What are we to understand by Rom. xi. 29? Is the "without repentance" on God's part, or on man's part? And if on man's part, how is it reconcileable with Acts xvii. 30, and iii. 19 &c. ?

Jew, of his legal idolatry, and both by the acknowledgment of the same truth, and worshipping the same God, in the spirit, should receive alike the remission,-the Jew of his sins, (iii. 19,) the Gentile from his works of ignorance, xvii. 30,) at the period indicated, viz.-" The

SIR-To the above questions contained in the number of the Advocate for December, page 352 * I would reply.

Ist. "The gifts and calling of God alluded to, determine to whom the "without repentance refers, viz. to God. These are the gifts of life and all its spiritual and eternal blessings, to a participation in which, he called, first, The remnant, according to the election of grace" in the days of the apostles. Second, the gentile nations, by the same agency: that, as he had found both under the influence of unbelief, the one through perverseness, and deliberate hardness of heart, the other through the ignorance of his mind,-he might have mercy on both, without difference or distinction, that both might rejoice in the same truth, having both alike received the same eternal life, in the same way,-as the gift of God. See this subject more fully discussed in the accompanying extract.

2nd. Acts iii. 19, &c., is addresed to Jews; xvii. 30, to Gentiles; that as both were alike included in the gracious purposes of mercy in Christ Jesus, both should alike, by the belief of the truth preached by the apostles, repent: the Gentile of his heathenish idolatry, and the

sence of the Lord," (iii. 19,) which corresponds with the "day which God hath appointed, in the which he will judge the world, (both Jew and Gentile,) by that man whom he hath ordained, (John v. 22,) whereof he hath given assurance unto all men, (Matt. xxiv. 14,) (Col. i. 23,) in that he hath raised him from the dead."

The passage in Romans refers to the unchanging purposes of Jehovah with respect both to Jews and Gentiles. Those quoted from Acts, refer to the change of mind, of which both were the subjects, who received the doctrine preached by the apostles. The subject of these passages is one, therefore, harmonious.

J. M. B.

"On the election and calling of the Jews, as taught by St. Paul, in the 10th and 11th chapters of the epistle to the Romans.

In chap. x. 3, we have the principles first stated, by which the rejection of Israel was effected, as formerly unmasked. "For they were ignorant of God's righteousness, and going about to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God. For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth." Some particulars are there given on this

subject; and at verse 11 it is said, For the Scripture saith, "Whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed, for there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek; for

the same Lord over all is rich unto

66

all that call upon him." "For " it is added, whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be saved." From these passages, I think, it is sufficiently clear, that, as the grace of God in Christ was intended to be made known to the Gentiles, who should also receive it; all the advantages of religion, which the Jews had formerly possessed exclusively, had now been proposed to all men, without respect of persons, faith being the means, and the only means, proposed as introductory to their attainment. Every religious privilege, had now been equally laid open to all believers. But the Jew, in refusing to receive Christ the real end of the law, had

(1) See Isaiah liii. where the rejection and death of Christ are plainly foretold.

(2) Deut. xxxii. 15, 43. In ver. 29, on [ackarithom] their latter (end). I believe alludes to the end of their polity; and in consonance with this view in ver, 43, the nations are called upon to rejoice with his people, i. e. with those of the Jews who should believe. This chapter appears, therefore, to be a prophecy of the defection of the Jews, and of their consequent rejection by God.

(3) It is impossible to imagine any thing more explicit on this subject than Isaiah is, in the chapter (lxx.) from which this citation is made-I am sought" says God by his prophet, "of them that asked not for me: I am found of them that sought me not; I said, Behold me, behold me, unto a nation that was not called by my name"; which must mean the Gentiles. Then of Israel, he says, "I have spread out my hands all the day unto a rebellious people, which walketh in a way that was not good, after their own thoughts, ver. 6. "I will not keep silence, but will recompense, even recompense into their bosom," &c. Then at ver 8, the rem. nant to be saved is mentioned:-" Destroy it not, for a blessing is in it; so will I do

mistaken the Scriptures,-had endeavoured to establish his own righteousness independently of that proposed by God, which could be obtained only through faith in the

atonement.

But this is not all. St. Paul further tells us that this obduracy of theirs had also been foretold. "But," adds he, "they have not all obeyed the Gospel, for Esaias saith, Lord, who hath believed our report? (1) ver. 16. And again (ver. 19, 20, 21,) "But I say, did not Israel know? First Moses (2) saith, I will provoke you to jealousy by them that are no people, and by a foolish nation I will anger you. Esaias is very bold, and saith, I was found of them that sought me not, I was made manifest unto them that asked not after me. But to Israel he saith, All day long I have stretched forth my hands unto a rebellious and gainsaying people." (3)

Here

for my servants' sakes, that I may not destroy them all. And I will bring forth a seed out of Jacob, and out of Judah, an inheritor of my holy mountains and mine elect shall inherit it, and my servants shall dwell there." Here we have St. Paul's elected remnant, ver. 2,-"But YE are they that forsake the Lord, that forget my holy mountain; there. fore will I number you both to the sword, and ye shall bow down to the slaughter: because when I called ye did not answer! when I spake, ye did not hear," &c. is, certainly, a most clear distinction between the fate of the believing and unbelieving Jews. The one party is termed God's elect, while the other, purely through unbelief, is numbered for the slaughter. See ver. 1316, to the same effect. And we are told in verse 16, that God's servants are to be called by another name. Now what can this imply? 1 suppose the new dispensation; and this supposition the context confirms, ver. 17, Behold I create new heavens, and a new earth: and the former shall not be remembered nor come into mind." This chapter, therefore, is strictly consonant with the reasoning of St. Paul, so much so, that it will admit of no other interpretation.

I think we may safely conclude upon this, that the calling in of the Gentiles, and the rejection, as well as the disobedience of the Jews plainly foretold by the prophets. Passages to this effect may be multiplied to an indefinite extent; but these, explained and applied, as they are here by the apostle, will be quite sufficient to satisfy every reasonable person on the subject. We may then conclude thus far, that the Jew had actually ceased to be a part of the church of God through unbelief. The Gentiles had become a party in the true church, through faith; and both these things had been foreseen and predicted.

Let us now proceed to enquire into the drift and scope of the 11th chapter. The first question is, "I say, then, hath God cast away his people? God forbid. For I also

am

an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin. God hath not cast away his people which he foreknew." Here, I think, we may find the solution of all the difficulty before us; we shall, therefore, first of all endeavour to ascertain the apostle's mind in this place.

An inattentive reader might imagine from the foregoing context, that God had systematically and intentionally rejected the whole posterity of Abraham, and that without remedy. But no, the apostle declares he meant no such thing; and that his mind may not possibly be misunderstood on this important point, he adds, God forbid! Far be it from me to make any such assertion; for his gifts and callings are without repentance (ver. 29); they are unchangeable, and subject to no caprice, Christ himself was sent to the Jews, and to the Jews alone; he was purely a

minister of the circumcision, or sent only to the circumcised: and we the apostles were commissioned first to go to the Jews, and secondly to the Gentiles. How then can it be said that God had intended to cast off his ancient people, when it is quite evident that to them the first offers were made; and made to them because they were of the house of Israel, the descendants of the fathers, to whom the promises had been given. And to confirm this, I say, "I also am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin." (1) I, who am one of the most favoured apostles,-am lineally, and literally an Israelite; and I look upon myself not only as having found this inestimable salvation, but I am commissioned to preach it to you Israelites first, and secondly to the Gentiles. Israel, as such, is not then by any means rejected: nothey are still beloved for the fathers' sake; and this is the most welcome part of my commission to them. But, further let me ask you,-Is there any thing new in this? Was not the same the case in the days of Elias? for although the nation had to an amazing degree, given up the worship of Jehovah, and were therefore accused as idolaters and aliens, by Elias, there was nevertheless, a large number still adhering to his worship, and these he had not rejected; they were still his people; and they were his through his covenanted mercies in Abraham. The same is the case now. The Jews have generally given up the covenanted mercies of God; they have gone about to establish a new religion, founded on their own merits and righteousness; and so far, therefore, just as in the days of

[1] See also the passages of Scripture generally which speak of the remnant, and among these Micah, iv. 1-7.

Elias, they are not his people; and because they recognize not his sovereignity. But still there is, even at this time, a remnant according to the election of grace, (see Isaiah x. 21.) according to the covenant made with Abraham, the end of which had respect to Christ. There is, even now, in the rising church, a very considerable number, a remnant of Israel, full as large as the seven thousand was in the days of Elias; and of these I am one. Israel, then, (ver. 7,) has not attained to this privilege; but a part of Israel, and that which constitutes the true elected church, has, and the rest have become blind through unbelief. And I ask, has not all this been foreseen and foretold: and foretold, too, as resulting from the same cause, namely, unbelief? (ver. 8, 9, 10.) But further, (ver. 11.) this blindness will not for ever separate them from God. Mercy is still to be had; God is still a God that pardoneth iniquity, transgression and sin; only let it be remembered, mercy must be sought in the appointed way, that is by faith in Jesus. The consequence of their rejecting this faith, however, has been, our turning to the Gentiles; and the conversion of the gentiles, has accordingly become a source of considerable vexation to the Jews. But granting this, and putting the case, that the Gentiles have thus been made believers, and the world in general thus far benefitted, I say, will not their return be an event of the greatest moment and blessedness? Who will not rejoice when the Jew who now blindly resigns his.birthright, shall come back to the means of grace, and the hope of glory, of which it never was God's intention he should be deprived; but rather (1) Theodoret says, that upon their believ ing, nothing further would remain to take

Will

that he should be the first both to receive and enjoy? This is the question I daily labour to bring before them, these are the privileges to which it is my object to raise their ambition, being as I am the apostle of the Gentiles, yet a Jew in the full sense of that term. Now, let me ask, if by their fall the nations have been blessed, will not their rising again be as life from the dead? (1) Will it not be something like the return of the prodigal in the Gospel? a theme in which the whole family on earth and in heaven will rejoice? it not be said, this my son was lost and is found, was dead and is alive? Will not the believing church throughout the world acknowledge this, and make it a subject for gratitude and praise to Almighty God? Nor let the Gentile believer boast, for he stands only by faith; but let him rather learn that the Jew fell through unbelief; and that if God spared not his first adopted, who thus sinned against him, neither will he spare his second. Besides, as already stated, if they abide not in unbelief, they shall be brought in again-which, however, will not take place before Christ's kingdom is established among the nations: (2) and (ver. 26,) so shall all Israel be saved; as it is written, The deliverer shall come from Zion, the true church, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob. the depths of the riches of God! who never systematically excluded from his favors either the Jew or the Gentile. The one lost his privileges by refusing to retain God in his thoughts; the other, by endeavouring to establish his own righteousness: yet to both is proposed the means of a return, viz.faith in the atonement of Christ, place but the general resurrection.

[2] Cited from Luke xxi. 24.

and for each is likewise reserved the just judgment of God, if he refuse to attend to this proposal. We have nothing. here therefore, in any case intimating a return of the Jews to Palestine, nor which places them in any sense in a situation different from that of the Gentile. All here rests solely on the mercies of God, as first revealed in the promise of the Redeemer, in

whom all the nations of the earth were to be blessed, and to be realized by faith, which has been equally proposed to the Jew and the Gentile. In this respect therefore, there is clearly no difference. [Dissertations on the interpretation of prophecy generally, by S. Lee, B.D. Professor of Arabic in the University of Cambridge. pp. 261–266.]

The Life of Alexander Carson, LL. D. By George C. Moore. New York: Edward H. Fletcher, 141, Nassau Street. London: Benjamin L. Green, Paternoster Row. 1851. pp. 156.

IN the summer of 1845, a little business called us to London; and one afternoon, while sitting over a cup of tea with our old friend, the late William Jones, the subject of a Memoir of Dr. Carson was introduced, Mr. Jones remarked-that he had been applied to by the friends of Dr. Carson to write his Life. He handed to us for perusal some of the letters relative to the matter. In some of these, we remember well, it was stated that it would take at least six months to collect the Doctor's letters from his numerous correspondents, and to arrange them, and selecting such of them as contained matter which would be useful in drawing up a Memoir. Our venerable friend continued, as nearly as we can recollect, in the following words: "I should like, if I am spared, to write the Life of Alexander Carson, for I believe I should do him justice. There are many things in Carson's writings, particularly his early pro

ductions upon Church government, order, &c., which are very weak and untenable. These I should place in their true light; and shew that even Alexander Carson could sometimes write very weak things. I am afraid that, should the task fall to the lot of some persons, no discrimination will be made, and every thing which Dr. Carson has written, however questionable, will be lauded to the skies."

About six months after the circumstance to which we have referred, our venerable and valued friend finished his earthly pilgri image, and the work of course fell into other hands; and, after the lapse of nearly six years, a Life of Alexander Carson, LL.D. makes its appearance.

Our readers will presently see our reasons for mentioning the above circumstance and conversation. We have no wish to find fault with the volume before us, but certainly it is not such a Life of Alexander Carson as William Jones would have written.

Among the letters of recommendations prefixed to the volume, there is one from Mrs. Hanna, of New York, (Dr. Carson's daughter) from which we quote the following