One word, liowever, may usefully be added at this point with reference to Spinoza, as entliusi- astic an exponent of freedom as Kant or St. Paul. Human freedom Spinoza defines as 'a form of reality M-hich our understanding acquires through direct union with God, so that it can bring forth ideas in itself, and efl'ects outside itself, in complete harmony with its nature, without, however, its eflects being subjected to any external causes, so as to be capable of being changed or transformed by them' [Short Treatise on God, Man, and Human Welfare, ch. xxvi. ). In the moral system of Spin- oza, God is as central as in that of Kant He is peri- pheral ; and since God alone has freedom, the soul can be really free only through union M-ith God. Such a view lays every pantheist open to one re- tort : if God is substance, or the All, and therefore universally immanent, how can union with Him be a thing which the soul may possess or lack? Spinoza does not attempt to grapple Avith this difficulty. St. Paul, on the other hand, does not habitually think in terms of union with God, either in the sense of Spinoza or of the Fourth Gospel. The centre of his system is not God, as a Divinely immanent Being, so much as the will of God, with which his own will has been brought to move in entire conformity. AVith St. Paul, freedom im- plies no merging in a wider Being ; the man who is a Christian is like the son who not only lives in his father's house, but moves in the atmosphere of perfect sympathy and understanding, confidence and obedience (cf. also He S**). The thought under- lying the references to freedom in Jn 8^^'^ is sub- stantially the same. There is no mention of law, but sin is felt to mean slavery ; and freedom is only attained through the gift of the Son. Through Him we know the truth, and recognize and receive the message which the Son brings of the Father's love and of His purpose that men through faith in the Son should be, as He is, members of the Divine family (cf. IS^'). This breaks the slavery : to be- lieve in the Son makes the believer himself a son.
(2) Relation of individual tvill to purpose of God. — We now pass to the second question, which seems to touch more closely the familiar questions of modern philosophy. Two things, however, are here to be noticed. The discussion is not philo- sophical, but religious : it deals with the relation of the human will to the purpose of an omnijjotent
God. And it is not general but specific : how can we explain the fact that the Jews have been re- jected ? And this leads to a third point, namely, that the question of freedom is raised only by ac- cident. The real question is approached thus. In Ro 8 the Apostle's thought has reached the vic- torious love of Christ. But the Jews are outside. Is then God's promise to them broken by the re- jection of His people? No : to suppose this would be to limit God's power ; for He was supreme enough to put conditions on that promise (Isaac was chosen, and notlshmael ; Jacob, and not Esau). Thus, St. Paul carries the supremacy of God further than his opponents ; his argument is similar to that of the prophets, who had to oppose the rooted Israelite belief that Jahweh nuist save His people. But the argument does not stop here. God's will is not capricious. His real purpose is to secure ' the righteousness which is of faith ' (9^"), which the Jews rejected. Hence, a new element enters into_ the discussion : human responsibility. As far as the Jews themselves are concei-ned, faith is open to all (10^), and preaching can be heard by all (10-^). Thus, the Jews have only themselves to thank for their fate. Then, St. Paul returns to his original question. Are God's people rejected ? (11'). No, their revolt was their own sin; the salvation of the remnant is His grace. But if there is revolt, God confirms, yet only so as to over-rule ; it is all the better for the Gentiles, and, in the end, for the Jews also. Next, St. Paul turns to the Gentiles : ' You too will find that re- sistance is followed by severity. But, behind all, is goodness. If there has been blindness, it is in part ; the gifts and calling of God are without re- pentance ' (IP'"-^).
A contradiction between chs. 9 and 10 has often been felt. This is because St. Paul in ch. 9 is looking at only one side, viz. God's power to shut out or reject. But we must remember that he is arguing about Isaac, not Islimael ; Jacob, not Esau. It is the same with his reference to Pharaoh (9'^). He is writing as a Jew, and his purpose in mentioning Pharaoh is to show the sweep of God's power, not the limitations of Pharaoh's freedom. Otherwise, he would doubtless have written in accordance with the general principle which we find in ch. 1 : ' God gave them up ' (vv.^^- ^s ; cf. also Ac 13^, ' we turn to the Gentiles,' IS^). Two analogies will illustrate St. Paul's thought : that of a disease, in which morbid conditions and acts, if persisted in, become hopeless ; and that of family life, wherein conditions are laid down by a father to fulfil his desire of mutual love — if the son re- fuses to accept these conditions, he is rejected. These are not analogies simply ; they show the working of the same universal law. St. Paul's view of freedom is not atomic. Are we free at any given moment? No, we are conditioned by our past, and by our environment. To St. Paul, the past can be made up for ; and the environ- ment is one of love. Hence, St. Paul's conclusion : mercy is the supreme law. All are ' shut up ' unto disobedience, in order to come under the scope of mercy ; i.e. all are allowed to sutt'er the inevitable results, both of ignorance and of rejection, so that God's mercy may have its way with them (Ro IP-). If, however, there were any inclination to press ch. 9 as identifj-ing St. Paul with a specific specu- lative opinion, it would be enough to point out that his whole attitude, to both Jews and Gentiles, belies it. Practice even went beyond theory : men might be ' given up ' ; but this did not pre- vent a single appeal to them. If St. Paul turned to the Gentiles in one town, he would go straight to the synagogue in the next. Thus the two ques- tions, though api)arently unrelated in St. Paul's mind, really point to the same general view. The