Eleasah (Hastings' Dictionary)

1. A Judalute (1 Ch 2»«). 2. A descendant of Saul (lCh8"9'). SeeELASAH. ELEAZAR (i.n'-N 'God has helped.'— Cf. Azarel, 1 Ch 12", and the Phoen. names Eshmunazar = ' Eshmun has helped,' CIS I. i. 3, 1. 1 ; 13aalazar = ' Haal has helped,' CIS I. i. 256, 1. 2). Ten or eleven persons bearing this name are mentioned in the canonical and apocryphal books. 1. The third son of Aaron by Elisheba (Ex 6-^, Nu 3-), who, with his father and three brothers, was admitted to the priestly ofiice (Ex 28'). After the death of Nadab and Abiliu by tire, E. and Ithamar were the chief assistants of Aaron (Lv 10"- "). The former is represented as the chief of the Levites in the time of Moses (Nu S"). When Aaron died, E. succeeded him in his functions (Nu 20'- ", Dt 10"). He is spoken of as taking part with Moses in the numuering of the people (Nu 26'- '"); and after the death of Moses he aided Joshua in the work of partitioning the newly conquered land of Canaan amongst the twelve tribes (Jos 14' 17' 19" 21'). His burial-place is mentioned in Jos 24". From Elcazar and his wife, a daughter of Putiel (Ex e-"), were descended all succeeding high priests down to the Maccabnmn l>criod ; the only exceptions being the high priests who lived in the ])eriod between Kli and Solomon, when, for some unexplained reason, the office was held by members of the family of Ithamar. 2. A son of Abinadab, who was sanctified to take charge of the ark at Kiriathjoarini, after its return from the country of the Philistines (1 S 7'). 3. Son of Dodo, one of David's three principal mighty men (2 S 23", 1 Ch II'-"). The name shoul.i probably be inserted in 1 Ch 27. 4. A Levite, son of Mahli, and grandson of Merari(l Ch 23"- >" 24"). 5. A priest of the time of Ezra (Ezr 8'", Neh T-"-). (There may be here two distinct persons.) 6. Due of the family of Parosh, who had married a ' strange wimian,' i.e. one of non-Israelitish descent, in the timeof Ezra (E/r 10"). 7. The fourth son of Mattathias, and bmlher of Judas Maccaba-ue, sumamed Avaran (1 Mac 2°). He foU in the battle 678 ELECTION ELECTION fought at Bethzaeliaiias against Antiochus v. Eupator, B.C. 163(1 Mac 6 ■"). His name occurs also in 2 Mac S-^. 8. ' One of the principal scribes ' martyred during the persecution of Antiochus Ejiiphaues, B.C. 168 (2 Mac 6"-^'). 9. The father 01^ that Jason wlio was sent on an embassy to Rome by Judas Maocab.x'us in B.C. 161 (1 Mac 8"). 10. An E. is mentioned in the genealogy of our Lord given by St. Matthew (1"). "W C ALL£N ELECTION [4K\or^. The aubst. is rare, not found in LXX(yet Aq. Is 22', Symm. Th. Is 37^, cf. Ps.-Sol 9' 18«). In NT, Ac 9'», Ro 9" IP'- 2", 1 Th 1, 2 P 1>». Cf. ^KX^70Mai (in LXX generally for in3) = to 'choose,' implying (see Cremer's Lex.) (1) a special relation between the chooser and the object of his choice, and (2) the selection of one object out of many : ^xXesTds (in LXX for iina or Tnj, also fairly often for var. forms of -ri^, besides being used occasionally, sometimes by a misreading of the Heb. text, for 17 other Heb. roots=' chosen ' or ' choice ' (adj.)]. The word is common in Dt and II Is. It is not in Hos, Am (but idea in 3'), or Is (yet cf. LXX Is 28", which is the source of 1 P 2»). It is used chiefly to describe God's choice of Israel ont of all the nations of the world to be His own people, Dt 4^7' etc. , and of Jems, to be the covenant home of worship, Dt 12 etc. It is used also of God's choice of individuals to the chief oflices in the nation, e.g. His choice of Aaron and his family for the service of the sanctuary. His choice of the king, and especially of David. It is once used of Abraliam ; and in Is 40-66 it passes naturally from its use in connexion with Israel to the ' Servant of the Lord.' It is rare in the Apocrypha ; yet cf. Wis 3', Sir 46' etc. It is constant in Enoch. Cf. Ps-Sol 9' W. In NT it is used once of God's choice of OT Israel (Ac 13"), but for the most part it passes over with other theocratic titles to the ' Israel of God,' and describes either the Church as a whole, or individual members of it, sometimes merely in virtue of their membership, sometimes as chosen to some special office or work, e.g. the Twelve, St. Peter, St. Paul. It is twee used as part of the title of our Lord (Lk 9» [var. led.] 2S^, Jn 1^). The word appears constantly in the Apostolic Kathers, especially in 1 Clement and Hermas. The thought of ' election ' has formed so promi- nent a feature in all the most important attempts that have been made in We.stem Christendom for the last 1500 years to provide a complete and formulated scheme of Christian doctrine, that it is peculiarly hard for us to approach the considera- tion of the original meaning of the term in Holy Scripture without distracting associations. And yet the effort is worth making. The only hope of any further progress in the elucidation of the prob- lem, the only prospect of extricating its discussion from the deadlock at which it has arrived, lies in a careful reconsideration of the scriptural premisses on which the whole argument has been based. The questions that require examination fall naturally into three divisions, i. The questions touching the author of election— who chooses the fleet? What can we know of His character? What are the grounds of His choice so far as He ha.-( vouchsafed to reveal them ? iL The questions touching the jiersons of the elect — who are they ? and for wliat end are they chosen ? iii. The ques- tion behmging to the effect of election— wliat influence does the fact that they have been chosen by God exert over the elect ? i. On the first i)art of this question there is no diflference of opinion. Every theory of election is based on the fact, constantly emphasized in Holy Scrijiture, that election is the immediate work of God. It is His act as dire'-tjy as creation is. In fact, God's purpo.se in creation. His eternal purpose (r; TrpoOeaa Turn aiuivuv, Eph 3"), is revealed in Holy Scripture as working to its end by the method of election. It is in St. Paul's language KaT iKKoxV TpdSeffis, Ro 9". The two thoughts are in reality inseparable. We can understand, there- fore, how it is that St. Paul should say that God chose His elect before the foundation of the world in His Son (Eph I). He is only expressing the truth that underlies our Lord's words when He says, ' To sit on my right hand and on my left hand is not mine to give, but it is for them for whom it hath been prepared of my Father' (Mt 20^). Our first conclusion then, the one lixed point in the whole discussion, is this : God is the author of election. He Himself chooses His own elect. When we go on to ask on what grounds His election is based, by what considerations, in accord- ance with what law His choice is determined, we find ourselves at once on debatable ground. To some minds, indeed, the question put in this form seems foolish, not to say irreverent. It involves in their judgment a pitiable blindness in regard to the inexorable limits of human knowledge. In the spirit, sometimes in the very words of Zophar the Naamatliite (Job 11'), they ask, 'Canst thou by searching find out God ? canst thou find out the Almighty to perfection ? ' ' The main facts of the divine government may, indeed, be known, but the reasons which underlie them, the motives which prompt them, are unfathomable ; only an uncnastened curiosity can seek to intrude into such secrets.' To some minds, again, the question involves an assumption inconsistent with one of their primary philosophical or theological postulates. It seems to them inconsistent with the reality of the divine freedom, which in this connexion is only another name for the divine omnipotence, to suppose that God should acknow- ledge any law as regulating His choice. If either of these objections is well grounded, further discussion of the question is, of course, precluded. We must therefore begin by defining the position we are prepared to take up with regard to them. Let us consider the second objec- tion first. No doubt, if in its ultimate analysis our conception of God resolves itself into a con- ception of abstract omnipotence, or of an absolutely sovereign will, and if omnipotence means the power to do antjthinq, and if no will can be ab- solutely sovereign which is not as free to do wrong as to do right, it is meaningless if not profane to inqtiire into the laws wliich regulate the clioice of God. An abstract omnipotence must be inscrut- able. M'e cannot even begin to understand the action of a will in this sense 'absolute.' Rut if goodness, and not power, lies at the heart of our conception of God, then we shall not be ashamed to confess that for us, in Westcott's magnificept phrase, 'Truth and jitstice define omnipotence.' And we shall not shrink from pressing to the full the human analogy which is present, though latent, every time we use the word ' will ' in relation to God. We shall contend tliat the action of the divine will, like the action of the human will, of which it is the archetype, must be at once deter- mined by, and reveal, the character which lies behind it. We shall maintain the paradox, if paradox it be, that the will of God is free, only because, by the blessed necessity of His being, He cannot will anything but that which is perfectly holy and righteous and good. And we shall claim every revelation that He has given us of His character as a revelation of the principles which regulate His choice, the laws of His election. And if we are met at this point l)y the warning, that as men our powers of apprehending ind expressing truth are limited, and that there most ELECTION ELECTION 679 be infinite depths of mystery in the divine nature which we are powerlesa to fathom, we sliall hope to learn humility and patience from tlie caution. But we sliall not desist from pushing our inc|uiries to the utmost limit of the power that is given to ns. We believe that, in spite of all our limitations, we yet were created to know God. And it is a matter of life and death for us that we should be able to bring this revealed method of His working into harmony with the rest of the revelation that He has given us of His character. Nor can we doubt that He will justify us as He justified Job for refusing to be satisfied with any exi)lanation of the facts of the divine government w liich can- not be reconciled with the sense of justice which He hats Himself implanted in us. He has revealed election to us as the method of His working. There can be no presumption in asking whetlier in making this revelation He has given us any help to enable us to understand His purpose and enter into His plan. When in this spirit we approach the examina- tion of the scriptural evidence, the result may well, at first sight, seem disappointing. Great pains are taken to negative what we are naturally inclined to regard as tlie simplest and most obvious solution. The ground of a man's choice lies not 60 much in himself as in the object that he chooses. It is, of course, true that his own character deter- mines what qualities in an object will, and what Dualities will not, prove attractive to him. But, or all that, it is the real or supposed loveliness of the object that rules his choice. It would be natural, therefore, to assume tliat the choice of God is in like manner determined by the loveliness of its object. But it is just at this jioint that the analogy of the human will is necessarily imperfect. It is not, indeed, that we are required to believe that God can love that which is, in itself, neither lovely nor capable of developing loveliness ; but that since the root of all loveliness is in God, and since there can be no goodness apart from Him, we cannot argue as if it were possible for man to Sossess or develop any goodness or loveliness in- ependent of, and so constituting a claim on, the choice of God. We ought not, therefore, to be surprised when we find Israel expressly warned in Holy Scripture to reject the flattering assumption that they had been chosen on tlie ground of their own inherent attractiveness. They were not as a nation either more numerous or more amenable to the divine discipline than other nations (Dt 7' 9'). We can understand why St. Paul declares that the election of Christians does not depend on the will or the energy of men (Uo D"). It is not of works but of grace (Ro 11', cf. .In 1"). It must therefore bo a mistake to try to dis- cover the ultimate ground of God's choice in any consideration drawn from outside Himself, even though it be in His foreknowledge of the faith and obedience of His chosen ; for the goodness in which He takes delight is, after all, from first to last His own creation. The testimony of Scripture is not, however, really limited to this negative result. The choice which is not determined from without is all the more certainly determined from within. And the ground of the choice whicli we are forbidden to look for in ourselves or in human nature is expressly declared to lie in tlie lovo (Dt 7») and the faithfulne.is (Dt 9», Ito 11') and the mercy of our God (Ko 9"). ii. We pass on now to consider the second group of questions connected with our subject. Who are the elect? and for what end are they chosen? In OT the term 'elect' is most often applied to the nation of Israel, regarded as a whole. They are at all periods of their history taught to regard them- selves as the 'chosen people.' At the same time special divisions of the nation, e.g. the tribe of Levi and the house of Aaron, are chosen to perform certain functions on behalf of the whole body ; and certain prominent individuals, e.g. Abraham and David, are regarded as the objects of a special election. In Is 40-66 the term is applied to the nation generally and to the ' servant or J"' in all the different connotations of that many-sided title, — so little is the prophet con- scious of any fundamental contradiction between the thought of a national and an individual election. In NT the universal Church takes the Elaco of Israel as the 'chosen race,' and not only er head and her most prominent ministers, but also all her individual members, sometimes by name, sometimes by an inclusive form of address, which it is impossible to narrow down, are described as 'elect,' just as they are described in similar connexions as 'called' and 'holy' and 'faithful' and 'beloved." It does not seem possible to deter- mine on NT evidence whether the individuals are regarded as owing their membership in the Church to their election, or as becoming elect by virtue of their membership. Three points are clear — (1) that they were chosen before the foundation of the world ; (2) that they were chosen ' in Clirist ' ; (3) that membership in the Church is treated as an objective assurance to each individual of his personal interest in this eternal election. Such in outline are the diflcient classes described as ' elect ' in Holy Scripture. We must consider next what can be learnt with regard to the liurjiose for which they were chosen. We must not, of course, assume that the purpose is the same, or even in all points analogous in the dillbrent cases. Still it is not unnatural to suppose that we shall gain some help towards understanding the apjilication of the method in any one case by a careful study of its application to the rest. The selection of the family of Aaron and the tribe of Levi need not detain us loni;. It is a simple case of the choice of certain indiviclu.als to fill an ollice of trust, a position at once of privilege and responsibility on behalf of their fellow-counliymcn. The choice of Israel presents a more com- plicated problem. The choice in the first instance involved a call to occupy a special position in rela- tion to J" — to be, and to be acknowledged before the world as. His peculiar people. ' Ye are my witnesses,' saith the Lord, ' my servant w hom 1 have cliosen ; that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he' (Is 43""). And this position of privilege involved a special responsi- bility towards God and towards the rest of man- kind. On the one side, they were the trustees of God's glory in the world, ' his witnesses,' ' the peoj)le which he formed for himself, to show forth his i>iaise.' On the other, they were the heirs of the promise made at the call of the Father of the elect, that ' in him and in his seed should all the families of the earth be blessed ' (cf. Gn 18"). And this work for others is the characteristic function of the ideal 'servant of the Lord,' who embodies in himself all that is most characteristic of the chosen Israel. In NT comparatively little is told us of the purpose of election. ' 'fhe poor in this world,' St. .lames writes, 'God chose (to be) rich in faith and heirs of the kingdom which he promised to them tliat love him.' 'God chose you,' writes St. Paul to the Thessalonians, 'from the beginning {or "a.s a firstfruit," diropx')'' for air' apxvs) unto .salvation.' ' Hechose us,' he writes again (Eph 1') 'in him {i.e. in Christ) that we should be holy and without • There \a, indeed, one poflsoKe in the Gospels, which will call for notice later on, in which a distinction ia drawn between the many 'called' and the (cw 'chosen.' Hut the existence of thit one imssuKc does not invalidate the statement in the t.'xt, whicli merely asserts that there arc other passages Ui which this narrow sil^QiQcation for ' elect ' is excluded. 680 ELECTION ELECTION blemish before him in love.' The Christian, there- fore, stands as the Israelite stood before him in a special relation of intimacy with God, receiving from Him the spiritual gifts and graces, together witli the responsibility for appropriating them (Col 3''), which such an intimacy presupposes, and the assurance of eternal salvation, of which that intimacy is at once the foretaste and the pledge. Tlie indications of a wider purpose in the election of the Christian are not, indeed, as definite as in the ease of OT Israel. It would, however, be a mistake to regard them as altogether wanting. Our Lord (Jn 15) Himself told His apostles that He had chosen them that they might bear much fruit. The chosen race exists, as St. Peter reminds us (1 P 2'), appropriating the words of Is 43, 'to sliOw forth the excellencies of him who called them out of darkness into his glorious light.' And St. Paul, in the same sentence (Eph 1"") in which he speaks of our election in Christ 'to the praise of the glory of his grace,' reveals as the final goal of the eternal [>urpose, ' the summing up of all tilings in Clirist, tlie things in heaven and the things upon the earth ' ; a goal towards tlie attainment of which our election cannot be regarded as more than a preparatory stage. We conclude, therefore, that according to the predominant use of the term in Holy Scripture, election is an attribute of the visible Church, and finds its true goal, not simply in the salvation of certain elect individuals, but m the evangelization of the race. There is indeed good scriptural analogy for a concurrent use of the term in a narrower sense, to describe as it were an election within the elect. For St. Paul uses it (Eo 11') to describe the inner circle in Israel who accepted the gospel when it came to them — 'the remnant' to which alone an immediate salvation had been promised by Isaiah (Ro 9', Is 10^). And our Lord again and again warns us in His parables that the members of His Church will be subjected to a searching judgment — as the result of which the unworthy will be cast into the outer darkness. It is in this connexion that He uses the warning words about the many called and the few chosen to which allusion has already been made. But there seems no authority for restricting the use of the term, as some theological systems do to this narrower sense — refusing to recognize as elect in any real sense, either those Israelites who in St. Haul's day were disobedient to the gospel, or those members of the visible Church who fail to stand in the judgment. Still less justification is there for assuming that the object of the election of tliis restricted circle has no end beyond the personal salvation of the individuals who compose it. iii. We pass on now to the last stage in our inquiry, the consideration of the efiect of election. We aak what influence does the fact that they have been chosen by God exert over the elect? May we assume that the divine purpose working through election must of necessity attain its goal ? Can we, granting this assumption, find a place in our system for any self-determining power in the human will ? "The theological systems, which adopt the re- stricted sense of the term election, and limit the scope of its operation to its effect on this limited circle, find no difficulty in supplying a logically coherent set of answers to these questions. It is ineonsistimt with any real faith in tlie divine Omni- potence to suppose that any deliberate purpose of God can finally fail of its accomplislnncnt. The elect, therefore, bcins; chosen for salvation, cannot fail to attain salvation. No power from without or from within can prevent this result. The fact that they have been chosen for tliis end carries ivith it the divin/> determination to provide all the means required to ensure its attainment. The elect, therefore, receive first a gift of ' irresistibl grace ' to raise them out of their naturally depraved state, and then a gift of ' final perseverance,' M the result of which they are assured, whatever their intervening lapses may have been, of being found at the moment of death in a state of grace. These systems do not seem to find room, at least in the all-important moment of conversion, for any true act of self-determination on the part of the human will. A doctrine of reprobation forms an inevitable, however unwelcome, complement to the doctrine of election so defined. It is impossible not to regard with the deepest respect systems which embody the conclusions of the most strenuous thinkers on this subject, from St. Augustine to Calvin and Jonathan Edwards. At the same time it is a remarkable fact that these conclusions have never been able to secure general acceptance. Unassailable as they may be in logic, it is felt that somehow they fail to fit the facts of life. There are elements in human experience and elements in the divine revelation for which they fail to account. And the general result is one from which the Christian consciousness seems instinct- ively to shrink in horror. It can only be accepted, if it is accepted at all, as a dark enigma, which our present faculties have no power to solve. What, then, we seem forced to ask, are the foundations on which these conclusions rest? Can it be that the results of the argument are vitiated by any unsuspected flaw in the premisses ? The premisses are these — (1) God is omnipotent. (2) Because God is omnipotent, the final goal of creation must correspond at all points to His original purpose. (3) The final goal of creation, as far as it affects the human race, involves the division of mankind at the day of judgment into two sharply defined classes, the saved and the lost. (4) The position of any individual man in one or other of these two classes must be traced back in the last resort to the original purpose of God with regard to him. It seems impossible to take exception to either of the first two of these premisses. It is part of the idea of God, that He must be able to eflect what He purposes. To speak in human language, there may be enormous difiiculties to overcome in the tasks to which He sets Himself. We have therefore no right to assume that at any moment before the end all things are as He would have them to be. But the end must be a perfect embodi- ment of His original design. Again, if the third of these premisses is sound, the fourth seems to follow from it by an inevitable deduction. Everything, therefore, depends on the validity of the third premiss. Is it, or is it not, a true and complete statement of the end towards which ' the whole creation moves ' ? Now, there can be no doubt that it expresses accurately one side of the scriptural teaching on the subject. It is, however, very far from expressing the whole. On this point, as is well known, the evidence of Holy Scripture seems divided against itself. It speaks of eternal punishment (Mt 25^). It speaks also of the divine will that all men should be saved ( 1 Ti 2''). It speaks of those who shall be cast into the outer darkness on their Lord's return (Mt 24" etc.). It speaks also of an end, when God shall be all in all (ICo 15^). It seems clear that to our apprehension these two sets of statements must be mutually exclusive, unless we may regard the judgment as being not the end, but only a means towards the end. If we reject tins solution of the difficulty, we must remain content with an unreconciled antinomy But, in any case, it is important to remember whick • Westcott, Biitarie Faith, p. 50 S. ELECTION EL-ELOHEISRAEL 681 dde of the antinomy was dominant in St. Paul's mind in the chapters (Ro9-ll) which contain his most explicit teaching on the subject of election. These chapters are devoted to a consideration of the problems raised by the failure of Israel to accept the offer of salvation made to them in the gospel. The first line of solution is suggested by the thought, to which attention has already been called, of an election within the chosen people (Ro 9 11'). Such an election has parallels in the history of the patriarchal family ('J'""). It is in acc-orJance with express utterances of prophecy (9"). It is therefore no evidence of a final defeat of the divine plan that Israel, as a whole, should for a time be shut out from salvation, and only the election should attain it. St. Paul, however, ex- pressly and indignantly refuses to accept this as a complete solution (U"). It is very far from the perfect triumph, the vision of wliich has been opened before him. He finds in the salvation of the part a sure pledge of the ultimate deliverance of the whole. ' If the iirst-fruit be holy, tlie lump is holy too' (11"). However much the nation as a whole had incurred the divine wTath by their opposition to the gospel, they were yet dear to God for their fathers' sake (ll''"). The power of their original election was by no means exhausted. The gifts and the calling of God are without repentance (11^). In the end all Israel shall be saved (11"). And lest we should think that in this respect Israel stands on adill'erent footing from the rest of the world, he adds — ' God hath shut up all men unto disobedience, that he may have mercy upon all ' (1 1^-). In the face of these utterances no scheme of election which assumes the doctrine of everlasting puuislnnent as one of its fundamental postulates, can claim to rest on the authority of St. Paul. Leaving, then, on one side the attempt to con- sider the effect of election in its relation to the elect in the narrower sense of the term, what are we to say of its influence in the ca.se of the wider circlet St. Paul's argument in relation to Israel (ir^"'') is sufficient to show that in his view, even in the wider sense, the fact of God's election carries with it an unalterable declaration of the divine purpose for good towards those to whom His call came. He believed also that the will of each man was in its natural state so utterly enslaved to evil that nothing but the divine power could set it free (Uo 7"'^). At the same time, the action of the divine will on the human was not to over- whelm it, but to restore its power of action. He exhorts men to work out their own salvation, just because it is God who is working in them both to will and to do of His good pleasure (Ph 2"). The love of Christ is indeed a constraining motive (2 Co 5"). Without faith in that love as its abiding source and spring the Christian life is imjios.Mible (Gal 2", cf. 1 Jn 4"). And surrender to that love is the last act for which a man could dream of claiming any credit to himself. It is the gift of God (Eph 2'). Yet the refusal to surrender IB not due to defect of grace. It is possible to receive the grace of God in vain (2 Co 6')- Again, the presence of the divine grace does not supersede the necessity for con.stant watch- fulness (cf. Mk 13" etc.). Even the 'chosen ves-sel' (Ac 9'") contemplates the possibility of becoming himself a castaway (1 Co O-"). Branches have been cut out of the good olive tree before now — and what has been done once may be done again (Ro ll'"). While, however, his language does not leave us room to believe that he regarded himself, at Icastat this (lart of his career, as possessing any • Cf- Council of Orange, a.d. 620, Canon xxv^ Donum Dei ut di/i/jere Ucitin. Jpteut diiigentvr tUdit qu\ non dilectus itUigit. inalienable gift of 'final perseverance,' or ai absolved from the necessity for strenuous effort on his own part ' to make his own calling and election sure' (2 P V), it is clear that he had an unfaltering faith in the perseverance of God. He knows whom he has trusted (2Ti 1'-), and is con- vinced that He is able to keep what has been entrusted to Him. He can trust God to bring to perfection any good work in a man w hen He has once set His hand to it (Ph 1'). Even the human potter, whom the prophet watched at his work (Jer 18^), when the vessel that he made of clay was marred in his hand, made it again another vessel, as seemed good to the potter to make it. If anything like this is the truth about the doctrine of election, we need no longer shrink from the contemplation of it as if it were ' a portion of eternity too gicat for the eye of man.' The favoured few are not chosen, while the rest of their race are left to their doom in hopeless misery. The existence of the Church, however much it may, nay must, witness to a coming judgment, has in it a promise of hope, not a message of despair for the world. As Israel of old w.as chosen to keep alive in the hearts of men the hope of a coming Saviour of the world, so the Church is chosen to bear abroad into all the world the gospel of a universal redemption, forbidden to leave out one single soul from the vast circle of her intercessions and her giving of thanks, because she is called to live in the light of a revelation which bi<ls her believe and act in the belief that God will have all men to be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth (1 Ti 2'-). We can enter with full hearts into the spirit of the marvellous doxology with which .St. Paul concludes his study of the subject, and cry with him in exultant adora- tion, ' Oh, the depth of the riches, both of the wisdom and knowledge of God 1 how unsearchable are his judgments and his ways past finding out. . . . For of him and through liim and to him are all things ; to whom be glory for ever.' LlTBRATitRB.— The history of the various controversies con- nected with Election is given in outline in various treatises on the history of Christian Doctrine aa a whole, e.g. Hagcnbach, Shcdd, and O. P. Fisher. The Pelagian controversy is treated at lcnj,'th, in Latin, by O. T. Vossius, ItilS ; and, in German, by Wiggers, 1821, 1S33 ; Part I. tr. by U. Emerson, Andover, V.S., 1840. The Anli-Pelaf/ian Treatitieg of St. Anfjuxline have been edited tor the Oxford University Press by W. Uright, D.D. (18S0), and for 1). Nutt by Woods and Johnston (liS88) : cf. J. B. Mozley on The Awjuatinian Doctrine oj rredeatination (3rd ed. 1(>S3) ; Cassian's Vunj'crciicee, tr. by E. O. Gibson in Library of Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, 1894. A full collection of document connected with the Gottschalk controversy in 0th cent, in Mau^in. Paris, 1050, 2 vols. 4to ; cf. Archbp. Ussher, Works, vol. lii. The Scholastic Theories are discussed in chs. ix. and x. of J. B. Mozlev. Special treatises by St. Anselm, De cone. Prirse. et J'rtva. etc. (1100). and Thomas of Bradwardine, De caxuta Dei c. I'elarj. etc. 1325. For Refonnation and Post- Heformation controversies see esp. the various collections of Confessions and Iioctrinal Standards, esp. Winer, Conjetariona of Christeiiiirtm ; Niemeyer, Ci/,7. coi\fF. ecci. rejonn. in Latin ; cf. Melanchthon's Loci Cornmuneg, 1621 ; Luther, De eervo arbiirio, with Erasums reply, 1525 ; Calvin, Christiaiux [Utiijioni$ Ijietitutio, 1536 ; Arminius, Dijtputat tones, xxiv. , 1U09. For the Jansenist controversy see Molina, Cone. tib. arb. etc. 1588, and Jansenius, * Angustinus,' 104O. The most important treatise of Ibth cent, is J. Edwards on Free Will, lo luih cent, note esp. Whately, Euays on some digicuUies in the vritintje qf St. I'aul, 1828 : O. S. Faber, The Primitive Doctrine of Klnfion, 1835 ; T. Erak'ne, The Doctrine o/ litectinn. 1837 ; T. Chnluiers, Five hert. on Predestination, 1837; W. Channiiig, The Moral Aryuiiiriit aiiainst t'ati-inijrm ; Mtiller, The t'hruitian Doctrine o/ .S'l/i, 183U ; M'Cosh, The Method of the Divine Government, 1850 ; Ooplnger, A Treatise on Predestination, Election, and Grace, 1880, including a full biblioijrophy, pp. ccxvi. The relevant sections in Mtirtcnsen's C7irut(wtH J}oijniutics and Cunningham's llislurical Thculo<j}i repap/ careful study ; cf. also .Saiiday- lleadlam on Uotnatu \x.-%i. J. (J, 1<\ AluitUAY. ELECT LADY. -See John (Epistles).