in discourse ninth, from p. 323-328. But as this part of St. Paul's writings is always resorted to as the stronghold of Calvinism, and as the example of Pharaoh is the solitary example of personal absolute reprobation, adduced by the celebrated divines who composed the Westminster Confession, I think it right to defend and illustrate the observations I have made on them, in the preceding work, by the authority of other writers, which may carry more weight with my readers than I could possibly hope for. I know other supporters of this dogma have conceived they found in sacred history multiplied instances of a similar nature with Pharaoh; but I am quite certain, the Westminster divines had considered more maturely and cautiously the strength of their case, when they confined themselves to this, and I hold it unnecessary to protract this already too tedious discussion, by examining the instances adduced by other writers. If, however, any gentleman, in observing on my reasonings, should again adduce them as confuting me, I shall not shrink from the discussion.

I therefore proceed to shew that the interpretation I have given of the eighth and ninth chapters of the Romans is defended by many most respectable commentators, with great learning and clearness, and perhaps still more strongly by the consequences to which the rigid predestinarian interpretation leads:-On Romans viii. 28, "That all things work together for good to those who love God," Whitby remarks, that under all things should be comprehended the sins of good men, is the unreasonable sug. gestion of St. Austin, and some of the school-men after him, who are certainly confuted by the declaration of God by Ezekiel, xviii. 24-"That if the righteous man forsake his righteousness, and committeth iniquity, in the sin that he hath done shall he die;" and by St. Paul to the Hebrews, x, 37, 38, "The just shall live by his faith, but if he draw back, my soul, saith God, shall have no pleasure in him." Besides the test of love to God, being the keeping of his commandments, this interpretation makes the sense of these words run thus-" To them that keep his commandments, even all their disobedience to them shall work together for good." Lastly, if the words "all things," comprehend all the sins that are, or can be committed by them that love God; they may as well rejoice in all their wickedness, as in all their sufferings for the sake of Christ, seeing they may rejoice in that which, by God's designation, tendeth to their good; and so all the motives (chap. 6,) to engage them to die to sin, and live no longer in it, must not only be enervated, but even esteemed motives designed to hinder them from that which is for their good, or, according to the descants of St. Austin and St. Bernard, to hinder their proficience in caution and humility.

On v. 28, "called according to his purpose," Whitby remarks-It deserves to be considered, that all antiquity, down to the time of St. Austin, do with one consent concur in the interpretation of Pseud. Ambrosius on this place, viz. quos prescivit sibi devotos, ipsos elegit ad promissa premia capessenda, i. e. those whom he foreknew would be devoted to his service, those he elected to the rewards promised. Those whom he foreknew to be, τους άξιους της κλησεως, worthy to be called, say Theodoret and Theophylact; and Origen, commenting on this place, "the Apostle, saith he, makes the will of man the cause of God's purpose and foreknowledge, by saying, we know that all things work together for good to those who love God, or ağ So ovvERysows, they being worthy of his co-operation;" and in his Latin commentary on these words, he observes, he uses the word foreknew to shew, that they were foreknown by God, in quibus sciens quales essent, Amorem suum Deus affectumque posuisset, on whom God placed his affections, as knowing what they would be. He adds, that by embracing the absurd opinion, that man, therefore, is not justified, and so not glorified, because he is not predestinated, and that he is not predestinated, because he is not foreknown-ingentem Fenestram aperiemus eis qui negant in Hominis Potestate esse ut salvus fiat "We shall give great advantage to them who deny that it is not in the power of man to be saved," whence they infer, that they are guilty of no fault who are not justified, because they are not called, are not predestinated, are not foreknown." Thus also Ecumenius saith, the apostle mentions the being called according to the purpose, that he might not fall into an absurdity, which would follow if God should do good to some persons, and not to others, and that he might free him from being an acceptor of persons.

66

Wherefore according to the received interpretation of the ancient fathers, the import of these words is this" Those whom God foresaw would be true lovers of Him, fit for the kingdom of God, and worthy of the peace and blessings of the Gospel, he pre-appointed to be conformable to the image of his Son, that is, to be like him in glory." Verse 17, "Them also he called in due time, to the salvation promised and offered in the Gospel." 2 Tim. i. 8, 9. Tit. i. 2, 3, " And they believing in Christ, upon his call he justified them from, and remitted all their past sin." Acts xiii. 38, 39. Ephes. i. 7, "And them he also glorified, by giving them that Spirit, who is the earnest of that glory." Ephes. i. 13, "And by participation of which Spirit, Christians are said not only to behold the glory of the Lord; but also to be changed according to the same image, from glory to glory." And this exposition, adds Whitby, agrees well with the context, for the apostle had said before, that Christians having the first fruits of the Spirit, groaned after this redemption of the body,—(verse 23, and in verse 26,) that the Spirit helpeth their infirmities, interceding for them, with silent groanings after it, and that he intercedeth for the saints, according to the mind of God, to give them this redemption; and then it follows, odausy de, therefore "we know, that all things work together for good to these that love God:" he afterwards remarks, it is to be observed, that the words knew and foreknew in the Scripture language, import an affectionate knowledge, joined with approbation, as is plain in Matt. vii. 23, "I never knew you, depart from me ye workers of iniquity;" also, John x. 14, and 1 Cor. viii. 3, "If any man love God he is known of God." Also, 2 Tim. ii. 19, "The Lord knoweth who are his;" so is the word foreknew used in this epistle, chap. xi. 2, when the apostle says, "the Lord hath not cast off his people whom he foreknew to be faithful, as were those seven hundred persons who had not bowed the knee to Baal, whom he thus foreknew." This observation clearly proves how unscriptural is the conclusion, that divine foreknowledge implies unconditional predestination.

The explanation I have given of the divine conduct towards Pharaoh, is confirmed by the most learned and approved commentators.

Lightfoot, on Exodus ix. 12. "And the Lord hardened the heart of Pharaoh that he hearkened not unto them, as the Lord had spoken unto Moses-" observes, "in quinque precedentibus Plagis, Obduratio Pharaoni tribuitur; in quinque sequentibus Deo. juste toties obduratur cor ejus in pœnam, quoties ipse cor suum obduravit.” On the same subject, the authors of the universal history judiciously observe"Who can deny that what God did to Pharaoh and the Egyptians, was much more proper to soften than to harden his heart, especially when it is observable that it was not until after seeing the miracles, and after the ceasing of the plagues, that his heart is said to have been hardened, We think ourselves obliged to do justice to those learned critics, who have been at the pains of clearing the Scriptures from charging the great Judge of heaven and earth with such foul injustice, by proving even against the Jews themselves, that the verbs here used are in the conjugations Pihel and Hiphel, and signify bare permission; of which meaning they have given many unquestionable instances; from all which it is plain, that God suffered the heart of Pharaoh to be hardened, as all those who are ever so little versed in the Hebrew will readily allow." As for those places where it is said, "for this cause have I raised thee up, that "I might shew my power," &c. it is plain they ought to have been rendered, "for this cause have I suffered thee to subsist, &c. that is, I have forborne to cut thee off, or spared thee from the common ruin, and thus these passages bear quite another sense, and only shew, that though he had long ago deserved to be destroyed, yet God thought fit to let him subsist, till he had, by many wonders, delivered his people, in spite of all opposition."

Dr. Hammond, in his note on Romans ix. 17, 18, " For the Scripture saith unto Pharaoh, even for this same purpose have I raised thee up, that I might shew my power in thee, and that my name might be declared throughout all the earth; therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth," remarks "the word, translated, raised thee up, sysgsy, signifies not here, the raising up, as that denotes bringing into the world, but the raising up out of some low condition, yet not the grave neither, though to that the word may be properly applied,

where the matter requires it; but disease or danger, as it is often used, especially James v. 15, the prayer of faith shall save, (that is, deliver, recover,) the sick, and the Lord shall raise him up," (that is, restore him from that sickness.) As to the notion of it here, it will appear by the Hebrew word, Exod. ix. 16. NY, "I have made thee stand," which the Chaldee renders, "raised thee (from the danger before spoken of, the pestilential disease, or murrain that had lately been upon the land,) and the ancient Latin sustentavi te—I have sustained thee, but the Septuagint expressly dingens, thou wert kept, guarded, not suffered to fall into it, preserved and kept alive: so Isaiah xlix. 1, to raise up or make stand, is an expression of rescuing from danger, delivering, and so this speech must necessarily belong to that part of Pharaoh's life peculiarly, wherein the murrain fell on Egypt, Exod. ix. 3, at which time he, for his many repeated obdurations of heart, was fit to be delivered up to instant ruin, had not God, for the illustrating his glory in this vessel of wrath, (thus fitted, not by God, but his own obstinate guilt, for destruction,) kept him alive a little longer. Theophylact renders it a little otherwise, us μsoov os nyayor, I have set thee in the midst, brought thee out, as a person to be exemplarily punished."

Hammond on the expression, "I have hardened his heart," observes, "this was that which befel Pharaoh, Exod. x. 1, when God saith of him, I have hardened his heart." This was indeed foretold of him, from the first sending of Moses to him, chap. iv. 21, and again, chap. vii. 3. But this is no argument that it was immediately done; on the contrary, his own hardening his own heart, is also foretold, Exod. iii. 19, and accordingly the story proceeds; God shews miracles and signs before Pharaoh, Exod. vii. 10, and because the magicians of Egypt did the like with their enchantments, it follows, Pharaoh's heart was hardened,-not HE, (as if it were God,) hardened Pharaoh's heart, but pn, that is, Pharaoh's heart waxed hard, or strong, or, by an ordinary acception of Kal for Hithpahel, Pharaoh's heart hardened itself, and so it follows, v. 14, "the Lord said unto Moses, Pharaoh's heart is waxed hard, he refuseth to let the people go;" (and so the very same words are rendered by our English, chap. vii. 22, and chap. viii. 19. Was hardened in the passive, or hardened itself in the reciprocal, not actively." He, i, e. God hardened,) "and he hearkened not unto them." After his hardening his heart thus against this first sign and command, God proceeds to other judgments.

66

Dr. Hammond then goes on to shew, that on each of the first four plagues, Pharaoh had hardened his own heart, and at one of those times, over and above "dealt falsely," promised fair, (chap. viii. 8.) and broke his promise; therefore now, after this fifth judgment, though Moses promises to pray, upon his promise to mend, yet he doth it with a particular admonition more than at any time before "but let not Pharaoh deal deceitfully any more," (verse 29,) intimating that if he did, it would be worse with him than before; and yet, (verse 32,) as soon as the judgment was removed, "Pharaoh hardened his heart this time also ;" upon this, God sends the sixth plague -that of murrain upon all the cattle of Egypt, chap. ix. 6, and all this while, for these six judgments together, though Pharaoh were obdurate, yet this was not God's hardening his heart, but Pharaoh hardened his own heart, and would not let Israel go, as the Lord commanded; upon this God sends another judgment-that of boils and blains, and then it is said, in a new style "the Lord hardened Pharaoh's heart," which, as it was the very time referred to by the prediction of God to Moses, chap. iv. 21, so was it the judgment implicitly threatened, chap. viii, 29, and this God never did till then, and therefore, as after that warning it was said that Pharaoh hardened his heart this time also, so it is here said, verse 14, that this time, (now, though not before,) God would pour out all his plagues upon his heart, viz. this obduration and the effects of it, on which follows that passage our common translation hath so much mistaken-" For now I will stretch forth my hand, that I may smite thee and thy people with the pestilence." This is evidently a mistake, for the event proves there was no such matter, Pharaoh was not smitten with the pestilence, but drowned in the Red sea. The translation should have been this- For, now I had sent or stretched out my hand, and smitten thee and thy people with the pestilence, and thou hadst been cut off from the earth; but in very deed, for this cause I have made thee to stand, (kept thee alive,) to shew, or make to be seen, my power in thee;" for so np literally signifies, in this sense, the Hebrew text ought to be

understood, as Mr. Ainsworth confesses, and the learned Paulus Fagius, out of the Chaldee paraphrase" I was near stretching out my hand to have sent the plague, and have struck thee, and thou hadst been blotted out." To this may be added what the Greek Fathers observe, that God's giving him respite by removing his punishment, was all that God positively did towards hardening him, according to Theophylact, "as when a master forbears to punish a wicked servant, he makes him much more wicked: as on the other hand, the great mercy of reforming sinners' lives, is most effectually wrought by chastisement.”

66

In opposition to those authorities, stand all the Calvinistic commentators. As a fair example of their reasoning, we may bring forward the Rev. Mr. Scott, the most recent, and certainly one of the most respectable, both for his labours and his piety. In his comment on Genesis xxv. 23, the prediction as to Esau and Jacob-He admits that in the plain and undeniable sense, it relates to two nations, the Israelites and Edomites being then in their respective parents Jacob and Esau, 'they were (says he) men of very opposite dispositions, and their descendants were as dissimilar; they personally struggled hard for the pre-eminence, and so did their posterity for many ages." But he adds, "these strugglings were an emblem of the conflict between the world and the true Church of God-the seed of the serpent and the seed of the woman, in which the church, which is the younger, after many strugglings, will gain a final mastery, and perhaps likewise of that struggle between the new and the old nature in the believer's experience." This double allegory may possibly be allowed without censure in popular declamation, though even there it would confuse rather than illustrate. But surely it ought to have no place in accurate scriptural criticism, and can never supply a foundation on which a scheme of scriptural doctrine can be safely erected.

In his comment on Exodus iv. and the subsequent history, when his system interferes, we too often find his interpretation objectionable. On Exodus ix. 12, he remarks "this is the first time in which it is expressly said that He (God) hardened his heart, which expression is afterwards several times repeated. Here we may infer, that as God had before permitted and appointed a variety of events, which had a tendency to increase Pharaoh's obduracy; so now, in punishment of his presumptuous rebellion, he totally gave him up to his own lusts, and to the power of Satan. Nor can we interpret the expression too strongly, if we only remember this one thing, that God did not, by his own power, create any hardness or wickedness in his heart, for God is not tempted of evil, neither tempteth he any man.” (James i. 13, 17.) Now on this statement it would be sufficient to remark, that the preceding events evidently had a tendency in their own nature to soften and subdue, not to harden Pharaoh's heart, and that it was his obstinately resisting this tendency, and wilfully perverting the natural means of grace into aggravations of his guilt, which drew down this judicial hardening upon him. In strict conformity to the apostolic declaration, "despisest thou the riches of his goodness, and forbearance, and long-suffering, not knowing that this goodness of God leadeth to repentance." But what shall we say to the next sentence of the commentator, who, instantly after quoting the apostle's declaration, "that God tempteth not any man," adds, "It was God's settled purpose to have Pharaoh finally hardened, for the accomplishment of which he effectually provided, and in which he doubtless was perfectly righteous."

This passage I confess, strikes me as a most rash and unscriptural representation of the divine attributes and conduct. I cannot conceive how it can be reconciled with the idea the Scripture impresses both of the mercy and the justice of God, or with the declaration of the apostle, "temptation does not necessarily terminate in guilt." If then, to suppose God directly tempteth any man to evil is irrational and impious, how much more to suppose that he "entertains a settled purpose that any human being shall be finally hardened, and thus involved in irremediable guilt and misery, and that for this purpose he effectually provides." Thus does this appalling system of absolute predestination, including as it necessarily must absolute reprobation, lead the benevolent and pious Mr. Scott to contemplate unmoved, the God of mercy acting with the severest cruelty, and governing his moral creatures on prin. ciples most inconsistent with the perfections of his nature, and the glory of his name

In order, however, to get rid of the idea of injustice, the commentator observes, « We may, indeed, perceive, that this proud tyrant and cruel oppressor deserves to be made an example by the just Judge of the universe, and provided none are punished who do not deserve it, and none above their deserts, there can be no cause of complaint or ground of objection." But to this it is an obvious answer, that to deserve punishment, the conduct of the offender must be voluntary, and his guilt avoidable. If his whole character and conduct is the result "of a settled purpose on the part of God," and so effectually provided for, that they could not have been otherwise than they are, all ideas of free choice, and consequently of deserving either reward or punishment are confounded and lost; and the notion of a beneficent Creator and a just Judge, must be utterly abandoned-so inconsistent with every idea of moral responsibility or moral government is this tremendous scheme.

When this author, in his comment on the epistle to the Romans, applies the example of Esau and Jacob, and the hardening of Pharaoh to the illustration of the Apostle's reasoning, we perceive many most clear and necessary distinctions overlooked and confounded. On Romans ix. 10-14, speaking of Esau and Jacob, he says" "This instance of Esau and Jacob was intended as an illustration of the divine conduct towards the fallen race of man.' It has often been urged, "that Jacob and Esau were not so much personally intended as their posterity, and that temporal, not eternal things are spoken of; and this is certainly true." Still, however, the commentator labours to force this instance into a proof of the doctrine of unconditional election and reprobation; and he does so by a plain and decided petitio principii, assuming as self-evident the question in debate. It is evident, he affirms,

"the subject illustrated related to individuals, and to their eternal state, whether as believers or unbelievers, AS Esau, (that the purpose of God according to election might stand,) had no inheritance in Canaan, and was not the progenitor of Christ; SO those Israelites who did not belong to the election of grace, were excluded from the true church, had no part in Christ, and no inheritance in heaven; but the reverse is true of the election of grace."

Now what a sort of parrallelism is this? To be the progenitor of Christ could belong only to one family, peculiar religious privileges were necessarily connected with this relation to the Messiah, in order that the attention of mankind should be directed to this great event, and the Divine interposition in its accomplishment might be clearly seen; and these peculiarities must belong to the NATION in which the progenitors of the Messiah should be found. God therefore must select some one nation for this purpose, and this selection implies the exclusion of every other; but this he could do without the smallest injustice, because this selection determined nothing as to the eternal state of either party. On the contrary, we believe with Peter, "that God is no respecter of persons, but in every nation, he that feareth him and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him." Acts x. 34, 35. But who will from this conclude it credible, that God has, from eternity, by an election of grace, wholly independent of any good or evil in the objects thus elected, confined all possibility of obtaining eternal salvation to a certain number of individuals, and excluded all the rest of mankind, who were thus, by a settled purpose of God, to be finally hardened and certainly damned, and for the accomplishment of which purpose, God has effectually provided; i. e. has regulated every thing so as effectually to secure their damnation ?!! Let those who can, ascribe this to God; I never can.

Is this the method of instruction which shall duly set forth his unutterable love and his unspeakable mercy, "which leadeth to repentance," and enthrone him in the heart and affections of the softened penitent who hears (not this system but) the Redeemer declaring that "God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life." I know that the usual method of arguing, when the supporters of this scheme are thus pressed, is to assert that we cannot comprehend these attributes of the Deity, and must submit in silence. This were well, if God himself had declared it. But I trust it has been shown in the foregoing treatise, that the contrary is true, and that

1 Vide supra Discourse IV., on this text, p. 216.