⚫ be not grieved nor angry with yourselves, that ye sold me hither! for God did send me before you to preserve life.' His brethren did it wickedly; God did it in mercy and in wisdom. We know that he did it entirely in consistency with man's accountability; but the manner of this consistency is not a matter of revelation, and therefore it is impossible to attempt explanation. Romans, ix. 18,' says Ammon, ' appears to to be an obscure passage relating to the absolute decrees of God. Light may be thrown upon this, by 1 Sam. vi. 6, where Pharaoh is said to have hardened his own heart.' How does Sam. vi. 6, throw light upon Rom. ix. 18? We might have expected rather that Ammon would have found a contradiction, as the one passage ascribes to God what the other ascribes to man. The passages indeed are consistent; but their consistency must be made out, not by obliging one of them to silence the other, but by the principle that they assert the same thing in a different view. Ammon's plan, I presume, is to make Rom. ix. 18 recant, in order to harmonize with 1 Sam. vi. 6. But the honour of Scripture, and of God's character, require that they should be reconciled in a way that renders both true."

Calvin, in his commentary on Exodus, represents those as perverting the Scriptures who insist that no more is meant than a bare permission when God is said to harden the hearts of men. He speaks of such as frigidi speculatores, diluti moderatores, to whose delicate ears such Scripture expressions seem harsh and offensive. They, therefore, he observes, "soften them down by turning an action into a permission, as if there were no difference between acting and suffering, i. e. suffering others to act." Such, he says, who will ad

mit of permission only, suspend this counsel and determination of God, wholly on the will of man; but that he is not ashamed or afraid to speak as the Holy Spirit does, and does not hesitate to approve and embrace what the Scripture so often declares, viz., that God blinds the minds of wicked men, and hardens their hearts. In his commentary on the passage before us, Rom. ix. 18, to the same purpose he observes, "The word hardening, when attributed to God in Scripture, not only means permission (as some trifling theologians determine), but the action of divine wrath; for all external circumstances, which contribute to blind the reprobates, are instruments of the divine indignation. Satan, also, himself the internal efficacious agent, is so completely the servant of the Most High, as to act only by his command. The frivolous attempt of the schoolmen to avoid the difficulty by foreknowledge, is completely subverted; for Paul does not say that the ruin of the wicked is foreseen by the Lord, but ordained by his counsel, decree, and will. Solomon, also, teaches that the destruction of the wicked was not only foreknown, but they were made on purpose for the day of evil (Prov. xvi. 4)."*

* Many call themselves Moderate Calvinists, a denomination to which it is not easy to affix a precise idea. To the system called Calvinism, there may be nearer or more distant approaches, but those who deny any of the peculiar doctrines of that system cannot, in any sense, be called Calvinists. To affix the term Calvinism to any system, from which the doctrine of predestination is excluded, or in which it is even modified, is entirely a misnomer.

Some profess Calvinism, but affect to hold it in a more unexceptionable manner than it is held in the system in general. They seem to think that in the defence of that system, Calvin was extravagant, and that he gave unnecessary offence by exaggerated statements, and by language not warranted by the Scrip

That ordination, with respect to evil, is merely permission, is an opinion which cannot be maintained. Permission is not ordination in any sense of the term, and ordination is quite a different idea from permission. We may permit what we do not ordain, and when we ordain any thing, we do more than permit it. But it will be replied, does not this make God the author of sin? It is answered, that the sense in which God or dains sin is above our comprehension. It must be a sense in which he is not the author of sin-a sense, too, in which responsibility entirely rests with man.

But

tures. Such persons, it is presumed, are strangers to the writings of Calvin. Calvin himself is remarkable for keeping on Scripture ground, and avoiding any thing that may justly be termed extravagant. No writer has ever indulged less in metaphysical speculation on the deep things of God than this writer. To support his system it was necessary only to exhibit Scripture testimony, and he seems quite contented to rest the matter on this foundation.

What is called moderate Calvinism is in reality refined Arminianism. It is impossible to modify the former without sliding into the latter. If the doctrine of God's sovereignty and of unconditional election be denied, regeneration and redemption must undergo a corresponding modification, and all the doctrines of grace will be more or less affected. While it is admitted that many of the people of God, through imperfect views of Divine truth, falter on the subject of election, it is a truth essential to the plan of salvation, and a truth most explicitly revealed. No truth in the Scriptures is more easily defended. The reason why many find it difficult to defend this doctrine is, that they suppose it necessary to account for it by human wisdom, and to justify the conduct of God. We have nothing to do with the grounds of the Divine procedure, we have to do only with the Divine testimony, that testimony which Mr Tholuck so fearfully perverts. There are many who in words fully admit the doctrine of predestination, and at the same time neutralize it by dwelling exclusively upon God's being love, and laying the blame of the whole world not being saved on the sloth of Christians.

It

the way in which this is true, we cannot explain. is enough to know that God hath declared it. We are to believe him on his own testimony, and to honour him by submitting to whatever he declares. God tells us that he doth such things, he tells us also that men do these things. We should believe both assertions, though we cannot reconcile them. Does not God say in his word "As the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts? Does he not say that his ways are past finding out? If we could fathom all the ways of God, the Scriptures could not be his word. What God reveals, let us know what he conceals, let us not attempt to discover. God is from eternity; but we are of yesterday, and know nothing.

God hardened Pharaoh's heart, as he declared from the beginning of the history he would do; but did not put evil into his mind. There was no need for this, for he was previously wicked like all mankind. God has no occasion to put evil into the heart of any, in order to their destruction, for in consequence of the curse of the broken law (from which God's people alone are delivered), there is in no natural man any thing good towards God, Rom. viii. 7. While he thus punished Pharaoh's wickedness no more than his iniquity deserved, God in doing so, displayed to his people Israel their security under his protection.

V. 19.-Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will?

The

Here the Apostle obviates a third objection or cavil. The first was that God is unfaithful, ver. 6. second that God is unjust, ver. 14. This third is that

God is severe and cruel. If God thus shows mercy, or hardens according to his sovereign pleasure, why, then, it may be asked, does he yet find fault with transgressors? This is the only objection that can be made to what the Apostle was stating. Thou wilt say, then, who hath resisted his will? If God wills sin, and if he is all powerful, must he not be the author of sin? Mr Fry here remarks," The thought will frequently start in the mind of the inquirer; If Divine grace is bestowed on some, and withheld from others; especially if the sins and transgressions of men are so under the control of the Almighty, that they but serve his purposes, how is it that such blame and censure attaches to the sinner, and that such dreadful judgments are denounced against him. If our unrighteousness commend the righteousness of God, what shall we say then, is God unrighteous who taketh vengeance? This, it will be perceived, is no other than the difficulty so generally felt in attempting to reconcile the responsibility of man, as a moral agent, with a pre-ordination of all events, after the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God. This pre-ordination the Apostle had asserted and proved from the Scriptures. From the Scriptures, at the same time, is evinced the complete responsibility of man as a moral agent :-God's finding fault; his remonstrances with transgressors; the declaration of their amenableness to a just judgment, the manner in which the gospel addresses them, and bewails their hardness and their impenetrable heart, unquestionably establishes this point. The proud wisdom of rebellious man, indeed, almost dares to charge the oracles of God with inconsistency on this head; or what is nearly as bad, takes upon itself, either to explain away, or to invalidate one