former of these verses is the conclusion of a parable, and the latter contains a doctrine which Jesus Christ drew from that parable. There can be no doubt that it was lawful for the householder to enter into what terms he pleased with his voluntary labourers: and if he chose to give those who wrought one hour, as much as those who wrought twelve hours, no one could reasonably murmur against the exercise of such a right. Now, considering the parable in this light, is it reasonable to ground on it the doctrine of a sovereign election of certain individuals to everlasting life, and a sovereign rejection of others? that is, because the householder had a right to exercise sovereign favour towards some, while he acted justly towards others by fulfilling the terms of their own voluntary engagement; therefore, it is lawful for the Divine Being to reward some, and to withhold that reward from others, who are similarly circumstanced. It is admitted that it might be lawful for the Divine Being to do so; but this is not the point under consideration. Is it reasonable for us to draw that conclusion from the parable? Jesus Christ, who knew his own meaning best, said, "So the last shall be first, and the first last." The same words were used when he concluded his discourse concerning the difficulty of the rich entering the kingdom of heaven, and concerning the nature of the reward which his faithful followers should receive from him: chap. xix. 30. Their import in that connexion seems to be, that many of those who, in the estimation of men, bid fair

for the kingdom of heaven, shall be rejected at last; while many of those who seem to be the outcasts of society, shall be honoured as the favourites of heaven. And their import in connexion with the parable under examination seems to be, that the Jewish nation, who vaunted on their covenanted relation to Almighty God, shall be rejected from being his peculiar people; while the Gentiles, although late in being called into his church, shall be honoured as his "holy nation and peculiar people." See chap. xxi. 43. Rom. x. 19—21. 1 Pet. ii. 9, 10. As to the words-" many be called, but few chosen," their general meaning appears to be, that although all the Jews were freely invited to partake of the blessings of the gospel, yet few of them would believe in Jesus Christ, and consequently few should be ranked among the persons put in possession of the gospel salvation.

5th, Rom. ix. 15, 16, 18-23. It is admitted that the passages here referred to, prove the exercise of the divine sovereignty; but whether sovereignty is exercised in selecting to faith and salvation certain individuals of the human race in preference to others, must be determined by an entire view of the apostle's reasoning. The apostle had formerly shewn, (chap. ii. 25.) that circumcision was profitable to the Jew, only on condition that he kept the law of Moses; but that, if he broke it, his circumcision would be of no more benefit to him than if he had not been circumcised. He had also shewn, (chap. iii. 30.) that Jew and Gentile were, by the gospel of Jesus Christ,

placed on the same footing, both being justified by faith in Jesus Christ. In the second verse of the chapter about to be brought under consideration, the apostle, in the spirit of his divine Master, (Luke xix. 41-44.) expresses his unfeigned sorrow for his "brethren, his kinsmen according to the flesh: who were Israelites; to whom pertained the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants," &c. ver. 3, 4. Having thus expressed his sorrow at their deplorable, but not hopeless condition, he next expresses his desire for their deliverance from that condition, chap. x. 1. In the former case, he goes on to shew what was not the cause of his sorrow, (ix. 6.) "Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect;" and in the latter, what was not the reason of his desire for their salvation-not indifference about religious concerns, 66 for," says he, "I bear them record that they have a zeal of God," x. 2. In the former case, he shews what was the reason of his sorrow" But Israel, which followed after the law of righteousness, hath not attained to the law of righteousness, because they sought it not by faith, but as it were by the works of the law," ix. 31, 32. In the latter case, he shews that the reason of his desire for their salvation, was, that their " zeal was not according to knowledge; for they being ignorant of God's righteousness, and going about to establish their own righteousness, had not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God," x. 2, 3. If, then, the preceding analysis is correct, the connexion of the apostle's reasoning is as follows,

chap. ix. 1—3, 6, 30—33. x. 1, &c. Hence it appears, that there are two digressions in the ninth chapter, one contained in the fourth and fifth verses, and the other, from the middle of the sixth to the twenty-ninth verse inclusive. As the principal difficulty in understanding this chapter lies in the second digression, we shall confine our attention to the subjects which it embraces. One thing, however, is evident from the connexion as above-deduced, that, whatever be the particular meaning of the various passages which are introduced into this digression, the combined import of the whole goes to shew, that God as a sovereign acted consistently with perfect rectitude, in devising and appointing the plan of the gospel dispensation, and thus putting an end to the dispensation which had been instituted by the ministration of Moses. See chap. xi. 21-27. Heb. viii. 6—13.

The apostle having declared, that his sorrow for his "kinsmen according to the flesh," was not caused by a failure of God's favourable regard to Israel, proceeds in shewing, that the casting off of God's once favoured people is no proof of such a failure having taken place; for, as he had formerly said, (chap. ii. 28, 29.) "He is not a Jew which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision which is outward in the flesh but he is a Jew which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God:" so, in like manner, he says, "they are not all Israel which are of Israel;" (ver. 6,) consequently the rejection of the

merely natural Israel cannot be brought as an argument against the stability of the divine purpose, or the fidelity of the divine promises, in reference to the true and spiritual Israel. But as a Jew might object to this distinction, the apostle appeals to the mode of procedure adopted towards the Jewish nation; from which he selects two instances, exhibiting an equally marked distinction founded on the sovereign will of Jehovah; the one in reference to the family of Abraham, and the other to that of Isaac. The first instance is mentioned, ver. 7, 8, 9. "Neither because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called." That is, they which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed. For this is the word of promise, At this time will I come, and Sarah shall have a son." Now, to understand these quotations aright, it will be necessary to recur to the book of Genesis, for a full account of the divine communications with which Abraham was favoured, in reference to the subject adduced by the apostle in support of his argument. We read (Gen. xii. 1.) that "the Lord said unto Abram, Get thee out of thy country, and from thy kindred, and from thy father's house, unto a land that I will shew thee: and I will make of thee a great nation, and I will bless thee, and make thy name great; and thou shalt be a blessing;"--" and in thee shall all the families of the earth be blessed.” The expectation of a numerous progeny being thus