ance towards them, this was not to be interpreted into a pledge of future impunity, for He exercised it, not because they had any claim to it, either on their own account or on account of their fathers, but because it served His purpose of grace, both towards themselves and towards the world; "as He said to Moses, (in answer to his intercession for them,) 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 owing to their own deserts, or to the deserts of any man, that the Jews have been upheld to this day as the peculiar people, but simply, to the forbearance of God, who might justly have cast them off, on account of their rebellious spirit, at any period of their history. And surely it is manifest, that God's forbearance in times past, more especially if it has been neglected and misused, so far from being a just ground for expecting impunity in the time to come, ought rather to be taken, as an assurance of an increased aggravation of punishment yet to be inflicted, proportioned to the aggravation of guilt, when God's purposes, in providence, no longer require the active services of the sinner, or even as an indication that God

has not only had a present use to make of the sin, but has also been waiting a fitter opportunity of proving the evil of such a course, by the fearfulness of the conclusion to which it leads. "For the Scripture saith unto Pharaoh, Even for this same purpose have I deferred thy punishment, and continued thee in life, that I might, through thee make my power known, and that my name might be declared throughout all the earth. Thus He Himself determines how long forbearance is to be exercised, and when is the time for judgment-who are the fit objects of forbearance, and who are to be set forth as examples of the consequences of hardening the heart."

I beg the reader to suspend his judgment of this paraphrase until he reads the defence of it.

When the Apostle had explained, that under the types of Isaac and Jacob, Christ and his spiritual seed, that is, the spiritual mind, was meant to be set forth, as the true heir of the promises, and the true object of God's judicial election ;-and that, under the types of Ishmael and Esau, the carnal mind, which desires the things of time, and disregards the things of eternity, is set forth, as

T

excluded from any participation in the promises or the election,-he felt that he had satisfactorily proved that the Jewish nation, -as they then stood, living in the flesh and rejecting the Spirit, desiring the kingdom of this world, and refusing the kingdom to which God called them, through dying to the flesh, -had evidently no claim to the promises or the election; and that, in fact, the existence of such a claim on their part, in their present circumstances, would have been a practical contradiction of the principles of which they were set up as the typical witnesses.

He saw also, that if the election of their fathers and of themselves, to fill that place of typical witnesses for the truth of God, which they had so long held, and in consequence of which they had possessed so many advantages, was only a typical election, shadowing forth the true election of the spiritual mind,— it necessarily followed, that being thus only an outward and preparatory dispensation, subordinate to a higher dispensation, it was subject to the purpose, and fell under the law, of that higher dispensation,-and consequently, that it was perfectly consistent with God's righteousness at any time to set it aside, or to continue it, as He saw it to be most

conducive to the accomplishment of the object embraced by that higher dispensation; and farther, that it was especially consistent with His righteousness, that He should show out the meaning of the higher dispensation through it, by making that very people,— whom he had so remarkably favoured, by setting them up as the types of the spiritual mind—if they, notwithstanding, should themselves reject the Spirit, and choose the flesh -a signal example of vengeance, as they had made themselves a signal example of unfaithfulness in their trust. This conclusion was evidently contained in the explanation which he had given of the early patriarchal history; and as he had given them that explanation with the view of pressing the conclusion upon them, he now, in the passage before us, appeals to themselves, whether the conclusion is not just and reasonable.

What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God in casting off the Jewish people, and making them a monument of vengeance, after so long an acknowledgment of them? Is there any reason to think that He would not do it?

That this is the meaning of the question which is here put, will not be disputed by

any one who keeps in mind the train of the reasoning both before and after, and who compares it with the parallel passage in chap. iii. 1-8. And yet I believe, that from inadvertence, and a traditional habit of interpretation, it is often read as if its meaning were" Is there unrighteousness with God in making one man a Jacob, and another an Esau-in giving one man the Spirit, and refusing it to another; in predestinating one man to be eternally blessed, and another to be eternally miserable?" But such ideas have no connection with the argument; they may be brought by a reader to the chapter; but they certainly cannot, with any reason, be drawn from it.

The real difficulty of this part of the chapter, consists in determining what that plea is, which Paul here supposes that the Jews are setting up in their own minds, against his position, and which he replies to, by the two following quotations from the book of Exodus. For as it is not explicitly stated, it can only be gathered by inference from parallel passages, or from the reply which he makes to it.

But these two sources supply most abundant evidence as to what it really is. An