ed the knee to Baal, so now, while the general mass of the stock of Abraham are blinded, have stumbled at the stumbling stone laid in Sion, and are broken off through unbelief, there is a remnant still preserved, who have escaped the general calamity, and have by grace obtained what the others sought for but found not; of this remnant, the Apostle reckons himself as one.

The hearer is now called on to direct his attention to understand, that this election was not made with the least reference to the works of the chosen. This the Aapostle is careful to notice in a most plain and positive manner. See his observation in the 6th verse. "And if by grace, then it is no more of works; otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then is it no more grace; other wise work is no more work." This argument supposes that if this election had been according to works grace would have been entirely excluded; but as it was by grace, works were excluded. In the 9th chapter the author in describing the sovereignty of God in the election of Jacob in preference to Esau, says; "For the children being not yet born; neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God, according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth." And, in further arguing on this subject he adds; "Forhe saith to Moses, I will have mercy, on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion. So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy. For the scriptures saith unto Pharoah, even for this same purpose have I raised thee up, that I might shew my power in thee, and that my name might be. declared throughout all the earth. Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth." To confirm this divine sovereignty still further the inspired Apostle

adds the following significant query; "Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honor, and another unto dishonor? What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much long suffering the vessels of wrath fitted to distruction; and that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory, even us, whom he hath called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles ?".

Not only does the Apostle labour to show that the remnant of the house of Israel, which he calls the election, were elected according to the strict sovereignty of God, and called by the riches of Sovereign grace, and made vessels of mercy according to the same unconditional grace of God, but he also directs his argument to prove that the blindness of the Jews in general, their hardness of heart &c. was effected also by the sovereign will and pleasure of God, "According as it is written, God hath given them the spirit of slumber, eyes that they should not see, and ears that they should not hear. And David saith, let their table be made a snare, and a trap, and a stumblingblock, and a recompence unto them: let their eyes be darkened, that they may not see, and bow down their back alway." On the same subject we read in the prophecy of Isaiah as follows; "And he said, go, and tell this people, hear ye indeed, but understand not; and see ye indeed, but perceive not. Make the heart of this people fat, and make their ears heavy, and shut their eyes; lest they see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their heart, and convert and be healed." And that this work of hardening and blinding the house of Israel was effectually done we have the assurance in the 12th chapter of the gospel of St. John: "But though

he had done so many miracles before them, yet they believed not on him that the saying of Esaias the prophet might be fulfilled, which he spake, Lord, who hath believed our report? and to whom hath the arm of the Lord been revealed? Therefore they could not believe, because that Esaias said again, he hath blinded their eyes, and hardened their heart, that they should not see with their eyes, nor understand with their heart, and be converted, and I should heal them. These things said Esaias when he saw his glory and spake of him." In this passage it is stated that "they could not believe." It is therefore evident that they were effectually blinded, and to all intents hardened so. that to believe in Jesus was not in their power. It appears furthermore, that the Saviour himself regarded this blindness of the Jews with peculiar caution, and delivered his doctrine in parables on purpose that they might not understand. Of this we are informed in Matthew 13th-" And the disciples came, and said unto him, Why speakest thou unto them in parables? He answered and said unto them, because it is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given." And because God saw fit to hide the things of the kingdom of his grace from the Jews, Jesus expressed his thanks to the Father as recorded in Matthew 11th-" At that time Jesus answered and said, I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes. Even so, Father; for so it seemed good in thy sight." The reason here given why the Father had hidden these things from the Jews, was that it seemed good in his sight so to do.

Let us attend, in the next place, to see if we can learn from the divine testimony, the special GOOD which was brought about by the exercise of the divine sovereignty in the instances which have been

noticed. This is a subject of vast concern, for the sentiment we embrace respecting it directly af fects the moral character of the divine Being: If we consent to the opinion, that the elections which we have noticed are elected unto eternal life, to enjoy endless felicity, while those who are not of the elect are predestinated to everlasting destruction in the future, eternal world, we thereby charge God with partiality; and it is utterly in vain to attempt to clear the divine Being of this partiality while we admit such a sentiment. It is true, our christian doctors have contended, that some were elected from all eternity unto eternal life, and the rest of mankind were reprobated to endless misery for the glory of God; and they are therefore unwilling to allow that there is any partiality in God in thus disposing of his creatures for his own glory. But if we allow ourselves to be more particular on this subject, is it not evident according to this sentiment that the glory of God requires him to be good and merciful to some men, but utterly unmerciful to others? As this must be granted, it follows of necessary consequence, that the glory of God requires him to be partial. Nor does it alter the case in the least to say, that the greatest possible good of the whole, requires the endless misery of some; for this amounts to the same thing, viz. the greatest possible good of the whole consists in partial goodness, which is an absurdity. If we are able to find out what it is that the righteousness of God, according to the purpose of election, consists in, it must be something that accords with our views of moral righteousness; for nothing can be more evident than that we can see no righteousness in that which is contrary to all our sense of right. For instance, should an earthly parent choose three children out of nine to partake of all the favors which he could possibly bestow from his ample wealth, and destine the remaining six to the

most severe wretchedness that could possibly be endured, and all this should be directed by the sovereign will of the parent without any regard to the conduct of the children, we should be under the necessity of pronouncing this conduct partial and unrighteous. If this parent should inform us, that he did this for the promotion of his glory as a parent, it would answer no purpose, as to giving the least satisfaction that his conduct was right. Or if he should inform us that he acted, in all this, for the good of the whole, and that the greatest good of the whole required the utter ruin and destruction of two thirds; this would reflect no light on the subject. But if the parent of nine children had a piece of work to perform which was indispensable for the richest benefit of all his offspring, and that in order to effect this object it was necessary for some, two or three, to know certain things relative to his plan, and equally necessary for the rest to be ignorant of those things which were revealed to the few, there is no difficulty in seeing the impartiality of the parent in making known to certain individuals what he carefully kept from the rest. And even should he use means to blind his children in this case it would be perfectly consistent with his grand object, and consistent with impartial goodness.

Christian hearer, suppose yourself one of the children, who was enlightened into the mysteries of this scheme which was wisely planned for the best good of yourself and of the whole family; suppose too that you sincerely loved all your family, and could clearly see how all were to be benefitted by the blindness, or ignorance of those who were unenlightened, would it not be perfectly natural for you to thank your father for hiding those mysteries from them, and revealing them to you? With these enlightened views, and in the exercise of impartial love towards those who were in darkness should