1724.-Calvin: Thirteene Sermons of Maister John Calvine, entreating of the Free Election of God in Jacob, and of reprobation in Esau. A treatise wherein every Christian may see the excellent benefites of God towardes His children, and His marvellous judgments towards the reprobate, firste published in the French toung, and now translated into Englishe by John Fielde, for the comfort of all Christians. 1579. This work is quite distinct from the illustrious author's Latin and French Commentaries.

V. PHARAOH. THE WORD.

Josephus tells us that the word Pharaoh, in Egyptian, means hing (ὁ Φαραὼν κατ' Αιγυπτίους Baoiλéa onuaível. Antiq. viii. 7, 2). βασιλέα σημαίνει. The etymo

logical import of the term has been much debated among Egyptologists. Wilkinson identifies the word with Phra," the sun," (Ancient Egyptians i. 310,) supposing that in the adulatory usage of the Egyptians the term was constrained to throw its own lofty significance on the reigning head of the empire. But with increasing research, new light has been thrown upon both the form and the primary import of the designation. In the Essay at the close of the Speaker's Commentary on Exodus we read as follows: "The vocalisation and diacritic points show that the Hebrews read Par-aoh, not Pa-raoh. This is important, since

the name, whatever it might signify, was well known as the proper official designation of the kings of Egypt, and its correct pronunciation must have been familiar to the translators of the Pentateuch, and probably also to the punctuators of the Bible. The cuneiform inscriptions have the same division, Pir-u, not Pi-ru." (P. 477.)

Strangely enough, the original meaning of the designation is supposed to be "the Sublime Porte"; that is, the High Gate, or more literally the Great House, or still more literally, the Double House. Note the dual inclosure in the hieroglyphic representations.

VI. THE PHARAOH OF EXODUS. (Ver. 17.) It has been very generally supposed that the second Ramses (Raamses) was the particular Pharaoh referred to. But Sayce says: "The Pharaoh under whom the Exodus actually took place could not have been Ramses II. himself, but his son and successor, Menepta II., who ascended the throne about B.C. 1325. His reign lasted but a short time, and it was disturbed, not only by the flight of the children of Israel, but also by a great invasion of Northern Egypt by the Libyans, which was with difficulty repulsed." (Fresh Light from the Ancient Monuments, p. 63.)

VII. IS GOD'S WILL EVER REALLY RESISTED? (Ver. 19.)

On this subject take note of the views of the Greek Fathers. Hagenbach says: "All the Greek Fathers, the apologists Justin, Tatian, Athenagoras, Theophilus, and the Latin Father Minucius Felix, as well as the theologians of the Alexandrian school, Clement and Origen, represent the aureovσiov (or self-determining will) of the human soul, with all the early warmth and freshness of Hellenistic idealism, and know nothing of vice apart from voluntary determination." (History of Doctrines, vol. i., § 57.)

Calvin thought that the term self-determining will is "too arrogant" to be a legitimate representation of man's ethical constitution. stitutes, lib. ii. 2, 4.)

(In

The Greek Fathers thought of God as looking out for the things which are casting their shadows before, and as thus foreknowing all things, but yet not doing all things, and not even fixing all.

66

Hence the author of the Questions and Answers in Justin Martyr's Works (p. 425, ed. 1686) says, Foreknowledge is not the cause of that which is about to be, but that which is about to be is the cause of foreknowledge.'

John Damascene says, "It is necessary to know that, though God foreknows all things, He does not predestinate all." (De Orthodoxa Fide, lib. ii., cap. xxx.)

To come to comparatively modern times, it is worth while taking into account what is testified concerning the illustrious Archbishop Ussher by Bishop Brian Walton, the editor of the London Polyglot Bible. "This I can testify, that having often discourse with the late most reverend father in God, James, Lord Primate of Armagh, concerning divers controversies in divinity; and, in particular, the last time that he was in London, which was not long before his death, concerning the controversies of grace and freewill, election and reprobation, and the dependents thereon: he did declare his utter dislike of the doctrine of absolute reprobation, and that he held the universality of Christ's death; and that, not only in respect of sufficiency, but also in regard of efficacy, so that all men thereby were savable; and that the reason why all were not thereby saved, was, because they did not accept of salvation offered. And that the grace of conversion was not irresistible, but that men might, and often did, resist and reject the same. And that in these points he did not approve the doctrine of Geneva, but was wholly of Bishop Overall's opinion. All which I took the more notice of, because he was generally conceived to be of another judgment." (HENRY JOHN TODD: Memoirs of the Life and Writings of the Right Rev. Brian Walton, D.D., vol. i., p. 205.)

VIII.

PRACTICAL EXCURSUS ON THE POTTER AND

HIS CLAY. (Ver. 21.)

"Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel to honour, and another to dishonour?"

Hath he not? Yes, he has. That is the answer which the apostle expects. It is the answer which he himself, looking at the subject from his own peculiar standpoint, was fully prepared to give. He was right. The potter has power over his clay, when it is really his own, to make of the same lump one vessel to honour and another to dishonour. And God, the almighty Potter, has unchallengeable power over His clay, to make of the same human lump, subjected in all its parts to the same process of careful preparatory kneading, one vessel to honour, and another to ignominious uses or dishonour.

Let it be noticed, in the first place, that when the apostle speaks of the potter's power, he does not refer to his physical force. It is not ability to do of which he speaks. He does not mean that the almighty Potter is, in virtue of His almightiness, able to make, out of the same human lump, one vessel to honour and another to dishonour. He has no reference at all to any such ability. God indeed is possessed of the irresistible and almighty force that is essential to