permitting Pharaoh to harden his own heart, as the result is often ex- pressly referred to Pharaoh himself, Exod. 8 : 15, 32, &c.
4. But there seems to be more expressed by the language of the text than mere permission, because it is evidently a punitive act that is here intended, and because this view does not suit the other passages in which God is said to give sinners up to the evil of their own hearts, Rom. 1 : 24, 28. It is probable, therefore, that the Judicial abandonment of men " to a reprobate mind," a punitive withdrawing of the influences of his Holy Spirit, and the giving them up to the uncounteracted operation of the hardening or perverting influences by which they are surrounded, are all expressed by the language of the apostle. In this God does no more than what he constantly threatens to do, or which the Scriptures declare he actually does, in the case of those who forsake him ; and nothing more than every righteous parent does in reference to a reprobate son. This, in connexion with the principle referred to above (in No. 2), seems as much as can fairly be considered as included in the expressions.
(19) Thou ivilt then say unto me, Why doth he y et find fault ? for who hath resisted his will? This is the second leading objection to the apostle's doctrine. If it is true, as he has just taught, that the destiny of men is in the hands of God, if it is not of him who willeth, or of him that runneth, but of God that showeth mercy ; what can we do ? If the fact that one believes and is saved, and another remains impenitent and is lost, depends on God, how can we be blamed] Can we resist his will? To this objection the apostle gives two answers: 1. That it springs from ignorance of the true relation between God and men, as Creator and creatures, and of the nature and extent of the divine au- thority over us, vs. 20, 21. 2. That there is nothing in his doctrine inconsistent with the divine perfections ; since he does not make men wicked, but from the mass of wicked men he pardons one and punishes another, for the wisest and most benevolent purposes, vs. 22, 23.
(20) JV^ay, but, 0 man, who art thou that repUest against God ? Shall the thing formed, &c. In these words we have both a reproof and an answer. The reproof is directed against the irreverent spirit whence such cavils always arise. After the clear proof given in the preceding verses, that God claims this sovereignty in his word, and ex- ercises it in his providence, it argues great want of reverence for God to assert that this claim involves the grossest injustice. It is very common with the sacred writers, and with Christ himself, when questions or cavils are presented, to direct their answers more to the feeling which the question indicated, than to the question itself; see John 3 : 3. Matt. 8: 19, 20, 22. 19: 16. 22: 29. But in this case, besides this reproof for a miserable mortal attempting to call his Maker to account, instead of considering that the mere fact that God claims any thing as his right, is evidence enough that it is just, there is a direct answer to the difii, culty. The objection is founded on ignorance or misapprehension of the true relation between God and his sinful creatures. It supposes that he