signed, and their number so certain and definite, that it cannot be either increased or diminished."

"Those of mankind that are predestinated unto life, God, before the foundation of the world was laid, according to his eternal and immutable purpose, and the secret counsel and good pleasure of his will, hath chosen in Christ unto everlasting glory, out of his mere free grace and love, without any foresight of faith or good works, or perseverance in either of them, or any other thing, in the creature, as conditions or causes, moving him thereunto."

"As God hath appointed the elect unto glory, so hath he, by the eternal and most free purpose of his will, fore-ordained all the means thereunto. Wherefore, they who are elected, being fallen in Adam, are redeemed by Christ, are effectually called unto faith in Christ, &c. Neither are any other redeemed by Christ, effectually called, &c. but the elect only."

"The rest of mankind God was pleased, according to the unsearchable counsel of his own will, whereby he extendeth or withholdeth mercy, as he pleaseth, to pass by, and to ordain them to dishonour and wrath for their sin."

I will now place before you, in the best manner I am able, such a view of Dr. Woods' opinions upon the subject, as is to be found in scattered passages through

his VIIth and VIIIth letters.

66 The Father has given to Christ a part of the human race, and those, who have thus been given to Christ, are the persons, who shall have eternal life ;"

(p. 54) and this, he goes on to prove at large, "denotes all who shall finally be saved." (p. 55.)

"In every case, a person's being given to Christ secures his coming to Christ; and, when Christ speaks of those, who were given him of the Father, he includes the whole number that shall be saved." (p. 56.)

"God has a purpose, choice, will, and good pleasure, respecting those who are saved; a purpose or choice, which was in the mind of God before they existed; a purpose, which does not rest upon any personal merit in those, who are its objects; of grace, excluding all works of righteousness from having any concern in this subject." (p. 57.)

"Nothing is effected by the efforts of man, but every thing depends on the mercy of God." (p. 59.)

"The sovereign purpose of God relates to man's eternal interests, to their religious character and salvation."....." I could, as I think, make it appear, that the doctrine of God's sovereign Election is the only doctrine, which accounts satisfactorily for the actual difference, which exists between true believers, and the rest of the world." (pp. 61, 62.)

"We hold it as a fact, universally, that impenitent, unrenewed sinners do no good work, which God regards as a condition of their being renewed, or on account of which he has promised them regeneration : that, in all cases, he calls and renews them according to his own purpose and grace." (pp. 67, 68.)

"We believe that those, who are chosen of God to salvation, are not chosen because they were, in them

selves, more worthy of this blessing than others, that God looked upon their moral feelings and conduct with the same disapprobation, and had the same view of their ill-desert, and that he chose them, as we may say, for reasons of state; for general reasons in his government, which he has not revealed."...." The purpose and administration of God are, in this respect, different from what our wisdom would dictate, or our affections choose; they cannot be accounted for by any principles known to us, but result from the infinite perfection of God, and are conformed to reasons, which he has concealed in his own mind." (p. 74)

If you will compare these passages with those before quoted from the Westminster Confession, you will find that they differ from each other only in the degree of clearness and explicitness, with which the same doctrine is expressed.

I shall now endeavour to show, that the " method of designating the heirs of salvation," which this doctrine implies, can neither be reconciled with our natural notions of the moral character of God, derived from the use of the faculties he has given us, and our observation of his conduct in the government of the world ; nor with what he has made known to us of his character, and purposes, and government in the Christian revela

tion.

How repugnant this doctrine is to our natural reason, Dr. Woods himself seems to be fully sensible. "If it were put to my natural reason," he says, (p. 54) "to judge by its own light respecting what is called the

doctrine of Election; my judgment might agree with the judgment of those, who reject the doctrine. If the question were, what difficulties attend the doctrine, I might perhaps bring forward as many as others."

Now, as God is the Author of our being, and as that portion of reason, which we have, was given us by him for our guide, it is certainly very remarkable, and what we should not expect, that instead of indicating to us truly his character, and dispositions, and purposes; so far as it gives us any information, it should universally mislead us respecting them. Following the light of our reason and the natural impulse of our feelings, we find it impossible to imagine, that the Author of our being, the common Parent of all, can regard and treat his offspring in the manner, which the doctrine in question attributes to him. That, without any foreseen difference of character and desert in men, before he had brought them into being, he should regard some with complacency and love, and the rest with disapprobation, and hatred, and wrath; and without any reference to the future use or abuse of their nature, should appoint some to everlasting happiness, and the rest to everlasting misery; and that this appointment, entirely arbitrary, for which no reason is to be assigned, but his sovereign will, should be the cause, and not the consequence, of the holiness of the one, and of the defect of holiness of the other. A man, who should do what this doctrine attributes to God, I will not say toward his own offspring, but toward any beings that were dependent on him, and

whose destiny was at his disposal, would be regarded as a monster of malevolence, and cruelty, and caprice. It is incredible that the Author of our being should thus have formed us with an understanding and moral feelings to lead us without fail to condemn the measures and the principles of the government of him, who so made us.

Will it be said that this repugnance which we feel to the doctrine in question is one of the proofs of the corruption of our nature? Yet whatever that nature may be, it is such as he gave us. And however imperfect our reason, it is what he gave to be our guide. It is the only immediate guide he has given us; and it is that, which must be the ultimate judge of the evidence, and of the nature and value, of any notices which he may give of his will and purposes, by his providence or his word. Can it have been the design of the Apostle to put down our reason, our moral feelings, and natural conscience, as seems to be intimated in the pamphlet, "by the appalling rebuke, Who art thou that repliest against God?" But who is the man, that in the truest sense is chargeable with replying against God? Is it not he, who would set aside, as false and dangerous, the guide he has given to all for the direction of life? Is it not he, who refuses to listen to the voice, by which he speaks to all? Who calls in question the notices he gives of himself and of the principles of his government, in the only universal revelation that he has made of himself? He, it seems to me, replies against God, who rejects or undervalues