:

occasion upon which any thing is acted upon by another, entitleth the subministrator in this kind to the said action, though he intends it not, are these, and probably many others 2 Sam. xvi. 10; Matt. v. 32; John xii. 40; Rom. xiv. 15, 20; 1 Cor. viii. 13; Gen. xlv. 7, 8. So that there is nothing in the first reason drawn from these words of God to Moses, But I will harden Pharaoh's heart,' &c., sufficient to prove that either Pharaoh's hardening, final impenitency, or destruction by it, were intended by God."

The same argument is also thus beautifully stated by Dr. Sherlock, in his admirable treatise upon Divine Providence: We may observe, that men who have first hardened themselves, take the most innocent occasions to grow harder; nay, are hardened by such usage as would either break or soften other men; and those who treat them in such a manner as their wicked hearts abuse to harden themselves, may be said to harden them; as in common speech we charge those with undoing and hardening their children and servants, who have spoiled them by too much indulgence, or by too great severity; and this is the account that Origen gives of it. And indeed when men are said to harden themselves, as Pharaoh is often said to harden his own heart, and yet God is said to harden them; there can be no other account given of it but this, that men take occasion from what God does, take occasion where no occasion was given, to harden themselves; as St. Paul observes the Jews did from God's patience and longsuffering, Rom. ii. 4, 5: Or despisest thou the riches of his goodness, and forbearance, and longsuffering? not knowing that the goodness of God leadeth thee to repentance;' namely, should lead thee to repentance, not harden thee in sin, though it have another effect through thy wickedness; 'but after thy hardness and impenitent heart,' which groweth more hard and impenitent through God's forbearance, treasurest up unto thyself wrath against the day of wrath, and revelation of the righteous judg

ment of God.' And thus God hardened Pharaoh, or Pharaoh took occasion to harden himself, from those judgments which ought to have softened him; and God, foreseeing that this would be the effect of it, says, 'I will harden Pharaoh's heart;' not, I will infuse hardness into him, but I will do (or am going to do) such things as I certainly know his hard and wicked heart will convert into new occasions, and new degrees, of hardness. For it is no reason for either God or man to forbear doing what wisdom, and justice, and goodness direct to be done, because hardened sinners will harden themselves the more by it. To take a familiar illustration of this subject, let us suppose a Sovereign, who has unlimited power in his own hands; before whom a man is brought to be punished for cruelly treating his helpless slave. The individual is well known to be a hardened wretch, who has declared, that if the King punish him, he will treat his dependent in a still more barbarous manner. Notwithstanding, it is an act of justice and wisdom to inflict punishment; so that if it shall fail to cure the present criminal, it may prove a wholesome example to others. The King is therefore resolved, either to mend or to end him.' After nine successive methods of correction have been tried, the miscreant professes to relent; but he is no sooner out of the royal presence than he seizes an instrument of destruction, and hastens after the unhappy victim of his tyranny, to torment or slay him: which being reported to the Prince, he orders one of his attendants to pursue the miserable wretch, and destroy him upon the spot. Here the King may be said to have hardened the man in his course of crime, because the measures which he adopted had this obvious tendency upon a heart already depraved; and he moreover knew from the man's previous character, that punishment would never have the effect of softening them: and yet, for the sake of justice and the good of others, he was resolved upon following out this course of procedure, though he

might have prevented farther evil by imprisoning the criminal, or taking his victim forcibly from his grasp, or even by inflicting the punishment of death upon the first refusal of obedience. But by the former method, he made him a more conspicuous example to the world, and also had an opportunity of impove rishing the delinquent's family, who bad aided and abetted his crime." This method of explaining God's "hardening Pharaoh's heart" has some advantages over the former; for a Prince or Minister is often said to be the cause of doing that which the measures that he pursues must necessarily effect.

3. But we prefer regarding the Almighty as directly interfering by his special influence to harden Pharaoh's heart; always premising that this did not take place in a moral or spiritual point of view. We thus suppose that God hardened Pharaoh's heart against pursuing that method which was most conducive to his own present welfare, and that of the Egyptians; or, as it were, he spread a thick veil between Pharaoh's mental sight and his temporal interests. The Lord is never recorded to have directly hardened the heart of any one, except in this case of the Egyptians, and in two others; namely, those of Sihon King of Heshbon, (Deut. ii. 30,) and the Canaanitish nations. (Josh. xi. 20.) These stood nearly in the same position as the Egyptians, inasmuch as they were fully ripe for the visitations of divine vengeance. Nor in any one of these examples is it said, that God hardened them in sin, or rebellion, or spiritual blindness; but that he hardened Pharaoh against letting Israel go, and Sihon against permitting them to pass through his country, and the Kings of Canaan, that they should come out against them in battle. It thus appears that they were hardened or strengthened in their own pernitious counsels; and that when the Lord wished to destroy them, he beteft them of common prudence or Loresight. Now as the Almighty rules the world by different agennes, and makes man to be his

fellows' benefactor or punisher; we see nothing in this view of the subject which could in the least interfere with Pharaoh's moral liberty. It is as if the Lord had said, "Let my people go; but if not, I will punish thee; and if thou dost not obey my voice from a fear of my name, I will not allow thee to comply merely for thy own interest's sake. I will blind thee against thy temporal welfare; and thou shalt either obey me because I am Jehovah, or thou shalt not comply at all." In every part of this transaction Pharaoh may have had the ordinary influences of the Spirit, pointing out good and evil by the voice of conscience; but being determined to resist these dictates, God put before his hardened mind such ruinous counsels in temporal matters as his proud spirit eagerly grasped at, and speedily executed. Thus whilst the intelligible language of deity was, "Thou shalt fear my name or else be ruined," Pharaoh's reply was, " Then I will be ruined."

But

Had the Egyptian Monarch yielded after the first plague, from a regard to himself and his people, their hearts would have been as hard as ever against God, yet they would not have been made the monuments of his righteous judgments. during the ten plagues they had ample time for repentance; which being neglected, they became an awful example of the divine displeasure, and a warning how dangerous it is for men to trifle with the Lord's command, were it only for the sake of their temporal interests.

Now this exposition of the subject seems quite clear and satisfactory, and is in perfect harmony with the Hebrew. And the reason why it is not generally adopted is, perhaps, twofold. (1.) From the erroneous sense which is attributed to the eastern figure of "hardening the heart." It is generally viewed in a moral light, as denoting the infusion of obstinacy or vice into a man's spiritual nature; but in Hebrew, it usually means the persisting in a certain course of conduct, or stiffening the mind (in its present condi

tion) so as not to be capable of relaxing. We are not at liberty to translate the word by "harden," and then affix our own meaning to this term ; for another person might say, "I choose to adhere to the original meaning of the word, and to render it thus: 'And God strengthened Pharaoh's heart.'" For it must be observed that "harden” is not the original, but the adapted, mode of expression; and it is comparatively seldom thus translated.

Again: "to harden the heart" is evidently a figurative mode of speech, and the same word is differently rendered in other combinations. It is translated with " hands," in the sense of strengthening (which is the primary signification) or comforting; as, "O God, strengthen thou my hands." (Nehem. vi. 9.) So also, Strengthen ye the weak hands." (Isai. xxxv. &c., &c.) It is used with "face," in the force of "impudent: ""For they are impudent children;" literally "children strong of face." (Ezek. ii. 4; iii. 7.) So also with "forehead.” (Ezek. iii. 8.) "I am a woman strong (or hard) "of spirit," is translated "of a sorrow. ful spirit." (1 Sam. i. 15.) Strengthening or hardening the neck," means to be rebellious or untractable; and Nebuchadnezzar is said to "harden" (or_strengthen)" his mind in pride." (Dan. v. 20.) Another word which radically signifies "stiffen," is rendered "harden," in Exod. vii. 3; but it is also employed in the sense of "relenting with difficulty:" "Pharaoh would hardly let us go." (Exod. xiii. 15.) It is therefore manifest, that in using such figurative expressions from the Hebrew, we must seize upon the "spirit of the sense," and accommodate the phraseology to our more extensive vocabulary. "Hardening the heart" does not therefore imply the infusing of any moral evil or spiritual blindness therein, but merely the causing it to continue in its previous state of hardness, or in the pursuit of those designs which it has already been bent upon; just as cold stiffens the wax in any particular impression which it had received in a liquid state.

(2.) Another reason which makes people afraid of interpreting "the Lord hardened Pharaoh's heart" in an active sense, is, lest it should seem to make God the author of moral evil. But a distinction must always be observed between judicial and spiritual interference; the former relating to actions, the latter to principles. So it is observed, “The King's heart is in the hand of the Lord, he turneth it whithersoever he will;" which signifies no more than that God influences the counsels (not the principles) of Monarchs, for the benefit or punishment of their subjects. For as Kings act a prominent part in the affairs of the world, God employs them as an important agency in this government of nations; and therefore appoints and continues whom he will in this office. And when he wishes to punish any particular people, it may oftener be effected in a more exemplary manner by impelling their own Princes to pursue ruinous measures, than by putting it into the heart of a stranger to make war upon them, or by sending a famine or pestilence in their midst. And as bad counsels are most proper to bad Princes, so when this line of interference is adopted by God, he usually appoints bad men to the throne at that season. Nor is this any derogation from the divine holiness; for such an one is merely "a rod" or an axe in the hand of the Almighty; and it is absolutely necessary that some rods and axes be employed. We should be jealous of attempting to rob the Lord of his prerogative of interfering in a man's business, seeing that he has to order the intricate affairs of a whole world, and that he does so chiefly by human instrumentality. So with respect to that important passage of Scripture, Exod. ix. 16, where the Lord says unto Pharaoh, "And in very deed for this cause have I raised thee up, for to show in thee my power," &c.; and Rom. ix. 17, where the Hebrew word signifies "made thee to stand up," or "made thee to continue standing," or both. So that commentators take advantage of the second meaning, and regard

,,

it in the light of God's keeping Pharaoh alive in the midst of the plagues. (See this elaborately discussed by Mr. Goodwin.) Now whilst we do not object to assent to this usually approved method of interpretation, we see no objection to employing the phrase in the fullest sense of which the original (whether Hebrew or Greek) is capable; and to use it as, "I have raised thee up, and kept thee up." For this has nothing whatever to do with the creation or moral structure of Pharaoh's mind, but only with the appointment of his station in life. În his inscrutable foreknowledge, or knowledge, (for there is, properly speaking, no foreknowledge with God, it is all an infinite now, and all eternity is spread before his view: "He calleth things that are not, as though they were,") the Almighty saw Pharaoh to be a fit instrument for punishing the Egyptians in such a way as should redound to the glory of his great name. Pharaoh's character and temper were just suited to the work; and therefore God decreed and appointed him to be born in Egypt's palace, and raised to the throne, and kept alive upon that throne in the midst of the desolation of the land: and what is there in all this of a spiritual predestination, or a moral interference? None whatever. A piece of work had to be performed, (that of punishing Egypt,) and Pharaoh was a fit instrument for its accomplishment; and therefore the Lord put him in contact with the work; and Pharaoh, being quite so disposed in his own evil mind, set about it, and put it into execution, and

thus fulfilled the purposes of Jehovah.

Nebuchadnezzar was placed precisely in similar circumstances, as the scourge of Judah, Egypt, Tyre, &c.; but God's visitations upon himself had the desired effect, and he relented, and was converted to the true worship of the Lord of hosts: and yet any one would have imagined the case of Nebuchadnezzar to be more desperate than that of Pharaoh. Thus the Lord appoints the wicked to be their own executioners and the punishers of their fellow-sinners; whilst he generally uses the righteous in works of mercy. This is the usual order of Providence; but its plans sometimes vary, and the wicked are made to correct the just, and the good to punish the bad. In whatever station of life Pharaoh had been placed, he would have been a cruel, obstinate, and impious man; and God, therefore, appointed him to be his public executioner. He beat Israel with rods, and wielded the glittering axe over his neck; but God substituted Egypt in Israel's place; and, lest the Monarch should now withdraw his hand from smiting his own people, the Almighty blinds his eyes against seeing his new victim: as if he had said, "Nay, but since you have lifted up the axe, you shall strike, though not the victim you intended." And thus the fatal blow, intended for Israel, fell upon Egypt, whilst the former escaped with a moderate chastisement; and the hardened executioner is himself killed by the rebounding of his own weapon, which he drove furiously."

R. M. MACERAIR.

The

say, by expressing my sincere regret that the article in question was permitted to appear. Not that I deprecate fair and candid discussion, however far it may be carried. interests of party may sometimes suffer from this, but eventually the interests of truth will invariably be JANUARY 1839.

D

advanced. But, for this, the discussion must be both fair and candid: candid, in the spirit in which it is conducted; fair, in the rules by which it is governed. Passing by the spirit of the discussion with the single remark, that, in religious discussion, this ought to be itself religious, I refer more particularly to its method, perhaps I should add, to its object. This ought to be, simply, the discovery or establishment of truth; and the method ought to be that by which truth may be most clearly elicited. If the disputant writes for victory, he will employ such methods as he thinks are best calculated to secure it; but if he writes for the sake of truth, whether it be with himself or with his opponent, the means which he uses will take their character from the end which he proposes. Such a disputant will never employ an argument of the soundness of which he is not himself satisfied, even though it should be plain to him that his opponent will not be able to reply to it, and that its employment, therefore, would certainly secure to him the victory. Above all, he will be careful to present the disputed points, to the best of his knowledge and ability, exactly as they are. He will not be content with stating them as they appear to him, but will previously inquire whether his view of them be correct. The Christian disputant, in a word, will feel that disputation is as much to be placed under the dominion of conscience as any other part of his active life, and is as much to be governed by the laws of the God of truth, and love, and holiness. All misrepresentation, therefore, is interdicted; not merely all wilful, but all negligent misrepresentation; and if, through human exposure to mistake, he falls into error, having yet done his best to avoid it, no feeling of false shame, no regard for that disgraceful honour whose code rests on appearances rather than realities, will hinder him from acknowledging it.

Such appear to me to be the principles on which discussion should ever proceed among Christians; and my complaint is, that on the present

occasion they have been entirely overlooked. I complain not that Methodism is attacked, but that that which is attacked is not Methodism; that the statements which are used to justify the tone of censure running through the whole article, do not fairly represent the case; and that the mistakes are the more reprehensible, that they relate to subjects, upon which the most ample explanations have been repeatedly given, and which the writer of the article either must have known, or might have known, had he only made the inquiries which he was bound to make, before he entered on the discussion. I wish to put this very distinctly before your readers. Methodism, like every other system, is fairly open to investigation, and, by those who think it wrong, to attack. I hope the Methodists will never object to this. If their doctrines, their discipline, their practice, will not stand the test of a rightlyconducted argument, let them be abandoned. But they have a right to complain when the objectors will not take the trouble to ascertain what is the real character of that against which they object; but, instead of doing so, take up with vague rumours, and declamatory statements, which rather disguise the truth, than fairly present it. In the Methodist Magazine protest after protest against such dishonest modes of proceeding has been inserted, and explanations have been repeatedly given. But all seems useless. Churchmen and Dissenters appear alike determined neither to let Methodism alone, nor to seek for correct information concerning it. They first form the most erroneous conceptions on the subject; and then argue upon them, as though they were established matters of fact. In this way are the evils too generally flowing from religious controversy perpetuated and extended, and the distance between different sections of the church of Christ, too great under the least unfavourable circumstances, is most needlessly and injuriously increased. When will the spirit of truth, and love, and peace prevail over the spirit of party?