabled to obey the heavenly call, we arraign his wisdom and goodness at the bar of our own ignorance and folly. Every such objection proceeds on this fundamental error, that all are alike worthy

of divine favours; whereas the truth is, that all are alike unworthy. In the former case, a partial distribution would be unjust, but not so in the latter. If all nations were equally worthy, all other nations might justly remonstrate against the partiality of Jehovah towards Israel; and if all persons were equally worthy, all other persons might justly object that they are less favoured than Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, David, or Solomon, John the Baptist, the virgin Mary, or the apostles John, Peter, or Paul, &c. Equality of worthiness establishes a just claim; but an equality of unworthiness leaves room for the full exercise of a sovereign Prerogative, ever administered in wisdom.

10. Some indeed have supposed, as we have seen from CHRYSOSTOм and THEODORET, whose opinions the Bishop of Lincoln seems to regard with complacency, that such partiality is subversive of rewards and punishments. But this proceeds on a false notion of the Rule of final Judgment, as if it were by the source of ability that the Judge will decide, rather than by the law of rectitude, which requires a good character and conduct, If these be approvable in the view of divine legislation, irrespectively of the source from whence they proceeded, it is all that an equitable Judge can demand. To suppose a demur to arise from the