2. When men adopt, they are generally inclined to do it by seeing some excellency or amiableness in the persons whom they fix their love upon. Thus Pharaoh’s daughter took up Moses, and nourished him for her own son, because he was _exceeding fair_, Acts vii. 20, 21. or, it may be, she was moved hereunto, by a natural compassion she had for him, besides the motive of his beauty; as it is said, _The babe wept, and she had compassion on him_, Exod. ii. 6. And Mordecai adopted Esther, or took her for his own daughter; _for she was his uncle’s daughter, and was fair and beautiful_, and an orphan, _having neither father nor mother_, Esther ii. 7. But when God takes any into this relation of children, they have no beauty or comeliness, and might justly have been for ever the objects of his abhorrance. Thus he says concerning the church of Israel, when he first took them into this relation to him, _None eye pitied thee, but thou wast cast out in the open field, to the loathing of thy person: and when I passed by thee and saw thee polluted in thine own blood, I said unto thee when thou wast in thy blood, Live_, &c. Ezek. xvi. 5. It might indeed be said concerning man, when admitted to this favour and privilege, that he was miserable; but misery, how much soever it may render the soul an object of pity, it could not, properly speaking, be said to be a motive or inducement from whence the divine compassion took its first rise, as appears from the account we have of the mercy of God, as founded only on his sovereign will or pleasure; as he says, _I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy; and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion_, Rom. ix. 15. and also, from the consideration of man’s being exposed to misery by sin, which rendered him rather an object of vindictive justice than mercy. This therefore cannot be the ground of God’s giving him a right to an inheritance; and consequently adoption is truly said, in this answer, to be an act of the free grace of God. 3. When men adopt, their taking persons into the relation of children, is not necessarily attended with any change of disposition or temper in the persons adopted. A person may be admitted to this privilege, and yet remain the same, in that respect, as he was before: but when God takes his people into the relation of children, he gives them, not only those other privileges which arise from thence, but also that temper and disposition that becomes those who are thus related to him. This leads us to consider,