his sovereignty in the disposal of his blessings is expressly asserted, as the end for which he made the appointment at that precise time : for it was impossible that they should have done either good or evil previous to their birth ; and, consequently, nothing of theirs could be the ground of God's dispensation towards them.
The same point is no less clearly seen in the objections which are urged against it.
The objector replies, that, if this doctrine be true, God must be unrighteous, since he withholds from one, what he gives to another*1. Now, what room can there be for any such objection as this, except on the supposition that the Apostle has been mantaining the sovereignty of God in the disposal of his favours ? On any other supposition, it would be impossible for the idea to arise, that there was, or could be, " unrighteous- ness with God." The Apostle's answer shews the same : for he proves that the doctrine which he had maintained was declared to Moses, when God said to him, " I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion e." And the conclusion which the Apostle draws from the whole clearly confirms the same : " So, then, it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy f." I ask again, What room could there be for such an answer, and such a conclusion, if the Apostle had not asserted and maintained the doctrine of elec- tion as exercised by God according to his own sovereign will and pleasure?
But the same is pursued still farther.
St. Paul, not contented with having established his point, prosecutes it yet farther ; and declares that God had exercised the same sovereignty in raising Pharaoh to the throne of Egypt, and in making use of the pride and obduracy of that haughty monarch as the means of displaying his own almighty power, and of confirming the word which he had previously declared to Moses e. And this calls forth another objection : " Thou wilt say, then, unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? for who hath resisted his will'1?" Here again, you will per- ceive, is an objection which could not possibly arise, but on the supposition that the Apostle is maintaining the absolute sovereignty of God. And his answer to it proves the same : " Nay, but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say unto 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 unto honour, and another unto dishonour'?" Of all the images that could ever
ll ver. 14. e ver. 15. f ver. 16".
s ver. 17, 18. h ver. 19. j ver. 20, 21.