Obrazy na stronie
PDF
ePub

chosen; and so election is posterior to representation by the Saviour. But this is idle unprofitable strife, totally unworthy the magnitude of the subject. It is sufficient to remark that Saul of Tarsus was << a chosen vessel;" and yet he speaks of others, even of his own day, " who were in Christ" before him.* Under such circumstances, it is weak, it is hazardous, to force such a construction on the word, as not only disagrees with the common phraseology of the scriptures; but superinduces the contradiction of two covenant heads at once. For certainly if to be "chosen," is really to be "in Christ before the foundation of the world," the party thus" chosen" must have also been in Adam, in the very same sense and to the very same extent, from nearly the very æra of the foundation of the world.

[ocr errors]

Am I to hear that the Saviour, in his mediatorial prayer, did not pray "for the world," but "for them that were given him out of the world?" It is admitted. Him the Father" heareth always;" and had he prayed for all the world, it must doubtless have been saved. But because he did not pray for it, does it follow that he might not? Because he has not saved it, does it follow that he might not? Sir, you have already heard from some of your standard writers, that he was both able and authorized to do it. But look at the words again; look at them in connexion with the residue of this prayer. He did not pray for the world: for whom then did he pray? certainly not for "the elect-as elect," to use the crank and pithy language of the libel. He prays "for them whom God had given him out of the world;" and the persons thus designated by no means comprized the whole of the elect: because "not for them only," spoken of as already given him, does he offer up petitions; but " for all them also who shall believe on him through their word."+ Sir, we have already commented on this passage; we have shown that instead of countenancing the individualizing scheme, it affords in fact the strongest argument against it; it proves that the Saviour recognized no relation between himself and such persons as had not yet embraced him.

[blocks in formation]
[ocr errors]

Once more; shall I be told that the Saviour speaks of sheep who were not yet of the fold of Israel, but were evidently his chosen of the gentile world, and of all succeeding generations? To this, I think, the circular affords an answer abundantly sufficient, on the supposition that we are to comprehend under this expression all the elect Gentiles. It is then merely that prophetic form of speech--that "calling of things that are not as though they be," which is the peculiar prerogative of the Eternal mind; which in the page of inspiration is asserted as such; which, therefore, the churches are not authorized to adopt; and which, after all, proves nothing to the purpose: for the expression establishes no relation in law, no recognition in covenant, but merely adverts to things that were to be. But how do you know that when the Saviour spoke of " other sheep" not of the Jewish fold, which he intended to bring in, he really had reference to all the elect Gentiles? He speaks of them as "sheep:” in what sense did this apply to the" disobedient and abominable;” the aliens and strangers;" the men who were "alienated from the life of God," and " enemies to him by wicked works?" All this, and much more, is spoken of Gentiles, afterwards converted. In what sense were they then his "sheep?" He suggests something like the idea of another fold whence he would bring them," that there might be one fold and one shepherd." Now in what kind of " fold" were the pagans placed whom he intended to bring in? In what kind of "fold" are those Gentiles kept, who have not yet seen the sun? You are not compelled to make any supposition, to introduce any of your finely spun distinctions, in order to account for this phraseology. There were at that time in Palestine, and probably in every part of the Roman empire to which the Jews had carried the oracles of God, many Gentiles who waited for the salvation of the Highest; whose prayers and alms came up before him with acceptance; but who were in no degree connected with the Jewish Hierarchy, but still " aliens from the commonwealth of Israel;" " aliens," I mean, in relation to that church which was the only visible "fold" of his sheep:-" Abraham was ignorant of them; Israel acknowledged them not." Such was the Centurion whose faith exceeded every thing found in Israel itself; such, very possibly, even at that time, was Cornelius; such the Eunuch of Ethi

opia; such a whole city of Samaritans, hard by the well of Sychar (John. iv.); and such, no doubt, were multitudes of others. Now, were not these "believers" sheep? Did not they "hear the shepherds voice?" And was it not sufficient to justify the expression of this perverted text, that the "middle wall of partition" was about to be taken down, and these Gentiles, who had been under a dispensation of grace while without the public fold, about to be openly received and constituted members of the one great household, in common with the believers of " the seed of Abraham?" Such expressions comport well with the discriminating language of the mediatorial prayer already more than once adverted to; they harmonize completely with the federal plan as delineated in the essay; but, on the other construction, they do hot harmonize with the residue of scripture.

Moderator, it would be a vain attempt, were I to aim at giving an answer to every objection that zeal or ingenuity might succeed in conjuring up and levelling against the system I uphold. The general principle has already been submitted-been illustrated, been established, been confirmed. That principle will itself suggest an easy solution in every instance of the kind. For me to forestall all manner of objections, on a question so long agitated, and of such vital interest, would be to attempt the labour of a week. You have been furnished with a sample of the most important difficulties that might be suggested from the scriptures. The sample, I think, is fair; and I trust they have been fairly met. On the other hand, you have had but a sample of the arguments which go to support my view. All that can be attempted, under circumstances like the present, on a discussion which if carried out would fairly fill a volume, can amount at best to a very partial and hurried attempt. There is however one objection, drawn, it may be said, from the analogy of faith, of which it is proper that some notice should be taken. I allude to the famous argumentum cornutum of the deservedly famous Dr. Owen. Sir, shall I repeat it? "Christ either died for some of the sins of all men; or for all the sins of all men; or for some of the sins of some men; or for all the sins of some men." I have heard much of the execution of this celebrated dilemma: and on the question that elicited it, I do not dispute its potency. In that

view it has the homage of my high respect. But, sir, I appre hend that this death-dealing dilemma, though tossing its monstrous horns, like the Macedonian goat, toward the four winds of heaven, can affect nothing on the question with which we are now concerned. It is itself clearly predicated on the individualizing view. If it be not, it is worth nothing. It supposes that the righteousness and satisfaction of the Saviour must, when wrought out, have had a reference to every individual for whose ultimate salvation they were actually designed. Dr. Owen assumes this as a conceded point; and here is his rewrov Veudas. He assumes also that there cannot be any way devised except one of these alternatives; and here is his second error. We have shown you a plan of federal representation which obtains throughout many of the divine constitutions, and whose structure is different from any of these four. And we have proved to you that in every system of the kind, the transactions of the head terminate specifically on the body as it exists at the moment supposed; and only refer to others (but then come down wholly on them), when once they become parts of the system represented. Now on such a structure the dilemma has no bearing. On such a structure it was not designed to bear; for its author has convinced us he never thought of such a structure. Yet this is the principle on which the church is founded. But, sir, if this dilemma proved any thing at all, would it not prove by far too much? Would it not declare, with the Presbytery of Kentucky, that "Christ may not extend deliverance and salvation to the whole human family?” Thus much it would prove, if strictly interpreted on the individualizing notion; and the hero who proposed it had no other in his mind. Thus would it falsify the doctrines of the Fathers, that the Saviour is authorized and able to minister salvation to the whole human race: and, which is a matter of infinitely more importance, it would falsify "the gospel of the grace of God."

And now, sir, I challenge your judgment on an essay, which, notwithstanding the dishonour so plentifully heaped upon it, injures in no point the doctrines of grace; affords no manner of countenance to any of those theories which have been opposed to the true foundation of a sinners hope; utters no doctrine unacknowledged by the standard writers of your church; and intro

duces no new principle but one, and that one evidently calculated to harmonize, to confirm, to illustrate all those precious and important truths which stamp a value on the gospel of salvation. In submitting the question to you I cannot avoid remarking how much would be gained to the cause of " peace and truth," were that single idea recognized generally by the churches of the day. Former ages will tell you what havoc has been made, what misery been indured, for the want of this simple, this composing principle. Thousands have scaned fearlessly the legitimate consequences of the individualizing scheme, as usually connected with evangelical professions. They have seen that in limiting the efficacy of the atonement, and in prescribing bounds to the commission of the Saviour, those truths become hampered which form the essence of the gospel: and they did not fear to say so. But they attempted correction with incautious hand. Instead of tracing out the delineations of the scripture, they devised the various plans most plausible in their own eyes; and proposed them as the ones on which Christ became a Saviour with unlimited authority. They and their opponents mutually erred: their errors gave rise to mutual criminations: both appealed to scriptures which well and truly countenance a portion of their systems: both objected difficulties which neither side could solve; for neither held the principle which yields the true solution. Sir, is it strange that under circumstances like these, both sides should often run into very great extravagancies! Is it at all to be wondered at that some, called Calvinists, following out legitimately their individualizing notions, should have at length reached conclusions which clap an extinguisher on the light of God's salvation? Is it any thing more strange that many, called Arminians, should have pushed out their notions of universal atonement to conclusions which effectually neutralize the gospel? Is it any how surprising that multitudes embracing either side of this alternative, but nevertheless loving the gospel in their hearts, should have blundered along through many-fold perplexities; feeling and believing much more nearly alike than they were willing to admit; and holding and uttering many inconsistencies, better calculated to puzzle than to edify their followers?

« PoprzedniaDalej »