character of the objections to the apostle's doctrine shows that such was the nature of the choice.
The election here spoken of is a choice of individuals^ and not of communities. This appears, 1. Because it is a choice to eternal life. 2. From the cases of Isaac and Ishmael, and Jacob and Esau, between whom, as individuals, the choice was made. 3. From the illustration derived from the case of Pharaoh. 4. From the objections presented in vs. 14, 19. 5. From the answer to these objections in vs. 15, 16, 20, 23, especially from the passage just referred to, which speaks of the vessels of mercy prepared unto glory ; which cannot be applied to nations or communities.
This election is sovereign^ i. e. is founded on the good pleasure of God, and not on any thing in its objects. 1. Because this is expressly asserted. The choice between Jacob and Esau was made prior to birth, that it might be seen that it was not founded on works, but on the good pleasure of God, v. 11. The same is clearly stated in v. 16, "It is not of him that willeth or of him that runneth, but of God that showeth mercy ;" and also in v. 18, " Therefore he hath mercy on whom he will," &c. The decision rests with God. 2. Because otherwise there would be no shadow of objection to the doctrine. How could men say it was unjust if God chose one and rejected another according to their works? And how could any one object, as in v. 19, ' that as the will of God could not be resisted, men were not to be blamed,' if the decision in question did not depend on the will of God, but on that of men 1 How easy for the apostle to have answered the objector, ' You are mistaken, the choice is not of God, he does not choose whom he wills, but who he sees will choose him. It is not his will, but man's that decides the point.' Paul does not so answer, but vindicates the doctrine of the divine sovereignty. The fact, therefore, that Paul had to answer the same objections which are now constantly urged against the doctrine of election, goes far to show that that doctrine was his. 3. That the election is sovereign, is taught elsewhere in Scripture. In 2 Tim. 1:9, it is said to be " not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace." Eph. 1 : 5, it is said to be " according to the good pleasure of his will," i. e. his sovereign pleasure. 4. This view alone harmonizes with the doctrine that all good thoughts, and right purposes and feelings, proceed from God, which is clearly taught in the Scriptures. For if the purpose not to resist 'common grace' is a right purpose, it is of God, and, of course, it is of him that one man forms it, and another does not. 5. This doctrine is alone consistent with Christian experience. " Why was I made to hear thy voice V No Christian answers this question by say- ing, because I was better than others.
3. The two leading objections against the doctrine of election, viz. that it is inconsistent with the divine character, and incompatible with human responsibility, are answered by the apostle. It cannot be unjust, because God claims and exercises the right of sovereign choice. It is