(3.) We object, in the _third_ place, to the Calvinistic view of election, because it makes G.o.d a respecter of persons. What is it to be a respecter of persons? Literally, it means "an accepter of faces." According to the _Imperial Dictionary_, it signifies "a person who regards the external circ.u.mstances of others in his judgment, and suffers his opinion to be biased by them, to the prejudice of candour, justice, and equity." It is to act with partiality. It is of the utmost moment that respect of persons should not be shown in the domestic circle, on the bench; or in the church. If a father shows favouritism to one son less worthy, say, than the others, he lays himself open to the charge of partiality, unevenness in his procedure, and it tends to alienate the affections of his other children. To show it on the bench is to sully the ermine, and bring the administration of justice into disrepute.

Whoever else may exhibit it, the church is required to have clean hands in the matter (James ii.)

We are so const.i.tuted that we cannot love or hate by a mere fiat of the will. Before we can love one another with complacency, there must be the perception of excellence. And it is the same as regards G.o.d. Hence it is of the last importance that to our mental view He should be pure, holy, impartial, good. To love Him if we thought Him otherwise, would be impossible. Now G.o.d has abundantly shown, both in providence and in the Bible, that He is not a respecter of persons. He executes His laws indiscriminately--upon all alike. Fire burns, poison kills, water drowns all and sundry. If the laws of health are broken, the penalty is enforced on each transgressor according to the measure of his transgression. It is the same with moral penalties. If a man lies, or steals, or is mean, or selfish, he will suffer moral deterioration, which will pa.s.s through his moral being as a leprosy. Our physical, mental, and moral natures are thus under their respective laws, and whosoever breaks these laws G.o.d executes the penalty on the transgressor. There is in this respect no favouritism--no respect of persons.

There are, as a matter of course, diversities upon earth. All cannot occupy the same place. We have not the brilliancy and luxuriancy of the tropics, but we have our compensations. And it is the same with life in general. In comparison with the rich the poor have a rough road to travel, but they are not without their compensations. The moral life is the higher life of man, and in the stern school of adversity there are developed n.o.ble traits of character.

"Though losses and crosses Be lessons right severe, There's wit there you'll get there, You'll find no other where."

The diversities we find in life are not arbitrary acts, as we have already seen, but dependent upon adherence or non-adherence to law.

The same great principle that regulates the providential government of G.o.d, is brought clearly out in the Scriptures. It is remarked by Cruden that "G.o.d appointed that the judges should p.r.o.nounce their sentences without any respect of persons (Lev. xix. 15; Deut i. 17); that they should consider neither the poor nor the rich, nor the weak nor the powerful, but only attend to truth and justice, and give sentence according to the merits of the cause." It is said in Proverbs that it is not good to have respect of persons in judgment (Prov. xxiv. 23). Peter declared that there is no respect of persons with G.o.d; and Paul said, "For there is no respect of persons with G.o.d" (Romans ii. 11). James declared that if the Christians to whom he wrote showed respect of persons they committed sin (James ii. 9).

The Bible is thus exceedingly careful to guard the Divine character from the charge of partiality. And obviously so. Let but the idea be entertained in the mind for a moment, and it leaves a slime behind it as if a serpent had pa.s.sed through the corridor of our dwelling.

The simple question then is, Does this doctrine of Calvinistic election exhibit G.o.d as a respecter of persons? It clearly does so.

According to it, G.o.d, irrespective of any conditions in the creature, appoints a certain number to be saved and leaves the rest to perish. And is not this partiality? Is not this favouritism?

Since the doctrine thus reflects on the Divine character, it deserves condemnation.

(4.) In the _fourth_ place, we object to the Calvinistic doctrine of election, _because it is opposed to the letter and spirit of many pa.s.sages of the Bible_. We beg attention to a few. Consider the OATH OF G.o.d. "As I live, saith the Lord, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but that the wicked turn from his way and live. Turn ye, turn ye, from your evil way, for why will ye die, O house of Israel?" (Ezek. x.x.xiii. 11). Would not any one reading these words naturally conclude that G.o.d really wished all the people to be saved? Have they not a ring of genuine sincerity about them? We cannot conceive that such a question would have been asked, viz., "Why will ye die?" had their death been inevitable. Not only was it not inevitable, but the earnest entreaty to return showed that G.o.d intensely desired their salvation. Yet, if Calvinism is true, the oath of G.o.d and His earnest entreaty, as far as millions of the human race are concerned, are simply as sounding bra.s.s and a tinkling cymbal. Nay, more, they are a solemn mockery. I see two men floundering in deep water; I jump into my boat and save one, and bring him safely to sh.o.r.e. I could easily have saved the other had I wished it, but did not. Were I then to stand on the bank of the river and ask the sinking man, Why will you die? what would be thought of me, or any man, who should act such a part? Such conduct would be cruel, cruel to any poor soul in its death-struggle. Yet this is exactly the part G.o.d is made to perform by the high Calvinists, and is endorsed by their more modern brethren. He could easily save every one if He wished it, they say: But this a.s.sertion cannot stand in the presence of G.o.d's oath and His earnest entreaty to turn and live.

THE VINEYARD.--Let us look at the case of the vineyard, as recorded in Isaiah v. The house of Israel is there compared to a vineyard which G.o.d had planted. After detailing what had been done, the question is asked, "What could have been done more to my vineyard that I have not done in it? wherefore, when I looked that it should bring forth grapes, brought it forth wild grapes?" (verse 4). The moral condition of Israel was anything but good. G.o.d had looked for judgment, but there was oppression, and for righteousness, but behold a cry! Yet the question in this fourth verse carries the idea that He had done all that He wisely could, in the circ.u.mstances, to reform and save them. But they were not reformed, they were not saved. It might indeed be affirmed that this was because they had not been visited by "special influence," or converting grace. But if this kind of grace is the only kind that is fructifying, and was for sovereign reasons withheld, how could the question be asked, "What could have been done more to my vineyard that I have not done in it?" The one thing needful had _not_ been done, if this hypothesis is true, and in view of it the question could not have been put at all. But it was put, and this shows that G.o.d had done all that He wisely could do to save the people, and that He did not keep back the needed grace, for which Calvinists contend.

CHRIST'S TEARS OVER JERUSALEM.--The tears of our Lord over the city of Jerusalem are a clear demonstration against the Calvinistic doctrine of election. It is said, "When He was come near, He beheld the city, and wept over it, saying, If thou hadst known, even thou, at least in this thy day, the things which belong unto thy peace!

but now they are hid from thine eyes" (Luke xix. 41, 42). When a woman weeps it is not an infrequent phenomenon. Her nerves are more finely strung than man's, and a touching tale or sympathetic story brings the tears to her eyes and sobs from her lips. When men weep it indicates deep emotion; and when Christ looked upon the city, His soul was moved with compa.s.sion, and He wept. He knew what had been done for the guilty inhabitants--how G.o.d had borne with them--and the doom that, like the sword of Damocles, hung over them, and His tender heart found relief in tears. In the presence of this weeping Redeemer can we entertain the Calvinistic notion that He could easily have saved the people, _if He had only wished it_? He wished to gather them as a hen doth her chickens under her wings, but they would not come. Were there not another pa.s.sage in the Bible than the one just referred to (Matthew xxiii. 37), it is sufficient to dispose of the theory that G.o.d uses irresistible grace in saving men. He had used the most powerful motives to bring them to himself, but they would not come.

John Wesley, in writing on Predestination, says,--"Let it be observed that this doctrine represents our blessed Lord Jesus Christ, the righteous, the only-begotten Son of the Father, full of grace and truth, as an hypocrite, a deceiver of the people, a man void of common sincerity. For it cannot be denied that He everywhere speaks as if He was willing that all men should be saved. Therefore, to say that He was not willing that all men should be saved, is to represent Him as a mere hypocrite and dissembler. It cannot be denied that the gracious words which came out of His mouth are full of invitations to all sinners. To say, then, He did not intend to save all sinners, is to represent Him as a gross deceiver of the people. You cannot deny that He says, 'Come unto me all ye that are weary and heavy laden.' If, then, you say He calls those that cannot come, those whom He knows to be unable to come, those whom He can make able to come but will not; how is it possible to describe greater insincerity? You represent Him as mocking His helpless creatures, by offering what He never intends to give. You describe Him as saying one thing and meaning another, as pretending the love which He had not. Him in whose mouth was no guile, you make full of deceit, void of common sincerity; then, especially when drawing nigh the city He wept over it, and said, 'O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets and stonest them that are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, and ye would not.' Now, if ye say they would but He would not, you represent Him (which who could hear) as weeping crocodile's tears; weeping over the prey which himself had doomed to destruction" (Ser. 128).

Consider the _last commission_ of Christ. Before our Lord left the world He said to His apostles, "Go ye into all the world, and preach the Gospel to every creature." Good news was thus to be proclaimed to every human being. If the commission meant anything it meant this, that G.o.d was honestly and earnestly desirous of saving every one. And this is in beautiful harmony with the exhortation in Isaiah: "Look unto me and be ye saved, all the ends of the earth"

(Isa. xlv. 22). It is also in keeping with the words of Jesus recorded by John: "For G.o.d so loved the world, that He gave His only-begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life" (John iii. 16); and with what the apostle Peter says, that "G.o.d is not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance" (2 Peter iii. 9); and with what the apostle Paul says, that G.o.d "will have all men to be saved"

(1 Tim. ii. 4). But whilst the commission to preach the good news is in harmony with these express statements, it is out of joint and incongruous with the Calvinistic doctrine of election, that G.o.d wishes only a few of the human family saved.

Consider the HOLY SPIRIT'S INVITATION. In Revelation xxii. 17, it is written: "And the Spirit and the bride say, come. And let him that heareth say, come. And let him that is athirst come, and whosoever will let him take the water of life freely." Whilst we are so const.i.tuted that we cannot believe a proposition the terms of which we do not understand, and whilst there is much that is inscrutable in the Spirit's work, yet the pa.s.sage just quoted clearly means, if it means anything, that the Holy Spirit invites all to come and drink of the life-giving water. We cannot doubt His sincerity. When all are invited to drink, it is implied that there is water for all, and that it is free to all, and that they have power to drink. We may not ask one to drink at an empty fountain without being guilty of the sheerest mockery; and neither may we ask the wounded and disabled man, who cannot walk a step, to come and drink, without being guilty of the same. This invitation of the Spirit, then, is inconsistent with the Calvinistic notion that His converting grace is limited. Says the late Dr. John Guthrie, "Was it antecedently to be supposed that a Divine Father who loves all, and so loved as to give His own and only-begotten for our ransom, and that the Divine Son, who as lovingly gave Himself, would send the Divine Spirit mediatorially to reveal and interpret both, who should not operate in the world on the same principle of impartiality and universality?

What philosophy and theology thus dictate, Scripture confirms.

Christ promised His disciples an interpreting and applying Spirit, who should convince the _world_. Prophets predicted, and Pentecost proved, that G.o.d was pouring out His Spirit on all flesh. These influences were, in their largest incidents, soul-saving; through being moral, they were resistible. Ye do always resist the Holy Ghost, said Stephen, and the Holy Ghost himself saith to-day, Oh that ye would hear His voice; which He would not do if faith came by another sort of influence which He only could give, and which He did not mean to give till _to-morrow_, or next year, or not at all! In that last and most gracious of Gospel invitations, which the incarnate Himself utters in Rev. xxii. 17, among other inviters, the Spirit says, come! and says it to all; which surely, as He is the Spirit of truth, He would not do, if not a soul could come till He himself put forth an influence which He had predetermined to bestow only on a select and favoured number. The ugly limitation will not do. The work and heart of the loving Spirit are, and must be, as large as those of the Father and the Son, whom He came to reveal."

(_Discourses_, Ser. X.)

The objections thus tendered to the Calvinistic theory of election are sufficient separately, and much more so collectively, to condemn the dogma. We impute no motives to the honoured men who hold the doctrine. They are doubtless as sincere in their belief as we are in ours. It did seem to us, at one time, that G.o.d could convert men if He wished it; but the dictum of Chillingworth--"the Bible and the Bible alone is the religion of Protestants," overturned that idea.

The words of Jesus, "How often would I have gathered thy children together, . . . but ye would not," showed that Jesus was wishful to save the people; but His wish was not realised, because they "would not." And the Bible and philosophy are in harmony. We could easily conceive, that were certain individuals to be taken by almighty effort from one sphere, and placed in another, they would be converted. Christ confirms this idea. He said, "Woe unto thee, Chorazin! woe unto thee, Bethsaida! for if the mighty works which have been done in you had been done in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes" (Mat. xi. 21). But as G.o.d loves all equally with the love of compa.s.sion, this exercise of miracle in one case would lead to the exercise of miracle in another. And what would this involve? It would simply lead to the overturning of G.o.d's moral providence, which is based upon, and carried on in conjunction with, the highest wisdom. Parents may often be found sacrificing their wisdom to their love, but it is not so with G.o.d. All His attributes are in harmony. Justice is not sacrificed to love, nor love to justice. There is thus, in the Divine character, a firm and unchanging basis for the most profound veneration and the most intense affection.

Regarding the particular ill.u.s.tration of the people of Sodom, Tyre, and Sidon, and why Christ had not done mighty works there, Dr.

Morison has remarked, "It was not befitting our Saviour to become incarnate at _all times_, or even _at two different epochs_ in the history of the world. And when He did appear at a particular epoch in time, 'the fulness of the time,' it was absolutely necessary that He should live and work miracles, _not everywhere_, but in some _one limited area or locality_" (_Com. on Mat., ad loc._)

CHAPTER VII.

THE SCRIPTURAL VIEW OF EVANGELICAL ELECTION.

ALTHOUGH there is much confusion of thought regarding election viewing it from a Calvinistic standpoint, the word itself is simple enough, as is the doctrine when viewed in the light of Scripture.

THE WORD.--According to Liddell and Scott's Greek Lexicon, the verb to elect (eklego) means, "To pick or single out," especially as soldiers, rowers, &c. In the middle voice, "to pick out for one's self, choose out." Robinson says it means "to lay out together, to choose out, to select." In N. T. Mid., "to choose out for one's self." Parkhurst gives as its signification, "to choose, choose out." It has a variety of applications in the Scriptures, just as it has in our common everyday life. It was applied to the Jewish nation, regarding which it was said, "The Lord thy G.o.d hath chosen thee to be a peculiar people unto himself, above all the nations that are upon the earth" (Deut. xiv. 2). The term comprehended the whole nation, and no one will contend that the choice spoken of indicated that every Jew was safe for eternity. It was applied to the apostles, but this did not thereby secure infallibly their salvation. Judas fell away, and hanged himself. Paul declared that he had constantly to watch himself, lest he should become "a castaway." It is applied to David, "But I chose David to be over my people Israel" (1 Kings viii. 16). It is used also in reference to "place:" "As the place which the Lord your G.o.d shall choose" (Deut.

xii. 5). The prophets of Baal were asked to "choose" a bullock, "and call on the name of their G.o.ds" (1 Kings xviii. 23). These and other applications of the word are quite sufficient to show that the term is not necessarily connected with the choosing of a few men to eternal salvation, and implying a faith-necessitating work of the Holy Spirit. And something is gained when we have gained this. Were we therefore asked whether we denied election? we should be quite ent.i.tled to ask, to what kind of election did our questioner refer?

since there are several kinds referred to in the Holy Scriptures, and a special kind outside of Scripture, entertained by the followers of John Calvin.

EVANGELICAL ELECTION. A PROCESS.--Seeing that the word "elect" means to "pick out," "to choose, to lay aside for one's self," it may denote either an act or a process, according to the object elected.

If I select a book from the library, or choose an apple from the tree, the election thus exercised is simply an act, The book elected and the apple were entirely pa.s.sive, having no will in the matter.

But suppose I want two servants: I go into the market where a number are standing waiting to be employed. I find two, and explain the nature of the service, and state the wages and the rules of the house. One of the two accepts, the other refuses. I go forward on my mission, and find another. I state to him what I stated to the two already mentioned. He agrees, and is engaged. I have chosen --"elected"--the servants; but it was a process, not a simple act.

Other wills came into play which differentiated the election in the one case from the other, and the concurrence of the two wills completed the matter. It is written in the word: "Wherefore, come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you, and will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty" (2 Cor. vi. 17, 18). This brings the matter plainly before us. There is the Divine exhortation, human concurrence, and the result--adoption. It is an absurd and unreasonable supposition to imagine that G.o.d deals with rational and responsible creatures as He does with vegetable and irrational brutes, which He does if the theory of irresistible grace is maintained.

THE AUTHOR OF EVANGELICAL ELECTION.--There would not be need for any remark on this subject, were it not that objection may be urged against the view just stated, that it makes man the author of his election. In a secondary, yet important sense, he has to do with his election. But G.o.d is the Prime Mover and Author of evangelical election. The scheme of redemption originated with Him. He tells men that He earnestly desires their return, and upon what terms He will graciously receive them. If they consent He will take them out from amongst the condemned, "select them," "elect them," and place them among His children. The Bible confirms this view: "G.o.d hath from the beginning chosen you" (2 Thes. ii. 13.) "G.o.d our Father has chosen us in Him" (Eph. i. 3, 4.)

THE OBJECTS OF EVANGELICAL ELECTION,--The people of this country are frequently engaged in elections. We elect men for the School Board, the Town Council, and for Parliament. When we record our vote we do so for a definite object. What, then, are the objects which G.o.d has in view in evangelical election? The apostle Peter states them in his first epistle. He says, "Elect unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus." (1 Peter i. 2.) In other words, they were chosen, having become believers, to the blessings of justification and sanctification,--the one having reference to their state, the other to their character.

HOW TO ENTER AMONG THE ELECT.--This has been the great puzzle to those educated under the teaching of Calvinistic divines. They read in the Bible that G.o.d wishes all men to be saved, but they are told that this means all the elect. At times they are "offered" a Saviour, but they are told that in order to believe in Him they need the irresistible influence of the Holy Ghost. If they are amongst the favoured ones, it will come to them in due time; but if they are not, then no prayers, no cries, no tears can alter the Divine decree. How long will men stand by a system unknown to the Christian church for 400 years, and alike repugnant to the reason and the whole spirit of the Gospel, and fitted to plunge the honest inquirer into endless perplexity?

"Oh! how unlike the complex works of man Heaven's easy, artless, unenc.u.mber'd plan, No meretricious graces to beguile, No cl.u.s.tering ornaments to clog the pile; From ostentation as from weakness free, It stands like the cerulean arch we see, Majestic in its own simplicity.

Inscribed above the portal from afar, Conspicuous as the brightness of a star, Legible only by the light they give, Stand the soul-quickening words--'BELIEVE AND LIVE.'"

Paul in the Second Epistle to the Thessalonians tells us how they entered among the elect. His words are: "But we are bound to give thanks alway to G.o.d for you, brethren beloved of the Lord, because G.o.d hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth" (2 Thes. ii.

13.) They were thus among the elect, and we are told how it came about. The Spirit had brought the Gospel message to Thessalonica by his accredited agent, the apostle Paul. In that message the people were told of G.o.d's infinite love--that He loved them, and that the Saviour had died for their sins. He testified to Jesus as mighty to save, to save any--to save all--to save to the very uttermost. He convinced them that they stood in need of a Saviour, and that Christ was the very Saviour they required. These were two great phases of the Spirit's work--viz., to produce conviction in the mind of the sinner, and to point out Jesus as the Lamb of G.o.d which hath taken away the sin of the world. The Thessalonians, under His gracious testimony, believed the record, or, as it is said, "the truth," and became the chosen of G.o.d--His elected ones.

That this is true may be seen from the way in which sinners enter into G.o.d's adopted family. It will be admitted that all who are in G.o.d's adopted family are in a saved condition--in the same state, in short, as are the elected ones. But how do men enter into this adopted family? It is stated in John i. 12, "But as many as received Him, to them gave He power to become the sons of G.o.d, even to them that believe on His name." To believe on His name is just to depend upon Him alone for salvation. The apostle Paul in writing to the Galatians says, "For ye are all the children of G.o.d by faith in Christ Jesus" (Gal. iii. 26.) Each one had personally to believe in Christ, or to say as Paul said, He "loved me, and gave himself for me" (Gal. ii. 20.)

It may be said that this makes the way too easy, too simple. It is simple to us indeed, but it cost the Divine Father the sacrifice of His only-begotten Son; it cost the Divine Son His sore agony in the Garden of Gethsemane, and His offering up of himself upon the cross.

But the simplicity of the way of salvation is implied in such pa.s.sages as, "Look unto me and be ye saved, all the ends of the earth;" and, "Hear and your soul shall live." The reason why it is easy is this,--the meritorious work of salvation, the work upon the ground of which we get into heaven, is not our feelings, nor our own works, but the work, the finished work of Christ.

The system advocated in this treatise may be objected to on the ground that it makes man the arbiter of his own destiny. There is no doubt that it really does so. But is this a good ground for rejecting it? We think not. Let it be remembered that all through life man has to exercise the power of election--choice. He has to do so in regard to a profession or trade, in regard to securities, and in respect of marriage, and it would only be in harmony with what he is constantly doing, were he called upon to "choose," or decide, upon matters affecting his spiritual condition. Is he not, moreover, the maker of his own character? This is his most precious heritage, more valuable than thousands of gold and silver. But how is it made?

By single volitions on the side of the right, the true, and the good. And is not the life that is to come a continuance of the life that _now is_? And if we exercise choice in the making of our characters, this is the same as being the arbiters of our destination in eternity. And what is thus plain to the intelligence is confirmed by the Scriptures. Their language is, "Choose ye this day whom ye will serve;" "Wilt thou not from this day say unto me, My father?" They thus clearly make the matter to turn on the "_will_."

It may be said that the view for which we have been contending, does not give the Christian the comfort of heart which the system opposed does. But the primary question with an honest inquirer should not be, which view of a subject is the most agreeable? but, what is the truth upon the point? It is possible in religious life, as in social, to live in a fool's paradise. But what more comfort could a man desiderate than is given by the Holy Spirit? The Christian may be poor and deformed, but G.o.d loves him all the same as if he were rich as Croesus, and in form had the symmetry of the Apollo Belvidere. He may be tried as silver is tried in the fire, but the Lord will sit as the refiner, and not suffer him to be tried above what he is able to bear.

But what about the _security_ of the believer? The covenant being made between Christ and the Father is well ordered in all things and sure, according to the system of Predestination. "Once a saint, a saint for ever," it has been said. The Christian, it is argued, may make slips, even as David did, but he cannot fall finally away, for every one that Christ died for will be ultimately saved. Now if all this were true, then doubtless a sense, or feeling if you will, of security would be gained. When Cromwell was dying he is said to have asked his chaplain whether those who once knew the truth could be lost, and being answered in the negative, he replied, "Then I am safe." Now, it is not agreeable to be constantly on the watch-tower looking out for the foe, or to have to tread cautiously among the gra.s.s lest you should be bitten by a rattlesnake. But a man may imagine himself to be secure when he is not. Many of the shareholders and trustees involved in the late Bank catastrophy thought they were secure; but they slept upon a slumbering volcano, and many lost their all. They thought that they were secure, but it was a dream from which they were awakened to a terrible reality. So in religion. A man under the shadow of a theory may think himself safe, whilst his gourd is only the gourd of Jonah, a thing that withers under the heat of the sun. The feeling of security is very agreeable; but how, if strict Calvinism is adhered to, is any man to get intelligently amongst the elect? If Christ has died only for a few, and the names of these are kept a profound secret, how can I believe that I am among that few? We cannot believe without evidence. If we do, our faith is the faith of the fool--a dream, a conceit, and nothing more. Before a man, upon the theory of strict Calvinism, can believe that Christ died for him, he would require to get a list of the elect. This not being forthcoming, many poor men are waiting for the touch of the Almighty's finger to work faith within them, and place them among the happy number of the saved. But in so waiting they are under a perfect delusion. As a matter of fact there are many excellent Christian men who contend earnestly for the creed of Calvinism. They read in the Bible that G.o.d is willing to take sinners back through Christ, and they come to Him, and consecrate themselves to His services, and then battle for limitation. But in accepting Christ as their Saviour they shut their eyes to the doctrine of their creed, and acted on the declarations of the word of G.o.d. We rejoice that they are Christians, but maintain, nevertheless, that in believing they acted illogically.

But to return to security. What more security could any one desire than the word of Christ?--"My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me. And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand.

My Father which gave them me is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father's hand" (John x. 27, 29). Our Lord is here speaking of external foes, and declares that no enemy is strong enough to take His sheep from Him. But men enter His service freely, and freely they remain. He has no slaves in His household. His people are attached to Him because they see in Him a concentration of all that is n.o.ble and good. His self-sacrifice for them has won their hearts, and inspired them with devotedness to His person. That it is possible to fall away we admit, from the fact that man is a free being surrounded with temptations; and also because we find throughout the Bible earnest exhortations to watchfulness, which would be quite useless except upon the possibility of letting the truth slip from the mind. Hymenaeus and Alexander made shipwreck of their faith (1 Tim. i.); and Paul had to keep his body under, lest he himself should become a castaway. But the _possibility_ of falling away should not disturb the equanimity of any Christian for a moment. As free creatures we have the power of throwing ourselves into the river, or the fire, or in many other ways taking our own life; yet the possession of this power in nowise disturbs our tranquillity of soul, or mars our peace of mind. It were, no doubt, more pleasing to the flesh to have no fighting, no struggle, no watching; but we must accept the logic of facts, and they clearly indicate that the Christian life is a battle all the way to the gates of the New Jerusalem. But in this spiritual contest, the thews and sinews of the soul are made strong. By failing to realise the ideal of what a Christian should be, believers feel the need of Christ's presence, and the help of the Holy Ghost, and sympathise with the sentiments of the hymn.

"I could not do without Thee, O Saviour of the lost, Whose precious blood redeemed me At such tremendous cost; Thy righteousness, Thy pardon, Thy precious blood must be My only hope and comfort, My glory and my plea.

"I could not do without Thee; I cannot stand alone, I have no strength or goodness, No wisdom of my own; But Thou, beloved Saviour, Art all in all to me, And weakness will be power If leaning hard on Thee.

"I could not do without Thee No other friend can read The spirit's strange deep longings, Interpreting its need; No human heart could enter Each dim recess of mine, And soothe, and hush, and calm it, O blessed Lord, but Thine.

Having entered by faith into the family of G.o.d, or in other words, amongst the elect, it becomes the sacred duty of the believer to be careful to maintain good works. He must remember that the way to heaven is not strewn with roses. He is Christ's freeman; but it is with spiritual freedom as with civil, "eternal vigilance is the price of liberty." Neither is it an artillery duel, or firing at long range; it is ofttimes a grapple in the fosse for victory or death.

But the Christian--the elected one--has not to fight life's battle alone. The Holy Spirit having led him to Jesus carries on the good work in his heart. He tells him that he is dear to G.o.d; that he is His son, "His jewel;" His "portion;" that G.o.d will never leave him nor forsake him; that his strength shall be equal to his day; that his foot shall never be moved; and that G.o.d, who hath given up for him His son, will with that Son freely give him all things. By being faithful unto death he shall at last receive the crown of life, which shall never fade away.

THE END.