leaving some behind-but) all chosen to have God's love manifested to them, as the Gospel is proclaimed to every creature. But, out of this universal multitude, those only who had then believed and turned from evil to good, were the elected as the subjects of that particular prayer. Then the Lord, to show that this election had only reference to that prayer, says immediately in another prayer, "Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word."

Thus we shall find that election, or choice, is never such as implies that God, of his own sovereign will, chooses to enable some to seek Him, and find Him, and be saved, while He chooses to leave others without that help, for want of which He knows that they must perish everlastingly, and remain in perdition always.

The rule of God's election or choice is the rule of eternal love, eternal holiness, eternal justice, and eternal wisdom; worthy of the Almighty, who loved the world, though the world became the enemy of Him who loved us, and gave himself for us.

But when the idea is admitted of a justice that forbids free forgiveness; of a love that can be satisfied while any are miserable; of an Almighty, some of whose creatures an enemy ultimately keeps in imprisonment; then the idea is easily admitted too, that God chooses that some shall be finally saved, some finally damned.

SERVING AND RULING.

THE true principle of society is, that every one should serve. The result, if this were carried out fully, would be, that every one (being served by every other one) would rule; yet rather by the desire of others than his

own.

If the service be willing, then the ruling cannot be arbitrary nor tyrannical; for no one who serves his fellow-men from his heart can be, or wish to be, arbitrary or tyrannical, though he may be a king. In proportion as the policy of society is perfect, and is so put in practice, there will be found a willing service, a devotedness of each (and so of all) to do what is right and kind towards each (and therefore towards all); so that, in order to the highest sovereignty, the exercise of arbitrary tyrannical power is not only needless, but it would utterly undermine the very foundations of all such sovereignty.

He only can possibly be master of the hearts and lord of the affections of others, who serves others with all his heart, with devotedness of affection; and He who was rightly called "Lord" and "Master" set before us this truth, when He came willingly and devotedly serving, showing men that the highest glory of the highest being, among intelligent beings capable of affection, is the attainment of that sovereignty of love which is the result of loving service; the sovereignty in men's hearts, gained not by the mere value of the service

done, but by the thorough devotedness and willingness with which the service is rendered-the self-devotedness in love.

In a state of society where each serves in love, and loves to serve there, those who are at the head of affairs would rule, not over the rest, but for the rest. Their ruling would be the department of service allotted, by some arrangement, to them; and, whether in matters. religious or political, all arbitrary rule over men's spirits or bodies would be done away.

Let no one say that because there is no such state of society, nor can be, on earth, therefore it is no use to aim at it, nor to think and act with reference to it.

There is indeed none such, but it would be hard to prove that there can not be.

At all events, an approach may be made. There is an approach made whenever constitutional freedom is asserted; not where violent, discontented men destroy what is, but where truly religious and patriotic men set up something approaching to what should be.

In religious or in political questions, nothing tends to prevent true progress in truth, (and therefore in real freedom,) more than the influence of liberty-mongers, grievance-mongers, and rights-of-the-people-mongers, who are either themselves the victims of errors, or (as too often is the case) are deceivers.

One of the surest tokens of mistake or deceit in such persons, is their endeavour to flatter the mass of the people into the idea that they can, by hearing speeches or lectures, and reading certain selected publications; understand the details of policy in the government of a country, and of its bearings upon religious and civil progress and prosperity.

Should, then, the mass of the people be kept in ignorance of these things; or be prevented from having a decided judgment of them, and influence on them? By no means.

But when men, busy necessarily with the affairs of their own departments of business, are impressed with the idea that, in order to judge and have influence, it is necessary to dive into the details of any subject, the effect is this: they forget that to master the details of even a simple science or trade, requires a devotedness to that department, which no one can give who does not take it up as his profession; and that no one can judge of the details, who has not mastered the understanding of them.

We judge if our gardener's garden well, without an attempt to master the details of gardening; these remain a mystery to us, while we are perfectly competent to judge of the garden, and to be the gardener's master, as far as we need to be so. And if he gardens badly, our remedy is not to give up our profession, and give up our time and mind to read books on manures, or in any way to study details of gardening and seed-sowing, &c., but to require an improvement in him, or else to seek for one whose profession as a gardener is better sustained than his whose gardening we disapprove.

And so does the gardener with regard to the baker, the baker with the bookseller-if he is (as many are) a reading baker, improving his mind as a rational man and a Christian. The bookseller acts in the same way with regard to the paper-maker, and others whose professions or trades contribute to his success.

In all these cases it is not meant that each may not profitably inquire into the details of the others, and

acquire considerable knowledge of their working, greatly to his own advantage.

But if any one of them were to pretend to such mastership in the line which is not his own, as to meddle in the application of the details, instead of keeping a sharp look out to the results, he would soon discover, to his loss, that he was committing a great error. Even if it were only with his cook or his tailor that he thus interfered, his dinner and his coat would soon prove that he was no master there, when he thus departed from attending to what he had mastered.

The true view of society is, that each should serve all. The Christian, religious view is, that each should do so, influenced by the desire to do so.

The political, social view is, that each must do so, in order to keep up the chain of mutual convenience, which makes the citizenship of civilized men a state of regularity, and of advance in rational enjoyment.

Thus, when a man chooses a profession or calling, he chooses how he will serve all the rest of the community. In order to his own success (whether he work for love or for money), he must fit himself for his office, whether it be that of a minister of state or a chimney-sweeper.

Each thus becomes a servant, and all the rest are, in this respect, his masters, especially those for whom he works, and who reward or pay his work.

In the ideal of a truly Christian society, he serves who does good to the others, by the exercise of the calling he devotes himself to, and they respect and love him accordingly.

In the cold reality of actual (and, alas! too unchristian) life, he only works for the others, for his own gain and they only pay him accordingly.