Sivut kuvina
PDF
ePub

were the Father's by electing love, were Christ's by the covenant bond, and that they shall come to him; and that he that cometh, shall in no wise be cast out.

We are now ready for the summation of this series, I hope the reader has been sufficiently attentive to render an enumeration of the principles which have been established superfluous, I trust that matter to himself.

But now I must ask, had Christ Jesus, the Eternal Son of God, the same relation in the eternal covenant to those who shall be saved, and to those who shall not? Let this question be well considered; and, that it may be well considered, let us turn it around, and survey it in every position. Jesus Christ, the Eternal Son of God, was anointed a covenant head from all eternity; was it to head to everlasting glory those whom he will head in the judgment day, or those whom he shall not head? Was he a covenant head for those whom the Father gave him, or for those whom he did not give him? Did he travail, as in birth, for the children whom God gave him, or for those whom God gave him not? But enough, surely. That the Eternal Father, and his Eternal Son, in that covenant, which was from everlasting, knew every individual who ever should be saved by Jesus Christ, - and had a respect to, each one of them by name, is an indubitable fact: it is the high prerogative of infinite wisdom to be incapable of ignorance; it is the glorious prerogative of God never to do any thing in the end, which he did not propose to do from the beginning.

In the above questions I have used the phraseology, Had Christ Jesus, the Eternal Son of God, any relation to those whom the Father gave him in the everlasting covenant-different from his relation to those

who were not given him. I did not use the word representation; that spectre shall be put down on another field. But if the Son of God, when he was from everlasting anointed a covenant head, bore a relation to those whom the Father gave him-which relation he did not bear to those who were not given him-where is the use of disputing about words? It is that relation, whatever it is, that is intended to be expressed by those who assert, that, in the eternal covenant, the Son of God was the representative of the elect, of those whom the Father gave him.

I am not one of those, God forbid I ever should, who ascribe every defect in a publication, to a cunning artifice of the author to conceal the truth. But I confess, I have been astonished not to find in any of Mr. M'C.'s publications, a single glance at the eternal covenant between the Father and the Son. And yet, this is precisely the subject in dispute. It has been customary with all divines, who admit a covenant of grace at all, to make, in one way or other, a distinction between the transaction of the Father and Son in Heaven from all eternity, and the effects of that transaction in time. Some have called the former the covenant of redemption, and the latter the covenant of grace; making them two covenants. Some again, who insist that there is but one covenant, make a distinction between that covenant and its execution. Mr. M'C. confines himself entirely to what the latter call the execution of the covenant. In this view his first publication (The Body of Christ,) has its merit; I mean the merit of being perfectly sound. It is an absolute truth, as he states, that the Holy Spirit is the bond of union between Jesus Christ and believers; and that this same work of that spirit, produces on their

Now

part faith, love, and submission, and gives them an interest in the righteousness and grace of the Redeemer, so that they are one with him; and that they all stand or fall together" because I live ye shall live also." His treatise relates entirely to what we have been in the habit of calling, the execution of the covenant of grace; and his views are correct, but he has not added a single idea to the stock in circulation time out of min.

But why did he not professedly examine whether the Scriptures reveal an eternal covenant between the Father and Son? Why does the whole amount of his reasoning go to the denial of such a transaction? I understand that there are several who are about adopting his theory; all of whom avoid this ground; one of them at least who was tolerably ardent in the cause; when pressed with scriptural authority for an eternal covenant, and asked whether there was any covenant before the creation of man; declined giving any answer. From which it was natural to conclude, that this part of the subject has not been studied by them. The only honourable conjecture I can form respecting the cause of so strange an omission, is, that whenever some favourite idea, sparkling with the bril liancy of novelty, takes possession of the human mind, all the stars in the intellectual horizon are absorbed in its splendour; wherever we turn, wherever we look, we see it, and it alone: It enlightens all subjects, it resolves all difficulties, it removes all objections; and we are perfectly astonished how purblind mortals contrived to grope their way on this dark planet before the rising of our star. To this species of fascination all who think, are subject, and subject according to the ardour of their temperament, and the only cure is to lock up the pen, and clap a wafer on the lips;

and leave to time, the great subduer of all our passions, to moderate a romantic ardour.

I have proved from the Holy Scriptures that the Son of God was set up-was anointed,a covenant head from all eternity-That a seed was given him to be the fruit of his soul's travail-That power was given him over all flesh, that he might give eternal life to as many as the Father had given him-That all those that the Father hath given him shall come unto him-That he rejoiced from all eternity in the habitable parts of the earth, and that his delights were with the sons of men.

I do therefore assert, that the covenant of grace was made between the Father and the Son from all eternity: That the Son of God did stand in a relation to the elect, which relation did not exist between him and the rest of mankind; And it is this relation which we mean, when we say that Christ Jesus represented the elect in the covenant of grace. If the special relation be admitted, it is idle to dispute about the sound by which we shall express it. Thus far we are sure we are right, and cannot possibly be wrong. Mr. M'Chord will doubtless be looking forward for difficulties; and will already be asking, If this special relation be admitted, how can you reconcile to candour, moral truth, and justice, God's commanding those who do not stand in this peculiar relation to his Son, to accept his righteousness, and submit to his authority? I reply that this difficulty shall be decided on its own proper ground. It is not forgotten nor shall it be forgot

ten. In the mean time, we are sure that in the eternal covenant, the Son of God was anointed a covenant head with a special relation to his elect; which relation did not exist between him and the non-elect. We are sure this is God's truth; and we shall not dread any

difficulties to which it may expose us. The same divine truth which carries us into difficulties, will carry us out of them.

We are now on the ground to decide a question which we have in reserve. By turning back to page 23, the reader will find it. This question is now decided, but I shall sum the evidence. Mr. M'C.'s idea is, that a covenant can include only beings actually existing, that Adam represented himself in the covenant of works, and that his posterity are represented only when they actually exist, and they are represented only as a part of the original Adam. He carries the same idea into the covenant of grace; that no believer is represented by Jesus Christ till he actually exists as a believer. If this be true there could be no such thing as an eternal covenant, because there was nothing to represent. Most assuredly the Son of God did not represent himself in the covenant of grace-most undoubtedly he did not come into this world to seek and to save the Son of God: most undoubtedly he did not shed his blood to ransom the Son of God, either personally or substantially considered. As it was impossible that he should represent himself, so according to Mr. M'Chord's ideas it was impossible that he should represent human persons, or even human nature, for human nature did not exist. There could be no representation, unless any one can brook the blasphemous nonsense, that the glorious Son of God condescended to become the representative of nothing. On this system there was no eternal covenant. But I have the word of the Eternal Son of God, that he was anointed a covenant head from all eternity—And that before the earth existed his delights were with the sons of men. My bayonet now more

« EdellinenJatka »