thor pursues a similar line of conduct in reference to the unfortunate king of Egypt, on whom he pours forth a perfect torrent of abuse. We cannot admire the author's taste in this matter. How different is the manner of the apostle! How calm, and dignified, and gentlemanly, are his language and bearing! They form a perfect contrast to that of the author. We read that "Michael, when contending with the devil, durst not bring against him a railing accusation." But what "the Arch-angel" durst not do, the author dares to do. We recommend him to avoid this in future. Let him take a lesson on "good manners" from the apostle Paul. Let him expunge from his work all those abusive epithets, with which its pages are thickly strewed. And though this may have the effect of considerably diminishing its bulk, it will certainly add to its value.

We are unable to see any good reason for concluding that the objection must necessarily be that of a Jew. It seems just as likely to be that of a Gentile some speculative Roman. The Jews were familiar with the doctrine of the apostle regarding the hardening of Pharaoh's heart; and were not, therefore, likely to object to it in his case. They might object to its application to themselves; but the objection does not assume this form—it is general— and would apply to any and every case of hardening. The author is careful not to hint that the objection

is one that is often made by Arminians and Morisonians against the Calvinistic system. Had he allowed such a hint to drop from his pen, it might have led to the suspicion, that as the objection was almost exclusively an Arminian one, the doctrine objected to was probably not only apostolic, but Calvinistic also.

The author, after calling on his readers to mark that the objection is a cavil, an "actual cavil," proceeds to ask them,

"What can you think of that system of theology which, when ascribing to God two contradictory wills, one revealed, and another secret, expressly utters, by the mouth of one of its most renowned living defenders,* such words as these,-'The types or expressions of these two wills are to be found in the two texts commonly quoted to illustrate them; the first, Rom. ix. 19, "Who hath resisted his will ?" the second, Matt. xviii. 37, "How often would I have gathered you, and ye would not?" " O shame! Are Christ's own deep-hearted words, 'How often would I have gathered you?' to be linked and wedded to the hollow-souled cavil of a Christ-rejecting Jew? Is the hated, and impious, and illogical objection of a man who is deemed, by apostolic inspiration, to be "replying against God," to be exalted to be the prop and buttress of almost one-half of God's own heavenly theology? Whence this unnatural union of the canting cavil of a mere man of Belial, and the candid, comely, and heartcaptivating cry of the Man-and-God Christ Jesus? Whence this mixture of light and darkness, of sweetness and bitterness, of loveliness and loathsomeness? and whence this chaotic mingling of the very elements of heaven and of hell? Is it not a

Dr. Candlish.

heart-sickening thing to see the theology that sways a country's heart piled up and castellated high upon the foundation of an unconverted man's cavil ?"-Pp. 388, 389.

This is a very pretty rhetorical flourish-a sort of pathetic climax. But it has one serious defect: there is not a particle of truth in it. The author has "piled up" a fair-seeming structure of rhetoric on the subject of cavilling; but the entire fabric is based on a cavil; and thus the "high castellated" erection is in danger of coming down on the "pate" of its ingenious contriver. It might have seemed ungenerous to lift a hand towards its demolition, had not the author furnished us with a benevolent motive for the act. The contemplation of his own work has made him "heart-sick;" and we are pleased to have it in our power to remove the cause of his distress. We have to remark, then, that it is not true that "Christ's own words are linked and wedded," by Dr. Candlish, "to the cavil of a Christ-rejecting Jew." The "cavil" to which the apostle's opponent gives utterance does not lie in the doctrine, that God's will is "irresistible;" for that is a glorious and a scriptural truth, and not a cavil. The Scriptures assure us, that "God doeth according to his will in the armies of heaven, and among the inhabitants of the earth; and none can stay his hand, or say unto Him,

What doest thou?" * The "cavil" lies in the insinuation that there is an inconsistency between this doctrine, and the doctrine of man's responsibility; or, between the irresistible nature of God's will, and his "finding fault." This is the "cavil" to which the apostle's antagonist gives utterance ; and the author must excuse us for saying that it is one which he himself is frequently guilty of perpetrating-though we should be sorry, on that account, to brand him as a "canting man of Belial.” If the cavil had consisted in the statement that the will of God is irresistible, the apostle does not seem to have been aware of it, for he does not utter a word in answer to such an idea; -on the contrary, he has confirmed it as a truth. He does not say, as the author does, that the parties. referred to "have resisted God's will." He does not say a word to this effect. He does not attempt to eat away, or explain away, any of his previous statements by saying that God only hardens those whom he cannot melt, such as the "nether-millstone-hearted monarch of Egypt,” as the author styles him. The apostle does not say that the "potter hath not power over the clay, to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour."

The answer which the apostle gives to the "cavil" is quite antipodal to the one given to it by the

* Dan. iv. 35.

author; and this is conclusive proof that he has entirely mistaken its nature. Indeed, the view which he takes of it is most unsatisfactory, and puerile in the extreme. He represents the objector as arguing that if it be true that the Jews were "hardened by God," he would be unreasonable in finding fault with them for their "hardened condition;" which, as the author interprets the matter, consists simply in "insensibility to danger,”—a feeling somewhat allied to courage. And this he characterises as a "cunning quibble." But it is too transparent a piece of silliness to deserve the name of a quibble. It is incredible that any man would give utterance to a sentiment so ineffably and ridiculously absurd. It is incredible that an inspired apostle like Paul would expend ink and paper in stating and refuting an objection so utterly and inexpressibly puerile. The Epistle of Paul to the Romans was not written for the edification of ninnies. Do any of our readers imagine that we are speaking in too depreciatory terms of the author's definition of this cavil? them only suppose the case of a man who had been found in arms against his sovereign, and had, in consequence, been cast into prison; and who, when brought to trial, should stand up and plead that the king had no right to "find fault" with him for being in jail; as it was quite in accordance with the "royal will" that he was sent there; and no one could "resist his will." Does any one suppose that

Let