"Exod. vii. 3. 'I will harden Pharaoh's heart.' As there are in the works of creation many things which exceed the narrow limits of human understanding, so are there many things incomprehensible to us both in the works of Providence and of grace."
But as far as the hardening of Pharaoh's heart goes, it does not "exceed the narrow limits of human understanding," nor is it "incomprehensible," since God makes quite clear how He hardened Pharaoh's heart.
"It is not however necessary that because we cannot fully comprehend these mysteries we should never fix our attention at all upon them. As far as they are revealed, the consideration of them is highly proper."
Of course. God's hardening of Pharaoh is clearly revealed, and thus it is highly proper to consider it. What is also highly proper is a proper understanding that doesn't read its own carnal presuppositions into the text of Scripture.
"...only, where we are so liable to err, our steps must be proportionably [sic] cautious and our inquiries be conducted with the greater humility. In particular, the deepest reverence becomes us while we contemplate the subject before us. We ought not, on the one hand, to indulge a proud and captious spirit that shall banish the subject altogether; nor, on the other hand, to make our assertions upon it with a bold, unhallowed confidence. Desirous of avoiding either extreme, we shall endeavour to explain and vindicate the conduct of God, as it is stated in the text."
Credit to Simeon for not banishing the subject altogether. But judge whether or not Simeon will "make [his] assertions upon it with a bold, unhallowed confidence."
"To explain it. We are not to imagine that God infused any evil principle into the heart of Pharaoh. This God never did, nor ever will do to any of his creatures. What he did may be comprehended in three particulars."
There's the hypocritically "bold, unhallowed confidence" that Simeon had just cautioned against. Also, God's unconditional and active hardening is misunderstood and misrepresented as infusing an evil principle into the hearts of the wicked. Psalm 105:25 says that God "turned their heart to hate his people." This is not to infuse an evil principle into the hearts of Pharaoh and his people; it is to actively TURN their evil hearts to commit SPECIFIC evil actions. If this "evil principle" of which Simeon speaks is the enmity against God that resides in every unregenerate heart (Romans 8:7), then this "evil principle" is actively TURNED (how else can something be "turned"?) by God to hate his people. The king's heart is TURNED whithersoever God wills to TURN it; not whithersoever God "permits" the king to turn it (cf. Proverbs 21:1). Indeed, the king doth turn and the axe doth swing. The king turns because God is turning him and the axe swings because it is being swung by God (cf. Isaiah 10:15).
"1. He left Pharaoh to the influence of his own corruptions...and thereby invested him with power to oppress. By multiplying the Jews he made their services of great importance to the Egyptian empire. The labours of six hundred thousand slaves could not easily be dispensed with; and therefore the temptation to retain them in bondage was exceeding great...Thus, as far as respects a withholding of that grace which might have softened Pharaoh's heart and a giving him an opportunity to show his malignant dispositions, and a permitting of Satan to exert his influence, God hardened Pharaoh's heart. But as being a perfectly free agent, Pharaoh hardened his own heart. And this is repeatedly affirmed in the subsequent parts of this history."
Simeon makes the assertion "with a bold, unhallowed confidence," that God "left Pharaoh to the influence of his own corruptions." Really? Where is that in the text? God raised up Pharaoh to display his POWER in Pharaoh (Exodus 9:16). The invested power granted to Pharaoh to oppress God's people (and God's desire to destroy him for it), was itself a manifestation of God's power and wrath.
"When once we have learned what was the true nature of God's agency (Romans 9), and how far it was concerned in the hardening of Pharaoh's heart, we shall be at no loss to vindicate it."
The "true nature of God's agency." Right. Simeon will invent a law that conforms to his own carnal imaginings, and then seek to "protect" God from violating it and to "vindicate" God in light of it. He will fashion a law of his own making and then seek to prevent God from the great transgression of intruding into man's holy of holies.
"We must never forget that God's ways and thoughts are infinitely above ours; and that whether we approve of them or not, he will never give account of them to us. Yet, constituted as we are, we feel a satisfaction in being able to discern their suitableness to the divine character..."
The "suitableness" of fabricating an idol that is like unto you, Simeon (cf. Psalm 115:8). Simeon has become what he worships.
"Again, it was righteous in God to suffer such a concurrence of circumstances as should give scope for the exercise of his corruptions."
In view of Simeon's proud proclamations thus far, what this statement amounts to is that his idol hardens hearts without actually hardening hearts; turns hearts without actually turning hearts; swings axes without actually swinging axes; and demonstrates his power without actually demonstrating his power.
"God is no more bound to destroy man's free agency by his providence than he is by his grace...On the whole then, if men are to be left to their own free agency instead of being dealt with as mere machines, and if God [has] ordered the general course of his providence agreeably to this rule...then was he fully justified in suffering this impious monarch to harden his already proud and obdurate heart..."
If man's supposed "free agency" relative to God's sovereign decree is defined as "freedom from force or coercion," then man has "free agency" relative to a "decree" (and hence, a "god") that does not exist. One might as well say that man has "free agency" relative to the dust on Mars which, presumably, does exist. So, man is "free" from a "decree" that does not exist, and man is "free" from dust that does exist. And thus he can be legitimately held responsible for his sins. Great! Wonderful!
In contrast, the true and living God does not "force" by His active decree since He is omnipotent. A less-than-omnipotent "god" might need to force. If the definition of man's "free agency" implies freedom from God's active and sovereign decree, then man does NOT have "free agency." The axe does NOT have "free agency" relative to the Woodsman. The axe does not swing the Woodsman; the Woodsman swings the axe (cf. Isaiah 10:1-15).
Simeon is an ardent defender of the fashionable Calvinism of popular consumption. This Calvinism has dreamt up a passive decree in which the "free agent" axe is actually swinging the woodsman as if it were not an axe (Isaiah 10:15). If they would object, then they must explain how a (supposed) woodsman swings an axe without actually swinging it; and how an axe "just so happens" to swing SPECIFIC swings and chop SPECIFIC things when the woodsman leaves the axe to its own devices.
