DUKE UNIVERSITY LIBRARY 5 ae — tne . ‘NECESSITY OF ATONEMENT, THE CONSISTENCY BETWEEN THAT AND & FREE GRACE, IN FORG IV ENESS : ri ILLUSTRATED IN THREE stscqaa ™ “BY JONATHAN EDWARDS, D.D. “Late President of Union College, Schenectady, . (New-York.) SECOND EDITION. GILIF ILL IIS ELLIS EL IEIG IE LLG LOLS + PORTLAND: PUBLISHED BY A. LYMAN © co. ‘Also by D. Mallory & Co. Boston Swift & Chipman, Middlebury, (Vt.) Beers & Howe, New-Haven + Whiting & Co. New-York: D. W, Farrand & Green, Albany: B. B. Hopkins & Co,and T. ¥ _ Zantzinger & Co. Philadelphia : P. H. aeesty * Co. Baltimore : 1. W. Campbell, Petersburgh « (¥ and Patterson & pola Pittsburgh. rinter,—1811. i ae / ] > THE Div; S. NECESSITY vOF ATONEMENT, ke. 1-2 4) 2 az si 60 Diasec S Ez b \/ DISCOURSE I. a In whom we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, according, to Mod riches of his lin dl we: 17. THE doctrine of the fonsiveteee of sins is a capital doctrine of the gospel, and is much insisted on by the writers of the New Testament : above all, by the author of this epistle. In our text, he asserts that we are forgiven according to the riches of grace : not merely in the exercise of grace, as the very term for- giveness, implies : but in the exercise of the riches of grace : importing that for- viveness is an act of the most /ree and abundant grace, Yet healso asserts that this gratuitous forgiveness is in conse- queticeliie redemption by the blood of Christ. But how are these two parts of the proposition consistent ? If we be in the literal sense forgiven in consequence of a redemption, we are forgiven on ac- 4 NECESSITY OF AT count of the price | of rec viously paid. How ly said to be forg implies the exe anc given accordi he riches of grace § 2 This is at lez ist a ceming inconsistence, If our forgi 1€ price « € already paid, it seems to be of debt, and net of grace. This catty hath occasioned some to reject \\ the doctrine of Christ’s redemption, sat- isfaction, or atonement, Others, who have not been driven to that extremity by this difficulty, yet have been exceed- ingly perplexed and embarrassed. Of these last, I freely confess myself to have been one, Aasine from ray youth de- voted myself to the study of theoretic and practical theology, this has to me been one of the gordian knots in that science, How far what shall now be offered towards a solution, © ought to af- ford satisfaction, is submit to the judgment of my candid auditors, Our text naturally- suggests: these three inquiries, . eee "4 NECESSITY OF ATONEMENT. 5 a, i» ese sinners forgiven through the re- /\aiption or atonement of Jesus Christ only ? What is the reason or ground of this mode of forgiveness ? Is this mode of forgiveness coMfastent with grace, or according to the riches of grace ? Let us consider these in their order. I. Are we forgiven through the re- demption or atonenfent of Jesus Christ only ? I say, redemption or atonement, because, in my view, they mutually im- ply each other. That we are forgiven through the atonement of Christ, and can be forgiven in no other way, the scriptures very clearly teach. Yor evi- dence as to the first of these particulars, I. appeal to the following passages of scripture, which are indeed but a few of the many which exhibit the same truth. First, our text itself: ‘“‘In whom we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of his grace.” Romans iii. 24. «« Being justified freely by his grace, through the redemption that is in Jesus Christ.” Acts xx. 28. ‘* To feed the church of God, which he hath pur- 375040 ‘ede, 6 NECESSITY OF ATO chased with his own blood.” Hebrews’ ix. 12. ‘* By his own blood he entered in once intothe holy place, having obtain- ed eternal redemption for us.”” 1 Peter i. 18. ‘ Forasmuch’as ye know, that ye were not redeeméd with corruptible things, as silver and gold, but with the precious blood’of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot.”’ ibid. chap. ii. 24. ‘* Who his ownself , bare our sins, in his own body on the tree, that we being dead to sin, should live unto righteousness : by whose stripes ye were healed.”? Isaiah liii. 4, 5, 6. ‘* He hath borne our griefs, and carried our sortows—he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities, the chastisement of our peace was upon him, and with his stripes we are. healed. The Lord hath laid on him the iniquity of us ail.’”? Ibid. v. 10, 11, 12: “S Vet atrpleaseteene Lord to bruise him ; he hath put him to grief; when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed. He shall bear their iniquities. And he bare the sins of many.” NECESSITY OF ATONEMENT. 7 The scriptures also teach the absolute necessity of the atonement of Christ, and that we can obtain forgiveness and ' salvation through that only. ‘The sacri- fices appointed to be made by the an- cient Israelites, seem evidently to point to Christ ; and to show the necessity of the vicarious sacrifice of him, who is therefore said to be ‘‘ our passover sac- rificed for us ;”? and to have’ given him- self for us, an offering and a sacrifice to” | God, for a sweet smelling savor ;” and *¢ now once in the end 3f the world, to have appeared, to-_put away sin, by the sacrifice of himself.”? 1 Cor. v. 7. Eph. v.2. Heb. ix. 26. As, the an-’ cient Israelites could obtain pardon in no other way than by those sacrifices ; this teaches us that we can obtain it only by the sacrifice of Christ. The positive declarations of the New Testament teach the same truth still more directly, as Luke xxiv. 25, 26. “¢Q fools, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken ! Ought not Christ to have suffered these things, and to enter into his glory ?” a “ 8 NECESSITY OF AT verse 46. ‘ Thus it beh suffer, and to rise from the dead the third day.” Romans iii. 25, 26. “¢ Whom God hath propitiation throu to declare his rig be just, and the justifier of him who _ beheveth in Jesus.” It seems that God aa Wee been just in justifying believer, had not Christ been made 5 a ee EE, John ii. 14, 15. ** As. Moses lifted up the serpent in the wil- derness, so must the Son of man be lifted up.”” Heb. ix. 22. ** Without shedding of blood is no remission.” 1Cor. i. 11. © ‘* Other foundation can no man lay, than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ.”” Acts iv. 12, ** Neither is there salvation in any other: forthere is no other name, under heaven, given among men, whereby we must be saved.”’ The necessity of the death and atone- - ment of Christ sufficiently appears by the bare event of his death. If his death were not necessary, he died in vain. But we cannot suppose that either NECESSITY OF ATONEMENT. 9 he or his father would have consented to his death, had it not been absolutely nec- ‘essary. ‘Even a man of common wis- dom and goodness, would not consent either to his own death or that of his son, but in a case of necessity, and in order'to some important and valuable end, Much less can we suppose, that either Christ Jesus the Son would have consented to his own death, or that the infinitely wise and good Father would have consented to the death of his only begotten and dearly beloved Son, in whom his soul was well pleased, and whe was full of grace and truth, the bright- ness of his own glory and the express Image of his person, the chief among ten thousand and altogether lovely, if there had not been the most urgent neces- sity. Especially as this most excellent ‘Son so earnestly prayed to the Father, to exempt him from death. Mat. xx. (39. “‘O my Father, if it be possible, let ‘this cup pass from me ! Nevertheless not as I will, but as thou wilt.” The ‘Son himself hath told us, John xi. 42. * That the Father heareth him always :** 10‘ NECESSITY OF ATONEMENT. and therefore we may be sure, that if the condition of his pathetic petition had. taken ‘place ; if it had been possible, that the. designs of God in the salvation of sinners should be accomplished, with- out the death of Christ ; Christ’s prayer, in this instance, would have been an- swered, and he would have been ex- empted from death. And since he was not exempted, we have clear evidence, that his death was a matter of absolute necessity. The necessity of the atonement of Christ, is clearly taught by the apostle. Gal. ii. 21. “If righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain.”? It is to no purpose to pretend that the law, in this passage means the ceremo- nial law; because he tells us, chap. ii. Bi That if there had been a law given, which could have given life, verily right- eousness should have been by the law.?? But the moral law was a law which had been given; and since no law which had been given could give life, it follows, that forgiveness and life could not be by the moral law, any more than by the cere. NECESSITY OF ATONEMENT. 11 monial, and that if they could, Christ is dead in vain. II. Ournext inquiry is, what is the reason or ground of this mode of for- giveness ? Or why is an atonement nec- essary in order to the pardon of the sin- ner? I answer, it is necessary on the same ground and for the same reasons, as punishment would have been necessa- ry, ifthere had been no atonement made. The ground of both is the same. The question then comes to this: why would it have been necessary, if no atonement had been made, that punishment should be inflicted on the transgressors of the divine law? This, I suppose, would shave been necessary, Zo maintain the au- thority of the divine law. If that be not maintained, but the law fall into con- tempt, the contempt will fall equally on the legislator himself; his authority will be despised, and his government weak- ened. And as the contempt shall in- crease, which may be expected to in- crease, in proportion to the neglect of ecuting the law; the divine govern- ent will approach nearer and nearer to i2 NECESSITY or ATONEMENT. a dissolution, till at length it will be to- tally annihilated. » ‘ 3 But when moral creatures are brought into existence, there must be a moral government. It cannot be reconciled with the wisdom and goodness of God to make intelligent creatures and leave them at’ fandoue without moral law and government. | This is the dictate of reason from the nature of things. Be- sides the nature of things, we have in the present instance fact, to assist our reasoning. God. hath in fact given a moral daw and established a moral gov- ernment over his intelligent creatures. So that we have clear proof, that infinite wisdom and goodness judged it to be necessary, to put intelligent creatures under moral law and coverhment. But in order to -a moral law, there must be | a penaity ; otherwise it would be meve advice, but no law. In order to supe port the authority and vigor of this law, the penalty must be inflicted on trans: | gressors. Ifa penalty be denoun dded, but never inflicted ;. the Jaw” comes no law, as really as if no penalty ad er a) NECESSITY OF ATONEMENT. 15 had been annexed to it. As well might no law have been made or published, with all the most awful penalties, and these never be inflicted. Nay, in some respects it would be much better and more reconcileable with the divine perfections. It would be more consist- ent, and shew that the legislator was not ignorant, either of his own want of power to car ry a law into effect, or of the rights of his subjects, or of the boundaries be- tween right and wrong. But to enact a law and not execute it, implies a weak- ness of some kind or other : either an error of judgment, or a consciousness of a depraved design in making the law, or a want of power to carry it into effect, or some other defect. ‘Therefore such a proceeding as this is dishonorable and contemptible ; and by it, both the law and legislator not only appear in a con- temptible light, but really are con- temptible. _ Hence, to execute the threatening of i the divine law, is necessary to preserve the dignity and authority ofthe law, and of the author of it, and to the very exist- 7 2 * Oe wae 14 NECESSITY OF ATONEMENT. ence of the divine moral government. It is no impeachment of the divine power and wisdom, to say, that it is impossible for God himself to uphold his moral government, over intelligent creatures, when once his law hath fallen into contempt. He may indeed govern them by irresistible force, as he governs the material world : but he cannot gov- ern them by law, by rewards and pun- ishments. If God maintain the authority of his law, by the infliction of the penalty, it will appear, that he acts consistently in the legislative and executive parts of his government. But if he were not to in- flict the penalty, he would act and appear to act, an inconsistent part ; or to be in- consistent with himself. If the authority of the divine law be supported by the punishment of transgressors, it will most powerfully tend to restrain all intelligent creatures from sin. But if the authority of the law be not supported, it will rather encourage and invite to sin, than restrain from it. For these reasons, which are fntieed all implied in supporting the dignity and y ——-~ "ae | © NECESSITY OF ATONEMENT. I5 authority of the divine law, it would have been necessary, had no atonement | for sin been made, that the penalty of | the law be inflicted on transgressors. | - If in this view of the matter, it should | be said, Though for the reasons before | mentioned, it is necessary that the pen- | alty of the law, in many instances, or in | most instances, be inflicted ; yet why is ) it necessary, that it should be inflicted | in every instance ? Why could not the Deity, in a sovereign way, without any atonement, have forgiven at least some | sinners ? Why could not the authority | of the law have been sufficiently ysup- | ported, without the punishment of every | mdividual transgressor? We find that such strictness is not mecessary or even | subservient to the public good, in hu- | man governments: and why is it nec- | essary in the divine ? To these inquiries | I answer, by other inquiries. Why, on the supposition of no atonement, | would it have been necessary, that the | penalty of the law should be inflicted in | any instance? Why could not the | Deity in a sovereign way, without any 16 NECESSITY OF ATONEMENT. » ‘ ty atonement, have pardoned all mankind ? I presume it will be granted, for the reasons before assigned, that such a pro- ceeding as this, would be inconsistent with the dignity and authority of the divine law and government. And the same consequence in a degree, follows from every instance of pardon in this mode. It is true the ends of human governments are tolerably answered, though in some instances the guilty are suffered to pass with impunity. But as imperfection attends all human affairs ; so it attends human governments in this very particular, that there are rea- sons of state which require, or the pub- lic good requires, that gross criminals, in some instances, be dismissed with impunity, and without atonement. Thus, because the government of David was weak, and the sons of Zeruiah were too hard for him, Joab, a most atrocious murderer, could not, during the life of David, be brought to justice. In other instances, atrocious criminals are par- doned, in order to obtain information against others still more atrocious, and NECESSITY OF ATONEMENT. 17 dangerous to the community. In many instances, the principals only in certain high crimes, are punished : the rest be- ing led away by artifice and misrcpre- sentation, are not supposed to deserve punishment. And it is presumed, that In every instance, wherein it is really for the good of the community, to pardon a criminal, without proper satisfaction for his crime ; it 1s because of either some weakness in the particular state of the government, under which the par- don is granted ; or some imperfection in the laws of that state, not being adapt- ed to the particular case ; or some im- nerfection attending all human’ ire Bat as not any of these is supposable in the divine government, there is no ar- guing conclusively, from pardons in humen governments, to pardons in the divine. ; It may be added, that in every instance in human governments, in which just laws are strictly executed, the govern- ment is so far weakened, and the char- acter of the rulers either legislative or executive, sufiers, either in point of abil- Q* oe 18 NECESSITY OF ATO MENT. ity or in point of siasig If it be granted that the law is just, and con- demns sin tono greater punishment than it deserves, and if God were to pardon it without atonement, it would seem, that he did not hate sin in every instance, nor treat it as being what it really 1 ly, infinitely vile. For these reasons it appears that it would have been necessary, provided no atonement had been’made, that the pen- alty of the law should have been inflict- ed, even in every instance of disobedi. ence : and for the same reasons Coubt- less was it necessary, that if any sinners were to be pardoned, they should be pardoned only in consequence of an adequate atonement. ‘The atonement is the substitute for the punishment threatened in the law ; and was designed to answer the same ends of supporting the authority of the law, the dignity of the divine moral government, and the consistency of the divine conduct in legislation and execution. By the atone- ment it appears that God is determined that his law shall be supported; that it NECESSITY OF ATONEMENT. 19 shall not be despised or transgressed with impunity ; and that it is an evil anda bitter thing to sin against God. The very idea of an atonement or sat- isfaction for sin, is something which, to the purposes of supporting the authority of the divine law, and the dignity and consistency of the divine government, is equivalent to the punishment of the sin- ner, according to the literai threatening of the law. ‘That which answers these purposes being done, whatever it be, atonement is made, and the. way is pre- pared for the dispensation of pardon. ‘In any such case, God can be just and pet the justifier of the simner. And that that which is sufficient to answer these purposes, has been done for us accord- ing to the gospel plan, I presume none can deny, who believe, that the eternal word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, and that he the only begotten and well beloved Son of God, John i. 14. bare our sins in his own body on the tree. 1 Peter 11. 24. and gave were a sacrifice to God for us. Eph. ¥. 2: But perhaps some who may readily t. ot A 20 NECESSITY OF ATONEMENT. grant that what Christ hath done and suffered, is undoubtedly sufficient *to atone for the sins of his people; may also suppose that if God had seen fit so to order it, we might have made a suf- ficient atonement for our own sins. Or whether they believe in the reality and sufficiency of the atonement of Christ or not, they may suppose that we might have atoned, or even now may atone, for our own sins. ‘This hypothesis therefore demands our attention. If we could have atoned, by any means, for our own sins, it must have been either by our repentance and refor- mation, or by enduring a punishment, less in degree or duration, than that which is threatened in the law as the wages of sin. No other way for us to atone for our own sins appears to be conceivable. But if we attend to the subject, we shall find that we can make" no proper atonement in either of these ways. 1. We could not make atonement for our sins by repentance and reforma- tion. Repentance and reformation are NECESSITY OF ATONEMENT. 21 a mere return to our duty, which we ought-never to have forsaken or inter- mitted. Suppose a soldier deserts the service into which he is enlisted, and at the most critical period not only forsakes his general and the cause of his country, but joins the enemy and exerts himself to his utmost in his cause, and in direct opposition to that of his country; yet aiter twelye months spent in this man- ner, he repents and returns to his duty and his former service; will this re- pentance and reformation atone for his desertion and rebellion ? wiil his repen- tance and return, without punishment, support the authority of the law against desertion and rebellion, and deter others from the like conduct equally as the punishment of the delinquent according to law ? It cannot be pretended. Such a treatment of the soldier would express no indignation or displeasure of the general at the conduct of the soldier: it would by no means convince the army or the world, that it was a most heinous crime to desert and join the standard of the enemy. Just so in the case under 22 +NECESSITY OF ATONEMENT. consideration : the language of forgiv- ing sinners barely on their repentance is, that he who sins shall repent; that the curse of the law is repentance ; that he who repents shall suffer, and that he deserves no further punishment. But this would be so far from an effectual tendency to discourage and restrain from sin, that it would greatly encour- age to the commission and indulgence of it ; as all that sinners would have to fear, on this supposition, would be not the wrath of God, not any thing terrible, but the greatest blessing to which any man in this life can attain, repentance. If this were the condition of forgiving sinners, not only no measures would be taken .to support the divine law, but none to vindicate the character of God himself, or to shew that he acts a con- sistent part, and agreeably to his own l2w ; or that he is a friend to virtue and an enemy to vice. On the other hand, he would rather appear as a friend to sin and vice, or indifferent concerning them. What would you think of a prince who should make a law against murder, and ~ WECESSITY OF ATONEMENT. 23 should threaten it with a punishment properly severe ; yet should declare that none who should be guilty of that crime and should repent, should be punished ? or if he did not positively declare this, yet should in fact suffer all murderers who repented of their mur- ders, to pass with impunity ? Undoubt- edly you would conclude that he was either a very weak or a very wicked prince ; either that he was unable to protect his subjects, or that he had no real regard to their lives or safety, whether in their individual or collective capacity. ; 2. Neither could we make atone- ment by any sufferings short of the full punishment of sin. Because the very idea of atonement is something done, which to the purpose of supporting the authority of the law, the dignity and consistency of divine government and conduct, is fully equivalent to the curse of the law, and on the ground of which, the sinner may be saved from that curse. But no sufferings endured by the sinner himself, short of the curse of \ 24 NECESSITY OF ATONEMENT. the law, can be to these purposes equiva- lent to that curse ; any more than a less number or quantity can be found equal to agreater. Indeed a less degree or dura- tion of suffering endured by Christ the Son of God, may, on account of the infinite dignity and glory of his person, be an equivalent to the curse of the law endured by the sinner : as it would be a far more striking demonstration of a king’s displeasure, to inflict, in an igno- minious manner, on the body of his own son, forty stripes save one; than to punish some obscure subject with death. But when the person is the same, it is absurd to suppose that a less degree or duration of pain can be equal to a greater, or can equally strike terror into the minds of spectators, and make them fear and no more do any such wickedness. Deut. xin. 11. Besides; if a less degree or duration of punishment, inflicted on the sinner, would answer all the purposes of sup- porting the authority of the divine law, &c. equally as that punishment which is threatened in the law ; it follows that ag NECESSITY OF ATONEMENT. 25 the punishment which is threatened in the law is too great, is unjust, is. cruel ‘and oppressive: which cannot be as long as God is a just being. Thus it clearly appears, that we could never have atoned for our own sins. If therefore atonement be made at all, it must be made by some other person : and since as we before argued, Christ - “the Son of God hath been appointed to this work, we may be sure, that it could be done by no other person of inferior dignity. It may be inquired of those who deny the necessity of the atonement of Christ, whether the mission, work and death of Christ were at all necessary in order to the salvation of sinners. If they grant that they were necessary, as they exhib- it the strongest motives to repentance ; I ask further, could not God by any revelation or motives otherwise, whether externally or internally, exhibited, lead sinners to repentance ? We find he did in fact, without the mission, work and death of Christ, lead the saints of the Old Testament to repentance. And Q da = HY j 26 NECESSITY OF ATONEMENT. doubtless in the same way, he might have produced the same effect, on men of modern times. Why then doth the scripture say, ‘* Other foundations can no man lay, than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ :’? and, ‘ neither i is there salvation in any other 2” If it be said that these texts are true, as God hath seen fit to adopt and establish this mode of salvation : it occurs at once, that then it may with equal truth be said, con- cerning those who were. converted by the preaching of Paul; other founda- tion could no man lay, for their salvation, than the apostle Paul. In this sense too every event which ever takes place, is equally necessary as the mission and death of Christ : and it was in no other sense necessary, that Christ should be sent and die, than that a sparrow should fall, or not fall, to the ground. In short to’ say, that the mission and death of Christ were necessary, because God had made this constitution, is to resolve. all into the sovereignty of God, and to confess that no reason of Christ’s_ mis- sion and death is assignable. NECESSITY OF ATONEMENT. ° 27 Besides ; if the mission, death and resurrection of Christ, and the knowl- edge of them, be, by divine constitution, made necessary to the salvation of sin- ners; this will seem to be wholly inconsistent with the fundamental prin. ciple of the system of those who deny . the atonement of Christ; I mean the principle, that it is not reconcileable with the perfections of God, to refuse a pardon to any who repent. If bare repentance and reformation be the ground of pardon, doubtless all who repent, though ever so ignorant of Christ, his death and resurrection, and of the motives to repentance therein exhibited, are entitled to pardon ; and if so, in what sense will the Socinians ‘say, the mission and death of Christ are necessary to pardon ? Not surely as purchasing salvation, for even those who are ignorant of them ; this is abhorrent to their whole system. Not as exhibit- ing the strongest motives to repentance ; because in the case now supposed, these motives are perfectly unknown. And they will not say, it is impossible for i i H 28 NECESSITY OF ATONEMENT. any to repent, who are feseohe of Christ. * Again, how is it more consistent with the divine perfections, to confine pardon and salvation to the narrow limits of those who know and are influ-' enced by the motives to repentance, implied in the death and resurrection of Christ; than to the limits of those who repent and depend on the atonement of Christ ? It may be further Seale of those gentlemen mentioned above, whether the pardon of the penitent, be according to the divine law, or according to the gospel. If it be a.constitution of ihe law, that every penitent be pardoned, what then is the gospel ? And wherein does the grace of the latter, exceed that of the former? Besides, is it not strange, to suppose that bare law knows any thing of repentance and of the . * ¢Tt is certainly the doctrine of reason, as well as of the Old Testament, that God is merciful to the penitent, and nothing is requisite to make men, in all situations, the objects of his favor, but such poral conduct as he has made them capable of.” Priestly, Corruptions of christianity, page 979. 7 NECESSITY OF ATONEMENT. 29 promise of pardon on repentance ? Surely such a law must be a very gra- cious law: anda very gracious law and a very gracious gospel seem to be very nearly one and the same thing. It has been commonly understood that the divine law is the rule of justice. Ifso, and it be a provision of the law, that every penitent be acquitted from pun- ~ ishment; then surely there is no grace at all in the acquittal of the penitent, as the gentlemen. io whom I now refer, pretend there is none on the supposition of the satisfaction of Christ. Again ; if the law secure impunity to all peni- tents, then all the terror or punishment which the law. threatens, is either | repentance’ itself, or that wise and wholesome discipline which is neces- sary to lead to repentance ; these are the true and utmost curse of the law. - But neither of these is any curse at all ; they are at least among the greatest _ blessings which can be bestowed on _ those who need them. But if it be - granted that the bare law of God does not secure pardon to the penitent, but Q% vw 30 NECESSITY OF ATONEMENT. — admits of his punishment, it will follow that the punishment of the penitent would be nothing opposed to justice. Surely God hath not made an unjust law. It also follows, that to punish the penitent would be not at all inconsistent with the divine perfections; unless God hath made a law, which cannot in any instance be executed consistently with his own perfections. And if the pun- ishment of the penitent, provided no atonement had been made, would not ‘be inconsistent with justice, or with the perfections of God, who will say, that the pardon of the penitent, on the sole footing of an atonement, is inconsistent with either ? If neither strict justice, nor the divine law founded on justice, nor the divine perfections, without an atonement, se- cure pardon to all who repent, what will become of the boasted argument of the Socinians, against the atonement, that God will certainly pardon and sa¥e, and that it is absurd and impious to suppose, that he will not pardon and saye, all who repent? Are the Socinians them- ' NECESSITY OF ATONEMENT. 31 ‘ selves certain, that God will not do that which. eternal justice, his own law, and his own perfections allow him to do ?. The dilemma is this: eternal justice either requires that every penitent be pardoned in consequence of his repent- ance merely, or it does not. If it do require this, it follows, that pardon is an act of justice and not of grace: therefore let the Socinians be for ever silent on this head. It also follows, that repentance answers, satisfies, fulfils, the divme law, so that, in consequence of it, the law has no further demand on the sinner. It is therefore either the complete righteousness of the law,’ or the complete curse of the law: for cursed is every one that continucth not in all things written in the book of the law todothem. It also follows, that sin is no moral evil. Doubtless that which deserves no punishment, or token of the divine displeasure, is no moral evil. But the utmost that justice, on this hypothesis, requires of the simmer, is repentance, which is no token of the divine displeasure, but an inestimalic $2 NECESSITY OF ATONEMENT. biessing. It also follows, that as eternal justice is no other than the eternal law of God, grace and truth, life and im- Mortality came and were brought to light by Moses, since the law came by him ; ; that the law contains exceeding great and precious promises, which promises however, exceeding great and precious as they are, are no more than parce, that we shall not be injured. follows in the last place that justice and grace, law and gospel are perfectly synonymous terms. Or if the other part of the dilemme be taken, that cternal justice does not require, that every penitent be pardon. ed; who knows but that God may see fit, to suffer justice, in some instances, to take place? who will say that the other divine perfections are utterly inconsistent with justice ? or that wis. dom, goodness and justice’ cannot co. exist in the same character ? or that che jaw of God is such that it cannot bg executed in any instance, consistently with the divine character 2* Thes« * That law in which Paul delighteth after the NECESSITY OF ATONEMENT. 35 ~ would be bold assertions indeed : let him who avows them, at the same time prove them. Indeed he must either prove these assertions, or own that. justice requires the pardon of every penitent, and abide the consequences ; or renounce the doctrine, that the divine perfections require that every penitent be pardoned without an atonement.* ae + DISCOURSE II. / - HAVING, in the preceding dis- course, given an answer to the two inquiries proposed concerning the ne- cessity, and the ground of the necessity inward man; which he declares to be hely, and just, and good ; to be glorious too, nay, in the abstract, glory : Rom. vii. and 2. Cor. iii. and which David protiounces to be perfect, and more desirable than gold, yea, than much fine gold: sweeter also than honey and the honey comb. Psalm xix. * & Apouments drawn from such considerations as hose of the moral government of God, the nature of things, and the general plan of revelation, will not be ut off toa future time. The whole compass and ‘force of them is within our reach, and if the mind! be unbiassed, they must, 1 think, determine our assent.” Corruptions of christianity, vol. i. page 278. - alle alte | -_* $4 NECESSITY OF ATONEMENT. of the atonement of Christ. I proceed to the third, which is, III. Are we, notwithstanding the redemption of Christ, forgiven freely by grace 2? That we should be forgiven wholly through the redemption of Christ, and yet by free grace, hath, as I observed, appeared to many, a grand inconsistency, or a perplexing difficulty. In discoursing on this question, I shall, 1. Mention several modes in which attempts have been made to solve this difficulty. ; 2. I shall suggest some considerations which may possibly lead to the true solution. First. I am to mention several modes, in which attempts have been made, to solve this difficulty. 1. Some allow that there is no exer- cise of grace in the bare pardon* or justification of the sinner: that all the grace of the gospel consists in the gift - of Christ ; in providing an atonement ; * The impropriety of expression, in speaking of pardon without grace, would need an apology, were it not common in treatises on this subject. No more is intended, than that the sinner is acquitted ar re- leased, without grace. —— ’ NECESSITY OF ATONEMENT. 35 in the undertaking of Christ to make atonement, and in the actual making it. And as the pardon of the sinner is founded on those gracious actions ; so that ma more lax sense is also said to be an act of grace. As to this account of the matter, I have to observe—That it is rather yielding to the objection, than answering it. It is allowed, in this state of the matter, that the pardon of the sinner is properly no act of grace. But this seems not to be reconcileable with the plain declarations of scripture ; is in our text; In whom we have ‘redemption through his blood, the for- siveness of sins, according to the riches fhis grace. Being justified freely by is grace, through the redemption that s in Jesus Christ. Rom. iii. 24. hese and such like passages seem lainly to import, that pardon itself is n act of grace, and not merely that it s founded on other acts,which are acts _grace. Besides the very idea of rdon or forgiveness implies grace. So r only is any crime pardoned, as it is rdoned graciously. To pardon a 7 = 36 NECESSITY OF ATONEMENT. crime on the footing of justice, in th proper sense’ of the word justice, is: direct contradiction. Again ; it is not-proper to say, wa the pardon of the sinner is an*act o grace, merely because it is founded oi the gracious gift of Christ, and hi gracious act in making atonément. ] is not proper to say, that any act is a act of grace, merely because it is founder on another act, which is really an act c grace. AS well we may say, that if - creditor, by a third person, furnish hi debtor with money sufficient to dis charge his debt, when the debtor ha paid, in this way, the full debt, itis a act of grace in the creditor to give u the obligation. Whereas, who doe not see that ithe furnishing of the mone and the giving up of the obligation, ai two distinct acts, and however the : mer is indeed an act of grace; yet th latter is no more an act of grace, than ’ the money had been paid to some oth r creditor, and he had given up an obli tion for the same sum. If it be an « of grace in the creditor, to deliver up ! aa | NECESSITY OF ATONEMENT. 37 : ‘dbligation, for which he hath received ‘the full sum, because the money paid ‘was originally furnished by himself, then it would be consistent with justice in the creditor, to retain the obligation, after he has received the full sum for which it -was given; or to reject the money, and cast the creditor into prison, though he tenders payment. But neither of these, I presume, will be pretended to be just. ‘ : 2: Some have attempted to relieve the difficulty now under consideration, in this manner: they say, the pardon at the sinner is no act of grace to Christ, because he has paid the debt for the sin- si : but that it is an act of grace to the inner, because the debt was paid, not y the sinner himself, but by Christ. or was Christ so much as delegated y the sinner to pay his debt: Cone cerning this I observe, in the first place : that if the atonement of Christ be con- idered as the payment of a debt, the elease of the sinner seems not to be an ct of grace, although the payment be fade by Christ, and not by the sinner 4 by a servent, a friend, third person? Here F am s objection will arise to this we did not send the debt to God, by the hand of € eur friend : Pagers geoe occa make atonement for as he wa graciously appointed and given by God objectio ain this I answer, that “this places the whole grace of the gospel x providing the Savior, not in the ofsin. Besides; if by delegating Christ be meant such a simcere consent ax earnesi desire, that Christshould mak. atonement for us, as a’man may have that his iniend should discharge a.deb in his behalf; without doubt ever NECESSITY OF ATONEMENT. 39 frue christian, in this sense, delegates Christ to niake atonement for his sins. — id not Abraham and all the saints who lived before the incarnation of Christ, and who were informed that atonement as to be made for them by Christ, sincerely consent to it, and earnestly desire it ? And though now Christ has ctually made atonement, yet every one who walks in the steps of the faith of braham, is the subject of the like sin- ere consent to the office and work of (Christ, and the like earnest desire, that by his atonentent, a reconciliation may s effected between God and himself. o that if Christ have, in the proper sense of the words, paid the debt for his people, his people do as truly send ve to make this payment, as a man ver sends his friend to make payment ‘© his creditor. Nor is any thing wanting to make any an, or all men, in this sense, delegate shrist to make atonement for them, but he gift of repentance or a new heart. nd if God had not prevented them by reviously appointing Christ to the 40 NECESSITY OF ATONEMENT. work of redemption, all mankind being’ brought to repentance, and being in- formed that Christ, on their consent and delegation, ‘would make atonement for their sins, would freely have given their consent, and delegated him tothe work, But what if the: people of Christ did not, in any sense, delegate him to this work 2? would this cause the payment of their debt by Christ, to be at all more consistent with free grace in their dis- ’ charge ? Suppose a man without any delegation, consent, or knowledge of his friend, pays the full demand of his creditor, it is manifest, that the creditor is obliged in justice to discharge the debtor, equally as if the agent had acted by delegation from the debtor. Or if we had in every sense delegated and commissioned Christ, still our pardon would be an act of grace, as still. we should be treated more favorably than our personai characters deserve. Now to apply the whole of this to the subject before us: if Christ haye, in the proper sense of the words, paid the debt which we owed to God, whether - "NECESSITY OF ATONEMENT. 41 by a delegation from us or not; there can be no more grace in our disvharge, than if we had paid it ourselves. But the fact is, that Christ has not, in the literal and proper sense, paid the debt for us. It is indeed true, that our deliverence is called a redemption, which refers to the deliverance of a prisoner out of captivity, commonly effected by . paying a certain sum as the price of his liberty. In the same strain, Christ is said to give himself a ransom for many, and christians are said to be bought with a price, &c. All which scripture ex- pressions bring into view the payment of money, or the discharge of a debt. But it is to be remembered, that these te metaphorical expressions, therefore not literally and exactly true. We had ot deprived God of his property : we had not robbed the treasury of heaven. xod was possessed of as much property fier the fall as before ; the universe and the fulness thereof still remained to be ms. Therefore when Christ made sat- sfaction for us, he refunded no property. is none had been taken away, none 4% ' . * ry I. «eave 42 NECESSITY OF ATONEMENT. necded to be refunded. But we had rebelled against God, we had practically despised his law and. authority, and. it was necessary, that his authority should be supported, and that it should be made to appear, that sin shall not go without proper tokens of divine displeasure and abhorrence ; that God will maintain his law ; that his authority and govern- ment shall not be suffered to fall into contempt ; and that Ged is a friend to virtue and holiness, and an irreconcilea- ble enemy to transgression, sin and vice. These things were necessary to be mad¢ nianifest, and the clear manifestation o! these things s, if we will use the term, was the debt which was due to God, This manifestation was made in the sufferings and death of Christ. But Christ did not, in the literal sense, pay the debt w« owed to God; if he had paid it, all grace would have been excluded from the pardon of the sinner. Therefore, 3. Others seeing clearly that these solutions of the difficulty are not satis. factory, have said, that the atonement o Christ ‘consisted, not in the payment 0} . NECESSITY OF ATONEMENT. 43 a. debt, but in the vindication of the divine law and character : that Christ made this: vindication, by practically declaring the justice of the law, in his active obedience, and by submitting to the penalty of it, in his death : that as what Christ did and suffered in the flesh, was a declaration of the rectitude of the divine law and character, so it was a declaration of the evil of sin; and the _ greater the eyil of sin appears to be, the greater the grace of pardon appears to be. - Therefore the atonement of Christ is so far from diminishing the grace of _ pardon, that it magnifies it. The sum _of this is, that since the atonement con- sists, not in the payment of a debt, but | in the vindication of the divine law and character ; therefore it is not at all opposed to free grace in pardon. Concerning this stating of the matter, I beg leave to observe; that if by avin- dication of the divine law and character, _be meant, proof given that the law of God is just, and that. the divine charac- ter is good and irreproachable ; I can by no means suppose, that the atonement ‘ 44 NECESSITY OF ATONEMENT. consisted in a vindication of the law and character of God. ‘The law is no more proved to be just, and the character of God is no more proved to be good, by the perfect obedience and death of Christ, than the same things are proved by the perfect obedience of the angels, and by the torments of the damned. But I shall have occasion to enlarge on this point by and by. Again ; if by vindication of the di- vine law and character, be meant, proof given that God is determined to support the authority of his law, and that he will not suffer it to fall into contempt ; that he will also support his own dignity, will act a consistent part in legislation and in the execution of his law, and will not be disobeyed with impunity, or without proper satisfaction: I grant, that by Christ the divine law and charac- ter are vindicated ; so that God can now consistently with his own honor, and the authority of his law, forgive the sinner. But how does this make it appear that there is any grace in the pardon of the sinner, when Christ as his substitute, NECESSITY OF ATONEMENT. 45\ hath made full atonement for him, by vindicating the law and character of God ? what if the sinner himself, instead of..Christ, had by obedience and suffer- ing, vindicated the law and character of God ; and in consequence had been re- leased from farther punishment ? Would his release in this case, have been by | grace, or by justice ? Doubtless by the latter and not by the former: for to him that worketh, is the reward reckoned, not of grace, but of debt.” Rom. iv. 4. Therefore why is it not equally an act of justice, to release the sinner, in consequence of the same vindication made by Christ ?. Payment of debt equally precludes grace, when made by a third person, as when made by the debtor himself. And since the vindication of the divine law and charac- ter, made by the sinner himself, pre- cludes grace from the release of the sinner; why does not the same vindica- io as effectually preclude it, when nade by a third person ? _ Those authors who give us this solu- tion of the difficulty under consideration, | AG NECESSITY OF ATONEMENT. seem to suppose that it is a sufficient so- lution to say that the atonement consists, not in the payment of debt, but in the vindication of the divine law and charac- ter; and what they say, seems to imply, that however or by whomsoever, that vindication be made, whether by the sinner himself, or any other person, it is not at all opposed to the exercise of grace in the release of the sinner. Whereas it appears by the text just now quoted ~and by many others, that if that vindica- tion were made by the sinner himself, it would shut out all grace from his: re- lease. And I presume this will be granted. by those authors themselves, on a little reflection. ‘To say otherwise, is to say, that though a sinner should en- dure the curse of the law, yet there would be grace in his subsequent release’ —it seems then that the grace of pardon depends, not barely on this, that the atonement consists ina vindication of the law and character ofGod; but upon this particular circumstance attending the vindication, that it be made by a third person. And if this circumstance will 4 j NECESSITY OF ATONEMENT. 47 leave room for grace in the release of the sinner, why is there not as much grace in the release of the sinner, though the atonement of Christ be a payment of the sinner’s debt: since the payment is at- tended with the same important and decisive circumstance, that it is made by a third person ? Objection. .But we could not vindi- eate the law and character of God ; there- fore itisabsurd to make the supposition, and to. draw consequences from the sup- position, that we had made such a vin- -dication. | Answer. It is no more absurd to make this supposition, than it is to make the supposition, that we had puid the debt to divine justice ; for we could no more do this than we could make the vindication m question. And if it fol- lows from this circumstance, that we neither have vindicated nor could vindi- | cate the divine character, that our release from condemnation is an act of grace; why does it not also follow from the cir- eumstance, that we neither have paid nor could pay the debt to divine justice, SH oy AS NECESSITY OF ATONEMENT. a “- that cur release is anvact of grace, even on the supposition, that Christ has in the literal sense paid the debt for us’? , ‘Thus, not any of these modes of solv- ing this grand difiiculty, appears to be satisfactory. Even this last, which scemed to bid the fairest to afford satis- faction, fails. Therefore, Secondly. I shall suggest some con- siderations, which may possibly lead tg the true solution. ‘Phe quéstion before us, is, whether pardon through the atone- ment of Christ be an act of justice or of grace. In order to.a proper answer to this question, it is of primary impor- tance, that we have clear and determin ateideas affixed to the words justice an grace. I find the word justice to be use in three distinct senses :* sometimes. i means commutative justice, sometime distributive justice, and sometime what may be called gene or public justice. Commutative justice respects propert and matters of commerce solely, and cures to every man his own property | NECESSITY OF ATONEMENT. 4g ‘To treat a man justly in this sense, is ‘not to deprive him of his property, and ‘whenev er it falls into our hands, to re- ‘store it duly, or to make due payment ‘of debts: In one word, commutative justice is to violate no man’s property. Distributive justice consists in prop- lerly rewarding virtue or good conduct, and punishing crimes or vicious con- duct ; ; and it has respect to a man’s per- Sonal moral character or conduct. To treat a man justly in this sense, is to feat him according te his personal char- acter or conduct. “Commutative justice in the recovery of debts, has no respect at all to the character or conduct of the ‘debtor, but merely to the property of the ereditor. Distributive justice in the pun- lishment of crimes, has no respect at all to the property Of the criminal; but - merely to his personal conduct : unless his property may, in some instances, ‘enhance his crimes. General or public justice comprehends all’ moral goodness : and though the Word is often used in this sense, it 1s really an improper use of it. In this 5 - 60 NECESSITY OF ATONEMENT. serse, whatever is right, is said to_be just, or an act of justice ; and whatever is wrong or improper to be done, i is said to be unjust, or an act of injustice. Tc practise justice in this sense, is to prac- tise agreeably to the dictates of general benevolence, or to seek the glory of God and the good of the universe. And whenever the glory of God is neglected, it may be said, that God is imjured or deprived of his. right. Whenever the general good is neglected or impeded, the universe may be said to suffer an in- jury. For instance: if Paul were now to be cast down from heaven, to suffer the pains of hell, it would be wrong, as it would be inconsistent with God’s covenant faithfulness, with the designed exhibition of his glorious grace, and with the good of the universe. In this sense, it would not be just. Yet in the sense of distributive justice, such 4 treatment of Paul would be perfectly just, as it would be no more than cor respondent to his personal demerits: The term grace, comes now to be explained. Grace is ever so opposed to NECESSITY OF ATONEMENT. 51 justice, that they mutualiy limit each other. Wherever grace begins, justice ends; and wherever justice begins, erace ends. Grace as opposed to com- mutative justice is gratuitously to relin- quish your property or to forgive a man his debt. And commutative injustice is to demand more of a man, than your own property. Grace as opposed to lustice in the distributive sense, is to treat a man more favorably or mildly, than is correspondent to his personal character or conduct. To treat him un- justly is to use him with greater severi- ty, than is correspondent to his personal character. It isto be remembered, that in personal character I include punish- ment endured, as well as actions per- ormed. When a man has broken any law, and has afterwards suffered the pen- alty of that law ; as he has, by the trans- ression, treated the law with contempt, po by suffering the penalty, he has sup- ported the authority of it : and the latter makes a part of his personal character, s he stands related to that law, as really as the former. 52 NECESSITY OF ATONEMENT. With regard to the third kind of j jus. tice, as this is improperly called justice, and as it comprehends all, moral good- ness, it is not-at all opposed to grace ; but comprehends that, as well as every other virtue, as truth, faithfulness, meck- ness, forgiveness, patience, prudence, temperance, fortitude, &c. All these are right and fit, and the contrary tem- pers or practices are wrong, and injuri- ous to God and the system: and there- fore in this sense of justice are unjust. And even grace itself, which i is favor to the ill-deserving, so far as it is wise and proper tobe exercised, makes but a part of this kind of justice. We proceed now to apply these ex- planations to the solution of the difficuity under consideration. The question is this, is the pardon of the sinner, throu gh the atonement of Christ, an act of justice or of grace ? To oihicls I answer, that with respect to commutative justice, it is neither an act of justice nor of grace, Because commutative Justice is not con- cerned in the affair.’ We neither owed money to the deity, nor did Christ pay 3 NECESSITY OF ATONEMENT. 53 any on our behalf. His atonement is not a payment of our debt. If it had been, our discharge would have been an act of mere justice, and not of grace. To make the smner also pay the debt, which had been already paid by Christ, would be manifestly injurious, oppres- sive, and beyond the bounds of com- mutative justice, the rule of which is, that every man retain and recover his own property, and that only. But a debt being paid, by whomsoever it be paid, the crediter has recovered his property, and therefore has a right to nothing further. If he extort, or at- tempt to extort, any thing further, he proceeds beyond his right and is guilty of injustice. So that if Christ has paid - the debt for the believer, he would be discharged, not on the footing of grace, but of strict justice. With respect to distributive justice, - the discharge of the sinner is wholly an act of grace. his kind of justice had respect solely to the personal character _ and conduct of its object. And then is aman treated justly, when he is treated 5 * 54 NECESSITY OF ATONEMENT. - according to his personal moral character. If he be treated more favorably than is correspondent to his personal character, he is the object of grace. [say personal character ; for distributive justice’ has no respect to the character of a third © person, or to any thing which may be done or suffered by another person, than by him, whois the object of this justice, or who is on trial, to be rewarded or punished. _ And with regard:to the case now before us, whatuf Christ has made atonement for sin ? This atonement constitutes no part of the personal char- acter of the simmer: but his) personal character is essentially the same, as» it would have been, if Christ had made no - atonement. Andas the sinner, in pardon, is treated, not only more favorably, but — infinitely more favorably, than is corres- pondent to his personal character, his pardon is wholly an act of infinite grace. ° If it were, in the sense of distributive justice, an act of justice : he would be injured, if a pardon were refused him, But as the case is, he would not be injured, though a pardon were refused F M t - NECESSITY OF ATONEMENT. 35 _ him ; because he would not be treated more unfavorably than is correspondent to his personal character. ‘ ‘Therefore though it be true, that if a third person pay a debt, there would be no-grace exercised by the creditor, in discharging the debtor, yet when a third person atones for a crime, by suficring in the stead of a criniinal, there is entire grace in the discharge of the criminal, - and distributive justice still allows him tobe punished in his own person. The reason is, what I have mentioned already, that justice in punishing crimes, respects the personal character only of the crim- inal: but in the payment of debts, it respects the recovery of property ouly. In the former case, it admits ofany treat- | ment which is according to his personal | character’: in the latter, it admits of | nothing beyond the recovery of property. So that though Christ has made com- plete atonement for the sins of all his disciples, and they are justified wholly through his redemption ; yet they are justified whoily by grace, Because they personally have not made atonement for ers 56 NECESSITY OF ATONEMENT. their sins, or suffered the curse of the law. Therefore they have no claim to a discharge on account of their own personal conduct and suffering. And if it is objected, that neither is a debtor discharged on account of any thing which he hath done personally, when he is discharged on the payment of his debt by a third person : yet justice does not admit, that the creditor recover the debt again from the debtor himself : why then does it admit, that a magistrate inflict the punishment of a crime on the criminal himself, when atonement has been made bf a substitute ? The answer is, that justice in these two cases is very different, and respects very different objects. In criminal causes, it respects. the personal conduct or character of the criminal, and admits of any treatment which is correspondent to that conduct. In civil causes, or matters of debt, it” respects the restitution of property only, and this being made, it admits of ay further demand. In the third sense of justice before explained, according ‘to which any thing” -@ ; NECESSITY OF ATONEMENT. 57 is just, whichis right and best to be done ; the pardon of the sinner is entire- ly an act of justice. It is undoubtedly most conducive to the divine glory, and general good of the created system, that every believer should be pardoned ; and therefore, in the present sense of the word, it is an act of justice, ‘The par- don of the sinner is equally an act of _ justice, if, as some suppose, he be pardoned not on account of the death of Christ, considered as an equivalent to the curse of the law denounced against the sinner; but merely on account of _ the positive obedience of Christ. If this be the mode and the condition of _ pardon established by God, doubtless pardon granted in this mode and on this /.condition, is most conducive to the | diviné glory and the general good, | Therefore it is, in the sense of justice - now under consideration, an act of jus- | tice ; insomuch that if pardon were not granted in this mode, the divine glory would be tarnished, and the general | good diminished, or the universe would suffer an injury. ‘fhe same would be 58 NECESSITY OF ATONEMENT. true, if God had in fact granted pardon, without any atonement, whether by suffering or obedience. We might have argued from that fact, that infinite wisdorn saw it to be most conducive to the divine glory and the general good, to pardon without an atonement ; and of course that if pardon had not been granted in this way, both the divine slory and the general good, would have been diminished, and injustice would have been done to the universe. In the same sense the gift of Christ, to be our ' Savior, his undertaking to save us, and every other gift of God to his: creatures, are acts of justice. But it must be remembered, that this is an improper sense of the word justice, and is not at all opposed to grace, but implies it. For all those divine acts and gifts just mentioned, though in this sense they are acts of justice, yet are at the same time, acts of pure grace. In this sense of justice, the word seems to be used by the apostle Paul, Rom. i. 26. ‘* To declare his right- cousness, (or justice, ) that he might be NECESSITY OF ATONEMENT. 59 just and the justifier of him who be- heveth in Jesus.””, That God might be just to himself and to the universe. Again in Psalm Ixxxv. 10... ‘* Mercy and truth are met together, righteous- ness and peace, have Kissed cach other.” Righteousness, in the distributive sense, hath not kissed peace with respect to the sinner ; but so far as it speaks any thing, calls for his punishment. But the pub- lic good, and_ the divine glory admit of peace with the sinner. In the same sense the word occurs in the version of the Psalms in common use among us, _ where it is said ‘‘ justice is pleased and peace is given.’ Again in the. cate- chism of the assembly of divines, where they say, ‘‘ Christ offered up himself a sacrifice to satisfy divine justice.’” | Thus it appears, that the pardon of | the sinner, in reference to distributive = i | justice, which is the only proper sense of the word, with respect to this matter, , is entirely an act of grace, and that although he is pardoned wholly through | the redemption of Jesus Christ. | ‘Tt is in the same sense an act of grace, i 60 NECESSITY OF ATONEMENT. as the gift of Christ, or any other most eracious act of God. Though | the sinner is pardoned wholly through the redemption of Christ, yet his pardon is an act of pure grace, because in it he is treated inconceivably more favorably than is correspondent to his Epona character. The pardon of the sinner, on this plan of the redemption or the atonement of Christ, is as entirely an act of grace, as if rt had been granted on, an atone- ment made, not by the sufferings of Christ, but merely by his active obedi- ehce. For if we suppose, that the atonement of Christ consists wholly in the obedience of .Christ, not in his sufferings, ‘in what sense would the pardon of the sinner be an act of grace, in which it is not.an act of grace, on the’ hypothesis concerning ~ the atonement which hath been now stated ? Pardon is’ no more procures by the payment of the sinner’s debt, in the one case, thar’ in the other. If it be said that Christ’s _ suffering the curse of the lawis the pay- ment of the debt ; I answer, this is no NECESSITY -OF ATONEMENT. 6% “more a payment of the debt, than the | obedience of Christ. If it be said,that | Christ’s obedience only honors and | magnifies the law ; I answer, no more is | done by the sufferings of Christ. It is | true, that if the sinner be pardoned on }account of Christ’s obedience, he is | treated more favorably than is corres-_ | pondent to his personal character. The same is true, if he be pardoned on account of Christ’s sufferings. If it be | said, that in the one case, Christ suffers, -as the substitue of the sinner; I answer, in the other case, he obeys as the substi- 'tute of the sinner. In the one case, Christ has by his sufferings made it consistent with the general good, to pardon the sinner ; in the other case, he hath made the same thing consistent with the general good, by his obedience. And if this circumstance, that the par- ‘don of the sinner is consistent with the general good, abolishes grace from his pardon in the one case, the same circum- stance is productive of the same effect, in the other. ‘The truth is, that in both cases, the whole grace of pardon consists 62 NECESSITY OF ATONEMENT. in this, and this only, that the sinner is treated infinitely more favorably, than is_ correspondent to his personal character. © Again; according ‘to this scheme of the atonement, the pardon of the sinner, is as wholly an act of grace, as if he had - been pardoned without any atonement at all. Ifthe sinner had been pardoned without any atonement, he would have- been treated, more fav orably than is. correspondent to his own character : so he is, when pardoned through the atonement of Christ. Ia the former case, he would be pardoned, without a- payment of his debt: so he is in the latter. If the measures taken by God, to secure the public good, those meas- ures consisting neither m any personal doing or suffering of the smner, nor in - the payment of debt, be inconsistent with grace in the pardon of the sinner, im the one case; doubtless whatever measures are taken by God, to secure the. public good in the other case, are equally imconsistent with grace in par- don. And no man will pretend, that if God do pardon the smner without am MECESSITY OF ATONEMENT. 63 _atonemenit, he will pardon him in away which is inconsistent with the public good. Jn this view of the objection, either the bare circumstance that the pardon of the sinner is consistent with the public good, is that which abolishes the grace of pardon ; or it is the partic- ular mode, in which the consistence of / pardon and the public good, is brought about. Ifthe bare circumstance of the consistence of pardon and the public : good, be that which abolishes the grace _of pardon ; then it seems, that in order | that any pardon may be gracious, it must be inconsistent with the public _ good; and therefore the pardon of the | sinner without any atonement, being by _ the concession of the objector, a gracious act, is inconsistent with the general good of the universe, and with the glory and perfections of God, and therefore can _ never be granted by God, as long as he is possessed of infinite perfection and goodness, whereby he is necessarily _ disposed. to seek the good of the univer- sal system, or of his own kingdom. Or if it be said, that it is the particu- 64 NECESSITY OF ATONEMENT. lar mode, in which the consistenc between pardon and the public good i brought about, which abolishes th grace of pardon; in this case it is in cumbent on the objector, to point ou what there is in the mode, which i opposed to grace in pardon. He canno pretend, that in this mode, the debt o the sinner is paid, or that in repentance the sinner’s personal character is s¢ altered, that he now deserves no punish. ment. If this were the case, there would certainly be no grace in his par. don. It is no grace, and no pardon not to punish a man who deserves n¢ punishment. If the objector were tc hold, that the personal character of the sinner is so altered by repentance, tha he no longer deserves punishment, h« would at.once confute his‘own schem« of gracious pardon. Neither can it be pretended, by the advocates for pardon without atonement, that there is any grace in pardon, in any other view than this, that the sinner is treated more favorably, than is corres- pondent to his personal character, And NECESSITY OF ATONEMENT. 69 We would not have been more grace nanifested towards the sinner, if his tardon had not been granted, without jay atonement: I answer, by no means; iecause to put the question in this sense, s; the same as to ask, whether the favor ‘Feria granted without an atonement, ould not be greater in comparison ith the sinner’s personal character, n itis when when granted on account f the atonement of Christ. Or whether here would not have been a greater -istance between tlie good of pardon, jad the demerit of the sinner’s personal jaaracter, if his pardon had been granted vithout an atonement, than if it be nted on account of the atonement of jhrist. But the good, the safety, the demnity of pardon, or of deliverance m condemnation, is the very same, whatever way it be granted, whether trough an atonement or not, whether a way of grace or in a way of debt, hether from a regard to the merits of ‘hrist, or the merits of the sinner him- if. Again, the personal character of ye sinner is also the same, whether he - 70 NECESSITY OF “ATONEMENT. | be pardoned through an atonement o not. If his pardon be granted without an atonement, it makes not the demerit of his personal’ character and conduct the greater: or if it be granted on ac- count of the atonement of Christ, it makes not the demerit of his personal” character the less. Therefore as the good of pardon is the same, in whatever way it be granted ; and the personal character of the sinner pardoned is the same ; the distance between the good of pardon, and the demerit of the sinner’s_ character is also the same, whether he be pardoned on account of the atone-) ment of Christ, or absolutely, without any atonement. Of course the pardon of the sinner is not an act of greater grace to him personally, if granted without regard to any atonement, than if granted from regard to the atonement of Christ. But perhaps the meaning of the ques- tion stated above, is, Whether, if the sinner had been pardoned, without an atonement, it would not have exhibited | greater grace, in the divine mind, or : ~ NECESSITY OF ATONEMENT. 7 greater goodness in God ; and whether, in this mode of pardon, greater good would not have accrued to the universe. The answer to this question wholly depends on the necessity of an atone- ment, which I have endeavored bricfly to show, in the preceding discourse. If an atonement be necessary to support the authority of the law and of the moral government of God, it is doubtless necessary to the public good of the moral system, or to the general good of the universe and to the divine glory. This being granted or established, the question just now stated, comes to this simply, whether it exhibits greater grace and goodness in the divinexmind, and secures greater good to the \uni- verse, to pardon sin in such a mode;.as is consistent with the general good of the universe ; or in sucha mode as is consistent with that important object : question which no man, from regard o his own reputation, would choose to ropose. 72 NECESSITY OF ATONEMENT. DISCOURSE Ill. HAVING, in the- preceding dis- courses, considered the particulars at first proposed, which were, that we can obtain forgiveness, in no other way, than through the redemption of Christ ; the reason or ground of this mode of forgiveness; and thé consistency be- tween the complete atonement of Christ j and free grace in forgiveness ; ‘the wa _is prepared for the following mferences and reflections. If the atonement of Christ be a sub stitute for the punishment of the sinne according to the divine law, and wer designed to support the authority of tha law, equally as the punishment of hell then we may infer, that the atoneme of Christ does not consist in shewing, that the divine law is just. With re gard to this, I venture to assert tw things ; that the obedience and death Christ do not prove, that the divine la is just ; that if they did prove this, still ~ merely by that circumstance they woul make no atonement. NECESSITY OF ATONEMENT. 73 1. The obedience and death of Christ do not prove, that the divine law ~ isa just law. The sufferings of Christ no more prove this, than the punishment of the damned proves it. The former are the substitute of the latter, and were designed for substance to prove and exhibit the same truths, and to answer the same ends. But who will say that the torments of the damned prove the justice of the divine law ? No more is this proved by the sufferings of Christ. If the justice of the divine law be called in question, the justice and moral per- fection of God is of course equally called in question. This being the case, whatever he can say, whether by obedience or suffering, to testify the justice of the law, must be considered as the testimony of a party in his own cause ; and also as the testimony of a Being whose integrity is as much dis- puted, »as the justice of the law. It cannot therefore be received as proof in ‘the case. The testimony of God, whether given in obedience or suffering, so long as his character is disputed, as riyhiee 74 NECESSITY OF ATONEMENT. it will be, so long as the justice of his law is disputed; proves neither that the law is just, in reality, nor that it is so in his own estimation. A being of a disputed character may be supposed to testify, both contrary to reality, and. contrary to his own knowledge. And as the character of the deity is disputed, by those who dispute the justice of the divine law ; so there is the same founda- tion to dispute the character and testi- mony of the Son of God. Therefore the obedience and death of Christ do not prove, that the divine law is just. 2. If the obedience and death of Christ did prove that the law is just ; stili by this ‘circumstance, they would make no atonement for sin. If it were a truth, that the obedience and death of » Christ did prove the divine law to be just, and merely on that account made atonement, the ground of this truth would be, that whatever makes it mani- fest that the law is just, makes atone- ment. The essence of the atonement, on this hypothesis, is placed in the — manifestation of the justice of the divine — NECESSITY OF ATONEMENT. 75 law. Therefore this manifestation, however, or by whomsoever it be made, is an atonement. But as the law ‘is really just, it was doubtless in the power of infinite wisdom to manifest the justice of it, to rational creatures, without either the obedience or the death of Christ, or of any other person. If it were not in the power of infinite wisdom to manifest the justice of the divine law, without the death of Christ; then if Christ had not died, but all men had perished ac- cording to the law, it never would have appeared that the law is just. But bare attention to the law itself, to the reason, sround, and necessity of it, especially when this attention is excited, and the powers of the mind are aided, by even such a divine influence, as God does in fact sometimes give to men of the most ° depraved characters ; is sufficient to convince of the justice of the law. But there can be no dispute, whether the sanctifying and savingly illuminating influences of the spirit of God, without the obedience and death of Christ, would convince any man of the justice 76 NECESSITY OF ATONEMENT. of the law. We have no more reason to dispute this, than to dispute, whether © the angels who kept their first estate, did believe the justice of the law, before they were informed of the incarnation and death of Christ. According to this hypothesis, therefore, all that was neces- sary to make atonement for mankind, was to communicate to them satisfying grace, or to lead them to repentance: and as to Christ, he is dead in vain. Besides; if the obedience and death of Christ did ever so credibly manifest the justice of the law, what atonement, what satisfaction for sin, would this make 2? How would this support the authority of the law? How would this make it to appear, that the transgressor may expect the most awful consequences from his transgression? or that trans- gression is infinitely abominable in the sight of God? And how would the manifestation of the justice of the law, tend to restrain men from transgressing that law ? Whatever the effect of such manifestation may be on the minds of those innocent creatures, who have re- NECESSITY OF ATONEMENT. ve gard tu justice or moral rectitude ; yet _ on the minds of those who are disposed to transgress, and have lost the proper sense of moral rectitude, the manifesta- tion would have no effectual tendency to restrain them from transgression : therefore would in no degree answer the - ends of the punishment threatened in the law, nor be any atonement for sin. Perhaps some may -suppose, that what hath now been asserted, that the death or atonement of Christ does not prove the justice of God and of his law, is inconsistent with what hath been repeatedly suggested in the preceding discourses, that it is an end of the death or atonement of Christ, to manifest how hateful sin is to God... If the death of Christ manifests God’s hatred of sin, it seems, that the same event must also manifest’ God’s love of holiness and justice. In-answer to this, I observe ; that the death uf Christ manifests God’s hatred of sin and love of holiness, in the same sense as the dammation of the ’ wicked manifests these, viz. on the snp- position aor the divine law is just and 78 NECESSITY OF ATONEMENT. holy. If it be allowed the divine law is just and holy, then every thing done . to support and execute that law, ais a declaration in favor of holiness and against sin; or a declaration of God’s love of holiness and of his hatred of iniquity. Both the punishment of the damned, and the death of Christ declare God’s hatred of all transgressions of his law. And if that law be holy, to hate the. transgressions of it, is to hate sin, and at the same time to love holiness. But if the law be not holy, no such: consequence will follow: it cannot, on that supposition, be inferred from the divine hatred of transgression, that God either hates sin or loves holiness. Again; we may infer from the pre-— ceding doctrine, that the atonement of Christ does not consist essentially in his active of positive obedience. By atone- ment I mean that which, as a substitute for the punishment whee is threatened in the law, supports the authority of that law, and the dignity of the divine goy- ernment. But “the ‘obedience of Christ, even in the most #3 ys circumstances, ae 9 NECESSITY OF ATONEMENT. 7 without any tokens of the divine dis- pleasure against the transgressors of the law, would never support the authority of the iaw, and the dignity of the divine government. It by no means makes it appear, that it is an evil and bitter thing to violate the law, and that the violation of it deserves, and may be expected to be followed with most awful consequen- ces to him, who dares to violate it. A familiar example may illustrate this matter. It is the rule or law of a certain family, that a particular child shall stead- ily attend the school kept in the neigh- borhood, and that if he absent himself for a day, without license, he shall feel ‘the rod. However, after some time, the child being weary of observing this law, does absent himself, and spend the day in play. At night the father being informed of it, arraigns the child, finds him guilty, and prepares to inflict the punishment, which he had threatened. Ait this instant, the brother of the offend- ing child intercedes, acknowledges the lreasonableness of the law, which his )brother had transgressed, confesses that f 80 NECESSITY OF ATONEMENT. he deserves the penalty, but offers him- self to make satisfaction for his brother’s. offense. Being interrogated by what means he expects to make satisfaction ; he answers, by going himself to school the next day. Now can any one sup-. pose, that in this way the second child can make satisfaction for the offense of the first ? Or that if the father were to. accept the proposal, he would find the authority of his law, and the government of his family supported with dignity ? Or that the offending child, or the other children of the family, would by this mean be effectually deterred from future offenses of the like nature? And how- ever trying the circumstances of going to school may be, if those circumstances be no ,token of the father’s displeasure at the disobedient child’s transgression ;. still the going to school of the second child, will not make the least satisfaction for the offense of the first. ~ I venture to say further, That not only did not the atonement of Christ cousist essentially in his active obedi- ence, but that his active obedience was, e NECESSITY OF ATONEMENT. 81 ) part of his atonement properly so lcd, nor essential to it. The perfect yedience of Christ was doubtless nec- sary in order to the due execution of s prophetical and priestly office ; in der to his intercession: and also in der that the salvation of his disciples ight be a reward of his obedience. ut that it Was necessary to support the thority of the divine law in the pardon sinners, does not appear. If Christ mself could possibly have been a sin- r, and had first made satisfaction for S own sin; it does not appear, but at afterwards he might also satisfy for e sins of his people. If the pretender the crown of Great Britain, should ge war against king George, in the rse of the war should be taken, uld be brought to trial, and be con- ned to the block ; will any man say the king of France, by becoming > substitute of the pretender, and, ring in his stead, could not make inement for the pretender, so as effec- ly to support the authority of the ish laws and government, and dis- @ $2 NECESSITY OF ATONEMENT. courage all future groundless pretensio to the British crown? Yet the king France could plead no perfect obedien to the British laws. Even the sinn himself, but upon the supposition of infinite evil of sin, could by his ov sufferings, atone for his sins. Yet could not exhibit a perfect obedience. Besides; if the bare obedience Christ have made atonement, why cou not the repentance and perfect obedien of Christ’s people themselves, ha answered, instead of the obedience Christ ? Doubtless if they had suffer the penalty of the divine law, it wou have answered to support the authori of the law, and the vigor of the divi government, as really as the death Christ. And since the eternal sufferi of the people of Christ, would: h answered the same end of supporti the authority of the law, as the sufferin _of Christ; why would not the ete perfect repentance and obedience of { people of Christ, have answered same end, as his obedience in th behalf ? If it would, both the death a ‘ NECESSITY OF ATONEMENT. 83 yedience of Christ as our substitute, e entirely in vain. If the elect had ly been converted, and made per- ctly and perseveringly obedient, it ould have answered every purpose th of the death and obedience of hrist. Or if the obedience of Christ the flesh were at all necessary, it was Yt necessary to support the authority ‘the law and government of God ; but erely as it was most wise, that he ould obey. It was necessary in the me sense only, as that the wind ould, at this moment, blow from the yrth-east, and not from the south-west, ‘from any other quarter. If the mere active obedience of Christ ive made atonement for sin, it may be ficult to account for the punishment ‘any sinners. If obediciuce without iy demonstration of divine displeasure sin, will answer every purpose of the vine authority and government, in me instances, why not in all instances ? nd if the obedience of sinners them- Ives will answer as really as that of hrist, why might not all men have ' | 84 NECESSITY OF ATONEMENT. been led by divine grace to repentanct and perfect subsequent obedience, an in that way been saved from the curs of the law? Doubtless they might : ne was there originally, nor is there noy without any consideration of the atone ment of Christ, any other necessity ¢ the punishment of any of mankin according to the law, than that whic results from mere sovereign wisdom in which sense indeed it was necessar that Christ should be given to be th Savior of sinners, that Paul should saved, and that every other event shou take place, just as it does take place. _ From our doctrine we also learn th great gain which acerues to the univers by the death of Christ. It hath bee objected to the idea of atonement nd exhibited, that if the death of Christ an equivalent to the curse of the la which was to have been inflicted on his people ; then there is‘n the wh no gain, no advantage to the univers¢ that all that punishment from whi christians are saved, hath been suffe by Christ, and therefore that there is j r | NECESSITY OF ATONEMENT. 85 as much misery and no more happiness, than there would have been, had Christ not died. ‘To this I answer, - 1. That it is not “true, that Christ endured an equal quantity of misery, to that which would have been endured by all his people, had they suffered the curse of the law. This was not neces- sary on account of the infinite dignity of his person. Ifa king were to condemn his son to lose an ear or a hand, it would doubtless be esteemed by all hissubjects, a proof of far greater dispieasure in the king, than if he should order some mean criminal to the gallows: and it would tend more effectually to support the authority of the law, for the violation of which, this punishment should be in- flicted on the prince. - 2. That if it were true, that Christ _endured the verv same quantity of mis- ery, which was due to all his people; still by his death an infinite gai accrues | tothe universe. For though the misery, on this supposition, is in both cases the ‘same, and balances itself ; yet the posi- ‘tive happiness obtained by the death of 86 NECESSITY OF ATONEMENT. Christ, infinitely exceeds that which was lost by Christ. As. the eternal Logos was capable of neither enduring misery, nor. losing happiness, all the | happiness lost by the substitution of Christ, was barely that of the man Christ. Jesus, during only thirty-three years ; or rather during the three last years of his life: because it does not appear, . but that during the rest of his life he was ‘as happy, as men in general, and enjoyed as much or more good, than he suffered evil. But the happiness gained by the substitution of Christ, is that of a great multitude, which no man can number, of all nations, kindreds, and people and tongues; Rev. vii. 9. Now if the happiness of one man for three years, or at most for thirty-three years, be equal to that of an innumerable mul- titude throughout eternity, with the _addition of the greater happiness, which Christ himself must enjoy now that he » has brought so many sons to glory, beyond what he would have enjoyed, if all these had been plunged in ineonceiv- able and endless misery : then it may ” NECESSITY OF ATONEMENT. 87 be justly said, on the present hy pothesis, that by the substitution of Christ, no advantage is gained to the universe. But if the latter infinitely exceed the former, the gain to the universe, even on the supposition, that the sufferings of Christ were equal to those, to which all his people were exposed, is infinite., I may also hence take occasion to oppose an opinion which appears to me erroneous ; which is, That the perfect obedience of Christ was in a great meas- ure designed, to show us, that the divine law may be obeyed by men. It shows indeed, that it may be obeyed by a man in personal union with the divine nature. - But how does this show, that it may be obeyed by a mere man ¢ ? If we should -also allow, that it shows, that a man born into the world in perfect innocence, and who is not a fallen creature, may obey the law : yet how does this prove, that it may be obeyed by a fallen creature, dead in trespasses’and sins? It is an ‘ undoubted truth, that there is no inabil- ity in men to obey the law, except that _ which is of a moral nature, consisting 88 NECESSITY OF ATONEMENT. — in the disinclination or disaffection of their own hearts; which does not in the least excuse them in their disobedience. But this is manifest by other consider- ations, than the perfect obedience of Christ ; if it were not, it would not be manifest at all. Another remark which naturally of- fers itself in discoursing on this subject is, that Christ’s obedience of the pre- cepts of the law, without submitting to the curse, W ould by no means prove the justice of that curse. This is the idea of some : that God sent his Son into the world, to obey the precepts of the law, and that his mere obedience of these, proves the justice both of the precepts and of the penalty of the law. I have already given the reasons by which Iam made to believe, that the obedience of Christ does not prove the precepts of the law to be just. But if it did prove | the precepts to be just, it would not. therefore prove the penalty too to be just. As the precept of any law may be just and reasonable, yet may be enforced by a penalty which is unjust and cruel ; NECESSITY OF ATONEMENT. 89 so the proof that the precept is just, does _ hotat all prove, but that the penalty may be unjust and cruel. Indeed as the pen- alty of any law is “designed to support and enforce the precept of that law, so to prove the justice ofthe penalty, proves the justice of the precept : because not the slightest penalty can be just, when applied to enforce an unjust precept. But this rule when inverted, doth not hold good. To prove the justice of a precept does by no means prove the jus- tice of the penalty by which that pre- cept js enforced. So that if Christ have proved the precepts of the divine law to ~ be just, this by no means infers the jus- : tice of its penalty. On the other hand: if Christ came to prove the justice of the law, and all that he has done to this ef- fect, have an immediate reference to the precepts only ; and if he have done noth- img to establish the justice of the penal part, considered by itself; the aspect of the whole will be, that the penal part is - unjustifiable, and that for this reason he did not pretend to justify it. The subject which hath been under ax 90 NECESSITY OF ATONEMENT. our consideration, also shews us, in what sense the sufferings of Christ were agree- able to God. It has been said, that it is incredible, that mere pain should be agreeable toa God of infinite goodness ; that therefore ' the sufferings of Christ were agreeable to God only as a_ proof of the strength of the virtue of Christ, or of his disposition to obey the divine law. If by mere pain be- meant pain abstracted from the obedience of Christ, I cannot see why it may not be agreea- ble to God. It certainly is, in the damned : and for the same reason might ‘ have been, and doubtless was, in the case of our Lord. The Father was pleased with the pains of his Son, as they were necessary to support the au- thority of his law and government, ‘in the salvation of sinners. Another reflection naturally suggested by this subject is, that im punishing some sinners according to the curse of. the law, and in requiring an adequate atonement, in order to the salvation of others ; God acts, not from any con- tracted, selfish motives, but from the NECESSITY OF ATONEMENT. 91 most noble benevolence and regard to the public good. It hath often and long since been made a matter of ob- jection to the doctrines of the future punishment of the wicked, and of the atonement of Christ; that they repre- sent the deity as having regard merely to his own honor and dignity, and not -to the good of his creatures, and there- fore represent him as deficient in good- ness. But can it be pretended to be a _ proof of goodness in God, to suffer his own law, which is the perfect rule of virtue, to fall into contempt ? However it might afford relief to some individuals, if God were to suffer his moral kingdom to be dissolved ; can it be for the general good of the system of hiscreatures ? Is it not manifestly necessary to the general good of the created system, that God’s moral kingdom be upholden ? and that therefore the authority of the civine law, _and vigor of the divine government be maintained ? If so, then it is also neces- ‘sary to the general good, that punish- menis be wmiflicted on the disobedient and lawless; or that they be pardoned ‘ 92 NECESSITY OF ATONEMENT. in consequence only of a proper satis- | faction, or atonement. So that those. very doctrines Sich of all others are made matter of the most objection to the divine goodness or benevolence, are clear proofs of good- ness, and are absolutely necessary to it. If a prince should either make no laws for the government of his subjects, or should never execute them : but should suffer all crimes to pass with imipunity : you would by no means esteem him a good prince, aiming at the good-of his subjects : you would not hesitate ‘to. pronounce him either very weak or very wicked. In reflecting on this subject, we may. notice the reason, why so-many, who profess to be advocates for the doctrine of atonement, yet place the atonement in that, in which it does by no means consist. ‘The principal reason seems to, be, that they have conceived, that the idea of Christ’s having suffered an equivalent to the punishment, to which all his peopie were exposed, is .incon- sistent with grace intheir pardon. But NECESSITY OF ATONEMENT. 98 f I have been so happy as properly to state the ideas of justice and grace, it ippears that there is as much grace in he pardon of sinners on account of such in atonement as that just mentioned, as here would be on account of an atone- nent consisting in mere obedience ; or as there would be in pardon without any itonement at all. “Hence also we see, that the death of Christ in our stead, is not useless or in rain. ‘The opposers of Christ's substi- ution and atonement, assert, that no rood end is answered by the sufferings yf an innocent, amiable and virtuous yerson, in the stead of the guilty. But surely to support the authority of the aw and of the moral government of God, Ss not a vain or unimportant end. It was not in vain that Zaleucus, having made a law, that all adulterers should nave both their eyes put out, and his 9wn son being the first who transgressed, put out one of his own eyes and one of his son’s. Hereby he spared his son in part, and yet as effectually supported the authority of his law, as if it had been 94 NECESSITY OF ATONEMENT. literally executed. Nor was it in vair that during the late war, a soldier in th American army of a robust constitutior pitying his fellow soldier of a slend ' constitution, who was condemned to r ceive a certain number of stripes, pet tioned to be put in the place of t criminal, and actually received t stripes.* For the authority of the ma tial law was effectually supported, an perhaps by this mean, the life or futu health and service of the criminal we preserved, and would. otherwise hav _been lost. Neither was the death of Christ in th stead of sinners, any injury done to a innocent person. As well may we say that Zaleucus, or the soldier just men tioned, were injured : or that a mani injured, when another man _ receive the money of him, which he voluntaril tenders in payment of the debt of third person: or that a man is injure by the surgeon, who takes off his leg t preserve his life, the man himself con senting, and desiring him so to do. * This I am informed was a real fact. j NECESSITY OF ATONEMENT. 93 _ Again ; we may observe in what sense . justice and the divine law are satisfied by the death of Christ ; and in what sense the atonement of Christ is properly called a satisfaction. It is only the third kind of justice before mentioned, that is satisfied by Christ. No man for the reasons alreaay given, will pretend that Pommutative justice issatishied by Christ; for the controversy between God and the sinner is not concerning property. Nor is distributive justice satisfied. If it were, there would indeed be no more ace in the discharge of the sinner, Bir there is in the discharge of a crim- nal, when he hath endured the full pun- shment, to which according to law, he nath been condemned. If distributive lustice were satisfied, it would have no lurther claim on the sinner. And to punish him, when this kind of justice jas no claim on him, is to treat him more infavorably or severely than his personal tharacter deserves. If so, the penitent yeliever, considered in his own person, eserves even according to the strictness Mf the divine law, no punishment ; and - a Mabe 96 ‘NECESSITY OF ATONEME NT. _ q and that merely because he repents and believes : and if so, repentance and faith satisfy the law, or are the curse Vf it, as I have already shown. If distri- butive justice be satisfied, it admits. of no further punishment, and to punish him further, would be as positively un- just, as to continue a man’s punishment, after he hath endured the full penalty of any law. If distributive justice be sat- isfied by Christ, in the behalf of sinners, then the rule of distributive justice is not the personal character of a man, but the character of his friend, his advocate, or representative ; any man has a right, on the footing of distributive justice, to be treated according to the character q his friend or representative. Therefore if a subject rebel against his sovereign, and procure a man of a, most unexcep- tionable and amiable character, to repre= sent him and plead his cause before his sovereign, he has a right on the footin of distributive justice, to be treated ace cording to the character of his represen- tative ; and if he be not thus treated, h suffers an injury ; he isabused. On ~ \ NECESSITY OF ATONEMENT. 97 : this principle, no prince or magistrate will have a right to punish, for any crime, a subject who can procure a man of a virtuous life, torepresent him and plead his cause. But perhaps it will be said, that dis- tributive justice is satisfied by ‘the death of Christ, because he’ placed himself in our stead, and suffered in our foom ; and that whenever a person thus substitutes himself for another, and suffers the pun- ishment due to that other, that other hath a right to a discharge, as distributive justice is then satisfied. Now accord- ing to this objection, the true idea of distributive justice is, to treat a man either according to his own sufferings, or according to the sufferings of his. representative. And if according to the sufferings of his representative, why not according to the obedience of his representative. And this brings us just where we were; that every man may in justice demand, to be treated accord- ing to the character of his ReRLESGRIAR YE : which is-absurd. Distributive justice therefore is not 98 NECESSITY OF ATONEMENT. at all satisfied by the death of Christ. But general justice to the deity and to the universe is satisfied. That is done by the death of Christ which supports the authority of the law, and renders it con- sistent with the glory of God and the good of the whole system, to pardon the sinner, In the same sense the law of God is satisfied by the death of Christ : I mean as the divine glory and the general good, which are the great ends of the law, are secured. In this sense only is the atonement of Christ, properly called a satisfaction ; God is satisfied, as by it his glory and the good of his system are secured and promoted. Objection. But is not distributive justice displayed in the death of Christ ? ‘Answer. The question is ambiguous : If the meaning be, is not distributive justice satisfied ? I answer, for the rea- sons already given, in the negative. If the meaning be, is there not an exhibi- tion made in the death and sufferings of Christ, of the punishment to which the sinner is justly liable ? T answer in the NECESSITY OF ATONEMENT. 99 affirmative ; distributive justice is, in this sense, displayed i in the death of Christ. But it is no more displayed, than the punishment of the sinner is displayed, in the death of Christ. Tt may be proper here to notice the sense, in which justice admits of the sal- . vation of sinners. It hath been said, that justice admits of several things which it does not demand : that it admits of the salvation of Paul, but does not demand it.. And it would admitalso of the damnation of Paul, but does not demand that. But in these instances the word justice is used in two very different senses, which ought to be care- fully distinguished. When it is said, justice admits of the saivation of Paul, the third kind of j justice before described, must be intended. The general good admits it: neither the glory of God nor the good of the system, opposes it. But distributive justice, which re- quires every man to be treated accord- ing to his personal character, does not admit that Paul should be saved: so far as this kind of justice says any thing 100 NECESSITY OF ATONEMENT. ‘ concerning this matter, it demands that Paul be punished according to law : and if this justice be made the rule of proceeding in the case, Paul will inevita- bly be cast off. ‘This kind of justice no more admits of the salvation of Paul than it admits of the salvation of Judas. But it is said, that ‘‘ justice admits of the salvation of Paul, but does not de-. mand it.”” Justice to the universé does demand it, as fully as admit of it, and the universe would suffer an. injury, if - he were not to be saved : but justice to the universe, neither demands nor ad- mits of the salvation of Judas. Whereas distributive justice to Paui personally, as much demands that he be not saved, as that Judas be not saved. But if we will make a distinction be- tween what justice admits and what: it demands, the true and only distinction seems to be this : justice admits of any thing which is not positively unjust ; of any favor however great or manifold : but it demands nothing, but barely what is just, without the least favor, and which being refused, positive injustice . ' NECESSITY OF ATONEMENT. 101 would be done. Distributive justice then admits of the salvation of Judas or of any other sinner ; as surely no injus- tice would be done Judas in his salva- tion ; but it demands not this, as it is a mere favor, or something beyond the bounds of mere justice ; or it is no in- jury to Judas, that he is not saved. Neither does distributive justice demand the salvation of Paul. But public jus- tice both admits and demands both the: salvation of Paul and the damnation of Judas. On the other hand, it neither admits hor demands the damnation of Paul, nor the salvation of Judas. But distributive justice, according to the present distinction between the meaning of the words admit, and demand, though it admits both of the salvation and dam- nation of both Paul and Judas ; yet de- mands neither the salvation nor damna- tion, of the one or the other : or, to ex- press the same thing in other words; no injustice would be done either to Paul or Judas personally, if they were both saved or both damned. © Distributive justice never demands the punishment Ox 102° +“NECESSITY OF ATONEMENT. of any criminal, in any instance ; be- cause no injury would be done him, if he were graciously pardoned. It de- mands only that a man be not punished — being innocent : or be not punished be- yond his demerit ; and that he be re- _ warded according to his positive merit. _ ‘These observations may help us to understand a distinction, which to many hath appeared groundless or perplexing : I mean the distinction of the merit of condignity and merit of congruity. Merit of both these kinds refers to re- wards only, and has no reference to punishments : and that is deserved by a merit of condignity which cannot be withholden without positive injury. That is deserved by a merit of congtuity which is a proper expression of the sense which the person rewarding, has of the moral excellency of the person reward- ed ; which however may be withholden without positive injury. Of the former kind is the merit, which every good and faithful citizen has, of protection in his person, liberty and property, and the - merit of a laborer who has earned his NECESSITY OF ATONEMENT. 103 wages. ‘These cannot be withholden without positive injury. Of the latter” kind is the merit, which some eminently wise and virtuous citizens have, of dis- tinguishing honors or marks of esteem. Ifthese be withholden, the proper objects of them, may indeed be said to be neglected, but not positively injured. This subject teaches also, in what sense God was under obligation to accept, on the behalf of the sinner, the mediation and atonement of Christ. It hath been said, that when Christ offered to make atonement for sinners, God was under the same obligation to accept the offer, as a creditor is to accept the pro- posal of any man, who offers to pay the debt of another. This is not true : | because in matters of property, ali that the creditor hath a right to, is his property. This being offered him, | by whomsoever the offer be made, he | has the offer of his right.; and if he de- | mand more, he excee ds his right ; and he has no more right to refuse to give | up the obligation, on the offer of a third | person to pay the debt, than to refuse a} . el EL) 104 NECESSITY OF ATONEMENT. the same, when the same offer is made by the debtor himself. All will own, _that if a creditor were to refuse to re- ce:ve payment, and give up the obliga- ticn, when the debtor offers payment ; it would be abusive and unjust : and let any man assign a reason why it is not equally abusive and unjust, not to re- ceive the payment, and to give up the obligation, when payment is offered by a third person. But it is quite otherwise in atoning for crimes, in which distributive, not commutative justice is concerned. As the rule of distributive justice is the personal character of the person to be rewarded or punished, and not property ; if a magistrate refuse to accept any sub- stitute, and insist on punishing the crim- ‘inal himself, he treats him no otherwise, than according to his personal character, and the criminal suffers no injustice o abuse. Nor is the magistrate under an obligation of distributive justice, « justice to. the criminal himself, to ac cept a substitute. It is true, that the circumstances 0} ~ i NECESSITY OF ATONEMENT. 105 the case may be such, that it may be most conducive to the public good, that the offered substitute be accepted: in this case wisdom and goodness or pub- lic justice will require that it be accept- ed, and the criminal discharged. This leads me to observe, that it hath also been said that when Christ offered to become a substitute, and to make atonement for sinners, God was under no obligation to accept the proposal. This, I conceive, isas wide of the truth, as that he was under the same obligation to accept the proposal, as a creditor is to accept the proposal of a third person to pay the debt of his friend» The truth is, the glory of God and the great- est good of the moral system, did re- quire, that Christ should become a sub- stitute for sinners; and that his offered ubstitution should be accepted by God. his was dictated and recommended py both wisdom and goodness. So far erefore as wisdom and goodness could nfer an obligation on the Father, to ac- spt the substitution of his Son, he was der obligation to accept it. Bat this — we hha «RS 106 NECESSITY OF ATONEMENT. obligation was only that of the third kind of justice before explained, a regard tc the general good. This subject further teaches us, that that constitution which requires an atone. ‘ ment, in order to the pardon of the sin. ner, is nothing arbitrary. - That divine constitution which is wise and good, as being necessary to the good of the mora system, is not arbitrary. But if ar atonement was necessary, in order tc _support the authority of the divine law and the honor, vigor and even existence of the divine moral government, whil sinners are pardoned ; undoubtedly tha constitution. which requires an atone. ment, in order to the pardon of the sin: ner, is the dictate of wisdom and good ness, and by no means, of an arbitrary spirit. | Hence we also learn in what sense thi death of Christ renders God propitiou; to sinners. It does so only as it su ports the authority of his law and gov ernment, and renders the pardon of si ners consistent with the good of the sy: tem, and the glory of God. ? . “NECESSITY OF ATONEMENT. 107 Finally ; this subject teaches the sroundlessness of that objection to the loctrine of atonement, that it represents he deity as inexorable. If to refuse to pardon sinners unless it be ina way which is consistent with the good of the moral system, is to be inexorable ; then that God will not pardon sinners with- but atonement, or in a way which is in- consistent with the authority of his law, und-with the authority and even exist- snce of his moral government ; is indeed. a proof, that God is inexorable. But : unless it be an instance of inexorability, that God will pardon sinners, unless it be in a way which is consistent with the zood of the moral system, there is’ no zround to object to the doctrine of atone- ment, that it represents the deity as in- pxorable. On the other hand; that rod requires an atonement in order to ardon, is an instance and proof of truly ivine goodness : and if he were to par- on »without an atonement, it would rove, that he 1s destitute of goodness, d regardless, not only of his own glo- y, but of the true happiness of the ae of his moral creatures. —END. a wali : sy aa * Bible Warehgase: Po. fey ae f - ; - A. LYMAN & GO. At the sign of the Brae, Insurance buildings, Exchange-street, a # 4%, PORTLAND— ‘ 2 Pal | KE constant hand neexten sive assortment of Brgies, whicl they will sell at the Philadelphia prices They also keep a large collection o Law, Theological, Medical, ssical ,Miscellaneous, and school BOOKS Public and private libraries may furnished on the most reasonable terms wPrintine and Boox-Bin pine executed with neatness and dispatel DATE , DUE i B S| 126 48 ! APR 12 754 a-s[ FORM 335 40M 9-42 232.3 E26N 275040