Obrazy na stronie
[ocr errors]


2. To what are they redeemed ?

election is in Christ. He procures
To the adoption of sons. Eph. i. for them eternal life and salvation.
4,5. “According as he hath cho Is there any thing about the repro-
sen us in him-having predestinat bate here ? Not any thing.
ed us to the adoption of children by The means in order to the obtain-
Jesus Christ." "This adoption is ing this end, sanctification of the
from election as its source and Spirit, and belief of the truth.
spring : “ According as he hath These are qualifying and preparing
chosen us-having predestinated means, of which the elect only will
us unto the adoption of children.” be the subjects. The decree of

It is by or through Jesus Christ. election contemplates the sanctifi-
He, by his death, procured for those cation of the Spirit, and belief of
he represented, the removal of their the truth, as means for its own ful-
alienation, and their introduction filment. But is there any thing of
unto the family of God. Was all all this contemplated, about, or con-
this arranged and settled in the co cerning the reprobate ? Nothing at
venant of redemption ? And have
reprobates any thing to do with it? It is no wonder that Doctor G.

Here then is precisely the use endeavours to keep the idea of
which the sacred writers make of election out of view, in speaking of
election in this part of the system the righteousness of Christ. If it
of grace. It regulates and deter is to be equally applicable to all the
mines who shall be the children of human race, it is very necessary
adoption; and further, that all this that election should not appear, or at
is by Jesus Christ. He is made the least, should have nothing to do in
elder brother, head, and represen the system. For the same reason,
tative, of this blessed family. He representative identification must
procures all their privileges. He be kept on the background.
obtains for them, all needed bless. For if Christ engaged in the cove-
ings. He redeems them from the nant of grace for the elect only~if
curse of the broken law, and pur he represented the elect only, the
chases for them salvation. Gal. iv. ability and willingness to save the
5: “To redeem them that were un reprobate, so much contended for
der the law, that we might receive by Doctor G. must rest on a very
the adoption of sons.""Did the precarious foundation. Will Doctor
Lord Jesus Christ thus engage in G.be so obliging as to let the world
the everlasting covenant? And know, what is precisely the use of
what is there in all this for the be election in his own scheme of the
hoof of the reprobate? What do we system of grace? For our own part
find here that Jesus purchased for we sincerely think, that his system

would be much more consistent
Again : The sacred writers make without it.
à precise use of election in relation Doctor G. informs us, p. 402, that
both to the end for which those a number of modern theologians,
whom Christ represented were re-

make election the measure of the
deemed, and the means of obtain value and imputability of Christ's
ing it.


We must beg The end, salvation. 2 Thess. ii. leave to suspend our belief of this 13 : “God hath from the beginning assertion until Doctor G. shall have chosen you to salvation through favoured us with the names, and resanctification of the Spirit, and be ferred to the writings of some of lief of the truth.” Salvation, in these theologians. We believe it subordination to the divine glory, will be difficult to find any theolois the end for the enjoyment of gian, either ancient or modern, that which they were chosen. Now their « makes election the measure of the VOL. I.

4 C

[ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors]

imputability of Christ's righteous To say that a dollar is a dollar ness.” The righteousness of Christ let it be paid by whomsoever it may, is imputable to the elect, and to touches not this subject. The law them only, but it is not, simply, as demands a dollar, only from the they are elect, but as they are be person who owes it a dollar. It is lievers.

evident then, that a 'supposed fulIn representing the righteousness filling of the law by the Lord Jesus of Christ, if not an “ abstract right-Christ, without identifying himself eousness, yet a righteousness ab with those on whom the law had stracted from election, representa- claims, is incompatible with its very tion, or persons"-as being the nature, would be a cheating of the righteousness of the law”_" capa law in its just demands upon its ble of saving all mankind," but not own subjects if pleaded by them, wrought out, or performed in the and if accepted, would be a violaname and room of certain elect tion of the principle of moral rightemen, Doctor G. and the whole tribe

ousness. of Arminians, will exactly harmo The righteousness of the law, as nize.

furnished by the Lord Jesus Christ The truth is, disguise it as you requires, that there be persons on will, the systems of all these men whom the law has demands—that come to this, that the Lord Jesus

these demands they are unable to Christ satisfied law and justice, by fulfil—that Jesus Christ so identify yielding to the law, the very righte himself with them that he and they ousness that it demanded. The be viewed as one in law reckoning, idea of persons, or the elect, is kept and that he, therefore, owe and pay entirely out of the question. their debt.

Now if this is not an abstract Did he in this manner owe and righteousness, I ask, in the name of pay for the reprobate, as well as common sense, what is it? Let us for the elect? Did he, for the sake press this inquiry a little, and I of the reprobate as well as the elect, think it will puzzle the ingenuity sanctify himself? (John xvii. 19.) of the most subtle metaphysician to i. e. consecrate himself unto the find in it a single idea good or bad. Lord a priest and a sacrifice with

What is the righteousness of the out spot or blemish to make atonelaw? A righteousness which the ment for their sin, that they might law demands from those who are its be sanctified through the truth. Cersubjects. These must be persons, tainly not. and persons under the law. Jesus If these observations be correct, Christ never had a human person. it will appear that there is a preFor himself, he never could be un cise use of election made by the sader the law. On him abstract from cred writers, which never did enter, representation, it had no claims. It and which never could enter into could have none. He never could Doctor G's scheme.

In page 396Doctor proposes law, for the law must, in every case the following question : « Does say to him, thou owest me nothing. Christ's righteousness derive any I never can accept a payment where of its worth or merit from the digI have no demand. - This furnish nity of his divine person ?” which ing of the righteousness of the law, question he answers in the negawhere the law has no claim, is there tive; and offers four arguments to fore, impossible. It never could say prove that Christ's righteousness in such a case, “pay me what thou derives no merit from the divinity owest,” and if it were possible that of his person. He, however, has the law could receive this payment, observed, (for he is a man of readit would act contrary to law.

ing) " that some of the ancients

present the righteousness of the Doctopagesos, doctor G.

[ocr errors]
[merged small][ocr errors]

had given an affirmative answer to tion, it was precisely his personal
this question, and that some modern dignity.
authors give it a similar answer." Then, of course, this answer can-
What a discovery! Yet we might not, according to the Doctor, be
be permitted to ask, what Calvinis liable to the above objection. And
tic divine before Doctor G.ever de is it really true, that the personal
nied it? But the Doctor thinks he dignity of Jesus Christ does not in-
sees a cockatrice, putting his head here in the divine nature? Can the
out of his shell, and with the spe second person of the holy Trinity
cific instinct of his nature, aiming || lay down his divine personality?
a bite, before his fangs are grown, And is not personal dignity essen-
or his poison concocted; and there tial to divine personality? A divine
fore, he judges that it may be best person divested of personal dignity!
to tread on him now, and not to Astonishing! I am afraid a cocka-
wait till he shall have done some trice shows his head. Is not the
eminent mischief." This cocka personality of the Son of God essen-
trice reader, is the merit of Christ's tial to the very being of the God-
personal dignity in the work of sal-head? And as this personality is
vation! If it be a cockatrice, it is divine, is it not necessarily digni-
an old one, and long, very long in fied ? Our glorious Redeemer could
deed, has it been a hatching if it be no more part with his personal
yet in the shell.

dignity, than he could with the
The Doctor's four arguments to divine nature. Even in his lowest
prove that Christ's righteousness state of humiliation and degrada-
derives no merit from the divinity |tion, it was the imperative command
of his person, are,

of Jehovah to the highest class of
1. The idea is contrary to the created beings, that they should do

him homage: "Let all the angels of
2. Is absolutely inconceivable. God worship him:”
3. Is dishonourable to Christ. In one sense, the Redeemer had

4. If it were possible, it is not all the personal dignity he ever had.
imputable, and therefore can be no He was, even on Calvary, the “Fa.
part of his righteousness.

ther's equal—the man that was his
We cannot weary ourselves much fellow.” In another sense, his glory
longer in following up these argu was veiled, or he “emptied himself,
ments. The thing is absolutely fa and took the form of a servant.”
tiguing. Yet to pass them over al Bad as metaphysics are, they are
together, might furnish a conclu sometimes useful, to enable us to
sion, the very reverse of what we make proper distinctions. Let us

never forget the two-fold character
On his first argument the Doc of our glorious Mediator: Christian,
tor asks, “ What was the riches let no subtle theory, no new inven.
which Christ laid down, when he be tion of speculative reasoning, rob
came poor
p" “ Of what did he emp you

Saviour God.
ty himself?” He answers “it could In the whole of this reasoning of
not be his divine nature, for that is Doctor G. no notice is taken of the
impossible it could not be any penalty of the broken law-no no-
perfection of his divinity,” &c. He tice of sin being an infinite evil.
gives a reason why it could not be The whole tendency of this new
any of these, “because all the di theory is towards Socinianism. I
vine perfections inhere in the divine tremble for the consequences. God
nature, and are bound together by grant that the author may be arrest-
immutable necessity.” He an ed in time, by the hand of mercy.
swers positively, to the above ques-

President Edwards has unan


of your

[ocr errors]

swerably demonstrated, "that, as tributed, as he is the person who sin is the violation of infinite obli obeyed and suffered.” gation to love, honour, and obey In his second argument, p. 399, God, it must be a crime infinitely Doctor G. asks, “is not the law itheinous.” The punishment must be self the alone and only standard of according to the nature of the of merit? Does the law command more fence, for God is just. If an adequate than it commands ?" &c. satisfaction is made, it must be an Here, again, the whole argument infinite satisfaction. Why is the turns on the claims of the unbroken punishment of the damned eternal ? and not the broken law, losing sight Because infinite cannot be predi- || completely of its infinite requisicated of it, in any sense, but in the tions. want of a limit to its duration.

The Doctor says, in his third arThe punishment Christ suffered,

gument, p. 400, “ It is absolutely and the atonement he made, did not ridiculous to suppose that the righterequire unlimited duration. Why? ousness of Christ has any other Because the infinite dignity of his worth, merit, or value, than what it person, gave infinite value and effi derives from the law." cacy to the satisfaction he made. Now, after all this, there will be The claims of the broken law are

no impropriety in saying that the infinitely greater than the claims of righteousness of Christ derives its the unbroken law. When Doctor glorious excellency from the dignity G. speaks of the righteousness of of his person. The law did not the law," and classes the righteous- | give honour to Christ, but received ness of Adam, if it had been com honour from him, when he became pleted," our own righteousness, its subject: "For he hath magnified if we could produce it,” and “the the law and made it honourable." righteousness of Christ,” as if these The Redeemer rendered to the law would be precisely the same thing, an infinitely more valuable obediit is evident, that the penalty of the ence, than it ever could have rebroken law is entirely out of view. ceived from even unsinning man.

He certainly makes the claims of Doctor G. asks, “Could the prethe broken and unbroken law, to be sident of the United States pass off exactly the same. Perhaps, here a dollar for more than one hundred lies the foundation of the greatest cents ?” error in his book, and when carried Here again, the old mistakeout to its legitimate results, has the nothing of the penalty of the broken most direct tendency to lead to law. There is also a strange conSocinianism.

founding of penal satisfaction, with “ In Christ's person,” says the pecuniary payment. very learned and accurate Iurret I shall satisfy myself with pretin, “ there is a fulness of divinity, senting to the Doctor's consideraa fulness of office, a fulness of merit, tion a quotation from the celebrated and of graces: who then can doubt, Turrettin, as translated by Willson, but that the satisfaction which he

pp. 250, 251.

« Christ did not suffer eternal and efficacy? For though Christ's

death as to duration, but a death of human nature, which was the in three days only, and yet he fully strument in the obedience and suf paid the debt of everlasting punishferings, was finite, yet this does not

ment, which we owed. His, which lessen the value of the satisfaction, was one of finite duration, was equibecause it derives its perfection valent to an everlasting death sufferfrom the divine person of Christ, to ed by us, because of the infinite digwhich all his actions must be at nity of his person. A penal satisfac

tion is not of the same nature with | Christ's person, as amalgamating a pecuniary payment, which is only with the merit of his righteousness. valued by the amount paid, without A case utterly insupposable,by those regard to the person who pays. Pe who differ from him, and who must nal satisfaction is appreciated by necessarily grant his position before the dignity of the person who makes they can suppose it. it, and is increased in worth in pro

3. In such a case,


“ that portion to his dignity: Money paid dignity never could become mine." by a king is, indeed, of no more And the reader has the reason beavail in the discharge of a debt than fore him, namely, “ that the law money paid by a slave; but the life

never required me to be a divine of a king is of more value than the person, nor will it condemn me for life of a vile slave, as the life of not being a divine person.” king David was of more worth than 4. Of consequence it is no part of that of half the Israelitish army, 2 Christ's imputable righteousness. Sam. xviii. 3. In this way Christ This may be reasoning, perhaps, alone is more excellent than all men and if it be, let it go for all it is together. The dignity of an infi worth. I must confess, however, nite person



all the in that I can make nothing of it. finities of punishment due to us; In the close of his remarks on they sink into it and are lost." this subject, p. 404, the Doctor“inMuch more might be quoted to the sists than God has brought the real same purpose, but this is sufficient. righteousness of his law into the Doctor Go's views in this matter are world, and offered it to mankind constantly of something finite, and without exception.” This is the consequently are wholly inconclu same abstract righteousness again. sive.

A righteousness wrought out per se, The Doctor's 4th argument, p. and ready to be disposed of to any 400, is rather surprising. It is cer person willing to receive it. 'I tainly one sui generis.

wonder if this belongs to the meta“ if it were possible,” he says, physics of Christianity. That Jesus « that the dignity of Christ's per Christ, with all his righteousness, son should amalgamate itself with is freely offered to sinners, I can the merit of his righteousness, that understand and do believe; but dignity never could become mine, this righteousness of the law ready and of consequence, is no part of waiting (like a hundred cents to pay his imputable righteousness. The one dollar) for elect and reprobate law never required me to be a di alike, I cannot comprehend. vine person : and never will con The last part of this work is, of demn me, for not being a divine course, the conclusion, p. 404, and a person.”

most extraordinary conclusion it is: It is not easy, precisely, to catch

It consists of forty-five pages. I the doctor's meaning in these words. cannot think of reviewing all this

1. The merit of Christ's righteous book of a conclusion. Suffice it to ness is here presented, as an object say, in general, that it contains to be conceived of apart from the much diversified matter, and many dignity of his divine person. To a subject. The author appears not assume such a position, and argue in the least exhausted, but fights from it with those who deny that manfully to the last. the merit of Christ's righteousness His closing war, his finishing can either exist, or be conceived of battle, is with confessions of faith. at all, abstract from the dignity of He does not forget, however, to deal his person, is certainiy a begging many a lusty blow upon church the question.

courts who would call a minister to 2. He supposes the dignity of account for “writing and publishing

« PoprzedniaDalej »