And if we are met at this point l)y the warning, that as men our powers of apprehending ind expressing truth are limited, and that there most
ELECTION
ELECTION
679
be infinite depths of mystery in the divine nature which we are powerlesa to fathom, we sliall hope to learn humility and patience from tlie caution. But we sliall not desist from pushing our inc|uiries to the utmost limit of the power that is given to ns. We believe that, in spite of all our limitations, we yet were created to know God. And it is a matter of life and death for us that we should be able to bring this revealed method of His working into harmony with the rest of the revelation that He has given us of His character. Nor can we doubt that He will justify us as He justified Job for refusing to be satisfied with any exi)lanation of the facts of the divine government w liich can- not be reconciled with the sense of justice which He hats Himself implanted in us. He has revealed election to us as the method of His working. There can be no presumption in asking whetlier in making this revelation He has given us any help to enable us to understand His purpose and enter into His plan.
When in this spirit we approach the examina- tion of the scriptural evidence, the result may well, at first sight, seem disappointing. Great pains are taken to negative what we are naturally inclined to regard as tlie simplest and most obvious solution. The ground of a man's choice lies not 60 much in himself as in the object that he chooses. It is, of course, true that his own character deter- mines what qualities in an object will, and what Dualities will not, prove attractive to him. But, or all that, it is the real or supposed loveliness of the object that rules his choice. It would be natural, therefore, to assume tliat the choice of God is in like manner determined by the loveliness of its object. But it is just at this jioint that the analogy of the human will is necessarily imperfect. It is not, indeed, that we are required to believe that God can love that which is, in itself, neither lovely nor capable of developing loveliness ; but that since the root of all loveliness is in God, and since there can be no goodness apart from Him, we cannot argue as if it were possible for man to
Sossess or develop any goodness or loveliness in- ependent of, and so constituting a claim on, the choice of God. We ought not, therefore, to be surprised when we find Israel expressly warned in Holy Scripture to reject the flattering assumption that they had been chosen on tlie ground of their own inherent attractiveness. They were not as a nation either more numerous or more amenable to the divine discipline than other nations (Dt 7' 9'). We can understand why St. Paul declares that the election of Christians does not depend on the will or the energy of men (Uo D"). It is not of works but of grace (Ro 11', cf. .In 1").
It must therefore bo a mistake to try to dis- cover the ultimate ground of God's choice in any consideration drawn from outside Himself, even though it be in His foreknowledge of the faith and obedience of His chosen ; for the goodness in which He takes delight is, after all, from first to last His own creation. The testimony of Scripture is not, however, really limited to this negative result. The choice which is not determined from without is all the more certainly determined from within. And the ground of the choice whicli we are forbidden to look for in ourselves or in human nature is expressly declared to lie in tlie lovo (Dt 7») and the faithfulne.is (Dt 9», Ito 11'*) and the mercy of our God (Ko 9").
ii. We pass on now to consider the second group of questions connected with our subject. Who are the elect? and for what end are they chosen? In OT the term 'elect' is most often applied to the nation of Israel, regarded as a whole. They are at all periods of their history taught to regard them- selves as the 'chosen people.' At the same time
special divisions of the nation, e.g. the tribe of Levi and the house of Aaron, are chosen to perform certain functions on behalf of the whole body ; and certain prominent individuals, e.g. Abraham and David, are regarded as the objects of a special election. In Is 40-66 the term is applied to the nation generally and to the ' servant or J"' in all the different connotations of that many-sided title, — so little is the prophet con- scious of any fundamental contradiction between the thought of a national and an individual election. In NT the universal Church takes the
Elaco of Israel as the 'chosen race,' and not only er head and her most prominent ministers, but also all her individual members, sometimes by name, sometimes by an inclusive form of address, which it is impossible to narrow down, are described as 'elect,' just as they are described in similar connexions as 'called' and 'holy' and 'faithful' and 'beloved." It does not seem possible to deter- mine on NT evidence whether the individuals are regarded as owing their membership in the Church to their election, or as becoming elect by virtue of their membership. Three points are clear — (1) that they were chosen before the foundation of the world ; (2) that they were chosen ' in Clirist ' ; (3) that membership in the Church is treated as an objective assurance to each individual of his personal interest in this eternal election.