(_a_) It is unjust to those who are not included in this purpose of salvation.—Answer: Election deals, not simply with creatures, but with sinful, guilty, and condemned creatures. That any should be saved, is matter of pure grace, and those who are not included in this purpose of salvation suffer only the due reward of their deeds. There is, therefore, no injustice in God’s election. We may better praise God that he saves any, than charge him with injustice because he saves so few. God can say to all men, saved or unsaved, “_Friend, I do thee no wrong.... Is it not lawful for me to do what I will with mine own?_” (_Mat. 20:13, 15_). The question is not whether a father will treat his children alike, but whether a sovereign must treat condemned rebels alike. It is not true that, because the Governor pardons one convict from the penitentiary, he must therefore pardon all. When he pardons one, no injury is done to those who are left. But, in God’s government, there is still less reason for objection; for God offers pardon to all. Nothing prevents men from being pardoned but their unwillingness to accept his pardon. Election is simply God’s determination to make certain persons willing to accept it. Because justice cannot save all, shall it therefore save none? Augustine, De Predest. Sanct., 8—“Why does not God teach all? Because it is in mercy that he teaches all whom he does teach, while it is in judgment that he does not teach those whom he does not teach.” In his Manual of Theology and Ethics, 260, Hovey remarks that _Rom. 9:20_—“_who art thou that repliest against God?_”—teaches, not that might makes right, but that God is morally entitled to glorify either his righteousness or his mercy in disposing of a guilty race. It is not that he chooses to save only a few ship‐wrecked and drowning creatures, but that he chooses to save only a part of a great company who are bent on committing suicide. _Prov. 8:36_—“_he that sinneth against me wrongeth his own soul: All they that hate me love death._” It is best for the universe at large that some should be permitted to have their own way and show how dreadful a thing is opposition to God. See Shedd, Dogm. Theol., 1:455. (_b_) It represents God as partial in his dealings and a respecter of persons.—Answer: Since there is nothing in men that determines God’s choice of one rather than another, the objection is invalid. It would equally apply to God’s selection of certain nations, as Israel, and certain individuals, as Cyrus, to be recipients of special temporal gifts. If God is not to be regarded as partial in not providing a salvation for fallen angels, he cannot be regarded as partial in not providing regenerating influences of his Spirit for the whole race of fallen men.