of real piety. Abel, Enoch, Noah, and Melchizedek, were certainly characters of this sort; they were considered as holy men, and as such became objects of the love and favour of their Creator. Nothing is said in these times about peculiar, chosen, or elect people; they are either just or unjust, the sons of God or of men, in proportion as they served God or not. The reason seems to have been this: There was at that day no exclusion from the means of grace, the Church was open to all; and consequently no peculiarity as a people could exist in any individual peculiarity there may and must have been; but this never receives the name of election, peculiar people, or any such thing. But, after the calling of Abraham, and indeed to the very end of the Jewish canon, we read of an elect, peculiar, and holy people; but in no instance whatever is this applied to times higher than those of Abraham; and, what is equally remarkable, we are told by the Prophets, that times should come in which this distinction should for ever cease. Again, in every place of the New Testament in which this subject is touched upon, no allusion to the privilege is carried higher than the times of Abraham, nor extended in a national point of view, lower than those in which the Jewish polity ended; but, it is positively declared, that faith had now attained to what the election (or chosen people) had not: and that the Gentiles, whom this election had once excluded, had not only been brought near by the blood of Christ, but had been even grafted on the stock of the faithful, to the exclusion of the election generally, whose privileges had been forfeited through a want of faith. In the Old Testament, then, and in the allusions made to it in the New, election is appealed to in a national point of view only, for the purpose of strongly marking the exclusion of other nations from its privileges. Individual election among the Jews moreover is never so much as once hinted at; but, on the contrary, it is declared that they were all holy, or elect, considered as a nation, whatever they may have been as individuals.

Let us now attend to the manner in which the close of this exclusive polity, and the wider system of universal salvation, are inculcated in both Testaments. The prophets constantly remind us that the church shall be extended, that

it shall lengthen its cords and strengthen its stakes, in order that the forces of the Gentiles might come in; which we are further told they should do like a flowing stream: and again, that living waters should proceed forth of Jerusalem, which should be for the healing of the nations ;-that all should know Jehovah, from the least to the greatest; and that the knowledge of his power should at one day cover the earth, just as the waters covered the sea. In all such predictions, the end of the exclusive polity of the Jews is necessarily inculcated, and a wider, and indeed universal, system taught, in which the distinction of Jew and Gentile should cease,-a system in which bond and free (the proselyted slave and his master), male and female, should stand alike in the church; and in which the means of grace should be as wide and sufficient as the wants of intelligent creation could call for. This question is also argued in the New Testament, in the most explicit manner; and we are directly and plainly told, that, in this point of view, there is now "no difference." If, then, any thing like the terms, election, peculiar people, chosen, should be found to occur in the New Testament and applied to Christians, all perhaps will allow, that they cannot be so interpreted as to signify election in the exclusive point of view just spoken of; because, such an interpretation must tend to oppose both the declarations of Prophets and the conclusions of the Apostles. And, further, as this doctrine did not apply to individuals in the first case, neither is it likely that it did in the second. It will be for us to inquire, however, whether, upon its occurrence in the New Testament, it ought or ought not, so to be taken.

Now, if we are taught under the Jewish system, that the Church was one day to be greatly enlarged both in extent and knowledge, not to be destroyed and rebuilt; it will be our first duty to inquire, on what principle this enlargement was to take place whether, for example, the Scriptures, laws, observances, &c. applied under the Theocracy, should be applied or not, under the more general system of Christianity; or, whether the whole was to be new, and nothing whatever to be retained from the preceding system. We are told, indeed, in some places, that all things should become new, and that things which were old were ready to pass away; which might be sufficient to determine our question,

were there not strong reasons for supposing, that these terms were not intended to be taken in their most extensive and absolute sense. But we are also taught to believe, that we are grafted in upon the stock of the preceding system; and that the Jews, who are now excluded through unbelief, shall again be grafted in, and then again possess their ancient religious privileges. In other places we are taught, that although there is a change in the law, there is nevertheless no abolition of that originally given; but, on the contrary, its establishment has in one case been provided for, and its fulfilment in another. It may be asked then: In what way are these declarations to be reconciled; both emanate from the same authority; and to both an equal regard ought to be paid? My answer is: I believe this can be done in one way only; and that is, by adhering to the spirit rather than the letter of the ancient law; because, under the present change of circumstances, it is in this way alone that the requirements of both can be complied with. If, for example, that part which was ceremonial had a typical respect to the atonement of Christ, then in the antitype, namely in the person of Christ, we can look upon that as having been fulfilled, as to its intention and spirit, and its observance, as to the letter, now superseded. In like manner, as the moral law enjoined not only observances peculiar to the times in which it was given, but also a system of eternal truths never elsewhere revealed, and no where specifically abrogated; our obvious duty is, to view it not as abolished, but in every case, as its declarations may require, intended for the regulation of a more perfect and extended system. And this can be done only by an adherence to its spirit. In applying Scriptures therefore, given under the Old, and referring to the times of the New, Testament, their bearing and extent must be regulated on these principles; and on these they have been cited and applied both by our Lord and his Apostles. Reason, therefore, recommended by authority such as this, must be quite decisive on this question.

Bearing this in mind, we may now proceed to inquire for what purpose the terms election, chosen, &c. are introduced in the Old Testament; and then determine how they ought to be understood, when found occurring in the New.

Under the Old Testament, then, and after the times of

Abraham, election was made, as we are taught, not absolutely or unconditionally to the attainment of eternal life,-no such terms ever occur; but for the purpose of being God's people;-a people confessing his name, obeying his commandments, and waiting for the fulfilment of his promises. From the manner in which the Jews were addressed on this subject, it is clear that persuasion, not force, was resorted to. The strongest possible reasons indeed were adduced, for the purpose of urging the exercise of faith and obedience; but still they were reasons, and nothing more: and, from the numerous instances of failure on record, we are certain that no Almighty influence could generally have been exerted; although we know, that the promises urged again and again declared, that God would, on his part, never withdraw his mercies or love from his people. If then these mercies were not universally afforded,—and they were not,—disobedience must have been the real and efficient cause; and this we are unreservedly told was the fact. The reason therefore of these failures must have been, a non-compliance on the part of the elect with the conditions proposed; and this, also, we are repeatedly told was the case: They would have none of his laws; and, as to his commandments, they cast them behind their backs. Election, therefore, could not have been proposed in an abstract or metaphysical, but in a practical, sense, unless we give a flat denial to the positive declarations of Scripture: that is, this people could not have been chosen absolutely and unconditionally either to eternal life, or, what is much the same thing, to a state in which it was impossible to fall; but to the privilege of means, which, if duly applied, would, through the exertion of the Divine power and mercy, have finally insured the ends proposed.

Let us now come down to Christian times, and inquire how the case stands in these. Here we find, then, the covenant generally appealed to, to be that which had been made with Abraham, containing indeed the promise of a Saviour, which the system of Moses neither could nor did disannul; the end had in view one and identically the same, namely, the salvation of the creature; the means to be used, still the same,-faith in the Son of God; and, as far as it regarded personal character, individuals were to be holy, harmless, undefiled,-a kingdom of priests, a chosen nation, a

peculiar people. And our question now is, how are such terms as these to be understood and applied? Whether Christians are thus made a peculiar people, by some national and exclusive appointment, such as not to admit of the approach of others to the same grace and mercy; or, whether they are, by God's grace, which has been offered according to the terms of his first covenant and received under the same terms, made peculiar in his estimation, and different from a world dead in trespasses and sins; refusing either to receive such privileges, or receiving, refusing to tender an unfeigned and hearty obedience to their requirements? On this last view, the spirit of the ancient system, though not the letter, is strictly preserved. The general exclusion which God had once notified, now no longer exists; that partial one which does, is purely the work of man, the effect of rebellion willingly undertaken and deliberately persevered in; and, therefore, this exclusion is just. To the repenting rebel mercy is indeed held out; but on no other terms than those of obedience. This was once the privilege of the penitent Jew exclusively; but even then, repentance, obedience, and faith, were demanded: this privilege is now held out to all, and that on precisely the same terms. The spirit of both dispensations is therefore strictly the same, although the letter in some respects differs.

-

In the next place, How is this question treated by the writers of the New Testament? In the ninth chapter of the Epistle to the Romans, we find it formally proposed and discussed, and in the very order in which we have been viewing it. In the first place, the application of the ancient Scriptures according to their spirit, and not their letter, is thus made: "They (are) not all Israel," says the Apostle in the sixth verse, "who are of Israel; neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, (are they) all children: but in Isaac shall thy seed be called." Then follows the explanation (v. 8): “That is,' it is said, "they which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed." We find here, then, that even under the first dispensation, the privilege was afforded purely with regard to the terms of the promise; and, in this respect, we are informed a little lower down, that Isaac was appointed to be the exclusive channel (vers. 9, 10, 11, 12, 13): not that