do this? When are we to expect it from such of the elect" as for many a coming age will not be in existence? Sir, hear a little more of what this "elect" one must accomplish. "I will give thee for a covenant of the people, for a light of the Gentiles; to open the blind eyes, to bring out the prisoners from the prison, and them that sit in darkness out of the prison-house." Verses 6, 7. Have elect men been given" for a covenant to the Gentiles?" Have any of them prevailed" to open the blind eyes?" Have they brought out "the prisoners from the prison?" The "elect" alone have "the blind eyes" opened: they alone are ever brought out "from the prison-house:" they are in fact "the Gentiles" to whom the party spoken of has appeared as "a light." Surely they were not "given" as a light to themselves; they were not made physicians to open their own blind eyes; they wear not on their shoulder" the key of David," to free themselves, as "prisoners, from the prison-house.".

No, sir, it is well worth your remark that the gift of the "elect," of the chosen Saviour, as "a covenant to the Gentiles," is spoken of as a thing still future. And though the scriptures often speak of future things as present, they never speak of past things as future. Yet these are the texts which controversialists employ, these are the texts which your standard writers employ, to prove that the elect, personally and severally, were included in the covenant of grace when made; were in fact and in form parties to that covenant. Moderator, it is a shame!

Sir, recur with me to the principle already established in relation to the covenant of works. "Adam was all mankind, as Jacob and Esau were two nations in the womb of Rebecca." Now the world is Adam developed in his children. "Mankind" was an individual when the covenant was made; and that individual was "the figure of him that was to come." So Christ was the body, as Adam was mankind, when the covenant was made; and the church is Christ developed in his seed, as the world is Adam developed in his posterity, and as Israel was Jacob developed in his sced. Christ's people, as they are produced, become "fellow-workers with himself;" often become "fathers" to others in the gospel;" and are legitimately denominated “lights in the world." With Christ, then, as a body this covenant was

made; and that body, in every stage of it, answers to the covenant. Not with "the elect," but with himself, it was made; on his members it is binding, as they are developed from himself; from his members flow blessings according to their measure. But it was never yet heard that an unconverted elect man was ever "a light" to any body: never so much as thought of that they are appointed means of giving liberty to any body. Sir, they are "the blind" whose own eyes must be opened: they are, for the greater part, "the Gentiles" to whom the covenant must be given. But already within that covenant they certainly cannot be.

from

What, I pray you, says the scripture, of unconverted persons, whether they be Jew or Gentile? Does it not call them "aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise?" ** Moderator what is an "alien" from any commonwealth? what is anλorgiaμevos?—What is a stranger" any kind of covenant? what is evos?-What is it to be "without" Christ? what is xwgs? The former two of these words are allowedly forensic; and I question whether they are ever used in any other sense. An alien from a commonwealth, is one who though he may be in a country, is never ranked with the citizens of the country; is not known to the constitution of the country as a part of the body politic; professes no allegiance to the head of the community; and is regarded by no one as under the representation of the head. The commonwealth is the thing represented by the head; but he who is aændλorgewμevog is unconnected with the commonwealth. This interpretation is founded on the ordinary acceptation of the word; it is justified by the sense in which the apostle uses it in other places of the scripture. At the fourth chapter and twelfth verse of this same epistle, you read that all unconverted Gentiles are 66 απηλλοτριωμενοι της ζωής το θεό,” "alienated from the life of God." Now just such remoteness as subsists between the unregenerate and " the life of God," subsists between the "elect" before regeneration, and " the commonwealth of Israel." Need I tell you that it is total, that the severance is complete, both in law and in fact? The same word occurs in Collos. 1. 21. and in precisely the same sense. Now what will you make of this? How can a man be a constituent part of a body politic, and at the same time dissevered from it? in the very Eph. ii. 12.

same respect, at the very same time, an alien and a citizen! Sir, these things will not bear telling. You must give up then the eternal representation of the elect; or you must maintain that they may be under the representation of the head, and yet aliens from the body represented by him. You must have two such headships, over two distinct bodies. You must acknowledge. Messiah, the head of his body" the church; and you must proclaim him (for as yet he has never been proclaimed) the head of his body the elect. They who will do so, were best turn Jews at once, and adopt the legend of two distinct Messiahs.

But how will you bind a man under Messiahs representation, while he remains a " stranger” (ževos) from the covenants of promise?" A STRANGER is one who has no rights in a domicil; who is no member of a family; whose relations and interests lie in another quarter. Now would it not be something more than a marvellous arrangement, that a person should be in this sense a stranger from the covenant, and yet be included in it! yet a party to it! It is absurd, it is monstrous. Yet these things your systems father on your maker! Moderator, I WILL speak out. I WILL pour contempt over all human glory, rather than stand a spectator, silent and careless, while the glory of the Eternal is thus profaned, and the word of his truth so miserably mangled. Sir, will not you join me? Let us desert forever the commonly received idea of federal representation. We must do it; or we must expunge from the volume of the scriptures every expression that looks toward the doctrine: for you never can succeed to amalgamate the two, either in matter or in form, in phraseology or in illustration.

If you think otherwise, attempt it. Tell me that Christ may have contracted for his pcople, in the manner and form commonly represented by the covenant of redemption. Say that he "bargained" for them by name; that he agreed to obey and suffer in their stead; and that the covenant only knew them as the subjects of this "bargain."—You may say this, if you please. But then, take notice, you have described a kind of covenant in every respect different from the covenant of grace as delineated in your books; and not, as is weakly and falsely pretended, " a different aspect" of the For it never can be true that the elect were party contractors in the covenant, and yet passive objects merely contracted

same.

for. We have seen indeed that it is not true that they were party contractors; for they never could be "strangers," and parties too. Say then, I repeat it, that they were passive objects, for whom Messiah contracted; and who were in due time to be brought forward and justified and blessed. Here, we have indeed a covenant that involves no absurdity; but, this too I must repeat-it differs toto cœlo from that covenant of grace spoken of in your confession: it differs just as far from the form of the covenant laid down in the scriptures: it is, in very deed, that Scottish figment, that "covenant of redemption," about which I may fairly say, as the good woman told her minister, of the "solemn league and covenant,"-"you make more oise about it than about the other two." Look once more at thi scripture. What is it to be xweis. xis (without Christ)? What 10xwgs? what does it imply? Look throughout the scriptures; it is very frequently to be met with; and it uniformly indicat perfect destitution or negation of the subject about which it is em 'loyed. Rom. 111. 21. "But now the righteousness of God i hanifested (xapis vous) without law." -Ibid. 28. "We conclude therefore that a man is justified by faith (xapis epyov voμov) without the works of the law."-Id. IV. 6. "David also decribeth the blessedness of the man to whom God imputeth righteousness (xapis egywv) without works."-John 1. 2. (XWEIS AUTY) without him was not any thing made that was made."-Finally Math. XV. 33. and they that did eat were four thousand men (xwę1s) besides women and children." And, now, I will again ask you, what it is for a person to be (xwers) without Christ? Is it not to be as remote from God the Saviour, as all human merit is from the grounds of justification; as women and children from that reckoning of the Evangelist, which it is declared did not embrace them; as the sum of this creation, from independence for existence on the energies of him by whom all things were produced? Is it possible that a term conveying the idea of such destitution, of such complete and absolute distinctness, could ever be employed in relation to beings actually represented by God the Saviour! I could as soon contradict the last member of this sentence: I could as soon believe them to have been "joint heirs" with him who is said to " inherit all things;" and yet, while standing in that relation, (abor, Godless,)" without God in the world."

Moderator, it is painful and fatigueing to be employed in argument, where the thing to be proved is a self-evident proposition; and where to assert the opposite is to deal in contradiction. You certainly ought to see, without any aid from logic, that to be federally represented, is to be federally united; and that where union is not, representation cannot be. If you cannat see it, to argue with you is to battle with the winds. It is, in fact, a first principle that I contend for; and he who denies it, has forfeited his claim either to candour or discernment. A principle no where argued, but always assumed, in the page of inspiration. What relationship subsisted between the wild olive branches and the good olive tree, during the period of their subsistence on their natural stock? Unquestionably none Yet this is a leading figure by which the scriptures illustrate translation out of the first into the second Adam.* What retionship subsists, during the lifetime of a first husband, between married woman and a stranger with whom she afterwards wil wed? Unquestionably none. Yet this is another figure by whic. the scriptures illustrate our transfer from the first into the second Adam.† No more then can relationship, in any sense, be predicated between the Saviour and his elect, while they are not united with him. But is not to be represented-federally represented, to stand in a very near and important relation? Then, if scriptural illustrations at all deserve attention, Christ is never the representative of any of his people till they are in fact united to him. Who then are the errorists? Who are the heretics? They who assert the doctrine challenged by your libel? Or they who, in denouncing it, denounce the very scriptures?

And now, sir, look through the volume of the scriptures: show me one passage-I ask but for one passage, in which the unregenerate are said to be represented by the Saviour: or in which they are said to be parties to the covenant, or to be recognized by the covenant in any degree whatever. Moderator, I defy you to produce me such a passage. Your systems, your confessions, may tell us that the covenant was made with them as parties, and that Christ acted in their name: but so do not the

Rom. xi. 17-21. † Ibid. vii. 1-4.