Page images
PDF
EPUB

|

Paul's argument on justification by faith: it is a discourse of that present state of pardon and sanctity, and of that future hope of felicity, into which justification introduces believers, notwithstanding those sufferings and persecutions of the present life to which those to whom he wrote were exposed, and under which they had need of encouragement. It was obviously not in his design here to speak of the doctrines of election and non-election, however these doctrines may be understood. There is nothing in the course of his argument which leads to them; and those who make use of the text in question for this purpose, are obliged, therefore, to press it, by circuitous inference, into their service.

come a member of his church): "being circumcised, let him not become uncircumcised: is any CALLED in uncircumcision, let him not be circumcised." Eph. iv. 1-4, "That ye walk worthy of the VOCATION, wherewith ye are called. There is one body, and one spirit, even as ye are CALLED in one hope of your calling." 1 Thess. ii. 12, "That ye would walk worthy of God, who hath CALLED you to his kingdom and glory." 2 Thess. ii. 13, 14, "Through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth, whereunto he CALLED you by our Gospel, to the obtaining of the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ." 2 Tim. i. 9, 10, "Who hath saved us and CALLED us with a holy calling; not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus, before the 2. As the passage stands in intimate connexion with world began; but is now made manifest by the appear- an important and elucidatory context, it ought not to ing of our Saviour Jesus Christ:" on which passage we be considered as insulated and complete in itself; may remark, that the object of the "calling," and the which has been the great source of erroneous inter"purpose" mentioned in it, must of necessity be interpretations. Under the sufferings of the present time, preted to mean the establishment of the church on the the apostle encourages those who had believed with the principle of faith; and not, as formerly, on natural hope of glorious resurrection: this forms the subject descent. For personal election, and a purpose of of his consolatory remarks from verse 17 to 25. The effectual personal calling could not have been hid- assistance and intercession" of the Spirit; and the den till manifested by the appearing of Christ, since working of "all things together for good to them that every instance of true conversion to God in any age love God, to them who are the called according to his prior to the appearing of Christ, would be as much a purpose;" clearly meaning those who, according to the manifestation of eternal election, and an instance of Divine design, had received and embraced the Gospel personal effectual calling, according to the Calvinistic in truth, form two additional topics of consolatory sugscheme, as it was after the appearance of Christ. The gestion. The passage under consideration immediately apostle is speaking of a purpose of God, which was follows, and is in full, for the Synod has quoted it kept secret till revealed by the Christian system; and, short: "And we know that all things work together from various other parallel passages, we learn that for good to them that love God, to them who are the this secret, this "mystery," as he often calls it, was called (who are called) according to his purpose. For the union of the Jews and Gentiles in "one body," or whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be church, by faith. conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the first-born among many brethren. Moreover, whom he did predestinate, them he also called; and whom he called, them he also justified; and whom he justified, them he also glorified." The connexion is here manifest. "The sufferings of the present time could only work together for the good" of them that "love God," by being connected with, and compensated in a future state by, a glorious resurrection from the dead; and therefore the apostle shows that this was the design of God, the ultimate and triumphant result of the administration of his grace, that they who love God here should be conformed to the image of his Son, in his glorified state, that he might be "the first-born among brethren;" the head and chief of the redeemed, who shall be acknowledged as his brethren," and co-heirs of his glory. Thus the whole of the 29th verse is a reason given to show WHY "all things, however painful in the present life, work together for good to them that love God;" and it is therefore introduced by the connective particle, ort, which has here, obviously, a casual signification, "for (because) whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate."

In none of these passages is the doctrine of the exclusive calling of any set number of men contained; and the Synod of Dort, as though they felt this, only attempt to reason the doctrine from a text not yet quoted, but which we will now examine. It is Rom. viii. 30: "Whom he did predestinate, them he also called; and whom he called, them he also justified; and whom he justified, them he also glorified." This is the text on which Calvinists chiefly rest their doctrine of effectual calling; and tracing it, as they say, through its steps and links, they conclude, that a set and determinate number of persons having been predestinated unto salvation, this set number only are called effectually, then justified, and finally glorified. The words of the Synod of Dort are, "he hath chosen a set number of certain men, neither better nor more worthy than others, but lying in the common misery with others, to salvation in Christ, whom he had also appointed the Mediator and Head of the elect, and the foundation of salvation from all eternity; and so he decreed to give them to him to be saved, and effectually to call and draw them to a communion with him by his word and Spirit, or to give them a true faith in him: to justify, sanctify, and finally glorify them: having been kept in the communion of his Son, to the demonstration of his mercy, and the praise of the riches of his glorious grace."(2)

The text under consideration is added by the Synod, in proof of the doctrine of this article; but it was evidently nothing to the purpose, unless it had spoken of a set and determinate number of men as predestinated and called, independent of any consideration of their faith and obedience; which number, as being determinate, would, by consequence, exclude the rest. As these are points on which the text is at least silent, there is nothing in it unfriendly to those arguments founded on explicit texts of Holy Writ which have been already urged against this view of election; and with this notion of election is refuted, also, the cognate doctrine of effectual calling, considered as a work of God in the heart of which the elect only can be the subjects. But the passage, having been pressed into so alien a service, deserves consideration; and it will be found that it indeed speaks of the privileges and hopes of true believers; but not of those privileges and hopes as secured to them by any such decree of election as the Synod has advocated. To prove this, we remark, 1. That the chapter in which the text is found, is the lofty and animating conclusion of St.

(2) Sententia de Divina Prædest. Art. 7. Est autem Electio immutabile Dei propositum, &c.

3. The apostle is here speaking, we grant, not of the foreknowledge or predestination of bodies of men to church privileges; but of the experience of believers, taken distributively and personally. This will, however, be found to strengthen our argument against the use made of the latter part of the passage by the Synod of Dort.

It is affirmed of believers, that they were "foreknown." This term may be taken in the sense of foreapproved. For not only is it common with the sacred writers to express approval by the phrase "to know ;" of which Hebraism the instances are many in the New Testament; but in Rom. xi. 2, "to foreknow," is best interpreted into this meaning. "God hath not cast away his people which he FOREKNEW." It is not of the whole people of Israel of which the apostle here speaks, as the context shows; but of the believing part of them, called subsequently "the remnant according to the election of grace:" a clause which has been before explained. The question put by the apos tle into the mouth of an objecting Jew, is, "Hath God cast away his people?" This is denied; but the illustration taken from the reservation of seven thousand men, in the time of Elijah, who had not bowed the knee to Baal, proves that St. Paul meant to say, that God had cast off from being members of his church, all but the remnant; all but his people whom he "foreknew;" those who had laid aside the inveterate preju dices of their nation, and had entered into the new

Christian church by faith. These he foreknew, that is approved; and so received them into his church. In this sense of the term foreknew, the text in question harmonizes well with the context. "All things work together for good to them that love God," &c. "For, whom he did foreknow" (approve as lovers of him), "he predestinated to be conformed to the image of his Son," in mind and temper here, and especially in glory hereafter.

The second sense of foreknowing is that of simple prescience; and if any prefer this we shall not dispute with him, since it will come to the same issue. The foreknowledge of men must have respect either simply to their existence as persons, or as existing under some particular circumstances and characters. If persons only be the objects of this foreknowledge, then has God's prescience no more to do with the salvation of the elect, than of the non-elect, since all are equally foreknown as persons in a state of existence; and we might as well argue the glorification of the reprobate from God's foreknowing them, in this sense, as that of the elect. The objects of this foreknowledge, then, must be men under certain circumstances and characters; not in their simple existence as rational beings. If, therefore, the term "foreknow," in the passage above cited," God hath not cast away his people whom he foreknew," be taken in the sense of prescience, those of the general mass of Jews, who were not "cast away," were foreknown under some circumstance and character which distinguished them from the others; and what this was, is made sufficiently plain from the context, the persons foreknown were the then believing part of the Jews, "even so then, at this present time also, there is a remnant according to the election of grace." Equally clear are the circumstances and character under which, more generally, the apostle represents believers as having been foreknown in the text more immediately under examination. Those "whom he did foreknow," are manifestly the believers of whom he speaks in the discourse; and who are called in chap. viii. 28, "them that love God." Under some character he must have foreknown them, or his foreknowledge of them would not be special and distinctive; it would afford no ground from which to argue any thing respecting them; it could make no difference between them and others. This specific character is given by the apostle; but it is not that which is gratuitously assumed by the Synod of Dort, a selection of them from the mass, without respect to their faith. It is their faith itself: for of believers only is St. Paul speaking as the subjects of this foreknowledge; and such believers too as "love God," and who, having actually embraced the heavenly invitation, are emphatically said to be, as before explained, "called according to his purpose."

To predestinate, or to determine beforehand, is the next term in the text; but here it is also to be remarked, that the persons predestinated, or before determined to be glorified with Christ, are the same persons, under the same circumstances and character, as those who are said to have been foreknown of GoD; and what has been said under the former term applies, therefore, in part, to this. The subjects of predestination are the persons foreknown, and the persons foreknown are true believers: foreknown as such, or they could not have been specially or distinctively foreknown according to the doctrine of the apostle. This predestination, then, is not of persons "UNTO faith and obedience," but of believing and obedient persons UNTO eternal glory. Nor are faith and obedience mentioned any where as the end of predestination, except in Eph. chap. i., where we have already proved, when treating of election, that the predestination spoken of in that chapter is the eternal purpose of God to choose the Gentile Ephesians into his church, along with the believing Jews; and that what is there said, is not intended of personal, but of collective election and predestination, and that to the means and ordinances of salvation. For the argument by which this is established let the reader, to prevent repetition, turn back.

The passage before us, then, declares, that true believers were foreknown, and predestinated to eternal glory; and when the apostle adds, "moreover, whom he did predestinate, them he also called; and whom he called, them he also justified; and whom he justified, them he also glorified:" he shows in particular

how the Divine purpose to glorify believers is carried into effect, through all its stages. The great instrument of bringing men to "love God" is the Gospel; they are therefore CALLED, invited by it, to this state and benefit: the calling being obeyed, they are JUSTIFIED; and being justified, and continuing in that state of grace, they are GLORIFIED. This is the plain and obvious course of the amplification pursued by the apostle; but let us remark how many unscriptural notions the Synod of Dort engrafts upon it. First, a "certain number" of persons, not as believers, but as men, are foreknown; then a decree of predestination to eternal life goes forth in their favour; but still without respect to them as believing men as the subjects of that decree;-then we suppose, by another decree (for the first cannot look at qualities at all), and by a second predestination they are to be made believers ;— then they are exclusively "called:" then infallibly justified; and being justified, are infallibly glorified. In opposition to these notions, we have already shown, that the persons spoken of are foreknown and predestinated as believers, not as men, or persons; and we may also oppose scriptural objections to every other part of the interpretation.

As to calling, we allow that all of whom the apostle speaks are necessarily "called;" for since he is discoursing of the predestination of believers in Christ to eternal glory, and does not touch the question of the salvation, or otherwise, of those who have not the means of becoming such, the calling of the Gospel is necessarily supposed, as it is only upon that Divine system being proposed to their faith, that they could become believers in Christ. But though all such as the apostle speaks of are "called;" they are not the only persons called: on the contrary, our Lord declares, that "many are called, but few chosen." To confine the calling here spoken of to those who are actually saved, it was necessary to invent the fiction of "effectual calling," which is made peculiar to the elect; but calling is the invitation, and offer, and publication of the Gospel: a bringing men into a state of Christian privilege to be improved unto salvation, and not an operation in them. Effectual invitation, effectual offer, and effectual publication, are turns of the phrase which sufficiently expose the delusiveness of their comment. By effectual calling, they mean an inward compelling of the mind to embrace the outward invitation of the Gospel, and to yield to the inward solicitations of the Spirit which accompanies it; but this, whether true or false, is a totally different thing from all that the New Testament terms "calling." It is true, that some embrace the call, and others reject it, yet is there in the "calling" of the Scripture nothing exclusively appropriate to those who are finally saved; and though the apostle supposes those whom he speaks of in the text as "called," to have been obedient, he confines not the calling itself to them so as to exclude others,--still "MANY are called." Nor is the Synod more sound in assuming that all who are called are "justified." If "many are called, and few chosen," this assumption is unfounded: nay, all compliances with the call, do not issue in justification; for the man who not only heard the call, but came in to the feast, put not on the wedding garment, and was therefore finally cast out. Equally contradictory to the Scripture is it so to explain St. Paul here, as to make him say, that all who are justified are also glorified. The justified are glorified: but not, as we have seen from various texts of Scriptures already, all who are justified. For if we have established it, that the persons who "turn back to perdition;" "make shipwreck of faith, and of a good conscience;" who turn out of the "way of righteousness;" who forget that they were "purged from their old sins;" who have "tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come; and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost," and were "sanctified" with the blood, they afterward "counted an unholy thing;" are represented by the apostles to have been in a state of grace and acceptance with God, through Christ; then all persons justified are not infallibly glorified; but only such are saved as "endure to the end;" and they only receive that "crown of life," who are "faithful unto death."

The clear reason why the apostle, having stated that true believers were foreknown and predestinated, introduces also the order and method of their salvation, was, to connect that salvation with the Gospel, and

the work of Christ; and to secure to him the glory of it. The Gospel reveals it, that those who "love God," shall find that "all things work together for their good," because (br) they are" predestinated to be conformed to the image of the Son of God, in his glory; yet the Gospel did not find them lovers of God, but made them so. Since, therefore, none but such persons were so foreknown and predestinated to be heirs of glory, the Gospel calling was issued according to "his purpose" or plan of bringing them that love him to glory, in order to produce this love in them. "Whom" he thus called, assuming them to be obedient to the call, he justified; "and whom he justified," assuming them to be faithful unto death, he "glorified." But since the persons predestinated were contemplated as believers, not as a certain number of persons; then all to whom the invitation was issued might obey that call, and all might be justified, and all glorified. In other words, all who heard the Gospel might, through it, be brought to love God; and might take their places among those who were "predestinated to be conformed to the image of his Son." For since the predestination, as we have seen, was not of a certain number of persons, but of all believers who love God; then, either it must be allowed, that all who were called by the Gospel, might take the character and circumstances which would bring them under the predestination mentioned by the apostle; or else those who deny this, are bound to the conclusion, that God calls (invites) many, whom he never intends to admit to the celestial feast; and not only so, but punishes them with the severity of a relentless displeasure, for not obeying an invitation which he never designed them to accept, and which they never had the power to accept. In other words, the interpretation of this passage by the Synod of Dort obliges all who follow it to admit all the consequences connected with the doctrine of reprobation, as before stated.

[blocks in formation]

HAVING now shown, that those passages of Holy Writ, in which the terms ELECTION, CALLING, PREDESTINATION, and FOREKNOWLEDGE occur, do not warrant those inferences by which Calvinists attempt to restrain the signification of those declarations with respect to the extent of the benefit of Christ's death which are expressed in terms so universal in the New Testament, we may conciude our investigation of the sense of Scripture on this point, by adverting to some of those insulated texts which are most frequently adduced to support the same conclusion.

John vi. 37, "All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out."

It is inferred from this, and some similar passages in the Gospels, that by a transaction between the Father and the Son, a certain number of persons called," the elect" were given to Christ, and in process of time "drawn" to him by the Father; and that as none can be saved but those thus "given" to him, and "drawn" by the Father, the doctrine of "distinguishing grace" is established; and the rest of mankind, not having been given by the Father to the Son, can have no saving participation in the benefits of a redemption which did not extend to them. This fiction has often been defended with much ingenuity; but it remains a fiction still unsupported by any good interpretation of the texts which have been assumed as its foundation.

1. The first objection to the view usually taken by Calvinists of this text is, that in the case of the perverse Jews, with whom the discourse of Christ was held, it places the reason of their not "coming" to Christ in their not having been given to him by the Father; whereas our Lord, on the contrary, places it in themselves, and shows that he considered their case to be in their own hands by his inviting them to come to him, and reproving them because they would not come. "Ye have not his word (the word of the Father) abiding in you; for whom he hath sent, him ye believe not," John v. 38. "And ye will not come to me

[ocr errors]

that ye may have life," verse 40. "How can ye believe, which receive honour one of another," verse 44. "For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me, for he wrote of me," verse 46. Now these statements cannot stand together; for if the true reason why the perverse Jews did not believe in our Lord was, that they had not been given to him of the Father, then it lay not in themselves; but if the reason was that "his word did not abide in them," that they "would not come to him;" that they sought worldly "honour;" finally, that they believed not Moses's writings; then it is altogether contradictory to these declarations to place it in an act of God; to which it is not attributed in any part of the discourse.

2. To be "given" by the Father to Christ, is a phrase abundantly explained in the context which this class of interpreters generally overlook.

It had a special application to those pious Jews, who "waited for redemption at Jerusalem:" those who read and believed the writings of Moses (a general term, it would seem, for the Old Testament Scriptures), and who were thus prepared, by more spiritual views than the rest, though they were not unmixed with obscurity, to receive Christ as the Messiah. Of this description were Peter, Andrew, Philip, Nathanael, Lazarus and his sisters, and many others. Philip says to Nathanael, "We have found him of whom Moses in the law and the prophets did write ;" and Nathanael was manifestly a pious Jew; for our Lord said of him, “Behold an Israelite indeed, in whom is no guile." The light which such honest inquiries into the meaning of the Scriptures obtained as to the import of their testimony concerning the Messiah, and the character and claims of Jesus, is expressly attributed to the teaching and revelation of "the Father." So, after Peter's confession, our Lord exclaimed, "Blessed art thou Simon Bar Jonah, for flesh and blood hath not revealed it uuto thee; but my Father which is in heaven." This teaching, and its influence upon the mind, is, in John vi. 44, called the "drawing" of the Father, "No man can come to me, except the Father draw him;" for that "to draw" and "to teach" mean the same thing, is evident, since our Lord immediately adds, "it is written in the prophets, and they shall be all taught of God;" and then subjoins this exegetical observation;-"every man, therefore, that hath heard, and hath learned of the Father, cometh to me." Those who truly "believe" Moses's words, then, were under the Father's illuminating influence, "heard and learned of the Father;" were "drawn" of the Father; and so, by the Father, were

[ocr errors]

All

given to Christ," as his disciples, to be more fully taught the mysteries of his religion, and to be made the saving partakers of its benefits;-for "this is the Father's will which sent me, that of all which he hath given me (thus to perfect in knowledge, and to exalt into holiness) I should lose nothing; but should raise it up again at the last day." Thus we have exhibited that beautiful process in the work of God in the hearts of sincere Jews, which took place in their transit from one dispensation to another, from Moses to Christ. Taught of the Father; led into the sincere belief, and general spiritual understanding of the Scriptures as to the Messiah; when Christ appeared, they were "drawn" and "given" to him, as the now visible and accredited Head, Teacher, Lord, and Saviour of the church. in this view is natural, explicit, and supported by the context; all in the Calvinistic interpretation appears forced, obscure, and inapplicable to the whole tenor of the discourse. For to what end of edification of any kind were the Jews told that none but a certain number, elected from eternity, and given to him before the world was, by the Father, should come to him; and that they to whom he was then speaking were not of that number? But the coherence of the discourse is manifest, when, in these sermons of our Lord, they were told that their not coming to Christ was the proof of their unbelief in Moses's writings; that they were not "taught of GOD;" that they had neither "heard nor learned of the Father," whom they yet professed to worship, and seek; and that, as the hinderance to their coming to Christ was in the state of their hearts, it was remediable by a diligent and honest search of the Scriptures, and by listening to the teachings of God. To this very class of Jews our Lord, in this same discourse says, "Search the Scriptures;" but to what end were they to do this, if, in the Calvinistic sense, they were not given to him of the Father? The text in question, then, thus opened

My

by a reference to the whole discourse, is of obvious | the exclusion of all others. (3) Let it, however, be meaning. "All that the Father giveth me after this observed, that in direct opposition to this, men are callpreparing teaching, shall or will come to me (for it is ed the sheep of Christ by our Lord himself, not with simply the future tense of the indicative mood which is reference to any supposed transaction between the Faused; and no notion of irresistible influence is con- ther and the Son in eternity, which is never even hinted veyed); and him that cometh to me, I will in no wise at, but because of their qualities and acts. cast out." The latter clause is added to show the per- sheep hear my voice, and I know them; and they follow fect harmony of design between Christ and the Father, me." "A stranger will they not follow." Why then a point often adverted to in this discourse; for "I came did not the Jews believe? Because they had not the down from heaven not to do mine own will, but the qualities of Christ's sheep: they were neither discrimiwill of him that sent me." Whom, therefore, the Fa- nating as to the voice of the shepherd, nor obedient to ther so gives, I receive: I enter upon my assigned it. The usual Calvinistic interpretation brings in our office, and shall be faithful to it. In reference also to Lord, in this instance, as teaching the Jews that the the work of God in the hearts of men in general, as reason why they did not believe on him, was, that they well as to the honest and inquiring Jews of our Lord's could not believe! for, as Mr. Scott says in the note day, these passages have a clear and interesting appli- below, "not being of that chosen remnant, they were cation. The work of the Father is carried on by his left to the pride and enmity of their carnal hearts." convincing and teaching Spirit; but that Spirit "testi-This was not likely to be very edifying to them. But the fies" of Christ, "leads" to Christ, and "gives" to Christ, words of our Lord are manifestly words of reproof, that we may receive the full benefit of his sacrifice and grounded not upon acts of God, but upon acts of their salvation, and be placed in the church of which he is own; and they are parallel to the passages- If God the Head. But in this there is no exclusion. That were your Father, ye would love me," chap. viii. 42 which hinders others from coming to Christ, is that "Every one that is of the truth heareth my voice,” xviii. which hinders them from being "drawn" of the Father; 37. "How can ye believe, which receive honour one from "hearing and learning" of the Father, in his holy of another," v. 44. word, and by his Spirit; which hinderance is the moral state of the heart, not any exclusive decree; not the want of teaching, or drawing, but, as it is compendi-He ously expressed in Scripture, a "RESISTING of the Holy Ghost."

Matt. xx. 15, 16, "Is it not lawful for me to do what I will with my own? Is thine eye evil because I am good? So the last shall be first, and the first last; for many are called, but few chosen."

This passage has been often urged in proof of the doctrine of unconditional election; and the argument raised upon it is, that God has a right to dispense grace and glory to whom he will, on a principle of pure sovereignty; and to leave others to perish in their sins. That the passage has no relation to this doctrine, needs no other proof than that it is the conclusion of the parable of the labourers in the vineyard. The householder gives to them that "wrought but one hour" an equal reward to that bestowed upon those who had laboured through the twelve. The latter received the full price of the day's labour agreed upon; and the former were made subjects of a special and sovereign dispensation of grace. The exercise of the Divine sovereignty, in bestowing degrees of grace, or reward, is the subject of the parable, and no one disputes it; but, according to the Calvinistic interpretation, no grace at all, no reward, is bestowed upon the non-elect, who are, moreover, punished for rejecting a grace never of fered. The absurdity of such a use of the parable is obvious. It relates to no such subject; for its moral manifestly relates to the reception of great offenders, and especially of the Gentiles, into the favour of Christ, and the abundant rewards of Heaven.

2 Timothy ii. 19, "Nevertheless the foundation of God standeth sure, having this seal, The Lord knoweth them that are his; and, Let every one that nameth the name of Christ depart from iniquity."

The apostle, in this chapter, is speaking of those ancient heretics who affirmed "that the resurrection is past already, and overthrew the faith of some." What then? the truth itself is not overthrown; the foundation of God standeth sure, having this seal, or inscription, "The Lord knoweth," or approveth, or, if it please better, distinguishes and acknowledges "them that are his;" and "Let every one that nameth the name of Christ depart from iniquity;" which is as much as to say that none are truly "the Lord's" who do not depart from iniquity; and that those whose faith is "overthrown" by the influence of corrupt principles and manners, are no longer accounted "his" all which is perfectly congruous with the opinions of those who hold the unrestricted extent of the death of Christ. Towards the Calvinistic doctrine this text certainly bears no friendly aspect; for surely it was of little consequence to any, to have their "faith overthrown," if that faith never was, nor could be, connected with salvation.

John x. 26, "But ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep, as I said unto you."

The argument here is, that the cause of the unbelief of the persons addressed was, that they were not of the number given to Christ by the Father, from eternity, to

John xiii. 18, "I speak not of you all: I know whom I have chosen: but that the Scripture may be fulfilled, that eateth bread with me hath lifted up his heel against me."

"He perfectly knew," says Mr. Scott on the passage, "what persons he had chosen, as well as which of them were chosen unto salvation." This is surely making our Lord utter a very unmeaning truism; for as he chose the apostles, so he must have "known" that he chose them. Dr. Whitby's interpretation is, therefore, to be taken in preference. "I know the temper and disposition of those whom I have chosen, and what I may expect from every one of them;" for which case I said, "Ye are not all clean;' but God in his wisdom hath permitted this, that as Ahithophel betrayed David, though he was his familiar friend, so Judas, my familiar at my table, might betray the Son of God; and so the words recorded, Psalm xli. 9, might be fulfilled in him also of whom king David was the type."(4) Certainly Judas was "chosen" as well as the rest. "Have not I chosen you twelve, and one of you is a devil?" nor have we any reason to conclude that Christ uses the term chosen differently in the two passages. When, therefore, our Lord says, “I know whom I have chosen," the term know must be taken in the sense of discriminating character.

In its

John xv. 16," Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you, and ordained you, that ye should go and bring forth fruit." Mr. Scott, whom, as being a modern Calvinistic commentator, we rather choose again to quote, interprets-"chosen them unto salvation.” proper sense, we make no objection to this phrase: it is a scriptural one; but it must be taken in its own connexion. Here, however, either the term "chosen" is to be understood with reference to the apostolic office, which is very agreeable to the context; or if it relate to the salvation of the disciples, it can have no respect to the doctrine of eternal election. For if the election spoken of were not an act done in time, it would have been unnecessary for our Lord to say, "Ye have not chosen me;" because it is obvious they could not choose him before they came into being. Another passage, also, in the same discourse, farther proves, that the election mentioned was an act done in time. "I have chosen you out of the world," ver. 19. But if they were "chosen out of the world," they were chosen subsequently to their being "in the world ;" and, therefore, the election spoken of is not eternal. The last observation will also deprive these interpreters of another favourite passage, "Those that thou gavest me I have kept, and none of them is lost, but the son of perdition." The "giving" here mentioned, was no more an act of God in eternity, as they pretend, than the "choosing" to which we have already referred; for in the same discourse the apostles are called "the men thou gavest

(3) "The true reason why they did not believe was the want of that simple, teachable, and inoffensive tem per, which characterized his sheep, FOR not being of that CHOSEN remnant, they were left to the pride and enmity of their carnal hearts.”—-SCOTT's Com, (4) Notes in loc,

[ocr errors]

me out of the world," and were therefore given to Christ in time. The exception as to Judas, also, proves that this "giving" expresses actual discipleship. Judas had been "given," as well as the rest, or he could not have been mentioned as an exception; that is, he had been once "found," or he could not have been lost." 2 Tim. i. 9, "Who hath saved us, and called us with a holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began."

Mr. Scott here contends for the doctrine of the personal election of the persons spoken of, "from the beginning, or before eternal ages," which is the most literal translation; and argues that this cannot be denied, without supposing "that all who live and die impenitent, may be said to be saved, and called with a holy calling; because a Saviour was promised from the beginning of the world." "Indeed," he adds, "the pourpose of God is mentioned as the reason why they, rather than others, were saved and called." We shall see the passage in a very different light, if we attend to the following considerations.

"The purpose and grace," or gracious purpose, "which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began," is represented as having been "hid in past ages;" for the apostle immediately adds, "but is now made manifest by the appearing of our Saviour Jesus Christ." It cannot be the personal election of believers, therefore, of which the apostle here speaks; because it was saying nothing to declare that the Divine purpose to elect them was not manifest in former ages; but was reserved to the appearing of Christ. Whatever degree of manifestation God's purpose of personal election as to individuals receives, even the Calvinists acknowledge that it is made obvious only by the personal moral changes which take place in them through their "effectual calling," faith, and regeneration. Till the individual, therefore, comes into being, God's purpose to elect him cannot be manifested; and those who were so selected, but did not live till Christ appeared, could not have their election manifested before he appeared. Again, if personal election be intended in the text, and calling and conversion are the proofs of personal election, then it is not true that the election of individuals to eternal life, was kept hid until the appearing of Christ; for every true conversion, in any former age, was as much a manifestation of personal election, that is, of the peculiar favour and " distinguishing grace" of God, as it is under the Gospel. A parallel passage in the Epistle to the Ephesians, chap. iii. 4-6, will, however, explain that before us. "Whereby, when ye read, ye may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ, which in other ages was not made known unto the sons of men, as it is now revealed unto the holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit; that the Gentiles should be fellow-heirs, and of the same body, and partakers of his promise in Christ by the Gospel :" and in ver. 11 this is called, in exact conformity to the phrase used in the Epistle to Timothy, "the eternal purpose which he purposed in Christ Jesus our Lord." The "purpose," or "gracious purpose," mentioned in both places, as formerly hidden, but "now manifested," was therefore the purpose to form one universal church of believing Jews and Gentiles; and in the text before us, the apostle, speaking in the name of all his fellowChristians, whether Jews or Gentiles, says that they were saved and called according to that previous purpose and plan-" who hath saved us and called us," &c. The reason why the apostle Paul so often refers to "this eternal purpose" of God, is to justify and confirm his own ministry as a teacher of the Gentiles, and an asserter of their equal spiritual rights with the Jews; and that this subject was present to his mind when he wrote this passage, and not an eternal personal election, is manifest from verse 11, which is a part of the same paragraph, "whereunto I am appointed a preacher, and an apostle, and a teacher of the Gentiles."

But, says Mr. Scott, "all who live and die impenitent may then be said to be saved, and called with a holy calling,' because a Saviour was promised from the beginning of the world." But we do not say that any are saved only because a Saviour was promised from the beginning of the world; but that the apostle simply affirms that the salvation of believers, whether Gentiles pr Jews, and the means of that salvation, were the consequences of God's previous purpose, before the world

began. All who are actually saved, may say, “We are saved" according to this purpose; but if their actual salvation shut out the salvation of all others, then no more have been saved than those included by the apostle in the pronoun "us," which would prove too much. But Mr. Scott tells us that "the purpose of God' is mentioned as the reason why they, rather than others, were thus saved and called." It is mentioned with no such view. The purpose of God is introduced by the apostle as his authority for making to "the Gentiles" the offer of salvation; and as a motive to induce Timothy to prosecute the same glorious work, after his decease. This is obviously the scope of the whole chapter. Acts xiii. 48, "And as many as were ordained to eternal life believed." Mr. Scott is somewhat less confident than some others as to the support which the Calvinistic system is thought to derive from the word rendered ordained. He, however, attempts to leave the impression upon the minds of his readers, that it means " appointed to eternal life."

We may, however, observe,

1. That the persons here spoken of were the Gentiles to whom the apostles preached the Gospel, upon the Jews of the same place "putting it from them," and "judging" or proving "themselves unworthy of eternal life." But if the only reason why the Gentiles believed was, that they were "ordained," in the sense of personal predestination, "to eternal life;" then the reason why the Jews believed not was the want of such a predestinating act of God, and not, as it is affirmed, an act of their own-the PUTTING IT AWAY from them. 2. This interpretation supposes that all the elect Gentiles at Antioch believed at that time; and that no more, at least of full age, remained to believe. This is rather difficult to admit; and therefore Mr. Scott says, "though it is probable that all who were thus affected at first, did not at that time believe unto salvation; yet many did." But this is not according to the text, which says expressly, " as many as were ordained to eternal life believed:" so that such commentators must take this inconvenient circumstance along with their interpretation, that all the elect at Antioch were, at that moment, brought into Christ's church.

3. Even some Calvinists, not thinking that it is the practice of the apostles and evangelists to lift up the veil of the decrees so high as this interpretation supposes, choose to render the words-" as many as were determined," or "ordered" for eternal life.

[ocr errors]

4. But we may finally observe, that in no place in the New Testament, in which the same word occurs, is it ever employed to convey the meaning of destiny or predestination: a consideration which is fatal to the argument which has been drawn from it. The following are the only instances of its occurrence. Matt. xxviii. 16, "Then the eleven disciples went away into Galilee, into a mountain where Jesus had appointed them." Here the word means commanded, or at most agreed upon beforehand, and certainly conveys no idea of destiny. Luke vii. S," For I also am a man set under authority." Here the word means "placed or disposed." Acts xv. 2, "They determined that Paul and Barnabas should go up to Jerusalem." Here it signifies mutual agreement and decision. Acts xxii. 10, Arise, and go into Damascus; and there it shall be told thee of all things which are appointed for thee to do." Here it means committed to, or appointed in the way of injunc tion; but no idea of destiny is conveyed. Acts xxviii. 23, "And when they had appointed him a day," when they had fixed upon a day by mutual agreement; for St. Paul was not under the command or control of the visiters who came to him to hear his doctrine. Rom. xiii. 1, "The powers that be are ordained of God:" clearly signifying constituted and ordered. 1 Cor. xvi. 15, "They have addicted themselves to the ministry of the saints:" here it can mean nothing else than applied, devoted themselves to. Thus the word never takes the sense of predestination; but, on the contrary, when St. Luke wishes to convey that notion, he combines it with a preposition, and uses a compound verb--" and hath determined the times before appointed." This was preordination, and he therefore so terms it; but in the text in question, he speaks not of preordination, but of ordination simply. The word employed signifies "to place, order, appoint, dispose, determine," and is very variously applied. The prevalent idea is that of settling, ordering, and resolving; and the meaning of the text is, that as many as were fixed and resolved

« PreviousContinue »