Quest. II. "Is it the anxious desire and wish of Jesus Christ, that all should obey him, and be saved?”

We answer, 1. The question is not definitely stated. That Jesus Christ sustains both a human and a divine character, will not be disputed. Some things in divine revelation, are predicated of him in his human character and some in his divine. He was, indeed, more than a man, but he was a man. In his human nature, he increased in wisdom and stature. Of him, as a man it is said, "But of that day knoweth no man,-neither the Son, but the Father." "If thou be willing, remove this cup from me; nevertheless, not my will, but thine be done." If "the anxious desire and wish," be applied to Jesus Christ, as a man, we might answer in his own words to his Father, "Not my will, but thine, be done." It might be the natural feeling, inclination, or dictate of humanity, which the blessed Saviour would nevertheless resolve into the will of his Father. And from the epithet anxious, applied to desire and wish, one would scarcely imagine it would, or could, be, at all, ascribed to the Divine mind, unless metaphorically, or speaking after the manner of men, and then it could be no proof of the author's sentiment. When it is said of God, that "he rested and was refreshed," who would reason that he had been weary, or was actually refreshed?

But, 2. Let it be applied to the divine character of Jesus Christ, as the Doctor seems evidently to apply it. We then reason thus: Either Jesus Christ has an anxious desire and wish, which is a part of his counsel and pleasure, or he has not. If he has, we are assured from undoubted authority, that his " sel shall stand," and "he will do all his pleasure ;" and so all shall obey him and be saved. But if this anxious desire and wish be no part of his counsel and pleasure, we beg to be informed what it is? And how

coun

it is possible, that the almighty Jesus, our God and our Redeemer, who "worketh all things according to the counsel of his will," can have any thing that is not among the all things? and particularly how he can have a wish, an anxious wish, that forms no part of his pleasure?

The Doctor, notwithstanding his denunciation of metaphysics and logic, sometimes argues by syllogisms. Suppose, after his example, we try the following.

The counsel of the Lord Jesus Christ shall stand, and he will do all his pleasure:

But it is the anxious desire and wish, i. e. counsel and pleasure, of the Lord Jesus Christ, that all men should obey him and be saved:

Therefore, all men shall obey him and be saved.

Whatever the Lord Jesus Christ is both able and willing to do, shall be done:

But the Lord Jesus Christ is both able and willing to save all mankind:

Therefore all mankind shall be saved.

This we think sound reasoning, if the assumption or minor proposition in the above syllogisms be only true. This, however, we have reason to believe is not the case, because we are assured from the word of God, that some shall be eternally damned.

In order to get correct views, of what our glorious Redeemer is both able and willing to do in the article of salvation, it will certainly be better to examine the covenant of grace, than torture our minds with syllogistic arguments. The sacred scriptures reveal that covenant: "I have made a covenant with my chosen."

Jesus Christ was made man, and "was made under the law to redeem them that were under the law." How could this be? How could the second person of the blessed Trinity, be made under the law? We would be forever unable

to answer this, were it not for the covenant of grace. And it appears that this covenant itself would be utterly unintelligible, were it not for the doctrine of election. It is indeed all important to inquire,

What is precisely the use which the sacred writers make of the doctrine of election ?" And by pursuing this inquiry for a little, we may remove the complaint of Dr. G.

doubtful, i. e. uncertain knowledge, is not knowledge. "If God foreknow any thing, that thing is evident to the Divine mind, i. e. the Divine mind has evidence of that thing." No evidence can be furnished from the thing itself, because it does not exist. The same thing may be said of every other thing before it exists. No evidence, then, can be furnished from any

est attention to that question."

It will appear, upon examining the sacred writings, that election lies at the very foundation of the -system of grace. The whole purpose of God, respecting the salva

66

tion of his people, is according to election. Rom. ix. 11. It is so essentially connected with that love which is the spring and the origin of the system of grace, that it is usually termed God's electing love. John iii. 16: For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son.". By the world here, we must necessarily understand the elect world, the objects of Jehovah's love, on whose account, and for the redemption of whom, God sent his Son. These are not the whole world, i. e. all the descendants of Adam, for some of these are hated of God-some who are not the sheep of Christ, for whom the good Shepherd gave his life-some for whom Christ would not pray. John xvii. 9. This is further evident, from the fact, that at the last day, Christ says to those on his left hand, "I never knew you;" but he expressly says, "I know my sheep." John, x. 14. This will still further appear, from Rom. viii. 29: "For whom he did foreknow, them he did predestinate," &c. Whatever the word foreknow means, in the order of nature here, it precedes predestination. It cannot then signify mere prescience, because God cannot foreknow any thing, unless that thing is certainly to happen. Foreknowledge must be certain, otherwise it would be doubtful. But

the Divine mind possess evidence of the future existence of any thing?. Only from his own purpose, decree, or predestination of that thing to exist. Simple foreknowledge, therefore, is posterior in the order of nature to predestination. But the foreknowledge in the text comes before it. Now, nothing can be before the predestination of any to eternal life, but that choice of love, which is the fontal spring of the whole appointment. We have a similar application of the word know, in the first Psalm, verse 6th: "For the Lord knoweth the way of the righteous." In as far as mere knowledge is concerned, the Lord knows the way of the wicked as well as the way of the righteous, yet the one is set in opposition to the other. The word plainly means, to approve, love, or delight in. So also in Matt. vii. 23: "I never knew you;" where the same verb is used as in Rom. viii. 29. In respect to the fact of knowledge simply, the omniscient Judge of the quick and the dead, knew the wicked as well as the righteous. But I never approved of you, I never loved you, I never delighted in you as in beloved objects, must be the meaning of the word. In like manner, those whom God foreknew, are those whom he loved before. More examples would be unnecessary.

Now this love, this electing love, this primary principle in the system of grace, is in Christ, who is also the Father's elect. Eph. i. 4: "According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the

of their election, or that the choice of him is, in the order of nature, anterior to theirs. Indeed, his election is subordinated to theirs, as a mean to an end." In their election they were given to him as a body to a head. He was to effect the purpose and end of their election. They were given to him to be redeemed: "Thine they were," says the Redeemer to his heavenly Father, "and thou gavest them me." John xvii. 6. They were the property and possession of the Father, before they were given to Christ, not merely by creation, for so were others as well as they, but by the Father's choice, the Father's electing love.

They are definite and fixt as to their number: "The Lord knoweth them that are his." 2 Tim. ii. 19. Those that are his by election, otherwise there would be nothing definite in the expression. Their very names are known and recorded: "Their names are written in heaven-in the book of life."

The covenant of grace is wholly about these persons. Here then is precisely the use the sacred writers make of the doctrine of election. They make it the very groundwork -the very matter about which the covenant of grace treats. The covenant of grace is a covenant of redemption. Jesus Christ is the Redeemer in that covenant. He engages to pay a ransom, a price, for those who were given him. Does he so engage for others that were not given him? Does he also pay their ransom? Election is not, with sound Calvinists, 66 a mere element in a metaphysical theory," but, according to the Bible, it is, indeed, an elementary principle in the system of grace. It also shows the value, but certainly not the imputability, of Christ's righteousness, in the covenant of redemption. The righteousness of Christ is imputable to those who possess it. There are indeed elect persons, but it is not

persons, but as believers.

The responsibility of the Lord Jesus Christ for those who were given him, further shows the use of election in the system of grace. The sheep delivered to his care, as a flock to a shepherd. God the Father gave them to him, and will one day require them at his hand. "Where is the flock that was given thee, thy beautiful flock?" Jer. xiii. 20. Then will he be able to say,

Lo, here am I, and the children that thou hast given me. Of all that thou gavest me, have I lost none." Here is the place to ascertain the value of Jesus' blood, the nature and the worth of his atonement. The abstract or intrinsic value of the blood of Christ, is a thing with which we have nothing at all to do. Who could form an adequate idea of that which is infinitely valuable? Jesus Christ represented the elect in the covenant of grace. In their name he engaged, and for them he became surety. He took their guilt upon himself; he said to the divine law, " If they owe thee aught," or whatever they owe thee, "set that to my account. In due time, I will repay thee." Unconnected with the elect, Jesus Christ appears not in the whole transaction. The covenant of grace embraces them, and no others. The value of the satisfaction of Christ was settled in the eternal covenant. It was to be accounted as worth, precisely, what was agreed upon, between the Father and the Son in that transaction. It is not its intrinsic value (though it must be, intrinsically, of infinite worth), but the persons for whom it is shed, those whom Christ represented in the shedding of it, that will show the extent of its worth in the everlasting covenant. It is worth all that the law requires, for them, or in their behalf, but it is of no value at all in the covenant, for those who are not recognised in that covenant.

The broken law had equal claims

upon all the human family. Does Jesus represent them all in the covenant of redemption? If he does, then they are all redeemed. If he does not, then those who are not represented have neither part nor lot in this redemption. It is to them as though it had never been, in as far as redemption is really concerned. How then can that be imputable to them, in which they have no interest? But we forget that Doctor G. uses the word imputable in a sense hitherto unknown in the English language. If he explains his meaning, he may, however, be indulged in the oddity, as if one should say, I mean the Monongahela river, but I choose to call it the Mediterranean sea.

It is in the covenant stipulations, that we see the application and the bearing of the atonement. Jesus Christ made atonement for men. Atonement removes the offence, and restores the culprit to favour. Jesus died the just for the unjust, that he might "bring us to God." All those whose sins he expiated are brought to God. These are God's chosen. The principle of election is never lost sight of through the whole of his sufferings. If he is taken, those who are elected are let go their way.

The nature of angels he took not, and therefore he satisfied not the law of God for them. He could not represent them, not being one in nature with them. For this is the law, that he that sanctifieth, and they who are sanctified, be all of one," Heb. ii. 11: i. e. of one common nature.

66

But he did take on him the seed of Abraham. Heb. ii. 16. Two things are here observable.

1. The nature that belonged to the seed of Abraham is human nature. Jesus, therefore, took on him human nature.

2. It is not said by the apostle, "He took upon him the seed of Adam," but "the seed of Abraham." This would appear evident

ly to intimate God's design of limiting the benefits resulting from the death of his Son, to a part of the human family. Independently of a restriction originating in Divine Sovereignty, intimated to us in this passage, as well as in many others, the merits of his obediential life, and satisfactory death, should have been not only imputable, but also must have been, in due time, imputed to all mankind. Then it is evident, that "the remedial righteousness of Jesus Christ would have the same extent, bounds and limits, with the covenant transgression of Adam," and all that were lost by the one would be saved by the other. As it is, Doctor G. attempts a comparison, in every respect, between the two (p. 91.) in these memorable words: 66 Therefore the remedial righteousness of Jesus Christ has the same extent, bounds, and limits, with the covenant transgression of Adam; the latter has destroyed all mankind, the former is capable of saving all mankind." The comparison is, however, not homogeneous. It is made not between destruction and salvation, but between destruction and the capability of salvation.

We shall not charge this with being either logical or metaphysical. It is far enough from either. The actual doing of a thing, and the capability of doing it, will not, generally, be allowed to identify. One man works, and another is capable of working: therefore, they are both alike. It is believed, that few would be disposed to admit this conclusion.

That the righteousness of Jesus Christ has the same "extent, bounds, and limits, with the covenant transgression of Adam," in relation to all for whom it is wrought, will be readily granted; but that it has the same extent, &c. in relation to others, certainly does not follow. Were we to present the reasoning in the form of a syllogism, it might run thus:

Jesus Christ undertook to satisfy, in human nature, for all the seed of Abraham:

But the seed of Abraham are part of the seed of Adam:

Therefore, Jesus Christ undertook to satisfy, in human nature, for all the seed of Adam.

Logicians have a name for this kind of reasoning, but no man covets to have it applied to his.

We learn here the precise use which the apostle makes of election, in this part of the system of grace. Abraham is called the father of believers. His seed are the elect, and the elect only. Such are the children of Abraham's faith. Rom. ix. 8: But the children of the promise are counted for the seed." Gal. iii. 7: "They which are of faith, the same are the children of Abraham."

Jesus Christ took human nature, having the satisfaction which he was to make in that nature limited by covenant agreement to the seed of Abraham. Abraham's seed are, in relation to this transaction, believers, and believers only. All the elect shall be made believers. reprobate shall ever be a believer. Consequently, Jesus Christ purchased nothing for reprobates.

No

It is not disputed by Doctor G. that the covenant of grace is a covenant of redemption; that in this covenant Jesus Christ acted as a Redeemer. Whom did he engage to redeem ?The elect only? or all mankind?

This question, it is presumed, will be satisfactorily answered by attending to two things.

I. From what did he engage to redeem those whom he represented? II. To whom, or what, did he engage to redeem them?

These two questions are fully answered in the sacred volume.

That, from which Jesus Christ actually does redeem his people, must be that from which he engaged in the covenant of grace to redeem them.

In Rev. xiv. 3, 4, we are informed that they are redeemed from the earth," i. e. from among carnal, earthly men. Did he both redeem them from among carnal, earthly men, and redeem those men too? In Ps. cxxx. 8, we are assured that 'he redeems his Israel from all his iniquities." Can all men, elect and reprobate, be said, in truth, to be his Israel, or to be redeemed from all their iniquities? The same truth is taught in Tit. iii. 14: "Who gave himself for us, that he might redeem us from all iniquity." It is evident from this passage, that the object which the Redeemer had in view in giving himself, was, to redeem from all iniquity, those for whom he gave himself. And is it not, on this very account, that the blessed Redeemer gets the name of Saviour, (Matt. i. 21,) "And thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins." The salvation which Jesus procures, is, primarily, a salvation from sin.

Are the reprobate as well as the elect saved from sin? If Jesus procured salvation from sin for the re

probate, how could he say of any ye shall die in your sins?"

Again: Those whom Jesus redeems, he redeems from the broken law. Gal. iv. 5: "To redeem them that were under the law." Are all the human family thus redeemed? Certainly not. They only who are under grace, are redeemed from the law as a broken covenant. Rom. vi. 14: "For ye are not under the law, but under grace."

II. To whom or what did Christ engage to redeem his people?

1. To God. Rev. v. 9: "For thou wast slain, and hast redeemed us to God." To God as their own God, to the everlasting enjoyment of God, as their soul satisfying portion. "The Lord is my portion, saith my soul." Can this be said of such as shall never see God in mercy, but be eternally excluded from his blissful presence?