ery end, and then to be damned for it? There is nothing equal to
this in the whole compass of history. That which bears the nearest
resemblance is the well-known instance of Tiberius; when determined
to destroy a noble family root and branch, finding a young virgin
who could not, by the Roman laws, be put to death, he ordered the
hangman to ravish the poor innocent, young and helpless creature,
and then to strangle her. Such a horrid picture do these low
advocates draw of the justice of the Supreme Being!--And what shall
we say of his love? Nay, hear what David said of it, namely, that
"He is good to all, and his tender mercies are over all his works."
Hear what the lip of truth himself hath said, "God so loved the
world, that he gave his only-begotten Son, that whosoever believeth
in him should not perish, but have everlasting life." "God so loved
the world;" "that is," say they, the "elect world." And what proof
do they bring for such an interpretation? None; nay, that is a
circumstance which is often forgotten. But we need go no farther
than the text itself, to confute that rugged interpretation; only
let the grammatical sense of the words be attended unto,--"God so
loved the _elect_ world, that whosoever of the _elect_ world
believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life." Then
what is become of the elect world which do not believe in him?
According to this scheme, there are some of the elect world which
will not believe in him, and so perish. See what consequences follow
such absurdities! St. John says, "Behold what manner of love the
Father hath bestowed upon us, that we should be called the sons of
God." But the poor reprobates may argue, "Behold what manner of hate
and destruction the Father hath bestowed upon us, that we should
thus by his decree be called reprobates, children of darkness,
enemies to God, strangers to the commonwealth of Israel, and enemies
to the cross of Christ."

And what can we say, upon such principles, for the pity of Him whose
bowels melt with tenderness? Who are the objects of his pity? Are
not poor miserable objects, who are plunged into a hopeless,
helpless situation through the fall, and become offenders through
the original transgression? The doctrine under consideration is so
far from representing any pity to such unavoidable objects, that it
really represents God, of his own sovereign good-will and pleasure,
bringing them into that deplorable situation, and then leavin