But that our doctrine of election is of grace, will appear evident, I think, from the following considerations. 1. It was pure unmerited love that moved God to provide salvation for our world. 2. The Gospel plan, therefore, with all its _provisions_ and _conditions_, is of grace. Not a step in that whole system, but rests in grace, is presented by grace, and is executed through grace. 3. Even the power of the will to choose life, and the conditions of life, is a _gracious power_. A fallen man, without grace, could no more choose to submit to God than a fallen angel. Herein we differ widely from the Calvinists. They tell us man has a _natural_ power to choose life. If so, he has power to get to heaven without grace! We say, on the contrary, that man is utterly unable to choose the way to heaven, or to pursue it when chosen, without the grace of God. It is grace that enlightens and convinces the sinner, and strengthens him to seek after and obtain salvation, for "without Christ we _can do nothing_." Let the candid judge between us, then, and decide which system most robs our gracious Redeemer of his glory, that which gives man a _native_ and _inherent_ power to get to heaven of himself, or that which attributes all to grace. 4. Finally, when the sinner repents and believes, there is no merit in these acts to procure forgiveness and regeneration, and therefore, though he is _now_, and _on these conditions_, elected, and made an heir of salvation, yet it is for Christ's sake, and "not for works of righteousness which he has done." Thus we "bring forth the top stone with shouting, crying _grace_, _grace_, unto it." Having gone over and examined the arguments in favour of unconditional election, we come to the last part of our subject; which was to urge some objections against this doctrine.