To understand the nature of this “election,” as applied sometimes to particular bodies of Christians, as when St. Peter says, “The church which is at Babylon, _elected together_ with you,” and sometimes to the whole body of believers every where; and also the reason of the frequent use of the term _election_, and of the occurrence of allusions to the fact; it is to be remembered, that a great religious revolution, so to speak, had occurred in the age of the Apostles; with the full import of which we cannot, without calling in the aid of a little reflection, be adequately impressed. This change was no other than the abrogation of the _church state_ of the Jews, which had continued for so many ages. They had been the only visibly acknowledged people of God in all the nations of the earth; for whatever pious people might have existed in other nations, they were not, in the sight of men, and collectively, acknowledged as “the people of Jehovah.” They had no written revelations, no appointed ministry, no forms of authorized initiation into his church and covenant, no appointed holy days, or sanctioned ritual. All these were peculiar to the Jews, who were, therefore, an elected and peculiar people. This distinguished honour they were about to lose. They might have retained it as Christians, had they been willing to admit the believing Gentiles of all nations to share it with them; but the great reason of their peculiarity and election, _as a nation_, was terminated by the coming of the Messiah, who was to be “a light to lighten the Gentiles,” as well as “the glory of his people Israel.” Their pride and consequent unbelief resented this, which will explain their enmity to the believing part of the Gentiles, who, when that which St. Paul calls “the fellowship of the mystery” was fully explained, chiefly by the glorious ministry of that Apostle himself, were called into that church relation and visible acknowledgment as the people of God, which the Jews had formerly enjoyed, and that with even a higher degree of glory, in proportion to the superior spirituality of the new dispensation. It was this doctrine which excited that strong irritation in the minds of the unbelieving Jews, and in some partially Christianized ones, to which so many references are made in the New Testament. They were “provoked,” were made “jealous;” and were often roused to the madness of persecuting opposition by it. There was then a _new election_ of a _new people_ of God, to be composed of Jews, not by virtue of their _natural descent_, but through their faith in Christ, and of Gentiles of all nations, also believing, and put as believers, on an equal ground with the believing Jews: and there was also a _rejection_, a reprobation, but not an absolute one; for _the election_ was offered to the Jews first, in every place, by offering them the Gospel. Some embraced it, and submitted to be the elect people of God, on the new ground of faith, instead of the old one of natural descent; and therefore the Apostle, Rom. xi, 7, calls the believing part of the Jews, “the _election_,” in opposition to those who opposed this “election of grace,” and still clung to their former and now repealed election as Jews and the descendants of Abraham: “But the election hath obtained it, and the rest were blinded.” The offer had been made to the whole nation; all might have joined the one body of believing Jews and believing Gentiles; but the major part of them refused: they would not “come into the supper;” they made “light of it;” light of an election founded on faith, and which placed the relation of “the people of God” upon spiritual attainments, and offered to them only spiritual blessings. They were, therefore, deprived of election and church relationship of every kind: their temple was burned; their political state abolished; their genealogies confounded; their worship annihilated and all visible acknowledgment of them; by God as a church withdrawn, and transferred to a church henceforward to be composed chiefly of Gentiles: and thus, says St. Paul, “were fulfilled the words of Moses, I will provoke you to jealousy by them that are _no people_, and by a foolish,” ignorant and idolatrous, “people I will anger you.” It is easy, therefore, to see what is the import of the “calling” and “election” of the Christian church, as spoken of in the New Testament. It was not the calling and the electing of one nation in particular to succeed the Jews; but it was the calling and the electing of believers in all nations, wherever the Gospel should be preached, to be in reality what the Jews typically, and therefore in an inferior degree, had been,--the visible church of God, “his people,” under Christ “the Head;” with an authenticated revelation; with an appointed ministry, never to be lost; with authorized worship; with holy days and festivals; with instituted forms of initiation; and with special protection and favour.

The _third_ kind of election is personal election; or the election of individuals to be the children of God, and the heirs of eternal life. This is not a choosing to particular offices and service, which is the first kind of election we have mentioned; nor is it that collective election to religious privileges and a visible church state, of which we have spoken. For although “the elect” have an individual interest in such an election as parts of the collective body, thus placed in possession of the ordinances of Christianity; yet many others have the same advantages, who still remain under the guilt and condemnation of sin and practical unbelief. The individuals properly called “the elect,” are they who have been made partakers of the grace and saving efficacy of the Gospel. “Many,” says our Lord, “are _called_, but few _chosen_.” What true personal election is, we shall find explained in two clear passages of Scripture. It is explained by our Lord, where he says to his disciples, “I have chosen you out of the world:” and by St. Peter, when he addresses his First Epistle to the “elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus.” To be elected, therefore, is to be separated from “the world,” and to be sanctified by the Spirit, and by the blood of Christ. It follows, then, not only that election is an act of God done in _time_, but also that it is subsequent to the administration of the means of salvation. The “calling” goes before the “election;” the publication of the doctrine of “the Spirit,” and the atonement, called by Peter “the sprinkling of the blood of Christ,” before that “sanctification” through which they become “the elect” of God. In a word, “the elect” are the body of true believers; and personal election into the family of God is through personal faith. All who truly believe are elected; and all to whom the Gospel is sent have, through the grace that accompanies it, the power to believe placed within their reach; and all such might, therefore, attain to the grace of personal election.

The inquiry into a disputed parliamentary election was formerly conducted before a committee of the House of Commons, chosen as nearly as possible from both sides of the House for that particular business. The decisions of these tribunals laboured under the suspicion of being prompted by party feeling, and by the above-named Act of 1868 the jurisdiction was finally transferred to Her Majesty’s judges, notwithstanding the general unwillingness of the bench to accept a class of business which they feared might bring their integrity into dispute. In future no election shall be questioned except in accordance with the provisions of this Act. Section 11 of the Act orders, inter alia, that the trial of every election petition shall be conducted before a puisne judge of one of the common law courts at Westminster and Dublin; that the said courts shall each select a judge to be placed on the rota for the trial of election petitions; that the said judges shall try petitions standing for trial according to seniority or otherwise, as they may agree; that the trial shall take place in the county or borough to which the petition refers, unless the court should think it desirable to hold it elsewhere. The judge shall determine “whether the member whose return is complained of, or any and what other person, was duly returned and elected, or whether the election was void,” and shall certify his determination to the Speaker. When corrupt practices have been charged the judge shall also report (1) whether any such practice has been committed by or with the knowledge or consent of any candidate, and the nature thereof; (2) the names of persons proved to have been guilty of any corrupt practice; and (3) whether corrupt practices have extensively prevailed at the election.

Questions of law may be referred to the decision of the Court of Common Pleas. The report of the judge is equivalent to the report of an election committee under the old system. Petitions may be presented by the following persons :—(1) some person who has voted or had the right to vote at the election; (2) some person claiming to have a right to be returned or elected; (3) some person alleging himself to have been a candidate. The trial of a petition shall be proceeded with notwithstanding the acceptance by the respondent of an office of profit under the Crown, and notwithstanding the prorogation of Parliament; though it would appear that the dissolution of Parliament abates a petition. The judge appointed to try a petition shall be received with the same state as a judge of assize in an assize town. The costs and expenses of the petition shall be paid by the parties in such manner and such proportions as the court or judge may determine, regard being had to the discouragement of needless expense by throwing the burden thereof on the parties by whom it has been caused, whether they are on the whole successful or not. W τ hen a returning officer has wilfully neglected to return a person found on petition to have been entitled to be returned, such person may sue the officer (within one year of the act complained of, or six months of the trial of the petition), and shall recover double the damage he has actually sustained, together with full costs of suit.

To meet the additional work imposed on the English courts of common law by this Act, power was given to appoint an additional judge to each of them. Section 58 applies the provisions of the Act, with certain modifications, to Scotland.

This, like the Ballot Act, is a continuing Act.

Petitions against municipal elections are dealt with in 35 and 36 Vict. c. 60. The election judges under the last described Act appoint a number of barristers, not exceeding five, to try such petitions. No barrister can be appointed who is of less than fifteen years standing, or a member of Parliament, or holder of any office of profit (other than that of recorder) under the Crown; nor can any barrister try a petition in any borough in which he is recorder or in which he resides, or which is included in his circuit. The barrister sits without a jury. The provisions are generally similar to those relating to parliamentary elections in the former Act. The petition may allege that the election was avoided as to the borough or ward on the ground of general bribery, <kc., or that the election of the person petitioned against was avoided by corrupt practices, or by personal disqualification, or that he had not the majority of lawful votes. And no election shall be questioned by any other process whatsoever for a matter for which it might have been questioned under this Act.