ST. PAUL'S THEORY OF ELECTION.

"For whom he did foreknow, them he also did predestinate to be 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."-Rom. viii. 29, 30.

WHILE we are in this world we should be in the position of truth-seekers; and that implies that we leave ourselves open for the reception of more light, from whatever quarter it may come. Sometimes it arises where it was least expected; but from what source soever it may come, the divine rule regarding it is very plain, namely, "Prove all things, and hold fast that which is good," that which stands the test.

When any one adopts a definite set of ideas on any subject, and refuses thereafter to re-examine the matter in case his cherished opinions be in any way disturbed, he is like a man who should prefer to do all his work by the aid of a tiny lamp, being afraid to take down his window-shutters lest the brighter light of the sun might reveal some disagreeable things in his dark and dingy habitation. And he who forecloses his mind against more light on any important subject, not only "wrongs his own soul," but also injures, more or less, all those who may in any way be dependent upon him for light.

Comparatively it is but little of truth that we can know ; so where important truth is concerned, we should endeavour to get it as satisfactorily and thoroughly as possible; because the wisest of all teachers enjoins, "Take heed that the light which is in you be not darkness, for if the light that is in you be darkness, how great is that darkness!"

That the doctrine of election, or predestination, is a Scriptural doctrine, cannot for a moment be denied; neither can it be denied that it has been a source of annoyance and perplexity to thousands, both of the learned and the unlearned, but especially to those who, unconsciously perhaps, yet truly pay more deference to human authority than to divine. To all such we would earnestly say, leave man's opinions, and look to the only standard of religious truth.

It has been said that "true science knows nothing of authority." Why, then, should theology, the most important science, be bound down by human authority, as it has been for centuries past? Why not rather say, perish Calvinism, if need be; and perish Arminianism, if need be; and perish every other "ism" whose tendency is to obscure truth, and let divine revelation be the uncompromising evidence of its own integrity.

In presuming to deal with St. Paul's doctrine of election, we shall not, therefore, quote human authority, but shall make ample use of Scriptural authority.

If we look at the word predestinate (powpure), we find that it involves two distinct ideas, viz., the idea of destiny, and the idea of time; "pre," an indefinite period antecedent to that of destiny. It does not, however, imply a period previous to man's creation. And this thought is worth keeping in mind, that St. Paul is here not making the slightest reference to the creation of man, or to the believer's birth, but simply to his destiny. Destiny signifies the last position of any person or thing; and as God is the disposer of all, and as he does not work at random or haphazard, but according to a definite purpose or plan, so he is the predestinator.

What then is the divine purpose referred to in verse 28? What is the believer's destiny? St. Paul says it is that all those who love God shall ultimately become like Jesus, that he may be the first-born-the elder brother-among many brethren. There will then be a very great family, and all will have a beautiful family likeness to the elder brother. What a beautiful thought! What a sublime conception! And, moreover, this supremely grand divine purpose will be realized. When? We cannot say-for, "of that day and hour knoweth no man, no not even the angels." It has not yet been realized by any, not even by St. Paul himself. He is still waiting all these centuries for the adoption, viz., the redemption of the body from corruption (verse 23.)

Oh that all Christians had as stimulating a view of their destiny as the apostle had when he wrote to the Romans in this eighth chapter regarding the manifestation or glorious appearing of the Son of God, or when he wrote to the Philippians regarding his anxiety to attain unto the resurrection of the dead; and the changing of the vile body that it might be fashioned like unto the glorious body of the Lord Jesus Christ!

One main reason why so many fail to grasp the sublimity and simplicity of St. Paul's doctrine of election seems to lie in their oversight of the fact that, in giving this short summary of God's dealings with his children, the apostle apparently places himself in imagination at a point beyond the consummation of the divine purpose; and from that sublime stand-point he looks back on the divine work in the completed history of every Christian from the first who ever lived, till the last who ever shall live, and describes the divine procedure in five great stages of their individual histories, as God's knowing them, predestinating, calling, justifying, and glorifying them; all of which he refers to in the past tense; thus showing that while theologians

of our day are in the habit of placing themselves in imagination at a point previous to man's creation and looking forward to the divine work, St. Paul placed himself at the other end, and looked back. It is not wonderful, therefore, that they do not agree with him so well as they would like.

One may look through either end of a telescope, but not with the same effect.

The pillar of cloud in the wilderness had a very different appearance when looked at from the Egyptian side, to what it had when viewed from the Canaan side; and if the Divine Being had been judged of accordingly, then the conclusions arrived at concerning him would have been very different.

So the divine character, looked at through St. Paul's theory of election, and from his stand-point, is beautiful, bright, and consistent; but when looked at from the stand-point of the old Confession of Faith, it is in some respects dark, dismal, and very unlike the reality.

Another main reason why this sublime doctrine becomes a stumbling-block to so many, arises from the fact, that they fail to grasp the true scriptural meaning of the word foreknow (pоeуvw). To know beforehand-to know Christians beforehand. Before what? Refer to the context and it will be seen that St. Paul is not making any reference whatever to the creation of man upon earth; but simply to the realization of the divine heirship at the end of the world's history (verse 17.) If children, then heirs, heirs of God, and joint heirs with Christ. If so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together." The same idea is expressed somewhat differently in Ephes. i, 5-" Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children," that is, to all the privileges of sons of God; which, of course, includes the glorious heirship spoken of here, and referred to in 2 Cor. iv, 17, as "a far more exceeding and eternal weight of glory."

In verse 19, St. Paul says that "the earnest expectation of the creature (which implies intelligence) waiteth for the manifestation of the sons of God."

When they do appear, that will be the most magnificent gala-day humanity ever saw. It has not come yet, but it is coming, and it may be nearer than we are apt to suppose.

It is this grand consummation of which the Apostle is treating in the context; and he informs us very distinctly, that every one who is to be a participator in the glorious heirship, along with the Elder Brother, requires to be known of God before these things come to pass; and because God knows them before these things take place, therefore the word is properly foreknow."

Once lay hold of the Apostle's idea, contained in the word "know," and then you have a key which, if properly applied, will open the intricate lock of predestination.

The word "foreknow," as here used, is commonly understood to signify omniscience; but we submit that reverence for Scripture ought to preclude that idea. For if the word "foreknow," as here used, signifies omniscience, then the passage does not accord with the facts of human experience, for every one has not been predestinated; yet, the Apostle says distinctly, that all who come within the sphere of God's knowledge are predestinated; therefore the "knowledge" referred to cannot mean omniscience. What, then? To the law and to the divine testimony let us turn, for if any one speak "not accordto this rule it is because there is no light in him."

We hope, then, it will be seen by an intelligent reading of the texts about to be submitted for consideration, that the Scriptural usage of the words "know" and "foreknow," when predicated of man in relation to man, or man in relation to God, does not imply mere intellectualism; and when predicated of God in relation to man, does not necessarily imply omniscience, but does imply fellowship, intimacy, intercommunion, connection, oneness, or unity-that is, an idea equivalent to that contained in the expression, "heart knowledge," as distinct from mere intellectualism.

In Deut. xxxiv, 10, it is said, "There arose not a prophet since in Israel like unto Moses, whom the Lord knew face to face." Omnisciently he surely knew every prophet as well as Moses; but the manifest idea is that of intimacy, or intercommunion. Amos iii, 2-"You only have I known of all the families of the earth." Could this be truthfully said of omniscience? Nahum i, 7-"The Lord is good, a stronghold in the day of trouble; and he knoweth them that trust in him." If the phrase, "He knoweth them that trust in him," implies omniscient knowledge, then the passage is meaningless. Matt. vii, 23—“Then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart ye that work iniquity." Could omniscience say, I never knew? John x, 14-"I know my sheep, and am known of mine," evidently implying intercommunion. Ch. xiii, 18—“I speak not of you all, I know whom I have chosen." If the knowledge here referred to does not carry in it a distinguishing idea, then it means nothing. 1 Cor. viii, 3—“But if any man love God, the same is known of him." Here the idea manifestly is, that they who do not love God, are not known of him; which can be regarded as true only of "heart knowledge." 2 Cor. v, 21-"For he hath made him to be sin for us who knew no sin." Here the idea of omniscience is entirely out of

the question. The truth intended evidently is, that he had no connection with sin. Galatians iv, 9-"Now, after that ye know God, or rather are known of God." Here the apostle implies that a time was, in the history of the Galatians, when God did not know them; but such an idea cannot be entertained of omniscience. 2 Tim. ii, 19-"The Lord knoweth

them that are his," &c.

A careful consideration of any, or all of these texts, and others of a similar nature, will plainly show that, although divine knowledge is mentioned in them all, yet every one of them would express puerile absurdity if the omniscience idea were admitted. But when we understand the knowledge to be "heart knowledge," viz., the idea of divine love and fellowship, or intimacy, which is very distinctly implied in each successive passage, we have not only a logical meaning, but a beautifully significant and very important truth.

Some one, however, may say, Although you have in every one of these texts the word "know," "knew," or "known," yet you do not have the word "foreknow."

Now, let us not be misunderstood. We are not saying that omniscience is not necessarily foreknowledge. It must necessarily be the knowledge of all things past, present, and future; but what we contend for is, that the word "foreknow," as used in Scripture, does not necessarily imply the quality of omniscience or bare knowledge, such as the knowledge of all things must be when predicated of a holy being; that, in fact, in three-fourths of the texts where the word occurs the true meaning would be fairly lost, were the omniscience idea obtruded. What then is "foreknow," but just to know before? We turn, then, to Rom. xi, 2, where we read, "God hath not cast away his people which he foreknew." Here the word evidently presents to us a distinguishing mark, showing that there was something between God and the Israelites which was not between him and others; but if we attach to it the quality of omniscience, then all distinction vanishes; for omniscience knew other people just as certainly and as entirely, as it knew the Israelites. The foreknowledge in this passage is manifestly not that simply of the intellect, but that of the heart. Again, 1 Pet. i, 2, "Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit," &c. Here the apostle shows that the election is in harmony with the foreknowledge, and that the foreknowledge is through sanctification of the Spirit. In other words, God knows us, in this sense, only through the medium of sanctification, i. e., he has fellowship and intercommunion with us, and because he knows us in his heart, therefore he proposes that

No. 13.

E

Vol. 4.