comp. Matt. xiii. 20), or who so strengthens the wavering that he continues unblameable to the end (i. 8). This presupposes that God has, as it were, become bound to the individual; and this, according to ver. 9, He has done by His calling (comp. 1 Thess. v. 24, and therewith § 62, c). As the calling of Israel is an irrevocable designation to the saving blessings designed for them (Rom. xi. 29; comp. § 72, d), so here it is a designation to the future glory (εἰς κοινωνίαν τοῦ υἱοῦ αὐτοῦ: 1 Cor. i. 9, and therewith § 77, d; comp. 2 Thess. ii. 14); but therein is necessarily involved also, as with Peter (§ 45), the designation to that holiness (κλŋтoì åɣıı: 1 Cor. i. 2; Rom. i. 7; comp. 1 Thess. ii. 12, iv. 7) which God has to work in them, to prove and perfect in them, if they are to reach that goal. In our Epistles is the idea of calling for the first time quite definitely announced as the designation of a visible act done once for all, in which God has, as it were, given to the individual the assurance that He will lead him on in this way to perfect salvation; and this act is his introduction to the fellowship of the Christian Church.1 In this act is the divine purpose expressed, to lead each to salvation, as it is already realized in the present, and yet draws near in its completion (Rom. viii. 28: οἱ κατὰ πρόθεσιν κλητοί); and this purpose is conceived of on the side of Him who calls according to election (ix. 11: ἡ κατ ̓ ἐκλογὴν πρόθεσις ÈK TOû KAλOÛνTOS), i.e. so that out of the mass of humanity those are expressly chosen whom, as His holy and beloved ones, He wishes to be partakers of salvation (xi. 28; comp. Col. iii. 12; Eph. i. 4, 5). This secret divine decree of election2

1 This is clear, especially from 1 Cor. vii. 18, 21, 22, according to which, each is to remain as a Christian in the same vocation in which he was called; and from vv. 17, 20, where the manner of the xaños is itself designated as different, according to the position in life in which each Christian is. So far as the members of the Christian Church belong to Christ, they are xλnroì XpiσTOU (Rom. i. 6); so far as they stand in a living fellowship with Christ, they are xàntoì iv xupių (1 Cor. vii. 22); in so far as they are free from the law, they are called invespía (Gal. v. 13). If aλ stands (1 Cor. x. 27) for an invitation to a feast, this naturally has nothing to do with the technical meaning of the word.

2 'Exλexrós (Rom. xvi. 13) naturally is not used in the technical sense of the doctrine of election, but means select, distinguished, as § 30, d. In other passages the idea of election is throughout not differently conceived of than by Peter and James (§ 44, 45), only that here, naturally, it refers not to a narrower election from the chosen people, but from among men generally. On the other

becomes clearly manifest in the calling to the Church (1 Cor. i. 26-28: βλήπετε τὴν κλῆσιν ὑμῶν . . . ὅτι . . . ἐξελέξατο ὁ Θεός ; comp. 1 Thess. i 4, 5, and therewith § 61, 6). While God thereby takes the first step, so to speak, for carrying out the purpose He has made for the salvation of the individual (Rom. viii. 30: οὓς προώρισεν, τούτους καὶ ἐκάλεσεν; comp. ix. 23, 24), He gives them the assurance that He will not allow them to fail in all that follows. Even on that account, in the divine purpose of election, the matter really is as to definitive obtaining of salvation, and not merely as to the fixing the time for the realization of it.3

(b) It is implied in the very idea of election that it is a free act. The mercy of God, on which it rests, can be dependent on nothing else than God Himself as pitying (Rom. ix. 15, 16); hence it is said, ver. 18: dv Oéλel éλeeî. “Ov θέλει, σκληρύνει forms the opposite to this, and thus it appears that God has, from the beginning, created and prepared the one for salvation and the other for destruction, making the one receptive and hardening the other. In fact, the apostle vindicates for God as the creator the absolute right to do this, just as the potter in the simile has the absolute right, out of the same lump to form vessels to an honourable and a dis

hand, it refers (comp. Beyschlag, p. 87) even in our Epistles, as in the election of Israel, to a historical, and not to a pre-temporal act of God, as in 2 Thess. ii. 13 the reading à' àpxñs is incorrect (comp. § 61, c), and 1 Cor. ii. 7 speaks of the eternal purpose of salvation and not of election.

3 Beyschlag, p. 36, has abundantly proved, against von Hofmann, that in the idea of election there is necessarily implied an opposite to such,-those, namely, who are not elected (comp. e.g. Rom. xi. 7); for one may refer election, but not with him, simply to the point of time in which grace is brought savingly to bear on the individual, so that thereby a universal purpose of salvation would not be excluded. The passage, Rom. v. 18, says only that the dixaíaμa of Christ has a universal significance for the whole human race, as the αpárμx of Adam, while (ver. 19) those only are expressly designated as oi woλλoí who, as a matter of fact, have become righteous (and blessed); and, according to the connection (Rom. xi. 32), only says that God finally has pity on the Jew as on the Gentile, as the wavras without the article refers to the iμsïs and avroí (vv. 30, 31), i.e. to the converted heathen and to Israel (as a people). This reference needs no auporipous, as Beyschlag, p. 51, supposes, while a reference to all individuals would necessarily require the Távras to be without the article, a fact which Pfleiderer, p. 253 f. [E. T. i. 256]), overlooks; and he, moreover, from a philosophical contemplation of the apostle's teaching regarding the relation of the calling of the Gentiles to Israel (§ 91), draws dogmatic conclusions in the sense of Beyschlag's, which destroy the idea of election.

honourable use (vv. 20, 21).* On the contrary, when he comes to speak of the actual attainment of salvation, by means of a dé he puts the actual dealings of God at present in express contrast with the former right vindicated for God in abstracto (ver. 22). The σκεύη ὀργῆς κατηρτισμένα εἰς amóλeiav are by no means men whom He has fitted for destruction, in order to make known by them His wrath and His power; but, according to the connection, the Jews, who on account of their unbelief had fallen under God's wrath and so were ripe for destruction, but whom He, deferring the exhibition of His anger and His avenging power, has nevertheless till now endured with much long-suffering, in order to lead them to repentance (ii. 4). The poηToiμaσEV προητοίμασεν in ix. 23 cannot, conformably with this, refer to the creation of vessels of mercy, but only to their preparation for this by preventing grace, which works indeed in the paedagogic leading both of heathenism and Judaism (comp. § 70, 72). That the election, according to note a, consists in a selection from the collective number of human individuals, excludes a

It appears then to be assumed by him that God has availed Himself of this right in individual cases, in order to show His perfect freedom to do so. In this sense he refers to Scripture statements regarding Jacob and Esau (Mal. i. 2, 3; comp. Rom. ix. 13) on the one hand, and regarding Pharaoh (Ex. ix. 16; comp. Rom. ix. 17) on the other, because these, from their terms, in conformity with his method of interpretation, and without reference to their connection and historical reference (comp. § 74, c), appear to require this explanation. Moved by dog. matic prepossessions, one might reserve the idea, that even in reference to those who, in the course of the historical development of the kingdom, seem to be excluded from salvation, God's mercy may somewhere and in some way bring salvation; but for Paul, at any rate, it is sufficient that Esau, by his exclusion from the theocratic inheritance, is shut out from salvation; and likewise Pharaoh, when God hardened him, to show in him His might (in the judgment which brought destruction on him). The considerations by which Beyschlag (p. 39) seeks to weaken the example of Esau, are shown to be even not Pauline, and those about Pharaoh (p. 60) depend on the reference of ver. 22 to him, and that is undoubtedly false.

* Even Beyschlag, p. 53 f., has acknowledged the distinct turn which is introduced into the line of thought (Rom. ix. 22), and has conclusively proved that the vessels of wrath here mentioned cannot be identical with the exsun sis Tía, referred to hypothetically (ver. 21), as God cannot be angry at that which He has Himself made. But the objection he makes (p. 58) against the Calvinistic interpretation depends on his referring (ver. 22) to Pharaoh (comp. footnote 4), as God may indeed wait with much long-suffering for a number who have already incurred His wrath, even though not one of them repents, but not for Pharaoh, whom He has Himself hardened, in order to show His (judicial) might. But that Paul quite intentionally avoids & narńpriosy, exactly corre

creation of two classes of men destined for two separate ends, and yet more decisively so does everything which Paul teaches, according to § 67, as to Adam's transgression and its results, inasmuch as in a very different sense, at all events, could it be said of men created à priori for destruction, than of those destined to salvation, that by the transgression of Adam have they come under the dominion of sin and death. If Paul (ver. 18), in a way which approaches a predestination from arbitrary will, maintains the unfettered will of God in His mercy, this is in opposition to the Jews, who supposed that, through their acknowledged efforts after righteousness (ix. 31, x. 2), they had a claim on salvation above that of the heathen, in order to establish the truth that the mercy of God involved in election does not depend on the willing or the running of men (ix. 16). The κат' ÈKλoyηv πρóleσis is not to be dependent on ἐξ ἔργων (ver. 11); because ἐκλογή, which is the ultimate ground of the Christian salvation, as of the quality of that salvation generally, must be an act of grace, an ÈKλoyǹ XáρITOS (xi. 5). It by no means follows from this sponding with a pontoíμarev, plainly shows that he wished it to be taken as an adjective. This is by no means inconsistent with the word, as Pfleiderer, p. 245 (E. T. i. 248]), asserts (comp. 1 Cor. i. 10). Very energetically also does the latter contend against the proper interpretation of ver. 22. It is in vain, however, that he seeks to turn away the reference to the revelation of wrath at the last day (comp. Rom. ii. 5), and to introduce here the thought that the hardening of one is but a temporary state which will end in an act of grace (comp., on the contrary, footnote 3), although he admits himself that this thought is left quite untouched by the apostle (p. 246 [E. T. i. 249]). Rather only on that account, along with the aim of the panpolvμía, self-evident according to ii. 4, could the aim referring to the vessels of mercy be at the same time (xaí : also) attained, because without that long-suffering the last judgment would have carried off the vessels of wrath, but would also have made impossible every wider development, and so the call of the vessels of mercy. On the other hand, the simple "preservation of the vessels of wrath" (p. 244 [E. T. i. 247]) cannot be referred to the panpolvμía, which, besides, would have no meaning as applied to a quality produced by God Himself.

As xápir and pywv stand in irreconcilable opposition (ver. 6; comp. § 75, b), inasmuch as every human work creates merit (iv. 4), then an ixλoyǹ ix pywe would no more be an act of grace. It is not enough, to be sure, to say that the tendency of such setting the one over against the other by the apostle is to show the Jews that they can raise no objection to the contrary if God makes, not merit from works, but faith, to be the condition of obtaining salvation; for Beyschlag, p. 33, rightly notices that the reference here is not to the condition of justification, with its οὐκ ἐξ ἔργων, ἀλλ ̓ ἐκ πίστεως, but to the condition of election, which, according to note d, has the production of faith in the act of calling as its result.

that God must act from pure arbitrariness by election, as regards those He chooses to pity, but only, that it depends on Himself alone, what the conditions are on which He makes election to salvation depend.

(c) The passage, Rom. viii. 28-30, announces, in the plainest terms, on what the assurance of the predestined rests. Those whom God has once predestinated to salvation (ver. 29), He conducts with steady hand from the first beginning of the Christian life to its completion (ver. 30), so that all that happens to them in this way must serve their best interests (ver. 28). And now it is here expressly said (ver. 29) that He predestinated those whom He foreknew. But this foreknowledge can refer only to that quality on which God has determined, according to His free will, to make election depend; and what that is, is explicitly stated in the connection of vv. 28 and 29. If those for whose best interests all things contribute are designated, ver. 28, first as those who love God, and afterwards as those who are called according to His purpose, then ver. 29, introduced as giving the reason, removes the apparent contradiction between the latter objective and the former subjective sign, that God has ordained even those to salvation, and conformably to that foreordination has called those (ver. 30) whom He has foreknown as such, viz. as love Him. Also, 1 Cor. viii. 3, it is said that he who loves God is known as such by Him, and, according to ii. 9, God has prepared all salvation for such as love Him. We have already found love to God made by James the condition of election (§ 54, a); and while, according to him, this love to God is found in the TTXo (ii. 5), so here, too, it is those who before the world are the foolish, the weak, and the despised whom God has chosen (1 Cor. i. 27, 28;

7 When Pfleiderer, p. 249 [E. T. i. 252], reasserts that poyev can mean only "to appoint beforehand," he has not shown the linguistic right to do so, because it can only mean (Rom. xi. 2; comp. § 91, a), as in 1 Pet. i. 20 (comp. § 48, a), to foreknow. But even the context excludes his interpretation; for, should ous pośyvw really indicate only "the persons," and xaì æpoúpiσsv only the "determination" of the selection=election, then this would be indicated by a repetition of the same word. Also, according to Gal. iv. 9, the being known of God is the ultimate ground of all salvation (γνόντες τὸν Θεόν, μᾶλλον δὲ γνωσθέντες vrò es). Pfleiderer, on the other hand, rightly contends against the reference οἱ προγινώσκειν to a foreknowledge of faith.