fice; and therefore, he puts thofe questions, viz. what shall we fay then? is there unrighteousness with God? This he answers, with a God forbid; which, by the way, is no anfwer at all to that objection. And then, to clear up this point, he obferved, that God had faid to Mofes, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy; and that the fcripture said of Pharaoh, for this purpose have I raised thee up, that I might shew my power in thee. As if God's declaration * could make any alteration in the cafe; could make a thing to be right, or wrong, which otherwise would not be fo. According to St. Paul, God had declared that he would make mere will the ground of his favour and displeasure; and therefore it was just and equal. This is the argument of the apostle, in order to clear the Deity from the charge of injuftice, if there

Y 3

* That God should say of himself, that he would have mercy on whom he would have mercy, that he would make fovereign pleasure the ground of his favours and his frowns; and that he should say to the King of Egypt, even for this fame purpofe have I raised thee up, that I might fhew my power in thee; and, agreeably to fuch a declaration, fhould inject ftubbornness into the heart of Pharoah, that he might take occafion from it to deftroy him; this is perfectly agreeably to the notion the fews had of God as an abfolute fovereign; but then all this is very inconfiftent with perfect wisdom, goodness and equity, which is the true character of the Deity.

there be any argument in what he has faid. But farther, after St. Paul had produced those inftances (taken out of the Jewish hiftory) of God's acting from mere will, he then takes upon him to vindicate fuch a conduct, by introducing a perfon remarking upon it, that God had no reason to find fault with the behaviour or complaints of his creatures, feeing no one bad, nor could refift his will. Verse 19. To which the apostle replied, verfes 20, 21, 22, 23. Nay, but O man, who art thou that repliest against God? fhall the thing formed fay to him that formed it, why haft thou made me thus? hath not the potter power over the clay of the fame lump, to make one veel to honour, and another to dishonour? what if God, willing to fhew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much long-fuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to deftruction; and that he might make known the riches of his glory, on the vellels of mercy, which he had a-fore prepared unto glory * ? fuppofing this to be

the

*That the apostle's argument and reafoning may be uniform, and full to his purpose, I think his reply may be more juftly and properly expreffed in the following words. [Nay, but O man, who art thou that repliest against God? fhall man, or the thing that is formed, whe

ther

the cafe, who dares find fault? God has power fufficient for thefe purpofes, and that Sufficiently juftifies his conduct herein. This, I think, is the purport of the apostle's reafoning, in order to justify those acts of abfolute fovereignty in God, which he had Y 4 before

ther he be formed for happiness, or mifery, fay to God whọ formed him, why haft thou made me thus? hath not the potter power over the clay of the fame lump to make one veffel to honour, and another to difhonour? what if God was willing or difpofed to exemplify his power and wrath, and in order thereto did call thofe men into being, and did patiently fuffer them to continue here for a long time, before he executed his vengeance upon them, whom he, from an act of mere fovereignty, had pre-ordained to be veffels of wrath fitted for deftruction: And that he might likewife exemplify the riches of his goodness called those men into being, whom he had, from a like act of fovereignty, pre-ordained to be veffels of mercy prepared unto glory; who durft fay him nay?] This reading feems to me to be more confiftent, and fuller to the apostles purpose, as he undertook to vindicate thofe acts of fovereignty in God which he had before referred to, than the reading. in our tranflation; but then, whether the original will justify this reading I know not. By the original I mean the text as it now ftands in the original language; that is, in the language that St. Paul's epiftle to the Romans is fuppofed to be written, as in the most antient manufcripts, and which our reading is fuppofed to be tranflated from; and not the original copy which was written by Tertius, with refpect to which the text may have fuffered many changes, through the inattention or defign of tranfcribers, in the courfe of five or fix hundred years, viz. from the time in which the epiftle was first written by Tertius, to the time in which our most ancient manufcripts were penned, of which, I think, our moft learned men cannot be very good judges.

before referred to; God is invested with power fufficient for those purposes, and he is at liberty to use it as he pleafes, and who. dares fay him nay? but with humble fubmiffion, I think, St. Paul's argument or reafoning upon this question is by no means conclufive. For were God to call an intelligent creature into being, on purpose to make him greatly miferable, whether in this world, or the world to come; that creature would have reasonable ground for complaint; and might with great juftness and propriety fay to his maker, why haft thou made me thus? becaufe by the laws of common equity fuch a creature would have had a right to have remained in a state of non-existence, rather than be called into being, to answer fo evil a purpose. And as to the fimilitude of the potter and the clay, it is foreign to the argument. The potter indeed has power over the fame lump of clay, to fashion one part of it as that it shall contain the food we eat, which is making it a veffel ɔ bonour, by preparing it for an honourable ufe; and he has power and is at liberty to fashion another part of the fame lump, as that it fhall be fitted to receive the difcharges of nature, which is making it a veffel to dishonour, by

'pre

But

preparing it for a dishonourable ufe. then, as the being made a veffel to honour, fuch as a cup to drink out of, and as the being made a veffel to dishonour, fuch as a pot to receive the excrement that paffeth from the body, is no advantage, nor disadvantage to thofe veffels, nor is there any cruelty or injuftice done to either; what has this to do with an affair in which great cruelty and injuftice take place? as when from an act of mere will one man is made on purpose to be happy,or,according to the apostle's fimilitude, to be a veffel to honour, and another man is made on purpose to be miserable, or a vesfel to dishonour. One man from a mere act of fovereignty is pre-ordained to be a veffel of wrath, fitted for deftruction; and another man from a like act of fovereignty is foreordained to be a veffel of mercy, prepared unto glory. This is the point St. Paul has in view, and to which his reafoning is directly and immediately applied, and not to any prefent advantage which one man may have above another, as is pretended. In fine, the doctrine St. Paul has laid down, and which he endeavours to fupport, appears to me to be this, viz. that abfolute fovereignty in God is the ground of his favour and difpleasure.

God