argues that righteousness, or acceptance with God must be by faith, and not by circumcision; Therefore, says he, it is of faith-to the end the promise might be sure to all the seed; not to that only which is of the law, but that also which is of the faith of Abraham, who is the father of us all.

In this ninth chapter he takes up the same subject again, as is manifest from the very earnest protestations he makes of his regard for the Jews; assuring them that they had a zeal for God, but not according to knowledge; that he had continual sorrow and heaviness of heart on their account, who had been so distinguished by the special favours of God, to whom (in his own words) pertained the adoption, and the glory, and the covenant, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises.-That those should fall away, and refuse to come into the church because it was set open to other nations also, was to him matter of great grief; especially as they were his countrymen. He then proceeds to show them how upon their own principles God might make choice of other nations to come into his church, as well as to have chosen them, for it was not all the seed of Abraham that were the children of promise; but in Isaac shall thy seed be reckoned. Nor again was it all the seed of Isaac which were entitled to the promise. For while the children were yet unborn, and having done neither good nor evil; that the purpose of God, according to election, might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth, it was said the elder shall serve the younger; as it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated. When we look into the transaction here spoken of, it will appear to have relation only to the one being chosen to be the special seed, to whom the promise was made, and the other rejected; that from Jacob was to descend the Messiah, in ruhom all nations of the earth were to be blessed; and not at all to their personal future salvation. The expression, the elder shall serve the younger, implies no such thing surely. God conferred on Jacob the honor, and denied it to Esau, of being the progenitor of Christ according to the flesh; but this does not imply that he gave him any advantage with respect to a future life. He showed him a favor or mercy, which he denied to Esau; and this he had a right to do-for he may give to one five talents, and to another but one. And as to the expression, Jacob have I loved, and Esau have I hated; it is spoken in regard to the same designation of one to, and rejection of the other from the special dispensation of being the promised seed; and is to be explained by that circumstance, meaning no more than that he intended more favours for one than for the other. It can no more be understood literally than our Lord's words, where he says, think not that I came to send peace on earth; I tell you nay, but a sword. He hated Esau comparatively, not showing so many favors, so many marks of his bounty towards him as he did towards Jacob.

But he proceeds; what shall we say then, is there unrighteousness with God? God forbid; for he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have con passion. By turning to the place where God says this to Moses, we find that he says it altogether in regard to his special dispensation in calling the Jews to be his peculiar people or visible church on earth; and has no relation to the future condition of any one. Again he

says to Pharoah; for this same cause have I raised thee up to show iz thee my power, and that my name might be known in all the earth. When we look into the account given of Pharaoh in Exodus, we find indeed, that God sometimes says, I will harden his heart, that he shot! not hearken unto thy voice, and I will get me honor upon Pharaoh. He sometimes says, I have hardened his heart. At other times it is only a declaration that he has, or will harden his own heart. And I know that he will not let you go,no,not with a mighty hand, says God to Moses. Thus it seems nothing more is meant when it is said that God hardened Pharaoh's heart, than that it was hardened by himself in consequence of what God did, which ought to have produced the contrary effect; just as our Savior's coming, through the perverseness of men, sent war and the sword on earth, instead of peace.Pharaoh hardened his heart the more he was punished. He would not listen unto the voice of God by Moses, and so was hardened. And indeed the reason assigned by God, why he raised him up, does not seem to have any relation to his or any other person's future condition, but to the special case of the visible calling of the Jews; the point which the apostle has all the while in view. For this purpose have I raised thee up, to show in thee my power, and that my name may be known in all the world. That it might be known that God had certainly called Moses and the Jews; and had not called Pharaoh, and the Egyptians to be his church on earth. Pharaoh's heart was hardened against the evidence of this call, and he would not let the people go.

But we cannot infer from what is said in Exodus that he was shut out from any share in the covenant of circumcision; that it was hardened by any decree of God. We can clearly infer he was hardened against it, and would not come into it, while he still stood on the same foundation with other heathens. He was hardened as all other heathens then were, and now are against the light of revelation; God not having as yet seen fit to call them into the fold of his church: The order of his providence, and the course of his special dispensations not yet being ripe for extending the gospel to all the world. But however this may be, it is not said of Pharaoh that he was hardened, or that God hardened him to his eternal ruin. We cannot in justice extend the meaning of the words to such a sense, because this does not appear to be the subject of which the apostle is speaking, but only of an appointment, decree, or foreor dination to temporal advantages. And he brings these instances of Isaac in preference to Ishmael; Jacob in preference to Esau, and of the people of Israel, in preference to Pharaoh and the Egyptians, on. whom God bestowed special favors, and covenant privileges. From these examples he draws this conclusion; therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth. Now if in the examples God is not represented as acting by a sovereign decree, in regard to a future life, as we have shown he is not, then neither does the foregoing conclusion imply any such doctrine, for the conclusion can include no more than the examples from whence it is drawn. The words then can mean no more than this; that God Vouchsafes the favor of calling particular nations and countries in to his church, when in his wisdom he sees fit, and denies that privi

lege to others so long as he pleases. He shows this mercy in his own way and time, according to his absolute decree, and denies it to others. Thus did he by Isaac and Ishmael, Jacob and Esau; by the Jews and all other nations; and therefore thus may he, and is he now doing in calling in the Gentiles, to share in the visible covenant of his church; which is what the apostle is laboring to prove against the prejudices and errors of the Jews.

Further to prove that this is a true statement of the apostle's sense, let us proceed on with the chapter. But thou wilt say then, why doth he yet find fault, for who hath resisted his will-nay, but O man! whỏ art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, why hast thou made me thus? Hath not the potter power over the clay of the same lump, to make one vessel to honor, and another to dishonor? The answer given to the objection stated in the former part of this passage is very proper, supposing the objection to be made against the doctrine as we have stated it to be; but not very applicable on any other supposition. God, as creator and giver of every good gift, has a right to make one to honor and another to dishonor; that is, to give more to one and less to another, as the potter does with the clay. The instance of the potter refers us to the act of God in creating and bestowing his gifts on men, and not at all to his treatment of them after they are created. It is true that the words honor and dishonor are sometimes used in the bible to express the states of exaltation and condemnation in another world; but their most usual meaning is that of dignity, respectability and worth; and on the other hand, the want of these qualities. In these respects the potter exercises his power in making his vessels, and so does God without injustice. He has made angels without any wrong to men. And he has made men endowed with reason and speech without any wrong to other beings who inhabit this earth; and consequently among the same order of beings, he may, and has for the same reason, endowed some with more and some with fewer faculties and powers; some with more, and some with fewer means. To some is given the word of his revelation, and to others it is not. To the Jews pertained the covenant, and the giving of the law and the promise, while they were withheld, and still are withheld from many others. To this partial dealing in God the apostle raises the objection, which he answers by the similitude of the potter; an answer by which the objection is completely removed, because God who is wise and good, can and will deal with all his creatures, by an exact rule of right, never requiring brick without straw; but where he has given more he will require more, and where he has given less, he will require less; as is plainly represented in the parable of the talents.

Thus the answer given to the objection proves what is the doctrine taught by the apostle, that God is sovereign, and acts by the counsel of his own will in creating and bestowing his gifts; but from hence it will not follow that he doth so in his mode of treating his creatures after they are created.

Finally to make it more manifest that the whole of this chapter relates to God's temporal dispensations in regard to a visible church on earth, after what has been remarked upon, he proceeds to cite several passages from the prophets, which speak of God's calling

RR

the Gentiles into his church: As he saith in Osee, I will call them my people which were not my people; and her beloved which was not beloved. And it shall come to pass, that in the place where it was said unto them, ye are not my people, there shall they be called the children of the living God. This was an argument which ought to have had great weight with the Jews. The word of God itself had said that the Gentiles should be called in; how then could a Jew, who took that word of God for the guide of his faith, deny the truth of what he is laboring to prove, that God having distinguished the Jews by special dispensations, had the same right to distinguish other nations in the same way; and had done so by calling them into his church? If this be his object, the texts he cites are direct proofs of it. But if as some suppose, he is proving that God by an absolute decree elects some to eternal life, and turns others over to misery, these texts are little or nothing to his point. We cannot help seeing the force of them to prove that God intended to call other nations his people, that is his people in the same sense that the Jews were his people, for he says, I will call them my people which were not my people. Unless then we suppose that all Jews were elected to eternal life, which no one will pretend, this passage cannot be supposed to have reference to that subject; while it clearly proves what the apostle was really aiming to prove, that God might rightly, and had called other nations into his visible church, which they proudly disbelieved and denied. What shall we say then, says he; what is the conclusion and consequence of all that has been said? To which he answers; That the Gentiles which followed not after righteousness, have attained to righteousness, even the righteousness which is of faith; but Israel which followed after the law of righteousness, hath not attained to the law of righteousness. These words clearly prove that the sum of all that has just been said relates to the calling of the Gentiles into the church, and the rejection of the Jews as a nation. The Gentiles and Jews are set in opposition the one to the other; one is affirmed to have attained, and the other to have failed of the law of righteousness by faith. They are spoken of collectively in a national capacity, the one attaining and the other failing; which therefore could not be meant of eternal life, since not every Gentile was saved, nor every Jew damned: but Gentiles were adopted into the visible church, and the Jew cast out; and this is the sum of all that is attempted to be proved in this chapter.

Lastly the reason why it has so come to pass is assigned. For to the question why they attained not, it is answered, because they sought it not by faith, but as it were by the works of the law; for they stum bled at that stumbling stone. The Jews were rejected as a nation because they rejected the Messiah, and would remain under the dominion of the law of Moses. This was the law, by the works of which they sought to be, and claimed to be the people of God, and to be righteous before him; but so seeking they attained not, and the Gentiles came in their place.

Thus then, seeing the apostle uses such arguments, and draws such conclusions as we should do were we going to prove that God may and has distinguished particular nations and countries with special favors, which he has withheld from others, we ought in justice

to conclude that this was his object, and that he had no view to the eternal state of individuals in any thing he here says. The opposite doctrine, which supposes this chapter to relate to the eternal state of individuals, and considers it as fixed by an irreversable decree, seems to cast such an imputation upon the justice of God, and so much to impeach his goodness, that we should be induced to adopt the interpretation here given, provided it can be made to appear consistent with the meaning of the words. According to this interpretation God is represented as acting in a way perfectly consistent with all our notions of justice. Being under no obligations to create us at all, he may give us what faculties he pleases, and withhold what he pleases without doing wrong. But having created us and given us our powers and means, his own eternal rectitude must induce him to act on other principles than those of his power; for shall not the judge of all the earth do right. There is, throughout the word of God, a manifest distinction which he gives of himself, as creator and as judge. As creator he represents himself as all powerful, and as acting solely by the counsel of his own will. But whenever he speaks of himself as our ruler and judge, we find him acting on very different principles; then we find him speaking of justice, righteousness, faithfulness, and truth going before him, and being the girdle of his loins. He tells us of rewarding every one according to his works; of putting judgment to the line, and righteousness to the plummet; of bestowing eternal life on them who obey him; but indignation and wrath on all them who know him not, and obey him not; with a very great many like passages which the time would fail me to mention. All which put together, should make men doubt whether they understand St. Paul right in this chapter, when they suppose him teaching that God is arbitrary in the awards of another life. They would do well to look and see whether he is not speaking of the character of God as creator, instead of ruler and judge, as we have endeavored to show he is, and therefore that he may well enough be arbitrary.

On the whole then, when it is said, that God hath mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth, we cannot fairly conclude that this is spoken in regard to the awards of another life, and therefore that no such doctrine as election and reprobation depending on an absolute decree of God is here taught. And if it cannot be proved from this chapter, it will be more difficult to make it appear from any other in the bible. And if it does not appear to be taught in the bible, it certainly is not the creed of unassisted human reason: we shall not therefore need to discuss any arguments drawn from this source.

Let us then come to a conclusion by one or two general remarks relating to the point. All men act and speak as though they really believed they could promote their own salvation; as though God had put it in their power to do something; as though they were in some measure the disposers of their own future state: they praise and blame, they exhort and persuade others to work out their own salvation in this day of grace. From hence let us remember that at the bottom we agree in our feelings, whatever difference there may seem to be in our words. And, if all men thus act as though they