WWBWBlHliWIWPBfMWIrHllllflifcf ffffT*Kt1i - '

/$8>aL

THE ATONEMENT.

DISCOURSES AND TREATISES

BY

EDWARDS, SMALLEY, MAXCY, EMMONS, GRIFFIN,
BURGE, AND WEEKS.

INTRODUCTORY ESSAY,

BY

EDWARDS A. PARK,
ABBOT PROFESSOR OP CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY, ANDOVER, MASS.

BOSTON:
CONGREGATIONAL BOARD OF PUBLICATION,
CHAUNCY STREET.
1859.

Entered according to Act of Congress in the year 1869, by the
CONGREGATIONAL BOARD OF PUBLICATION,
In the Clerk's Office of the District Court of the District of Massachusetts.

CAMBRIDGE:
ALLEN ADD FARKHAM, ELECTUOTYFERS AND PRINTERS.

CONTENTS

PAGS
Introductory Essay. By Prof. E. A. Park .... vii-lxxx
Three Sermons on the Necessity of Atonement, and the
Consistency between that and Free Grace in Forgive
ness. By Jonathan Edwards, D.D  1-42
Two Sermons — Justification through Christ, an Act of
Free Grace  43-64
None but Believers Saved through the all-sufficient
Satisfaction of Christ. By John Smalley, D. D. . . 65-85_
A Discourse designed to explain the Doctrine of the
Atonement. By Jonathan Maxcy, D. D  87-110
Two Sermons on the Atonement.
By Nathanael Emmons, D.D  111-136
An Humble Attempt to reconcile the Differences of
Christians respecting the Extent of the Atonement.
By Edward D. Griffin, D.D  137-427
An Essay on the Scripture Doctrine of Atonement, show
ing its Nature, its Necessity, and its Extent.
By Caleb Burge, A. M  429-546
A Dialogue on the Atonement.
By William R. Weeks, D.D. -  547-583
A* <T>

THE RISE

EDWARDEAN THEORY OF THE ATONEMENT

INTRODUCTORY ESSAY.

EY

EDWARDS A. PARK,
ABBOT PROFESSOR OF CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY, ANDOVER, MASS.

(Tii)

INTRODUCTORY ESSAY.

There is a theory, often designated " the Edwardean theory" of the
Atonement. It has various other and equally indefinite names. It is
called the New theory, the New England theory, the New School theory,
the Hopkinsian theory, the Governmental theory, the Consistent theory,
&c. It is called " Edwardean," partly from the fact that certain germs
of it are found in the writings of the elder Edwards, still more in the
writings of his bosom friend, Hopkins, but chiefly from the fact that its
more prominent advocates have been the so-called " successors of Ed
wards," and among them the more noted, perhaps, is his son, Dr. Jona
than Edwards. The defenders of this theory make no claim to have
advanced any fundamental truths not previously advocated by evangeli
cal divines ; but they may be justly regarded as having reduced old
truths to a new system, — a, system more consistent than had been pre
viously drawn out ; and also as having expressed the truths of this sys
tem in a distinctive, and in an unusually perspicuous style. They never
counted themselves to have attained absolute perfection of doctrinal
belief or statement, but they have probably come nearer to the perfect
standard than have any other class of uninspired men. Their doctrine
of the atonement is essentially the same with that of the elder Calvinists,
but their theory of the atonement is more harmonious with itself, and
with other parts of the evangelical faith ; and their mode of expressing
this theory is more precise, unequivocal, scientific. In the substance
they are Calvinistic; in the form, they are Edwardean; hence they have
(ix)

X introductory essay.
been called Edwardean Calvinists. They are not in entire agreement
among themselves ; President Dwight harmonizes not altogether with
Dr. Samuel Spring ; not one of them is responsible for all the words of
any other ; indeed, it may be questioned whether any Edwardean is per
fectly reconcilable with himself in every one of his expressions. Entire
f self-consistency, on so complicated a theme as the atonement, is a jewel
too precious to be found very often. Still the Edwardean divines have
approximated, more nearly than other independent thinkers, to a system
which is harmonious with itself and with the inspired word. They coin
cide in the main principles of a theory which may be expressed in the
following propositions : —
First, our Lord suffered pains which were substituted for the penalty
of the law, and may be called punishment in the more general sense of
that word, but were not, strictly and literally, the penalty which the law
had threatened.
Secondly, the sufferings of our Lord satisfied the general justice of
God, but did not satisfy 'his distributive justice.
Thirdly, the humiliation, pains, and death of our Redeemer were
equivalent in meaning to the punishment threatened in the moral law,
and thus they satisfied Him who is determined to maintain the honor of
this law, but they did not satisfy the demands of the law itself for our'
punishment. Fourthly, the active obedience, viewed as the holiness, of Christ was
honorable to the law, but was not a work of supererogation, performed
by our Substitute, and then transferred and imputed to us, so as to satisfy
the requisitions of the law for our own active obedience.
The last three statements are sometimes comprehended in the more
general proposition, that the atonement was equal, in the meaning and
the spirit of it, to the payment of our debts, but it was not literally the
payment of either our debt of obedience or our debt of punishment, or
any other debt which we owed to law or distributive justice. Therefore,
Fifthly, the law and the distributive justice of God, although honored
by the life and death of Christ, will yet eternally demand the punish
ment of every one who has sinned.
Sixthly, the atonement rendered it consistent and desirable for God to

EDWARDEAN THEORY OF THE ATONEMENT. xi
save all who exercise evangelical faith, yet it did not render it obligatory
on Him, in distributive justice to save them.
Seventhly, the atonement was designed for the welfare of all men ; to
make the eternal salvation of all men possible ; to remove all the obsta
cles which the honor of the law and of distributive justice presented
against the salvation of the non-elect as well as the elect.
Eighthly, the atonement does not constitute the reason why some men
are regenerated, and others not, but this reason is found only in the
sovereign, electing will of God. "Even so Father! for so it seemed
good in thy sight."
Ninthly, the atonement is useful on men's account, and in order to
furnish new motives to holiness, but it is necessary on God's account, and
in order to enable him, as a consistent Ruler, to pardon any, even the
smallest sin, and therefore to bestow on sinners any, even the smallest
favor. These, and such as these, are the various statements of the principles
constituting what has been called for more than sixty years, the new
divinity, so far forth as it regards the propitiation for sin. The design
of the present Essay is to develop the Rise of this Edwardean Theory
of the Atonement. This design can be most easily accomplished by de
tailing certain principles avowed, and certain statements made by the
four New England divines who seem to have exerted the greatest influ
ence, either personally or by their writings, on Dr. Jonathan Edwards,
Dr. John Smalley, and the other early advocates of the Edwardean
scheme. Some of these principles and statements were probably de
signed to favor the view now called Edwardean. Others were not
so designed ; they suggested that view indirectly or by contrast ; they
intimated the.necessity of a scheme more consistent with itself, and with
other principles of those four theologians. It is the prerogative of
clear thinkers, when they proclaim an error, to proclaim it in such a
way as will suggest the truth to other thinkers equally clear.
I. The first of the theologians who suggested directly or indirectly
the Edwardean scheme of the atonement is Jonathan Edwards, the
senior. He adopted, in general, both the views and the phrases of the
older Calvinists, with regard to the atonement. But like those Calvin-

AH INTRODUCTORY ESSAY.
ists, he made various remarks which have suggested the more modern
theory. 1. He exalts the Sovereignty of God in connection with the atonement.
Perhaps the most distinguishing feature of the " new_ divinity '' is, that it
gives" a prominence to God as a Sovereign in applying and conducting,
as well as originating, the redemptive work.
a. President Edwards teaches that the degree of glory which we are
to enjoy in heaven is determined not by the atonement of Christ, but by
the sovereignty of God.
" In the mystical body of Christ, all the members are partakers of the benefit of the
head ; but it is according to the different capacity and place they have in the body ;
and God determines that place and capacity as he pleases ; he makes whom he pleases
the foot, and whom he pleases the hand, and whom he pleases the lungs, &c. 1 Cor.
12 : 18 ; ' God hath set the members everyone of them in the body, as it hath pleased
him.'"i " Christ, by his righteousness, purchased for every one complete and perfect happi
ness, according to his capacity. But this does not hinder but that the saints, being of
various capacities, may have various degrees of happiness, and yet all their happiness
be the fruit of Christ's purchase. Indeed it cannot be properly said that Christ pur
chased any particular degree of happiness, so that the value of Christ's righteousness
in the sight of God is sufficiejit to raise a believer so high in happiness, and no higher,
and so that, if the believer were made happier, it would exceed the value of Christ's
righteousness ; but in general, Christ purchased eternal life, or perfect happiness for
all, according to their several capacities. The saints are so many vessels of different
sizes, cast into a sea of happiness, where every vessel is full ; this, Christ purchased
for all. But after all, it is left to God's sovereign pleasure to determine the largeness
of the vessel ; Christ's righteousness meddles not with this matter. Eph. 4 : 4, 5, 6,
7 ; ' There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your call
ing ; one Lord, one faith, one baptism,' &c. — ' But unto every one of us is given
, grace according to the measure of the gift of Christ.' God may dispense in this mat-
' ter according to what rule he pleases, not the less for what Christ has done. He may
dispense either without condition, or upon what condition he pleases to fix. It is
evident that Christ's righteousness meddles not with this matter ; for what Christ did
was to fulfil the covenant of works ; but the covenant of works did not meddle at all

1 Edwards's Works, Vol. V. p. 428. The references to Edwards's works aro
generally to Dr. S. E. Dwight's edition. The references to the Miscellaneous Obser
vations are to the corrected copy, published by Dr. Dwight as a substitute for the copy
originally inserted in his edition, Vol. VII. pp. 405-572.

EDWARDEAN THEORY OP THE ATONEMENT. xiii
¦with this. If Adam had persevered in perfect obedience, he and his posterity would
have had perfect and full happiness ; every one's happiness would have so answered
his capacity that he would have been completely blessed ; but God would have been
at liberty to have made some of one capacity, and others of another, as he pleased.
The angels have obtained eternal life, or a state of confirmed glory, by a covenant of
works, whose condition was perfect obedience ; but yet some arc higher in glory than
others, according to the several capacities that God, according to his sovereign pleas
ure, hath given them. So that it being still left with God, notwithstanding the per
fect obedience of the second Adam, to fix the degree of each one's capacity by what
rule he pleases, he hath been pleased to fix the degree of capacity, and so of glory, by
the proportion of the saints' grace and fruitfulness here. He gives higher degrees of
glory in reward for higher degrees of holiness and good works, because it pleases him ;
and yet all the happiness of each saint is indeed the fruit of the purchase of Christ's
obedience. If it had been but one man that Christ had obeyed and died for, and it
had pleased God to make him of a very large capacity, Christ's perfect obedience
would have purchased that his capacity should be filled, and then all his happiness
might properly be said to be the fruit of Christ's perfect obedience ; though, if he had
been of a less capacity, he would not have had so much happiness by the same obedi
ence ; and yet would have had as much as Christ merited for him. Christ's right
eousness meddles not with the degree of happiness, any otherwise than as he merits
that it should be full and perfect, according to the capacity. And so it may be said to
be concerned in the degree of happiness, as perfect is a degree with respect to imper
fect; but it meddles not with degrees of perfect happiness." J
b. President Edwards occasionally represents the act of imputing
Christ's righteousness to us, as an act of sovereignty. He distinguishes

1 Edwards's Works, Vol. V. pp. 426, 427. It is easy to see that the phraseology of
President Edwards has here affected the phraseology of Dr. Emmons. Edwards de
clares that Jehovah may select one person for a high degree, another person for a low
degree of good, according to the mere pleasure of the Sovereign, and that " Christ's
righteousness meddles not with this matter." Emmons applies to the distinguishing
and selecting of the persons who arc to receive any good, what Edwards applies to the
distinguishing and selecting of the persons who are to receive a high rather than a low
degree of good. Emmons affirms : " God grants regenerating grace to whom he
pleases, as an act of mere sovereignty, without any particular respect to the death or
atonement of Christ." — Works, Vol. V. p. 66. Emmons teaches that the regeneration
of any man is a consequence of the atonement, but he denies that the regeneration of
one man rather than of another is a consequence of the atonement. Edwards teaches
that the glorification of any man is a consequence of the atonement, but he denies that
the higher rather than the lower degree of glorification of any man is a consequence of the
atonement or the righteousness of Christ.

XIV INTRODUCTORY ESSAY.
sharply between strict law and justice on the one hand, and sovereign
pleasure on the other. But he says that " God of his sovereign grace is
pleased, in his dealings with the sinner, so to regard one that has no
righteousness, that the consequence shall be the same as if he had." '
When the sinner believes in Christ, God imputes to that sinner the right
eousness of Christ, not because the sinner's faith has the merit of condig-
nity, not because it has the " merit of congruity" not because there is
" any moral congruity " between faith and this reward : but only because
there is a " natural fitness " of the one to the other ; it is " meet and con-
decent " that the believer should be thus rewarded, " only from the natu
ral concord and agreeableness there is between " faith and the blessings
of justification.2 Now when God bestows a favor upon men merely be
cause it is " fit by a natural fitness " that he do so, he acts as a Sovereign,
and not as a Judge in the exercise of distributive justice.
We are aware that Edwards often speaks of our Lord's righteousness
as '¦'justly and duly " reckoned to our account, and of believers as " legally
one " with their Redeemer. But the statement that he sometimes ascribes
our justification to " sovereign grace " is not refuted by the reply that at
other times he ascribes it to distributive justice, as in the following pas
sage, written when he was only thirty years of age, and afterwards point
edly condemned by Dr. Smalley.8
"The justice of God that required man's damnation, and seemed inconsistent with
his salvation, now does as much require the salvation of those that believe in Christ,
as ever before it required their damnation. Salvation is an absolute debt to the be
liever from God, so that he may in justice demand and challenge it; not upon the ac
count of what he himself has done, but upon the account of what his Surety has done.
For Christ has satisfied justice fully for his sin; so that it is but » thing that may be
challenged, that God should now release the believer from the punishment ; it is but
a piece of justice that the creditor should release the debtor, when he has fully paid
the debt. And again, the believer may demand eternal life, because it has been mer
ited by Christ, by a merit of condignity. So it is contrived that that justice that
seemed to require man's destruction, now requires his salvation." 4

i Edwards's Works, Vol. V. p. 352.
2 lb. Vol. V. pp. 367-369.
8 See Edwardean Theory of the Atonement, pp. 51, seq.
4 See Edwards's Lifo and Sermons, Hopkins's First Edition, pp. 309, 310.

EDWARDEAN THEORY OF THE ATONEMENT. XV
c. President Edwards believes that the act of initiating a soul into
union with Christ, is an act of free, sovereign grace. He affirms : " God
will neither look on Christ's merits as ours, nor adjudge his benefits to
us, till we be in Christ ; nor will he look upon us as being in him, without
an active unition of our hearts and souls to him." * How then is a soul
brought into this union with Christ ? " Admitting a soul to an union
with Christ, is an act of free and sovereign grace ; but excluding at
death, and at the day of judgment, those professors of Christianity who
have had the offers of a Saviour, and enjoyed great privileges as God's
people, is a judicial proceeding,, and a just punishment of their unworthy
treatment of Christ." 2 Here is a broad distinction between an act of
sovereignty and an act of justice. So far forth as any thing is given on
the ground of merit, in the sense of strict desert, it is not given in
sovereignty ; and so far forth as any thing is given in sovereignty, it is
not given on the ground of merit in the sense of strict desert. Presi
dent Edwards has been represented as uniformly teaching, that the
justification of a believer, being effected after the believer's union with
Christ, and on the ground of the believer's merit in Christ, is not an act
of sovereignty, but an act of law and justice. But if this representation
were true, it would not conflict with his teaching that the act of initiating
a soul into a state of union with Christ, as this act is performed before
justification, and before the Redeemer's merits are looked upon as the
believer's own merits, is an act, not of law and justice, but of free,
sovereign grace. Neither does this prominence given by Edwards to
the Divine sovereignty at all conflict with his firm belief, that the
influences of the Spirit are bestowed through Christ's mediation.8
d. As Edwards taught that the atonement was applied and conducted,
so he taught that it was originated, by sovereign grace.4
2. President Edwards believed that there is a difference between the
obligation to fulfil a threatening and the obligation .to fulfil a promise.
He believed that " God's truth makes a necessary connection between
every threatening and every promise, and all that is properly signified

i Edwards's Works, Vol. V. p. 369.
2 lb. Vol. V. p. 429. ' lb. Vol. VH. p. 77.
* lb. Vol. V. pp. 400, 401 ; VII. pp. 69, 71.

XVI INTRODUCTORY ESSAY.
in that threatening or promise." * " God was absolutely obliged to
execute his threatenings, " as he would speak the truth. For if God
absolutely threatened contrary to what he knew would come to pass,
then he absolutely threatened contrary to what he knew to be truth." 2
This he could never do. Still Edwards believed that the obligation to
fulfil a threatening does not result from the threatening itself, is not
consequent on the threatening as a threatening ; but the obligation to
fulfil a promise does result in part from the promise itself; is, in a
measure, consequent upon the promise as a promise. This is an im
portant consideration on the subject of the atonement. Richard Baxter,
Bishop Stillingfleet, Dr. Gale maintained, that a threatening does not
pledge the veracity of God to execute it. Dr. Emmons asserted that a
legal threatening expresses God's " disposition to punish " the offender,
but does not express his " design '' to do so, and therefore does not
pledge his veracity.8 Dr. Griffin contended that " the legal threatening
is not a pledge of truth that the sinner will be punished ; (for then how is
that pledge redeemed when he is pardoned by the sufferings of another ?)
but a mere declaration of what is just and may ordinarily be expected." 4
Here these two writers did not agree with President Edwards, yet his
remarks are fitted to suggest their theory. Edwards says : —
" The truth of the lawgiver makes it necessary that the threatening of the law
should be fulfilled in every punctilio. The threatening of the law is absolute : ' Thou
shalt surely die.' It is true, the obligation does not lie in the claim of the person
threatened as it is in promises ; for it is not to be supposed, that the person threat
ened will claim the punishment threatened. And, indeed, if we look upon things
strictly, those seem to reckon the wrong way, that suppose the necessity of the
futurity, of the execution to arise from an obligation on God in executing, properly
consequent on his threatening. For the necessity of the connection of the execution
with the threatening, seems to arise directly the other way, viz., from the obligation that
was on the omniscient God in threatening, consequent on the futurity of the execution." 5
" There is a necessity of the fulfilment of God's absolute promises both ways ; viz.
1 Edwards's Works, Miscellaneous Observations, p. 529.
2 lb. Miscellaneous Observations, pp. 527, 541, 542, 552, 553.
" Emmons's Works, Vol. IV. pp. 473-475.
* Edwardean Theory of the Atonement, pp. 165, 236.
6 Edwards's Works, Vol. VII., Miscellaneous Observations, p. 527. See note on
p. xii. above.

EDWARDEAN THEORY OF THE ATONEMENT. xvii
both by an obligation on God to foretell, or declare, or foredeclare, the future benefit,
according to what he foresaw would be, and he intended should be ; and also by an
obligation on him to fulfil his promise consequent on his predicting, and by virtue of
the claim of the person to whom the promise was made.
" And there is also an obligation on God to fulfil his absolute threatenings, con
sequent on his threatenings, indirectly, by virtue of many ill and undesirable conse
quences of the event's being, beside the certain dependence, or certain expectations
raised by God's threatenings, in the persons threatened, and others that are spec
tators ; which consequences God may bo obliged not to be a cause of. But threaten
ings do not properly bring an obligation on God, that -is consequent on them as
threatenings, as it is with promises." *
3: President Edwards condemned the distinction between the active
and passive obedience of Christ. He says : —
" Indeed, all obedience, considered under the notion of righteousness, is something
active, something done in voluntary compliance with a command ; whether it may be
done without suffering, or whether it be something hard and difficult ; yet as it is obe
dience, righteousness, or moral goodness, it must be considered as something volun
tary and active. If any one is commanded to go through difficulties and sufferings,
and he, in compliance with this command, voluntarily does it, he properly obeys in so
doing ; and as he voluntarily does it in compliance with a command, his obedience is
as active as any whatsoever. It is the same sort of obedience, a thing of the very
same nature, as when a man, in compliance with a command, does a piece of hard ser
vice, or goes through hard labor ; and there is no room to distinguish between such
obedience of it, as if it were a thing of quite a different nature, by such opposite terms
as active and passive ; all the distinction that can be pretended, is that which is be
tween obeying an easy command and a difiicult one. But is there from hence' any
foundation to make two species of obedience, one active and the other passive? There
is no appearance of any such distinction ever entering into the hearts of any of the
penmen of Scripture." 2
4. President Edwards did not maintain, in the same style in which
some of the ancient Calvinists did, that we are admitted into heaven on
the ground of Christ's having obeyed exactly the same precepts which

1 Edwards's Works, Miscellaneous Observations, pp. 528-9. See note on p. xii.
above. 2 Edwards's Works, Vol. V. p. 403. Emmons follows President Edwards, and
asserts : " Many make a distinction between his [Christ's] active and passive obedience;
but there is no foundation for this distinction in Scripture." — Edwardean Theory of
the Atonement, p. 130. B* •

XVU1 INTRODUCTORY, ESSAY
we had broken, but he believed that the most essential part of our Lord's
obedience by which we are redeemed, consisted in his ' voluntarily yield
ing himself up to the terrible sufferings of the cross.' " To do this was
his [Christ's] principal errand into the world." Of course the "chief
command" given him by his Father was, to do that " which was the
errand he was chiefly sent upon, which was to lay down his life, and this
command was the principal trial of his obedience." 1 The main part, then,
of our Lord's meritorious obedience was not to a command precisely the
same which has been imposed on us ; for we are not bidden to lay down
our life as an atoning sacrifice ; but his chief obedience was to a law which
we had never broken in the exact form in which he obeyed it. He yield
ed to the same legislative authority, to the same law in its spirit, which
we ought to obey. Still " that act of obedience by which principally we
are redeemed is obedience to a positive precept that Adam never was
under, viz. the precept of laying down his life."2 The difference, then,
between President Edwards, and a majority of his " successors " on this
topic is this : he teaches that saints are admitted into heaven on the ground
of Christ's obedience, which obedience consisted principally in his obey
ing the command to lay down his life ; they teach that saints are admitted
into heaven on the ground of Christ's sufferings and death, with which
his entire and perfect obedience was and must have been inseparably con
nected. It is easy to see that here the style of Edwards affected the
style of his " successors."
5. The President maintained that we are delivered from hell on the
ground of our Lord's sufferings as a penalty, and not on the ground of
them as meritorious. The pains of Christ were mere pains, and had no
moral quality, and therefore had no merit in the strict sense of that
term. " The satisfaction of Christ, by suffering the punishment of sin, is properly to be
distinguished, as being in its own nature different from the merit of Christ. For merit
is only some excellency or worth. But when we consider Christ's sufferings merely
as the satisfaction for the guilt of another, the excellency of Christ's act in suffering,
does not all come into consideration ; but only thoso two things, viz. their equality

l Edwards's Works, Vol. VIII. pp. 173-175.
2 lb. Vol. V. pp. 404, 405.

EDWARDEAN THEORY OF THE ATONEMENT. XLS
or equivalence to the punishment that the sinner deserved ; and, secondly, the union
between him and them, or the propriety of his being accepted in suffering, as the rep
resentative of the sinner. Christ's bearing our punishment for us, is not properly
meriting that we should not bear it ; any more than, if it had been possible for us our
selves to have borne it all, that would have been meriting that we should not be pun
ished any more. Christ's sufferings do not satisfy by any excellency in them, but by
a fulfilment. To satisfy by a fulfilment, and to satisfy by worthiness or excellency,
are different things. If the law be fulfilled, there is no need of any excellency or
merit to satisfy it; because it is satisfied by taking place and having its course. In
deed, how far the dignity or worthiness of Christ's person comes into consideration,
in determining the propriety of his being accepted as a representative of sinners, so
that his suffering, when equivalent, can be accepted as theirs, may be a matter of
question and debate ; but it is a matter entirely foreign to the present purpose." 1
6. Edwards taught that, while we are delivered from ruin on the
ground, not of our Lord's merits but of his agonies, we are admitted to
heaven on the ground, not of his agonies, but of his merits. " It is only
the obedience of Christ that is properly his righteousness." 2 This right
eousness has a moral quality, therefore, it has merit, in the strict meaning
of that term ; it is imputed to us, therefore we are rewarded.
First, I would explain what we mean by the imputation of Christ's righteousness.
Sometimes the expression is taken by our divines in a larger sense, for the imputation
of all that Christ did and suffered for our redemption, whereby we are free from guilt,
and stand righteous in the sight of God ; and so implies the imputation both of Christ's
satisfaction and obedience. But here I intend it in a stricter sense, for the imputation
of that righteousness or moral goodness that consists in the obedience of Christ.- And
by that righteousness being imputed to us, is meant no other than this, that the right
eousness of Christ is accepted for us, and admitted instead of that perfect inherent
righteousness which ought to be in ourselves. Christ's perfect obedience shall be
reckoned to our account, so that we shall have the benefit of it, as though we had per-
formed it ourselves."3
" There is the very same need of Christ's obeying the law in our stead, in order to
the reward, as of his suffering the. penalty of the law in our stead, in order to our
i Edwards's Works, Miscellaneous Observations, pp. 551, 552. See note, p. xii.
above. * lb. Vol. K. p. 499. 8 lb- Vol. V. p. 394.

XX INTRODUCTORY ESSAY.
escaping the penalty ; and the same reason why one should be accepted on our ac
count, as the other." 1
" There is, therefore, exactly the same need, from the law, of perfect obedience being
fulfilled in order to our obtaining the reward, as there is of death being suffered in or
der to our escaping the punishment ; or the same necessity by the law, of perfect obe
dience preceding life, as there is of disobedience being succeeded by death."2
" Therefore, if all isin is now forbidden, then we are now under a law that requires
perfect obedience ; and, therefore, nothing can be accepted as a righteousness in the
sight of our Judge but perfect righteousness. So that our Judge cannot justify us,
unless he sees a perfect righteousness, some way belonging to us, either performed by
ourselves, or by another, and justly and duly reckoned to our account.
" God doth, in the sentence of justification, pronounce a man perfectly righteous, or
else he would need a further justification after he is justified. His sins being removed
by Christ's atonement, is not sufficient for his justification ; for justifying a man, as
has been already shown, is not merely pronouncing him innocent, or without guilt, but
standing right with regard to the rule that he is under, and righteous unto life : but
this, according to the established rule of nature, reason, and divine appointment, is a
positive, perfect righteousness.
" As there is the same need that Christ's obedience should be reckoned to our
account, as that his atonement should ; so there is the same reason why it should. As
if Adam had persevered, and finished his course of obedience, we should have received
the benefit of his obedience, as much as now we have the mischief of his disobedience ;
so in like manner, there is reason that wc should receive the benefit of the Second
Adam's obedience, as of his atonement of our disobedience. Believers are repre
sented in Scripture as being so in Christ, as that they are legally one, or accepted as
one, by the Supreme Judge : Christ has assumed our nature, and has so assumed all,
in that nature that belongs to him, into such an union with himself, that he is become
their Head, and has taken them to be his members. And, therefore, what Christ has
done in our nature, whereby he did honor to the law and authority of God by his
acts, as well as the reparation to the honor of the law by his sufferings, is reckoned to
the believer's account; so as that the believer should be made happy, because it was
so well and worthily done by his head, as well as freed from being miserable,
because he has suffered for our ill and unworthy doing." a

i Edwards's Works, Vol. V. p. 395.
" lb. Vol. V. pp. 395, 396. See, also, Vol. V. pp. 397-407 ; Vol. HI. pp. 294,
295. 8 lb. Vol. V. pp. 399, 400. Here as elsewhere Edwards limits the word, atone
ment, to the sufferings and death of Christ. A majority of his successors have
used the word, atonement, in this restricted sense. Some, howovor, include the obe:
dience of Christ in his atonement. See Edwardean Theory of the Atonement, pp.
99, 100.

EDWARDEAN THEORY OF THE ATONEMENT.

XXI

7. President Edwards introduces various explanations of his language,
which have suggested to his successors the propriety of a nomenclature
needing fewer explanations.
a. He introduces brief, modifying phrases, which happily illustrate the
tendency of his thoughts, and relieve his bolder statements from the
objections originally suggested by them. Thus he says that " Christ
suffered the wrath of God for men's sins in such a way as he was capable
of." Although he affirms that Christ suffered the punishment of our sins,
he speaks with peculiar frequency of our Lord's agonies as "equivalent,"
" equal in value and weight " to the punishment threatened us. He often
employs the phrase " as it were," and similar qualifying words, to de
note that his original terms are not to be taken in their strict and pre
cise meaning. Thus, with regard to an atonement as mitigating our ill-
desert, he says : —
•' None will deny that some crimes are so horrid, and so deserving of punishment,
that it is requisite that they should not go unpunished, unless something very consid
erable bo done to make up for the crime ; either some answerable repentance, or some
other compensation, that in some measure at least balances the desert of punishment,
and so, as it were, takes it off, or disannuls it : otherwise the desert of punishment
remaining, all will allow, that it is fit and becoming, and to be desired, that the crime
should be severely punished." 1
So he often uses the disjunctive " or" followed by words which ex
plain and modify his original assertion. Thus : —
" That Christ indeed suffered the full punishment of the sin that was imputed to
him, or offered that to God that was fully and completely equivalent to what we owed
to divine justice for our sins, is evident by Psalm 69 : 5."2
" If he [Christ] be a Mediator between God and guilty men, it was necessary that
he should unite himself to them, or assume them as it were to himself. But if he
unites himself to guilty creatures, he of necessity brings their guilt on himself." 8
Christ united himself to all for whom he died ; that is, he assumed

1 Edwards's Works, Miscellaneous Observations, pp. 516, 517. See note, p. xii.
above. 2 lb. p. 548. See note, p. xii. above. s lb. p. 542.

XXII INTRODUCTORY ESSAY.
them as it were to himself; and, therefore, in this sense, he brought
upon himself their deserved exposure to punishment as it were. In the
same manner Christ " did not rise as a private person, but as the head
of the elect church ; so that they did, as it were, all rise with him ; " —
" so that the whole church, as it were, rises in him." 1 In each relation
of the doctrine of atonement, Edwards uses these and similar qualifying
terms ; and unless we combine them with the descriptions which he often
gives of the penal sufferings of our Lord, we shall fail to understand
such vivid portraitures of those sufferings as are given in the following
passage : —
" Christ never so eminently appeared for divine justice, and yet never suffered so
much from divine justice, as when he offered up himself a sacrifice for our sins. In
Christ's great sufferings, did his infinite regard to the honor of God's justice distin-
guishingly appear ; for it was from regard to that that he thus humbled himself. And
yet in these sufferings, Christ was the mark of the vinfuctive expressions of that very
justice of God. Revenging justice then spent all its force upon him, on account of our
guilt ; which made him sweat blood, and cry out upon the cross, and probably rent
his vitals — broke his heart, the fountain of blood, or some other bloodvessels — and
by the violent fermentation turned his blood to water. For the blood and water that
issued out of his side, when pierced by the spear, seems to have been extravasated
blood ; and so there might be a kind of literal fulfilment of Psalm 22 : 14 : 'I am
poured out like water, and all my bones are out of joint : my heart is like wax, it is
melted in the midst of my bowels.' And this was the way and means by which
Christ stood up for the honor of God's justice, viz., by thus suffering its terrible exe
cutions. For when he had undertaken for sinners, and had substituted himself in
their room, divine justice could have its due honor no other way than by his suffer
ing its revenges. — In this the diverse excellences, that met in the person of Christ
appeared, viz., his infinite regard to the God's justice, and such love to those that have
exposed themselves to it, as induced him thus to yield himself a sacrifice to it." 2
b. President Edwards often illustrates the Atonement in a style which
implies that the sufferings which were " transferred " from the trans
gressors to their substitute were penal, only in the general sense, and
were not penal in the strict, precise sense ; i. e., they were not inflicted in
l Edwards's Works, Vol. III. p. 330.
8 lb. Vol. V. pp. 549, 550.

EDWARDEAN THEORY OF THE ATONEMENT. xxiii
the exercise of distributive justice, and for the ultimate purpose of satisfy
ing that justice toward and upon the sufferer. Thus he writes in favor
of the rationality of the atonement : —
" The satisfaction of Christ by hip death is certainly a very rational thing. If any
person that was greatly obliged to me, that was dependent on me, and that I loved,
should exceedingly abuse me, and should go on in an obstinate course of it from one
year to another, notwithstanding all I^could say to him, and all new obligations con
tinually repeated ; though at length he should leave it off, I should not forgive him,
unless upon gospel considerations. But i^ any person that was a much dearer friend
to me, and one that had always been true to me, and constant to the. utmost, and that
was a very near relation of him that offended me, should intercede for him, and, out
of the entire love he had to him, should put himself to very hard labors and difficul
ties, and undergo great pains and miseries to procure him forgiveness ; and the person
that had offended should, with a changed mind, fly to this mediator, and should seek
favor in his name, with a sense in his own mind how much his mediator had done
and suffered for him ; I should be satisfied, and feel myself inclined, "without any
difficulty, to receive him into my entire friendship again ; but not without the last-
mentioned condition that he should be sensible how much his mediator had done and
suffered. For if he was ignorant of it, or thought he had done only some small mat
ter, I should not be easy nor satisfied. So a sense of Christ's sufficiency seems
necessary in faith." 1
The concluding part of this quotation represents the offended party as
not satisfied with the sufferings of the mediator, unless the offending
party comply with a certain condition. Faith must be exercised by the
transgressor, or the person whose law has been transgressed is not
satisfied. Now if the transgressor's punishment has been literally and
fully borne, and if the obedience due from the transgressor has been
literally and fully rendered, by a substitute, the distributive justice of the
lawgiver must be satisfied, without any further condition. That justice
cannot demand more than the complete endurance of the penalty threat
ened, and the complete performance of the duties required. It is
obvious, then, that President Edwards is not here speaking of distributive
justice as satisfied with the literal punishment of a mediator, but of
general justice as satisfied with such sufferings of a mediator as are
i Edwards's Works, Miscellaneous Observations, p. 529.

XX1V INTRODUCTORY ESSAY.
equivalent to the punishment of the transgressors. This is the " Ed
wardean theory."
c. Edwards often gives such definitions of his language, as prove that
he recognizes the distinction between its precise and its general meaning,
and^that he intends sometimes to use his terms not in their stricter, but
in their looser sense. His successors here differed from him : they
aimed, more frequently than he, to employ their terms in the precise
rather than in the general import of them.
1. The President's definition of the word merit, on pp. 532-540
of his Miscellaneous Observations,1 has been an eminently suggestive
one, and indicates the progress of his mind on the whole subject of
the atonement. The word, merit, strictly denotes a moral state. In
regard to the atonement it denotes the state of moral desert
involved in the moral excellence of the Eedeemer's voluntary obe
dience. " He that is a servant," says Edwards, " and that can do no
more than he is bound to do, can not merit." 2 But throughout a length
ened " discourse," the word merit is used by Edwards to signify not a
moral, not a legal state, but a general recommendation, or a general
means of securing favor. If the term punishment may be substituted for
a kind of suffering which the law did not threaten ; if the term reward
may be substituted for a kind of happiness which the law did not
promise ; if the term justice may be substituted for general benevolence;
then of course the term merit may be used to denote a general recom
mendation, or a general means of securing favor. But the writer who
avows that he sometimes uses terms out of their strict signification, should
not be interpreted as if he meant to use them always strictly and precisely.
" By merit in this discourse, I mean any thing whatsoever in any person or being,
or about him or belonging to him, which appearing in the view of another is a
recommendation of him to that other's regard, esteem, or affection. I do not at
present take into consideration, whether that which thus recommends bo real merit,
or something that truly, according to the nature of things, is worthy to induce esteem,
&c. ; but only what actually recommends and appears worthy in the eye of him to
whom it recommends the other ; which is the case of every thing that is actually the
1 See likewiso Vol. V. pp. 425, 365, seq.
2 lb. Vol. VH. p. 69.

EDWARDEAN THEORY OF THE ATONEMENT. XXV
ground of respect or affection in one towards another, whether the ground be real
worth, or only agreement in temper, benefits received, near relation, long acquaint
ance, &c. &c. Whatever it be that is by the respecting person viewed in the person
respected, that actually has influence, and is effectual to recommend to respect, is
merit, or worthiness of respect, or fitness for it in his eyes." i
Accordingly, throughout this "discourse," whenever President Ed
wards speaks of imputing a patron's merit to his client, transferring
merit from the patron to the client, he means that the influence which rec
ommends the patron prevails in recommending the client ;2 the character
and condition and history of an illustrious father are a means of securing
favor of Jiis child ; and when any relative is treated with attention on
account of the wealth, or personal appearance, or honors of an ancestor,
or a descendant, then the riches, beauty, popularity of that ancestor or
descendant, are transferred to the relative, imputed to him ; they are the
merit on the ground of which the relative is treated with attention. It
need not be said, that the successors of Edwards did not object to the
theory of imputation and merit in this comprehensive meaning of the
words ; but as he did not always employ the terms in such a wide accep
tation, and as he therefore fell into apparent self-contradictions, his fol
lowers learned the importance of adhering more uniformly to a restricted
and an exact meaning of technical words.
2. The President gives a remarkable definition of the phrases : Christ
" suffered the punishment of our sins," "bore the wrath of God," &c. He
gives an analysis of the mental pains of our Redeemer, which is of un
surpassed interest. He suggests ideas which, although found in the
writings of the old Calvinists, are nowhere so forcibly and philosophi
cally presented.
First, he represents our Eedeemer as having borne the divine anger,
in the fact that Christ had " a great and clear " sight of the infinite wrath
of God against the sins of men ; and also "a great and clear" sight of
the punishment men had deserved. Christ felt what he saw. He ago
nized under, and so he suffered not his own, but our punishment ; the
wrath of God not against himself but against our sins. He bore our
1 Edwards's Works, Miscellaneous Observations, p. 532.
2 lb. Vol. VH. p. 520.

XXVI INTRODUCTORY ESSAY.
punishment, in distinction from his being punished ; he endured the
divine anger, in distinction from his being the moral agent, the real per
son toward whom God was angry.
" It was requisite that at that time he should have a clear sight of two things,
viz:, of the dreadful evil and odiousness of that sin that he suffered for, that he
might know how much it deserved the punishment ; that it might be real and actual
grace in him, that he undertook and suffered such things for those that were so un
worthy and so hateful ; which it could not be, if he did not know how unworthy they
were. Secondly, It was requisite he should have a clear sight of the dreadfulness of
the punishment that he suffered to deliver them from, otherwise he would not know
how great a benefit he vouchsafed them in redeeming them from this punishment ; and
so it could not be actual grace in him to bestow so great a benefit upon them; as, in
the time that he bestowed, he would not have known how much he bestowed; he
would have acted blindfold in giving sO much. Therefore Christ, doubtless, actually
had a clear view of both those things in the time of his last suffering : every thing in
the circumstances of his last suffering concurred to give him a great and full sight of
theforiner, viz., the evil and hateful nature of the sin of man. For its odious and
malignant nature never appeared so much in its' own proper colors, as it did in that
act of murdering the Sou of God, and in exercising such contempt and cruelty
towards him. Likewise, every thing in the circumstances of his last sufferings tended
to give him a striking view of the dreadful punishment of sin. The sight of the evil
of sin tended to this, and so did the enduring of temporal death, that is a great image
of eternal death, especially under such circumstances, with such extreme pain, God's
hiding his face, his dying a death that by God's appointment was an accursed death,
having a 6ight of the malice and triumph of devils, and being forsaken of his friends,
&c. As God ordered external circumstances to help forward this purpose ; so, there
is all reason to think, that his own influences on Christ's mind were agreeable hereto,
~£ his Spirit acting with his providence to give him a full view of these things. Now,
the clear view of each of these must of necessity be inexpressibly terrible to the man
Christ Jesus. His having so clear an actual view of sin and its hatefulness, was an
idea infinitely disagreeable to the holy nature of Christ ; and therefore, unless bal
anced with an equal sight of good . that comes by this evil, must have been an im
mensely disagreeable sensation in Christ's soul, or, which is the samo thing, immense
suffering. But that equally clear idea of good, to counterbalance the evil of sin, was
not given at that time ; because God forsook Christ, and hid himself from him, and
withheld comfortable influences, or the clear ideas of pleasant objects." 1
" Thus Christ suffered that which the damned in hell do not suffer. For they do
1 Edwards's Works, Miscellaneous Observations, pp. 543, 544.

EDWARDEAN THEORY OF THE ATONEMENT. XXvii
not see the hateful nature of sin. They have no idea of sin in itself, that is infinitely
disagreeable to their nature, as the idea of sin was to Christ's holy nature ; though
conscience in them bo awakened to behold the dreadful guilt and desert of sin. And
as the clear view of sin in its hatefulness necessarily brought great suffering on the
holy soul of Christ ; so also did the view of its punishment. For both the evil of sin
and the evil of punishment are infinite evils, and both infinitely disagreeable to
Christ's nature : the former to his holy nature, or his nature as God ; the latter to his
human nature, or his nature as man. Such is human nature, that a great and clear
and full idea of suffering, without some other pleasant and sweet idea to balance it,
brings suffering ; as appears from the nature of all spiritual ideas. They are repeti
tions (in a degree at least) of the things themselves of which they are ideas. There
fore, if Christ had had 41 perfectly clear and full idea of what the damned suffer in hell,
the suffering he would have had in the mere presence of that idea, would have been
perfectly equal to the thing itself, if there hadbeen no idea in Christ in any degree to
balance it ; such as, some knowledge of the love of God, of a future reward, future
salvation of his elect, &c. But pleasant ideas in this clearness being in a great meas
ure withholden by reason of God's hiding his face ; hence, the awful ideas of eternal
death which his elect people deserved, and of the dismal wrath of God, of consequence
filled the soul of Christ with an inexpressible gloom." 1
Secondly, President Edwards represents Christ as having borne the
wrath of God in the fact that he endured the effects of that wrath, all
that he suffered having been by the special ordering of God. The Father
dealt with the Son " as if" the Father had been exceedingly angry with
the Son, and " as though " Christ had been the object of Jehovah's dread
ful wrath. It was the wrath of God " against our sins," that induced the
Father to subject his beloved Son to th'e influence of evil spirits. "The
prince of this world" "was let loose to torment the soul of Christ with
gloomy and dismal ideas." Therefore these ideas were the effects of
divine wrath. Satan probably did his utmost to contribute to " raise "
Christ's "ideas of the torments of hell." These ideas of the torments
of hell were substituted for the actual torments of bell, but were still
the effects of divine wrath against our sins.2
3. In consonance with the principles laid down in 7, c. 2, above,
although not in a necessary consequence from them, President Edwards
1 Edwards's Works, Miscellaneous Observations, pp. 544, 545.
2 Ibid.

XXVUl INTRODUCTORY ESSAY.
gives a peculiar definition of the phrase : " Christ bare our sins." The
old Calvinists explain it as meaning : " Christ bore the punishment of our
sins ; " " the wrath of God on account of our sins." Edwards admits
this as a general explanation. He says " that the general meaning of
the phrase \to bear sin] is lying under the guilt of sin, having it im
puted and charged upon the person, as obnoxious to the punishment of it,
or obliged to answer and make satisfaction for it; or liable to the calami
ties and miseries to which it exposes." * But, as we have remarked
already, Edwards recognizes the distinction between the general and the
exact meaning of terms, and avows his intention, sometimes, to employ
his terms not in their exact but in their general sense. Sometimes but
not always. The very Treatise which aims to show that, in a general
sense, Christ " bore the divine wrath " in his feeling the hatefulness of
sin, suggests a more particular sense in which Christ's enduring the
divine wrath is contradistinguished from his bearing the hatefulness of
sin. In this more particular sense, Christ bore the divine wrath in the
fact that he had an affecting view of " the dreadfulness of the punish
ment of sin, or the dreadfulness of God's wrath inflicted for it ; " but
Christ bore our sins in the fact that he had an affecting view of their
evil nature, apart from their consequences ; of their intrinsic odiousness,
apart from their penalty. To bear our sins is thus contradistinguished
from bearing the wrath of God on account of them : —
" Thus, Christ bare our sins ; God laid on him the iniquities of us all, and he bare
the burden of them ; and so, his bearing the burden of our sins may be considered as
something diverse from his suffering God's wrath. For his suffering wrath consisted
more in the sense he had of the other thing, viz. the dreadfulness of the punishment
Of sin, or the dreadfulness of God's wrath inflicted for it. Thus, Christ was torment
ed not only in the .fire of God's wrath, but in the fire of our sins ; and our sins were
his tormentors ; the evil and malignant nature of sin, was what Christ endured imme
diately, as well as more remotely, in bearing the consequence of it." 2
d. The President makes prominent distinctions, which have recom
mended to his successors their peculiar nomenclature.

* Edwards's Works, Miscellaneous Observations, p. 531.
2 lb. p. 544.

EDWARDEAN THEORY OF THE ATONEMENT. xxix
1. He makes a prominent distinction between pain suffered in view of
sin for the sake of upholding the authority of law, and pain suffered as
punishment for sin, as the literal execution of the legal threat. He uses
the words misery, suffering, hardship, difficulties, where the more ancient
Calvinists would have used the word penalty. We do not, of course,
deny that he often uses the word "penalty" as denoting the Redeemer's
sufferings, nor that the elder Calvinists often use the words pain and
wretchedness to denote the Redeemer's "punishment." But Edwards
more frequently than they, and in more prominent positions, substitutes
words which do not, for words which do imply that the threatened literal
penalty was exactly borne in making the Atonement. In the very sig
nificant extract already quoted1 we read: "Every thing in the circum
stances of his last sufferings tended to give him a striking view of the
dreadful punishment of sin." The same sharp distinction between the
sufferings endured by Christ, and the punishment for which his sufferings
were substituted, is made in another sentence. " It was requisite he
[Christ] should have a clear sight of the dreadfulness of the punishment
that he suffered to deliver them from ; " not the punishment which Christ
suffered in order to deliver sinners from suffering ; but the punishment
of sinners to deliver them from which Christ bore suffering. A large
part of the pain which Christ endured, was the immediate consequence
of his love for the redeemed ; it was the suffering of sympathy.2 His
agonies were a means of his holiness.
" From what has been said, we may learn how Christ was sanctified in his last suf
ferings. The suffering of his soul in great part consisted in the great and dreadful
sense and idea that ho then had given him of the dreadful, horrid odiousness of sin ;
which was done by the Spirit of God. But this could not be, without a proportionable
increase of his aversion to, and hatred of, sin ; and consequently of his inclination to
the contrary, which is the same thing as an increase of the holiness of his nature. Be
side the immediate sight he had given him of the odious nature of sin, he had that
strong sense, and that great experience of the bitter fruit and consequences of sin, to
confirm his enmity to it. Moreover, he was then in the exercise of his highest act of
obedience or holiness, which, tending to increase the principle, the bringing forth of
such great and abundant fruit, tended to strengthen and increase the root. Those last
1 Page xxvi. above.
" Miscellaneous Observations, pp. 544, 545.
n *

XXX INTRODUCTORY ESSAY.
sufferings of Christ, were in some respect like a fire to refine the gold. For, though
the furnace purged away no dross or filthiness, yet it increased the preciousness of the
gold ; it added to the finite holiness of the human nature of Christ. Hence Christ
calls his offering himself up, his sanctifying himself; John 17 : 19. "And for their
sakes I sanctify myself, that they also may be sanctified through the truth." Hence
he calls those last sufferings a baptism that he was to be baptized with. It was a bap
tism to him in two respects, as it purged him from imputed guilt, and as it increased
r his holiness by the Spirit of God, that gave him those terrible but sanctifying views.
And so this is one way in which the Captain of our salvation is made perfect by suf
ferings ; Heb. 2 : 10, and 5 : 9, and Luke 13 : 32. Thus Christ, before ho was glori
fied, was prepared for that high degree of glory and joy he was to be exalted to, by
being first sanctified in the furnace." •
Now that kind of pain which may be called a purifying baptism, which
is involved in sympathetic holy love, and is, in its designed normal tenden
cy, a means of sanctification to the sufferer, must be intrinsically differ
ent from the strictly penal anguish resulting from and designed to satisfy
the indignation of God toward the beings whom he actually punishes.
2. Accordingly President Edwards distinguishes between both the na
ture and the degree of Christ's pains, and of the pains threatened in the
law. He affirms that our Redeemer did endure what the lost spirits do
not endure, and also that he did not endure what they do endure. The
wicked in hell will suffer the wrath of God against themselves personally.
" But this was impossible in Jesus Christ," " who knew that God was not
angry with him personally, knew that God did not hate him, but infinitely
loved him." 2 On the contrary, the lost spirits have no such idea of sin
in itself as " is infinitely disagreeable to their nature," but this idea of sin
was one principal source of our Redeemer's pain.8
And as Christ did not suffer what the impenitent are condemned to
endure, neither did he suffer so much, nor so long. Although some of
Edwards's remarks imply that our Redeemer endured exactly the same
kind and degree of pain which were threatened in the law, other and more
definite remarks imply that in bearing our sins and their consequences,
he suffered a degree of pain far inferior to their infinite enormity. It is

1 Edwards's Works, Miscellaneous Observations, p. 546.
2 lb. p. 543. » lb. pp. 544, 545.

EDWARDEAN THEORY OF THE ATONEMENT. XXxi
true, we. often read in Edwards's Works, that Christ " comes under the
sinner's obligation to suffer the punishment which man's sin had de
served ; " L and that God " would not abate him [Christ] the least mite
of that debt which justice demanded ; " 2 and " God showed hereby, that
not only heaven and earth should pass away, but, which is more, that the
blood of him who is the eternal Jehovah should be spilt, rather than one
jot or tittle of his word should fail, till all be fulfilled; " s and that "the
immutable truth of God, in the threatenings of his law against the sins
of men, was never so manifested as it is in Jesus Christ ; for there never
was any other so great a trial of the unalterableness of the truth of God
in those threatenings, as when sin came to be imputed to his own Son.
And then in Christ has been seen already an actual complete accomplish
ment of those threatenings, which never has been, nor will be seen in
any other instance ; because the eternity that will be taken up in fulfill
ing those threatenings on others, never will be finished. Christ mani
fested an infinite regard to this truth of God in his sufferings." * But
these general remarks of Edwards must be compared with the more par
ticular statements, that the legal threatenings were fulfilled in the spirit
of them ; so far as the aim, the great design of them is concerned ; they
were fulfilled by a suffering equivalent to the punishment threatened;
they were fulfilled in the sense of a manifestation of their propriety ; and
thus the " strict justice of God, and even his revenging justice, and that
against the sins of men, never was so gloriously manifested as in Christ." 5
For that the sufferings of our Lord were immeasurably less in degree and
duration, as well as in kind, than is the punishment threatened to sinners,
President Edwards teaches in the following passages : —
1. " Christ felt not the gnawings of a guilty, condemning conscience.
2. "He felt no torment from the reigning of inward corruptions and lusts, as the
damned do.
3. " Christ had not to consider that God hated him.
4. " Christ did not suffer despair, as the wicked do in hell.
"But it will be far otherwise with you who are impenitent; if you die in your pres
ent condition, you will he in perfect despair. On these accounts the misery of the

l Edwards's Works, Vol. VII. p. 71. 2 I»- P- 76.
» lb. p. 77. 4 lb. Vol. V. p. 544. £ lb. p. 544.

XXX11 INTRODUCTORY ESSAY.
wicked in hell will be immensely more dreadful, in nature and degree, than those suf
ferings with the fears of which Christ's soul was so much overwhelmed." " Christ's
sufferings lasted but a few hours, and there was an eternal end to them, and eternal
glory succeeded. But you that are a secure, senseless sinner, are every day exposed
to be cast into everlasting misery, a fire that never shall be quenched. If, then, the
Son of God was in such amazement, in the expectation of what he was to suffer for a
few hours, how sottish are you who are continually exposed to sufferings, immensely
more dreadful in nature and degree, and that are to be without any end, but which
must be endured without any rest day or night for ever and ever ! If you had a full
sense of the greatness of that misery to which you are exposed, and how dreadful your
present condition is on that account, it would this moment put you into as dreadful
an agony as that which Christ underwent ; yea, if your nature could endure it, one
much more dreadful. We should now see you fall down in a bloody sweat, wallow
ing in your gore, and crying out in terrible amazement." *
"Let such senseless sinners consider, that that misery, of which they are in danger
from the wrath of God, is infinitely more terrible than , that, the fear of which occa
sioned in Christ his agony and bloody sweat. It is more terrible, both as it differs
both in its nature and degree, and also as it differs in its duration. It is more terrible
in its nature and degree. Christ suffered that which, as it upheld the honor of the
divine law, was fully equivalent to the misery of the damned ; and in some respect it
was the same suffering ; for it was the wrath of the same God ; but yet in other re
spects it vastly differed. The difference does not arise from the difference in the
wrath poured out on one and the other, for it is the same wrath, but from the differ
ence of the subject, which may be best illustrated from Christ's own comparison :
Luke 23 : 31 ; ' For if they do these things in a green tree, what shall be done in the
dry ? ' Here he calls himself the green tree, and wicked men the dry, intimating that
the misery that will come on wicked men will be far more dreadful than those suffer
ings which came on him, and the difference arises from the different nature of the
subject. The green tree and the dry arc both cast into the fire ; but the flames seize
and kindle on the dry tree much more fiercely than on the green. The sufferings
that Christ endured differ from the misery of the wicked in hell, in nature and degree,
in the following respects." 2
3. President Edwards writes on the basis of a distinction between
the statement that Christ was punished, and the statement that the sins
of the elect are punished. His words imply, not that Christ was damned,
precisely as the law had threatened, but that Christ suffered in view of

1 Edwards's Works, Vol. VIII. pp. 176, 177.
2 lb. Vol. VIII. pp. 175, 176.

EDWARDEAN THEORY OF THE ATONEMENT. XXXlii
our damnation ; not that Christ endured the wrath of God against him
self, but the wrath of God against our sins ; not that our Redeemer was
conscious of our remorse, but he bore our remorse in the sense of being
in anguish on account of it, afflicted in sympathy with it ; not that he
remembered his own guilt, but he bore our remembrance of our guilt ;
not that the elect have been literally punished, but their sins have been
punished, in the sense that God has expressed his indignation against
.these sins, and Christ has agonized in view of that indignation, and in
view of the sins, and so has borne both it and them. Our blessed Lord
so loved his elect friends, that he suffered in the thought of God's dis
tributive justice toward them, as if, as though that justice was armed
against Christ himself, for it was against those whom he loved as parts
of himself Now either the elect are punished themselves, precisely as
the law threatens them ; or Christ was punished, damned, precisely as
the law had threatened damnation ; or the sins of the elect are pun
ished in the sense of God's expressing toward those sins the feelings
manifested in his law. To punish sin, without punishing the sinner, is to
punish in a general, but not in the precise sense of that term. President
Edwards often speaks of sin as being punished, when the sinner is not
punished. " And when Christ says, ' O God, thou knowest my foolishness, and my guiltiness
is not hid from thee ; ' thereby must be meant, that God did not forgive that which
was imputed to mm, but punished it. When God forgives sin, and does not execute
punishment for it, then he is said not to behold iniquity, nor see perverseness ; and to
cover, and hide, and bury their sins, so that they cannot be seen or found ; and to
turn away his face from beholding them, and not to remember them any more. But
when God does not remit sin, but punishes it, then, in the language of the Old Testa
ment, he is said to find out their sins, to set them before him in the light of his coun
tenance, to remember them, to bring them to remembrance, and to know them. And
therefore, when it is said here, ' O God, thou hast known my foolishness, and my
guiltiness hast thou not hid ; ' thereby is intended, that he forgives nothing to the
Messiah, but beholds all his guiltiness by imputed sin, has set all in the light of his
countenance, and does not cover or hide the least part of it." *
The " successors " of Edwards contended the more strenuously against
1 Edwards's Works, Miscellaneous Observations, p. 549.

XXX1V INTRODUCTORY ESSAY.
this distinction between punishing persons, and punishing sins, because
the Universalists founded one of their arguments upon it ; and contended
that, at the day of judgment, "the sins.of men shall be separated from
their persons, and their persons shall be saved, whilst their sins and the
father of them, the devil, shall be destroyed. This our Lord teacheth in
the parable of the tares, and the apostle Paul acknowledges to be true,
when he says, speaking of his own evil conduct, ' It is no more I that do
it, but sin that dwelleth in me.' "
4. Edwards recognizes a distinction between the pain of Christ and
his humiliation, but regards both the suffering and the abasement as con
stituting Christ's satisfaction for sin, as involved in the penalty of the
law. "Whatever in Christ had the nature of satisfaction, was by virtue of the suffering or
humiliation that was in it ; but whatever had the nature of merit, was by virtue of the
obedience or righteousness there was in it. The satisfaction of Christ consists in his
answering the demands of the law on man, which were consequent on the breach of the
law. These were answered by suffering the penalty of the law. The merit of Christ
consists in what he did to answer the demands, which were prior to man's breach of
the law, or to fulfil what the law demanded before man sinned, which was obedience.
" The satisfaction or propitiation of Christ consists either in his suffering evil, or his
being subject to abasement. Christ did not only make satisfaction by proper suffering,
but by whatever had the nature of humiliation, and abasement of circumstances.
Thus he made satisfaction by continuing under the power of death, while he lay
buried in the grave ; though neither his body nor soul properly endured any suffering
after he was dead. Whatever Christ was subject to, — that was the judicial fruit of sin,
had the nature of satisfaction for sin. But not only proper suffering, but all abase
ment and depression of the state and circumstances of mankind below its primitive
honor and dignity, such as his body remaining under death, his body and soul re
maining separate, &c, are the judicial fruits of sin." '
This is one of Edwards's profound and suggestive comments. He
could not more fully indicate the importance of rectifying that termin
ology which represents Christ as being punished on account of our sins.
For, with this meaning of terms, Christ was undergoing the penalty of
the law while his body and soul were free from all pain. He had

1 Edwards's Works, Vol. III. pp. 295, 296. See also p. 312.

EDWARDEAN THEORY OF THE ATONEMENT. XXXV
promised to the penitent thief: " To-day shalt thou be with me in Para
dise ; " and this cheering promise was not congruous with the idea that
Christ through that entire day, would remain under the penalty of God's
moral law. For, at the best, this penalty is terrible. The being who
endures it, is not in a moral Paradise. President Edwards, in his com
ment on our Lord's promise to the expiring thief, quotes the expres
sion of Doddridge : " The word Paradise originally signified a garden of
pleasure, such as those in which the eastern monarchs made their mag
nificent banquets." Doddridge also speaks of this Paradise as " the
abode of happy spirits when separate from the body," " sharing the
entertainments of that garden of God," &c. President Edwards does
not interpret 1 Peter 3 : 19, as denoting that the soul of Christ
descended from the cross to a prison-house ; but he agrees with Beza,
Doddridge, and others in supposing that this passage refers to Christ's
influence by his Spirit upon the disobedient, in the days of Noah. Ed
wards's comment on 1 Peter 3 : 19 is : " By the same Spirit by which
Christ himself was quickened, he strove with the men of the old world
to bring them to a spiritual resurrection, or to live according to God, as
in verse 6 of the next chapter." In his comment on Matthew 27 : 51,
Edwards says : " That day that Christ died was the Great day of atone
ment, typified by the day of atonement of old, when the high-priest
entered into the Holy of holies. Christ, as God-man, could enter into
heaven no other way than by rending this veil. Christ offered his sacrifice.
in the outward court, in this world, and then, in the conclusion of it, rent
the veil, that his blood might be sprinkled within the veil." Many other
remarks of Edwards prove that he regarded the Redeemer as entering
heaven immediately after the cry : " It is finished." But, according to
the phraseology of Edwards, it is the fact, that, while in heaven, Christ was
reaping the judicial fruit of sin, satisfying the vindictive justice of God,
receiving the expression of the anger of God, and yet neither his body
nor soul properly endured any suffering! This explanation of the Presi
dent could not fail to remind his " successors " of the evils resulting from
so vague a nomenclature. Therefore they did not allow, that any being
in heaven can be undergoing a literal punishment, that there can be any
literal penalty of the law without suffering, that any part of the atone-

XXXVI INTRODUCTORY ESSAY.
ment consisted in Christ's literally satisfying the demands of the law for
our punishment, while he was in Paradise.
5. Edwards recognized the distinction between the statement, that God
in justifying sinners " treats them as if. they were righteous," and the
statement that he " regards them as righteous ; " and Edwards believed
that both of these assertions are true, and both are involved in the com
prehensive statement of the doctrine of justification. To pronounce a
judgment that men are sinless, is one thing ; to judge inwardly that they
are sinless, is another thing. According to Edwards, all God's judg
ments are agreeable to the truth ; if he openly pronounces judgment in
our favor, he inwardly judges in our favor ; if he exhibits regard, he feels
regard; if he treats men a* though he approves them, he does approve
them ; when he imputes perfect obedience to believers, it is not their own
original and personal obedience, but, through grace, it is an obedience
really belonging to them ; when " the righteousness of Christ is accepted
for us and' admitted, instead of that perfect inherent righteousness which
ought to be in ourselves," it is accepted as the ground of our being in
wardly thought to be righteous, not less than the ground of our being
outwardly treated as righteous ; and when " Christ's perfect obedience
shall be reckoned to our account, so that we shall have the benefit of it
as though we had performed it ourselves," we shall have the benefit of it
in the internal regard of the Most High, not less than in his external
manifestation of that regard. Christ is both treated as righteous, and
also regarded as righteous ; so believers, when they are justified, are both
treated and regarded as Christ is, for ihej^parpicipate in his justification.
"A person is to be justified, when he is approved of God as free from the guilt of
sin and its deserved punishment, and as having that righteousness belonging to him
that entitles to the reward of life." l
" The justification of a believer is no other than his being admitted to communion
in the justification of [Christ] this head and surety of all believers; " — "our second
surety (in whose justification all whose surety he is, arc virtually justified)." a
"If a person should be justified without a righteousness, the judgment would not

i Edwards's Works, Vol. V. p. 354.
a lb. Vol. V. pp. 354, 355.

EDWARDEAN THEORY OF THE ATONEMENT. XXXvij
be according to truth. The sentence of justification would be a false sentence, unless
there be a righteousness performed, that is by the judge properly looked upon as
his." 1
" The law is the judge's rule : if he pardons and hides what really is, and so does
not pass sentence according to what things are in themselves, he either does not act
the part of a judge, or else judges falsely." 2
" So that our Judge cannot justify us, unless he sees a perfect righteousness, some
way belonging to us, either performed by ourselves, or by another, and justly and
duly reckoned to our account." 8
" To be justified, is to be approved of and accepted : But a man may be said to be.
approved and accepted in two respects ; the one is to be approved really, and the
other is to be approved and accepted declaratively. Justification is two-fold ; it is
either the acceptance and approbation of the judge itself, or the manifestation of that
approbation, by a sentence or judgment declared by the judge, either to our own con
sciences, or to the world. If justification be understood in the former sense, for the
approbation itself, that is only* that by which we become fit to be approved ; But if
it be understood in the latter sense, for the manifestation of this approbation, it is by
whatever is a proper evidence of that fitness. In the former, only faith is concerned ;
because it is by that only in us that we become fit to be accepted and approved : In
the latter, whatever is an evidence of our fitness, is alike concerned. And, therefore,
take justification in this sense, and then faith, and all other graces and good works,
have a common and equal concern in it : For any other grace, or holy act, is equally
an evidence of a qualification for acceptance or approbation, as faith.
" To justify has always, in common speech,, signified indifferently, either simple ap
probation, or testifying that approbation ; sometimes one, and sometimes the other ;
because they are both the same, only as one is outwardly what the other is inwardly.
So we, and it may be all nations, are wont to give the same names to two things, when
one is only declarative of the other. Thus, sometimes, judging intends only judging
in our thoughts; at other times, testifying and declaring judgment. So such words
as justify, condemn, accept, reject, prize, slight, approve, renounce, are sometimes
put for mental acts, at other times, for an outward treatment. So in the sense in
which the apostle James seems to use the word justify, for manifestative justification,
a man is justified not only by faith, but also by works; as a tree is manifested to be
good, not only by immediately examining the tree, but also by the fruit." 6

1 Edwards's Works, Vol. V. p. 397. " lb. Vol. V. p. 398.
» lb. Vol. V. p. 399.
* Is not the word by accidentally omitted here t Does not the author mean : Just
ification is only by that by which we become fit to be approved? See the following
sentence. 6 Edwards's Works, Vol. V. p. 441. D

XXXVU1 INTRODUCTORY ESSAY.
?
Some divines have affirmed that in the passages just quoted Edwards,
often inconsistent with himself, contradicts what he has taught in other
passages. Other divines have supposed, that here is no real, but only
a seeming contradiction ; that Edwards at one time employs his language
in its precise, and at another time in its loose acceptation. Thus, in a
general sense, believing sinners have merit ; 1 in that sense God inwardly
approves of them, and outwardly treats them as approved. In a
general sense they are one with Christ ; in that sense, his righteousness
is theirs, belongs to them, therefore may be justly imputed to them, of
course they may be justly treated as possessing it. In a general sense
Christ has been punished for them, and they deserve no more punish
ment ; Christ has done their duty for them, and they in him have fulfilled
the law : in that sense, God regards them as righteous, and consequently
treats them so, — and in his thus regarding them, he judges '•' according
to truth," and in his thus treating them, he treats them justly.3 When,
however, all these words are used in their restricted, and not in their
general sense, President Edwards refers the phenomena denoted by them
to the sovereignty of God.8
The fact that this profound author so often used language in its looser
sense, and then exchanged the vague for the exact terminology, has
tempted opposing parties of theologians to claim him as their champion ;
and, as it has introduced apparent inconsistencies into his writings, it has
led his " successors " to confine themselves, more than he did, to a pre
cise nomenclature.
8. President Edwards gave a previously unwonted prominence to the
element of love in the atonement. The preceding extracts suggest this
fact. His theory of virtue would incline us to anticipate it. His length
ened discourse on the merit of the patron, and the union of the client
with the patron, is a remarkable illustration of the prominence of love in
originating, planning, and accepting the vicarious offering of Christ.'
He not only represents love as the first motive prompting our Redeemer
to undertake his mission, but he also represents a sympathetic love as

1 See above, I. 7. c. 1. p. xxiv. * lb. I. 6. p. xix. 8 lb. I. 1. p. xii.
4 Edwards's Works, Miscellaneous Observations, pp. 532-541.

EDWARDEAN THEORY OF THE ATONEMENT. XXXIX
one principal means of the Redeemer's suffering, after he had under
taken the work of redeeming us. The following remarkable passage
illustrates the prominence which Edwards gives to the element of love
in the atonement, and also the peculiar sense in which Christ bore our
punishment. " Christ's groat love and pity to the elect (that his offering up himself on the cross
was the greatest act and fruit of, and consequently which he was then in the highest
exercise of ) was one source of his suffering. A strong exercise of love excites a
lively idea of the object beloved. And a strong exercise of pity excites a lively idea
of the misery under which he pities them. Christ's love then brought his elect infi
nitely near to him in that great act and suffering wherein he especially stood for
them, and was substituted in their stead : and his love and pity fixed the idea of them
in his mind, as if he had really been they ; and fixed their calamity in his mind, as
though it really was his. A very strong and lively love and pity towards the miser
able, tends to make their case ours ; as in other respects, so in this in particular, as it
doth in our idea place us in their stead, under their misery, with a most lively, feeling
sense of that misery, as it were feeling it for them, actually suffering it in their stead
by strong sympathy."1
" It was the lively exercise of love and pity to those that the Father had given
him, that was one thing that occasioned so lively a view of the punishment they had
exposed themselves to, whereby his soul was filled with a dismal sense, and so he suf
fered. But this lively love and pity at the same time engaged him to suffer for them,
to deliver them from their deserved punishment that he had an idea of. And as pity
towards his elect excited a lively idea of their misery ; so, on the other hand, the in
crease of his idea of their misery excited strong exercises of pity, and this pity en
gaged him still to endure those sufferings in their stead." 2
II. The second name on the list of those who have directly or indi
rectly, with or without an aim to do so, suggested the Edwardean theory
of the Atonement, is Joseph Bellamy, the pupil and friend of the elder
Edwards, the theological teacher of the younger Edwards and of Smalley.
Like the elder Edwards, he sanctioned, in the main, both the views and
the phrases of the Old Calvinists. He repeatedly declares that God
must, and that he " does always, throughout all his dominions, not only
in word threaten, but in fact punish it [sin] with infinite severity, with
out the least mitigation, or abatement in any one instance whatever." 8
l Edwards's Works, Miscellaneous Observations, p. 5 lb. p. 546.
8 Bellamy's Works, Vol. I. pp. 262, 263.

xl INTRODUCTORY ESSAY.
For other expressions favoring the Ancient Calvinism, see Vol. I. pp.
273, 274, 284, 313 ; Vol. II. pp. 284, 288, &c. of Bellamy's works.
Still, this bold writer develops certain relations of the Old theory
which decidedly recommend the New. Thus on the ancient Calvinistic
ground, the Atonement ought to be described as originating partly from
the distributive justice of God ; and in agreement with this, Dr. Bellamy
says that God's " inclination to punish sin according to its desert, induced
him to give his Son to die in our stead." * This forcible reasoner also
introduces a class of ideas which are the germs of the Consistent Cal
vinism developed soon after he published his treatises. Thus he insists, in
opposition to many ancient Calvinists, that "justifying faith is a holy act,"
not " a thing in which the mind is merely passive." 2 He gives a peculiar
interpretation of Rom. 4:5; an interpretation eminently suggestive,
although different from that of the Old, and that of the Modern Calvinists.
He interprets the words, " Faith is counted for righteousness " as de
noting, not that faith is imputed as perfect obedience to the moral law, but
as a full compliance with the conditions of the Gospel.8 Let us now
consider, more at length, certain particulars in which Dr. Bellamy either
presses the Old Calvinism so far as to recommend the New by contrast,
or else deviates from the Old Calvinism and suggests the germinal prin
ciples of the New.
1. This fervid reasoner sometimes pours forth his thoughts in such
language, as at first view makes an impression that God himself " under
took " to do all that was required of man, and that God obeyed the law
" under the penalty that lay upon man to have undergone." We do not
so much as presume that Bellamy received into his creed the definite
proposition, that when Christ rendered the moral obedience which was
not obligatory upon himj he did it as God; we only assert that this
writer's glowing words intimate such a proposition. He not only teaches
the truth, that every created agent is under obligation to do whatever
God requires of him, and no created agent has a right to do what God
does not require of him ; 4 but he often says of Christ, "As he was God,
he was under no obligations, on his own account, to obey a law made for

l Bellamy's Works, Vol. LI. p. 343. a lb. Vol. I. pp. 406, 408 ; Vol. II. p. 385.
8 lb. Vol. I. p. 357. * lb. p. 484.

EDWARDEAN THEORY OF THE ATONEMENT. xii
a creature ; " " he was originally unobliged to do a creature's duty, being
by nature God ; " and " a God lays aside his glory, appears in the form
of a servant, and becomes obedient ; and so, in the creature's stead and
behalf, pays that honor to the Governor of the world which was the
creature's duty." x We read :
" On the one hand, were any in all God's dominions tempted to think that the great
Governor of the world had dealt too severely with man, in suspending his everlasting
welfare upon the condition of perfect obedience ? God practically answers, and says,
'I did as well by mankind as I should desire to have been done by myself, had I been
in their case, and they in mine; for when my Son, who is as myself, came to stand in
their stead, I required the same condition of him.' And what the Father says, the
Son confirms : he practically owns the law to be holy, just, and good, and the debt to
be due, and pays it most willingly to the last mite, without any objection; which was
as if he had said, ' There was all the reason in the world that the everlasting welfare
of mankind should be suspended on that condition ; nor could I have desired it to
have been otherwise, had I myself been in their case.' On the other hand, were any
tempted to think that God had been too severe in threatening everlasting damnation
for sin ? Here this point is also cleared up. God the Father practically says, that he
did as he would -have been done by, had he been in their case, and they in his ; for
when his Son, his second self, comes to stand in their place, he abates nothing, but
appears as great an enemy to sin, in his conduct, as if he had damned the whole world.
His Son also owns the sentence just ; he takes the cup and drinks it off. Considering
the infinite dignity of his person, his sufferings were equivalent to the eternal damna
tion of such worms as we." s
Now at first thought the argument suggested by all this language
is the following : Christ, as a man, was under obligation to obey, the law
for himself. He could not as a man do more than his duty. But he
did more than his duty. He did our whole duty for us. He performed
acts of obedience which answered all the preceptive demands which the
law can make upon us. He satisfied all these preceptive demands. He
performed our obedience so that it need not be performed over again by
ourselves. All the good deeds which can ever be required of us, have
been done for us by him. His performance of our duties was designed
to be, and may rightly be given over, paid over, transferred, imputed to
US. But he owed perfect obedience to the law for himself as a man ;
i Bellamy's Works, Vol. I. pp. 280, 281, 283, 437, 438.
2 lb. Vol. I. pp. 259, 285.
D *

Xlii INTRODUCTORY ESSAY.
therefore, he must, as God, have rendered this obedience which was not
required of him.
The advocates of the Edwardean theory of the atonement, did not
regard this as a valid argument. They did not regard Dr. Bellamy as
really intending to teach that the divine nature of Christ assumed all the
relations and responsibilities of a subject to the law of Mount Sinai.
Still, the language of Bellamy was instructive to them. It led them to
a minute investigation of his meaning, and a cautious criticism of his
language. He was wont to employ startling phrases. He speaks of the
"death of an incarnate God." "But if, indeed, he was the God that
created the universe ; — oh how awful and solemn the thought ! ' — if,
indeed, he was the God that created the universe, who hung incarnate on
the cross," &c. &c. " The Creator of the universe on the cross ; dying
as a propitiatory sacrifice for sin ; offering up himself tp his Father
as a sacrifice of atonement for the sins of the world," * &c. &c. By
these eloquent words, the impassioned orator probably meant, that
the divine nature of our Lord added an infinite dignity to his human
decease. So he probably meant that Christ's divine nature added an
unlimited glory to his human obedience. But the force of Bellamy's
argument is, that the obedience of the God-man cannot be efficacious,
unless it be an obedience which the God-man is under no obligation to
render. Now the man is under obligation to render perfect obedience
to the law ; therefore the atoning, and the free, unrequired obedience
must be that of the God. The successors of Edwards and Bellamy
endeavored to avoid both the substance and the form of such an argu
ment, and zealously contended that the atonement did not consist in any
supererogatory active obedience transferred from Christ to his elect.
2. Dr. Bellamy often shrinks from the logical results of the old Cal-
vinistic theory of the atonement. Often, not always. If our blessed
Lord has literally performed for us our whole duty, and has thus satis
fied all the preceptive demands which the law can make upon us ; if he
has, in the same literal sense, endured the whole punishment which was
ever threatened against us, and has thus satisfied all the penal demands
of the law, it logically follows that God is bound, by distributive justice,
» Bellamy's Works, Vol. I. pp. 438, 440 ; Vol. II. pp. 316, 319.

EDWARDEAN THEORY OF THE ATONEMENT. xliii
to save all for whom Christ died ; their salvation can be claimed as a
right on the ground of strict justice to their Surety, and to themselves as
united with Him. They, as related to Christ, have borne their punish
ment already, and of course cannot be justly condemned to bear it the
second time ; and also, as related to Christ, they have perfectly obeyed
the law, and of course cannot be justly required to obey it the second
time, and thus, in their relation to Christ, their obedience merits a reward
from distributive justice. Many of the Old Calvinists have taught that
Christ's passive obedience is imputed to us in order that we may have a
" legal security " from eternal death, and Christ's active obedience is
imputed to us in order that we may have a " legal title " to eternal life.
Now, we do not deny, but concede, that Dr. Bellamy here and there
drops a remark implying that in consequence of Christ's active obe
dience God is legally obligated to admit us into heaven, and in conse
quence of Christ's sufferings and death God is legally obligated to rescue
us from hell; but we maintain that in general Dr. Bellamy shrinks from .
these results of his theory, and is careful to represent the atonement not
as obligating God in justice to save us, but as " opening a door for him
to save us," "removing a bar to our salvation," "making it consistent
for God to save us," " taking all obstacles out of the way of our salva
tion." He repeats these and similar phrases so often, gives them such a
prominence, that he may be considered as one of the foremost men in
recommending . to New England theologians their favorite method of
defining the atonement.1 Thus he says: —
" Moreover, by all this [the fact of Christ's obeying the law for us, and suffering its
penalty for us] , a way is opened for the free and honorable exercise of mercy and grace
towards a sinful, guilty world. It may be done consistently with the honor of God,
of his holiness and justice, his law and government, his truth and sacred authority ;
for the honor of all these is effectually secured." 2
" Jesus Christ did, by his obedience and death, open such a door of mercy, as that
the Supreme Governor of the world might, consistently with his honor, take what
l We discover similar methods of speech among the elder divines, particularly
in Calvin and the elder Edwards. See Edwards's Miscellaneous Observations, p.
550. 5 Bellamy's Works, Vol. I. p. 286.

xliV INTRODUCTORY ESSAY.
methods he pleased, in order to recover rebellious, guilty, stubborn sinners to him
self."! " Now that what Christ has done and suffered was sufficient to open a way for the
honorable exercise of his sovereign grace, in recovering sinners to himself, is evident
from what has been heretofore observed. And that it was designed for this end, and
has, in fact, effectually answered it, is plain from God's conduct in the affair ; for oth
erwise he could not, consistently with his honor, or the honor of his law, use those
means to reclaim sinners which he actually does." 2
" The next and immediate end of Christ's death was to answer the ends of moral
government, and so secure the honor of the moral Governor, and open a way in which
he might honorably declare himself reconcilable to a guilty world upon their returning
through Christ, and use means to reclaim them ; but this end Christ did obtain ; and
so did not die in vain. (John 3: 16. Romans 3 : 24-26.) "3
" Thus we see what necessity there was of satisfaction for sin, and that the demands
of the law should be answered. And thus we see what has been done for these pur
poses, and its sufficiency to answer all the ends proposed. The Mediator was of suf
ficient dignity, as to his person ; he had sufficient authority, as to his office ; and he
has faithfully done his work. And now the honor of God's holiness and justice, law
and government, and sacred authority, is secured ; and a way is opened in which he
may honorably put his designs of mercy into execution, and sinners safely return unto
him."4 " The death of Christ was not designed, at all, to take away the evil nature of sin,
or its ill deserts ; for sin is unalterably what it is, and cannot be made a less evil. But
the death of Christ was rather, on the contrary, to acknowledge and manifest the evil
nature and ill desert of sin, to the end that pardoning mercy might not make it seem
to be a less evil than it really is. So that, although God may freely pardon all our
sins, and entitle us to eternal life for Christ's sake, yet he does look upon us, consid
ered merely as in ourselves, to be as much to blame as ever, and to deserve hell as
much as ever ; and therefore we are always to look upon ourselves so too." 5
" It was not, therefore, because the goodness of the divine nature needed any mo
tive to draw it forth into exercise, that Jesus Christ obeyed, and died in our room ;
but it was to answer the ends of moral government, and to secure the honor of tho
moral Governor ; and so open a way for the honorable exercise of the divine goodness,
which, in its own nature, is infinite, free, and self-moving, and wants no motive from
without to draw it forth into action." 6
" In general, from what has been said, we may see that the mighty bar which lay in
the way of mercy is removed by Jesus Christ ; and now a door is opened, and a way

i Bellamy's Works, Vol. I. p. 299. 2 Ibid.
8 lb. Vol. I. p. 302. 4 lb. Vol. I. p. 286.
6 lb. Vol. I. p. 289. « lb. Vol. I. p. 290.

EDWARDE4.N THEORY OF THE ATONEMENT. xlv
provided, wherein the great Governor of the world may, consistently with the honor
of his holiness and justice, his law and government, and sacred authority, and to the
glory of his grace, put in execution all his designs of mercy towards a sinful, guilty,
undone world." 1
" For as the mediation of Christ was designed to secure the divine honor, and open
a way for the exercise of divine grace to the glory of God the Eather, and as he hath
finished the work appointed him to do ; so through him God can consistently with
his honor, call and invite a guilty world to return and be reconciled, and can stand
ready to pardon and receive to favor, and give eternal life to all that come to him in
Christ's name." 2
Similar explanations of the atonement are found in Bellamy's Works,
Vol. I. pp. 249, 257, 267, 270, 274, 276, 284, 290, 291, 293, 294, 297,
300, 301, 356, &c. ; also in Vol. II. pp. 316, 326, 331, 339.
3. Dr. Bellamy gives especial prominence to the doctrine of General
Atonement. This remark might have been included under the preceding
head ; but it merits a distinct place. If Christ literally obeyed the law
for those whom he died to save ; if he literally endured the whole pen
alty of their sin, then it would be unjust to require of them a second
obedience when ofle had been fully rendered ; and to threaten against
them a second punishment when one had been completely borne ; then
all men for whom he died will be saved. But all men will not be saved.
None but the elect will be saved. Then Christ died for the elect only.
Thus the doctrine of Limited Atonement is a necessary result from
the doctrine that Christ literally satisfied the demands of the law and
of distributive justice. But Dr. Bellamy teaches that the doctrine of
Limited Atonement is false. He thus undermines the whole theory of
Christ's literal punishment, and supererogatory obedience. He not only
affirms that " the great God, instead of executing the sentence of the law
in all its severity upon a guilty world, does, through the mediation of Jesus
Christ, grant to mankind in general these [i. e. all their] common fa
vors," 3 but he also affirms : —
" What Christ has done, is, in fact, sufficient to open a door for God, through him,
to become reconcilable to the whole world. The sufferings of Christ, all things con-
l Bellamy's Works, Vol. I. p. 292. * lb. Vol. H. p. 327.
" lb. Vol. I. pp. 311-317.

Xlvi INTRODUCTORY ESSAY.
sidered, have as much displayed God's hatred to sin, and as much secured the honor
of his law, as if the whole world had been damned ; as none will deny, who believe
the infinite dignity of his divine nature. God may now, therefore, through Jesus
Christ, stand ready to pardon the whole world. There is nothing in the way. And
the obedience of Christ has brought as much honor to God, and to his law, as the per
fect obedience of Adam, and of all his race, would have done ; the rights of the God
head are as much asserted and maintained. So that there is nothing in the way, but
that mankind may, through Christ, be received into full favor, and entitled to eternal
life. God may stand ready to do it, consistently with his honor. What Christ has
done is every way sufficient. ' All things are now ready.' " 1
The Old Calvinism teaches that although Christ's atonement be suf
ficient for all men, yet it was designed for the elect merely. Although
it be great enough for all men, yet it was intended for only a part of
them. But this dogma is denied by Dr. Bellamy again and again in ex
press terms : —
" And God has expressly declared that it was the design of Christ's death to open
this door of mercy to all." 2
" And, indeed, was not the door of mercy opened to all, indefinitely, how could God
sincerely offer mercy to all 1 Or heartily invite all 7 Or justly blame those who do
not accept 1 Or righteously punish them for neglecting so great salvation ?
" Besides, if Christ died merely for the elect, that is, to the intent that they, only
upon believing, might, consistently with the divine honor, be received to favor, then
God could not, consistently with his justice, save any besides, if they should believe.
' For without shedding of blood, there can be no remission.' If Christ did not design,
by his death, to open a door for all to be saved conditionally, that is, upon the condi
tion of faith, then there is no such door opened : the door is not opened wider than
Christ designed it should be ; there is nothing more purchased by his death than ho
intended : if this benefit was not intended, then it is not procured ; if it be not pro
cured, then the non-elect cannot any of them be saved, consistently with divino justice.
And, by consequence, if this be the case, then, first, the non-elect have no right at all
to take any, tho least encouragement, from the death of Christ, or the invitations of
the gospel, to return to God through Christ, in hopes of acceptance ; for there are no
grounds of encouragement given. Christ did not dio for them in any sense. It is
impossible their sins should be pardoned consistently with justice ; as much impossi
ble as if there had never been a Saviour : as if Christ had never died ; and so there is
no encouragement at all for them ; and therefore it would be presumption in them to
take any ; all which is apparently contrary to the whole tenor of the gospel, which
i Bellamy's Works, Vol. I. p. 292. 2 Ibid.

EDWARDEAN THEORY OF THE ATONEMENT. xlvii
everywhere invites all, and gives equal encouragement to all. ' Come, for all things
are ready,' said Christ to the reprobate Jews. And if the non-elect have no right to
take any encouragement from the death of Christ, and the invitations of the gospel, to
return to God through him, in hopes of acceptance, then, secondly, no man at all can
rationally take any encouragement until he knows that he is elected ; because, until 1
then, he cannot know that there is any ground for encouragement." 1
" But God never designed to bring the non-elect to glory, when he gave his Son to
die for the world. He designed to declare himself reconcilable to them through
Christ ; to offer mercy ; to invite them, in common with others, to return ; and to as
sure all that he that believeth shall be saved ; and to use means with them more or less,
according to his pleasure ; but finally, they being obstinate, he designed to leave them
to themselves, to take their own course, and, in the end, to deal with them according
to their deserts." (Matt. 23: 37, 38, and 22 : 1-7.) 2
It is important to remember, that the preceding quotations are made
from Bellamy's "True Religion Delineated," and that this, his most
elaborate Treatise, was carefully examined in manuscript by President
Edwards, and was published with a Preface from Edwards, recommend
ing the Treatise in exalted terms. Edwards has been commonly sup--
posed (not without reason, as may be seen in his Works, Vol. III. p. 173,
and Vol. VIII. p. 172) to have favored the doctrine of Limited Atone
ment. But he may have regarded that doctrine as not sufficiently im
portant to require of him any notice in his recommendation of Bellamy's
Treatise, or he may have changed his opinion in regard to it, or he may
never have intended to represent it as a doctrine which he deliberately
and fully believed. In fact, while some of his remarks oppose, others
favor the doctrine of the General Atonement.
4. Dr. Bellamy gives especial prominence to the Sovereignty of God
in the application of the atonement, and here he recommends one part,
which in its logical results involves the whole, of the Edwardean scheme.
He often recognizes, as in Vol. I. p. 264, the distinction between God
" as a sovereign, and God as a righteous Governor." If all men literally
sinned in Adam, if his crime be justly imputed to all men, then the evils
to which they are subject from the first moment of their earthly existence
are not the immediate result of Divine Sovereignty, but of Divine Jus
tice. So, if all the punishment which the law threatens to the elect, has
l Bellamy's Works, Vol. I. pp. 294, 295. 2 lb. Vol. I. p. 307.

xlviii INTRODUCTORY ESSAY.
been endured for them, and thus the penal demands of the law are satis
fied ; and if all the obedience which the law requires of the elect has
been performed for them, and thus the preceptive part of the law is sat
isfied ; if Christ has " done the whole duty " of the elect, done it in their
stead, for their sake, and with the design of securing their salvation, then
he so deserves to be rewarded with their salvation, that he may demand
this reward from distributive justice ; and a refusal to give him this re
ward, to regenerate and save the elect whom he has purchased, would be
radically and primarily unjust. Accordingly the elect are and must be
saved not on the ground of present sovereignty, but on the ground of
strict distributive justice, justice to Christ, if not to the elect as related
to Christ. God was a sovereign in originally electing them and in pro
viding an atonement for them ; but after their punishment was suffered
and their obedience fully performed, God is not a sovereign in remitting
the debt so amply paid, nor in bestowing a reward so fairly earned. In
decreeing that an atonement be made for the elect, he was fulfilling his
sovereign pleasure toward them, but in applying the atonement to the
elect, he is fulfilling the demands of distributive justice to Christ, if not
to the elect as related to Christ, We do not say that this always is the
reasoning of the Ancient Calvinists, but it always ought to be. Dr. Bel
lamy, however, teaches that God not only was, but is " at perfect liberty
to have mercy on whom he will, according to his sovereign pleasure." 1
God " offers salvation to all, and uses arguments to dissuade them from perdition.
But, inasmuch as mankind will not hearken, but are obstinately set in their way,
therefore he takes state upon himself, and says, ' I will have mercy on whom I will
have mercy ; ' and a sinful, guilty world are in his hands, and he may use what meth
ods of grace with all, that he pleases. Some he may suffer to take their own way, and
run their own ruin, if he pleases ; and others he may subdue and recover to himself,
by his own all-conquering grace." 2
" Thus Christ's merits are sufficient for all the world, and the door of mercy is
opened wido enough for all the world ; and God, the supremo Governor, has pro
claimed himself reconcilable to all the world, if they will believe and repent. And if
they will not believe and repent, he is at liberty to have mercy on whom he will have
mercy, and to show compassion to whom he will show compassion; according to the
good pleasure of his will, to the praise of the glory of his grace. He sits sovereign,
i Bellamy's Works, Vol. I. p. 359. 2 lb. Vol. I. p. 300.

EDWARDEAN THEORY OF THE ATONEMENT. xlix
and a rebellious, guilty world are in his hands, and at his disposal; and the thing
that seems good in his sight, that he will do ; and it is infinitely fit, right, and best he
should ; that the pride of all flesh may be brought low, and the Lord alone be exalted
forever." l
" God has always acted sovereignly in choosing what family, nation, or nations, he
wonld preserve true religion among ; all being by nature equally averse to God, and
equally Unworthy, and has always acted justly in giving over other families and na
tions for their sin and apostasy." 2
"And now, all this while, there was nothing but the infinite goodness, and free and
sovereign grace of God, together with his covenant faithfulness, to move him not to
cast off and utterly reject his people-, and let them be scattered among the heathen,
and their name perish from off the earth." 3
" Before men believe in Christ, they are as justly exposed to divine vengeance, as
if Christ had never died. (John 3 : 18, 36.) And there is nothing to keep off ven
geance one moment but sovereign mercy; which yet they continually affront and
provoke. (Rom. 2 : 4, 5.) " 4

in. The third writer whom we shall name is perhaps the most impor
tant witness in favor of the Edwardean theory, among those who did not
openly adopt its distinctive style. We refer to Samuel Hopkins. We
do not deny that like his teacher Edwards, and his companion Bellamy,
he makes an impression favorable in many respects to the more ancient
form of Calvinism. He exhibits, however, many salient points from
which the Edwardean theory has been drawn out and built up. He
reaffirmed some of the more important parts of this theory, long after he
knew the manner in which they were used in compacting the Edwardean
scheme. Prof. Hengstenberg has remarked, that the prevalent theology of the
United States is Rationalism, because this theology admits that faith is an
act. Many of the Old Calvinists would at once infer, that Dr. Hopkins
adopts an erroneous theory of the atonement, because this author teaches
that " a disposition and exercise of the heart " are " implied in evangelical
faith." " For that in which the heart has no concern, and which does
not imply any exercise of disposition or will, is neither virtue nor vice,

1 Bellamy's Works, Vol. I. p. 301 . 2 lb. Vol. I. p. 326.
8 lb. Vol. I. p. 323. 4 See also Vol. I. p. 307-310, 321.
E

1 INTRODUCTORY ESSAY.
sin nor holiness ; it has no moral good or evil in it, and cannot be the
subject of command or prohibition, of blame or commendation." 1 This
view of faith, although but indirectly connected with the atonement, is
yet vitally important to an accurate apprehension of it. But let us pro
ceed to some more direct statements.
1. Dr. Hopkins adopts a peculiarly cautious phraseology in maintain
ing that the veracity of God binds him to execute, in all cases, the threat
enings of his law.2
" And it is not consistent with the truth of God not to execute the threatening of
his law ; for this would not only be giving up and making void his law, but acting
contrary to his own declaration. Divine threatenings are predictions declaring what
shall bo, and what God will do in case of transgression of his law. And it is as incon
sistent with truth not to execute his threatening, in the true meaning of it, as it is not
to accomplish and bring to pass what he has declared and promised shall take place.
This law, therefore, must be maintained in the true meaning and spirit of it, as the
grand and only perfect rule of rectoral justice, rectitude, or righteousness." 8
Did Christ suffer the literal penalty of the law? He must have
suffered it, say many of the elder Calvinists, for God has pledged his
veracity to inflict it, and as it is not to be inflicted on the elect, it must
have been inflicted on their Substitute. Hopkins modifies this phrase
ology, and teaches that God executes the threatening of his law " in the
true meaning and spirit of it." He thus suggested to his successors the
doctrine, that God inflicted on Christ sufferings, which were equivalent
to the penalty threatened in the law. Hopkins is still more explicit and
says : " Christ suffered the evil threatened, or as great evil, a complete
equivalent ; " " all the ends of threatening, and of a penalty are as fully
answered by the sufferings of Christ, as they could be by the execution
of it on the sinner ; " " the threatening has been fully executed according
to the true and declared meaning of it when it was given." 4 Dr. Hop
kins believed, as many of the elder Calvinists have taught, that " when

l Hopkins's Works, Vol. I. pp. 454, 464. 2 See I. 2. pp. xv, xvi. above.
* lb. Vol. I. pp. 321,322.
4 lb. Vol. I. pp. 340, 341. Seo likewiso p. 485.

EDWARDEAN THEORY OF THE ATONEMENT. li
man was first created it was made known by the Legislator that his law
admitted of vicarious obedience ; that the obedience of one might be the
proper ground of granting the greatest favors to all whom he represented,
and for whom, and in whose stead, he acted." 1
2. The author of the sentences quoted above is, as might be expected,
equally cautious in occasionally qualifying the statement, that Christ
suffered the penalty of the law for us. He suggests the Edwardean
theory, when he speaks of the penalty of the law, or something equiva
lent. " When it is said, ' Christ died for our sins,' the meaning must be that his death is
the atonement and propitiation for sin ; and that by it he suffered the evil with which
sin is threatened in the law, or the penalty and curse of the law, or that which is
equivalent. To suffer for sin, and for the sinner, is so far to take place of the sinner,
as to suffer the evil which he deserves, and which otherwise the sinner must have
suffered. Or, which is the same, the sufferings of Christ'answer the same end with
respect to law and divine government, that otherwise must be answered by the eter
nal destruction of the sinner." 2
" The sufferings of Christ were, therefore, for sin, and consequently must be the
evil which sin deserves, and that to which the sinner was exposed, and which he
must have suffered had not Christ suffered it in his stead, or that which is equiva
lent." *
There is something fruitful of inference in such oft-repeated implica
tions as : " The threatening and penalty of the law," are not " disregarded
and set aside so as to pass wholly unexecuted, in order to pardon and
favor the transgressor, without any vicarious sufferings of another in his
stead." The sufferings of our Lord are in the stead of the penalty
threatened to the transgressor, and thus the threatening and penalty are
not wholly disregarded and set aside.4
3. Dr. Hopkins defines the atonement as consisting merely in the suf
ferings and death of Christ. Here he agrees with the elder Edwards,6
and also with the younger Edwards, Smalley, Emmons, Griffin, and a
majority of the Edwardean divines. He writes : —
l Hopkins's Works, Vol. I. p. 345. 2 lb. Vol. I. p. 327, 328.
* lb. Vol. I. p. 328. 4 lb. Vol. I. p. 361.
5 See I. 5, 6, pp. xviii, xix. above.

lii

INTRODUCTORY ESSAY.

" On the whole, the Scripture represents the atonement which Christ has made, by
which sinners are delivered from the curse of the law, — the wrath to come, — to
consist wholly in his suffering unto death for their sins, by which he suffered the evil
which the law threatens for sin, or a complete equivalent, so as fully to answer the
end of the threatening of the law, and all the purposes of moral government, consist
ent with the pardon of the sinner, as much as if the curse had been executed on the
transgressor ; and that this was one great, and the most important, essential, and
difficult part of the work of the Kedeemer, and really implies the whole." J
" The obedience of Christ, though most excellent and meritorious, is not an atone
ment for the sins of men, or really any part of it. It is impossible that any mere
obedience, however excellent and meritorious, should make atonement for the least
sin. This can be done by nothing but suffering the penalty of the law, the evil with
which transgression is threatened, as has been shown, while attending to the sufferings
of Christ."2 4. Dr. Hopkins agrees with his teacher Edwards, and indeed with many
of the elder Calvinists, in his analysis of the nature of the pain which
our Redeemer suffered, and which constituted what is termed the penalty
for our sin. How can such sufferings be the literal and moral penalty of
the law ? Compare Hopkins, Vol. I. pp. 331, 337-340, with the quota
tions from Edwards under I. 7. c. 2, 3, pp. xxvi-xxviii. above.
" The displeasure and wrath of God against sinners was the cause of all his
[Christ's] sufferings." " The comfortable and happifying sense of the love and favor
of God was withdrawn, and the human soul was filled with the most dreadful gloom,
distress, and horror, in a most keen sense of the anger and wrath of God, not against
himself personally, but with those whom he loved, and [who] were, in a sense, one
with him ; so that their evil was his evil, and it even necessarily came on him. In
this sense he suffered the displeasure and wrath of God." 8
5. Dr. Hopkins insists, that the atonement of our Lord leaves all sinners
as ill-deserving as it finds them. Although he speaks of Christ, in the
general sense, as enduring all the punishment which we deserve, yet he
does not speak of Christ as enduring any punishment in such a seiise as
to mitigate our demerit in the slightest degree. The Edwardean argu
ment is plain even to the child : If an offender has borne in his per-

i Hopkins's Works, Vol. I. p. 328. 2 lb. Vol. I. p. 347
8 lb. Vol. I. p. 339.

EDWARDEAN THEORY OF THE ATONEMENT. lift
son all the punishment which he deserves, then he deserves no more.
If he has borne, in his Surety, all this punishment, then he deserves no
more. If then all the punishment which he deserves, and all which the
law threatens, has been literally endured on the cross, the sinner cannot
be justly punished any more, he is no longer guilty, or ill-deserving. If
he be ill-deserving, then his literal penalty has not been endured. Dr.
Hopkins felt the force of this argument. He suggested the mode of
treating it. He writes : —

" The sufferings of Christ do not alter the character of the sinner in the least. His
ill desert is according to his whole moral character, — according to what he is, and has
done, as a moral agent. He may justly be treated according to this ; and* to treat
him thus would be doing him no injury. Therefore, not to treat him according to his
moral character, but to treat him better and more favorably, is mere grace and un
deserved favor. The sufferings of Christ, therefore, do not make the least alteration,
or any abatement, of his ill desert, as the sinner's Own character is not hereby made
better. " If the sinner were to suffer the penalty himself, in his own person, and were able to
do this and survive his suffering, this would alter his moral character, as he would
then have completely compensated for his crime, it being extinguished by his suffering
all the evil which it deserves ; no more could be required, or justly inflicted upon him.
His whole character being considered, his crimes and sufferings, he would stand right
in Jaw, and have no need of a pardon, and there would be no grace in not punishing
him yet more. The vicarious sufferings of a substitute are quite different and oppo
site, in this respect, to the sufferings of the sinner, which have been supposed, though
really impossible. For, in the case of vicarious sufferings, the sinner's character re
mains the same, and he continues as ill-deserving as ever, and must feel so, if his dis
cerning and feeling be according to truth. Had Adam persevered in obedience to the
end of the time of his trial, by his vicarious obedience all his children would have
been admitted to the enjoyment of the favor of God and eternal life. But this vica
rious obedience of their substitute would not have rendered them in the least degree
more deserving of such favor than if there hitd been no such obedience ; for Adam's
obedience was not their own personal obedience, and never could be, and, therefore,
could not be considered as such. So the sufferings of Christ, not being the sufferings
of the sinner but of a substitute, cannot render the sinner less ill-deserving in himself,
or personally considered, more than the vicarious obedience of a substitute can render
those for whom he obeys more worthy of reward."1
1 Hopkins's Works, Vol. I. pp. 342, 343. See also pp. 361, 362.
E *

liv INTRODUCTORY ESSAY.
6. Dr. Hopkins follows the elder Edwards in teaching that, although
the atonement consists in the sufferings and death of our Lord, yet the
righteousness of Christ, his entire work in our behalf, includes his per
fect obedience to the precepts, as well as his endurance of the penalty of
the law.
" The atonement made by Christ, in his suffering the penalty of the law, has respect
only to the threatening of the law, that by suffering what was threatened, and what
sin deserves, sinners who believe in him might be delivered from the curse. Thus
Christ died for sin, was sacrificed or offered to bear the sins of many, and he shed his
blood for the remission of sins, as the Scripture asserts. This atonement, therefore,
only delivers from the curse of the law, and procures the remission of their sins who
believe in him, but does not procure for them any positive good ; it leaves them under
the power of sin, and without any title to eternal life, or any positive favor or actual
fitness or capacity to enjoy positive happiness. This would be but a very partial
redemption had the Redeemer done no more than merely to make atonement for sin,
by suffering the penalty of the law for sinners, and in their stead. It was, therefore,
necessary that he should obey the precepts of the law for man, and in his stead ; that
by his perfect and meritorious obedience he might honor the law in the preceptive part
of it, and obtain all the positive favor and benefits which man needed, be they ever so
many and great." *
7. Dr. Hopkins opens the richest vein of thought by the manner in
which he describes the efficacy of our Lord's obedience. He describes it
by intimations which are significant of deep truth. He indeed affirms,
that our Lord was not obligated, either in his human nature or in his
divine, to render obedience to the law ; but it is a peculiar hind of obe
dience to which Hopkins refers. Even if all moral agents, our Re
deemer included, are originally bound to obey the moral law, yet the
Divine Redeemer was not originally bound to obey as a subject. Hop
kins intimates, we could wish that he had drawn out at length, the dis
tinction between our Lord's holiness and his obedience ; between his
obeying as a man and his obeying as a servant ; between his love to the
great rule of right, and his exercise of this love in talcing upon himself
the form of a servile man. We read : —
" The Son of God, united to the human nature, and considered as God and man in
1 Hopkins's Works, Vol. I. p. 345 ; see also pp. 346, 347, 348.

EDWARDEAN THEORY OF THE ATONEMENT. lv
one person, was not under any original obligation to that obedience which he volun
tarily took upon himself to perform. This divine person was above any obligation to
obedience as a subject and servant. He was, in the human nature, perfectly holy, as
God is holy ; but this he might be, and continue so forever, and yet not be under obli
gation to yield the obedience to which he submitted. The Son of God did not take
upon him the form of a servant merely by becoming man, — by being made flesh and
taking the human nature into a personal union. But, as he became flesh and was
made in the likeness of men, that hereby he might be capable of obeying and suffer
ing in the human nature, he voluntarily took upon himself the form of a servant ; and
being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto
death." *
" But the Son of God, as has been observed, was under no obligation to obey as he
did, as a subject and servant ; he owed nothing of this nature for himself, he being
above all law in this respect, until he voluntarily took upon him the form of a servant
and put himself under the law, not only to suffer the penalty of it, not for himself, but
for others, but to obey it not for himself, as if he owed such obedience, but for others,
that they might have the benefit of it. In this respect the obedience of the Redeemer
was in the highest sense and degree worthy of reward, and meritorious for himself
and those for whom he obeyed. All the glory, which is the consequence of his obe
dience and sufferings, and all the positive good to himself and his church, is the re
ward of the Kcdeemer and of the redeemed with him." 2
8. Dr. Hopkins insisted on the necessity of Christ's obedience, to the
validity of his sufferings. We do not mean to imply, that either here or
elsewhere, either Hopkins or Bellamy or Edwards originated any theory
which had not been previously known (see page ix. of this Essay) ; but
Hopkins explained more clearly than any of his predecessors, except Tur-
retin, the necessary and intimate connection, as well as the broad distinc
tion, between the obedience and the sufferings of Christ, in their reference
to our eternal life. He maintained, that the obedience was a suffering
obedience, and the sufferings were obedient sufferings ; that the obedience
was necessary to the justness or the efficacy of the sufferings, and that
the sufferings were the dispensations in which the obedience was chiefly
useful. A majority of the Edwardeans maintain, that Christ's obedience
was indispensably necessary to his atonement, but his atonement consisted
in his mere sufferings ; and Hopkins teaches that unless Christ had

l Hopkins's Works, Vol. I. p. 344. 2 Ibid. P- 346.

lvi INTRODUCTORY ESSAY.
obeyed in suffering, his agonies could not have satisfied the legal demands
for punishment, and unless he had suffered in obeying, his obedience
would not have possessed its present value. He differs from the Ed-
wardeans in his style of asserting, that Christ's agonies were the satisfac
tion of the penal, and his obedience was the satisfaction of the preceptive,
demands of the law. He writes : —
" Christ did, indeed, obey in suffering ; and this was, perhaps, the highest act or
instance of his obedience." " And this was, therefore, the most pleasing to God, and
the most meritorious part of his obedience, when he ' became obedient unto death,
even the death of the cross ; ' as it was also the greatest instance of his suffering, in
which the atonement which he made by suffering chiefly consisted. And it was nec
essary that his suffering should be voluntary, and so an act of obedience as far as he
was active, in order to his suffering justly, and making any atonement thereby. But
though the Redeemer obeyed in suffering, and suffered in obeying, and his highest
and most meritorious obedience was acted out in his voluntary suffering unto death,
and in this greatest instance of his suffering, the atonement which he made for sin chiefly
consisted ; yet his obedience and suffering are two perfectly distinct things, and an
swered different ends, and must be considered so, and the distinction and difference
carefully and with clearness kept up in the mind, in order to have a proper under
standing of this very important subject. The sufferings of Christ, as such, made
atonement for sin, as he suffered the penalty of the law, or the curse of it, the evil
threatened to transgression, and which is the desert of it, in the sinner's stead, by
which he opened the way for sinners' being delivered from the curse, and laid tho
foundation for reconciliation between God and the transgressors, by his not imputing
but pardoning their sins who believe in the Redeemer and approve of his character
and conduct. By the obedience of Christ, all the positive good, all those favors and
blessings are merited and obtained which sinners need, in order to enjoy complete and
eternal redemption or everlasting life in the kingdom of God."1
" The righteousness of Christ does most properly consist in his obedience, by
which believers in him obtain eternal life, and all positive blessings ; yet as his obe
dience implies his sufferings, and his sufferings imply his obedience, and one is as
necessary for the salvation of men as the other, they are both included in his right
eousness, as they are both necessarily included in his obedience unto death." 2
9. In his explanations and illustrations of the Redeemer's work for man,
Dr. Hopkins often adopts the very language which, since his day, has
become the standard phraseology of New England divines. He (as well
i Hopkins's Works, Vol. I. pp. 347, 348. 2 Ibid. p. 349.

EDWARDEAN THEORY OF THE ATONEMENT. lvii
as Bellamy, see IL 2, pp. xliii.-xlv. above) has done much to recommend
the style in which his successors have developed the great office of the
Redeemer. He often speaks of the sufferings and death of Christ as
removing the obstacles to our salvation, and as making it consistent with
the honor of the just lawgiver to pardon us.
" This otherwise insuperable difficulty, this mighty bar and obstacle in the way of
showing any favor to man, and escaping eternal destruction, is the ground of the
necessity of a Mediator and Redeemer, by whom it may be wholly removed, and man
be delivered from the curse of the law, and saved, consistent with the divine char
acter, with truth, infinite rectitude, wisdom, and goodness; and so as not to set aside
and dishonor, but support and maintain, the divine law and government." 1
" Thus by the death, the blood of Christ, full atonement is made for sin ; the curse
of the law is executed on the Redeemer, by which he has bought, redeemed his people
from the curse, and opened the way for their pardon and complete redemption. He
has been made a curse, that he might deliver all who believe in him from the curse,
hut not so as in the least degree .to remove their unworthiness and ill desert, but this
remains, and will remain for ever ; it being improper, undesirable, and impossible
that this should be removed, or that they should ever cease to deserve eternal destruc
tion. They remain, and must continue to be as criminal as ever they were, so long
as it remains true, that they have been guilty of crimes which are pardoned, and from
which they are justified by the blood of Christ." 2
When we consider that Hopkins describes the actfve obedience of
Christ as a self-denying, a humiliating obedience, and thus virtually
brings it into the category of sufferings ; and describes even this' obedi
ence, as possessing its chief worth in the consent to endure the agonies
of the cross ; and represents these agonies, as constituting the atonement
because they make our salvation consistent with the honor of God's attri
butes, and because they maintain the honor of his government, we must
allow, that even if Hopkins did not enter the inmost court of the Ed
wardean theology, he still opened the door of it, and looked into it with
an approving smile. This fact seems yet more obvious, when we con
sider, that while he describes the obedience of Christ as satisfying the

1 Hopkins's Works, Vol. I. p. 322.
2 Vol. I. p. 328. See further explanations and illustrations of the sufferings and
death of Christ in Vol. I. pp. 329, 330, 483, 484, 485.

lviii INTRODUCTORY ESSAY.
preceptive demands of the law, and as imputed to us, he is yet careful to
define the word " imputed," and to add the epexegetical phrase, " or avails
to procure " eternal blessedness for us. He says : —
" All which favors they [the elect] receive by the obedience and merit or righteous
ness of Christ, which is imputed to them, or avails to procure all these benefits for
them, in consequence of their union to him by faith." 1
" What the Redeemer has done and suffered is imputed to him [the believer] ; that
is, is reckoned in his favor, so that he has the benefit of it, as much as if it were his
own ; and it avails to obtain deliverance from the curse of the law, for him, and eter
nal life ; but it leaves him as unworthy of any favor, as deserving of eternal destruc
tion, and as great a criminal as he ever was."2
Not only does Hopkins thus define his terms in agreement with the
Edwardean theory, but in general he is not fond of affirming that the
obedience of Christ gains our salvation by being transferred and imputed
to us as our own. obedience ; but he is more disposed to represent it as
gaining our salvation by honoring the law, and by deserving the reward
which consists in the blessedness of his elect.
" The work of the Redeemer ponsists, in part, in his perfect obedience to the law of
God. This is an essential part of the character and work of the Redeemer of man ;
for he could not directly honor the precepts of the law in any way, or by any thing,
but by obeying them; and the least instance of disobedience or disregard to any one
of them would have ruined his character as the Redeemer of man."8
" It was, therefore, necessary that he should obey the precepts of the law for man,
and in his stead ; that by his perfect and meritorious obedience he might honor the
law in the preceptive part of it, and obtain all the positive favor and benefits which
man needed, be they ever so many and great." 4
" It may be truly said that the obedience of Christ to the divine law had more excel
lence and worth in it than the highest, most perfect, and all possible obedience of all
the mere creatures in the universe ; and the law of God is unspeakably more dig
nified and honored in the precepts of it, by the former, than it can be by the latter."5
" In the justification of the believer by the righteousness of Christ, it does not be
come his righteousness, so as that he is considered as having actually done and suf
fered, in his own person, what Christ did and suffered ; for this is in no sense true,
1 Hopkins's Works, Vol. I. p. 348. * lb. p. 362.
8 lb. p. 344. * lb. p. 345.
6 lb. p. 346.

EDWARDEAN THEORY OF THE ATONEMENT. lix
and cannot bo made true. But he, being in Christ, united to him by faith, the right
eousness of Christ, what he has done and suffered for sinners, and in their place and
stead, avails for the believer's justification, and he has as much advantage by it in
this respect, as if it were his own personal righteousness. It would be needless to
mention this particular, if some had not entertained this notion of the imputation of
the righteousness of Christ, and represented it in this very absurd light ; and drawn
consequences from it, most contrary to the truth and many expressed declarations of
Scripture." 1
In the following illustration, we detect germs of the Edwardean theory
of Christ's imputed righteousness. There is a remarkable correspond
ence between this illustration and the excerpts from President Edwards
in I. 7,Jb. c. pp. xxii-xxv of this Essay. It explains Dr. Hopkins's theory
of Imputation, and proves it to be essentially like that of West, Smalley,
and Dwight.
"' It is agreeable to reason and common sense that one person should have favor
shown to him out of respect to the merit and worthiness of another, purely on the ac
count of the relation the former bears to the latter, who has no worthiness of such
favor in himself, and to whom it would be improper to show such favor were it not
for his relation to such a worthy person, by which he is, in some sense, united to him.
This is really imputing the merit of one person to another — to recommend him to
favor who has no worthiness in himself. Thus, if we have a friend who is very dear
to us, and has great merit and worthiness with us, and we see a child in wretched cir
cumstances, starving and naked, when we are informed that he is the son of oar friend,
we shall be disposed to show him kindness and give him relief, feed and clothe him,
for the sake of his father, out of regard to his merit in our eyes. Or, if such a worthy
person, who has great merit, have a friend who loves him, though he may have no
worthiness in himself, and has offended us, yet, if he come recommended by this wor
thy friend of ours, desiring that we would forgive him and show him all the kindness
he wants, we shall readily do it, wholly for the sake of the worthiness of our friend,
though otherwise it would be improper, and we should be disposed to treat him with
neglect and contempt ; and this appears congruous and rational." 2
10. Dr. Hopkins favors the doctrine of the General Atonement. That he
did not regard this doctrine as essentially wrong, might be inferred from
the unqualified commendation which he bestowed upon Bellamy s True

1 Hopkins's Works, Vol. I. pp. 477, 478. s Ih. p. 481.

lx INTRODUCTORY ESSAY.
Religion Delineated, a treatise which is both explicit and emphatic in
asserting that the atonement was designed for all men.1 Dr. Hopkins
admits that " all sinners under the gospel are ' really put into a capacity
for obtaining salvation,' and that whether they desire and accept of this
salvation or not ; it being freely offered to their choice and acceptance.
In this sense it is made possible to all ; and their constantly neglecting
and refusing to desire and endeavor to become partakers of it does not
alter the case with respect to this." 2 Here it is implied that the salva
tion of the non-elect, of those who persevered in refusing what they
might have chosen, was made possible to them. It was made possible by
the atonement ; if actually made so, it was designed to be made so ; then
the atonement was designed for the non-elect. This is the essence of
the doctrine of general atonement. In Chapter xii. Section 1, of his
System of Divinity, Hopkins draws a distinction between Christ's being
" substituted to obey and suffer for man," and man's being " actually inter
ested in the benefit of his atonement and righteousness ; " between " the
foundation for a treaty with mankind," and the prosecution of this treaty,
in which prosecution " redemption is actually applied not to all mankind,
but to those who cordially embrace the offer." These and similar re
marks imply that God intended not only to save the elect by the atone
ment, but also to make the salvation of the non-elect possible. The
context shows that this was the meaning of Dr. Hopkins, when he
affirms : —
1 " The Redeemer has made an atonement sufficient to expiate for the sins of the
whole world, and, in this sense, has tasted death for every man, has taken away the
sin of the world, has given himself a ransom for all, and is the propitiation for the sins
of the whole world, so that whosoever believeth in him may be savedvand God can
now be just, and the justifier of him that believeth in Jesus."8
11. Dr. Hopkins habitually exalts the sovereignty of God in applying
the atonement to the regeneration of sinners. He does not represent the
Most High as under an obligation in distributive justice to regenerate

1 See pp. xlv-xlvii. of this Essay. * Hopkins's Works, Vol. III. p. 212.
8 lb. Vol. I. p. 365.

EDWARDEAN THEORY OF THE ATONEMENT. lxi
men, because their punishment has been borne already, and their active
obedience has been rendered already to every jot and tittle of the law
and all their debt, even to the uttermost farthing, has been paid by their
Substitute ; but he is singularly careful to represent the mercy of God as
" in the highest degree sovereign mercy," not barely in providing the
atonement, but also in renewing the soul, after the atonement has been
provided. " And God has not obliged himself by any promise to grant this mercy to any in
dividual person, antecedent to his actually doing it." * " In the work of regeneration,
by which men are born of the Spirit, God acts as a sovereign." " The sovereignty
of God consists in his beingabove all obligation to his creatures, and so, infinitely
above any direction, influence, or control from them in any thing he does. In this
sense, God is an infinite Sovereign ; he does just as he pleases, not being influenced
by any obligation he is under to any one, any further than he has been pleased to
oblige himself by promise, or some other way. Sovereignty is, therefore, in a peculiar
manner, essential to all acts of grace, or grace in all cases is sovereign grace, and
what is not so is no grace at all." 2
The fact that Hopkins's Works abound with such remarks as these, is
not in itself sufficient proof that he rejected the theory of a > literal pay
ment of our debt, a literal purchase of our souls ; but this proof is found
in the fact that he did make these remarks, and did not make certain
other remarks antagonistic to them. He never says, with Martin Luther,
that Christ became " the greatest transgressor, murderer, adulterer, thief,
rebel, blasphemer, that ever was, or could be in the world," because he
received all our sins, they were all laid upon him, that he may pay and
satisfy for all.8 He does not say with the excellent Rutherford : " I was
condemned, I was judged, I was crucified for sin, when my Surety,
Christ, was condemned, judged, and crucified for my sins. I have paid
all, because my Surety has paid all."4 But Hopkins habitually represents
the sinner, as lying under a penal debt still unpaid, and as depending on

1 Hopkins's Works, Vol. I. p. 373. 2 lb. Vol. III. pp. 565, 566.
8 See Luther on Galatians, Chap. III.
4 Trial and Triumph of Faith, Sermon xix.

lxii INTRODUCTORY ESSAY.
the naked pleasure of a Sovereign whether or not he shall be compelled
to pay it.
Before leaving this great triumvirate of the New England theologians,
we append three remarks : —
First, these three intimate friends were in substantial agreement with
each other in regard to the doctrine of the atonement. This is evident
from their writings. They obviously regarded themselves as coinciding
on the substance of the doctrine. Hopkins was better prepared than any
other man to interpret the writings of his teacher. He was the com
panion in whom' Edwards confided more than in any other man, and it
was Hopkins who first published some of President Edwards's most de
cisive statements on the Atonement. It was he who copied in his own
fair hand, and first gave to the public, Edwards's Sermon on the " Wis
dom of God as displayed in the Way of Salvation by Jesus Christ"
Hopkins also commended in the highest terms Edwards's Discourse on
"Justification by Faith alone:" see Life of Edwards, pp. 90, 91 ; first
edition, — and Hopkins often refers to this Discourse with decided ap
probation, as in Works, Vol. I. pp. 438, 445, 472, 476 et al. Bellamy
mentions the same discourse with uniform respect, as in his Works,
Vol. I. pp. 55, 395, 397 et al. Edwards also has highly commended Bel
lamy's " True Religion Delineated," the Treatise which exhibits more
distinctly than any other, Bellamy's theory of the Atonement, and of the
General Atonement : see Edwards's Preface to that Treatise in Bel
lamy's Works, Vol. I. p. 3-6. The Treatise of Bellamy was read to
Hopkins, and approved by him before its publication, and was often
quoted by him confidingly afterward. It is well known that Bellamy, in
his turn, adopted and admired the general principles of Hopkins, and
received from him as much influence as he exerted over him.
Secondly, the three friends, Edwards, Bellamy, and Hopkins, are in
essential agreement with the doctrine which has been adopted by the
school of the younger Edwards. The spirit and aim of this school coin
cide with the general spirit and aim of that great triumvirate, in regard
to the essential parts of the doctrine of the atonement. This school did
not regard themselves as doing any thing more than carrying out to their
consistent results certain principles taught .by their three illustrious pre-

EDWARDEAN THEORY OF THE ATONEMENT. lxiii
decessors. As Hopkins was the confidential friend of the elder Edwards,
so was he of the younger. He submitted his System of Theology to Dr.
Edwards for critical examination, before the System was pubHshed, and
after its publication he solicited renewed criticisms from the same friend.
But Dr. Edwards in his remarkable letter to Hopkins, while he con
demned freely certain minor peculiarities of the System, made no serious
objection to Hopkins's view of the Atonement : see Memoir of Hopkins
prefixed to his Works, pp. 204-207. Dr. Hopkins began his System of
Theology in 1781. Dr. Edwards published his celebrated Discourses on
the Atonement in 1785. Hopkins published his System in 1793, eight
years after the Discourses of Edwards had appeared. If he had dis
liked the substance of those Discourses, he would have expressed his dis
approval. Throughout the correspondence of Hopkins after the publica
tion of the Discourses of Dr. Edwards, there is not one word which im
plies any radical opposition to any of Dr. Edwards's principles. It is
known that he retained to the last his hearty confidence in the author of
those Discourses, and that he regarded them as substantially correct. It
is known also that Dr. Edwards regarded Dr. Hopkins as agreeing with
the substance of the doctrine taught by West, Edwards, and Smalley.
The first of Smalley's discourses was published eight years, the second,
seven years, before Hopkins published his System ; but Hopkins, faithful
as he was in resisting error, did not manifest in his System or in his cor
respondence any distrust of Smalle)', the pupil of Bellamy. Indeed it
has been surmised that while Hopkins exerted a decided influence on
Drs. West, Edwards, and Smalley, he yet received an influence from
them, and modified his phraseology somewhat, in consonance with their
style. They expressed in plainer language than he had done, the truths
involved in certain principles which he had taught them. From the in
timacy of Dr. Hopkins with 'President Edwards and Dr. Bellamy on the
one hand, and with Drs. Edwards, Smalley, Spring, West, and Emmons
on the other, he becomes an invaluable witness to the essential coinci
dence between the school of the elder Edwards and the school of the .
younger Edwards, in regard to the atonement. He laid his hands upon
both schools and blessed them both. Both of the schools laid their hands
upon his head ; the one in paternal affection, the other in filial reverence,
and gave him their benediction. The peculiar relations of Hopkins to

lxiV INTRODUCTORY ESSAY.
the elder and the younger divines of New England, make him in some
respects the most important of all our theologians.
Thirdly, while Edwards, Bellamy, and Hopkins are in substantial
agreement with the school of the younger Edwards, they differed from
that school in some particulars, as indeed they differed from each other
in some points, and each of the three differed from himself at some times.
Each of the three made statements which the other two did not exactly
approve, although neither of them regarded the others as essentially at
variance with himself. They were independent thinkers, and each of
them aimed' to be right and true, rather than to make all his new asser
tions coincide with all his old ones. Many of the elder Edwards's most
noted words on the atonement he wrote at the age of thirty and thirty-
two years. Hopkins, referring to some of Edwards's discourses, re
marks : they " were penned more than twenty years before his death ;
in which space of time he made swift and amazing advances in divine
knowledge, in branches almost numberless." 1 And again, Hopkins ob
serves of the President's unpublished manuscripts : '" there might be a
number of volumes published from [them], which would afford a great
deal of new light and entertainment to the church of Christ." 2 Some of
this new light is seen in Edwards's Miscellaneous Observations " Con
cerning the Necessity and Reasonableness of the Christian Doctrine of
Satisfaction for Sin ; " " observations " which both Dr. Hopkins and Dr.
Edwards engaged in preparing for the press. The germs of the Ed
wardean theory of the atonement are strewed more thickly among these
Observations than they are in the earlier Discourses of Edwards. They
are still more numerous in Bellamy, and most of all in Hopkins. The
fact that every noted advocate of the Old Calvinism differed occasion
ally from himself, was one cause which prompted the younger Edwards
to reexamine the whole subject of the atonement ; and hence the general
system of theology which he embraced, has sometimes been distinguished
by the name, Consistent Calvinism.8
It is known that Dr. Hopkins regarded the writings of President
Edwards as containing a few errors, and he ascribed them to the fact

1 Life and Sermons of Edwards. First edition, p. 143. a lb. p. 88.
8 See p. ix. of this Essay.

EDWARDEAN THEORY OF THE ATONEMENT. IxV
that " some things were taken for granted as true, because they had
appeared in the earlier writings of divines, and in creeds. They were
admitted as first principles, which, as to correctness, required no exami
nation." 1 Both Dr. Smalley and Dr. Emmons in their Discourses on
the Atonement quote and condemn certain expressions of President
Edwards ; still, both of these divines cherished the deepest reverence for
the President, as essentially accurate, though, in some particulars,
erroneous ; and Dr. Smalley goes so far as to affirm, after citing Ed
wards and Hooker, as representatives of the elder Calvinists: ''I dare
say, the venerable divines above quoted, did not mean so, neither did
their hearts think so. They never prayed as though those things were
true ; they never felt as if they believed them." 2 The New England
divines have been magnanimous enough to own, that there may be
important differences in speculation among men who maintain the
essentials of the same faith. They have contended against some
theories of the Old Calvinism, but have still claimed to be substantial
Calvinists, and have in fact been the most self-consistent of all Cal
vinists. IV. The fourth name which we shall mention in the catalogue of
those who have suggested the Edwardean theory of the atonement, is
that of Stephen West, one of the original trustees, and the first Vice-Presi
dent of Williams College ; a divine who advanced many of the principles
afterwards elucidated by his successor, President Griffin ; and whose-
Treatise reappears in various parts of the Discourse of President
Maxcy. Dr. West is the first of those divines who are familiarly called
the "successors (Bellamy and Hopkins being the intimate contem
poraries) of Edwards." West immediately followed the- elder Edwards,.
as pastor of the church at Stockbridge, Massachusetts. He was the
cherished and confidential companion of Bellamy and Hopkins, and
through them became thoroughly versed in the peculiarities of their
theological instructor. He was also intimate with Dr. Edwards,, Dr..

1 Hopkins's Works, Vol. I. Memoir, p. 50.
2 Edwardean Theory of the Atonement, p. 62..

lxvi INTRODUCTORY ESSAY.
Smalley, and Dr. Emmons, and is thus a connecting link between these
divines and the triumvirate whom they all revered. He published his
" Essay on the Scripture Doctrine of Atonement," in 1785. Its 'preface
was dated April 14th, 1785. It was finished therefore about six months
before the delivery of Dr. Edwards's celebrated sermons on the atone
ment. It is, in some respects, the most beautifully scientific of all the
early Edwardean treatises on this theme. If it had developed more
fully the idea, that the death of Christ was designed to maintain the
authority of God's law, and exhibit the firmness of God's purpose to
punish all men who are not in their Redeemer, it would merit the honor
of being the first and the best treatise which introduced the Edwardean
theory. A second edition of West's Essay was published in 1815, with
an Appendix of seventy pages. In these pages the author reiterates and
defends the statements of the original Essay. It is doubtful whether, on
the whole, this Appendix discloses any new influence which the mind of
Dr. Edwards had exerted on Dr. West, during the thirty years which
had elapsed since the first publication of the Essay. We doubt not, that
the son of President Edwards had communicated various and important
suggestions to West, even before the first draught of West's volume.
The influence of the two friends was probably reciprocal. How could
it have been otherwise, circumstanced as they were ? From the fact
that West was born, was graduated at college, was ordained as a min
ister, just ten years before Dr. Edwards, and that he published his
Essay before Edwards preached his three Discourses, and that he was
fitted, by his native endowment and by his early culture to wield an
uncommon power over his younger friend, we may rank him as one of
the four divines who aided Edwards in his statement of the Edwardean
theory. Indeed, there is more evidence that Dr. West was guided by
his spiritual father Hopkins, than that he was guided by his junior com
panion Edwards. He was interlaced with them both ; but in the con
fidential intercourse of forty-five years, the reverential pupil must, one
would think, have received the more important aid from his devout
instructor. It is true that Dr. West dated the Preface to his Essay
eight years before Hopkins dated the Preface to his " System," and that
Hopkins in his System does not exhibit any marked partiality for the
peculiar 6tyle of West. Still, it is known that Hopkins regarded Dr.

EDWARDEAN THEORY OF THE ATONEMENT. Ixvii
West as agreeing substantially with himself, and to his dying day mani
fested more confidence in him than in any other of his followers. But
whatever may have been the obligations of West to his senior teacher, or
to his junior friend, he was like every other one of the early Edwardean
school, a truly independent thinker, and his Essay bears internal marks
of having been wrought out, in the main, by his own mind, rather than
compiled from the teachings of his associates. His ingenious theory is
expressed in his own peculiar, neat, chaste style. The leading principle
of his Essay is, that of the elder Edwards, — that God loves to reveal his
own character, — a principle lying at the basis of the atonement, and of
the correlate truths. Some of the more important particulars in the
Essay, are the following : —
1. The aim of the Creator in all his works is, to manifest his attributes.
" A display or manifestation of his own true and infinitely holy character,
was the chief and ultimate end which God had in view in creation." *
The moral law is " a transcript of the divine perfections" and " all God's
government " is designed to unfold " his own true character, and exhibit
a genuine picture of it to the world." 2 " Accordingly, we may forever
expect to see his mind written, and his character as indubitably expressed,
in what he does, as in what he says, in the government which he exercises,
as in the law which he has given." 8
2. Therefore, the design of the penalties of the law is, to exhibit the
attributes of God. As all God's works are called a "picture " of his char
acter, so the punishment which he inflicts is termed a "glass" reflecting
his attributes. " And were it not a glass in which God's infinite hatred
of sin is seen, it never would be inflicted." 4 " Pain and distress have
no moral virtue in them ; and are of no importance, otherwise than as
means through which the beauty of the divine character, and the true
disposition of the divine mind, may be seen by his creatures." " The
righteousness of the law is fulfilled in the sufferings of the sinner, in no
other way than as they serve to exhibit the righteous character of God,
and prove him to be a hater of iniquity." 6

1 West's Essay, pp. 7, 10, 11. 2 lb. p. 12.
8 lb. p. 12. 4 lb. p. 24.
6 lb. pp. 23, 25, 66, 88, 112, 114, 150, 153.

lxvili INTRODUCTORY ESSAY.
3. Accordingly, the design of the atonement is to manifest the attri
butes of God. " The original design of God, in the creation of the
world, will naturally lead us to suppose that a disposition to exhibit his
character in its true colors, was the cause of his requiring an atonement
for sin, before he would exercise pardoning mercy." " Of course, there
fore, the true reason why God required an atonement for sin was, that
the real disposition of his own infinite mind, toward such an object, might
appear ; even though he pardoned and saved the sinner." l As the pen
alty of the law is termed a " glass," reflecting the divine attributes, so
we read of the atonement : " No glass had ever yet been held up before
men, in which the divine wrath might be so clearly seen." 2
4. The design of the atonement is to manifest the same attributes
which would otherwise have been manifested in the punishment of sin.
" Whenever God's just and real displeasure against sin is exhibited in
some other way, to equal advantage as it would be in the final destruc
tion of the sinner, atonement is then made for his sins, and a door open
for the exercise of pardoning mercy." 8 The design of punishment is to
delineate the hatred which God feels toward sin — to give a " clear and
sensible manifestation of his displeasure against the sinner." This ab
horrence could not be pictured out, " were mercy exercised toward sin
ners, unless some peculiar methods had been adopted in divine providence,
whereby God might sensibly exhibit his infinite hatred of iniquity ; and
that too as a necessary step toward the exercise of pardoning mercy." *
" The death and sufferings of Christ are a glass in which we may behold
the feelings of the divine mind toward sinners, and read an abhorrence
of their characters ; a dipleasure against them, which eternal destruction
would no more than fully express." 5 " It is the visibility of the just dis
pleasure of the holy God against offenders that renders punishments use
ful, and promotes the honor and security of the divine government."
" Not the sufferings of the sinner do this, but the character, the just
anger of God appearing in them. In whatever way this holy displeas
ure of God against the sinner becomes visible, the ends of government,
1 West's Essay, pp. 15, 16, 20, 21, 29, 30, 38, &c. 2 lb. p. 140.
* lb. p. 29. 4 lb. p. 40.
6 lb. p. 119.

EDWARDEAN THEORY OF THE ATONEMENT. lxix
for aught we can see, are answered." l " The same, character, the same
disposition of the Deity, which would have appeared in- the death of the,
sinner, was designed to be exhibited in the death of Christ." 2
5. The atonement, then, honors the law as much as the infliction of
the legal penalties would have honored it. For the atonement expresses
exactly the same divine attributes as are expressed in the penalties of
the law, and therefore honors the law by accomplishing its great end.
" In all the respects, in which the divine law is useful and important as a
rule of government, it is honored and magnified even in the salvation of
sinners through the atonement." 8 " The death of the sinner is a glass
in which we see the righteousness, the punitive justice of God ; so, also,
is the death of Christ. In the former, we have a view of righteousness
as it relates to the execution of punishment ; so, also, in the latter." 4
" When this abhorrence of the Divine mind is made as fully visible
in its natural fruits, as though the curse had been literally executed on
the offender, and it is made evidently to appear to be the divine abhor
rence of the character of the pardoned sinner, in whatever way this be
done, the authority of the law is maintained, and the spirit and import of
it supported in government." 5 " If the written law is expressive of an
anger in God against sinners, which, in its natural operation would bring
eternal punishment upon them ; it is obvious that the spirit of the law
cannot be preserved in government, unless this anger be, in some sen
sible way, exhibited to the views of creatures ; and consequently, that it
would be inconsistent with the character of God to pardon sinners with
out an atonement, and such an one as should exhibit this anger, and in
which it should appear to burn against sinners." 6 Thus the atone
ment exhibits what the law exhibits ; and therefore if the design of the
atonement be good, the design of the law is good ; and if the law be not
carried out in its penal inflictions, it is yet honored, for its design is ac
complished, its main spirit is fulfilled in the atonement, which is a sub
stitute for legal penalty, "a sensible exhibition of that divine wrath
which is threatened in the law ; " 7 " such a testimony of divine displeasure
1 West's Essay, p. 175. 2 lb. pp. 33, 35, 37, 63.
8 lb. p. 176. " 4 lb. pp. 64, 65.
6 lb. pp. 174, 175. • lb. p. 154.
1 lb. p. 37.

lxx INTRODUCTORY ESSAY.
against him [the sinner], as honors the law of God, and establishes its
authority to the same degree, that the execution of its penalty would
have done." 1
6. Therefore the atonement may be defined : " that which magnifies
the broken law of God, and does it the same honor, which would have
been done by the execution of its penalty whenever it be incurred." 2
" By atonement is meant a manifestation of that just and nfghteous anger of God, which
the sinner deserves, in some other way than in his punishment." 3 " Respecting atonement, it
is to be observed that it summarily consists in an exhibition of the righteous displeasure
of God against sin, made in some other way than in the punishment of the sinner.
The real abhorrence in which God holds the character of the sinner, would be no more
.than truly and fully expressed in his eternal punishment. It is of the utmost impor
tance that this disposition of the divine mind should appear in the government of
God ; because this is his glory. Without this infinite purity and hatred of iniquity, he
could not be GOD — be absolutely perfect. If divine government can be administered
in such a way, without the punishment of the sinner, as properly to delineate this
disposition of the divine mind, to the views of his creatures ; the divine character will
not suffer, by the pardon of the sinner. And in whatever way this disposition of the
divine mind be delineated ;' whether it be in the punishment of the sinner, or in some
other mode not less expressive ; the ends of divine government, in general, arc an
swered. One great end of the coming and death of Christ, was to delineate this dis
position of the divine mind, and make a full and sensible exhibition of it. In his suf
ferings and death this divine purity, and hatred of iniquity, were sensibly and glo
riously expressed. In the sufferings of Christ God gives us to see that his own infinite
mind is full of displeasure against sinners. Christ's sufferings and death arc a glass
in which that character of God which we read in the threatenings and curses of the
law, may become visible and conspicuous. After all that Christ has done and suffered,
if God pardons and saves the sinner for Us sake ; it will afford us no reason to believe
that there is less aversion in the divine mind from the character of the sinner, than the
threatenings and curses of the law would naturally suggest. In this way, therefore,
the honor of the law is preserved, though the sinner bo saved." 4
Agreeably to these definitions, Dr. West often explains the atonement
by phrases which express its great and primary aim. He speaks of it,
not as the Strict and literal purchase of sinners, but as laying a foundation
for mercy to sinners,* as paving the way for Christ as Intercessor to ap-
1 West's Essay, p. 158. 2 lb. p. 158. » lb. p. 178.
4 lb. pp. 117, 118. 6 lb. p. 71.

EDWARDEAN THEORY OF THE ATONEMENT. lxxi
proach the Father,1 preparing the way for a consistent exercise of mer
cy, &c.2 Here we see the connection between Dr. Bellamy, Dr. Hop
kins, and Dr. West, see II. 2. pp. xlii-xlv, and III. 9. pp. Ivi-lix, of
this Essay ; also between Dr. West and the younger Edwards, Drs.
Smalley, Emmons, Griffin, and Weeks.
7. Hence it appears, that the atonement does not consist in the active
obedience, viewed as the holiness, of Christ, but in his sufferings and
death. Dr. West did not deny, that the atonement accomplishes various
ends, but he insulated from them all, its main end. In his definition of
the atonement he did not include all which the atonement aims to effect,
but he individualized that which the atonement aims principally to effect.
As it aims principally to manifest God's righteousness in delivering sin
ners from their righteous punishment, it is defined according to this chief
intent, and is described as consisting in that which carries out this intent.
Therefore Dr. West says : —
" The great end of the coming and death of Christ was not to give evidence of the
equity and righteousness of the moral law ; but rather to exhibit in its proper colors,
the disposition of the divine mind toward us for breaking it." 8
" To suppose that the principal design of the coming of Christ, was to exhibit evi
dence to the consciences of men, of the righteousness and equity of the divine law,
either as a rule of government for God, or of conduct for us ; for aught we can see,
would bo rather a reproach, than an honor to the divine character. For this would
suppose that the law of God, though originally inscribed in the fullest manner that it
could be on the hearts of men, was nevertheless of such a nature and extent that the
creature could see neither the propriety of God's governing by it, nor the reason of
his own obligation to obey it ; and therefore, that the law of God was not originally
fitted to discover the true beauties, of the divine character."4
" These things being so, it is easy to see that conviction of tho righteousness of the
law might be wrought in the consciences of men, in a way infinitely less expensive
than by tho coming and death of the Son of God : yea, were there no other ground
of conviction in the case, this remarkable event would be far from affording it. For so
long as wc judge a rule itself to be bad, no conduct of any one formed upon it, will make
us believe it to bo good . While we dispute the righteousness of the rule given, we dispute
the righteousness of him who gave it. And in that case, his obeying it himself will no
more convince us of its equity, than his administering government over us, in confor
mity to it. We may safely conclude, therefore, that to minister conviction to the con-
1 West's Essay, p. 75. . * lb. p. 140. 8 lb. p. 35. 4 lb. p. 36.

Ixxii INTRODUCTORY ESSAY.
sciences of men, of the righteousness of the moral law as a rule, was not tho principal
object in view, in the coming and work of Christ." J
" The principal design of the death of Christ was not to discover the perfection and
strength of his own personal obedience ; and to bestow on it a lustre, with which it
could not otherwise have shone. It is confessed that this is an end not only worthy of
being an object, but which also was very advantageously answered by the death of
Christ. Still, it is evident that this was not the only, or even principal object in view,
in this great event." 2
" Christ's obedience unto death was infinitely pleasing to the Father ; and, as hath
been before observed, of infinite importance. Without this, his sufferings and death
could have been no atonement for sin. And, for his obedience unto death it is that Be
is highly exalted, and hath a name given him which is above every name. (Phil. 2 :
8, 9.) Yet the obedience of Christ, important and glorious as it was, is never once
spoken of as making atonement. Nor are his disciples ever represented as being
purged and saved by his obedience : but, invariably, by his blood, his sufferings and
death."8 The coincidence of Dr. West with the majority of the Edwardean
divines, on this theme, is too obvious to require comment.
8. As the atonement does not consist in the active obedience, viewed
as the holiness, of Christ, so it does not consist in his literally suffering
the penalty of the law. The entire theory of Dr. West is founded on
the principle, that as this legal penalty is a language expressing God's
hatred of sin, so the atonement is a different language, expressing the
same fact; 4 and the language of the atonement is substituted for the lan
guage of legal penalty ; the atonement is substituted for that precise
evil which the law had threatened. Dr. West agrees with Edwards
and Hopkins in supposing, "that such views of things, such a sense of the
awful and terrible nature of divine wrath, then crowded in upon him
[Christ], and filled his pure and holy mind, as quite overwhelmed him
with sorrow." 5 " There is nothing absurd in the supposition that God
might communicate, to the mind of Christ, a very clear view, and lively
sense of his just and infinite displeasure against those whom the man,
Jesus, came to save ; and as little absurdity in supposing that this view
and sense of the divine anger should greatly exercise the mind of Christ." '

1 West's Essay, p. 37. lb. p. 64. Seo likewise pp. 68-71.
8 lb. p. 97. 4 lb. Chapter vi.
6 lb. p. 82. • lb. pp. 125-129.

EDWARDEAN THEORY OF THE ATONEMENT. Ixxiil
"The principal weight of Christ's sufferings arose from the deep im
pressions which were made upon his mind, of the awful anger, the sore
displeasure of God against sinners." 1 But there is a wide difference be
tween suffering in view of the penalties of the law deserved by sinners,
and suffering the exact penalties themselves. Accordingly Dr. West
says : —
" It is admitted that the law which sentences sinners universally and indiscrimi
nately to a punishment, which will be a proper and adequate expression of the abhor
rence in which sin and sinners are universally holden by the divine Lawgiver, is not and
cannot be literally fulfilled, if any are saved, even though it be through the atonement
of Christ. But it is insisted, that in the pardon and salvation of believers through this
atonement, no disrespect is shown to the law of God, either as being a just estimate of
the demerit of sin, or of the divine abhorrence of it. Nor does it, in the least, favor
the opinion, that the divine law is not the rule agreeably to which his government will
be forever administered." 2
Dr. West often repeats the remark that, as all the ills of life are ex
pressive of God's anger, so the natural evils which Christ endured express
the same ; but this accurate writer is peculiarly careful to add, that this
anger is against sinners. " If, in the sufferings and death of Christ, God
expressed any degree of anger whatever, it must have been against sin
ners ; because no degree of it existed against Christ." 8 It need not be
said that there is no literal penalty of the law which does not express
the anger, or rather the distributive justice of the lawgiver against the
person punished. But Dr. West says " that the anger which burned in
the sufferings of his [God's] dear Son, was not against him, but against
sinful men," and " that the sufferings of Christ were, in reality, expres
sions of divine displeasure against men for their sins." 4
9. The assertion, then, that our Lord suffered punishment, the curse
of the law, is to be understood in the general, not in the restricted sense
of the words punishment and curse. Dr. West asserts : —
" Natural evils which express the anger of God, are the curse of the law. Natural
evils Christ suffered, and those to a high degree. These are all a curse, and the curse

1 West's Essay, pp. 132-134 ; also, pp. 75, 81, 99. " lb- P- 176.
» lb. p. 102. * lb. p. 111.
G

Ixxiv INTRODUCTORY ESSAY.
of God ; and evidently represented as the curse of the law. And when we consider
the dignity of the person, and the excellency of the character of Christ; if the natural
evils he suffered from the hand of God, were sufficient to express to the views of
creatures, as high a degree of divine displeasure, as the natural evils which God brings
on the sinner himself, when he executes the curse upon him ; it can be no reflection
upon Christ, nor imply the least defect in his character, to consider him as having
endured the curse of the law, and in this sense having been made a curse for his people,
that they might be the righteousness of God in him." 1
Accordingly, Dr. West often speaks of Christ as suffering punishments,
which are the curse of law, and he speaks of all our natural, although
never of our moral evils as punishments ; but he does not regard the
curse of the law which our Lord suffered as involving " those sensations
of despair and those horrors of an accusing conscience, which will nec
essarily accompany, and be a bitter part of the sufferings of sinners,
when they endure the curse of the law." 2 He often distinguishes between
the evils, punishments, curse which our Lord endured, and those which
the unregenerate will endure ; 3 between punishments in the general sense,
and punishments as the literal penalties of the law. These general pun
ishments may be inflicted on the innocent, and are sufferings, natural
evils which are " testimonies of the divine anger against the sins of" the
guilty ; 4 but " the penalties of the law, we are to remember, express
the displeasure of the lawgiver in the pain and sufferings of the trans
gressor." 6 The evils we suffer in this life are testimonies of God's
righteous displeasure against us ; they are, then, according to Dr. West,
punishments ; Christ endured such punishments. Still, Dr. West be
lieved that God never brings evils in the literal execution of the great
and original laws of his kingdom, but on those who transgress the law
-and therefore are sinners.6
Therefore we read that " for God to pardon the sinner without an
atonement, would be inconsistent with the true spirit and import of his
holy law ; " 7 and " the honor of the divine law, agreeably to the true

1 West's Essay, pp. 93, 94. * lb. p. 93.
8 lb. pp. 58, 59, 92, &c. * lb. pp. 111-115.
« lb. p. 27. • lb. pp. 52, 88.
1 lb. p. 22.

EDWARDEAN THEORY OF THE ATONEMENT^ Ixxv
spirit and import of it, is fully preserved in the government of God, when
his displeasure against sin is made to appear, to equal advantage, as it doth
in the execution of the penalties of the law ; in whatever way it be done." 1
The atonement is not made, then, by executing the literal penalty of the
law, but in some other way, equally advantageous to the honor of the
law, and satisfactory to its main spirit and aim. Dr. West does indeed
assert that " the penalty of the law is really answered, and its demands
satisfied, whenever God's hatred of iniquity is as clearly exhibited in
acts of government, as it is expressed in the language of the law, in what
ever way this be done." 2 But unless he contradicts himself, he here
means that the " penalty of the law " is answered in the grand design, in
the honor of it, and the " demands " of the law are satisfied in the pre
dominant spirit, in the authority of them ; not that the " penalty of the
law " is as literally and strictly endured, and the " demands " of it are
as literally and strictly met, if the transgressor be pardoned, as they
would be if the transgressor were punished.8 In this double use, the
general and the exact, of the words punishment, curse, &c, Dr. West is
often followed by those Edwardeans who believe that our Lord did not
satisfy distributive justice, nor the literal demands of the law.4
10. Of course, then, the atonement does not impose an obligation on
the distributive' justice of God, to save any one who has sinned.
" Viewed in this light, it is easy to see that the atonement infers no obligation on tho
justice of God, to pardon and save the sinner. The objection is, not that the purposes
of grace cannot be answered if the sinner be not saved, when atonement is made for
his sins ; but,that atonement implies an obligation, injustice, to save the sinner. But,
if justice requires tho salvation of the sinner, tho Governor of the world must bo guilty
of injustice in damning him. To suppose that it would bo unjust, in God, to damn
the sinner, evidently implies that a just and holy God hath not displeasure enough iu
him, for this purpose. And therefore that such a degree of displeasure could be made
visible, neither in the atonement, nor in any other way. But, that such a degree of
displeasure against sinners hath, in reality, no existence in the divine mind, at onco
destroys all notions of gospel grace, in their salvation; and that, whether they be
saved through an atonement, or without it." s

1 West's Essay, p. 28. 2 lb. p. 28.
* lb. pp. 27, 29, 65, 103, 171. 4 See the Discourse of Dr. Maxcy.
6 lb. pp. 118, 119.

Ixxvi INTRODUCTORY ESSAY.
" Could it be, that by his arduous and glorious work, the Great God and Saviour
brought himself into debt to his rebel subjects 1 On what possible grounds can we found
any claims 1 Because Jesus has so loved us, as to wash away our sins in his own
blood, shall we, therefore, claim pardon and salvation as our due ? Instead of that,
how manifest is it, that nothing could ever, so clearly and fully demonstrate, that the
salvation of sinners must -be only by grace, as the atonement made by Christ — or,
manifest such unspeakable riches and glory in that grace by which sinners of mankind
are saved ! " J
11. As Christ was not literally punished in enduring the exact pen
alty of the law, and as therefore our sins are not literally imputed to
him, so his righteousness is not literally imputed to us. The nature of
the atonement explains the nature of justification, and, in its turn, the
nature of justification explains the nature of atonement. Christ endured
evils as a consequence of God's anger against us, and we receive benefits
as a consequence of Christ's obedient suffering for us. His obedience is
honored in our salvation, as our disobedience is stigmatized in his suffer
ings. " The happy and blessed fruits of Christ's glorious righteousness, are conferred upon
sinners of mankind, and enjoyed by them." " This is the true and only proper im
port of the imputation of Christ's righteousness to believers. This is to have his right
eousness imputed to them ; for them to enjoy the benefits, the happy fruits of it." 2
12. It is obvious, from the preceding extracts, that Dr. West caught
the spirit, as well as the words of the Edwardean theory, as that theory
is distinguished in ascribing not only the origin but also the application
of the atonement, to mere Sovereignty. It is illogical, it is self-contra
dictory, to represent God as a Sovereign in doing that which he is ob
ligated in distributive justice to do. He is compelled as a just God to
inflict no punishment on men whose punishment has been fully endured
once, and to require no duty of men whose whole duty has been per
formed once. Now partly in order to exalt the Sovereign government
of God, Dr. West represents the Atonement, not as making it necessary

1 West's Essay, p. 177. Seo likewise pp. 118-121.
2 lb. pp. 108, 109, 111, 163, &c. See Hopkins's Theory of Imputation in III. 9,
pp. Ivi-lix. of this Essay.

EDWARDEAN THEORY OF THE ATONEMENT. lxxvii
but as making it consistent for God to save men ; not compulsory on God
as & just judge, but proper or desirable for him as a free Sovereign to save
men ; not. to save apart of the race, provided that they are elected, but
to save any or all of the race, provided that his Sovereign benevolence
can promote the welfare , of the universe by their salvation. Dr. West
says : —
" But merely from the exhibition which was made of divine wrath in the sufferings of
Christ, the pardon, even of one sinner. could/ with no certainty be inferred : — Unless it
might be inferred from the highest evidences of the reality of God's displeasure against
us, that therefore he would, certainly not punish, but pardon us. Upon atonement being
made, the situation and circumstances are such, that the great Governor of the world
may consistently bestow, or withhold mercy, just as shall tend most effectually to answer
the general purposes of divine goodness. Whereas, had there been no atonement,
there would have been the highest inconsistency in the bestowment of pardon, even on
one sinner. Now, the divine benevolence might express itself in having mercy on
whom it would have mercy, and whom it would, hardening ; just as it would contrib
ute to the greatest felicity of the created system ; while, without an atonement, be-
uevolence itself could never have urged, or even admitted, the pardon of one sinner.
" The atonement, therefore, expresseth a benevolence which has, for its object, the
highest good of the creation : — that very character of God which is expressed in the
free and general invitations of the Gospel. From the atonement, therefore, the univer
sal salvation of sinners cannot, with the least appearance of reason, be inferred ; unless
it be first made further evident, that the ends of the truest and most perfect benevolence
cannot otherwise be completely answered ; which, it is presumed cannot be done." 1
13. Dr. West illustrates the genius of the Edwardean theory, by
ascribing the application of the atonement not only to the Sovereign
right, but likewise to the Sovereign grace of God. A main design of his
Essay is to show, that the sufferings and death of Christ give a sensible,
visible manifestation, a vivid picture of God's retributive sentiment against
us, therefore of our demerit, of our present ill-desert, and thus give an
eloquent testimony that we are saved while we deserved to be lost,
are saved by grace which consists in favoring those who may still be
justly punished. " The clearer views we have of the displeasure of God
on one hand, the more lively apprehension shall we have of divine grace
on the other." But the atonement of Christ is the vivid sign of God's
1 West's Essay, pp. 140, 141. See also p. 136.

lxxviii INTRODUCTORY ESSAY.
displeasure against us ; it gives the most sensible demonstration of his
anger against our sinful character, therefore it sets off and holds out in
bold relief, the disposition of God to bestow " good upon those whose
character he righteously abhors ; " " yea, the atonement is the only glass
in which the true beauty and glory of the free, sovereign grace of God
can be seen." 1
We have now illustrated the Rise of the Edwardean theory of the
Atonement, by citing certain passages directly or indirectly suggesting
it, and written by the four men who exerted a more decided influence
than others on the accredited advocates of that theory. The first of these
four men was the father of Dr. Edwards, the second was his theological
teacher, the third was his most valued counsellor and was intimately
associated with him in the examination of his father's manuscripts, and
the fourth was his constant friend. Through Dr. Edwards the hints and
tendencies of these four divines were transferred in a modified and stim
ulating form to his pupils, Dwight and Griffin ; to his friends Backus and
Smalley. Through Dr. Smalley tho formative influences of his instructor
Bellamy were applied, in a modified and animating way, to Emmons, the
pupil of Smalley, and the friend of Hopkins and West. Through Sam
uel Spring, a pupil of Bellamy, of Hopkins and of West, and, in a double
sense, the brother of Emmons, the personal influence of these divines
was transfused into the Constitution of Andover Theological Seminary.
In similar methods have a multitude of theologians been interlocked
more or less intimately with the four men whose express instructions or
tacit intimations have either introduced, or paved the way for introduc
ing, the Edwardean theory of the Atonement.
It is an instructive fact, that Drs. West, Edwards, and Smalley, pub
lished their views of the Atonement, within one and the same twelve
month, 1785-6. That was the period when the irruption of Universal-
ism into New England, had assumed a peculiarly alarming aspect. The
advocates of Universalism derived some of their most plausible argu
ments in favor of it, from the old Calvinistic theory of the Atonement,
1 West's Essay, pp. 119-121, 165-179, &c. &c.

EDWARDEAN THEORY OF THE ATONEMENT. lxxix
as a literal infliction of the legal penalty, and a literal satisfaction of- vin
dictive justice. There was no way of refuting these arguments without
resorting to the unamiable and unscriptural notion, that the atonement
was designed for the elect only ; or else resorting to a more Biblical
theory than had prevailed respecting the very nature of the atonement
itself. Thus it was the Edwardean theory, which prevented multitudes
from regarding the fact of Christ's mediation, as the strong tower of Uni-
versalism. It has changed the entire current of speculation among Uni
versalists. It has been fruitful of practical good. Its aim was practical,
as well as scientific. To the earlier advocates of it, thev churches owe a
debt of lasting gratitude.
Ten years after the doctrine had been explained by West, Edwards,
and Smalley, it was explained in substantially the same way, by the ac
complished Maxcy, who had long been an admirer of West and Edwards,
and who subsequently succeeded Edwards in the Presidency of Union
College. He differed from those two divines in some particulars. His
Discourse, printed in 1796, was favorably received by his denomination,
and since the publication of it some able advocates of the Edwardean
theory have appeared among the Baptists.
In the years 1800, 1812, 1813, 1823, 1825-6, Dr. Emmons made
known his views of the Atonement. These views he presented in various
discourses, only two of which are here reprinted. These two discourses
do not, of course, exhibit their author's opinions in the fulness of outline
and in the symmetry of form, which might be given to them by a collec
tion of all his sermons relating to this theme. But they suggest the
entire system, which his collected works more fully reveal.
In 1819, after Dr. Emmons had published some of his discourses, Dr.
Griffin gave to the public his " Humble Attempt to reconcile the differ
ences of Christians" on this theme. He designed partly to disprove cer- ,
tain principles advanced in a Lecture of an eminent theological Professor,
who is understood to have re-written, or, at least, revised the Lecture for
an extensive circulation among the churches ; and partly to disprove cer
tain principles which he regarded Dr. Emmons as maintaining; and
partly to reconcile two opposing evangelical schools, by showing that their
differences arose from their more general or more restricted, their more
vague or more precise, terminology.

1XXX INTRODUCTORY ESSAY.
Rev. Caleb Burge published his Essay on the Atonement, three years
after the Treatise of Griffin. It was introduced into the world under the
auspices of Dr. Emmons, Dr. Samuel Worcester of Salem, Dr. Spring
of Newburyport, and Dr. Burton of Thetford. Rev. Dr. Woods of An-
dover often expressed his high opinion of it. That eminently pious mis
sionary, Rev. Daniel Temple, remarked once to the writer of this Intro
duction : " I have derived more instruction in regard to the Atonement,
from the Treatise of Mr. Burge, than from any other uninspired vol
ume." The Dialogue of Dr. Weeks was published eleven years after Mr.
Burge's Essay, and is now printed for the fourth time. It was written
n opposition to the same unprinted but " quasi published " Lecture,
which had aroused the opposition of Dr. Griffin, and which continued to
be eagerly circulated under the supposed sanction, and in supposed con
formity with both the wish and the design, of its able author. The dis
cussion of Dr. Weeks was originally published as eleven distinct Dia
logues in the Utica Christian Repository, for 1823. They received a
lengthened reply in the fourth volume of the Christian Advocate, edited
by Dr. Ashbel Green.
The above-named works written on the basis, or in defence of the Ed
wardean theory of the Atonement are now republished, not because they
are more complete than other Treatises prepared with the same general
aim, but because each of these works was designed to strike upon certain
veins of thought which had not been generally opened, and each of
them contributes a certain class of ideas which have been combined in
the Edwardean system ; a system extensively advocated by American
and English divines, often practically believed where it is not theoreti
cally acknowledged, and promising to become the prevailing faith of
evangelical thinkers.

THE NECESSITY OF ATONEMENT AND THE CONSISTENCY
BETWEEN THAT AND FREE GRACE IN FORGIVENESS.

THREE SERMONS

DELIVERED AT NEW HAVEN, A. D. 1786.

I.
THE NECESSITY OF ATONEMENT.
II.
THE ATONEMENT CONSISTENT WITH FREE GRACE.
III.
INFERENCES AND REFLECTIONS.

JONATHAN EDWARDS, D.D.,
PRESIDENT OF UNION COLLEGE.

(D

SERMON I.

THE NECESSITY OF ATONEMENT.

In whom we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins,
ACCORDING TO THE RICHES OF HIS GRACE. — EphesianS 1 : 11.
The doctrine of the forgiveness of sins is a capital doctrine of the gos
pel, 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 for
given according to the riches of grace ; not merely in the exercise of
grace, as the very term forgiveness implies ; but in the exercise of the
riches of grace ; importing that forgiveness is an act of the most free and
abundant grace. Yet he also asserts that this gratuitous forgiveness is in
consequence of a redemption by the blood of Christ. But how are these
two parts of the proposition consistent ? If we be, in the literal sense, for
given in consequence of a redemption, we are forgiven on account of the
price of redemption previously paid. How then can we be truly said to
be forgiven ; a word which implies the exercise of grace ? and especially
how can we be said to be forgiven according to the riches of grace ? This
is, at least, a seeming inconsistence. If our forgiveness be purchased, and
the price of it be already paid, it seems to be a matter of debt, and not of
grace. This difficulty hath occasioned some to reject the doctrine of
Christ's redemption, satisfaction, 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. Having from my youth devoted 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 solu
tion, ought to afford satisfaction, is submitted to the judgment of my can
did auditors.
Our text naturally suggests these three inquiries : — (8)

4 NECESSITY OF ATONEMENT.
Are sinners forgiven through the redemption or atonement of Jesus
Christ only ? What is the reason or ground of this mode of forgiveness ?
Is this mode of forgiveness consistent with grace, or according to the
riches of grace ? Let us consider these in their order.
I. Are we forgiven through the redemption or atonement of Jesus
Christ only ? I say redemption or atonement, because, in my view, they
mutually imply each other. That we are forgiven through the atonement
of Christ, and can be forgiven in no other way, the Scriptures very
clearly teach. For evidence 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." Rom. 3 : 24 ; " Being justified freely by his
grace, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus." Acts 20 : 28 ;
" To feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own
blood." Heb. 9 : 12 ; " By his own blood he entered in once into the
holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us." 1 Pet. 1:18;
" Forasmuch as ye know, that ye were not redeemed 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. 2 : 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."
Isa. 53 : 4, 5, 6 ; " He hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows ;
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 all." Ibid. 10,
11, 12; "Yet it pleased the 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."
The Scriptures also teach the absolute necessity of the atonement of
Christ, and that we can obtain forgiveness and salvation through that
only. The sacrifices appointed to be made by the ancient 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 sacri
ficed for us ; '' and to have " given himself for us, an offering and a sacri
fice to God, for a sweet-smelling savor ; " and " now once in the end of
the world to have appeared, to put away sin by the sacrifice of him
self." 1 Cor. 5 : 7. Eph. 5 : 2. Heb. 9 : 26. As the ancient 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 j as Luke 24: 25, 26; " O fools, and slow of heart

NECESSITY OF ATONEMENT. 5
to believe all that the prophets have spoken ! Ought not Christ to have
suffered these things, and to enter into his glory ? " verse 46 ; " Thus it
behoved Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead the third day." Rom.
3 : 25, 26 ; " Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith
in his blood, to declare his righteousness, — that he might be just, and the
justifier of him which believeth in Jesus." It seems that God could not
have been just in justifying the believer, had not Christ been made a
propitiation. John 3 : 14, 15 ; " As Moses lifted up the serpent in the wil
derness, so must the Son of man be lifted up." Heb. 9 : 22 ; " Without
shedding of blood is no remission." 1 Cor. 3: 11; " Other foundation
can no man lay, than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ." Acts 4: 12;
" Neither is there salvation in any other : for there is no other name un
der heaven, given among men, whereby we must be saved."
The necessity of the death and atonement 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 he or his Father would have
consented to his death, had it not been absolutely necessary. Even a
man of common wisdom 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 who was full of grace and truth, the brightness of his own glory, and
the express image of his person, the chiefest among ten thousand, and
altogether lovely, if there had not been the most urgent necessity. Es
pecially as this most excellent Son so earnestly prayed to the Father to
except him from death, Matt. 20 : 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 11 : 42, "That the Father heareth
him always : " 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 without the
death of Christ, Christ's prayer, in this instance, would have been an
swered, and he would have been exempted 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 also by the
apostle, Gal. 2: 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 pas
sage, means the ceremonial law, because ho tells us, chap. 3, 21, " That
if there had been a law given, which could have given fife, verily right-

O NECESSITY OF ATONEMENT.
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 ceremonial, and that if they could, Christ is
dead in vain.
II. Our next inquiry is, what is the reason or ground of this mode of
forgiveness ? or why is an atonement necessary in order to the pardon of
the sinner ? I answer, it is necessary on the same ground, and for the same
reasons, as punishment would have been necessary, if there 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 have been necessary, to maintain
the authority of the divine law. If that be not maintained, but the law
fall into contempt, the contempt will fall equally on the legislator him
self ; his authority will be despised and his government weakened.
And as the contempt shall increase, which may be expected to in
crease, in proportion to the neglect of executing the law, the divine gov-.
ernment will approach nearer and nearer to a dissolution, till at length it
will be totally annihilated.
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 random,
without moral law and government. This is the dictate of reason from
the nature of things. Besides the nature of things, we have in the pres
ent instance fact, to assist our reasoning. God hath in fact given a mor
al law and established a moral government 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 govern
ment. But in order to a moral law, there must be a penalty ; otherwise
it would be mere advice, but no law. In order to support the authority
and vigor of this law, the penalty must be inflicted on transgressors. If
a penalty be denounced, indeed, but never inflicted, the law becomes no
law, as really as if no penalty had been annexed to it. As well might
no law have been made or published, as that a law be published, with all
the most awful penalties, and these never be inflicted. Nay, in some re
spects it would be much better and more reconcilable with the divine
perfections. It would be more consistent, and show that the legislator
was not ignorant, either of his own want of power to carry a law into
effect, or of the rights of his subjects, or of the boundaries between right
and wrong. But to enact a law and not execute it, implies a weakness
of some kind or other ; either an error of judgment, or a consciousness

NECESSITY OF ATONEMENT. 7
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 contemptible light, but really are contemptible.
Hence, to execute the threatening of the divine law, is necessary to t
preserve the dignity and authority of the law, and of the author of it,
and to the very existence of the divine moral government. It is no im
peachment of the divine power and wisdom to say, that it is impossible
for God himself to uphold his moral government over intelligent crea
tures, 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 govern them by law, by rewards and punishments.
If God maintain the authority of his law, by the infliction of the pen
alty, it will appear that he acts consistently in the legislative and execu
tive parts of his government. But if he were not to inflict the penalty,
he would act, and appear to act, an inconsistent part ; or to be inconsist
ent 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 indeed all implied in supporting the dig
nity and 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 penalty 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 sin
ners ? Why could not the authority of the law have been sufficiently
supported, without the punishment of every individual transgressor ?
We find that such strictness is not necessary or even subservient to the
public good, in human governments ; and why is it necessary in the di
vine ? To these inquiries I answer by other inquiries. Why, on the
supposition of no atonement, would it have been necessary that the pen
alty of the law should be inflicted in any instance ? Why could not the
Deity, in a sovereign way, without any atonement, have pardoned all
mankind ? i I presume it will be granted, for the reasons before assigned,
that such a proceeding 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

8

NECESSITY OF ATONEMENT.

/ true the ends of human governments are tolerably answered, though in
some instances the guilty are suffered to pass with impunity. But as im
perfection attends all human affairs, so it attends human governments in
this very particular, that there are reasons of state which require, or the
public 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 pardoned, in order
to obtain information against others still more atrocious and dangerous to
the community. In many instances the principals only, in certain high
crimes, are punished ; the rest being led away by artifice and misrepre
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 is be
cause of either some weakness in the particular state of the government,
under which the pafdon is granted ; or some imperfection in the laws of
that state, not being adapted to the particular case ; or some imperfection
attending all human affairs. But as not any one of these is supposable
in the divine government, there is no arguing conclusively, from pardons
in human governments, to pardons in the divine.
It may be added, that in every instance in human governments in
which just laws are not strictly executed, the government is so far weak
ened, and the character of the rulers, either legislative or executive, suf
fers, either in point of ability or in point of integrity. If it be granted
that the law is just, and condemns sin to no 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 is, infinitely vile.
For these reasons, it appears that it would have been necessary, pro
vided no atonement had been made, that the penalty of the law should
have been inflicted, even in every instance of disobedience : and for the
same reasons doubtless 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 threat
ened in the law j 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 atonement it appears that God is determined that his law shall be
supported ; that it shall not be despised or transgressed with impunity ;
and that it is an evil and a bitter thing to sin against God.
The very idea of an atonement or satisfaction for sin, is something

NECESSITY OF ATONEMENT. 9/
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 sinner, according to the literal threatening of the law.
That which answers these purposes being done, whatever it be, atone
ment is made, and the way is prepared for the dispensation of pardon.
In any such case, God can be just and yet the justifier of the sinner.
And that that which is sufficient to answer these purposes has been done
for us, according 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 1 : 14, bare
our sins in his own body on the tree, 1 Peter 2 : 24, and gave himself
a sacrifice to God for us, Eph. 5 : 2.
But perhaps some who may readily 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 sufficient 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 reformation, or by enduring a punish
ment, 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 ap
pears 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
reformation. Repentance v and reformation are a mere return to our
duty, which we ought never to have forsaken or intermitted. Suppose a
soldier deserts the service into which he is enlisted, and at the most criti
cal 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 di
rect opposition to that of his country ; yet, after twelve months spent in
this manner, he repents and returns to his duty and his former service:
will this repentance and reformation atone for his desertion and rebellion.?
will his repentance 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 consideration. The language of forgiving sinners

10 NECESSITY OF ATONEMENT.
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 encourage to the commission and indulgence of it ; as all that sin
ners would have to fear, on this supposition, would be not the wrath of
God, nor 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 show that he
acts a consistent part, and agreeably to his own law; 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 should threaten it with a punishment properly severe, yet should de
clare 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 murders, to pass with
impunity ? Undoubtedly you would conclude that he was either a very
weak or a very wicked prince ; either that he was unable to protect hi3
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 atonement by any sufferings short of the
full punishment of sin. Because the very idea of atonement is some
thing 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 the law, can be to these purposes equivalent
to that curse ; any more than a less number or quantity can be equal to
a greater. Indeed a less degree or duration 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 dis
pleasure, to inflict, in an ignominious 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 de
gree 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. 13 : 11.
Besides ; if a less degree or duration of punishment, inflicted on the
sinner, would answer all the purposes of supporting the authority of the

NECESSITY OF ATONEMENT. 11
divine law, &c, equally as that punishment which is threatened in the
law ; it follows that 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 neces
sary in order to the salvation of sinners. If they grant that they were
necessary, as they exhibit the strongest motives to repentance, I ask fur
ther, could not God by any revelation or motives otherwise, whether ex
ternally 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 doubtless in the same
way, he might have produced the same effect, on men of modern times.
Why then doth the Scripture say, " Other foundation can no man lay, than
that is laid, which is Jesus Christ : " and, " neither is there salvation in
any other ? " 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, concerning those who were converted by
the preaching of Paul, other foundation could no man lay, for their sal
vation, 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 mission and death is assignable.
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 sinners, this will seem to be wholly inconsistent with the funda
mental principle of the system of those who deny the atonement of Christ ;
I mean the principle, that it is not reconcilable 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

12 NECESSITY OF ATONEMENT.
who are ignorant of them ; this is abhorrent to their whole system. Not
as exhibiting 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 any to repent who are ignorant 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
influenced by the motives to repentance, implied in the death and resur
rection of Christ, than to the limits of those who repent and depend on
the atonement of Christ ?
It may be further inquired of those gentlemen mentioned above,
whether the pardon of the penitent be according to the divine law, or ac
cording to the gospel. If it be a constitution of the law, that every peni
tent 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 promise
of pardon on repentance ? Surely such a law must be a very gracious
law ; and a 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. If so, and it be a provision of
the law that every penitent be acquitted from punishment ; then surely
there is no grace at all in the acquittal of the penitent, as the gentle
men, to whom I now refer, pretend there is none on the supposition of the
satisfaction of Christ. Again, if the law secure impunity to all penitents,
then all the terror or punishment which the law threatens, is either
repentance itself, or that wise and wholesome discipline which is necessary
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 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 punishment of the penitent, pro
vided no atonement had been made, would not be inconsistent with jus
tice, 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 ?
* " It is certainly the doctrine of reason, as well as of the Old Testament, that God
is merciful to tho penitent, and nothing is requisite to make men, in all situations, the
objects of his favor, but such moral conduct as he has mado them capable of. — Priest.
ly's Corruptions of Christianity, p. 279.

NECESSITY OF ATONEMENT. 13
If neither strict justice, nor the divine law founded on justice, nor the
divine perfections, without an atonement, secure pardon to all who repent,
what will become of the boasted argument of the Socinians, against the
atonement, that God will certainly pardon and save, and that it is absurd
and impious to suppose, that he will not pardon and save all who repent ?
Are the Socinians themselves 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 peni
tent be pardoned in consequence of his repentance 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 forever silent on this head. It also
follows, that repentance answers, satisfies, fulfils, the divine 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 continueth not in all things
written in the book of the law to do them. 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 sinner, is repentance, which is no token of
the divine displeasure, but an inestimable blessing. It also follows, that
as eternal justice is no other than the eternal law of God, grace and truth,
life and immortality 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 assurances, that we shall not be injured. It fol
lows, in the last place, that justice and grace, law and gospel, are perfectly
synonymous terms.
Or if the other part of the dilemma be taken, that eternal justice does
not require that every penitent be pardoned ; 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 wisdom, goodness, and justice cannot co-exist in the same charac
ter ? or that the law of God is such that it cannot be executed in any in
stance, consistently with the divine character ? * These 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
* That law in which Paul delighted after the inward man ; which he declares to bo
holy, and just, and good ; to bo glorious too, nay, in the abstract, glory (Rom. vii. and
2 Cor. iii.), and which David pronounces to be perfect, and more desirable tban gold,
yea, than much fino gold : sweeter also than honey and the honey-comb, l'sakn xix.
2

14 NECESSITY OF ATONEMENT.
the doctrine, that the divine perfections require that every penitent be
pardoned, without an atonement.*
* " Arguments drawn from such considerations as those of the moral government
of God, the nature of things, and the general plan of revelation, will not be put off to
a future time. The whole compass and force of them is within our reach, and if the
mind be unbiassed, they must, I think, determine our assent." — Corruptions of Chris
tianity, Vol. I. p. 278.

SERMON II.
GRACE CONSISTENT WITH ATONEMENT.

In whom WE HAVE redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins,
ACCORDING TO THE RICHES OF HIS GRACE. — Ephcsians 1: 7.
Having, in the preceding discourse, given an answer to the two
inquiries proposed concerning the necessity, and the ground of the
necessity of the atonement of Christ, I proceed to the third, which is,
III. Are we, notwithstanding the redemption of Christ, forgiven
freely by grace ? That we should be forgiven wholly through the
redemption of Christ, and yet by free grace, hath, as I observed, ap
peared 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 exercise 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; 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 in a
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
* 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 or released without grace. (15)

16

GRACE CONSISTENT WITH ATONEMENT.

to be reconcilable with the plain declarations of Scripture ; as in our text :
" In whom we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins,
according to the riches of his grace. Being justified freely by his grace,
through the redemption that is in Jesus Christ." Rom. 3 : 24. These and
such like passages seem plainly to import, that pardon itself is an act of
grace, and not merely that it is founded on other acts, which are acts of
grace. Besides the very idea of pardon or forgiveness implies grace.
So far only is any crime pardoned, as it is pardoned graciously. To
pardon a crime on the footing of justice, in the proper sense of the word
justice, is a direct contradiction.
Again ; it is not proper to say, that the pardon of the sinner is an
act of grace, merely because it is founded on the gracious gift of
Christ, and his gracious act in making atonement. It is not proper to
say, that any act is an act of grace, merely because it is founded on
another act, which is really an act of grace. As well we may say, that
if a creditor, by a third person, furnish his debtor with money sufficient
to discharge his debt, when the debtor has paid, in this way, the fuE
debt, it is an act of grace in the creditor to give up the obligation.
Whereas, who does not see that the furnishing of the money, and the
giving up of the obligation, are two distinct acts ; and however the former
is indeed an act of grace, yet the latter is no more an act of grace, than
if the money had been paid to some other creditor, and he had given up
an obligation for the same sum. If it be an act of grace in the creditor
to deliver up an obligation, 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 debtor 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 consid
eration in this manner : they say, the pardon of the sinner is no act of
grace to Christ, because he has paid the debt for the sinner ; but that it
is an act of grace to the sinner, because the debt was paid, not by the
sinner himself, but by Christ. Nor was Christ so much as delegated by
the sinner to pay his debt. Concerning this I observe, in the first place,
that if the atonement of Christ be considered as the payment of a debt,
the release of the' sinner seems not to be an act of grace, although the
payment be made by Christ, and not by the sinner personally. Sup
pose any one of you, my auditors, owes a certain sum ; he goes and
pays the full sum himself personally. Doubtless all will agree, that the
creditor, in this case, when he gives up the obligation, performs a mere
act of justice, in which there is no grace at all. But in what respect

GRACE CONSISTENT WITH ATONEMENT. 17
would there have been more grace in giving up the obligation, if the
money- had been sent by a servant, by a friend, or by a third person ?
Here I am sensible an objection will arise to this effect: but we did
not send the payment of our debt to God, by the hand of Christ as our
friend ; we did not delegate him to make atonement for us ; he was
graciously appointed and given by God. To this I answer, that this
objection places the whole grace of the gospel in providing the Saviour,
not in the pardon of sin. Besides, if by delegating Christ, he meant
such a sincere consent and earnest desire, that Christ should make
atonement for us, as a man may have that his friend should discharge a
debt in his behalf; without doubt every true Christian, in this sense,
delegates Christ to make atonement for his sins. Did not Abraham
and all the saints who lived before the incarnation of Christ, and who
were informed that atonement was to be made for them by Christ,
sincerely consent to it, and earnestly desire it ? and though now Christ
has actually made atonement, yet every one who walks in the steps of
the faith of Abraham, is the subject of the like sincere consent to the
office and work of Christ, and the like earnest desire, that by his atone
ment, a reconciliation may be effected between God and himself. So
that if Christ have, in the proper sense of the words, paid the debt for
his people, his people do as truly send him to make this payment, as a
man ever sends his friend to make payment to his creditor.
Nor is any thing wanting to make any man, or all men, in this sense
delegate Christ to make atonement for them, but the gift of repentance
or a new heart. And if God had not prevented them by previously
appointing Christ to the work of redemption, all mankind being brought
to repentance, and being informed that Christ, on their consent and
delegation, would make atonement for their sins, would freely have
given their consent, and delegated him to the work.
But what if the people of Christ did not, in any sense, delegate him
to this work ? would this cause the payment of their debt by Christ, to
be at all more consistent with free grace in their discharge ? 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 personal characters
deserve. Now to apply the whole of this to the subject before us. If Christ have,
in the proper sense of the words, paid the debt which we owed to God,
2*

18 GRACE CONSISTENT WITH ATONEMENT.
whether by a delegation from us or not ; there can be no more grace in
our discharge, 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 deliverance is called a redemp
tion, which refers to the deliverance of a prisoner out of captivity, com
monly 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
expressions bring into view the payment of money, or the discharge of a
debt. But it is to be remembered, that these are metaphorical expres
sions, therefore not literally and exactly true. We had not deprived God
of his property ; we had not robbed the treasury of heaven. God was
possessed of as much property after the fall as before ; the universe and
the fulness thereof still remained to be his. Therefore when Christ made
satisfaction for us, he refunded no property. As none had been taken
away, none needed 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 ap
pear, that sin shall not go without proper tokens of divine displeasure and
abhorrence ; that God will maintain his law ; that his authority and gov
ernment shall not be suffered to fall into contempt ; and that God is a
friend to virtue and holiness, and an irreconcilable enemy to transgres
sion, sin, and vice. These things were necessary to be made manifest,
and the clear manifestation of these things, if we will use the term, was
the debt which was due to God. This manifesjation was made in the ,
sufferings and death of Christ. But Christ did not, in the literal sense,
pay the debt we 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
satisfactory, have said, that the atonement of Christ consisted, not in the
payment of 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 decla
ration of the rectitude of the divine law and character, so it was a decla
ration of the evil of sin ; and the greater the evil 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 consists not in the payment
of a debt, but in the vindication of the divine law and character ; there
fore it is not at all opposed to free grace in pardon.

GRACE CONSISTENT WITH ATONEMENT. 19
* Concerning this stating of the matter, I beg leave to observe ; that if
by a vindication of the divine law and character be meant, proof given
that the law of God is just, and that the divine character is good and
irreproachable ; I can by no means suppose, that the 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 divine 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 sup
port 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 with
out proper satisfaction ; I grant, that by Christ the divine law and char
acter 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, hath made full atonement for him, by vin
dicating the law and character of God ? what if the sinner himself, in
stead of Christ, had, by obedience and suffering, vindicated the law and
character of God, and in consequence had been released from further
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.
4 : 4. Therefore, why is it not equally an act of justice to release the
sinner, in consequence of the same vindication made by Christ ? Pay
ment of debt equally precludes grace, when made by a third person, as
when made by the debtor himself. And since the vindication of the di
vine law and character, made by the sinner himself, precludes grace from
the release of the sinner ; why does not the same vindication as effectu
ally preclude it, when made by a third person ?
Those authors who give us this solution of the difficulty under consid
eration, seem to suppose that it is a sufficient solution to say that the
atonement consists, not in the payment of debt, but in the vindication of
the divine law and character ; 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 vindication were made
by the sinner himself, it would shut out all grace from his release. And

20 , GRACE CONSISTENT WITH ATONEMENT.
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 re-
release. It seems, then, that the grace of pardon depends, not barely on
this, that the atonement consists in a vindication of the law and character
of God ; but upon this particular circumstance attending the vindication,
that it be made by a third person. And if this circumstance will 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 attended with the
same important and decisive circumstance, that it is made by a third
person ?
Objection. But we could not vindicate the law and character of God ;
therefore it is absurd to make the supposition, and to draw consequences
from the supposition, that we had made such a vindication. Answer.
It is no more absurd to make this supposition, than it is to make the sup
position, that we had paid the debt to divine justice ; for we could no
more do this than we could make the vindication in question. And if it
follows, from this circumstance, that we neither have vindicated nor could
vindicate the divine character, that our release from condemnation is an
act of grace ; why does it not also follow from the circumstance, that we
neither have paid nor could pay the debt to divine justice, that our release
is an act 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 solving this grand difficulty appears
to be satisfactory. Even this last, which seemed to bid the fairest to af
ford satisfaction, fails. Therefore,
Secondly. I shall suggest some considerations which may possibly
lead to the true solution. The question before us is, whether pardon
through the atonement of Christ be an act of justice or of grace. In or
der to a proper answer to this question, it is of primary importance that
we have clear and determinate ideas affixed to the words justice and
grace. I find the word justice to be used in three distinct senses ; sometimes it
means commutative justice, sometimes distributive justice, and sometimes
what may be called general or public justice.
Commutative justice respects property and matters of commerce solely,
and secures to every man his own property. To treat a man justly in
this sense, is not to deprive him of his property, and whenever it falls into
our hands, to restore 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 properly rewarding virtue or good con-

GRACE CONSISTENT WITH ATONEMENT. 21
duct, and punishing crimes or vicious conduct ; and it has respect to a
man's personal moral character or conduct. To treat a man justly in this
sense, is to treat him according to his personal character or conduct.
Commutative justice, in the recovering of debts, has no respect at all to
the character or conduct of the debtor, but merely to the property of the
creditor. Distributive justice, in the punishment 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 is really an improper use of it. In
this sense, whatever is right, is said to be just, or an act of justice ; and
whatever is wrong or improper to be done, is said to be unjust, or an act
of injustice. To practise justice in this sense, is to practise 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 injured or deprived of his right. Whenever the
general good is neglected or impeded, the universe may be said to suffer
an injury. 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 glo
rious grace, and with the good of the universe. In this sense, it would
not be just- Yet in the sense of distributive justice, such a treatment of
Paul would be perfectly just, as it would be no more than correspondent
to his personal demerits.
The term grace, comes now to be explained. Grace is ever so op
posed to justice, that they mutually limit each other. Wherever grace
begins, justice ends ; and wherever justice begins, grace ends. Grace, as
opposed to commutative justice, is gratuitously to relinquish your proper
ty, or to forgive a man his debt. And commutative injustice is to de
mand more of a man than your own property. Grace, as opposed to jus
tice 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
unjustly is to use him with greater severity than is correspondent to his
personal character. It is to be remembered, that, in personal character, I
include punishment endured, as well as actions performed. When a
man has broken any law, and has afterwards suffered the penalty of that
law ; as he has, by the transgression, treated the law with contempt, so
by suffering the penalty, he has supported the authority of it ; and the
latter makes a part of his personal character, as he stands related to that
law, as really as the former.
With regard to the third kind of justice, as this is improperly called
justice, and as it comprehends all moral goodness, it is not at all opposed

22 GRACE CONSISTENT WITH ATONEMENT.
to grace ; but comprehends that, as well as every other virtue, as truth,
faithfulness, meekness, forgiveness, patience, prudence, temperance, forti
tude, &c. All these are right and fit, and the contrary tempers or prac
tices are wrong, and injurious to God and the system ; and therefore, in
this sense of justice, are unjust. And even grace itself, which is favor
to the ill-deserving, so far as it is wise and proper to be exercised,
makes but a part of this kind of justice.
We proceed now to apply these explanations to the solution of the dif
ficulty under consideration. The question is this, Is the pardon of the
sinner, through the atonement of Christ, an act of justice or of grace? To
which 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 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 jus
tice, and not of grace. To make the sinner also pay the debt, which had
been already paid by Christ, would be manifestly injurious, oppressive,
and beyond the bounds of commutative 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 creditor has recovered his
property, and therefore has a right to nothing further. If he extort, or
attempt to extort, any thing further, he proceeds beyond his right and is
guilty of injustice. So that if Christ had 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 whol
ly an act of grace. This kind of justice has respect solely to the personal
character and conduct of its object. And then is a man treated justly,
when he is treated 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. I say personal character; for distributive jus
tice 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, who is
the object of this justice, or who is on trial, to be rewarded or punished.
And with regard to the case now before us, what if Christ has made an
atonement for sin ? This atonement constitutes no part of the personal
character of the sinner ; but his personal character is essentially the same,
as it would have been, if Christ had made no atonement. And as the
sinner, in pardon, is treated not only more favorably, but infinitely more
favorably, than is correspondent 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

GRACE CONSISTENT WITH ATONEMENT. 23
i refused 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 suffering in the stead of a
criminal, there is entire grace in the discharge of the criminal, and dis
tributive justice still allows him to be 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 criminal ; but in the
payment of debts, it respects the recovery of property only. In the
former ease, it admits of any treatment which is according to his per
sonal character ; in the latter, it admits of nothing beyond the recovery
of property.
So that though Christ has made complete atonement for the sins ot
all his disciples, and they are justified wholly through his redemption ;
yet they are justified wholly by grace. Because they personally have
not made atonement for 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 by 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 no further demand.
In the third sense of justice before explained, according to which any
thing is just, which is right and best to be done; the pardon of the
sinner is entirely 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 pardon 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
*ondition, is most conducive to the divine glory and the general good.

24 GRACE CONSISTENT WITH ATONEMENT.
Therefore it is, in the sense of justice now under consideration, an act
of justice ; 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. The same would be 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 wisdom
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 glory and 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 Saviour, 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 impUes
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. 3: 26; "To declare his righteousness (or justice) that he
might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus." That
God might be just to himself and to the universe. Again, in Psalm
85 : 10 ; " Mercy and truth are met together, righteousness and peace
have kissed each 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 public 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
catechism 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 dis
tributive 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
It is in the same sense an act of grace, as the gift of Christ, or any
other most gracious 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 corre
spondent to his personal character.
The pardon of the sinner, on this plan of the redemption or the atone
ment of Christ, is as entirely an act of grace, as if it had been granted
on an atonement made, not by the sufferings of Christ, but merely by

GRACE CONSISTENT WITH ATONEMENT. 25
his active obedience. 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 procured by the payment
of the sinner's debt, in the one case, than in the other. If it be said that
Christ's suffering the curse of the law is the payment of the debt; I
answer, this is no 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 correspondent to his personal
character. The same is true, if he be pardoned on account of Christ's
sufferings. K it be said, that in the one case Christ suffers, as the
substitute of the sinner ; I answer, in the other case, he obeys as the
substitute 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 bis obedience. And if this circumstance, that the pardon of
the sinner is consistent with the general good abolishes grace from his
pardon in the one case, the same circumstance is productive of the same
effect in the other. The truth is, that in both cases the whole grace
of pardon consists in this, and this only, that the sinner is treated infi
nitely 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. If the sinner had been pardoned without any
atonement, he would have been treated more favorably than is corre
spondent to his own character ; so he is, when pardoned through the
atonement of Christ. In the former case, he would be pardoned, without
a payment of his debt ; so he is in the latter. J£ the measures taken by
God to secure the public good, those measures consisting neither in any
personal doing or suffering of the sinner, nor in the payment of debt, be
inconsistent with grace in the pardon of the sinner in the one case ;
doubtless whatever measures are taken by God to secure the public
good in the other case, are equally inconsistent with grace in pardon.
And no man will pretend, that if God do pardon the sinner without an
atonement, he will pardon him in a way which is inconsistent with the
public good. In this view of the objection, either the bare circumstance
that the pardon of the sinner is consistent w,ith the public good, is that
which abolishes the grace of pardon ; or it is the particular mode in
which the consistence of pardon and the public good is brought about.
3

26 GRACE CONSISTENT WITH ATONEMENT.
If the 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 pos
sessed of infinite perfection and goodness, whereby he is necessarily dis
posed to seek the good of the universal system, or of his own kingdom.
Or if it be said, that it is the particular mode in which the consistence
between pardon and the public good is brought about, which abolishes the
grace of pardon ; in this case it is incumbent on the objector to point out
what there is in the mode which is opposed to grace in pardon. He
cannot pretend that in this mode the debt of the sinner is paid, or that
in repentance the sinner's personal character is so altered that he now
deserves no punishment If this were the case, there would certainly be
no grace in his pardon. It is no grace, and no pardon, not to punish a
man who deserves no punishment. If the objector were to hold, that the
personal character of the sinner is so altered by repentance that he no
longer deserves punishment, he would at once confute his own scheme 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 correspondent to his
personal character. And pardon, on such an atonement as Christ hath
made, is, in the same view, an act of grace. So that if the true idea of
grace, with respect to this subject be, a treatment of a sinner more favor
ably than is correspondent to his personal character, the pardon of the
sinner through the atonement of Christ, is an act of pure grace. If this
be not the true idea of grace, let a better be given, and I am willing to
examine it ; and presume that on the most thorough examination of the
matter it will be found, that there is as much grace in the pardon of the
sinner, through the atonement of Christ, as without any atonement at all.
Surely it will not be pleaded, that it is no act of grace to treat a sinner
more favorably than is correspondent to his own personal character ; if
such treatment be not more favorable than is correspondent to the per
sonal character of some other man, or some other being ; and that it is
no act of grace in a prince to pardon a criminal, from respect to the merits
of the criminal's father ; or, that if Capt. Asgill had been the murderer of
Capt. Huddy, there would have been no grace exercised in the pardon of
Asgill, from respect to the intercession of the court of France.
On every hypothesis concerning the mode or condition of pardon, it

GRACE CONSISTENT WITH ATONEMENT. 27
must be allowed, that God dispenses pardon from regard to some circum
stance, or juncture of circumstances, which renders the pardon both con
sistent with the general good, and subservient to it : and whatever this
be, whether the death of Christ, or any thing else, provided it be not the
payment of money, and provided the personal character of the sinner be
the same, it is equally consistent or inconsistent with grace in pardon.
In short, the whole strength of this objection, in which the Socinians
have so much triumphed, that complete atonement is inconsistent with
grace in the pardon of the sinner, depends on the supposition, that the
atonement of Christ consists in the literal payment of a debt which we
owed to God ; and this groundless supposition being set aside, the objec
tion itself appears equally groundless, and vanishes like dew before the
sun. Whatever hypothesis we adopt concerning the pardon of the sinner,
whether we suppose it to be granted on account of the death of Christ ;
or on account of the obedience of Christ ; or absolutely without any atone
ment ; all will agree in this, that it is granted in such a way, or on such
conditions only, as are consistent with the general good of the moral sys
tem ; and from a regard to some event or circumstance, or juncture of
circumstances, which causes pardon to be consistent with the general
good. And that circumstance, or juncture of circumstances, may as well
be called the price of pardon, the ransom of the sinner, &c, as the death
of Christ And whereas it is objected, that if God grant a pardon from
respect to the atonement of Christ, we are under no obligation to God for
the grace of pardon ; I answer that whenever God grants a pardon, from
respect to the circumstance or juncture of circumstances before men
tioned, it may as well be pleaded, that the sinner so pardoned is under
no obligations of gratitude to God on account of his pardon ; for that it
was granted from regard to the general good, or to that circumstance
which rendered it consistent with the general good, and not from any
gracious regard to him ; or that if he be under any obligation to God, it
is to him as the author of that circumstance or juncture of circumstances,
which renders his pardon consistent with the general good, and not to
him, as the dispenser of his pardon : as it is objected that if, on the
scheme of pardon through the atonement of Christ, we be under any obli
gation to God at all, it is merely on account of the provision of the atone
ment, and not on account of pardon itself. .
Perhaps some, loth to relinquish this objection, may say, Though it be
true, that the pardon of the sinner, on account of the atonement of Christ,
be a real act of grace ; would it not have been an act of greater grace, to
pardon absolutely, without an atonement ? This question is capable of a
twofold construction. If the meaning be, whether there would not have

28 GRACE CONSISTENT WITH ATONEMENT.
been more grace manifested towards the sinner, if his pardon had been
granted without any atonement ? I answer, by no means ; because to put
the question in this sense, is the same as to ask, whether the favor of par
don granted without an atonement, would not be greater in comparison
with the sinner's personal character, than it is when granted on account
of the atonement of Christ ? Or whether there would not have been a
greater distance between the good of pardon, and the demerit of the sin
ner's personal character, if his pardon had been granted without an atone
ment, than if it be granted on account of the atonement of Christ ? But
the good, the safety, the indemnity of pardon, or of deliverance from con
demnation, is the very same, in whatever way it be granted, whether
through an atonement or not, whether in a way of grace or in a way of
debt, whether from a regard to the merits of Christ, or the merits of the
sinner himself. Again, the personal character of the sinner is also the
same, whether he be pardoned through an atonement or not. If his par
don be granted without an atonement, it makes not the demerit of his
personal character and conduct the greater ; or if it be granted on account
of the atonement of Christ, it makes not the demerit of his personal char
acter 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 atonement 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 an atonement, than if granted
from regard to the atonement of Christ.
But perhaps the meaning of the question 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 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 atonement, which I have endeavored briefly 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 estab
lished, the question just now stated comes to this simply ; whether it ex
hibits greater grace and goodness in the divine mind, and secures greater
good to the universe, to pardon sin in such a mode, as is consistent with
the general good of the universe ; or in such a mode as is inconsistent
with that important object ? a question which no man, from regard to his
own reputation would choose to propose.

SERMON III.
INFERENCES AND REFLECTIONS.

In whom we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness op sins,
ACCORDING TO THE RICHES OF HIS GRACE. — EphesianS 1 : 7.
Having, in the preceding discourses, 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 the consistency between the complete
atonement of Christ, and free grace in forgiveness, — the way is prepared
for the following inferences and reflections : —
If the atonement of Christ be a substitute for the punishment of the
sinner according to the divine law, and were designed to support
the authority of that law, equally as the punishment of hell ; then we
may infer; that the atonement of Christ does not consist in showing that
the divine law is just. With regard to this, I venture to assert two
things, — that the obedience and death of Christ do not prove that the
divine law is just, — that if they did prove this, still, merely by that cir
cumstance, they would make no atonement.
1. The obedience and death of Christ do not prove that the divine law
is a just law. The sufferings of Christ no more prove this than the pun
ishment 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 lo 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 perfection 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
3* (29)

30 INFERENCES AND REFLECTIONS.
the testimony of a being whose integrity is as much disputed as the jus
tice 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 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 foundation to dispute the
character and testimony 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,
still, 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 manifest that the law is
just, makes atonement. The essence of the atonement on this hypothesis,
is placed in the manifestation of the justice of the divine law. Therefore
this manifestation, however or by whomsoever it be made, is an atone
ment. 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 according to the law, it never would have appeared
that the law is just. But bare attention to the law itself, to the reason,
ground, 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 con-
' vince any man of the justice 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 incar
nation and death of Christ. According to this hypothesis, therefore, all
that was necessary to make atonement for mankind was to communicate
to them sanctifying 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 ? how would this support the authority of the law ?

INFERENCES AND REFLECTIONS. 31
how would this make it appear that the transgressor may expect the
most awful consequences from his transgression ? or that transgression
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 regard to 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 mani
festation 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
manifest 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 of Christ manifests God's hatred of sin and
love of holiness in the same sense as the damnation of the wicked
manifests these, namely, on the supposition that the divine law is just
and holy. If it be allowed the divine law is just and holy, then every
thing done to support and execute that law, is 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 transgression 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 preceding doctrine, that the atonement
of Christ does not consist essentially in his active or positive obedience.
By atonement I mean that which, as a substitute for the punishment
which is threatened in the law, supports the authority of that law, and
the dignity of the divine government. But the obedience of Christ,
even in the most trying circumstances, without any tokens of the divine
displeasure against the transgressors of the law, would never support
the authority of the law 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 consequences to him who dares

32 INFERENCES AND REFLECTIONS.
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 steadily
attend the school kept in the neighborhood, and that if he absent him
self for a day, without license, he shall feel the rod. However, after some
time the child being weary of observing this law, does absent bhnself,
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 punish
ment which he had threatened. At this instant, the brother of the
offending child intercedes, acknowledges the reasonableness of the law
which his brother hath transgressed, confesses that he deserves the
penalty, but offers himself to make satisfaction for his brother's offence.
Being interrogated by what means he expects to make satisfaction, he
answers, by going himself to school the next day. Now can any one
suppose that in this way the second child can make satisfaction for the
offence 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 means be effectually deterred from
future offences of the like nature? And however trying the circum
stances 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 offence of the first.
I venture to say further, that not only did not the atonement of
Christ consist essentially in his active obedience, but that his active
obedience was no part of his atonement, properly so called, nor essential
to it The perfect obedience of Christ was doubtless necessary in order
to the due execution of his prophetical and priestly office, in order to
his intercession ; and also in order that the salvation of his disciples
might be a reward of his obedience. But that it was necessary to
support tho authority of the divine law in the pardon of sinners, does not
appear. If Christ himself could possibly have been a sinner, and had
first made satisfaction for his own sin, it does not appeal-, but that after
ward he might also satisfy for the sins of his people. If the pretender
to the crown of Great Britain should wage war against king George,
in the course of the war should bo taken, should be brought to trial, and
be condemned to the block ; will any man say that the king of France,
by becoming tho substitute of the pretender, and suffering in his stead,
could not make atonement for the pretender, so as effectually to support
the authority of the British laws and government, and discourage all
future groundless pretensions to the British crown ? Yet the king of
France could plead no perfect obedience to the British laws. Even the

INFERENCES AND REFLECTIONS. 33
sinner himself, but upon the supposition of the infinite evil of sin, could,
by his own sufferings, atone for his sins. Yet he could not exhibit a
perfect obedience.
Besides ; if the bare obedience of Christ have made atonement, why
could not the repentance and perfect obedience of Christ's people them
selves have answered, instead of the obedience of Christ ? Doubt
less if they had suffered the penalty of the divine law, it would have
answered to support the authority of the law, and the vigor of the
divine government, as really as the death of Christ. And since the
eternal sufferings of the people of Christ would have answered the
same end of supporting the authority of the law as the sufferings of
Christ ; why would not the eternal perfect repentance and obedience of
the people of Christ, have answered the same end, as his obedience in
their behalf? If it would, both the death and obedience of Christ as
our substitute, are entirely in vain. If the elect had only been con
verted, and made perfectly and perseveringly obedient, it would have
answered every purpose both of the death and obedience of Christ Or
if the obedience of Christ in the flesh were at all necessary, it was not
necessary to support the authority of the law and government of God ;
but merely as it was most wise that he should obey. It was necessary
in the same sense only, as that the wind should, at this moment, blow
from the north-east, and not from the south-west, or from any other
quarter. If the mere active obedience of Christ have made atonement for sin,
it may be difficult to account for the punishment of any sinners. If
obedience without any demonstration of divine displeasure at sin will
answer every purpose of the divine authority and government, in some
instances, why not in all instances? And if the obedience of sinners
themselves will answer as really as that of Christ, why might not all
men have been led by divine grace to repentance, and perfect subsequent
obedience, and in that way been saved from the curse of the law?
Doubtless they might; nor was there originally, nor is there now,
without any consideration of the atonement of Christ, any other
necessity of the punishment of any of mankind according to the law,
than that which results from mere sovereign wisdom ; in which sense,
indeed, it was necessary that Christ should be given to be the Saviour
of sinners, that Paul should be saved, and that every other event should
take place, just as it does take place.
From our doctrine we also learn the great gain which accrues to the
universe by the death of Christ It hath been objected to the idea of
atonement now exhibited, that if the death of Christ be an equivalent to
the curse of the law, which was to have been inflicted on all his people ;

34 INFERENCES AND REFLECTIONS.
then there is on the whole no gain, no advantage to the universe ; that
all that punishment from which Christians are saved, hath been suffered
by Christ, and therefore that there is just 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 necessary, on account
of the infinite dignity of his person. If a king were to condemn his son
to lose an ear or a hand, it would doubtless be esteemed, by all his
subjects, a proof of far greater displeasure 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 inflicted on the prince.
2. That if it were true that Christ endured the very same quantity of,
misery which was due to all his people ; still, by his death, an infinite gain
accrues to the universe. For though the misery, on this supposition, is
in both cases the same, and balances itself; yet the positive happiness
obtained by the death of 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 ap
pear, but that during the rest of his life he was as happy as men in gen
eral, 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. 7 : 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 multi
tude 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 in
conceivable and endless misery ; then it may be justly said, on the pres
ent hypothesis, 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 measure 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

INFERENCES AND REFLECTIONS. 35
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 un
doubted truth, that there is no inability in men to obey the law, except
that which is of a moral nature, consisting in the disinclination or disaffec
tion of their own hearts, which does not in the least excuse them in their
disobedience. But this is manifest by other considerations than the per
fect obedience of Christ ; if it were not, it would not be manifest at all.
Another remark which naturally offers itself in discoursing on this sub
ject is, that Christ's obedience to the precepts of the law, without submit
ting to the curse, would 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 I am 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 precepts of any law may be just and reasonable, yet
may be enforced by a penaltywhich is unjust and cruel ; so the proof that
the precept is just, does not at all prove but that the penalty may be unjust
and cruel. Indeed as the penalty of any law is designed to support and
enforce the precept of that law, so to prove the justice of the 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 in
verted, doth not hold good. To prove the justice of a precept, does by no
means prove the justice of the penalty by which that precept is enforced.
So that if Christ have proved the precepts of the divine law to be just,
this by no means infers the justice 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 effect have an immediate reference to the precepts only ; and if
he have done nothing to establish the justice of the penal part, considered
by itself; the aspect of the whole will be, that the penal part is unjusti
fiable, and that for this reason he did not pretend to justify it.
The subject which hath been under our consideration also shows us,
in what sense the sufferings of Christ were agreeable to God. It has
been said, that it is incredible that mere pain should be agreeable to a
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 agreeable to God. It certainly is in the damned; and for the

36 INFERENCES AND REFLECTIONS.
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 neces
sary to support the authority of his law and government, in the salvation
of sinners.
Another reflection naturally suggested by this subject is, that in pun
ishing 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 contracted, selfish motives, but from the most noble benevo
lence and regard to the public good. It hath often and long since been
made a matter of objection to the doctrines of the future punishment of
the wicked, and of the atonement of Christ, that they represent the
Deity as having regard merely to his own honor and dignity, and not to
the good of his creatures, and therefore represent him as deficient in
goodness. 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 con
tempt ? 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 his creatures ? Is it not manifestly necessary to
the general good of the created system, that God's moral kingdom be up-
holden ? and that therefore the authority of the divine law, and vigor of
the divine government be maintained ? If so, then it is also necessary to
the general good that punishments be inflicted on the disobedient and
lawless ; or that they be pardoned in consequence only of a proper satis
faction or atonement.
So that those very doctrines which of all others are made matter of
the most objection to the divine goodness or benevolence, are clear proofs
of goodness, and are absolutely necessary to it. If a prince should either
make no laws for the government of his subjects, or should never exe
cute them, but should suffer all crimes to pass with impunity, 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 people
were exposed, is inconsistent with grace in their pardon. But if I have
been so happy as properly to state the ideas of justice and grace, it ap
pears that there is as much grace in the pardon of sinners on account of
such an atonement as that just mentioned, as there would be on account
of an atonement consisting in mere obedience ; or as there would be in
pardon without any atonement at all.

INFERENCES AND REFLECTIONS. 37
Hence also we see, that the death of Christ in our stead, is not useless
or in vain. The opposers of Christ's substitution and atonement assert,
that no good end is answered by the sufferings of an innocent, amiable,
and virtuous person, in the stead of the guilty. But surely to support
the authority of the law and of the moral government of God, is not a
vain or unimportant end. It was not in vain that Zaleucus, having made
a law that all adulterers should have both their eyes put out, and his
own 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 literally
executed. Nor was it in vain that, during the late war, a soldier in the
American army, of a robust constitution, pitying his fellow-soldier of a
6lender constitution, who was condemned to receive a certain number of
stripes, petitioned to be put in the place of the criminal, and actually re
ceived the stripes.* For the authority of the martial law was effectually
supported, and perhaps by this means, the Ufe or future health and ser
vice of the criminal were preserved, which would otherwise have been
lost Neither was the death of Christ, in the stead of sinners, any injury
done to an innocent person. As well may we say that Zaleucus, or the
soldier just mentioned, were injured; or that a man is injured when
another man receives the money of him, which he voluntarily tenders in
payment of the debt of a third person ; or that a man is injured by the
surgeon, who takes off his leg to preserve his life, the man himself con
senting, and desiring him so to do.
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 jus
tice before mentioned, that is satisfied by the death of Christ. No man,
for the reasons already given, will pretend that commutative justice is
satisfied 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 grace in the discharge of the sinner, than
there is in the discharge of a criminal, when he hath endured the full
punishment to which, according to law, he hath been condemned. If dis
tributive justice were satisfied, it would have no further claim on the sin
ner. And to punish him, when this kind of justice has no claim on him,
is to treat him more unfavorably or severely than his personal character
deserves. If so, the penitent believer, considered in bis own person, de
serves, even according to the strictness of the divine law, no punishment ;
* This, I am informed, was real fact.
4

38 INFERENCES AND REFLECTIONS.
and that merely because he repents and believes : and if so, repentance
and faith satisfy the law, or are the curse of it, as I have already shown.
If distributive justice be satisfied, it admits of no further punishment, and
to punish him further, would be as positively unjust, as to continue a man's
punishment, after he hath endured the full penalty of any law. If distrib
utive justice be satisfied 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 of his friend or representative. Therefore if a subject rebel
against his sovereign, and procure a man of a most unexceptionable and
amiable character, to represent him and plead his cause before his sover
eign, he has a right, on the footing of distributive justice, to be treated
according to the character of his representative ; and if he be not thus
treated, he suffers an injury ; he is abused. On 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 to represent him and plead his
cause. But perhaps it will be said, that distributive justice is satisfied by the
death of Christ, because he placed himself in our stead, and suffered in
our room ; and that whenever a person thus substitutes himself for
another, and suffers the punishment due to that other, that other hath
a right to a discharge, as distributive justice is then satisfied. Now,
according 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 repre
sentative ? And this brings us just where we were ; that every man may,
in justice, demand to be treated according to the character of his
representative ; which is absurd.
Distributive justice, therefore, is not 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 consistent 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

INFERENCES AND REFLECTIONS. 39
distributive justice satisfied ? I answer, for the reasons already given,
in the negative. If the meaning be, is there not an exhibition made in
the death and sufferings of Christ, of the punishment to which the
sinner is justly liable ? I answer in the affirmative : distributive justice
is, in this sense, displayed in the death of Christ. But it is no more
displayed, than the punishment of the sinner is displayed in the death of
Christ It may be proper here to notice the sense in which justice admits of
the salvation 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 admit also 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 carefully
distinguished. When it is said justice admits of the salvation of Paul,
the third kind of 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 requires every man to be treated
according to his personal character, does not admit that Paul should be
saved; so far as this kind of justice says any thing 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 inevitably
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 demand it." Justice to the
universe 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 admits of the salvation of Judas. Whereas dis
tributive justice to Paul personally, as much demands that he be not
saved, as that Judas be not saved.
But if we will make a distinction between 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 would
be done. Distributive justice, then, admits of the salvation of Judas or of
any other sinner, as surely no injustice would be done Judas in his
salvation ; but it demands not this, as it is a mere favor, or something
beyond the bounds of mere justice ; or it is no injury to Judas, that he is
not saved. Neither does distributive justice demand the salvation of
Paul. But public justice both admits and demands both the salvation
of Paul and the damnation of Judas. On the other hand, it neither

40 INFERENCES AND REFLECTIONS.
admits nor 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 damnation of both Paul and Judas, yet demands neither
the salvation nor damnation of the one or the other ; or, to express 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 of any criminal, in any instance ;
because no injury would be done him, if he were graciously pardoned.
It demands only that a man be not punished being innocent ; or be not
punished beyond his demerit ; and that he be rewarded 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 rewards 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 congruity which
is a proper expression of the sense which the person rewarding has, of
the moral excellency of the person rewarded ; 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
wages. These cannot be withholden without positive injury. Of the
latter kind is the merit, which some eminently wise and virtuous
citizens have, of distinguishing honors or marks of esteem. If these be
withholden, the proper objects of them may, indeed, be said to be neg
lected, 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 sin
ners, God was under the same obligation to accept the offer, as a creditor
is to accept the proposal of any man who offers to pay the debt of
another. This is not true ; because, in matters of property, all 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
demand more, he exceeds 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 the same when the same offer is made by the debtor him
self. All will own, that if a creditor were to refuse to receive payment
and give up the obligation when the debtor offers payment, it would be
abusive and unjust; and let any man assign a reason why it is not

INFERENCES AND REFLECTIONS. 41
equally abusive and unjust, not to receive 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 substitute, and insist
on punishing the criminal himself, he treats him no otherwise than ac
cording to his personal character, and the criminal suffers no injustice or
abuse. Nor is the magistrate under any obligation of distributive justice,
or justice to the criminal himself, to accept a substitute.
It is true, that the circumstances of the case may be such that it may
be most conducive to the pubUc good that the offered substitute be ac
cepted ; in this case wisdom and goodness or public justice will require
that it be accepted, 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, is as
wide of the truth, as that he was under the samej 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 greatest
good of the moral system did require that Christ should become a substi
tute for sinners, and that his offered substitution should be accepted by
God. This was dictated and recommended by both wisdom and good
ness. So far, therefore, as wisdom and goodness could infer an obliga
tion on the Father to accept the substitution of his Son, he was under
obligation to accept it. But this obligation was only that of the third
kind of justice before explained, a regard to the general good.
This subject further teaches us, that that constitution which requires
an atonement in order to the pardon of the sinner is nothing arbitrary.
That divine constitution which is wise and good, as being necessary to
the good of the moral system, is not arbitrary. But if an atonement was
necessary, in order to support the authority of the divine law, and the
honor, vigor, and even existence of the divine moral government, while
sinners are pardoned, undoubtedly that constitution which requires an
atonement in order to the pardon of the sinner, is the dictate of wisdom
and goodness, and by no means of an arbitrary spirit.
Hence we also learn in what sense the death of Christ renders God
propitious to sinners. It does so only as it supports the authority of his
law and government, and renders the pardon of sinners consistent with
the good of the system and the glory of God.
Finally ; this subject teaches the groundlessness of that objection to
the doctrine of atonement, that it represents the Deity as inexorable. If
4*

42 INFERENCES AND REFLECTIONS.
to refuse to pardon sinners unless it be in a way which is consistent with
the good of the moral system, is to be inexorable ; then that God will not
pardon sinners without atonement, or in a way which is consistent with
the authority of his law, and with the authority and even existence of his
moral government, is indeed a proof that God is inexorable. But unless
it be an instance of inexorability that God will not pardon sinners, unless
it be in a way which is consistent with the good of the moral system, there
is no ground to object to the doctrine of atonement, that it represents the
Deity as inexorable. On the other hand, that God requires an atone
ment in order to pardon, is an instance and proof of truly divine good
ness ; and if he were to pardon without an atonement, it would prove
that he is destitute of goodness, and regardless not only of his own glory,
but of the true happiness of the system of his moral creatures.

TWO SERMONS.

i.
JUSTIFICATION THROUGH CHRIST, AN ACT OF FREE GRACE.
II.
THE LAW IN ALL RESPECTS SATISFIED BY OUR SAVIOUR, IN REGARD
TO THOSE ONLY WHO BELONG TO HIM ; OR, NONE BUT BELIEVERS
SAVED THROUGH THE ALL-SUFFICIENT SATISFACTION OF CHRIST.
BY
JOHN SMALLEY, D.D.
(43)

SERMON I.
JUSTIFICATION THROUGH CHRIST, AN ACT OF FREE GRACE.

Being justified freely by his grace, through the redemption that is in
Christ jesus. — Romans 3: 24.
The point labored in the preceding part of this epistle, is the impossi
bility of salvation for any of mankind, on the footing of mere law, or of
personal righteousness. The apostle hath proved that both Jews and
Gentiles were all under sin ; and hence he infers, as the necessary
consequence, that, " by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be jus
tified in the sight of God." This point being established, that the
original way of life was now forever barred against the race of fallen
man, the apostle proceeds, for the comfort of sinners, to open to view the
gospel method of justification through a Redeemer. See the context,
verse 21, and onward. " But now the righteousness of God without the
law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets ; even the
righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ, unto all, and
upon all them that believe ; for there is no difference. For all have
sinned and come short of the glory of God. Being justified freely by his
grace, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus."
It is of the last importance that this new way of access into the divine
favor, and of obtaining eternal life, should be rightly explained. By
many it has been so misunderstood as either to make void the law, or
to frustrate the grace of the gospel, or both. Some speculative inaccu
racies also, it appears to me, respecting justification through the atone
ment and righteousness of Christ, have been inadvertently adopted by
many, if not most, of the orthodox, of which men of erroneous senti
ments have availed themselves to very pernicious purposes.
The great difficulty respecting this subject, to which I design to
pay particular attention at present, is, how to reconcile the full satis-
(45)

46 JUSTIFICATION THROUGH CHRIST,
faction of Christ, with the free grace of God in the pardon of sin and the
justification of sinners. It is proposed, agreeably to the words before us,
1st. To explain gospel justification.
Sd. To consider how this is through the redemption of Christ. And,
3d. To show that still it is of the free grace of God.
But on the last of these heads I mean mainly to insist.
I. I shall endeavor very briefly to explain what we are here to under
stand by being justified.
Justification literally signifies judging one to be just. A man is said
to justify himself when he asserts his own innocence, or denies that
he has been to blame in any instance. So one is said to justify another
when he stands up for him, or undertakes his vindication. Among the
Jews this was a law phrase, or was used in reference to their courts of
judicature. See Deut. 25 : 1 ; "If there be a controversy between
men, and they come unto judgment, that the judges may judge them,
then they shall justify the righteous, and condemn the wicked."
From this judicial use of the word, it came to be applied to the case
of mankind, in regard to the sentence of the Supreme Judge. The legal
justification of man, had he persevered in perfect rectitude, would have,
been the sentence of his Maker, pronouncing him righteous, and confirm
ing him in immortal happiness. But gospel justification — the justifica
tion of fallen men before a holy and just God, must be supposed to have
something peculiar in it. The application of the word to this case, must
be understood as borrowed and figurative ; yet the thing intended is suf
ficiently analogous to the primary meaning of the phrase to well warrant
this metaphorical use. It bears a resemblance to the legal and literal
justification of the righteous in the two most essential points. It implies
an acquittance from sin as exposing to eternal death, and the grant of a
sure title to everlasting life.
1st. Gospel justification implies an acquittance from all sin, as ex
posing to eternal death. To this purpose see Acts 13 : 38, 39 ; " Be it
known unto you therefore, men and brethreii, that through this man is
preached unto you the forgiveness of sins; and by «him all that believe
are justified from all things, from which ye could not be justified by the
law of Moses." In the Mosaic law, provision was made for cleansing
persons from ceremonial, but not from moral, transgressions. Not from
sin, the apostle to the Hebrews observes, "as pertaining to the con
science." Hence David says, Psalm 51 : 16, " For thou desirest not sac
rifice, else would I give it." That is, there were no sin-offerings
instituted for such crimes as those of which he had been guilty. But
through the atonement of Christ believers are justified from all tilings.
His " blood cleanseth from all sin." Accordingly we read, Rom. 8 : 1,

AN ACT OF FREE GRACE. 47
" There is therefore now no condemnation to them who are in Christ
Jesus." That is, no condemnation to eternal death. Not that there is
no kind of condemnation to those who are justified according to the new
covenant The best saints are liable to temporal punishments, notwith
standing their justification. Moses and David and Hezekiah were
condemned for their sins, and sorely punished for them in this world,
though good men, and interested* in the covenant of grace. And St.
Paul, reproving the Corinthians for their unworthy attendance on the
Lord's Supper, says, " For this cause many are weak and sickly among
you, and many sleep. For if we would judge ourselves we should not be
judged. But when we are judged, we are chastened of the Lord, that we
should not be condemned with the world." Believers, by being justified,
are not exempted from all expressions of the divine displeasure. The par
don implied in this gracious act of God is only a discharge from the condem
nation of the wicked ; that is, from future and eternal punishment. But,
2d. Gospel justification implies the grant of a sure title to eternal life.
This is more than merely being delivered from the curse of the law.
Adam, before his fall, was perfectly free from all condemnation; but
he was not confirmed in the divine favor. He was placed in a state
of probation with only a conditional promise of final happiness. If he
obeyed he was to live ; if he disobeyed he was to die. And he had no
assurance of effectual grace to preserve him from final apostasy and
perdition. In this last respect, the case of those who are justified
through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus is essentially different.
Indeed, some have supposed that believers in Christ, have, in this fife,
only conditional promises of final salvation. Nor can it be denied that .
persevering obedience of the gospel is made necessary in order to eternal
life. It is written, " The just shall live by faith ; but if any man draw
back, my soul shall have no pleasure in him. He that endureth to the
end," says Christ, " the same shall be saved. To him that overcometh
will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and
am set down with my Father in his throne."
From such passages as these many have been led to suppose, that all
the promises of the second covenant, like those of the first, are only
conditional, and depend upon the mutable will of man for their ultimate
accomplishment. But texts enough may be produced, which assert the
absolute safety of all who are once justified by faith. Justification and
glorification are spoken of as infallibly connected, Rom. 8:30; " Whom
he justifieth, them he also glorifieth." And our Saviour says, John 5 : 24,
" Verily, verily, I say unto you, he that heareth my words, and believeth
on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into
condemnation."

48 JUSTIFICATION THROUGH CHRIST,
Nor are these at all inconsistent with those other texts, which imply
that none shall be saved at last, but such as obey the gospel to the
end of life. For perseverance in faith and holiness may be made abso
lutely sure in the first justification. And that this is actually the case is
most evident from Scripture. Christ says of his sheep — of all who
" hear his voice, and follow him, I give unto them eternal life ; and they
shall never perish, neither shall any pluck them out of my hand." Those
who truly believe, we are taught, are not of them that draw back unto
perdition. They are said to be "kept by the power of God, through
faith, unto salvation." We may be confident of this very thing, accord
ing to the apostle, that he who hath begun a good work in any one — a
work of faith with power — he will perform it until the day of Jesus
Christ. From these passages, and many more in the New Testament,
it appears evident enough that those who have once obtained Gospel
justification, are not only put into a new state of trial upon a milder
constitution, according to which it is possible they may be finally saved ;
but that their salvation is made infallible, by this better covenant, estab
lished upon better promises ; this everlasting covenant, ordered in all
things, and sure.
II. I proceed to speak of the redemption of Christ, the essential ground
of gospel justification.
To redeem, signifies to deliver ; more strictly, and most commonly, to
deliver by ransom. There were various laws in Israel concerning re
demptions : the redemption of lives, of lost inheritances, and of persons
sold to slavery. Every first-born male, according to law, was the Lord's ;
but the first-born of man, and the firstlings of certain beasts might not
be sacrificed ; provision was therefore made for their being redeemed by
the substitution of others in their stead. See Exod. 13: 13; "Every
firstling of an ass thou shalt redeem with a lamb ; and if thou wilt not
redeem it, then thou shalt break his neck ; and all the first-born of man
amongst thy children shalt thou redeem." With regard to the redemp
tion of inheritances, see Lev. 25 : 25 ; " If thy brother be waxen poor,
and hath sold away of his possession, and if any of his kin come to re
deem it, then shall he redeem that which his brother had sold." Of the
redemption of Israelites who had sold themselves, see the same chapter,
ver. 47-49 ; " And if a sojourner or stranger wax rich by thee, and thy
brother by him wax poor, and sell himself unto the stranger ; after that
he is sold he may be redeemed again ; one of his brethren may redeem
him : either his uncle, or his uncle's son may redeem him, or any that
is nigh of kin unto him of his family may redeem him ; or, if he be
able, he may redeem himself."
In allusion to these and such like redemptions in Israel, Christ is

AN ACT OF FREE GRACE, 49
called our Redeemer, and is said to be made of God unto us redemption.
Agreeably to these different instances and ways of redeeming, the re
demption that is in Jesus Christ may be understood as comprehending,
both the merit of his obedience, and the manifestation of divine justice
made by his sufferings, in our nature and stead. We were waxen poor ;
our eternal inheritance was alienated ; and such was the grace of our
Lord Jesus Christ, who " was rich, that for our sakes he became poor,
that we through his poverty might be rich." He took upon him the form
of a servant — the nature and place of man, and, in that nature and ca
pacity, obeyed perfectly his Father's law as man ought to have done, that
"by his obedience many might be made righteous," and obtain the inher
itance of eternal life. We had sold ourselves ; the Son of Man therefore,
our kinsman, came to seek and to save — to ransom and redeem us.
Hence we are said to be bought with a price ; and to be redeemed, not
with corruptible things as silver and gold, but with the precious blood
of Christ. We were devoted to utter destruction ; for it is said, " The
soul that sinneth it shall die ; and, cursed is every one that continueth
not in all things written in the book of the law to do them. Christ there
fore suffered for us, the just for the unjust. He hath redeemed us from
the curse of the law, being made a curse for us. 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."
What rendered the vicarious obedience and sufferings of our Saviour
necessary, was, that we might have remission of sins and the rewards
of the righteous, and yet the honor of the divine law and government
be maintained. "To justify the wicked, is abomination to the Lord.
HeL will by no means clear the guilty." This were to countenance in
iquity, and to cast an indelible slur on his own glorious character. It
were to bring the eternal law of righteousness, and the eternal Lawgiver
of the universe into disregard and contempt. God had given a law
which was holy and just and good. He had enforced this law with in
finite sanctions, that it might be forever observed and had in reverence.
This law had not been fulfilled by man, and therefore the reward of
righteousness could not be given him. This law had been openly violated
by man, and therefore the penalty of transgression and disobedience must
be inflicted upon him. " Shall not the Judge of all the earth do right ? "
Better never to give a law, than to let the violation of it pass with im
punity. But the holy law of God was not rashly given. His own
glory, and the good of the moral creation, required that there should be
such a law, and that the dignity of it should be supported. A lawless,
licentious universe were infinitely worse than none. Hence heaven and
earth might sooner pass away, or be annihilated, than the divine law be
made void, or one tittle of it fail and not be fulfilled.
5

50 JUSTIFICATION THROUGH CHRIST,
But the letter of a law may possibly be deviated from, and yet the
spirit of it be supported, and the design of it fully obtained. We are
told of a certain ancient king (Zaleuchus, king of the Locrians) who,
that he might effectually suppress adultery, which exceedingly prevailed
among his subjects, enacted a law that the adulterer should be punished
with the loss of both his eyes. His own son was convicted of this crime.
The royal father, whose bowels yearned for him, and who could not bear
to have one so dear to him forever deprived of the light of day, devised
an expedient to soften, in that one instance, the rigor of his own law, and
yet not abate its force in future. The king in a most public manner,
before all the people, had one of his own eyes plucked out, that so one of
his son's eyes might be saved. By such a commutation as this, by re
deeming one eye for his son, at so costly a price as the loss of one of
his own, he conceived the law would appear as awful, and be as great
a terror to evil-doers, as if the letter of it had been executed. And it
must, I think, be acknowledged that, by this means, the king's inflexible
determination to maintain government and punish transgression, was even
more strikingly evinced than if he had suffered the law to have its nat
ural course, and neither of his son's eyes had been spared. For some
fathers have been without natural affection, but no man ever yet hated
his own flesh. The apple of one's own eye must certainly be dear to
him. In like manner, we are to conceive of the redemption of Christ,
as an astonishing expedient of infinite wisdom and goodness, that we
transgressors might be saved, and yet God be just, and his righteous law
suffer no dishonor. This is the constant account we have of the death
of Christ in the holy Scriptures. Thus immediately after my text,
"Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation, through faith in his
blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins, &c. To
declare, I say, at this time his, righteousness, that he might be just and
the justifier of him who believeth in Jesus." Thus Eph. 1:7; "In
whom we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins," &c.
But it was not enough that we should be redeemed from death. In
order to our being heirs of God, and having an interest in the covenant
of grace, it was necessary that the law as a covenant of works should be
fulfilled; and so the forfeited inheritance of eternal life be redeemed.
This our Saviour did by his active obedience. By his fulfilling all
righteousness, a foundation was laid for God, to»the eternal honor of his
remunerating justice, to give grace and glory to all who believe in Christ
and belong to him. Thus it is written, " He is made unto us right
eousness." These two things are implied in the redemption that is in Jesus Christ

AN ACT OF FREE GRACE. 51
The merit of his obedience, and the manifestation of the inflexibility of
divine vindictive justice, made by his sufferings and death. And these
two things were necessary in order to our being justified, and yet the
spirit of the law be maintained, and God be just.
III. I proceed to show, that notwithstanding this plenteous redemption,
we are dependent on the mere mercy of God, and our justification is still
freely by his grace.
By grace is meant undeserved favor. This is the common acceptation
of the word. The bestowment of any good which might justly not be
bestowed, or not inflicting any evil which might justly be inflicted, is a
matter of free grace. Indeed, in the New Testament grace may mean,
doing good to those who deserve ill ; this being actually the case with
respect to all exercises of divine goodness towards fallen man. How
ever, if it can be shown that no man has any claim to salvation upon the
footing of justice, it will be sufficient' to my present purpose. The thing
therefore I now undertake to prove, and clear up, is this : That no man
deserves eternal life, or even debverance from eternal death, on account
of any merit belonging to him, either personal or imputed.
The idea of personal merit is in general professedly exploded. All
will own that the best man on earth, had he no better righteousness
than his own, could have no other plea than that of the publican, " God
be merciful to me a sinner." But, on Christ's account, it has commonly
been supposed, believers have a good plea even before the tribunal of
divine justice. " It hath been said by them of old time," and also by
some modern writers of very eminent note, that through the atonement
of our divine Redeemer, if we have an interest in him, we deserve
freedom from all condemnation ; and that, through his all-perfect right
eousness, we may demand eternal glory as our just due. Very express
to this purpose is the following passage, in a late learned and most excel
lent author.* " The justice of God that required man's damnation, and
seemed inconsistent with his salvation, now does as much require the sal
vation of those that believe in Christ, as ever it required their damnation.
Salvation is an absolute debt to the believer from God, so that he may
in justice demand and challenge it, not upon the account of what he
himself has done ; but upon the account of what his surety has done.
For Christ has satisfied justice fully for his sin ; so that it is but a
thing that may be challenged that God should now release the believer
from punishment; it is but a piece of justice that the creditor should
release the debtor, when he has fully paid the debt And, again, the be
liever may demand eternal life, because it has been merited by Christ, by
a merit of condignity."
* President Edwards. First set of Posthumous Sermons, page 207.

52 JUSTIFICATION THROUGH CHRIST,
Another extract I will here give you from the writings of a more an
cient pious divine, containing the same sentiment, and expressed in still
bolder terms. His -words are as follows : " He [Christ] fully merited,
by way of purchase and complete payment made unto divine justice, the
removal of all that evil we had" deserved, and the enjoyment of all that
good we needed, and could desire ; and that by a valuable consideration
tendered into the hand of divine justice in that behalf. However it is out
of free mercy and rich grace that redemption is given to us (for it is
out of mercy that Christ is given, that he gave his life, that both are be
stowed upon us and not upon the world) ; yet in regard to the Lord Jesus
Christ himself, and the full payment he hath laid down, out of his own
proper cost and charges, his own blood, it is justice it should be bestowed,
and by justice it may be challenged, as that which he hath purchased in
a righteous proceeding."
This he afterwards applies in a use of reproof to diffident believers, in
the following words : " Why ? have you laid down the purchase ? Take
possession then into your hand. Have you tendered the payment?
Take the commodity. It is your own ; nay, your due. He that knows
at what the purchase will come, and hath the sum in sight, and under
his hand, can lay it down upon the nail ; pay it, take it ; here is one
and there is the other. Here is the blood of Jesus which thou art well
pleased with, hast accepted of, therefore, Lord, give me my due : that
comfort, that peace, that wisdom, that assurance, which I stand in
need of." *
This notion of the atonement and imputed righteousness, it must be
acknowledged, is frequently to be met with in our most orthodox books,
though it may not be often improved just in the manner last quoted.
But we may call no man master, or father. We must "search the
Scriptures, whether those things be so." Where do we find our infallible
Teacher, instructing his disciples to make such challenges from the
Father, even on his account, of deliverance from all evil, and the bestow
ment of all good, as their just due ? Did he not direct them humbly
to pray, for even a competency of outward comforts, as of God's free
gift: and for the pardon of their many offences, of his mere mercy?
" Give us this day our daily bread, and forgive us our debts as we for
give our debtors." He encouraged them indeed to seek unto God for all
needed good, in his name, with an assurance of obtaining their requests ;
but he ever taught them to seek in the way of petition, not of demand.
" Ask, and it shall be given you ; seek, and ye shall find ; knock, and
it shaE be opened unto you. Verily, verily I say unto you, whatsoever
* Mr. Thomas Hooker, first Minister in Hartford.

AN ACT OF FREE GRACE. 53
ye shall ask the Father, in my name, he will give it you." Did our
Saviour, that we find, ever insinuate an idea that the salvation of his re
deemed ones was of debt from the Father ? Did he not, in the most ex
plicit manner, acknowledge the contrary ? "I thank thee, 0 Father,
Lord of heaven and of earth, because thou hast hid these things from the
wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes. Even so, Father,
for so it seemed good in thy sight."
Do the inspired apostles, in any of their epistles or discourses, teach us
that the salvation of believers, or any part of it, is of justice to the ex
clusion of grace ? Do they not constantly express themselves most
clearly in opposition to this sentiment ? " By the righteousness of one,
the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life. That as sin
hath reigned unto death, even so might grace reign, through righteous
ness, unto eternal life, by Jesus Christ our Lord., He that spared not
his own Son, but delivered him up for us all, how shall he not with him
also freely give us all things ? "
The doctrine that justification, and all subsequent as well as antece
dent blessings, are free gifts — matters of mere grace, is certainly a
doctrine of Scripture. But still the great question remains ; how is this
doctrine self-consistent ? The redemption that is in Jesus Christ implies
full satisfaction for sin, and the highest possible merit of eternal life ; how
then can being justified through this redemption be of free grace ? What
grace can there be in cancelling a debt when full payment hath been
made ? or in liberating a captive when an adequate ransom hath been re
ceived ? or in reconveying an alienated inheritance after ample recom
pense ? how is this difficulty to be removed ?
I answer; just as other difficulties are removed into which we are
led by following the allusions and metaphors of Scripture too closely.
We are not to imagine a resemblance, in all points, between the redemp
tion of Christ, and redemptions among mankind, any more than we are
in other instances when divine things are spoken of after the manner
of men; any more than we are to imagine that God is angry just as we
are, or that he repents just as we do, or that he hath an arm, and hands,
and eyes like ours, because these things are ascribed to him in a figu
rative manner. From the use of the words ransom and redemption,
we are no more obliged to suppose a literal purchase, or an obligatory
satisfaction in what our Saviour did and suffered, than we are to, sup
pose there was occasion for such kind of satisfaction, and for the same
reasons as among men. We are selfish, and looking for gain every one
from his quarter: but surely we ought not -to form a like idea of the
infinitely benevolent and ever-blessed God. Certainly, "He who so
loved the world as to give his only begotten Son, that whosoever believ-
5*

54 JUSTIFICATION THROUGH CHRIST,
eth in him might not perish, but have everlasting life," would have
pardoned and saved the world without any atonement or vicarious right
eousness, had nothing but want of goodness prevented. The thing was,
sin could not be pardoned and sinners saved, consistently with just law
and good government ; and therefore not consistently with the glory of
God or the good of the universe. The removal of this just obstacle to
the reign of grace, not the laying God under obligation, for value received,
was what rendered the redemption of Christ necessary : and the former of
these, not the latter, is the end effected by his obedience and death.
It hath indeed been said, in the present dispute, that a door could not
be opened for the salvation of mankind, without making it necessary
in justice that they should be saved. That justice requires whatever is
consistent with justice. But this is a new and strange position. The
perfection of justice no more requires that every thing which is just
should be done, than the perfection of truth requires that every thing
which is true should be spoken. If justice required whatever is con
sistent with justice, no grace could be exercised — no free favor could
ever be bestowed, in any instance, either by God or man: nothing
more than mere justice could ever be done. That justice which ex
cludes grace, which is the only proper notion of justice, at least the only
one now under consideration, certainly doth not require many things
which might be just. Justice did not require that God should give his
only begotten Son, yet this was consistent with justice. Christ was not
obliged in justice to consent to become incarnate and to pour out his soul
unto death, yet there was nothing inconsistent with justice in his so doing.
In like manner it is now consistent with justice for God to pardon
sinners through the propitiation of Christ, yet this is not what justice re
quires. Grace requires that the guilty should be forgiven, provided it
may be done consistently with justice, and without doing hurt upon the
whole ; but this doth make it no more grace. Wisdom requires what
soever things are for the best. Goodness requires whatsoever things
are for the greatest universal good. But justice, as excluding grace, re
quires only whatsoever things are deserved.
Still, perhaps, it will be said, Were not the sufferings of Christ
really adequate to all the punishment due to us for sin ? and did not his
obedience actually merit eternal life by a merit of condignity ? and have
not believers, at least, a just right and title to the atonement and merit
¦ of Christ ? Is not his righteousness imputed to them so as to become
actually theirs ? And if these things be so, where can there be any grace
in their justification ? In answer to all this, let me observe the following
things. 1. I do not think that eternal life was merited, even by Christ,

AN ACT OF FREE GRACE. 55
by a merit of condignity. A merit of condignity supposes something
justly due for service done. But it is impossible, I apprehend, that God
should receive any thing for which he is justly indebted. " For who
hath first given to him, and it shall be recompensed unto him again ? "
However ancient divines -may have discoursed about merit of condignity
and merit of congruity, the distinction, I conceive, is properly applicable
only to merit at the hands of beings who may receive actual services to
which they have no just claim. A merit of condignity can, I am per
suaded, have no place in regard to God.
That creatures can merit no good at the hand of their Creator, in this
high sense of merit, every one must be convinced, on a moment's reflec
tion. They can render nothing to God, in a way of love or service, but
what is his due from them. Adam would not have deserved any reward
as a just debt, had he remained innocent, and fulfilled the law of per
fection. He would only have done what it was his duty to do. The
highest created intelligences can do no more. As they derive their all
from God, so they can render nothing to him but what is of right his.
But, it will be said, Christ was not a mere creature. He thought
it not robbery to be equal with God. Consequently his merit must be of
a different kind from what Adam's would have been, and from that of the
angels. The labor of a servant cannot bring his master in debt, because
it was that to which he had a just right ; but if a neighbor, who is upon
even terms with us, labor for us, we are indebted to him. He de
serves wages, in the proper and strict sense of the word. And why
must there not in reality be exactly this difference between the obedience
of creatures, and the obedience of Christ ?
To this I answer, though Christ was under no obligation to become
incarnate, yet when he had assumed the form of a servant, it behoved
him to fulfil all righteousness. All he did was obedience ; — obedience
justly due, on our account at least, if not on his own. God hath not
received, even in this way, that to which he had no right, and for which
he is really indebted. Did the merit of Christ as properly belong to us
as if it had been our personal merit, we should have no ground to chal
lenge eternal life, nor any reward, as our just due. Indeed, in that case,
we should not deserve eternal death, nor any punishment. Therefore, I
must add, »
2. I do not think the merit of Christ is actually transferred to be
lievers ; or, that his righteousness is so imputed to them as to become, to
all intents and purposes, their own righteousness. It is so far reckoned to
them as to render it consistent and honorable for God, as above ex
plained, to be reconciled to them, not imputing their trespasses by a
rigorous, or an adequate personal punishment ; but it is not so theirs as

56 JUSTIFICATION THROUGH CHRIST,
to render them really deserving of good, or undeserving of evil. The
apostle states a distinction between justification by works and by faith,
making the former in some sense of debt, but the latter of grace entirely.
Rom. 4 : 2-5 ; " For if Abraham were justified by works he hath
whereof to glory, but not before God. For what saith the Scripture ?
Abraham believed God and it was counted to him for righteousness.
Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of
debt. But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth
the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.* By this we are
plainly taught that justification by a righteousness reckoned to us by
faith, is of grace, in a manner different from justification by our own good
works. That the man justified by personal righteousness would have
ground for glorying as more deserving than other men, though not before
God, as having really merited eternal life, or any good at his hand.
Comparatively, the justification of such an one would be of debt; it
would indeed be in part of absolute justice to the exclusion of grace:
that is, as far as it implies only approbation, and acquittance from the
curse of the law. The righteous deserve not to be condemned ; and
there is no grace in not punishing them. But to him who is personally
guilty, and is justified by faith, in the righteousness of another, and in
him who justifieth the ungodly, the whole is of grace. The apostle's rea
soning evidently supposes that the righteousness of Christ doth not
become, to all intents and purposes, the believer's own righteousness.
For if it did, there could be no difference, as to ground for glorying, be
tween being justified by faith and by works; and one would be just
as much of debt as the other : nor could it be true, in any sense, that
God justified the ungodly. But that there is not a strict and proper im
putation of Christ's righteousness to the believer — such an imputation
as implies an actual transfer of merit, is plain from the whole tenor of the
Scriptures, as far as they have any relation to this subject. It is evident
from all that is said of the chastisements of believers, of their confessions,
and of the remission of their sins. Were they as righteous as Christ
was, — had they, in any way, a perfect righteousness, properly their own,
they would have no sins to confess ; they would deserve no punishment,
and need no pardon. The truth is, our ill desert is not taken away by the
atonement of Christ. That caij never be taken away. Nor doth the obe
dience of Christ render us deserving of heaven, or undeserving of hell.
When God justifies believers on Christ's account, he considers them still
as ungodly : as ungodly he punishes them still in this world ; and as well
might he punish them with everlasting destruction in the world to come,
were it not for his gracious promise to the contrary. Grace reigns
with unabated lustre in our justification, and in the whole of our salva-

AN ACT OF FREE GRACE. 57
tion, notwithstanding its reigning through righteousness, because it is
through a righteousness not our own.
Merit is ever personal. In the nature of things it cannot be otherwise.
Another's having been righteous, doth not make me righteous, if I have
not been so myself; nor can the sufferings of another make me faultless
wherein I have been a sinner. Can a robber or murderer become inno
cent, because an innocent attorney or friend of his hath suffered the penalty
he deserved ? Certainly it is impossible. He must be, notwithstanding
this, as vile, as great a criminal, as blameworthy, as ever he was.
And so are all mankind, notwithstanding the sufferings, and notwith
standing the obedience of Christ.
.Debts may be discharged by an attorney. Damages of any kind may
be repaired by a third person. But moral turpitude is not to be wiped
away in this manner. HI desert is never thus removed. Merit and de
merit, are things not to be acquired or lost by proxy. The consequences
of the good or evil actions of one person may devolve upon another ;
not the righteousness or the criminality of them.
Our crimes were not transferred to Christ ; only the sufferings for them.
He suffered as a lamb, without blemish and without spot. So his right
eousness is not transferred to us; only the benefits of it. He was
numbered with transgressors, and treated as a sinner, though innocent.
We are numbered with the righteous, and treated as the friends and
favorites of the Most High, though ungodly. He deserved the praises of
heaven, when he was made a curse — when forsaken and expiring on
the cross. We deserve the pains of hell, when delivered from the curse
of the law, and received into the embraces of everlasting love. There is
no transfer of merit, or of demerit, one way or the other, only of their
fruits and consequences.
Justice admitted of laying on Christ the sufferings 'due for our sins,
because it was by his own free consent, and because the necessary ends
of punishing would thereby be answered ; not because he deserved those
sufferings. So, on the other hand, justice now admits of our' being saved
on his account, not because, on any account, we deserve salvation, but
only because by giving us remission of sins and the happiness of the
righteous, no injury will be done, no damage will accrue to the universe.
There is nothing to oblige God to have mercy on any of mankind, only
his own wisdom and goodness. He can do it without any unright
eousness ; and therefore, so it seemeth good in his sight. Hence we
are pardoned — we are justified — we shall be glorified, freely by the
grace of God, notwithstanding the ample foundation laid for all in the
plenteous redemption which is in Jesus Christ.
All that now remains, is to point out some of the doctrinal and prac-
t*"a\ uses, of this important subject.

58 JUSTIFICATION THROUGH CHRIST,
In the first place ; we may hence learn that the argument for the
certain salvation of all men, from the sufficiency of the satisfaction and
purchase of Christ, is inconclusive. According to the common notion of
a literal satisfaction and strict purchase in the atonement and obedience
of our Saviour, similar exactly to satisfactions and purchases in matters
of meum and tuum (i. e. mine and thine) between man and man, this
argument of the Universalists, on which the greatest stress is laid by
some, would be exceedingly plausible : to me it appears, it would indeed
be absolutely unanswerable. The argument stands thus. God is obliged
in justice to save men as far as the merit of Christ extends : but the
merit of Christ is sufficient for the salvation of all men ; therefore God
is obliged in justice to save all. The minor proposition I dare not deny.
I question not the sufficiency of the merit of Christ for the salvation
of all mankind. I have no doubt but that, in this sense, Christ " gave
himself a ransom for all ; tasted death for every man ; and is the
propitiation for the sins of the whole world." The only thing therefore
which I have to dispute in this argument, is the obUgatoriness of
the Redeemer's merit, on the Supreme Being : or, that it is of such a
nature as to afford any ground to demand salvation from God, as a just
debt. Had the believer any right to challenge pardon and eternal life
upon this footing, I see not but that all mankind would have the same.
If the merit of Christ be such as obliges God, in point of justice to save
all believers ; and if that merit be sufficient for the salvation of all men ;
why is not God obliged in justice to save all men, whether believers or
not ? He may be under engagements to some and not to others by gra
cious promise, predicated upon faith ; but if the obligation be in absolute
justice, it must be solely on account of the merit of Clirist ; and is no
greater after a man has faith than before. And if there be merit enough
in Christ for all, it obliges and must obtain the salvation of all, though
all men have not faith. That alters not the case. Faith, or the want
of faith, alters nothing in point of justice ; only in point of promise :
unless the obligatory merit be in faith itself, not in the atonement and
righteousness of Christ. If God cannot in justice lay any thing to the
charge of the elect, nor inflict any punishment upon them, because Christ
died for them : and if, in point of merit, Christ died for all men ; God
cannot in justice lay any thing to the charge of any man, nor punish
any man.
Thus the doctrine of certain universal salvation is established at once ;
and established upon orthodox principles.
The argument, indeed, proves too much. More a great deal than any
good man would wish : more, one would think, than any man in his senses
could believe. It turns the tables entirely respecting obligation and grace

AN ACT OF FREE GRACE. 59
between God and man. According to it, all the obligation is now on
God's part; all the grace is on ours! He is holden and justly stands
bound to us; we are free from all obligation to him! All the debts
of all mankind, both of duty and suffering, are forever cancelled ! Christ
hath done all their duty for them, as well as taken away all possible
criminality from them ! If they now love or serve God it is of mere
gratuity! They are not at all obliged so to do! If he bestow upon
them all the good in his power, to all eternity, it is of debt — absolute
debt, in the highest sense of the word ! He can do no more for them
than by a merit of condignity hath been purchased for them, and is of
absolute right due to them ! These admirable consequences will follow
from this notion of the atonement and merit of Christ, as necessarily as
the doctrine of universal salvation. An argument which thus overthrows
every thing — all law, as well as all grace, must certainly be falla
cious, whether we were able to discover the fallacy of it or not. Yet
some, it is said, are not to be terrified by such frightful consequences.
They admit them, and plead for them. They allow, at least, and main
tain, that men are not justly punishable by the Judge of all the earth,
whatever iniquities they may commit; and that, in fact, no man is
punished of God at all, nor ever will be. So firmly are they estab
lished in the belief that the foregoing argument is demonstration, and
can never be confuted.
But must not the weak place in this invincible argument be made
manifest to all men ? I cannot but flatter myself, the attentive, candid
Universalist must feel this firm ground give way under him. The hope
of salvation built upon the idea that the holy Sovereign of the universe
is obliged in justice to pardon and save the vilest of sinners, is certainly
a very forlorn hope.
That believers themselves do not deserve eternal life, nor even de
liverance from eternal death ; — that God is under no kind of obligation,
for value received, even to them, on any account whatever, seems
plainly implied in our text, and hath been sufficiently illustrated, I
conceive, in the preceding discourse. And if so, certainly he cannot be
obliged in justice to save all men. Salvation is sincerely offered to all,
if they will thankfully receive Christ as their Saviour, and penitently
return, through him, to their Creator and their God. With regard to
giving them a heart, or making them willing to do these things, God
hath mercy on whom he will have mercy. Surely " by sending his Son
into the world, that the world through him might be saved," he hath not
brought himself so infinitely indebted to mankind as to be in justice
obliged to save all the world, whether they will or not.
Secondly. Hence we may see, that the Socinians have no reason to

60 JUSTIFICATION THROUGH CHRIST,
object against the doctrine of atonement, as though it were irreconcilable
with the doctrine of free grace, and represented God the Father as
¦ unforgiving, implacable, unmerciful.*
As many have explained the doctrine of atonement, I cannot say that
these reproaches cast upon it by its adversaries, are altogether unjust
Were it right to conceive of it under the literal low notion of paying
debts, or repairing damages, between man and man, it would indeed seem
as if there were no proper remission of sins to believers, nor any mercy
in granting them " deliverance from the curse of the law." But if we
consider God as acting, in this great affair, in his own proper character
as Supreme Ruler of the world ; and requiring atonement in order to
the salvation of guilty men, only for the support of public justice, and
that he might still be a terror to evil doers, at the same time that he
discovers himself " abundant in goodness and ready to forgive ; " if we
consider, moreover, that the demerit of sin is not at all taken away, nor
the need of pardoning mercy lessened by vicarious sufferings ; in a
word, if the foregoing view of this subject be scriptural and just, what
shadow of ground can there be for any such reproaches and objections ?
Thirdly. Hence we are furnished with an easy solution of a difficulty
which some have imagined respecting our being justified at all, on ac
count of the active obedience of our Saviour. The difficulty is this.
Christ, in his human nature, in which only he could obey, owed obe
dience on his own account, and therefore could have no merit by that
means to be placed to the account of his followers as the ground of
their justification. Hereupon some have supposed and taught, that the
sufferings of Christ, to which he was under no personal obligation, are
* Dr. Priestley, a celebrated modern writer on the side of Socinianism, has much
to say upon this head. He says, " We read in the Scriptures, that/^e are 'justified
freely by the grace of God.' But what free grace, or mercy, does there appear to have
been in God, if Christ gave a full price for our justification, and bore the infinite
weight of divine wrath on our account % We are commanded to ' forgive others, as
we ourselves hope to be forgiven ; ' and to be ' merciful as our Father, who is in heaven,
is merciful.' But surely we are not thereby authorized to insist upon any atonement
or satisfaction, before we give up our resentments towards an offending penitent
brother. Indeed, how could it deserve the name of forgiveness if we did f It is
impossible to reconcile the doctrine of satisfaction for sin by the death of Christ, with
the doctrine of free grace, which, according to the uniform tenor of the Scriptures, is so
fully displayed in the pardon of sin, and the justification of sinners. It is only from
the literal interpretation of a fow figurative expressions in the Scriptures, that this
doctrine of atonement, as well as that of transubstantiation, has been derived ; and it
is certainly a doctrine highly injurious to God ; and if we, who aro commanded to
imitate God, should act upon the maxims of it, it would be subversive of the most
amiable part of virtue in men. We should be implacable and unmerciful, insisting
upon the uttermost farthing."

AN ACT OF FREE GRACE. 61
the only meritorious ground of our acceptance unto eternal life. Or that
all further than deliverance from the curse of the law is from the grace
of God, and the merit of our own imperfect obedience.*
This imaginary difficulty, however, arises entirely from the supposed
necessity of merit strictly purchasing good at the . hand of God, and
a merit properly transferable. According to that conception of the
matter, it is certain Adam's obedience could have availed nothing in
behalf of any but himself. He, unquestionably, was under personal obli
gation to yield the most perfect obedience to his Maker of which he was
capable. Therefore had he remained innocent, and continued in all
things given him in charge to do them, he could have had no merit of
supererogation, to be reckoned to his posterity. Nor do I conceive that
the man Jesus Christ, consistently with his personal duty to his Heav
enly Father, could have done less than to have fulfilled all righteousness.
On supposition a purchasing, transferable merit had been necessary, I
do not therefore see how this difficulty could be fairly obviated. But
from the things which have been said, it is abundantly evident, I appre
hend, that no such merit was necessary, is scriptural, or possible. God may
do honor to himself, as one that loves righteousness, by making multi
tudes happy out of respect to the tried virtue and obedience of one
though that one have only done what it was his duty to do. All notions
of supererogation, and of a fund of merit to be sold and bought, or any way
communicated from one to another, proceed upon the maxims of commer
cial, not of rectoral justice. Every thing of this kind is going off entirely
from the ideas of sin and duty, to those of debt and credit, damages and
reparations. Fourthly. From the foregoing view of the subject, we learn, that
those who are justified in the gospel way, have nothing whereof to
glory, but have all the reason in the world to be humble before God.
They have merely a merit of congruity to plead in his presence ; and
that merit not at all their own.
Were " salvation an absolute debt to the believer from God, so that
he might in justice demand and challenge it," to be clothed with hu
mility, and to be a prostrate suppliant before the throne of grace, might,
indeed, seem unbecoming, and quite out of character. Had Christ
" merited, by way of purchase and complete payment, the removal of all
that evil we had deserved, and the enjoyment of all the good we needed
and could desire, and that by a valuable consideration tendered into the
* The above difficulty was started, and the above doctrine advanced, by a divine of
some note in Germany the last century ; who made a party considerable enough to be
taken notice of hy Dr. Mosheim, in his Ecclesiastical History. How he was an
swered, I think the Doctor hath not informed us.
6

62 JUSTIFICATION THROUGH CHRIST,
hand of divine justice in that behalf; " and had we this " sum in sight,
and under our hand," we might well assume a high tone, and say,
" Here is one and there is the other." Our beggary would be at an end;
nor would it suit with our affluent circumstances, to be so poor in spirit
as to petition and pray. We might say to the Almighty, " We are lords,
we will come no more unto thee : " or, coming, might be so laconic as
only to say, " Lord, give us our due."
But, my brethren, " you have not so learned Christ ; if so be that ye
have heard him, and have been taught by him as the truth is in Jesus."
Christians have not these heaven-debasing, self-exalting sentiments, in the
bottom of their hearts, however they may speak unguardedly, or think
inaccurately on some occasions. I dare say the venerable divines above
quoted, did not mean so, neither did their hearts think so. They never
prayed as though those things were true ; they never felt as if they be
lieved them. Such speculative notions of the atonement and imputed
righteousness, owing originally to the strong figures of holy Scripture, lit
erally understood, have been exceedingly common ; and therefore have
been received implicitly as unquestionable truths, by the learned as well
as the illiterate ; however inconsistent with innumerable other sentiments
in which every true Christian is most firmly established. Certainly, by
the law of faith, boasting is excluded. Certainly if our justification be
freely by divine grace, we have nothing whereof to glory. We have as
much reason to be humble — as much cause, with deep abasement, to
confess our daily sins, and to implore the free remission of them — as
much occasion to say, God be merciful to us sinners, as if we were not
justified at all. The blood of atonement only gives us access to the mer
cy-seat Let, then, all our feelings and all our thoughts, as well as our
addresses to a holy God, be agreeable to this humiliating doctrine of our
being justified freely by his grace, through the redemption that is in Jesus
Christ. God thus established his covenant with us, that we may remem
ber, and be confounded, and never open our mouths any more for our
shame, when, in this way, he is pacified towards us for all that we have
done. Fifthly. From what hath been said, we learn, nevertheless, that be
lievers have as firm ground for hope and confidence in God, as if their
justification were a matter of absolute debt. The new covenant is as
everlasting, as well ordered in all things, and as sure, as if it were not at
all a covenant of grace. The gospel plan of acceptance unto eternal life,
is calculated, not in the least to mar our comfort, only to mortify our
pride. We have seen that there is no want of absolute promises to insure grace
and glory to all true believers in Jesus Christ. " All the promises in

AN ACT OF FREE GRACE. 63
him are yea, and in him amen, unto the glory of God." And we know,
says the same apostle, " that all things work together for good to them
that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose.
Who shall separate us from the love of Christ ? Shall tribulation, or
distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or peril, or sword?
Nay, in all these things we are more than conquerors, through him that
loved us. For I am persuaded, that neither death, nor life, nor angels,
nor principalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come, nor
height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us
from the love of God which is in Christ Jesus our Lord. We have ac
cess, through Christ, by faith, into this grace wherein we stand, and re
joice in hope of the glory of God." Believers are as absolutely estab
lished in the divine favor and love, as if they were justified by the deeds
of the law. Final remission of sins and eternal salvation are as fully
secured to them, as if their ill desert were wholly done away, or as if they
had even a merit of condignity and the Almighty were actually their in
finite debtor. Hence another apostle is very bold, and saith, " If we con
fess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse
us from all unrighteousness." Not that, on account of our confessions,
or on any other account, we justly deserve to be forgiven. Deserved
forgiveness is no forgiveness at all. The meaning can only be, that God
will infallibly be just and true to his word. A faithful and just man will
fulfil his promises, however gratuitous the things promised : how much
more he who " is not a man that he should lie, nor the son of man that
he should repent ! " But, if his bare word were not enough, as the apos
tle observes, he hath added his " oath, that by two immutable things, in
which it was impossible for God to lie, we might have a strong consola
tion, who have fled for refuge to lay hold upon the hope set before us."
We may, if we believe in God, and believe also in Christ, " come boldly
(though as humble beggars) unto the throne of grace, that we may ob
tain mercy, and find grace to help in time of need."
Sixthly, and lastly. Hence we should learn to love mercy, as well as
to walk humbly with our God.
Had we the righteousness of Christ, as a perfect cloak for all our sins,
so as to have no occasion for any forgiveness, it might more reasonably
be expected that we should be unforgiving. Did we need no mercy, it
would not be so very strange should we show none. But, my brethren,
how for otherwise is the case with every one of us ! Do we hope we are
justified in the sight of a holy God ? Be it so, it is " freely by his grace,"
even " through the redemption that is in Jesus." " If I justify myself,"
says holy Job, " mine own mouth shall condemn me : if I say I am per
fect, it shall also prove me perverse." And indeed, as the same pious

64 JUSTIFICATION THROUGH CHRIST.
man demands, " How should man be just with God ? " By imputation it
hath been supposed he might ; but we have now seen that even through
the atonement and righteousness of Christ, we can have no plea of not
guilty : and personally we cannot surely stand in judgment, should he
contend with us, " nor answer him one of a thousand."
Shall we then be strict to mark, and severe to revenge the trivial
injuries or affronts we may receive from our fellow-creatures ? Read,
Christians, the striking parable of the ten thousand talents and the
hundred pence; read, and tremble at the awful application of that
parable. Remember that most reasonable exhortation of the apostle,
which speaketh unto you as unto justified sinners, Eph. 4 : 23 ; " And
be ye kind one to another, tender-hearted, forgiving one another, even
as God, for Christ's sake, hath forgiven you."

SERMON II

NONE BUT BELIEVERS SAVED, THROUGH THE ALL-SUFFICIENT
SATISFACTION OF CHRIST.

For christ is the esd op the law for righteousness, to every ose
that believeth. — Romans 10:4.
The capital argument of many who maintain that every one who
believeth not shall be saved, we have particularly considered. That
salvation is not a matter of just debt, on account of the redemption of
Christ, hath been shown, it is presumed, beyond dispute. This then
being supposed a settled point, that God is at liberty to " have mercy on
whom he will have mercy ; " it remains that we must have recourse to
the revelation of his sovereign will in his holy word, as the only way to
determine, whether all, or only a part of mankind, shall be saved.
Nothing can be concluded from the universal benevolence of God,
unless we knew, as he does, what would be for the greatest universal
good. At first thought it may perhaps be imagined, that if it be only
consistent with justice for God to give grace and salvation to all men, his
infinite goodness must necessarily incline him to save all. But it
ought to be remembered, that the operations of infinite goodness are
ever under the direction of infinite wisdom. God will give eternal
life to every rebel creature, however deserving of eternal death, if
it be best ; otherwise he will not. Its being at his sovereign option
whether to do a thing or not, by no means make it certain what
he will think proper to do. He was no more obliged in justice to permit
any sin or misery ever to take place, than he is now to permit some to be
forever sinful and miserable; From his goodness and power, we should
have been ready to conclude he would have prevented the former, as we
now are that he will prevent the latter. " His thoughts are not our
thoughts." "How unsearchable are his judgments," says the apostle,
6* . <6B>.

66 NONE BUT BELIEVERS SAVED,
" and his ways past finding out ! For who hath known the mind of the
Lord ? or who hath been his counsellor ? " Were our understanding infi
nite, we might be able to judge, with great certainty, what he will think
proper to do, on all occasions : but this not being quite the case, all
conjectures respecting his determination, from what appears most desirable
to us, must be very precarious. From his perfections we may be certain,
in general, that he will ever do that which is wisest and best : but what
is wisest and best, on the large scale of his universal administration, he
alone can be supposed a competent judge.
Not leaning, then, to our own understanding, in a matter so evi
dently too high for us, let us, with unbiassed minds, attend to rev
elation as our only guide on the important question, Who of fallen
creatures shall be saved ? Whether it seem good in the sight of God,
to save mankind universally, without any conditions ; or with certain
limitations, and on certain terms. This question is so abundantly resolved
in the inspired Scriptures, that to quote all the plain proofs that only
particular characters in this world shall have any part or lot in the
salvation of the next, would be to quote, as it were, the whole Bible. In
the text now chosen, there is evidently implied a restriction of deliverance
from the law to believers in the gospel ; and in discoursing upon the
words, among other things, occasion will naturally be given to adduce
some part of the abundant Scripture nroof, limited in opposition to
universal salvation.
The apostle having spoken, in the preceding chapter, of the rejection of
the Jews for their unbelief, he begins this with expressing his sincere con
cern for them, and his most devout wishes that they might be recovered
from their delusion, and not be lost. Ver. 1 ; " Brethren, my heart's desire
and prayer to God for Israel is, that they might be saved." However
opposed any may be to us, we ought to feel entirely friendly towards
them — to wish them no ill, but the greatest possible good. We ought
also to entertain a charitable opinion concerning them, as far as the
nature of the case will any way fairly admit. Such was the apostle's
charity in regard to his deluded countrymen. He had no doubt that
many of them acted conscientiously in their zealous opposition to the
gospel, really believing it to be subversive of the divine law, and a system
not according to godliness. He was once of the same way of thinking,
as he confessed before king Agrippa. " I verily thought with myself,"
says he, " that I ought to do many things contrary to the name of Jesus
of Nazareth. " From his own experience, therefore, as well as from
much personal acquaintance, he could testify for them that their way was
right in their own eyes, though really very erroneous and wrong. Ver. 2 ;
" For I bear them record that they have a zeal of God, but not according

THROUGH THE SATISFACTION OF CHRIST. 67
to knowledge. He goes on to take notice whence their prejudices against
the Christian revelation originated ; namely, from wrong ideas of God.
From not understanding his infinite and inflexible justice, the high
demands of his holy law, and the absolute perfection required in order to
legal justification in his sight. Ver. 3 ; " For they, being ignorant of
God's righteousness, and going about to establish their own righteousness,
have not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God." Then in
the text he observes, that the cause of righteousness, for which the Phari
sees were so full of anxiety, was in safe hands. That effectual care had
been taken that the law should sustain no dishonor, but that the spirit of
it should be supported, and its ultimate design be fully obtained. " For,"
says he, " Christ is the end of the law for righteousness, to every one
that believeth." For the illustration of what is here asserted I propose,
I. To show, in general, how Christ is the end of the law for right
eousness, and
II. In what respects he is so, in a particular manner, to believers in
him. I. shall endeavor to show, in general, how Christ is the end of the
law for righteousness.
He was the end of the ceremonial law of the Jews, as that was wholly
typical of him, and was abolished by his death. But I cannot think the
apostle here speaks merely, if at all, of the ceremonial law. That he has ref
erence to the eternal law of righteousness, seems intimated by the manner
of expression in the text ; and it is evident from the words immediately
following. Ver. 5 ; " For Moses describeth the righteousness which is
of the law, that the man which doeth those things shall live by them."
The ceremonial law was never able to give life to those who trusted in
the observance of it, however scrupulous and exact. It will therefore
be incumbent on me to point out a sense, in which Christ is the end of
the universal law of perfect righteousness ; or of that law by the obe
dience of which innocent man might have obtained eternal life. He
is not the end of this law in every sense which the carnal mind would wish,
nor in several senses which many have supposed. More particularly,
1. It is certain Christ is not so the end of the moral law, that it is no
longer obligatory on mankind, as a rule of duty. That our Saviour had
no such design as this, and that no such thing was possible, he was care
ful to inform the world in his first public discourse, — his sermon on the
mount. "Think not," says he, " that I am come to destroy the law or the
prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say
unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise
pass from the law, till all be fulfilled." Nor did he come to fulfil this
holy law so as to make it lawful for us to live in the violation of it. We

68 NONE BUT BELIEVERS SAVED,
do not, surely, cease to be in duty bound to love God or our neighbor,
because Christ hath loved both, as much as they deserve. It is not be
come right for us to practise all iniquity, because he hath fulfilled all
righteousness. By his having been perfectly obedient in our stead, we
are not freed from all the obligation we should have been under to obey
the commands of our Maker ; nor from any part of it. We have as much
duty which we ought to do, as if he had done nothing. He came to
" save his people from their sins," not from their duty.
2. Christ hath not so saved his people from their sins, that they cease
to have any guilt, or desert of punishment. As our obligation to obey is
not removed by his obedience, so neither is our criminality when we
transgress, taken away by his sufferings. We are not to conceive God
sees nothing amiss in us, and is not at all displeased with us, do what we
will, because the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth from all sin.
The eyes of the Omniscient are not so dazzled but that he can see our
ways, and our hearts, as they truly are ; nor is the nature of things so
altered by the atonement, that iniquity is become really blameless, and
undeserving of divine wrath. I add once more on the negative side,
3. Christ is not so the end of the law, but that personal righteousness
is still necessary in order to eternal life. Not only is perfect obedience
as much our duty as ever, and all neglect or transgression as great
an evil as ever; but sincere conformity in heart and life to the moral
law, is so required on the gospel plan, that without it we cannot be
saved. Of this we are abundantly assured. " Repent and be converted,"
says the apostle Peter, " that your sins may be blotted out. Follow peace
with all men," says the apostle Paul, " and holiness, without which no
man shall see the Lord." " Verily, verily," says our Saviour, " I say unto
thee, except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.
And again, " I say unto you, that except your righteousness shall exceed
the righteousness of the Scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter
into the kingdom of heaven." To the same purpose, having explained
the moral law in a much stricter sense than the most rigid of the Jewish
doctors, he concludes with saying, " Whosoever heareth these sayings of
mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his
house upon a rock. And every one that heareth these sayings of mine,
and doeth them not, shall be likened unto a foolish man, which built his
house upon the sand."
But in what sense, then, it will be asked, is Christ the end of the law
for righteousness ? I answer, He is the end of the law as a covenant of
life ; or as the term of justification or condemnation. That is, the end for
which probationary obedience was required of man, in order to his con
firmation, is answered by the obedience of Christ ; and the end for which

THROUGH THE SATISFACTION OF CHRIST. 69
death was threatened in case of any disobedience, is answered by the suf
ferings and death of Christ.
According to the original constitution, perfect obedience, through a cer
tain space of trial, was made necessary in order to the justification of life.
There was some important end proposed by this, most certainly ; other
wise the benevolent Creator would have confirmed our first parents, with
all their posterity, in immortal happiness, without the hazard of a pre
vious probation. The end which would have been answered by man's
trial, had he persevered in innocence, may easily be conceived. Virtue
would have been encouraged and had in eternal honor; and God, by
crowning it with an eternal weight of glory, would have illustriously man
ifested his infinite love of righteousness. When man had sinned, he must,
according to law, have been punished with everlasting destruction. Here
again some good end, undoubtedly, was in view. God delighteth not in
the death of the wicked. The misery of his creatures, however justly
merited, cannot be an ultimate object to a Being whose name, and whose
nature is love. The end of the awful threatening and curse of the law,
we are to suppose, was discountenancing disobedience, and giving an eter
nal manifestation of the glorious character of God, as1 one who infinitely
hateth all iniquity. Now, by the vicarious obedience and sufferings of
his own incarnate Son, the end of the law, in each of these views, is an
swered in the fullest manner.
The obedience of our Saviour answers every purpose, in regard to
all who belong to him, which would have been obtained by the sinless
obedience of the first federal head of mankind. Christ was given for a
covenant of the people. He was constituted a public representative, as
much as Adam was ; and might, by his own consent, as justly be so con
stituted. In this capacity he was " made under the law ; " and, " as it
behoved him, fulfilled all righteousness." He was " holy, harmless, un
dented, and separate from sinners." He " did no sin, neither was guile
found in his mouth." It was his " meat to do the will of him that sent
Mm, and iinish. his work." His obedience was tried to the uttermost.
He had all the temptations arising from poverty and the most dependent
outward circumstances. " The foxes," said he, " have holes, and the birds
of the air have nests, but the Son of man hath not where to lay his head."
He had the trial of cruel mockirigs, and of all the bitterest and most in
jurious reproaches which the mabce of man could invent. " Consider
him," says the apostle, "who endured such contradiction of sinners against
himself." He encountered the grand adversary that had been too hard
for our first parents, and under circumstances the most disadvantageous.
He was led into the wilderness to be tempted of the devil, that he might
have the trial of his utmost efforts in that solitary situation, without a

70 NONE BUT BELIEVERS SAVED,
friend, without a second to afford him any aid. Here forty days he
was without food ; and, thus enfeebled and distressed with hunger, he was
attacked by the old serpent, the prince of the power of the air, who had
permission to try every artifice, — to carry him from pinnacle to mountain,
and exhibit all those scenes to his senses, which he judged most likely to
seduce him into sin. But this second man was found invincible, and eas
ily vardshed all temptations. Our Saviour's subjection was also tried by
the last enemy, — an enemy which Adam, in all his probation, had he
kept his innocence, never would have seen. He was "obedient unto
death, even the death of the cross." In his agony, from the extremity of
which we must conclude he had something far more dismaying in pros
pect than any other martyr ever endured, when he " kneeled down and
prayed, saying, Father, if thou be willing, remove this cup from me ; " he
added, " nevertheless, not my will, but thine be done."
Now by such obedience, of so divine a person ; by his " patient con
tinuance in well doing," amidst all possible provocations and temptations
to the contrary, from earth and hell; by his perfect conformity and
ready resignation to the holy will of his heavenly Father, through all the
arduous work and agonizing conflicts to which he was called ; an op
portunity was given for the Supreme Governor of the world to encour
age virtue, and to glorify himself as the lover and rewarder of righteous
ness, in the most illustrious manner possible. For here was an instance
— a course of obedience and virtue the most tried, the most perfect,
the most exalted, that ever was or could be exhibited, in the whole crea
tion of God.
And no less fully answered was the end of the threatening and curse of
the law, by our Saviour's sufferings. It was by the Father's appointment,
though by his own most free consent, that he was made a curse in the
room of guilty men. He was " stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted.''
He was " delivered by the determinate counsel," as well as " fore-knowl
edge of God," when he was " taken, and by wicked hands crucified and
slain." Both Herod and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles and people of
Israel, did against him only what God's hand and his counsels deter
mined before to be done. The hand of the Supreme Judge of all the
earth was particularly concerned in this surprising event. It was de
signed to be considered as an act of divine judgment, notwithstanding the
wickedness of the instruments, and the innocence of the sufferer. For
thus it was written : " Awake, O sword, against my Shepherd, and against
the man, that is my fellow, saith the Lord of Hosts : smite the Shep
herd," &c.
Now by laying such amazing sufferings on his dearly beloved Son, —
by its pleasing the Lord thus to bruise him, and put him to grief, the

THROUGH THE SATISFACTION OF CHRIST. 71
divine vindictive justice was more awfully, as well as more amiably man
ifested, than ever it could have been by the punishment of sinners them
selves, to all eternity. It was more awfully manifested. The apostle,
Romans 1 : 17, 18, haying spoken of the gospel as the power of God unto
salvation to every one that believeth, assigns the following reason : " For
therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith: for
the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and
unrighteousness of men." His meaning I conceive is this ; that there is
a clearer discovery of the holiness and justice of God, to hate and punish
all sin, in Christ crucified, than in any former revelation. And undoubt
edly this is true. Not all the curses of the law, amidst the thunders and
lightnings of mount Sinai, — nor even the execution of those curses in
the unquenchable flames of hell, gave, or can ever give, equal evidence
of the righteousness or wrath of God, as the amazing scenes exhibited in
Gethsemane, and on mount Calvary. Nothing could ever make the law
appear so steadfast, or afford such full ground of faith that every trans
gression shall receive a just recompense of reward, as the bloody sweat,
the deserted exclamation, the expiring agonies, of our Divine Saviour.
This 'exhibition of vindictive justice, it ought particularly to be
observed, was finished and complete. In this way an end was made
of sin; that is, of its adequate and threatened punishment. We may
naturally understand this as a principal thing implied in those memorable
words of Christ, when he bowed his head and gave up the ghost, " It is
finished." Had only the letter of the law taken place, never could the
execution of divine justice been complete. The wrath to come would
forever have remained. Nor could it ever have appeared by any thing
actually done, that God determined to inflict sufferings for sin, in any
respect, absolutely infinite. The death of Christ is the only fact which
ascertains this, or could ever ascertain it.
And as the awfulness, so the amiableness of vindictive justice, is in
this way most gloriously evinced. That this attribute of the Supreme
Being is at an infinite remove from malevolence, that he doth not punish
from unkindness, or from any delight in tormenting, is what we are often
taught, and what it is of great importance we should ever firmly believe.
But in no instance is this so unquestionably manifest, as when the suffer
ings deserved by the iniquities of us all were laid on Christ. Had only
rebel creatures, the personal enemies of God, suffered the dreadful effects
of his righteous displeasure, it would not have been so clear, that in his
fierce wrath there was nothing cruel, nothing akin to the sweetness of
human revenge. But when the same sword is commanded to awake
against the man that is his fellow, when his only begotten Son is the
victim of his holy indignation, against the ungodliness and unrighteous-

72 NONE BUT BELIEVERS SAVED,
ness of man, we must needs be convinced that want of benevolence can
have no influence. Christ was certainly dear to the Father, infinitely
dear, even when he forsook him, and laid such insupportable sorrows
upon him. " He was the brightness of his glory, and the express image
of his person ; " and he had done nothing to offend him, but was then
doing that which infinitely engaged his most endeared affection. Yet
when, out of obedience to the Father's will, and tenderest feelings for his
injured honor, he had undertaken to be answerable for the offences of
fallen man, not one drop of the necessary bitter cup was permitted to
pass from him. " Judgment was laid to the line, and righteousness to the
plummet," in as rigorous and unrelenting a manner as if he had actually
been the most odious criminal in all the universe. By this it appears,
with the highest possible evidence, not only that there is no respect of
persons with God, but also that his inflicting the severest pains and
penalties for sin, argues no want of infinite tenderness towards the suffer
ers. That it is owing only to a just regard to his own glory, and the
general good.
Thus is Christ the end, and more than the end, of the law for right
eousness. The end of the probationary obedience required of man is
more than answered by his obedience ; and the end of the curse
denounced on fallen man is more than answered by his being made a
curse. We may now proceed,
II. To make some inquiry concerning the implied limitation in the
text ; or to consider why Christ is said to be the end of the law for right
eousness, to every one that believeth. We are not to suppose, from this,
that there is any want of sufficiency in what our Saviour hath done and
suffered, to answer the original purposes of personal obedience and per
sonal punishment in regard to all mankind, did they believe in him.
Should all men come to the knowledge of the truth, and cordially
embrace the gospel, they might be saved, and every end of the law be
fully obtained. But still there are respects in which Christ is actually
the end of the law to true believers only ; that is, to those who know him,
and receive him, and trust in him as their Saviour. Particularly,
First. Christ is, in a peculiar manner, the end of the law for right
eousness to believers, as, in their view and apprehension, the divine justice
is established by his sufferings, as much as if law had been literally exe
cuted. By the everlasting destruction of every transgressor, God would
not have appeared more glorious in holiness, than he now does by the
sacrifice of his own Son, in the eyes of every one that believeth. " God,
who commanded the light to shine out of darkness," says the apostle, " hath
shined in our hearts, to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God,
in the face of Jesus Christ." The glory of God's justice undoubtedly, as

THROUGH THE SATISFACTION OF CHRIST. 73
well as the glory of his grace. But now to unbelievers, this glorious ex
hibition of the divine character is to no purpose. To them this light, if
it shine at all, shineth in darkness, and is not comprehended. To those
who never heard the -gospel, or hearing, understand it not, or do not
believe it, this end of the law is not at all answered by it Of old the
preaching of Christ crucified was "to the Jews a stumbling-block,
and to the Greeks foolishness." To none but them that were called, was
" Christ the wisdom of God, and the power of God." The case is the
same still. The atonement is " a stone of stumbling " to multitudes. They
have various notions concerning the nature and design of it, but none
which are at all to the purpose of establishing the divine law and govern
ment. Many are far from being convinced by the death of Christ, that
God is holy, or that he is just. On the contrary, from his so loving the
world, they are led to conceive he is not much offended with fallen men ;
and that, do what they will, there is no great danger of his wrath. From
his goodness, and forbearance, and long-suffering, through a Mediator,
they are emboldened to go on in sin with hopes of impunity. None but
those who rightly understand and believe the gospel, are persuaded that
God will by no means clear the guilty, by the sufferings of their substi
tute, his well-beloved Son.
Secondly. Christ is the end of the law for righteousness, in a peculiar
manner, to every one that believeth, as all true believers rely entirely on
his righteousness for justification. They see, and are fully satisfied, that,
as far as merit is necessary, there is enough in Christ to answer all inten
tions : that is, a perfect merit of congruity ; which is all that ever was re
quired, 6r was ever possible. They see it is as congruous, as fit, as hon
orable and glorious, for God to give eternal life to all who belong to
Christ, in reward merely for his righteousness, as it would have been, thus
to have rewarded the obedience of Adam ; or even our own personal obe
dience, had we been perfect. They are also convinced that nothing short
of sinless perfection can have any merit, even of congruity, in this great
affair. That a character imperfectly good must' merit condemnation,
and can never entitle a person to justification before the tribunal of him,
whose judgment is according to truth. Renouncing, therefore, all their
own righteousnesses, as filthy rags, they rely alone on the righteousness of
Christ for acceptance with God. " Here they depend entirely, in point of
merit, not only for initial, but for final justification. Thus did St. Paul him
self, though formerly so strict a Pharisee, and afterwards so eminent a Chris
tian. " God fdiiiicl," says he, " that I should glory save in the cross of
our Lord Jesus' Christ" And again, " But what things were gain to me,
those I counted loss for Christ. Yea, doubtless, and I count all things but
loss, &c., that I may win Christ, and be found in him, not having mine own
7

74 NONE BUT BELIEVERS SAVED,
righteousness which is of the law, but that which is through the faith of
Christ, the righteousness which is of God by faith." These are the sen
timents of every one that believeth ; and they are the hearty sentiments
of no one besides. Unbelievers, if they seek salvation at all, seek it as it
were by the deeds of the law : they are ever " going about to establish
their own righteousness." If they admit a kind of preliminary conditional
justification, without any deeds of the law, yet for final acceptance unto
eternal life, they rely on personal merit ; on works of righteousness done
by themselves. Christ is "Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the
end," in the affair of justifying obedience, to none but true believers.
Thirdly. Christ is the end of the law, in a peculiar manner, to every
one that believeth, as he produces in them personal righteousness. To
make man holy in heart, and in all manner of conversation, was undoubt
edly one ultimate end of the divine law. This Christ will fully effect in
regard to all them that believe in him. " Thou shalt call his name
Jesus," said the angel to Joseph, " for he shall save his people from their
sins'." "He gave himself for us," says the apostle, "that he might
redeem us from all iniquity, and purify unto himself a peculiar people,
zealous of good works." And again, " Christ loved the church, and gave
himself for it, that he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of
water by the Word, that he might present it to himself, a glorious church,
holy and without blemish." But in order to be of that church, or peculiar
people, for which he hath undertaken this, we must receive him as our
Saviour ; and such reception of him is implied in saving faith, according
to the definition of the Evangelist. " As many as received him, to them
gave he power to become the sons of God ; even to them that believe on
his name." Those who believe to the saving of the soul, accept of Christ
as the captain of their salvation, and he engages to conduct them to
glory, making them more than conquerors over sin, and all the enemies
of their souls. They consent to be his disciples, and he undertakes to
make them perfect in every good work. He is of God made unto them
sanctification, as well as wisdom, righteousness, and redemption. In him
they have the most powerful motives to a " patient continuance in well
doing, and to resist unto blood, striving against sin." " Beholding in a
glass the glory of the Lord, they are changed mto the same image, from
glory to glory. Of his fulness they all receive, and grace for grace."
He hath instituted all necessary means for the perfecting of the saints,
and by the promised indwelling of his Holy Spirit, those means are
made effectual. Eph. 1 : 13 ; "In whom also after that ye believed, ye
were sealed with that holy spirit of promise." Thus, to every one that
believeth, this end of the law, their personal righteousness, or sanctifica
tion, is absolutely secured. But this is by no means the case with

THROUGH THE SATISFACTION OF CHRIST. 75
respect to unbelievers. In regard to those who have not the faith of
God's elect, none of the foregoing things are true. Of them he is
despised and rejected, or else altogether unknown. "When they see
him, there is no beauty that they should desire him." His doctrine they
do not love, his cross they cannot bear, his commandments are always
grievous to them. " They break his bands asunder, and cast away his
cords from them." They are dead in transgression and sin, and walk
"according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the
power of the air, the spirit which now worketh in the children of disobe
dience." Hence,
Fourthly. Christ is the end of the law to every one that believeth, as
believers, and they only, are delivered from the curse, and entitled to
eternal life, through his atonement and righteousness. This I know" is
disputed. But how it can be disputed, by any who admit the authority
of the inspired Scriptures, I am not able to conceive. All those texts
which speak of our being justified by faith, plainly imply that believers
only are in a state of justification. Nor can any thing less be implied in
what St. Paul says was the constant tenor of his preaching, publicly and
in private, — " Testifying both to the Jews, and also to the Greeks, re
pentance towards God, and faith towards our Lord Jesus Christ." Un
doubtedly he testified what was the way for every man, and the only way
for any man, to obtain pardon and eternal life. And unless faith be in
fallibly connected with salvation, and absolutely necessary in order to it,
what can be the meaning of that apostolic answer to the all-important
question, "What shall I do to be saved? Believe on the Lord Jesus
Christ, and thou shalt be saved." Unless unbelief will exclude from all
part or lot in the salvation of the gospel, what can be meant by such sol
emn demands and assertions as the following ? " How shall we escape
if we neglect so great salvation ? But if our gospel be hid, it is hid to
them that are lost ; in whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds
of them that believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ,
who is the image of God, should shine into them. For as many as are
of the works of the law are under the curse. Christ is become of none
effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law, ye are fallen
from grace." The meaning of the two last-mentioned texts plainly is,
that those who expect justification by works, must stand or fall by the
law of perfection ; and that such dependence on any legal observance, as
is inconsistent with trusting alone in the merits of Christ, cuts a person
off from all interest in him, and from all benefit by the grace of the
gospel. But let us hear the great Teacher come from God, — the author of
eternal salvation himself, on this important question. " Verily, verily,"

76 NONE BUT BELIEVERS SAVED,
he says, " I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him
that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation ;
but is passed from death unto life. For God so loved the world, that he
gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him, might not
perish, but have everlasting life. He that believeth in him is not con
demned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he
hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. If ye
believe not that I am he, ye shall die in your sins. He that believeth on
the Son, hath everlasting life ; and he that believeth not the Son, shall
not see life ; but the wrath of God abideth on him. Go ye into all the
world, and preach the gospel to every creature. He that believeth and
is baptized shall be saved ; and he that believeth not shall be damned."
It is needless to multiply Scripture proofs of that to which all the
Scriptures bear witness. If we mean to build our system on the foun
dation of the apostles and prophets, or of Jesus Christ himself, the chief
corner-stone, we must, I think, make it one of the first and most fixed ar
ticles of our creed, that true believers, and they only, shall be saved. On
no point is the New Testament more full and explicit than on this.
What remains is by way of inference and application. From the view
we have taken of the subject, we may learn,
1. That the gospel constitution, according to which a man is justified
by, and not without, faith, is founded in the reason and fitness of things.
If any will not be convinced of the fact that this is gospel, by the gospel
itself, unless they can see the reason of it, a rational account of this mat
ter may now easily be given. The three first particulars under the last
head, are so many obvious and weighty reasons, why he that bebeveth
shall be saved, and he that believeth not shall be damned.
It is reasonable and of importance that all men, by some means or
other, should be made to know that God is a holy and righteous being ;
one who infinitely hates, and will certainly punish, sin. Believers are
taught this by the gospel ; unbelievers must learn it by the law. To
those in whom a proper impression is made of the vindictive justice of
God by the death of Christ, there is no necessity that he should show
his wrath in their own eternal sufferings. To those wrho get no reveren
tial idea of God, as a consuming fire, by Christ crucified, it is necessary
that he should make himself known by terrible things in righteousness,
personally inflicted. If men will not see, they must be made to feel. If
the evangelical ministration of righteousness be hid, or will have no
effect, the legal ministration of condemnation must have its course. If
by God's not sparing his own Son, sinners, instead of seeing his wrath
revealed against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, will be only
led stupidly to conceive he is altogether such an one as themselves, some

THROUGH THE SATISFACTION OF CHRIST. 77
other measures must be used. He must reprove them, and set things in
order before their eyes, in another manner. It may be necessary that
he should tear them in pieces, and that there should be none to deliver.
It is reasonable and of importance that all who are saved, should be
made sensible to whom the glory of their salvation belongs, and not be
left vainly to arrogate it to themselves. For this, provision is made by
the law of faith. Every one that believeth clearly sees his own utter
unworthiness, and that .all his salvation is owing to free grace, as the only
moving cause, and to the righteousness of Christ, as the alone meritorious
ground. On the contrary, as hath been observed, every one that believeth
not, builds his hopes of the peculiar favor of God on personal character ;
on works of righteousness which he hath done, or expects to do ; thus
robbing Christ, as well as grace, of the praise so infinitely deserved. In a
low degree indebted to our great Redeemer, some unbelievers will indeed
acknowledge themselves. Thus far only, that, by his death, he hath
procured an abatement of rigorous law — a reasonable abatement ;
so that now, notwithstanding our enfeebled circumstances occasioned by
the fall, we may humbly hope for the gracious acceptance of heaven, it
we only exert ourselves to the uttermost, and do the best we possibly
can. This best they mean to endeavor to do, and doubt not God will
be faithful and just to forgive unavoidable imperfections. They think
already they have done more than others, and expect distinguishing mer
cy, since they have made themselves to differ. Now for God to justify
those who view matters thus, would be giving up the whole controversy
in favor of the carnal mind. It would be to justify sinners, just as they
do themselves, on account of their moral depravity. It would be to con
cede to them that fallen creatures deserve pity, rather than blame, let
them conduct how they will ; and that really there is little grace, in all
the great things done for their salvation. God cannot in justice to him
self, or to his Son, be reconciled to sinners, while they are upon these
terms ; while they only want justice, and to be treated in character,
and they are not concerned. Wisdom, righteousness, grace — every di
vine perfection .requires, either that these imaginations of men should be
cast down, or else that they should be treated in character, and have
ample justice done them. Hence, with highest reason, thus it is written :
" Behold all ye that kindle a fire, that compass yourselves about with
sparks ; walk in the light of your fire, and in the sparks which ye have
kindled. This shall ye have of mine hand, ye shall lie down in sorrow."
It is reasonable and of importance that every rational creature, in some
form or other, should be kept under the divine moral government. To
discharge mankind from liableness to law, while they are in no subjection
to the gospel, would be breaking all bands asunder. It would be letting
7 *

78 NONE BUT BELIEVERS SAVED,
sinners loose, without any guide, overseer, or ruler ; and without any
thing to control or make them afraid. Such anarchy can by no means
be tolerated, under the all-perfect divine administration. Against such
lawless liberty, therefore, the grace of God which bringeth salvation
effectually guards. This great evil, which else would arise from remission
of sins, is prevented by the gospel terms ; repentance from dead works,
and believing with the heart unto righteousness. Every one is under the
curse, till he is under law to Christ. Nothing avails, in order to an inter
est in the atonement, but faith which worketh by love. On this plan, no
sinner has reason to consider himself safe from the wrath to come,
but in proportion to the evidence he has that he is created unto good
works. On this plan the restraints of fear are not at all taken off, but in
proportion as love prevails, and casteth out fear, — that love which is the
fulfilling of the law. On this plan, the unrighteous shall not inherit the
kingdom of God, because it is certain they are not the disciples of Christ.
For in vain do any call him their Saviour, unless they keep his com
mandments. He will be the author of eternal salvation to all them that
obey him ; but to them who have not obeyed him, he will afford no shelter
or protection. His enemies, who would not that he should reign over
them, shall be slain before him. That such should be the constitution of
the gospel, was necessary, that Christ might not be a minister of sin, but
that righteousness and peace might be established, as far as his kingdom
should extend. This was necessary that all restraints from iniquity might
not be taken off, but that, one way or other, every soul of man should be
subject to the moral government of God. And to the fitness and pro
priety of these terms of the dispensation of grace, unless we will be
avowed advocates for the. cause of unrighteousness, what can we in
reason object? For,
2. We infer from the things which have been said, that the requisition
of faith lessens not the glory of free grace, nor of the all-sufficiency of
Christ ; but quite the reverse. Some, indeed, have supposed a difficulty
here. How faith, or any thing else in us, can be requisite, and available,
in the affair of justification, without giving man whereof to glory, or with
out detracting from the fulness of Christ's merit, and the freeness of
God's grace, many have been at a loss to comprehend. That some nice
distinction is necessary in order fairly to get over this difficulty, the most
who have attended at all accurately to the matter, seem to have been
sensible. But what the proper distinction is, few have been able to sat
isfy others, if themselves. To say, as some have done, that faith is not a
condition, but only the instrument of justification, it appears to me, rather
darkens than clears up the subject. Faith is a conviction of the mind,
and an act of the soul ; and cannot with any propriety be called an in-

THROUGH THE SATISFACTION OF CHRIST. 79
strument Besides, it is plainly that on which our salvation is suspended,
— that without which we cannot be, and having which we certainly shall
be saved ; which is the proper idea of a condition, call it by what name
we will. It is, however, of the last importance that this difficulty should
be clearly' obviated. Were it impossible for faith which worketh by
love to avail any thing, without lessening our dependence on the right
eousness' of Christ, and obscuring the lustre of free grace, this would
seem indeed a weighty objection against its being supposed necessary.
But we need not invent another gospel, according to which a man is jus
tified without faith, and may get to heaven without holiness, that boasting
may be excluded, and that grace may abound. The only thing needful
is to show, that nothing in us is required or available, as in any sense
meritorious. We may distinguish between a condition, and a meritorious
condition ; a congruity, and a merit of congruity. This distinction ap
plies in a multitude of common instances. Something is often required
to be known or done by a person, in order to his inheriting an interest,
or being the proper subject of certain immunities and privileges, when it
is not at all required under a notion of its rendering the person deserving,
and is of no kind of avail in that view. That thus it is in the case before
us, and how it is thus, may easily be perceived from the things now said
upon this subject.
We have not only seen, under the first head, that what our Saviour
hath done needs no addition, in point of atonement, or of merit : but, un
der the second, we have seen that Christ is the end of the law for actual
justification, to believers rather than unbelievers, not because of any wor
thiness in the former, more than in the latter ; but for other reasons alto
gether. What merit is there in being made to see the justice of God, as
displayed in the sufferings of his own incarnate Son, the sinner's substi
tute ? Yet this is necessary that the divine character may be vindi
cated, in the eyes of every one who is saved. In the next thing im
plied in saving faith — being convinced of our infinite unworthiness, and
of the all-sufficiency of Christ's righteousness, and the sovereign freeness
of God's grace — certainly we can have no merit here, nor has this any
tendency to self-exaltation. The very reason why a right understanding
and belief of these things are required, is, that pride might be hid from
man, and that he who is justified might glory only in the Lord. And
what mighty merit is there in consenting to have such an one as Christ
for our Saviour, when, in the day of his power, we are made willing?
Can this be so great a thing, in such creatures as we are, as to deserve
the remission of all our former infinite offences, and to render it no more
than suitable that we would be immediately received as the sons of God,
and heirs of immortal glory ? No such thing surely can be supposed.

80 NONE BUT BELIEVERS SAVED,
The congruity here cannot, by any means, be a merit of congruity
There is not even a comparative merit in the believer, in many cases.
Other' things being equal, it is true he is a little more excellent than the
unbeliever ; but very often the man who believes to the saving of his
soul, in point of desert, all things considered, is ten times more a child of
hell, than thousands who perish in their sins. Notwithstanding he is so
good, through divine grace, as to consent to be saved, yet, upon the whole,
he is a much greater sinner than multitudes who do not thus consent;
which shows that worthiness is not the thing needed, nor regarded.
The congruity that every one who cordially embraces the gospel should
be saved, does not consist in personal excellency, but is quite from an
other quarter. By this act he puts himself under the care of Christ,
who thereupon becomes surety for his recovery from all iniquity, and
that he shall be zealous of good works : hence he may safely be released
from unpardoning law, and be interested in a better covenant, estabbshed
upon better promises, in the hand of a mediator. Christ is guaranty
for as many as receive him ; therefore to all such the happy privilege is
given, to become the sons of God. In every view of the matter, boast
ing is excluded by the law of faith ; in every view, therefore, it is of faith,
that it might be by grace. By a right understanding, a firm belief, and
a cordial compliance with the gospel, the sinner is sunk down, in his own
eyes, to his proper place ; while to the Father of mercies, and the all-
sufficient Saviour of them who were utterly lost, is given the glory so in
finitely deserved. Christ and grace are more exalted, and man is more
abased, than if remission of sins and eternal life were given to sinners,
remaining in ignorance and unbelief,
3. The things which have been said may help us to see, that there is
really an universal door of mercy opened to sinners, and a glorious hope
set before all without exception, for which they have infinite reason to
glorify God and to be thankful ; the limitation in the text notwithstand
ing. Had no sufficient provision been made for the salvation of but only
a remnant of mankind ; or, were the terms of obtaining an interest in the
covenant of grace naturally impossible to men, without that special divine
influence' which is given only to an elect number, it would indeed seem,
as some have objected, that the offers of mercy could not, with any sin
cerity, be made to the non-elect ; and that it could not be their fault that
they are not saved. But neither of these is truly the case. Christ hath
tasted death for every man, so that no man need taste the second death,
because of any want of sufficiency in his atonement. He is the propitia
tion for the sins of every one that believeth ; and not for theirs only,
" but also for the sins of the whole world." He hath rendered all that
obedience, and endured all that suffering which the law made necessary,

THROUGH THE SATISFACTION OF CHRIST. 81
in order to the eternal redemption of every individual of the human race.
By his righteousness the free gift may come upon all men unto justifica
tion, unless it be because they will not, or do not, " come unto him that
they might have life." " This is a faithful saying, and worthy of all ac
ceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners ; the chief
of sinners." And what doth the Lord our God require of us, in order
to an interest in Christ and in his salvation ? Nothing naturally impos
sible, surely. Nothing which would be hard, were it not for an evil
heart. It is but to understand what is most plainly revealed, to love
that which is obviously most excellent, and to do that which is evi
dently most reasonable. As to knowing what we are to believe, so far
as is necessary in order to eternal life, were men willing to come to the
knowledge of the truth, there would be no difficulty. A very little seri
ous attention to the Bible would be sufficient. There is no necessity of
ascending high, or diving deep, to find the infallible truth ; the word is in
all your hands, in which it is fully made known. Nor would it be any
harder to perceive the things of the spirit of God, as they are spiritually
discerned, than to understand them in speculation, were it not for the
blindness of men's hearts ; their selfishness, pride, and other corrupt pas
sions. To see the hatefulness of sin, the desirableness of salvation, and the
universal loveliness of the Lord Jesus Christ, would be the easiest things
in the world, were it not for a totally vicious taste, whence wicked men
" call evil good, and good evil ; put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter."
And as to doing what is required, being willing to be followers of
Christ, denying ourselves and taking up the cross ; nothing in this is im
practicable, or arduous, provided we have any real inclination to be good.
" His yoke is easy, his burden is light, his commandments are not
grievous." What God said to Cain, he may most justly say to every
murmurer against the terms of the gospel, as hard and impossible : " Why
art thou wroth ? and why is thy countenance fallen ? If thou dost well,
shalt thou not be accepted ? and if thou dost not well, sin lieth at the
door." If doing at all well be our duty, or if doing not well in any case
be our sin, it must lie at our own door if we perish, or fail of eternal life.
No unbeliever can dispute this, unless he will assert, that despising and
rejecting Christ, making light of the gospel, and neglecting so great salva
tion, is doing well. A door of salvation is set open to all men. Whoso
ever will, is heartily bid welcome to take of the water of life freely. Yet,
/ 4. From the limitation in the text, as explained in the foregoing dis
course, have we not great reason to apprehend that many receive the
grace of God in vain, and that, through their own fault, Christ will be
come of none effect to multitudes ? Such apprehensions, however unchar
itable, are abundantly suggested in the holy Scriptures. When our Sav-

82 NONE BUT BELIEVERS SAVED,
iour was asked, " Lord, are there few that be saved ? " he did not assert
the contrary, but answered and said, " Strive to enter in at the strait
gate : for many, I say unto you, will seek to enter in, and shall not be
able." In another place he says, " Enter ye in at the strait gate ; for
wide is the gate, and broad is the way that leadeth to destruction, and
many there be which go in thereat : because strait is the gate, and nar
row is the way which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it."
And according to the account of the gate and the way of salvation now
given, men must be exceedingly pressed, and very powerfully persuaded,
before they will be disposed to enter in at that gate, and to walk in that
way. How many are perfectly careless concerning the world to come,
and scarce ever ask the question, what they shall do to be saved ! When
the gospel is preached to them, they make light of it, and pay little atten
tion to it Their farms, their merchandise, their luxuries, diversions, and
pleasures, engross their whole time ; their Bibles they rarely read, and
God is not in all their thoughts. How many have not faith, and take
no pains to know what they are to believe ! How many are left to strong
delusions to believe lies, and stop their ears like the deaf adder, against
all arguments to convince them of the errors they have imbibed !
How many " say to the seers, see not ; and to the prophets, prophesy not
unto us right things, speak unto us smooth things, prophesy deceits ! "
How many are " far from righteousness ! " far from being " zealous of
good works!" How many are "disobedient, serving divers lusts and
pleasures, living in malice and envy, hateful and hating one another ! "
If " the curse which goeth forth over the face of the whole earth," even
under the gospel, be such that " every one that is unrighteous shall be
cut off on this side according to it," and every one who is " self-righteous
shall be cut off on that side according to it," how few will be left ! Have
we not reason to fear that the blessed, who shall inherit the kingdom of
God, are, comparatively, but a little flock ?
Were saving faith only a belief, that, through the atonement, good
men shall be saved on account of their own goodness ; and did this faith
save men, only as it is a principle of moral virtue, or a motive to good
works ; personal morality being the alone real ground of distinction
between one man and another, in regard to eternal fife, as some have
supposed ; we might, indeed, extend our charity very far. We might
think, with men of liberal sentiments, that, whatever men's faith may be,
or whether they have any faith at all, they will be saved, provided only
their lives be good. For if the only end of believing the gospel were to
make men moral, provided this end be obtained, no matter about the
means. Yea, in that case, we might say to the Christian, Because thou
hast believed the future things revealed, thou hast been careful to main-

THROUGH THE SATISFACTION OF CHRIST. 83
tain good works ; blessed are they that have not believed, and yet have
maintained good works. Their virtue and reward must be greater, in
proportion as their motives have been less.
On the other hand, were the faith by which a man is justified only a
belief that he is in a state of justification ; and this without any ground,
from Scripture, or sense, or reason, more than what every man has, all
which others have taught, we might well extend our charity further
still. We must conclude, on those principles, that all men are actually in
a state of justification ; or else run into the palpable absurdity of sup
posing that a thing before not true, is made a truth by being believed.
¦ But very different must be our apprehensions concerning the safe and
happy condition of mankind, according to the things which have now
been advanced. The true evangelical faith implies a right understanding
and firm belief of the glorious revelation of God's righteous wrath against
the ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, by the substituted voluntary
sufferings of his own incarnate Son ; it implies an entire dependence on
mere mercy, through the alone merit of Jesus Christ, for acceptance unto
eternal life ; viewing ourselves as infinitely unworthy, and the chief of
sinners ; — it also implies a cordial willingness to be saved from our sins,
and to be subject in all things to our divine Redeemer ; and its never-
failing consequences are, remaining and increasing righteouness and true
holiness, in heart and in all manner of conversation. Every one that
hath this faith shall be saved ; and every one that hath it not, shall
be damned. If, by searching the Scriptures, we be fully convinced that
these things are so, 'our charity must necessarily be very narrow and
contracted. Though we would fain hope all things, and believe all things,
as far as the utmost bounds of rational probability ; yet we cannot but
fear it is still the sad case, that many are in the way which leadeth to
destruction ; and that a few find the gate, and are going in the way which
leadeth unto everlasting life.
5. Hence you easily see we cannot approve the very extensive charity
of those who believe that all mankind are in a state of grace, and will cer
tainly be saved, however much they may break the law of God, and
make light of the gospel of Christ. Not but that a very small degree of
universal benevolence would undoubtedly lead any one most devoutly to
wish that the bitter cup of never-ending misery might pass from every
soul of man, if it were possible, — if it might be, consistently with the
highest glory of God, and the greatest universal good. Not but that we
ought undoubtedly to pray for the worst of men, and our bitterest ene
mies, that they may be saved; and to do all. in our power to promote
their, salvation. Universal charity is good, if it be used charitably.
But we must think the Universalists exercise and express their charity

84 NONE BUT BELIEVERS SAVED,
to destruction, and not to edification. We cannot think that the likeliest way
to save those who are going on in their sins, is to tell them they are in
no danger. Nor can we possibly believe, unless we had quite another gos
pel, that the careless neglecters of the great salvation ; the abusers of
the goodness, and forbearance, and long-suffering of God ; the despisers
and rejecters of a dying Saviour ; and liars, and thieves, and murderers,
are all in the sure way to immortal happiness. How any who believe
the Bible, can believe this, we cannot comprehend. Yet such, we hear,
are the glad tidings of great joy of late proclaimed by some, in the pul
pits of him who is the end of the law for righteousness ; who, they sup
pose, hath so effectually put an end to all divine law, that every lover of
iniquity may give full scope to all his appetites and lusts, with certain
impunity, and even without sin ! So they preach, and so some of you, my
hearers, I understand, believe.
If this be " glory to God in the highest ; " if it be most conducive to
" peace on earth," and expressive of the greatest " good-will towards men,"
so would we gladly believe and preach likewise. But to convince us of
this, we want much more substantial reasons than any we have yet heard.
We are not satisfied that unbelievers are as safe as believers, excepting
only their present anxiety, merely by the fine story of a weak old woman,
thrown into a mighty panic at hearing cannon on an occasion of public
rejoicing.* That a sinner may be saved without the faith of the Univer
salists, as well as with, were that faith true, is too self-evident to require
any great parade of candor in them to own, or of address in order to its
illustration. But that men who " know not God, and obey not the gospel
of our Lord Jesus Christ," are really as safe as the soundest believers,
and most virtuous Christians, not all the wit of man, nor all the subtilty
of the old serpent, will be able to give full satisfaction to every one.
I have read several of the most celebrated pieces on the side of univer
sal salvation ; but have seen nothing in any of them that looks like more
than the shadow of an argument in its support. Nothing that in any
measure shakes the foundation upon which the contrary doctrine rests.
" Every way of a man is right in his own eyes." Theirs doubtless is so
to some of them. They have naturally enough been led into it, it must
be granted, by the errors of many others, who have not carried their in
quiries so far, nor been so self-consistent. I am ready also to suppose,
that the tender feelings of humanity may have had considerable influence
with some, to induce them to believe this seemingly most benevolent doc-
* A story told by tho famous Mr. Murray, in a sermon preached just before in the
same place, of an aged lady who was frightened out of her wits by the firing in conse
quence of the capture of Lord Cornwallis ; insisting that tho enemy wore coming, and
refusing to bo pacified.

THROUGH THE SATISFACTION OF CHRIST. 85
trine. However, if any rational man, who has been leaning that way, will
candidly advert to the reasons and proofs in support of the opposite opin
ion, even only as now partially stated, I cannot but think he will be some
what staggered. I imagine he must be convinced thus far, at least, that
risking men's souls on the presumption that all will be saved, is going
upon a very forlorn hope.
Let me entreat such an one not to endanger himself or others by pre
suming thus, and teaching men so ; be sure without weighing the matter
well, and being very certain that he is not in an error. . It is better not
to have the honor of leading a party, and being of the foremost in singu
lar discoveries, than to " go down to the grave with a lie in one's right
hand ; " or to lead others upon ground which will not support them, and
be the occasion of their falling into the pit, out of which there may be no
redemption. It is better that men should not laugh now, than that they
should mourn and weep forever and ever. If the doctrine of universal
salvation be true, all the good that is done by its propagation, is only pre
venting a little present disquietude to sinners, who are generally pretty
secure and easy already. If it be not true, the mischief done by thus
encouraging them in carelessness and transgression, may be no less than
being the means of their everlasting ruin. Not to mention the flood-gate
to confusion and every evil work; to the destruction of all the tem
poral happiness of society, which, whether true or false, is opened by this
doctrine. But if the blind will lead the blind, we must let them alone. Let me
however entreat those who have eyes to open them, before they fall into
the ditch. Search the Scriptures, my beloved hearers, whether these
things be so. Search the Scriptures which testify of Christ, and in which
he hath borne witness to the truth. If any man teach another gospel
than that which he hath taught, believe him not. He may be a very
moral man ; but his doctrine is not according to godliness, nor favorable
to honesty. It subverts all moral obligation. He may be a man of fine
sense ; but great men are not always wise. Great men have often been
great opposers of the saving truth. Great men, from the days of old,
have sometimes said, " Peace, peace, when there was no peace." Yea,
the greatest of all fallen intelligences, has from the beginning said, " Dis
believe and transgress with safety. Ye shall not surely die." Believe
not this, though it be not new divinity, but a most ancient doctrine, and a
doctrine of the great. Think not that neither the unbelieving, nor the
abominable, nor murderers, nor whoremongers, nor sorcerers, nor idola
ters, nor any liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with
fire and brimstone. " Let no man deceive you with vain words." If the
Bible be true, " because of these things cometh the wrath of God upon the
children of disobedience." * 8

A DISCOURSE,
DESIGNED TO EXPLAIN THE DOCTRINE OF ATONEMENT.

DELIVERED IN

THE CHAPEL OF EHODE ISLAND COLLEGE, ON THE Hth AND 25th OF
NOVEMBER, 1796.

JONATHAN MAXCY, D.D.,
PRESIDENT OF RHODE ISLAND COLLEGE.

(87)

A DISCOURSE,
DESIGNED TO EXPLAIN THE DOCTRINE OF ATONEMENT.

FOR IT BECAME HIM FOR WHOM ARE ALL THINGS, AND BY WHOM ARE ALL THINGS,
IN BRINGING MANY SONS UNTO GLORY, TO MAKE THE CAPTAIN OF THEIR SALVA-
tios perfect through sufferings. — Hebrews 2: 10.
THt sufferings of Christ were essential Jo_-his character as a Saviour.
Without them the pardon ofsiiTwould have subverted the authority of
the divine law, and have prosixated the dignity of the divine government.
For, if God should not execute the penalty incurred by the transgressor,
if he should not manifest in his moral government the same abhorrence of
sin that he does in the declarations of his law, his word and his conduct
would be repugnant to each other, and he would afford no convincing
evidence, that his law was a transcript of his will ; that it ought to be
considered as sacred, and respected as an universal, invariable standard of
obedience for all rational creatures. One great and chief design of the
atonement made by the sufferings of Christ, was to impress a thorough
conviction of God's displeasure against sin, though he should pardon the
sinner. It was essential to a consistent exercise of pardon, that in some
visible expression, God's real disposition towards sin should be manifested
as clearly, fully, and unequivocally, as it would be in the execution of the
penalty of the law on the transgressor. This disposition, when brought
into view in some sensible manifestation, vindicates God's character from
all suspicion, and fully discovers his attachment to the dignity of his gov
ernment, to the rights of his justice, and the truth of his law. The suf
ferings of Christ appear to have been available to the procurement of
salvation, so far as they portrayed God's displeasure against sin, and
evinced the infinite value he set upon his own character and law. Hence
it is that the Scriptures so frequently bring into view a suffering, crucified
Christ, as the only hope of salvation. His sufferings support the dignity
8* (8Sj

90 DISCOURSE ON THE ATONEMENT.
of God, as the moral governor, while he extends mercy to the guilty ;
they present him in a glorious point of light, as the universal sovereign
and proprietor, as the great source from which all things have proceeded,
and in which all shall finally terminate. It is therefore with great reason
and propriety that the text declares, that " it became him for whom are
all things, and by whom are all things, in bringing many sons unto glory,
to make the Captain of their salvation perfect through sufferings."
These words, by bringing into view the passion of Christ, as essential
to a display of the divine character in the pardon of sin, present the doc
trine of atonement in a light truly interesting and important. For surely
nothing can be calculated more effectually to awaken the solicitude, and
raise the desponding hopes of the guilty, than a prospect of forgiveness.
Why God should require sufferings and the effusion of blood as a pre
requisite to the remissidn of sin, has been a subject of much inquiry, and
to many " a stone of stumbbng, and a rock of offence." They have sup
posed, that if God would not pass by sin without an atonement, without
full satisfaction to his justice, he must be naturally implacable ; that he
has no mercy, because he punishes the innocent for the guilty, and be
stows no good without an adequate compensation. Sufferings, it is true,
can add nothing to the love of God to his creatures ; but they may be,
and it is hoped can be, proved to be necessary to a consistent exercise
and display of that love. Atonement does not imply a purchase of God's
mercy ; it does not imply satisfaction to justice, as a cancellation of debt ;
nor does it infer any obbgation on justice for the liberation of sinners ; for
if it do, then sinners are not saved by forgiveness, since it is impossible
for mercy to pardon, where justice cannot punish. Atonement implies
the necessity of sufferings, merely as a-medium throughTwhich God's real
disposition towards sin should be seen in such a way, that an exercise of
pardon should not interfere with the dignity of government, and the au
thority <rf law.
The sufferings of Christ for sin characterize the gospel scheme, and
distinguish it from all others. The atonement made by them, adds to
the Christian religion its chief superiority, and lays the only foundation of
hope for all who have just views of the divine law, and the moral state
of man. All the doctrines of the gospel will derive their peculiar com
plexion from the manner in which the doctrine of atonement is explained.
A mistake here will be peculiarly injurious, and will infallibly lead into
error in every part of divinity. Atonement is the great sun in the centre
of the system. Blot it out, and you are lost forever. Not a ray from
any other quarter will dart through the gloomy prison of sin, to cheer its
disconsolate inhabitants, to disenthral them from their chains, and en
lighten their path to freedom and glory.

DISCOURSE ON THE ATONEMENT. 91
The design of revelation is to unfold the true God to men, acting ac
cording to the principles of his nature. This God is just and merciful.
He is disposed to punish and to pardon. How then shall bis justice and
his mercy be displayed towards the transgressor, without infringing or de
stroying each other ? God threatens punishment to sin. Sin is committed.
-God, instead of punishing, pardons. Where is his justice ? Where is
his truth ? Where is the regard due to his law, his character and gov
ernment ? If he punish, where is his mercy ? These difficulties will be
obviated by a right understanding of the atonement which Christ made
for sin. To exhaust this important subject, to comprehend all its con
nections and consequences, perhaps at present exceeds all human capac
ity. Enough of it, however, can be known and understood to enable
ns to perceive its excellency, and to secure our present and future felicity.
As the design of atonement was to save men from the curse of the law,
in consistency with the perfections and designs of God, the atonement
bad immediate respect to the law of God, to the moral state of men, and
to the ultimate and chief end of God in creation. Without a just and
proper view of these three points, all inquiries respecting atonement will
be extremely defective, if not totally erroneous. They will leave us,
like an unpiloted ship, driven by the winds over the pathless ocean.
In the subsequent discourse, therefore, I shall
First, explain the nature of the divine law, the moral state of man,
and the design of God in creation.
Secondly, the matter, the necessity, and the nature of atonement
A few inferences will then close the subject
I shall begin the first division of this discourse, by
L Explaining the nature of the divine law.
Under this denomination we are not to include all the laws given to the
people of Israel. For though these may be termed divine with respect
to their author, yet they are not all of a moral nature, and consequently
not obbgatory on all mankind. For this reason all the positive laws
appertaining to the former dispensation, are not included in the phrases,
" divine law," and " the law of God." These are used by way of emi
nence, to denote the moral law, as it is promulged and epitomized in the
decalogue. * The laws given unto the Israelites were of three kinds, moral, cere
monial and forensic The first respected them as rational, accountable
* Leges antem iis lata? non unius generis fuerunt. Tres omnino theologis recen-
sentur. Moralis sive decalogica, ceremonialis, et politica, sive forcnsis. Scilicet
tripliciter considerari Israeliticus populus potuit. 1. TJt cretune rationales, a Deo, nti
suprema ratione tam moraliter, qnam naturaliter dependentes. Et sic data fuit ipsi
lex decalogica, qua; quoad substantiam, cum lege naturae, homines qua tales obligante,

92 DISCOURSE ON THE ATONEMENT.
creatures ; the second, as members of the ecclesiastical body ; the third,
as members of the political body. The two last kinds of laws were pecu
liar to the Israelites. They alone had the promise of the Messiah. His
death and sufferings for sin were prefigured by the various offerings and
sacrifices enjoined in their ritual. Hence they received the ceremonial
law, as an indication of the Messiah yet to come, who being the substance
of all its shadows, was, by the sacrifice of himself, to abrogate its authority,
and discontinue its observance. Hence Christ, in the sufferings by which
he made atonement for sin, had no other respect to the ceremonial law,
than as he corresponded to its typical prefigurations.
The forensic laws of the Israelites were accommodated to their peculiar
genius as a people ; to their peculiar circumstances in the land of Canaan ;
and were designed to form the whole nation into a republican theocracy.
Hence it appears, that the ceremonial and forensic or political laws of the
Israelites, were of a temporary nature, and obligatory no longer than con
tinued by the express injunction of the legislator. In this view, as they
did not originate in the eternal fitness and propriety of things, they may
be styled positive, in contradistinction to those which are moral ; which
express the unchangeable will of God, respecting the obhgation, the obe
dience and disobedience, the reward and punishment, of rational crea
tures. These laws primarily flow from the absolute perfection of God,
and, like his nature, are sacred, immutable, and eternal. These laws, sum
med up in one body, are styled the law, or law of God. To this
law the whole of Christ's work, in making atonement for sin, had
immediate respect. Without a just view of this law, therefore, the
doctrine of atonement cannot be understood, nor its necessity and pro
priety perceived. Concerning the divine law, two things must be particu
larly noticed.
f 1. It contains a prescription of certain duties. These are contained in
the decalogue, as it was delivered at Mount Sinai, and are all summarily
comprehended in love, as the fountain from which all real, acceptable
obedience flows. Thus Christ explained the law : " Thou shalt love the
Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy
mind. This is the first and great commandment ; and the second is like
unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. On these two com
mandments hang all the law and the prophets." Matt. 22: 37, &c.
una eademque est. 2. Ut ecclesia veteris testamenti ; expectans Messiam promissum,
et lsetiora per ejus consummationem, tempora. Atque eo respcetu acceperant legem
ceremonialem, qua? ostendit quidem, nondum vcnisse Messiam, ot satisfactione sua,
omnia consummasse, fore tamen, ut veniat et omnia faciat, nova. 3. Ut populus
peculiaris, rompublicam, genio ac indoli sua) convenientem, hahens in terra Canaan.
— Witsii de Oecon. Feed., lib. iv. cap. iv. p. 609.

DISCOURSE ON THE ATONEMENT. 93
Paul viewed the law in the same light, when he said, " Love is the
fulfilling of the law." Rom. 13: 10. No action, therefore, either mental
or external, which does not proceed from pure love to God, can come
under the denomination of true virtue or obedience. This law is a delinea
tion of perfect rectitude, and was designed to govern the whole man, by
inspiring right motives, and producing an entire correspondence between
them and external actions.
2. The second thing to be noticed concerning the law is, that it con
tains comminations of divine vengeance against transgression. Without
these, it would riot properly in its nature have the force and authority
of a law. The language of the law, expressing the penal sanction is,
" Cursed be he that confirmeth not all the words of the law, to do
them." Deut. 2% : 26. This curse most undoubtedly is the just and
proper punishment of sin. For it is inconsistent with the perfection of
God to threaten a punishment greater or less than sin deserves. This is
the punishment from which Christ delivers. Thus Paul says to the
Galatians, " God sent forth his Son, made under the law, to redeem them
that were under the law." Gal. 4 : 4, 5. That is, to redeem them from
its curse, as he explains it in another place. " Christ hath redeemed us
from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us." Gal. 3 : 13. Let
it here be particularly noticed, that this commination annexed to the
divine law, is the sum and foundation of all the others expressed in Scrip
ture, and denounced against transgressors. Various threatenings are found
in the New Testament, denounced against those who reject the gospel.
These threatenings express the real penalty of the divine law. For no
man can slight, neglect, or refuse the gospel, without violating the law,
and incurring its penalty. That this penalty, which will be executed on
the impenitent in a future state, is endless misery or destruction, appears
from the following passages of Scripture. In Dan. 12 : 2, it is said, " And
many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to
everlasting Life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt." Matt.
18 : 8 ; "It is better for thee to enter into life halt or maimed, than
having two hands or two feet to be cast into everlasting fire." Matt. 25 :
41, Christ says to the wicked, " Depart from me, ye cursed, into ever
lasting fire." And in verse 46, " These shall go away into everlasting
punishment." Mark 3 : 29, Christ says of him who blasphemes the Holy
Ghost, that he is " in danger of eternal damnation." Paul says of those
who disobey the gospel, " Who shall be punished with everlasting destruc
tion." The punishment spoken of in these words undoubtedly is the
penalty of the law. For the law only can condemn and punish. Here
perhaps it will be objected, that the punishment implied in these words is
not strictly endless, since the word everlasting is sometimes appropriated

9? DISCOURSE ON THE ATONEMENT.
to express things of a limited duration ; that it is not the nature of pun
ishment to be endless, and therefore the term everlasting, when used to
express its duration, does not prove it to be strictly endless. To this it
is replied, that because the term everlasting is in some instances used to
denote a limited duration, it does not follow that it is used so in all ; not
even when used to express the duration of things which would cease to
exist if left to the laws of nature ; for God can perpetuate whatever he
pleases. For all our knowledge of the nature and duration of future pun
ishment, we are wholly indebted to revelation. In this revelation God
has explained the duration of punishment, and consequently the true pen
alty of his law, not only by the word everlasting, but by unequivocal
determinate phrases, denoting it to be strictly endless. This is fully evi
dent from the following passages, which positively determine the meaning
of the word everlasting, when used to express the duration of future pun
ishment. In Mark 9 : 43, Christ says, " It is better for thee to enter into
Ufe maimed, than having two hands to go into hell, into the fire that never
shall be quenched ; where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not
quenched." In Matt. 12 : 31, it is said, " The blasphemy against the
Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men." In John 3 : 36, it is said,
" He that believeth not on the Son, shall not see life, but the wrath of
God abideth on him." Of the same import are all those passages which
speak of those who are said to perish, to be rejected, to be cast away, to
be lost and destroyed. To these testimonies of Scripture, ascertaining the
penalty of the divine law to be endless misery or destruction, let us add
the testimony of reason.
The law, whose essence is love, tends in its nature to secure the high
est happiness of all rational creatures. For if all comply with its require
ments, if all love God with all the heart, and their neighbor as themselves,
what room is there left for sin or misery ? These originate not in any
deficiency in the divine government, but in deviation from the divine law.
In this God has discovered as much goodness as he has in the gospel.
For the first tends to secure the highest happiness without sin, and the
last to secure it after the introduction of sin. Whatever, therefore, is op
posed to God's law, is opposed to his gospel ; and whatever is opposed to
either, tends to introduce universal, endless evil. If, therefore, endless
punishment be not the penalty of the divine law, it does not appear that
it has any penalty. For whatever penalty God annexes to his law, must
be just; that is, it must be as great as the evil introduced by transgres
sion, or as great as the glory of God, and the good of the rational uni
verse, require. The greatness of this penalty must be estimated from the
consequences that would ensue from an unrestrained indulgence of trans
gression, and the magnitude of the object against which the transgression

DISCOURSE ON THE ATONEMENT. 95
is committed. The law of God tends to universal good. As sin opposes
that law, it tends to universal evil. Did all rational creatures commit
sin without any restraint from divine interposition, all would be involved
in endless ruin and despair. The law of God, which is as near to him as
his own nature, would be universally violated and contemned. For all
these consequences, so dishonorary to God, so ruinous to creatures, each
one concerned in transgression must feel himself accountable. Sin is
atheism. It denies God. It strikes at his government and character,
and consequently at all good and all happiness. As sin, therefore; tends to
introduce endless evil, if punishments are to be proportioned to crimes,
sin deserves endless punishment. Having explained the nature of the
divine law in considering its precepts and penalty, I now proceed to ex
plain, Secondly. The moral state of man. By the moral state of man, we
are to understand the state in which he is, considered as an accountable
creature, capable of praise and blame, of reward and punishment. This
state, as it respects all men in unregeneracy, appears from the Scriptures
to be characterized by the following things : —
1. It is a state of entire alienation of affection from God. That is, it
is a state in which the moral temper is averse to divine and spiritual
things, insensible of their excellency, and regardless of their importance.
This truth is expressed in Scripture by " being dead in trespasses and
sins," " being alienated from the life of God, desiring not the knowledge
of his ways," "receiving not the thing3 of the Spirit." The moral state
of man, in this view, does not imply that he does not possess noble and
exalted capacities of mind. These are not of a moral nature, and conse
quently not susceptible of depravity. Man, though destitute of all real
holiness in the sight of God, though wholly sinful in all the exercises of
his heart, still possesses natural affection, gratitude, sympathy, and sensi
bility ; desire of pleasure, and aversion to pain ; these are merely the
affections and propensities of his constitution, and belong to other animals
which are not moral agents. Man's depravity does not imply that he is
destitute of all the natural ability on which the propriety of the divine
commands and injunctions rests. If he be not a moral agent, if he have
not abibty to obey, it does not appear that he can be capable of disobe
dience. Deity will never censure a blind man for not seeing, nor an
idiot for not being wise. He requires the exercise of nothing further
than the capacity he bestows. All the depravity of man consists in the
wrong use of his natural powers, and in his unwillingness to use them as
God requires. The preceding description of the state of man by nature,
is fully confirmed by the following passages of Scripture : — Gen. 6:5;
" And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and

96 DISCOURSE ON THE ATONEMENT.
that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil con
tinually." Gen. 8: 21; "The imagination of man's heart is evil from
his youth." Eccl. 9 : 3 ; " The heart of the sons of men is full of evil."
Jer. 17 : 9 ; " The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately
wicked." Rom. 3 : 10, &c. ; " There is none righteous, no, not one ;
there is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God ;
they are all gone out of the way ; there is none that doeth good, no, not
one." Paul testifies concerning himself, " I know that in me, that is in
my flesh, dwelleth no good thing." He declares, that " the carnal mind
is enmity against God ; " that " the natural man receiveth not the things
of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness unto him ; neither can he
know them, because they are spiritually discerned." The conduct -of
men, in all ages and nations, fully exemplifies and cbnfirrns these asser
tions. 2. Another thing which characterizes the state of man is, that it is a
state of guilt and condemnation. This necessarily follows, from the con
sideration that man is, in the disposition of his heart, opposed to God and
his law. " By the law is the knowledge of sin." By this knowledge
come guilt and condemnation. All men are under obbgation to obey
God's law. The law, therefore, lays its injunctions upon them, demands
obedience, and denounces punishment to the transgressor. " Now we
know," says Paul, " that whatsoever things the law saith, it saith to them
who are under the law ; that every mouth may be stopped, and the whole
world may become guilty before God." Rom. 3 : 19.
3. Another thing which characterizes the state of man is, a state of
total impotency, as to the attainment of salvation. The truth of this
appears from two considerations.
1st. The law requires sinless obedience. It promises life to the per
formance of all its requirements, and to nothing else. Its language is,
" The man that doth them shall live in them." But man has disquali
fied himself in a moral view to do these things, since he is " under sin,"
and continues to commit it while in an unrenewed state. As man, there
fore, while a sinner, cannot render sinless perfect obedience, he cannot
effect his own salvation.
2d. Besides, man has incurred the penalty of the divine law. It
stands against him, " Cursed is every one that eontinueth not in all
things, written in the book of the law, to do them." This penalty has
been demonstrated to be endless suffering. How shall man free himself
from it ? He can do nothing which can render it consistent with God to
pardon. He cannot keep the law by perfect obedience, and consequently
cannot be saved on that ground. If he undertake to endure its penalty,
he of consequence must give up all hope of salvation.

DISCOURSE ON THE ATONEMENT. 97
Having explained the moral state of man, I now proceed,
3. To explain the design of God in creation.
It is a mark of a wise and intelligent being to have respect, in all his
actions, to the accomplishment of some end. This circumstance princi
pally distinguishes the actions of men from those of brutes. In all ope
rations performed by rational beings, we expect design, and an exact
adjustment of every part to the accomplishment of that design. When
we look at the majestic works of God in creation and redemption, we
are at once impressed with the absurdity of even imagining them to
have been made without a view to some great end. In these works we
behold order, connection, regularity, and harmony. How these should
have existed without design, is impossible to conceive. It is equally im
possible to conceive how God should make such stupendous works, with
out a view to some end exceedingly great, glorious, and important. For
it is inconsistent with wisdom to make great preparations, and to perform
great actions, for the accomplishment of small purposes. If God have
one chief end in his works, we may be assured that these works are har
moniously adjusted to its accomplishment. All God's works, then, must
be considered as means wisely arranged, and tending to one final issue.
This issue must be brought into view before the means of its completion
can be seen in their propriety and beauty. Let us, then, propose to our
selves this question : Why did God create ? Surely he was under no
necessity to do this. For if he was, that necessity must have been eter
nal, and the same reason must have been assigned for the existence of
things, as for the existence of God. That reason God gave, when he
said, " I am that I am." God, as he is eternal, involves in his own na
ture the cause of his existence ; but this cannot be the case with any
thing created. Creation, then, as it did not proceed from necessity, must
have proceeded from choice. The question then stands thus : " Was
God's end in creation himself, or the thing created ? " The following
considerations, perhaps, will assist us in answering this question.
1. Before creation nothing exterior to God existed. The reason,
then, why any thifig has existed, must be sought for in God. That rea
son must have been his own choice, and if so, then his own pleasure, and
not the thing to be created. Should it here be objected, that God made
creatures on purpose to bestow happiness upon them, the objection proves
this only, that God is pleased with bestowing happiness. If so, then
God made creatures for his own pleasure, and not for theirs. If God
made creatures merely for the sake of making them happy, why does he
permit so many of them to be miserable ? We learn what God means
by what he does, as well as by what he says. God has created all
9

98

DISCOURSE ON THE ATONEMENT.

things, and in these has exhibited a picture of himself. But it would be
absurd to suppose all this was done without design.
2. The next consideration I bring into view is, that it is inconsis
tent for infinite wisdom and goodness to prefer an inferior to a superior
object. Such conduct would carry the most striking marks, and wear the
most prominent features, of injustice and imperfection. All creatures are
as nothing, in comparison of the immense God. Collect all the powers and
principalities of heaven, all the perfection of angels and virtues of men,
all the splendors scattered over creation ; collect all these into one vast
assemblage, and they are lost before God, like a mote in the full blaze
of the sun. Creation has added nothing to the real sum of virtue and
happiness ; for these, wherever found, are only streams from the great
exhaustless fountain. God, therefore, created with a view to diffuse and
communicate, in different forms, that immense fulness which dwelt in
himself. God must love and regard the highest excellency most; but
this is nowhere but in himself. Nor is this supreme regard of God to
himself, as some have affirmed, an exercise of selfishness, but of the high
est benevolence ; for this, consists in a supreme regard to the greatest
good. But this greatest good is God himself.
3. In the next place we may consider further, that for God to act
with a supreme regard to himself, or to the display of his true character,
is to act in such a way as will secure the highest happiness of intelligent
beings. For all true happiness results from the knowledge and enjoy
ment of the greatest good. God is the greatest and the only true good in
the universe. It follows from this that the more this true good is
displayed, the more it will be known and enjoyed. Consequently, more
happiness is secured by a display of God, than could be by any thing
else. God, then, must surely, in all his works, act with a supreme regard
to his own glory, or to himself. This is the uniform language of Scrip
ture. God declares, " that he made all things for himself} " that " of him,
and to him, and through him, are all things."
" From these considerations it appears, that God's ultimate and chief end
in creation, was himself.
Hating explained the several things proposed in the first part of this
discourse, concerning the law of God, the moral state of man, and the
ultimate and chief end of God in creation ; I now proceed to explain the
matter, necessity, and the nature of atonement.
Since it appears that the ultimate and chief end of God in creation was
the display of his own' nature, we may infer, with certainty, that this end
will be kept in view in the continuance and government of creation.

DISCOURSE ON THE ATONEMENT. 99
For if it be not, then the arrangements in the divine administration are
not calculated so as certainly to coincide with the ultimate intention of
the divine will. But God " worketh all things after the counsel of his
own will." Therefore all parts of the great scheme of creation, provi
dence, and redemption, will ultimately exhibit a complete picture of the
true character of God. He will then appear in reality to be " the be
ginning and the end," " the all in all." The obedience and sufferings of
Christ, as they are the medium through which God's love of holiness
and hatred of iniquity are seen, so they answer, as to the display
of God's glory, all the purposes and more than would have been an
swered by the endless obedience or sufferings of all transgressors.
Atonement, therefore, by the death of Christ, is to be viewed as a nec
essary part of God's great plan, and as possessing the propriety and fit
ness of means for the accomplishment of an end. If we consider
atonement, in a general view, as that part of Christ's mediatorial work
which rendered the forgiveness of sin consistent with God's character, it
will comprise, as essential to its nature, more than suffering, though suf
fering appears to constitute its chief and most important part. If grace
were to be manifested, it was proper and necessary that that grace should
" reign through righteousness ; " that is, in such a way as was consistent
with the rectitude or justice of God. Whatever, therefore, would bring
into view the character and law of God as effectually as the perfect
obedience or suffering of men, must be considered as the atonement for
sin. Though the punishment of the transgressor would have displayed
God's truth and his hatred of sin, yet it would not have displayed his love
of mercy^ and disposition to pardon. But all these are displayed in the
salvation of the transgressor, by the obedience and death of Christ.
Having premised these things, I proceed to explain,
First. The matter of atonement, or that in which it consisted.
1. The divine law requires perfect obedience. God, in giving-that
law, virtually declared that it was good, and ought to be obeyed. The
sinner, by transgressing it, virtually declared JhaiJt was not good, and
ought not to be obeyed. Should God, in this case, pardon without mani
festing his regard to the law, so as to establish its authority as a rule of
obedience, and to display his aversion to sin, his conduct would coincide
with that of the sinner, and tend to the destruction of his own govern
ment. But if God, by a vicarious or substituted obedience and suffering,
give, in his moral government, a full confirmation and conviction of the
goodness of his law, and the justice of its requirements, his conduct,
though he pardon, stands as directly opposed to the conduct of the sinner,
as if he should condemn the sinner to endure the full penalty of the
law. The obedience of Christ, on account of the superior dignity of his

100 DISCOURSE ON THE ATONEMENT.
character, honored the law, declared and confirmed it to be good, more
effectually than the obedience of all finite creatures could have done to
eternity. In Christ " dwelt all the fulness of the Godhead." As he had
all wisdom and goodness, his voluntary obedience must produce a con
viction that the law was good; for he could not err in his judgment
concerning it, and, consequently, if it had been a bad law, he would not
have submitted to its precepts. The obedience of Christ, therefore, as it
virtually condemned sin, and expressed his approbation of the law, so
as to establish its authority as a rule of righteousness, appears to con
stitute an essential, though not the principal, part of atonement. Christ,
as a surety, engaged to fulfil all the righteousness of the law. To do
this, it was as necessary that he should obey, as it was that he should
suffer. The language of Scripture is, " He humbled himself, and became
obedient unto death, even the death of the cross." Phil. 2 : 8. The obe
dience and sufferings of Christ, in making atonement, were inseparably
connected. " Though he were a son," says Paul, " yet learned he obedi
ence by the things which he suffered." Heb. 5:8. " For what the law
could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own
Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin condemned sin in the
flesh." Rom. 8: 3. But did not Christ's obedience bear testimony
against sin, and in favor of the law, as really as his sufferings ? Were
not both essential to a display of justice and mercy? So far as the obedi
ence of Christ rendered the forgiveness of sin consistent, so far it consti
tuted a part of atonement.
2. The great and principal part of atonement, and which the Scriptures
most frequently bring into view, was Christ's sufferings. These were
essential to his character as mediator and surety. It was necessary that
he should be " made perfect through sufferings." It was essential that he
should maintain the honor of the divine law, by fulfilling it in its penalty,
as in its precepts. Hence he said, " Think not that I am come to destroy
the law or the prophets ; I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil." " For
verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall
in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled." Matt. 5 : 17, 18.
Hence the sufferings of Christ were so far from disrespecting or abrogat
ing the law, that they " magnified it and made it honorable." One jot or
one tittle did not pass till all was fulfilled. Hence it appears, that Christ
endured the real penalty of the law in its full extent and meaning. With
out a penalty, the law would have had no force. It would have been no
more than advice. As the penalty, therefore, was essential to its nature,
and as one tittle of the law did not pass till all was fulfilled, it follows that
Christ endured the penalty of the law. This is fully evident from the
descriptions given of his death and sufferings. Isa. 53 : 6 ; " The Lord

DISCOURSE ON THE ATONEMENT. 101
hath laid on him the iniquity of us all." " For the transgression of my
people was he stricken." " My righteous servant shall justify many, for
he shall bear their iniquities." To bear iniquity, to be stricken for trans
gression, signify to endure the evil which sin deserves. It is through
Christ's sufferings only, that we can obtain redemption and remission of
sin. Thus says Paul, Eph. 1 : 7 ; "In whom we have redemption
through his blood, the forgiveness of sins." We are said to be redeemed
by " the precious blood of Christ." When Christ's blood is spoken of, it
is in allusion to the sacrifices under the law, which were typical of his
death, and pointed to that as making atonement. " It is the blood that
maketh atonement for the soul." Lev. 17: 11. " Christ also hath once
suffered for sins." Hence the sufferings of Christ appear to have consti
tuted the most essential part, and some contend the whole, of atonement.
Secondly. I proceed to explain the necessity of atonement. Why could
not God pardon without it ? Why should he require sufferings before he
would extend forgiveness to the guilty ? Would not his mercy have ap
peared more conspicuous in remitting the offences of his creatures, on their
repentance only, without exacting satisfaction? Is Deity so inexorable,
that he will show no favor until the full penalty of the law be endured,
and all his wrath exhausted ? These difficulties will perhaps be obviated
by the following train of thought.
1. The government which God exercises over his rational creatures,
is not a government of force, but of law. Nothing, therefore, can take
place under this government that is arbitary, or inconsistent with the real
meaning and authority of law. The obedience required of the subjects,
is urged by the promise of reward to the performer, and the threatening
of punishment to the transgressor. This promise and threatening are pre
dictions of things to take place, on the concurrence of particular specified
events. On one hand stands the great Legislator, promulging his law,
and enforcing it with the penal sanction ; on the other stands the whole
system of rational beings, receiving that law as an unalterable rule of
righteousness. These beings become transgressors. They incur that
penalty, for the execution of which God's truth and faithfulness are
pledged. How, then, shall God, without executing this penalty, maintain
the dignity of his character, and the authority of his law T Not to execute
the penalty, is to give up his government;-to-repeal, to anrmT~lltr-law,
and to fail in the accomplishment of his prediction. Hence it appears,
that punishments are necessary in God's moral government. They sup
port his law, they deter transgressors, and manifest divine displeasure
against sin. But why cannot God govern his creatures without punish- 1
ments ? This is the same thing as to ask why he cannot govern them!
without laws. He can. He ean govern them by force. But they will)
9* '

102 DISCOURSE ON THE ATONEMENT.
cease to be moral, accountable creatures. Laws, then, are essential to
moral government. Punishments are equally essential to laws. A law
which has no penalty, or, which is the same, a law that is not executed,
ceases to be a law. It loses all its force, and becomes mere advice.
Therefore, if sinners are to be forgiven, it must be done in consistency
with the meaning and authority of law ; for God cannot contradict him
self. The legislative and executive parts of his government must coin
cide. Hence, if sinners are to be forgiven, something equivalent to the
punishment of sinners must be done in order to fulfil the real meaning of
the law, and to support government. Hence, in order to a consistent ex
ercise of mercy, atonement is necessary on the same principle, and for
the same end, that punishments would be necessary without atonement.
Viewed in this light, atonement is a substitute for punishments. It not
only answers all the ends of these, but many more. If. these were neces
sary without atonement, atonement without these was equally necessary.
If, then, we maintain that God can exercise pardon merely on account of
the sinner's repentance, we must maintain that laws can exist in full
, force without any penalties ; or that God can govern the moral system
by laws, without carrying them into execution. A greater absurdity
than this cannot be conceived.
2. Atonement will appear necessary, if we consider it in the propriety
of means adapted to the accomplishment of an end. The great plan
which God has adopted for the existence, government, and final state of
rational creatures, is undoubtedly the best possible, and will ultimately
terminate in the highest and most noble purpose. To suppose the con
trary, is to suppose imperfection in Deity. For the present plan has
been brought into operation by infinite wisdom, which must discern
and choose the best ; by infinite goodness, which must prompt the best ;
by infinite power, which can execute the best. Of consequence, every
part of this great plan must be so arranged, as directly to conduce to the
highest ultimate end of the whole. This end has been shown to be God
himself, or the display of his glory. Atonement, considered in relation
to the moral state of man, and the display of God's mercy, in saving him
from that state, appears indispensably necessary. Unless God's mercy
be displayed, his character will not appear to his creatures in its full
glory ; and consequently the highest happiness of the system will not be
secured. If the display of mercy be necessary, atonement is necessary.
Mercy appears great in proportion to the greatness of the danger, misery,
or ruin from which it delivers. The moral state of man has been shown
to be a state of the greatest danger, a state of condemnation and total
ruin. Atonement implies an acknowledgment of that state as it really
is, and of the perfect justice of God, should he leave man in it without

DISCOURSE ON THE ATONEMENT. 103
any prospect of reUef. Atonement, therefore, is the only thing which
presents salvation as an act of real grace, and brings into view God,
plenteous in mercy. All the glory that will ultimately redound to Gpd,
from the salvation of sinners, will arise through atonement, as the great
means by which God will accomplish the high and ultimate end of crea
tion. Atonement was necessary, therefore, to the perfection of God's
great plan.
3. The necessity of atonement appears from the consideration that
atonement has been made, and from the frequent mention of it in the
Scriptures as the only ground on which we can obtain salvation. It is
very unreasonable to suppose that Christ would have died for sin, unless
his death had been absolutely necessary. In a view of the amazing
sufferings he was about to endure, he prayed to his Father, saying, " If
thou be willing, remove this cup from me." Luke 22 : 42. Had not
his death been necessary, this prayer would undoubtedly have been
answered. But without his death, neither the salvation of men could
have been effected, nor the glory of God displayed. Hence Christ said,
" Ought not Christ to have suffered these things ? " " As Moses lifted up
the serpent in the wilderness, so must the Son of Man be bfted up."
Paul says, " Without shedding of blood is no remission." In Leviticus
it is said, '¦ It is the blood that maketh atonement for the soul." 17 : 11.
Christ, at the institution of the supper, said, " This is my blood of the
New Testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins."
Paul says, " We are justified by his blood." " In whom we have re
demption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins." " Who his own self
bare our sins in his own body on the tree." The redeemed are repre
sented as saying, " Thou wast slain, and hast redeemed us to God by
thy blood." Rev. 5 : 9. Yet we are assured that " there is no other
name given under heaven among men whereby we must be saved." If
these expressions do not point out the necessity of Christ's sufferings to
make atonement for sin, it is impossible for language to point it out.
Thirdly. I now proceed to explain the nature of atonement
The limits to which I am necessarily confined in this discourse, forbid
me to enter into a full and extensive discussion of this part of the
subject I shall therefore confine myself to the solution of what appears
most embarrassing, and difficult to be understood. The nature of atone
ment has, in some degree, and unavoidably so, been brought into view in
the preceding parts of this discourse. What I propose to illustrate
under this head is comprised in the following propositions: that the
nature of atonement was such, that though it rendered full satisfactionjtQ^
justice, yet it inferred no obligation^orTjustice for the deliverance of
sinners, but left their deliverance an act of pure grace. This will

104 DISCOURSE ON THE ATONEMENT.
doubtless be considered by many as a great absurdity and positive con
tradiction. For how can full atonement for sin be consistent with
forgiveness ? If Christ has paid the debt for sinners, if he has given
himself a ransom, if he has purchased them, how can they be said to
be pardoned, or delivered by grace ? If an equivalent price be paid for
their redemption, may they not on the ground of justice demand salva
tion ? How can those be subjects of forgiveness who owe nothing ? If
Christ has paid the debt, will it not be injustice to exact it again of the
sinner ? A man is arrested for debt, and thrown into prison. Property
is demanded for the discharge of his obligation. Property is advanced
by a third person. The creditor receives it. Is not the debt paid?
Can the creditor in justice demand any thing further of the debtor?
May not the debtor on the foot of justice demand deliverance from
, prison ? May he not demand his obligation, since it is cancelled by the
property advanced ? Is not the creditor bound by justice to comply with
| these demands ? Would not a refusal to comply be deemed dishonesty,
I injustice, and cruelty ? The creditor complies. But does he show any
grace or favor to the debtor ? Does he treat the debtor more favorably
than he ought to treat him ? Does he do any thing more than he ought
to do, or more than the debtor has a right to demand ? The creditor
exclaims, " I have treated this man with so much mercy and favor, that
I gave him up his obligation when he had paid the whole sum for which
it was given." Who does not perceive the absurdity of this ? Thus it
may be objected that full atonement for sin is inconsistent with forgive
ness. But the Scripture insists on full atonement, and yet everywhere
holds up the deliverance of sinners as an act of pure grace. This is a
gordian knot in divinity. Let us not by violence cut it asunder, but
attempt fairly to untie it.
Before we proceed, it may not be improper to observe, that the
greatest difficulty with which this part of this subject is embarrassed,
appears to have originated in the want of an accurate definition of
justice and grace. Theologians have said much about these, yet few
have defined them with sufficient accuracy to render them intelligible, or
make them appear consistent
I shall, therefore,
First, explain the meaning of the word grace.
Secondly, the meaning of the word justice.
Thirdly, apply these explanations to this part of the subject, with a
view to solve the difficulty with which it is embarrassed.
First. What are we to understand by the word grace ?
We are to understand by it the exercise of favor, and consequently
the bestowment of good where evil is deserved, and may in justice be

DISCOURSE ON THE ATONEMENT. 105
inflicted. Where there is no exposure to evil, there is no room for the
exercise of grace. He who is not guilty is not a subject of pardon. He
who does not deserve punishment cannot be said to be freed from it by
• an act of favor. Grace therefore always implies, that the subject of it
is unworthy, and would have" ricPreason to complain, if all the evil to
which he is exposed were inflicted on him. Grace will appear great
accordlng~to~the view which the sinner has of his own ill desert, and the
consciousness he possesses of the punishment or evil from which he is
delivered. Grace and justice are opposite in their nature. Grace
gives ; justice demands. Their provinces are entirely separate.
Though they are united, yet they are not blended in man's salvation.
Hence that remarkable passage in Rom. 11:6; " If by grace, then it is
no more of works, otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of
works, then it is no more grace, otherwise work is no more work."
Secondly.. What are we to understand by the word justice ? It as
sumes three denominations, — commutative, distributive, and public.
1. Commutative justice respects property only.* "It consists in an
equal exchange of benefits," or in restoring to every man his own.
2. Distributive justice respects the moral character of men. It re
spects them as accountable creatures, obedient or disobedient. It con
sists in ascertaining their virtue and sin, and in bestowing just rewards,
or inflicting just punishments.
3. Public or general justice respects what is fit or right, as to the
character of God and the good of the universe. In this sense justice
comprises all moral goodness, and properly means the righteousness or
rectitude of God, by which all his actions are guided, with a supreme
regard to the greatest good. Justice, considered in this view, forbids that
any thing should take place in the great plan of God, which would tar
nish his glory or subvert the authority of his law.
Thirdly. Let us now apply these explanations to the solution of the
difficulty under consideration.
1. Did Christ satisfy commutative justice ? Certainly not Commu
tative justice had no concern in his sufferings. Men had taken no prop
erty from God, and consequently were under no obligation to restore any.
But do not the Scriptures represent Christ as giving himself a ransom,
and as buying his people with a price ? They do. They also represent
men, while under the influence of sin, as prisoners, slaves, captives.
These expressions are all figurative, borrowed from sensible to express
moral or spiritual things, and therefore are not to be explained as if liter-
* See Doddridge's Lectures, p. 190 ; and also Dr. Edwards' third sermon, preached
at New Haven, 1785, p. 38.

106 DISCOURSE ON THE ATONEMENT.
ally true. If we say that Christ hath redeemed us, that he hath bought
us, that he has paid the debt and discharged us, — if we have any con
sistent meaning it must be this : That in consequence of what Christ has
done, we are delivered from sin, in as great a consistency with justice, as *
a debtor is delivered from his obligation, or the demands of law, when
his debt is paid. That is, God extends pardon in such a way, through
Christ, that he does not injure the authority of his law, but supports it as
effectually as if he inflicted punishment.
2. Did Christ satisfy distributive justice ? Certainly not. Distribu
tive justice respects personal character only. It condemns men because
they are sinners, and rewards them because they are righteous. Their
good or ill desert are the only ground on which distributive or moral
justice respects them. But good and ill desert are personal. They
imply consciousness of praise or blame, and cannot be transferred or
altered so as to render the subjects of them more or less worthy. What
Christ did, therefore, did not take ill desert from men, nor did it place
them in such a situation that God would act unjustly to punish them
according to their deeds. If a man has sinned, it will always remain a
truth that he has sinned, and that according to distributive justice he
deserves punishment. In this sense justice admits the condemnation of
Paul as much as it does of Judas. The salvation of the former is se
cured, and his condemnation rendered impossible by another consider
ation. 3. Did Christ satisfy public justice ? Undoubtedly he did. This is
evident from what has already been advanced respecting the necessity of
atonement, in order to a consistent exercise of mercy. Christ's suffer
ings rendered it right and fit, with respect to God's character and the
good of the universe, to forgive sin. The atonement made by Christ
presented the law, the nature of sin, and the displeasure of God against
it, in such a light, that no injury would accrue to the moral system, no
imputation would be against the righteousness of the great Legislator,
though he should forgive the sinner, and instate him in eternal felicity.
Perfect justice, therefore, is done to the universe, though all transgressors
be not punished according to their personal demerit. The death of
Christ, therefore, is to be considered as a great, important, and public
transaction, respecting God and the whole system of rational beings.
Public justice requires, that neither any of these be injured, nor the
character and government of the great Legislator disrespected, by the
pardon of any. In those respects public justice is perfectly satisfied by
the death of Christ. This is evident by the following passages of Scripture.
Rom. 3 : 21 ; "But now the righteousness (rectitude or justice) of God
is manifested without the law, being witnessed by the law." Before the

DISCOURSE, ON THE ATONEMENT. 107
introduction of these words the apostle had demonstrated that the whole
world, Jews and Gentiles, were all under sin and condemnation. " Now,"
says he, " we know that whatsoever things the law saith, it saith to them
that are under the law, that every mouth may be stopped, and the whole
world become guilty before God." All, if treated according to distribu
tive justice, must be found guilty and condemned. " Therefore," says
Paul, " by the deeds of the law shall no flesh be justified." How, then, it
might be inquired, can any be justified, and yet God not give up his law,
but appear perfectly righteous and just ? The answer follows. " By the
righteousness of God, which is manifested without the law, being wit
nessed by the law."' Rom. 3: 21. That is, the righteousness or justice
of God, with respect to himself and the universe, is clearly manifested,
though he do not execute the law, as to distributive justice, on transgres
sors, but pardon and save them. This is so far from being contrary to
the law, that it is witnessed by the law. For the sufferings of Christ
demonstrate that God no more gives up the penalty of the law than if he
should inflict it on the original transgressor. The righteousness or justice
manifested in this way is through Christ ; " whom," says Paul, " God
hath set forth to be a propitiation, through faith in his blood." For
what end ? " To declare his righteousness for the remission of sins."
" To declare at this time his righteousness (for this purpose) that he
might be just, and the justifier of him that believeth in Jesus." Rom.
3 : 25, 26. Hence it is said, " Christ is the end of the law for righteous
ness to every one that believeth." Rom. 10:4. That is, the end of the
law is as fully answered in the salvation of men by Christ, as it would
have been if they had never transgressed, but had obtained life by per
fect obedience. It is said, " If we confess our sins, he is just to forgive
us our sins." 1 John, 1 : 9. He is just to himself, to his law, to the uni
verse. God styles himself " a just God and a Saviour." Isa. 45 : 21.
Hence justice and mercy harmonize in man's salvation.
From the preceding statement of the nature of grace and justice, it
appears, First. That atonement, and consequently the pardon of sin, have no
respect to commutative justice.
Secondly. That the sufferings of Christ did not satisfy distributive jus
tice, since that respects personal character only ; and therefore, with
respect to distributive justice, salvation is an act of perfect grace.
Thirdly. That Christ's sufferings satisfied public justice ; and there
fore, with respect to public justice, salvation is an act of perfect justice.
Thus the seeming inconsistency between full atonement for sin, and
pure grace in salvation, vanishes and disappears. The system of re
demption rises into view like a magnificent edifice, displaying the greatest
order, proportion, and beauty.

108 DISCOURSE ON THE ATONEMENT.
Having advanced what I proposed, respecting the matter, the neces
sity, and the nature of atonement, I shall conclude with a few inferences.
1. From the preceding discourse may be inferred, the indissoluble
connection between the doctrine of atonement and the divinity of Christ
For it has been demonstrated, that the penalty of the law is endless
misery, and that that penalty was, in its full extent and meaning, endured
by Christ, in order to a consistent exercise of mercy. No finite created
being could, in a limited time, endure the full penalty of the law in any
respect. Yet we are assured that Christ endured it when " he was
made a curse." As he comprised in his divine nature an infinite quan
tity of existence, he could in a limited time endure a punishment which
to a creature would be endless. This does not imply that the divine
nature suffered. This was impossible. In this nature consisted the per
sonality of Christ. As he took into union with it the human nature, he
possessed a perfect consciousness of the oneness of that nature with him
self. Hence the sufferings of the human nature derive all their worth
and value from the divine nature. The divinity of Christ, therefore,
was essential to atonement, and was the only consideration that made his
sufferings answer all the ends of moral government, so as to render the
salvation of sinners consistent or possible. It is unreasonable to suppose,
that the Son of God would have been sent to effect the work of redemp
tion, if it could have been effected by a mere creature ; yet we are
assured, that the " word that was God " " was made flesh." Hence,
those who entertain such an opinion of the law of God, and the moral
state of man, as to see no need of atonement, reject the divinity of Christ.
But so long as atonement shall appear necessary, so long the doctrine of
Christ's divinity must be admitted, and so long it will appear essential to
Christianity. $
2. From the preceding statement of the doctrine of atonement, we
infer the erroneousness of that scheme of salvation which represents
Christ suffering on the ground of distributive justice. If justice could
demand his sufferings, he was treated according to his own personal
character, and of consequence his sufferings had no more merit than the
sufferings of a transgressor. If these were just, in the same sense that
those of the sinner would be just, he endured no more than he ought to
endure. His death, therefore, on this plan, made no atonement for sin.
Besides, to represent Christ's sufferings to be the same as those of his
people, is to destroy all grace in salvation. For if in him they have
endured all to which they were exposed, from what are they delivered ?
In what respect are they forgiven ?
3. If the preceding account of the law of God and the doctrine of
atonement be true, we infer the erroneousness and absurdity of that

DISCOURSE ON THE ATONEMENT. 109
scheme, which represents the punishments of a future state to be disci
plinary, and designed wholly for the good of the sufferers. According to
the Scriptures, there is an exact distribution of punishments in the next
world. Those who suffer are represented " receiving according to that
they have done," "being rewarded according to their deeds." If so,
they are treated according to law. For as this is the true measure of
holiness and sin, this alone ascertains the merit and demerit of all actions,
and dispenses proportionable rewards and punishments. If those, there
fore, in a future state who suffer, suffer according to their deeds, they
suffer according to law. If they suffer according to law, they suffer ac
cording to justice, and consequently all they deserve, and all to which
they were ever exposed. How then are they saved ? It is contended
that they are saved by grace. How can this be ? If they suffer accord
ing to their deeds, they suffer all that justice can inflict upon them, and
consequently are not pardoned. If they suffer all they deserve, there is
no grace in their exemption from further suffering, for justice forbids
this. Therefore this scheme of disciplinary punishments, while it pre
tends to vindicate grace, destroys it. If men are saved after they have
suffered according to their deeds, as they are not forgiven, they are not
saved by Christ any more than if he had never died. Of consequence,
the scheme of disciplinary punishments virtually sets aside the necessity
and importance of Christ's sufferings. But revelation assures us, that
" other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus
Christ" 1 Cor. 3: 11. "Neither is there salvation in any other, for
there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we
must be saved." Acts 4: 12.
4. From the nature of atonement, nothing can with certainty be in
ferred as to the numbers who shall finally be saved. Had God given us
no further light on this subject than what we derive from the sufferings
of Christ, whether we consider them for a part or for all of mankind, we
should have been wholly in the dark as to the final issue of those suffer
ings. As the nature and design of these were to render the pardon of
sin consistent, it appears that the atonement is as sufficient for the salva
tion of millions of worlds, as of an individual. For whatever would ren
der one act of pardon consistent, simply as to the exercise of mercy,
would render another consistent, and so on in infinitum. The number of
instances in which atonement will be applied and pardon granted, will
depend wholly on the sovereign will and determination of God. One
thing is doubtless certain, salvation will be extended as far as is consist
ent with infinite perfect benevolence, or as far as the glory of God and
the highest good of the universe require.
I now conclude this subject, by recommending it to your most serious
10

110 DISCOURSE ON THE ATONEMENT.
and careful attention. You will find it to be the only ground on which
you can hope for future felicity. Atonement for sin is a peculiar and
distinguishing doctrine of the Christian system. Viewed as the Scriptures
represent it, it appears as high above all human thought and invention,
as heaven is above earth. Upon a thorough examination it will be
found consistent with the soundest reason, suited to advance the happi
ness of man, and to display the glory of God.

TWO SERMON S .

i.
NECESSITY OF THE ATONEMENT.
II.
THE PURCHASE OF CHRIST'S BLOOD.

NATHANAEL EMMONS, D.D. (in)

SERMON I.

NECESSITY OF THE ATONEMENT.

That he might be just, and the justifier op tttm which believeth in
jesus. — Romans 3 : 26.
The atonement of Christ lies at the foundation of the gospel, which we
cannot understand, without understanding the nature and necessity of the
atonement which he made on the cross. But there are various opinions
maintained upon this important subject, by those who profess to believe
the gospel It becomes us, therefore, to examine this subject seriously
and critically, that we may discover wherein his atonement consists, and
for what purpose it was made. The apostle, having proved in the pre
ceding verses that all mankind are by nature in a state of guilt and con
demnation, proceeds to show how believers are forgiven, or justified,
through the redemption, or atonement, of Christ. Speaking of himself
and other believers, he says, " Being justified freely by his grace through
the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God hath set forth to be a
propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the
remission of sins — that he might be just, and the justifier of him which
believeth in Jesus." According to this representation, it was absolutely
necessary for Christ to make atonement for sin by his blood, on the cross,
in order that God might be just, in forgiving or justifying penitent believ
ers. Though it was not necessary that God should forgive the trans
gressors of his law, yet it was necessary that an atonement should be
made to show that he was just to himself, as well as merciful to them, if
he did grant them the remission of sins. So that we may safely con
clude, That the atonement of Christ was necessary entirely on God's account
It is proposed to show that this was so, and why it was so.
10* ("3)

114 NECESSITY OP THE ATONEMENT.
I. It is to be shown that the atonement of Christ was necessary en
tirely on God's account.
If the atonement of Christ were not necessary on the account of sinners,
then, if it were necessary at all, it must have been necessary on God's
account. But it is easy to see that it could not be necessary on the ac
count of sinners. When Adam had sinned, and involved himself and his
posterity in guilt and ruin, God might have destroyed him and them, as
he destroyed the fallen angels, according to the rules of strict justice. By
treating them in such a manner, he would have done honor to his char
acter, to his law and to his government, in the eyes of all his intelligent
creatures, without doing the least injury to them. As sinners, they de
serve to suffer the penalty of the law which they had broken ; and God
might have inflicted upon them that eternal death which is the proper
wages of sin. On the other hand, he might have saved them in a sover
eign manner, without doing injustice to them, or to any other of his crea
tures. If God had chosen to save all mankind without an atonement, he
would have treated them better than they deserved, which could have
been no injury to them ; nor could it have been any injury to the fallen
angels to have treated fallen men better than he treated them. As he
treated them as well as they deserved, they could have no ground to com
plain, if he treated mankind better than they deserved. There was,
therefore, no necessity for the atonement of Christ on the account of sin
ners. If no atonement had been made, God might have treated them ac
cording to their deserts, or better than their deserts, without doing them,
or any other creature, the least injury. When Adam fled from the pres
ence of God in despair, it was not because he feared that his Creator and
Lawgiver would injure him. He knew that God would not injure him
if he destroyed him, and much less if he saved him. All sinners now
know the same. When they reflect upon their sinful, perishing state,
they are sensible that they deserve to die, and that eternal death is not a
punishment greater than their guilt. They see nothing, on their own
account, why God may not exercise his justice or his grace towards them,
without an atonement. They know that he would not injure them, if he
should exercise either his justice or his grace towards them. Conse
quently, they see no need of an atonement on their own account. If no
atonement had been made, God might have determined to destroy all the
human race, or to have saved all the human race, without doing any in
jury to them, or to any other created beings. It hence appears that there
was no necessity for the atonement of Christ, on account of sinners them
selves. But the apostle assures us in the text, that an atonement was
necessary on God's account, that he might be just, and the justifier of him
which believeth in Jesus.

NECESSITY OF THE ATONEMENT. - 115
II. I proceed to show why the atonement of Christ was necessary on
God's account, in order to render it consistent with his amiable and glo
rious character to extend pardoning mercy to this fallen, guilty, perishing
world. If we can only discover why Adam, after he had eaten the forbidden
fruit and incurred the penalty of the divine law, despaired of pardoning
mercy, we can easily see why an atonement for sin was absolutely neces
sary, in order to render it consistent for God to exercise pardoning grace
to sinners. Adam knew that God was perfectly good, and that his per
fect goodness would necessarily dispose him to do good, not only to the
innocent, but to the guilty. Why, then, did he despair of mercy ? The
only reason was, that he knew that God was just, as well as good ;. and
that it was morally impossible that he should exercise his goodness in
consistently with his justice. This banished from his mind every gleam
of hope. The more he realized the goodness of God, the more he real
ized the justice of God ; and the more he realized the justice of God, the
more he despaired of pardoning mercy. For he could not see how it
was possible that God should be just to himself and to his law, and yet
pardon his transgression ; nor was there an angel in heaven who could
see how this could be brought about. A servant who has disobeyed a
good master is more afraid of being punished than a servant who has
disobeyed a bad master. A child who has disobeyed a good parent is
more afraid of being punished than a child who has disobeyed a bad
parent The reason is the same in both cases. The servant and the
child know that goodness implies justice ; and justice is a disposition to
punish. Adam knew that the perfect goodness of God implied his per
fect justice ; and that his perfect justice implied an inflexible disposition
to punish the guilty. It is not probable that Adam thought of an atone
ment ; and if he did, he could not see how an atonement could be made ;
and therefore he utterly despaired of pardon and salvation. As Adam
could not see how God could consistently forgive him without an atone
ment, so none of his posterity can see how God can consistently forgive
them without an atonement. He was a true representative of all who
should be and now are in his state of guilt and condemnation. As God
could not have been just to himself in forgiving Adam without an atone
ment, so he cannot be just to himself in forgiving any of his guilty pos
terity without a"n atonement. And as God did determine to show mercy
to sinners, so it was absolutely necessary that Christ should make an
atonement for their sins. The atonement of Christ was necessary en
tirely on God's account. The necessity of Christ's atonement, in case
God determined to save sinners, originated entirely in his immutable
justice. He must be just to himself ; that is, he must display his essen-

116 NECESSITY OF THE ATONEMENT.
tial and amiable attribute of retributive justice in pardoning or justifying
those who deserve to be punished. There was nothing in men that re
quired an atonement, and there was nothing in God that required an
atonement but his justice. All the moral perfections of the Deity are
comprised in the pure love of benev.olence. God is love. Before the
foundation of the world, there was no ground for considering love as
divided into various and distinct attributes. But after the creation, new
relations arose ; and in consequence of new relations, more obhgations
were formed, both on the side of the Creator and on that of his creatures.
Before created beings existed, God's love was exercised wholly towards
himself. But after moral beings were brought into existence, it was
right in the nature of things that he should exercise right affections to
wards them, according to their moral characters. Hence the goodness,
the justice, and mercy of God are founded in the nature of things. That
is, so long as God remains the Creator, and men remain his creatures,
he is morally obliged to exercise these different and distinct feelings to
wards them. He must be disposed to do good to the innocent, to punish
the guilty, and at the same time to forgive them. Now there never was
any difficulty in the way of God's doing good to* the innocent, nor in the
way of his punishing the guilty ; but there was a difficulty in sparing and
forgiving the wicked. God's goodness is a disposition to do good to the
innocent ; his justice is a disposition to punish the guilty ; and his mercy
is a disposition to pardon and save the guilty. The great difficulty,
therefore, in the way of man's salvation, was, to reconcile God's disposi
tion to punish with his disposition to forgive ; or in other words, to
reconcile his justice with his mercy. This was a difficulty in the divine
character, and a still greater difficulty in the divine government. For
God had revealed his justice in his moral government. He had given a
law to man, and in that law had clearly exhibited his justice. In the
penalty of the law he had declared that the transgressor deserved eternal
punishment ; that he had a right to inflict eternal punishment ; that he
had power to inflict eternal punishment ; and that he had a disposition to
inflict eternal punishment. There was a clear and full exhibition of re
tributive justice, in the first law given to man. " In the day that thou
eatest thereof thou shalt surely die." This law, clothed with all the au
thority of God, man violated, and exposed himself to the awful penalty.
And in consequence of this single act of disobedience, his posterity be
came involved in the same state of wretchedness and guilt. What now
could be done ? It is easy to see that justice might be done without the
least difficulty; for this had been done in a similar case. The fallen
angels had been doomed to hopeless ruin for their first offence. But
how could pardoning grace be displayed ? This none of the intelligent

NECESSITY OF THE ATONEMENT. 117
creation could tell. The angels of light could not tell ; for they had seen
those who kept not their first estate, excluded from heaven, and the door
of mercy for ever shut against them. Man could not tell. He knew
that the sentence of death was passed upon him, which might be justly
and immediately executed. How then could grace be displayed con
sistently with justice ? This question God alone was able to solve. He
knew that he could be just to himself, if his justice were displayed by the
sufferings of a proper substitute in the room of sinners. He knew that
the sufferings of a substitute in the room of sinners, would both display
his justice and support the honor of his law and government. And as
he saw that such a substitute was necessary, he appointed Christ to take
the place of sinners, and to suffer and die the just for the unjust. Christ
was the Son of his love, the second person in the sacred Trinity, and
equal with himself in every divine perfection. He was the only substi
tute to be found in the universe, who was competent to the great work of
making a complete atonement for sin. Him therefore the Father set
forth to be a propitiation, to declare his righteousness for the remission
of sins. And though he was once " in the form of God, and thought it
not robbery to be equal with God, yet he made himself of no reputation,
and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness
of men ; and being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and
became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross," that he might
taste death for every man. " For it became him, for whom are all
things, and by whom are all things, in bringing many sons unto glory, to
make the Captain of their salvation perfect through sufferings." It was
indispensably necessary that Christ should suffer, when he took the place
of sinners to make atonement for their sins. For suffering is the penalty
which God threatens to inflict upon transgressors of his law, to display
his vindictive justice. It was only by causing Christ to suffer in the
room of sinners, that God could display his vindictive justice towards
them. Accordingly we read : " It pleased the Lord to bruise him ; he
hath put him to grief;" and that "he was wounded for our transgres
sions, he was bruised for our iniquities, the chastisement of our peace was
upon him, and with his stripes we are healed." By inflicting such suf
ferings upon Christ, when he took the place of a substitute in the room
of sinners, God as clearly displayed his hatred of sin and his inflexible
disposition to punish it, as if he had made all mankind personally misera
ble for ever.
It is agreeable to the common opinion and practice of mankind in war,
to hold prisoners as hostages ; so that in case the enemy violate the law
of arms, by abusing or putting to death the captives taken, they may
justly retaliate, by treating the hostages as the abused captives were

118 NECESSITY OF THE ATONEMENT.
treated. So General Washington proposed to act, when a British officer,
contrary to the law of nations, killed Captain Huddy, an American offi
cer, after he had surrendered. He determined to put Captain Asgill, a
British officer whom he had in his hands, to death, in the room of the
man who killed Captain Huddy. And had he actually done this, he
would have displayed his just displeasure against the murderer and all
who justified and protected him. Or, in other words, he would have done
justice to himself, by making it appear that he meant to maintain the
dignity of his character as a commander-in-chief, and to support his au
thority in punishing all who should dare to violate the law of arms. He
would not, indeed, have done distributive justice to the murderer, nor
have prevented his being put to death, if he could have been found and
apprehended. Just so, God, by subjecting the Son of his love to death in the room of
sinners, could display his immutable disposition to punish sin, in the most
striking and awful manner. Accordingly, when Christ actually took the
place of sinners, and poured out his soul unto death on the cross, his
sufferings in their room as clearly displayed the vindictive justice of God
to angels and men, and the whole intelligent creation, as if he had made
them all personally miserable for ever. By subjecting Christ to suffer
ings and death on the cross, God has done justice to himself, and made a.
complete atonement for sin. He, not Christ, made the atonement. He
bruised him and put him to grief; his sword pierced his heart and shed
his blood on the cross. So the prophet predicted : " Awake, O sword,
against my shepherd, and against the man that is my fellow, saith the
Lord of hosts ; smite the shepherd, and the sheep shall be scattered."
This prediction Christ applied to himself just after he had instituted a
standing memorial of his death, and just before his sufferings began in
the garden. " Then saith Jesus unto his disciples, all ye shall be offended
because of me this night ; for it is written, I will smite the shepherd, and
the sheep of the flock shall be scattered abroad." Christ knew that it
was absolutely necessary that the Father should put him to death, in
order to display his justice in the forgiveness or remission of sins. And
it was on this ground solely that he cordially submitted to die on the
cross. This he expressly declared before he suffered : " Now is my soul
troubled ; and what shall I say ? Father, save me from this hour ; but
for this cause came I unto this hour. Father, glorify thy name." It
was the Father that made atonement for sin, by putting Christ to death
on the cross by his own hand. By making his own Son a substitute for
sinners, and putting him to death in their room, he declared his righteous
ness to the whole universe, so that he can now " be just, and the justifier
of him which believeth in Jesus." This was the great and important end

NECESSITY OF THE ATONEMENT. 119
to be answered by an atonement. And in order to answer this end,
Christ's atonement was absolutely necessary.
IMPROVEMENT.
1. If the atonement of Christ was necessary entirely on God's account,
that he might be just in exercising pardoning mercy to penitent and be
lieving sinners, then it was universal, and sufficient for the pardon and
salvation of the non-elect, as well as for the pardon and salvation of the
elect Some bebeve and maintain the doctrine of a limited atonement.
They suppose that Christ died to make atonement for the elect, exclu
sively of the non-elect. This opinion appears to be founded on a wrong
notion of the nature and design of the atonement It was designed to
maintain and display the justice of God in the remission of sins. And if
it has rendered it consistent with the justic* of God to exercise pardoning
mercy to one sinner, it has rendered it equally consistent with his justice
to exercise pardoning mercy to all sinners. The atonement of Christ has
the same favorable aspect upon the non-elect as upon the elect. It opens
as wide a door of mercy to the one as to the other. It removes all nat
ural obstacles out of the way of the salvation of either, because it renders
it consistent with the justice of God to pardon and save a part, or the
whole of mankind, according to his sovereign pleasure and eternal pur
pose. The atonement of Christ has laid God under no obhgation to save
one of mankind, but left him at full liberty to save a part, or the whole
of the human race. It is generally allowed that God does in the gospel
offer salvation to all ; but how can he consistently offer salvation to all, if
Christ has not made atonement for all ? If Christ has not made atone
ment for the non-elect, it is no more consistent for God to offer salvation
to the non-elect, than to offer salvation to the fallen angels, for whom, all
will allow, he has made no atonement Besides, the Scripture not only
represents God as inviting all men to accept of pardon and salvation
through the blood of Christ, but represents him as threatening to punish
all eternally who refuse to accept the offers of pardon in Christ's name.
This looks perfectly inconsistent with the retributive justice of God, un
less the atonement be universal,' What can be more unjust than to pun
ish sinners for not accepting a salvation which was never provided for
them ? And it never was provided for them, if Christ did not, by his
sufferings and death, make atonement for them. But Christ commands
his ministers to say to all, without exception, " He that believeth and is
baptized, shall be saved ; but he that believeth not, shall be damned/'
This, as well as many other passages of Scripture, clearly proves that the
atonement of Christ is not limited, but extends to all the children of men.
" God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that who-

120 NECESSITY OF THE ATONEMENT.
soever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life."
And the apostle John says, " He is the propitiation for our sins ; and not
for ours only, but also for .the sins of the whole world."
2. If the atonement, of Christ was necessary entirely on God's account,
to satisfy his justice towards himself in exercising pardoning mercy to the
guilty, then it did not satisfy justice towards sinners themselves. Justice,
as it respects them, stands in full force against them. Nothing which
Christ did or suffered, altered their characters, obligations, or deserts.
His obedience did not free them from their obhgation to obey the divine
law, nor did his sufferings free them from their desert of suffering the
penalty of the divine law. Both the precept and penalty of the divine
law are founded in the nature of things ; and Christ did not come to de
stroy these, nor could he destroy them, by obedience or sufferings. The
atonement which Christ has made, has left sinners in the same state that
they were in before. Its whole efficacy respects God's character. It
has completely satisfied his justice in exercising mercy to all penitent,
believing sinners. This is what the assembly of divines evidently
mean in reply to the question, " How does Christ execute the office .of a
priest ? " They answer, " By his once offering up himself a sacrifice, to
satisfy divine justice." This was all that he meant to do, or could do, or
that needed to be done, in order to make a complete atonement for sin.
But many suppose that Christ, by his obedience and death, did a great
deal more for sinners than for God. They suppose that he suffered in
the room of the elect, and bore the penalty of the law in their stead, so
that he paid the full debt of suffering which they owed to God. And on
this account, they suppose that God cannot in justice punish them for any
of their past, present, or future sins. They bkewise suppose that Christ
obeyed the law perfectly in their room, and by his perfect obedience paid
the full debt of obedience which they owed to God ; so that they are no
longer bound to obey the precepts, nor exposed to suffer the penalty, of
the law. Hence they suppose that there are no terms or conditions of
salvation to be performed, in order to pardon and justification. Christ
has done all in their stead, and they have nothing to do but to bebeve
that he has done all, and that they are completely safe. This is true
Antinomianism, which is believed and propagated at this day by various
sectarians. But all these notions are groundless and absurd, if the atone
ment was necessary entirely on God's account, and not on the account of
sinners ; and if all that Christ did and suffered, he did and suffered to
render it consistent with the justice of God to forgive and save penitent
believers. 3. If the atonement of Christ was necessary entirely on God's account,
that he might be just, and the justifier of him that believeth, then he did

NECESSITY OF THE ATONEMENT. 121
not merit any thing at the hand of God for himself or for mankind.
There is no phrase more common and familiar than that of the merits of
Christ; but it is generally misunderstood and misapplied. Though
Christ suffered the just for the unjust, though he made his soul an
offering for sin, and though he suffered most excruciating pains in the
garden and on the cross, yet he did not lay God under the least obliga
tion, in point of justice, to pardon and save a single sinner. His suffer
ings could not lay God under any obbgations to do any thing for him, and
much less for any of the human race. God is above being bound by any
being in the universe ; and he cannot bind himself, otherwise than by a
free, voluntary, gratuitous promise. Though God promises to pardon
every true believer, yet he promises to do it as an act of grace, and not
as an act of justice. For the atonement of Christ did not lay him under
the least obligation, in point of justice, to pardon even true penitents.
Accordingly, the apostle says that believers are "justified freely by his
grace, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus." And as Christ
did not merit pardon for believers by his sufferings, so he did not merit a
reward for them by his obedience. It is true, God has promised to
reward him for his obedience unto death, but his promise is a promise of
grace, and not of justice. So he has promised to reward every man for
the least good he does, even for giving a cup of cold water in sincerity.
But though he promises to reward all good men according to their works,
or for their works, yet his promise to them is a promise of grace, not of
justice, and without the least regard to Christ's obedience as the ground
of it The truth is, Clirist never merited any thing at the hand of God,
for himself or for sinners, by his obedience and sufferings. By obeying
and suffering in the room of sinners, he only rendered it consistent for
God to renew or not to renew, to pardon or not to pardon, to reward or
not to reward, sinners ; but did not lay him under the least obligation, in
point of justice, to do either of these things for them. There was no
merit in Christ's obedience and sufferings ; and there is no propriety in
using the term, merits of Christ. The use of this phraseology has led
multitudes into gross and dangerous errors in respect to faith in Christ,
justification through his atonement, and the future rewards of the right
eous. It is of great importance, therefore, to form clear and just ideas
of Christ's atonement, in order to avoid those errors.
4. If the sole design of Christ's atonement was to satisfy the justice of
God towards himself, then he exercises the same free grace in pardoning
sinners through the atonement, as if no atonement had been made. It
has been considered as a great difficulty to reconcile free pardon with full
satisfaction to divine justice. The difficulty has arisen from a supposi
tion that the atonement of Christ was designed to pay the debt of suf-
11

122 NECESSITY OF THE ATONEMENT.
ferings which sinners owed to God. If this were the design of the
atonement, it would be difficult to see the grace of God in pardoning
sinners on that account For there is no grace in forgiving a debtor
after his debt is paid, whether by himself or by another. But sin is not
a debt, and cannot be paid by suffering. Christ's suffering in the room
of sinners did not alter the nature of their sin, nor take away their
just deserts of punishment. There is the same grace of God in
forgiving them through the atonement, as if no atonement had been
made. This the apostle asserts. He says, God justifies, that is, pardons,
believers freely by his grace, through the redemption that is in Jesus
Christ. The atonement of Christ rendered it just for God to exercise
his grace in pardoning bebevers, though it did not remove their guilt and
ill desert in the least degree. None will deny that it was grace in God
to send Christ into the world to make atonement for sin, or that it was
grace in Christ to come into the world and suffer and die to make atone
ment for sin ; and it is certain that the atonement he made did not lay
God under obligation, in point of justice, to pardon sinners on account of
his atonement ; it therefore plainly follows, that God exercises as real
grace in pardoning sinners through the atonement of Christ, as in
sending him to make atonement. Free pardon, therefore, is perfectly
consistent with free grace.
5. If the atonement of Christ was necessary entirely on God's account,
then it is absurd to suppose that it was merely expedient. The Socinians
deny that Christ died as a vicarious sacrifice, to make any atonement for
sin. They say that God is bound to forgive sinners upon the ground of
repentance only, and that he does actually forgive them on that ground.
But there are many Trinitarians who believe that Christ did make
atonement for sin, who yet suppose that his atonement was not absolutely
necessary, but only expedient. They suppose that God might have
pardoned and saved sinners without any atonement, if he had pleased ;
and that he pleased to pardon and save sinners through an atonement,
merely because it was the most expedient or best way of saving them,
but not because it was the only possible way. It is granted that there
was no more necessity of God's saving sinners at all, than there was of
giving them existence ; and certainly there was no necessity of giving
them existence. For his own pleasure they are and were created. But
after he had given them existence, and they had become sinners, it was
morally impossible that he should pardon and save them without an atone
ment. It did not depend upon his mere pleasure, whether he should save
them with or without an atonement. On the supposition that he deter-
mined to save them, an atonement was as necessary as his own immuta
ble justice. There was no other possible way of saving them. And so

NECESSITY OF THE ATONEMENT. 123
Christ himself supposed ; for he said to God, in the prospect of his
sufferings, " If it be -possible, let this cup pass from me." There is no
reason to think that God would have subjected the Son of his love to all
the pains and reproaches of the cross, to make atonement for sin, if he
could have forgiven it without such an infinitely costly atonement. It is
easy to see that if the atonement of Christ was founded on the immutable
justice of God, it was as necessary as his immutable justice.
6. If the atonement of Christ was necessary entirely on God's
account, then we may safely conclude that it consisted in his sufferings,
and not in his obedience. His obedience had no tendency to display
divine justice, which was the only end to be answered by his atonement.
His obedience was necessary on his account, to qualify him for making
atonement for the disobedient; but his sufferings were necessary on
God's account, to display his justice. Accordingly, we find all the
predictions and types of Christ, under the Old Testament, represent him
as a suffering Saviour. And in the New Testament he is represented
as making atonement by bis blood, by his sufferings, and by his death.
It was by his once offering up himself a sacrifice to divine justice that
he made a complete atonement for sin.
7. It appears, from the nature of Christ's atonement, that God can con
sistently pardon any penitent, believing sinners, on that account. By put
ting Clirist to death on the cross by his own hand, he has declared his
righteousness to the whole universe in the remission of sins. He can
now be just, and be the justifier of every one that believeth. He can
now as consistently pardon one penitent sinner as another; and he is
as willing to pardon one penitent as another. He now commands all
men everywhere to repent, and assures them that if they do repent
and believe, they shall be saved through the redemption that is in
Christ. When the eyes of sinners are opened to see the native cor
ruption of their hearts and the sinfulness of their lives, they are ready
to think and say that they are too guilty and ill deserving to find mercy
in the sight of God. But such views and feelings are totally ground
less and sinful. God invites and requires all sinners, without distinc
tion, to accept of pardoning mercy. He is as ready to show mercy to
the Gentile as to the Jew; to the greatest as to the smallest sinner;
to the oldest as to the youngest sinner ; upon the terms of the gospel.
Paul, though the chief of sinners, found mercy. Christ says, " I came
not to call the righteous, but sinners, to repentance." And again he
says, " All that the Father hath given me, shall come to me ; and
whosoever cometh to me, I will in no wise cast out." But,
8. None can come to Christ and accept of pardoning mercy on
account of his atonement, without accepting the punishment of their

124 NECESSITY OF THE ATONEMENT.
iniquities. The great design of the atonement is to show that God
would be just in inflicting eternal punishment upon the transgressors of
his holy and righteous law. Sinners can see no beauty nor excellence
in the character and conduct of Christ, in condemning sin in the flesh,
by his sufferings and death on the cross, until they have learned of the
Father their just desert of the penalty of the law, and cordially approve
of it. Then they will see that there is no other possible way of ob
taining pardoning mercy, than through the atonement of Christ. They
will see that they must completely renounce all self-dependence and
self-righteousness, and rely alone upon the atonement of Christ as the
ground of pardon and acceptance in the sight of God. Though Paul
once thought, in respect to obedience to the law, that he was blameless,
and stood high in the divine favor ; yet as soon as he became acquainted
with the justice, spirituality, and extent of its precepts and penalty, all
the hopes he had built upon the law died, and left him in despair. So
that he was constrained to say, " What things were gain . to me,
those I counted loss for Christ." Christ told sinners that " the whole
need not a physician, but they that are sick." No other foundation of
pardon can any man lay, than that which God has laid in the atonement
of Christ. Sinners must trust in him alone for forgiveness ; for it is only
for the sake of Christ that God can forgive iniquity, transgressions, and
sin, and save the guilty from the wrath to come. But God is now
ready to forgive all who feel the spirit, and speak the language, of the
pubbcan : " God be merciful to me a sinner."

SERMON II.
THE PURCHASE OF CHRIST'S BLOOD.

To feed the church of god, which he hath purchased with his own blood.
— Acts 20: 28.
Paul, in his return from Asia to Judea, came to Miletus, and sent
to Ephesus and called the elders of the church, to whom he related how
be had preached and conducted, while he resided among them. And
before he takes his leave of them, he gives them the solemn exhor
tation in the text : " Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the
flock over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed
the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood." He
added this last clause to enforce the obligation of the elders to be faithful
in feeding those whom Christ, as God, had purchased with his atoning
blood, or for whom he had made complete atonement for sin, by his suf
ferings and death on the cross. What I propose in the present dis
course is, to consider,
I. What the Scripture says concerning Christ's purchasing salvation
for us.
II. What he actually did to purchase salvation for us.
III. In what sense he purchased salvation for us.
I. Let us consider what the Scripture says in respect to Christ's
purchasing salvation for us. The inspired writers often speak upon this
subject in language very similar to the phraseology in the text. Christ
said to his disciples, " The Son of man came not to be ministered unto,
but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many." Paul said to
Timothy, " There is one God, and one mediator between God and men,
the man Christ Jesus, who gave himself a ransom for all." Paul said to
the Corinthians, " Ye are bought with a price." Christ is represented
as redeeming men, and they are said to be redeemed by him. Paul said
11 * (125)

126 THE PURCHASE OF CHRIST'S BLOOD.
to the Galatians, " Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law,
being made a curse for us." He said to the Ephesians, " In whom,"
that is, Christ, " we have redemption through his blood." He called the
inheritance to which believers are entitled, a "purchased possession."
And John said that he heard the voice of them who actually enjoyed
this purchased possession in heaven, " and they sung as it were a new
song before the throne, and no man could learn that song, but the
hundred and forty and four thousand who were redeemed from the
earth." Thus it appears, from the representations of Scripture, that by
Christ's purchasing salvation for ug; we are to understand his ransoming,
redeeming, or buying us with the price of his precious blood. Let us
next consider,
II. What Christ actually did to purchase, to buy, to ransom, and to
redeem mankind. Upon this point, the inspired writers give us very
full and particular information. It appears that Christ became incarnate
before he did any thing, properly speaking, to purchase salvation for us.
He was born perfectly holy, and continued perfectly holy and innocent
from his birth to his death. This he manifested by perfect obedience to
all the laws to which he was subject
In the first place, he obeyed the moral law, which he was under as
man. Accordingly we read, " When the fulness of time was 'come, God
sent forth his Son made of a woman, made under the law, to redeem
them that were under the law." The law required Christ to love his
heavenly and human father, and all his brethren of mankind. This law
we know he perfectly obeyed, by loving God supremely, by loving and
obeying his parents, by obeying all in civil authority, and by loving and
seeking the good of the whole human race.
In the next place, he obeyed all the laws of his nation. As a Jew,
he was under the Mosaic dispensation, and was bound to obey all the
moral, civil, and ceremonial laws, which God had given to his people
Israel. And it appears from the history of his life, that he did punctu
ally and universally obey them. He read the Bible, he prayed in
secret, he prayed in private with his disciples, he kept the Sabbath, he
attended public worship, and annually celebrated the Passover, from
twelve years old to the night before his death.
In the last place, he perfectly obeyed the mediatorial law which his
Father gave him personally.* He knew his Father's design in sending
* The mediatorial law had respect to him, and to him alone. This law required
him to do many things which he was not required to do as a mcro man, but only as
mediator between God and man. It required him to preach tho Gospel to tho poor
and to proclaim the acceptable year of tho Lord, and to work miracles. But after
he had wrought so many miracles and preached in so many places, tho mediatorial

THE PURCHASE OF CHRIST'S BLOOD. 127
him into the world, and the work which he had given him to do, in
order to accomplish his great and gracious design. From his childhood
he went about his Father's business, and obeyed his Father's will, and
not his own. In obedience to the mediatorial law, when he was about
thirty year's of age he submitted to the rite of baptism, by which he was
inaugurated into his priestly office, and prepared for his public ministry.
From that time he went about all Judea, preaching the gospel and
working miracles, until in obedience to his Father's particular command,
he laid down his life on the cross.
Thus Christ was perfectly obedient, from the beginning to the end of
his life, and persevered in obedience amidst the severest conflicts, trials,
and sufferings. He suffered extreme poverty, and had not where to lay
his head. He was despised and rejected of men. He was tempted and
buffeted by Satan. He was called a friend of publicans and sinners, and
was said to act in concert with the devil. And from the time he had cel
ebrated the last Passover to the moment of his death, he suffered all the
neglect, perfidy, reproach, injustice, and cruelty, that the malice and
power of man could inflict. He was betrayed by Judas, forsaken by his
disciples, denied by Peter, abused by the chief priest, derided by the pop
ulace, mocked by Herod, and finally condemned by Pilate to be crucified
between two malefactors as an infamous blasphemer. We are now
prepared to consider,
III. In what sense Christ purchased salvation for us, by what he did
and suffered.
Divines have preached, and written a great deal concerning Christ's
purchasing salvation for us, by what he did and suffered. Some have
maintained that he purchased salvation for all mankind. Some have
supposed that he purchased salvation for the church, or the elect only.
,Some have thought that he purchased salvation in a literal sense ; but
others have supposed that he did not purchase or buy salvation for any.
President Edwards, in his History of Redemption, occupies fifty pages in
law required him to perform a far more arduous, painful, and self-denying act of
obedience, and that was to lay down his life, and be obedient even unto the death of
the cross. He knew that his Father had appointed the time, the place, and the cir
cumstances of his death. Accordingly when the appointed time came, he stead
fastly set his face to go to Jerusalem and there make his soul an offering for sin.
Though the prospect of this awful event filled his soul with sorrow, and caused him
to sweat as it were great drops of blood, and his agonies finally extorted the excla
mation, "Eloi, eloi, lama, sabacthani, — My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken
me ! " Yet he submissively gave up the ghost, and became obedient even unto the
cruel death of the cross. Thus Christ paid perfect obedience to every moral, cere
monial, and mediatorial precept from the beginning to the end of bis life, and in
this respect he was a lamb without spot and blemish.

128 THE PURCHASE OF CHRIST'S BLOOD.
illustrating what he calls the purchase of redemption. And among
other things, he says, " Christ purchased our redemption both by
his satisfaction and his merit. The price Christ lays down, pays
our debt, and so satisfies ; by its intrinsic value, and by the agreement
between the Father and the Son, it procures our title to happiness, and
so merits. The satisfaction of Christ is to free us from misery, and
the merit of Christ is to purchase happiness for us ; " that is, as he
expressly and repeatedly declares, for the elect only. This diversity
of opinion upon the same subject makes it a matter of importance to in
quire critically and impartially in what sense Christ did not, and in what
sense he did, purchase salvation for us. The strict, literal meaning
of the word purchase is as well understood as any English word in
common use ; but the main question before us is to ascertain in what
sense the word purchase in the text is to be understood, whether literally
or figuratively. Here I would observe,
1. That Christ did not purchase salvation for us in a literal sense.
He did not pay our debt of punishment, nor our debt of obedience.
Though he suffered in our stead, yet he did not suffer the punishment
which we deserve, and which the law threatens to us. He never trans
gressed the law, and so the law could not threaten any punishment to
him. His sufferings were no punishment, and much less our punishment.
His sufferings were by no means equal, in degree or duration, to the
eternal sufferings that we deserve, and which God has threatened to
inflict upon us. So that he did in no sense bear the penalty of the law,
which we have broken and justly deserve. But supposing he had
suffered the very same things, in degree and duration, that the law
threatens to us, yet his sufferings could not pay the debt of punishment
which we owe to divine justice. For his sufferings cannot take away
our desert of sufferings ; and if they cannot take away our desert of»
suffering, they cannot dissolve our obligation to suffer, nor pay our debt
of suffering. We deserve to suffer as much as if Christ had not suffered
at all. This, we all know, is agreeable to truth. Notwithstanding all the
Scripture says concerning Christ's suffering in our stead, and purchasing
salvation for us, we still feel that we deserve to suffer the penalty of the
law, which we have broken in our own persons, whether we shall suffer
it or not. The debt of suffering is not like a pecuniary debt, which one
man may pay for another, and dissolve his obligation to pay it. The
price or ransom which Christ payed for our redemption has not dimin
ished our ill desert, nor dissolved our obligation to suffer the due reward
of our sins. We are not bound by commutative justice, which respects
nothing but property ; but we are bound by distributive justice, which
consists in rewarding virtue and punishing sin. Distributive justice

THE PURCHASE OF CHRIST'S BLOOD. 129
towards a transgressor cannot be satisfied by a mulct or fine, but only by
personal punishment. Nothing, therefore, that Christ did or suffered
here on earth can satisfy God's distributive justice, or pay the debt of
suffering which we owe to him. Christ did not literally purchase or
buy or ransom or redeem mankind from the punishment which they
deserved, and which God had in his law threatened to inflict upon them.
None of these expressions are to be understood in any other than a figu
rative sense, in respect to Christ's atonement. His sufferings and death
did not literally pay the debt of punishment which we owe to divine jus
tice. Nor did his obedience pay the debt of obedience which we are
bound to pay to the divine law. Though Christ was obedient to all the
divine commands, through the whole course of his life, and even in his
death, yet he obeyed only for himself, and not in the room of mankind,
in order to free them from their obligation to obey God personally and
perfectly. There was, indeed, no occasion for his obeying in our room, in
order to merit salvation for us. Though God cannot forgive sin without
an atonement, yet he can reward sincere obedience without an atonement.
After God has pardoned penitent believers, through the atonement of
Christ, he can accept and reward them for their cordial obedience, with
out any atonement. Besides, it was absolutely impossible that Christ
should literally merit any thing from the hands of his Father. For in
order to merit salvation or eternal life for sinners, he must bring his
Father under obligation, in point of justice, to bestow eternal life upon
them. But it is impossible for one divine person to bring another divine
person under obligation, while both are absolutely independent. One
created being can lay another created being under obligation, because one
created being may be dependent upon another ; but since God the
Father is absolutely independent, it is utterly impossible that God the
Son should bring him under obbgation, in point of justice. It is, there
fore, contrary to sound reason to suppose that Christ ever merited any
thing at the hands of God either by his sufferings or obedience. Hence
we are not to understand, by Christ's purchasing salvation for us, that he
literally paid either the debt of suffering or the debt of obedience which
we owed to God. For his death could not merit our deliverance from
future punishment, nor his obedience merit eternal life for us. But,
2. By Christ's purchasing salvation for us, or buying, ransoming, and
redeeming us, we are to understand that he made a proper atonement for
sin, which rendered it consistent for God to offer salvation to all mankind,
and to bestow it upon all penitent, believing, returning sinners. This he
did, not by his obedience or righteousness, but by his blood, or his suffer
ings and death on the cross. He was personally bound to obey the moral,
ceremonial, and me^atorial law, to make it appear to the world that

130 THE PURCHASE OF CHRIST'S BLOOD.
he was the true Messiah, who was promised to our first parents immedi
ately after their apostasy. His obedience made no part of his atone
ment ; it was only a prerequisite to qualify him to make it by his death.
Many make a distinction between his active and passive obedience ; but
there is no foundation for this distinction in Scripture. His passive obe
dience had no more tendency to make atonement than his active obedi
ence. All his obedience was precisely of the same nature. It was an
expression of love to God and man. But his expression of love to God
and man had no atoning influence, nor any tendency to merit either for
giveness or eternal life for sinners. The Scripture never ascribes any
part of his atonement to his holy and obedient life, but to his laying down
his life, giving his fife a ransom, pouring out his soul unto death, and his
once offering himself a sacrifice for sin.* His dying the just for the
unjust answered the same purpose that God would have answered by
executing the penalty of the law upon transgressors themselves. It dis
played the same feelings towards sinners that God would have displayed
by punishing the whole human race according to their desert. By punish
ing them according to their desert, God would have manifested his infi
nite displeasure towards them, and his inflexible disposition to maintain
* His obedience was not designed to make atonement.but for two other important
purposes. It was necessary that he should be perfectly obedient to every moral, cere
monial, and mediatorial precept, in order to gain the approbation of his Father. Had
he failed in obeying one precept of the moral law, God would have been displeased.
Had he failed in obeying one precept of the ceremonial law, his Father would have
been displeased. Or had he failed in obeying one precept of the mediatorial law, his
Father would have been displeased. And had he forfeited the favor of his Father and
fallen under legal condemnation, he would have been totally incapable of performing
the part of a mediator between God and his rebellious creatures. He would have
needed a, mediator himself as much as mankind. His perfect obedience, therefore,
was necessary on his own account, both as man and mediator.
Christ's obedience was not more adapted than designed to make atonement.
Though his obedience to the moral, ceremonial, and mediatorial law, was absolutely per
fect, yet no part of his obedience, nor the whole taken together, was in the least degree
adapted to make atonement. We might as well suppose that his wearing a seamless
coat, or his washing his disciples' feet, could make atonement, as that any other part, or
the whole, of his perfect obedience, could make atonement. Christ's perfect obedience
had, therefore, no tendency to make the atonement, but only to prepare and qualify
him to make it, just as the perfect unblemished form and figure of the paschal lamb
qualified that to make a ceremonial atonement. Accordingly, the apostle represents
the spotless character of Christ as necessary to qualify him to perform the priest's
office, which was to make atonement by offering sacrifices. " For such an high-priest
became us who is holy, harmless, undented, separate from sinners ; who needeth not
daily, as those high-priests, to offer up sacrifices first for his own sins and then for the
people's ; for this he did once, when he offered up himself." Here the apostlo plainly
intimates that Christ did not mako atonement by his obedience, or his holy life ; but
by making his soul an offoring for sin, or by the single act of bis death.

THE PURCHASE OF CHRIST'S BLOOD. 131
his moral government over all moral beings. Such a display of God's
hatred of sin, and disposition to punish it, was absolutely necessary, in
order to render it consistent with the perfect rectitude of his nature, to
pardon and save penitent sinners from deserved punishment. And noth
ing could more fully display his vindictive justice in the view of the
whole intelligent creation, than his subjecting his Son, whom he loved
with the most ardent affection, to the painful and reproachful death of
the cross. Through the medium of his vicarious death, God made it
manifest that he feels the same hatred of sin and disposition to punish it,
when he forgives, as when he punishes, sinners. Though God did not
punish sinners by the stripes which he laid on Christ, yet he displayed
the same feelings that he would have displayed if he had punished them
all personally. Though General Washington would not have punished
the man who killed Captain Huddy, if he had put Captain Asgill to
death in his room, yet he would have displayed his disposition to punish
the man who killed Captain Huddy as clearly as if he had put that
murderer to death. God, by subjecting Christ to his agonies in the gar
den and to his sufferings on the cross, demonstrated to the world that he
would by no means clear the guilty, without an atonement for sin. And
though the sufferings and death of Christ did not pay the debt of suffer
ing which mankind owed to divine justice, nor dissolve their obligation
and desert of punishment ; yet Christ by his blood procured the pardon
and salvation of the church, and laid a foundation for the pardon and
salvation of all mankind, so far as an atonement for their sins could lay
a foundation for God to make a full display of his pardoning mercy. It
was not possible for Christ to merit eternal life for any ; but he could
procure salvation for all whom his Father should, in his sovereign mercy,
bring to repentance and faith, and prepare for the kingdom of heaven.
It is, therefore, in this sense only that Christ purchased, bought, ran
somed, or redeemed mankind, by his blood. This is what Peter believed
and taught Christians to believe, respecting the redemption of Christ.
He says, " Ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things,
as silver and gold, — but with the precious blood of Christ, as of* a lamb
without blemish and without spot." The debt which sinners owe to
God is not a pecuniary debt, and therefore cannot be paid with silver or
gold. It is a debt of guilt, which the blood of Christ cannot literally
pay, and discharge the original debtors from all obligation to pay. But
his blood can atone for their guilt, and procure pardon or forgiveness at
the hands of a merciful God. Now, as the forgiveness of sin, or deliv
erance from deserved punishment, resembles a discharge from a pecun
iary debt, so there is a propriety in the sacred writers' using the terms,
purchased, bought, ransomed, and redeemed, in reference to what Christ

132 THE PURCHASE OF CHRIST'S BLOOD.
did and suffered to deliver mankind from the wrath to come. And these
figurative expressions are so proper, pertinent, and intelligible, that there
seems to be no ground to understand them in a literal sense, which
would imply the gross absurdity that Christ's obedience was our obedi
ence, and Christ's sufferings were our sufferings ; so that now our obbga-
tion to obedience and our desert of punishment are entirely taken away.
But if we understand the terms purchased, bought, ransomed, and
redeemed, in a figurative sense, then all that the inspired writers have
told us respecting Christ's having obtained eternal redemption for us is
plain and intelligible. IMPROVEMENT.
1. It appears from the whole tenor of this discourse, that Christ did
not, either by his obedience or death, merit salvation for us. Both min
isters and people, who call themselves orthodox, are very fond of using
the phrase, merits of Christ, when speaking of his atonement for sin, by
which they mean that Christ merited salvation for all for whom he made
atonement. But this is neither a scriptural nor proper phrase. It is
often designedly or undesignedly used to convey the idea that Christ, by
his obedience and sufferings on the cross, paid the debt of suffering and
obedience in the room of sinners, so that God is obliged, in point of jus
tice, to release them from eternal sufferings, and to bestow upon them
eternal life. This is a false and unscriptural sentiment, and naturally
tends to lead men into several other great and dangerous errors.
In particular, it leads some to believe that Christ died and made atone
ment only for the elect. For if Christ merited salvation for all for whom
he died, then God is obliged, in point of justice, to save all for whom he
died ; and if he died for all, then he is equally bound, in point of justice,
to save the whole human race. This is a just and conclusive way of ar
guing ; and therefore many who argue in this way, justly conclude that
Christ died only for the elect, because they suppose that only the elect
will be saved. Those who call themselves very strict and genuine Cal
vinists have long maintained that Christ died and merited salvation only
for the elect > It must be allowed that they draw a just conclusion from
their premises, and have good ground to maintain their darling doctrine
of a limited atonement. But how they can reconcile the universal offers
in the gospel of salvation to sinners with their notion of particular re
demption, it is not easy to see.
Another error to which the phrase, the merits of Christ, leads, is the
false notion of imputed guilt and imputed righteousness. Those who
hold that Christ literally purchased, bought, ransomed, and redeemed
mankind by his obedience and death, suppose that his sufferings are im-

THE PURCHASE OF CHRIST'S BLOOD. 133
puted to bebevers for their pardon, and his obedience is imputed to them
for their justification, or title to eternal bfe. This is the same as to sup
pose that Christ's sufferings and obedience are transferred to believers,
and become their sufferings and obedience, which is absurd.
Nor is this all ; the phrase, the merits of Christ, leads many professed
Calvinists into the gross error of Antinomianism, or the doctrine of an
appropriating faith. Many who believe that Christ merited salvation
for the elect only, suppose that saving faith essentially consists in a per
son's beUeving that Christ died and merited salvation for him in particu
lar, and that the merits of his death and obedience have been imputed to
him, and have released him, in point of justice, from the wrath to come,
and entitled him to eternal life.
The phrase, the merits of Christ, leads some to deny that God offers
salvation to all men without distinction or limitation. As they suppose
that Christ merited salvation only for the elect, so they naturally suppose
that God offers salvation to none but the elect. But the plain truth of
fact is, that God does offer salvation to all ages, classes, and characters of
men ; which proves that Clirist did not merit salvation any more for the
elect than for the non-elect, nor indeed for any of mankind. If Christ
merited salvation for the elect, then it is absurd to suppose that he offers
salvation to them upon the terms of repentance and faith ; or if Christ
merited salvation for all men, it is absurd to suppose that he offers salva
tion upon any terms whatever ; for justice requires him to save all,
whether they comply or do not comply with any terms proposed in the
gospel. It is not strange, therefore, that the phrase, the merits of Christ,
has actually led men to imagine that all mankind will finally be saved.
The Scripture plainly declares that Christ did suffer and die for all man
kind ; and if his sufferings and death did merit salvation for all men, it
necessarily follows that all men must be saved. If men would only un
derstand, as they ought, what the Scripture says concerning Christ's pur
chasing, buying, ransoming, and redeeming mankind by his sufferings and
death in a figurative, and not in a Hteral sense, they would clearly see
that there is no foundation in Scripture for the phrase, the merits of
Christ, and of course that there is no foundation in Scripture for the doc
trine of a bmited atonement, or for the doctrine of an appropriating faith,
or for the doctrine of universal salvation. The phrase, the merits of
Christ, which is such a fruitful source of errors and absurdities, ought to
be entirely laid aside.*
* If it was not the obedience, but the blood of Christ, that made atonement for sin,
then nothing Christ did or said or suffered previous to his death, or his last suffer
ing on the cross, was of a propitiatory, satisfactory, or atoning nature. Many divines
have considered the whole life of Christ, from his birth to his death, as constituting the
12

134 THE PURCHASE OF CHRIST'S BLOOD.
2. If what Christ did and suffered for sinners did not merit salvation
for them, then the doctrine of justification through faith in Christ is per
fectly consistent with full atonement for sin. Some imagine that the free
grace of God, in converting and pardoning sinners, cannot be reconciled
with the full atonement which Christ has made to divine justice, by his
vicarious sufferings on the cross. But this supposed difficulty of recon
ciling these two doctrines arises entirely from a misapprehension of the
real nature and design of Christ's atonement. The nature and design of
Christ's atonement were merely to display the vindictive justice of God,
and not to pay the debt of suffering which sinners had incurred by their
transgressions of his holy law. Consequently, God displays the same
free and sovereign grace in the conversion and salvation of sinners
through the atonement of Christ, as if no atonement for sin had ever been
made. So Paul thought and said in his epistle to the Romans. " Being
justified freely by his grace, through the redemption that is in Christ Je
sus ; whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation, through faith in his
blood, to declare his righteousness" or vindictive justice, " for the remis
sion of sins — to declare, I say, at this time his righteousness ; that he
might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus." He
conveys the same sentiment in similar language in his epistle to the
Ephesians. " But God, who is rich in mercy, for his great love where
with he loved us, even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us
together with Christ (by grace ye are saved), and hath raised us up to
gether, and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus ; that
in the ages to come he might show the exceeding riches of his grace, in
his kindness towards us, through Christ Jesus." In these passages, the
apostle expressly declares that God displays his grace, even the exceed
ing riches of his grace, in the conversion and justification of sinners,
through the blood or atonement of Christ ; which amounts to saying that
the free grace of God in the pardon of sin is perfectly consistent with a
full atonement for it.
two parts of Ms atonement, or his active and passive obedience, his satisfaction to divine
iustice, and Iris meriting salvation for believers. But there appears no ground in Scrip
ture for the distinction between the satisfaction of Clirist and the merits of Christ. It
was impossible that he should merit from God, either as a man or as mediator, either
by his obedience or by his suffering. Tho truth is, his obedience only prepared him to
make atonement ; his blood made it, and atonement did neither satisfy nor merit. It
only rendered it consistent for God to show mercy, to be just and the justifier of all
who believe.
If Christ made atonement by his blood, and not by his obedience, then that for which
he was rewarded was not that for which sinners are pardoned. They are pardoned
on account of his death, but he was rewarded for his life or his obedience, oven unto
death. This obedience was acceptable to God, but was not the atonement.

THE PURCHASE OP CHRIST'S BLOOD. 135
3. Since Christ's obedience was necessary to qualify him to make atone
ment for sin, we may see why the sacred writers sometimes represent his
atonement by his obedience, and sometimes by his death, his blood, his
sacrifice, or his .sufferings. His obedience was inseparably connected
with his death. Hence the apostle said to the Philippians, " Let this
mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus ; who, being in the form of
God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God ; but made himself of no
reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the
likeness of men ; and being found in fashion as a man, he humbled him
self, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross."
Wherefore he says again, " For as by one man's disobedience many were
made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous."
And by the prophet, Christ is called "the Lord our righteousness."
Though the inspired writers do not always make a distinction between
the obedience and sufferings of Christ, yet they let us know that this dis
tinction is always to be understood, by their so often ascribing his atone
ment to his death, his blood, his sacrifice, or once offering up himself as a
lamb without blemish and without spot, for all. The apostle has clearly
shown that Christ made atonement for all mankind, not by his obedience,
but by his blood, his suffering, his death on the cross.
4. It appears from what Christ did and suffered to make atonement
for sin, that God can consistently forgive or justify all penitent bebev-
ers, entirely .on Christ's account ; but that he cannot consistently reward
them for their sincere obedience on any other than their own account.
Christ suffered and died in the room of sinners, in order to make atone
ment for their sins, and thereby lay a proper foundation for God to exer
cise pardoning mercy towards all who repent, and bebeve the gospel.
But he did not obey in the room of sinners, in order that God might con
sistently reward them for their obedience, after they were pardoned or
justified through the atonement of Christ. Though God cannot consist
ently forgive sin, yet he can consistently reward virtue, without an atone
ment. All the sincere obedience and good works of believers deserve
the divine approbation and gracious reward, solely on account of their
intrinsic and moral excellence. True holiness in saints is as really ami
able and praiseworthy as is true holiness in angels, or as true hob-
ness in Adam was before he sinned. God may therefore as consistently
reward all true believers for their holiness on their own account, as he
could have rewarded Adam for his holiness if he had never transgressed,
or as he can reward angels for all their services in this world, on their own
account, or without an atonement. There is a wide difference between
rewarding goodness and pardoning mercy. The inspired writers clearly
and repeatedly point out this distinction. They expressly declare that
believers are pardoned or justified by free, sovereign grace, through the

136

THE PURCHASE OF CHRIST S BLOOD.

redemption or atonement of Christ, and that they are rewarded according
to their obedience or good works. Those who have clear and just views
of the nature and necessity of Christ's atonement, can easily see the pro
priety and consistency of God's pardoning believers solely on Christ's
account, and his rewarding them solely on their own account.
5. Since Christ has done and suffered so much to obtain eternal salva
tion for believers, they cannot do too much for him. He loved them
before they loved him. He died for them while they were dead in tres
passes and sins. He sent his Holy Spirit to convince and convert them,
and to bring them out of darkness into marvellous Ught. What he has
done and suffered to dekver them from the condemnation of the law, the
power and dominion of sin, and to restore them to the forfeited favor of
God, lays them under the tenderest and strongest obhgation to consecrate
themselves wholly to his service. Hence the apostle, speaking in the
name of believers, says, " The love of Christ constraineth us, because
we thus judge, that if one died for all, then were all dead ; and that he
died for all, that they which bve should not henceforth live unto them
selves, but unto him which died for them." Christ has much for his
redeemed ones to do for him, while he is carrying on his great and gra
cious design in the work of redeeming love in this rebellious world. He
employed saints, patriarchs, and prophets, in former ages, as instruments
of building up his spiritual kingdom ; and in later ages he has employed
apostles, preachers, and all his real friends, as instruments of promoting
the great and good cause which lies nearest to his heart. These his
redeemed and purchased servants ought to be steadfast, unmovable,
always abounding in the work of their Redeemer, knowing that their
labor shall not be in vain nor unrewarded. It is especially the duty
and privilege of all the ministers of the gospel to feed the sheep and
lambs of Christ, whom he hath purchased with his own blood.
Finally, let all sinners, of every age, character, and condition, be
entreated to come to Christ for salvation. He has made complete atone
ment for you, and removed an obstacle out of your way, wliich neither
you nor any created being could have removed. He sincerely invites
you to come to him, weary and heavy laden and self condemned, and
promises to give you pardon and peace and rest. The kingdom of
heaven is come nigh to you, and life and death are set before you. If
you choose life through him who has died for you, you shall live and
reign with him for ever ; but if you choose death, you will never see life,
but the wrath of God will abide upon you, both in this world and in the
world to come. You must love or hate God ; you must love or hate his
law ; you must love or hate holiness ; you must love or hate heaven ;
you must choose, or refuse to be holy and happy for ever; and your
choice must fix your eternal state.

AN

HUMBLE ATTEMPT

RECONCILE THE DIFFERENCES OF CHRISTIANS

RESPECTING

THE EXTENT OF THE ATONEMENT.

EDWARD D. GRIFFIN, D.D.
12* (137)

CONTENTS.

PAGE
Preface  141
istboduction  143

PART I.
NATURE OF THE ATONEMENT.
CHAPTER I. Atonement merely the ground of release from the curse . . . 147
II. Influence of atonement upon divine government .... 152
III. Matter of atonement  156
IV. Christ's obedience and reward  174
V. Atonement not reconciliation  186
VL Meaning of righteousness as connected with the justification of be
lievers  205
VII. Mistakes arising from drawing literal conclusions from figurative
premises  210

PART II.
EXTENT OF THE ATONEMENT.
CHAPTER I. Curse of abandonment removed from all  '249
II. Grand point of division between the parties  251
III. View of the subject as taken by the Synod of Dort . . . 254
IV. Atonement for moral agents only  262
V. The two characters of man distinct and independent of each other 264
VI. Nothing belonged to the atonement but what was public . . 275
VII. Attributes of moral agents  279
VIII. A moral government  293
IX. Moral agents treated as if there was no foreknowledge . . 298
X. Moral agents treated conditionally  300
XI. Believer and unbeliever confounded with elect and non-elect, and
with man as a capable agent  "10
XII. Treatment of agents by itself expresses divine benevolence . . 315
XIII. Purposes of the Moral Governor not to be confounded with those of
the sovereign efficient cause  819
XIV. Treatment of individual agents intended to influence agents gener
ally  322
(139)

140

CONTENTS.

CHAP. XV. Eeasons for an atonement for those who perish .
XVI. Extent of the provision not incidental, but purposely intended
XVII. Eeprobation, and the order of divine decrees
XVHI. Covenant of redemption 
XIX. Our whole meaning at one view 
XX. Bottom of the mistake lies in overlooking human agency
XXI- Importance of correct language on the subject

325 329331335
336339
343

PART III.

SCRIPTURAL VIEW.
CHAPTER I. Plan of the argument . . '  348
II. Benefit of the atonement made over to all  350
HI. All men bound to make the benefit their own  359
IV. Actual influence of the atonement upon all  365
V. Synod of Dort agreed with us as to the actual influence of the atone
ment upon the non-elect, and the purpose of the Sacred Persons 375
VI. Testimony of Calvin, Watts, and others  , 381
VTI. Atonement offered and accepted expressly for all . , . . . 388
Appendix  399

PREFACE.

If there is a subject within the whole range of thought which calls for
the appbcation of our best powers in a course (I do not say of metaphys
ical, but) of close and patient investigation, it is the work of redemption.
This stupendous plan gives full scope to the higher orders of intellect.
" Which things the angels desire to look into.'' I know not how often,
in tracing the following pages, these words have rushed upon my mind
with new and deeper reasons for that angebc research. So many are the
relations which this great work involves, so complicated and various its
influences, so connected it is with some of the abstrusest questions relative
to the nature and powers of man, that the more it is studied the less wiU
be the wonder that the best instructed angel is still bending forward with
prying scrutiny to look into these things.
And shall the children of a day think that they have learned enough
on this amazing subject, when they have gathered a few scraps of knowl
edge, — half a dozen general notions respecting the mission and work of
Christ, — without any definite idea of the end of his atonement, or the
purpose which his righteousness was to answer in the government of God ?
How many, alas ! calculate thus, and content themselves with knowledge
scarcely sufficient to support a general faith. This is the besetting sin
and danger of an age of business. Thus men will not reason when they
see the Son of God in the clouds of heaven, and find themselves at his
bar. These Christians by rote ! how much of the real glory of the
gospel do they lose ; how much of its amazing views ; how much of its
sublime consolations ; how much of its sanctifying power ! And to what
hazard do they put their eternal interests ! How are they to know, with
such a twilight vision, that it is the real gospel they believe ? that it is
the very Christ of God which fills their eye ? How, unless the clear and
distinguishing glory of Messiah falls upon their view, are their selfish
hearts to be tested? Many, it is feared, go down to death from our com-
(141)

142 PREFACE.
munion tables, for want of having their hearts revealed and their hopes
destroyed by the discriminating light of those rays which beam from the
face of Jesus Christ.
It is time that these indolent and contracted calculations were broken
up. It is time that men discovered that the " great mystery of godliness "
presents a subject for more than general and loose reflections ; that if
there is any use for their immortal powers, it is on this vast and unfath
omable wonder of redemption.
And now if any are unwilling to harness themselves for a conflict with
indolence, and to bring their minds up to patient and elevated thought,
let them close the book here. But if they have entered into the feebngs
of heaven, and caught a desire to search into a subject which a thousand
ages of study will not exhaust, let them offer an humble prayer and then
begin.

INTRODUCTION.

The author of the following sheets has long believed that the contro
versy existing among Calvinists on the extent of the atonement is little
more than a dispute about words, and might be terminated in a manner
satisfactory to borh parties by kind and candid explanations. He cer
tainly has no pretensions to any uncommon skill or influence to accom
plish so desirable an end ; but grieved to find, on his return from a con
flict with men of a far different spirit, a division among brethren who
are natural albes, and ought to be united in the same mind and judgment,
he was constrained to offer his thoughts, in humble hopes of persuading
the more candid on both sides that no serious difference exists between
them. In one principle both parties are agreed ; that our instructions on this
subject are to be drawn from the Scriptures alone, and not from bold
and presumptuous speculations. Reason has only to kneel and ask
what the Oracle says. Her province is to ascertain the meaning of the
sacred page by comparing Scripture with Scripture, and in one descrip
tion of cases (but not without great caution and humility), with common
sense. The test of common sense is to be applied only to distinguish
between the figurative and literal meaning of texts which were obviously
intended to be subjected to such a scrutiny ; as, for instance, those which
speak of God's eyes and hands and feet, of his repenting, of his fury's
coming up in his face, and the like. The right of applying common
sense in this description of cases is a great Protestant principle, asserted
by all the Reformed Churches in their disputes with the Romanists
about transubstantiation. "When our Saviour says, " This is my body,"
and, " This is my blood," Protestants affirm that his language is figura
tive, because a Uteral construction would be an outrage to common sense.
In Uke manner when Christ and believers are said to be one, common
sense refuses actually to identify them, and pronounces the language
(143)

144 INTRODUCTION.
figurative; for manifestly Christ is not literally one with beHevers any
more than he is with the bread and wine. So when it is said that he
was made " sin for us who knew no sin, that we might be made the
righteousness of God in him," common sense decides that sin and right
eousness are both used in a figurative sense ; for Christ was not literally
sin, but was only treated as a sinner ; and we are not literally right
eousness, but are only treated as righteous. 2 Cor. 5 : 21.*
A considerable part of the dispute has arisen from a failure thus to
distinguish between the figurative and literal meaning of texts. But
there are two other points of difference of still greater influence, one
respecting the nature, the other the objects, of the atonement.
One respects the nature. We mean by atonement nothing more than
that which is the ground of release from the curse, and we separate it
entirely from the merit of Christ, or his claim to a reward. Our
brethren comprehend under the name, not only what we understand by
expiation, but merit also, with all its claim. And if ^hey could see the
propriety of limiting the term as we do, few of them would deny our
conclusions. In their mouth the word is always coextensive with
ransom (IvtQov), the price of redemption (hrtQwatg) ; and the question
which they raise is about particular redemption, on which there really is
no dispute ; we believing as fully as they do that redemption, in the
higher and more perfect sense, was accomplished only for the elect. It
is to be noticed that ransom, and words of that nature, are used in two
senses in the New Testament : first, for the blood of Christ laid down
for a moral agent, to deliver him from death if he on his part will accept
the offer. This I call the lower ransom, and it is exactly what we mean
by the atonement. Secondly, for expiation and merit united. A ran
som has two influences ; it supports the claim of the Redeemer, and it. is
that out of respect to which the holder of the captives lets them go.
According to this, the ransom of Christ includes his merit, which claimed
the release of the captives as his reward, and his atonement, out of
respect to which, as the honor of the law was concerned, the Father
consented to their discharge. This I call the higher ransom, and its
absolute and unfailing influence depends on the claim of merit to its
# Tho first clause cannot be translated, " hath made him to be a sin-offering," for
that would destroy the antithesis. He was made sin just as we arc made righteous
ness. Both words are figuratively used, but from their opposition to each other
neither can be changed without destroying tho point of the sentence. Besides, the
former word is restricted by being repeated with a literal meaning ; " who knew no
sin." The order of tho words in the original is this : " For him who knew no
ajiapnav, for us ho hath made afiapTiav." kfiapnav must not be rendered sin in one
place and a sin-offering in another in tho samo clause of a sentence.

INTRODUCTION. 145
stipulated recompense. This was not offered for all ; for none of us
will say that Christ so purchased the whole race by the merit of his
obedience, that he could claim them all as his promised reward.
The second point respects the objects of the atonement. We consider
the satisfaction as made exclusively for moral agents; our brethren
speak of it as if it was made for mere passive subjects of regenerating
influence, and in their reasonings they overlook moral agents. In
which character men were really contemplated in the provision, is indeed
the question on which the controversy chiefly hinges. If it was made
for moral agents, it might be made for those who were never to be
regenerated ; if made for passive receivers of sanctifying impressions, it
was made only for those who are ultimately new-born. If made for the
passive, it must be absolute; and if absolute, the event shows that it was
not made for all : if made for moral agents, it must be conditional ; and
if conditional, it could not be limited to a part.
These three points comprehend the whole ground of the dispute. If
the parties can discriminate with the same eyes between figurative
and literal language, and especially if they can agree to separate atone
ment from merit, and can be of one mind respecting the character in
which men were contemplated in the provision ; there will no longer be
any difference even in words, and thus this unhappy division will be
healed. 13

PART I.
NATURE OF THE ATONEMENT.

CHAPTER I.
ATONEMENT MERELY THE GROUND OF RELEASE FROM THE CURSE.
Atonement is a word wholly derived from the Old Testament, and is
not found in the New except once by mistake, where the Greek term
ought to have been rendered reconciliation. Rom. 5: 11. In all other in
stances throughout the Bible it is a translation from the Hebrew IBS. By
this, then, its meaning must be limited. No Greek word of the New Tes
tament can be allowed to be parallel with it that differs from IBS in the
least shade, and no examination of other terms can throw any light on
this question of logomachy. "IBS is the only standard by which the
meaning of the English word must be controlled and fixed.
Now it is agreed that IBS signified a covering, because the thing de
noted was a cover for sin. It was never used, I believe, in a single in
stance (by whatever word translated), to express any other idea, except
when applied to things wholly remote from the present subject. It
never glanced at any bearing on our positive reward. A fair specimen
of its use may be seen in the following passages. " Moses said unto the
people, ye have sinned a great sin ; and now I will go up unto the Lord,
peradventure I shall make an atonement for your sin." " I have sworn
unto the house of Eli that the iniquity of Eli's house shall not be purged
[covered] with sacrifice nor offering for ever." " By this therefore shall
the iniquity of Jacob be purged ; and this is all the fruit, to take away
his sin." " The wrath of a king is as messengers of death, but a wise
man will pacify it." " I will appease him with the present that goeth
before me." Gen. 32: 20. Ex. 32: 30. 1 Sam. 3 : 14. Prov. 16: 14.
Is. 27 : 9. The typical expiations denoted by the word were generally
made by the naton or sin-offering, and sometimes by the B2>» or tres-
(147)

148 NATURE OF THE ATONEMENT. [PART I.
pass-offering, two words derived from roots signifying a sin and a tres
pass, and the former root sometimes the act of cleansing by a sin-offer
ing. Ezek. 43 : 22, 23.
And now, to follow these shadows into the gospel dispensation, the
Hebrew words which denoted the sin and trespass-offering are translated
by the LXX (the former repeatedly, Ezek. 43 : 22, 23. 44 : 27. 45 :
18, 19, the latter once, Amos 8: 14); ikaauog (and its derivative i^i-
Xaauog), the very word by which John twice designates the great pro
pitiatory sacrifice, 1 John 2:2. 4:10, offered by our High-Priest " to
atone (duaxeaOai), for the sins of the people." Heb. 2 : 17. The
atonement of the New Testament, then, was made by " an offering for
sin," Is. 53 : 10, and by a " propitiation for our sins." That which was
accompbshed by the great sin-offering answers exactly to the IBS of the
Old Testament, and is that cover for sin which We call the atonement.
We have, therefore, no authority to call any part of Christ's influence
an atonement but that which constituted the cover for sin. Whatever
other influence he had must be distinguished by a different name. Other
influences he certainly had. Other influences are even ascribed to his
death. But his death comprehended not only an atoning sacrifice, but
the highest merit of obedience. To his blood our justification is once
ascribed, Rom. 5:9; but justification in that passage means only par
don, as it does also in another place, Acts 13 : 39. Sometimes the sa
cred writers, taking it for granted that more is known of Christ than that
he atoned, pass in their rapid course from his expiation to the life which
comes through him, without stopping to notice any intervening influence.
But whatever is ascribed to his death, whatever to his blood, whatever
to him as the daarrjQiov or mercy-seat, Rom. 3 : 25, 26 ; or as having
opened a way to the mercy-seat by the rending of the vail of his flesh,
Heb. 10 : 19, 20 ; still the meaning of IBS confines the atonement to the
cover for sin.
One might suppose that the Synod of Dort, that great representative
of the Calvinistic world, had the same view. They everywhere speak
of the atonement as made for sin, and talk of its sufficiency (ad omnia
peccata expianda, as their common phrase is) to expiate for the sins of
the whole world. And this is the uniform acceptation of the word in
common conversation, which shows the general impression as to its orig
inal meaning. To atone, in every one's mouth, is to make reparation for
an injury or amends for an offence.
Now to cover sin is a figurative expression, and plainly means no
more than that sin is so far hid from view that it is not to be punished.
Atonement, then, is merely that which was adapted to prevent punishment,
or that which came in the room of punishment and laid a foundation for

CHAP. I.J INFLUENCE ON MEN. 149
our discharge from every part of the curse. It reached no further, and
had no bearing on our positive reward. This was left to another influ
ence, hereafter to be considered.
The curse of the law consisted of two parts, abandonment to depravity,
and positive misery. That the former was included requires some proof.
The law, I suppose, had doomed mankind, I do not say to sin (for to
punish sin with sin, or judicially to doom agents to act, is a thing un
known), but to the everlasting loss of the sanctifying agency of God. If
there is such a thing as leaving men to judicial blindness ; if in anger
God abandons sinners " unto their own heart's lust," to walk " in their
own counsels," saying, "my Spirit shall not always strive with man;"
if for their iniquities he gives " them over to a reprobate mind," saying,
" Make the heart of this people fat, and make their ears heavy, and shut
their eyes ; lest they see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and
understand with their heart, and convert and be healed ; " Gen. 6 : 3.
Ps. 81 : 12. Is. 6 : 9-12. Rom. 1 : 24-32 ; then there is such a thing
as abandoning sinners by way of punishment. And how, I ask, without
giving them up to tormenting passions, could there be such a hell as the
divine law contemplates ? And why should it be thought more inconsis
tent to withhold the Spirit by way of punishment, than to bestow it (as
we shall see that it is bestowed) by way of reward ? It greatly supports
this idea that the mission of the Spirit was not obtained for a sinful
world, but by the death of a Mediator. " It is expedient for you that I
go away ; for if I go not away the Comforter will not come unto you, but
if I depart I will send him unto you.'' And when he " ascended on high,"
among other " gifts " "received for men " was this, " that the Lord God
might dwell among them ; " and within ten days he sent the blessing
forth. Ps. 68 : 18. John 16: 7. Acts ii.
These were the two parts of the penalty of the law, and one could no
more be set aside without an atonement than the other. But the cover
for sin removed or rendered removable every part of the curse which sin
had incurred. That which came in the room of our whole punishment,
took away the curse of abandonment, and rendered sin pardonable on the
supposition of faith, and when accepted by the Father, made remission
sure to believers. Further it could not go, and had nothing to do with
our positive reward.*
* Some have thought that the cover for sin must be extended so far as to include a
foundation for our reward, by cancelling, not only the debitum penos (debt of punish
ment), but the debitum negligentias (debt of negligence). But negligence, after taking
from it every thing which deserves punishment, is not sin, but a mere defect, and there
fore is not to be remedied by the cover for sin. It is said that sin disabled us from gain
ing a legal title to a reward, and a cover for sin is not complete till it has provided for
13*

150

NATURE OF THE ATONEMENT. [PART I.

When I say that the curse of abandonment was removed, I do not
mean that the law ceased to pronounce the sentence on men. The law
never ceases to pronounce any part of its sentence against those who have
once sinned, even after they are pardoned. But what I mean is, that it
was as consistent with the honor of the law to give the Spirit to men as
though the curse of abandonment had not been pronounced or incurred.
It was not, indeed, consistent with the highest honor of the law to give the
Spirit to men till the merit of Christ was introduced to make the gift a
legal reward to him. But it was as consistent as though the curse had
not been pronounced. The curse, therefore, no longer stood in the way.
It was as consistent as though there had been no sin. But after sin was
covered, so far as it stood related to this part of the curse, there still re-
restoring the title by grace. But it was not sin that produced the disability which
remains after the debt of punishment is cancelled. All sin is then covered ; but even
then we have not a perfect righteousness from the beginning to show, and it is too late
to produce one. This is the only difficulty. But that omission of obedience, you say,
was sin, and defrauded God of his rights, and drew down a sentence of disfranchise
ment, cutting us off from ever gaining a reward. The omission was indeed sin, be
cause it was disobedience. The whole sin lay in the disobedience, " for sin is the
transgression of the law.'' But there was something more in the omission than sin, there
was a defect ; there was something more in it than disobedience, there was the want
of obedience. As it stood related to the rights and demands of God, it was positive
injury and disobedience ; as it stood related to the promise, it was a mere failure to
produce that positive good to which the promise was made. The reward was prom
ised, not to the absence of 6in, but to positive obedience ; and the mere want of that
positive thing, without the presence of sin, is enough to vitiate our title, and remains
a defect after all sin, even the sin of negligence, is covered. On the other hand, all
that was threatened to sin was punishment, not the loss of reward ; that followed the
mere want of obedience, not viewed as disobedience, but as the bare absence of good.
There was no need of a sentence of disfranchisement to cut us off from reward. Tho
mere failure to render that to which the promise was made, without such a sentence,
was enough to exclude us. If I promise a man a certain reward for a day's
work, and he comes at noon, there is no need of a punitive sentence to vitiate liis title
to the stipulated recompense. His mere failure cuts him off without involving the
idea of punishment. You say the cases are not parallel, because his failure violated
no obligation. But so far as our omission violated obligation, it was sin, it was
disobedience, and stands related, not to the loss of reward, but to positive punish
ment. In that omission thero are two things, a sin and a defect, — the presenco of
that which entitles to punishment, and the absence of that which entitles to reward ; '
and when all the sin of the omission is covered, there still remains a defect which pre
vents our title to a recompense. When tho debitum pence is cancelled all tho sin of the
omission is covered, and the debitum negligently which remains must be discharged by
another influence. That other influence is the merit of Christ's obedience, and the
way in which it procured our positive good was by first obtaining it as a le;;al reward
to himself. As certainly, then, as wc spread the cover for sin over the debitum negligen
tly, and make it the foundation of our reward, we put merit, and not merely the tes
timony of obedience, into the atonement.

CHAP. I.] INFLUENCE ON MEN. 151
mained a defect of positive righteousness. And it was the principle of
Eden, as will appear in another place, not to grant the Spirit, after man
had had an opportunity to act, but in approbation of a righteousness per
fect for the time the subject had been in existence, and not to grant it as
a covenanted reward, but out, of respect to a finished righteousness.
After,, sin was covered, the Spirit could not be granted, according to that
original principle, but out of respect to the perfect righteousness of
Christ. The cover for sin was not, therefore, enough to open the way for
the mission of the Spirit. All that it could do was to remove the ob
struction which sin had raised, or that which lay in the curse of aban
donment, but not that which was occasioned by the defect. This is what
I mean by removing the curse of abandonment.
This part of the curse was removed without the agency of man as a
prerequisite. That is, the obstruction which sin had raised to the grant
of regenerating influence to passive receivers was taken away without
reference to the conduct of the same creatures as agents. No such pre
requisite could be required without preventing the removal altogether,
because the curse must be taken away, and regenerating influence be
stowed, before men would be holy. And in the nature of things such a
prerequisite could not be necessary. After such a death to support the
penalty of the law, the influence of the penalty could not be weakened
by any favor shown to men, unless it spread a shield over irreclaim
able wickedness. An influence to turn them from wickedness could not
abate the authority of the penalty. The atonement, therefore, rendered
it consistent with the honor of the law, so far as the influence of the
penalty was concerned, to bestow regenerating grace on men, without
any previous faith or repentance. And this is what I mean by remov
ing the curse of abandonment.
It was not so with the other part of the penalty. This could not be
removed without the intervention of human agency. For to have ap
plied actual remission to those who should persist in rebellion, and thus
to have cast the shield of impunity over stubborn transgressors, would
have ruined the law and defeated the very end of the atonement. Par
don, then, could not be dispensed (to those who hear and understand the
Gospel), without the existence of faith ; and no atonement could abso
lutely procure pardon which did not as absolutely procure the gift of
faith. Whether the atonement contained all that influence which in
sured actual reconciliation, depends therefore on the single question,
whether by its own unaided power it secured the gift of faith. That
some influence of Ghrist secured this gift to the elect we admit, and
earnestly contend ; but was it the atonement ?
This is not the place to settle a question of this sort, or to say any

152 NATURE OF THE ATONEMENT. [PART I.
more about it than what is suggested by the name. The cover for sin
could only prevent the evil which sin deserved, but could not secure
positive good, unless the mere absence of sin without positive righteous
ness could secure good. How, then, could it obtain the Spirit ? But
you say, it could not cover sin without actual pardon, and it could not
secure pardon without obtaining the gift of faith. True ; nor does the
name determine whether it is the actual cover of sin, or only a cover for
sin. A cover for a cask is still called by that name though it is not put
on, and has an actual and complete existence without being used. There
may be a cover for a moral agent, which, at the risk of an awful respon
sibility, he still rejects.
This leads me to remark, that if the atonement was a provision for
moral agents, it is wrong to say that it was made only for bebevers.
Though Christ is not a mercy-seat (li.aarjQiov), but "through faith in his
blood," Rom. 3 : 25 (cannot otherwise be propitious, -or render God
propitious, to those who approach him), and though the atonement was
to be applied only to believers ; yet as moral agents have an existence
independent of their character, so far as it was a provision for such, it
was prepared for them while yet in their sins. In this sense it might be
made for " the ungodly," for those who are neither " righteous " nor
"good," but "sinners" and "enemies." Rom. 5: 6-10.
One point is fixed : the cover for sin could reach no further than the
curse which sin had incurred, and could extend no influence to our posi
tive reward, unless reward follows the mere absence of sin without posi
tive righteousness. It is this hinitation of the atonement, everywhere
conspicuous in the Scriptures, which has given rise to the opinion that
the whole influence of Christ is confined to pardon. With that thought
I have no communion, and hope to show, in the Appendix, that his merit
is the ground of all our positive happiness ; but in the body of the work
I have nothing to do with any thing but the cover for sin.

CHAPTER H.
THE INFLUENCE OF THE ATONEMENT UPON DIVINE GOVERNMENT.
What end did the death of Christ answer as an atoning sacrifice? It
opened the way for the pardon of believers. But why could not believers
have been pardoned without it ? How did it open the way ? I am not
answered by being told that it expressed the wisdom and benevolence of

CHAP. II.] INFLUENCE ON LAW. 153
God. Until I discover some important end answered by it, I can see no
wisdom or benevolence in it, but something very much like a waste of
human life. What was that end ? Do you tell me that the eternal prin
ciples of justice required that sin should be punished ? But sin was not
punished ; for innocence suffered and sin escaped. What end was
answered by layings this affliction on the innocent ? ' Precisely the same
as respects the support of law, that would have been answered by our
punishment. The atonement, we have seen, was a cover for sin, — was
adapted so to bury sin from view that it should not be punished. It
therefore came exactly in the room of punishment, and ought to answer
the same end. When it had done that, it had removed the necessity of
punishment, and constituted a complete cover for sin. It might answer
that purpose more fully, but we have no right to ascribe to it any other
end. What end, then, does punishment answer ? The same that was aimed
at in attaching the penalty to the law, only in a more intense degree.
And what was that ? The support of the authority of the law. Without
a penalty the law is nothing more than a summary of advice, which every
one is at liberty to regard or neglect as he pleases. Did the penalty
show God's attachment to the precept ? But how ? By being set to
guard the precept, or to give authority to the law. In this way alone it
revealed any thing of God. Whatever of him was shown by bringing
forward a sanction to support the authority of a holy and benevolent law,
and nothing more, was disclosed by the penalty. The sole end of the
penalty, then, was to support the authority of the law, and to discover as
much of God as such an expedient for such a purpose could reveal. The
support of law, therefore, comprehended all other ends, and may be put
for the whole. The same end is answered by the execution of the pen
alty, only in a higher degree. Without the execution it would have
been the same as though no penalty had existed. The law would have
lost its authority ; the reins would have been thrown upon the neck of
every passion; anarchy, discord, and misery would have ravaged the
abodes, of being; and all the happiness wliich is bottomed on holy order,
and all the discoveries of God which are made in a holy and vigorous
moral government, would have been lost. This unbounded mischief
would have followed a prostration of the authority of the law ; that pros
tration would have followed a proclamation of impunity to transgression ;
and this proclamation would have been impbed in a neglect to execute
the penalty. The only way to prevent this infinite mischief was to pro
claim and prove that transgressors should be punished. In this single
declaration and proof the whole antidote lay. For whatever else of God
was proved, if it did not go to establish this, it could not uphold the au-

154 nature of the atonement. [part I.
thority of the law. If it proved that he was holy or just or good or
true or wise, or attached to his precept, or all these together, it could
not support the authority of the law any further than it gave evidence
that transgressors should be punished. Nothing of God could be ex
pressed by punishment but what is contained in the single proposition
that he does and will support his righteous law by punishing transgres
sors. Did it express his holiness, justice, benevolence, and wisdom ?
But how ? By showing his determination to uphold the authority of a
righteous law by punishing sin. Besides furnishing motives to obedi
ence, it was intended to set him forth as the object of confidence, com
placency, joy, and praise. But how ? By showing his inflexible purpose
to maintain his holy and benevolent law by adequate punishments. The
ultimate end of government, as of all other things, was to exhibit the
glory of God, so needful to the happiness of his kingdom, and to secure
to him that treatment which was his due, and in which the blessedness of
creatures was involved. This was the ultimate end of punishment. But
before, it could answer this end it must accomplish an immediate purpose,
subservient to government and the dominion of holiness. Before it
could express the holiness, justice, benevolence, or wisdom of God, or
hold him up as an object of confidence, complacency, joy, or praise, it
must be fitted to answer an important end, subservient to the reign of
holy principles. What was that end ? The support of the authority of
a righteous law by discovering a fixed resolution to punish transgressors.
This, then, was the immediate and proper end of punishment. In that
punishment I care not how much of God you suppose to be revealed, —
how much attachment to his law, how much hatred of sin, how much
justice, or even truth ; you may add more or less to thesethings, but the
whole is expressed in the single proposition that he will support his
righteous law by punishing sin. To give proof that he will punish is
certainly disclosing every thing of God which punishment can reveal.
The end of punishment, then, in any given instance, besides pronouncing
the subject personally ill-deserving, and being an exercise of justice in
that particular case, is merely to uphold the authority of the law by re
vealing God's determination to punish transgression.
Precisely the same was the end of that which came in the room of
punishment and answered its identical purpose. In whatever the atone
ment consisted, it expressed all that punishment would have expressed,
except that the sufferer was personally a sinner ; and was all that punish
ment would have been except a literal execution of justice. This it could
not be. Justice never required the personally innocent to suffer, but
the personally guilty ; and no plan of substitution or representation, and
i™thin? but a personal identity between Christ and the sinner, rendering

CHAP. II. J INFLUENCE ON LAW. 155
him personally a transgressor, could make out an act of literal justice
in the infliction of sufferings on him. Equally certain it is, that the
sufferings did not pronounce him personally a sinner. These two uses
of punishment being separated from the atonement, the only end remain
ing is, the support of the law by showing God's determination to execute
its penalty on transgressors. This was its precise and only end. This
answered, it became an expression of amazing wisdom, benevolence, and
mercy, and laid a foundation for the most luminous display of all the
divine perfections in the application and progress of redemption. But
before it could do this, it must answer an end properly its own, which,
therefore, is to be considered the immediate and proper end of the atone
ment ; and that was what has already been stated. It made an impres
sion on the universe, stronger than would have been made by the
destruction of all Adam's race, that God was determined, notwithstanding
his mercy to men, to support the authority of his law by executing its
penalty on transgressors. How much was implied in this declaration, I
am not concerned to inquire ; — how far it " condemned sin in the flesh,"
how far it pronounced transgression to be as hell-deserving as the law
had said, how far it asserted the rectitude of the divine government, and
took the part of the Father against the sins of the world. If it answered
any or all of these ends, as it undoubtedly did, it was by giving the
Father an opportunity to prove to the universe that he would execute
his law on future transgressors. It expressed every thing (except that
the Sufferer was personally a sinner) that could have been expressed by
punishment, or that could be implied in a determination to punish the
future transgressors of a holy law. In the expression of punishment, or
a determination to punish, you may comprehend as much as you please ;
the same was expressed by the atonement. Say that punishment, or a
determination to punish, proves that God is just,^and attached to his law,
and believes it good, and is like it himself, and hates sin, and, if you
please, is a Being of truth ; then all these were expressed in that single
declaration of the atonement, that- he would punish sin. Every thing
of God which punishment could reveal, was disclosed by an atonement
which proved that he would punish. Every end which punishment
could answer (except a literal execution of justice, and an implication
of the moral turpitude of the Sufferer), was accomplished by an atone
ment which proved that God would punish. The whole use, then, of an
atonement which was to answer the exact purpose of punishment, was to
show that God was determined to support his holy law by punishing sin.
Let me illustrate the operation of this august measure by the following
case. The bank of England is essential to the prosperity of the nation.
The law against forgery, with its penalty of death, is essential to the

156 NATURE OF THE ATONEMENT. [PART I.
existence of the bank. Ten noblemen are found counterfeiting the
notes of that institution. What is to be done ? If the law is not execu
ted, every one will conclude that he may counterfeit with impunity, and
the bank and the nation are lost. They must die. In this state of
things, the prince of Wales comes forward and offers to die in their stead.
The offer is accepted, and on a conspicuous hill, in full view of the
assembled nation, he is executed. What impression is made on the mul
titude ? Do they now conclude that people may counterfeit with impu
nity, because they see the penitent noblemen pardoned ? No ; they are
more deeply impressed with the inflexible resolution of government to
punish forgery, than though half a nation of counterfeiters had died.
This is the point gained. The law is raised to the highest pitch of au
thority by the strongest possible proof that its penalty will in future be
executed. In giving this proof, for such a purpose and at such a price, the gov
ernment showed their attachment to the law, their abhorrence of forgery,
and their determination to be just in the future infliction of punish
ment, though justice in that instance did not nterally take its course.
But they showed these things through no other medium than a fixed
resolution, at all events, to execute the penalty of the law. In the dis
covery of this single purpose, the whole expression was involved.

CHAPTER ni.

THE MATTER OF ATONEMENT.

In examining this subject, it is necessary to keep immovably before
the eye the end which an atonement was intended to answer in the
government of God. It was the same that would have been answered
by punishment. And what was that ? To furnish practical proof that
God would support the authority of his law by executing its penalty
on transgressors. When that proof was given, and the end of punish
ment was thus answered, the Protector of the law was satisfied. The
thing which produced that satisfaction was the atonement or cover for
sin. When I ask after the matter of the atonement, I ask what that
thing was. What was that by which the Protector of the law furnished
the same practical proof of his resolution to execute the penalty, that he
would have given by punishment itself? My general answer is, it was
humiliation imposed, and sufferings inflicted, by his own authority and

CHAP. IH.] MATTER OF ATONEMENT. . 157
hand on his beloved Son. What could so naturally show that God
would inflict evil for sin, as the actual infliction of evil on account of sin ?
as the tokens of wrath discharged against the Son of his love standing
avowedly in the place of sinners ?
The law, as it stood related to transgressors, had two parts, precept
and penalty. As it stood related to those who had not sinned, it had
also a reward for obedience, and, I add, for nothing but obedience. Ac
cordingly, the task devolved on him who took the sinner's place, consisted
of two parts ; obedience, which stood related to the precept, and suffer
ings, which came in the room of the penalty. By obedience also, and
nothing but obedience, he obtained a reward in which his people were to
share. In accordance with all this, our salvation consists of two parts ;
a release from the penalty, and a participation of the positive good in
volved in Christ's reward. Here, then, in one line were the penalty of
the law, the sufferings of Christ which came in its room, and our release
from the penalty as the consequence. Here, also, in another Une
were the precept of the law with the reward of obedience annexed, the
obedience of Christ with the reward which followed, and our admission
to the positive good involved in that reward. All this appears plain
and natural. The sufferings and obedience of Christ, two parts in
separable in fact but separable in influence, constituted one whole.
That was followed by another whole, to wit our salvation, consisting of
two parts, equally inseparable in fact, but separable in contemplation ;
namely, deliverance from hell, and elevation to heaven. Now, what I
assert is, that the appropriate influence of one part of the first whole
stood related to one part of the second whole, and that the appropriate
influence of the other part of the first whole stood related to the other
part of the second whole ; in plain language, that the sufferings of Christ
came in the room of our sufferings, and his merit in the room of our
merit ; that by one he lifted us from hell to earth, by the other he raised
us from earth to heaven.
There is a distinction to be set up here between the matter of atone
ment and the making of atonement. The matter of atonement was the
thing which satisfied, the making of atonement was the presenting of
that thing. When Aaron offered an expiating victim he was said to
make atonement, though the atoning power did not He in Aaron's arm,
but in the bleeding lamb ; and though Aaron's action could have no
other effect than to present the victim to God according to his ap
pointment, in other words, to bring it, with whatever power it had, into
the necessary relation to God. According to the same form of ex
pression, the Priest of the New Testament is said " to atone for the
sins of the people," and " to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself."
14

158 NATURE OF THE ATONEMENT. [PART I.
Heb. 2 : 17. 9 : 26. The same form of expression is used whenever
we speak of Christ's making atonement And it is common also
in other matters. It is medicine, and not the act of the physician,
which works the cure. But it must be administered, and administered
in a right way. And when this is done we commonly say, the phy
sician healed the patient. So it was the sufferings of Christ, and not his
action, which satisfied ; but they must be presented by the Priest, and
presented in a right way, that is, unmixed with any disobedience in his
bfe ; and when all this is done we very properly say that Christ made
atonement ; not only ascribing to him the effect of his sufferings, but
referring to his act in presenting them. The obedience of Christ was
necessary to atonement in the two following respects.
1. To render him, in typical language, a Lamb without blemish. In
plain language, his general obedience (and of course his general sub
jection to law), was necessary to set him forth as the beloved Son, and
thus to render his sufferings sufficiently expressive of God's inflexible
resolution to punish sin. He must be infinitely dear to God to give his
sufferings this full expression. He must be the Son, and the well-
beloved Son, to be thus dear. He must be subject and obedient during
his probation, to be, in the eyes both of. God and man, the well-beloved
Son ; for obedience constituted as essential a part of the filial relation
during his minority, as inheritance does since he has come of age.
There being but one Lawgiver, and essentially but one law, this sub
jection of the Son placed him completely under the law given to other
creatures. And when he was under law, he was not only bound by the
precept, but liable to the penalty, in case of disobedience. And now his
general obedience became still more necessary to qualify him to make
atonement, as in case of disobedience, so far from being able to expiate
for the sins of others, he must have suffered for his own. Obedience, in
this view, went merely to qualify his sufferings.
2. The act of the Priest in presenting the Victim must necessarily be
an act of obedience. The Father must command him to die, or the
stroke would not have come from his own hand.* But the infliction
must be made by the very Magistrate who is thereby to show that he
will punish others. At his command the Victim must be bound, at his
word the stroke must be given, and under his authority and hand the
Substitute must die. But in no way could the stroke be inflicted by
divine authority, but either by being obediently submitted to, or by
* Compulsion, before the Son was subject to law, would neither have been pos
sible nor just. And after he became subject, with a perfect wilUngness to die, there
was no way to control him wliich was necessary, or proper, or suited to display him
as the obedient Son, but through the medium of his will.

CHAP, m.] MATTER OF ATONEMENT. 159
being forced by main strength upon one struggling against the authority ;
in which latter case the sufferings would have been personally deserved,
and could no more have atoned than the pains of the damned. The
necessity of the command appears in another point of view. The satis
faction must be rendered to One holding the authority of the Godhead,
and of course by One not on the throne, and therefore, as the throne of
God must reign over all beneath it, by One under law ; and when he
was under law he had no right to die uncommanded. A mere consent
of the Father in such a case was impossible. There is no indifference
in God, especially in matters of so much importance; and a distinct
expression of his will, however mild in form, must have had all the
authority of a command.
Accordingly, the Scriptures teach us that the whole appointment to
the priestly office came from the throne. " No man taketh this honor
unto himself, but he that is called of God, as was Aaron. So also
Christ glorified not himself to be made a high-priest, but he that said
unto him, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee," Heb. 5 : 4, 5,
alluding to the subjection which goes into the very idea of sonship. The
same Scriptures teach us that the death of Christ was obedience; (or
rather I will say, that his consent to die was such ; for we cannot ascribe
obedience to mere passivity or suffering, it being in its very nature active,
and always consisting in some act of the mind, terminating there, or
producing some act of body, or preventing some act of body or mind).
" This commandment have I received of my Father." " As the Father
gave me commandment, even so I do." " Lo I come to do thy will, 0
God ; — by the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the
body of Jesus Christ once for all." " He took upon him the form of a
servant," and " became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross."
John 10 : 18. 14 : 31. Phil. 2 : 8. Heb. 10 : 9, 10. By this com
mand on the one part, and obedience on the other, the Father appeared
demanding satisfaction, and laying on the stroke with his own hand. " It
pleased the Lord to bruise him," " The Lord hath laid on him the
iniquity of us all," saying, "Awake, 0 sword, against — my Fellow."
Isa. 53 : 6, 10. Zech. 13 : 7. *
The whole influence of this act of the Son lay in its being an exercise
of obedience. It was not merely a consent to die after being com
manded, but as one commanded ; a consent to be dragged to execution
as a culprit by divine authority, that the stroke might come from him
who was wont to act as the legal Executioner. The whole efficacy of
the act was the pure efficacy of obedience, not as a merit, nor as a testi
mony, but as mere submission to divine authority. Had it not been

160 NATURE OF THE ATONEMENT. [PART I.
obedience, the sufferings would have been of no validity, for they would
not have been exacted by the supreme Magistrate from the beloved Son,
nor have been any evidence that he would punish others. The whole
effect of the act was to bring the sufferings into a proper relation to God,
by drawing out the stroke from his own hand.
This discloses the very influence of what was set forth by the action
of the priest under the old dispensation. To draw my language from
that type, it was necessary that the divine Victim should be offered by
God's appointed Priest, and according to his command and direction.
The action of the Priest, when stripped of its figurative garb, was the
mere yielding of sufferings to the demand of the Supreme Magistrate.
What did the action of the ancient priests express ? Merely that the
victim was offered to God according to his direction. And what did the
obedient consent of our High-Priest express ? Merely that the Victim
was offered to God agreeably to his appointment. The whole need of this
pontifical act was the need which existed that the sufferings should be
inflicted by the Father's authority and hand.
These two operations of obedience had the exact effect to secure the
infliction of sufferings on the beloved Son by the Father's hand. One
qualified the Sufferer by rendering him dear to the Father, the other
brought his sufferings into the necessary relation to God. Now, did
obedience enter into the matter of the atonement by answering either of
these purposes ? But other things answered these purposes, which were
never put into the matter of the atonement.
1. There were other things which constituted the personal qualifica
tions of the Sufferer, which were never put into the matter of the atone
ment. These were, first, infinite dignity, necessary to render him infi
nitely dear and of mfinite value in the sight of God : secondly, a passible
nature, rendering his sufferings possible : thirdly, humanity, instead of
the angelic nature, that he might have a bfe to lose without being anni
hilated ; that he might suffer in the very nature which was polluted with
sin, and endure the very death which transgression had brought upon
the race. It was necessary for him to be a man for other reasons. If
hjf obedience must be familiarly exhibited before the world to set him
forth as the beloved Son of God, he must obey the law which men were
accustomed to contemplate ; his obedience must be expressed by actions
common to them, and under circumstances trying to feelings belonging
to their nature. He must, of course, be bound by the particular law
given to man ; and this he could not be without being a man. For in
stance, he could not be bound to deny his bodily appetites if he had not
a body. He could not be laid under obligation by the seventh com-

CHAP. III.] MATTER OF ATONEMENT. 161
mandment in particular, if he did not possess such appetites as are com
mon to men.* There was another reason which does not belong to the
present subject. He must have all the sensibilities and trials of our
nature, that he might become an object of easy, familiar, and affectionate
confidence, as One who had learned from experience to be touched with
the feeling of our infirmities. Heb. 2: 14-18.
But we do not put into the matter of atonement the passible nature and
humanity of Christ, though they were necessary qualifications to fit him
to make expiation ; nor yet his dignity, though that was necessary for
much the same reason that his general obedience was. Why, then,
should his obedience be thus distinguished?
Supposing the interest which he had in the Father's heart had not
been founded on his holy and obedient character, but on such natural
affections as exist in men ; should we then put his influence as a Son
into the matter of atonement ? Suppose your son, who has no hold of
your heart but what nature gave him, should undertake to suffer under
your authority for a rebellious servant. Your affection for him makes
his sufferings expressive and convincing to the servants of your firm
resolution to support the authority of your laws. That practical proof
of your resolution is what satisfies you as guardian of the domestic code.
The means of that satisfaction is the matter of atonement in the case..
Was his influence upon your heart any part of that which satisfied ? No ;
it only enabled his sufferings to discharge that office.
2. There were other things, which affected the relations of his suffer
ings, which were never put into the matter of atonement. First, the
voluntary consent of the second person to come under the obligation of
a command to die. This was necessary to render the command just,, and
thus to place the sufferings in a proper relation to God and his law; as
otherwise they would have been the sufferings of a martyr (allowing the
infliction of them to have been possible), and, instead of showing that
God would punish transgressors, would only have proved that he would
oppress the innocent, f But certainly we cannot put into the atonement
an act performed before there was a Mediator. Secondly, his subjection
to the law given to man. This was necessary that the stroke which fell
on Mm, though not a literal execution of the law, might more familiarly
* I do not take into consideration the necessity of his honoring by obedience the
same law which men had refused to obey. That was a matter which bore relation to
his reward.
1 1 do not say that the consent of the Son while under law was- necessary to render
his sufferings just ; for had he refused after his subjection, what he endured, and infi
nitely more, would have been the just desert of personal delinquency.
14*

162 NATURE OF THE ATONEMENT. [PART I.
appear to be inflicted for the sin of man ; and, so far as it had this effect,
it brought his sufferings into a proper relation to man, and to the Being
against whom man had sinned. Thirdly, the laying of the scene of his
sufferings in this world. This also was calculated to make a more dis
tinct impression that he suffered for the sins of the human race, and
served to bring his death into a proper relation to him against whom the
human race had rebelled.
But though his antecedent consent, his subjection to the law given to
man, and his residence in our world, had a necessary influence on the
relations of his sufferings, who ever put either of them into the matter of
the atonement ? Why, then, should his obedience receive that distinc
tion ?
There are but four lights in which imagination itself can view the
obedience of Christ as related to the atonement.
(1) As mere submission to authority, and as such going simply to
constitute a relation. This was its use in the act of the Priest. The
influence of that act lay not in its being a merit, or a testimony, or in its
rendering the Agent dear to the Father, but merely in its placing him
under the control of authority.
(2) As a qualification rendering him dear to the Father, not with
any reference to a reward, not therefore as a merit, but merely to give
his sufferings sufficient expression. This was its use in constituting the
well beloved Son, or, in typical language, the Lamb without blemish.
(3) As a testimony, by which something was pronounced respecting
God and his law.
(4) As a merit, standing related to a reward. The very idea of
merit is, that it is something which deserves approbation, reward, or
whatever else befits the subject.
Obedience, as it stands related to the honor of the law, is a testimony ;
obedience (the same identical act), as it stands related to reward, is
merit. No matter in what it consists, whether in bearing witness (one
may be rewarded for giving testimony) or in yielding to sufferings, or
in performing any other service ; yet as it stands related to a reward, it
is merit. By merit I shall therefore mean obedience viewed in the
light of claiming a recompense.
If obedience entered into the matter of atonement, it must have been
in one of these four shapes. The first two have already been consid
ered, the last two are yet to be examined.
Did, then, the obedience of Christ enter into the matter of atone
ment in the form of a testimony ? And here it must be steadily kept
in mind, that the great point to be proved was, that God would

CHAP. III.] MATTER OF ATONEMENT. 163
support the authority of his law by punishing sin.* And now I will
show you,
(1) That the obedience of Christ gave no such testimony ;
(2) That if it did, atonement was not made by testimony, but by
giving the Father opportunity and means to testify in his own name.
(1) The obedience of Christ gave no such testimony. It declared
indeed that the sacred persons were attached to the precept, and were
bke it themselves, and were willing, so far as the expression of these
truths could avail, tat promote obedience in creatures. But did all this
prove that God would punish sin ? No ; for first, we have the testimony
of facts that these attributes are not inseparable. How many parents,
good themselves, and affirming their laws to be good, like old Eli,
are irresolute in punishing. And until you first prove the inflexible
resolution and universal consistency of God, you know not that the
attributes are united in him, and cannot argue from one to the
other. But after it was given out that man was to be pardoned,
whatever evidence had existed before, there was not now sufficient
light respecting that resolution and consistency, till the sufferings of
the beloved Son furnished it. And God 'plainly so declared by re
sorting to this new revelation of the very things in question. The
proof of that resolution and consistency must be completed, by first
proving that he would punish, and proving it by the sufferings of Christy
before one could infer from his holiness and attachment to the pre
cept .that he would punish, and before a testimony to that holiness and

* It has been said in a loose and indefinite way, that the testimony of Christ's obe
dience honored the law, and so rendered the pardon of sin more consistent with its
honor. But because it honored the law in one way, it does not follow that it honored
it in the same way that punishment would have done, or in such a way as in any
degree to answer in the room of punishment. Because a man has been honored by a
commission, it does not follow that it has become consistent with his honor to conceal
a culprit from the law, or to pass by a malignant insinuation against himself. What
was to be done to render tho pardon of sin consistent with the honor of the law %
Proof was to be given that the authority of the law should still be supported by pun
ishment. Could the obedience of Christ furnish that proof? This is the sole question.
The testimony of his obedience did indeed honor the law; but that honoring was
required for a different purpose, to render positive good communicable in a way
honorable to the law. This, no less than pardon, must be dispensed in snch a way.
It was a principle of the first covenant, that none should be rewarded till they had
honored tho law by the testimony of a perfect obedience. That principle was not to
be given up ; and therefore Christ must obey before he could be rewarded with that
positive good which was intended for men. It has been said, that obedience and suf
ferings united their testimony to certain truths. But did they unite their testimony to
prove that God would punish 1 Did obedience give this testimony ? If not, it testi
fied nothing to the purpose.

164 NATURE OF THE ATONEMENT. [PART I.
attachment could throw any light on the latter question. The proof
that he would punish must first be completed, and that completion
finished the atonement ; for the only object of the atonement, as we have
seen, was to prove that God would punish. Secondly, before this new
revelation was completed and had decided otherwise, it could not be
known that occasional exercises of absolute clemency were not consistent
with a perfect character and government, because it could not be known
that they would not subserve some important end. Indeed, after it was
known that man was to be pardoned, and before 4he great, substitution
was revealed, the manifestations of God were decidedly in favor of the
conclusion, allowing his character and government to be perfect, that
absolute clemency in some instances was consistent with the perfection of
both. Until, then, the atonement, by its finished testimony, had decided
the question, no proof of God's holiness and attachment to his precept,
nor yet of the consistency and perfection of his character, could evince a
uniform resolution to inflict evil on account of sin. And it cannot be
doubted, that one end of the atonement was to convince the universe that
no such exercise of absolute clemency could consist with a perfect gov
ernment. Thirdly, whatever might be supposed to have dictated the
clemency to man, whether wisdom or weakness, yet when the purpose
was known, to all the proofs that God would punish, drawn from the
general perfection of his nature, the answer would still be returned, He
was such before, and yet he resolved not to punish man. Until a great
and direct practical proof was given that he would punish, testimonies to
his holiness and attachment to his precept could throw no light on his
future rigor, for still the answer would be, All this he was before, and yet
he did not punish man.
Let us put these things together, and see what would naturally be the
cogitations of creatures in the different stages of divine manifestations.
From the precept, the penalty, the punishment of devils,. and all other
exhibitions of God, there was evidence enough before man fell to per
suade the well informed that God would punish. But now a new thing
is revealed ; man is to be pardoned. This raises a doubt how far God
will punish in future. Whence the failure no one can tell, for none can
know any thing of God further than he is revealed in words or actions.
A consistory is held in heaven, and the question is, will God punish
hereafter ? Here is a fact before them ; man has transgressed, and is
not to be punished. Whence has the fact arisen? From any reluc
tance to rigor inconsistent with energy of government ? " God is not
sufficiently revealed," says Raphael. Gabriel comes forward with testi
mony that God is holy and attached to his precept, as an argument that
he will punish. " It does not answer," says Ithuriel ; " he was as holy

CHAP. III.] MATTER OF ATONEMENT. 165
and as much attached to his law before, and yet he would not punish
man." Here Abdiel rises. " For my part," says he, " I am persuaded
that our blessed Creator is perfect, and that it consists with that per
fection to let sin sometimes escape without rebuke. Shall not patience
and clemency be displayed, as well as justice ? I have heard the proof
of God's holiness and attachment to his precept ; I believe it all, but am
not convinced that he will always be severe. I am bound to form my
opinions of God from what he appears in his words and actions. He
has not said that he will always punish ; * but in this glorious clemency
to man he has plainly said that he will not ; and no proof of his per
fection can convince me that what he now declares is false."
It is plain that no evidence of God's holiness and attachment to his
precept can convince Ithuriel or Abdiel that he will always exercise
rigor, or furnish the least light to lead them to such a conclusion. There
must be a new revelation, made by actually inflicting evil on account of
the sin of man. And when those holy beings saw the sword of the
Almighty thrust through the heart of his beloved Son, in the room of the
only sinners who were ever to be pardoned, then they were convinced,
not only that no irresolution or inconsistency existed in God, but that it
did not comport with a perfect government ever to let sin escape without
a frown. But some suppose that at least the last act of Christ's obedience gave
out the testimony that God would punish sin, because it was a voluntary
surrender of himself to die on purpose to convince the universe of this
very truth. There are two extremes about this subject which we can
contemplate with clearness. First, if the Father, still holding the
authority of the Godhead, could have consented to suffer in the room of
sinners, it would indeed have shown his resolution to punish. The king
who consented to lose one of his eyes to save one of his son's, and thus
gave two eyes to the law which demanded two, convinced his kingdom
that future transgressors would lose both eyes, no less than though
justice had taken its bteral course. Secondly, where the father and
son have two distinct minds, the consent of the latter to die for trans
gressors is no testimony that the father will punish. Take the case of
the prince of Wales which has been supposed. In consenting to die
he held this language : " I esteem the penalty just and its execution
important, which shows that I view transgression as a great evil, and, of
course, that I regard the precept as right and valuable. I am willing to
* The legal threatening is not a pledge of truth that the sinner will be punished :
(for then how is that pledge redeemed when he is pardoned by the sufferings of
another 1) but a mere declaration of what is just, and may ordinarily be expected.

166 NATURE OF THE ATONEMENT. [PART I.
give my father this opportunity to prove that he will firmly execute his
law, and sincerely hope he may ; but I cannot answer for my father ; be
must speak for himself." Now, though there are not in all respects two
minds between the' divine Father and Son, they are exhibited in the
economy of redemption as two distinct agents. There is a foundation
somewhere among the mysteries of the Trinity and personal union for a
distinction to exist between the Father as holding the authority of God,
and the Mediator in his whole person ; and not only for a distinction,
but for opposite relations, as opposite as any which can be found among
men ; such as King and Subject, Master and Servant, the Commander
and the One who obeys, the Representative of God and the Repre
sentative of sinners, the Demander of satisfaction and the Satisfier, the
Inflicter of stripes and the Receiver, the Hearer of prayer and the
Supplicant, the One who makes and performs one part of a covenant,
and the One who makes and performs the other, the One who owes and
grants a reward, and the One who earns and receives it ; otherwise
there is no foundation in the Trinity for the work of redemption. On
the perfect distinctness and marked and stable opposition of these rela
tions, the whole efficacy of the mediatorial influence depended. And
this distinction extends to the whole person of Christ, as both divine and
human. Not a single official act can be ascribed to the mere man, or to
the mere God, but to the Mediator. Those acts in which the man most
appears, draw dignity and efficacy from the God ; and those acts in
which the God most appears, draw influence from the man. The
divinity of that person goes through and qualifies all the acts and
sufferings of the Mediator, and when it has done that it does no more in
the economy of redemption. His godhead, as it is exhibited in this
august drama, merely helps to constitute the person of the Mediator.
Whoever found in the gospel any other second person than the Son,
the Mediator, the Christ ? All that is divine in him is thus set apart
from the Father and included under the name of the Mediator ; that
Mediator whose person is so distinct, and whose relations are so opposite
to those of the Father. When the Mediatpr has expressed himself,
there is no other second person to help out or to elevate the expression.
Now, in this stupendous drama the Father alone holds the arm of
authority, and neither the second nor third person appears on the
throne from beginning to end; (except the temporary authority dele
gated to the Son as a reward, which he will resign at the end of the
world, when he will again become " subject " to the Father, " that God
may be all in all." 1 Cor. 15 : 28). In the whole exhibition, the Son
appears either a servant or a vicegerent till the curtain falls. The
point to be proved was that God would punish ; which, according to the

CHAP. III.] MATTER OF ATONEMENT. 167
4
distribution of parts, could be made out only by showing that the
Father would punish. And now the question is, whether the Servant
in that awful tragedy, in his most degrading act of submission, could
pledge himself for the firmness of his Master and King, and for the
future exercise of that authority which was dragging him like a criminal
to the stake ; whether the act of that Servant, urged on by the pressure
of a command, without the liberty of choice, with the sword of the
Almighty at his breast, under a necessity to obey or suffer the endless
penalty of the law, could be considered as the testimony of a distinct and
independent witness, or any thing more than the echo of the Father's
will. No ; the only declaration which I hear from the Son is this : " I
am willing to give the Father this opportunity to prove to the universe
that he will punish sin. In this I give my opinion that the penalty is
just and ought to be enforced, that sin is evil and ought to be punished,
that the precept is good and ought to be supported. But it is not for
me who have no authority, but am crushed under authority, to answer
for the Father. He is about to answer for himself in the awful strokes
to be inflicted on me." This leads me to say,
(2) That whatever testimony the obedience of Christ gave, atonement
was not made by testimony, but by affording the Father opportunity and
means to testify in his own name. A great and glorious testimony was
to be sent forth into the universe by means of the atonement, but that
testimony was to come from the Father. He stood the Representative
of the Godhead, filling the whole field of .vision allotted to him who held
the arm of authority. The great question to be decided was whether he
would resolutely punish. Who was competent to speak for God, and
pledge himself for the Most High ? It became him who was to answer
for the Godhead to speak for himself. Accordingly, he appears the
Principal in every part, the Originator and Director of the whole. All
is appointed and demanded by his authority, and done in his name, that
the testimony may be exclusively his ; as the expression of a measure
ordered by the master of a house and executed by his servants, is the
expression of the master alone. The satisfaction which he demanded as
the Protector of the law was not the testimony of a Servant or Son, but
an opportunity to give to the universe with his own arm a great practi
cal proof that he would punish sin. What could the testimony or obe
dience of another do to that end ? Nothing would answer but sufferings
unsparingly inflicted on the Son of his love with his own hand. And
when he had drained upon him the cup of trembling, as Guardian of the
law, he was satisfied. Had the person of the sinner stood before him
unshielded by a Substitute, he would have shown with his own arm his
(resolution to punish by sufferings inflicted on the sinner. This would

168 NATURE OF THE ATONEMENT. [PART I.
have been the satisfaction demanded in the case ; and no part of it would
have consisted in the consent of the sufferer. If the sinner was to
escape, the satisfaction demanded was an opportunity to inflict sufferings
on a Substitute, which should give out the same testimony as from his
own lips, or rather should shed the same practical proof from the awful
gleamings of his own sword. And when he had actually inflicted these
sufferings to the full extent which the necessity of the case demanded,
and had thus testified by the tremendous voice of his own authority, he
was satisfied. Shall we then say that the action of the Father helped to
make atonement ? No ; for while all. the testimony came from him, all
the atonement came from the Son. The matter of atonement, then, came
from the Son. This brings us to the conclusion, that the matter of atone
ment was that which answered to these two descriptions ; it was some
thing yielded by the Son (not the act of yielding), and something by
which the Father testified that he' would punish sin. Now certainly the
testimony of Christ was not that by which the Father testified. The
obedience of Christ was not that by which the Father proved in his own
Person that he would punish. The consent of Christ did not show that
the Father would inflict evil on sinners without their consent. Nothing
answers to these two descriptions but the bare sufferings of Christ. I
do not say, the sufferings of — no matter who ; bu^ the sufferings of the
beloved Son of God. I do not say, sufferings caused by accident, or self-
inflicted ; but sufferings inflicted by the supreme Magistrate of heaven
and earth. When we speak of the sufferings of the damned, or the
death of a malefactor, we always include the act of the magistrate ; we
do not mean dead sufferings, but sufferings inflicted by way of punish
ment. It was sufferings inflicted by the Magistrate which were threat
ened in the divine law, and sufferings inflicted by the Magistrate must
come in their room. But because the act of the Magistrate was neces
sary, to say that sufferings alone did not constitute the matter of atone
ment, is like saying, for the same reason, that sufferings alone do not
constitute the punishment of the damned.
Let us now look at the Scriptures. And here we have nothing to do
with those texts which ascribe both parts of salvation to the death of
Christ. These may raise a question whether atonement lifts us to
heaven, but cannot touch the question whether obedience helps to de
liver us from hell. The solution is, that the death of Christ compre
hended both atonement and merit. Neither have we any thing to do
with those texts which seem to ascribe both parts of salvation to the
obedience of Christ, unless in opposition to those who exclude a vica
rious sacrifice altogether. There is a passage of this nature in Romans
5 : 17-21 ; also in Rom. 6 : 23, where the apostle is setting forth the

CHAP. III.] MATTER OF ATONEMENT. 169
full contrast between the first Adam, who plunged us to hell, and the
Second Adam, who raised us to heaven, with an eye fixed in both cases
on the final result. In contemplating the Second Adam, he is standing
in heaven and seeing the redeemed arrive, and fastens his attention on
the obedience by which the latter half of the salvation was accomplished ;
and this he did the rather to give a full point to the contrast, the influ
ence of the first Adam lying in disobedience. But if such passages do
not prove that obedience is the sole ground of pardon, we have no right
to make them say that it is the partial ground, but must understand them
as sinking the process of pardon in the great consummation. Nor yet
have we any thing to do with those texts which ascribe to the Priest the
act of making atonement. * They only affirm that he presented that
which was the matter of the atonement to God, and thus brought ty into
the necessary relation to him. Can any thing more be gathered from
the type to which they refer ? What influence can possibly be ascribed
to the Levitical priests but that of presenting the victims to God accord
ing to his appointment ? Do you add to this, a testimony from the priest
that God would punish ? But how do you get this testimony out ?
Through the direct expression of the act as looking at the penalty ? But
the priest stood there, not to assume the tone of pledging himself for
God, but merely to do as he was commanded. Through the expression
of the act as looking at the precept of the moral law ? This is testimony
circuitous indeed. Let us see how it stands. Aaron's consent to obey
a ceremonial command (no matter what) is testimony from him that all
the precepts of the moral law are good, and so good that God will not
fail to punish the transgression of them ; and this testimony enters into
the very essence of the expiation ! No ; his atonement lay in no such
testimony as this (less direct than that of his ordinary conduct), but in
the sin or trespass-offering presented to God. There is one passage,
however, which speaks of the action of our great High-Priest, which
deserves some attention. It is in the 10th of Hebrews. " Then said he,
Lo I come to do thy will, O God : — by the which will we are sanctified
through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all : — for by
one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified." Here,
you say, a purging quality is expressly ascribed to the obedient action of
the Priest. But the fact is, that a higher effect is ascribed to that obe
dience combined with the sufferings, no less than actual pardon, including
the action of the Spirit, which obedience alone secured. The apostle
is speaking of the joint influence of obedience and passion as compre
hended in the death of Christ, not merely to render sin pardonable (the
proper office of the atonement), but to accompbsh actual remission, in
volving regenerating grace. Sanctified here means separated from the
15

170 NATURE OF THE ATONEMENT. [PART I.
curse of the law, purified from guilt or liability to punishment, pardoned.
The meaning of the passage is, that, by obediently surrendering himself
to die, and by his actual death, Christ has obtained for as many as by
that influence have been brought into a believing state, actual and ever
lasting remission. Here is the application of the atonement as the
reward of Christ's obedience, and not merely the matter of expiation.
But show me a text which affirms that either his general or final obedi
ence, as a testimony, helped to render sin pardonable. This must be
adduced, if any thing is done to the purpose.
I will now show you from the Scriptures, that the thing which was
offered for sin, and which came in the room of punishment, and which
laid the foundation for pardon, was no other than suffering.
(1)^ It was this which was offered for sin. " Christ died for our sins,
according to the Scriptures." " He was wounded for our transgressions,
he was bruised for our iniquities. — The Lord hath laid on him the ini
quity of us all. He was oppressed and he was afflicted ; — he is brought
as a lamb to the slaughter. — He was cut off out of the land of the living ;
for the transgression of my people was he stricken. — It pleased the 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 ini
quities. — He was numbered with transgressors, and he bore the sins of
many." " After three score and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but
not for himself." " Who was delivered for our offences." " He hath
made him to be sin for us who knew no sin." " He loved us and sent
his Son to be the propitiation [propitiatory sacrifice], for our sins." "He
is the propitiation [propitiatory sacrifice], for our sins, and not for ours
only, but also for the sins of the whole world." " Christ also hath once
suffered for sins, the just for the unjust." " Who his own self bore our
sins in his own body on the tree." " Christ was once offered to bear the
sins of many ; and unto them that look for him, shall he appear the sec
ond time without sin unto salvation." Isa. 53 : 5-12. Dan. 9 : 26.
Rom. 4: 25. 1 Cor. 15 : 3. 2 Cor. 5: 21. Heb. 9: 28. 1 Pet. 2: 24.
3 : 18. 1 John 2:2. 4 : 10.
(2) It was this which came in the room of punishment. " He hath
borne our griefs and carried our sorrows. — The chastisement of our peace
was upon him, and with his stripes we are healed." Isa. 53 : 4, 5.
(3) It was this which laid the foundation for pardon. " Christ hath
redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us." " In
whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of
sins." " Being now justified [pardoned] by his blood, we shall be saved
from wrath through him. For if when we were enemies we were recon
ciled to God by the death of his Son, much more being reconciled we

CHAP. III.] MATTER OF ATONEMENT. 171
shall be saved by his life." " Almost all things are by the law purged
with blood, and without shedding of blood is no remission. It was there
fore necessary that the patterns of things in the heaVens should be puri
fied with these, but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices
than these. — For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats
should take away sins : — for then would they not have ceased to be of
fered ? because that the worshippers once purged should have had no
more conscience of sins." Rom. 5 : 9, 10. Gal. 3 : 13. Col. 1 : 14. Heb.
9 : 22, 23. 10 : 2, 4.
But this question respecting the testimony of obedience, it must after
all be confessed, has no very important bearing on the extent of the
atonement. The great point is to distinguish between the matter of ex
piation and the merit of obedience, with its claim to a reward. This dis
crimination can be made whether the testimony of obedience goes into
the matter of atonement or not. We can distinguish between atonement
and a claim to reward for making atonement, whether the matter of ex
piation consists of two ingredients or one. I suppose that sufferings alone
satisfied and rendered sin pardonable ; but if obedience, while earning a
reward, sent out a testimony which helped to satisfy and render sin par
donable, it is no matter as relates to the distinction between the satisfying
matter and that which constituted the claim to a reward. Take the illus
tration before used. I want to make a clear distinction between that
which heals the patient and that which establishes the claim of the physi
cian to a fee. According to my theory, the healing efficacy lies in the
pill ; the action of the physician has no other influence than to administer
it in a right way ; and the claim to a fee is grounded on that action.
Here we can easily distinguish between the healing medicine and the
action which creates the claim. Now change the ground and assign a
new office to the action. Say that the physician's approach had an influ
ence upon the patient's imagination which helped to work the cure.
The remedy, then, consisted of two ingredients, the pill, and that influence
upon the imagination ; the action of the physician had two effects ; it ad
ministered the medicine and shed a healing influence ; the reward is for
the action still, and neither for the pill nor for the casual influence dropped
upon the patient's mind.* In this case, though wc cannot set up the
broad distinction between the healing matter and the action, we can still
distinguish between that matter and the action viewed as entitling to re
ward. The action, considered as sending forth such a casual influence, is
distinguishable from the action viewed as related to a reward. The dif-

* Christ, we shall see, is rewarded only for the merit of obedience ; and neither for
sufferings as such, nor for any testimony which his action gave out.

172 NATURE OF THE ATONEMENT. "[PART I.
ference is still plainly seen between the healing influence and the claim
to a fee. Upon the theory which I have advocated, we can set up the
broad distinction between the influence of passion and claim of action.
But the distinction is visible enough upon the other plan. In either way,
we have the distinction between the influence of the atonement and the
claim to a reward for making atonement.
This leads us to see the immense importance of discriminating between
the matter of atonement and the merit of obedience, in order to separate
the proper influence of the expiation from a claim to reward. Our
brethren have a strong reason for retaining obedience in the matter of
atonement. It is vital to their system to place merit there, in order to
give to the atonement a power to secure the gift of faith, and thus to ac
complish actual reconciliation. Without an influence to secure the gift
of faith, it must either fail to accomplish reconciliation by its own power,
or must obtain remission for stubborn unbelievers. Our brethren, there
fore, are willing to comprehend in the atonement the whole influence of
Christ ; and if they succeed in this they carry their point, at least so far
as relates to the meaning and proper application of the term. For if the
atonement contains an influence which secures the gift of faith, there is
atonement for none but those who will ultimately believe. It becomes,
then, a vital question, whether merit is comprehended in the matter of the
atonement. In settling this question, it is necessary to recur again to the radical
idea of merit. In God, merit is excellence, viewed as deserving honor,
love, gratitude, praise, and service. We put into his merit also what
ever he is to us or has done for us which justly entitles him to our
acknowledgments. In those who are under law merit is obedience, con
sidered as deserving a legal reward. It is obedience viewed purely in
its relation to a recompense. If, then, we put merit into the matter of
atonement, we place it there, not as that by which any thing is to be
proved (for that would be a testimony, not a merit) ; not therefore as
any thing which is to witness that God will punish sin ; (indeed, how
can the merit of one prove that God will punish another ?) not there
fore as any thing which is to answer in the room of punishment. Here,
then, we abandon the whole end of the atonement, and give up the need
of a vicarious sacrifice altogether. It comes out that the release of the
sinner is granted to Christ purely as a reward. And this is the ground
taken by those who deny a vicarious sacrifice, and place the whole atone
ment in obedience. But the fault of this scheme is, that such an atone
ment furnishes no proof that God will execute his law, and answers in
no degree the end of punishment, and therefore is not fitted to come in
the room of punishment and to be a cover for sin. On the other hand,

CHAP. III.] MATTER OF ATONEMENT. 173
the dispensation of pardon on this ground would be a plain declaration
that God would not always inflict evil on account of sin. Suppose a
culprit is released as the reward of a dutiful son. There is no evil
inflicted in the case; what evidence that any will ever be inflicted?
What has been may be again, and punishment may always be set aside
out of favor to some one who has obeyed, or even without that consider
ation. Indeed, the clemency plainly declares, that rigor is not always
necessary, and is not always to be exercised. Nor can you make merit
partially the ground of pardon, without proportionably drawing after it
the same effects. In exact proportion as pardon is dispensed on the
ground of being a reward to Christ, and not on the ground of substituted
sufferings, you abate the evidence that sin must always receive a frown.
Indeed, there is no halving of things in this way. If the legal impedi
ment to pardon is partly taken away by Christ's deserving a reward, it
must have been such as could not need a vicarious sacrifice to remove it.
For if the impediment was, that the law had threatened sufferings, and
sufferings must come in their room, how could the merit of a Substitute
touch the difficulty ? And what need, I further ask, of any thing but
the sufferings of the Son of God to clear away such an impediment as
this ?
What possible influence could merit have in removing the impedi
ments to pardon? To what does the proposition amount? That the
sins of believers are pardonable because Christ deserved a reward !
What conceivable relation can exist between these two things ? Christ's
desert of reward, considered by itself, could lend no influence to render
sin pardonable. Where is the text that asserts or hints at any such
thing ? On the contrary, have we not seen that sufferings, and sufferings
alone, are everywhere displayed in the Scriptures as the ground of
remission ?
If in any way merit could enter into that provision for moral agents
which we call the atonement, it must be on the principle, that the honor
of the law demanded that the release of believers from misery should be
a reward to Christ. That no positive good could be dispensed to men,
in consistency with the highest honor of the law, otherwise than as his
reward, I admit, and expect to prove. But a bare release from the curse
was a mere negative good, and therefore was fully provided for by his
" being made a curse for us." It so happens, indeed, that the release is a
reward to Christ, as the matter lies between the Sacred Persons ; because
to him it is a positive good, both as a public approbation of his offering
and a gratification of his benevolence. But whether he is gratified and
honored in this thing or not, is a point lying wholly between the Divine
Persons, and not at all affecting the atonement as a provision for moral
15*

174 NATURE OF THE ATONEMENT. [PART I
agents. Christ's being gratified and honored by the pardon of beUevers
does not make their pardon consistent with the honor of the law. And
on the other hand, had he ceased to exist after offering the spotless sac
rifice, and thus ceased to be susceptible of reward, the pardon of believ
ers would not have injured the law. The provision for moral agents in
relation to pardon was therefore complete without any influence derived
from the claim of Christ to a reward.
But you say, this is not what we mean. We allow that nothing helped
to render the sins of bebevers pardonable but the sufferings of the Son
of God : but we insist that the cover of sin is nothing short of that which
accomplishes actual remission ; and as merit procured the gift of faith,
without which pardon could not be dispensed, it had an essential influ
ence in constituting that cover. The question, then, turns on this, whether
the *iBS of the Bible (viewed as accepted of God), merely obtained par
don for bebevers, or had a further influence to make believers. This is
a question to be examined in another place. In the mean time let it be
remembered, that we have arrived at the conclusion that the merit of
Christ, or his claim to a reward, had no influence to render the sins of
believers pardonable. And if it shall appear hereafter that the atone
ment, aside from its covenanted acceptance, was limited to this very in
fluence, it will be established that merit constituted no part of the cover
for sin.*

CHAPTER IV.
CHRIST'S OBEDIENCE AND REWARD.
There is one point to be settled at our entrance upon this subject ;
and that is, that Christ was rewarded for nothing but obedience. To
one who never brought this proposition before his eye, it may wear, at
first sight, a forbidding aspect ; but a few reflections will convince him
that it must be true. Christ was " under law," and his reward was a
legal one ; but the law never promised a recompense to any thing but
obedience. No claim could be created on the Father but by a promise
* The author has the pleasure to acknowledge his obligations to his friend and
brother, the Rev. Dr. James Richards of Newark, for important assistance in this
chapter, as well as for his judicious remarks on tho book in general. This, however,
is said without making him responsible for any of the opinions which the book con
tains.

CHAP. IV.] OBEDIENCE OF CHRIST. 175
from him, and no promise appears but to One under law, for services
rendered in obedience to the command of his King. One of the duties
enjoined upon him was to lay down his life. So far as that was a duty
it was obedience, and no further than it was a duty was it entitled to a
reward. That act was of greater merit than other acts of obedience, be
cause it involved greater self-denial ; but the sufferings bore no other
relation to the reward than as being the highest test of obedience.
Christ was rewarded for his obedience " unto death," not for his suffer
ings viewed as uncommanded ; not therefore for sufferings in themselves
considered. What claim could uncommanded sufferings have to a re
ward ? Should a creature in any part of the universe inflict pain on
himself which God had never required, who would be bound to recom
pense him ? There is no such duty of supererogation in the kingdom of
God. But if the sufferings of the Son, only as commanded, could be en
titled to a reward, it was the obedience of surrendering himself to die,
and not the pain as such, which created the claim. Accordingly, we are
expressly taught that his whole reward was for obedience. He " became
obedient unto death, even the death of the cross ; wherefore God also
hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every
name." Phil. 2: 7-11. This name was the Son of God, which he ob
tained " by inheritance " ; Heb. 1:4; and the plain meaning is, that by
filial obedience he obtained the inheritance and all the honors of a Son,
that is, his complete reward.
Having settled this point, I will now exhibit, in one connected view,
the different influences of Christ's obedience, that the reader may have
them clearly before his mind in all our future stages.
(1) The most simple influence of obedience was in the action of the
Priest ; where it operated, not as a merit, nor as a testimony, nor as an
endearing quality, but as simple obedience ; having no other effect than
to cause the sufferings to be yielded to the demand of the Father, and
inflicted by his authority and hand.
(2) Obedience constituted the well beloved Son, or, in typical lan
guage, the Lamb without blemish ; and its influence here terminated in
rendering him dear to the Father, without any reference to a reward ;
merely making his sufferings expressive of God's inflexible resolution to
punish sin. This was not, therefore, the proper influence of merit.
These two influences went to qualify the sufferings, and to bring them
into the necessary relation to God. They therefore appertained to the
atonement. (3) Obedience gave out a testimony honorable to God and his law.
Some choose to put this influence into the matter of the atonement, as
going to render sin pardonable. Whether this is done or not is of no

176 NATURE OF THE ATONEMENT. [PART I.
material consequence as relates to the main question to be discussed in
this treatise. I suppose, however, that its operation was merely to supply
the place of that testimony which our perfect obedience would have given
out on its way to a reward. Our obedience would have stood connected
only with a reward, and would have given out a testimony honorable to
the law. If the testimony of Christ takes the place of our testimony, it
has nothing to do with the pardon of sin, but is merely an effluence of
obedience as it stands related to a reward. But that effluence itself, it is
proper to say, bears no relation to the reward. It is merely a casual in
fluence, which issues from obedience as it goes along. Or, to speak more
bterally, it is the mere relation which obedience bears to the honor of the
law, and not the relation which it bears to a recompense. The relation
which it bears to a recompense lies in no report which it sends forth, but
in its own intrinsic excellence. So the good man is rewarded for his
goodness, and not for the influence which his example may chance to
have on others.
These three ends were answered by obedience, not as a thing related
to a reward, not therefore as a merit, but as merely fitted to render the
sufferings expressive, to bring them into a proper relation to God, and to
honor the law. When obedience had exerted upon the sufferings the
first two influences (some add the third), the atonement was complete,
though not yet accepted ; and complete of course without the influence of
merit, or without owing its completion to any claim which Christ had to
a reward : because it was not necessary to the honor of the law that the
release of believers from misery (a mere negative good in regard to
them) should be a reward to him. And if, without injuring the law,
pardon might be granted to believers without being a reward to Christ,
then the Protector of the law was satisfied (so far as satisfaction stood
connected with pardon) without the aid of Christ's merit, and had in his
hands all that he could receive from the Son to enable him to grant
remission to those who would believe. And thus that provision for moral
agents in relation to pardon which depended on satisfaction yielded to
the Guardian of law, was complete without the influence of Christ's
merit. The effect of all this was, that the sins of men, allowing them to
be believers, were pardonable. On the ground of that satisfaction, God
could remit the offences of the penitent without injuring the law, but
he was not bound till another influence was superadded. This was
as far as bare atonement, separated from its covenanted acceptance,
could go.
When the sins of men were thus rendered pardonable in case they
would believe, there was a change wrought in their relations to the law.
This change we can contemplate distinctly from every thing else ; and

CHAP. IV.] OBEDIENCE OF CHRIST. 177
can plainly see that the sufferings of the beloved Son, separated from his
claim to a reward, could accomplish this and no more. That which pro
duced this change in the relations of moral agents ought to have a name.
I call it the atonement, and affirm that it answers exactly to the ^DS of
the Hebrews, when the latter is separated from its covenanted acceptance.
But whether it does or not will appear in the next chapter.
All the other influences of obedience which are to be named were influ
ences of merit, and produced their effects only by obtaining a reward.
Before proceeding further, therefore, let us stop and fix on some marks
by which a thing may be known to appertain to Christ's reward. I lay
down the following principles. All that Christ did as one of the con
tracting parties was to obey even "unto death." Whatever that obe
dience and death, stripped of every extrinsic circumstance, could accom
plish, was done by himself ; the rest was done by the Father, and, so far
as it expressed approbation of Christ or honored him, or directly gratified
his benevolence, was a part of his reward. Every effect, then, which
followed his obedience and death, beyond what their own necessary
influence could accomplish, and was honorable and gratifying to him,
appertained to his reward. What, then, did the necessary influence
of his obedience and death effect ? It rendered every thing which
followed consistent with the honor of the law, and created a cove
nant claim on the Father for the whole. It went no further. The
bringing to pass of all that, followed was the Father's part, and was done
in pursuance of his covenant engagements ; which engagements were
suspended on Christ's obedience " unto death." All, therefore, which
actually followed, was Christ's stipulated reward. I now proceed to say,
(4) That the merit of obedience gave to the Redeemer a covenant
claim to the acceptance of his atonement. Because the sufferings of a
Substitute were capable of answering in the room of the punishment of
the believing and reclaimed, God was not obliged to accept them and
release believers, until he had bound himself by promise ; and that prom
ise was suspended on the condition of Christ's obeying " unto death." It
was that obedience, then, which gave him a covenant claim to the par
don, on the ground of his atonement, of as many as would believe. This
was a covenant claim to the acceptance of the atonement, and rendered
the pardon of believers certain. This claim was completed when he ex
pired, and was acknowledged when he arose.*
* It has been said that tho acceptance of the atonement as pronounced in the
resurrection of Christ, was a public acquittal of him from the guilt he had assumed.
The meaning cannot be that he was acquitted from sin, for he had no sin, but that he
was acquitted from a liability to suffer. His resurrection was a public declaration
that his sufferings were accepted for sinners, .and that therefore he was under no

178 NATURE OF THE ATONEMENT. [PART I.
The atonement, viewed as thus accepted, secured the pardon of believ
ers ; and in going thus far and no further it exactly answered, as we
shall see in the next chapter, all the purposes ever ascribed to the 1SD of
the old dispensation after it was accepted of God.
Thus it was not the same influence which atoned, that insured the
acceptance of the atonement. That which atoned was the sufferings
of the beloved Son inflicted by the Father's hand ; that which insured
the acceptance was the merit of Christ, constituting a claim to a reward
for general obedience, and particularly for making expiation. The com
pletion of the atonement and the security of its acceptance were two
things. One constituted a provision in the Father's bands for moral
agents ; the other appertained to Christ's reward, and merely transferred
the provision to his hands, by securing to him the pardon of all who
would believe.
(5) The merit of obedience gave to the Redeemer a covenant claim
to be honored and gratified by that open recognition of him and explana
tion of the design of his death which gave it a bearing upon public law
and the relations of men ; which declared its acceptance, and fairly placed
mankind on what we call probation. The removal of the vail which
had concealed his glory and the design of his death from men, and the
whole annunciation of him to the world by his resurrection and the
promised mission of the Spirit, l)elonged to the Father. His obedience
" unto death " entitled him to be thus pubbcly acknowledged and offered
to the world. That obedience was terminated when he said on the
cross, " It is finished." This was the last act by which he yielded
himself to the ignominy of the sepulchre, which was to consummate his
atonement. Now he became entitled to burst from the vail which had
enclosed him. He who, in obedience to the Father, had studiously con
cealed himself that he might accomplish his humiliation ; who, content
with furnishing just evidence enough to support a general faith, had often
charged men not to make him known, and particularly had commanded
those who witnessed the manifestation of his sonship and future glory on
Mount Tabor, " Tell the vision to no man until the Son of man be risen
again from the dead," Matt. 17 : 9, was now entitled to be " declared the
necessity or obligation to suffer further. In this scnso he was acquitted as the repre
sentative of others ; or, in plain language, his atonement was accepted as the ground
of the pardon of those who would believe. His resurrection was furthermore a public
attestation of his personal acceptance, as one who had obeyed and become entitled to
the reward. It has been said, that, if his sacrifico had not been accepted, he never
would have loft the sepulchre. This needs explanation. Had not his sacrifice been
accepted, it would have proved that he had not obeyed, and then he must have suf
fered the full penalty of the law, and, of course, could not have left the sepulchre at
that time, nor ever with glory.

CHAP. IV.] OBEDIENCE OF CHRIST. 179
Son of God with power — by the resurrection," Rom. 1:4; and to
receive that Spirit whose inspiration should make him fully known, first
to the disciples on the day of Pentecost, and then to the world on the
evangelic page. Never till then did the dearest of his disciples know
enough to say, " God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten
Son, that whosoever bebeveth in him should not perish, but have ever
lasting life." This public explanation, which carried in it an offer and
conditional promise of life to the world, — which laid a foundation for
faith, and actually placed men on probation, — was an essential part pf his
reward. Thus a state of probation, with all the offers and promises
which it involves, was procured for the world by the merit of the Re
deemer. Thus we are gradually sliding into the consideration of that positive
good which could not, consistently with the highest honor of law, be issued
to the world otherwise than as the reward of Christ. All that was nega
tive, or related to a mere deliverance from the' curse, might have been
granted on the ground of the atonement had Christ not been in existence
to be gratified and honored by it. Not so with positive good. It was a
law of the first covenant, that no positive good should proceed from God
but in approbation of a righteousness perfect for the time the subject had
been in existence. This principle, as I hope to show in the Appendix,
was not to be given up. And by contriving to measure out all the posi
tive good intended for the human race as a reward to Christ, the princi
ple was preserved. And if the whole of that good followed as the effect
of his work, and was honorable and gratifying to him, we have public
evidence that the whole was to him a reward. We have seen that a state
of probation, with all the offers and promises which it involves, apper
tained to his reward ; and we have equal evidence that all the privileges
and comforts fitted to such a state came in the same way. If Christ is
the " Heir of all things," Heb. 1 : 2, and if the all things which constitute
his inheritance are as extensive as the interest which he was empowered
to manage, or the all things in heaven and earth over which he was ap
pointed to rule ; if his inheritance comprehends all that which constituted
him " the First-born of every creature," and gave him " in all things —
the •preeminence," and all that by which he was made " better than the
angels," and " obtained a more excellent name than they," to wit, the
name of the Son of God, Col. 1 : 15-20. Heb. 1:4; then there is noth
ing on earth which is not included in his inheritance. If, furthermore, he
received the whole inheritance of a Son for his filial conduct, as the Ap
pendix will prove, then he obtained the whole by the merit of his obedi
ence. And if, lastly, this whole portion of a Son was committed to him,
not for his own private use, but for the benefit of those who actually par-

180 NATURE OF THE ATONEMENT. [PART I.
take of it, then all the blessings which the universal race enjoy, as they
come from God, are grounded on the obedience of Christ, and pass to
mankind through him.
It is often said, that positive blessings come to us for Christ's sake, or
out of respect to his righteousness : what meaning can there be in these
expressions other than what has now been explained ? If a positive bless
ing is bestowed out of respect to Christ's righteousness, it is the reward
of his righteousness. If it is not the reward of his righteousness, how is
it bestowed for his sake ? This general principle being settled, 1 proceed
to say,(G) That the merit of his obedience obtained for him the gift of faith
to the elect. No truth is more clearly set forth in the Scriptures, than
that the raising up of a holy seed was an essential part of the reward of
his obedience " unto death." " When thou shalt make his soul an offer
ing for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleas
ure of the Lord shall prosper in his hand. He shall see of the travail of
his soul and shall be satisfied. By his knowledge shall my righteous
servant justify many, for he shall bear their iniquities. Therefore will I
divide him a portion with the great, and he shall divide the spoil with the
strong, because he hath poured out his soul unto death." Is. 53 : 10-12.
Thus, his obedience " unto death," like travail pains, was to bring forth a
numerous seed, in other words, was to procure the sanctification of his
elect. After a prophetic account of his death in the second Psalm, there
is subjoined a promise of reward : " Yet have I set my King upon my
holy hill of Zion. I will declare the decree : The Lord hath said unto
me, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee. Ask of me and I
shall give thee the heathen for thine inheritance, and the uttermost parts
of the earth for thy possession." Thus the inheritance of a Son, received
for his filial obedience, includes a redeemed kingdom, a holy seed. The
same truth is taught in many other places. " Thou spakest in vision to
thy Holy One, and saidst, I have laid help upon One that is mighty I
have exalted One chosen out of the people. He shall cry unto me, Thou
art my Father [that is, be shall be my Son]. Also I will make him my
First-born [my Heir], higher than the kings of the earth. His seed also
will I make to endure for ever, and his throne as the days of heaven."
Ps. 2 : 6-8. 89 : 3-37. But there is no need of multiplying quota
tions ; his kingdom of redeemed subjects, received as the reward of his
obedience " unto death," forms the leading topic of the Old Testament
and the New.
Thus the gift of faith to the elect is Christ's reward. But this is not
all : it could not be bestowed in any other way in consistency with the
highest honor of the law. The sanctifying Spn-it is a positive good if

CHAP. IV.] OBEDIENCE OF CHRIST. 181
there is any positive good in the universe ; and therefore, according to
the principle established in Eden, was not to be granted but as the reward
of a perfect righteousness. In the first moment of Adam's existence, the
necessity of the case required that the Spirit should be given him not as
a reward. During his probation, and while a claim to eternal life was
not estabbshed, the Spirit was not indeed due to him as a reward, and
might, as the event proved, be withheld, even before he had sinned : yet
during that period it could not be bestowed but in approbation of a right
eousness perfect for the time the subject had been in existence ; because
as soon as the first sin arose, and approbation ceased to be entire, it could
be bestowed no longer. Had Adam remained faithful during his proba
tion, the Spirit would have been eternally given him as a covenanted re
ward. And then the first motion of sanctifying power on his infant son,
would have been the reward of the perfect righteousness of the father ;
and all subsequent motions would have been the reward both of father
and son. It is exactly so in respect to the Second Adam. In the first
moment of his existence under law, the necessity of the case required
that the Spirit should be given him not as a reward. During his proba
tion, and before his claim was established, the Spirit could not be given
him but in approbation of a righteousness perfect for the time he had
been under law. After his probation was closed, he had an eternal claim
to the action of the Spirit upon his human nature as a reward. And now
the first motion of sanctifying grace on those who were given him for a
seed is solely his reward ; subsequent motions are a legal reward to him,
and a gracious reward to them. In the case of both Adams, the honor
of the law required that the Spirit should be given to the seed only as the
legal reward of the federal Parent ; that the principle of granting no pos
itive good till the law had first received the homage of obedience, might
be preserved.
We shall now be able to make a clear distinction between the provis
ion for moral agents in relation to pardon, and the influence which se
cures the gift of faith. Whatever renders the sins of men pardonable if
they will bebeve, and especially that which secures to • them pardon if
they do believe, is certainly a complete provision for them as moral
agents in relation to pardon. You may put into that provision whatever
you please, and still a provision for the pardon of men if they as agents
will bebeve, is entirely distinct from the personal claim of Christ to the
gift of faith to them as mere passive receivers of sanctifying impressions.
But the matter of the provision, as I have considered it, is entirely dif
ferent from the matter of the claim. That which renders sin pardonable
is the mere sufferings of the beloved Son inflicted by the Father's hand ;
that which constitutes the claim of Christ to the gift of faith is the merit
16

182 NATURE OF THE ATONEMENT. [PART I.
of his obedience ; as wide a difference as between passion and action.
Or if you bring in the testimony of obedience to render sin pardonable,
Still there is a manifest difference between the testimony which obedience
gives out, and the intrinsic merit of it which claims a reward. In both
views, that which renders the sins of believers pardonable is wholly dis
tinct from that which secures the gift of faith. But you say, if the pro
vision for pardon is considered as embracing all that which renders the
pardon of believers certain, the claim of merit enters mto the provision,
for it was merit which insured the acceptance of the sufferings. True,
but it was merit claiming a different reward from the gift of faith. The
same merit may insure the acceptance of the sufferings, and thus place
the provision for pardon in the hands of Christ, by making sure to him
the remission of all who will bebeve, and may also secure the gift of
faith ; but it is merit in two distinct operations, and in two operations
which are separated in fact : for who will doubt that the sufferings were
so accepted for some that they would be pardoned if they would believe,
who yet never receive the gift of faith ? But, however similar the mat
ter of the provision may be to that of the claim, yet a provision for the
pardon of men if they will believe is wholly different from the claim of
Christ to the gift of faith. Whether the atonement includes the provis
ion only, or the provision and claim, is not now the question ; but let the
distinction between the two be marked and remembered.
Thus the influence of merit is directly concerned in the application of
the atonement, or in bringing about actual pardon. This is the last
effect of obedience as it stands related to the covering of sin. Here I
might close the chapter ; but from a wish to exhibit all the offices of
obedience at one view, I will proceed in a cursory manner to its bearing
on our positive happiness and the exaltation of Christ.
(7) As a very important part of the reward of the Redeemer, the merit
of obedience obtained for him the sure and complete salvation of all who
once believe, including all the positive blessings of the life that now is
and of that which is to come. This will be largely proved in the Appen
dix. All positive good was given him as his reward, and thus proceeded
from God on the original principle of Eden. But it was not given him
for bis own private use, but for the benefit of men ; to be partly bestowed
on the race at large in comforts fitted to a state of probation, and to be in
a higher sense offered to all, and actually given to some as a final good.
Given to whom ? For whom did he receive the final good ? Here let it
be distinctly remarked, that as the reward was bestowed for the public
and official obedience of Christ, the grant was of course public (to make
an open exhibition of his reward and his influence on the happiness of
mankind), and was no part of that secret contract wliich selected the in-

CHAP. IV.] OBEDIENCE OF CHRIST. 183
dividuals of the elect. In that public grant, the good that was to be
offered to men, and to be bestowed on them- "as a gracious reward was
not made over to him for the benefit of the elect as such, or for the un
believing elect, but for believers, the members of his body, the church.
This public grant of the outward parts of the inheritance took no notice
of elect or non-elect, but only of believers, the body of Christ. All
things were detached from Godhead and made over to him for the ulti-
mate use of his body. This form of the grant accomplished two things.
First, it grounded the positive happiness of bebevers on his obedience.
They partake of his reward as "joint-heirs " with him who is the " Heir
of all things." Secondly, it brought the all things into a new relation to
a whole world of moral agents. A grant made for the benefit of bebev
ers was a grant made for the benefit of all who would believe ; leaving
all at liberty to share in it if they would do their duty, and becoming
thus a grant for all as moral agents. This was not a provision by which
all or any as passive receivers might obtain the first gift of faith, but it
was a provision by which all as agents might receive the whole amount
of positive good as a gracious reward for believing and obeying. In
that grant was contained the public ministration of the Spirit, not for the
benefit of all as mere passive receivers of sanctifying impressions, but for
the use of all as moral agents, to give them convicting light (such as is
adapted to present motives to agents), and to be offered to them in its
highest operations as an unalienable good, if they humbly and believingly
seek it. There was a provision, then, in this grant, for the continued
sanctification of Simon Magus, if he as an agent would once believe,
though not for his regeneration as a mere passive receiver of sanctifying
impressions. And this new relation to a world of moral agents of the all
things of which Christ is Heir, was a part of his reward. He was re
warded by that grant which drew the new relation after it, and which
without that circumstance would not have been the same reward. Thus
the merit of Christ's obedience procured eternal life and all positive good
for the race at large, in the highest sense in which they could be pro
cured for mere moral agents ; that is, for creatures not to be acted upon
by sanctifying influence except as a reward to themselves. Accord
ingly a part of that good, viz., a state of probation with all the means
and comforts which it involves, is for his sake conferred on the race at
large, and the rest is offered to all as what he procured for them in such
a sense that it is to be theirs if they will make it their own.
These points, I hope, will present themselves to those who are
acquainted with the sacred page, as self-evident truths. If not, I must
rely on the proof to be exhibited that such a provision for all as agents
was made in the atonement ; for it is not the object of this treatise to go

184 NATURE OF THE ATONEMENT. [PART I.
beyond the expiation ; and none will doubt, if suffering made provision
for all as agents in reference to their pardon, that obedience made an
equally extensive provision in relation to their positive happiness.
Indeed, many of the texts which I shall bring to prove so extensive a
provision in the atonement, equally prove the other part; but I shall
quote them only to establish the former point. And this notice I give
once for all, that I may not seem to quote passages with inattention to a
part of their meaning.
Thus this public grant to Christ for the benefit of believers, consti
tuted a provision for a whole world of moral agents. This was its first
and simplest operation. But besides this provision for agents, there was
another part of Christ's reward which related to sanctifying impressions
on mere passive receivers. This, in general, was promised him in the
public covenant, as we have seen ; but the, individuals who were to be
the subjects of these impressions were fixed in a secret compact,
altogether distinct from that from which the public transactions took
their nature and their bearing upon public law, and relating merely to
Christ's reward. In virtue of that secret compact, altogether distinct
from that on which both parts of the provision for moral agents were
founded, the elect were caused to believe, and were thus brought into
that state where all the provisions and promises could act upon them,
and where others also, had they of their own accord believed, would
have found the same provisions.
And now, if you ask about the secret purposes of the divine mind,
the blessings of that grant were specially intended for the elect ; but if
you inquire about the form of the public instrument, the blessings were
delivered to Christ for all abke.
(8) The merit of obedience gave to the Redeemer a covenant claim
to the administration of his Father's government, with all the pubbe
honors which surround his throne. That government, which he desired
and considers a reward, he exercises, not only over mere passive
receivers of sanctifying impressions (quickening whom he will), but over
a world of moral agents, offering them indiscriminately the benefits of
his purchase, and commanding, inviting, promising, threatening, reward
ing, and punishing, as though they were independent of the Spirit.
This new and more benign government over a world of moral agents,
founded on those new relations which his work had established, it was an
important object with him to administer, as calculated to bring out to
view the riches of the divine nature, and to promote the happiness of
the universe. This was the ultimate end of those provisions for moral
agents which the omniscience of God foresaw would, in many instances,
through the misconduct of men, fail to prove an ultimate blessing.

CHAP. IV.] OBEDIENCE OF CHRIST. 185
Thus the parts of Christ's reward were, first, the acceptance of the
atonement ; secondly, that public recognition of him and explanation of
the design of his death which laid a foundation for faith ; thirdly, the
gift of faith to the elect ; fourthly, the grant of all positive good for the
use of men as probationers, and in a higher sense for as many as would
believe, constituting a provision for a world of moral agents ; fifthly, the
administration of his Father's government, particularly over a race of
agents brought into a new relation to God. By this enumeration we
may learn what reward was promised to Christ in the covenant of
redemption. If he had a claim to each of these parts, we know that his
claims could be founded on nothing but contract. Either, then, all these
things were promised, or God bestows sovereign rewards for which the
recipient has no claim. Against the latter alternative I allege, first,
that, so far as we can judge, there was the same reason why the whole
reward should be promised as a part, — why the whole influence and
effect of Christ's work should be settled by covenant as that a part
should be. Secondly, the whole reward was legal and conferred by the
Lawgiver ; and it is according to the principles of a legal government to
promise the whole reward beforehand. Thirdly, if it was important for
the honor of the law that all positive good should be known. to be
issued as Christ's reward, it would tend to make a more distinct im
pression of this truth, to have it understood that all had been promised
him as his reward. Fourthly, whatever God saw beforehand would be
a suitable reward to Christ, and was determined to confer, must, have
been known to the Son ; and the only difference between promising and
not promising related to the bond ; and why a part of what both divine
persons knew to be a suitable reward, and knew would be conferred,
should be exempted from the bond which fixed the other part, no one I
believe can conceive. Fifthly, every part of the reward was promised
in general terms in the revelation made to the church. And why
greater promises should be made in public than had been made in
private, it would be hard to tell. On the whole, we may safely conclude
that Christ had a covenant claim to every part of his reward, and that
the reward itself discloses what the covenant was. The light thus cast
upon the covenant of redemption, I shall have occasion to make use of
in a subsequent part. 16*

186 NATURE OF THE ATONEMENT. [PART I.

CHAPTER V.
ATONEMENT NOT RECONCILIATION.
The chief design of this chapter is to fix the meaning of the word
atonement, and to separate that part of Christ's influence which falls
under this name from all the rest.
We are reconciled by the atonement, because that is the ground of
our reconciliation ; but atonement is not itself reconciliation or pardon,
neither does it contain the influence which secures reconcibation.
I. Atonement is not itself reconciliation or pardon. For then either
no atonement was made for Paul before his conversion, or he was
pardoned while in a state of settled rebellion. The former will not be
said, the latter cannot be true. At the time of his conversion, he was
exhorted to be baptized and to " wash away " his " sins." Then for the
first time he " obtained mercy," and found that so far from being par
doned from eternity, he had escaped the unpardonable sin only by
acting "ignorantly in unbebef." Acts 22 : 16. 1 Tim.l : 13, 16.
It is indeed said that " when we were enemies we were reconciled to
God by the death of his Son," Rom. 5: 10 ; but this can only mean that
when we were in a state of enmity and condemnation, we were arrested
and brought into a state of holiness and justification. It cannot mean
that we were justified while enemies ; for the great object of the Epistle,
and of the context itself, is to prove, not justification without faith, but
justification by faith.
This dream of eternal justification has no support in the Word of God.
We read indeed of the decree of election, and of a seed given to Christ
before the foundation of the world ; but these were not eternal justi
fication. Condemnation and justification express the relations and actual
treatment of moral agents, which cannot be older than the existence of
creatures ; that decree and promise regarded the elect in the light of
mere passive receivers of sanctifying impressions. The latter apper
tained to the covenant of redemption ; justification takes place under the
covenant of grace. Those were a purpose and promise respecting men ;
this the actual treatment of men. It was eternally purposed and
promised that the elect as passive should be regenerated, and that when
they should bebeve they should be justified by faith, a privilege which
was to be common to all if they would believe. All that was peculiar
to the elect in the purpose or promise respected them as passive,
but justification respects men as agents. To make that peculiar thing
justification, is utterly confounding the two characters of men, and what

CHAP. V.] ATONEMENT NOT RECONCILIATION. 187
I shall hereafter have occasion to call the two corresponding departments
of divine operations. It is speaking of one department in the language
of the other, and ascribing to one the acts of the other ; and is as incon
sistent and as expressive of falsehood, as for Paul to have addressed a
Jewish synagogue as one speaking to a Roman senate, giving titles, and
alluding to facts as present which existed only at Rome.
Or if you insist that the distinctive purpose and promise respected the
elect as agents, and secured to them as such a privilege which other
agents would not enjoy, still it was not eternal justification. Was it the
eternal purpose and promise that they should be justified ? So it was
the eternal purpose and promise that they should exist, and that they
should believe : but did they exist and believe ,from eternity ? They
could not be justified in Christ before they had sinned and were con
demned : and did they sin and were they condemned from eternity ?
Eternally condemned and eternally justified ! An eternal design to
justify was no more eternal justification, than an eternal design to
create was eternal creation. You might as well talk of the eternal en
actment of the law, or the eternal mission of the Spirit.
The universal language of Scripture is, that justification is in time. In
Abraham's day the justification of the Gentiles was yet future. " The
Scripture foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith,
preached before the gospel unto Abraham, saying, In thee shall all
nations be blessed." Gal 3 : 8. Even the prediction and promise were
not justification.
There never was any agreement or understanding between the sacred
persons either in heaven or on Calvary, that agents should be justified
until as agents they had believed. Christ never stipulated that men
should be justified from eternity, but died that they might be justified
after their effectual calling. " For this cause he is the Mediator of the
new testament, that by means of death for the redemption of the trans
gressions that were under the first testament, they which are called [not
they which were elected], might receive the promise of eternal inheri
tance." The order of links in the golden chain is this : " Whom he
did predestinate, them he also called ; and whom he called, them he also
justified." Rom. 8:30. Heb. 9 : 15. The whole doctrine of justification
by faith lies with the weight of a world on the same side.
The elect themselves before their conversion, instead of being justified,
are actually under condemnation. It is expressly affirmed that they
are "by nature the children of wrath even as others." The first
motion of faith in every instance (among adults), is the boundary be
tween a state of condemnation and justification. "He that bebeveth —
is not condemned, but he that believeth not is condemned already." " As

•

188 NATURE OF THE ATONEMENT. [PART I.
many as are of the works of the law [which is explained to mean, as
many as have not faith], are under the curse." Accordingly pardon is
everywhere placed after repentance. " Let the wicked forsake his way,
and the unrighteous man his thoughts, and let him return unto the
Lord and he will have mercy upon him, and to our God for he
will abundantly pardon." " After those days, saith the Lord, I will put
my law in their inward parts, and will be their God ; for I will forgive
their iniquity." What else is implied in prayers for pardon offered
up in time ? What else can be meant by actual remission in answer
to prayer ? What else by God's being now " ready to pardon," and by
the exhortation to sinners " to flee from the wrath to. come ? " What
by the parables of the publican, and the prodigal son ? Paul was
sent to turn the Gentiles from the power of Satan unto God, that they
" might receive forgiveness of sins." The whole consistory of apostles
were sent forth to preach " repentance and remission of sins," and to
say, " Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus
Christ for the remission of sins." " Him hath God exalted, to give
repentance to Israel and forgiveness of sins." " Bepent ye, therefore,
and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out." " Repent of this
thy wickedness, and pray God, if perhaps the thought of thy heart may
be forgiven thee." Ex. 34: 9. Num. 14: 20. 2 Chron. 30: 18. Neh. 9:
17. Ps. 25 : 11. Isa. 55 : 7. Jer. 31 : 31-34. 33 : 8. Luke 3:7. 15 : 11-
32. 18 : 13, 14. 24: 47. John 3 : 18. Acts 2 : 38. 3 : 19. 5 : 31. 8 : 22.
26 : 18. Rom. 3 : 28. Gal. 3 : 10. Eph. 2 : 3. James 5:15. 1 John 1 : 9.
Thus the elect themselves plainly lie under condemnation until (if
adults) they believe. Though in relation to them as passive receivers
of sanctifying impressions, there was a decree and promise that they
should receive faith, yet as agents (and as such only do they bear any
relation to the law, its precept, threatening, or promise, to sin, condem
nation, pardon, justification, punishment, or reward) they are not justi
fied till they believe.
Nor could it possibly have comported with the honor of the law for
any atonement, let it consist in what it might, or for any thing else, to
have procured remission for men, and cast over them the shield of
impunity, while continuing to trample the law in the dust, and spurning
the expedient devised for its support. This would have ruined the
law and defeated the very end of the atonement, which was to convince
the universe that transgressors should not go unpunished. Instead of
pronouncing in the ears of the whole creation that the breakers of the
law in all worlds and ages should die, it would have proclaimed im
punity to rebellion in all its maddest and most confirmed ravings. No
atonement could protect a single impenitent sinner, and pronounce upon

CHAP. V.] . ATONEMENT NOT RECONCILIATION. 189
him that he should never be punished, without losing the whole expres
sion which it was intended to make. Look at the case of the prince
of Wales. Why did he die ? To make a deep impression on the mul
titude that no counterfeiter should ever escape. Suppose that his death
and the covenant connected with it had bound the arm of government
not to strike the ten criminals though going on in their old ways, and
had thus let them loose to counterfeit with impunity. When these
culprits stalk abroad untouched, and drive their nefarious trade from
year to year without a frown, who is convinced by the death of the
prince that the law is to have its complete dominion, and that all
future counterfeiters shall die ? Instead of awing transgressors, his
death has thrown the reins upon their neck and completely ruined
the law.
Thus whatever respect the atonement might have to the elect as des
tined to be receivers of sanctifying impressions, it could not break the
relation to condemnation which they as agents sustained, and pronounce
them acquitted, until (if adults) they had believed. It was not therefore
reconciliation, provided a complete atonement for Paul existed before
Paul believed.
II. Nor does the atonement contain the influence which secures rec
onciliation. As it could not justify unbebevers, it had no way to secure
reconciliation but by insuring the gift of faith. And this is what is gen
erally ascribed to it by those who talk of its reconcibng power. The
great question then is, does the atonement by its own proper influence
secure the gift of faith ?
This at once calls upon us to decide what the atonement is, and how
much of the influence of Christ falls under this name. Our own opinion
is, that the name is applicable only to that which answered the end of
punishment, by showing the universe that God would support his law by
executing its penalty on transgressors ; which thus secured the authority
of the law and satisfied its Protector, and besides removing the curse of
abandonment, reconciled with the honor of the law the pardon of believ
ers (whether of all indiscriminately who would believe, or of those only
who it was foreseen would believe) ; which thus removed the legal
impediments to the acquittal of bebevers, and rendered their sins pardon
able, and so became the ground of pardon. Such an influence, separated
from that which secures the gift of faith, was to Paul before his conver
sion (aside from its bearing on his regeneration by removing the curse
of abandonment), nothing but a provision for a moral agent, presenting
to him a ground on which he might be pardoned if he would believe, and
taking away the penal bar to his continued sanctification, but having no
power to secure the gift of faith. Standing by itself, it had simply

190 NATURE OF THE ATONEMENT. [PART I.
changed his relations as an agent, and as it bore on pardon, had merely
rendered his sins pardonable if he would perform his duty, and pardona
ble on no other terms. And after his conversion, it was such a provision
applied, and became the ground on which a sinning agent was pardoned,
and so far as related to the curse of abandonment, the ground on which
he continued to be sanctified.*
Here, then, is a mighty change wrought in the relations of moral
agents (whether of a part or the whole of mankind I am not now in
quiring), distinct from every thing relating to the same creatures as mere
passive subjects of regeneration. The influence which produced this
change was certainly distinct from that which related to mere recipients
of regenerating power, though both should be allowed to have existed in
the same thing. Now what shall we call this influence ? It is so distin
guishable in its effects, and at the same time so important, that it de
serves a separate name, and ought not to be lost in general appellations.
What name shall we give it ? Is it not in fact the cover for sin ? Then
we must call it the atonement. And then the atonement is that which
changes the relations of moral agents in reference to a release from the
curse, and not that which procures the positive gift of the Spirit to pas
sive recipients.
This is our idea of the atonement : but whether it is correct or not de
pends on the question whether the atonement contains that influence
which secures the gift of faith. In this and the foregoing chapters I have
been separating and shaping materials for the decision of this question.
Let us see to what they amount.
We have found that the atonement is the cover for sin, by which is
meant that it hides or is adapted to hide sin so from view that it will not
be punished ; that, therefore, it came in the room of punishment and
answered the same end, or was adapted to come in the room of punish
ment and to answer the same end ; that that end was to support the law
by convincing the universe that God would punish transgression ; that
the means of this conviction were the sufferings of the beloved Son in
flicted by the Father's hand, which therefore constituted the matter of
the atonement ; that when the end of punishment was thus answered,
the Protector of the law was satisfied, and the legal impediments to par-
* The removal of tho curso of abandonment, though even as it bore on regeneration
it took away what agents had caused, was no part of a provision for agents but as it
removed the penal bar to the gift of the Spirit on their doing their duty. A provision
for agents is not that wliich undoes what agents have done, but that which agents may
improve, and the effects of which depend on their improvement as a sine qua non.
This removal, as it took away the penal bar to the regeneration of Paul, was not a
provision for an agent ; as it removed the penal bar to the gift of the Spirit on his
faithfully seeking it, it was.

CHAP. V.] ATONEMENT NOT RECONCILIATION. 191
don were removed ; that the result of this was that the sins of believers,
and of none else, were pardonable, and God could forgive them without
injuring the law, but was not obliged till another influence, a promise
made to the obedience of Christ, had created the bond ; that atonement
is distinguishable from its covenanted acceptance, it being that which
came from the Son and satisfied the Father, and not the security given
by the Father to the Son that believers should be pardoned on that
ground ; that this ground on which men might be pardoned, viewed as
already believing, could not be the influence which secures the gift of
faith ; that the atonement therefore, separate from its covenanted ac
ceptance, was, in relation to those for whom it was made, a mere provis
ion in the hands of the Father for moral agents, rendering it possible for
him to pardon them when they should believe ; and that its covenanted
acceptance merely placed that provision for moral agents in the hands of
Christ, by securing to him the pardon, on that ground, of _ all who would
bebeve. Besides this connected chain whose links seem indissoluble, we
haVe found that an entirely different influence, constituted not by suffer
ings, not by any thing which answered in the room of punishment, not
by any thing which is the ground of pardon, but by the merit of obedi
ence, and consisting in a claim to a reward, obtained the gift of faith for
the elect.
Not only are we led to this conclusion by the general chain, but there
is something in almost every link which indicates the same thing.
(1) The measure in question is an atonement. From the accepted
use of its Engbsh name I draw an argument. To atone, is to make
amends for an offence, that the offender may be pardoned as he is,- or is
capable of being, not that the appeased may fit him for pardon.
(2) The measure is a cover for sin : but what has a cover for sin to
do with securing the gift of faith ? Where no sin exists God is not
obliged to sanctify, unless be has bound himself by covenant. When no sin
existed in heaven or Eden, he ceased to sanctify, because he had promised
to continue his influence. When sin was actually covered, so far as it
bore on the question of sanctification, that is, when the penalty of aban
donment was taken wholly away, he was under no obligation to bestow
the gift of faith. One hinderance to sanctification was thus removed, but
no obligation to sanctify was created. And this is not all. The mere
cover for sin could not even render the gift of faith consistent with the
honor of the law. Something more than the absence of sin was required
of Adam, after he had entered upon existence, to render the exertion of
sanctifying influence upon his heart consistent with the honor of the law.
He must have a positive righteousness, perfect for the time he had been
in existence, and the influence must be a token that he was thus far ap-

192 NATURE OF THE ATONEMENT. [PART I.
proved ; for the moment he ceased to be approved, the law forbid the in
fluence to be continued. After his probation, had he remained faithful,
the influence would have been for ever granted to him and his seed as the
reward of a perfect righteousness. And the honor of the law required that
it should not be bestowed in any other way. The same principle still
exists ; and as men have not a perfect obedience to show, even after
the sin of disobedience is covered (including all the disobedience of omis
sion itself), they can never be sanctified but as the reward of Christ.
After sin is covered a defect remains, not caused by sin or the presence
of positive evil, but by the absence of positive good ; and that defect the
righteousness of Christ must supply. The mere cover for sin, therefore,
so far from securing the gift of faith, could not even render it consistent
with the honor of the law. It could only remove the penal bar which stood
in the way.
It is equally evident that a cover for sin could only affect the relations
of moral agents. If it covers sin, it only covers what an agent has done ;
for the passive have not sinned. If its whole effect and tendency is to
cover sin, it stretches itself over none but agents, and exhausts all its vir
tue upon their relations. If it bad respect to the relation which sinners
bore to the law, — if its tendency was to free from condemnation and
punishment in a way not injurious to the law, its whole aspect was upon
agents ; for none but agents bore any relation to law, condemnation, pun
ishment, or pardon. No relations but those of agents could possibly be
affected by a cover for sin, except so far as the penalty of abandonment,
which agents had incurred, excluded impressions from the passive. But
even this indirect effect on the passive was produced by changing the
relations of agents, by removing a penal bar which they had raised against
themselves. The cover for sin, then, could touch none but agents. It produced all
its effects by changing their relations. Of course it was designed for no
other purpose. We know from the shape of the garment for whom it was
intended. It was never provided for men as passive, but for men as ac
tive. And now if the atonement is that cover, it was never offered or
accepted for mere recipients of sanctifying ' impressions, but for moral
agents ; not for men as active and passive both ; not at once to render
their sins pardonable and to obtain for them the gift of faith ; but merely
to be the ground of their release from both parts of the curse. Be the
number for whom it was offered greater or less, it was offered for them
only as agents, to take away the penalty of abandonment which they as
ao-ents had incurred, and to render pardonable the sins which they as
agents had committed. To this I add, that it was offered and accepted
with an express understanding that it should be applied to them for par-

CHAP. V.] ATONEMENT NOT RECONCILIATION. 193
don only when as agents they should believe ; and thus the enjoyment of
it was not secured to them as passive and motionless, but was suspended
on their own act as a sine qua non, an act which they were in duty bound
to perform. The only operation which it had on the elect themselves,
besides removing the penalty of abandonment, was to render their pardon
consistent with the honor of the law when they as agents should perform
a reasonable duty by bebeving. And this makes it out to be neither
more nor less (as it related to pardon), than a provision for moral agents.
No matter if by another influence that effort of then- agency was secured ;
the atonement itself, so long as the enjoyment of it depended on their own
conduct, was a mere provision for moral agents.
(3) The atonement, as it stood related to pardon, was adapted to
come in the room of punishment and to answer the same end ; and be
sides removing the curse of abandonment, it had no other use.* But it
could not answer the end of the punishment of a man viewed otherwise
than as already a bebever. Faith must exist, then, before it could accom
plish any part of what it was adapted to accomplish in relation to pardon.
It was no part of its office therefore to secure the existence of faith.
No substitute whatever could answer the end of the punishment of
continued transgressors. This end is to show that God will punish sin,
and to avoid the evil of shielding continued transgression. But no sub
stitute, by protecting Judas in his mad career, could convince the universe
that God would punish sin, or prevent the evil of shielding continued
transgression, but would accompbsh the very thing it was guarding
against. There would have been an end to be answered by the punish
ment of men (besides a bteral exercise of justice), had they repented and
no atonement had been provided for them ; and that would have been to
support the authority of the law by showing that God would punish sin.
That end of the punishment of the penitent and reformed, the atonement
can answer. But there is another end to be accompbshed by punishing
obdurate transgressors ; and that is to avoid casting a shield over those
who continue to trample the law in the dust. This end no atonement can
answer fo as to supply the place of the punishment of such ; for the mo
ment it attempts to do this, it accompbshes the very evil it was intended
to prevent. All that an atonement could do that was to answer exactly
>the end of punishment, was to answer the end of the punishment of a
sinner already reformed. It could have no influence therefore to reform
him. As certainly, then, as the cover for sin (the ground of acquittal from
* I use punishment here for that part of the threatened evil which is set aside by
pardon. The curse of abandonment was really a part of punishment; but for want
of another term, and to avoid circumlocution, I am obliged to use the word here in this.
restricted sense. 17

194 NATURE OF THE ATONEMENT. [PART I,
the curse), besides removing the penalty of abandonment, could do no
more than answer the end of punishment, the atonement could not secure
the gift of faith. And its being adapted to answer the purpose of the
punishment of a man whenever he wrill believe, constitutes it in relation
to him a provision for a moral agent.
But the theory which assigns to the atonement a power to obtain
sanctifying grace, wanders out of the way and draws in an influence
which, instead of answering the end of punishment (for the merit of
one, we have seen, cannot answer the end of the punishment of another),
lays claim to a reward. That merit by which faith is obtained, can in
no degree come in the room of punishment and help to constitute a pro
vision for moral agents in relation to pardon.
(4) The atonement was made by sufferings, or at most by sufferings
combined with the testimony of obedience : but what influence have suf
ferings, or sufferings and testimony united, detached from the merit
which claims a reward, to obtain the gift of faith ? Or to look at the
thing more generally, how can suffering for another what he deserves to
suffer, make him holy ? To intercept a stroke aimed at another, may
ward it off from him, but what has that to do with changing his heart ?
(5) The atonement removed the legal impediments to pardon. But
this position, which will be' allowed to describe the proper office of the
atonement, does not carry the idea that it removed the bar which unbe
lief raises, but the obstructions which past sins have caused and which
faith cannot put away ; not those which arise from rejecting the gospel,
but those which have arisen from breaking the law. I shall show pres-
"ently that this was all that the IBS of the Old Testament accomplished.
The influence which removes the legal impediments to pardon is iden
tically that which is the ground of pardon, and becomes the ground
merely by removing the impediments. But the merit which secures the
gift of faith does not, as we have seen, answer the end of punishment so
as to become the ground of pardon. Nor does the claim which it sup
ports on God for a gift, render pardon consistent with the honor of the
law. The gift itself is no part of the ground of remission. In the pub
lic instrument of the covenant of grace, the exercise of faith is made the
condition of pardon ; but even that is not the ground : much less is the
gift of faith, and still less can a claim to that gift, or the merit which
supports the claim, be that ground.
If, then, the atonement is that which removes the legal impediments to
pardon, and thus becomes the ground of remission, it is entirely distinct
from the influence which secures the gift of faith.
(6) The atonement is that which satisfies God as Protector of the
authority of the law. In that character (and in that only can the satis-

CHAP. V.] ATONEMENT NOT RECONCILIATION. 195
faction be predicated of him), he was satisfied when the end of the pun
ishment of believers (and of men in no other character can it be said),
was so answered that the law was safe though they were pardoned.
That satisfaction of course had nothing to do with making believers. It
was the state of finding the sufferings to have answered the end of the
punishment of men (whether applicable to the whole or a part), viewed
as already believing, or the state of finding the sins of believers pardon
able. That satisfaction certainly was not produced by any merit sup
porting a claim on the Father for an influence to make believers, for
they are already believers. Besides, to establish a claim against a per
son, is a strange way to satisfy him for an offence. To oblige another
to satisfy me, is not to satisfy him. It was not merit, as we have seen,
which reconciled remission with the honor of the law ; and certainly it
was not a claim to the gift of faith which rendered the sins of believers
pardonable. Nor could it result from that satisfaction, in itself consid
ered, that faith would ever be bestowed. Because the sins of believers
were pardonable, it did not follow that God was bound to make men
believe. And that which so secured the law as to make the sins of
believers pardonable, fully satisfied the Protector of the law. If the
law was safe he had gained his point, and had not to wait for a claim to
be established against himself before he could be satisfied. He was sat
isfied in the security of his law if never called upon to bestow a gift on
men. And that relation of things which satisfaction implied, was com
plete though none were ever to bebeve ; for though none ever believed,
it would still be true that believers might be pardoned without injuring
the law.
If, then, atonement was the influence which satisfied the Protector of
the law, and rendered the sins of bebevers pardonable, it was not
atonement which secured the gift of faith.
(7) The gift of faith to the elect was Christ's reward, conferred for
the merit of his obedience " unto death," that is, for making atonement.
There is a distinction to be set up between the atonement and the
reward for making atonement, no less clear than between a day's work
and its wages. And there is an equal distinction to be drawn between
the influence of the atonement and the claim to the reward, no less
obvious than between the influence of a physician upon his patient and
his title to a fee. Atonement exerted its influence upon God's law, and
spread itself as a covering over shining agents; the claim of Christ
exerted itself upon God's promise, and stood related to passive receivers
of sanctifying impressions. The influence of the atonement was a cover
which men might carry home with them, and wrap around them ; the
claim of Christ remained in himself, and could not be transferred. The

196 NATURE OF THE ATONEMENT. , [PART I.
influence of the atonement upon the elect themselves (allowing them to
have been the only objects), was distinct from the claim of Christ to
their renewal and consequent salvation.
But you say, all this is not what we mean. We admit that the
influence which secures the gift of faith is no parf; of that which an
swered the end of punishment, which removed the legal impediments to
pardon, which satisfied the Protector of the law in relation to the
remission of sins, which is the ground of pardon, which spent itself on
the relations of moral agents, and constituted a provision for them. All
this we admit, has nothing to do with the actual gift of faith. But then
the cover of sin cannot accomplish its end till sin is covered or pardoned ;
and it cannot secure pardon unless it obtains the gift of faith. We must,
therefore, give the word a wider meaning, and apply it to a sufficient
part of Christ's influence to secure that gift. But where, I ask, is the
authority for this ? Not in the name ; for that, we have seen, cannot
decide whether the thing is the cover of sin, or only a cover for sin.
Where, then, is the proof that atonement, by its own separate influence,
secures actual pardon ? You say, " The Hebrew word for atonement
signifies to cover ; and when sins in the-Old Testament are spoken of as
atoned, the meaning always is that they were covered, removed, never
to be charged on the person who committed them. A transaction which
only renders it possible for sin to be pardoned is no atonement, what
ever else it may be." *
This is a point not to be passed over without a distinct examination.
Every one acquainted with the Hebrew language knows that the same
word runs into different meanings, preserving some general analogy to
the original one, but going off through several gradations until resem
blance is almost lost ; and that .two or more branches of meaning
sometimes start from the same root, subdividing into other ramifications.
The radical meaning of IBS, the Hebrew word for atonement, is to
cover. From this root several branches proceed, one of which relates
to atonement. I will exhibit three uses of the word, and leave it to the
reader to judge whether they belong to the same branch.
I. It is used in its primary sense, and without any express reference
to the typical expiations. Thus it signifies to cover or blot out a
covenant, Isa. 28 : 18 ; to cover or blot out sin by pardon, Deut. 21 : 8.
2 Chron. 30: 18. Ps. 65: 3. 78: 38. 79: 9. Prov. 16: 6. Isa. 6: 7.
22 : 14. 27 : 9. Jer. 18 : 23. And hence it is used for a disposition to
* A manuscript which has been transcribed by many hands and widely circulated,
must be considered so far publishod as to be the proper subject of remark, and liable
to bo quoted, though without u reference or a name. This is my vindication for
thoso quotations through the book which acknowledge no author.

CHAP. V.] ATONEMENT NOT RECONCILIATION. 197
pardon, a merciful temper and conduct towards offenders, Deut. 21 : 8 ;
and hence for a reconciled state of feeling, Ezek. 16 : 63. Is it certain
that either of these uses of the word has any reference to the application
of the same word to the typical expiations ? Supposing the English
name for atonement was cover, and you should read, " Blessed is he
whose transgression is forgiven, whose sin is covered," would you
certainly infer that the term in this verse was derived from the name of
the atonement, or had any reference to it? Knot, the above uses of the
word throw no light on the meaning of IBS when appbed to the
atonement II. It is used in two senses (evidently borrowed from the expiations,
but applied to other matters), for a means or operation effectual or
ineffectual as the case might be.
(1) The general idea suggested by those expiations was that of life
offered for bfe that the latter life might be preserved. Whether, that
the life might be preserved absolutely, or only that there might be a
provision to preserve it, to take effect upon certain conditions, was of no
importance as respected the general* character of the transactions. In
either way there was life offered for bfe that bfe might be preserved.
This was enough (whichever way it was) to give currency to the use
of the word for whatever was offered to God or man in lieu of bfe,
whether absolutely or otherwise; for it was not the absoluteness or
conditionabty of the offerings which connected them with the word, but
their being in one way or other offered for bfe. Hence the word is
used to denote a ransom given in the room of life to cover or shield bfe ;
and sometimes, where human qualifications were not necessary, or were
supposed to exist, the ransom is contemplated as taking absolute effect ;
Ex. 30: 2, 15, 16. Prov. 13: 8. 21: 18. Isa. 43: 3. In other in
stances it is supposed to be frustrated through some imperfection in the
character or state of him for whom it was offered. Job 36 : 18. Ps. 49 :
7. Prov. 6 : 35.
(2) The general idea suggested by those expiations was that of
appeasing wrath. Whether they reconciled absolutely, or were only a
provision for reconcibation, applicable where the offender was duly
prepared, was of no importance as respected the general character of
the transactions. In either way there was a design or tendency to
appease wrath. This was enough (whichever way it was) to bring
the word into use in the common affairs of bfe to express what is meant
by the English term appease. Gen. 32: 20. Prov. 16 : 14.
III. It is used to denote the ceremonial expiations themselves.
These expiations were effectual in two, and only two, cases : (1) where
no faith was required or was possible, as in those instances where inani-
17*

198 NATURE OF THE ATONEMENT. [PART I.
mate things were ceremonially purged, Lev. 16: 20; Num. 35: 33.
Ezek. 43 : 20, 26. 45 : 20 ; (2) where faith existed, or was supposed
by the temporal Head of that nation to exist. I«the case of individuals,
the very act of offering was a profession of faith, and set forth, not so
much the abstract power of the atonement, as a Christian's approach to
God through a Mediator, and the success that would follow. When a
Hebrew brought his lamb to the priest to be offered for his sins, it
answered to a Christian's bearing Christ in the arms of his faith to God,
and saying, Here is my Lamb for a burnt-offering. And that reconciba-
tion will follow such an act, is what no one denies. In regard to those
general atonements for the whole congregation which may be supposed
to have turned away temporal judgments, let it be remembered that they
were offered for a nation of professed bebevers. And if those pictures
of the real atonement could turn away temporal wrath from the visible
church, it only taught us that the atonement itself will turn away eter
nal wrath from .true believers. Not only a general profession of faith,
but special humiliation must combine with those national expiations to
give them any effect. The great day of atonement was always a day of
fasting, humiliation, and prayer ; and without these accompaniments it
would have been of no validity. Lev. 23 : 27.
Thus where a real or visible faith existed, the ceremonial expiations
had a correspondent effect : but did they always accomplish reconcilia
tion ? What means then that oath, " I have sworn unto the house of Eli
that the iniquity of Eli's house shall not be purged with sacrifice nor
offering for ever?" 1 Sam. 3: 14. Could they ever avail without the
cooperation of a visible faith ? What mean, then, those terrible reproofs :
" I will take no bullock out of thy house, nor he-goats out of thy folds."
" To what purpose is the multitude of your sacrifices ? I am full of the
burnt-offerings of rams, and the fat of fed beasts ; and I debght not in
the blood of bullocks, or of lambs, or of he-goats. Who hath required
this at your hands ? Bring no more vain oblations : incense is an abom
ination unto me : the new moons and sabbaths, the calling of assemblies,
I cannot away with ; it is iniquity, even the solemn meeting. Your
new moons and your appointed feasts my soul hateth ; they are a trouble
unto me, I am weary to bear them ? " Ps. 1. Isa. i. And how came
it to pass that these expiations did not reconcile the Scribes and Phari
sees ?
Certainly, then, the ceremonial expiations accomplished nothing but
where faith was impossible and not required, or where it was supposed
to exist. Or if they took a man from a state of condemnation and recon
ciled him to God, they surely obtained for him the gift of faith. The
great and decisive question then is, did the IBS of the Old Testament

CHAP. V.] ATONEMENT NOT RECONCILIATION. 199
obtain the gift of faith ? It certainly did not. Here I plant my foot.
Show me a single instance in which these expiations were made with any
such intent. Where is the chapter and verse ? They were never offered
to procure holiness, but only to obtain pardon. So far from being de
signed to insure faith, they always supposed its existence, and had no
effect where it was not.
And now see how the argument from the Old Testament is shaped.
Because the IBS of that dispensation reconciled where faith was not nec
essary or possible, or where it was supposed to exist, the atonement must
reconcile even where it has to bring faith with it for the purpose. And
for this end a power must be given it to obtain faith, though it never had
that power in one of the instances recorded in the Old Testament, and
though neither the gift of faith naturally follows a cover for sin, nor can
merit, by which the gift is obtained, constitute that cover by answering
the end of punishment. No, the whole analogy of the Old Testament
bes against this conclusion. If then you apply the name of atonement to
that part of Christ's influence which secures the gift of faith, you contra
dict all the instances in which the term is used in the Bible.*
The conclusion is, that the atonement neither insures faith by its own
proper influence, nor accomplishes reconciliation without it.
The great mistake on this subject has arisen from confounding the
different influences which meet in the death of Christ. That death, in
cluding the consent of the Sufferer, is to be viewed in two lights ; as an
atoning sacrifice, and as the highest act of obedience. And yet the merit
of that obedience, as constituting a claim to a reward, is confounded by
the writers on the other side with the atonement. And then they raise
the question, whether the death of Christ obtained the gift of faith for
the elect, and thus accomplished actual reconcibation. We fully acknowl
edge that it did ; and thus the dispute ends. But when we say this we
do not make the same acknowledgment respecting the atonement. The
merit of Christ's obedience "unto death" certainly obtained the gift of
faith, and in union with his expiation, accomplished reconciliation for the
elect ; but merit made no part of the atonement.
Dr. Owen, and other writers on that side, constantly bring up the
question about the death and ransom of Christ, and whether redemption
was universal. We certainly have no dispute with them on this point.
Says Dr. Owen, " Redemption, which in the Scripture is IvrQucrtg some
times, but most frequently anoXvtQfoaig, is the delivery of any one from
captivity and misery by the intervention \Q.vtqov) of a price or ransom. ;
That this ransom or price of our deliverance" was the blood of Christ, is
* The word in Rom. 5 : 11, is not Bible but translation.

200 NATURE OF THE ATONEMENT. [PART I.
evident. He calls it Ivrgov, Matt. 20 : 28, and avtiXvtQOv, 1 Tim. 2 : 6,
that is, the price of such redemption." *
I have no objection to all this, except a small inaccuracy in the last
sentence. Nothing is said in the texts referred to about the blood of
Christ. I admit, however, that redemption, in the larger sense, is our
deliverance from the bondage both of sin and death ; that it was accom
plished by the larger ransom ; and that this ransom is sometimes cabed
the blood of Christ. But Ivtgov, when used for the larger ransom, ex
presses more than IBS did when standing for atonement, f It occurs no
where but in the above-quoted text, and in the parallel one in Mark :
" The Son of Man came — to give his life a ransom for many." arci-
Ivtqov occurs nowhere but in the passage above referred to. "Who
gave himself a ransom for all." But the kindred words are of more
frequent occurrence. Xuzoooatg appears thrice : " He hath visited and
made redemption for his people." " All them that looked for redemp
tion in Jerusalem." " By his own blood he entered in once into the
holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us." Luke 1 : 68.
2 : 38. Heb. 9 : 12. anohrzgaaig occurs ten times. It is used to de
note redemption from Jewish persecution, from the pains of martyr
dom, from the grave, and from all evil at the last day : Luke 21 : 28.
Rom. 8:23. Eph. 1 : 14. 4:30. Heb. 11 : 35. The other passages
are as follows : " Justified freely by his grace through the redemp
tion that is in Christ Jesus." "Who of God is made unto us wis
dom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption." " In whom
we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins." " By
means of death for the redemption of — transgressions." Rom. 3 : 24.
1 Cor. 1 : 30. Eph. 1 : 7. Col. 1 : 14. Heb. 9 : 15. The correspond
ing verb carries the idea to a redemption from the power of sin, which
"IBS never expressed : " Who gave himself for us that he might redeem
(ransom, IvTQcooqTai) us from all iniquity, and purify unto himself a pe
culiar people zealous of good works." " Forasmuch as ye know that ye
were not redeemed (ransomed, eXvroaidijTe) with corruptible things as
silver and gold from your vain conversation received by tradition from
your fathers, but with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without
blemish and without spot ; who — was manifest in these last times for you

* Salus Electorum, p. 174. Falkirk Ed.
t IBS) when meaning a ransom, is translated 7.vrpov by the LXX. (Exod. 21 : 30.
30 : 12. Num. 35 : 31, 32. Prov. 6 : 35. 13 : 8). But this Greek word, like the cor
responding English term, expresses a price which may either be absolute or condi
tional. There is nothing in it to limit it to the absolute sense ; and we shall see that
this and other words of a similar nature are used in a lower and conditional sense in
the New Testament.

CHAP. V.] ATONEMENT NOT RECONCILIATION. 201
who by him do believe in God." Tit. 2: 14. 1 Pet. 1 : 18-21. The same
idea is brought out where the Xvtqov or ransom is not expressed : " Who
gave himself for our sins that he might deliver us from this present evil
world." " Christ also loved the church and "gave himself for it, that he
might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word ;
that he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or
wrinkle, or any such thing, but that it should be holy and without
blemish." " For their sakes I sanctify myself [devote myself to die],
that they also might be sanctified through the truth." John 17:19.
Gal. 1 : 4. Eph. 5: 25-27. Thus by his obedience "unto death" he
obtained a right and claim to deliver the elect from the bondage of sin
by sanctifying grace. Hence it is said to Christians, " Ye are bought
with a price ; " (zifitje nyoQaadrjts). And their song in heaven is,
" Thou wast slain and hast redeemed (bought, ¦rffooaaag) us to God with
thy blood." " And no man could learn that song but the hundred and
forty and four thousand which were redeemed (ol qyooaaaevoi) from the
earth. These were redeemed (nyoQaoOrjoav) from among men." 1 Cor.
6 : 20. 7 : 23. Rev. 5 : 9. 14 : 3, 4. Another word is used in the same
sense. u The church of God which he hath purchased (neQiETtoajaato)
with his own blood." " Ye are a chosen generation, — a people for a
purchase '' (laog eig TtsqinovriGiv) ; meaning, says Parkhurst, " a people
acquired or purchased to himself in a peculiar manner." Acts 20 : 28.
1 Pet. 2 : 9. When, therefore, you contemplate the death of Christ as a
whole, including both expiation and the merit of obedience, it did recon
cile the elect to God. " It pleased the Father that in him should all
fulness dwell, and (having made peace through the blood of his cross),
by him to reconcile all things unto himself ; by him, I say, whether they
be things in earth or things in heaven. And you that were sometime
alienated and enemies in your mind by wicked works, yet now hath he
reconciled in the body of his flesh through death, to present you holy,
and unblamable, and unreprovable in his sight." *
* Col. 1 : 19-22. Reconciliation is never ascribed to a less cause than the death
of Christ as a whole ; and it means, I think, the mere destruction of enmity between
the parties, without reference to any thing positive, except as a necessary consequence.
Tins noun and its kindred verb are used in our translation of the New Testament
fourteen times. In one instance (Rom. 5 : 11), the noun ought to have appeared
where atonement is used; and in one instance (Heb. 2 : 17), the verb appears where
to atone ought to have been used. Fourteen times, then, these words ought to have
appeared, and fourteen times, and no more, the corresponding Greek words are
found in the New Testament. In six places KaTcXKaaau is used (Rom. 5 : 10,
twice. 1 Cor. 7 : 11. 2 Cor. 5 : 18, 19, 20) ; in four, its derivative noun naraMayn
(Rom. 5: 11. 11 : 15. 2 Cor. 5 : 18, 19); in three, amKarallaaoa (Eph. 2 : 16.
Col. 1 : 20, 21) ; and in one, dltiKhaoou (Matt. 5 : 24) ; all derived from dOaaaa,

202 NATURE OF THE ATONEMENT. [PART I.
We can now understand what is meant by the larger ransom By
giving himself, devoting himself to die, and actively laying down his
blood, Christ obtained as firm a claim to the redemption of his elect from
the bondage of sin (and so from that of death through his expiation), as
a man could have to the release of captives, who had paid by contract a
mighty ransom for their redemption ; while the blood laid down was
that out of respect to which, as the honor of the law was concerned, the
Father consented to their release. These two parts were sufficient to
constitute a complete hrtoov. A ransom has two influences ; it supports
the claim of the redeemer, and it is that out of respect to which the
holder of the captives lets them go. Let the ransom of Christ possess
this double influence, and it comprehends in its matter all that was active
and passive in bis voluntary death, and in its power, not only the whole
efficiency of the atonement, but his entire claim to that reward which
consisted in the release of the captives from both parts of their bondage,
or his perfect right to Sanctify and lead them forth from punishment.
The part of the ransom which supported his claim, was the giving or
sanctifying of himself, as it is expressed four times in the above quota
tions ; but the part which the Father respected as the ground of the re
lease, was the blood and bfe laid down. Thus he actively " gave himself
which signifies to change. The cause to which the effect is ascribed, appears only in
the following passages : " We were reconciled to God by the death of his Son "
(Rom. 5 : 10) ; " It pleased the Father — (having made peace through the blood of
his cross), by him to reconcile all things unto himself. And you — hath he reconciled
in the body of his flesh through death" (Col. 1 : 19-22); "That he might recon
cile both unto God in one body by the cross " (Eph. 2 : 16). The meaning of the
word seems limited to the destruction of enmity between the parties in the following
passages : " Go thy way, first be reconciled to thy brother" (Matt. 5 : 24) ; " Let her
— be reconciled to her husband" (1 Cor. 7:11); "In Clirist Jesus ye who some
times were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ. For he is our peace who
hath made both [Jews and Gentiles] one, — having abolished in his flesh the enmity,
— to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace ; and that he might
reconcile both unto God in one body by the cross, having slain the enmity thereby ;
and came and preached peace" (Eph. 2 : 13-17); "It pleased the Father — (hav
ing made peace by the blood of his cross), by him to reconcile all things unto himself.
And you that were sometime alienated and enemies in your mind, — hath he recon
ciled " (Col. 1 : 19-21 ) ; " While we were yet sinners Christ died for us ; much more,
then, being justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him. For if
when we were enemies we were reconciled to God by tho death of his Son, much more
being reconciled, we shall bo saved [from wrath] by Iris life " (Rom. 5 : 8-10) ; " Who
hath reconciled us to himself by Jesus Christ, and hath given to us the ministry of
reconciliation, to wit, that God was in Christ reconciling the world unto himself, not
imputing their trespasses unto them, and hath committed unto us tho word of recon
ciliation. Now then — we pray you in Christ's stead, be ye reconciled to God"
(2 Cor. 5 : 18-20).

CHAP. V.] ATONEMENT NOT RECONCILIATION. 203
for us that he might redeem us from all iniquity," but " redeemed us
from the curse of the law [by] being made [passively] a curse for us."
Gal. 3: 13. Tit. 2 : 14.
The lower ransom was the blood of Christ laid down for a moral agent,
to debver him from death if he on his part would accept the offer. " I
exhort — that — supplications — be made for all men ; — for this is good
and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour, who will have all men to
be saved and to come unto the knowledge of the truth : for there is one
God, and one Mediator between God and men, the . man Christ Jesus,
who gave himself a ransom (avrilvtoov) for all." 1 Tim. 2 : 1—6.
" Even denying the Lord that bought (ayoQ<k<su.vTa) them, and bring up
on themselves swift destruction." 2 Pet. 2:1. The latter word is the
same that expresses the purchase of believers in the following passages :
" Ye are bought with a price." " Thou wast slain and hast redeemed us
to God with thy blood." "The hundred and forty and four thousand
which were redeemed from the earth." The higher ransom, then,
is that which effects deliverance from sin and death ; the lower ran
som is the means of deliverance, dependent for its effect on the
conduct of men. The higher ransom comprehends both expiation and
merit ; the lower ransom is nothing but the atonement. In this lower
sense redemption was as general as the means, and might be accepted or
refused. Heb. 11: 35.
But how, if the whole claim of Christ rested on the merit of bis obedi
ence, did he purchase the church with his " blood ? " And how are we
" redeemed " from our " vain conversation — with the precious blood of
Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot ? " This will ap
pear to be a very natural figure (for " purchased " is certainly figurative),
when we consider in how many respects the blood resembled a pecuniary
price. It was the thing laid down upon the board. It was the very
thing which he was commanded to lay down, wilh a promise that if he
would lay down that precise thing he should have a redeemed seed ; and
by laying it down he purchased them. What gave it a greater resem
blance to a pecuniary price, the thing laid down, was really useful to the
government of the other party. And there was a reason for calbng it
" precious," with an impbed comparison with other prices of less value.
The self-denial, which as the test of obedience really created the claim,
was in proportion to the thing laid down, just as it is in proportion to the
sum of money paid in a purchase. Compared, then, with other tests of
obedience, the blood supported a greater claim, as of a tiling more pre
cious ; and by its claim and self-denial united, it resembled a vast treas
ure paid to purchase some valuable good. It had another point of resem
blance. A price has no claim till it is accepted ; and the blood of Christ

204 NATURE OF THE ATONEMENT. [PART I.
had no claim separate from that covenanted acceptance which the merit
of his obedience procured. That merit in reabty created the whole claim,
but it did it by laying down that blood. Here he's the difference from an
ordinary purchase. In the latter case the money, abstracted from the
character of him who offers it, and from all merit in laying it down, com
mands the article. In the other case the blood, abstracted from the merit
of obedience, obtains nothing. This discrepancy must be admitted upon
every plan ; for who will say that the blood alone, separated from the
obedience which attended it, obtained the sanctification and pardon of the
elect ? The blood, though it went into the larger ransom as the ground
of the release, really had nothing to do with the claim but as the mere
test of obedience.
The only difficulty arises from our being said to be redeemed from
the power of sin by the blood of the unblemished Lamb. Here, you
gay, obedience is distinctly referred to, but as having no other power
than to qualify the Victim. And the inference is, that the atonement
itself secured the gift of faith. We have already contemplated the
active form of this expression (namely, that Christ purchased the
church with his own blood), and found no difficulty in it ; and if it had
been added, with his own spotless blood, it would have created no more
difficulty; for that was certainly understood. Christ purchased the
church and redeemed it from iniquity with his own spotless blood, as of
a lamb without blemish. We see how by a slight figure this could be
said in perfect consistency with our system. Now Peter only leaves out
the Purchaser, and throws the sentence into a passive form, and with
these two alterations expresses the same thing. " Ye were — redeemed
— from your vain conversation — with the precious blood of Christ, as
of a lamb without blemish." Who was the Redeemer ? Introduce his
agency so as to give the sentence an active form, and how will it read ?
Christ hath redeemed you from your vain conversation with his own
precious blood, as of a lamb without blemish. And this is just what we
had before. Peter did not intend to deny the influence of Christ's merit
in this redemption ; but using a passive form, he had no way to bring it
in. Had he expressed the same idea in an active form, he might have
said, Christ, by obediently yielding his spotless life, claimed and accom-
pbshed the sanctification of his elect, and obtained this reward and
influence by giving " himself for us, an offering and a sacrifice to God
for a sweet-smelling savor."
As in this place the whole seems to be ascribed to the passion of the
unblemished Lamb, so in the 10th of Hebrews every thing seems
imputed to the action of the Priest ; and while we are contemplating
the Priest, he at once becomes a King (Ver. 13). It could not be

CHAP. VI.] MEANING OF RIGHTEOUSNESS. 205
expected that the apostles would preserve all the nice classifications of
systematic writers. Their business was with the multitude, and they
often throw the subject upon the imagmation and heart in a rich and
affecting confusion. It is not from such insulated ¦ passages that we are
to gather systems. We must compare Scripture with Scripture, and
build ourselves upon the analogy of faith.
Thus if you confound the influences which meet in the death of Christ,
and ask what that death accompbshed, we answer, reconciliation for the
elect. If you ask about the higher ransom, that redeemed all for whom
it was offered. But if you ask about the atonement or lower ransom,
that, even viewed as accepted of God, did no more for the elect them
selves than to remove the curse of abandonment, and to render it cer
tain that they would be pardoned if they would bebeve ; making out
thus, as relates to pardon, a mere provision for moral agents. This must
be the bmit of the atonement if it did not secure the gift of faith.
Whether it was in fact an atonement for all (intentionally or other
wise), depends, therefore, on the question, whether it had these two
effects upon all. But for this question we are not yet prepared.

CHAPTER VI.
THE MEANING OF RIGHTEOUSNESS AS CONNECTED WITH THE
JUSTIFICATION OF BELIEVERS.
The original and literal meaning of righteousness is perfect personal
holiness. Used in reference to the subject about which we are inquiring,
it means neither more nor less than that which gives a title to justifica
tion, not of debt, but according to God's gracious covenant, to the utter
exclusion of boasting. Sometimes the term seems to denote that which
is the condition of justification, but more generally that which is the
ground. The manner in which the word slid into this use is obvious.
Under the first covenant both the condition and ground of justification
were a literal righteousness, or unsullied holiness. That was the natu
ral mode of justification ; and in that process the term justification was
used in its original and literal meaning, to denote a legal sentence that the
person respected was just. Hence it became a famibar truth that a
righteousness was necessary to justification, and bore to it the relations
both of a condition and a ground. When the new method of accepting
men was introduced, it was natural to refer to the former method as the
18

206 NATURE OF THE ATONEMENT. [PART I.
standard, and to borrow its terms. The acceptance itself, though far
from being legal, was called justification ; and to preserve consistency,
that which is the ground of acceptance (and I think, also, that which is
the condition), was called a righteousness. The terms thus appbed are
plainly used out of their original meaning ; for the gracious acceptance
of a sinner is certainly not a legal process. The justification is not by
works of the law, and of course the righteousness which gives a title to
it is not a legal righteousness.
In this way it has come to pass that whatever under the new
covenant gives a title to a gracious justification, is called our righteous
ness, and the man who possesses it is denominated righteous. That this
is the case the fobowing passages will show.
" Surely shall one say, In the Lord have I righteousness ; — in the
Lord shall all the seed of Israel be justified." Isa. 45 : 24, 25.
" By the deeds of the law there shaU no flesh be justified. — But now
the righteousness of God [of God's ordaining], without the law, is
manifested, — even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus
Christ. — Being justified freely by his grace. — Where is boasting
then ? — Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without
the deeds of the law. — If Abraham were justified by works he hath
whereof to glory. — But what saith the Scripture ? Abraham bebeved God
and it was counted unto him for righteousness. Now to him that worketh
is the reward not reckoned of grace but of debt ; but to him that worketh
not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted
for righteousness. Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the
man unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works; saying,
Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are
covered : blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin.
[To impute righteousness, then, is not to impute sin, or, in plain words,
to forgive.] — We say that faith was reckoned to Abraham for right
eousness ; — and he received the sign of circumcision, the seal of the
righteousness of faith, — that he might be the father of all them that
believe, — that righteousness might be imputed unto them also. — For
the promise — was not to Abraham or his seed through the law, but
through the righteousness of faith. — It is of faith that it might be by
grace. — It was imputed to him for righteousness : now it was not
written for his sake alone that it was imputed to him, but for us also to
whom it shall be imputed if we believe on him that raised up Jesus our
Lord from the dead ; who was delivered for our offences, and was
raised again for our justification. Therefore being justified by faith, we
have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ. — As by one man's
disobedience many were made sinners [were condemned], so by the

CHAP. VI.] MEANING OF RIGHTEOUSNESS. 207
obedience of One shall many be made righteous [shall possess that
which entitles them to justification: this is the sole idea, and makes the
antithesis complete]. — To whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey,
his servants ye are to whom ye obey, whether of sin unto death, or of
obedience unto righteousness [unto that which secures justification of
life, as the antithesis requires]. — The Gentiles which followed not after
righteousness [a course of conduct acceptable to God], have attained to
righteousness [that which entitles to justification or acceptance with
God], even the righteousness which is of faith. But Israel which
followed after the law of righteousness [the law by which they hoped to
be justified], hath not attained to the law of righteousness " [could not
be justified by the law, or hath not attained to the rule or method of
justification. Rom. 3: 20-28. iv. 5: 1, 19, and ver. 16. 9: 30, 31].
" A man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of
Jesus Christ : — for if righteousness come by the law, then Christ is
dead in vain. Abraham believed God and it was accounted to him for
righteousness. — The Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the
heathen through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham. —
That no man is justified by the law — is evident, for The just shall live
by faith. — If there had been a law given which could have given bfe,
verily righteousness should have been by the law. — The law was our
school-master to bring us to Christ, that we might be justified by faith. —
Christ is become of none effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified
by the law. — We through the Spirit wait for the hope of righteousness
by faith.'-' Gal. 2 : 16. 3 : and 5 : 4, 5.
" The Scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God and
it was imputed unto him for righteousness, and he was called the friend
of God. Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by
faith only." James 2 : 23, 24.
The gospel is called " the word of righteousness," and " the ministra
tion of righteousness," in opposition to " the ministration of condemna
tion," because it reveals the ground and condition of justification. 2 Cor.
3: 9. Heb. 5: 13.
From these passages it plainly appears that by righteousness is meant
nothing more than that which under the gracious covenant of God gives
a title to justification; a title in no sense legal, by no means founded on
justice, but purely of grace, to the utter exclusion of boasting ; that to be
" made righteous " by Christ, is only to be entitled by him to a gracious
justification ; that to impute, reckon, or account faith for righteousness,
is to accept it in the room of a literal righteousness ; that to impute
righteousness to a man is not to impute sin, in plain words, to forgive,
or in a larger sense to confer on him a title to a gracious reward ; and

208 NATURE OF THE ATONEMENT. [PART I.
that to impute to one the righteousness of Christ, is merely to justify
him, or treat him as righteous, on account of the righteousness of the
Redeemer. That this term was derived from the first covenant, and is used of
course under the second in a figurative sense, appears more evident
from its being used under the second, as under the first, to denote both
the ground and condition of justification. It more generally expresses
the ground, which is no other than the atonement and obedience of
Christ. Isa. 42: 21. 45 : 24, 25. 54: 17. 61 : 10, 11. 62: 1, 2. Jer. 23:
6. 33: 16. Dan. 9 : 24. Rom. 5: 21. 10: 3-11. 1 Cor. 1: 30. Phil. 3:
9. But if I mistake not, it sometimes denotes the condition, or that per
sonal qualification which for the sake of Christ is graciously accepted in
the room of a literal righteousness. The sincere, but imperfect obedi
ence of Israel (in which, however, faith was unquestionably included),
was denominated their righteousness. The zeal of Phinehas " was
counted unto him for [in the room of] righteousness." Abraham
" believed the Lord, and he counted it to him for righteousness." Gen.
15: 6. Deut. 6: 25. 24: 13. Ps. 106: 31. It is several times repeated
in the New Testament that Abraham's faith (a personal qualification)
was reckoned to him for righteousness, instead of righteousness, or as
being what a literal righteousness was under the first covenant, a condi
tion of justification. Circumcision was " a seal of the righteousness of
faith," or a seal of the promise that faith should be accounted for right
eousness, or be accepted as the condition of justification.*
Thus it would seem that as under the first covenant both the ground
and condition of justification were a literal righteousness, so under the
second covenant the ground and condition of justification are figura
tively called by the same name ; not because they are the same thing
(for then justification would be of debt and not of grace), but because
they fill the same place in the matter of justification. On the whole, it
seems undeniable that righteousness means neither more nor less than
that which gives a complete title to justification " by grace." Of course
to make one righteous through Christ, or to impute to him the righteous
ness of Christ, is to invest him, not with a personal claim on justice, but
with a title to a free, gracious, unmerited justification through the right
eousness of his Redeemer. It is to secure to him the privilege, not of
being considered literally righteous (for he is not, and God views things
as they are), but of being treated as righteous.
The strongest figure, I bebeve, in the Bible to countenance the idea
* If it should be thought that this opinion is not warranted by the passages quoted,
I shall not contend for it, as it is not material to any part of the system. I see noth
ing, however, unnatural or dangerous in it : but the evidence is before the reader.

CHAP. VI.] MEANING OF RIGHTEOUSNESS. 209
•
that believers have in Christ a literal righteousness, and a real claim on
justice, is found in Rom. 8 : 3, 4. " What the law could not do in that
it was weak through the flesh, God, sending his own Son in the likeness
of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh ; that the right
eousness of the law might be fulfilled in us who walk not after the flesh,
but after the Spirit." To understand this passage it is necessary to take
up the connection of the whole Epistle. In the first five chapters the
apostle had been supporting the doctrine of justification by faith, without
the deeds of the law. In the last verse of the third chapter he had
started the objection, " Do we then make void the law " as a rule of
life ? and had dismissed it with this brief reply, " God forbid ! yea we es
tablish the law." In the sixth chapter he resumes the objection, and
shows that conformity to the law is necessarily implied in that union to
Christ by which we are justified. In the seventh chapter he pursues the
same general subject, and explains the end which the law subserves, and
the relation which believers bear to it. The eighth chapter opens with
an inference from these two subjects united, namely, justification by faith
alone, and the necessity of holiness : " There is therefore now no con
demnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the
flesh, but after the Spirit. For the law^of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus
hath made me free from the law of sin and death [the gospel has de-
bvered me both from the dominion and condemnation of sin]. For
what the law could not do in that it was weak through the flesh, God,
sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned
sin in the flesh ; that the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us,
who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit." As though he had
said, all our past and present sins being covered by the atonement of
Christ, and all the defect of our obedience by bis obedience ; and we
being brought back to honor, love, and obey the law, or as he had said in
another place, to " keep the righteousness of the law," and to " obedience
unto righteousness," chap. 2 : 26. 6: 16; it is, to all the purposes of
honoring the law and completing our title to justification, as though the
righteousness of the law, or a legal righteousness, had been fulfilled in us.
No other can be the meaning ; for it would contradict the plain argument
of the whole Epistle to affirm that the best Christian on earth possesses a
legal righteousness, or has in any way the righteousness of the law
literally fulfilled in him. The expression is obviously figurative, like
that in which the same apostle speaks of filling up "that which is
behind of the afflictions of Christ — for — the Church." *
* Col. 1 : 24. Some have a shorter way of getting over this text, affirming that by
the righteousness of the law fulfilled in us, is meant no more than that we " keep the
18*

210 NATURE OF THE ATONEMENT. [PART I.
But this is not the only figurative expression which has received a
literal construction. Indeed the practice of confounding the figurative
with the literal meaning is so fruitful a source of mistake that it deserves
a particular consideration.

CHAPTER VII.
MISTAKES ARISING FROM DRAWING LITERAL CONCLUSIONS FROM
FIGURATIVE PREMISES.
There are certain figurative expressions in common use in the
church, partly derived from the Scriptures and partly of human
righteousness of the law." But the connection between the third and fourth verses
seems to intimate that the atonement had something to do with this fulfilment of the
righteousness of the law in us.
I have made no account of that well-known passage in the 85th Psalm, " Mercy
and truth are met together, righteousness and peace have kissed each other ; " because
there are reasons to doubt whether righteousness in this place means any thing more
than faithfulness. Long before the days of David, " the righteous acts of the Lord,"
meant those dispensations of providence which manifested his mercy and truth.
Judges 5: 11. 1 Sam. 12: 7. But in consequence of the more express and ample
covenant engagements with David and his house, such terms are more frequently
found in the Psalms, and generally mean the covenant mercy or faithfulness of God.
Ps. 5 : 8. 31:1. 35 : 24, 28. 36 : 6, 10. 40 : 9, 10. 51 : 14. 71 : 2, 15, 16, 19. 88 : 12.
89:16. 92:15. 103:17. 112:4. 116:5. 119:40,123,142. 143:1,11. 145:7.
" God of my righteousness," appears to mean, " God of my mercy." Ps. 4:1. 59:
10, 17. "Let them not come into thy righteousness," that is, into thy favor. Ps.
69 : 2% . " I will make mention of thy righteousness, even of thine only ; " that is, of
thy faithfulness. Ps. 71 : 15, 16. The fruit of mercy is once expressed by the same
term. Ps. 24 : 5. After David's time, righteous and righteousness were often used in
the same sense by other prophets, Ez. 9 : 15. Isa. 41 : 10. 42: 6. 46 : 13. 56 : 1. Dan.
9 : 16. Mic. 7:9; and the practice is followed even by the writers of the New Testa
ment. John 7 : 18. Rom. 3 : 3-7. 2 Thes. 2 : 10, 12. 2 Tim. 4 : 8. Heb. 6 : 10-20. 2
Pet. 1:1.1 John 1:9. A fair specimen of this phraseology may he seen in the two
following passages : " God [who, it is stated in the context, had bound himself by
promise], is not unrighteous to forget your work and labor of love." "If we confess
, our sins, ho is faithful and just to forgive us our sins." In tho same spirit Paul says,
" Henceforth there is laid up for me a crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the
righteous Judge, shall give me at that day."
This explanation of the passago receives considerable support from its structure.
It is common in Hebrew poetry for the latter lino of a distich to echo the sense of the
former, with a small variation in the words or their order for tho sake of euphony.
On this principle righteousness in tho latter line is of the same import with truth in
the former, and exactly answers to the term faithfulness. " Mercy and truth are met
together ; faithfulness and peace have kissed each other."

CHAP. VII.] FIGURATIVE LANGUAGE. 211
invention, which are calculated to present to the imagination in a
summary and striking manner, without the process of reasoning, the
general influence of Christ's mediation. This advantage gives them (at
least a part of them) a claim to be retained in our prayers and popular
discourses. But the difficulty is that they have been introduced into
logical discussions with a literal meaning, and as premises from which
bteral conclusions are drawn. This has been one of the most prolific
sources of mistake.
The expressions are such as these : that Christ purchased the
church, that he paid their debt, that he is one with them, that their
sins were imputed to him, that he bore the curse of the law in their
stead, that he satisfied divine justice for them, that his righteousness
is imputed to them, and that they are considered righteous.
It is said in Scripture, " Ye are bought with a price ; " and hence, as
if ransom was used but in a single sense, it is inferred, " As is the
ransom must be the release. — Were redemption universal, salvation
would and must be of equal extent." * And as if the whole was a
commercial transaction, it is alleged that just enough was paid in a way
of atonement to redeem a certain number, and that this number can
claim a release of justice itself. " If Christ fully paid the price of
redemption for all and each, then all and each ought to be saved, and
none ought to perish." t
Because Christ answered the purpose of our punishment, men have
chosen to say that he paid our debt ; and from that expression, mani
festly figurative and of human invention, they have gone on to infer, as
though the whole transaction was of a pecuniary nature, that he became
the Bondsman of a certain number, and brought himself under obliga
tions to law and justice to discbarge their debt, and actually paid it in
kind ; and that they, as exonerated debtors, have a claim on justice to a
release. " He paid the full debt of all for whom he was Surety, and he
secures the eternal redemption of every one for whom he made the
payment." " He did not undertake to see their debt paid and satis
faction made by some means or other, as bondsmen commonly bind
themselves for their friends in joint securities in order to strengthen their
credit, always presuming that these bonds will be discharged in whole or
in the greatest part by the debtors themselves; no, he took the whole
debt and the whole guilt of his lost sheep upon himself alone." " He that
* See a popular little book entitled Gethsemane, published first in London, and
republished in Philadelphia, with high recommendations, in 1817 (containing
extracts from many writers), p. 21.
t The delegates from Zealand in the Synod of Dort. — Acts of Synod, Part HI.
p. 156.

212 NATURE OF THE ATONEMENT. [PART I.
undertaketh for another man's debt maketh it his own, and standeth
chargeable with it as if it were his own personal debt ; so Christ,
becoming Surety for our sins, made them his own, and so was punish
able for them as if they had been his own personal sin." He " was held
in the same obligation which we were under ; he paid the same debt
that we did owe ; the curse or punishment which we deserved was
inflicted upon him." " The grand question here is, for whom was Christ
Surety ? whose debt did he pay ? whose freedom did he procure ? Let
the event declare this ; for certainly Christ did not die in vain, or
purchase deliverance and yet lose the price he paid, or any part of the
purchase he made ; for this would be contrary to all the rules of justice
and righteousness." " His death had had no relation to us had not our
sin been juridically adjudged to be his ; nor can we challenge an
acquittance at the hand of God for our debts, if they were not our debts
that he paid on the cross." *
It is said in Scripture, " They two shall be one flesh : this is a great
mystery; but I speak concerning Christ and the church." Eph. 5: 31,
32. And hence it is inferred " that there is such an intercommunity of
relation between the Saviour and his redeemed, as forms a just reason
for regarding them as one in a federal and legal sense." " Another's
act cannot be mine, either in profit or loss, if there be not a legal
oneness between us." f
It is said in Scripture, " He hath made him to be sin for us." ' Who
his own self bore our sins in bis own body on the tree." " And unto
them that look for him, shall he appeal- the second time without sin unto
salvation." And hence it is inferred that in the eye of law and justice
he was actually a sinner by imputation, bearing upon him by a legal
transfer all the sins of the elect, and no more ; that be " took upon
him their persons," " sustained our persons ; " \ in short, that sin
and its guilt were legally imputed, transferred, or transmitted to
him, and not merely the effects of sin laid upon him. " Jehovah laid or
caused to meet upon Christ the Surety, not the punishment only, but
the iniquity of them all." " Had no guilt lain on him be might have
suffered, but could not have been punished. — What is this being made
sin? Is it Christ's being a sacrifice for. sin? Yes ; but that is not all;
it notes also his being under the guilt of sin.'- " It is not the guilt of
sin (as guilt means only our obnoxiousness to punishment), that was
imputed to Jesus Christ. It seems not proper to speak so. But sin
was imputed ; and the result of that imputation was, guiltiness in the
* Gothscmane, p. 42, 55, 73, 91, 152.
t Ibid. p. 66, 80.
t Ibid. p. 49, 80.

CHAP. VII.] FIGURATIVE LANGUAGE. 213
eye of the law and vindictive justice." " Persons who are hostile to
this doctrine tell us that it was not sin itself which was imputed to
Christ, but the effects of sin. But — the apostle — is not speaking of
the effects of sin, but of sin itself." " The transferring our iniquities
upon him must in some way precede his being bruised for them, which
could not be any other way than by imputation, whereby he was
constituted by God a debtor in our stead to bear the punishment of our
sin. He being made sin for us, our sin was in a sort made his."
" Unto them that look for him, he shall appear the second time without
sin unto salvation. — If the words have any meaning, surely there must
have been a sense in which when on earth he was not without sin. —
If these and similar expressions do not convey the idea of Christ's
dying under a charge of imputed sin, and of his suffering the penalty
connected with it, they have no meaning at all." He sustained " that
curse or debt of suffering which attached to those on whose account he
became a Surety, whose sins were imputed to him, and with which he
became, by his infinitely gracious and voluntary consent, legally charge
able." " Their iniquity itself was laid upon him by God the Judge of
all, and he was regarded by his holy Father as justly chargeable with all
their iniquity, and transgression, and sin. — These were set to his account
in law-reckoning, and laid upon him as their representative." *
It is said in Scripture, " Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the
law, being made a curse for us ; " and hence it is inferred that he suffered
a legal punishment, and was adjudged to it by law and justice ; a pun
ishment the same both in kind and degree that was due to all the sins of
the elect ; that had he atoned for another sin he must have suffered
more ; and that his death is not sufficient for the pardon of one of the
non-elect. " The way in which Christ was to justify many was by bear
ing their iniquities ; but if he did not endure by way of punishment all
that these iniquities deserved, with what propriety can his bearing them
be assigned as a ground of justification ? Sin is sin wherever it is found,
whether on the sinner himself or on his Substitute. Its being transmit
ted to the Substitute does not lessen its malignity, nor render punishment
less necessary. The sanction of the divine law is irreversible ; it will i
have its course. Punishment in either case is not an act of sovereignty,
but of justice." " That the death of Christ was a death of unexampled
sufferings cannot be doubted; but they were sufferings to which he be
came liable as a Surety, and to which, in virtue of his own voluntary
engagement, he was righteously judged by the law and justice of God."
" The sufferings of our blessed Lord were, in consequence of his own
* Geth. p. 19, 20, 55, 73, 109, 156, 157, 159, 160.

214 NATURE OF THE ATONEMENT. [PART I.
voluntary engagement, a debt due to divine justice." " Christ hath re
deemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us ; which
he could not have been without the imputation of sin, and his enduring
whatever was included in that curse." " If the sufferings of our Lord
were not penal, there can be no salvation for apostate man. — What will
these sufferings avail if there was nothing penal in them ? Mere suffer
ing gives a right to nothing ; suffering to be expiatory must be voluntary,
and endured as the desert of imputed sin." " Christ is said to be made
a curse, not simply because he suffered, but because he was adjudged to
his sufferings, that thereby satisfaction might be made to the justice of
God. But if sin were not imputed to Christ, he could not be the object
of punitive justice ; for that is strange justice that can be satisfied by the
sufferings of a person no way guilty in the eye of justice." "Either
Christ suffered the wrath of God, i. e. the punishment due to the sins of
the elect, or else God is untrue in that commination, He that sins shall
die." " To imagine that sin can escape punishment, is highly dishonora
ble to the moral government of God. For as moral precepts are a tran
script of the holiness and rectitude of the divine nature, it is impossible
that the sanction by which infinite justice has guarded these precepts,
should either be annulled or relaxed." " To me it appears self-evident,
either that Christ must have sustained the punishment due to the sinner,
or the law have relaxed in its demands." " If the curse of the divine
law has not been borne by Christ, we are still in our sins, and the weight
of that curse will sink us into endless perdition." " This satisfaction is,
however, by some persons boldly denied ; and in perfect consistency
with this denial, it is said that our blessed Lord was not punished : for it
is easy to see that if the doctrine of satisfaction be allowed, punishment
must of course follow ; for without punishment there can be no satisfac
tion either to the law or to the justice of God." " The chastisement of
our peace was upon him. How else could his heavenly Father [have]
been pleased to bruise him, for whom it is no more good to punish the
just than to clear the guilty?" "If our iniquities were not laid upon
Christ, his sufferings could not be punishment, and therefore not satis
factory : for where there is no sin, either actual, inherent, or imputed,
there can be no punishment, and of course no expiation of guilt. It was
no more possible for God to inflict penal sufferings on Christ while con
sidered in every respect as perfectly innocent, than it was for him to
deny himself." " It has been asked, may not God punish an innocent
creature as so considered ? — God cannot but approve and justify an inno
cent creature as so considered ; because the innocent creature is what
God wills him to be according to his law, and therefore it is impossible
be should, under this consideration, be the object of his disapprobation. —

CHAP. VII.] FIGURATIVE LANGUAGE. 215
Hence it necessarily follows that an innocent creature, as so considered,
cannot be impressed with a piercing sense of divine vengeance against
sin. A perception the guiltless creature may have of the evil of sin,
and of the wrath of God which sin demerits ; — but this is not attended
with any anguish or pain of mind ; for it is only a sense of sin as charged
or imputed, and of obnoxiousness to divine displeasure on that account,
which can give the soul uneasiness and torture. Each of these things
enter into the very nature of, and are essential to, divine punishment.
Surely it is not to be thought that God approves of any whom he pun
ishes, that is to say, as they are the subjects of bis act of punishing ;
and it is impossible that a creature under the same consideration should
be the object of divine condemnation and justification ; for these are cer
tainly inconsistent ideas if any such there be. Nor can God impress the
mind of a creature with a painful sense of his wrath, who is not, under
any consideration, the object of his displeasure." " What God hates in
man he cannot do himself. Nothing is the object of God's displeasure
but what is contrary to the divine nature. To punish the innocent is
disapproved of God, because it is a dreadful violation of right and jus
tice, and is therefore contrary to the essential righteousness and justice
of God. It being so, he cannot condemn and punish without a righteous
charge and imputation of the offence." " Unless the guilt of our iniqui
ties, or the law obligation to punishment for them, had been judicially
charged upon him, it seems to me that he could not by any rule of jus
tice have borne their punishment ; for in the order of justice our sins
must first be supposed to be placed to his account, to answer for them,
before he could undergo the proper punishment due to them ; since di
vine justice can no more punish the entirely and in all respects guiltless,
than clear the guilty." " Our Lord's death was penal, and the vindictive
cause of it was the judicial hand of God : the same haqd avenges sin
that imputes it ; the imputation of sin and the punishment of it always
following one another, as do the non-imputation of it and an exemption
from guilt and penalty." " How could Christ die if he were not a. repu
ted sinner ? Had he not first had a relation to our sin, he could not in
justice have undergone our punishment. He must in the order of justice
be supposed a sinner really or by imputation. It is as much against
divine justice to inflict punishment where there is no sin, as it is to spare
the offender. — Though the first designation of the Redeemer to a surety
ship or sacrifice for us was an act of God's sovereignty, yet the inflicting
punishment after that designation and our Saviour's acceptance of it, was
an act of God's justice. Had that been justice or injustice to Christ, to
lay his wrath upon the Son of his love, one whose person was always
dear to him, always pleased him, had he not stood as a sinner juridically

216 NATURE OF THE ATONEMENT. [PART I.
in our stead ? " " If Christ hath been made a curse for us, — he must
then have the violation of the law imputed to him ; otherwise the curse
of it could not in justice have been inflicted upon him. To inflict the
curse or penalty of the law upon one no ways chargeable with the viola
tion of it, is contrary to the justice both of God and man." " What is
punishment but the infliction of the curse of the law for the violation of
its precepts ? And if the law could righteously inflict on the person of
Manasseb a degree of punishment proportioned to his guilt (for without
a proportion between the guilt and the punishment justice is not satisfied),
the Substitute of Manasseh must bear the same punishment, or how
could he be said to suffer in his stead ? " " They are in some degree
guilty of this [depreciating the sufferings of Christ], who will by no
means ahW that Christ bore the idem, the same death, the same curse,
that was threatened in the law as due to sin. — What was that part of the
sentence of the law that was gone out against sin, which he did not sub
mit to ? — Has the law any thing more dreadful in all its stores than the
wrath of God ? And who ever bore this if the blessed Jesus did not ? "
" I believe that Jesus Christ — has — suffered all that I was condemned
to sustain." " It appears past contradiction that the Redeemer put him
self in the very place where the redeemed stood, and took upon him that
very curse which they were bound under." " Did we deserve one pun
ishment and Christ undergo another ? Was it the sentence of the law
that was executed on him, or was it some other thing that he was obnox
ious to ? " " Mention is everywhere made of a commutation of persons,
the just suffering for the unjust, the Sponsor for the offender (his name
as a Surety being taken into the obbgation, and the whole debt required
of him) ; but of a change of punishment there is no mention at all "
" Surely whatever could have been justly inflicted on the sinner himself
must be borne by him who shall pay the price of his release." " It is
reasonable to suppose that the redemption price paid should bear an exact
proportion to the number of persons redeemed, and to the guilt and
punishment from which they are redeemed ; or else it cannot be consid
ered as a legal redemption." " If, therefore, a thousand delinquents, in
volved in different degrees of guilt, are justly liable to suffer in their own
persons the punishment due to their various enormities ; surely it must
be self-evident that if the guilt of these enormities be laid upon Christ as
their Substitute, and he suffer in their stead, he must bear the same pun
ishment. If this be denied, and it be allowed that the Lord laid on him
the iniquity of those delinquents, the law of God must have relaxed in
the infliction of its curse, which as a moral institute was impossible."
" I am convinced that the sufferings of Christ were in exact proportion
to the guilt of the many sinners he had undertaken to redeem, and that

CHAP. VII.] FIGURATIVE LANGUAGE. 217
bad the unworthy objects of his merciful regard been more numerous,
these blessings would have likewise been augmented." " If our blessed
Lord would not have suffered more had the number to be saved been
much greater than it eventually will be, why should he have suffered so
much as he actually did suffer ? — Infinite justice will never inflict the
least degree of undeserved punishment." To say, therefore, that the
compassionate Redeemer suffered less than the debnquents who are
redeemed would themselves have suffered, is not to magnify the riches
of his dying love nor to honor his atonement. And to say that these
sufferings are sufficient for ten times the number is to confound all our
ideas of distributive justice." " The greater the sin of the elect was, the
more Christ suffered ; the greater their debt was, the more he paid."
" If, as you suppose, our blessed Lord have suffered enough for the sal
vation of all men, how happens it that all are not saved ? " " The more I
reflect on this highly interesting and important subject, the more I am
convinced that the sufferings of our blessed Lord were in every respect
commensurate to the requirements of justice ; — that the divine law to
which he voluntarily became amenable, did not relax in any of its de
mands ; that he did not endure a single pang more than it could have
righteously inflicted on the sinners themselves ; and that, in effecting
their redemption, he did not suffer one less." "The punishment he
suffered was in value and measure answerable to all the sins of all the
elect, past, present, and to come ; the Godhead supporting the manhood
that it might be able to bear and overcome the whole burden of the
wrath of God." " These sufferings were absolutely necessary for the
salvation of the elect, or they were not. If indispensably necessary, a
greater degree of suffering could not righteously be inflicted than was
requisite for that end, or in other words, than was needful to answer the
claims of justice. And if these sufferings, as to duration and intenseness,
were absolutely requisite for the deliverance of the elect from final ruin,
how is the benefit of these sufferings to extend to those who make no
part of that number ? For if our blessed Lord endured more than the
least possible degree of suffering, that suffering could not be the result
of mere sovereignty in him who will minister judgment to the people in
righteousness, but the apportioned desert of imputed sin. It is repug
nant to every principle of justice to suppose that these sufferings exceeded
the demerit for which they were inflicted, and not less so to imagine that
the merit of those sufferings extended to sin that it never expiated."
" If, therefore, Christ suffered for those that perish, be must have effected
their redemption; but if he did not suffer for them, he must, unless a
part be equal to the whole, have suffered less than he would have done
had the weight of then- sufferings been added to what he endured." " If
19

218 NATURE OF THE ATONEMENT. [PART I.
his precious blood as the price was sufficient to make expiation for the
sins and transgressions of all men, and all are not saved, how is impetra-
tion and application of the same latitude ? " " Such, it has been said,
was the preciousness of the blood of Christ, that one drop would have
been sufficient for the redemption of the world. But for this notion
there is no scriptural warrant. It is incompatible with the honor of di
vine justice in the infliction of punishment on Christ." " To contend
that because infinite merit attached to the sufferings of Christ, these
sufferings must of necessity be sufficient for the salvation of all men, is to
limit the Holy One of Israel." " I know it has been said that though
our blessed Lord died intentionally for the elect only, there is neverthe
less a redundancy of merit in his death sufficient for the redemption of all
men. This I considered as a mistake." " So far from there being a
redundancy of merit connected with the atonement of Christ sufficient
for the redemption of all men, that the want of it renders the condemna
tion of the non-elect indispensably requisite." " That our divine Jesus
could have redeemed ten thousand worlds if in the everlasting covenant
he had been constituted the federal Head, and had become the Surety of
these worlds, is cheerfully granted." " Yet we cannot perceive any sobd
reason to conclude that his "propitiatory sufferings are sufficient for the
expiation of sins which he did not bear." " For had our blessed Lord
suffered ten thousand deaths without federal relation to mankind, the
blood he shed would have been equally precious, yet it would not have
been available for the redemption of a single individual." " As, there
fore, the sufferings of our blessed Lord were, in consequence of his own
voluntary engagement, a debt due to divine justice, the degree of suffer
ing could not righteously exceed the demerit for which it was inflicted :
nor could the merit of that suffering extend to those whose sins he never
bore, whom he never intended to save, and for whom therefore, he could
not justly suffer." " If the sufferings of our blessed Lord were not regu
lated by the number to be saved, I think particular redemption, and the
doctrines connected with it, cannot be successfully defended." *
From these principles, and because it is said, " The Lord hath laid on
him the iniquity of us all," it is inferred that the law was literally exe
cuted upon Christ, and that justice was literally satisfied in his death ;
so that those for whom he died cannot justly be punished again, but may
claim a release of justice itself. And because be is said to have been
made sin for us, " that we might be made the righteousness of God in
him," it is inferred that the righteousness of Christ is legally imputed to
* Geth. p. 8, 9, 28, 30, 31, 33, 34, 36, 37, 40, 41, 42, 43, 48, 51, 52, 53, 54, 57, 59,
60, 67, 68, 71, 82, 83, 84, 90, 106, 107, 111, 140, 144, 145, 149, 150, 151, 153, 154,
155, 156, 160, 161, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170, 171, 182, 183.

CHAP. VII.] FIGURATIVE LANGUAGE. 219
the elect, and that they are considered righteous in the eye both of law
and justice, and that too (if I understand the writers), not as believers,
but as mere elect. " Christ and the elect are so united that what he did
for them was reckoned by justice itself accountable to the behoof and
concernment of each elected person, as much as if every one of them
had completely satisfied justice in their own persons : — and — the fact
of this union, when reduced to practical and personal application, secures
the existence of genuine holiness and virtue." " Faith and repentance
are bestowed upon and wrought in these persons, not as conditions, but
as blessings, of that covenant." " If divine justice be perfectly satisfied
by the sufferings of Christ ; if it could ever say, it is enough ; it could
not stand with the same justice still to inflict punishment." " He who as
the Judge of heaven and earth must always do right, is said to justify
the ungodly, — and that out of justice, so that he is just in forgiving sin.
Mercy erects her throne upon the basis of justice, and both equally pre
side at the tribunal of the Judge when he pronounces the sentence of
absolution." " Redemption is either vabd or invalid. If it be valid,
then it will answer for the persons redeemed by it to their deliverance
from curse and condemnation ; or else divine justice might be charged
with injustice in exacting a debt first from the Surety and then from the
principal." " If Christ was punished in his sufferings, he bore either a
part of that punishment to which we were obnoxious, or the whole. — If
he bore the whole, let such who conceive that God punishes those for
whom he died, vindicate and clear his justice in so doing if they are
able." " The justice of God renders their salvation absolutely certain ;
because it would be incompatible with the first principles of equity to
punish in their own persons those for whose sins Christ hath made
ample satisfaction. — A price being paid, it is unjust to detain that for
which it is paid." " They for whose sins complete satisfaction has once
been made to the justice of God by the Mediator, cannot be arrested by
the justice of God and bound over to an ulterior satisfaction for the same
sins." And therefore the doctrine of a general atonement is inconsistent
with the "justice" of God ; as on that supposition "he received full sat
isfaction from the Son, and yet does not admit all to favor." " Almighty
God, in the justification of a bebeving sinner, is not only gracious and
merciful, but just and righteous in the most exalted degree. The design
and end of God in exacting satisfaction from Christ was to declare his
righteousness in the remission of sin. But the apostle would have us
take notice that our justification is an act of justice as well as mercy .
and that God, as he is a just God, cannot condemn the believer, since
Christ has satisfied for his sins." " The righteousness by which we are
justified before God must in a certain sense be our own in a way of

220 NATURE OF THE ATONEMENT. [PART I.
right, as Adam's sin also was, though performed in the person of another.
Christ and Adam being parallels in their head-ship, the imputation of
the one's guiltiness and the other's righteousness is righteously applied
to their respective seeds. And this was the main end of the Lord's
putting those he would justify into Christ, that he, being made sin and a
curse for them, they might be made the righteousness of God in him,
and so God might be just in- justifying them. If the elect had not been
in Christ, the satisfaction he undertook for sinners could not have availed
them. As Adam's sin would not have been ours if not in him, so nei
ther the righteousness of Christ if not in him. Divine justice could not
have punished him for us nor absolved us through him." " The doc
trine of general redemption — seems to tax God of injustice, as not dis
charging those whose transgressions are answered for by their Surety ;
or else, that the sufferings of Christ were not sufficient to make a dis
charge due to them." " The Socinians expressly oppose the imputation
of the righteousness of Christ, and plead for a participation of its effects
or benefits only. But to say that the righteousness of Christ, that is,
his obedience and sufferings, are imputed to us only as to their effects,
is to say that we have the benefit of them and no more, but imputation
itself is denied." Christ " did not die as a Sponsor in the place of the
reprobate: — for otherwise they cannot justly be punished; since God
cannot punish one sin twice, once in Christ and once in them that per
ish, of whom he exacts his due even to the uttermost farthing." " Christ
was not an Undertaker for a people under any general notions or quali
fications (such as them that should believe on him, or the like), not
knowing definitely who the persons were; but he was Surety and
Undertaker only for the elect." " He died not at uncertainties, nor laid
down his life at a venture, that some might be saved if they would ; but
his intention is fixed : be laid down his life for his sheep, for his church,
for his people." " He bore the guilt of no others than those to whom
he is a Head, who are his body, and for whom he became a Surety.
For that was the foundation on which sin was imputed to him : and
therefore the sins of such persons only were imputed to him who are
related to him as members." Thus the elect, not under the aspect of
believers, but as mere elect, were his body, his members, one in law
with him, and made so before he suffered for them ; and it would have
been unjust for him to have suffered for others.*
What bearing these sentiments have on the limitation of the atonement,
will still more distinctly appear by the following quotations. "That
* Gcth. p. 13, 14, 37, 65, 66, 79, 80, 81, 83, 97, 101, 110, 113, 115, 116, 117, 166,
173. Also tho delegates from Gelders and Emdon, and tho Dutch Professors, in the
Synod of Dort. — Acts of Synod, Part II. p. 154, 155 ; Part III. p. 123, 131.

CHAP. VII.] FIGURATIVE LANGUAGE. 221
there is as truly a federal relation between Christ and the members of
his mystical body, the church [the elect antecedent to their faith], as
there was between Adam and his natural descendants, the Scriptures
abundantly manifest : and it is this federal relation which laid the foun
dation for the imputation of their sins to Christ. But according to the
sentiments opposed, — no such relation ever existed ; there was no real
imputation of sin to Christ, nor any proper punishment inflicted on him
for it : consequently the penal sanction of the law, with reference to those
who are saved, has never been endured. For were these important facts
admitted, it is easy to perceive that redemption must of necessity be bm-
ited ; because no one could righteously perish for whose sins plenary sat
isfaction had been made to divine justice." " They insist that what Christ
paid for our redemption was not the same with what is in the obligation,
and that therefore his dolorous sufferings were not a proper payment of
our debt ; and consequently a proper and full satisfaction for our sins
could not arise from his death to the law and justice of God. For were
this satisfaction conceded, they see at once that the delinquents for whom
it was made must inevitably be saved." *
This whole system goes upon the principle that the atonement was a
legal transaction, partaking of a commercial nature, as if money had been
jjaid for the redemption of so many captives and no more, or for the dis
charge of the debt of so many imprisoned bankrupts and no more ; in
which case, as all can see, the ransomed captives or exonerated debtors
would have a legal claim to a discharge. To make out a parallel case
in a transaction where no money was paid, it is necessary to establish a
personal identity (for I can call it by no other name), between the rep
resentative and the represented, which they denominate a legal oneness
(the justice of which depended on his previous consent), and to make
him legally guilty by imputation, and legally and justly adjudged to pun
ishment in the room of those whom he represented, and to make him suf
fer a literal and legal punishment, the same in kind and degree that the
law had threatened to that particular number. In this way law and jus
tice were literaUy satisfied and could demand no more ; and those whose
debt was thus discharged can claim of law and justice a release, and can
not legally or justly be punished again, but have a righteousness legally
their own by imputation, and which legally and justly entitles them to
justification ; and yet not a legal claim to justification in their own per
sons, but in their Surety ; they virtually possessing two persons, one
demanding of the law condemnation, the other demanding of the law justi
fication : and all this not depending on their faith ; for one of the blessings
to which (though unconscious of it) they have this legal claim, is the gift
* Geth. p. 10, 11, 20, 21.
19*

222 NATURE OF THE ATONEMENT. [PART I.
of faith. The result is, that Christ was a surety, sponsor, or represent
ative for none but those who will be saved, and could not justly suffer for
any whose sins were not thus finaby taken from them and laid upon him.
Had a legal oneness between Christ and bebevers (as relates to justifi
cation, not to the amount of his sufferings) been asserted, it would not
have limited the atonement ; for it would still have left to all a chance to
come into this relation to him by believing ; and that would have been
an atonement for all as moral agents. It was necessary to extend the
oneness so far as to limit the sufferings : for had they been sufficient for
all, it must be acknowledged, since the benefit is offered to all, that
they change the relations of all, so that they can be pardoned if
they will bebeve ; which again makes out an atonement for all as
moral agents. And if the oneness must be so extended as to af
fect the amount of sufferings, it cannot lie between Christ and those
indiscriminately who would believe, but between him and a certain
number of designated individuals, whose sins could be exactly weighed.
And the oneness must have been established before he suffered, as
his sufferings were to be their legal punishment. In every point of
view the system must take this precise shape, in order to bear upon a
limited atonement, which, as the author of ""Gethsemane conclusively
pleads, can be supported on no other ground. The oneness must be legal
to limit the sufferings ; and when their limit is to be fixed, the number
and individuals for whom they are to be endured must be known ; and
since the infliction is to be legal, it cannot take place tiU the union is first
formed. It is of course a vital principle of the system that a legal one
ness was established in the covenant of redemption between Christ and
the elect, which exists of course before they believe, and existed before
he died, and was the ground of the imputation of their sins to him ; that
the elect as elect were regarded in the covenant as bis body, bis mem
bers,- his church, his spiritual seed, standing in the same relation to him
that the posterity of Adam do to their federal head ; in short, that ante
cedent to all faith, a complete legal oneness existed between the elect and
Christ. He was legally bound to suffer their punishment both in meas
ure and kind ; and bonds being given to that effect, they had, though un
known to themselves, a legal claim to a discharge.
There are, I conceive, two errors in this system. The first is, that it
makes the union which really subsists between Christ and believers to
lie between Christ and the elect. The second is, that it supposes a legal
oneness, a legal imputation, a legal obligation to suffer, a legal punish
ment, a legal satisfaction, and a legal claim on the part of the redeemed.
We admit a very intimate union between Christ and believers, and that
kind of imputation both of sin and righteousness which consists in treat-

CHAP. VII.] FIGURATIVE LANGUAGE. 223
ment, and a bond on him to suffer imposed by a divine command, and the
infliction of that which answered every purpose of a legal punishment,
and a full satisfaction yielded to the Protector of the law, and the claim
of believers on the promise of God. But we deny that either of these is
legal. The mistake of supposing them such has wholly arisen from draw
ing literal conclusions from figurative premises. Because Christ is said
to be one with believers or his church, he is legally one with the elect.
Because he is said to have been made sin for us (by which is meant that
he was treated as a sinner), he became legaby guilty by imputation. Be
cause the Lawgiver demanded satisfaction of him by commanding him to
die, law and justice made the demand. Because the iniquity of all is
said to have been laid on him, he sustained the bteral and legal punish
ment of sin. Because he was dragged to execution like a criminal, and
fell under the stroke of him who was wont to act as the legal Executioner,
law and justice were literally executed upon him. Because he rendered
full satisfaction to the Protector of the law, by securing its authority as
fully as though it had been literally executed, he satisfied both law and
justice. Because by a covenant claim he bound the arm of the Lawgiver
and Executioner not to strike believers, he bound the law itself not to
strike the elect. Because we are said to be made the righteousness of
God in him (by which is meant that we are treated as righteous, or have
the complete use of a righteousness, or possess a gracious title to justifi
cation through the righteousness of the Redeemer), we are considered in
the eye of the law as righteous. Because by his obedience he fulfilled all
the demands of the law against himseff, and answered all the purposes of
our perfect obedience, and by bis death accompbshed all the ends of a
bteral execution of the penalty, and thus became the end of the law for
righteousness to every one that believeth, he wrought out a legal right
eousness for the elect. And because God, having thus secured the au
thority of the law, can be just to himself, to his government, and to every
interest, while yet he is the justifier of him that believeth, the justification
of the elect is an act of distributive justice to them. Thus by pressing,
in some instances, the figurative language of Scripture into a literal mean
ing, and by twisting the truth a very bttle in others, they arrive at all the
conclusions which have been enumerated.
In proceeding to detect the mistakes of this system, I must begin by
remarking, that the atonement had none of the attributes of a commer
cial transaction. Christ paid no money for us, he only suffered. There
are two figures of a commercial nature which are commonly applied to
the subject. The first represents Christ as paying a ransom for the re
demption of captives, or purchasing bis church ; the second exhibits him
as discharging the debts of imprisoned bankrupts. The former is

224 NATURE OF THE ATONEMENT. [PART I.
derived from the Scriptures. I have already admitted that the higher
ransom, which involved the service of his obedience " unto death," was
limited to the elect. Their salvation was promised him as the reward
of that service. When he had fulfilled his part of the contract, he
became justly entitled to the recompense, as a man is to an article
which he has purchased. In this sense he may be said to have pur
chased the elect. And though the price is represented to be bis blood,
yet it. was the merit of obedience in laying down that blood which
really earned the reward. But this is altogether different from the
atonement. When the atonement is spoken of as a ransom, it is only a
price laid down to enable captives to come out if they will. If this
distinction is kept in mind, all the appeals to our sense of commercial
justice respecting the ransom will come to nothing.
The other figure, so far as I recollect, is purely of human invention.
The Scriptures, I believe, nowhere speak of Christ's paying the debt
even of believers, much less of the elect as such. They speak of the
debt as still remaining, and as being, after repentance and faith, gra
tuitously forgiven. They teach us to pray, " Forgive us our debts as
we forgive our debtors." They illustrate .our discharge by the case of
a servant who owed his lord ten thousand talents and had nothing to
pay, to whom, in answer to his entreaties, his lord forgave the whole.
Nor can it be overlooked, that this notion of paying our debt stands
diametrically opposed to every idea of pardon, and to all those repre
sentations of a free and gracious justification with which the Scriptures
abound. What remission or grace can there be in discharging a bank
rupt when his debts are paid ? You say there was grace in providing
the bondsman. Granted. But when the bondsman has discharged the
whole score, there is no grace in letting the debtor go. At least, there
is nothing which answers to the scriptural idea of pardon.
All the popular arguments, then, which are drawn from the figure of
paying debts, are not only unscriptural and of human invention, but
directly opposed to the Word of God. There was nothing in the atone
ment of such a commercial nature. And yet the whole system which
we are considering is built on the assumption that this august measure
had all the attributes of a money transaction. There is only one way
in which the resemblance can be at all maintained ; and that is by
establishing a personal identity between the representative and the
represented. If this could be done, I admit that all the principles of a
pecuniary payment would apply to the case. Whether, therefore, any
of the arguments founded on commercial figures are at all appbcable,
depends on the single question of that personal identity.
In proceeding to examine this alleged oneness in law, we must keep

CHAP. VII.] FIGURATIVE LANGUAGE. 225
in mind between what parties it is supposed to exist. Were it placed
between Christ and believers, it would not fix the exact amount of his
sufferings, and of course would have no influence to limit the atonement.
It is vital to the system to fix it between Christ and the elect, and to
establish it before be suffered, and at the time he gave #bonds to die.
The theory, then, labors under two distinct and powerful objections : first,
that a literal legal oneness in regard to guilt and righteousness is estab-
bshed between two parties ; secondly, that such a oneness subsists
between Christ and the elect before they believe, and even before they
are born. I will reverse the order and consider the latter first.
Whatever oneness subsists between Christ and believers, there appear
to be insurmountable difficulties in the way of making it lie between him
and the unborn or unregenerate elect.
First, no such oneness, I think, is spoken of in the Scriptures. I
read, indeed, that Christ and believers are in some respects one, that
Christ and his members are one ; that Christ and his church are one ;
but where do we read that Christ and the unborn or unregenerate elect
are one ? I know of but one passage which has the semblance of favor
ing such an opinion, Eph. 5 : 23-32. And that only speaks of a union be
tween Christ and his church ; but then by church here is thought to be
meant the whole body of the elect, because Christ is said to have loved
and given himself for it, that he might sanctify it. The question, then,
is, what is the meaning of church in the passage referred to ? It is
admitted on all hands that in almost every instance in which the word
is used in a general sense either in the Old Testament or New, it means
the " visible church," comprehending all those who " profess the true
religion." * Then the invisible or real church ought to comprehend all
those who possess the true religion. This is certainly the antithesis
between a visible and real Christian, and between visibility and reality
in every thing. Again, it is admitted that when either of the Hebrew
words which stand for church " occurs in the Old Testament," or the
Greek word " in the New, you are sure of an assembly, but of nothing
more." t But the elect are not an assembly before they exist, nor
before they are gathered together in Christ. This gathering, as a
distinct thing from election, is set in a strong light in the first chapter
of Ephesians. " Who hath blessed us [believers] with all spiritual
blessings — in Christ ; according as he hath chosen us in him before the
foundation of the world. — Having made known unto us the mystery of
his will, — that in the dispensation of the fulness of time, he might
* The Christian's Magazine, reputed to bo edited by the Eev. Dr. Mason, of New
York, Vol. I. p. 56, 57, 64, 65.
t Christian's Magazine, Vol. I. p. 55.

226 NATURE OF THE ATONEMENT. [PART I.
gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven
and which are on- earth, even in him." The gathering of the elect into
an assembly or church, then, takes place in time, and as fast as they are
made true believers. Accordingly, all the notices which we have of the
real or invisible church, apply to the general assembly of actual be
bevers. The description of that body is in these words, " The general
assembly and church of the first-born [sons and heirs of God by regen
eration and adoption], which are written in heaven," Heb. 12 : 23, in the
register of the city of God : not those who were destined to citizenship,
but those who are actual citizens. " Unto'him be glory in the church by
Christ Jesus throughout all ages, world without end." Eph. 3:21. And
in the very place under consideration, " Therefore as the church is sub
ject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing.
Husbands love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and
gave himself for it, that he might sanctify and cleanse it, — that he
might, present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle,
or any such thing. — So ought men to love their wives as their own
bodies. — For no man ever yet hated his own flesh, but nourisheth and
cberisheth it, even as the Lord the church. For we [believers], are
members of bis body, of bis flesh, and of his bones." Now the unborn
or unregenerate elect are not subject to Christ, are not nourished and
cherished by him, are not bving members of him, are not married to
him. The real church is " the bride, the Lamb's wife." Rev. 21 : 9.
As it is the marriage covenant which makes the wife, so it is the
covenant of grace between Christ and believers which makes the church.
The covenant between the sacred persons about the elect was like the
espousal of infants to each other by the act of their parents ; but
marriage is effected by nothing but a mutual covenant between the
parties. None belong to the real invisible church till they have given
themselves away to Christ in an everlasting covenant, and till such a
mutual affection is formed as subsists between husband and wife. The
church, both visible and real, is the body of Christ, and its members are
members of him. This is true of the visible church. " He is the head
of the body, the church. — For his body's sake, which is the church,
whereof I am made a minister." Col. 1 : 18, 24, 25. The visible church
seems to be respected, if not chiefly, in the following passage : " And
gave him to be Head over all things to the church, which is his body,
the fulness of him that filleth all in all." Eph. 1 : 22, 23. This is true
also of the invisible church ; as appears from the very passage under
consideration. " The husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is
the Head of the church ; and he is the Saviour of the body. — No man
ever yet hated his own flesh, but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as

CHAP. VII.] FIGURATIVE LANGUAGE. 227
the Lord the church. For we are members of his body, of his flesh,
and of his bones. For this cause shall 'a man leave his father and
mother and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one
flesh. This is a great mystery ; but I speak concerning Christ and the
church." Now, are the unborn and unregenerate elect thus one flesh
with Christ, and members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones?
Is there that nourishment derived from him while they are without life ?
Is there that mutual sympathy between him and them while they
remain his enemies ? Has he so many dead and putrid members
hanging to his body ? Very different is the view of his body as given
by the inspired apostle. " But speaking the truth in love, may grow up
into him in aU things, which is the Head, even Christ ; from whom the
whole body, fitly joined together and compacted by that which every
joint supplieth, according to the effectual working in the measure of
every part, maketh increase of the body unto the edifying of itself in
love." Eph. 4: 15, 16. It is a part of the system that the elect were
" put into Christ " before the foundation of the world. But the Scrip
tures know of no such union antecedent to faith. " If any man be in
Christ he is a new creature." " Of him are ye in Christ Jesus, who of
God is made unto us — sanctification." " And I, brethren, could not
speak unto you as unto spiritual, but as unto carnal, even as unto babes
in Christ." " Who also were in Christ before me." " The churches in
Judea which were in Christ." " We are in him that is true, even in his
Son Jesus Christ." " God — hath quickened us, — and — raised us up
together, and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus."
" Ye are all one in Christ Jesus." " We being many are one body in
Christ, and everyone members one of another." Rom. 12 : 5. 16: 7.
1 Cor. 1 : 30. 3:1. 2 Cor. 5 : 17. Gal. 1 : 22. 3 : 28. Eph. 2 : 4^6.
1 John 5 : 20. The idea of being in Christ, is that we are so united to
him as to draw present life from him, as the branches from the vine ;
and the bond of this union is faith. " Abide in me and I in you : as the
branch cannot bear fruit of itself except it abide in the vine, no more
can ye except ye abide in me. I am the vine, ye are the branches ; he
that abideth in me and I in him, the same bringeth forth much fruit. —
If a man abide not in me, he is cast forth as a branch and is withered."
John xv. It is a part of the system, that the unborn and unregenerate
elect are the spiritual seed of Christ, made so by their federal relation
to him. But if it is so, there is no analogy between the head-ships of
the two Adams. The posterity of the first Adam possesses bis temper
as soon as they exist his seed ; but according to this theory, men are the
seed of Christ for many years without bearing his image, and while
remaining strangers and enemies. A seed are not constituted such by

228 NATURE OF THE ATONEMENT. [PART I.
covenant, but are made such by birth. The seed of the first Adam
became such by generation, and share by covenant only bis sin and
condemnation. If there is any analogy, men become the seed of Christ
by a new birth, and instantly begin to partake of his holiness and justifi
cation. They are never the seed of Christ till they are the sons of God
and heirs of glory. " If any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is
none of his." Rom. 8 : 9. Accordingly, the seed that were promised
Christ as a reward, were not a body of unregenerate elect, but a glo
rious company of believers. When this " general assembly and church
of the first-born " are contemplated in relation to their Shepherd, they
are the flock, the sheep who " know his voice," and know him, and
" follow him," and will not follow a stranger. John 10 : 4, 5, 8, 14, 27.
The church, the body, the members, the flock, the sheep, the seed of
Christ, are all terms of equal import, and denote, in their proper and
primary sense, not the elect as such, but bebevers, the first-born, the
sons of God and heirs of glory ; but are applied to those who are visibly,
as well as to those who are really such. Yet in one instance the unre
generate and unborn elect are figuratively and by way of anticipation,
called the sheep : " Other sheep I have which are not of this fold. — Ye
believe not because ye are not of my sheep." John 10: 16, 26. And
once, by the same form of speech, they are called the children of God :
" He prophesied that Jesus should die for that nation only, but that also
he should gather together in one the children of God that were scattered
abroad." John 11 : 51, 52. On the other hand, in two places those who
were already the church, or believers, are spoken of under that denomi
nation, but with reference to their previous elect character. One of
these instances is in the passage under consideration. " Christ also
loved the church [that body of men who when developed are presented
as the church, the bride, the Lamb's wife, married to him by covenant,
united to him in mutual affection, "subject unto Christ," "one flesh"
with him, his " body," " members of his body, of his flesh, and of his
bones "], and gave himself for it, that he might sanctify and cleanse it
with the washing of water by the word ; that he might present it to
himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such
thing, but that it should be holy and without blemish." That is, he
gave himself that by his obedience " unto death " he might ransom the
elect from the dominion of sin, and have a covenant right to sanctify
them as his reward. In this sense he effectually purchased them. Now,
whether the term church is applied to them viewed as the unregen
erate elect, or as the body of developed elect under the character of
believers, will appear from the other instance referred to in which the
same form of expression is used. " Take heed therefore unto yourselves

CHAP. VII.] FIGURATIVE LANGUAGE. 229
and to all the flock [the sheep, the accredited believers of Ephesus,]
over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the
church of God which he hath purchased with his own blood." Acts 20 :
28. Here the church which Christ loved and gave himseff for, that he
might sanctify it, is found to be the body of believers, contemplated with
reference to their former character of elect. But it is only in the
character of bebevers that the denomination of church is applied to
them. When, therefore, it is said in the fifth of Ephesians, that Christ
and the church are " one flesh," we are not to understand that such a
union exists between him and the unborn or unregenerate elect, but
only between him and the body of believers.
And when this passage is disposed of, I know of no other which has
the semblance of favoring such an opinion. And to build so stupendous
a structure on a single passage, which at best is of doubtful import, seems
not to be wise or warrantable. The other texts which occur to me unde
niably speak of believers. Take, for instance, that in the 17th of John :
" Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on
me through their word ; that they all may be one, as thou, Father, art in
me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us : — I in them, and thou
in me, that they may be made perfect in one."
Secondly, if Christ is one in law with the unborn and unregenerate
elect, then the latter were justified from eternity. It is alleged, that, by
the covenant of redemption, they were put into Christ, and made feder
ally one with him, as the posterity of Adam are with their federal head,
and were constituted his spiritual seed, his members, his body, his invisi
ble ehurch ; and that this was the ground of the legal transfer of their
sins to him, by which they obtained a claim on law and justice to a dis
charge. Then certainly they were justified from eternity. Adam's
posterity are condemned with him as soon as they become his seed ; and
the elect must be justified with Christ as soon as they sustain the relation
of seed to him. How could they be federally his seed, and yet remain
under condemnation? If they. were put into Christ, in any sense in
which that phraseology is used in Scripture, they were certainly justified.
"There is — now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus."
Rom. 8:1. If they were one in law with Christ, and their guilt was
Uterally taken from them and put upon him, then they were clear. Take
the favorite case of a bondsman assuming the whole debt: certainly
where this is done the original debtor is discharged. I know there is an
inconsistency in the very supposition of eternal justification, because jus
tification respects the treatment and relations of moral agents in actual
existence. But if men could so far exist in the purpose and view of
God as to have their guilt literally and substantially transferred to Christ
20

230 NATURE OF THE ATONEMENT. [PART I.
from eternity, they could be eternally justified. Unless, then, we are
prepared, in the face of the entire Epistles to the Romans and Galatians,
to maintain the doctrine of eternal justification, we must abandon this
idea of eternal oneness between Christ and the elect. Will you say,
then, that they are one with him as soon as they exist ? Then they are
justified in a state of unregeneracy. It is manifest, that none but the
justified can in any sense be one in law with Christ. The man who lies
under condemnation at the same moment that Christ is justified, is neither
considered nor treated as one in law with him. If, then, the unregen
erate elect are one in law with Christ, and have a claim on justice to a
discharge, they are already justified, not " by faith," but without faith.
But this is certainly not the fact. They are " by nature the children of
wrath, even as others." Eph. 2 : 3. And thus they remain, until by a
new birth they become the seed of Christ, and are united to him in holi
ness and justification. And when they begin to draw life from him, then
are they the members of bis body, branches of the living Vine, parts of
the real invisible church. Till then they are only destined to such an
union. But this legal oneness, whether with believers or unbelievers, is a
thing impossible. There is such a thing as a legal oneness between two
parties in certain respects, and to a certain extent. The fobowing
instances may be selected.
(1) A oneness in commercial concerns. Such an identity exists to
a certain extent between husband and wife, and between partners in
trade. The reason is, that two persons may have a common right hi
the same property, and according to the laws of society one may bind
the whole concern. One person may also identify himself with another
by bond. This is founded in the fact that property is not inseparable
from the person, but is alienable at one's own discretion. Any man
has a right to give his property to another, or, which is the same thing,
to assume his obligations.
(2) Such an identity that one may act for another, and lay the other
under moral obligations. Thus parents may bind their children out to
an earthly master, and lay them under moral obligations to serve him.
Thus they may bind them out to a heavenly Master in the ordinance of
baptism, and lay upon them new obligations to serve him. This is
founded on the fact that parents have received from God, and in the
former instance, from the laws of society, a right thus to dispose of their
children. (3) A political oneness. All the inhabitants of a country are treated
as enemies whenever the government sees fit to declare war. This is
because they are understood to be so under the control of their govern-

CHAP. VII.] FIGURATIVE LANGUAGE. 231
ment as to be transformed by its authority into actifal and voluntary
enemies ; or because they are considered so much the interest and care
of the government as to be the proper medium through which revenge
can be executed upon it.
(4) A oneness between a man and his representative, where the lat
ter is only the organ to execute the will or to indicate the heart of his
principal. Such is the identity between a king and his envoy, who is
governed by royal instructions. Such I understand to be the identity
between Adam and us. A oneness of moral character was first estab
lished between Adam and his posterity, so that if he was holy we should
be holy, if he was sinful we should be sinful. This done, his outward
act (for we are nowhere said to be condemned for the sin of Adam's
heart), was as much the index of our heart as his own, and was made
the public ground of our condemnation, in the same sense that our out
ward act would have been the ground had we eaten the apple ourselves.*
* Because Adam and his posterity are supposed to present an instance of such
a legal oneness as we deny, it is necessary to dwell on this subject a little. The only
passage in the Bible which plainly asserts that we are condemned to more than tem
poral calamities and death for Adam's sin, or which draws a complete parallel be
tween Adam and Clirist, is found in the 5th of Romans. The extent of the parallel
is of course to be learned from the parallel itself, and nothing appears in it to limit its
universality. Our surest way, then, to learn the connection between the first Adam
and his posterity, is from the known connection between the Second Adam and his
seed. (1) By a covenant transaction between the Father and Son, those who were to be
the seed of Christ were from eternity elected or appointed to a state of justification.
To comport with this, the posterity of Adam, in consequence of a covenant transac
tion between God and him, were, before their existence, appointed to a state of con
demnation. (2) The elect are not justified before they become the seed of Christ by a new birth.
To comport with this, the condemnation pronounced on the race does not apply to
the individuals of Adam's posterity before they actually exist, and therefore not until
they are shapen in iniquity and conceived in sin.
(3) The first holy bias which is given to the seed of Christ in regeneration, is not
the effect, but the antecedent, of their justification, and is produced according to the
constitution established in the covenant of redemption. It is, however, a part of his
personal reward. To comport with this, the first evil bias to which the posterity of
Adam are left, is not the effect, but the antecedent, of their condemnation, and is the
consequence of a constitution established in the covenant with Adam before the fall, by
which the union of moral character between him and his posterity was fixed. It re
sulted, however, from his personal condemnation.
(4) The seed of Christ are justified as fully and extensively as Christ himself,
being entitled to » deliverance from the power of a threefold death. To comport
with this, the posterity of Adam are condemned as fully and extensively as he him
self was to a threefold death. But he was not condemned to the first sin.
(5) The essential condition on which the seed of Christ share in his justification, is

232 NATURE OF THE ATONEMENT. [PART I.
But that legaP oneness which can make a holy person chargeable in
law and justice with the guilt of a sinner, and render his sufferings a bt-
that they resemble him in the temper of their hearts. To comport with this, the es
sential condition on which the posterity of Adam share in his condemnation, is that
they partake of his depravity.
(6) The righteousness of Christ is the sole ground of the justification of his seed,
and they are justified for his righteousness as fully as though it was their own. To
comport with this, as far as the nature of things will admit, the offence of Adam is
the sole ground on which the public sentence against his posterity rests, and they are
condemned for his outward act as fully as though it had been their own. I say, as.
far as the nature of things will admit ; for there is this difference in the two cases, as
all must allow ; the personal depravity and transgressions of Adam's race are a meri
torious ground of condemnation, but the personal holiness of Christ's seed is no part
of the meritorious ground of their justification.
On this account, and because it is abhorrent to all our ideas of justice to condemn
a race, viewed as personally innocent, on account of the sin of another, I take the par
allel to import no more than that Adam's outward act, as being the index of the hearts
of all Ms posterity, was the public ground of condemning his infant race to a threefold
death ; and I think the Scriptures support this idea.
First, the sin of Adam for which his posterity are condemned was a single offence.
The other sins of his life had no such influence on them. And the reason is, that the
one offence by which he himself fell under condemnation, fixed, and by fixing, dis
covered, the character of all his race.
Secondly, the offence for which Adam himself was condemned, and for which his
race are condemned, was an outward and visible act. Not a hint either in the prohi
bition or sentence about the sin of his heart.
Thirdly, it must always be kept in mind that the sentence of condemnation wliich
came on Adam and his race was .a public judgment, pronounced in the hearing of
three worlds, and intended to affect the whole human race in a state of infancy- Now,
it would not have comported with God's manner of dealing with his creatures, to
have founded such a public sentence on any thing but visible conduct ; and as it was
to spend itself on a race of infants, who, though worthy to be condemned for their own
depravity, would be incapable of any visible conduct on which the public sentence
could rest, the manifest act of their federal head, which at once fixed and discovered
their character, was made the public ground of their condemnation. They were con
demned, for his act just as though it had been their own, and in the same sense in
which men are publicly condemned for any outward action. There are two things
necessary to give complete existence to sin, so as to make it the proper ground of
public condemnation ; tho consent of the heart, and the outward act. Now Adam for
himself had both of these parts of a complete transgression ; but his infant seed had
but one. To supply this defect, his outward act was put for their outward act, as
being, no less than their own, a faithful index of their hearts : and thus a complete
foundation was laid for their public condemnation, and just such a foundation as was
laid for the public condemnation of Adam himself. He was publicly condemned, not
for a wicked heart, but for an outward transgression. But he would not have been
condemned for that outward transgression had it not been the index of his heart. So
they are publicly condemned, not for the depravity of their hearts, but for a visible
act ; but they would not have been condemned for that act of their federal head, had
it not been an index of their hearts. As an organ to express the tempers of all men,

CHAP. VII.] FIGURATIVE LANGUAGE. 233
eral and legal punishment of the sins of the latter, and cancel the sin
ner's law obligation to suffer, and give him a claim on justice for a dis
charge, is a thing impossible, unless two moral agents can be absolutely
and indivisibly one, with an intercommunion of moral qualities and sen
sations, which at once destroys the idea of one's being personally holy,
and the other personally a sinner. There must upon this plan have
been an absolute personal identity between Christ and the elect, even
while the latter were dead in trespasses and sins and under condemna
tion ; and then he must have been personally a sinner, and could not
have conveyed to them even a figurative righteousness. This talk about
a legal oneness seems to us about as cababstic as the alleged identity be
tween Christ and the1 bread and wine ; and it manifestly sprang from
the same origin, the confounding of the figurative and literal meaning of
it answered the identical purpose of an external act dictated by the universal- consent,
and performed by the united hands, of the whole human race.
Fourthly, the phraseology of the parallel, if understood according to this interpreta
tion, is according to the established language of the world. We say a man was con
demned for murdering his neighbor : we name only the outward action ; and yet we
distinctly understand that he would not have been condemned for that act had it not
been viewed as an expression of malice prepense ; for instance, had it been done by
accident or in a paroxysm of madness. This is the universal language of mankind,
as it is also of the Scriptures. In the form of expression we always found the con
demnation on the outward action alone, but our meaning is, that it rests on the action
as the index of the heart. So the apostle, in the form of his expression, founds our
condemnation on Adam's act alone, but his meaning is, that it rests on that act as the
index of our hearts. At least, if he is thus understood, he is understood according to
the general language of the Bible, and the established language of the world.
Fifthly, none can ever prove that the apostle means more ; for this is the only pas
sage in the Bible in which we are said to be condemned for Adam's sin to more than
temporal calamity and death ; and neither in this nor in any other place is it hinted
that we are condemned for the sin of Adam's heart.
The true reason, then, why we were condemned for Adam's sin, is that we were de
praved, and in the sight of God were fit subjects for condemnation ourselves. And this
has been the opinion of some of the best divines of the Genevan school. We, then, are
treated no worse than we might justly have been treated had there been no federal
head. If it was just to withhold divine influence from Adam and the angels before
they had, sinned, and immediately after a course of faithful service, it would not have
been unjust to have .withheld that influence from an infant race without a federal head.
And when they had thus become depraved, and fit subjects for condemnation in the
eight of God, justice would not have required that their visible condemnation should
rest on a visible ground. They might, so far as justice was concerned, have been
condemned for their own depravity without the public act of a federal head. Adam's
sm is not imputed except as being the visible act by which their hearts were revealed.
And to talk of their double guilt (their own and Adam's united), is like talking of
the double guilt of a murderer, because he did the act and had a wicked heart.
According to this representation, there was no such legal oneness between Adam
and his posterity as is pleaded for in the system under consideration.
20*

234 NATURE OF THE ATONEMENT. [PART I.
texts. Because Christ says, "This is my body," and "This is my blood,"
the Romish Church will have it that it is bterally true : and because
Christ and believers are said to be " one flesh," like husband and wife,
such a oneness must be supposed between him and the unregenerate elect
as never existed between husband and wife, nor ever, so far as we are
taught, between the Divine Persons. Certainly in the offices in which
the Sacred Three are exhibited, there is no such confusion of persons as
is here made between the holy Son of God and unsanctified sinners.
Substitution does not constitute personal identity. All that is true in
the case, when figures are laid astde, is, that the parties are treated as
one. Christ was treated as a sinner on our account, and bebevers (not
the unregenerate elect), are treated as righteous for bis sake.
This we understand to be the only proper idea of imputation, either of
sin or of righteousness. Imputation in neither case impbes personal
identity, nor does it consist in considering the parties as one (for God
considers things as they are), but in treating them as one. I am far
from denying the doctrine of imputation, or wishing to lay aside the use
of the word, and regret that some have thought it necessary to do this.
Imputation is a gospel term, and ought to be employed. But in almost
every instance in which it is used in the Bible, it signifies a practical
reckoning of a thing to a man, Lev. 7: 18. 17: 4. 2 Sam. 19: 19. Ps.
32 : 2, with ver. 1. Rom. 4 : 3-10, 22-24. 5:13. 2 Cor. 5:19. Gal. 3 :
6. James 2 : 23 ; only in two instances have I found it used for an
opinion of the mind, 1 Sam. 22: 15. Hab. 1: 11; and never for any
thing which impbes a legal oneness between two persons. Calvin also
explains the term by saying, Christ " was made a Substitute and Surety
for transgressors, and was treated as a criminal himself." * I plead for a
practical imputation, and deny only a legal one. Nor do I make it to
consist in the imputation of the effects of sin and righteousness. I fuUy
admit the imputation of sin and righteousness themselves, as to every
practical purpose. But such an imputation as made Christ guilty in the
eye of the law, and makes the elect, or even bebevers, righteous in the
eye of the law, I do not understand. In particular, how the sins of the
elect could be so imputed to Christ that he should be legally adjudged to
suffer for them, while the law continued to demand punishment of the
elect themselves, and held them still under condemnation, I cannot com
prehend. Here are the two condemnations for the same offence which
are so much complained of. To avoid this difficulty we must run again
into eternal justification. And even here we are not safe ; for the law
still condemns those whom grace has justified.
* Gethsemane, p. 157.

CHAP. VII.] FIGURATIVE LANGUAGE. 235
It is said, that God could not justly inflict sufferings on Christ without
first legally imputing to him our sins, and thus attaching to him a just
babibty to punishment. But what is gained by this resort ? How did
God legally impute to him our sins ? Why, by commanding him to die,
they say. It comes out, then, at last, that it would not have been just for
God to strike, had he not first commanded him to receive the blow. But
this seems a strange way of rendering a stroke just, which otherwise
would have been unjust.
The mediatorial law did, indeed, require Christ to suffer. In other
words, God, for reasons already assigned, commanded him to lay down
his life. But that the moral law which man had broken, the moral
law which was the exact measure of justice, required an innocent person
to suffer for the guilty, is manifestly not the fact. We have the law be
fore us, and know from the letter of it what it required. " The soul that
smneth, it shall dje ; " not, it or a substitute. That addition is supplied
by the imaginations of men. The law knew no substitute. It demanded
the death of the identical person who had sinned, and not the death of
another. And unless another could become the same person by an inter
communion of consciousness and sensation, so that the punishment would
attach to the identical agent who had sinned, the law could not de
mand his death. There could be no commutation of persons here as
in a money transaction. Another may assume my pecuniary obligation,
because he can give me so much of his property ; but another cannot
" take upon himself my person," and " sustain my person," so as to render
him the " it " which the law declared should die. This is what no power
could accompbsh.
Christ, therefore, could not sustain our legal punishment, or the literal
penalty of the law. If the law had said that we or a substitute should
die, this might have been the case ; but it said no such thing. The law
is before us, and we see with our eyes that it contains no such clause.
The plain truth is, that the sufferings of Christ were not our punishment,
but only came in its room. They were not the death of the identical
"it," that had sinned. They answered, indeed, the same purpose as
related to the honor of the law, but they were not the same thing, and
could not be the same thing, without an absolute personal identity. So
far from enduring our punishment, the plain fact is, be died to prevent
our punishment.
But it is still urged with a surprising degree of tenacity, that the
honor of God and the eternal principles of right bound him to punish sin.
But he did not punish sin ; for the sinner escaped and the innocent
suffered. It is said, that truth required him to punish. Then truth
failed ; for certainly he did not punish Paul, and Christ was not a sinner.

236 NATURE OF THE ATONEMENT. [PART I.
But it is not so that a lawgiver pledges his truth for the uniform execu
tion of every sanction. The penalty is not of the nature of a prediction
or promise, but merely states what transgression deserves and may
ordinarily expect. Otherwise every act of mercy in human govern
ments is a departure from verity.*
It is a part of the system, that Christ suffered in kind precisely what
was denounced against the elect. What, was he given up to unholy and
tormenting passions ? for we have seen that such an abandonment was
the spiritual death included in the sentence of the law. And what can
be meant by his being the object of God's "disapprobation," and one
whom he could not " approve and justify," unless the words are used in a
highly figurative sense to denote the treatment which it was proper for
him to receive ? That God should in his heart regard with holy compla
cency in one view, and with infinite indignation in another, the same iden
tical person, with an unmixed character, was manifestly as impossible as
for the bread and wine to be the real presence. That he regarded him
as an object standing to receive the treatment due to sinners (so far as
was necessary to answer the purpose), while yet in every view he re
garded his person with unmingled love, is the whole truth when figures
are laid aside. Through all the incarnation the Father purposely showed
that he was not angry, but well pleased, with the Son ; that he was not
punishing him as an enemy who had a separate interest from his own ;
that he felt for him through the whole scene ; and that what he laid on
him was a sacrifice of the parental as well as of the filial feelings. This
appeared in his causing the elements, diseases, and demons to obey him,
in the answer of his prayer at the grave of Lazarus and in the very scene
of his sufferings, in the repeated declaration from heaven, " This is my
beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased," and in the mission of angels to
support him in the wilderness and in the garden. Indeed, the moment
you lose sight of the unabated love of the Father, the death of Christ no
longer appears that wonderful expression of God's determination to exe
cute wrath on future transgressors. In figurative language, I have no
objection to saying, with our catechism, that he endured the wrath of God.
But if this is construed to mean that he verily believed the Father was
angry with him, or to mean any thing more than the withdrawment of
the divine presence, and the imposition of amazing sufferings of body and
soul, I must demur.
The lifeblood of the system lies in the assumption that Christ bore the
exact punishment of such a number of sins, in measure as well as kind ;
* That expression in tho 85th Psalm, " Mercy and truth aro met together," refers, I
suppose, to God's faithfulness in executing his promises. See a note near tho conclu
sion of tho 6th chapter.

CHAP. VII.] FIGURATIVE LANGUAGE. 237
and men have talked with great precision about the necessity of punish
ing " each and every sin," and of laying " each and every sin " of the
elect upon a substitute.* The meaning is not that he bore as much as
all the elect deserved for an hour or a day (for why should he suffer ex
actly what was due to them for a season, and not what was due to them
unlimitedly ?) but the whole amount of what they deserved to eternity.
This is manifestly the meaning. He endured " all that these iniquities
deserved," " the punishment due to the sins of the elect," " the idem," " all
that [they were] condemned to sustain," " whatsoever was due to the
elect for their sin," nothing "less than the debnquents — would them
selves have suffered," that which was " in exact proportion to the guilt of
the many sinners he had undertaken to redeem," that which was "in
every respect commensurate to the requirements of justice," " not a single
pang more or less than the law could have righteously inflicted on the
sinners themselves," " the apportioned desert of imputed sin." " The
whole debt [was] required of him." " The redemption price [bore] an
exact proportion to the number of persons redeemed, and to the guilt and
punishment from which they are redeemed : " " for without a proportion
between the guilt and the punishment, justice is not satisfied." " The
sanction of the divine law is irreversible," and cannot " be annulled or
relaxed." f
Now if it was so, it is difficult to see what was gained to the universe
by the death of Christ. We have been accustome* to regard bis substi
tution as a glorious expedient to prevent misery; but upon this plan
every scintilla of wretchedness which Satan ever plotted against the cre
ation of God was endured. But there is a stronger difficulty still. A
single sin deserves an endless, which is in fact an infinite, punishment
The sufferings of Christ, then, must have been infinite for a single sin :
and of course for a single sin his Godhead must have suffered ; for to talk
of a finite nature's sustaining infinite misery in a day, however supported
by divinity, is, to say the least, using words without a meaning. His
Godhead, then, must have suffered infinite misery, and yet but a single sin
was atoned for. How, then, was all the guilt of all the elect to be expi
ated ? Could he endure more, infinitely more, than infinite misery ? mis
ery as many times infinite, if I may so say, as the number of sins to be
pardoned ? This is probably the most extravagant opinion that was ever
broached in the Christian church. And for it there is not a particle of
countenance in the word of God. Where is the intensity of our Saviour's
sufferings measured ? What saith the Scripture ? " Christ hath re
deemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us." But
* Delegates from Drent in the Synod of Dort. — Acts of Synod, Part III. p. 209.
t Gethsemane.

238 NATURE OF THE ATONEMENT. [PART I.
how a curse for us ? by suffering the infinite pains of damnation ? No
such thing : " for it is written, Cursed is every one that bangeth on a
tree." Gal. 3 : 13. For a person of such infinite dignity to die on a tree,
a death which had been pronounced in Israel accursed, Deut. 21 : 23, was
as strong an expression of every thing which punishment could express
(except the literal and legal imputation of personal guilt), as could have
been made by the eternal destruction of men. This was enough, and the
endurance of the same misery in measure and kind was by no means nec
essary. If to the purpose of supporting the divine law, the sufferings of
Christ, considering his infinite interest in the Father's love, were equiva
lent to the eternal misery of those for whom he died, it was sufficient :
and if to such a purpose they were equivalent to the eternal misery of all
Adam's race, they were sufficient, if expressly endured for so many, to
make atonement " for the sins of the whole world." Certain it is that he
must have died to atone for a single sin, for without the shedding of blood
there was no remission. Heb. 9 : 22. It is therefore fruitless to attempt
to decide the number for whom he expiated by the severity of his suf
ferings.* * A writer of much greater general consistency allows himself still to reason thus :
" As all sins are particular, there can be no such thing as a general atonement unless
it has respect to all the individual acts. — If justice required that any one of these sins
should be punished in the sinner if he endures the punishment himself, it must equally
require that every one sf them should be imputed to any Surety who undertakes to
satisfy in his place. An atonement, therefore, cannot be, as some suppose, a general
expression of God's disapprobation of sin without regard to particular sins. — All the
arguments which demonstrate the necessity of an atonement, prove that its nature must
be a satisfaction to divine justice for particular offences ; and if general, it is a satisfac
tion for all the particular sins ever committed. His death was, therefore, a real expia
tion, a full satisfaction for all the sins which were imputed to him. If he died for all
men, then he did make satisfaction for all and every sin ever committed in the world,
for the unpardonable sin and for final impenitence as well as others. — If Christ died
for all men, then he died for all the sins of men. Therefore he atoned for those sins
which are never pardoned. But what sort of an atonement is that for a sin which does
not even render it possible for the punishment of it to be removed 1 The sin against
the Holy Ghost, .and final impenitence and unbelief, . never can be pardoned ; and to
suppose them atoned for is absurd.
Tho Scripture declares two things ; that Christ suffered for our sins, and that he ren
dered it consistent with the honor of the law for all the sins of believers to be pardoned.
But that he bore each and every sin even of the elect, it nowhere says. Such a par-
ticularization is unknown to the Scriptures, and is a mere human inference from the
assumption that sin was literally and legally punished in him. But what does the
writer mean by Christ's bearing each and every sin 1 Does he mean that he suffered
more for a thousand sins than for a hundred 1 This is not his meaning, for he plainly
tells us, " We do not entertain the opinion that the Bcdeemcr suffered just so much
for the sins of A, and so much for B, &c. and if more had been intended to be saved,
that he must have suffered so much more." What, then, does ho mean ? If Clirist did

CHAP. VII-] FIGURATIVE LANGUAGE* 239
It follows from the foregoing reasonings, that the sufferings of Christ
were not a literal satisfaction of law and justice, even in behalf of be
bevers, much less in behalf of the unregenerate. elect. The law is before
us, and if we can read it we can see for ourselves what would have been
a literal satisfaction of its claims. It never demanded the death of the
innocent for the guilty, but the death of the identical persons who had
sinned ; and till this is yielded, the law is not literally satisfied, and jus
tice (for the law is the exact measure of justice) is not satisfied. Justice
did not take its course, for the Innocent suffered and the guilty escaped.
But the authority of the law is supported, even in the event of the par
don of believers (not in the event of the pardon of the unregenerate
elect, for that would ruin the law, and none the less for their being
elect) ; and this was enough to satisfy the Protector of the law. This
was the satisfaction really made. The Protector of the law was satis
fied : and men in expressing this truth in figurative language, said that
the law was satisfied. At length, when a system was to be supported,
the figurative origin of the phrase was forgotten, and the literal meaning
was transmuted to marble and erected in the church as a standard of
orthodoxy. If law and justice were not literally satisfied even in regard to believ
ers, then law and justice do not adjudge to believers a discharge, much
less to the unregenerate elect. . Law and justice eternally demand the
death of the persons who have once sinned ; and the security of believers
is, that they " are not under the law, but under grace." Rom. 6 : 14.
They really deserve to suffer as much as though Christ had never died.
To them eternal punishment, though it would be a breach of promise,
would not be unjust. It would indeed be unjust to Christ thus to de
prive him of bis stipulated reward ; but it would not be unjust to them,
because they personally deserve it. They do not merit what he merits.
They cannot claim from justice what he claims from justice. They have
not suffer more for a thousand sins than for a hundred, how were a thousand sins
rather than a hundred " imputed to him ? " and how did he satisfy for " all the indi
vidual acts " of the thousand'? If nothing more is meant by his bearing a million of
Paul's sins rather than a thousand, but that he suffered for Paul's sins in general, that
they all might be pardoned when he should believe, then the argument founded on
tins particularization is certainly fallacious. Then he did not bear a precise number
of sins ; and then the only question is, did his general suffering for sin render it con
sistent with the honor of the law for the elect only to be pardoned upon their believ
ing, or for all men to be pardoned if they would believe ? If the latter, then his death
had sufficient respect to the sins of all men to constitute it a real atonement for all.
But this dividing up of the atonement between particular sins (inferring that it was
not for this and that unrenounccd transgression), as though it was for sin in the ab
stract, and not for the sinner, is what the word of God knows nothing about.

240 NATURE OF THE ATONEMENT. [PART I.
the use of his righteousness, or a gracious title to justification on his ac
count ; but his righteousness is not literaby their righteousness, but only
comes in its room. Otherwise there is neither grace nor pardon in their
acquittal. If you say that to them it is grace and pardon, though to
Christ it is an act of justice, this is precisely what we mean ; and then
we ought to hear no more of their claim on justice. AU that a substi
tute could do for them was to reconcile their pardon with the honor of
the law ; but he could not lay an obligation on the law to justify them,
as if they had a literal righteousness. By his obedience "unto death"
he could create an obbgation on the Father to fulfil his covenant, but he
could not bind the law to repeal its sentence, " The soul that sinneth, it
shall die," and to declare transgressors justified : for that after all would
have been a justification by law. It is said that the justification of be
lievers is an act both of mercy and justice. If it is meant that it is an
act of mercy to them and of justice to Christ, I agree. But if it is
meant that it is both mercy and justice to them, it is like saying that a
man delivers his neighbor a sum of money as a gratuitous gift, and at
the same time to pay a debt of that amount. No proposition can be
more contradictory than that the justification of a transgressor is a legal
transaction, or that a sinner is literally righteous, or that a man is justly
entitled to pardon.
But you say, that, though the believer is undeserving in himself, the
Redeemer has made over to him his own claim, and given him a right to
plead that at the bar of eternal justice ; just as a man makes over to
another a pecuniary claim against a third person. This notion of a
commercial transfer has occasioned all the mistake. The creditor, it is
said, only demands his money ; and if the deht is paid by a third person,
justice can ask no more. This would be a fair illustration if Christ had
actually paid our de"bt ; but he only prepared the way, as we have seen,
for the debt to be freely forgiven. The case adduced, therefore, is really
no illustration. In an affair of debt, the creditor has indeed no just
claim for any thing but his money. He has no right to prevent a third
person from making a present to the debtor. When that third person
comes forward and pays the debt, be really makes a present to the
debtor of the whole amount. He actually increases the debtor's property ;
and the creditor's claim is as really cancelled as though the money had
passed through the debtor's own bands. It is easy thus to transfer prop
erty by gift, but not thus easy to transfer personal merit, with which
moral or distributive justice is concerned. In this difference lies the
fault of the illustration. A man may make over his property and render
a pauper rich ; but a holy person cannot make over his moral character
and render a sinner personally righteous, nor transfer the benefit of his

CHAP. VII.J FIGURATIVE LANGUAGE. 241
sufferings so as to render a transgressor personally undeserving of pun
ishment. By suffering for him he may render it unnecessary to the pub
lic good for him to suffer ; and the ruler, finding the necessities of the
law answered, though not one of its demands, may graciously forgive ;
yea, he may have promised to forgive, and may be bound to pardon by
truth and wisdom, and even by justice to the substitute, but not by jus
tice to the sinner himself, so long as it remains true that he personally
deserves punishment.
But let us examine this subject to the bottom. A man personally
deserving to die, it is said, may demand from justice, in other words from
law, an acquittal, under the claim of another who has suffered for him.
But how came the substitute by such a claim ? He may indeed have a
demand on the ruler, founded on a promise, for the pardon of the
offender ; but who gave him a claim on the law for a sentence that the
transgressor has never broken it ? or a demand binding the law to par
don (the law pardon !) ? or binding the law to accept an innocent victim
for the guilty ? The law, which (to make the case a parallel one) is
the exact and unchanging measure of justice, said that the sinner, not an
innocent substitute, should die. That then, and nothing but that, is the
claim of justice, — the unchangeable, indestructible claim of justice.
How came a substitute possessed of a demand which annihilates this, and
renders the immutable claim of justice unjust ? Even the administrator
of the law cannot be bound by justice (other than that justice to the sub
stitute which arises out of a promise of reward) to accept the suffer
ings of an innocent person in the room of the guilty. How can he be ?
If the brother of a murderer comes forward to-day and offers to die in
the criminal's stead, are the rulers of the land bound by justice to accept
the substitution and to let the murderer escape ? But how came they
bound ? Their law, which (to make it a parallel case) is the exact
measure of justice, said nothing about a substitute, but merely that the
murderer should die. That then, and nothing but that, is justice, or can
become justice ; and nothing else can annihilate justice, and , take its
place, its name, and its nature. On what principle, then, can the substi
tute force himself upon them, and in the name of justice demand the
release of one whom their law and justice condemn ?
But suppose the rulers have stipulated with the innocent brother to
accept his substitution, and have thus allured him on to death, nay, have
inflicted the stroke with their own hand, are they (but they are still not
their law), — are they not now bound by justice to release the criminal?
I answer frankly, not by justice to the criminal, but certainly by both
truth and justice to the substitute. Here i-s a claim of justice to be satis
fied. By what ? By the fulfilment of a contract on the part of the rul-
21 /

242 NATURE OF THE ATONEMENT. [PART I.
ers. But we have been speaking of a claim of justice supposed to have
been satisfied by the death of the innocent brother. By this insensible
transition from one claim to another the confusion is introduced.* No
one doubts that it is an act of justice to Christ to do to those for whom
he died according to all the antecedent stipulations, and therefore to
regenerate the elect and to justify and save believers. But we are not
speaking of a claim of justice to be satisfied by an act of the Father, but
a claim supposed to have been satisfied by the death of the Son ; not of a
debt of reward due from the Father to the Son, but of a debt of suffering
due from sinners to the divine law. It is admitted that Christ by his
obedience " unto death " rendered a stipulated service which justly entitled
him to the promised reward ; but this is not saying that by his expiation
he paid to eternal and immutable justice, whose rights are not conventional,
all that was due from bebeving sinners. He created a debt in favor of
himself, but did not pay what sinners owed. He made out a claim on
justice by his obedience, but did not satisfy one by his expiation. After
, the Father had constituted him the Saviour of the world, and had pub
licly promised to accept his sufferings in behalf of bebevers, and had
secretly covenanted to communicate faith to the elect, he owed it to him
to do as he had said. This was a claim against the Father. But the
question is, whether the atonement satisfied a claim which the divine law
had against sinners. This was a claim for the death of the transgressor
in person, and not of an innocent substitute. This claim was certainly
not enforced ; but, instead of that enforcement, the death of Christ was
accepted as an equal honor to the divine law. This is the plain matter
of facts in whatever language it may be wrapped up.
But it is asked, if one person has a just claim on another for kind
treatment, can he not transfer that claim, no less than a pecuniary one, to
a third person ? This question cannot refer to the claim of Christ to be
himself the object of the Father's love (for that, of course, he cannot
transfer), but to his claim to the salvation of believers. Can this claim
be transferred to them ? If a child, you say, visits one whom his father
has befriended, he feels himseff invested with a personal claim to a kind
reception, and if otherwise treated, resents it as a personal injury, and
not merely as an act of injustice to his father. Granted. But who gave
him that claim ? Not his father, but his God. The fifth commandment
* Thus Dr. Owen : " Ho who, without the consideration of the oblation of Christ,
could not but punish sin, that oblation being made, cannot punish those sins for which
Christ offered himself. Yea, he is more bound in strict right and in justice, in respect
of Jesus Christ, to confer grace and glory on all those for whom he died." Gctlisem-
ane, p. 83. Wo ought to settle onco for all whether God owes the acquittal to Christ
or to tho sinner, and keep to one point.

CHAP. VII.] FIGURATIVE LANGUAGE. 243
has invested every man with a right to be treated according to the rela
tions which he sustains. The son of a king is entitled to more respect
than the child of a beggar, and the son of a benefactor stands in a differ
ent relation from the son of an enemy. The child of your friend has a
claim of that general sort which is possessed by your neighbor, and ap
proaching to that which your own child possesses. Your own child has
a peculiar personal claim upon you ; but did you give him that claim
against yourself ? No, it was given him by God. But who or what gave
the Mediator a claim to the pardon of a sinner but the promise of God ?
That promise fastens the claim immovably in himself, and created no
such relation for the sinner as gave him a right by any law to urge the
claim in his own person. It cannot possibly be in him unless he has
actually performed the same service, or is absolutely identified with the
person of Christ, The claim of the Redeemer to the salvation of be
lievers has never been transferred or alienated, but remains in himself.
He has not put it into their hands as though about to leave them, and
sent them into the world endowed and alone. No, he abides with them,
and is himself at once their Guardian and their title to life. It is for
his own mere sake, from direct regard to him, and to satisfy a claim
which his obedience created, and which must be unalienably his own so
long as it remains true that the obedience was his and not another's, that
they receive their mercies from hour to hour.
This love of independence, which grasps the thought of having the
claim in our own possession, is much like the wish of the heir to get the
inheritance out of the hands of the parent ; or that propensity in men,
which, though not opposed to receiving existence from God, cleaves to
the idea of having been set forward with a self-moving power. We have
indeed a claim, but it is of a far different sort ; not on justice, but on a
promise dictated by free, rich, and amazing grace.
On the whole, if God should refuse to regenerate the elect or to Save
believers, in other words, should treat any of Adam's race less favorably
than was stipulated in his public or private promises, it might be a breach
of faith, it might be a^dereliction of the principles of wisdom and general
goodness, it might be injustice to the Mediator, but it would not be injus
tice to men ; that is, it would not be treating them worse than they per
sonally deserve, or worse than they must continue to deserve, though
omnipotence were exhausted in transferring guilt and righteousness, so
long as it shall remain true that they have ever sinned.
And this accords with the consciousness of every true bebever, what
ever systematic phrases he may be accustomed to use. When he is
humbled in the dust at the feet of his Maker, it is furthest from his
thoughts to make demands on justice. His language then is, " God be

244 NATURE OF THE ATONEMENT. [PART 1.
merciful to me a sinner." And when he obtains a sense of pardoning
love, he is the more confounded, and opens not his mouth for shame, be
cause a holy God is pacified towards him for all that he has done. Every
day of his life he confesses that it would still be just in God to send him
to perdition. And if it would be just, justice still demands his death.
And if justice demands his death, justice is not satisfied.
The literal truth is, that Christ answered all the purposes to the divine
law which could have been accomplished by. the actual satisfaction of its
demands against believers, and the actual satisfaction of justice upon
them. And this being done, it may be said by an easy figure, that law
and justice are satisfied. And though these expressions are not scrip
tural, but of human invention, I do not object to their use in prayer and
popular discourses. But every divine and every christian ought to
know that they are figurative expressions, and not attempt to draw from
them literal conclusions.
The foregoing remarks apply to believers. But in order to bring this
notion of a literal satisfaction to bear upon the limitation of the atone
ment, it is necessary to make out a satisfaction for the elect as elect.
Then from the time it was made, and even from the time that bonds
were given to make it, they were more than justified in our sense of the
word ; they were acquitted by law and justice, in other words, could de
mand of law and justice a sentence that they were as free from sin as the
angels in heaven. And then during all the days of their unregeneracy,
laW and justice had no demands against them. No condemnation or
even censure could reach them. Amidst all their rebelbons and blas
phemies, they stood as perfectly acquitted as Gabriel ; law and justice
both bending over them with their protecting shield, and constantly pro
nouncing them as spotless as heaven.
This is not scripture. Christ never in any sense made over his claim
to the unregenerate elect. They had no claim but to perdition, lying at
full length under the undiminished pressure of the curse, — " children of
wrath even as others." Peter himself had no righteousness till he be
lieved. " Christ is the end of the law for righteousness " only " to every
one that believeth ; " and it is constantly called " the righteoushess of
faith," " the righteousness which is of faith," " the righteousness which is
by faith," " the righteousness which is of God by faith," " the righteous
ness of God which is by faith," and the righteousness to which man be
lieveth with the heart. Rom. 3 : 22. 4 : 11, 13. 9 : 30. 10 : 4, 6, 10.
Phil. 3: 9. Heb. 11:7. Christ could not be the end of the law vfor
righteousness to unbelievers. He could not answer the purpose to the
law of a literal fulfilment of its demands on them, so as to reconcile with
its honor the pardon of those who continue to trample its authority in the

CHAP. VII.

1 FIGURATIVE LANGUAGE. 245

dust. We see at a glance that this was impossible. He could in no de
gree relieve the elect as elect, as unbelieving sinners, from the pressure
of condemnation. He could not, therefore (in the language so much ap
proved), discharge or assume the debts of the unregenerate elect. He
could not then stand the absolute surety or sponsor of such.
No, you say, but be stood the absolute surety and sponsor of the elect
viewed as believers. If you mean that he covenanted with the Father
about the gift of faith to them as the reward of his obedience *' unto
death," I agree. But when you speak of suretyship and sponsorship,
you refer to his assumption of their debts and obligations, and plainly
have your eye on bis atonement. But the atonement did not obtain for
them the gift of faith. The suretyship and sponsorship therefore did
not secure to them the character of bebevers. That was done by an in
fluence lying whohy without these offices. The virtue of these offices
must be spent, and the reward for executing them bestowed, before the
elect would be believers. In other words, the atonement must be
finished, and the reward for making it conferred before they could
receive the gift of faith ; for that gift was Christ's reward for making
atonement. Or, to resort to the favorite phraseology, their debts must be
assumed and discharged by their surety, and he must be recompensed
for having finished the work, before they would believe. Did he then
pay the debts of bebevers or unbelievers ? They must be freed from
debt, and the reward of their bberation must be bestowed before
they wiU believe. Do they go out bebevers or unbelievers ? Plainly
if Christ was an absolute surety or sponsor for so many elect sinners
by name, he sustained this relation to them, not as believers, but as
unbelievers. This lays open at once the fallacy of that dream about an absolute
suretyship and sponsorship, and representation for the elect, which has
been bred in the imaginations of good men. These terms, especially
the first two, belong to the legal system, and plainly glance at a money
transaction and a legal commutation of persons. And let it be remem
bered that they are purely of human invention. But if in any sense
it is proper to say that Christ was a surety, sponsor, or representative,
he was so, not to men as passively appointed to receive sanctifying im
pressions, but only to moral agents and bebevers ; for to none but agents
do those relations belong which such an office was capable of affecting.
I am willing to consider him in the light of a representative, but he
was so only in the pubbc transactions, and not in the secret covenant.
In a conditional sense he may be considered the representative of a
whole world of moral agents ; but if you speak of a higher suretyship
or representation, indissolubly connected with saving effects, it respected
21*

246 NATURE OF THE ATONEMENT. [PART I.
only believers. Those for whom such a suretyship is undertaken,
must from its commencement be entitled to a discharge, exonerated from
obligation to suffer, acquitted. Every analogy testifies that believers
only are represented in this higher sense. Adam represented a pos
terity whose temper was like his own, and would not have been their
representative without that essential circumstance : and if any analogy
exists between the two headships, Christ must represent, in this higher
sense, only a seed who resemble him in character. The very idea of
Adam's representation was, that it involved his posterity in his own con
demnation as fast as they become his posterity by actual existence : to
comport with this, Christ's higher representation must involve men in
his own justification as fast as they become thus represented. Are the
representative and the represented treated as one ? none are treated like
Christ but the justified, " the bride, the Lamb's wife." Whom should
the Head represent but the body, the members? But in the higher
sense he is the Head of believers only. No others are invested with
his righteousness and owned in the presence of his Father ; no others
are accepted through his intercession. They are " his body, the fulness
of him that filleth all in all." *
* To this latter idea of representation the view is confined in the Body of Christ,
written by the Kev. James M'Chord of Lexington, Kentucky, a man of no ordinary
powers of mind. He overlooks the representation of men as moral agents, or he
would be in agreement with us at almost every point. Mr. M'C.'s system is as fol
lows : The covenant of grace was made with Clirist as the Head of the body, the
church ; which, whatever numbers it contains, constitutes, together with the Head, in
all periods of time, one mortal unit. Christ represented, not the elect as such, not the
world at large, but the church as a body, and every individual which belonged to it
at the time of his death ; and every one, though unknown to the covenant before, be
comes represented as soon as he believes. As the atonement was sufficient for all, and
the covenant was restricted to no number, Christ is capable of becoming a represent
ative of one as well as another, provided they believe. Thus the privilege of an
atonement is open to all alike, though no expiation is actually made for any but be
lievers. A possible salvation is thus provided for all. The covenant which secured
the salvation of the elect was quite a different thing, being made, not between God
and the Messiah, but between the first and second persons of the Trinity, with a view
to the latter's becoming the Messiah. In short, he excludes from the atonement
every thing which discriminates tho elect, and holds out a provision which is capable
of becoming an actual atonement for every man, if he will but accept it. Here, then,
is a conditional atonement for all as moral agents ; and this is exactly what those
eastern brethren mean with whom Mr. M'C. is considerably displeased. The key
which he wanted to unlock every ward which he failed to open is to be found in the
existence and attributes of moral agents. When ho has familiarized his mind to this
subject, his controversy with those who maintain a general atonement will cease. But
insulated as Mr. M'C. was, and embarrassed in various ways as he seems to ha'vo been,
it is not so great a wonder that he saw some things obscurely, as that he discovered so
much.

CHAP. VII.] FIGURATIVE LANGUAGE. 247
The foregoing remarks give a different view to the whole transaction.
In this representation you find not that legal oneness between Christ
and the elect, that legal imputation of a precise number of sins to
him, that legal punishment and literal satisfaction of law and justice for
a given number, and that legal acquittal of all for whom satisfaction
was made, which involve the consequence that all for whom it was made
must in justice to them be pardoned. Nor do you find that legal identi
fication from which it can be inferred that all for whom it was made
must in justice to Christ be pardoned. Whether all for whom as moral
agents he atoned (and none but agents sustained those relations which
an atonement could affect) must in justice to him be brought to repent
ance and pardon, depends on the nature of that secret covenant by which
his claims were regulated. That which could give to his death such a
bearing upon public law and the legal relations of men as to constitute
an atonement, let it be distinctly remarked, was not a secret compact be
tween the sacred persons, but the public avowal of the design of his
death. The secret covenant related simply to his reward for making
atonement. Whether, therefore, any for whom he atoned (that is, any
whose legal relations he so changed that they could be pardoned if they
would bebeve) could in justice to him (in justice to themselves they cer
tainly might) be left unsanctified and perish, depends on the nature of
the secret covenant, which regulated his claim to a reward. If it was
the mutual understanding of the sacred persons in that covenant, that
the public annunciation should be so shaped as to give the atonement a
bearing on a whole world of moral agents, in a way honorable and grati
fying to Christ, while only a part should be sanctified and given him for
a seed ; then no injustice is done to Christ if a part of those for whom
he atoned are left unsanctified and perish. If it shall appear that be
sides the secret covenant, in which the elect were distinguished only as
passive receivers of sanctifying impressions, there was a sort of open and
visible compact between the Father and Son (the public annunciation
before referred to), according to which the atonement was publicly
offered and accepted for a whole world of moral agents, to have this
precise operation, " that whosoever believeth should not perish ; " then
all injustice is wiped from the transaction, and every thing is made out
for which we plead.

THE WHOLE DIFFERENCE AT ONE VIEW.
The point of separation between the parties, so far as the nature of
the atonement is concerned, plainly lies here. It is agreed on all hands
that expiation and satisfaction stand together as cause and effect; but

248 NATURE OF THE ATONEMENT. [PART I.
our brethren make both of these commensurate with the higher Xvzqo*
or ransom by which the higher Xvroboig or redemption was accomplished,
and then raise a question about particular redemption. Particular
redemption (meaning by redemption the effect of that ransom which
included both expiation and merit) they can prove ; and if this was all
they attempted, the dispute would be at an end. But by uniting the
two distinct influences of expiation and merit in what they call the atone
ment, they make the atonement accomplish the whole redemption from
sin and death, and constantly speak of the higher ransom as having
no other influence than to expiate and satisfy. The inference is, that no
expiation or satisfaction was made for those who do not feel all the in
fluence of the higher ransom, in other words, are not redeemed from the
power of sin. And when they have put into satisfaction the whole
influence of merit with all its claim to reward, satisfaction itself has a
claim. And when they find satisfaction with a claim, forgetting that they
put into that satisfaction a claim to a reward, they know not how to
make out the claim without making the satisfaction a bteral satisfac
tion of law and justice. And to get at this there must be a literal legal
oneness between Christ and the elect. This is manifestly the process by
which the whole scheme has come into existence.

PART II.
EXTENT OF THE ATONEMENT.

CHAPTER I.

THE CURSE OF ABANDONMENT REMOVED FROM ALL.
According to the foregoing pages, the only effects which the atone
ment had on Peter were these two : it removed the curse of abandon
ment, and thus took away the penal bar to bis sanctification, and it
rendered his pardon consistent with the honor of the law on the suppo
sition of his believing. Had it these two effects on all ? If so, it was
in fact a general atonement, whether intentionally or otherwise. The
main question, then, may be resolved into these two : Did the atonement
remove the curse of abandonment from all? and did it render the
pardon of all consistent with the honor of the law in case they should
hear the Gospel and bebeve ? The former question will be disposed of
in this chapter, the latter will then claim our undivided attention.
After such a death in our world to support the penalty of the law
given to men, no favor shown to the human race could weaken the
influence of the penalty, unless it spread a shield over irreclaimable
wickedness. No power exerted to turn men from wickedness could
weaken it, be they who they might. So far, then, as the influence of the
penalty was concerned, it had become consistent with the honor of the
law to grant the Spirit to all men. And this is what I mean by re
moving the curse of abandonment.
If it shall appear that the atonement rendered the pardon of all men
consistent with the honor of the law, on condition, not that they should
receive faith, but that they as agents should bebeve, then it left no legal
bar to their full discharge from every part of the curse but their own
evil agency, and therefore no restriction, imposed by the curse, on the
sanctifying agency of God. (249)

250 EXTENT OF THE ATONEMENT. [PART II.
In the public explanation accompanying the atonement, it was not to
be expected that any notice would be taken of its influence on the grant
of regenerating grace ; for that explanation, as we shall see hereafter,
referred only to agents, but this grace is bestowed on passive receivers.
All that could be expected, in relation to the Spirit, from an expla
nation thus limited, was a general notice that a way was opened to
bestow this blessing on all who as agents would bebeve. That notice
was given. " God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten
Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have ever
lasting life ; " implying that they should eternally be sanctified. " He
that believeth on me, as the Scripture hath said, out of his belly shall
flow rivers of living water. But this spoke he of the Spirit which they
that bebeve on him should receive." " Repent and be baptized every
one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye
shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost." John 3: 16. 7: 38, 39.
Acts 2 : 38. It will appear hereafter, that nothing is promised on the
condition of faith which it would injure the law to grant, aUowing the
fact to take place that all respected in the promise should of their own
accord believe. If, then, the Spirit was promised to Simon Magus on
the condition of his faith, the law would not have been injured had he
actually believed and received the Spirit as a gracious and eternal
reward. And if the Spirit was communicable to him on the condition
of bis faith, the curse of abandonment was removed; for that was
involved in a judicial sentence which declared that Simon Magus should
never on any conditions receive the sanctifying Spirit to eternity.
But it was not mere atonement which produced this whole effect.
The merit of Christ, as we have seen, was requisite to complete the
opening for the mission of the Spirit; for it was necessary to the
highest honor of the law that all positive good should be granted as the
reward of a perfect righteousness. Atonement removed the penal bar
which sin had raised ; merit gave opportunity for the blessing to come
as the recompense of a full homage to the law.
But when we introduce the merit of Christ, it must be acknowledged
that this was not employed to make provision for the regeneration of
Simon Magus. That is, the covenant of redemption did not provide for
his regeneration as a part of Christ's reward. In this respect complete
provision was not made for his regeneration in consistency with the
highest honor of the law. This, however, was no defect of the atone
ment (for it remained after sin was covered and the penal bar removed),
but lay in the single fact, that the regeneration of Simon was not
promised to Christ. And this was a matter which respected Simon, not
as a moral agent, but as a mere passive receiver of divine impressions.

CHAP. II.] GRAND POINT OF DIVISION. 251
As a moral agent the very obedience of Christ made provision for his
sanctification. That is, it provided for his continued sanctification, if he
would once bebeve. For though in that secret covenant which re
spected passive receivers, his regeneration was not connected with
Christ's reward, yet the public . explanation accompanying the death of
the Mediator, which related to moral agents, and was a sort of visible
compact between him and the Father, gave him an open right to
claim as his reward the continued sanctification of the whole world, if
they as agents would once believe. Thus by the merit as well as the
atonement of Christ, provision was made for a whole world of moral
agents in reference to their sanctification, that is, a provision which they
might enjoy by doing their duty.
In every view but one, the atonement was a mere provision for moral
agents. As it bore on regeneration, it barely removed a penal bar to
sanctifying impressions on passive receivers ; but even this was accom
plished by an operation on the relations of moral agents ; for it was the
removal of a curse which moral agents had incurred. In every other
point of view the atonement was purely a provision for moral agents.
As it opened the way for the Spirit to be given them as the gracious
reward of their faithful seeking, it was" such. As it bore on pardon, it
was such altogether. The way is now prepared to consider it in the
latter light alone. And here the question is, did it reconcile with the
honor of the law the pardon of Simon Magus in case he of his own
accord would believe ? If it did, it was a complete provision for him
as a moral agent, and as full an atonement for him as for Peter, whether
intentionally so or otherwise.

CHAPTER II.
GRAND POINT OF DIVISION BETWEEN THE PARTIES.
" When the remonstrants," says Dr. Watts, " assert that Christ died
for all mankind merely to purchase conditional salvation for them ;
and when those who profess to be the strictest Calvinists assert [that]
Christ died only — to procure absolute and effectual — salvation for the
elect ; it is not because the whole Scripture — asserts the particular sen
timents of either of these sects with an exclusion of the other. But the
reason of these different assertions of men is this, that the holy writers
in different texts pursuing different subjects, and speaking to different
persons, sometimes seem to favor each of these two opinions ; and men,

252 EXTENT OF THE ATONEMENT. [PART II.
being at a loss to reconcile them by any medium, run into different ex
tremes, and entirely follow one of these tracks of thought and neglect the
other. But surely if there can be found a way to reconcile these two
doctrines, of the absolute salvation of the elect, — and — the conditional
salvation provided for all mankind ; — this will be the most fair, natural,
and easy way of reconciling these different texts of Scripture, without
any strain or torture put upon any of them." *
This " medium" of reconciliation, this hidden cause of the diversity of
language in the sacred writers while " pursuing different subjects," the
same distinguished writer sought and found. The clue which he discov
ered lay among the relations of moral agents, where we shall seek it in
the foUowing pages.
As that class of Calvinists who advocate a general atonement are
among the firmest supporters of absolute personal election, and as those
who sustain the opposite side generally admit that all are bound to bve
by the atonement, I have often asked myself, where can this difference
lie ? To what radical principle can it be traced ? Where is the angle of
separation ? As both parties are agreed in their cardinal positions, by
what means do they arrive at such opposite conclusions ? The following
is thought to be the solution of the mystery.
One party contemplate men as passive receivers of sanctifying impres
sions ; and their question is, how many did God intend by regenerating
influence to make partakers of the benefit of the atonement ? The answer
is, the elect. And so say we. The other party contemplate men as
moral agents ; and their question is, how many did God intend to furnish
with a means of pardon which they should be under obligations to im
prove for their everlasting good ? The answer is, ab who hear the gos
pel. And so say our brethren. Thus the dispute turns out to be chiefly
about words. Whose language is the most correct, depends on the
question whether the atonement in its own proper influence was adapted
to affect men as moral agents, or as passive subjects of divine impressions.
If it spent all its force on agents, then in deciding for how many it was
provided, we must see on how many it left those traces which belong to
agents. If, on the other hand, it exhausted itself on passive subjects of
sanctifying impressions, we have only to ask how many in consequence
are sanctified.
I am inclined to think that this is the original angle of separation, and
that the dispute about the nature of the atonement is rather consequen
tial. The mistake of our brethren, as we view it, has arisen from not
keeping these two characters of man distinct. They have confounded
* Watts' Works, Vol. VI. p. 286, 287.

CHAP. II.] GRAND POINT OF DIVISION. 253
the two, and by confounding have buried up the agent under the passive
receiver ; and what was intended for the agent they would not allow was
intended for the man, unless he was to be sanctified. The two characters
I shall have occasion to show hereafter are about as distinct as body and
soul ; and on their marked separation the solution of almost every diffi
culty in metaphysical theology depends. And had our brethren kept
the distinction plainly before them, they would have seen that the atone
ment was for agents, and agents alone ; and then they would have had
nothing to do with the question how many were to be passively regen
erated. And then they could not have reasoned about the nature of the
atonement as they have done. The mistake lies in not perceiving that
an atonement intended merely for agents is completely for them, without
reference to the question whether the same creatures are to be regen
erated. The question which continually bes before our brethren is, how many
did the sacred persons intend to save by an influence on them as pas
sive ? Hence they tell us, " When a question arises concerning any
transaction, for whom it was done, it is decided by ascertaining the inten
tion of the principal agent." Christ " may be said to have died for all
whom he designed to bring to salvation, and for none else." " It will be
pretended that Christ died for all, but suspended the benefit of his death
upon a condition. Be it so. Then when Christ died he knew whether
that condition would ever take place ; or rather he knew that it never
would in those to whom he had determined not to give faith. And to
say that a person does a thing to take effect on a certain condition, which
he is sure will never occur, is the same as to say that be does a thing
without any view to that effect." Our question has nothing to do with
any of these matters, but is merely this : whose relations to the divine
law did the sacred persons intend so to change that they could be par
doned if they would believe ?
Our question always is, for whom did Christ atone ? The question of
our brethren is, for whom did he die ? meaning, for whom did he offer
the double influence of expiation and merit, which met in his death and
constituted the higher ransom ? And what they maintain is not so much
a limited atonement as particular redemption. But they do not distin
guish between the two ; and in the midst of an argument to disprove a
general atonement, you will find them urging the influence of Christ's
merit on the gift of faith. The Scriptures " require indeed faith as an
instrument of receiving the benefits of Christ's death ; but this very faith
is the effect of Christ's meritorious death and prevalent intercession ; and
is, of course, bestowed on all those for whom he shed his precious blood."
" The death of Christ, considered in unison with his obedience, is the
22

254 EXTENT OF THE ATONEMENT. [PART II.
meritorious cause of all spiritual blessings. It is therefore the cause of
the gift of faith." It certainly is ; but this has nothing to do with the
extent of the atonement.
But notwithstanding these discrepancies, when our brethren come to
speak of the real effects of the atonement on moral agents, they admit all
that we plead for. This they do as often as they allow that the non-elect
lose the benefit by their own fault ; a point fully settled by the general
consent of the Calvinistic world. The following is the testimony of the
Synod of Dort, a body which for two centuries has been quoted as the
oracle on the other side. " That many who are called by the gospel do
not repent or believe in Christ, but perish in unbelief, does not arise
from the want of the sacrifice of Christ offered on the cross, nor from its
insufficiency, but from their own fault." * Now if the non-elect have an
atonement so within their reach that they are bound to use it for their
benefit, and perish, not for want of an atonement, but by their own crim
inal rejection of it, then an atonement was provided for them as much as
it could be for moral agents. The difference, therefore, is still about
words. The two questions, for whom did Christ atone ? and for whom did he
die ? (meaning by the latter, whom did he intend to save by an opera
tion on them as passive) require directly opposite answers ; and from
the different answers which they have received, men have appeared
to each other to be contending for opposite systems, when in fact they
were in the main only supporting different truths. The former question
has been largely discussed by the divines of New England ; the latter
was agitated by the Synod of Dort. I will first take up the question in
the shape in which it was handled by the synod.

CHAPTER III.
VIEW OF THE SUBJECT AS TAKEN BY THE SYNOD OF DORT.
This synod was convened at Dort in Holland, under the auspices of
prince Maurice the stadtholder, by an order of the states-general dated
November 11, 1617; and consisted of delegates from the different
provinces of Holland, from Great-Britain, the Reformed churches of
France and the French Netherlands, Switzerland, Geneva, the Pala
tinate, the Wetteraw, Hesse, Bremen, and Emden.
* Acts of the Synod of Dort. Part I. p. 290

CHAP. III.] VIEWS OF THE SYNOD OF DORT. 255
For nearly twenty years the United Provinces had been agitated by
the new doctrines broached by James Arminius, the celebrated founder
of the sect which still bears his name.* " After his death the ministers
who adhered to his cause formally seceded, and by an instrument which
they called a remonstrance, and from which the party took the name of
Remonstrants, put themselves under the protection of the states of the
province of Holland and West-Friesland. This occurred in June, 1610.
In the following August and September, several students in divinity
being about to be examined before different classes, the Remonstrants
drew up five articles (in opposition to predestination, limited atonement,
total depravity, special grace, and the perseverance of the saints), and
obtained an order from the states to the classes to require in the exami
nation no other declaration on these subjects than a subscription to the
articles. Thus arose into form and notice the celebrated Five Points.
After years of grievous contention this national synod was convened,
for the purpose of settling all questions in dispute ; with a particular
order to discuss first of all the Five Points, and to refer all their de
cisions to the states-general for confirmation. The synod was opened
on the thirteenth of November, ] 618, and continued its sessions till the
ninth of the following May.f They proceeded immediately to cite
thirteen of the Remonstrants to appear and defend their doctrines. The
cited obeyed the summons on the 6th of December, and were dismissed
on the 21st of January. On the 24th of April, the synod deposed the
thirteen pastors with some others, and enjoined it on the provincial
synods, and the different classes and presbyteries, to proceed against the
whole sect without delay, and not to suffer one of them to remain in
office or in the communion of the church. All this was confirmed by
the states-general in July following, by an order forbidding any doctrine
contrary to the expositions of the synod to be taught in any of the
churches, and enjoining it on all ecclesiastical bodies, governors of
* This extraordinary man was born in Holland in 1560, and was ordained pastor
of a church in Amsterdam in 1588. In 1603 he was appointed to the divinity chair
in the university of Leyden. From this time his opinions began to excite public
attention, but they were not openly avowed till the year before his death, which
occurred October 19, 1609. His eulogium was written in verse by the celebrated
Grotius, who, together with Vossius and many other learned men, took a distin
guished part in supporting the Arminian cause. The principal opponent was
Francis Gomarus, from whom the orthodox party were sometimes called Gomarists.
After the fall of the Arminian sect, Grotius was arrested by the order of prince
Maurice and sentenced to imprisonment for life ; but he escaped by the ingenuity of
his wife, who had him conveyed from the fortress in a chest prejended to be filled
with books.
t The president was John Boserman, pastor of a church in Leuwarden, in West-
Friesland, the residence of the prince of Orange.

256 EXTENT OF THE ATONEMENT. [PART II.
colleges, professors, ministers, magistrates, and civil officers, to see the
law carried mto rigorous execution. The event was the imprisonment
and banishment of the Arminian ministers, and the violent prostration
of the whole party, agreeably to the intolerant principles common to all
Europe in that day.
This is the synod, which, uniting in one voice the Calvinistic world,
just one century after the commencement of the Reformation, has been
appealed to ever since as the grand authority, next to the Bible, for
deciding all questions in Calvinistic divinity.
The question respecting the design of Christ's death was brought
before the synod in the following shape. The Arminians maintained
that the mission of Christ placed all men in all respects on an equal
footing, and left the rest to be done by the self-determining power of the
will ; that his death reconciled God to the whole human race, and by
restoring their lapsed powers and the freedom of their will, placed them
in a condition, with the aid of common grace, to work out their own
salvation without any supernatural influence ; that there was no decree
or intention of God to apply the atonement to one more than another,
and for aught he would do, the whole race might have perished after all.
In short, the main question turned on predestination and the dependence
of the human will." *
This the synod perceived, and shaped their answer accordingly.
They say in the outset : " The remonstrants in this article do not treat
of a new subject. For formerly the Semi-Pelagians of Marseilles and
Syracuse maintained the same in these words : ' Our Lord Jesus Christ
died for the universal human race, and no man is wholly excepted from
the redemption of his blood, though he goes through this whole life with
a mind most alienated from him: because the sacrament of mercy
belongs to all men ; by which very many are not renewed, for this
reason, because they are foreknown to hold that it is useless to be
renewed. As far, therefore, as belongs to God, eternal life is provided
for all ; but as far as appertains to the freedom of the will, it is obtained
by those who of their own accord believe in God, and receive the aid of
grace through the merit of believing.' In which article, although in
appearance they amplified the grace of God and the redemption of
Christ, they in truth diminished both, ascribing to God indiscriminate
grace, to Christ the merit of redemption, to freewill the efficacy of both :
and while they would overturn the doctrine of predestination, which the
apostolic Austin defended, they in truth tore up the foundation of the
whole gospel, , attributing the cause of faith and perseverance, and
* Acts of Synod, Bart I. p. 129, 130, 246, 247 ; Part II. p. 129.

CHAP. III.] VIEWS OF THE SYNOD OF DORT. 257"
therefore of human salvation, to God and Christ indiscriminately, to the
humor and wiU of man determinately. —
" In like manner these, while in this article about the obtaining of rec
onciliation with God for all men through the death of Christ, they in
appearance amplify the grace of Christ's death, do in truth the same
thing that those did ; and while they think to tear up from its foundation
the apostolic predestination of God (which discriminates those who are
to be saved from those who are not to be saved), to introduce in opposi
tion to it their own eventual predestination, of those who of their own
accord believe and persevere, or determine themselves to faith and perse
verance, a predestination posterior to faith and perseverance (which in
truth ought to be called post-destination instead of pre-destination), they
do, by making the human will the governor of resistible grace, and sub
jecting reconciliation through the death of Christ to the wiU of men, com
pletely deprive faith of all grace, and weaken the consolation to be de
rived from the death of Christ." *
The synod then proceed to consider at large the purpose of the Sa
cred Persons ; and while they admit that Christ died, and willed to die,
for all in respect to the sufficiency of his ransom, they deny that it was his
purpose or the purpose of the Father actually to save the whole race.f
When they oppose the unqualified assertion of the remonstrants that
Christ died for all, they explain their meaning, and plainly tell us that it
is the intention as to the final result that they deny. " To die for any
one," say they, " is properly to free him from death by one's own death
or to die in his place that he may live ; as appears from 2 Sam. 18 : 33.
Would God I had died for thee ! that is, in thy place that thou mightest
have lived." J ,
They object also to the assertion of the remonstrants, that Christ rec
onciled God to the whole world, and obtained remission of sins for all
and each.§ This obtaining by request (for such is the meaning of the
word impetratio which the remonstrants had used), cannot, say the del
egates from South-Holland, be separated from the application : "for an
obtaining by request (as lawyers, the best interpreters of the meaning of
words, confess), includes and presupposes a concession of the thing solic
ited. Thus with them an obtained rescript is when the prince has granted
and the supplicant has gained. And in our common language,, when we
say an office or benefit has been obtained by request for any one, we
mean not only that the right to that benefit has been obtained, but the
actual possession and concession of it." ||
" This whole thing," say the delegates from West Friesland, " which
* Part I. p. 246, 247. t p. 248. % Part I. p. 247.
§ p. 248, 249. || Partlll. p. 145.
22*

258 EXTENT OF THE ATONEMENT. [PART II.
they have endeavored to hide and bring in under the fringe of this article,
lurks in this, that, not content with the received doctrine of the sufficiency
of Christ's death, they have invented such an obtaining of remission of
sins for all and each as is separated from all participation of remission ;
where we must particularly note, that when they propose to treat of the
death and satisfaction of Christ, of its fruits and efficacy, and the blessings
obtained by it, they do not explain the manner of the satisfaction, nor
make any mention of the gifts of the Holy Spirit, for instance, of faith,
perseverance, and the restoration of the divine image within us, or of the
renovation of our nature ; by which they suggest, what elsewhere they
plainly bring out, that Christ obtained salvation that there might be a
possibility of the remission of sins and of the reconciliation of men to God,
but that all participation of that good is suspended on their performing,
of their own accord, the prescribed conditions, that is, on man and his
freewill." *
" Here it is to be noted," say the delegates from the synod of Gronin-
gen and Omlands, " that the question is not about the sufficiency of
Christ's death: for we affirm without hesitation, that the sacrifice of
Christ possesses so great power and value that it is abundantly sufficient
to atone for \he sins of all men, as well actual as original ; and that no
one of the reprobate perishes for want of the death of Christ, or through
its insufficiency : but the question is, whether, according to the intention
of God the Father and Son, remission of sins and reconciliation with God
were actually obtained for more than the elect." f
From these extracts it appears what the chief points of dispute between
the synod and the remonstrants were. The question was by no means
the same that is agitated at the present day, but turned chiefly on the
intention of the divine mind as to the appbcation of the atonement, and
the strange notions brought forward to disprove special grace ; in other
words, on predestination and the dependence of the human wiU. And
though those venerable fathers, from the kind of opponents they had to
deal with, were more cautious than we are in the use of universal terms,
and on the nature of the atonement sometimes lost themselves in figura
tive language, chiefly from not distinguishing between atonement and the
higher ransom ; yet on the whole they can scarcely be said to be contend
ing with us ; for I shall show in another place, by copious extracts from
their reasonings, that they fully admitted all the great principles which
support our conclusion.
And now in return I will acknowledge and vindicate all that they de
fended against the inroads of the Arminians. This I wiU do under the
following beads. * PartlTI. p. 173. t p. 193.

CHAP. III.] VIEWS OF THE SYNOD OF DORT. 259
(1) A part of the human race were elected in Christ, and chosen to
salvation by his death, before the foundation of the world. " Blessed be
the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us with
all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ, according as he hath
chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be
holy and without blame before him in love ; having predestinated us unto
the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself according to the good
pleasure of bis will." " Who hath saved us and called us with a holy
calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and
grace which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began."
" Elect, according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sancti
fication of the Spirit unto obedience, and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus
Christ." The non-elect are those " whose names are not written from the
foundation of the world in the book of life of the Lamb slain." Eph. 1 :
3-5. 2 Tim. 1 : 9. 1 Pet. 1 : 2. Rev. 13 : 8. 17 : 8.
(2) This number were promised and giveh to Christ as the reward of
his obedience "unto death." Their salvation was promised him. " Paul,
a servant of God and an apostle of Jesus Christ, according to the faith of
God's elect, — in hope of eternal life, which God that can/iot lie prom
ised before the world began." Promised to whom ? no man was there to
receive the pledge : promised undoubtedly to Christ. They were given
to him. " All that the Father giveth me shall come to me, and him that
cometh to me I will in no wise cast out. — And this is the Father's will
wliich hath sent me, that of aU which he hath given me I should lose
nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day." " I have mani
fested thy name unto the men which thou gavest me out of the world :
thine they were, and thou gavest them me. — I pray not for the world,
but for them which thou hast given me. — Keep through thine own name
those whom thou hast given me. — Those that th'ou gavest me I have
kept." John 6 : 37, 39. 17 : 6-12. Tit. 1 : 1, 2. They were given to
him as a reward of his obedience " unto death." This has been proved
in a former chapter, and will be still further estabbshed in the Appendix.
They were given him to be through sanctification the copartners of his
inheritance. It was foreordained in the decree of election that he should
be " the first-born among many brethren," and share with them the inher
itance of the universe. " Whom he did foreknow, he also did predesti
nate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the first
born among many brethren." And among the reasons for conferring on
him, in reward of his obedience, the dominion of the universe, a leading
one waj, that he might complete the salvation of his elect. " Thou hast
given him power over all flesh, that he should give eternal life to as many
as thou hast given him." " Him bath God exalted — to be a Prince and

260 EXTENT OF; THE ATONEMENT. [PART II.
a Saviour, for to give repentance to Israel and forgiveness of sins." John
17: 2. Acts 5: 31. Rom. 8: 29.
(3) The salvation of the elect was that part of Christ's personal re
ward which had a principal influence in inducing him to die. It was an
important part of " the joy that was set before him," in view of which he
"endured the cross, despising the shame." Heb. 12: 2. This prospect,
which so much influenced his own mind through his whole course, it was
natural for him to allude to while seated in the bosom of his family.
With his eye on Calvary, and with the joy of millions rising before him,
he unbosomed to his disciples this great motive, which urged him to the
cross. " I lay down my life for the sheep. — And other sheep I have,
which are not of this fold : them also I must bring." Then turning to
the Jews, " But ye believe not because ye are not of my sheep." John
10 : 3-29. It has been already remarked, that by sheep is primarily
meant, not the unregenerate elect, but believers. The fold is that which
is enclosed by the pale of the church, and the flock are the church con
sidered as an assembly of bebevers gathered together in Christ. And
here the sheep " hear " the porter's" " voice," and " know his voice," and
" follow him," " and a stranger will they not follow." The elect Gentiles
are therefore called sheep plainly by way of anticipation. But stiU as
there is an evident allusion to the election of the sheep, I cannot but
think that Christ intended to express, not that the sins of the elect would
be atoned for more than others, but that in the motive which prompted
him to the sacrifice, he had a special reference to the salvation of the
elect as a part of his promised reward. By a similar anticipation the
unregenerate elect appear to be called the children of God, and a similar
reference to them seems to be expressed kt the following passage:
" This spoke he [Caiaphas], not of himself [not at his own suggestion],
but being high-priest that year [and in honor of his office being visited
with a temporary inspiration], he prophesied that Jesus should die for
that nation ; and not for that nation only, but that also he should gather
together in one the children of God that were scattered abroad." John
11 : 51, 52. By running back the contrary way, believers, under the
name of the church, appear to be spoken of with reference to their pre
vious elect character in the following passage : " Christ loved the church
and gave himself for it, that he might sanctify and cleanse it with the
washing of water by the word ; that he might present it to himself a
glorious church, not having spot or wrinkle, or any such thing, but that
it should be holy and without blemish." Eph. 5 : 25-27. Some suppose
that the sanctified and the children are spoken of under the character of
elect in the foUowing place : " Both he that sanctifieth and they who are
sanctified are all of one : for which cause he is not ashamed to call them

CHAP. IIJ.] VIEWS OF THE SYNOD OF DORT. 261
brethren [and children]. — Forasmuch, then, as the children are par
takers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same,
that through death he might — deliver them." Heb. 2 : 11-15. And in
the following : " For their sakes [they were bebevers at the time, but it
is supposed to refer to them as elect], I sanctify myself [devote myself
to die], that they also might be sanctified through the truth." John
17 : 19. There are other passages which plainly declare that Christ, by
the merit of his obedience " unto death " obtained the gift of the Spirit
as his reward, and thus became our "sanctification and redemption,"
and saved " his people from their sins," and accomplished the double
purpose of purging our " conscience from dead works to serve the living
God." " Who gave himself for our sins that he might deliver us from
this present evil world." " Who gave himseff for us that he might re
deem us from all iniquity, and purify unto himself a peculiar people
zealous of good works." " Ye were not redeemed with corruptible things
as silver and gold from your vain conversation, — but with the precious
blood of Christ ; — who verily was foreordained before the foundation of
the world, but was manifest in these last times for you who by him do
believe in God." " For it pleased the Father that in him should all
fulness dwell, and (having made peace through the blood of his cross), by
him to reconcile all -things unto himself. — And you that were sometime
abenated and enemies in your mind by wicked works, yet now hath he
reconciled in the body of his flesh through death, to present you holy, and
unblamable, and unreprovable in his sight." Matt. 1 : 21. Luke 1 : 71-75.
1 Cor. 1 : .30. Gal. 1 : 4. Col. 1 : 19-22. Tit. 2 : 14. Heb. 9 : 14. 1 Pet.
1: 18-21.
Indeed, nothing is more evident than that the merit of Christ in actively
giving himself to die, obtained the sanctification of the elect as his re
ward, and that the prospect of this reward, so gratifying to his benevo
lence from the direct love which he bore them, constituted one of the
leading motives which urged him to the cross ; that he died to secure
this interest, so peculiarly his own as one of the contracting parties,
much in the same sense as a man performs a prescribed task for a stipu
lated recompense. But this has nothing to do with the extent of the
atonement, nor with any question relative to its equal bearing on moral
agents. This distinction between expiation and the claim of merit to a reward
appears not to have been made by either party in the days of Dort
The remonstrants in particular were totally bbnd to all that influence of
Christ which went in to constitute the higher ransom. So far from say
ing with them, that his only influence and end was to render God able

262 EXTENT OF THE ATONEMENT. [PART II,
and wilbng to establish with men a covenant of grace,* I say and insist;
that so far as services could earn a stipulated reward, he actually " pur
chased " the salvation of every individual of his elect, and had a right to
claim it at the hands of justice. They who overlook, or fail to dwell
largely on this glorious truth, will be in danger of crowding Christ too
much out of their religion. To turn the eye of the mind full upon it, to
admit the whole view, and to dwell upon it with devout and grateful
transport, will, as every one can testify who has tried the experiment,
open more fully and affectingly to view, that which all must see is the
great subject-matter of the Bible, Christ, the power of God, and the wis
dom of God, to the salvation of men.

CHAPTER IV.
ATONEMENT FOR MORAL AGENTS ONLY.
None but moral agents bear any relation to law, obbgation, guilt, par
don, rewards, or punishments ; and none else can bear any relation to an
atonement which was intended to support law, to expiate guilt, and to
lay a foundation for pardon. The passive had not sinned ; the passive
needed no pardon. The only way in which passive receivers of sancti
fying impressions could be affected by an atonement was indirectly, by
its removing the curse of abandonment, which sinning agents had incurred.
But even this was accomplished by a mere operation on the relations of
agents. The whole force of the atonement was spent on those relations.
This is what we mean when we say, that the atonement was a measure
of moral government. A moral government is only the treatment which
God renders to moral agents. As be stands related to creatures in this
character, he is the moral Governor. Now the atonement was plainly
an expedient of the moral Governor to support the moral law (the con
stitution of a moral government), and thus to open a way for the pardon
of sinning agents. The satisfaction was demanded by the Protector of
the law, and was rendered to him who holds the rights of justice (as all
acknowledge who talk of satisfying justice), and was accepted by him
who otherwise was determined to punish sin. In every point of view it
was a measure adopted by God in the character in which he stands
related to moral agents.
* Acts of the Synod of Dort, Part II. p. 139.

CHAP. IV.] ATONEMENT FOR MORAL AGENTS ONLY. 263
Thus the atonement spent its force on the relations of agents, and,
except by way of consequence, had no effect on men in any other char
acter. But it was for agents in another respect ; it was a provision for them.
By a provision for moral agents is always meant a means of instruction,
holiness, usefulness, or happiness, which they may improve, and are
under obligations to improve, and on the improvement of which as a sine
qua non the benefit depends. Here I must introduce a principle, which
I shall have occasion to display more at large hereafter. A moral agent
must be contemplated as a whole, as possessing that entire assemblage of
attributes which constitute him such, and not as one maimed of half his
qualities. His essential properties cannot be divided. Now one of the
things which essentially belong to him is, that he must act, and on his
action his happiness depends. One cannot be a moral agent without fall
ing under this law. You cannot therefore contemplate a man as needing
an atonement, without contemplating him as one, who, if he has opportu
nity, is to act towards the atonement, and is to enjoy or lose the benefit,
according as he receives or rejects it. If you keep up the idea of a
moral agent, you cannot separate these things. Any thing therefore
which is done for a moral agent is done for his use after the manner in
which things are for the use of free moral agents, or creatures governed
by motives and choice, and bound to act. That is, it is done that he
may use it if he pleases, and that he may be under obbgation to use it.
Unless the effect is thus suspended on his agency, the thing is not pre
pared for him as an agent. No matter what other provision which
respects the same creature as passive has secured the action of the
agent ; yet the provision for the agent necessarily suspends a good on
his own conduct. Now as an agent must not be divided, whatever is
done for him in a way to affect his relations, makes a provision for him
as an agent, that is, a provision for him to improve. And all that is
gained by changing his relations (so far as the pure agent is contem
plated), is to bring a good so within his reach that he may enjoy it if he
will accept it, and must accept it to enjoy it. It cannot be for an agent
in a higher sense. In a higher sense it may be for the man, for under
that name both the active and passive characters are included. The
atonement could not be a provision for a guilty agent, without having
changed his relations as a transgressor ; it could not change his relations
as a transgressor, without being (besides removing the penal bar to
regeneration) a provision for a moral agent to improve ; provided men
are ever in a holy manner to seek sanctification of God and to receive it
as a gracious reward, and provided the consistency of their pardon
always depends on their turning from sin.

264 EXTENT OF THE ATONEMENT. [PART II.
Thus the atonement was for moral agents in two inseparable respects ;
it affected their relations, and was a provision for them to improve. And
it was for men in no other character, except by way of consequence.

CHAPTER V
THE TWO CHARACTERS OF MAN DISTINCT AND INDEPENDENT OF EACH
OTHER.
The moment we have found that the atonement was for none but
moral agents, we refuse to take any further notice of mere passive re
ceivers of sanctifying impressions ; that is, we refuse to take into account,
in settling for whom as agents atonement was made, whether the same
persons as passive were predestined to be regenerated ; and the reason is,
that these two characters a*re altogether distinct and independent of each
other, and what is true of the one is none the less true for any thing
which concerns the other. This is the corner-stone of the whole system,
and requires to be laid with firmness and care.
The foundation of the whole divine administration towards the human
race lies in this, that men sustain two relations to God. As creatures
they are necessarily dependent on him for hobness, as they are for exist
ence, and as such they passively receive his sanctifying impressions ; and
they are moral agents. Now the great truth to be proved is, that these
two characters of men (passive receivers and moral agents) are alto
gether distinct and independent of each other. And the proof is found
in the single fact, that their moral agency is in no degree impaired or af
fected by their dependence and passiveness, nor their passiveness and
dependence by their moral agency. That is to say, they are none the
less dependent (as Arminians would make us believe) for being moral
agents ; and on the other hand (and this is the main point to be proved),
they are none the less moral agents (as Antinomians seem to suppose),
that is, are none the less susceptible of personal and complete obbgations,
for being dependent. For instance, they are none the less bound to be
lieve because faith is " the gift of God," nor to love because love is " the
fruit of the Spirit." Their obligations rest on their capacity to exercise,
not on their power to originate ; on their being rational, not on their being
independent. On the one hand, the action of the Spirit does not abate
their freedom. The soul of man is that wonderful substance which is
none the less active for being acted upon, none the less free for being

CHAP. V.J THE TWO CHARACTERS OF MAN DISTINCT. 265
controlled. It is a wheel within a wheel, which has complete motion in
itself while moved by the machinery without. While made " willing,"
it is itself voluntary, and of course free. On the other hand, the absence
of the Spirit does not impair the capacity on which obligation is founded.
The completeness of moral agency has no dependence on supernatural
impressions,i and on nothing but a rational existence combined with knowl
edge. The bad, equally with the good, are complete moral agents, the one
being as deserving of blame as the other are of praise ; otherwise (which
forever settles the question), the unsanctified are not to blame and cannot
be punished. To deny that men are under obligations to be good without
a divine influence, would plunge you into this trilemma : you must resort
to the old Arminian dogma of the self-determining power, or you must
prove that God answers unholy prayers, or you must boldly affirm that
totally depraved sinners are under no obligations to be holy. For how
can they be under obligation to be holy through a divine influence, un
less they can obtain that influence by an unholy prayer, or can originate
a better spirit of supplication by the self-determining power ? What,
then, are men to be sent forth in their own strength ? No, but they are
bound to feel perfectly right at once, and with that temper to cast them
selves on God for security against a future abuse of their agency, a future
violation of their obligations. They are bound to feel perfectly right at
once, and with that temper to acknowledge their absolute dependence :
for on the one hand that would only be a confession of the truth, and on
the other we know, from facts which fill the universe, that their depend
ence is no abatement of their obligations.
This is the very point from which have proceeded one half of the dis
putes of the Christian church. They have all arisen from the difficulty
of famibarizing to the mind the consistency between dependence and ob
ligation, passiveness and freedom. Illumine this inch-square, and the
whole farrago of metaphysical btigation would vanish. Pelagians, Semi-
Pelagians, Arminians, Semi-Arminians, .and Semi-Calvinists would no
longer tremble at the idea of absolute dependence as destructive of free
dom, nor would fatabsts infer from that dependence that men are machines.
That these two characters are each perfect in itself and unaffected by
the other, is no less evident than that creatures can deserve praise and
blame. As creatures they must be dependent on the Spirit ; and to be
susceptible of praise and blame is the very definition of a moral agent.
The character of agents as distinct from recipients is sufficiently entire
in itself, and at the same time sufficiently real and important to be the
basis of the whole fabric of a moral government. The whole structure is
obviously founded in this truth, that men are complete moral agents with
out supernatural influence, and none the less for their dependence. God
23

266 EXTENT OF THE ATONEMENT. [PART II.
does not command or invite them to come on condition that they are
drawn, but lays upon them the obligation without reference to the action
of the Spirit. He does not threaten or punish them because they fail to
receive his influence, but because they do not act. He makes experi
ments upon them, he presents instructions and motives, he charges them
with privileges, just as though they were independent.
On this principle he proceeds in his commands. He requires all
rational creatures to be holy, sanctified or unsanctified. He lays
this command on angels; for what is their holiness but conformity to
his will ? He lays this command on good men ; and without reference
to any spiritual assistance, says, '•' Remember from whence thou art
faben, and repent." He lays this command on the worst of hypocrites,
and without the least 'abatement for their dependence, says : " Hear the
word of the Lord, ye rulers of Sodom ; — wash ye, make you clean ; —
cease to do evil, learn to do well." He lays this command on a pro
fligate world, on millions who will never be sanctified ; for he " com-
mandeth all men everywhere to repent." He lays this command on
devils ; or devils do not at present sin ; " for sin is the transgression of
the law," and " where no law is there is no transgression." Rom. 4:15.
1 John 3 : 4. Indeed, if in any acts of authority God was limited by his
dominion over the mind, he could never command further than he makes
" willing," and of course could never have an opportunity to punish.
On this principle he proceeds in the dispensation of rewards and
punishments. Without reference to any divine influence exerted or
withheld, he will say at last, " Come, ye blessed ; — for I was a hungered
and ye gave me meat. — Depart, ye cursed ; — for I was a hungered
and ye gave me no meat." " Because I — caUed and ye refused, — I
also will laugh at your calamity."
On this principle he proceeds in all his invitations, promises, threat
enings, and expostulations. " He that bebeveth — shall be saved, but
he that believeth not shaU be damned." " If ye be willing and obedient,
ye shall eat the good of the land ; but if ye refuse and rebel, ye shall be
devoured." " Look unto me and be ye saved, all the ends of the earth."
"0 that they were wise, that they understood this, that they would
consider their latter end ! " " O that my people bad hearkened unto me,
and Israel had walked in my ways ! I should soon have subdued their
enemies, and turned my hand against their adversaries." " Hear, 0
heavens, and give ear, O earth ! — I have nourished and brought up
children, and they have rebelled against me ! "
On this principle he proceeds in all his experiments upon the human
character. " Then said the lord of the vineyard, what shall I do ? I
wiU send my beloved son ; it may be that they will reverence him."

CHAP. V.] THE TWO CHARACTERS OF MAN DISTINCT. 267
" Behold, these three years I come seeking fruit on this fig-tree and find
none; cut it down, why cumbereth it the ground? And he answering
said unto him, Lord, let it alone this year also, till I shall dig about it
and dung it ; and if it bear fruit, well ; and if not, then after that thou
shalt cut it down." Not a hint of any influence from without but simple
cultivation ; the issue was suspended on the intrinsic energy of the tree.
These representations have been considered as made after the manner
of men, but in truth they are the natural language of one agent making
experiments upon other distinct and complete agents. Specimens of
the same sort may be seen in the parables of the talents and the pounds.
On this principle he proceeds in estimating the opportunities and
privileges of men, and in assigning the cause of their destruction. " My
well-beloved hath a vineyard in a very fruitful hill. And he fenced it,
and gathered out the stones thereof, and planted it with the choicest vine,
and built a towTer in the midst of it, and also made a wine-press therein.
And he looked that it should bring forth grapes, and it brought forth
wild grapes. — What could have been done more to my vineyard that I
have not done in it ? " " There was a certain householder which
planted a vineyard, and hedged it round about, and digged a wine-press
in it, and built a tower, and let it out to husbandmen, and went into a
far country. — And when the time of the fruit drew near, he sent his
servants to the husbandmen that they might receive the fruits of it. —
Last of all he sent unto them his son, saying, they will reverence my
son." " Wherefore is there a price in the hand of a fool to get wisdom,
seeing he hath no heart to it ? " " This is the condemnation, that light
is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light because
their deeds were evil. For every one that doth evil hateth the light,
neither cometh to the light lest his deeds should be reproved." " Ye
will not come to me that ye might have life." They " that were bidden
to the wedding " " would not come." " His citizens hated him and sent a
message after him, saying, we will not have this man to reign over us.
— Those my enemies which would not that I should reign over them,
bring hither and slay them before me."
Thus Gabriel and Paul, and Christians on earth, are complete moral
agents, and are bound to act, irrespectively of the spiritual influence by
which they are moved ; and wicked men and devils are complete moral
agents, and are bound to be holy, without the Spirit, and none the less
for their dependence. Neither the dependence of men therefore, nor the
gift or withholding of the Spirit, needs to be taken into account in any
declaration concerning them as moral agents, or concerning the outward
privileges which belong to them as such. Moral agents, so to speak,

268 EXTENT OF THE ATONEMENT. [PART II.
are complete entities in themselves, without respect to the passive
character belonging to the same creatures.
These two characters of men are about as distinct as body and soul.
Like body and soul they are united together in the same person ; and
this gives them a necessary relation to each other (resembling that
between body and soul), in the three following respects.
.. (1) The soul is stimulated to action by what is needed by the body,
and by what is done for the body ; and agents are excited to holy
action by motives drawn from the dependence of creatures, and from the
decrees and operations of God respecting them as passive. God him
self draws motives from election and regeneration to move them to
submission, adoration, gratitude, and praise.
(2) The soul is bound to act in view of the wants of the body, and in
view of what is done for the body ; to ask God for blessings on the
body, and to thank him for those blessings when conferred : and men
are bound to act in view of their dependence, and towards God as
related to passive subjects of decrees and impressions. They are bound
to acknowledge their dependence, to pray for the Spirit on themselves and
others, to be thankful for influences already received, to believe and
acquiesce in the decree of election, to thank God for their own election
as far as it is known, and to submit the fate of the wicked to his sover
eign disposal. God himself commands these things.
(3) The soul is rewarded and punished by what is done to the body ;
and the dependence of men constitutes a sort of capacity for rewards and
punishments. God promises them his influence as a gracious recom
pense, and bestows it in answer to prayer, in fulfilment of a covenant, or
as a general token of favor ; in all which you may trace the idea of re
ward. The whole process of sanctification after the first act of faith
seems to be of this nature ; for however sovereign it may be in point of
time, manner, and degree, it was in general promised to the first act of
faith, and is certainly a token of favor. On the other hand, God with
holds from men his .influence, and abandons them to judicial blindness
and tormenting passions by way of punishment
Regeneration can never be the reward of the person regenerated, for
before the change he had nothing worthy of recompense. But the re
generation of one person may be the reward of another. It may be a
recompense to Christ, a token of favor to a parent or minister, a fulfil
ment of a covenant with the church, or an answer to prayer. On the
other hand, regenerating influence may be withheld from one as the
punishment of another. So, to keep up the comparison already begun,
the soul of one may be rewarded or punished by what is done to the body
of another.

CHAP. V.] THE TWO CHARACTERS OF MAN DISTINCT. 269
In these three respects the two characters stand related to each other.
These, then, may be considered as exceptions ; and to save repetition I
shall hereafter refer to them as such. But with these three exceptions,
the two characters are as disconnected and independent of each other as
though they belonged to two separate persons. A provision for one is
as distinct from every thing relating to the other, as a provision for the
soul is distinct from a garment for the body. Accordingly, with the
above exceptions, God, in his whole treatment of moral agents, proceeds
without the least apparent reference to the dependence of the same crea
tures on the Spirit, and shapes all his measures, to all appearance, as
though he had no control over the mind but by motives. This he does
even in regard to good men. He lays upon them obligations irrespective
of the influence which he has covenanted to bestow. But as the influ
ence in this case is really a reward to holy agents, I shall take no further
notice of it, but shall confine myself to the regenerating power. This, as
it relates to the subject of the change, is certainly no part of the treat
ment of moral agents. To him it is not a reward, and has no respect to
any thing he has ever done. This, then, and the decree concerning it,
are clearly without the pale of a moral government, and may be set in
distinct contrast with the whole treatment of agents.* These are the
two points of opposition which I wish to set up ; — election and regenera
tion on the one hand, and a moral government on the other. And what
I assert is, that in all the treatment of moral agents and in all the pro
visions for them, God acts, with the exceptions already made, without
the least apparent reference to election or regeneration.
I have shown you two independent characters on earth. If God acts
towards these according to truth, there will be a counterpart of them in
the heavens ; he himself will sustain two characters (with the exceptions
already made), altogether independent of each other. As he stands re
lated to the moral agent, he is the Moral Governor ; as he stands related
to the mere passive receiver, he is the Sovereign Efficient Cause. I say,
then, if he acts towards these two independent characters of man accord
ing to truth, the Moral Governor will appear in his operations indepen
dent of the Sovereign Efficient Cause. And so it is. No one can open
his Bible without seeing these two independent and seemingly opposite
characters in every page. In one place you hear God speaking as one
who has absolute control over the mind, and cannot be disappointed :
" My counsel shaU stand, and I will do all my pleasure." " The king's
* The decree of election was a reward to Christ, and a part of a moral government
in relation to him ; and the regeneration of a child may be the reward of a parent,
and so a part of a moral government to him. But the child is not treated as an agent
in the process, but as a mere passive receiver. 23*

270 EXTENT OF THE ATONEMENT. [PART II.
heart is in the hand of the Lord as the rivers of water ; he turneth it
whithersoever he will : '' in another, you see him a supplicant at the
doors of men, earnestly striving to reform them, with no power or instru
ment in his hand but motives ; and you see him, after exhausting his'
means, retiring from the field apparently disappointed and grieved.
" As I live, saith the Lord God, I have no pleasure in the death of the
wicked, but that the wicked turn from his way and live. Turn ye, turn
ye from your evil ways, for why will ye die ? " " O that my people had
hearkened unto me, and Israel had walked in my ways ! " " How often
would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth
her chickens under her wings, and ye would not." " O that they were
wise, that they understood this, that they would consider their latter
end ! " " What could have been done more to my vineyard that I have
not done in it ? This is not the language of figure, nor any thing after
the manner of men in such a sense as to prevent it from being the plainest
and simplest dialect of a moral government. These two characters,
which appear everywhere as distinct as though they belonged to two
separate beings, will account for all that diversity of language in the
sacred Scriptures which has given rise to so many opposite systems.
Out of these different exhibitions of God most of the metaphysical dis
putes have arisen. One class of men, fastening their eyes on one of these
characters, have in different degrees excluded election and special grace ;
while another class, too much confining their attention to the other char
acter, have proportionably overlooked a moral government. But the
grand key to unlock every difficulty is found in this, that one of these
characters stands related to men as moral agents, and the other to men
as passive receivers of sanctifying impressions ; and the latter two being
distinct and independent of each other, the former two, to accord with
truth, must be equally so.
These two characters of God are not only distinct, but in some respects
are opposite to each other. In one character God wills to suffer men to
sin, when his influence could easily prevent ; in the other he earnestly
forbids'them to sin, and urges all the motives in the universe to dissuade
them. In one character he wiUs to suffer men to perish, when his influ
ence could easily prevent ; in the other he swears by his life that he has
no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but that they turn and live ; and
then presses them to return as though his own existence was at stake.
In one character he determined before the non-elect were made that they
should be left to destruction ; in the other he would have us to under
stand that he made them from the purest benevolence ; and to confirm
this, he has spread an ocean of atoning blood between them and perdition,
and follows them with his entreaties even to the gates of hell. Nothing

CHAP. V.J THE TWO CHARACTERS OF MAN DISTINCT. 271
but the confounding of these two characters, or rather the annihilation of
that of Moral Governor, prevents men from seeing that God could pro
vide an atonement for the non-elect : and, that character annihilated,
there is no avoiding the broad and unqualified assertion that he made
them to be damned. Contemplate God in a single character, and there
is no vindicating the sincerity of his invitations to the non-elect ; for then
the whole that can be said is, that he presses those to live whom he has
unchangeably doomed to destruction. Not a word of explanation can be
offered ; and it is as though a man, sustaining a single character, should
pursue the same contradictory course. But view God in this double
character, founded on the double relations of men, and admit that their
capacity is a sufficient ground of treating them as distinct and indepen
dent agents, and all is plain. In short, this distinction between the active
and passive characters of man, and between the corresponding characters
of God, will clear up very many difficulties which are otherwise insolva-
ble.* To blend them would introduce endless confusion into every part
* I am so convinced that this distinction will clear up most of the solvable difficulties
in metaphysical theology, that I could wish to see some abler pen pursue the subject
through all its ramifications. I have only time to drop the following hints as a
specimen : —
( 1 ) The seemingly contradictory language which runs through the Bible is thus ex
plained. In one form God speaks as related to agents, with nothing but motives to
employ; in the other, as related to passive subjects of sanctifying impressions, over
whom he has absolute control.
(2) It reveals the consistency between dependence and freedom. Freedom is the
unrestrained exertion of our own agency. Dependence leaves our agency entire, and
of course unshackled.
(3) The consistency between decrees and free agency. Decrees do not touch us
until they are executed upon us by the power of motives, or by an influence to mould
our disposition. If we follow motives we are voluntary and free : if our hearts are
moulded by a divine influence, we are only dependent. As men have all the attri
butes of agents none the less for what befalls them as passive, God may make and ex
ecute a decree concerning the passive and leave agents free.
(4) The consistency between election and the fact that all may come. Election
only respects the passive, coming is the act of an agent. Election only touches the
question whether we shall be disposed to come ; it does not interfere with the fact that
if we come we shall be received.
(5) The consistency between election and a fair chance for all. Fair chance is predi
cate only of an agent, and is where a blessing is so put within his reach that he may
enjoy it by doing his duty. Election only respects the question whether he shall be
inclined to do his duty.
(6) The difference between God's secret or decretive and his revealed or preceptive
will. The former respects the passive (except so far as it is to be executed by mo
tives) ; the latter, agents.
(7) The propriety of exhorting sinners to repent and believe, and not merely to use

272 EXTENT OF THE ATONEMENT. [PART H.
of the divine administration. And to fill the eye with one to the exclu
sion of the other, and to build on that a system of religion, would lead to
the most destructive heresies. Cover man's dependence on the Spirit,
and we are Pelagians : take away his moral agency, and the government
of God degenerates into stoical fate. The only difference between the
Calvinistic doctrine of decrees and the stoical doctrine of fate is found in
the distinct, complete, and free agency of man, by which he differs from
a mere machine.
These operations of the Moral Governor and Sovereign Efficient Cause
may be called the two great departments of the divine administration.
And they are so distinct that when a man opens bis eyes in one, be can
not, so to speak, see the other. If standing in one department, a Chris
tian should ask why he obtained mercy, the question would be, why he
was regenerated : and the answer would be, because God has " mercy on
whom he will have mercy." If standing in the other, he asks the same
question, the inquiry will be, why he was not punished with judicial blind
ness, and why he was not debarred when he applied for pardon : and the
answer will be, on the one hand, because he had not committed the un
pardonable sin, and on the other, because God wished to glorify his grace
for the encouragement of others who should be disposed to apply. It was
in the latter department that Paul stood when he contemplated the rea
sons of the mercy extended to him. " I obtained mercy because I did it
ignorantly in unbebef. — For this cause I obtained mercy, that in me first
Jesus Christ might show forth all long suffering for a pattern to them
who should hereafter believe on him." When the great preacher of elec
tion opened his mouth on such a subject, you might expect to hear, among
the antecedent causes, something of that electing decree and of the gift of
that soul to Christ. Not a hint or breath of any such thing. He seems
never to have heard of election. The only reasons assigned why he him
self was not actually left to go down to the pit are these two ; that his
knowledge had not been sufficient to render bis sin unpardonable, and that
God wished to make him a monument of mercy for the encouragement of
means and do tho best they can. Their moral agency and obligations are not im
paired by their dependence, nor by tho absence of the Spirit.
(8) We see what it is which constitutes the difference in the tenor of different
preachers. Some dwell more on tho duties of agents, or morality, others more on the
aid secured for the passive, calling on men to cast themselves on Christ and the cove
nant. And by keeping in view the two characters of man, we may see why and how
far botli methods ought to be pursued. As to tho reason why, the whole man ought
to be addressed : as to the proportion of bearing on the respective characters, not
enough on the one hand to make legalists, not enough on tho other to mike Antino-
mians. To omit to notice, or to lay too much stress on either character, will lead to
somo error of head or heart.

CHAP. V.] THE TWO CHARACTERS OF MAN DISTINCT. 273
other returning sinners. So perfectly distinct are the two departments,
like two different worlds, and so impossible, when a man opens bis eyes
in one, even to see the other. And this is the difficulty with our breth
ren. Their eyes are so immovably fixed in the department of the Sover
eign Efficient Cause, that they never go out of it to contemplate a moral
government in relation to the atonement. They ask, in the light of their
favorite department, why Simon Magus perished ; and they answer truly,
because he was not elected. If they would go into the other department
and ask the same question, the answer would be, because he rejected the
remedy which was so brought within bis reach that he could not lose it
without enormous guilt ; in other words, because he rejected an atonement
which was prepared for him as a moral agent.
The Moral Governor, with the exceptions already made, proceeds in
all his administration without the least apparent reference to election and
regeneration, and constructs his measures just as though men were inde
pendent. The reason is, there is in man, regarded purely as an agent
(which he completely is when separated from the sovereign influences of
the Spirit), a full foundation for all the treatment and measures which
are fitted to moral agents. A measure for a moral agent is complete
without being so shaped as to have a manifest bearing on the same man
in a character in which he is not an agent. Nor can it be so shaped
without ceasing to be a simple measure for a moral agent. And the
being who brings it forward, if he speaks according to truth, must simply
declare it intended for the moral agent, and must say no more. The
measure may be expected, by way of consequence, to affect the man in
another character; and the author of the measure .may so declare : but in
explaining the direct and proper influence of the measure itself, he can
not in truth allude to any but a moral agent. Accordingly the Moral
Governor, with the exceptions already made, proceeds through the whole
of his administration as though the other department did not exist. Par
ticularly in contemplating the privileges of men, as we have seen, he ap
pears to have no knowledge of election or regeneration whatever.
Now the atonement was certainly provided by the Moral Governor,
because it was a provision for moral agents. It follows, then, that in
making this provision be had no regard to the distinction of elect and
non-elect. An atonement made for agents could know nothing of passive
regeneration or any decree concerning it.
When I say this ©f the Moral Governor, I do not apply it to the Di
vine Mind unlimitedly, but only to God in that character in which he
stands related to moral agents. If it be asked respecting God unlimit
edly, whether he would have provided an atonement if he had not deter
mined to bestow the gift of faith and consequent salvation on the elect, I

274 EXTENT OF THE ATONEMENT. [PART II.
am wilbng to answer, no. Not that it would have been inconsistent for
him to have treated the whole race as mere agents, as he now treats a
part (allowing wisdom to have seen a reason for so doing) ; but I
suppose that he would not have entered on a system of mercy towards a
world without intending to gloiify himseff in both characters, and to grat
ify his benevolence more fully than he could have done by the operations
of the Moral Governor alone. But certainly the salvation of the elect
was not all that he intended to gain. He had a purpose to answer to
wards the non-elect as subjects of moral government, much the same that
he accompbshes by giving them laws. He has ends to answer by a be
nignant government over agents, wholly distinct from any wliich he
attains by sanctifying impressions on the heart. All this is said of God
unlimitedly. But in the foregoing remarks respecting the Moral Gover
nor, I referred not to the secret motives of the Divine Mind, much less
to any purposes -respecting the passive, but to the avowed designs of God
in bringing forward a measure for the benefit of moral agents.
I admit also that God in his secret covenant, in which he treated
about men as passive recipients of sanctifying impressions, had much to
do with ejection, and that too in preparing the way for the atonement.
He gave the elect to Christ as a reward for the merit of his obedience in
making expiation. But that secret transaction, as I expect to show in
the next chapter, did not provide the atonement, by giving to the death
of Christ its expiating virtue. This was done by the pubbc transactions,
in all which God appeared as the Moral Governor. It was the Moral
Governor who commanded the Son to die, and laid upon him the stroke ;
who thus, as the Protector of the law, demanded and received satisfaction ;
who accepted the offering, and pronounced it accepted by the resurrection
of Christ. It was he who came forward with the atonement before the
world, declared the purpose for which it was made, and offered it to men
as a provision of his own. It was the Moral Governor, then, who ap
pointed, provided, and produced the atonement. And what I mean is,
that in aU these public transactions he had no declared reference to elect
or non-elect, but appeared as one bringing forward a measure solely for
moral agents, to be mdiscriminately appbed to all who as agents would
believe.

CHAP. VI.] ATONEMENT NOT SECRET. 275
CHAPTER VI.
NOTHING BELONGED TO THE ATONEMENT BUT WHAT WAS PUBLIC.
The greatest mistake of all has lain in the supposition that the secret
covenant between the Father and Son gave to the atonement its influ
ence and power, like a contract between two merchants respecting the
purchase of goods. This representation carries too much the appearance
of something mercenary and selfish on the part of the Father, as though
the thing demanded was merely to gratify his own personal feelings. All
the statements about the pearl paid in secret, or by a secret understand
ing, for the redemption of a hundred of the thousand prisoners, are of this
nature. Where the thing demanded is money or a precious stone, to
gratify a private and personal feebng, the contract which gives it all its
claim may be made in secret. But the Father had no such individual
feelinc to gratify. He had no desire or demand but for an operation
upon public law for the benefit of the universe. Nothing could have the
least influence to satisfy him but that operation upon pubbc law. The
arguments on the other side constantly assume that the atonement was
offered and accepted secretly for a certain number. But it was not offered
or accepted secretly. The offering was among the most public transac
tions of the universe ; and the acceptance was no less notorious than the
resurrection of Christ, the proclamations of the gospel, and the acquittal
of the saints in glory. And had it been offered and accepted privately,
as the pearl is represented to have been, it could have had no effect.
We are now upon a track which will lead to an easy decision of the
question. The atonement was certainly a measure exclusively for moral
agents, and therefore was provided by the Moral Governor. But in that
secret covenant God was not the Moral Governor towards men, but the
sovereign efficient cause : in other words, he did not treat about men
as moral agents, but about men as passive receivers of regenerating influ
ence. He only promised that the elect should be made to believe, and
thus be brought into that pale where remission would meet all indiscrim
inately who should enter. This covenant, then, was no part of the pro
vision of the Moral Governor for moral agents.
Nor did this covenant give to the atonement any of its influence upon
the relations of moral agents. So far as it was a contract for something
which should have this effect, it was merely a stipulation that there
should be an atonement ; but the matter and influence of the atonement
were the same as though such a stipulation had never been, except that
without the consent of the Son his subjection and sufferings would neither

276 EXTENT OF THE ATONEMENT. [PART li.
•
have been possible nor just. That covenant was the mere yielding of
consent on the part of the Son, and the fixing of bis reward on the part
of the Father. That might have been all, and the elect might have been
pardoned as a reward or favor to Christ without his sufferings, had it not
been necessary for the honor of the law to produce a change in their legal
relations as agents. This was the proper and exclusive office of the
atonement. The whole of this was done by the public command to the
Son to die, the public infliction of the stroke upon him, and the public
explanation of the design. These public transactions were the whole
which constituted an atonement for Peter. It was not a secret contract
about him as passive, nor a secret stipulation that there should be an
atonement, but a public offering for him as an agent, which rendered it
consistent with the honor of the law for him to be pardoned when he
should bebeve. And besides removing the curse of abandonment, this
was all that atonement did for Peter : for it is not atonement which cre
ates the fact that men are pardoned ; that is done by the intervention of
another influence, which secures to them the gift of faith. It was the
public transactions, and not a private treaty, which made it to be an
atonement for him. The meaning of its being offered for him is, not that
God designed it for the benefit of the man by an operation on him as
passive, but that the public transactions gave it a bearing on him as an
agent, that is, on his legal relations. In determining, then, for whom or
bow many it was offered, we have not to consult the secret covenant, but
only to look on the face of the public transactions. It could not be for
Peter further than it was made to be for him by the public transactions ;
and it was for as many as the public transactions made it to be. It was
to exert its whole influence upon public law. That influence was wholly
derived from the open and avowed bearing of the thing upon agents and
their relations ; that is, upon creatures who had sinned and who must act,
and on whose action the effect must depend. And it was for as many
agents as by that public bearing it rendered pardonable if they would
believe. The public explanation which gave it that bearing, then, is the
only instrument which contains the express purpose. The whole that
we mean, therefore, when we say that the atonement was for all, is, that
it was stated in the public instrument to be for every man indiscriminately
who would believe, and that it became a provision for all by the bearing
it took from this public statement.
Let us look again at the case of the prince of Wales. The whole end
to be accomplished by bis atonement was, a public conviction that forgers
should die. How could that conviction be wrought on the multitude by
any secret purpose of the prince or his father, or by any secret agree
ment between them ? Allowing the king to have power to change the

CHAP. VI.] ATONEMENT NOT SECRET. 277
hearts of the criminals, and to have made some private promise to the
prince on that subject, what has this to do with public law, or with ren
dering it safe to pardon the men after they are reclaimed? The whole
that was to accomplish this must be public. And if the death of the
prince could do nothing without an express purpose, we see at once where
that express purpose must be found, and in what form. It must not be
found in the secret covenant between the parties (it might as well be no
where), but in the public proclamation. And it must not be about the
formation of the character (allowing such a power to exist), but about
the pardon of the criminals. Admit now that the death of the prince
could not convince the public that forgers would die if it shielded any
who continued to transgress : then the proclamation must be, that he dies
to obtain the pardon of the culprits provided they reform. This done, if
the life of the prince is known to be as valuable in the eyes of the gov
ernment as that of the ten, not a man in England will dread the authority
of the law the less, if all the ten reform and live. There is, then, a full
atonement for the ten, though in the event but five accept the offer.
But still the mind cleaves to the idea of some secret sense in which
the satisfaction was offered and accepted. Let us' therefore pause a little
longer on this thought. After Christ had openly and professedly died
in the room of all in such a sense that all might be pardoned if they
would believe, how by any secret understanding or compact could he
atone in any higher or other sense for the elect ? A thousand private
purposes and agreements, and a thousand deaths for them in particular,
could accomplish no more by way of atonement than was done for all by
that public transaction. How, then, could he limit the expiation to a
part? If it had been gold or a pearl that had made the satisfaction, it
might by a secret understanding have been offered and accepted for
a few. But how by any secret covenant could one die in the room of a
given number, when bis death, as pubbcly explained, actually cleared
out of the way of. all, every impediment to pardon but unbelief; and
that was a difficulty not to be removed by his dying in their stead, but
by the meritorious influence of his obedience ? What chance was there
for any private transaction in things properly belonging to the atone
ment? What room was left for any thing to be done in secret anal
ogous to the private offering of the pearl for one in ten ? Who was
there to witness such a covert and deceptive transaction? Who has
been in the cabinet and brought back the report ? Who knows that the
satisfaction, after all these public appearances, was not offered and
accepted in good faith for the whole ?
Suppose for a moment that it was as we have represented; that the
Redeemer by his sin-offering cleared every difficulty out of the way of
24

278 EXTENT OF THE ATONEMENT. [PART li..
the pardon of all but unbelief, and then by the merit of his obedience
secured the gift of faith to the elect : and what more could he have
done for his chosen by any thing pubbc or private ? What need, then, of
searching for a private transaction appertaining to the atonement itself?
Having thus found that the atonement was that pubbc measure which
was brought forward before the world by the Moral Governor (or by
God as be stood related to moral agents), and that no part of it lay in
the secret department of the sovereign efficient cause (or God as he
stood related to mere passive receivers of sanctifying impressions); we
may now resume the train of thought which was suspended at the close
of the last chapter, and see why, as analogous to aU his other operations,
and why, as growing out of truth itself, the Moral Governor, in providing
and producing the atonement, should proceed just as though men were
independent agents, and without the least apparent reference to election
or regeneration.
I have seen a concession from an amiable and distinguished writer on
the other side, which, if steadily kept in view, will set all right at last.
In showing that the non-elect perish by their own fault notwithstanding
that there is no atonement for them, he says, " We must in all cases be
careful not to confound the secret purposes of God with the rule of our
duty. Between these two things there is often no coincidence." Now
after " the rule of our duty," only add, nor with any other measure of
moral government, and every thing is settled ; for then we shall not
confound any thing relating to election with the atonement. And why
should not this be added ? Is it not as wrong to confound God's secret
purposes respecting the passive with any of the measures adapted to
agents, as with that particular one which we cab law ? and wrong for
the same reason, because the two are distinct ? " We must," therefore,
" be careful not to confound the secret purposes of God with the " atone
ment. " Between these two things there is often no coincidence."
This care we profess to exercise. We do as we understand from the
Scriptures that God himself does. When we speak of a measure
properly intended for moral agents, we know nothing about men as
destined to be the subjects or not the subjects of passive regeneration.
When we speak of the designs and acts of the Moral Governor, we
know nothing about the sovereign efficient cause, but speak of God as
he appears in the public order of a moral government, and scruple not,
because the Scriptures do not scruple, to ascribe to him all the aims
which the measures of that government are calculated to accomplish.
When we place ourselves in a moral government, we cannot see the
other department, but speak of the glorious Being at the head of this as
though he sustained no other character. In short, we express ourselves

CHAP. VII.] ATTRIBUTES OF MORAL AGENTS. 279
in the pure dialect of a moral government. And when we turn to the
atonement, we know nothing about men as elect and nonrelect, but as
capable agents, or if we look to their moral character, as believers and
unbelievers. And then an atonement which was offered, that " whoso
ever believeth " might " not perish," which placed, and was designed to
place, remission so within the reach of all that they may enjoy it if they
will do their duty, and are solemnly bound to make it then" own, and
cannot lose it without enormous guilt, we unhesitatingly pronounce an
atonement for all.

CHAPTER Vn.

ATTRIBUTES OF MORAL AGENTS.

But of what avail to the non-elect for God to open the way for them
to be pardoned upon their believing, when he had determined never to
impart to them the gift of faith ? It was no atonement for them after all.
This is the greatest difficulty that rises up in the mind. I must, however,
remark, that in this question you speak of the same man in two distinct
characters, as distinct as two different persons, and might as well ask, of
what avail a privilege to Peter since Judas was never to be sanctified ?
When you speak of an atonement for a man, you speak of a privi
lege for a moral agent ; but when you speak of his being regenerated, you
change the scene in a moment, and refer to him only as passive, in
which character, privileges have no relation to him.
This objection goes further ; it really overlooks all that in human
agents which renders them the proper subjects of moral government, and
on which the whole structure of a moral government is founded. Is
there in a moral agent without the Spirit, bottom enough to support such
a privilege, so as to render the provision worthy of any account ? If
not, there is not bottom enough to support any other of the measures of
a moral government, such as law, punishment, and the like.
The root of the difficulty lies in overlooking the capacity of unsanc
tified men. And without capacity they are no longer agents ; and when
they cease to be agents, they indeed cease to be susceptible of the priv
ilege of an atonement. If the non-elect are as powerless in regard to
faith as dead masses of matter, I admit that the atonement was not
made for them in any sense ; and then I must consider the appearances
of such a provision as calculated to deceive. But if they possess the
full capacity which is the proper ground of treating them as moral agents,
then there is an atonement for them as agents none the less for their

280 EXTENT OF THE ATONEMENT. [PART II.
being unsanctified. If a feast is brought into a room surrounded with
statues, and it is determined to impart life only to half; there may be a
ludicrous proclamation that it is for as many as will receive it, but after
all it would be preposterous to say that it was provided for all. But if it
is brought into a room surrounded with living men, and they are all to
share it if they will, and are invited and urged to partake, then it may
truly be said to be provided for all, though in the event a part refuse the
invitation. The question, then, about power is really a vital one.
On this and some other accounts it becomes necessary to analyze a
moral agent and to see exactly what he is, what attributes he possesses,
what relations he sustains, and what effects an atonement made for moral
agents ought to have on him.
It is important in the outset to gain precise ideas of a moral agent,
and to carry the definition in our minds through the whole discussion.
A moral agent, then, is a being capable of deserving praise and blame.
But as there are no works of supererogation, and no moral goodness
among creatures but what lies in conformity to the will of God, nothing
is entitled to praise from him but the fulfilment of an obligation, or to
blame from him but the violation of an obligation. A moral agent, then
(to carry back the idea one step further), is a creature capable of fulfill
ing or violating obligations. But as he cannot fulfil or violate an obliga
tion of which he is not susceptible, the radical definition of a moral agent
is, a creature susceptible of obligations. And as the bonds are actually
imposed by divine authority on all who are capable of receiving them,
the definition which accords with matter of fact is, a creature under
obligations. When therefore we inquire what constitutes or is the basis
of moral agency, we are only asking what that is in the creature which
is the foundation of obligation.
That foundation is no other than the faculties of a rational soul, to
which, in reference to the present subject at least, I am willing to add
light. What is it which makes a man rather than a brute bound to love
and serve God ? His relations to God ? But a brute has the relation
of a creature, and a creature preserved and fed. A divine command?
The question then returns, why is a man more fit to receive a divine
command than a brute ? There must be a basis to support the obligation,
distinct from the authority which imposes it, as a platform is distinct from
the hand which lays a substance upon it. The command only imposes
it from above, but does not support it from beneath. That thing in the
creature which can sustain the obligation more than if the command was
laid upon the air, or a block, or a brute, is the secret after which I am
inquiring. What is that thing ? You say it is a rational soul. Then
the intellectual faculties are the basis of the obligation. The true doc-

CHAP. VII.] ATTRIBUTES OF MORAL AGENTS. 281
trine on this subject is, that, wherever a rational soul is found, there are
talents which God has a right to command.
This basis is not at all affected by the state of the temper. With the
same capacity and light, a bad man is as much bound to love and serve
God as a good man. A depraved disposition does not destroy or weaken
the basis, nor does a holy heart go in to constitute or complete it. If it
did, a holy disposition would be that in the creature on which rests the
obligation to be holy ; and where the disposition is wanting 'there could
be no obligation, and of course no sin. And until a thing can be the
foundation of itself, there could be no holiness, because there could be no
obligation to be holy. The disposition itself would not be holy, for it
would not be the fulfilment of a previous obligation, but the basis of one
to follow. The previous obligation could not exist without holiness ;
but the previous ¦ obligation must exist and be fulfilled before holiness
can exist. A holy disposition, therefore, would be impossible ; and then
an obligation to holiness could not exist ; and then there could be no
violation of an obligation, in other words, no sin. Try the principle in
another light. If disinclination to duty destroys obligation, there is no-
stable landmark between right and wrong, but a movable spectre, which
recedes before inclination ; and so long as a man follows his inclination
(which he is sure to do as long as he is free), he cannot sin. And as it
is not sin to be forced against one's inclination, the possibility of sinning
is excluded : God could not create a being capable of sinning ; and then
every law, human or divine, which attempts to control the inclination, or
to impose an obligation in opposition to it, is tyrannical, and punishment
in every form is oppression : no distinction remains between moral good
and evil ; every feeling of disapprobation or resentment against another
is founded in a delusion ; and instead of a kingdom of moral agents, the
Governor of the world is left alone amidst the lumber of innumerable
automata. To all this length you must go, or return back to the plain
principle of common sense, that a rational soul, whatever its temper
may be, is bound to submit to the government of God.
There is no need, therefore, of recurring to our original purity in Adam
to find the foundation of obligation. Under the notion that sinners have
no more power to believe than stocks, men have attempted to justify the
universal command on the ground that the power was lost by our own
fault ' If a servant, say they, has cut off his hands to avoid labor, his
master may still require his daily task, and punish him for the neglect.
But if a solid ground of obligation independent of Adam still remains in
the soul, there is no need of resorting to this laboring principle to vindi
cate the command. We lost nothing in Adam (so far as concerns the
present subject), but a right temper; and the want of that does not
24*

282 EXTENT OF THE ATONEMENT. [PART II.'
impair the basis of obligation which exists in ourselves. What else can
you imagine we lost ? Power ? But what power distinct from a good
heart ? Have we not still power to love God if our heart is well dis
posed ? Do you mean a power to make the heart good, or a self-deter
mining power of the will ? But did Adam himself possess that ? What
had he which we have not but a right temper ? And that could not have
been the ground of obligation had it continued. Besides, this resort to
original holiness for the ground of obligation involves so many seeming
absurdities, that it ought not to be made without the most urgent neces
sity. Take the case of the servant. His sin was one, the act of dis
abling himself. For this he might be punished as long and as much as
that single act deserved. But to impute sin to him for not performing
bis task after it bad become impossible, is contrary to all truth and jus
tice. He was not to blame for that omission. With the best disposi
tions he could not have prevented it. If God looks at the heart, and
accepts "a willing mind" where there is nothing else to give, he could
not have seen that servant striving with the best desires to perform his
task without hands, and blamed him for the failure. The sin was but
one. And if this illustrates the case of Adam's posterity, there is but
one sin to be charged against them all, and that was committed in Eden.
The idea of different degrees of criminabty is a dream ; and men would
have been as guilty, and might have received the same punishment, had
they been born without reason. No personal act of theirs is sin, and it
is no matter what they do. These consequences must follow, or there
must be in the present structure of the soul a foundation of obbgation
altogether independent of Adam's innocence or fall. And where do the
Scriptures teach us that men have not in themselves a complete founda
tion of obligation without resorting to Adam ? What text from Genesis
to Revelation hints at such a thing ? The notion is altogether a human
inference. So far from supporting such a thought, the Scriptures point
edly charge sinners with faculties which render them without excuse,
alleging that they have eyes but see not, ears but hear not, hearts but do
not understand, talents but will not employ them, a price in their hands
with no heart to improve it ; and constantly treat them as moral agents
in their own persons, and as ftdly so as if there had been no federal
head. This independent basis of obbgation is what we mean, and all that we
mean, by natural ability. We certainly do not mean by this phrase a
power to originate the disposition, or a self-determining power of the will,
but merely a power to love and serve God if the heart is well disposed.
This power lies in the physical faculties of a rational soul, connected with
light Without the faculties a man could not love God even were it pos-

CHAP. VII.] ATTRIBUTES OF MORAL AGENTS. 283
sible for him to have a good heart ; but with the faculties and sufficient
light he could. The faculties with the light, therefore, constitute exactly
a power to love and serve God if the heart is well disposed. And when
we ascribe this power to sinners, we only assert that they have the physi
cal faculties of a rational soul ; and our single object is to make out a
complete basis of obligation. It is so self-evident that a man cannot be
bound to perform natural impossibibties, or to do what with the best dis
positions he has no power to accomplish (as for instance to make a
world), that we find it necessary to prove the existence of such a power,
in order to fasten upon the conscience a sense of obligation. But call it
by whatever name you please, the whole that we mean is, that the physi
cal faculties, accompanied with light, are a complete and bona fide basis
of obligation, independent of the temper of the heart, or the action of the
Spirit, or original righteousness or sin, and none the less for man's de
pendence. This is all that any Calvinist ever meant, or can mean, by
natural ability.*
About the existence of the thing, therefore, which we call natural abil
ity, there can be no dispute. None can doubt that the worst of men are
rational beings, or that their natural faculties constitute a power to love
and serve God, if their hearts are well disposed. And few will doubt
that it is on this account that they are capable of receiving obligations
from a divine command. If any controversy remains it must be about
the name : and the question will be, whether a power to love and serve
God if the heart is well disposed, can properly be denominated an ability.
For as to the term natural, long and venerated custom, as well as the
necessity of having a word of such an import, has fastened to it a mean
ing opposite to moral. And if the thing in question is properly called
an ability, it certainly is not a moral one (is not deserving of praise or
blame), and therefore must be distinguished by the opposite epithet. In
vindication of the term ability I submit the following remarks : —
(1) When the word is thus applied it expresses what is generally
meant by power. When in the common affairs of life we say that a man
has power to do a thing, we seldom refer to his wibingness, and never to
an ability to originate his disposition, but to a capacity to do the thing if
he is so inclined. When we excuse him for not making or succeeding
in an attempt, on the ground that he was not able, we never allude to his
disinclination, nor to his incapacity to control his disposition, but to the
want of natural strength even with the best desires. And when we affirm
* Even those Calvinists who deny the existenco of disposition, and place every
tiling in exercise, and of course see no sense in the appended clauso, " if the heart is
well disposed," mean nothing more by ability than the physical powers, and have no
other end in asserting it than to make out a proper basis of obligation.

284 EXTENT OF THE ATONEMENT. [PART II.
that he is not bound to perform impossibibties, we always mean that he
is not obliged to do more than he can with a well-disposed heart.
(2) As the natural faculties constitute that capacity in which the obb
gation to serve God is founded, they bear the same relation to the obliga
tion that the muscular strength of a slave does to the obligation to lift a
weight when bidden by his master. Without the strength no command
could fasten the obligation upon him ; with the strength he is reasonably
bound. In like manner without the faculties no command could lay the
obligation upon us ; with the faculties the bond is reasonably imposed.
That muscular strength of the slave you call power, because it constitutes
an ability to lift the weight if he is so inclined, and because it forms the
proper ground of obligation ; and why not for the same reasons call the
physical faculties in question by the same name ?
(3) As the denial of every species of power presents the monstrous
idea of a command to do impossibilities, it conveys a false and injurious
idea of God, and serves to relieve the conscience of a sense of blame.
On the other hand, when the alleged ability is quabfied and limited by
the term natural, and is so explained as to exclude a self-determining
power, the phrase has no tendency to hide our dependence, while it has
all the advantage of justifying God and fastening upon the conscience a
sense of obligation and guilt.
(4) No impediment lies in the way of a sinner's loving God but a de
praved temper, for which he is wholly to blame. If you are disposed to
call this depraved temper an inability, there is no inability in the way
but a blamable one. Now only admit that an inability which is blamable
is properly called moral, and that the opposite of moral is natural (barely
these two things), and there is no avoiding the phrase in question. If
there is no inability but what is blamable or moral, there is none which
is blameless or natural. And if there is no natural inability, there must
be natural power.
Thus it appears that there exist in men physical faculties which con
stitute a natural ability to serve God, and which, independently of their
present temper, or their original righteousness, or any divine influence,
and none the less for their dependence, form the proper basis of obliga
tion. This principle, on which is bottomed the whole structure of a
moral government, is confirmed by all its measures and decisions.
Having thus laid open the foundation of moral agency, I will now pro
ceed to exhibit the attributes of moral agents in their order. To moral
agents belong,
(1) Capacity.' What they are capable of doing if well disposed, they
may be said to have a capacity for doing, or a natural ability to perform.
In particular, all who hear tho gospel possess that kind of power to be-

CHAP. VII.] ATTRIBUTES OF MORAL AGENTS. 285
lieve, which is the foundation of obligation. This capacity or basis of
obligation is altogether separate from every thing belonging to the passive
character of men, and must be contemplated without reference to the
action of the Spirit, or to any decree respecting that action.
(2) Instruction. This is necessary to agents on two accounts.
First, because knowledge, as needful to guide the understanding, is inti
mately associated with the capacity. Secondly, to furnish motives to
influence the heart and will. This introduces an important circumstance
in relation to agents, viz. that in all instances they are governed by
motives. Take away the connection between motives and volition, and
mind would be extinct. Not merely rational action, but all action of
mind, would cease. The maniac is still governed by motives, though
distorted by a distempered fancy ; and even that semblance of mind
which exists in a brute is governed by motives.
In both of these points of view instruction is addressed, to men only as
agents. Only as agents can knowledge guide them, only as agents can
motives prompt them. Upon this principle it is that instructions are
poured upon them without apparent reference to their passive character,
or to any action or decree of God concerning it.
(3) Law. This is necessary for agents both to impose obligations
and to present motives. The commands, promises, and threatenings
which go in to constitute law, are addressed to men only as agents. The
passive have nothing to do with these things.
(4) Obligation. This rests upon capacity or natural ability, in other
words, upon the physical faculties accompanied with light. It is not
diminished by the dependence of man, nor by a bad temper, nor by the
absence of the Spirit ; nor is it increased by original holiness, nor by a
good temper, nor by the influence of the Spirit, further than the latter
presents light to the understanding, or is a mercy to be acknowledged.
In contemplating men, therefore, as creatures under obligations, we have
nothing to do with their dependence, or their temper, or the action of the
Spirit (further than is above expressed), or with any decree concerning
that action.
(5) Moral character, good or bad. This is formed by the fulfilment
or violation of obligations, by an agency as distinctly their own, and as
entire as though they were independent. As moral character is calcu
lated from their obligations, it is as independent of every thing passive as
the obligations themselves.
(6) Deserts, — merit or demerit, a title to reward or a liability to
punishment These all result from their character, as grounded on their
obbgations and conduct, and are as independent of every thing passive as

286 EXTENT OF THE ATONEMENT. [PART H.
the character and obligations themselves. None but agents bear any
relation to these things.
(7) Condemnation. This is founded on their deserts, and is equally
independent of every thing passive. None but agents bear any relation
to condemnation.(8) Pardon and justification. These are merely the changing of the
relations of agents, the freeing of them from punishment, and the entitling
of them to reward. These acts respect only agents ; the passive have
nothing to do with them.
(9) Provision for pardon and justification. This, of course, was
made for agents alone, and therefore without visible reference to men as
merely passive, or to the regenerating influence of the Spirit, or to any
decree concerning that influence. As it was made for agents, for beings
who were to act towards it, and on whose action as a sine qua non the
effect was to depend, its avowed end must have been to open the way for
their pardon and justification if they would believe.
(10) Subjection to a final examination of character. Men will ap
pear before the tribunal only as agents ; not as those who have received
or failed to receive divine impressions, but as those who have acted right
or wrong.
(11) Rewards and punishments. These will be administered to men
in the same character in which they appear before the tribunal.

ANOTHER SERIES.
(1) Possibility of action. This grows out of their capacity, which
without this would be no capacity. What is a capacity for action where
the action is a natural impossibility ? As the capacity from wliich the
possibility of action is calculated, is not affected by the presence or ab
sence of the Spirit, nor by any decree concerning his influence, nor yet
by the certainty that the capacity will not be employed, they who speak
and act in reference to agents have a right, without regard to any of these
things, to assume that their action is possible, and to speak and act as
though it was likely to happen. Even the omniscient God, as we shall
see in another place, shapes his measures as though their action was
probable, even when he foresees that it will never occur. On the same
principle we have a right, whenever an argument requires it, to make
the supposition of the return of the very devils to holiness. As agents
they have a capacity to return ; and all the language of the universe
respecting the possibility of action refers of course to agents.
It has been said, that for the non-elect to accept the atonement is nat-

CHAP. VII.] ATTRIBUTES OF MORAL AGENTS. 287
urally impossible, because it was determined not to dispose them to
accept. Now this is wholly confounding the two characters of men, and
burying their capacity and agency under their dependence. They have
as agents no capacity to act, because as passive they are not acted upon !
What more could you say if they were blocks ? The issue, I know, will
be the same as though the capacity did not exist, but still the capacity
makes all the difference between the government of God and fate. If
you choose to say that it is morally impossible for them to " come " on
account of their wicked hearts, to this, though it appbes to them as agents,
we do not object.
(2) Susceptibibty of offers, invitations, and expostulations. These
are all addressed to agents alone, without respect to any thing but their
capacity. They constantly allude to the possibility of their action and
to their obligations, and are founded on the assumption that these do
indeed exist.
(3) Probation or trial. This is only an opportunity afforded agents
to act out their character, and show to the universe what they will do in
the circumstances in which they are placed, irrespectively of any influ
ence to be exerted on the same creatures as passive. I add to the defi
nition, that it is an opportunity to act in reference to a reward or pun
ishment proposed. The placing of a creature on probation is the treating
of him as an agent, without respect to his purely passive character, and
therefore without reference to any aids of the Spirit except by way of
reward. The difficulty which has been found in defining a state of pro
bation, disappears when the subject is viewed in this light ; and the
objections which have been raised against the term may perhaps be
abandoned. These have arisen from overlooking the character of men
as agents, and the fact that probation is for them only as such, and from
fiUing the eye with absolute decrees and promises which relate to them as
purely passive, or passive in reference to the promised influence, and from
making too much account of foreknowledge. Probation is a term found
only in the dialect of a moral government, and is with entire consistency
excluded by those who speak only in the language of the other depart
ment. But if it is proper and according to truth for God to treat men
as agents even under the economy of grace, it is proper for him still to
put them on probation. When the term is thus explained, what objection
to its use ? Is election brought against it ? But God treats agents, as
we have seen, just as though there was no election. Is foreknowledge
brought against it? But God treats agents, it will appear hereafter, just
as though there was no foreknowledge. Are the absolute promises of
the covenant brought against it ? These are made to men as the reward
of agents, but are fulfilled upon them as passive receivers. Now it will

288 EXTENT OF THE ATONEMENT. [PART II.
appear hereafter, that while to men, as passive receivers of stipulated
impressions, the promises of God are absolute, to the same men as mere
agents, his treatment is still conditional. While in the former character
men have full evidence that they shall never be left to apostasy, in the
character of mere agents, whose persevering holiness is both a duty and
essential to salvation, their final acceptance is still suspended on their
enduring to the end. Probation, therefore, as the treatment of mere
agents irrespective of divine influence to incline them to act, may exist
after the full assurance of hope, and for the same reasons, after abandon
ment to judicial blindness. What objection, then, to the word ? It im
ports nothing uncertain in the divine mind, nothing unstable in the
covenant of redemption or of grace, but merely the treatment of men as
rational and accountable beings. It imports, in short, exactly what is
set forth in the parables of the talents and the pounds (Matt. 25 : 14-30.
Luke 19 : 12-26), and in many other parts of Scripture.*
To agents also belong all individual experiments upon the moral
character. None but agents have a moral character to develop. Such
experiments are made, of course, without reference to any thing passive
in men, and just as though they were independent.
(4) Opportunity or a fair chance to obtain good. A fair chance
actively to obtain, is where a blessing is so placed within the reach of an
agent that he may enjoy it by doing his duty. The expression always al
ludes to his capacity and the possibility of his action. Opportunity is predi-
cable only of agents, as it would be preposterous to say that a man has an
opportunity to receive a divine impression which is to be made without
respect to any thing he has ever done or will do. The term always refers
to some action which may follow ; and the thing, limited as it is to agents,
is entire without the Spirit or any decree concerning his influence.!
* " I know," says Dr. "Watts, "it has been the opinion of some persons that this
life is not properly called a state of probation, or trial of men for eternity ; because the
final event is not uncertain, since it is known to God already, and partly determined
by him. And yet these very persons will say that a season of affliction or temptation
is a season of trial to the people of God ; for it is so called in Scripture, 2 Cor. 8 : 2.
Heb. 11 : 36. 1 Pet. 4 : 12. 1 Pet. 1 : 7, it is called the trial of our faith, &c. Now I
would fain know whether the event of every season of trial, of every kind of men, —
be not known to God. And in this sense it is not uncertain. And yet Scripture with
much propriety calls one a season of trial ; and I see no reason to exclude the other
from the same name ; especially since tho sacred writers use it for wicked men also,
Rev.3: 10, 'I will keep thee from the hour of temptation,' or trial, ' which shall come
upon all tho world, to try them which dwell upon the earth.' " — Watts' Works, Vol.
VI. p. 285, note.
t Chance, like possibility, is not equally confined to the active sense. Thus we
say that a man stands a chance to draw a prize, or to be regenerated. But oppor
tunity excludes the passive sense altogether.

CHAP. VII.] ATTRIBUTES OF MORAL AGENTS. 289
(5) Privileges. The radical definition of a privilege is, a means of
happiness which a man has a capacity (or is able if well disposed) to
improve for his good. It is always Reckoned originally from his natural
ability. But in a moral government a shorter course is taken, and it is
reckoned immediately from his obbgations, which are founded on his
abibty. Whatever he ought to improve, is accounted a price) put into h
his hands. The definition of a privilege, then, in a moral government is
this, a means of hobness or happiness which one is under obligations to
improve for bis good. The word never denotes a final blessing, but a
means which will lead to a final blessing if rightly improved.
Privileges are predicable only of agents. We do not speak of the
privilege of being acted upon, the privilege of being the passive subject
of impressions. It may be a favor to be impressed. It is a mercy to be
elected and regenerated, but not a privilege, except so far as it is ca
pable of being improved by an agent It is indeed a privilege to be
permitted to pray for the Spirit, but this is the privilege of an agent.
It is a privilege that the mission of the Spirit has been procured for
men, for it is a blessing which they may improve by faith and prayer
for their good. But nothing is a privilege but what belongs to an
agent. A privilege, then, is complete without any influence of the Spirit in
clining the man to improve it. It is complete, provided his obligation to
improve it is complete. If he possesses that ability to use a blessing for
his good which is the bond fide basis of obligation, it may be charged
against him as a privilege with as much reason as though the enjoyment
of it depended on his stretching out the hand. A benefit so placed
within his reach that he ought to make it his own, is his own. It is a
blessing in his hands till he throws it away ; and the traces of it will
still be found upon him as an accountable being. Otherwise the abuse
of privileges is a phrase altogether without a meaning, and is no more
applicable to men than to statues. It is only because it is difiicult to
realize the completeness of the obligations of the non-elect to bebeve,
that we doubt whether the atonement is a complete privilege to them.
We pore so much on their inabibty, and lay the ground of their obliga
tion so much in Eden, that it becomes difficult to reabze that they are
under the same present, personal obligations to believe that they are to do
any outward act If remission was offered them on the simple condition
of their stretching out- the hand, it would be easy to see that the privi
lege was complete, because it would be obvious that their obligation was
perfect. Only let it be realized that without reference to Adam they are
under as entire obligations to believe as they would be to extend an arm
at the divine command, and every difficulty vanishes.
25

290 EXTENT OF THE ATONEMENT. [PART II.
Or, to take the subject in another view, what more could be done for
mere agents ? If a foundation is laid in the atonement for them to be
pardoned if they wiU believe, and the offer is. made to them, accompa
nied with those instructions and commands wliich lay them under. com
plete obligations to obtain remission, and which leave them no excuse
for perishing, what more could be done for mere agents ? If more is
done it must be by regenerating influence on the passive ; but no power
could make that any part of a privilege. When God has made those
arrangements which complete the obligation of men to be saved, he can
bft his hand to heaven, and without a figure, but merely in the character
in which he stands related to agents, truly and hteraby say, " What
could have been done more to my vineyard that I have not done in it ? "
And yet it is asked, what possible privilege could the atonement be
to men dead in trespasses and sins, and on whom God was determined
not to exert a lifegiving power ? What could the atonement prove to
them but an aggravation of iheir torment ? And these questions have
been urged with as much confidence as it would have been asked, what
privilege can light be to a man born blind? This mighty diffi
culty, which struggles in so many minds, has arisen from overlooking
the capacity of sinners, and from placing them before the eye as mere
passive recipients, in an affair which concerns them only as moral agents.
And when moral agents are put out of view, and men are regarded
merely as passive subjects of absolute, immutable, efficient decrees, why
then indeed you cannot find upon the non-elect any privilege, or any
chance or possibility of obtaining life. These things were never
affirmed of men, except by a confusion of terms, in any other character
than that of moral agents. But to deny that a means of happiness
which men are bound to use for their good is a privilege, unless they
are acted upon by the Spirit, is to change the whole language of the
Bible for a dialect befitting a course of action upon passive machines.
It is to break up all the language of the world. And it is manifestly
untrue ; for the worst of men are still moral agents, and under reason
able obligations to live by the atonement; and the language of the
Bible on this; subject expresses realities, or guilt is a name, and punish
ment oppression. It is so, or the capacity of creatures, separate from
the action of the Spirit, is no adequate basis to support any of the
measures of a moral government. Why, then, issue laws where men are
not to be constrained to obey? or invitations and promises where a
sovereign power is not to give them effect? In short, upon this
principle, the measures of a moral government, separated from the action
of the Spirit, are as unsuitable for men as for stocks.
But to put the fact that the atonement is a privilege to the wicked

CHAP. VII.] ATTRIBUTES OF MORAL AGENTS. 291
beyond all doubt, I can bring the whole weight of the divine integrity
to support it. That God does account to men as privileges whatever
they ought to improve for their happiness, and holds them as responsible
for abused privileges as for a violated law, we have already seen. And
now to come to the very thing itself, the atonement, yes, the atonement,
as being exactly what it is, an expiation for sin, is charged against the
wicked as a privilege ; and the charge will be acted upon in proceedings
most demanding the precision of justice and truth. It is not true
merely in the shape of a nice and studied phraseology, but is a pon
derous reality, which will be recognized in the most solemn transactions
of the. universe. The just God, as I shall show hereafter by a large and
luminous array of texts, not only pronounces with all his veracity that
the wicked possess the privilege, but wiU judge them at the last day for
throwing it out of their hands, and will found on that fact, stable enough
to support the infinite weight, the retribution of eternal fire. Could
God himself give testimony more decided than this ? If, then, the moral
government of God is not a delusive show, and considering the undeni
able sensibilities of creatures, a system of palpable oppression, it never
ought to have been doubted that the atonement is a privilege even to
those who reject it
But bow can it be a privilege to them if it did not render their pardon
possible, even on the supposition of their faith ? The pearl, it is said,
would have been paid for the nine hundred prisoners had it been foreseen
that they would accept the offered release ; but it was not paid for them,
and a natural impossibibty lies in the way of their coming out. Accord
ing to this representation the atonement is not a privilege to those who
perish, but only would have been had it been foreseen that they would
believe. It ought not, then, to have been charged against them as such.
These are all the attributes which it seems necessary to name. But
before the chapter clos.es I will make a few general remarks.
All the attributes which have been mentioned are inseparably united
in every moral agent, and can no more be divided than the essential
properties of matter. For instance, there is no such thing as being a
sinner, and needing an atonement, without a capacity to accept it. For
without a capacity to believe there would not be a capacity to obey; and
without a capacity to obey there would not be a capacity to sin. You
must not split up and divide the essential attributes of a moral agent.
You mu>t not contemplate him as a sinner, without contemplating him as
capable of faith. To say that he needs an atonement, and yet labors un
der a natural incapacity to believe, is the same sundering of essential
properties, and the same contradiction, as to say that a mass of matter
has shape but not impenetrabiuty, or that a ball is not round. Further,

292 EXTENT OF THE ATONEMENT. [PART II.
if a man has a capacity to bebeve, then his faith is naturaUy possible,
then he is susceptible of a fair offer of life, of a fair opportunity or chance
to obtain it, of the complete privilege of an atonement, and of a course of
probation or trial. Such a possibility of action and susceptibility of priv
ileges are inseparable from capacity, are inseparable of course from a
sinner. A man cannot be one to whom an atonement is adapted, that is,
a sinnerj but in the character in which he is capable and susceptible of
aU these things. And to call him a sinner, and yet deny the natural pos
sibility of his believing, or his fair chance to five by the atonement, or
the completeness of his privilege (allowing the gospel to be in his hands),
is the same contradiction as is noticed above. Further, if the atonement
was made for sinning agents, it was made for them as creatures who were
to act towards it, who were to accept or reject it ; otherwise the essential
attributes of agents are divided. Now if the enjoyment of it depends on
their accepting it, in other words, if they cannot enjoy it without accept
ing it, then it was made with a distinct understanding that it was not to
be enjoyed by them without their fulfilling that condition. In this sense
the provision was made for them conditionally. It must have been so
made if made for sinning agents, or the essential attributes of agents are
divided. No matter what influence on the same creatures as passive was
to secure their faith ; yet the provision for agents, which could not be
enjoyed without their act in believing, was certainly conditional as to its
application. Further, if the atonement so far affects any agent that he is
susceptible of the offer of its benefits, it must affect all his other relations
which are capable of being affected by such a measure ; it must give him
a fair opportunity or chance to live by it, must put him completely upon
probation, and be to him a perfect privilege ; otherwise the essential at
tributes of an agent are divided. If the atonement so affected the rela
tions of Simon Magus that he could receive the offer of pardon by it,
then it gave him a fair chance for pardon, put him fully upon probation,
and was to him the complete privilege of an atonement.
Keeping in mind that the atonement was made for none but moral
agents, we can now see what kind of effects we must look for on men in
deciding for how many it was made. We must search only for those
effects which would result to agents, and not for any which belong to
mere receivers of sanctifying impressions. These two characters of man
are as distinct as body and soul. Now, in examining whether a provision
for the soul is complete, you have not to ask whether it involves a pro
vision for the body. For the same reason, in deciding whether the atone
ment was a complete provision for Simon Magus as a moral agent, you
have nothing to do with the question whether it stood connected with a
design to regenerate him. If you find on him the offer of pardon by it,

CHAP. VIII.] A MORAL GOVERNMENT. 293
and a capacity to accept the offer if well disposed, or a natural possibility
of bebeving, then you find on him a fair chance to live by it, and the
complete privilege of an atonement, and find him fully placed by it in a
state of probation. And then you find upon him all the effects which
could result from the atonement to a mere moral agent. And then you
may pronounce, unhesitatingly, that it was fully made for him as such.

CHAPTER YTH.

A MORAL GOVERNMENT.

Before I proceed to other principles observed in the treatment of
agents, I will stop here and exhibit the outbnes of a moral government.
As this is nothing more than the treatment of moral agents, and a treat
ment according to truth, or according to the powers and attributes which
they possess, the discussion will form a counterpart to the last chapter,
and will go to confirm the principles there laid down. On this account
I introduce it here. I have other reasons for presenting the subject.
Were the mind familiarized to the principles and operations of a moral
government, it could more easily contemplate men in the distinct charac
ter of moral agents, and see some meaning in a provision for them as
such. It seems to have been thought that such a provision, when sepa
rated from regenerating power, is worthy of no account ; in other words,
that a mere measure of moral government is of no importance to men
when separated from the acts of the sovereign efficient cause. This
would be true if men were stocks, but cannot be true if there is in them
a foundation for treating them as rational and accountable beings. That
treatment by itself forms an immensely important part of the divine ad
ministration ; and it may serve to correct the mistake to see how much
of the glory of God, even under the dispensation of grace, this depart
ment really comprehends.
In a limited sense a moral government is the mere administration of
law ; but in a more general and perfect sense it includes the whole treat
ment which God renders to moral agents. This treatment certainly con
stitutes a distinct and very important department of divine operations, and
ought as a whole to be covered by a general name. And what name
more proper than moral government, especially as the thing accords With
the variety of particulars comprehended under the name of government
in human affairs ? The government of Great Britain consists not merely
25*

294 EXTENT OF THE ATONEMENT. [PART li.
in making and executing laws, but in all those operations in which the
rulers as such come into contact with the subjects as such. If they es?
tablish churches for public worship, and Sunday schools for instruction,
and saving banks as a motive to diligence and economy, and hospitals as
a mercfful provision ; if they make experiments upon the temper of their
subjects, or enter into contract with individuals ; if they grant audiences,
and receive petitions, and pardon criminals, and grant pensions and priv
ileges ; these are all the operations of the government of Great Britain.
In like manner I comprehend in a moral government, not only the dis
pensation of law, but all the institutions of religion, all the instructions
furnished, all the motives presented, all provisions made for moral agents,
all experiments upon the human character, all covenants entered into, all
audiences granted, all answers to prayer, all acts of pardon and justifica
tion, all privileges afforded, and whatever else belongs to creatures as
capable of action and choice, as governable by motives, as susceptible of
instruction and obligations, of praise and blame, of opportunities and
privileges, or, in a word, as subjects of moral discipline.
The whole fabric rests upon the principle that all this treatment is
suited to rational creatures even without the Spirit, in other words, that
they are complete moral agents without supernatural influence. The
Moral Governor grounds his claims, not on their temper, nor on their
original righteousness, nor on any spiritual aids afforded, but on their
physical faculties accompanied with light, or their natural abibty. By
comparing their obligations with their conduct, and without reference to
any thing else, he judges of their character and deserts. From their
obligations he estimates their privileges, reckoning to them as such what
ever they ought to improve for their good. Where a blessing is so
placed within their reach that they can enjoy it by doing their duty, he
charges against them an opportunity or fair chance to obtain it. He
makes experiments upon their temper just as though they were inde
pendent In aU his measures he assumes from their capacity that their
holy action is possible. He presents instructions and motives fitted to
influence rational beings as though he expected the effect from their own
independent powers. He commands, invites, rewards, and punishes, as
though there was no Spirit. With the exceptions mentioned in a former
chapter, he never once alludes to the passive character of men through
out the whole administration of a moral government, but holds his way
through the world with an eye apparently filled with agents alone. He
sets before him a race of distinct and complete agents, and proceeds like
an earthly prince who has no control over the minds of his subjects but
by motives. This must be apparent to any one who opens his Bible,
and has already been proved by quotations sufficiently numerous. In

CHAP. VIII.] A MORAL GOVERNMENT. 295
short, a moral government is a world by itself, because moral agents, so
to speak, are complete entities in themselves.
These principles of a moral government, which are everywhere con
spicuous on the sacred page, are what Arminians have discovered, and
set themselves to defend, in opposition to doctrines which they thought
irreconcilable with these. As advocates for the fundamental laws of a
moral government, they deserve real praise ; but their error has lain in
not perceiving that all the attributes of moral agency are perfectly con
sistent with absolute dependence. If ever this unhappy division in the
church is healed, it must be on the ground here taken, by showing that
respectable class of men that all the prerogatives of a moral government
can be maintained in perfect consistency with absolute election and
special grace.
Considered in relation to its dominion over the mind, a moral govern
ment may be called a government of motives ; for these are the instru
ments by which it works. It is a course of acting, not upon the disposi
tion by insensible influence, but upon the reason and conscience of a
rational being by manifest motives. The only exception is where sanc
tifying power is exerted by way of reward, or out of gracious respect to
something which an agent has done. But all sovereign influences of the
sanctifying Spirit, as well as aU decrees concerning them, belong to the
other department*
* In other respects, sovereignty is not excluded from a moral government. It is
largely exercised in the rewards and punishments of the present life, in respect of
time, manner, and degree. It is exercised in the changes of dispensations, in the
enactment-of positive statutes, in the different degrees of light afforded to different '
nations and ages, in the enlightening influences of the Spirit on the unregenerate
(wliich are as really a part of the treatment of agents as any other instruction), and in
many other respects. The atonement itself was sovereignly appointed. Nothing
limits sovereignty but law and covenant. If any -thing more is included in a moral
government than what is according to law or covenant,, it must be sovereignly
directed. The whole process of sanctification after the regenerating act seems to fall within
this department : for though the same sovereignty attends it as to time, manner, and
degree, that marks the other rewards of the present life, it is still of tho nature of a
reward, and was in general promised as such to the first act of faith. If, however,
any part of it can be considered so purely sovereign as not to fall under the character
of a reward, that part, I own, must be excluded from a moral government ; for noth
ing entitles a motion of the Spirit to be brought into this department but its being
either a reward or a mere act of illumination.
I have not dared with certainty to place any thing in the other department but
election and regeneration. The formation of the natural disposition belongs to the
Creator : the changes made in it by natural causes, except so far as they are a reward
or punishment, seem to stand among the operations of the Preserver. If the convict
ing influences of the Spirit barely convey light to the mind, they are ascribable to the

296 EXTENT OF THE ATONEMENT. [PART II.
Besides the purely sovereign impressions on the mind (not meaning,
however, those which barely illumine, nor those which are made by mo
tives), I know of nothing done in time among all the works and ways of
God which ought to be excluded from a moral government, but the mere
operations of the Creator and Preserver ; nor these so far as they are a
reward or punishment to any, or are primarily intended to instruct or
furnish motives.*
Moral Governor ; for light is only for agents. The impressions, otherwise than sanc
tifying, which are made to incline men to particular actions, appear to be produced by
motives addressed to an existing temper, and so far belong to the Moral Governor.
If, besides all these, there are direct impressions, purely sovereign, before or after
regeneration, sanctifying or otherwise, they must be placed in the department of the
sovereign efficient eause.
* Creatures must exist before they can be governed, and they must be sustained in.
existence, in order to continue subjects of moral discipline. Their mere creation and
support, therefore, do not belong to a moral government, except so far as these are a.
reward or punishment to some. The creation of Isaac and Samuel, though to them
selves no part of a moral government, was a gracious recompense to their parents.
Men maybe sustained in life as a reward or punishment to themselves (Exod. 20 : 12.
Rom. 9 : 22), or as a punishment or reward to others, or in answer to their prayers
(Judg. 2 : 3. Matt. 9 : 18, 25) ; and they maybe cut off as a punishment to themselves
or others (2 Sam. 12 : 14. Ps. 55 : 23).
How far the whole visible universe and the operations of nature around us, viewed
in relation to creatures already existing, stand connected with a moral government,
is a more difficult question. So far as any of these things are a reward or punish
ment, or are primarily intended to instruct or furnish motives, they belong to this de
partment. Thus fruitful seasons arc either a. reward (Dent. 28: 12), or a source of
instruction and motives (Acts 14: 17). Thus the briers and thorns are a. punish
ment ((Gen. 3 : 18), and the tokens of God in heaven and earth are a warning (Ps.
65 : 8). But how far do the works of nature belong to a moral government as mere
sources of instruction and motives ? We must not include everything in this depart
ment which was intended to instruct or move creatures to action, for then we must
exclude nothing. All that God has ever done was intended to enlighten creatures
and to subserve a government by motives. But instructions and motives subservient
to the government of a family may be drawn from facts wliich constitute no part of
family government. If a measure has no other end than to instruct or move, like
some things contained in the Bible ; or in case it has another end, if that end applies
exclusively to agents (like the divine law, which, while it teaches and offers induce
ments, imposes obligations) ; then it properly belongs to a moral government. But
if its primary end does not respect agents distinctively, but tho whole man (liko the
creation of him and a world for him to dwell in), or other animals, or the general con
stitution of the universe, then, though like all other things it was intended to furnish
instructions and motives, it cannot fall within this department. To allude again to
domestic government, it is ono thing to build a house for the family to dwell in and
receivo the proper discipline, and another to construct a house in miniature for the
purpose of teaching them somo mechanical principles. Now wo daro not conclude
that any of the works of nature are held up as a splendid show, a dead picture to ex
hibit the divine perfections, but rather that they display the wisdom and goodness of
God by answering somo important end. This end is to decide where they are to fall
in the division of departments.

CHAP. VIII.] A MORAL GOVERNMENT. 297
It is the Moral Governor alone who is approached by creatures ; and
it is in this character that God is respected in almost all those efforts
of creature agency which we call religion and virtue. It is almost
solely in this character that he is the object of love, because it is almost
exclusively in this that his moral perfections appear. Faith, perhaps, is
still more limited. Besides election, and the first and second creation,
and preservation, it has no other object than the Moral Governor with
his provisions, acts, and declarations. That faith, without which it is
impossible to please God, is a belief "that he is, and that he is a
rewarder of them that diligently seek him." Heb. 11:6. Instead of
busying itself with the question whether I am elected, its proper .office is
to believe that God will be to me " a rewarder " if I diligently seek him.
AU the exercises of repentance and trust, and most of those of gratitude
and submission, respect God in the same character. Obedience has no
other object, for none but the Moral Governor commands. With him
our business lies through the whole course of our active virtue. In every
part we proceed as though nothing was settled from eternity, and
except a submission to the eternal purpose of God, set ourselves to
raise others to happiness as though we never heard of an absolute
decree. We transact with the Moral Governor in almost all our
worship. Prayer has no other object. Its concern lies not with election,
but with the present will of him who "is a rewarder of them that
diligently seek him." Its sole encouragement is drawn from the
promise of the Moral Governor ; and a long pondering on election, by
turning the eye from him, is apt to damp the spirit and discourage the
effort. When we pray for the regeneration of others, we do not ask the
Elector to change his eternal decrees ; we address ourselves to the
Moral Governor alone, and hope to be rewarded by an act which to
them will not be a recompense.
A moral government wields all the motives in the universe. It com
prehends the entire system of instruction intended for creatures. The
Bible lies wholly within its bounds. It comprehends the public dispen
sation both of law and gospel, with the whole compages of precepts,
invitations, promises, and threatenings. It comprehends the atone
ment, and all the covenants made with men, and all the institutions
of religion, with the whole train of means and privileges. It compre
hends the whole doctrine and process of justification, with all spiritual
influences which either enlighten or reward. It comprehends a throne
of grace, with all the answers to prayer. It comprehends a day of
probation, with all the experiments made upon the human character. It
comprehends the entire system of grace, with the bare exception of
election and regeneration. It comprehends all the rewards and punish-

298 EXTENT OF THE ATONEMENT. [PART II.
ments of the present life. It comprehends the day of judgment, and all
the retributions of eternity. It comprehends all the sensible communion
between the Infinite and finite minds ; all the perceptible intercourse
between God and his rational offspring ; all the treatment of intelligent
creatures viewed otherwise than as passive receivers of sovereign im
pressions. In short, it is the pubbc government of God over the uni
verse. And I may add, it forms the subject-matter of nine tenths,
perhaps of ninety-nine hundreths of the Bible. Almost aU the language
of the world refers to agents and belongs to the dialect of a moral
government. Surely this is not a part of the divine operations to be
buried up under the tapestry of secret decrees. Surely the language
which befits this great system of administration, and wliich expresses its
vital principles, is not to be frittered away into figures of speech, into
idioms after the manner of men, or laid aside for a dialect supposed to
be better adapted to the secret counsels of the Incomprehensible Mind.

CHAPTER IX.
MORAL AGENTS TREATED AS IF THERE WAS NO FOREKNOWLEDGE.
The only part of a moral government which discovers prescience is
prophesy. AU the other parts are framed together with the same
consistency of relation as if there was no foreknowledge. Break up this
principle, and plant the eye of prescience visibly in every part of a
moral government, and you turn the whole into confusion ; the entreaties
of God to the non-elect would appear bke mockery, and many of his
declarations false. God proceeds in his treatment of moral agents as
though it was perfectly uncertain how they will act tfil they are tried.
The reason is, that the capacity and obligations on which the treatment
is founded are in no degree affected by foreknowledge. This neither
weakens an obligation, nor helps to create one which would not other
wise exist. It does not weaken an obligation, and therefore does not
prevent the issuing of commands and invitations ; for these only express
the obligations of men with precision, without any thing prophetic as to
their conduct or destiny. Nor yet does it help to create an obligation
which would not otherwise exist. To this maxim I wish to draw par
ticular attention. Were there no foreknowledge, neither the nature of
things nor any command could impose on men an obligation to accept a
privilege which in relation to them had no existence (for that would be
a natural impossibibty), nor, unless deceived, to bebeve the privilege to

CHAP. IX.] FOREKNOWLEDGE ALTERS NOTHING. 299
be for them in such a sense that they could enjoy it by doing their duty ;
for that would be an obligation to believe a lie. This would be common
sense if there was no foreknowledge. Now what I assert is, that the
foreknowledge of God that they would not accept the privilege if pro
vided for them, did not render it proper for him, without providing it,
to command them to receive it and to believe that it was provided for
them. They could not be under obligation, nor could any command lay
them under obligation, to accept a privilege which in relation to them
had no existence, nor, unless deceived, to believe a lie. The incon
sistency of attempting to impose such an obligation will appear. by
making the supposition (and of moral agents we have a right to make the
supposition), that they should exert or try to exert, their agency in this
way. The moment they should make . the attempt, they would find one
part a natural impossibibty, and in performing the other, unless deceived,
they would actually do wrong. No power, therefore, could lay upon them,
an obligation to accept a privilege, which, from the foreknowledge that
they would reject it, had not been so provided for them that they could
enjoy it by doing their duty. Accordingly the Moral Governor no
more attempts to impose the obligation without providing the privilege,
than would any fair and honorable man. He does not command impos
sibilities, secure in the foreknowledge that creatures will not obey, and
then punish them for ever for not doing what no power with the best
dispositions could have done. He does not thus take advantage of his
superior knowledge to oppress. He does not thus practise upon the
ignorance of creatures, sure at last to detect the imposition.
By this principle let us test the correctness of a fashionable similitude.
A pearl, sufficient in value to redeem a thousand prisoners, is offered and
accepted for a hundred. It being foreseen that none but the hundred
wiU accept the offer of release, advantage is taken of the sufficiency of
the price to tender liberty to the thousand and to command them to
come out. This is the very simile chosen by some on the other side to
exhibit the strength of their cause. I have nothing to do here with the
propriety of the offer, my business is solely with the justice of the
command. According to this representation, an attempt is made to
fasten upon nine hundred prisoners, for whom no ransom has been paid,
an obligation to come out on the ground of a ransom really offered for
others, but only in appearance for them.* Now in this case it is not
true that they could come out if they would obey the command. The
# The confusion here arises from not distinguishing between the higher ransom
and the atonement. Because the former was not paid for all (that is, Christ did not
so purchase all by his merit that he could claim them as his reward), atonement
was not made for all.

300 EXTENT OF THE ATONEMENT. [PART II.
reverse is true. If they should obey they would be stopped. And
when they are told that they can come out if they will obey, a down
right falsehood is imposed upon them, under security that they will not
detect the imposition by making the attempt. And on this falsehood an
essay is made to found an obbgation, — an obligation to do a natural
impossibility, — which but for the deception practised upon them they
would see to be as impracticable as to make a world. The sufficiency of
the price in this case is only a cover to conceal the imposture, and
cannot be a ground of obligation. It cannot even seem to them to bear
the most distant relation to an obligation, but by a palpable delusion.
This, then, cannot be a just representation of that provision on which
God rests the general obligation of men to accept the atonement. It
must be true, that, just as the provision now is, and not as it would have
been had their faith been foreseen, they can be pardoned in consistency
with the honor of the law if they will believe ; a supposition which we
have none the less right to make of agents on account of the foreknowl
edge that they would not bebeve.
Now if the atonement is for all in such a sense, that, just as it now is,
they may be pardoned by it if they wiU bebeve, it is an atonement for
all in the highest sense in which it can be for moral agents.

CHAPTER X.
MORAL AGENTS TREATED CONDITIONALLY.
The evidence of this fact is found in the conditions on which salvation
is offered on every page of the Bible, and in all the promises and threat
enings both of law and gospel. Men have started at the idea of condi
tions under a dispensation of grace, as partaking too much of a legal
character : but when the nature of a condition in a moral government is
explained, it will be found to be an essential ingredient in all that treat
ment of moral agents which is accompanied with authority. Where the
holy agency of creatures is a necessary antecedent to the enjoyment of
any good, the Moral Governor states the fact. The statement of that
fact, accompanied with the authority with wliich he cannot but require
the holy action, is all that is meant by a condition in a moral govern
ment. A condition is only that fact stated with authority. You cannot
therefore separate conditions from the authoritative treatment of agents,
so long as their holiness is essential to their happiness, and so long as
God in any way pronounces that fact. It is only because men are con-

CHAP. X.] AGENTS TREATED CONDITIONALLY. 301
templated purely as passive that conditions are excluded; and in that
view they are consistently excluded, for they belong only to the treat
ment of moral agents. Nor are conditions inconsistent with free grace*
unless the requirement of holiness as essential to happiness is inconsist
ent with free grace. Nor yet do conditions imply any thing incompati
ble with absolute promises. They are used, we shall see, in the treat
ment of believers who are already embraced by an absolute covenant,
and even after they have attained to the full assurance of hope, nay after
they have reached their eternal home.
In those measures of a moral government which are accompanied with
no authority, conditions of course do not appear ; for instance, in those
sovereign gifts which are suited to a state of probation. In these God
appears not the Lawgiver, but the merciful and long suffering Saviour,
who is willing to afford men the best opportunity to prepare for their last
account, to grant them a state of tranquillity suited to reflection, and to
encourage their faith with abundant tokens of his mercy.
The only case connected with authority in which consequences are not
suspended on conditions, is where absolute good is secured as a reward
for conditions already fulfilled. Thus all the absolute promises and irrev
ocable grants made to the church and its individual members, in rela
tion to themselves or their seed, are gracious rewards for acts already
done, or a character already formed.
But the authoritative treatment of pure agents (or agents considered
without reference to the Spirit) is never absolute. These irrevocable
grants respect men in the double character of agents and passive receiv
ers of sanctifying impressions. To the agents they are a reward, but
they are to be executed by sanctifying impressions on the passive ; and
the very promise implies a security of spiritual aid, for no such grants
are made to men viewed as apostates. In like manner the absolute
promises respecting the seed imply that they shall be sanctified. But
whatever promises are made to men, or to their parents concerning them,
with a special reference to their passive character, yet when these same
persons come to be directly dealt with as pure agents, the issue is still
suspended on their own conduct. Thus the promises to Abraham that
his seed should possess the land of Canaan and all the blessings of the
church, were absolute, Gen. 12 : 7. 13 : 14-17. 17: 7, 8. 28: 4, 13-15.
48 : 4. 50 : 24. Exod. 2 : 24. 6 : 3-8. 12 : 25. Deut. 4 : 37. 10 : 15. 12
20. 26:18,19. Josh. 21 : 43-45. 22:4. 23:5,10. Ps. 105 : 6-45
and yet the whole issue was suspended on their own conduct. Exod,
23 : 20, 22. Lev. 20 : 22. 26 : 41, 42. Num. 14 : 30, 34. Deut. 1 : 8. 4
1, 25-31, 40. 5 : 16, 33. 6 : 3, 15, 18. 7 : 7-15. 8:1. 11:9, 21. 12
26

302 EXTENT OF THE ATONEMENT. [PART II.
28. 13: 17. 19: 8, 9. 28: 11. 30: 16, 20. 32 : 47. 2 Chron. 33: 8. Jer.
11 : 4, 5. 35 : 15. Zech. 11 : 10. And the way in which these two things
are reconciled is, their holy character was secured. Gen. 18 : 18, 19.
Thus also the promise to David that his seed should possess the throne
of Israel was absolute, 2 Sam. 7 : 12-16. 2 Chron. 13 : 5. Ps. 89 : 3, 4,
28-37 ; and yet the privilege was suspended on their obedience. 1
Kings 2 : 3, 4. 3 : 14. 8 : 25, 26. 9 : 1-9. 1 Chron. 22 : 9-13. 28 : 7. 2
Chron. 7 : 17-22. Ps. 132 : 12. Jer. 17 : 25. In like manner the prom
ises to Christ respecting the elect were absolute, as are also the promises
to believers as recipients of the Spirit ; and yet when the elect, and even
believers, come to be treated as pure agents, the issue is still suspended
on their own conduct. And this is sometimes done by lips which at the
same moment are speaking of the covenant of grace, and the general
consequences of Christ's death, and its express acceptance for our justifi
cation. Thus a moral government, in dealing with pure agents, is so
regardless of the decrees and promises and influences which respect the
passive, that it goes around them and wanders over them, without ap
pearing to see them. Take the following specimens. " It was not writ
ten for his sake alone that " faith " was imputed to him " for righteous
ness ; " but for us also [certainly including millions of the elect and even
of believers], to whom it shall be imputed if we bebeve in him who
raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead; who was delivered for our
offences, and was raised again for our justification." " In whom we have
redemption through his blood. — And he is the Head of the body, the
church. — For it pleased the Father that in him should all fulness
dwell, and (having made peace through the blood of his cross), by him
to reconcile all things unto himself; by him, I say, whether they be
things in earth or things in heaven. And you that were sometime alien
ated and enemies in your mind by wicked works, yet now hath he rec
onciled in the body of his flesh through death, to present you holy, and
unblamable, and unreprovable in his sight, if ye continue in the faith."
" If that which ye have heard from the beginning shall remain in you,
ye also shall continue in the Son and in the Father." " It is impossible
for those who were once enlightened, — if they shall fall away, to renew
them again unto repentance. — But beloved, we are persuaded better
things of you, and things that accompany salvation, though we thus speak.
For God is not unrighteous to forget your work and labor of love. — Let
us hold fast the profession of our faith without wavering. — For if we
sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth,
there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins. — If any man draw back my
soul shall have no pleasure in him. But we are not of them who draw

CHAP. X.] AGENTS TREATED CONDITIONALLY. 303
back unto perdition, but of them that believe to the saving of the
soul." Rom. 4: 23-25. Col. 1 : 14-23. Heb. 6: 4-11. 10: 23-39. 1 John
2: 24.
Even after believers are assured that their present character is holy,
and that as recipients they shall continue to receive effectual akk as
agents they are still treated conditionally. Paul himself, with all his
confidence, was 'still taught to suspend his salvation on his own persever
ing holiness. " I keep under my body and bring it into subjection, lest
that by any means when I have preached to others I myself should be a
cast-away." 1 Cor. 9 : 27. The principle of employing threats to stim
ulate agents to the attainment of a good already pronounced certain, is
exemplified in an occurrence which took place in this same apostle's voy
age to Rome. He had declared by revelation that there should " be no
loss of any man's life." And yet when the sailors were about clandes
tinely to leave the ship, he disclosed their purpose and affirmed, " Ex
cept these abide in the ship ye cannot be saved." Acts 27 : 22-31.
Though a distinct annunciation of threats is fitted only to a state of
probation, yet an authoritative connecting of hobness and happiness must
remain while creatures continue under government. Even the penalty
of the law must continue to furnish motives. Christ did not die to sup
port a penalty of transient importance, and which after a few years should
cease to have any influence upon agents. He did not die to separate the
penalty from the law after probation should end, and thus annihilate the
vigor of a moral government to eternity. Paul is still under the empire
of law, and a law of course which is supported by a penalty ; a penalty
which, instead of being annihilated at Calvary, continually draws new
strength from the tragedy there displayed. At the same time that as a
recipient he hears the covenant say that his sanctification shall be per
petuated, as an agent he hears the law say not only that he shall die for
past transgressions, but that be shall die for every one which he may
hereafter commit. And though he is not under law as a covenant of
works, and would be pardoned by grace (as after he was united to Christ
on earth), even should he commit many sins, yet the mediation of Christ
never provided that a slave of sin should be taken out of the hands of
law. Should Paul apostatize to complete and continued rebellion (which
as an agent he is capable of doing), the law would still take its course
upon him. And if his continued holiness is thus necessary to his contin
ued happiness, and that fact is in any way pronounced by the same au
thority that requires his holiness (and without that fact lurking more or
less visibly behind the command there is no authority), then he hears the
divine authority (the same that once spoke in the gospel) say, that if he
returns to confirmed rebellion he shall be delivered over to the law, and

304 EXTENT OF THE ATONEMENT. [PART II.
be punished moreover as a gospel despiser. But how, you ask, can such
a motive influence Paul when he knows that he shall be kept from fall
ing ? A man is held from throwing himseff from the top of a building,
and knows he shall be held. He knows also that if he should throw him
self down, he would be dashed in pieces. The knowledge of the latter
fact prevents him from being willing to take the leap. While Paul is
held from falling by an influence on him as passive, and knows that he
shall be held, he needs motives as an agent to make him willing to stand.
He could not be willing without motives, whatever divine power should
be exerted upon him. Why, then, you ask, is not Paul still on probation,
as much at least as after he had attained to the full assurance of hope on
earth ? Because he is openly confirmed in holiness and happiness by
way of reward. When the agent is thus pubbcly rewarded by confirma
tion, the agent is no longer on probation. An assured hope of that re
ward was not the possession. This it is, and not the absence of condi
tions, which distinguishes heaven from a state of probation.*
This mode of treating pure agents, notwithstanding the absolute prom
ises which respect the same creatures in the double character of agents
and recipients, rests on the three following reasons.
(1) There is nothing in their dependence nor in the promised influ
ence to prevent them from being, in respect to the very thing to which
they are to be incbned, complete agents, with all the obligations of agents,
and with an unbroken relation to the authority and claims of the Moral
Governor. Of course it is proper for him to treat them as agents, with
no more reference to the promised influence than he has to election in
his commands to the wicked ; and to require their duty in the tone of a
lawgiver, who, as such, must always appear with a penalty in his hand.
(2) There is nothing in the promised influence to weaken the indis
soluble connection between their holy action and the salvation contem
plated. The promise did not engage to dispense with that action, but to
secure it. The connection between the action and the salvation is as
close as though the stipulation had not been made, and may be pointed
out and insisted on without contradicting the promise. Two things are
true of them : as passive they will receive effectual aid ; as agents they
must continue in holiness or die. The latter proposition authoritatively
* This shows that tho threats held out in tho Bible against apostasy are no evi
dence against the perseveranco of tho saints. They are rather the means by wliich the
perseveranco of holy agents is secured. It shows also that tho conditional treatment
of believers is not inconsistent with the completeness of their justification. Tho irrev
ocable title to life made over in their justification, comprehended, and secured to
them ns recipients, their continued sanctification ; but still, as puro agents, they might
continue to bo treated conditionally. I will add, that the new relation is not the less
real or complete for not being certainly known to the subject.

CHAP. X.] AGENTS TREATED CONDITIONALLY. 305
pronounced, amounts to all that is contained in a divine threat The way,
then, is open, as though the promise did not exist, for the. Moral Gover
nor to display the infrangible connection between their holiness and hap
piness with all the authority and claim attached to his office.
(3) While as recipients they stand related to an absolute promise, as
agents they must still be carried along by motives. Moral agents cannot
act without motives, whatever exertion of sanctifying power is made.
This exercise of authority furnishes the very motives required. While
probation lasts, a form of more distinct menace is used, as better calcu
lated to influence the church at large. It proclaims the necessity of per
severing holiness in tones of awful majesty and terror ; and these, com
ing to the ears of multitudes who are still in doubt about their salvation,
are calculated to stimulate them to exertion as the only means of making
their calling and election sure. Nor is this form lost upon those who at
present possess the full assurance of hope, for it stands ready to rouse
them to action whenever their graces languish, and their hopes of course
decline. Thus it appears that neither the covenant with Christ nor the absolute
promises to believers prevent their salvation from still being suspended
on their own conduct ; that neither election nor oaths break up that con-
ditionabty which pervades every part of the treatment of pure agents.
It ought not, therefore, to seem strange if notwithstanding all the absolute
decrees and covenants connected with the work of redemption, that pro
vision for agents which we call the atonement should be found to be con
ditional. It must fall under this fundamental law of a moral government.
For, in the first place, the holy action of men towards it was necessary
to their enjoyment of its benefit. They could not be pardoned by it till
as agents they had bebeved. In the second place, from the moment it
met the eyes of men (and the whole provision was made in public), it
was encircled on all sides with authority, peremptorily demanding their
faith. Here, then, are the two circumstances which call forth a condi
tion in all other cases. It was a matter connected with authority, and
the enjoyment of it did depend on the very faith which was demanded.
Only one thing more was necessary. Did God state the latter fact ? If
he did, you have all that goes into the definition of a condition in a moral
government. Then, in producing the atonement before the world, he au
thoritatively pronounced that the enjoyment of it depended on the faith
of men. And there is the condition on the very face of the express
purpose. If the atonement was offered for agents (and none else needed expia
tion or satisfaction, and none else could receive pardon), then it was a
provision to benefit them upon their acting the part of agents towards
26*

306 EXTENT OF THE ATONEMENT. [PART II.
it, or else the essential attributes of agents are divided. If the effect
was not suspended on that effort of their agency, it was not made for
agents (for creatures capable of acting, and on whose action their happi
ness depends), but for the purely passive, for men in a character in which
they had not sinned.
After the atonement was accepted, God was bound either to pardon
believers as believers, or the elect as elect. And if you can tell which,
you can tell for which description it was accepted, and of course for
which it was offered. If God did not engage to pardon any by the atone
ment till as agents they had bebeved, then it was never offered or ac
cepted with any intention that it should benefit men as mere elect, but
only those who should believe. That act is as much their own, and as
essential to the benefit, and as authoritatively pronounced to be so, as
though there was no Spirit. And this is the full definition of a condition.
In settling the extent of the atonement in this light, the only question
is, was the benefit suspended on the faith of a particular number of men,
or was it plainly declared that " God so loved the world that he gave his
only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish ? "
The question is answered.
When our brethren oppose the idea of conditions, they have a very
different matter in their eye. Their question is about the secret purpose
of the divine mind, and how many, as the reward of his merit, Christ
obtained a right to rescue from sin and death by an operation on them
as passive. And therefore they ask not about the atonement, but about
the end of his death as a whole. And when they have bmited the ques
tion to the secret purpose of the divine persons, they find the omniscience
of God arrayed against conditions. " To die conditionally for a person
is a strange mode of speaking, especially as it relates to One who is
omniscient." If our question had been before the writer, he would not
have employed such an argument as this. For who wiU say that condi
tions are excluded from a government over moral agents, though exer
cised by an omniscient God ? The meaning of the writer comes out
more fully. " It will be pretended that Christ died for all, but suspended
the benefit of his death upon a condition. Be it so. Then when Christ
died he knew whether that condition would ever take place, or rather he
knew that it never would in those to whom he had determined not to give
faith. And to say that a person does a thing to take effect on a certain
condition, which he is sure will never occur, is the same as to say that he
does a thing without any view to that effect." Plainly fastening the
attention to the secret purpose of Christ. But who, except an Arminian,
ever thought that the secret purpose of Christ about the application of
his death by regeneration was conditional ? The limitation of the writer's

CHAP. X.] AGENTS TREATED CONDITIONALLY. 307
meaning to the secret purpose is still more obvious. " If he died for
them only on some condition, then if that condition never takes place, he
did not die for them." That is, if he never imparts faith to them as re
cipients, he did not die with any intention to make them partakers of his
atonement by such an operation. And no one says he did. We have
nothing to do with the secret purpose of Christ about an operation on
passive recipients. We are only inquiring about a provision for moral
agents, and whether in the declared purpose for which it was publicly
brought forward, their faith was not demanded as a necessary antecedent
to its application, and whether it was not pronounced appbcable to all
indiscriminately who would believe.
But no account is made of all this through the constant confounding of
expiation with the claim of merit. " They [the Scriptures] require, in
deed, faith as an instrument of receiving the benefits of Christ's death :
but that very faith is the effect of Christ's meritorious death and preva
lent intercession, and is, of course, bestowed on all those for whom he
shed his precious blood." " The death of Christ, considered in unison
with his obedience, is the meritorious cause of all spiritual blessings. It
is, therefore, the cause of the gift of faith. Those, therefore, for whom
Christ has died, will, sooner or later, in consequence of that offering, be
made partakers of faith, with which all spiritual blessings are connected."
AU this is true of the higher ransom, or the united influence of expiation
and merit : but the atonement had no concern with securing the gift of
faith. And yet because the Scriptures speak of the higher ransom as abso
lute, it is insisted that the atonement itself was not conditional. " It is
nowhere said [in the Bible] that Christ died to render it possible for
God to receive sinners on such terms as he might choose, to appoint."
Where, then, is that passage found which says, " God so loved the world
that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him
should not perish ? "
The same confusion between the higher and lower ransom leads to
such as this : " It is an unworthy thought of the Almighty Saviour, that
he should permit Satan to triumph over millions of those whom he pur
chased with his own blood." If this is said of the higher ransom, I
agree ; but if it is said of the lower ransom or atonement, the apostle
Peter thought not so ; for he expressly tells us of those " who privily
shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought
them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction." 2 Pet. 2 : 1.
It is only of the higher ransom that the following assertion is true.
"If — Christ has laid down his life and shed his blood for the redemp
tion of any of our race, and if God as the universal Governor has ac-

308 EXTENT OF THE ATONEMENT. [PART II.
cepted the ransom in their behalf, it cannot be otherwise but that it will
have the effect of obtaining, sooner or later, their actual redemption."
This is true of that ransom whose absolute and unfailing influence lies in
the claim of merit to a reward. And yet the same affirmation is undis-
tinguishingly extended to the expiation and satisfaction. " If they [our
sins] are really expiated, they never can rise in judgment against us."
" It will be said that this satisfaction screens from punishment those only
to whom it is applied. But I answer, if really made for any individuals,
it will be applied to their benefit." This is a specimen of the whole
reasoning. Because merit secured to Christ the regeneration and pardon
of the elect as his reward, expiation and satisfaction must be equally ab
solute. But where is the proof of this ? It is easy to construct popular
arguments founded on inapplicable analogies ; but we want some tangi
ble proof that for a certain number of moral agents expiation and satis
faction were made absolutely, that is, without respect to their character ;
and we must have proof as strong as the oath of God before we can set
aside a thousand texts to the contrary.
But it is said that the atonement was offered for the elect absolutely,
yet not carrying with it this impbcation, be their character what it
may, because the character itself was secured. But what secured it ?
Not the atonement. That provision for moral agents was a world by
itself, and in its arrangements and form took no notice of such an im
pression to be made upon passive subjects.
In the same spirit it is alleged that the atonement was made absolutely
for the elect viewed as bebevers. In answer to the objection, " If
Christ died not for me I cannot be saved, because there is no atonement
for me," it is said, "The cause of your perishing is your own unbelief;
for if you had been viewed as a believer when the atonement was made,
you would have been included." What is the meaning of this ? Was
faith foreseen as anterior in the order of nature to the atonement itself?
and was this the reason that expiation was made for the elect ? And
were the non-elect excluded from the provision because of their unbebef,
when it is said in the same paper that all the faith in the world was ob
tained by the death of Christ ?
The atonement made for the elect absolutely as believers ! I admit
that the merit of Christ absolutely procured for them the gift of faith ;
yet not for them as believers, but as unbelievers. And how, before a man
has faith, a thing can be done for him as a believer, and yet be done for
him absolutely, is hard to teU. If the influence of the thing is to secure
his faith, it is for him, not as a believer, but as an unbeliever.* If the
* The atonement therefore could not secure the gift of faith, unless it was offered for
unbelievers.

CHAP. X.] AGENTS TREATED CONDITIONALLY. 309
influence of the thing does not secure his faith, and yet was done to ben
efit" him only as a bebever, it suspended the effect on his own act as cer
tainly as faith is an act of his own. No matter how sure that act was
made by another influence," yet if he cannot enjoy the benefit without
performing a duty, the enjoyment is suspended on his performing a duty.
If men have any agency in believing, to say that the atonement was
made for them absolutely as bebevers is to say that it was made for
them absolutely on the condition of their faith. This manner of viewing
things entirely overlooks the agency of man, and makes him as passive
in believing as in the complexion he wears. Before one is born a pro
vision may be made for him as a white man and yet be absolute, because
he has no part to act in forming his own complexion ; not so for a good
man, if that goodness impbes any agency of his own. This is the grand
mistake which runs through the system. They everywhere sink the
agency of man in the mere receiver, and reason about him as though he
was a passive tablet.
Thus this concession, that the elect were included in the provision as
bebevers and that the non-elect were excluded only for the want of faith,
is really giving up the point. For then the latter would still be included
if they would believe. And that is all the provision we plead for. No,
you say, it is now too late : from their foreseen unbelief the pearl was
not offered for them. The question, then, comes to this, did the atone
ment render those pardonable indiscriminately who would believe, or
only those who it was foreseen would bebeve ?
It must never be lost sight of, that the satisfaction was in no sense or
degree made in secret We have nothing to do with the hidden purpose
of the divine mind, or any private covenant between the sacred persons.
The whole question turns on the construction to be put upon the public
instrument. If, in those open transactions and explanations which consti
tuted the whole atonement, and laid before the world the express pur
pose, it was given out that it was offered for those who should receive
faith, then it was offered absolutely for the elect, and the elect alone.
But if it was declared to be offered for the benefit of all indiscriminately
who would exercise faith, then it was a provision for a whole world of
agents, and its application was suspended on a condition.
This was manifestly the fact. " To him give all the prophets witness,
that through his name whosoever bebeveth in him shall receive remission
of sin." " Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his
bfe for his friends. Ye are my friends if ye do whatsoever I command
you." I die a Substitute for you, Peter and John, if ye obey me.
" This is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son
and bebeveth on him, may have everlasting life." " Christ is the end of

310 EXTENT OF THE ATONEMENT. [PART H.
the law for righteousness to every one that bebeveth." " Even the
righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon
all them that believe ; for there is no difference, for all have sinned."
John 6 : 40. 15 : 13, 14. Acts 10 : 43. Rom. 3 : 22, 23. 10 : 4.
Now if the atonement was thus conditional as to its ap'pbcation, it
could not as a provision be limited to a part, unless the condition was to
some a natural impossibility. For then it could have no other effect on
Paul than to secure his pardon when he should bebeve, and it must
secure to all a pardon in case they would believe. Here, then (allowing
faith not to be a natural impossibibty), is a provision for all as capable
agents, and such a provision as gives them all a fair chance. It would
be different if they were passive blocks. Here is a feast for all who are
found in a certain house. The whole multitude without are able to enter
if so disposed. There is, then, a provision for all in such a sense as to
give them aU a fair chance. It would be different if they were chained to
the earth. So a bounty given to a seminary to be divided among the
scholars who prove diligent, is, by the very circumstance of its condition-
abty, a provision for the whole school as capable agents.

CHAPTER XI.
BELIEVER AND UNBELIEVER CONFOUNDED WITH ELECT AND NON-ELECT,
AND WITH MAN AS A CAPABLE AGENT.
When we say that the atonement was for Simon Magus, we mean
that it was a provision for him as a capable agent. But when our breth
ren deny that it was for him, they constantly allude to the secret purpose
of God about its application. And from fastening their eye thus on the
secret purpose, which respected passive receivers of regenerating influ
ence, they have in a great measure lost sight of man as a capable agent,
and reasoned about him as though he had nothing to do with exercising
faith, but only with receiving it. Hence they teU us, if the atonement
was made to benefit believers, and not unbebevers, it was not made for
Simon Magus, for he was never to believe. Here again comes out the
fault of the whole system. It was not a provision for him as a capable
agent, because it was not to benefit one of his character ; entirely bury
ing his agency, and making the character as passively received and as
essential to the man as complexion and sex. Had it been for white men
and not for black men, or for men and not for women, you might have

CHAP. XI.] CONFUSION OF NAMES. 311
said of that Ethiopian that it was not for him, or of this female that it
was not for her. Or if it had been publicly and avowedly offered for the
receivers of faith, and not for the benefit of believers, then you might
have said that it was not for Simon Magus, for he was never to receive
faith. But, if it was pubbcly offered for the use of all ^discriminatory
who as agents would believe, and Simon was not a dead mass of matter,
but endowed with natural ability to bebeve, then it was a complete pro
vision for him as a capable agent. And then unbelief was not essential
to him, like mind itself, but was a character which he had assumed on
bis own responsibility. The man will be charged with an atonement
which was never made to benefit the unbeliever. But our brethren first
sink the man in the unbeliever, and then make the unbeliever the mere
non-recipient of faith.
And when they have thus annihilated human agency, and set men be
fore them as mere passive receivers or non-receivers of faith, then they
proceed with perfect consistency and say : if the atonement was made to
benefit bebevers and not unbebevers, it was not made for the non-elect,
for they will never believe. Here they get unbelievers and non-elect
confounded. Now believer and unbeliever denote agents of certain char
acters, but elect and non-elect are terms of passive import, like chosen
and rejected, and denote men passively appointed to receive, or not to re
ceive, regenerating influence. But in arriving at this point they make no
new mistake. When they have set men before them, not as those who
are to exercise faith, but as those who are to receive it, and make them
entirely passive in their faith and unbelief, it is no matter whether they
exclude them as unbelievers, or as men passively appointed to be non-
recipients of faith. Had the atonement not been for black men or for
women, you might have said that it was not for those who were fore
ordained to that complexion or sex ; that is, you might have affirmed the
same thing of them as appointed to such a distinction, that you would as
sert of them as actually possessing it, because in the appointment and the
possession they are equaby passive. So if men were as passive in their
unbelief as they are in their non-election, you might affirm the same thing
of them as non-elect that you do of them as unbelievers. But now to
confound these terms, is to bury up their agency in rejecting the gospel,
and utterly to change the principles of the divine administration. Be
cause men are denied the benefits of the atonement as unbebevers, you
exclude them as non-elect But to debar them as non-elect is to cut
them off without their own fault ; to shut them out as unbelievers is to
make their own sinful rejection of the gospel the ground of their exclu
sion. In short, this confounding of unbelievers and non-elect completely

312 EXTENT OF THE ATONEMENT. [PART II.
overlooks the agency of men, and brings into use such a language as
would befit them if they were mere machines.
And yet this very practice gives to our brethren almost all the texts
which even have the semblance of supporting their cause, and it appears
also in a number of their terms and popular arguments. Thus because
Christ laid " down his bfe for his friends," they infer that he died only
for the elect. " If a man pay a ransom price to redeem his own friends
from captivity, however great the price, or however many others may be
in captivity, yet when it is inquired, for whom was the price paid ? the
answer is, for his friends whom he designed to redeem." But if the
atonement of Christ was to benefit all who would be his friends, it was a
provision for all as capable agents, for no natural inability, and nothing
but a blamable temper, prevents any from being his friends. In the same
manner whatever is said of the church ( " the general assembly " of heirs,
the people who " in the dispensation of the fulness of times " are gathered
" together in one — in Christ," the body with its living members com
pacted together and drawing present bfe from the Head, the bride already
married to Christ by a voluntary covenant), they apply unqualifiedly to
the elect. Eph. 1 : 10, 22, 23. 4: 16. Heb. 12: 23. Rev. 21 : 9. But
though in one or two places the body of bebevers, under the name of the
church, are spoken of with special reference to their antecedent election,
and to their redemption from sin by the larger ransom, yet the unregen
erate elect are never comprehended under the name of church. Thus,
too, whatever is said of the sheep (the flock, by whose footsteps believers
are exhorted to go forth, who are under the sensible care of the good
Shepherd, and are led by him into " green pastures '' and " beside the
still waters," who know him, and hear his voice, and follow him, and will
stand on his right hand to receive a gracious reward), they apply to the
elect as such, merely because once, by way of anticipation, Christ calls
the unregenerate elect his sheep. Ps. xxii. Cant. 1 : 7, 8. Matt.
25: 33. John 10: 14, 16, 27.* And they reason about the sheep and
* In this ehapter Christ sets before him the sheep as a flock already gathered and
under his care ; and in what he says about laying down his life for them, he alludes to
the fidelity of a shepherd in exposing his life to defend his flock, actually assembled
around him, from beasts of prey. " The good Shepherd giveth his life for the sheep.
But he that is a hireling and not the shepherd, whoso own the sheep are not, seeth the
wolf coming and leavoth tho sheep and flceth, and the wolf catcheth them and scat-
tereth the sheep. Tho hireling fleeth because he is a hireling and careth not for the
sheep. I am the good Shepherd, and know my sheep, and am known of mine. — My
sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me." He had begun the dis
course by saying, " Ho [that pastor in the church] that cntcreth in by the door [Christ
is the door, ver. 7, 9], is tho shepherd of the sheep [of the church, or body of believers].

CHAP. XI.] CONFUSION OF NAMES. 313
goats as though these terms denoted the elect and non-elect, when in fact,
with the single exception already noticed, they uniformly stand for the
good and bad.* In the same way they make the seed of the serpent to
mean the non-elect, and argue that the seed of the woman would not die
for the seed of the serpent ; as though the elect themselves were not the
seed of the 'serpent while continuing to possess the spirit of the serpent.
In the same way they make the people of God to be synonymous with
elect. " For whom Christ offered himself as a sacrifice, for the same
does he intercede (for his priestly office is not performed for any by
halves) : but he intercedes, it is agreed, for none but his own people :
therefore he died for none but his own people." " He intercedes, it is
agreed, for none but his own people ! " But who are his own people ?
Not the elect as such, not the unconverted elect, but believers. " In the
place where it was said unto them, ye are not my people, there it shall
To him the porter openeth, and the sheep [believers] hear his voice ; and he calleth
his own sheep by name and leadeth them out [from other sheep who are false profes
sors] . And when he putteth forth his own sheep he goeth before them [in a way of
holy example and instruction], and the sheep follow him [in a life of holiness] ; for
they know his voice. And a stranger will they not follow, but will flee from him ; for
they know not the voice of strangers. — All that ever came before me are thieves and
robbers ; but the sheep did not hear them." In all this he meant nothing by sheep
but members of the visible church, and except one allusion to false professors? true be
lievers. He then changes the figure, and from the door through which the under
shepherds enter, he becomes the Shepherd himself: but still the primary meaning of
sheep is believers. When he calls the elect Gentiles his sheep, it is plainly by antici
pation ; but when he speaks of laying down his life for his sheep, he means for the
gathered and existing flock, such a flock as a hireling Jewish pastor would abandon
to the wolves. This was accomplished when it was said, "Awake, 0 sword, against
my Shepherd." But who at that time were the flock 1 the unregenerate elect, or be
lievers? It is added, " Smite the Shepherd and the sheep shall be scattered." This>
we are expressly told, was fulfilled when the twelve disciples forsook him and fled.
Zeeh. 13 : 7. Matt. 26 : 31. In another place, by the sheep which he came to save he
plainly means believers, viewed with reference to their lost condition as sinners.
" Take heed that ye despise not one of these little ones. — For the Son of man is come
to save that which was lost. How think ye ? if a man have a hundred sheep, and one
of them be gone astray, doth he not leave the ninety and nine, and goeth into the
mountains, and seeketh that which is gone astray ? And if so be that he find it, verily
I say unto you, he rejoiceth more of that sheep than of the ninety and nine which went
not astray. Even so it is not the will of your Father which is in heaven that one of
these little ones should perish." Matt. 18: 10-14. On another occasion ho gave a sim
ilar representation to justify, himself in associating with publicans and sinners, who,
with Matthew at their head, flocked to catch the word of life from his lips. Luke xv.
with ch. 5 : 27-32. But notwithstanding all this evidence that by the sheep for which
he laid down his life he meant believers, I have admitted that in the assertion he
glanced at tho previous election of those believers, and at the special reference which
he had to them as his reward.
* Unless John 10 : 26 is an exception. 27

314 EXTENT OF THE ATONEMENT. [PART II.
be said unto them, ye are the sons of the living God." " I will call them
my people which were not my people, and her beloved which was not
beloved." Hos. 1 : 10. Rom. 9 : 25, 26. If by, this exclusive intercession
you mean that Christ pleads for the pardon and acceptance of none but
believers, we agree ; but what is this to the purpose ? We never thought
that he died to procure the pardon and acceptance of any but bebevers.
I suppose that the intercession of Christ is the silent plea or influence of
his expiation and merit (for it is not limited to pardon), John xvii. ; and
that of course it is just so far offered for all as his expiation and merit
affect all. He intercedes, then, that millions who are never saved may
have a day of probation, and the offer of life, and the common and con
victing influences of the Spirit. He intercedes that all indiscriminately
may be saved who wiU bebeve, offering thus his effectual intercession to
all, and making it to all a complete provision for moral agents. " He is
able — to save them to the uttermost who come unto God by him, seeing
he ever liveth to make intercession for them." Heb. 7 : 25. He intercedes
that the elect may have the gift of faith : and when as agents they believe,
he employs for them that full intercession which he offers to others.
After the same manner, when the sacred writers say that Christ atoned
for them, our brethren will always have it that they speak of themselves
as elect, and not as moral agents and believers. But this is assumed '
without a particle of proof. In this way it is that they find an atonement
which accomplishes reconciliation. They hear the apostles say that they
and other believers had been saved from wrath by the blood of Christ,
meaning that as believers they had been pardoned on the ground of the
atonement ; and they at once conclude that all this is said of them as
elect, and that of course the atonement reconciles all for whom it was
ojfFered. In this way it is that they discover in the Scriptures so many ap
pearances of a bmited atonement. Take away those texts which speak
of believers, and they will be surprised to find how few remain which
glance at any special reference to the elect. The whole of this number
which I have been able to discover, after examining the collection made
by the Synod of Dort, were presented in a former chapter ; and they
express either the power of the larger ransom, or the reference of Christ
to the elect as his reward. Not one of them touches the question now in
debate. I have been struck with the fact that in an ingenious treatise
lately written to prove a limited atonement, when the author came to
produce his direct texts, in the form of a distinct argument, he quoted
but these two : " I lay down my life for the sheep," and, " The church —
which he hath purchased with his own blood ; " two texts, of which (if
they are not limited to believers) the former expresses the special

CHAP. XII.] LOVE EXPRESSED WITHOUT SANCTIFICATION. 315
reference of Christ to the elect as his reward, and the latter the power
of the larger ransom. For the rest the author chiefly relies on election}
foreknowledge, the secret purpose of God, and the bmitation of the
larger ransom ; neither of which is denied, or has any thing to do with
the present question.

CHAPTER Xn.
THE TREATMENT OF AGENTS BY ITSELF EXPRESSES DIVESTE
BENEVOLENCE.
God feels a benevolence towards all his creatures, even towards those
whom he never sanctifies. That is, he does not delight in their misery,
but delights in their happiness as a thing in itself agreeable, and would
never sacrifice their happiness but to promote a higher good. This
benevolence towards the unsanctified he is able to express otherwise
than in words, or he is not. If not, he can never bring any proof of its
existence, except what depends on his treatment of the sanctified. If he
can express this benevolence in actions, it must be by the mere treatment
of agents.
And this is the fact. Those measures which are calculated to pro
mote the happiness of creatures if they will do their duty, do really
express his benevolence towards them, though never attended with
sanctifying influence. That foundation in moral agents which give to
the measures this expression is their capacity to use them for their
good, or what we call their natural ability. For if they had no more
power to derive happiness from them than stocks, the treatment, so far
from being an expression of benevolence, would be a mockery. But
with that power, all those provisions and mercies, all that display of
light and motives and long-suffering, which are calculated to promote
their happiness if they will do their duty, are indications of that common
benevolence which God feels towards all. If they are no indications
without sanctifying influence, any more than if men were blocks, what
becomes of the capacity on which all their obligations are grounded ? It
is plainly no adequate foundation to support any of the measures of a
moral government ; and those measures without the Spirit are as un-
suited to men as to the beasts of the field or the clods of the valley.
Now apply this to the atonement. By such a provision for those who
eventually perish, God puts remission within the reach of their natural
power, and lays them under reasonable obligations to five, and fastens

316 EXTENT OF THE ATONEMENT. [PART II.
the blame of their destruction on themselves, and wipes off the charge
of forcing them to death against their will. And all this he instructs us
to believe is a genuine expression of benevolence towards them, and if
he is sincere it really is. If any thing which he can do can indicate his
philanthropy towards them, what more than making, at so vast an
expense, such a provision for their pardon that nothing but their own
distinct and voluntary agency can work their ruin ? Any thing analo
gous to this in human affairs would certainly be indicative of love ; and
God has no way to discover his feelings towards the persons of the
unsanctified but by conduct according with the manner of men. If his
foreknowledge or failure to sanctify must silence that expression, there
is no way in which he can act out the real temper of bis heart towards
the persons of those who perish. How, then, came we by the knowledge
that such a temper exists ?
This provision for the finally impenitent, he himself teaches us to
believe, makes the same expression of character as though he had no
foreknowledge or dominion over the mind. And if we find any diffi
culty in viewing it apart, and giving full credit to the discoveries which
it separately makes, we ought to put it down to the weakness of our
apprehensions, to the incapacity of a finite mind to comprehend the
Infinite, on w7hom it devolves not only to govern the universe by law
and motives, but to form the dispositions of his creatures. But certainly
it was his intention to make an impression on us that he is in all respects
what be appears in a moral government to be. Certain it is that when he
provided an atonement which all might have for accepting, and which all
had natural ability and were under obligations to accept, he intended to
make an impression on us of his real benevolence towards the whole
human race. What does he plainly say ? " God so loved the world that
he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should
not perish, but have everlasting life. For God sent not his Son into the
world to condemn the world, but that the world through him might be
saved." " Not willing that any should perish, but that all should come
to repentance." " Who will have all men to be saved and to come unto
the knowledge of the truth." " As I live — I have no pleasure in the
death of the wicked, but that the wicked turn from his way and live."
" How often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen
gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not." " Oh that
they were wise, that they understood this, that the}' would consider their
latter end!" Deut. 32 : 29. Ezek. 33 : 11. Matt. 23 : 37. John 3 : 16,
17. 1 Tim. 2 : 4. 2 Pet. 3:9. If by fastening our eyes on foreknowl
edge and election, and the passiveness of men, we get confused and lose
somewhat of the expression which the atonement really makes, yet,

CHAP. XII.] LOVE EXPRESSED WITHOUT SANCTIFICATION. 317
without the most blasphemous imputations, we cannot doubt that these
declarations of the Moral Governor explain the genuine feelings of his
heart. We may be assured that we convey right ideas of him when we
say, that bis exertions for the salvation of the wicked Israelites proceeded
from unfeigned love. What does he teb us himself? "In all their
affliction he was afflicted, and the Angel of his presence saved them ; in
his love and in his pity he redeemed them, and he bore them and
carried them all the days of old. But they rebelled, and vexed his
Holy Spirit ; therefore he was turned to be their enemy and fought
against them." "I removed his shoulder from the burden, his hands
were delivered from the pots. Thou calledst in trouble and I delivered
thee, I answered thee in the secret place of thunder, I proved thee at
the waters of Meribah. But my people would not hearken to my voice,
and Israel would none of me. So I gave them up unto their own
heart's lust, and they walked in their own counsels. 0 that my people
had hearkened unto me, and Israel had walked in my ways ! I should
soon have subdued their enemies, and turned my hand against their
adversaries." Ps. 81 : 6-14. Isa. 63 : 9, 10. We may be assured that
we convey right ideas of him when we say that he sent the gospel to
the inhabitants of Capernaum for their good, as an act of unfeigned
mercy, and from perfect good-will to them. The whole ministry of
Christ to that city was evidently intended to make this impression.
And what was the meaning of his tears over Jerusalem ? Did they
discover no interest in the happiness of its inhabitants ?
But it is flatly denied that the death of Christ was any expression of
benevolence to the non-elect ; and the church has heard the affecting de
nial. " What induced him to die for these, seeing he had passed them,
and in the language of Scripture hated them ? If he died for them, he
either had a motive or not. If he had, what was it ? Not any peculiar
love, for this he entertained not. Was it from some general affection to
them as creatures ? but they had forfeited all regard from the Creator."
This distressing suggestion by fair impbcation goes all the way of affirm
ing that nothing which God can do is expressive of benevolence to those
whom he fails to sanctify ; that all the bounties and efforts of heaven are
no indications of mercy or goodness while men are bent on their own
destruction ; that neither the creation nor preservation of the non-elect,
neither temporal blessings nor the means of grace are any tokens of
good-will to them ; in short, that God has no benevolence towards them,
not even a "general affection to them as creatures." And have we
come to this ! that some of the rational creatures of God are excluded ¦
from his benevolence ! What feelings, then, has he towards them ? Is it
absolute indifference? or is it malice? But God's professions are far
27*

318 EXTENT OF THE ATONEMENT. [PART II.
different He distinctly claims the praise of benevolence for his common
mercies to the evil and unthankful, and in these acts sets himself forth as
an example of genuine love to enemies. " Love your enemies, — that
ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven, for he maketh
his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just
and on the unjust." ." The Lord is good to all, and his tender mercies
are over all his works." " Despisest thou the riches of his goodness
and forbearance and long-suffering, not knowing that the goodness of
God leadeth thee to repentance ? " Before " all nations," even while
they were left " to walk in their own ways," " he left not himself without
witness, in that he did good and gave " them " rain from heaven and
fruitful seasons, filling'' their "hearts with food and gladness." Ps. 145:
9. Matt. 5 : 44, 45. Acts 14 : 16, 17. Rom. 2 : 4. But all this upon your
plan is a delusive show, and the bounties of God to the heathen discov
ered only his existence and power, which alone could not render them
"without excuse."
According to this alarming principle the non-elect have no reason but
ignorance of their own reprobation to thank God for any thing he has
ever done ; and when they awake in hell they will never again accuse
themselves of ingratitude to eternity. And yet unthankfulness is num
bered among their worst sins. 2 Tim. 3 : 2. In short, the pernicious
influence of this sentiment is to persuade all men, in proportion as they
waver about their own election, to doubt whether they have any cause to
thank God for their existence, or for one of all his mercies. And what
must be the tendency of such a doctrine, no one, I should think, could
doubt. In opposition to all this I plead that the death of Christ, so far as it is
known, lays the whole human race under obligations to gratitude, not
founded on any opinion which they may form of their own election, or
on the darkness which may hang around that question, but on a vast
and obvious and common benefit, strongly marked with benevolence to
the race at large ; that every man, without waiting to ascertain his future
destiny, is bound to bless God " for his unspeakable gift," and to ac
knowledge the greatness of the love in relation to himseff.

CHAP. XIII.] DESIGNS OF GOD IN DIFFERENT CHARACTERS. 319

CHAPTER XHI.
THE PURPOSES OF THE MORAL GOVERNOR NOT TO BE CONFOUNDED WITH
. * THOSE OF THE SOVEREIGN EFFICIENT CAUSE.
What, then, has God two .minds ? No, but he acts in two characters,
founded on the two relations of men ; two characters in most respects
independent of each other, because the two relations of men are equaUy
independent ; two characters, as far as they are independent, just as dis
tinct as though they belonged to two separate beings : and you may
speak of- the designs of the Moral Governor and the designs of the
sovereign efficient cause as distinctly as though they were the counsels
of two minds ; and in many respects you must speak so, or not express
the truth in intelligible language.
If the treatment of age.its by itself expresses the divine benevolence,
then you must, speak of God in that character in which he stands related
to agents, as constructing his measures for their good : for to say that a
measure is not constructed for their good, and yet that it expresses be
nevolence towards them, is a contradiction, according to all the language
established and understood in the world. And if we must say of the
Moral Governor (without reference to election or regeneration, which lie
out of his sphere), that he constructs his measures for their good, then
we must say that he designs them for their good. In all other cases
known to men, the unqualified design of the agent is necessary to the
benevolent expression of the action : and without the ascription of such
a design to the Moral Governor, there is no conveying to the multitude
the idea, and turning over the idea in all its familiar forms, that the
measures express his benevolence. We must, therefore, make the ascrip
tion, without any misgivings on account of foreknowledge or election, or
we have no way to affirm intelligibly and familiarly of any measure un
accompanied by sanctification, that it expresses the benevolence of God.
It answers an important end for God to appear before his creatures in
a character which stands related to agents, and to speak of himself, and
allow his creatures to speak of him, in a form which would express the
benevolence of a temporal prince who had no control over the minds of
his subjects but by motives, and in that character to say, " O that they
were wise ! " and, " Turn ye, for why will ye die ? " It gives him an
opportunity to express towards millions a benevolence which otherwise
would not be revealed, and to treat his creatures according to their
rational nature. And there is no deception in the case. The Being who
sustains this character means not to say that he does not support another,

320 EXTENT OF THE ATONEMENT. [PART II.
in which he can control the heart, or that the Divine Mind is really disap
pointed. He takes abundant care to guard against this mistake. He
only means to express his benevolence by a language and measures
fitted to moral agents. And it is of infinite importance that he should
have full credit for all the exhibitions made in this character. But the
moment you deny to the Moral Governor all purpose of mercy towards
the unsanctified (though at infinite expense he has put bfe within their
reach, and exhausted arguments to persuade them to live), you annihilate
the whole expression of benevolence made in the pure treatment of
agents, and cover un one of the departments in which God has chosen to
manifest himself.
By denying to the Moral Governor such a benevolent aim, and
confounding his designs with those of the sovereign efficient cause, you
would spread confusion through every part of the divine administration,
and bring upon God and the language he employs, charges which I
tremble to name. You might construct propositions upon this principle
which would amount to impeachment and blasphemy, and impute to
God a character more baleful and disastrous than that of Satan. In
this way you would denounce one half of his administration as a farce.
You would contradict the sincerity of his offers to the non-elect, and
even bring upon him the horrid charge of making them to be damned.
The sovereign efficient cause, it is admitted, had no thought of mercy
towards them, no purpose to answer by them in the world ; and if the
Moral Governor is not allowed to have any benevolent designs con
cerning them, for what purpose were they created ? No one has any
thing to do with them in a way of favor ; were they made solely to be
damned ? And as to the insincerity of the offer, you present God as
saying, " Turn ye, for why will ye die ? " and " 0 that they were wise ! "
while in no character has he any thought or desire of mercy towards
them. But separate the Moral Governor from the sovereign efficient
cause, and allow him to express his benevolence in that independent
character in wliich he has nothing to employ but motives, and all is
plain. I dare not, therefore, say of God unqualifiedly, that he had no purpose
of mercy towards the non-elect. Such language, I am persuaded,
conveys wrong ideas of him, and contradicts that expression of benevo
lence which the measures of bis government were intended to make.
All those measures which are calculated to promote the happiness of
creatures indiscriminately, ought to be spoken of as having such an aim,
except in relation to those whom the Moral Governor himself has
publicly sentenced to judicial blindness or shut up in hell. Of the
former class we have a right to say, that he bears long with them on

CHAP. XIII.] DESIGNS OF GOD IN DIFFERENT CHARACTERS. 821
purpose " to show his wrath and make his power known," in their more
aggravated destruction. Rom. 9 : 22, with Isa. 6 : 10. But to impute to
God such a design in sending the gospel to men merely because they
are non-elect, would be a dangerous falsehood, calculated to hide one
half of the exhibitions which he makes of himself in the gospel. Our
brethren reason as though all the non-elect were given over to judicial
blindness ; whereas this abandonment is the act of the Moral Governor,
who himseff, so to speak, knows not a non-elect person on earth.
And now, to show you what has called for these remarks, I present
the following. " Can it be said with reason that Christ when he hung
on the cross poured out his life and his soul for those whom he never
intended to save? Here Arminians, and even Lutherans and Bax-
terians, have a subterfuge. They say it was the will of God to save all
men. But those with whom we now contend, agree that his purpose
was to save the elect only, and they reject the distinction of antecedent
and consequent will ; and, therefore, to them there is no evasion. — If
he died for those whom he had no intention to save, it is incum
bent on those who maintain the opinion to point out for'what end. No
wise agent performs an important work without having an important
end in view. Let them tell us, then, what was the end of Christ in
dying for those whom he had no intention of saving."
The writer was not sufficiently acquainted with the opinions of those
with whom he had to " contend." We do not indeed say of God in his
whole character, that it was bis purpose to save all men. Neither do we
explain any difficulties by resorting to an antecedent and consequent
wiU. We admit that the sovereign efficient cause absolutely decreed the
characters of men, so far as whether he would make them holy, or leave.
them to themselves. But we think that all these difficulties, which have
perplexed the church in consequence of viewing God in a single char
acter, may easily be solved by contemplating him in two. While we do
not say of the sovereign efficient cause that he suspended any thing on
the conduct of men, or had the least reference to that conduct in one of
his decisions (because his decrees and acts terminate upoh men as purely
passive) ; we scruple not to attribute to the Moral Governor all the aims,
which the measures of his government are calculated to accomplish.
We readily yield to the sovereign efficient cause every thing that the
highest Calvinist ever did, and none the less ascribe to the Moral
Governor every thing as relates to the present subject that an Arminian
ever did. In particular we find no difficulty in saying of the Ruler of
agents, that he wills the salvation of all to whom the gospel is sent
And we understand Peter and Paul as speaking of God in the same
character, and meaning the same thing, when they say of him that hd

322 EXTENT OF THE ATONEMENT. [PART II.
" will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the
truth ; " " not willing that any should perish,' but that all should come to
repentance." 1 Tim. 2 : 4. 2 Pet. 3 : 9. We dare not, therefore, say of
him who provided the atonement (for that was the Moral Governor
alone), that he had no intention to benefit the non-elect, nor do we
generally speak of him as even knowing such a class of men.

CHAPTER XIV.
THE TREATMENT OF INDIVIDUAL AGENTS INTENDED TO INFLUENCE
AGENTS GENERALLY.
The question often arises, why all this labor and expense to exert
upon creatures the dominion of motives, when without motives God
could sway them by his power as he pleases ? But without motives he
could not sway'them to rational action, nor furnish them with rational
enjoyment. He could not sway them to any action, nor furnish them
with any enjoyment. The maniac, the beast, the worm, is governed by
motives. The moment you pass the empire of motives, you are among
insensible objects. The sway of which you speak must be supported by
impressions on insensitive machines. There is no way to secure holy
order and happiness but by motives fitted to awaken the best affections
and the purest joy. Sanctifying power without these would produce no
more than it did on the infant Jeremiah and John. While you speak of
a sway by main strength without motives, what serise in talking of the
anarchy which would have resulted from giving up the law by par
doning without an atonement ? What need of an atonement or a law
when motives are no longer needed ? The only benefit of either is in
the motives which they present.
To fill the universe with motives, then, is the great point. The more
those which prompt to love, obedience, gratitude, joy, and praise, are
spread, the richer and happier the universe is. A God of benevolence
could not, therefore, but wish to bring forth all those motives which his
own infinite perfection could furnish, all that could appear from a full
exposition of the reasonableness of his claims and his unmingled benevo
lence, all that could appeal to the reason, the conscience, the hopes, the
fears, or the ingenuousness of creatures.
This is the end for which all the manifestations of God have been
made. If he exerts authority, it is to furnish motives to creatures. If
he instructs, invites, promises, or threatens, it is with no other view.

CHAP. XIV.] THE EMISSION OF MOTIVES A GREAT END. 323
Whatever direct end any measure may have, its ultimate end is this.
God glorified is the universe filled with motives drawn from himself and
prompting creatures to love, joy, and praise.
Now these motives are chiefly derived from the pure treatment of
moral agents. By reverting to the chapter on a moral government, it
will be seen how vast a proportion of the divine manifestations are made
in this separate department.
The treatment of agents by itself is therefore a system of incalculable
importance. That general treatment which is bottomed on their capacity,
and would have no meaning without it ; which assumes at every step that
they have natural ability to act without the Spirit, and is in truth the
same as though they were independent ; which comprehends all the in
structions given, all the authority employed, all the obligations imposed,
all the motives presented, all the provisions made, all the invitations of
fered, all the long-suffering exercised, all the guilt charged, all the rewards
conferred; this system, separate from the sovereign operations of the
Spirit, is of immeasurable importance. Laying out of account the direct
ends which the measures are calculated to accomplish, the system as a
whole is of unspeakable importance as a mere source of motives.
Considered in this light, and not barely as expressive of direct benev
olence towards the objects concerned, the system is one which God has
been at infinite expense to perfect. If to give machines a right direction
by blind impressions was enough, and it was not important to support the
dominion of motives over the reason and conscience of creatures (an em
pire altogether distinct from the exertions of sovereign power upon the
mind), why the penalty of the law ? and why the infinite expense incurred
on Calvary and in hell ?
But it must never be supposed that the Moral Governor intends to
draw motives from measures which hold out a false show. It is because
they are what they profess to be, that they are real exhibitions of God
and fitted to influence creatures.
Thus we find the Moral Governor pursuing a system of measures un-
feignedly expressive of benevolence towards all whom they are adapted
to serve, and entitled to be spoken of as aimed at their good. And this
he does not only with a direct view to the immediate end which the
measures are calculated to accomplish (at least in human language it
must be so expressed), but for the purpose of sending out motives to affect
moral agents generally. It is with this emission of motives that we are
now concerned.
Here we must fasten our eyes on the Moral Governor alone, and think
and speak of him as presenting the motives in every instance from direct

324 EXTENT OF THE ATONEMENT. [PART II.
benevolence to the person concerned, and with a sincere aim at his good
(as the thing must be expressed in human language), except in reference
to those whom he himself has already given over to judicial blindness or
to punishment. The array of motives is as directly calculated for the
happiness of all to whom they are professedly addressed, as the " rain
from heaven and fruitful seasons." The latter may be abused, and so
may the former. But while creatures have a capacity to improve the
blessing, it is certainly calculated for their good, and ought to be spoken
of as aimed at their happiness. Any thing analogous to this between
man and man would be called seeking the happiness of those concerned :
and it would be so called in the government of God, were it not for his
foreknowledge and control over the mind : and if other truths are not
concealed, it may be so called without conveying any false idea of him :
and it is so called by " Lutherans and Baxterians," and by the Bible
itself; and ought to be so cabed, because it is in fact as expressive of
direct benevolence as what is so denominated among men, and because
there is no other way of famibarly expressing this great truth.
We must not, therefore, say of the measures of mercy which relate to
the unsanctified, that they are intended to furnish motives for the benefit
of elect men and angels only, but for the everlasting benefit of the per
sons concerned, and of all other moral agents through the universe, ex
cept those who are already given over to judicial blindness or to punish
ment. In these matters the Moral Governor knows no creature as elect
or non-elect. His subjects lie before him in three classes ; as those who
are on probation and unabandoned, as those who are confirmed in holi
ness and happiness by way of reward, and as those who are sealed or de-
bvered over to punishment. To say in relation to the first class, that the
benevolent aim is confined to a part, is to say that their happiness is
'sought by an insincere treatment of the rest.
Now, then, to apply aU this to the atonement. The ultimate design of
the mediation of Christ was to fill the universe with motives, by bringing
out to view the secrets of the Eternal Mind. He came to be. " the image
of the invisible God," " the face " in which he should be seen, " the word"
by which he should be expressed. John 1:1.2 Cor. 4 : 4, 6. Col. 1 : 15.
But the direct end of the atonement, as related to the discoveries of
God, was not to reveal the sovereign efficient cause, but to bring out to
view the glories of the Moral Governor. The whole ground of the de
sign lay among the relations subsisting between him and moral agents.
It was the difficulties which arose in the favorable treatment of them
which gave rise to the august mechanism of the whole plan ; and the
change wrought in their relations constituted the whole of the wonderful

CHAP. XV.] REASONS FOR THE GENERAL PROVISION. 325
result. The exhibition to be made of God by the direct operation of this
great measure was in bis relations to moral agents and in his treatment
of them. This end had no dependence on the sovereign acts of the Spirit
By such a provision for a sinning agent the Moral Governor intended
to furnish motives for the everlasting benefit of that individual, and of all
other rational creatures not already given over to destruction. It would
be a great mistake, therefore, to suppose that the end of an atonement for
Peter was limited to the pardon of Peter. Even as Peter himself was
concerned, it had the further design to affect him for ever as an exhibi
tion both of awful firmness in supporting the law and of amazing mercy.
He was still to remain under moral government and the control of
motives. His happiness was not to consist in a release from the re
straints of law, but in bving under the dominion of the everlasting King,
in seeing all his rights secured, in contemplating his astonishing grace,
and in being urged by competent motives to unceasing love, obedience,
and praise.
But the atonement for Peter had a further end. It was intended
(according to the dialect which it is necessary to use), favorably and
eternally to affect all other moral agents not already given over to
destruction. The fundamental principle in which lay the necessity of
fin atonement was, that not even the elect could be pardoned unless the
whole universe were made to see that the law was not to be given up.
This conviction must be spread, that God might still by sufficient
motives support his empire over the rational creation ; and that empire
he wished stib further to strengthen by vast discoveries of his grace. As
Ruler of the whole universe, perhaps of more worlds than there are
dusts in this, and looking forward to an eternal reign, he did not limit his
view to the deliverance of a part of Adam's race. When that was done
he had just begun his course. He wished to hold out the unchangeable
authority of his law, and the infinite benignity of his government, to
affect the intelbgent universe to eternity.

CHAPTER XV.
REASONS FOR AN ATONEMENT FOR THOSE WHO PERISH.
There is a loud call made upon us for these reasons. Were we at
all straitened for an answer, we might silence the demand by asking,
what reasons for the offer to those who perish ? This, you say, is made
that God " may do what is agreeable to his own most holy nature, and
28

326 EXTENT OF THE ATONEMENT. [PART II.
that it may be made fully to appear how great is the mabgnity and
obstinacy of those whom he punishes." Had we no other reason to give
for the provision on which the offer is founded, you ought not to com
plain. But really there was no chance for a limited and absolute atonement,
without consequences at which we shall all revolt. If the whole pro
vision was made in that open and visible manner which was necessary to
give it an operation upon public law, there was no way of limiting it but
by calling a part of the race by name. This is not aU. If it was pro
vided for moral agents, it was not provided for creatures viewed as
related to regeneration, for this change is wrought upon passive
receivers. By the capacity which moral agents possess, they have in
themselves, without the Spirit, a complete foundation for all the treat
ment which might be rendered -to independent beings, and no less a
foundation for merciful than for punitive treatment. Being thus com
plete entities in themselves, as distinguished from the passive character,
God, if he acts according to truth, will shape and carry forward the
measures which relate to them, without noticing in his outward dispen
sation the other character. If, then, in providing an atonement, he
must have caUed a part by name, he must have said to Saul of Tarsus,
without any reference to his regeneration, for you, bloody as you are,
this atonement is absolutely provided, and do what you will you shall
never be punished. Not a word about bis repenting or bebeving, for
that would have been a conditional atonement And to Simon Magus he
must have said, There is no atonement for you ; and should you repent,
and believe in an atonement for others, still you cannot be pardoned.
A limited and absolute atonement publicly provided for moral agents
must have divided the race in this way. To the non-elect it would have
been the same as to the damned, and to the elect a prostration of all
moral government.
But all this is not giving the reasons. There is no difficulty, however,
in doing this, provided God can express bis benevolence in the treat
ment of agents by itself, and we are allowed to ascribe to the Moral
Governor, without reference to the sovereign efficient cause, a benevo
lent design. This is really the dialect in which we ought to speak of
the subject, and the only one which does justice to the God of love.
In this dialect, then, I shall name two ends, the one immediate and
the other ultimate. The immediate end was the pardon of all indis
criminately to whom the gospel was to be sent ; the ultimate end was to
manifest divine grace in this merciful and sincere treatment of a world,
and thus to fill the universe with motives for the eternal benefit of all
rational creatures not already given over to destruction.

CHAP. XV.] REASONS FOR THE GENERAL PROVISION.

327

(1) The immediate end. In this dialect, in which elect and non-
elect are unknown, we must give the same reason for an atonement for
Simon Magus as for Peter, to wit, a direct regard to his deliverance
from the curse. To neither was it an expression of electing love (for
election lay in another department), but only of that common benevo
lence which God feels towards all his creatures. There was in this
thing as complete an exercise and expression (for the latter without the
former would have been feigned) of common benevolence to Simon
Magus, as there is of maternal feeling where a mother runs to catch a
falling infant. There was a difference as to the expected result, because
God was omniscient But his benevolence for Simon was as real as the
affection of the mother, and this was as natural and unerring a way to
express the one as her haste the other. At least, be has warned the
universe to consider his merciful treatment of the wicked as the organ
by which his benevolence is expressed. No language which is adapted
to our finite minds can completely express the Infinite : but in such
imperfect language as we possess we must say, if we would express the
truth to common apprehensions, that the Moral Governor willed not
that Simon " should perish, but that " he '' should come to repentance."
Tell me, then, why the mother ran to catch her falling infant, and I will
tell you, in language consecrated by the Holy Ghost, why God provided
an atonement for Simon.
Some are for limiting the end of this provision to ¦ the ultimate end.
But this is saying that the universe were to be instructed and affected by
an insincere show of mercy to Simon. This merciful treatment was no
more exclusively designed to send out motives to others, than the puni
tive treatment which he received. Both were intended for this end ulti
mately, but both had an end which immediately respected the subject.
There was in him as perfect a foundation to support the privilege of an
atonement, as to sustain a punishment for rejecting it. His capacity
made it as proper for God to provide the privilege for him (just as
though he was likely to use it without the Spirit), as for God to punish
him for not using it. The mercy, then, no less than the punishment,
may be contemplated as lying between God and Simon, and as being
expressive of the divine character in its direct aspect upon him.
(2) The ultimate end. This was to exhibit God and fill the universe
with motives, benevolently intended to affect Simon and all other rational
creatures not already given over to destruction.
As the authority of the law was concerned, we have already seen the
necessity of a general provision, as without prostrating the law it was
impossible to divide the inhabitants of the same world. And as the

328 EXTENT OF THE ATONEMENTi [PART II.
honor of mercy was respected, a provision for the whole would mani
festly do more than a provision for a part. The highest exhibition of
this attribute that could be made in the pure treatment of agents was
here to be brought forth. Over this entire world the Moral Governor
wished to extend the sceptre of his grace, and to send out hence a report
which should fill other worlds with motives to love and praise him to
eternity. The universe itself was to feel the effects of Calvary for ever.
And now, if you ask what was gained by this general provision, my
answer is, it gave that glorious Sovereign who fills the pubbc throne of
the universe, not the cabinet of private decrees, who governs his subjects
by motives, not by mechanical force, whose business during a state of
probation is to - express their duties, not their destinies, to provide privir
leges, not to constrain their acceptance ; it gave him an opportunity to
come out to this entire world with his renovated law, with new favors in
his hands, with new claims to the homage and gratitude of men, with
new splendors around his throne, with a sceptre dipt in blood, sure to
bring more glory to himself, more confusion to his enemies, and more
good to the universe. It gave him a chance to add one proof of his in
flexible adherence to his law which no other circumstance could furnish,
a practical declaration that transgressors should not escape, though his
own Son had died for them. It gave him on whom devolves the task of
punishing the wicked an opportunity to prove that be does not debght in
their misery, to acquit himself in a double sense of their blood, and to
make this appeal through heaven, earth, and hell, " What could have
been done more to my vineyard that I have not done in it ? " It gave
him a chance to come into contact with subjects in a new relation, and
such a relation as subjects will never again sustain to eternity, — that of
creatures wading to perdition through the blood of Christ expressly shed
for their redemption, and a compassionate Sovereign standing over them
and urging and beseeching them to live. This exhibition of character,
both human and divine, will bring an inconceivable amount of additional
lustre to a throne of mercy, as well as to a tribunal of justice.
The estabbshment of this more benignant and glorious empire over a
world of moral agents became the personal interest of Christ, as the uni
versal government, and this part among the rest, belonged to his stipu
lated reward. From the form of the dominion as it appears in his hands,
we know that this part was included in the covenant. Besides a power
to quicken whom he will, he holds a beneficent empire over a world of
moral agents, founding his claims on their capacity, and treating them
indiscriminately as under a dispensation of grace. Had we no other evi
dence of this, the second and third chapters of Revelation would furnish

CHAP. XVI.] GENERAL PROVISION NOT INCIDENTAL. 329'
enough. As surely, then, as he was influenced by " the joy that was set
before him," the erection of this dominion was one of the motives which
urged him to the cross.
We must not, therefore, suppose that the salvation of the elect was the
sole reward or motive of Christ. This new relation of a world of moral
agents, and the administration of a benign government over the whole,
are two items which must be added to the account.
But does this addition diminish the bebever's comfort ? It is so said.
" This doctrine of a general atonement takes away from the true believer
one of the most interesting and edifying views of this event which can be
presented to him. When he contemplates the death of Christ, he be
holds the most striking and affecting manifestation of the peculiar love
of God to him. But if the atonement be as much for those who are
reprobates as for him, how is it an evidence of any great or special love ?
It is no ground of consolation to know that Christ loved me and gave
himself for me, because the reprobate may know the same." Perpetu
ally confounding the atonement with the higher ransom. We acknowledge ¦
that Christ " gave himself" in a peculiar sense for the elect, and obtained
their salvation as the reward of that active virtue. And there is on our
plan undiminished reason for aU those grateful and triumphant feelings
which an Owen was so zealous to cherish. But is the death of Christ
" no consolation " to me because he atoned for others ? Am I so bent on
monopolizing the whole influence to myself? And is it "no consolation"
that be has thrown around his Father's sceptre a splendor of mercy
which sends its radiance even to the gates of hell ?

CHAPTER XVI.
THE EXTENT OF THE PROVISION NOT INCIDENTAL, BUT PURPOSELY
INTENDED.
Some have said that the influence of the atonement upon the non-elect
was merely casual, and arose from their bving in the same world, and
under the same law, and possessing the same nature with the elect, and
the same world and nature in which Christ suffered, and the same law
under which he bved, and from the necessary sufficiency of his merit,
resulting from his infinite dignity and worth. But by whatever means
the atonement acquired this influence, certain it is that it was the deter
minate purpose of God that it should possess it, not because it could not
be avoided, but to express his unfeigned benevolence, and to answer the
important ends of a moral government. 28*

330 EXTENT OF THE ATONEMENT. [PART II.
We say that God designed the atonement for all. What do we mean ?
Not that he intended to make all partakers of the benefit by an operation
upon them as passive ; but that he designed by its influence so to change
their relations as moral agents, that should they hear the gospel and be
lieve, he could pardon them all without injuring the law, and that a foun
dation should thus be laid for a fair and reasonable offer and promise
and command to all ; and, furthermore, that he intended to send the gos
pel into the world, which but for the depravity of men would spread like'
lightning to the utmost bounds of the earth ; and that he determined to
force its way to millions who would never be sanctified, and thus to place
in their hands a means of pardon which they should be under obbgations
to improve for their everlasting good. That all who hear the gospel
have the benefit so within their reach that they could make it their own
by doing their duty, and are bound to make it their own, I shall how as
sume. The question then is, whether God determined it should be
so, — whether as Moral Governor he had any purpose to answer by put
ting the privilege into the hands of those who were never to be sanctified,
or whether he did it incidentally through their relation to the common
world, the common nature, and common law. We say he had important
purposes to answer, and did it with fixed design, to gratify his benevo
lence, and to accomplish the same ends that are attained by other meas
ures of a moral government. And .we allege that the fact of his having
done it affords the same evidence of a settled purpose, that the existence
of creatures does of a previous design to create.
It ought not to escape attention, that the privilege is fastened upon them
by a law commanding them to believe ; for without the command it would
not be a privilege in the estimation of a moral government, as it would
not be a means of happiness which they would be under obligations to
improve for their good. The question then is, whether that law was
given them incidentally, — whether the privilege was thus authoritatively
thrust into their hands, not with fixed design to answer the purposes of
a moral government, but casually, through their connection with the com
mon world, the common nature, and common law. How will this matter
appear at the judgment of the great day ? When they shall be arraigned
one by one, and punished severally for rejecting the privilege, will it then
seem that the talent was not intentionally committed to them as their
Lord's servants, but casually fell upon them as they stood in the crowd ?
By the same rule you might say that all other laws and mercies come to
them casually, and that the Moral Governor had no end at all to answer
by them in a way of favor, but only found them in his way as he came
to treat with others. But besides that this would cut off every act of
God from being an expression of benevolence towards them (as a favor

CHAP. XVII.] ORDER OF DIVINE DECREES. 331
done by accident is no indication of love), I would ask, how came they
in existence ? and for what end were they created? Were they incident
ally made ? or were they brought into existence for the sole purpose of
being damned ? As sovereign efficient cause, it is agreed, God had no
favor for them or purpose to answer by them : and if, as Moral Gover
nor, he had no privilege to put into their hands, as an expression of love,
and to answer the ends of government, but only found them in his way
as be came to bless others, I ask, who placed them there ? and for what
end ? In no character has God any favor for them ; were they created
solely to be damned ?
If you admit with the church at large, that the atonement was expres
sive of benevolence to the non-elect, you must no longer say that the
privilege was not intended for them, for that would be bringing words
against each other in a flat contradiction. Those who have chosen to
ascribe its influence upon this part of the race to its sufficiency, have still
generally allowed that its bearing upon them was according to God's de
terminate counsel, and indicative of benevolence. This, as we shall see
in another place, was the concession of the Synod of Dort, and even of
those members who had the most contracted views of the subject.

CHAPTER XVII.
REPROBATION AND THE ORDER OF DIVINE DECREES.
In an argument intended to prove that God had no motive to provide
an atonement for the non-elect, because he had no regard for them even
as creatures, but " bated " them, a respectable writer proceeds as follows :
" Some hope to get over the difficulty by placing the decree of redemp
tion before the decree of election. They conceive that God first deter
mined to give his Son a ransom for the whole human race, and then, fore
seeing that none would accept the offer if left to themselves, he elected a
certain number, on whom he determined to bestow the gift of faith. To
this theory I object the following things. (1) That there is no succes
sion in the divine decrees, but God wills all things by one most compre
hensive and perfect purpose. (2) Admitting an order in the divine de
crees, this order is preposterous ; because it supposes God to determine
upon a most important and costly means before he had proposed any par
ticular end to be accomplished by it. Or if he designed the salvation of
the whole world in giving Christ a ransom for them, his purpose was not
accomplished. (3) It furnishes no sufficient motive to produce such a

332 EXTENT OF THE ATONEMENT. [PART II.
grand event. (4) Or if it be alleged that the love which was so exceed
ingly great had all men for its object, why, after doing so much for their
salvation, did it become ineffective, and leave so many of them to perish
forever ? — How can the reprobation of a part be reconciled with love
so great ? "
It is agreed on all hands, that there is no order of time in the divine
mind ; but whether there is not in the divine decrees what is cabed the
order of nature is another question. It either is so or it is not. Let us
suppose that it is not. Then it was the " comprehensive purpose " of
God to do just as he has* done, — to save the elect from sin and death
through a Mediator, and to send the non-elect to heb for rejecting a Me
diator provided for them as moral agents. And what is gained by this
resort ? Let us now take the other supposition, viz., that there is an
order of nature in the divine decrees. And here I will pause to show
that this is certainly the case. First, there is an order in things. Hob-
ness in creatures is before reward, sin is before punishment, ruin is before
the work of a Redeemer. Secondly, there is order in the divine acts.
God imparts holiness before he rewards ; he suffers men to sin before he
punishes or pardons ; he left man to fall before he sent a Redeemer. If
the acts did not follow each other in this order they would not be suita
ble, and some of them would not be just. On the scale of creatures they
succeed each other in the order of time ; and even to God they must fol
low each other in the order of nature, or they would not appear to him
suitable and just. Thirdly, if the acts of God, even as contemplated by
himself, follow each other in the order of nature, so must his purposes.
These must take the same order or they would not be wise, and some of
them would not be just. His purpose to make men holy is in the order
of nature before his purpose to reward ; his purpose to leave man to fall
is in the same order before his design to punish or pardon, or to provide
a Saviour. There is one thing more to be settled before I draw the conclusion.
God's decrees concerning moral agents must be distinguished from his
decrees about passive recipients. We have seen that the purposes of
the Moral Governor and those of the sovereign efficient cause must not
be confounded. Now whether the decree of the sovereign efficient cause
about abandoning the non-elect was before or after the decree respect
ing the fall of man or the atonement, it is not at all necessary to inquire.
Allowing it to have been before both, and the non-elect as passive recip
ients to have been abandoned by a purpose prior to all others, yet as
moral agents they still had in them a foundation to support the privilege
of an atonement. These two characters both in God and man are so
independent of each other, that a decree of the sovereign efficient cause

CHAP. XVII.] ORDER OF DIVINE DECREES. 333
about the passive could not prevent the Moral Governor from proceed
ing to provide a privilege for the same creatures as moral agents, nor
from expressing in that provision the unfeigned benevolence of the divine
mind. Now when we inquire about the order of decrees on such a sub
ject as this, we must confine ourselves to the decrees of the Moral Gov
ernor ; and a decree of the Moral Governor about making a creature
miserable is only a decree about his punishment. The question then is,
whether the Moral Governor decreed to punish men for rejecting a Sa
viour before he decreed to provide a Saviour. The question answers
itself. The Moral Governor had nothing to. do with men as elect and
non-elect, but merely as moral agents, and in reference to his final treat
ment of them as bebevers and unbelievers. And his decree to punish
any for rejecting a Saviour must be founded on his foreknowledge that
they would thus reject. This was all the decree that the Moral Gov
ernor could pass respecting the misery of those who were to hear the
gospel. This distinction between the two characters of God, founded on the
two independent characters of men, would have prevented all the disputes
between the Supralapsarians and Sublapsarians. The former, had not
the two characters been confounded, could not have held that the non-
elect were created merely to glorify justice. The rights of justice belong
to the Moral Governor, whose motives are to be separated from every
question relative to regeneration, and who must be considered as directly
aiming at the happiness of those whom his measures are calculated to
serve. The principal mistake of the above extract bes in supposing that the
merciful treatment of agents by itseff was no object or motive with God,
and no expression or dictate of benevolence. Allow this to have been
an object with him, and there was motive enough to induce him to pro
vide a privilege for those as agents whom as passive he had abandoned.
AUow this to be a dictate and expression of benevolence, and a provision
for agents could be prompted by philanthropy without being accompanied
by electing love. If the Moral Governor chose to express the general
benevolence of the divine mind towards certain objects, it did not follow
that the sovereign efficient cause must sanctify them.
It is of no consequence, therefore, whether the decree of election or
that respecting the atonement had the priority, because they were decrees
of God in two distinct and independent characters.
The fact, however, appears to be, that the decree of the sovereign
efficient cause respecting a division of character (which was in reabty
the decree of election and non-election) was subsequent in the order of
nature to his decree respecting the fall of man, and to the decree of the

334 EXTENT OF THE ATONEMENT. [PART II-
Moral Governor respecting the atonement. No distinction was decreed
in the character of men in relation to the fall : all fell. The division of
character was ordained to be subsequent to this, and subsequent, as I
shall now show, to the provision of a Saviour. When men were all
fallen, and doomed to the curse of eternal abandonment, not one of them
could receive the Spirit but through a Mediator. Not one of them,
therefore, could be elected to " be holy " (Eph. 1 : 4) until a Saviour was
decreed. Accordingly, the earliest account which we have of election is,
that the objects were chosen in Christ: "Chosen — in him before the
foundation of the world ; — predestinated — unto the adoption of children
by Jesus Christ." God hath " called us with a holy calling, — accord
ing to his own purpose and grace which was given us in Christ Jesus
before the world began." " According to the eternal purpose which he
purposed in Christ Jesus." " Whom he did foreknow, be also did pre
destinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the
¦ First-born among many brethren." Rom. 8 : 29. Eph. 1 : 4, 5. 3 : 11.
2 Tim. 1 : 9.
This order in God's decrees, however, does not imply that he had not
before him the whole plan anterior to the commencement of the order, or
that he decided one part without reference to another. For instance, he
saw that he could glorify his justice in punishment, and his grace in the
work of redemption, before be decreed to suffer the fall of man, and be
passed this decree with his eye fixed on the measures which he might
subsequently adopt. And yet he could not absolutely decree to punish or
to pardon till he had first determined to permit sin.
The order, then, seems to have been this. The sovereign efficient
cause resolved to permit the fall of man : the Moral Governor next de
creed a provision for the whole human race : the sovereign efficient
cause then decided how many on the one hand he would incline to
believe, and on the other, not how many he would make sinners, but
how many creatures who bad forfeited every divine influence he would
let alone.
This being what we consider the fact, we are not pleased with the
term reprobate, because it seems to imply that some were excluded from
a chance of salvation by the limited provision of the Moral Governor, if
not from holiness by the positive act of the sovereign efficient cause.
We prefer the term non-elect, because this leaves it to be supposed, that,
after being provided for, they were left to themselves.

CHAP. XVIII.] COVENANT OF REDEMPTION. S35

CHAPTER XVIII.
COVENANT OF REDEMPTION.
We have discovered that " the joy — set before " the Redeemer con
sisted of three parts, the establishment of a new relation for a world of
moral agents, an absolute salvation for the elect, and the administration
of the government of the universe. These, then, were the three parts of
the reward promised him in the covenant of redemption.
From whichever person the first proposition is conceived to have
come, the surrender and accord of the Son must have been substantially
as follows. From regard to thy law and the human race, I will become
incarnate and die, to place salvation within the reach of all who hear the
gospel ; and in return I ask for them a state of probation and a general
offer of mercy. This I am willing to grant them because I love them
aU, and wish to manifest this love to the universe. But as they will not
bow unless subdued, I claim a right to sanctify a certain number. I
expect also the government of the universe, that I may display thy
glory in the merciful treatment of a world of moral agents, and in the
salvation of my elect. These three parts are my reward.
This is altogether different from the offering of the pearl as an abso
lute price for a part, and in no sense for the rest. It is offering nothing.
It is only agreeing to offer, and stipulating about the reward. The
distinction between this private covenant and the public transaction
which constituted the whole atonement may be illustrated thus. A
regiment revolts. The colonel publicly offers to die for the mutineers,
not to shield them in rebellion, not to save them from punishment
whether they return to duty or not, but to give them an opportunity to
return and live. This privilege is obtained for the whole regiment, but
extends no further. For though the life of the officer was worth that of
all the men in ten revolted regiments, and might have answered for
them all if expressly offered for so many, yet as it was not, its influence
was limited to one. This was all that constitued atonement in the case.
Now upon this transaction ingraft another. Suppose the general has
power to change the hearts of the rebels. To gratify the benevolence of
the generous victim, he secretly engages to bring one half to accept the
offered pardon. This was an essential part of the motive which
induced the substitute to die. Sincere benevolence to the whole, and a
wish to support a vigorous and benign government, were other parts.
But if it be asked for whom atonement was made, the answer is, for the
whole revolted regiment.

336 EXTENT OF THE ATONEMENT. [PART H.
CHAPTER XIX.
OUR WHOLE MEANING AT ONE VIEW.
What do we mean by for when we say that the atonement was for
all ? Not that it was for them considered merely as sentient ; in other
words, not that it was the secret purpose of God to make them all happy
by the provision through an operation on them as passive ; but that it was
for aU as moral agents. When we say that it was for aU as moral
agents, we mean four things. (1) That in its actual influence it changed
the relations which all as moral agents sustained to the divine law.
(2) That it thus became, in relation to all who hear the gospel, a pro
vision for moral agents, and a real privilege. (3) That the provision
and privilege were purposely intended for all. (4) That the atone
ment was expressly offered for all.
(1) In its actual influence it changed the relations which aU as moral
agents sustained to the divine law. It removed the curse of abandon
ment which all as agents had incurred, and it rendered their pardon
consistent with the honor of the law on supposition that they should hear
the gospel and believe. It was this change of relation which laid the
foundation for a fair offer of pardon to all, and for a reasonable com
mand to all to make the benefit their own.*
(2) By this means the atonement became, in relation to aU who hear
the gospel, a provision for moral agents. The whole benefit is offered
to them, and as far as can be done before they have performed their
part, is actually made over to them by covenant, and they are com
manded to receive it. This done, it is a complete provision for them as
moral agents. It places pardon so within their reach that they can
possess it by only doing their duty, no natural impossibility lying in the
way, and nothing but a bad temper, for which they are wholly to blame.
Just as the provision now is, and not as it would have been had it been
foreseen that they would believe, they are capable of bving by it if well
disposed, and are bound to live by it, and cannot lose it without wick-
* This explanation shows how wide from the mark the objection is which is de
rived from tho nations who never heard the gospel. Because the relations of all men
were thus changed, it did not follow that the gospel must be preached to all. Much
like this is the objection, that when Christ died many were in hell. So when he died
many were in heaven ; and according to this objection he could not atone for them,
nor was their salvation founded on his death. But the fact is, that he virtually died
the day that Adam fell, and every thing proceeded as though this had actually been
the case.

CHAP. XIX.] THE WHOLE AT ONE VIEW. 337
•
edly throwing it away. And it is charged against them in the accounts
of a moral government as an atonement for them ; and those who fail to
make it finally their own will be eternally punished for that greatest of
all sins. Thus they are brought into a salvable state, and fairly put
upon probation.
Now this is all that can be meant by its being a provision for moral
agents. If more is meant it respects men, not as agents, but as passive
recipients. If I say that sanctification was provided for men, I speak
of a provision for them as passive. If I say that absolute salvation
was provided for the elect, I speak of something prepared for them as
agents, and something procured for them as recipients. But if I speak
of a mere provision for agents, I mean a provision which is to benefit
them upon their acting the part of agents towards it, and the effect of
which is suspended on their own conduct. A provision for moral agents
as such, cannot be otherwise than conditional in this sense.
Now a provision which thus affects all men may be said to be for all,
in the same sense as a law is for those who refuse to obey it, or as
Bibles and Sabbaths are for those who abuse them, or as an estate is
for a prodigal son who forfeits or squanders the inheritance. It gives
all a fair chance to live ; a fab- chance being where a blessing is so
brought within the reach of an agent that he can enjoy it by doing his
duty. It is to all a complete privilege; privileges being only means
of happiness, which men are under obligations to improve for their good.
The privilege of an atonement is as completely brought to all, as any
advantage was ever brought to a man which he wickedly threw away.
It is as perfectly in their hands as any privilege was ever in the hands
of a man which he failed to improve. The whole advantage of an
atonement, as far as depends on God, is as much in the hands of one as
another, bating the single circumstance of the gift of faith ; and that has
nothing to do with the subject, for we are speaking of men, not as
recipients of faith, but as creatures bound to believe. It could not have
been for them as moral agents in a higher sense ; for if a higher sense
is add,ed, it respects them, not as agents, but as passive receivers, or at
most as sentient
(3) This influence upon all was not incidental, but purposely intended. '
It was the deliberate design of the Moral Governor to put the privilege
into the hands- of all, from the purest benevolence, and (as it must be ex
pressed in the dialect of a moral government) with a sincere aim at their
good, as well as to manifest his mercy to the universe.
(4) The great question remaining is, how came the atonement to have
such an influence upon all ? Through its sufficiency, say our brethren :
and some of them illustrate that sufficiency by the value of a pearl ex-
29

338 EXTENT OF THE ATONEMENT. [PART II.
•
pressly not offered for a part But we allege that it must have been
expressly offered for all as moral agents to obtain such an influence.
But when we say that it was expressly offered for all as moral agents,
we allude solely to the purpose declared in the public instrument. We
mean, that, in the public explanation accompanying the atonement, it was
stated to be for the benefit of all as moral agents, that is, for the use of all
indiscriminately who as agents would believe.
These four particulars comprehend our whole meaning, and, if admit
ted, plainly make out an atonement for all as moral agents.
And when we have gained this point, we take off all restraint and say
plainly that it was for all ; because in its proper influence it was for none
but moral agents. It spent all its force upon their relations, and even to
Paul was no more than a provision for a moral agent. And when we
have made out that it was expressly offered for aU in public, we throw
away all qualifying terms, and say unlimitedly that it was expressly
offered for all ; because in private it was not offered for any. The secret
covenant between the sacred persons merely regulated Christ's reward.
It was not this, but the public explanation, which gave to his death that
bearing upon public law which was necessary to render the elect them
selves pardonable. In the latter, then, we must look for the express
purpose. And when we turn our eye towards the public instrument, we
find the sacrifice offered for none but moral agents, and for all indiscrim
inately, subject to a conditional appbcation.
On the question whether the atonement was equally for aU, and in
what sense it was not ; when we speak of the secret purpose and motive
of the divine mind, and speak of man as a whole, we cannot say that it
was as much intended for Simon Magus as for Paul. But when we
would express the proper influence and tendency of the measure itself,
we 'must speak of men as moral agents only, and then we must pronounce
it as much for one as another. Its influence upon all was equal. It re
moved the curse of abandonment from Simon as much as from Paul, and
rendered one as pardonable, on the supposition of his faith, as the other.
And this is all that it did for either. As a privilege it was equally de
signed for both by the Moral Governor, and was, in itself considered, an
equal expression of benevolence to both ; and when we use the popular
dialect of a moral government, we must say unqualifiedly that it was
designed for both alike. And certainly in the express purpose, as it ap
pears in the public instrument, there is no discrimination, no bint of any
such distinction as elect and non-elect. " God so loved the world that
he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should
not perish." This is all we mean.

CHAP. XX.] HUMAN AGENCY OVERLOOKED. 339
CHAPTER XX.
THE BOTTOM OF THE MISTAKE LIES IN OVERLOOKING HUMAN AGENCY.
In all the views which our brethren take of the non-elect in relation
to this question, they overlook their existence as moral agents, and affirm
the same things of them as might be affirmed if they were passive blocks
under the hands of the engraver. This is the principal source of the
whole mistake. That it is so will appear from the fohowing aspects of
their system.
(1) When there is an atonement which is a complete provision for
the non-elect as moral agents (one which changed their relations to the
divine law, and placed pardon so within their reach that they can enjoy
it only by doing their duty, and ought to make it their own, and are
commanded to do it, and are punished for not doing it) ; still they say it
was not for them, because it was not the purpose of God to dispose them
to accept it by an operation on them as passive. This is entirely bury
ing up the moral agent, and leaving nothing in the man for an atonement
to respect when the receiver of impressions is taken away. Further,
when there is an atonement which spent all its force on the relations of
moral agents, and is nothing but a provision for men in that character,
still they say it was not for this part of the race, though they allow that
it affected them in every way in which it could affect mere moral agents.
That which is nothing but a provision for moral agents, and is allowed
to have been such to Simon Magus, was not for Simon Magus, because
he was not constrained to accept it by an influence on him as passive.
This is burying up his agency to purpose. Further, an atonement which
was expressly offered in public for this part of the race as moral agents,
was still not for them (though it bound them to live by it, and had thus
all the attributes of a provision for them as moral agents), and we must
go in search of some unknown offering made in secret for men in another
character. Thus the pearl was not offered for the nine hundred, though
it bound them to come out, and therefore, unless the bond was unjustly
imposed, was a provision for them as moral agents, and, of course, must
have been offered for them as such. If, in contemplating their rights as
agents, the principle was fixed between the offerer and receiver that they
should not be stopped if they attempted to come out, and this right was
announced and made over to them by promise, then the pearl was offered
and accepted for them as moral agents : and yet it was not offered for
them, as though a moral agent amounted to nothing.

340 EXTENT OF THE ATONEMENT. [PART n.
In some of the arguments on the other side it is even assumed that
there is no such thing as a provision for moral agents. They reason
thus : if God foresees that men will reject the provision he will not make
it ; and if he makes it he will not suffer them to reject it. A prudent
physician, say they, would not prepare a medicine for those who he fore
saw would refuse it, nor suffer those for whom it was prepared to cast it
away if he could alter then* minds.* Then there is no such thing as a
provision for moral agents. Or, rather, the very existence of moral
agents is overlooked in such reasonings as this.
(2) It is a fundamental principle of the system, that men without the
Spirit have no power to believe, that is, no capacity which can be called
a natural abibty. Then, indeed, without the Spirit they are not moral
agents, for capacity, we have seen, is the very foundation of moral
agency. Accordingly, some have the consistency to deny that there is in
natural men a proper basis of obligation without resorting to Adam. In
general, they will not admit the natural possibility of the non-elect's be
beving, nor even allow us to make the supposition of such an event
From not perceiving that then* capacity is a fuU foundation for the pro
vision of privileges, just as though it was certain they would improve
them, and enough to justify the expression that they can improve them,
they are unable to see that the non-elect bear any more relation to an
atonement brought to their door and offered to them, than masses of in
animate matter ; and often ask, of what avail such a provision without
the gift of faith ? Just as they would ask, of what avail a provision for
the dead ? Of course, they will not allow that it gives them a fair chance
to live, or is to them a complete privilege, though chances (thus actively
considered) and privileges are predicable only of moral agents. Its
being for them as moral agents is a fact of great magnitude and impor
tance, but this is wholly sunk.
(3) They cannot see that the atonement expressed the least benevo
lence to the non-elect, any more than if it had suspended pardon on their
possessing the intellect of a Locke or the strength of a Hercules. They
do not see that the natural powers of men in such a case constitute a
foundation for treatment by which benevolence can be expressed, no less
than if pardon was suspended on their stretching out the hand. And this
leads to the conclusion, that nothing which God can do for those who re
main unsanctified, can indicate benevolence towards them. And the next
step is to affirm, that be has no benevolence towards them, not even a
" general affection to them as creatures." And then he could have no
motive to make the provision for them, and it could not be designed for
* Delegates from Dront in the Synod of Dort. — Acts of Synod, Part III. p. 207.

CHAP. XX.] HUMAN AGENCY OVERLOOKED. 341
them, but must have fallen out a provision for them in some incidental
way, though fastened upon them severally as such by express law. In
short, moral agents are such absolute non-entities, that God could have
no motive to make a provision for them as such ; and, therefore, to place
the decree respecting the atonement before that of election is to charge
him with resolving on a costly measure without a motive.
(4) This total sinking of moral agency appears in their placing a lim
ited atonement on a level with non-election, both as to the possibibty of
pardon and the sincerity of the offer.
First, as to the possibility of pardon. In answer to the objection, " If
Christ died not for me I cannot be saved, because there is no atonement
for me," it is said, " Any objection of this sort — is more directly levelled
at the doctrine of particular election, than at that of particular redemp
tion." " The decree of election and reprobation most certainly fixes the
event of the salvation or damnation of every individual of the human
race. And what advantage is gained by supposing that Christ has made
an atonement for those whose eternal destiny to destruction is immutably
fixed ? Wherein has this scheme the advantage over the one which we
advocate ? "
If men were blocks, a decree not to impart bfe to them would leave
them in the same condition as a neglect to make a provision for their use
on the supposition of their living. And if non-election placed men where
a limited atonement would have done, it is because they are as powerless
as blocks. No man for a moment could have supposed the two cases
parallel without forgetting that the non-elect possess a capacity to believe.
The certainty that they will perish is indeed the same on either plan ;
and so it is on the bare supposition of foreknowledge. But here lies the
difference. Upon this scheme men are debarred independently of their
own act ; upon ours their own rejection of the gospel is the ground of
their exclusion. On one supposition the acceptance of the benefit is a
natural impossibility, because no benefit was provided for them ; on the
' other, it is perfectly easy for them to live, if only well disposed. This
difference could not have been overlooked had not the existence of crea
ture agency been buried from view. And the existence of that makes all
the difference between a righteous moral government and fate. That
certainty which involves the spontaneity of creatures is consistent with
freedom and the government of a just God ; that certainty which is inde
pendent of their voluntary action is fate, as despotic as ever the Stoics
feigned. Secondly, as to the sincerity of the offer. " The same objection," it is
said, " may be made to the sincerity of offering salvation to those whom
God in the decree of election has passed by, as to those who are not in-
29*

342 EXTENT OF THE ATONEMENT. [PART H.
eluded in the decree of redemption." Nothing could render the offer
insincere but a natural impossibibty in the way of accepting it. This
would ; as the offer of escape to a prisoner on condition of his decipher
ing a scrawl which really had no meaning, would only be sporting with
his misery. Insincerity placed in any thing else, would render aU the
offers of an omniscient God even to the elect insincere, unless simultane
ously accompanied by an influence to constrain their acceptance. Now,
if a decree to withhold the Spirit rendered it as naturaUy impossible for
the non-elect to accept the offer as the want of an atonement-would have
done, it is because without the Spirit they are as powerless as statues.
All that in creatures which supports the whole fabric of a moral govern
ment is entirely overlooked in such reasonings as this.
(5) The same thing appears in the confounding of elect and non-elect
with bebevers and unbelievers, and all these with capable agents. The
atonement was not for Simon Magus as a capable agent, because it was
not for him as an unbeliever, and therefore he was excluded as non-elect ;
annihilating thus the capable agent, and making him as passive in his
unbelief as in his non-election. If unbelief had been as essential to him
and as passively received as complexion, this would have been right.
For had the atonement not been offered for people of his color, you might
have said with truth that it was not for Simon as a man, because it was
not for a person of such a hue, and that therefore be was excluded as one
predestined to that complexion. But to reason thus about his unbelief
is to reduce him from an accountable being to a passive tablet, and the
moral government over him to inexorable fate.
In like manner they make it the same thing for an atonement to be for
Paul as a believer and for Paul as elect ; and because they understand
it to have been for him absolutely as elect, they say it was for him abso
lutely as a believer. But this, unless his own act in bebeving is reduced
to nothing, is saying that it was for him absolutely on the condition of his
faith. But they exclude the condition, and thereby reduce his own act
to nothing. It might have been absolutely for one as a white man, be
cause he has no agency in forming his own complexion ; but to say that
it was absolutely for Paul as a believer is to annihilate the moral agent,
and leave nothing but the passive receiver of faith.
(6) The same thing appears in the opposition which is made to the
dialect of a moral government, as savoring too much of legality for the
reign of grace and the Spirit ; though it is the only language in which
the duties, rights, and relations of moral agents can be expressed. This
may be exemplified in the mark of proscription set upon condition and
probation. The things denoted by these terms, we have seen, must
accompany moral agents, the one until they are fixed in happiness or

CHAP. XXI.] IMPORTANCE OF CORRECT LANGUAGE. 343
misery, the other as long as their existence remains ; and nothing but
the habit of burying from view this character of men seems sufficient to
account for the opposition made to the terms. This cause comes out
more fully in some of their reasonings about the things. " If he died for
them only on some condition, then if that condition never takes place he
did not die for them." What more could be said if they were stocks ?
On this principle nothing can be done for mere moral agents more than
for clods, and their rational powers, separate from the Spirit, are no
proper basis to support the measures of a moral government. Nothing
can be done for a clod that is not done for it as passive, because it is
nothing but passive. And this reasoning assumes, that nothing can be
done for a man unless it is made effectual by an operation on him as
passive ; thus sinking his active nature altogether.
It is not difficult to see by what habits of thinking great and good
men have fallen into this mistake. They have fixed their eyes so
steadily on secret decrees and the passiveness of men, and pondered so
much on faith as " the gift of God," and so little on faith as the duty and
act of the creature, that they have lost sight of moral agents and a moral
government. In particular, the idea of reprobation has so fastened
itseff upon their minds, that they have been unable to ascribe to God in
any character a serious aim to provide the means of salvation for the
non-elect In this way they have lost those discoveries of divine be
nevolence which are made in the treatment of agents by itself. But let
them turn their eye full upon the rational faculties of man, and famil
iarize to their minds the operations of God in that independent character
in which he stands related to moral agents, and they wiU find a new
world opened to then* view, and will see that one very interesting part
of the divine manifestations has been lost. And then they will easily
admit the views of a moral government which their brethren entertain,
without renouncing election and special grace, and will find nothing in a
general atonement to weaken the security of believers or the special
love of God to the elect. And if any thing is gained by these views, it
is certain that nothing will be lost.

CHAPTER XXI.
THE IMPORTANCE OF CORRECT LANGUAGE ON THE SUBJECT.
If the atonement was for all men as moral agents, it is proper to say
unbmitedly that it was for all. Whatever is true of the moral agent,

344 EXTENT OF THE ATONEMENT. [PART II.
may be affirmed unqualifiedly of the man. Whatever is predicable of a
person either in his active or passive character, we affirm unbmitedly of
that individual, leaving it to the predicate to determine whether it
respects him as an agent or a recipient. Thus we say of the man, that
he is under obligations, that he enjoys privileges, that he is good or bad,
that he is entitled to reward or punishment ; all which is true of him as
an agent. Thus we say of the man that he was elected or not elected,
that he has been regenerated or not regenerated ; all which is true of him
as a recipient In bke manner we say of a man that he is wise, of a
woman that she is beautiful, of a house that it is white or that it is
capacious ; leaving it to be gathered from the predicates whether the
former attributes belong to the body. or mind, and whether the latter
appertain to the covering or the interior of the building. If, then, the
atonement is for aU men as moral agents, it is proper to affirm without
bmitation that it is for all. And if it is right to assert unqualifiedly of
men what is true of them as moral agents, it is proper to affirm un
bmitedly of God what is true of him as Moral Governor, leaving it to
the predicates to determine in what character they respect him. And
this is the way in which he is spoken of throughout his word.
In this way we must speak, or depart from the estabbshed use of
language, and either utter an implied falsehood, or fab into tautology.
The atonement was a measure as exclusively adapted to agents as law
itself. Try, then, the principle by the case of a law. We say un
qualifiedly, that such a law was made for the people of the United States.
That is correct But if, in reference to their double character, we say
that it was made for them in a certain sense, we utter an impbed false
hood, for it was made for them as completely as a law could be made
for any people. If we say it was made for them as agents, we use
tautology (such as I have been obliged to use through this whole
treatise), for no law can be made for men in any other character. But
when a law or an atonement is made for men as agents, to say unquali
fiedly that it was not made for them, because they are not prevented
from abusing it by another power operating upon them as passive, is
something more than an impbed falsehood, it is expressly untrue. The
same when we speak of the design of God. To say that he did not
design his law for Ahab, because he did not intend by sanctifying
influence to render it an ultimate blessing to him, is manifestly false.
And it is the same when we say that he did not design the atonement
for Ananias and Sapphira.
That language should be employed which expresses the truth on the
subject. If God has provided an atonement for all, we ought to say so,

CHAP. XXI ] IMPORTANCE OF CORRECT LANGUAGE. 345
that he may have the glory, and that men may know their privileges
and their hopes.
So far as the dispute is verbal, a phraseology ought not to be adhered
to which does not express the truth. And how far it is verbal is a
question of some importance. Now our brethren in detail admit all that
we ask. This they do as often as they say that Christ ' died " that
whosoever bebeveth in him should not perish ; " and as often as they
abow that all may enjoy the benefit by believing, and are bound to
make it then* own. And yet when they come to general propositions,
they contradict the one which we support, and distinctly say that the
atonement was not for alL This is because they do not attach to the
general proposition the same meaning that we do. And the reason of
this is, they are not agreed with us as to the character in which men are .
to be spoken of in this matter. We contend that they ought to be
spoken of as moral agents ; they speak of them continuaUy as passive
receivers. In general, they do not mean to deny what really is meant
by the atonement's being for all as moral agents, but they so annihilate
agents as to make no account of this. When, therefore, we say that it
was for Simon Magus (meaning that it was for him as a capable agent),
they, though they allow what we mean, refuse to use our language, and
say decidedly that it was not for him, because they overlook his agency,
and speak of him as merely sentient and passive. The proposition that
it was for him has a different meaning with them from what it has with
us, because they see him not as an agent. And if they could see him as
an agent, so as to attach the same meaning to the proposition that we do,
they would not deny it. So far the dispute is verbal. But the mistake
bes deeper than words, and consists in overlooking the natural ability of
man. This is the bottom of the difficulty. Though therefore there is
much logomachy in the contest, yet if we are right our brethren labor
under a real mistake. On a subject where they ought to speak of men
exclusively as moral agents, they constantly reason about them as though
they were passive tablets, no more capable of believing than the clods of
the valley. And when they refer to the purpose of God in this pro
vision, they constantly speak of him only as intending, or not intending,
to make impressions on passive recipients. This is plainly turnino- the
Moral Governor out of a transaction which was exclusively his own, and
transferring the whole business to the sovereign efficient cause. This
has been the grand mistake of Calvinists of the type of a part of the
Synod of Dort They have reasoned right against the Arminians about
election and regeneration, but on several points have plainly lost sight
of moral agents and a moral government. On the other hand, the
Arininians have had many correct ideas of a moral government, but

346 EXTENT OF THE ATONEMENT. [PART n.
have been as blind as Bartimeus to all the secrets of the other depart
ment. And "thus these two parties have gone on contending from age to
age, and after all both have been right — and both wrong.
This limiting phraseology, mean what it may (for it has different
meanings in different mouths), is far from being harmless. Whatever
latent reservations may lurk beneath it, on its face it carries a wrong
view of the nature of the atonement itself, making it an absolute provis
ion for a part, instead of a conditional provision for all. If it means to
deny that the provision was for all as agents, this is so incongruous
with the offer to all as agents, and the obligations laid upon aU as agents
to live by it, and the punishment of all as agents who reject it, that, in
spite of all explanations, it amounts, though unintentionally, to an
impeachment of the sincerity and justice of God. If, without asserting
any thing concerning agents, it only buries them from view, even then,
by leaving no sense in which the atonement could respect the non-elect,
it carries men to the frightful length of denying that it was any expres
sion of benevolence to this part of the race, or even that God has any
benevolence towards them, or so much as a " general affection to them
as creatures." And this takes from them all reasons for gratitude, ex
cept what is founded in ignorance of their destiny, and leads all men to
doubt, in proportion as they hesitate about their own election, whether
they have any cause to thank God for their existence, or for one of all
his mercies. If it distinctly admits what is meant by an atonement for
all as agents, and yet persists in affirming that it was not for all, it ex
actly annihilates moral agents, and that capacity on which human obb
gations rest, and the basis which supports the whole fabric of a moral gov
ernment. This is the greatest objection of all. And to make even this
more intense, the phraseology in question propagates an error so disas
trous. By means of this, the plain portable position that Christ did not
die for all, is carried through the world, and calls to its support all those
reasonings and forms of speech which conceal the foundation of human
obbgations, and cast obscurity over all the relations and principles of a
moral government. The world need a right phraseology on this sub
ject, to familiarize to their minds their own distinct and complete agency,
their obligations, guilt, and privileges,, and the claims and mercies of
God. But the dialect in question carries in it a systematic concealment
of human agency and God's direct claims upon mankind, and is not un
like what the sinner himself employs, when, filling his eye with the
divine decrees, he takes shelter in the plea that he is a machine. With
the better part it does not lead to a denial of the desert of punishment^
but it obscures their personal responsibility, and sends them back to
Adam to make out what otherwise would seem an insufficient ground of

CHAP. XXI.] IMPORTANCE OF CORRECT LANGUAGE. - 347
condemnation. It hides the direct and perfect claims which God has
upon rational creatures, willing or unwilling. To expose and urge these
claims direct is the best way to make sinners, and even Christians, feel
their obligations, privileges, and inexcusableness. It is the deadening
of this sense which makes stupidity.
A self-justifying race are sufficiently prone to plead that they are
machines, that God is a hard master requiring more than they are able
to perform, that they are not answerable for their impenitence and unbe
lief, that while the Spirit is withheld they have not a fair chance for
salvation, and enjoy no privileges, and are under no obligations to
Christ. And it deserves solemn consideration how far the incorrect lan
guage of good men on this subject has tended to confirm and propagate
a delusion so destructive to the souls of men.

PART III.
SCBIPTUBAL VIEW.

CHAPTER I.

PLAN OF THE ARGUMENT.

All that we have to prove from the Scriptures is, that the atonement,
where the gospel comes, is a provision for all as moral agents ; that in
order to become such, it changed the relations which all as moral agents
sustained to the divine law ; and that, to produce this effect, it was ex
pressly offered with such an intent.
That is a provision for a moral agent which be is capable of improv
ing for his good if web disposed, and is bound to improve. The obbga
tion cannot be imposed without the capacity. We have seen that no
bond, except by means of deception, can be laid on a man to accept a
privilege, which, from the foreknowledge that he would not improve it,
was not provided for him ; for that would be an obligation to perform an
impossibility. The capacity implies that the provision is made in such
a sense, that, just as it now is, he can actuaUy enjoy it by doing his duty.
Simon Magus, had Simon Magus bebeved (and as the thing was not a
natural impossibility we have a right to make the supposition), would
have found a provision ready for him, just as the purpose of the atone
ment then stood, or he had not a capacity to make it his own even by
bebeving ; for had he bebeved it would not have been his own. The
nine hundred prisoners, in the case of the pearl sufficient for one thou
sand but offered for one hundred, could not have come out bad they ac
cepted the offer. You say it was foreknown that they would not accept.
Be it so. Yet if the herald at the door had told them that they could
then come out by accepting, he would have uttered a falsehood ; for had
they attempted it they would have been stopped. It is in vain to say,
(848)

CHAP. I.] PLAN OF THE ARGUMENT. 349
" If you suppose one thing changed in a series established by infinite
wisdom, you ought to suppose a corresponding change in the whole sys
tem ; if you suppose that a non-elect man may bebeve, you should sup
pose at the same time that both the decree of election and redemption
correspond with this event, and then all difficulty will be removed." I
have nothing to do with that supposition. I am speaking of men as
moral agents, whose capacity and freedom are not impaired by any de
cree, and whose faith, be decrees what they may, we have a right to
speak of as possible. If we may not speak of them thus, what is their
capacity ? that of a block ; and nothing remains but perfect fatality.
And if we may speak thus of the non-elect (not as non-elect, but as moral
agents), then we may suppose, without reference to any decree, what
would happen in case they should believe. And now it is either true in
such a case that they would find a provision ready for them, just as the
purpose of atonement now stands, or else it is not true that they have a
capacity to use it for their benefit. If they cannot enjoy it without
changing a decree of God, as your supposition implies, the thing is a
natural impossibility. But if they would find a provision for them in
case they of their own accord should bebeve, then an atonement was
made for them in such a sense that they can enjoy it by doing their duty.
And that is a complete provision for them as moral agents.
And if the atonement is such a provision for them as moral agents, it
certainly changed their relations to the divine law, and from a state in
which they could not be pardoned on any terms, brought them into a con
dition in which their pardon is possible, and in which nothing stands in
the way but their own unbelief.
How the atonement came to have this influence on those who remain
unsanctified is another question. Some ascribe it to its sufficiency,
others to the express purpose for which it was offered. One thing is
certain. No sufficiency could- have produced this effect which should
have left their discharge impossible, even on the supposition of their
faith. It could not, therefore, be such a sufficiency as is ascribed to the
pearl, which, valuable enough to redeem one thousand, is offered and
accepted for one hundred, leaving it impossible for the rest to come out
even should they accept the insidious offer. It is not indeed necessary
to that sufficiency that there should have been a secret purpose to make
men " willing " by an operation on them as passive ; but it is necessary
that the sacrifice should have been understood to be offered and accepted
in such a sense for them, that, should they of their own accord believe,
they would be discharged. It must have been offered and accepted with
an express purpose of affecting., their relations exactly in this manner,
30

350 SCRIPTURAL VIEW. [PART III.
" that whosoever believeth — should not perish." That is, it must have
been expressly offered and accepted for them as moral agents.
These are the only points necessary to be supported, and the basis
which I shall place beneath them is the word of God.
I will begin at the concession of the Synod of Dort, that the non-elect
do not perish " for want of the sacrifice of Christ, — nor through its in
sufficiency, but by their own fault" This concession implies a provision
made for them in such a sense that they can enjoy it by doing their duty.
It implies a provision offered to them with the promise of pardon if they
will accept it, or how is their failure their own fault ? It implies a com
mand to believe, or how do they violate an obligation ? And the offer,
promise, and command imply that the atonement so changed their rela
tions as to render their pardon consistent with the honor of the law, if
they would believe. And this it could not have done without being ex
pressly offered for them as moral agents. After this manner I shall con
struct my argument. The whole may be comprised in the four following
propositions : —
I. In the offers and promises of the gospel, the benefit of the atone
ment is not only proposed, but actually given and made over to all as
moral agents, as far as it can be before they have performed their part.
II. The benefit of the atonement is so brought within the reach of all
who hear the gospel, that they are bound to make it their own, and can
enjoy it by only doing their duty.
HI. The atonement so changed the relations of all men to the divine
law, as to render their pardon consistent with the honor of the law in
case they hear the gospel and believe.
IV. The atonement was expressly offered and accepted for all as
moral agents.

CHAPTER II.
THE BENEFIT OF THE ATONEMENT MADE OVER TO ALL.
The first proposition is, that in the offers and promises of the gospel,
the benefit of the atonement is not only proposed, but actually given and
made over to all as moral agents, as far as it can be before they have
performed their part.*
* Our view of the grant differs from that of the Remonstrants in this. We say it
is all God can do for moral agents otherwise than as a reward ; they said it was all he
could do for men without destroying their freedom. Their error lay in denying special
grace in regeneration.

CHAP. II.] THE BENEFIT OFFERED TO ALL. 351
If pardon by the atonement is really offered to all, with a promise that
it shall be theirs if they do not cast it away, then (allowing the accept
ance not to be a natural impossibility but their duty), the whole benefit
is made over to them as moral agents, as fully as it can be before they
have performed their part. The complete privilege of an atonement is
theirs. And if this is the case, the matter is settled. There is no longer
any need of inquiring about the nature of the expiation, or the express
purpose for which it was offered : we find the privilege actually in the
hands of all. God himself guarantees that the nature of the satisfaction
was such as to warrant the universal grant, and that is enough for us.
The offer and promise certainly prove that the provision was for all as
Capable agents, or for all in such a sense that they can actually enjoy it
by doing their duty. And this is all we ask.
But an attempt is made to* account for the offer on the ground of the
sufficiency of the atonement, without supposing the provision in any sense
for all. " That may be sufficientvfor the ransom of one thousand prison
ers which in fact is paid for one hundred. Suppose the ransom price to
be a pearl of exceeding great value, much more than sufficient to redeem
aU the captives in prison : but the person paying it had it in view only
to redeem his own friends. This intention in the redeemer, and the ac
ceptance of the price by the authority which holds them in bondage, con
stitutes this pearl a ransom, and confines it to the number for whom it
was designed. But the pearl itself is sufficient to ransom all the rest of
the captives, if it bad been applied to their advantage. To carry on the
ibustration. Suppose that the person undertaking to redeem his friends
should say, ' I will have proclamation made in the prison, that every one
who will acknowledge me as his deliverer, and will subject himself to my
authority, may immediately come forth upon the footing of the ransom
which I have paid ; for none but my friends will accept these terms. The
remainder will prefer their prison to liberty, which can only be had by
submission to one whom they inveterately hate.' Now the person com
missioned to, carry these tidings to the prison would feel himself author
ized to proclaim deliverance to every one who was willing to accept the
terms, and use arguments and motives to induce them to submit : but the
event would be, that none would accept the offer but the real friends of
the redeemer. This he knew from the beginning ; and therefore he paid
the ransom for no others. Is there any thing insincere in this whole
transaction ? The messenger is not authorized to declare that the whole
are certainly ransomed, but that there is a ransom provided for every one
who will accept the terms."
Now this is as ingenious as it could be ; and all that is wanting to make
it a just representation is an agreement publicly made with the retainer

352 SCRIPTURAL VIEW. [PART IH.
of the prisoners, that if the nine hundred attempt to come out they shall
not be stopped. Then, whatever foreknowledge there might be of the
refusal of a part, there would be a ransom paid for all as capable agents.
But for want of this the representation does not agree with the gospel :
for that the Father has publicly engaged not to cast off any of the human
race who come to him, every reader of the Bible knows. For want of
this the representation disagrees with the gospel in a point which gives
the transaction the appearance of great unfairness. If the nine hundred
had attempted to come out they would certainly have been stopped, and
none the less for the value of the pearl. That value was only a blind,
and in no degree justified the offer. But for the advantage gained by a
deceptive appearance, the proclamation might as well have been made
without that sufficiency. Such a doctrine tends to make every one dis
trust the sincerity of the offer, and to say, as the unbebeving are too apt
to do, It does not mean me, and I shall not be accepted if I go. In all
this it differs from the gospel. Who will pretend to say that if Judas had
believed (and I hope enough has been said to justify the supposition), he
would have been rejected ? But if he had believed, you say, it would
have been foreknown, and the atonement would have been made for him.
And are you sure it would have been foreknown ? We have no other
idea of God's foreknowledge than that it is founded on his own purpose
to produce or permit. He therefore foreknew whether he should give
faith to Judas. But this possible action of which I am speaking would
not have been caused by God, nor have grown out of any purpose of bis.
How, then, should it have been foreknown ? No event is in fact unfore-
known ; because, beyond what is produced by the direct influence of God,
the universe is governed by motives, the tendency of which he perfectly
understands. But the possibility of the action under consideration did
not depend on the power of motives to influence the temper which that
sinner actually possessed. The temper itself was not necessary. It was
certain, but the certainty was not that physical necessity which rendered
a different issue naturally impossible. Had Judas felt as he ought, he
would have fallen under the control of motives in a way different from
what was ever calculated in heaven. Had he done as he ought, an event
would have taken place which was never foreseen. And had he felt and
done as he ought without the influence which God controlled (and his
obligations were independent of that), an event would have taken place,
which, so far as we can judge, could not have been foreseen. No such
event ever did or will occur : I only make these remarks to show how
independent of divine foreknowledge the natural possibility of action is.
Unnumbered actions, which God never foreknew, are still naturally pos
sible, or prescience reduces every thing to fate.

CHAP. II.] THE BENEFIT OFFERED TO ALL. 353
It is on this ground that God, in all his treatment of moral agents (ex
cept in the single instance of prophecy), proceeds just as though he Jiad
no foreknowledge. . The capacity of creatures to act, and of course the
natural possibility of their action, and their obligations, are independent
of prescience ; and the Moral Governor, founding his course on that ca
pacity and possibility, and on those .obligations, holds his way as though
nothing was foreseen.
In the case of the prisoners, you are reduced to this dilemma. Either
the offer of release to the nine hundred was made deceitfully, or on the
avowed principle of setting them free without a price paid for them. And
are you prepared to say that God has avowed the principle of offering to
the non-elect a pardon unfounded on the atonement ? that when he would
not discharge his own elect without exacting life for life, he has offered
to release others without an expiation ? The other alternative is chosen,
and God is set forth as offering the benefit of a ransom which has never
been paid, and tendering a deliverance which, if accepted, would be de
nied ; for it is truly said in the same paper, that " the death of Christ
must expiate our sins before any way can be opened " for pardon.
If prescience is to have any influence in such a matter, why do you
stop here ? It ought to carry you to a denial that the offer was designed
for the non-elect If foreknowledge prevented the atonement from
being made for them, foreknowledge would prevent the offer from being
intended for them. And some have actually gone to this length, and
affirmed that the offer is made only to the " thirsty " and those who
" will " come, and was not designed for those who it was foreseen would
not be thirsty or wibing.
This brings us to the proof that the offer and promise are indeed made
to all. Facts will not bear you out in saying that the offer is made only
to the elect, and falls on the ear of others incidentally, like a preacher
addressing a select society, heedless of the strangers who have mingled
with the crowd. No, the speaker calls those strangers by name, and
declares that he means them, and lays them individually under the most
solemn obligations to receive the message, and afterwards sends them all
to prison for rejecting it. Those who refused to come to the wedding
were the identical persons to whom the invitation had been expressly
sent ; and the wicked at last will be condemned for the rejection of cabs
made to them in particular. Prov. 1 : 24-31. Matt. 22 : 1-14.
Either the grant is so completely made to all and each as to- lay a
foundation on which faith with all its confidence (for it must not waver,
James 1 : 6) can rest its eternal and infinite concerns, or every act
which appropriates the gospel to one's self antecedent to the full assur-
30*

354 SCRIPTURAL VIEW". [PART III.
ance of hope, must be presumptuous. If the grant is made only to the
elect, no man has a right to rest bis own soul on the promise, until, from
his feelings towards the abstract gospel, be knows himself to be one of
the elect. And throughout his bfe, in proportion as he questions his
election, he must be perplexed with doubts about his right to take the
invitation to himself, and rest his soul on Christ. In all its appropri
ating acts, his faith can never exert its energies unrestrained, but must
be cramped and manacled with the unceasing apprehension that it has
no warrant to make the appropriation. Am I elected ? will be the
leading inquiry, instead of, What has God promised ?
I argue the same thing from the very nature of faith. This is a
belief either of a divine testimony or promise. But there is no testimony
that this, that, or the other man is elected ; the testimony respects the
public mission of Christ, and the method and conditions of salvation. So
far, then, as testimony is concerned, faith must exert all her attributes
independently of the question who is elected. And if there are any
personal concerns to transact with Christ, — if I am to receive him for
my Saviour, and not merely to regard him as a Saviour in general, I
must unreservedly receive him for my own on the authority given in
the pubbc dispensation of the gospel, without reference to the question
whether I am elected. If this is the nature of faith, then in that pubbc
dispensation the grant must be made to alL Turn now to the promise.
I cannot believe a promise to me, if there is none. I have no right to
believe that God will be "a rewarder" to me on any conditions, if
there is no promise to me. But it is the privilege and duty of all men,
without waiting for evidence of their election, to exercise this confidence,
which indeed is so essential a part of faith, that without it no man can
gain the favor of God. " Without faith it is impossible to please him,
for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a
rewarder [of the elect ? no, without distinction] of them that diligently
seek him." Heb. 11:6. This confidence, which certainly every man is
to exercise in relation to himself, and not merely in reference to others,
is thus made the very definition of faith itself. And it will appear in
another place, that every man is commanded upon pain of death to
believe. Every man, then, is laid under bonds to exercise unwavering
assurance that he himself shall be accepted, if he diligently seeks.
Whatever opinion he may form of his state and character, he must
believe this as firmly as his own existence. A doubt on this subject is
the very unbelief against which eternal plagues are denounced. The
grand effort of every sincere and enlightened seeker is to work his soul
up to this confidence, which would be dashed in a moment by a doubt

CHAP. II.] THE BENEFIT OFFERED TO ALL. 355
respecting the extension of the promise to him. This bond on every
man infallibly proves a conditional promise 'to every man on which his
confidence may rest.
And this has been the common opinion of the Calvinistic world.
It was the opinion of Calvin himself. In his Comment on Rom. 5 : 18,**
we find this declaration : " He makes this the common grace of all
because it is set before all, not because it is actually extended to all.
For though Christ suffered for the sins of the whole world, and by the
goodness of God is indiscriminately offered to aU, yet all do not embrace
him."* This was also the opinion of the Synod of Dort. " The promise of
the gospel is this, that whosoever believes in Christ crucified shall not
perish, but have everlasting life; which promise, together with the
command to repent and believe, ought without distinction and indis
criminately to be announced and proposed to all people and men to
whom God in his good pleasure sends the gospel." " As many as are
called by the gospel are called in earnest ; for in earnest and most truly
does God show in his word what is agreeable to him, namely, that the
called come to him. In earnest, likewise, he promises to all who come
to him and believe, rest to their souls and eternal life. And that many
who are called by the ministry of the gospel do not come and are not
converted, is not to be imputed as a fault to the gospel, nor to Christ
offered in the gospel, nor to God calling by the gospel, but to the called
themselves." f The delegates from Great Britain say, " There is no
mortal who may not truly and in earnest be called by the ministers of
the gospel to a participation of remission of sins and* eternal life through
this death of Christ. Nothing false or dissembling goes under the
gospel ; but whatever in it is offered or promised to men by jninisters is
in the same manner offered and promised to them by the author of the
gospel. — In this merit of Christ's death is founded the universal gospel
promise, according to which all who believe in Christ do actually obtain
remission of sins and eternal life. That this promise is universal, and
founded in the death of Christ, appears from Acts 10 : 43. Although,
therefore, this promise is not promulgated to all in every place and time,
it is of such a nature that it might truly be announced to all and each. —
The administration of grace in the church, where, according to this
promise of tfie gospel, salvation is offered to all, is enough to convict all
the impenitent and unbelieving that it was by their own fault, and
either through then- neglect or contempt of the gospel, that they per-

* Quoted in "Watts's "Works, vol. 6, p. 287.
t Acts of Synod, Part I. p. 289, 298.

356 SCRIPTURAL VIEW. [PART III.
ished and lost the offered benefit." * The delegates from Hesse say,
" The gospel is proclaimed indiscriminately to all, to the elect and repro
bate." f Matthias Martinius, one of the delegates from Bremen, says,
" The exercise of this love to man appears in the outward call to the
j elect and reprobate without distinction. — And, therefore, upon whatever
man we fall, to him we are the messengers and publishers of this salu
tary grace." J Henry Iselburg, another delegate from Bremen, says,'
" The remedy of sin and death, our Lord Jesus Christ, is proposed and
offered by the preaching of the gospel, not to certain persons only, or to
those alone who are to be saved, but to the elect and reprobate indis
criminately ; and all without distinction are invited to a participation or
fruition of it, and to eternal life thereby." § The Dutch professors say,
" It is not denied by the orthodox, that this ransom of Christ is to be
indiscriminately announced as such [as being sufficient to save all who
believe] to Christian people, and to whomsoever the gospel is preached,
and to be offered in the name of Christ, and that in earnest, and ac
cording to the counsel of the Father ; the hidden decisions of God
being in the mean time left to himself, who dispenses this grace, and
applies it as far as and to whomsoever he will." ||
Some members of the synod did indeed acknowledge that their own
practice was to present the officers of the gospel only to the thirsty and
penitent ; alleging that when they preached repentance to all it was not
preaching the gospel. What, not when, like John the Baptist, they
preached " repentance for the remission of sins ? " or, like the apostles,
said to the unregenerate multitude, " Repent and be converted that your
sins may be blotted out?" Mark 1 : 4. Acts 3: 19. But if they still
hesitate to present the gospel to the carnal, I will spread before them the
fallowing page. " Wisdom hath builded her house ; she hath hewn out
her seven, pillars, she bath killed her beasts, she hath mingled her wine,
she hath also furnished her table ; she bath sent forth her maidens, she
crietb upon the highest places of the city, Whoso is simple let him turn
in hither, and as for him that wanteth understanding, she saith to him,
Come eat of my bread and drink of the wine which I have mingled : for
sake the foolish and live, and go in the way of understanding." " Hear
the word of the Lord, ye rulers of Sodom ; give ear unto the law of our
God, ye people of Gomorrah. — Wash ye, make you clean, put away the
evil of your doings from before my eyes, cease to do evil, learn to do
well. — Though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as
snow ; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool." " We
* Acts of Synod, Part II. p. 101, 102. f Ibid. p. 114. i Ibid. p. 134, 135.
5 Ibid. p. 141. U Ibid. Part III. p. 122.

CHAP. II.] THE BENEFIT OFFERED TO ALL. 357
pray you in Christ's stead, be ye reconciled to God." But this is preach
ing repentance ; what then will you say of the next ? " Look unto me
and be ye saved, all the ends of the earth." Prov. 9 : 1-6. Is. 1 : 10-18.
45:22. 2 Cor. 5:"20.
That the call is extended to the non-elect is a fact expressly asserted
in so many words : " Many be called, but few chosen." Those who be
long to this class are invited when they are hardy enough to make light
of the invitation, and even to destroy the messengers who bring it.
" The kingdom of heaven is like unto a certain king which made a mar
riage for his son, and sent forth his servants to call them that were bid
den to the wedding, and they would not come. Again he sent forth
other servants, saying, tell them which are bidden, Behold, I have pre
pared my dinner, my oxen and my fatlings are killed, and all things are
ready, come unto the marriage. But they made light of it and went
their ways, one to his farm, another to his merchandise. And the rem
nant took his servants and entreated them spitefully and slew them.
But when the king heard thereof he was wroth, and he sent forth his
armies and destroyed those murderers and burnt up their city. Then
saith he to his servants, the wedding is ready, but they which were bid
den were not worthy : go ye therefore into the highways, and as many
as ye shall find bid to the marriage. So those servants went out into
the highways, and gathered together all as many as they found, both bad
and good, and the wedding was furnished with guests. And when the
king came in to see the guests, he saw there a man which had not on a
wedding garment. And he saith unto him, friend, how earnest thou in
hither not having a wedding garment ? And he was speechless. Then
said the king to the servants, bind him hand and foot, and take him
away and cast him into utter darkness ; there shall be weeping and
gnashing of teeth. For many are called, but few are chosen." Matt.
20 : 16. 22 : 2-14.
AU this was fulfilled in the invitations to the Jews, and in the com
mission to the apostles, " Go ye into aU the world and preach," not re
pentance only, but " the gospel to every creature. He that believeth
and is baptizad shall be saved, but he that bebeveth not shab be
damned." Mark 16: 15, 16.
The preachers of the Old Testament had made indiscriminate offers
of life to the Jews in the name of a Saviour to come. " To him give all
the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him
shab receive remission of sins." Christ himseff did the same. " He that
believeth on the Son hath everlasting life, and he that believeth not the
Son shall not see life." " Thus it behooved Christ to suffer, and to rise
from the dead the third day, and that repentance and remission of sins

358 SCRIPTURAL VIEW. [PART III.
should be preached in his name among all nations." To the " wretched
and miserable and poor and blind and naked," he said, " I counsel thee
to buy of me gold tried in a fire that thou mayst be rich, and white rai
ment that thou mayst be clothed." " Behold, I stand at the door and
knock ; if any man hear my voice and open the door, I will come in to
him and will .sup with him and he with me." " The Spirit and the bride
say, come ; and let him that heareth say, come ; and let him that is
athirst come ; and whosoever will let him take the water of life freely."
After the same manner the apostles preached. To a mixed assembly of
Jews and heathen, in the first gospel sermon ever preached in the place,
one of them said, " Be it known unto you therefore, men and brethren,
that through this man is preached unto you the forgiveness of sins ; and
by him all that believe are justified from all things from which ye could
not be justified by the law of Moses." Luke 24 : 47. John 3:36. 5 : 24.
Acts 10 : 43. 13 : 38, 39. Rev. 3 : 17, 18, 20. 22 : 17.
Thus the grant is actually made to all, laying a solid foundation for
their faith. By this important circumstance the non-elect are distin
guished from devils. The latter have no foundation for faith, because
there is no promise for them to believe. A God of truth has not un
barred their prison and assured them of mercy through his Son if they
will accept it. The promise and oath of God have not fallen on the ear
of hell. This vast difference lies between devils and non-elect men.
One have a stable foundation for their faith, — for a full assurance that
they shall be pardoned by Christ, if they will believe ; the other have no
foundation at all. One have an actual grant of pardon made to them as
moral agents, as far as it can be made before they have performed their
part ; the other are delivered over to gleamless despair. One can easily
make remission their own, if only well disposed ; the other could not be
discharged, if they were as holy as Gabriel. One will actually be par
doned if they believe, the decree of non-election notwithstanding ; the
other have nothing to believe but the sentence of eternal reprobation.
One hear it said, with an eye directly fixed on them, " Behold, I have
prepared my dinner, my oxen and my fatlings are killed, and all things
are ready, come unto the marriage ; " affirming in the plainest terms, the
provision was made for you ; the other are constantly hearing the sen
tence, " Depart, ye cursed." And yet, was no discrimination made be
tween non-elect men and devils in the provision for pardon ?

CHAP. III.] ALL BOUND TO MAKE THE BENEFIT THEIR OWN. 359

CHAPTER HJ.
ALL MEN BOUND TO MAKE THE BENEFIT THEIR OWN.
After all that has been said, if the benefit is offered to the non-elect
upon impossible conditions, it is still not provided for them as moral
agents, and the grant really amounts to nothing. This is the very
opening by which some who admit the universality of the grant elude
the force of this stupendous fact. It is impossible, say they, for the non-
elect to believe, because faith is " the gift of God ; '' and on this assump
tion they proceed to draw their conclusions, just as though the non-elect
were dead masses of matter. If this was the case, or if salvation had
been offered them upon any condition which they had not natural ability
to fulfil (for instance, on their possessing the strength of a Goliath or the
intellect of an Aristotle), then, indeed, the offer would not have proved a
provision for them as moral agents. But if the benefit bad been sus
pended on their stretching out the hand, it would have been easy for all
to see that it was provided for them as capable agents, though they
should have lost it by refusing to perform that act. Now if they do
possess a capacity which is a bond fide basis of obligation, and which
bears the same relation to the obligation to believe that muscular strength
would to the obbgation to extend an arm at the divine command ; if
they can be as reasonably required to do the one as the other, and as
reasonably punished for the neglect, without resting any part of their
obligation on Adam ; then a benefit which is suspended on their faith is
just as much provided for them as moral agents (or as creatures under
obligations), as though it had been suspended on their stretching out the
hand. And the only reason why it is not easy for us to realize this, is
the difficulty we find in apprehending that their natural powers are as
complete a basis of obligation in the one case as in the other. If it was
familiar to the mind, that a rational creature, separated from the Spirit,
is as perfectly and reasonably bound to believe on Christ as to extend
an arm at the divine command, every difficulty would vanish. We
should then see that the benefit of an atonement is as completely pro
vided for those who remain unsanctified, as the house which they are at
liberty to occupy, or the office which is suspended on their own choice.
It becomes, then, a question of vital importance, what relation unbe
bevers bear to faith in point of ability and obligation ; whether they are
to be viewed in this matter as impotent machines, or as men possessed
of ample natural powers and under reasonable bonds.

360 SCRIPTURAL VIEW. [PART IH.
This brings us to the second proposition in the plan of the argument,
which was, that the benefit of the atonement is so brought within the
reach of all who hear the gospel, that they are bound to make it then*
own, and can enjoy it by only doing their duty. Nothing is necessary to
support this proposition but the two following facts : —
(1) The faith on which the benefit is suspended is required of all.
Of every man that " charity " is demanded which " believeth all things."
And many texts might be quoted bke the following : " This is his com
mandment, that we should believe on the name of his Son Jesus Christ"
To the unbelieving Jews who afterwards died in their sins, such injunc
tions as these were addressed : " Repent ye, and believe the gospel."
" Though ye believe not me, believe the works." " While ye have the
light, believe in the light." " This is the work of God, that ye bebeve
on him whom he hath sent." Mark 1 : 15. John 6 : 29. 10 : 38. 12 : 36.
1 Cor. 13 : 7. 1 John 3 : 23.
(2) The unbebef of shiners is condemned and punished. " He will
reprove the world of sin, — because they believe not on me." " Ye have
not bis word abiding in you, for whom he hath sent, him ye bebeve not.
Ye will not come to me that ye might have life." " If ye believe not
that I am he, ye shall die in your sins." " He that bebeveth not shall
be damned." '.' He that believeth not is condemned already, because he
hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. And
this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved
darkness rather than bght, because their deeds were evil." " If our gos
pel be hid it is hid to them that are lost, in whom the god of this world
hath blinded the minds of them which believe not." " That they all
might be damned who believed not the truth ; but had pleasure in un
righteousness." " To whom swore he that they should not enter into his
rest, but to them that bebeved not ? " That tremendous burst of wrath
which overwhelmed the Jewish nation, and which follows them to this
day, is a standing monument to the world of the vengeance of God
against unbelief. So completely does the fault lie on sinners, that God
wipes his hands of their blood, and, in a manner which implies that he
has not failed to make ample provision for them, says, " What could
have been done more to my vineyard that I have not done in it ? " " As
I live — I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but that the
wicked turn from his way and live : turn ye, turn ye, — for why will ye
die ? " Isa. 5 : 4. Ezek. 33 : 11. Mark 16:16. John 3 : 18, 19. 5 : 38, 40.
8 : 24. 16 : 8, 9. 2 Cor. 4 : 3, 4. 2 Thess. 2:12. Heb. 3:18.
That the wicked lose the benefit of the atonement by their own fault,
is supported, as we have seen, by the collective testimony of the Synod
of Dort. I wiU now add the opinion of several of the particular classes

CHAP. III.] ALL BOUND TO MAKE THE BENEFIT THEIR OWN. 361
of delegates. Those from Hesse say, that mankind " are all commanded
to believe in Christ, and that the unbelieving are justly condemned for
their unbebef." * Those from the Wetteraw say, " The sufficiency and
magnitude of the ransom of Christ, as relates to the reprobate, has a
double end, one in itself and the other by accident. The end by accident
is, that they may be without excuse : because they perish, not by the
fault of Christ, but by their own ; since by their own unbelief they reject
the benefits of Christ offered in the gospel." f Matthias Martinius, a
delegate from Bremen, says, " In this [outward] call are to be distin
guished these things : the historical narrative concerning Christ, the
command to believe, the interdiction of unbelief, the promise of eternal
life made to unbelievers, the threatening of damnation to the unbebeving.
And if any one does not believe, the issue of this call is condemnation,
and expressly for this reason, because be does not believe in the name of
the only begotten Son of God. (John 3 : 18.) But this issue in itseff is
not intended by God, but follows by accident through the fault of man.
For these things [which are required as conditions of salvation], men are
bound by the power of a divine command to perform themselves ; and
they who are not able to do this, are not able through their own fault." J
A moral inability. Henry Iselburg, another delegate from Bremen, says,
" All and each are sincerely and seriously commanded to believe in
Christ ; — and they who do not believe in the name of the Son of God
are justly condemned. No one of the reprobate can be condemned and
perish for want of the death of Christ, or because there was not in him a
sufficient remedy against destruction, but each one through his own fault
entirely." § The delegates from Drent say, "It is most true that the
reprobate perish by their own fault." ||
Thus it is agreed on all hands, that those who remain unsanctified have
the benefit of the atonement so within their reach that they ought to
make it their own, and have no right to lose it, and are charged with a
most unreasonable and wicked neglect in not applying it to themselves ;
that God peremptorily forbids them to do without it, and when they at
tempt to put it from them will take no excuse, and at last will visit them
with eternal punishment for throwing it out of their hands. He actually
enters against them, in the accounts of a moral government, the charge
of an atonement, as a provision made for their use, as a privilege, a tal
ent committed to them ; and he will act upon this charge at the judg
ment of the great day and throughout eternity. In that part of bis ad-
* Acts of Synod, Part II. p. 114. t Ibid. p. 128.
t Ihid. p. 134, 137. § Ibid. p. 141, 142.
|| Ibid. Part HI. p. 205. 31

362 SCRIPTURAL VIEW. [PART HI.
ministration in which he is the most scrupulous to weigh all things in
exact scales, and to express all matters with literal truth, he will pro
nounce, in tones as debberate and solemn as eternal damnation, that an
atonement was provided for them, and that they madly threw it away.
Now this decides the question. There is no occasion any longer to
inquire about the nature of the atonement, or the express purpose for
which it was offered ; we find the privilege actually in the hands of aU.
Their obligation to use it for their benefit makes it true, independently
of every other circumstance, that it is for them as moral agents.
I know of but one way in which an evasion of this argument can even
be attempted. It will be said that God, foreknowing that the non-elect
would not accept an atonement if provided for them, did not make the
provision ; and yet, concealing the fact from them, and to bring out their
hearts to view, commanded them to accept it. This is exactly the case
presented in the parable of the prisoners and the pearl. By this case,
then, let the principle be tried.
Whether the ransom was accepted for the nine hundred as capable
agents, depends on the question whether they would have been stopt bad
they attempted to come out. That it is lawful to make the supposition of
such an attempt, though it was foreknown that it would not be made, ap
pears from this : foreknowledge does not cause an event, and therefore has
no influence in making it certain, but is only a -perception of what that cer
tainty is. Where it is foreseen that an event will not take place, the
foresight has no influence to prevent its occurrence, or to destroy the
power of creatures to produce it, or to render the occurrence a natural
impossibility. If the certainty which exists in the thing itself has no in
fluence on any of these matters, the knowledge of that certainty mani
festly has not. But if the certainty which exists in the thing itself de
stroys the power of creatures to do otherwise than they do, and renders a
different course a natural impossibility, then every thing is fate, and men
are machines. Foreknowledge has no more influence on the event, or
on the possibility of its being otherwise, or on the power of ci-eatures,
than after knowledge. But after we know a thing to be certain by act
ually witnessing the event, we perceive that neither this certainty nor
this knowledge had any influence on the power of the agents concerned.
In the case under consideration, we plainly see that neither the fore
knowledge that the nine hundred would not come out, nor our after knowl
edge that they did not come out, had any effect on their power. They
certainly were able to come out. Upon the principle now opposed, because
a thing is certain we may not make the supposition of its being other
wise. But even after the event, we do make this supposition continu
ally. In explaining the influence of causes, or the relation between an-

CHAP. III.] ALL BOUND TO MAKE THE BENEFIT THEIR OWN.

363

tecedents and consequents, we constantly say, had circumstances been so
and so, consequences would have been thus and thus ; and we have a
right to speak in this manner of all events which do not involve a natu
ral impossibibty. We have a right, then, to ask what would have been
the consequence had the nine hundred accepted the offer.
And now in such an event they either would have been stopt or they
would not. If they would, the whole transaction was a trick, and no
command, unless supported by falsehood, could have imposed on them
an obligation to come out, because the thing was a natural impossibility.
And if this is the case with the non-elect, it is not true, as the Synod of
Dort affirm, that they do not perish " for want of the sacrifice of Christ ; "
they do perish in one sense for want of that sacrifice, and in another
through their own unbelief. They perish for want of the sacrifice in
this sense, that they would perish if every other cause were removed ;
in other words, should they actually believe they would not be pardoned.
On the other hand, if the prisoners would not have been stopped, but
would have been permitted to come out on the ground of the ransom of
fered, then that ransom was certainly accepted for them as capable
agents. And if you have evidence that they would not have been stopt
by their retainer, it must be because he had publicly engaged that they
should come out if they would on the ground of the ransom paid. And
if he had made such an engagement, he had, by a public covenant, ac
cepted the ransom for them as capable agents. No matter what secret
respect the redeemer bad to the happiness of the hundred. No matter
what foresight the retainer had of the obstinacy of the rest. Here is a
public acceptance of the ransom for the nine hundred as capable agents.
And pray what more was done, or could be done, for the favored hundred?
The ransom was not accepted for them in case they would not come out.
No, you say, but the redeemer and retainer both knew they would.
Granted ; but still their coming out was an exertion of their own agency,
which must not be buried up or passed over in silence. This thing,
which belonged neither to the redeemer nor retainer, but to themselves,
was a necessary antecedent to their deliverance, and ought to be spoken
of as such. The ransom, then, was manifestly offered for the hundred to
procure their deliverance on the supposition of their coming out ; and it
was publicly agreed between the parties that it should obtain the deliv
erance of the nine hundred on condition that they would- come out. The
only difference was, that the parties foreknew that one class would come
out, and that the other would not. But as this foreknowledge did not de
stroy the completeness of moral agency, nor any of its attributes, but left
.every thing pertaining to the agents unimpaired and unchanged, it did
not prevent the ransom from being as completely offered and accepted
for the nine hundred as agents as for the rest.

364 SCRIPTURAL VIEW. [PART III.
On the whole, if the obligation of sinners to make the benefit their own
does not prove that the atonement was offered and accepted for them as
moral agents, it does not prove that the benefit would be theirs even
should they fulfil their obligations. And then it is made their duty to
secure an advantage which they could not secure by doing their duty.
They are commanded to do a natural impossibility upon pain of damna
tion, and are eternally punished for not performing what with the best
dispositions they could not have done. And they would have seen the
oppression of the command had they not been blinded by deception.
No suck thing as this is found in the gospel. The Father, who is rep
resented by the retainer of the prisoners, has solemnly and publicly cov
enanted that all shall go out on the ground of the atonement if they will
believe, and has thus openly declared it accepted for all as moral agents.
He is the " King which made a marriage for his Son," and sent his ser
vants to say to "the identical persons whom he afterwards destroyed, " Be
hold, I have prepared my dinner, my oxen and my fatlings are killed, and
all things are ready, come unto the marriage." I have prepared my din
ner for you if you will receive it ; all things are ready for you, if you will
partake. It was in obedience to his command that the Son declared,
" He that believeth — shall be saved." " This is the will of him that sent
me, that every one which seeth the Son and believeth on him may have
everlasting life." Matt. 22 : 4. Mark 16:16. John 6 : 40. Thus the Fa
ther has solemnly pledged himself that he has accepted the atonement for
all ; and this information is brought to the world by the Redeemer him
self. The parties, then, are both active in proclaiming this public accept
ance of the atonement for all. It is in vain longer to insist on any secret
intention of Christ ; here is his own voice openly pronouncing the atone
ment accepted for all by the mutual understanding of the parties. On
supposition, then, that they who remain unsanctified should believe, they
certainly would be pardoned.
But it is said, if this supposition is made, we must also suppose that the
decree of redemption accorded with this fact. No, but the message to
the identical persons who perished, and in the very circumstances in which
they then stood, was, " All things are ready " for you ; not, all things
would have been ready had it been foreseen that you would come. It
was declared that the oxen and fatlings had been actually killed in suffi
cient numbers to supply them all, and that thej', invited as they were,
stood in such a relation to the feast that they could that day enjoy it by
only accepting the offer ; implying that no natural impossibility lay in the
way, as in the supposed case of the pearl. Had it only been true that
the feast would have been so prepared for them.had it been foreseen that.
they would accept it, what was said was palpably false. Nor can it be

CHAP. IV.] INFLUENCE UPON ALL. 365
alleged that this was only a parable. The plain and direct language of
the gospel to those who remain unsanctified is exactly the same. The
individuals of that number are expressly told to-day, that the atonement
has been, not would have been, accepted for them, in such a sense as to
place remission within their reach. Without the least reference to fore
knowledge, and as the purpose of atonement now stands, they are told
that they, the present capable agents (and they are just as capable as
though a different result had been foreseen), can receive the benefit only
by believing ; that it is their indispensable duty to make it their own ;
and that if they fail to appropriate it to themselves, they shall be eter
nally punished for that most unreasonable neglect. All this is said to
them to-day, just as foreknowledge and the purpose of atonement now
stand. And if it is not so, the report is not according to truth, and the
command and subsequent punishment are — what I will not impute to
the righteous Governor of the world.

CHAPTER IV.
ACTUAL INFLUENCE OF THE ATONEMENT UPON ALL.
The third proposition laid down in the plan of the argument was, that
the atonement so changed the relations of aU men to the divine law, as
to render their pardon consistent with the honor of the law in case they
hear the gospel and bebeve. Before I proceed to the proof of this prop
osition, I wish to draw the reader's attention closely to the following
remarks. (1) If it is allowed that the atonement did change the relations of all
men to the divine law, in this precise respect, that it rendered their act
ual pardon consistent with the honor of the law if they would believe ;
the whole is granted that any one pleads for, as respects the actual influ
ence of the atonement on those who perish. The only remaining question,
then, will be, how came it to have such an influence on all ?
(2) If the atonement did render the pardon of all men consistent with
the honor of the law in case they would bebeve, then it essentially changed
the relations of all men to the divine law as it did not that of devils. In
their natural relation as transgressors, they could not have been pardoned
consistently with the honor of the law, even had they returned to holiness.
This was the very reason why an atonement was necessary. Had it been
consistent with the honor of the law to pardon sinners on their mere re
turn to holiness, their actual pardon might have beer accomplished by the
31*

366 SCRIPTURAL VIEW. [PART III.
mission of the Spirit without an expiation for sin. Devils still retain
this natural relation to the law ; and should they return to hobness (a
supposition allowable even of them as moral agents), they could not be
pardoned. If, then, the atonement did render the pardon of all men con
sistent with the honor of the law in case they would believe, it essentially
changed the relation of all men to the law as it did not that of devils.
(3) If the relations of all men to the divine law are thus changed, or
if their pardon has become consistent with the honor of the law in case
they will believe, this change has been wrought by the atonement.
Nothing else has taken place to produce it ; nothing else could. If any
thing but an infinitely dignified sacrifice could have rendered the pardon
of men consistent with the honor of the law on any terms, the Son of
God would not have died.
(4) If the relations of all men to the divine law are not thus changed,
or if their pardon has not become consistent writh the honor of the law
on the supposition of their faith, then a part could not be pardoned
even should they believe. Believe what ? The promise and oath of
God that they, shall be pardoned if they do believe. Had not that
promise -been made, there would have been no more foundation for their
faith than for that of devils ; and it would have been utterly without a
meaning to talk of their being pardoned in case they would believe.
The very supposition of its being consistent with the honor of the law
for them to be pardoned if they believe, implies that there is something
in relation to their own salvation for them to believe. It implies that
the promise of God has assured them that they shall be pardoned by
the atonement if they do believe. And this promise could not have been
made had not the atonement rendered their actual pardon consistent with
the honor of the law on the supposition of their faith. This leads
directly to the proof of the proposition at the head of the chapter.
This proof is contained in the two propositions which went before ;
namely, that in the offer and promise, the benefit of the atonement is
actually given and made over to all who hear the gospel, on the condi
tion of their faith ; and that they are laid under obligations to make it
their own, and are punished for throwing it away. It ought to be dis
tinctly noticed, that if these two facts prove that the relation of all men
to the divine law is changed, they prove that it was changed by the
atonement. The offer and promise are of pardon through that very sac-
rifico ; and the faith commanded is a reliance on that expiation and
promise. Let us then consider the argument, first, as it is drawn from
the grant, and secondly, as it is deduced from the obligation.
(1) As it is drawn from the grant The benefit of the atonement is
offered to all. Should all accept (and this supposition is allowable).

CHAP. IV.] INFLUENCE UPON ALL. 367
would they or would they not find their pardon to be consistent with the
honor of the law ? If not, they might justly complain of a grievous
deception. If the king who invited the guests to the marriage feast, had
made provision only for half, you would certainly have charged him with
duplicity and mockery. True, you say, because he could not foresee
how many would come. And has it not been proved that all the meas
ures of a moral government have the same consistency of relation as
though there was no foreknowledge ? The character in which God
stands related to moral agents is preserved as consistent with itself as
that of any wise and just earthly prince can be. The Moral Governor,
to whom appertained both the atonement and offer, would no more invite
a greater number than he had provided for, than would any fair and hon
orable man. If ample provision is not made for all, that class of Chris
tians alone take consistent ground who deny the universality of the offer.
Again, in the offer and promise there is a foundation laid for the faith
of aU. And can it be supposed that there is a foundation laid in the grant
for all to believe, and no foundation in the atonement for their faith to
profit them ? Then they stand, after all, exactly on the ground of devils, —
with this difference against them, that they are tantalized with offers,
which, should they attempt to seize them, would escape from their grasp.
In the case of devils, there is no atonement and no foundation laid for
their faith. This is consistent. But to lay a foundation for the faith of
men, and no foundation for their faith to profit them, would in human
transactions be stigmatized with an epithet which I dare not even by sup
position apply to the blessed God. That Christ is offered to those to
whom he could not become a Saviour even should they believe, — to
whom he would be no blessing if they should receive him, is what I
hope no one- will continue to maintain. A foundation for faith, and no
foundation for faith to profit ! I wonder that single thought should have
left a remaining doubt below the sun. No foundation for faith to profit !
But there is. The promise expressly affirms it. The oath of God de
clares to every man who hears the gospel, that if he will bebeve, bis faith
shall profit him through the expiation of Christ.
That such a foundation, then, is laid in the atonement, we have no less
proof than the oath of God. And what fact in the universe was ever
supported by better evidence ? At any rate, if the promise is true, all
men would be pardoned by the atonement should they believe, even if
the expiation has not rendered their discharge consistent with the honor
of the law. They must be pardoned or the oath of God fails : and if the
atonement has not rendered their acquittal consistent with the honor of
the law on the supposition of their faith, the plain truth is, that the death
of Christ does not support the grant which has been founded on it

368 SCRIPTURAL VIEW. [PART III.
(2) Another argument may be drawn from the universal command to
believe, and the punishment of unbelief. What is the faith thus enjoined
on every man ? A belief that God will be to him " a rewarder," if he
diligently seeks him. Heb. 11:6. It is a firm persuasion that God will
pardon and save him through the atonement and righteousness of Christ
if he believes, and that his acquittal and salvation, in such an event,
have been rendered consistent with the honor of the law by the
sufferings and obedience of his Redeemer. On every man, without
waiting for evidence of his election, such a faith is enjoined by the
positive command of God. And does God command men to bebeve a
lie ? And does he punish them with eternal destruction for not credit
ing a falsehood ?
Upon the top of these two arguments I will bring forward the general
confession of the church. That the atonement has reconciled with
the honor of the law the pardon of every man if he wib believe, is a
fact acknowledged in the daily practice of every minister of the gospel.
None of us hesitates to say to an assembly of unregenerate men, among
whom we always presume there are some of the non-elect, if you wiU
all believe you shall be pardoned through the atonement of Christ;
which is to say, that the atonement has reconciled with the honor of the
law the pardon of every soul in the assembly, if be will believe. We go
to the next assembly, and address them in the same words. And if the
whole race of Adam were living at once, not one of us, I suppose, would
scruple to say the same to all. And when we take the race in detail, by
conversing with individuals in private, we say to the unregenerate as fast
as they come, if you will believe you shall be pardoned through the
death of Christ ; which is to say, the atonement has rendered it consistent
with the honor of the law for you in particular to be pardoned if you will
believe. And were it possible for the whole race of Adam to pass in
succession before us, not one of us would hesitate to say the same to
every individual.
If it be alleged that we should thus speak from not knowing who the
elect are, I answer, Christ himself, who did know, spoke in the same
manner. He said to every one, if thou believe thou shalt be saved.
How often, may we suppose, he pronounced this promise with an eye
fixed on Judas.
The Synod of Dort, though they ascribe this general influence of the
atonement to its sufficiency, everywhere represent that it reconciled
with the honor of the law the pardon of every man if he will bebeve, a
thing which they never said of devils. The following is the language of
the whole synod. " The proposition that Jesus Christ the Saviour died
for all and each, is ambiguous through imperfection. If you add bebev-

CHAP. IV.] INFLUENCE UPON ALL. 369
*
ers, the proposition will be clear and true ; if men, it remains ambiguous :
for it can be understood either of the amplitude of the merit of Christ's
death, which is in the highest degree sufficient for the reconciliation of
all men, or of its efficacy, actually reconciling all men. In the former
sense the proposition is indeed true ; for the death of Christ, in point of
its amplitude and power, is a remedy in the highest degree sufficient to
atone for the sins of all men and every man ; nor to actual reconciliation
is any thing wanting to all and each who receive it by faith. In this
sense Christ may be said to have died for all men and every man. And
in the same sense the sayings of Scripture, where Christ is said to have
died for all (1 Tim. 2 : 6), to have tasted death for all (Heb. 2 : 9), to
be a propitiation for the sins of the whole world (1 John 2:2),
are commonly and not improperly understood, though they may be
taken also in a more restricted sense." * The Synod affirm " that as to
the sufficiency of his ransom and merit, Christ died and willed to die for
all and each : " and they add, " If they [the remonstrants] deny their
agreement [with this], how do they not blaspheme the death of the Son
of God as an insufficient ransom ? " f Now this is all we mean. Christ
died and willed to die for all and each, so far as to render their pardon
possible and certain, if they would believe ; that is, he died and willed to
die for all and each as moral agents.
The delegates from Great Britain say, " God, pitying the lapsed hu
man race, sent his Son, who gave himself as the price of redemption for
the sins of the whole world. — Christ therefore so died for all men that
all and each, faith intervening, can obtain remission of sins and eternal
life by virtue of that ransom. — In this merit of Christ's death is founded
the universal gospel promise, according to which all who believe in
Christ do actually obtain remission of sins and eternal life." \
The delegates from Hesse say, " About the first proposition [viz. that
Jesus Christ, the Saviour of the world, died for all and each of mankind],
we would not contend with any man ; since the Sacred Writings ex
pressly say that Christ died for all (but never for each), and is a propi
tiation for the sins of the whole world. The true meaning of which
phraseology we think to be this : that so great is the worth, power, value,
and price of the passion and death of Christ, that it is abundantly suffi
cient to atone for the sins of all men and every man, as many as have
lived, do live, or shall hereafter live. — This passion and death were nec
essarily of infinite value, insomuch that all and each of mankind, pro
vided only they cleave to Christ by a true faith, will, through or on ac-
* Acts of Synod, Part I. p. 247. 248. t Ibid. p. 248, 249i
t Ibid. Part n. p. 100,101.

370 SCRIPTURAL VIEW. [PART III.
count of his passionand death, be received into the grace and favor of
God, and obtain remission of sins, righteousness, and eternal life.
Whence the word of the Gospel concerning Christ Jesus crucified is
proclaimed to the elect and reprobate respectively, and all are com
manded to believe in him, with this promise subjoined, that all who do
believe in him shall obtain reconciliation with God, remission of their
sins, righteousness, and eternal salvation." " They [the remonstrants]
have added this declaration, that Christ by his death procured reconcili
ation, not for the elect alone, — but also for all other men, and that ac
cording to the counsel and decree of the Father ; wliich words are capa
ble of a double meaning. The first is, that it was the counsel and decree
of God the Father, that Christ by his passion and death should pay such
a ransom, that, in itself considered, it should be of so great worth and
power and value, that it should be abundantly sufficient to reconcile all
and each of mankind to God. — And in this sense it is true ; nor was it
ever denied by the doctors of the Reformed Church. For such as the
ransom of Christ — in itself is, such God the Father from eternity willed
it to be." *
The delegates from the Wetteraw say, " Christ is an expiation for the
sins of the whole world, so far as relates to the worth and sufficiency of
his ransom." " When Christ is said to have died for all, this can be
understood of the sufficiency of the merit, or the magnitude of the price."
They quote with approbation from one who says, that " the merit of
Christ has an equal bearing on all as to its sufficiency, but not as to its
efficacy. — The sufficiency and magnitude of the ransom of Christ, as
relates to the reprobate, has a double end ; one in itself and the other by
accident The end in itself is, that God may testify that he is not
debghted with the perdition of men, seeing he gave his only begotten
Son, that every one who believes in him may not perish, but have eternal
life. The end by accident is, that by means of its magnitude and suffi
ciency the reprobate may be without excuse." And they add them
selves, " For these perish, not by the fault of Christ, but by their own,
since by their own unbelief they reject the benefits of Christ offered in
the gospel." " The reprobate are bound to believe this, that the merit
of Christ is of so great worth that it is able to profit them also ; and it
would indeed profit them, if they would believe the gospel and repent." t
Matthias Martinius, one of the delegates from Bremen, says, " There
is in God a certain common love to man with which he regarded the
whole lapsed human race, and seriously willed the salvation of all. The
* Acts of Synod, Part II. p. 114, 116.
t Ibid. p. 125, 126, 128, 129.

CHAP. IV.] INFLUENCE UPON ALL. 371
exercise of this love to man appears in the outward call to the elect and
reprobate without distinction. — In this cab are to be distinguished these
things : the historical narrative concerning Christ, the command to
believe, the interdiction of unbelief, the promise of eternal life made to
believers, the threatening of damnation to the unbebeving. And if any
one does not believe, the issue of this call is condemnation, and expressly
' for this reason, because he does not believe in the name of the only
begotten Son of God. (John 3: 18.) But this issue in itself is not
intended by God, but fobows by accident through the fault of man. —
Moreover, this outward call — necessarily requires antecedent to itself
these things ; the promise and mission of the Son (formerly future, now
past), and redemption, that is, the payment of a price to atone for sins,
and^ God rendered so placable as to require no other sacrifice for the
sins of any man, content with this only most perfect one, and that for
the reconciliation of men there be no need of any other satisfaction, any
other merit for them, provided (what in remedies must be done) there
be an application of this common and salutary medicine. If this re-
demption is not supposed to be a common blessing bestowed orf all men,
the indiscriminate and promiscuous preaching of the gospel, committed
to the apostles to be exercised among all nations, will have no founda
tion in truth. But since we abhor to say this, it ought to be seen to
how their assertions agree with the most known and lucid principles,
who unqualifiedly deny that Christ died for all. Nor here will it be
enough to assert such a sufficiency of redemption as could be enough ;
but it is altogether such as is enough, and such as God and Christ have
considered enough. For otherwise the gospel command and promise
are destroyed. For how from a benefit, sufficient indeed, but not de
signed for me by a sincere intention, can the necessity of believing that
it belongs to me be deduced ? What, then, shall we call this redemption ?
This redemption is in the new world what creation is in the old : to wit,
as the creation of man is not the image of God, but is that foundation
without which the image of God could not have place in him ; so, also,
redemption is no part of the image of God, but is that in which is
founded the whole exercise of the prophetic and kingly offices of Christ,
and his priestly intercession. But care must be taken not to carry this
comparison too far. This redemption is the payment of a price due for
us captives, not that we should go forth from captivity at all events, but
that we should be able and be bound to go forth ; and in fact we should
go forth if we would believe in the Redeemer, acknowledge his benefit,
and thoroughly become members of him as the Head. And, therefore,
upon whatever man we fall, to him we are the messengers and pub
lishers of this salutary grace (saving, however, to believers only), from

372 SCRIPTURAL VIEW. [PART III.
the very office of piety and charity." " The Lord even merited grace
for all men ; but not for all men that grace which depends on particular
election. What then ? That which is promised on condition of faith.
For certainly to aU men is promised remission of »sins and eternal life if
they believe. Here, therefore, it appears that a conditional remission of
sins and salvation belong to all, but not a promise to give strength and
excite the actions by which that condition is fulfilled. For these things
men are bound by the power of a divine command to perform them
selves ; and they who are not able to do this, are not able through their
own fault." " Christ merited the favor of God for all, to be actually
obtained if they believe. — This his favor God declares in common in
the word of the gospel." " Christ died for all in regard to the merit
and sufficiency of the ransom, for believers only in regard to the appli
cation and efficacy In support of which very sentiment many testimo
nies of the fathers and schoolmen, and more recent doctors of the
church, can be cited when there is need." "He who despises the
offering of Christ made on the cross loses all the right which he might
have hacLin it, and thereby aggravates damnation to himself: — and the
gospel, which in itself is a savor of bfe unto bfe, becomes to the unbe
lieving a savor of death unto death, by accident, through their own fault."
Among the propositions which Martinius pronounces false are the
following : " Christ died in no sense for them that perish ; " and, " The
decree of particular election or reprobation of certain persons, cannot
consist with the universabty of Christ's death." *
Henry Iselburg, another delegate from Bremen, says, " Such is the
worth and virtue of the passion, death, and merit of Christ, that, by itseff
and in its own nature, it is abundantly sufficient to atone for and take
away all the sins of all men, and to obtain and confer on all and each,
without exception, reconciliation with God, grace, righteousness, and
eternal bfe. And therefore the remedy of sin and death, our Lord Jesus
Christ, is proposed and offered by the preaching of the gospel, not to
certain persons only, or to those alone who are to be saved, but to the.
elect and reprobate indiscriminately ; and all without distinction are in
vited to a participation or fruition of it, and to eternal bfe thereby ; and
all and each are sincerely and seriously commanded to believe in Christ,
to live to him, and to come to the acknowledgment of the truth ; and
they who do not believe in the name of the Son of God are justly con
demned. In this sense Christ is rightly said to have died sufficiently for
all, as all who believe in him and seek his aid are able and bound to
obtain reconciliation, remission of sins, and the inheritance of eternal
* Acts of Synod, Part II. p. 133-139.

CHAP. TV.] INFLUENCE UPON ALL. 373
bfe ; as the sins of no mortal are so great that the sacrifice of Christ
cannot suffice to atone for them ; as not one of the human race is aben
from him in the same sense and degree that Satan and the evil angels
are. And this is the will and intention of God from eternity, that the
death of Christ should be sufficient for all in such a sense and degree,
that God can require no other sacrifice or satisfaction for the sins of men
but that one alone, to atone for every evil (permanent impenitence and
the sin against the Holy Ghost excepted) ; and on the other hand, that
he may account and esteem it in the highest degree sufficient to merit
every salutary good, and that there may be no need of any other merit
for men. Wherefore no .one of the reprobate can be condemned and
perish for want of the death of Christ, or because there was not in him a
sufficient remedy against destruction, but each one through his own fault
entirely." *
Ludovicus Crocius, the other delegate from Bremen, says, " So great
is the worth, price, power, value, and sufficiency of the death of Christ,
that it wants nothing at all to the purpose of meriting, acquiring, and
obtaining reconciliation with God and remission of sins for all men and
every man. It was the counsel, aim, and intention, not only of God the
Father in delivering the Son to death, but of the Son also in dying, to
acquire, obtain, and merit, by that most precious death and passion, for
all and each of human sinners, that if they repent and believe in Christ
when they become capable of instruction, they may be able to be recon
ciled to God and receive remission of sins. Christ having suffered and
died according to his own and his Father's counsel, did by his death and
passion merit most sufficiently for all and each of human sinners, that if
they only repent and bebeve, they may be able to be reconciled to God,
or be restored to his favor and bosom. This doctrine, as being most
true as being agreeable to the Scriptures, to the nature of the thing, to
the confession of the church (and the church of Bremen expressly), to
the better and more common sentiment of the fathers, and of the theolo
gians both ancient and modern, is necessarily (as I bebeve) to, be un-
corruptly and sacredly retained and defended in the church of God, as
well for the glory of God (which is so illustrated that his truth in calling,
his equity in commanding, his justice in threatening, appear to all who
seriously contemplate the Scriptures) as for the edification, growth, and
consolation of the called in true faith and piety, and finally, for the salu
tary avoiding and refutation of divers heresies, which bke rocks surround
this doctrine." f
The Dutch Professors say, " We confess that the merit and value of
* Acts of Synod, Part II. p. 141, 142. t Ibid. p. 150, 151.
32

374 SCRIPTURAL VIEW. [PART III,
the death and satisfaction of Christ is so great, and of so great a price,
as well on account of its perfection, as the infinite dignity of his person,
that it is not only sufficient to atone for aU, even the greatest sins of men,
but also to save aU the posterity of Adam, though they were many more,
provided they embrace it by a true faith. — It is not even to be doubted,
that it was the intention of God the Father in debvering his Son, and of
Christ in offering himself, that he should pay such and so great a ransom ;
for whatever Christ accomplished by his death, this he accompbshed ac
cording to the Father's intention and his own." *
The delegates from the synod of Gelders say, " What is here asserted
(that Christ died for all, and that none but bebevers are actually made
partakers of remission), if it is spoken of adults, we believe it with the
whole heart ; for the Scripture inculcates this so often, and in such ex
press terms, that no one, unless be is manifestly impious, can deny or
call it a question. We add, — that the power and worth of the passion
of Christ was in itself sufficient to take away the sins of all men and
every man." f
The delegates from Friesland, complaining of the unfairness of the
remonstrants, say, " Neither does it escape them that the doctrine of the
sufficiency of the merit of Christ's death to atone for the sins of all and
each of mankind, if all and each would believe, has hitherto been con
stantly and firmly held and taught in all the Dutch churches, without a
dissenting voice. They are not ignorant, moreover, that this distinction
has been used in a sound sense by very many of the orthodox, that
Christ died for all and each in respect to the sufficiency of the ransom,
but for the elect and believers in regard to its efficacy." J
The delegates from the synod of Groningen and Omlands say, " Here
it is to be noted, that the question is not about the sufficiency of Christ's
death ; for we affirm without hesitation, that the sacrifice of Christ pos
sesses so great power and value, that it is abundantly sufficient to atone
for the sins of all men, as well actual as original ; and that no one of
the reprobate perishes for want of the death of Christ, or through its in
sufficiency." §
The delegates from the synod of the French Netherlands say, " The
price of redemption which Christ offered to his Father, considered in and
by itself, is most valuable and sufficient ; so that all might be redeemed by
the value and worth of Christ's death, if all and each would believe." ||
* Acts of Synod, Part III. p. 121. f Ibid. p. 127.
t Ibid. p. 172. § Ibid. p. 193.
|| Ibid. p. 210. The author is the more assured of having done justice to the seiiti-
ments of the Synod, for having submitted his translation to the classical eye of Samuel
Baldwin, Esq., of Newark, an elegant scholar, and to whom he is happy thus publicly
to acknowledge himself indebted.

CHAP. V.] AGREEMENT OF THE SYNOD OF DORT.

375

CHAPTER V.
SYNOD OF DORT AGREED WITH US AS TO THE ACTUAL INFLUENCE OF
THE ATONEMENT ON THE NON-ELECT, AND THE PURPOSE OF THE
SACRED PERSONS.
In every dispute it goes half-way to settle the question, to know pre
cisely the points in which the parties differ and in which they agree. In
the present controversy it is of the last importance to know this, as in the
main the parties have certainly been contending for different truths ; one
fining their eye with the secret purpose of God about the application of
the atonement, the other with the influence which the atonement had
upon the relations of agents. On the former subject there can be no
diversity of opinion among us ; and I am happy now to be able to show,
that, on the latter subject, in the Calvinistic world at large, there is no
dispute. The synod of Dort was a fair representative of the Calvinistic world
one century after the commencement of the Reformation. Then* opin
ions will certainly disclose what the doctrines of the Reformation were,
especially as they teU us that their churches had uniformly held the same
belief from the beginning. And they must also be considered no con
temptible witnesses of the sentiments of the schoolmen and fathers.
In the synod there was not a perfect harmony of opinion, some hav
ing more enlarged views than others of the principles of a moral govern
ment It is fair, then, to discriminate between the concessions which
came from different sides of the house, and after presenting those which
were the highest, to give those which appear to have expressed the views
of the synod at large.
Of all the concessions, those of the delegates from Great Britain and
Bremen were the most ample. The former say, that God pitied the hu
man race, and sent his Son who gave himself as the price of redemption
for the sins of the whole world, and died for all, so that all by believing
may be saved. The latter give their opinions separately, but they are
agreed in these points : that it was the eternal counsel of God that Christ
should die for all in point of the sufficiency of his atonement ; and that it
should not be such a sufficiency as would have been enough had other
circumstances concurred, but such as would actually be enough, and
such that no other satisfaction could be demanded of any sinner, provided
he woulij believe. They maintain that no man is aben from Christ in
the same sense and degree that devils are, and that none perish for want
of a complete expiation. Two of these delegates unite in saying, that it
was the counsel of God that Christ should merit a conditional salvation

376 SCRIPTURAL VIEW. [PART III.
for all ; and affirm that this doctrine was supported by " the better and
more common sentiment of the fathers, and theologians ancient and
modern," and by " the confession of the church." One of them is still
more explicit. He asserts that God loved the whole human race, and
seriously willed their salvation ; that the price of redemption was actu
ally paid for all, and sincerely intended for all, and that the aggravated
misery of those who perish was not in itseff designed, but follows by acci
dent through the fault of man (he is speaking in the dialect of a moral
government) ; that had not such a conditional salvation been provided
for all, the offer and promise would not have been founded in truth, nor
the command reasonable ; that to make out all this, it was not necessary
that faith should have been procured for all, for this men are bound by a
divine command to exercise themselves, and if they cannot it is their
own fault; that therefore election and reprobation are not inconsistent
with the universality of the atonement ; and that the unqualified asser
tion that Christ did not die for all is one of those propositions which
contravene the most known and obvious principles.
But there are two things which the synod assert with a general voice. '
(1) That those texts which declare that Christ died for all, " are com
monly and not improperly understood " in a literal sense. Some of the
middle men, and even some of the strongest advocates for a limited atone-
' ment, distinctly support this construction of the texts. The delegates
from Hesse say, " About the first proposition [viz., that Jesus Christ, the
Saviour of the world, died for all and each of mankind], we would not
contend with any man ; since the sacred writings expressly say that
Christ died for all (but never for each), and is a propitiation for the sins
of the whole world." The delegates from the synod of Gelders say,
" What is here asserted (that Christ died for all, and that none but be
lievers are actually made partakers of remission), if it is spoken of adults,
we believe it with the whole heart : for the Scripture inculcates this so
often, and in such express terms, that no one, unless he is manifestly im
pious, can deny or call it in question." The delegates from Friesland,
complaining of the unfairness of the remonstrants, say, " They are not
ignorant, moreover, that this distinction has been used in a sound sense
by very many of the orthodox, that Christ died for all and each in respect
to the sufficiency of the ransom, but for the elect and believers in regard
to its efficacy."
(2) That the atonement was sufficient for all. This they understood
to be the real meaning of those texts which speak of a universal expia
tion. Now every thing depends on ascertaining what the synod meant
by this sufficiency. Was it merely a sufficiency of the Victim, which
would have been enough had he been offered for all, or a sufficiency of

CHAP. V.] AGREEMENT OF THE SYNOD OF DORT. 377
actual atonement ? Was it such a sufficiency as could have been enough,
or such as really was enough ? Was it such a sufficiency as still left a
natural impossibility in the way of the pardon of the non-elect even should
they believe, or a sufficiency (even as foreknowledge and the purpose of
atonement then stood) which placed remission completely within their
reach as moral agents, and made it possible and certain that they would
be pardoned if they would believe ? The synod shall decide. They
affirm with one voice, " that as to the sufficiency of his ransom and merit,
Christ died and willed to die for all and each." " The death of Christ,
in point of its amplitude and power, is a remedy in the highest degree
sufficient to atone for the sins of all men and every man ; nor to actual
reconciliation is any thing wanting to all and each who receive it by faith."
'It " is the only and most perfect sacrifice and satisfaction for sins,, of infi
nite value and worth, abundantly sufficient to atone for the sins of the
whole world." * Or, as the same idea is amplified by some of the mem
bers, " This is the will and intention of God from eternity, that the
death of Christ should be sufficient for all in such a sense and degree,
that God can require no other sacrifice or satisfaction for the sins of
men but that one alone, — and that there may be no need of any other
merit for men : " so that none perish " for want of the death of Christ."
The delegates from Hesse say, " His passion and death were necessarily
of infinite value, insomuch that all and each of mankind, provided only
they cleave to Christ by a true faith, will, through or on account of
his passion and death, be received mto the grace and favor of God."
They add, " It was the counsel and decree of God the Father, that
Christ by his passion and death should pay such a ransom. — Nor was
it ever denied by the doctors of the reformed church." The dele
gates from the Wetteraw say, " Christ is an expiation for the sins of the
whole world so far as relates to the worth and sufficiency of his ransom."
The end of this sufficiency in itself considered, say they, is, " that God
may testify that he is not debghted with the perdition of men, seeing he
gave his only begotten Son, that every one who believes in him may not
perish but have eternal bfe." The Dutch professors give the same ac
count of the sufficiency (which they call the sufficiency of Christ's " sat
isfaction " ), and of the purpose of the Sacred Persons concerning it. The
sufficiency is defined in the same manner by the delegates from the synod
of Gelders, and by those from the synod of Groningen and Omlands, and
by those from the synod of the French Netherlands, and by those from
Friesland. The latter affirm that the sufficiency, as thus defined, " has
* Acts of Synod, Part I. p. 289.
32*

378 SCRIPTURAL VIEW. [PART HI.
hitherto been constantly and firmly held and taught in all the Dutch
churches, without a dissenting voice."
Such were the views entertained of the sufficiency of the atonement
by the Calvinistic world one century after the commencement of the
Reformation, and, if we can trust the uncontradicted testimony of several
bodies of delegates, by the reformed church from the beginning, and by
the better and larger part of the schoolmen and fathers. According to
all these, it was the eternal purpose of the Sacred Persons (to express the
divine benevolence towards those who perish), that the death of Christ
should possess such a sufficiency as to render it an expiation for the sins
of the whole world, and give it such an influence as to make the pardon
of all and each possible and certain, if they would believe ; that on this
account he may be said to have died for all, and that this may be consid
ered the meaning of those texts which speak of a universal atonement
Now this is enough. Such a sufficiency, I fully acknowledge, is compe
tent to support the sincerity of the offer and promise, and the justice of
the command and punishment ; and, I must be allowed to add, it consti
tutes a complete and designed atonement for all men as moral agents.
But* this is a very different representation from that of the prisoners
and the pearl. The points of contrast between the two theories are
strongly marked.
(1) The synod say that Christ died and willed to die for all in respect
to the sufficiency of his ransom ; but the pearl was in no sense paid for
all, and nothing in the transaction would justify the use of such an ex
pression. When the synod affirmed that the universal terms found in
the Bible might be applied literally, that Christ might truly be called a
propitiation " for the sins of the whole world," they could not have had
such an image in their mind as that of a pearl paid expressly for a part,
and expressly not paid for the rest.
(2) It appeared to be the general voice of the synod, and was ex
pressly affirmed by several bodies of delegates, that this sufficiency of the
death of Christ did express, and was intended to express, the divine be
nevolence towards all. But the payment of the pearl exclusively for the
hundred expressed no love for the nine hundred who were excluded;
and it is a part of the system connected with this representation, that the
atonement was no indication of benevolence to the non-elect
(3) The sufficiency maintained by the synod is not that which would
have been a provision for the pardon of the non-elect had their faith
been foreseen, but is a provision which they may now enjoy. It is a
sufficiency wholly independent of foreknowledge. It is a sufficiency
which is ready for them even while they are known to be non-elect
The delegates from the Wetteraw say, " The reprobate are bound to be-

CHAP. V.] AGREEMENT OF THE STN0D OF DORT 379
beve this, that the merit of Christ is of so great worth that it is able to
profit them also ; and it would indeed profit them, if they would believe."
" The sufficiency and magnitude of the ransom of Christ, as relates to
the reprobate, has a double end." Matthias Martinius says, " Nor here
will it be enough to assert such a sufficiency of redemption as could be
enough ; but it is altogether such as is enough, and such as God and
Christ have considered enough. For otherwise the gospel command
and promise are destroyed." Henry Iselburg says, "No one of the
reprobate can be condemned and perish for want of the death of Christ,
or because there was not in him a sufficient remedy against destruction."
The delegates from the synod of Groningen and Omlands say, " No one
of the reprobate perishes for want of the death of Christ, or through its
insufficiency." It was plainly the opinion of them all, that the sufficiency
changed the relations of the reprobate themselves. But the relations of
the nine hundred could not be affected by the value of the pearl, and
nothing but an imposition upon their ignorance could lead them to im
agine such a change.
(4) The sufficiency maintained by the synod is such that the ransom
of Christ " wants nothing at all to the purpose of meriting, acquiring,
and obtaining [a conditional] reconciliation with God and remission of
sins for all men and every man." It is such that " God can require no
other sacrifice or satisfaction for the sins of men but that one alone," and
such that there is " no need of any other merit for men." But can all
this be said of the pearl ? Should the nine hundred accept the offer,
would their retainer be bound by the ransom to discharge them ? What
has bound him ? The ransom was not paid for them ; nor has he promised
to accept it in their behalf. Its value cannot bind him, for the whole was
given for the hundred. He certainly would have a right to demand, and
would demand, another ransom. If you say he has promised to accept
it for the nine hundred in case they will come out, then the ground is
changed and the dispute is ended. For then there is a ransom pubbcly
accepted for them as capable agents. And this is all we ask.
(5) The sufficiency which the synod supported is such as places re
mission within the reach of every man who hears the gospel, and leaves
nothing in the way but a wicked heart This cannot be said of the pearl.
It had no influence on the nine hundred at all, except what existed in then-
own imaginations. It did not bring deliverance within their reach, only in
a delusive appearance. It left their escape still as much a natural impos
sibility as ever. And yet the same respectable writer that makes this
representation says to a non-elect man, " It is still true, if you believe
you shall be saved. If you believe there is atonement for you." He
had lately said, " The death of Christ must expiate our sins before any

380" SCRIPTURAL VIEW. [PART IH.
way can be opened " for pardon. That non-elect man had been told that
Christ did not expiate his sins ; and now he is assured that there is an
atonement ready for him, if he will receive it. This certainly is what the
words import (and what the preaching of the same class of men contin
ually imports), but this was not the meaning of the writer. His mean
ing was, all who in fact believe will find an atonement But he ought
not to have said to a moral agent whose faith was naturaUy possible, and
acknowledged to be such in the very form of the address, and for whom
he knew no expiation had been made (for the man is addressed as non-
elect), " If you believe there is atonement for you." If I say to a man
from the roof of my bouse, leap up to me and I will give you a kingdom,
I only trifle with him ; we understand each other. But if because I
know a man is effectually induced to go another way, I say to him, if
you will come into my house (an action which is possible), you will find
a feast prepared for you, when no feast is provided, I deceive him, and
utter a falsehood. It would have been false if the herald had told the
nine hundred, you may come out if you please.
On the whole, the sufficiency set forth by the synod was not like the
value of a costly pearl expressly not paid for a part of the prisoners, but
the sufficiency of a ransom in such a sense offered for aU as purposely
and expressly to secure pardon to them in case they would believe.
If I rightly understand the synod* (and I think I certainly do if they
are consistent with themselves), they differed from us in nothing but in
identifying the atonement with the higher ransom. Their question was
about the united influence of Christ's expiation and merit, which they
contemplated under the name of his meritorious death ; and the shape
of then* question was, for whom did he die ? meaning, whose salvation
did he intend to merit and receive as his reward? And this carried
them to the secret purpose of the divine mind, and the private covenant
between the Sacred Persons, respecting the apphcation of the atone
ment And when they had fastened their eye there, they overlooked
the pubbc explanation in which we find the express purpose, together
with all the influence which that explanation had to render the death of
Christ a complete atonement for a whole world of moral agents. And
then they had no way to account for the influence of the atonement
upon all but to ascribe it to its sufficiency. But that sufficiency, as they
explained it, really constituted all that we mean by a general atonement.
In short, had the synod distinguished as we do between expiation and
merit, they would have had no dispute with us even in words.

CHAP. VI.] CALVTN, WATTS, AND OTHERS. 381
CHAPTER VI.
TESTIMONY OF CALVIN, WATTS, AND OTHERS.
Doctor Watts says of Calvin, "that some of the most rigid and
narrow bmitations of grace to men are found chiefly in his Institutions,
which were written in his youth ; but his Comments on Scripture were
the labors of his riper years and maturer judgment." * With this
remark he introduces the following Comments of that distinguished
reformer. Matt. 26 : 28. [" This is my blood of the New Testament, which is
shed for many for the remission of sins."] "¦ Under the name of many
he denotes, not a part of the world only, but the whole human race."
1 Cor. 8 : 11, 12. [" Through thy knowledge shall the weak brother
perish for whom Christ died."] " If the soul of every weak person was
the purchase of the blood of Christ, he that for the sake of a little meat
plunges his brother again into death who was redeemed by Christ,
shows at how mean a rate he esteems the blood of Christ."
1 John 2 : 2. [" He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours
only, but also for the sins of the whole world."] " Here a question is
raised, how the sins of the whole world are atoned for. — Some have
said — that Christ suffered for the whole world sufficiently, but for the
elect alone efficaciously. This is the common solution of the schools ;
and though I confess this is a truth, yet I do not think it agrees to this
place." 2 Pet. 2:1. [" There shall be false teachers among you, who privily
shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought
them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction."] " Though Christ
is denied in various ways, yet in my opinion Peter means the same
thing here that Jude expresses, namely, that the grace of God is turned
into lasciviousness. For Christ has redeemed us, that he might have a
people free from the defilements of the world, and devoted to holiness
and innocence. Whosoever, therefore, shake off the yoke and throw
themselves into all licentiousness, are justly said to deny Christ, by
whom they were redeemed."
Jude 4. [" Turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and
denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ."] " He means
that Christ is really denied when those who were redeemed by his blood
* Watts's "Works, Vol. VI. p. 287, Note.

382 SCRIPTURAL VIEW. [PART III.
again enslave themselves to the devil, and, as far as in them bes, make
that incomparable price vain and ineffectual." *
This is decisive as relates to Calvin ; and shows that in his maturer
years his opinion was the same as that of the schoolmen and fathers
before him, and the same as that of the Calvinistic world a century
after. The seraphic Watts wrote a treatise on purpose to support the very
sentiments contained in these sheets. I cannot refrain from presenting a
syllabus of his argument in his own words.
I. " It is very hard to vindicate the sincerity of the blessed God or
his Son in their universal offers of grace and salvation, and their sending
ministers with such messages and invitations to accept of mercy, if there
be not such a conditional pardon and salvation provided for them. — It is
hard to suppose that the great God, who is truth itself, and sincere and
faithful in all his dealings, should call upon dying men to trust in a
Saviour for eternal life, when this Saviour has not eternal life intrusted
with him to give them if they do repent. It is hard to conceive how the
great Governor of the world should be sincere in inviting and requiring
sinners who a*e on the brink of hell to rest themselves on an empty
word of invitation, a mere shadow and appearance of support, if there be
nothing real to bear them up from those deeps of destruction, nothing
but mere words and empty invitations. Can we think that the righteous
and holy God would encourage his ministers to call them to lean and
rest the weight of their immortal concerns and happiness upon a gospel,
a covenant of grace, a Mediator, and his merit and righteousness, etc.,
all of which are a mere nothing with regard to them, a heap of empty
names, an unsupporting void which cannot uphold them ? — I think we
must cancel all these Scriptures, and deny all offers of grace and salva
tion made to sinners in general, if Christ procured and provided nothing
for them.
H. It is very hard to defend the sincerity of the Spirit of God in
awakening the consciences of these persons sometimes who are not elect
ed, and stirring them up to think of receiving the salvation of Christ upon
the terms of the gospel, if there be no such salvation conditionally pro
vided for them to receive. —
III. It is equally difficult to vindicate the equity of God as the Judge
of all men, in condemning unbelievers, and punishing them eternally for
not accepting the offers of pardon, if there was not so much as a condi
tional pardon provided for them ; and for not resting upon the merit of
Christ and receiving his salvation, when there was no such merit
* Watts's Works, Vol. VI. p. 287, 288.

CHAP. VI.] CALVIN, WATTS, AND OTHERS. 383
appointed for them to rest upon, nor any such salvation for them to
receive. — Can we think that the righteous Judge of the world will merely
send words of grace and salvation amongst them, on purpose to make his
creatures so much the more miserable, when there is no real grace or
salvation contained in those words ? —
IV. It is very hard to suppose that when the Word of God, by the
general commands, promises, threatenings, given to all men whatsoever,
and often repeated therein, represents mankind as in a state of probation,
and in the way towards eternal rewards or eternal punishments, accord
ing to their behavior in this life ; I say, it is hard to suppose that all this
should be no real and just representation, but a mere amusement. —
V. This sCems to be a fair and easy way to answer several of those
texts of Scripture which represent God as the Saviour of all men, &c. —
Nor can I see any reason why the strictest Calvinist should be angry that
the aU-sufficient merit of Christ should overflow so far in its influence as
to provide conditional salvation for all mankind, since the elect of God
have that certain and absolute salvation which they contend for secured
to them by the same merit. —
VI. That all mankind have some 'conditional salvation provided for
them, and some real grace and pardon offered them by a new covenant,
appears from this, that all men, both wicked and righteous, or just and
unjust, shall be raised from the dead, to give an account of things done
in the body, whether good or evil, and to receive rewards or punishments
in their body as well as in their souls, according to their improvement or
misimprovement of the dispensations under which they have lived. —
Now surely this resurrection of all mankind must be built upon the foot
of a new covenant given or offered to all mankind, since the old covenant
of innocency, or the law of works, appoints eternal life without dying for
the obedient, and death without a resurrection for the disobedient. —
There was, therefore, doubtless, a general proclamation of pardon and sal
vation to all mankind — contained in the first promise, or the gospel that
was preached to Adam, the first father of mankind : — and this was again
preached to all the world by Noah, the second father of mankind : —
otherwise, I think, the resurrection would not reach to every man and
woman in the world. Let it be considered also that this very resurrec
tion of the bodies of sinful mankind brings with it an additional penalty
and misery beyond what the law of innocency threatened. — Now this
cannot, with such evident 'justice, be inflicted upon the non-elect, if they
are under no other covenant but that of innocency. — For since tfie broken
law or covenant of works leaves the body under the power of death for
ever, we can hardly suppose that the Son of God, the chief Minister of
his Father's grace, would provide a resurrection of the body for the break-

384 SCRIPTURAL VIEW. [PART IH.
ers of that original law, merely to put them to severer punishments and
more intense torments than that broken law threatened, if there were not
some advantage in the nature of things derived to them from his media
tion to balance it. — He will never give them reason to complain that
with regard to them he came not to be a Mediator or Saviour, but merely
to add to their misery by a resurrection to eternal pain, without any
equivalent of hope ; or that he came to expose them to double damnation
for refusing bis grace, when he ha,d none for them to accept. — ' God sent
not his Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world
through him might be saved.' —
The doctrine of reprobation, in the most severe and absolute sense of
it, stands in such a direct contradiction to all our notions of kindness and
love to others, in which the blessed God is set forth as our example, that
our reason cannot tell how to receive it. — When, therefore, I hear men
talk of the doctrine of reprobation with a special gust and relish, as a
favorite article, I cannot but suspect their good temper, and question
whether they love their neighbor as they do themselves. —
I would ask leave also in this place to inquire, what great advantages
can be derived to religion or Christianity by endeavoring to limit the ex
tent of the death of Christ, and to take away aU manner of hopes and
prayers and endeavors from the non-elect ? Does the doctrine of election
of persons obtain any further confirmation by it ? No, by no means.
Their salvation is secured, whatsoever becomes of the rest of mankind,
whether they have any hopes or no. — Are the elect any way discour
aged by [such a general provision] ? Not in the least But many per
sons who are awakened to a sense of sin, and are seeking after Christ for
salvation, by this narrow doctrine may be terribly discouraged from re
ceiving bis offers of grace, when they are taught to doubt whether there
be any grace provided for them, or whether Jesus be appointed to act as
their Saviour. It may be the means to drive some persons to despair,
when, they hear that unless they are elected they may seek after salva
tion by Christ in vain. — And it may tempt them to begin at the wrong
end, and seek to pry into the counsels of God, and inquire after what they
can never know, that is, their election of God, before they dare trust in
grace or submit to the gospel of Christ. —
Objection I. — But may it not be said here, if there be only an outward
sufficiency of salvation provided for the non-elect, by a conditional par
don procured through the death of Christ, — but no inward sufficiency of
grace provided, — the event will be infallibly and necessarily the same, —
since they of themselves — cannot bebeve, for by the fall all men — be
came — dead in sin ?
Answer. — The final event will be the same as if they were under a

CHAP. VI.] CALVIN, WATTS, AND OTHERS. 385
natural impossibibty, or utter natural impotenqe. — Yet we must say still
that sinners are not under such a real natural impossibility of repenting
and bebeving as though they were naturally blind or dead. — It is plain
that these natural faculties, powers, or capacities are not lost by the fall ;
for if they were, there would be no manner of need or use of any moral
means or motives, such as commands, threatenings, promises, exhortations.
These would all be impertinent and absurd, for they could have no more
influence on sinners than if we command or exhort a blind person to see,
or a dead body to rise or move. — All the other impotence and inability
therefore in sinners to repent or believe, properly speaking, is but moral. —
I grant this inability — has been sometimes called by our divines a natu
ral impotence, because it arises from the original corruption of our na
ture. — But this spring of it is much better signified — by the name of
native impotence, to show that it comes from our birth ; and the quality
of this impotence is best called moral, being seated chiefly in the wiU and
affections, and not in any want of natural powers or faculties to perform
what God requires. — Even in things of common life the cannot some
times signifies nothing but the will not. Luke 11:7; ' Trouble me not,
my door is shut, my children are with me in bed, I cannot rise to give
thee ; ' that is, I will not. — They have natural powers or faculties in
them, which if well tried might overcome their native propensity to vice,
though they never will do it* — Let this, then, be constantly maintained :
there is a natural inward sufficiency of powers and faculties given to ev
ery sinner to hearken to the calls — of — the gospel, though they lie
under a moral impotence ; and there is an outward sufficiency of provision
of pardon in the death of Christ for every one who repents, and accepts
the gospel. — And thus much is sufficient to maintain the sincerity of
God in his universal offers of grace through Jesus Christ, and his pres
ent commands to all men to repent and trust in his mercy, as well as to
vindicate his equity in the last great day, when the impenitent and un
believers shall be condemned. Their death lies at their own doors. —
I think this distinction of natural and moral power and impotence will
reconcile all the various expressions of Scripture on this subject, both to
one another as well as to the reason of things, which can hardly be
reconciled any other way.
Objection II. — Since the great God — foreknows they will never ac-
* To show that this distinction of natural and moral inability is not new, I wiU
present the following quotation from Burkitt under Matt. 13 : 58, and Mark 6 : 5.
" | He could there do no mighty work.]" " Christ was unable because they were un
willing : his impotency was occasioned by their infidelity : he did not because he would'
not." " Christ had a natural ability to do mighty works there-, but no moral ability. —
He could not because he would not." 33

386 SCRIPTURAL VIEW. [PART III.
cept the salvation of Christ, — does not this future certainty of the event
lay an effectual bar against their believing? — We inquire also fur
ther, can his offers of grace be sincere to persons whom he foresees will
certainly reject it ?
Answer I. — The mere foreknowledge of any event, without any real
influence from the power that knows, does not make the event necessary.
Answer II. — The gospel is never sent — to any people — when God
foresees there are none at all that will accept of it. Now in the way of
God's government of this world, he deals with mankind as a number of
free and moral agents. — God's secret foreknowledge of those who will not
accept it is by no means a sufficient reason to prevent — the general
offers of his grace to them, because the design of his government is to
treat mankind as reasonable and moral agents.
Answer III. — There may be valuable and unknown ends — attained
by his sincere forbidding sin to creatures whom he knows resolved to
practise it. — The wisdom, hobness, and dignity of his government must
be maintained in all the just appearances of it, though sinners will rebel
against it ; for the honor of divine government, in the authority, wisdom,
and' holiness of it, is of much more importance than the welfare of ten
thousand of his creatures.
Answer IV. — Whether or no we can guess at any of the reasons of
God's government or conduct in this thing, yet the matter of fact is cer
tain and beyond all dispute." *
To this powerful testimony of the ethereal Watts, I might add the
judgment of most of our standard English Annotators. The fohowing
specimens are selected : —
PooVs Continuators. Heb. 2 : 9. [" That he by the grace of God
should taste death for every man."] " To render sin remissible to all
persons, and then salvable, God punishing man's sin in him, and laying
on him the iniquities of us all (Isa. 53 : 4-6. 1 John 2:2); and so God
became propitious and plausible to all ; and if we are not saved by it, it
is because they do not repent, and bebeve in him. (2 Cor. 5 : 19-21)."
Burkitt. 1 John 2 : 2. [" He is the propitiation for our sins, and not
for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world."] " Christ our
Advocate became a propitiation for us, and for the whole race of man
kind, for all that lived before us or shall live after us. — There is a vir
tual sufficiency in the death of Christ for all persons, and an actual
efficacy as to all believers. — Our Lord Jesus Christ, suffering death
upon the cross for our redemption, did by that one oblation of himself
once offered, mal^e a full, perfect, and sufficient sacrifice, oblation, and
satisfaction for the sins of the whole world."
* Watts's Works, Vol. VI. p. 283-296.

CHAP. VI.] CALVIN, WATTS, AND OTHERS. 387
Henry. 1 Tim. 2 : 1-8. [" I exhort therefore that first of all suppb-
cations — be made for all men : — for this is good and acceptable in the
sight of God our Saviour, who will have all men to be saved and to come
to the knowledge of the truth. For there is one God, and one Mediator
between God and men, the man Christ Jesus ; who gave himself a ran
som for all."] " One reason why all men are to be prayed for is, be
cause there is one God, and that God bears a good will to all mankind.
This one God will have all men to be saved ; that is, he desires not the
death and destruction of any (Ezek. 33 : 11), but the welfare and salva
tion of all ; — and none perish but it is their own fault. (Matt. 23 : 37.) —
There is one Mediator, and that Mediator gave himself a ransom for all.
As the mercy of God extends itself to all his works, so the mediation of
Christ extends itself thus far to all the children of men, that he paid a
price sufficient for all mankind. He brought mankind to stand upon •
new terms with God, so as that they are not now under the law as a
covenant of works, — but under grace. — He gave himself — a ransom
for all, so that all mankind are put in a better condition than that of
devils. He died to work out a common salvation. — God hath a good
will to the salvation of all ; so that it is not so much the want of a will in
God to save them, as it is a want of will in themselves to be saved in
God's way. Here our blessed Saviour charges the fault : ' Ye will not
come unto me that ye might have life.' (John 5 : 40.)" Under 2 Pet.
2: 1, the same commentator says, " He — paid a price sufficient to re
deem as many worlds of sinners as there are sinners in the world."
Doddridge. The same passage. " Who indeed wills that all men
should be saved and come to the acknowledgment of the truth. — I must
confess I have never been satisfied with that interpretation which ex
plains all men here merely as signifying some of all sorts and ranks of
men ; since I fear it might also be said, on the principles of those who
are fondest of this gloss, that he also wills all men to be condemned. —
The meaning, therefore, seems to be, that God has made sufficient pro
vision for the salvation of all, and that it is to be considered as the gen
eral declaration of his will, that all who know the truth themselves should
publish it to all around them. — And one Mediator between God and
men, even the man Christ Jesus, who hath not undertaken to plead for
this or that nation or party of men alone, but whose kind office in the
court of heaven, where he now dwells, extends in some degree to the
whole human race, and who refuses not the blessings he has procured to
any that with sincerity and humility cast themselves upon him."
Scott. The same passage. " It seems improper to say — that ' all
men ' signifies ' some of all sorts.' — This provision and appointment has
been made and revealed for the common benefit of the human race, —

388 SCRIPTURAL VIEW. [PART III.
that all who will may come in this way to the mercy-seat of a pardoning
God. — This Mediator therefore gave himself ' a ransom for all,' as ' the
Lamb of God who taketh away the sins of the world ; ' that by the all-
sufficient atonement of his death upon the cross, and the redemption
there made, a foundation might be laid for the hopes of sinners all over
the earth, and that all who bebeve might actually be saved by it. —
There are but few of those that limit such expressions to ' some of all
sorts,' who do not allow the all-sufficiency of Christ's atonement, and
admit that all men should be called on to believe in him, and that all
who do believe will be saved by him." Under John 1 : 29, the same
commentator says, " On this ground any man may come to the throne of
grace for all the blessings of salvation ; nor does he want any other plea
than that ' Christ has died, yea rather is risen again, and ever bveth to
make intercession for us.' — This general proposal and declaration of the
death of Christ as a common benefit to all throughout the whole world
who desire to avail themselves of it, is entirely consistent with a par
ticular purpose of God in making ' his people willing in the day of his
power.' "
The sentiment contained in these quotations, it may be proper to add,
has all along been held by the great body of the English divines, not
only in the establishment (of which there can be no doubt), but among
the Dissenters, the Baxters, the Wattses, the Doddridges, and the bke.
And it is certainly at the present day the common belief in those two
countries where the true church is chiefly found, I mean Great Britain
and the United States. At a moment when the miUennium is near, and
great light is rising on the world, this is found to be the general faith of
the purest branches of the church. And if we go abroad to Catholic
regions, and even search among all the denominations which bear the
Christian name, this will be found to be the belief almost universally
associated with the rebgion of the New Testament.

CHAPTER VH.
ATONEMENT OFFERED AND ACCEPTED EXPRESSLY FOR ALL.
The fourth proposition in the plan of the argument was, that the
atonement was expressly offered and accepted for all as moral agents.
That the atonement was made for all as moral agents, we have the
plain evidence of our senses. We see it applied to all as moral agents,

CHAP. VII.] EXPRESSLY FOR ALL. 389
first in the offers and promises, and then in the command and threaten
ings, and in the punishment of unbelief. It is no longer a question
whether the privilege was provided for all, when we see it actually in
their hands.
The three propositions which have already been proved, namely, that
the death of Christ rendered the pardon of all consistent with the honor of
the law in case they should hear the gospel and believe ; that in virtue
of this general change in the relations of men, pardon is actually made
over to all who hear the gospel, so far as it can be made over to moral
agents before they have performed their part ; and that the benefit is so
brought within their reach that they can enjoy it by only doing their
duty, and are bound to apply it to themselves ; do together make out the
truth complete, that an atonement is provided for all as moral agents.
The single proposition, that the death of Christ rendered the pardon of
all consistent with the honor of the law if they would believe, compre
hends the whole. It expresses the entire influence of the atonement
(except what relates to the curse of abandonment), and all that any
Calvinist on our side ever asserted. How the atonement came to have
such an influence upon aU, is now the only question that remains. Some
ascribe this to its sufficiency, others to the express purpose for which it
was offered. Of the former there are two classes. One abow to that
sufficiency all that we mean by a general atonement : the other repre
sent it by the value of a pearl expressly not offered for a part ; and to
give it a greater bearing on non-elect men than devils, they resort to the
common world, the common nature, and common law. We take the
other ground, and affirm that nothing could have given the atonement
such an influence but an express purpose bearing upon all men as moral
agents. I may subject myself to voluntary sufferings to the age of Methuselah,
without an express object, and it will never convince the community that
the law of the land will be executed upon thieves. But let my friend
steal and be bound to the stake : let me at that moment cover his body
with my own, and take the stripes avowedly in his stead : and all the
spectators are as much convinced that the law will continue to be exe
cuted against theft, as though the offender himself had suffered. The
pith of the appbcability lies in the express purpose. Look again at the
case of the prince of Wales. The object of his death was to convince
the pubbc that future forgers would die. Had he suffered by his own
or another's hand without giving out that he died in the room of any, it
would have done nothing at all towards producing this conviction ; and
the pardon of the criminals, however reclaimed, would have ruined the
law as much as though the prince had not suffered.
33*

390 SCRIPTURAL VIEW. [PART HI.
That express purpose which was necessary to give the atonement such
a general bearing, it is not difficult to find. " As Moses lifted up the
serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up, that
whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life. For
God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son, that whoso
ever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. For
God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the
world through him might be saved." John 3: 14-17. Here is express
purpose enough to answer every purpose. There is no longer any need
to resort to the unintelligible notion of sufficiency ; here is the express
purpose itself reaching to a whole world of moral agents.*
* It is curious to see to what straits, from not attending to this express purpose
and its proper influence, men are reduced in accounting for the universal offer. Dr.
Gray of Baltimore, with all his talents and learning, has not escaped without diffi
culty in his Priend of the Reformation. He was too enlightened not to see that the
offer and promise and command are extended to all, and that to deny the imputa-
bility of Christ's righteousness to all would lead to blasphemous consequences. He
therefore resorts to the idea, that the imputability does not depend on his representa
tive character ; as though he might be the Saviour of those whom he did in no sense
represent. Why, then, not of devils ? And how after all does Dr. G. justify the
offer and command 1 Why thus : God requires of all the righteousness of the law ;
Christ's righteousness is the righteousness of the law ; therefore God must require all
to present the righteousness of Christ ; thus establishing a legal identity between the
righteousness of Clirist and the personal righteousness demanded of us, though he had
allowed that we are not one with Christ or with Adam, except in a figurative sense.
Besides, why was not this reasoning extended to devils ? God requires of them the
righteousness of the law (or their present sin is not transgression) : Christ's righteous
ness is the righteousness of the law ; therefore he must require devils to present the
righteousness of Christ.
After all, Dr. G. is not so much out of the way as it might seem. His mistake
arises solely from misapplying the term representation. He supposes Clirist to have
represented men in the secret covenant, rather than in the open transactions. And
yet he has correct ideas of what took place in that secret covenant, making it to bo
nothing but tho yielding of consent on the one part, and the gift of the elect as a re
ward on the other. So that he really means no more than that the imputability of
Christ's righteousness does not depend on men's having been given him as a reward ;
and he pronounces the opposite sentiment (namely, that tho righteousness of Clirist
is imputable only to the elect), one of the two great sophisms which have corrupted
the doctrines of the Beformation. He goes further, and introduces the Son of God as
saying to all who hear the gospel, that, by an express agreement with the Father, he
through his death has obtained a right to assure them that they shall bo saved by his
mediation if thoy will believe. In that agreement with tho Pather, then, ho repre
sented, or transacted for, a whole world of moral agents.
Dr. G. is dealing with Mr. M'Chord because the latter makes representation to be
necessary to the imputability of righteousness. But the difference between them is
chiefly about words. They mean different things by representation. Mr. M'C.'s the
ory is, that Christ represented only the church or body of believers (had Dr. G. at-

CHAP. VII.] EXPRESSLY FOR ALL. 391
Sufficiency avail without an express purpose ! Was it ever known
or heard of that Christ rendered it consistent with the honor of the law
for any to be pardoned even by faith without dying as their proper and
avowed Substitute ? Did you ever read of any influence which he
exerted upon the actual or possible pardon of men, but by dying in their
stead, " the just for the unjust ? " How in any other way could he have
such an' influence ? If a real and acknowledged Substitute was necessary
to actual pardon, it was equally necessary to the grant of conditional
pardon, if the grant was made in good faith ; and if without expressly
dying for men he could obtain the one, he could the other, and the
whole world might have been discharged without an express atonement.
The pardon of the non-elect possible without an express Substitute !
Then they are treated with more indulgence than the chosen themselves.
Is it to be believed, that when God would not release his own elect
without exacting life for life, he has offered to forgive others without a
satisfaction ?
Either then Christ expressly atoned for all, or a part could not be
pardoned even should they believe, and ought not to be blamed for
losing the benefit There is no avoiding this dilemma, unless some way
can be discovered in which he could reconcile with the honor of the law
the pardon of a part, on the supposition of their faith, without expressly
atoning for them. Can that way be found ? This brings us at once to
the alleged sufficiency. Could then the dignity and purity of the Victim
accomplish this ? Let us first suppose that these attributes had nothing
to point their influence to non-elect men more than devils. How then
could they affect the former more than the latter ? None can doubt that
tached the same idea to representation he would have said the same), leaving to all a
chance to come in and share in the representation. In this he really makes out a rep
resentation of all as moral agents, the very thing that Dr. G. virtually admits ; and
he plainly concedes all that Dr. G. appears to mean by the representation of the
elect. So that the dispute is chiefly about words, and turns on the question, what
transactions and influence ought to fall under the name of representation. In one re
spect Dr. G. has the advantage. Mr. M'C, in allowing none to be represented till
they believe, overlooks their previous representation as moral agents, which his own
theory implies. Dr. G. turns upon him and says,- if Christ is the Head (he makes
Head and Representative the same) of none but believers, he has no right to com
mand unbelievers. Let him be the Head and Representative of all as moral agents,
and every difficulty vanishes.
Thus these two able writers are struggling together on the borders of truth; and
nothing is necessary to bring them together, and to unite them both in perfect accord
with us, but to fix their eye on moral agents, and on this public express purpose con
cerning all men as such. It is pleasant to see with what Christian urbanity these dis
tinguished men treat each other. Mr. M'C. has the generosity to concede to Dr.
G. the reputation of possessing the highest literary attainments in our country.

392 SCRIPTURAL VIEW. [PART III.
the Son of God was competent to atone for devils, had circumstances
given his death a bearing upon them. But the sufficiency of the Victim
did not extend to them a sufficiency of actual atonement, rendering their
pardon consistent with the honor of the law on the supposition of then-
return to holiness. It is plain, therefore, that the sufficiency of the
Victim could not have this effect on non-elect men, without something to
bring it to bear on them as it did not on devils, and making out for them
a competency of actual atonement. If there is no other sufficiency for
them than that of the Victim, they still stand exactly on the footing of
devils ; and then they could not be pardoned, even should they believe.
Why, then, the offer and command to them, and the condemnation for
losing the benefit ? What have they to do with a sufficiency which has
nothing to do with them ?
Take now the other supposition, that the dignity and purity of the
Victim were brought to bear on non-elect men as they were not on
devils. How was this done? By his taking, it is said, the nature of
man, and subjecting himseff to the law given to the human race, and
dying in a world which they inhabited. And what did all this accom-
pbsh ? A sufficiency of actual atonement for the non-elect ? No ; for it
is asked, " Why need we contend for an actual atonement for those who
never will believe ? " A sufficiency then of what ? " Of Christ's
merit ; " and " this sufficiency," it is added, " depends upon the dignity of
his person and the greatness of his sufferings." Then it might be sufficient
for devils. No ; it is not " true, that the merit of Christ can be asserted
to be sufficient for devils," for want, it seems, of the three circumstances
meeting in their case. Then the " sufficiency " of bis " merit " for non-
elect men " depends " not merely " upon the dignity of his person and
the greatness of his suffering." But what does this sufficiency of merit
do for the non-elect ? It renders their salvation possible. For bi
making out that a limited atonement does not place them " in the same
condition with devils," it is stated to be one of the points of difference
against the latter, that " their salvation is in the nature of things impos
sible." Here, then, is a sufficiency of merit which renders the salvation
of the non-elect possible without any " actual atonement " for them.
Salvation possible without an actual atonement ! The elect themselves
were never thus indulged. But how does the sufficiency of Christ's
merit render the salvation of the non-elect possible without an " actual
atonement?" Why, just as a ransom paid for one hundred prisoners
renders possible the release of nine hundred for whom it was not paid.
This is the very simile chosen to illustrate the principle ; and it plainly
shows that the sufficiency pleaded for by this respectable writer did not
render the salvation of the non-elect possible, but left them after all " in

CHAP. VII.] EXPRESSLY FOR ALL. 393
the same condition with devils," with this difference against them, that
they are tantalized with offers and promises, and oppressed by commands
and threatenings, which they ought never to have received.
Our brethren, while they deny an " actual atonement " for the non-
elect, acknowledge that the death of Christ rendered their pardon con
sistent with the honor of the law if they would believe. And pray what
other " actual atonement " was made for Peter ? But how do they get
this influence out of the death of Christ? They ascribe it to "the
dignity of his person and the greatness of his suffering," brought to bear
upon the non-elect as they do not upon devils, by the common law, the
common world, and common nature, while they are expressly excluded.
Let us see whether these three circumstances, without an express -purpose,
and directly against the express purpose, could produce so mighty an
effect. Could the common law work this wonder ? But what is meant by
this emphasis laid on a common law ? Is it meant that all the transgres
sions of that law were atoned for in a mass ? Then the guilt of the non-
elect was expressly expiated. Is it meant that such a satisfaction was
made as to prevent the law from being injured, whoever of the human
race should be pardoned on their believing ? This is exactly what we
assert, and then it was expressly made for all men as moral agents. Is
it meant that it was offered for those transgressions of the law only which
the elect would commit ? The question then returns, did an atonement
expressly offered for a part of the transgressions of a law, and expressly
not offered for the other part, render it consistent with the honor of the
law for the excepted transgressions to be pardoned on any terms?
Then there was as complete an atonement for the excepted transgres
sions as for the rest, and the exception was no exception ; and as there
is essentially but one divine law in the universe, the great law of love
(holiness being radically the same in all worlds), what should hinder
the sins of devils (who are under the same general law) from sharing an
equal influence with the excepted transgressions of men?
Did the common world and nature produce so great a wonder ? That
is to say, did these render the pardon of some consistent with the honor
of the law, on the supposition of their faith, for whom atonement was
expressly not made ? How could they nullify an express exception and
render it no exception ? And what particle of proof from the Bible of
this omnipotent influence of a common world and nature ? Where is the
chapter and verse.
In the supposed case of the prince of Wales, besides the ten noblemen,
say there were twenty more who had committed the same crime. Keep
in mind that the only way in which he could render the.jftardon of any

394 SCRIPTURAL VIEW. [PART ni.
consistent with the honor of the law, was by making as strong an
impression as their death would have made, that the law was still to
be executed on future offenders. Suppose now that the prince expressly
offered himself for the ten, and expressly did not offer himself for the
twenty ; how could his death answer in the room of the punishment of
the twenty, or on any conditions render their pardon consistent with the
honor of the law ? Could his living under the same law that all had
broken, and atoning for that species of crime which all had committed,
and belonging to the same kingdom, and having the blood of an English
man in his veins, and the honors of a prince upon his head, make any
difference in favor of those who were expressly excluded ? Who, after
seeing the twenty pardoned for whom he did not die, would conclude that
all future forgers would be punished ? And if the twenty could not be
discharged on any terms, it is not true that his death rendered then* par
don consistent with the honor of the law on certain conditions ; and the
offer to them on those conditions would either be deceptive or a bare
faced mockery.
This one decisive fact still rises before us : the three circumstances
were all tried upon the elect, and they could not procure pardon for the
chosen of God, with all the faith imparted to them, without an atonement
expressly offered for them. And it is wonderful if they exerted a more
powerful influence upon the non-elect, and brought them into a salvable
state, not only without an atonement, but notwithstanding their express
exclusion. But if the three circumstances must be allowed to have the mighty
influence pleaded for, then in all fairness they ought to be considered as
containing in themselves the express purpose in favor of all. The immac
ulate and dignified character of the victim could no more affect non-elect
men than devils, without some intelligible reference to the former rather
than the latter. If the three circumstances contained that reference, and
pointed to the human rather than the angelic part so intelligibly that their
language is understood on earth (and if not understood, 'how comes this
influence to be so confidently ascribed to them?), then in all reason
they ought to be regarded as expressing themselves the universal pur
pose. If they brought the sacrifice so to bear upon all as to render all
men pardonable upon their believing, and did this by indicating a refer
ence to the race at large, then they helped to accomplish an actual and
complete atonement for all as moral agents, and wrought this effect by
expressly announcing to the world the universal reference.
Thus it seems that nothing could give the atonement such an influence
on the race at large as it confessedly had but an express declaration,
some way pronounced, that it was so offered and accepted for all as to have

CHAP. VII.] EXPRESSLY FOR ALL. 395
this precise effect, " that whosoever believeth — should not perish."
Such a declaration we find in words. And when we have found the
very thing that was necessary to give the atonement this effect, why
should we look any further, or lose ourselves in unintelligible language
about a sufficiency which, without the express purpose, would have
amounted to nothing ?
Let us now repair to the Scriptures. And here the first thing that
strikes us on every page is, that the atonement was expressly accepted
for aU. This appears as often as we hear the Father tender life to all,
and promise with an oath that they shall live on the ground of that
satisfaction, provided they believe. This is pledging all that is sacred in
him that he has accepted it in behalf of a whole world of moral agents.
It is itseff the public and formal acceptance.
And when we look for the express and universal purpose of the offering,
the evidence is equaby decisive. This purpose is found in whatever de
clares to the world, directly or indirectly, that Christ died to make
atonement for all. And what less than this can be meant by the " price "
in the hand of a fool which he has no heart to improve ? or by the
repeated declaration that God " has no pleasure in the death of the
wicked, but that the wicked turn from his way and live ; " that he is
" not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repent
ance ? " or by the universal call, attended by the proclamation that " all
things are ready ? " or by the pressure of the command upon all, and the
awful punishment of unbelievers ? or by the solemn appeal, " What
could have been done more to my vineyard that I have not done in it ? "
What else can be meant by the " birthright " which all are warned
against selling, and which when sold cannot be recovered though sought
" carefully with tears ? " But you ask for something more direct. What
then will satisfy ? Do you require an expbeit declaration that Christ
died for all, even for as many as were dead ? " We thus judge, that if
One died for all, then were all dead, and that he died for all, that they
which live should not henceforth live unto themselves, but unto him
which died for them and rose again." " We trust in the living God who
is the Saviour of all men, speciaby of those who believe." " I exhort,
therefore, that first of all supplications — be made for all men, for kings,
and for all that are in authority : — for this is good and acceptable in the
sight of God our Saviour, who will have all men to be saved, and to come
unto the knowledge of the truth. For there is one God, and one Media
tor between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who gave himself a
ransom for all." We must pray for all because there is a Mediator and a
ransom for all, and because God wills all men to be saved. And no one
can open his Bible without finding these words put into his mouth : " All

396 SCRIPTURAL VIEW. [PART III.
we like sheep have gone astray, and the Lord hath laid on him the iniquity
of us all." Would it satisfy you better to hear it said that he died for
each and every one ? " We see Jesus, who was made a little lower than
the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honor, that
he by the grace of God should taste death for every man ; " (vrteo navrog,
for every one). Do you insist on a positive declaration that he atoned
for the whole world ? " He is the propitiation for our sins, and not
for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world." " The Lamb of
God, which taketh away the sin of the world." " The bread of God
is he which — giveth life unto the world." "The bread — is my flesh,
which I will give for the life of the world." Do you demand a categori
cal assertion that he died for the identical persons who eventually perish ?
" Through thy knowledge shall the weak brother perish for whom Christ
died." " Destroy not him with thy meat for whom Christ died." " There
shall be, false teachers among you who privily shall bring in damnable
heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon
themselves swift destruction." The prophecy of Caiaphas foretold that
Christ should die for the Jewish " nation," the mass of whom went to
their place. Prov. 17: 16. Isa. 5: 4. 53: 6. Ezek. 33: 11. Matt. 22: 4.
John 1: 29. 6 : 33, 51. 11: 50-52. Rom. 14: 15. 1 Cor. 8: 11. 2 Cor.
5: 14, 15. 1 Tim. 2: 1-6. 4: 10. Heb. 2:9. 12: 16, 17. 2 Pet. 2: 1.
3 : 9. 1 John 2 : 2.
Forced attempts have been made to explain away the literal and ob
vious meaning of these texts, leaving the Bible really too uncertain to
support any thing. But the .Synod of Dort, who spoke the language of
the Calvinistic world two centuries ago, allow to them their literal im
port, and tell us that the same had been the common construction. And
indeed, whatineed of this effort to limit these passages, since in their most
universal form they prove no more than that Christ died for all in such a
sense as to render their pardon consistent with the honor of the law if
they would believe ; a position which must be admitted to be true if these
texts were out of the Bible ?
And now I ask, what proof from Scripture or reason can be set against
all this mass of evidence? Reason is silent; but what counteracting
testimony can be brought from the Word of God ? Not a particle. You
may find there the doctrine of election. You may find a seed given to
Christ as a personal reward for the merit of his obedience ''unto
death." You may find notices of the larger ransom, made up of expia
tion and merit, by which he purchased the sanctification and salvation
of the elect. You may find tho Redeemer in his work on earth manifest
ing, even with the consent of the Father, a special reference to the
elect as the interest which fell to him as one of the contracting parties ;

CHAP. VII.] EXPRESSLY FOR ALL. 397
and may find the completion of their salvation a leading end of his re
ceiving the kingdom. This is all you will find : and all this, if I mistake
not, has been shown to be consistent with a general atonement. Is it,
then, too much to say, that the whole array of evidence which has been
spread over this and the foregoing chapters stands without a scintiUa of
opposing testimony ? that the unnumbered texts which have been quoted,
which, with their kindred ones, form the whole texture of divine Revela
tion, have nothing to weaken their force or limit their universality ?
I have heard excellent men say, in answer to every argument which
could be urged, I am resolved to abide by the language of Scripture.
But I entreat them to consider who it is that abides by the language of
Scripture. There is not a text in the Bible which asserts that Christ
did not atone for all ; but there are many which affirm in the plainest
terms that he did. We are under no necessity to put a forced construc
tion on a single passage ; but our brethren are obliged to limit the most
universal terms. They are grieved that we (as they view the subject)
appeal from Scripture to human reasonings ; and yet how often, when
pressed with some of our plain texts, they will turn and say, I cannot
conceive that God should provide salvation for those whom he did not in
tend to save. This very resort to human reasoning frequently appears to
be the strongest bar against their admitting the plain and obvious mean
ing of the Word of God. I say this with all tenderness, and if I wound a
feeling by it, I shab wish that it had been suppressed.
34

AN APPENDIX.

EXHIBITING

THE INFLUENCE OF CHRIST'S OBEDIENCE.

AND SHOWING
THAT ON THIS GROUND THE CHURCH RECEIVE ALL POSITIVE GOOD:
IN OPPOSITION TO THE THEORY WHICH REPRESENTS
PARDON TO BE THE ONLY BLESSING PROCURED
BY THE REDEEMER. (399)

APPENDIX.

An opinion has gone forth that Christ procured for us no other benefit than
pardon ; that besides clearing from the current of blessings those obstructions
wliich sin had thrown upon it, he is in no sense the ground of our positive
happiness; and that in respect to sanctification, he only made such a work
consistent with the wisdom of God by rendering remission possible. Such a
sentiment ought to be subjected to a rigid and solemn scrutiny.
That Christ must have had a reward, and one awarded by law, is just as
certain as that he was " made under law," and received a command to die. If
the Father assumed the rights of the Godhead, and took the ground of authori
tatively requiring the service, he must reward it as a service done to himseff.
But whatever reward Christ received was for his obedience alone, and not for
his sufferings as such. Sufferings viewed by themselves, that is, as uncom
manded, could be entitled to nothing. Besides, the ,Iaw promised no reward to
any thing but obedience.
Now if Christ received a reward, it must have consisted in blessings for men.
He had no private wants to supply, no selfish propensities to satisfy by a
personal and separate good ; and without blessings for men he could have had
no redeemed kingdom to reign over, not a gift in his hand ever to tender to the
human race, and nothing at all to gratify his benevolence.
Our general opinion is, that for his filial obedience he received the inheri
tance of a Son, and was made " Heir of all things ; " and that in the " all
things" was comprehended the whole amount of positive good ever intended
for a fallen race, or ever to be placed within their reach, including whatever
was to be conferred on them sovereignly or in gracious rewards, or offered to
them on the condition of their faith. We bebeve that all these things were
given to him as the legal reward of that amazing exhibition of hobness which
he made under law, and belong to the general estate which he holds by a
mediatorial claim, and were made over to him, not for his own private use, but
to be disposed of exactly as they are, — some in sovereign gifts, some in gra
cious rewards, and some barely offered to capable agents, leaving the issue to
be decided by them.
The " gifts " which we suppose he " received for men," may be divided into
34* (401)

402 APPENDIX.
two classes : first, regenerating grace fop the elect as passive recipients ; sec
ondly, the good obtained for moral agents. In the latter class we understand
to be comprised whatever he bestows in sovereign gifts fitted to a state of pro
bation wliich moral agents enjoy, including the enlightening influences of the
Spirit on the unregenerate ; whatever he imparls to believers in gracious
rewards, comprehending their continued sanctification ; and whatever he offers
to men on the condition of their faith, constituting a provision for moral agents
to improve. I shall glance at both classes, but shab dwell chiefly on the latter.
And in considering the good obtained for moral agents, though I shall refer
occasionally to what he sovereignly bestows, I shall principally attend to that
which he offers to men on the condition of their faith, and confers on bebevers
in gracious rewards.
It is no part of our system, that Christ obeyed in our room to supersede the
necessity of our obedience, as he suffered in our room to supersede the ne
cessity of our sufferings. The obedience which we owed he was never bound
to pay, but only that which was due from him. The obedience which was
due from him we never owed, and we still are bound to render that which was
demanded of us. He obeyed for himseff, and we obey for ourselves.
Nor yet is it any part of our system, that we are rewarded for two things at
once (Christ's obedience and our own), but rather that two persons in dif
ferent senses are rewarded by the same thing. A divine reward is a token of
approbation presented as a motive to virtue, and is the recompense of him
alone who is therein approved. It may be legal, and it may be gracious. Our
obedience, begun late and continuing imperfect, is not entitled to reward by
law, but yet is a thing really approved ; and, therefore, is fitted to receive, not
the legal, but the gracious tokens of approbation. What Christ received was
in approbation of his righteousness alone, and was of course a reward to none
but himself. The direct act of giving to him, though for the use of those who
should be approved, was not itseff the approbation of them. But the grant
consisted in blessings for our use. When those blessings come from his hands,
they are tokens of approbation of none but us. The same blessing, therefore,
which to him is the reward of law, is to us the reward of grace. As it issued
from Godhead, it was his reward, not ours ; as it comes from his hands, it is our
reward, not his. Though, therefore, we are blessed for his sake (as without his
righteousness to detach the blessings from God they could not have come to ns),
we are rewarded solely for our own ; that is, the benefits as they come from
his hands, are to none but us the tokens of approbation presented as motives to
virtue. We may see, therefore, in what sense it can be true that eternal life is
granted for Christ's sake alone, and yet is a token of approbation to us, and
would not have come to us had we not been approved. As it came out from
Godhead according to law, it came for his sake alone ; but it was delivered to
him, not for his own private use, but for the benefit of those who would obey
him. It would not have been a reward nor an honor to Christ to have de
posited with him eternal life for those who should remain his enemies ; nor
would it have comported with the honor of the law to have delivered to him

APPENDIX. 403
that blessing for those who should refuse to obey. And this distinction in
favor of bebevers was because they were fit to be approved. While, therefore,
the blessing comes out from God on Christ's account, it coines to us as a gra
cious token of approbation.
But it is said that if Christ is the ground of what believers obtain, they must
all receive equally. Not so. It was the very idea of his reward that his
disciples should receive according to the interest which they hold in his heart,
or in proportion as they love and obey him. The good was dealt out to liim
with an express understanding that it should go to them according to this rule.
The only reward (as relates to the present subject) which he ever desired
was that his disciples should receive at his hands the gracious tokens of appro
bation according to their fitness to be approved. Thus while his merit is the
legal ground, their holiness, which constitutes a sort of spiritual capacity, is the
measure of their blessedness.
A parent labors for a man and receives his wages in articles of clothing for
his children of different ages, which he could not wear himself. It is as much
a transaction between him and his employer, and the reward is as much his
own, as though it had consisted in money. But he did not fulfil an obligation
which belonged to the children, or do a work in their room which they were
bound to perform. They were never under obligations to render that service.
When he has received the articles, he deals them out to his children according
to their ages and character, and gives to none further than they are approved,
except what he sovereignly bestows to put them in convenient circumstances to
render the service required.
This is the explanation of the system, and now for the proof. The principle
which I set up is, that it did not comport with tho highest honor of the law
for God to issue a single positive good but out of respect to a perfect righteous
ness. It was as much a principle of the first covenant not to bestow a cup of
cold water out of respect to any other than a righteousness perfect for the time
the subject had been in existence, as it was that Adam should not be confirmed
in happiness without an obedience entire through the period of his probation ;
for the moment the first sin appeared, the law doomed the transgressor to the
loss of all things. The following reasonings, therefore, will as much prove that
every particle of positive good ever destined to reach a sinful world was
granted as a. reward to Christ, as that the blessings were which constitute the
reward of believers. The latter, however, I have chiefly in view.
In the two great instances of a government by law which have come to our
knowledge, it was a principle to require creatures to obey before they were
confirmed in holiness and happiness, and not to confer a covenant claim to
immortality but as the reward of a finished righteousness. The inhabitants of
heaven were not confirmed at first, for some of them fell; and it was long
before we heard of " elect angels." Man was not confirmed at first, and the
issue is known to us all. , This requisition of obedience as an antecedent to the
gift of eternal life was not indeed so absolutely necessary as the punishment of
sin without an atonement ; but it answered the important purpose of honoring
the law. It held this language in the ears of the universe : no creature shall

404 APPENDIX.
receive eternal bfe till he has first done homage to my law. There was indeed
no other way of conferring immortality in a governmental form. In any other
way it must have been a sovereign gift. On either plan the gift to the
possessor and the direct benevolence of God would be the same; but the
method chosen had the advantage of showing God's determination to honor his
righteous statutes.
This, then, must be considered the settled principle of the divine law. And
there was no reason why the principle should be given up under the gospel.
No necessity existed for the abandonment ; for nothing was easier than to make
over to Christ as a legal reward the whole inheritance for the benefit of the
"joint-heirs." This indeed was not so necessary as an atonement in the matter
of pardon, but it answered all the purposes of the original principle.
Atonement covered sin and placed us back where Adam stood the moment
lie was created, before he had either obeyed or transgressed. But how is eter
nal life to reach us ? Upon the original principle it must be the reward of a
perfect obedience. Well, you say, when all the believer's sin is covered, the
imperfection of his obedience is covered also ; and that obedience, standing thus
spotless, may be rewarded for its own. sake. It may indeed without that utter
prostration of government which would have resulted from pardon without an
atonement, but not without departing from one of the two great principles of the
law. These were, to punish sin, and to grant no reward but to a perfect and
uninterrupted obedience. But your theory represents God as coming down
from' this high ground to reward an obedience which possesses neither of these
attributes. That its imperfection is covered, only takes away its sin ; but it
still wants something positive to make-it steriing. No covering of imperfection
can add to it that standard weight and measure which the law requires. No
washing can render it that thing to which the reward was originally promised.
If the recompense is dealt out directly to this shrivelled morsel, more than half
of the original demand of the law is given up. This is the precise tiling that
has been overlooked. Because God could daily bestow good on Adam for his
own works, it is inferred that he may on believers after their sin is covered;
not considering that in the former instance he rewarded a perfect and uninter
rupted obedience, and in the latter, would recompense one defective in both of
these respects. This would certainly be a veiy material change in the princi
ples of the divine administration, and a change altogether at the expense of law.
It would be an innovation wholly needless, and ought not to be believed with
out decisive evidence.
But it is said that to suppose God unwilling to reward the obedience of his
people after their sin is covered, without calling in the aid of another's right
eousness, would militate against his grace and benevolence. But why ? If a
certain amount of good is dispensed to the ill-deserving, which upon every prin
ciple is both benevolent and gracious, why should these quabties be diminished
by any respect that may be paid, on account of the. honor of the law, to the
obedience of Christ ? If the law refuses to deliver that good to any but a per
fect obedience, and God, to save the honor of the law, contrives to measure it
out to Christ, with intent that it shall go through him to sinners, is it not as

APPENDIX. , 405
great a favor to the ill-deserving as though it had passed directly to them ? And
is not the benevolence as great at least as though it had rushed to the conclu
sion without respect to the law ? The gift is the same to the sinner, and finds
him as ill-deserving, as though it had come in the other way, while the method
chosen subserves the further end of honoring a righteous law. The only differ
ence is, that upon one plan the principle of the law is adhered to, on the other
it is given up. And why the benevolence or grace should be the greater for
selecting the manner most injurious to the law, when no one is benefited by it,
would be hard to tell. At any rate, upon this principle grace and benevolence
are both excluded from pardon. It is admitted on all hands, that this favor is
granted to sinners out of respect to the atonement of Christ : and did any one
but an infidel ever dream that the grace or benevolence of pardon was the less
on that account ? And if, without impairing the benevolence or grace of the
gift, remission can be administered on account of the expiation of Christ, why
not eternal bfe on account of his obedience ?
Having thus stated the ground on which our principle rests, and cleared off
some of the objections, I will now bring forward the proofs that such a princi
ple does exist under the administration of grace. I will first suggest some con
siderations which appear to have less weight, and then others of a more decisive
character. (1) The plan in question sends us immediately to God for all positive good ;
not indeed as sinners, for our sin is covered by the atonement, but as having
nothing to offer but an imperfect obedience. All that Christ does is to cover
the sin of that imperfection, leaving the imperfection still remaining : and after
men are thus purged from guilt, with all that defect of positive righteousness
they are sent to God without a Mediator for their whole positive salvation.
After the sin of withholding ninety degrees of obedience is pardoned, ten de
grees are accepted, without a Mediator, where the law demanded a hundred.
(2) This system takes away one half of a Saviour and one half of his praise.
According to its representation, Christ procured our release from prison, and
secured us against a return to the prison-house, and then left us to make our
way through the world alone, to rise to opulence and a throne by our own in
dependent merit, supported by such strength and favored with such mercy as
we may obtain from God without a Mediator. We are left to fight the world,
the flesh, and the devil without the Captain of the Lord's host, and to conquer,
not under his banner, but in a separate warfare. Half of our dependence on
Christ is thus taken away ; and for all the positive good of both worlds we must
rely on our own works, or on the mercy of the pure Godhead.' The Redeemer
is turned out of one half of our religion, and the whole is left cold and gloomy.
We no longer feel that every particle of food, and every article of raiment, was
procured by our divine Friend, and turn him off with the frigid acknowledg
ment that he was the mere antecedent of these gifts. Our common comforts
upon this plan are not half so sweet, nor the crown in prospect half so precious.
How delightful to view all these things as Christ's, earned by his obedience, and
laid up in him for our use.
(3) We have been accustomed to consider Christ the centre of all Bible

406 APPENDIX.
truths ; but this scheme separates from him the whole action of the Spirit, and
every smile and favor of heaven. It separates from Mm, or attaches to him, but
loosely and in a consequential way, the greater part of the Bible. It is a com
fortless theory which thus associates with our blessed Redeemer a bare escape
from prison, and no positive good, no light, no consolation, no inheritance.
(4) We have been accustomed to suppose that the intercession of Christ is
for more than pardon, and have even heard him say, " I will pray the Father,
and he shall give you another Comforter." And again, " Holy Father, keep
through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one
as we are. -=— I pray not that thou shouldst take them out of the world, but that
thou shouldst keep them from the evil. — Sanctify them through thy truth. —
Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me
through their word ; that they all may be one ; as thou, Father, art in me, and
I in thee, that they also may be one in us. — Father, I will that they also whom
thou hast given me be with me where I am, that they may behold my glory
wliich thou hast given me." John 14: 16. 17:11-24. This seems to have been
more than a prayer of the man, and nothing less than the intercession of the
Mediator ; for he repeatedly alludes to his mediatorial fidelity, reward, and au
thority. Now it is apparent that the whole of his intercession must be founded
on what he himself has done and suffered ; otherwise it would seem to be an
unmeaning and useless thing, and merely to import that God needs sobcitation
as one loath to give. Indeed, as it is made in heaven, we can form no other
idea of it than as the silent plea or influence of what he did and suffered on
earth. His intercession for pardon we know is founded on his death ; for had
not this been offered, that could not have been made. By a parity of reason,
if he pleads for more than pardon, this part of his intercession must be founded
on his positive righteousness. It would seem, therefore, that we must either re
ject the theory in question, or plainly assert, notwithstanding the quotations
which have been made, that Christ intercedes for nothing but pardon.
(5) The church is called " the bride, the Lamb's wife," and believers are
denominated his " seed." The principal idea suggested by these figures is rot
that they are pardoned on his account, but that they inherit from him or for his
sake. A wife or child is not generally pardoned on account of the husband or
father, but they uniformly inherit with or from their correlates. I am sensible
that these names are applied for other reasons ; but so far as they suggest the
treatment which believers receive on Christ's account, they point us to the in
heritance rather than to pardon.
(G) It would seem reasonable to suppose that all the good which is suspend
ed on faith in Christ, and especially on trust in him, Fs. 2: 12. Rom. 15: 12.
Eph. 1 : 12, 13, was procured by Christ; and that faith and trust, when they
take hold of that offer and promise, rely on him as the Procurer of all that is
there engaged : otherwise it is difficult to see how faith and trust in that prom
ise are faith and trust in Christ, any more than in Gabriel or Adam. Are they
so called because he procured pardon, and thus opened the way for eternal life
to be bestowed without further respect to him ? This certainly has the appear
ance of being far-fetched. To talk of a son's depending on a father for an es-

APPENDIX 407
tate which he is to earn himself or receive as a present from another, merely
because the father pays his debt and sets him at liberty to work for himself or
apply to another, is manifestly using language in a way calculated to deceive.
Are these graces so called merely because they expect to receive from the hands
of Christ as God's Distributor ? or merely because the promise has been an
nounced by him and his commissioned servants ? Upon these principles we
might with some reason talk of faith and trust in the " ministering spirits,'' and
in other instruments of promised good (for they are real distributors), and faith
and trust in the angels of Bethlehem, and in ministers of the gospel, for they
have proclaimed the promises of God.
But it is still more difficult to see upon this plan why eternal life should be
promised, and promised exclusively, to a trust in Christ for salvation. I can
see a good reason for connecting pardon with a rebance on liim for that dis
charge ; but why a trust in the word and agency of a mere instrument should be
the all in all in the condition of eternal life, — why a bare Agent, appointed to
utter the words and distribute the goods of another, should so fill the whole
field of vision, and occupy the place which would seem better to befit the Being
who employed him, is not so easy to explain.
That eternal life is promised to faith and trust in Christ, and suspended on
no other condition, the Scriptures abundantly teach. " God so loved the world
that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not
perish, but have everlasting bfe." " This is the will of him that sent me, that
every one that seeth the Son and bebeveth on him may have everlasting life,
and I will raise him up at the last day." " For this cause I obtained mercy,
that in me first Jesus Christ might show^forth all long-suffering for a pattern to
them which should hereafter believe on him to fife everlasting." " Lord, to
whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life." John 3: 16. 6: 40,
68. 1 Tim. 1: 16.
Now, why is this ? According to the common understanding of Christians, it
is because the life is in Christ as the Vine, and is derived from him to the
branches, and because faith is the very bond which so unites us to him that we
can draw life from him. And this accords with the representations of Scrip
ture. " This is the record, that God hath given us eternal bfe, and this life is
in his Son. He that hath the Son hath life, and he that hath not the Son hath
not life. These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the
Son of God, that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may be
lieve on the name of the Son of God." This, then, was the reason why faith in
Christ was urged, and why eternal life was suspended on it : " This life is in
his Son." Christ is the fountain of eternal life, and faith is a coming to him for
supplies. " Ye will not come to me that ye might have life.'' Accordingly,
the life promised to faith is received through his name. " These are written
that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ the Son of God, and that believing
ye might have life through his name." John 5 : 40. 20: 31. 1 John 5: 11-13.
(7) It would seem strange if Christ was appointed to manage more than his
own inheritance, — if more was committed to him for distribution than he re
ceived as a reward, — if he gives gifts as a Mediator which as Mediator he did

408 APPENDIX.
not procure. I know of no reason why any blessing should come down through
him as the channel of conveyance, wliich was not procured by his own proper
influence. Now he does impart all the good which the church ever receive in this world
or the world to come. " Whatsoever ye shall ask in my name, that will I do."
To him is committed the ministration of the Spirit, by which be becomes the
Prophet of the world, and diffuses all the light which illumines the minds of men.
He is " the true Light that lighteth every man that cometh into the world. "
"All things are delivered unto me. of my Father; and no man knoweth the
Son but the Father, neither knoweth any man the Father save the Son, and he
to whomsoever the Son will reveal him." By the same means he subdues and
sanctifies the world. " I will not dare to speak of any of those things which
Christ hath not wrought by me, to make the Gentiles obedient." " Who by
him do bebeve in God." " Unto every one of us is given grace according to
the measure of the gift of Christ. — That we henceforth be no more children, —
but — may grow up into him in all things, which is the Head, even Christ;
from whom the whole body, fitly joined together and compacted by that which
every joint supplieth, according to the effectual working in the measure of every
part, maketh increase of the body unto the edifying of itself in love." " Thou
shalt call his name Jesus, for he shall save his people from their sins." " There
shall come out of Zion a Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from
Jacob." By the same means he imparts strength. " He said unto me, my
grace is sufiicient for thee, for my strength is made perfect in weakness. Most
gladly therefore will I rather glory in my infirmities, that the power of Christ
may rest upon me." " I can do all things through Christ which strengtheneth
me." " Without me ye can do nothing." By the same means he gives refresh
ment " They drank of that spiritual rock which followed them, and that rock
was Christ." By the same means he imparts comfort. " Our consolation —
aboundeth by Christ." Not only has he the entire ministration of the Spirit,
but he distributes the final reward. " I give unto them eternal bfe." " To him
that overcometh will I give to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame
and am set down with my Father in his throne ; " his own reward thus empow
ering him to reward his disciples. " Keep yourselves in the love of God, look
ing for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ unto eternal life." Matt. 1 : 21.
11 : 27. John 1 : 9. 10: 28. 14 : 13. 15 : 5. Rom. 11 : 26. 15 : 18. 1 Cor. 10 : 4.
2 Cor. 1:5. 12:9. Eph. 4:7-16. Phil. 4:13. 1 Pet. 1 : 21. Jude 21. Rev.
3: 21.
(8) I draw another argument from what in Scripture is called " the fulness "
of Christ, particularly from his fulness of " grace." This fulness is spoken of in
the first chapter of John, and again in the Epistle to the Colossians ; and in
both places it is a plenitude of grace and truth. The passage in John is as
follows : " We beheld his glory, the glory of the only begotten of the Father,
full of grace and truth. — And of his fulness have all we received, and grace
for grace. For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus
Christ." Let us examine what these two parts of his fulness mean.
[1] His fulness of truth. When it is said that truth came by Christ, we are

APPENDIX. 409
to understand, not only that he was the reality of what had been set forth in
the shadows of the Old Testament, but that the whole revelation of God was
made by him. By the fulness of truth in him, we are to understand three
things. First, that he had a perfect knowledge of the mind and will of God ;
as it is said in the very next verse, " No man hath seen God at any time ; the
only begotten Son which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him."
Secondly, that the whole amount of truth belonged to him as his own, and that
the Spirit of revelation was his subordinate Agent. " When he the Spirit of
truth is come, he will guide you into all truth ; for he shall not speak of himself
[at his own suggestion], but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak. — He
shall glorify me, for he shall receive of mine and shall show it unto you. All
things that the Father hath are mine ; therefore said I that he shall take of mine
and shall show it unto you." John 16 : 13-15. Thirdly, that the revelation
made by him was an ample disclosure of the secrets of the Eternal Mind, suffi
cient for all the purposes of faith and practice, without any supplement drawn
from human reason. " He whom God hath sent speaketh the words of God, for
God giveth not the Spirit by measure unto him." John 3 : 34. Hence to reach
the perfection of revealed knowledge is to "come — come unto the measure of
the stature of the fulness of Christ." Eph. 4:13. This idea is plainly illustrated
in the passage in Colossians, as we shall presently see.
[2] His fulness of grace. By grace is plainly meant all besides truth that
" came by Jesus Christ," in contradistinction to the law which " was given by
Moses." AU grace is asserted to have come by Christ. If, then, it is any grace
to bestow the Spirit and eternal life on sinners, these also " came by " him. If
it was not so, or if any part of grace was not found in him, how could there be
in him a fulness of grace ? and how could we read of "the fulness of the bless
ing of the gospel of Christ?" Rom. 15: 29. To talk of a fulness from which
we all receive, when there is nothing but a sort of negative influence to prevent
punishment, would seem to be an extraordinary dialect. Fulness is altogether
a positive term, and imports not barely enough to save us from the deepest
poverty and ruin, but an abundance to make us rich. I never hear of the ful
ness of Christ without having the idea awakened of unlimited stores of positive
good laid up in him, from which the whole church are suppbed : and then I can
see a glorious import in the term, — a meaning too rich and vast to be relin
quished till demonstration tears it from me.
This fulness of grace consists of three parts. First, a plenitude of pardon,
sufficient for sins, however great or numerous. Secondly, a plenitude of the
Spirit, given to Christ without measure ; from which fulness we receive " grace1
for grace,'' and are " strengthened with might " " according to the riches of his
glory." Eph. 3:16. Thirdly, a plenitude of inheritance. The fulness is par
ticularly marked as being that of " the only begotten of the Father," who gives
to all that receive him, "power to become the sons of God," (John 1 : 12-14),
in other words, "joint-heirs " with him to " the riches of the glory of his inher
itance." Eph. 1 : 18.
All these ideas are plainly comprehended in the fulness mentioned in Colos
sians. To that passage let us now direct our attention. " In whom, we have
35

410 APPENDIX.
redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins ; who is the image
of the invisible God [by whom he is revealed], the Firstborn of every creature
[the Heir of all things], — the Head of the body, the church [the fountain of
influence ; " the Head," as it is said in the same passage, " from which all the
body, by joints and bands having nourishment ministered and knit together,
increaseth with the increase of God,"] — the First-born from the dead [who not
only rose first, but rose to inherit as the eldest Son], that in all things he might
have the preeminence. For it pleased the Father that in him should all fulness
dwell: — whom we preach, warning every man, and teaching every man in all
wisdom, that we may present every man perfect in Christ Jesus, [perfect in
knowledge, holiness, and justification] ; — that their hearts might be comforted,
being knit together in- love, and unto all riches of the full assurance of under
standing, to the acknowledgment of the mystery of God — and of Christ, in
whom are hid all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge, [the fulness of truth,
competent to furnish a complete revelation]. And this I say lest any man
should beguile you with enticing words. — Beware lest any man spoil you
through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudi
ments of the world, and not after Christ ; for in him dwelleth all the fulness of
the Godhead bodily, [knowledge is a part of " the fulness of God] ; " (Eph. 3 :
19), and ye are complete in him; [so far as instruction is concerned, ye have
need of nothing more than " the fulness — of the gospel of Christ." But this is
not all : for as wisdom, love, and power, the sum of the divine perfections, go
in to constitute " the fulness of the Godhead bodily,'' ye are complete in Christ,
not only in point of instruction, but in regard to his influence as King, Heir,
Sanctifier, and Deliverer from the bondage both of Jewish ordinances and of
Satan. Ye are complete in him], which is the Head of all principality and
power ; in whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without
hands. — You — bath he quickened, — having forgiven you all trespasses, blot
ting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us ; — and having
spoiled principalities and powers, he made a show of them openly." Col. i. and
ii. These are " the unsearchable riches of Christ," and " the exceeding riches
of — grace — through " him (Eph. 2:7. 3:8); and they all go in to constitute
that fulness of grace and truth which is found in him.
Having suggested these considerations, I now proceed to arguments of a more
decisive cast.
I. That which is our righteousness in the sight of God is no other than the
righteousness of Christ (Jer. 23 : 6. 33 : 16), and is said to be in Christ (Isa.
45 : 24), to be of Christ (Isa. 54 : 17. 61 : 10), to be by the faith of Christ (Rom.
3 : 22), and is called the righteousness of God, because appointed by him (Rom.
1:17. 3 : 21, 22. 10: 3. 2 Cor. 5 : 21. Phil. 3: 9). The term is obviously taken
from the first covenant, as appears by the frequent comparison between a legal
righteousness and this. " Moses describeth the righteousness which is of the law,
that the man which doth those things shall live by them : but the righteousness
which is of faith speaketh on this wise." " If righteousness come by the law,
then Christ is dead in vain." " If there had been a law given which could have
given life, verily righteousness should have been by the law." " That I may win

APPENDIX. 41 1
Christ, and be found in him, not having my own righteousness, which is of the
law, but that which is through the faith of Christ" (Rom. 10 : 5, 6. Gal. 2 : 21.
3 : 21. Phil. 3 : 8, 9). Now, what ought to be the influence of a righteousness
which thus plainly comes in the room of a legal one, and takes its name ? Under
the first covenant, a righteousness both protected the subject from punishment
and entitled him to positive good. If, then, " the Lord our righteousness " does
only the former and not the latter, he is but half what a righteousness was un
der the first covenant (leaving the rest to be supplied by our own works), and
the very term in the gospel is sunk down to one half of its original meaning.
But who told us that the word is thus changed ? If you use a term to-day
which I know had a definite meaning yesterday, I am bound to understand it in
the same sense, unless you plainly tell me that its import is altered. Where
has God told us that righteousness under the gospel means but half what it did
under the law ? On the contrary, the very nature of the word precludes the
possibibty of such a change. Righteousness is a term altogether of a positive
import. It implies more than a title to be exempted from an ignominious
death : it imports the claim of one who is right ; who not only has not trans
gressed, but has done all that was required. A righteous man is something
more than a man who is not a malefactor. To say of one that he does not de
serve to be executed, would be a poor compliment to a righteous person. We
do not talk of the righteousness of a culprit just released from the state prison,
because the law has no longer a penal demand against him. And the term has
a meaning no less positive in the New Testament. " They, being ignorant of
God's righteousness, and going about to establish their own righteousness [cer
tainly something more than avoiding crimes and escaping punishment], have
not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God." (Rom. 10 : 3.) Self-
righteousness always means, as it does in this place, a pretended claim, not so
much to pardon as to a reward. We read of " the blessedness of the man unto
whom God imputeth righteousness without works." (Rom. 4 : 6.) But why
without works ? What have good works to do with pardon ? This is only not
to impute bad works. " Christ is the end of the law for righteousness" (Rom.
10: 4) ; but is the law nothing but a penalty ? and is its whole end answered,
so as to make out a righteousness, without fulfilling the precept ? Thus we see
that the term in the New Testament has not lost its original meaning. If, then,
Christ is our righteousness, he must do more than save us from the death of a
malefactor, he must be the ground of all the treatment which belongs to the
righteous. If his righteousness has the same influence, and answers the same
end in the government of God, that the perfect righteousness of men would
have done ; or if the common expression is true, that believers are treated as
righteous on his account ; then he is certainly the ground of their title to life.
To talk of their being treated as righteous on his account, and to deny that they
receive eternal life for his sake, is to say that a personal righteousness would not
have entitled them to the rewards of heaven.
But there is no need of further reasoning ; it is a plain matter of fact, spread
obviously to view on the sacred page, that the same righteousness that procures
pardon entitles to eternal bfe. " Moses describeth the righteousness which is

412 APPENDIX.
of the law, that the man which doth those things shall live by them : but the
righteousness which is of faith speaketh on this wise, — that if thou shalt con
fess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thy heart that God
hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved : for with the heart man
believeth unto righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto salva
tion." " If there had been a law given which could have given bfe, verily
righteousness should have been given by the law [to wit, that righteousness
which now gives life]. — We through the Spirit wait for the hope of righteous
ness by faith.'' "Henceforth there is laid up for me a crown of righteousness."
Noah " became heir of the righteousness which is by faith." Abraham believed
God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness. Now to him that worketh
is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt ; but to bim that worketh not,
but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for right
eousness. — The promise that he should be the heir of the world was not to
Abraham or his seed through the law, but through the righteousness of faith.
For if they which are of the law be heirs, faith is made void, and the promise
made of none effect." " If by one man's offence death reigned by one, much
more they which receive abundant of grace and of the gift of righteousness
shall reign in life by One, Jesus Christ. Therefore as by the offence of one
judgment came upon all men to condemnation, even so by the righteousness of
One the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life. For as by one
man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of One shall
many be made righteous. — That as sin hath reigned unto death, even so might
grace reign through righteousness unto eternal life by Jesus Christ our Lord."
(Rom. 4 : 3, 4, 13, 14. 5 : 17-21. 10 : 5, 6, 9, 10. Gal. 3 : 21. 5 : 5. 2 Tim. 4 : 8.
Heb. 11:7.)
As righteousness signifies merely that which entitles to justification, this ar
gument will really be carried forward in a new form under the following
head : —
II. Justification in its whole extent is allowed to be grounded on Christ
(Isa. 45 : 24, 25. 53 : 11. Rom. 3 : 20-28. 4 : 25. 5 : 1, 9. 1 Cor. 6 : 11. Tit. 3 :
6, 7) ; but though the term is sometimes used with special reference to pardon
(Acts 13 : 39. Rom. 5 : 9), in its larger and more common sense it comprehends
a title to eternal bfe. Some of the passages just quoted plainly show this, par
ticularly that in which the contrast between the first and second Adam is drawn.
So do all those which assert that justification is not by works. Pardon not by
works! what has pardon to do with works? The mention of works suggests no
other idea than that of reward. James, of course, uses the term in the larger
sense, when, to prove that a justifying faith is operative, he asserts that we are
justified by works, and not by faith only. (James 2: 14-26.) In the following
passages also, the word obviously means the same. " Not the hearers of the law
are just before God( but the doers of the law shall be justified." " Who shall
lay any thing to the charge of God's elect ? it is God that justifieth. Who is he
that condemneth ? it is Christ that died, yea rather that is risen again." " Who
was delivered for our offences, and was raised again [by way of recompense],
for our justification ; [we sharing in his reward, according to the principle,

APPENDIX. 413
" Because I five ye shall live also "]. Therefore being justified by faith, we have
peace with God through our Lord Jesus Clirist ; by whom also we have access
by faith into this grace wherein we stand, and rejoice in hope of the glory of
God. — *For if when we were enemies we were reconciled to God by the death
of his Son, much more being reconciled we shall be saved by his life." " The
Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached
before the gospel unto Abraham, saying, In thee shall all nations be blessed.
So then they which be of faith are blessed with faithful Abraham [receive all
the blessings promised to faith, which are manifestly included in that justifica
tion which the Scripture foresaw]. — That no man is justified by the law in the
sight of God, is evident, for, The just shall five by faith. And the law is not
of faith, but, The man that doeth them shall live in them. Christ hath re
deemed us from the curse of the law, — that the blessing of Abraham might
come on the Gentiles through Jesus Christ, that we might receive the promise
of the Spirit through faith. — If the inheritance be of the law it is no more of
promise, but God gave it to Abraham by promise. — Is the law, then, against the
promises of God ? God forbid : for if there had been a law given which could
have given life, verily righteousness should have been by the law. — The law
was our school-master to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by
faith. — Ye are all the children [and of course heirs] of God by faith in Christ
Jesus. — And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs accord
ing to the promise." " That being justified by his grace, we should be made
heirs according to the hope of eternal life." John 14: 19. Rom. 2 : 13. 4 : 25.
5 : 1, 2, 10. 8 : 33, 34. Gal. 3 : 8-29. Tit. 3 : 7.
If justification is an act or sentence declaring the subject entitled- to all the
good promised to faith, then it confers a title to eternal life as well as to
pardon ; for we have seen that both are unchangeably promised to the first act
of faith in distinction from all subsequent works. And why should not both
titles be embraced under the general name of justification ? Ought there not
to be a word to express the whole amount of these new claims ? Why should
an essential part be left without a name? And is not justification a proper
word for that purpose ? Why is it not ? What was its original meaning under
the first covenant, from which it is manifestly taken ? It there denoted a title
to life as well as an acquittal from blame. And why should it not mean the
same under the new covenant? What has operated to change its import?
The principal force of the word still is, and always must be, positive. To
justify a man, plainly signifies to invest him with a claim to be treated as just,
and of course to entitle him to all the rewards of well-doing. Under the law
it would have given him a claim to the eternal life engaged to obedience;
under the gospel it ought to entitle him to the whole amount of blessedness
promised to faith. Why should not justification by faith secure all that faith
claims by covenant? If the promise does not deceive, the moment a man
believes, he becomes entitled to eternal bfe as well as to pardon. All that
good is instantly conferred on faith by the act or sentence of God. If that act
or sentence is called justification (and why should it not be ?) the question is
decided. 35*

414 APPENDIX.
Further, justification in the larger sense is expressly grounded on Christ's
obedience. " As by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by
the obedience of One shall many be made righteous ; " or as it is expressed in
the preceding verse, " so by the righteousness of One the free gift came upon
all men unto justification of life ; " or as it is in the verse still preceding, " much
more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness,
shall reign in life by One, Jesus Christ." Rom. 5 : 17-19.
ni. Eternal life is declared in the plainest terms to be in, by, and through
Christ. " That they may also obtain the salvation which is in Christ Jesus
with eternal glory." " For God hath not appointed us to wrath, but to obtain
salvation by our Lord Jesus Christ ; who died for us, that whether we wake or
sleep we should five together with him." "The gift of God is eternal life
through Jesus Christ our Lord." " Unto him that — washed us from our sins
in his own blood, and hath made us kings and priests unto God and his Father,
— be glory." "God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation; —
whereunto he called you by our gospel, to the obtaining of the glory of our
Lord Jesus Christ." " If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all
men most miserable." "The riches of the glory of this mystery, — which is
Christ in you the hope of glory." " God sent his only begotten Son into the
world, that we might live through him." " Which is the earnest of our inheri
tance until the redemption of the purchased possession." " Who of God is
made unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption."
"The bread of God is he which — giveth life unto the world. — I am that
bread of life. — If any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever. — As the
living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father [that bfe does not mean
preservation from hell], so he that eateth me, even lie shall live by me." " If
any man thirst, let him come unto me and drink." "I will give unto him
that is athirst.of the fountain of the water of life." " I am the way, and
the truth, and the life." " I am the resurrection and the life." " When
Christ, who is our life, shall appear, then shall ye also appear with him in
glory." " That which was from the beginning, — which we have seen with
our eyes, — and our hands have handled of the Word of life ; for the Life
was manifested, and we have seen it, and bear witness, and show unto you
that Eternal Life which was with the Father, and was manifested unto us."
" We are in him that is true, even in his Son Jesus Christ This is the true
God and Eternal Life." John 6 : 33, 48, 51, 57. 7: 37. 11 : 25. 14: C. Rom.
6 : 23. 1 Cor. 1 : 30. 15: 19. Eph. 1 : 14. Col. 1 : 27. 3:4. 1 Thess. 5 : 9, 10.
2 Thess. 2 : 13-17. 2 Tim. 2 : 10. 1 John 1 : 1, 2. 4 : 9. 5 : 20. Rev. 1 : 5, 6.
21: 6.
IV. We are directed to ask for all things, and to render thanks for all things,
in tho name of Clirist. " Whatsoever ye shall ask in my name, that will I do. —
If ye shall ask any thing in my name, I will do it." " I have chosen you, —
that whatsoever ye shall ask of the Father in my name, he may give it you."
" Whatsoever ye shall ask the Father in my name, lie will give, it you. Hith
erto ye have asked nothing in my name [because he had not yet finished the
work which was to constitute his claim] ; ask, and ye shall receive, that your

APPENDIX. 415
joy may be full. — At that day [after my title is completed], ye shall ask in my
name." John 14: 13,14. 15: 16. 16: 23,24, 26. "Whatsoever ye do in
word or deed, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus [by, or from respect to, his
authority], giving thanks to God and the Father by him." " Giving thanks
always for all things unto God and the Father in the name of our Lord Jesus
Christ." " 1 thank my God through Jesus Christ for you all." " I thank God
through Jesus Christ our Lord." " Unto him be glory in the church by Christ
Jesus throughout all ages, world without end." Rom. 1 : 8. 7 : 25. Eph. 3 : 21.
5: 20. Col. 3: 17.
To ask in the name of Christ, can mean nothing less than to pray that
blessings may be granted for his sake, or out of respect to his merit. To give
thanks in the name of Christ, is to thank God for blessings received on his
account To give thanks by or through Christ, is to deliver our tribute into
his hands to be presented to the Father, as the ancient priests used to present
the thank-offerings and other gifts and sacrifices of the people.
To escape the point blank force of these texts, it has been said, that, in
asking for positive blessings in the name of Christ, we are conscious that our
guilt stands in the way of our receiving, and our meaning is, that we may be
pardoned for his sake, that so the mercies may come directly to us without his
further influence. Now this after all would be asking nothing in bis name but
pardon, and the command as well as our prayers would hold out a false ap
pearance. Had we been directed to recognize over our food and in all our
petitions our need of pardon through Christ, that we could have understood ;
but expressly to tell us to ask all things in his name, in the same unlimited
manner in which we are directed to ask pardon in his name, and to mean only
the latter, would certainly seem to be an extraordinary mode of directing igno
rant creatures.
V. The most decisive as well as complicated argument I have reserved for
the last The Son of God, in reward of his filial obedience, was constituted
" Heir of all things," and received an inheritance which comprehended all the
blessings which ever come to us.
To exhibit a connected view of this interesting subject, itjs necessary to go
back to the essential ideas of sonship. Wherever the relation, character, and
circumstances of a father and son are perfect, there are three ideas essentiaUy
involved in sonship ; generation, fibal obedience, and inheritance. If the last
two are united without the first, as in the case of adoption, the relation is im
perfect If the first and last exist without the second, the character of the son
is defective. If the first two are found without the last, the circumstances or
character of the father is not good. These three parts go in to constitute the
sonship of Christ ; and in reference to every one of them he is apparently said
to have been begotten. The first is beyond dispute. Luke 1 : 35. In respect
to the second, as obedience was a vital part of the character of the Priest, and
as his ordination to that office was really an appointment to a course of filial
obedience, or an introduction to the character and conduct of a Son, that ordi
nation is apparently called his generation. " No man taketh this honor unto
himself, but he that is called of God as was Aaron. So also Christ glorified

416 APPENDIX.
not himself to be made a High-Priest, but [he that ordained him to that office,
you would expect to hear ; the same thing is expressed in other words ; but]
he that said unto him, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee; as he
saith also in another place, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of
Melchisedec." Heb. 5 : 4-6. Accordingly when he was publicly inducted into
the priestly office by baptism and anointing (agreeably to the Mosaic forms),
at the moment of receiving the divine unction which constituted him a priest,
he was named from heaven the Son of God, beloved because obedient Matt
3:17. The very name involved the idea of obedience. " Though he were a
Son, yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered." Heb. 5:8. As
if it had been said, Though he was one whose very nature it was to obey, yet
he was perfected in that virtue by the things wliich he suffered. As to the
third, there needs nothing more to support it than a single sentence in Paul's
sermon at Antioch in Pisidia : " The promise which was made unto the fathers,
God hath fulfilled the same unto us their children in that he hath raised up
Jesus again ; as it is written in the second Psalm, Thou art my Son, this day
have I begotten thee." Acts 13: 32, 33. If we turn back to the second Psalm
we shall find these words to be the public acknowledgment which God made
over the sepulchre, when he raised the sleeping Saviour to the possession and
honors of a Son, and set him King upon the holy hill of Zion, and gave him
the heathen for his inheritance. This reason for the appeUation of Son, and
for the expression in the second Psalm, is again recognized by the same apostle
in his epistle to the Hebrews : " Being made so much better than the angels as
he hath by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they : for unto
which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I
begotten thee ? " Heb. 1:4,5. Here he is expressly said to have " obtained "
the " name" of the " Son " of God " by" the " inheritance " which he received.
And in the Epistle to the Philippians it is affirmed, that he was exalted to this
name as the reward of his obedience : " He humbled himself and became obe
dient unto death, even the death of the cross : wherefore God also hatb highly
exalted him and given him a name which is above every name." Phil. 2 : 8, 9 ;
to wit, the name -of the Son of God. The same reason for the appeUation is
suggested by Gabriel in his message to Mary : " He shall be great, and shall be
called the Son of the Highest, and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne
of his father David." Luke 1 : 32. Accordingly when his glorified state was
set forth on Mount Tabor, where God had decked him in the robes prepared
for the " Heir of all things," the voice from heaven again pronounced, this is
my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased." Matt 17:5. And one of the
witnesses tells us, " We beheld his glory, the glory of the only begotten of the
Father." John 1: 14. Compared with 2 Pet. 1: 1G— 18. It is because his
obedience " unto death " entitled him to the portion of a Son, and because lie
arose to possess the inheritance, that the grave is represented as the womb in
which he was conceived, and his resurrection as the completion of his genera
tion. He is called " the First-born from the dead," and " the First-begotten of
the dead," and is said to have been " declared the Son of God with power —
by the resurrection." Rom. 1 : 4. Col. 1 : 18. Rev. 1:5. It is by a continu-

APPENDIX. 417
ance of the same figure that the "joint-heirs," who inherit in consequence of
his having risen to the estate of a Son, are said to have been " begotten —
again unto a lively hope by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, to
an inheritance incorruptible and undefiled." 1 Pet. 1 : 3, 4. The same form
of speech is used whenever the adoption of believers is spoken of, or whenever
they are called the sons of God. These terms (though the latter refers also to
their new generation and filial spirit) always allude to their inheritance.
This inheritance was conferred on the Mediator as the reward of that amaz
ing exhibition of holiness which he made under law, in other words, for his
obedience " unto death." " Therefore doth my Father love me, because I lay
down my life that I may take it again. — This commandment have I received of
my Father." " He — became obedient unto death — wherefore God also hath
highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name." In
that remarkable description of the inheritance of the " Son " and " Heir of all
things," which is contained in the first three chapters of the Epistle to the He
brews, the ground of the whole is stated in these emphatic words : " Thou hast
loved righteousness and hated iniquity; therefore God, even thy God, hath
anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows.'' And it is added,
" Consider the Apostle and High-Priest of our profession, Christ Jesus, who was
faithful to him that appointed him, as also Moses was faithful in all his house.
For this man was counted worthy of more glory than Moses. — Moses verily was
faithful in all his house as a servant, — but Christ as a Son over his own house."
John 10: 17, 18. Phil. 2: 8,9. Heb. 1:9. 3: 1-6. Indeed, the very name of
inheritance denotes the estate to be the reward of his filial obedience. He re
ceived nothing by birth, but by merit. And what he received by merit and not
by birth was called the portion of a Son, not so much in reference to his gen
eration as to his fibal obedience. In that filial character, and in the reward
which followed, and which hence took the name of inheritance, lie two parts out
of three of the whole meaning of Son of God.
What, then, was his inheritance ? I will first premise that it comprehended
every thing which he received by way of reward. Whatever was bestowed as
the recompense of his obedience was granted for his filial obedience, for only
as a Son was he bound to obey. And whatever was granted for his filial obe
dience was the portion of a Son, or his inheritance. If any inheritance was
conferred for his filial obedience, why should it not comprise every thing which
he received in that way ? Why should half of his reward take this name and
not the whole ? Let it not then be thought that any part of his possession or
power (the whole of which was conferred as a reward) belongs to him as a
mere distributing Agent, and not as the " Heir ot all things; " that any part of
what he governs and gives remains undetached from Godhead, ungranted to the
Mediator, and passes through him as the mere channel of conveyance. It is all
his own inheritance, his own " purchased possession." His dominion itself is
only the appendage of heirship ; for it belongs to the heir when he comes of age
to manage his own estate, to press every thing which he lawfully may into sub
serviency to it, and to give it to whomsoever he pleases. It was " by " the " in
heritance " solely, and not by any dominion distinct from this, that in point of

418 APPENDIX.
outward state he was made " better than the angels," and " obtained a more ex
cellent name than they." Heb. 1:4. It was only as " the First-begotten," or
" Heir of all things," that he was exalted to receive the worship of angels. Heb.
1 : 6, with verse 2. It was only as " the First-born from the dead," "the First
born of every creature," that in point of outward glory he had " in all things —
the preeminence." Col. 1: 15-18. In short, he received nothing into his hands
but what he inherited as the " Heir." We may therefore unhesitatingly con
clude that his whole reward went into the inheritance, and remains his own
property, detached from pure Godhead, held by a mediatorial claim, and placed
in a new relation to this world. Accordingly we shall find the different parts
of it interchangeably spoken of as an inheritance and as a reward.
Let us now see what that inheritance contains. It comprehends all the na
tions of the earth, over whom, as an appendage of heirship, he exercises domin
ion both to save and to destroy. " Why do the heathen rage, and the people
imagine a vain thing ? The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers
take counsel together against the Lord and against his Anointed ; [alluding, as
we are expressly told, to the combination of Pilate and Herod, and the rulers
and people of Israel, and the Roman soldiers, against Christ]. — Acts 4 : 25-27.
Yet have I set my King upon my holy hill of Zion. I will declare the decree :
the Lord hath said unto me, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee ;
[referring, as the Holy Ghost declares, to his resurrection]. Acts 13 : 33. Ask
of me, and I shall give thee [manifestly by way of reward] the heathen for thine
inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth for thy possession. Thou shalt
break them with a rod of iron ; thou shalt dash them in pieces like a potter's
vessel. — Kiss the Son [the Heir], lest he be angry, and ye perish from the
way when his wrath is kindled but a bttle. Blessed are all they that put their
trnst in him." Ps. 2 : 1-12.
The inheritance includes all worlds and things through the universe, over
which, as lawful Owner, he is appointed to rule. " God — hath in these last
days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed Heir of all things: —
who, — when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of
the Majesty on high ; being made so much better than the angels as he hath by
inheritance obtained a more excellent name than tbey : for unto which of the
angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee ?
and again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son ? And again,
when he bringeth in the First-begotten into the world, he saith, And let all the
angels of God worship him. — Unto the Son [the Heir] he saith, Thy throne,
O God, is forever and ever. — Thou hast loved righteousness and hated ini
quity ; therefore God, even thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of glad
ness above thy fellows. — But to which of the angels said he at any time, Sit on
my right hand until I make thine enemies thy footstool ? — For unto the angels
hath he not put in subjection the world to come whereof we speak: but one in
a certain place testified, saying, What is man that thou art mindful of him? —
Thou madest hiin a little lower than the angels ; thou crownedst him with glory
and honor, and didst set him over the works of thy hands. Thou hast put alt
things in subjection under his feet. For in that he put all in subjection under

APPENDIX* 41$
him, he left nothing that is not put under him [nothing but God himself, as it
is said in another place]. 1 Cor. 15 : 24-28. But now we see not yet all things
put under him : but we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels
for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honor." Heb. i. and ii. " He —
became obedient unto death: — wherefore God also hath highly exalted him,
and given him a name which is above every name ; that at the name of Jesus
every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things un
der the earth ; and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord
to the glory of God the Father." Phil. 2 : 6-11. " Jesus knowing that the Fa
ther had given all things into his hands," said after his resurrection, " All power
is given unto me in heaven and in earth." And not to him as a mere distrib
uting Agent, but for his own. " All things that the Father hath are mine."
Matt. 28 : 18. John 13 : 3. 1G : 15. Indeed, all things were expressly made " for
him," as " the First-born of every creature," " the First-born from the dead,"
the " Heir of all things." Col. 1 : 15-18.
In other places all worlds and things are represented as given him for a re
ward. " For the joy that was set before him " he " endured the cross, despising
the shame, and is set down at the right hand of the throne of God." " For to
this end Christ both died, and rose, and revived, that lie might be Lord both of
the dead and living." I will " divide him a portion with the great, and he shall
divide the spoil with the strong, because he liatli poured out his soul unto death."
Isa. 53 : 12. Rom. 14 : 9. Heb. 12:2.
This is a general view of the inheritance. Before I descend to those partic
ulars which will bear more directly on the subject, I will remark here, that he
received this general inheritance for the use of the church and the world. There
was a special reference to the elect. If he received " power over all flesh," a
leading object was, " that he should give eternal life to as many as " God had
" given him." If he was " exalted," a principal end was, that he might " be- a
Prince and a. Saviour, for to give repentance to Israel and forgiveness of sins."'
John 17 : 2. Acts 5 : 31. Did he obtain the Spirit? it was indeed to call the
race at large, and to sanctify and comfort all who would believe ; but it was also
to regenerate his chosen. Did ho obtain dominion over angels V if it was, that
they might be " ministering spirits " to a world of moral agents, it was in a spe
cial sense that they might " minister for them who shall be heirs of salvation.**"
Heb. 1 : 14. When I say that he received the inheritance for the use of the
church, I mean two things : first, that he received it for the unfailing advantage
of his elect, whom he bad obtained a right to form into a church by sanctifying
grace : secondly, that lie received it for the benefit of all who would believe,.
holding it thus as a provision for a whole world of moral agents, and as such.
offering the benefit of it to all. In both senses it may be said, the Father- "-raised
him from the dead and set him at his own right hand in the heavenly places,
far above all principality and power and might and dominion, and every name
that is named, not only in this world, but also in that which is to come, and —
put all things under Ms feet, and gave bim to be Head over all things tottlie
church, which is his body, the fulness of him that filleth all in all." Eph. 1 :
20-23. In both senses I wish to be understood when I say, if he- vanquished

420 APPENDIX.
the powers of darkness, it was not in a separate warfare, but in the service of
the church, and for her use : if he took possession of heaven, it was " to pre
pare a place for" his followers. John 14: 2. Even his personal splendors are
only the royal robes appended to his regal office, which he holds for the benefit
of the church. But a part of the general estate was received, not for the church
as such, that is, not to be given in rewards to believers, and offered as such to
men, but to be bestowed on the race at large in sovereign gifts fitted to a state
of probation.
In proceeding to the particular parts of the inheritance, I shall present them
in two general divisions ; those which respect the elect distinctively, and those
which relate indiscriminately to a world of moral agents.
(1) The elect themselves as a redeemed kingdom, and the regenerating in
fluence by which they are constituted a holy seed, and the sanctifying influence
and inheritance by which they are graciously rewarded, all belong to the inher-
itance and reward of Christ.
The elect themselves, as a holy seed and redeemed kingdom, belong to his
inheritance. " Thou spokest in vision to thy Holy One, and saidst, I have laid
help upon One that is mighty, I have exalted One chosen out of the people. —
He shall cry unto me, Thou art my Father ; [that is, he shall be my Son]. —
Also I will make him my First-born [my Heir] higher than the kings of the
earth. — His seed also will I make to endure for ever, and his throne as the
days of heaven." " I shall give thee tbe heathen for thine inheritance." Ps. 2 : 8.
89 : 3-37. The elect belong to his reward. " When thou shalt make his soul
an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleas
ure of the Lord shall prosper in his hand. He shall see of the travail of his
soul and shall be satisfied. By his knowledge shall my righteous Servant jus
tify many, for he shall bear their iniquities." " We, brethren, as Isaac was, are
the children of promise." Isa. 53 : 10, 11. Gal. 4: 28. The regenerating influ
ence by which they are constituted a holy seed belongs to his reward. Hence
they are said to be created and begotten " in Christ," and to be regenerated for
his sake. God has " saved us by tbe washing of regeneration and renewing of
the Holy Ghost, which he shed on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our
Saviour." 1 Cor. 4:15. 2 Cor. 5:17. Eph. 2 : 10. Tit 3 : 5, 6. Indeed, the
Heir himself, as an essential right, received uncontrolled power to raise them
from the death of sin. " As the Father raiseth up the dead and quickeneth
them, even so tbe Son quickeneth whom he will. — For as the Father hath life
in himself, so hath be given tbe Son to have bfe in himself." John 5 : 21, 26.
Both the influence by which they are regenerated, and the sanctifying influence
by which they are graciously rewarded, belong to his promised recompense.
What else can be meant by our being " chosen — in him before the foundation
of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love ? "
God has " saved us and called us with a holy calling, not according to our
works,but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ
Jesus before tbe world began ; " that is, made over to Christ for us. Eph. 1 : 4.
2 Tim. 1:8,9. We are distinctly taught that he obtained their complete sanc
tification as the reward of his obedience " unto death." He " loved the church

APPENDIX. 421
and gave himself for it, that he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing
of water by the word ; that he might present it to himself a glorious church, not
having spot or wrinkle, or any such thing, but that it should be holy and with
out blemish." " Who gave himself for our sins, that he might deliver us from
this present evil world." " Who gave himself for us, that he might redeem us
from all iniquity, and purify unto himself a peculiar people zealous of good
works." "For their sakes I sanctify myself [devote myself to die], that they
also might be sanctified through the truth." John 17: 19. Gal. 1: 4. Eph: 5:
25-27. Tit. 2 : 14. The inheritance also, which they receive as a gracious
recompense, is a part of his promised reward. What else can be meant by the
eternal election of men in him to the inheritance ? " Blessed be the God and
Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings
in heavenly places in Christ, according as he hath chosen us in him before the
foundation of the world ; — having predestinated us unto the adoption of chil
dren by Jesus Christ to himself." " Paul, — an apostle of Jesus Christ, accord
ing to tbe faith of God's elect, — in hope of eternal life which God that cannot
lie promised before the world began." Promised to whom ? To Christ unques
tionably. Eph. 1 : 3-5. Tit 1:1,2.
(2) Passing by the special notices of the elect, I say in general, that all the
positive good (including expressly sanctification and eternal life) which is
offered and promised to men on the condition of their faith (constituting a com
plete provision for a world of moral agents), and actually bestowed on believers
in gracious rewards, is comprehended in the inheritance of Christ.
The general administration of the Spirit, for the sanctification of all who will
bebeve, belongs both to his inheritance and- reward. First, it belongs to his
inheritance. " When he the Spirit of truth is come, — he shall not speak of him
self [at his own suggestion], but whatsoever he shall hear that shall he speak. — •
He shall glorify me, for he shall receive of mine and shall show it unto you.
All things that the Father hath are mine ; therefore said I that he shall take of
mine and shall show it unto you." The grant was made to him as the beloved
Son and Heir. " God giveth not the Spirit by measure unto him ; the Father
loveth the Son, and hath given all things into his hand." John 3 : 34, 35. 16 :
13-15. Secondly, it belongs to his promised reward. " It is expedient for you
that I go away ; for if I go not away the Comforter will not come unto you, but
if I depart I will send him unto you." This gift could not be bestowed till
Christ had earned his reward. " The Holy Ghost was not yet given, because
that Jesus was not yet glorified." But when he " ascended on high," among
other gifts for men he received this, " that the Lord God might dwell among
them ; " and within ten days he sent the blessing forth. On that occasion Peter
was instructed to make the following explanation : " Being by the right hand
of God exalted, and having received of the Father the promise of the Holy
Ghost, he hath shed forth this which ye now see and hear." Ps. 68 : 18. John
7: 39. 16: 7. Acts 2: 33. Accordingly, the sanctification offered and granted
to men is everywhere ascribed to the essential influence of Christ. " The law
of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and
death." " This is he that came by water and blood." " The grace of God
36

422 APPENDIX.
which is given you by Jesus Christ." " Filled with the fruits of righteousness
which are by Jesus Christ." We are said to be sanctified, built up, and estab
lished " in Christ," and to conquer in and through him. We are said to be
"dead with" him, to be "quickened together with him," to be "risen with
him," " that the life — of Jesus might be made manifest in our body." We are
said to " know — the power of his resurrection," to be " dead to the law by the
body of Christ, that we should be married to another, even to him who is
raised from the dead, that we should bring forth fruit unto God," and to be
" alive unto God through Jesus Christ our Lord." Christ is set forth as the all
in all in the cure of our spiritual maladies, and in the support of our spiritual
life ; as being not merely the channel through which the streams flow, but the
source itself. The cures which he wrought in the days of his flesh exhibit him,
not as an under physician dealing out the medicines of another, but as the
healing fountain. Is no other idea to be awakened in our minds by all those
affecting representations of him as tbe olive-tree constantly shedding its oil to
feed the lamps, as the good olive and vine nourishing the branches, as " the
Head by which all tbe body, by joints and bands having nourishment ministered
and knit together, increaseth with the increase of God," but that he is the mere
Agent to dispense supplies which might have come through another hand ?
He is a " quickening Spirit," not merely as King, but as " the last Adam : "
and sanctification is Christ within us, not merely his image, but his life : " I
live, yet not I, but Christ liveth in me." " Know ye not — that Jesus Christ is
in you except ye be reprobates ? " " If Christ be in you, the body is dead be
cause of sin, but the spirit is life because of righteousness." Christ is " the
Author and Finisher of our faith ; " and it is he who pronounces, " Behold I
make all things new." Zech. 4 : 2-14. John 15 : 1-6. Rom. 6 : 2-11. 7:4. 8:2,
10, 37. 11 : 17. 12 : 5. 1 Cor. 1 : 2, 4. 6:15. 12 : 12-27. 15 : 45, 57. 2 Cor. 1 :
21. 2: 14. 4: 10, 11. 13: 5. Gal. 2: 20. Eph. 2: 20-22. 4: 15,16. 5: 30. Phil.
1:11. 3:10. Col. 2 : 7, 11-13, 19. Heb. 12:2. 1 John 5 : 6. Rev. 21 : 5.
In like manner that eternal life or inheritance which he offers to a world of
moral agents, and bestows on bebevers as a gracious reward, belongs to his own
inheritance. We inherit through him. " In whom also we have obtained an
inheritance.'' " As many as received him, to them gave he power to become
tbe sons of God." " When the fulness of time was come, God sent forth his
Son made of a woman, made under the law, to redeem them that were under
the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons. And because ye are sons,
God hath sent forth the Spirit of his Son into your hearts, crying, Abba Father.
Wherefore thou art no more a servant, but a son ; and if a son, then an heir of
God through Christ." The last clause shows what is always meant by a son of
God. In Christ as tbe Second Adam, and not merely by his Kingly power,
the believing dead will be raised to immortal life. " For since by man [by the
sin of one man] came death, by man [by the righteousness of one man] came
also the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ
shall all be made alive." John 1 : 12. 1 Cor. 15: 21, 22. Gal. 4:4-7. Eph.
1:11. Thus he who is the Alpha is the Omega also of our salvation.
Accordingly, all tbe promises which are offered to the world aud applied

• APPENDIX. 423
to believers, expressly including those of the Spirit and of the* inheritance
were really made to Christ, and reach us as the oil on Aaron's head did the
skirts of his garments. " Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, —
that tbe blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles through Jesus Christ,
that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith [that is, as a
reward]. — Now to Abraham and bis seed were the promises [all the promises]
made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many, but as of One, And to
thy seed, which is Christ. And this I say, that the covenant that was con
firmed before of God in Christ [this shows what is meant by promises made
in Christ], the law — cannot disannul. — For if the inheritance be of the
law, it is no more of promise; but God gave it to Abraham by promise.
Wherefore then servetb the law ? It was added because of transgressions,
till tbe seed should come to whom the promise [of the whole inheritance]
was made. — Tbe Scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise
by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe. [This shows
what is meant by a promise inherited by faith in the Redeemer]. — The
law is our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by
faitb. But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster
[no longer minors incapable of the inheritance conferred in justification] ; for
ye are all the children [heirs] of God by faith in Christ Jesus. — And if ye be
Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed [as being the seed of Abraham's greater
Son], and heirs according to the promise. Now I say that the heir, as long as
he is a child, differeth nothing from a servant, though ho be lord of all."
Hence the promise of inheritance, and all other promises are in Christ. " The
mystery of Clirist — is now revealed, — that the Gentiles should be fellow-heirs
[with the Jews], — and partakers of his promise in Christ." " The promise of
life which is in Christ Jesus." " For all the promises of God in him are yea,
and in him amen." 2 Cor. 1: 20. Gal. 3: 13-29. 4: 1. Eph. 3: 4-6. 2
Tim. 1:1.
Now the promises made to Christ, either in tho covenant of redemption or in
the revelation to the church, impbed nothing less than that the things prom
ised were to be the reward of his work on earth, and what bis services might
fairly claim. I can conceive of but two other grounds on which they can be
supposed to have been made to bim. First, a guardian may receive promises
that his wards shab be endowed, not for his sake, but their own. Secondly, a
parent may be made acquainted with a similar design respecting his children,
and though the estate is to be conferred for their conduct alone, yet the in
formation may be given as a real reward to him. Neither of these cases
illustrates the subject As to the former, if the promises were not intended as
a reward to Christ, but only deposited with him as the guardian of his people,
why were they made to him before the foundation of the world ? * The
church were not there to enjoy the pledge, and when the intelligence reaches
them, it makes them no more assured than the simple purpose of the Father
* We have seen that the promises of the covenant of redemption were not limited to
the elect, but extended to a world of moral agents, securing to Christ the salvation of all
who would believe.

424 APPENDIX.
would have done. As to the latter, if tbe promises were intended as a reward
to Christ, tbe recompense could not be in the pleasure of receiving new in
formation. The second person in tbe Trinity needed not to be informed.
Indeed, what can be understood by a promise in the divine cabinet ? Not a
declaration in words, and yet something more than a mere design. It was a
purpose connected with a bond ; a bond not arising out of the intention itself,
as out of the verbal promise of a man, but from the very service which the Son
was to render. It was a mere recognition of the claim which his work on earth
would. create, and an unchangeable resolution to satisfy it; a claim not origi
nally binding on the Father, but growing out of the acceptance of the Son's
submission. And as to the promises which appear in the pubbc revelation,
why should they be made to Christ at all, and not to the church directly, if
they were not intended to announce to tbe world that the things promised
come to us as his reward ?
On what other ground can you account for the absolute form of the promises,
insuring to every believer continued sanctification and eternal life ? Is it
because those believers were elected ? But the same absolute covenant is
tendered to the world at large. Every man, elect or non-elect, is assured that
if he will once believe, be shall be kept by the power of God through faith unto
salvation. Now, why is this ? Why if Christ is not tbe ground of the prom
ises, and if it is not secured to him, without reference to election, that no
member shall ever be torn from his bleeding side, — that no moral agent who
will once believe in him shall ever perish ? Why, unless it has been promised
of him as the '' First-born " and Heir, " If his children forsake my law and
walk not in my judgment, — then will I visit their transgression with the rod
and their iniquity with stripes; nevertheless my loving-kindness will I not
utterly take from him, nor suffer my faithfulness to fail ? " Ps. 89 : 27-33. If
after removing our guilt, Christ has left us exactly where Adam stood the
moment he was created, — to transact directly with God, and receive only
what we can earn; why this "everlasting consolajion" (2 Thess. 2: 16) to
us more than to Adam ? Mere freedom from guilt in tbe gospel sense creates
no more necessity that men should be kept from falling away, than original in
nocence did. Whence, then, this " better covenant, — established upon better
promises ? " these " exceeding great and precious promises " by which we
become " partakers of the divine nature," and. are assured of " aU things that
pertain unto life and godliness ? " Heb. 8 : 6. 2 Pet 1 : 3, 4. If the influence
of Clirist ends with pardon, and believers stand before God in the same rela
tion that Adam did, why this pledge against apostasy ? Do you say that
Christ procured their eternal pardon ? What, without procuring their sancti
fication ? We have seen that he could not even render their pardon possible
but on the supposition of their being holy. If, then, he did not obtain their
sanctification, he could not obtain absolute pardon for them a moment, and
created no reason why God should issue absolute promises either of sanctifi
cation or eternal life. Why, then, were they issued? We have been accus
tomed to suppose that it was because the salvation of believers was made over
to Christ as his reward. No such thing upon this plan, and we are left to

APPENDIX. 425
account for this wonderful change in the treatment of spotless creatures,
without any reasons drawn from a Mediator. Tell me, then, in what sense he is
" tbe Mediator " of this " better covenant, — established upon better promises ? "
Heb. 8:6. If he did nothing but render sanctification and pardon consistent
with tbe honor of the law, and had no influence in obtaining these absolute
promises, how is he the Mediator of a better covenant than tbe conditional one
at Sinai ? for this is the thing asserted. How in any other sense than as the
mere Promulgator ? The argument of the apostle is, that Christ has " obtained
a more excellent ministry " than tbe Levitical priests, " by how much also be
is the Mediator of a better covenant " than that at Sinai. The superiority of the
covenant is explained to consist in its absolute form, insuring both sanctifi
cation and eternal life. The Sinai covenant, to which were appended all the
bloody sacrifices, certainly secured the pardon of every one who would believe,
and secured it through tbe atonement of a Saviour to come. If in this
new and absolute covenant the Mediator has no higher influence, that is,
no influence to make the covenant absolute, his "more excellent ministry"
turns out to be the mere promulgation of "better promises," which he bad no
band in procuring. And then, if an angel had been sent to announce these
absolute promises (allowing any reason for their being made), he would in as
high a sense have exercised this " more excellent ministry," and been " the
mediator " of every thing in this " better covenant " which distinguished it
from that at Sinai.
Now if all the positive good ever promised to tbe world on the condition of
their faith was really measured out to Christ as his reward, and expressly for.
the use of those who would believe, then it comes to them because it was first
given to him. And this is his own account of the matter. " The glory which
thou gavest me I have given them, that they aU may be one as we are ; I in
them and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one, and that the
world may know — that thou hast loved them as thou hast loved me." John
17: 22-26. The whole amount is this: he earned the inheritance, and his
seed share it with him. By whatever means it happens, all things are actually
made over to them by covenant Now on what ground do they claim ? and
are not the " all things " which are given to them the identical " all things "
which were made over to tbe universal " Heir ? " If so, how came they in
possession of the very things which were given to Christ ? Are there con
flicting claims ? or do they inherit under him ? Let the word of God decide.
" All things are yours : whether Paul, or Apollos, or Cephas, or the world, or
life, or death, or things present, or things to come, all are yours, and ye are
Christ's, and Christ is God's." 1 Cor. 3 : 21-23. Hence the seed " inherit all
things." Rev. 21 : 7. In particular they inherit the promises of eternal life.
" Followers of them who through faith and patience inherit the promises. For
when God made promise to Abraham, — he swore by himself: — wherein God,
wilbng more abundantly to show unto the heirs of promise the immutability of
his counsel, confirmed it by an oath: — which hope — entereth into that
within tbe vail [takes hold of heaven], whither the Forerunner is for us entered,
even Jesus, made a High-Priest forever." Heb. 6 : 12-20. That is, he has
36*

426 APPENDIX.
entered upon the inheritance as our Forerunner, to take possession of it for
our use, and by bis priestly intercession to obtain the acknowledgment of our
title to it as joint-heirs : and the hope which follows him thither is grounded
on the promise of inheritance made to Abraham and his seed, which seed was
Christ As the ancient church inherited from Abraham the land of Canaan,
Gen. 15 : 7. Ps, 37 : 29, 34. 105 : 11 ; the type of heaven, Isa. 60 : 21 ; so we
" inherit " from Christ the " better country," as " heirs together of the grace of
life," " heirs according to the hope of eternal life," Matt. 19 : 29. 25 : 34.
Mark 10 : 17. Tit. 3 : 7. 1 Pet. 3:7; and are said to have an " inheritance
in tbe kingdom of Christ," and to reign " with " him, and even to be " partakers
of Christ." Eph. 5 : 5. Heb. 3 : 14. Rev. 3 : 21. 20 : 4, 6. Hence in that
great description of the inheritance of the " Son," and " Heir of all things," in
the first chapter of Hebrews, we read of the " heirs ; " the meaning of which is
found in this, " If children, then heirs, heirs of God and joint-heirs with Christ"
Rom. 8 : 14-17. Heb. 1 : 14. At one time he is the Parent from whom the
seed inherit, at another time, " tho First-born among many brethren,*' — really
the " Heir," but admitting his younger brethren to share with Mm. " Whom
be did foreknow, be also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his
Son, that he might be the First-born among many brethren." Rom. 8 : 29.
It might be expected, therefore, that every thing would be ascribed to his
essential influence. And so we find it " In " and " through him we — have
— access — unto the Father," — "boldness and access with confidence." We
are " complete in him," " perfect in Christ," " approved in Christ," " accepted in
the Beloved" (that is, because he is beloved) ; and our acceptableness is
called " a sweet savor of Christ," he, and not our works, being the acceptable
incense. Even common blessings come to us through him ; and to rejoice in
tbem religiously is to rejoice in Christ. " That your rejoicing may be more
abundant in Jesus Christ for me by my coming to you again." Those saluta
tions at the beginning and end of the Epistles, " The grace of our Lord Jesus
Christ be with you," " The Lord Jesus Christ be with thy spirit," " Grace be
unto you and peace from God our Father and from the Lord Jesus Christ ; "
were breathings of desire for all good on those addressed, and acknowledg
ments that all good came through the Redeemer. Hence that confidence of
the apostle, " My God shall supply all your need — by Christ Jesus ; " and
that devout and comprehensive acknowledgment, " To us there is but one
God, tbe Father, of whom are all things, and we in him ; and one Lord, Jesus
Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him." Rom. 16 : 20. 1 Cor. 8 : 6.
2 Cor. 2: 15. Eph. 5 : 2. Phil. 4 : 18. Eph. 1:6. 2 : 18. 3 : 12. Phil. 1 : 26.
4 : 19. Col. 1 : 28. 2 : 10. 2 Pet 1 : 2-4.
And now, is it too much to say of the scheme against which these arguments
are arrayed, that it takes away one half of a Saviour and one half of his praise ?
Nor is it the least important part that it filches from us, so far as our comfort
and gratitude to Christ are concerned. To fill the eye with him as the " Heir
of all things," " The First-born among many brethren," who has taken pos
session of the inheritance in our name, to manago it as our Guardian, and to
reserve it for us against our arrival ; to view every comfort, every morsel of

APPENDIX. 427
daily food, as purchased by him, and as belonging to the mediatorial estate ;
is one of the sweetest and subbmest contemplations that ever occupied the
Christian mind. To know that we are indebted to him for all things is the
richest ingredient in prosperity, and tbe brightest gem in the immortal crown.
Do you teb me that it is no matter whether blessings come through Christ, or
directly from the Father, as upon either plan they are equally secure ? This
is precisely the Socinian plea. The worst evil in the Unitarian heresy is its
tendency to lower down the influence of Christ in the business of man's salva
tion, and to send a fallen race immediately to God. Exactly in proportion as
Christ is excluded, our faith, dependence, gratitude, and all our religion, is
changed. If Socinianism changes it entirely, this error changes it in part.
Give me a rehgion which yields to Christ all his influence and all his honors,
wliich in every part of salvation makes him our all in all.

AN

ESSAY

ON THE

SCRIPTURE DOCTRINE OF ATONEMENT:
SHOWING
ITS NATURE, ITS NECESSITY, AND ITS EXTENT.
BY
CALEB BURGE, A.M.
(429)

PREFACE.

The following Essay was originally composed without any design or
thought of its future publication. The writer was induced to undertake
the investigation merely by a hope of obviating certain difficulties, which
had hitherto existed in his own mind, whenever he contemplated the
doctrine of atonement. These difficulties appeared, on examination, to
have arisen, chiefly, from an incorrect, or at least an indefinite, appre
hension of the meaning of certain metaphorical language, which is gen
erally used in discussions on this subject. This circumstance is men
tioned as some apology for an attempt to exclude the use of such lan
guage from the following work.
Perhaps it may be thought, as the writer undertook the work merely
with the hope of removing difficulties from his own mind, it would have
been better, if be had remained satisfied with the attainment of that ob
ject. So the writer thought, and so would he have done, had it not
been for the advice of those in whose judgment he has more confidence
than in his own.
The work is now offered to the public, not with an expectation of
meeting the approbation of those whose prejudices are already enlisted
for the support of a different theory ; nor with much hope of instructing
those who have viewed the subject through a confused medium so long
that they have at length become satisfied with mere general notions and
indefinite ideas ; but, with a hope of affording aid to common Christians,
who, though humble and candid, are still anxious to increase their knowl
edge on those subjects, which " the angels desire to look into."
If the reader should find any thing in the following pages concerning
the correctness of which he entertains doubts, he is requested, as well
for his own sake as that of the Author, to refer it to the Bible in pref
erence to any other authority, as a correct standard of religious senti
ments. THE AUTHOR.
Glastenbury, April, 1822. (431)

CONTENTS.

CHAPTER I.
PAGE
The subject introduced  435
CHAPTER II.
Some obstacles pointed out, which stood in the way of God's pardoning sinners
without an atonement  442

CHAPTER IH.
¦Whether the sufferings of Christ were sufficient to remove the obstacles which
stood in the way of the pardon of sinners  455
CHAPTER IV.
Whether the obedience of Christ constitutes any part of the atonement . . . 470
CHAPTER V,
Full atonement and salvation by grace consistent with each other .... 488
CHAPTER VI.
Answer to an objection; in which it is shown in what sense Christ died in tho
room and stead of sinners ; that his sufferings were not punitive, &e. . . . 494
CHAPTER VII.
An inquiry concerning imputation  504
CHAPTER VHI.
Reasons why faith in the blood of Christ is necessary, in order that sinners may be
justified  513
Conclusion  518
Appendix  533
37 <433)

AN ESSAY

SCRIPTURE DOCTRINE OF ATONEMENT.

CHAPTER I.

THE SUBJECT INTRODUCED.

The doctrine of atonement for sin, by Jesus Christ, is unquestionably
of primary importance in the gospel system. It is the foundation of all
the doctrines of divine revelation which respect the salvation of man
kind : the grand pillar on which they are supported. If this fall, these
other doctrines must fall with it ; but if this stand, the gates of hell can
not prevail against them. It is not improbable, that a conviction of this
truth has been a principal cause of that peculiar opposition which wicked
men have ever made to this doctrine. Christ crucified was a stumbling-
block to the Jews, and foolishness to the Greeks, in the apostolic age ;
nor has the offence of the cross ceased. Wicked men still feel the same
opposition to this fundamental doctrine. It is probable, however, that a
view of other doctrines, which necessarily result from this, is a principal
occasion of ibis opposition. It is easy to perceive, that an infinitely wise
God would never become " manifest in the flesh," unless it were for the
performance of some vastly important work, to accomplish which, the
absolute perfection of a God was requisite. And it must also be per
ceived, that if none other than a being of infinite perfection could take
away sin, or make such an atonement for it as would render it consistent
for God to pardon sinners, it must clearly follow, that sin is an infinite
evil ; and if sin be an infinite evil, then sinners deserve endless punish
ment ; and if they deserve endless punishment, and neglect to embrace
Jesus Christ, as the gospel requires, then this punishment must be
inflicted. But these are truths which the wicked are unwilling to admit.
(435)

436 scripture doctrine op atonement.
To get rid of them, some have denied the divinity of the Saviour, and
others have rejected the whole system of revealed religion.
Mankind, having by nature a strong attachment to their own works,
are unwilling to consider their own righteousness as filthy rags, and
come to an Almighty Saviour for pardon. Hence they are under a
strong temptation to believe, that the Son of God, instead of coming into
the world to make atonement for sin, and open a way of salvation for
sinners, came merely to bear witness to tbe truth, obey the divine law,
show that it is good, and capable of being obeyed by man, set a good ex
ample, and encourage creatures " to do and live." While it is much to
be feared that many have deceived themselves on this subject by yield
ing to the feelings of a carnal mind, which is " enmity against God,"
charity bopeth, that much of the diversity of opinion, which has obtained
among professing Christians, may be owing to causes less criminal.
Whether atonement was, in the nature of things, necessary, in order
that sinners might be pardoned, or whether it was necessary only be
cause God was pleased to require it ; that is, whether God might not
have pardoned sinners without an atonement, or any sort of conditions,
and without injuring his character, sr the interests of his kingdom, if this
had pleased him ; and if not, what were the reasons which rendered such
a procedure improper ; whether the atonement, which Christ made, con
sisted in his obedience, or in his sufferings, or in both united ; whether
it was made for all mankind, or for the elect only ; whether it is, or is
not, of the nature of the payment of a debt ; whether tbe sufferings of
Christ were the very penalty of the divine law, or, rather, a substitute
for the execution of that penalty; and whether the righteousness of
Christ must be imputed to believers, that they may be justified and
saved, are inquiries which frequently arise among professing Christians.
They are inquiries too, concerning which correct information is highly
desirable. The Scriptures are the only source from which such informa
tion can be derived. By them we are taught for what purpose Clirist
came into the world, and also what he has done for the accomplishment
of that purpose.
Hence if the plain instructions of the Scriptures are kept in view, it is
believed, a satisfactory solution of all such questions may be obtained.
Let those Scriptures, then, which speak in plain and simple language of
Christ's coming into the world, of the object he came to accomplish, and
of what he did and suffered for the attainment of that object, be first ex
amined ; and let these be the standard by which to construe those other
parts of Scripture which represent this subject in metaphorical language,
or in rites and ceremonies, which are merely typical.
The necessity of some atonement, in order that sinners may be con-

THE SUBJECT INTRODUCED. 437
sistently pardoned, is sufficiently evident from the event of Christ's
incarnation and death. For no one can rationally suppose, that the Son
of God would have left the bosom of the Father, and the glory which he
had with him before the world was, to take on him the form of a servant
in this world, and subject himself to the pains and sorrows incident to
human life, if such humiliation had not been indispensably necessary, in
order that the purposes of grace, in the salvation of sinners, might be
answered. Nor is it supposable that he would have died, in an ignomin
ious manner, on the cross, if such a death could have been dispensed
with consistently with such purposes. He earnestly prayed, " O my
Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me ! Nevertheless, not
as I wiU, but as thou wilt ! " And considering that the Father heareth
him always, it is inconceivable why this petition was not granted, if, in
deed, it had been possible ; and the designs of God, in the salvation of
sinners, could still have been accomplished.
We have, however, more direct evidence concerning this matter. The
Scriptures speak of the necessity of atonement in language too plain to be
misunderstood. — " Without shedding of blood is no remission." Heb. 9 :
22. " Other foundation can no man lay, than that is laid, which is Jesus
Christ." 1 Cor. 3: 11. "Neither is there salvation in any other ; for
there is no other name under heaven, given among men, whereby we
must- be saved." Acts 4: 12. Our Lord himself, speaking of his suffer
ings and death, taught that it was what must be, that he ought to suffer,
and that it behooved him to suffer. " As Moses lifted up the serpent in
the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up." John 3:14.
" O 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 bis
glory?" Luke 24: 25, 26. " Thus it behooved Christ to suffer, and to
rise from the dead on the third day." Luke 24 : 46.
These plain declarations of Scripture cannot be easily reconciled with
the idea that the bare repentance of a transgressor must be available
with an infinitely holy God, to procure his pardon. Nor can it be any
more easy to reconcile this idea with the commonly received opinion of
rectoral goodness, drawn from the judicious conduct of temporal princes,
in dispensing pardons and inflicting punishments. Should it be abowed,
that repentance and reformation place sinners in the most fit state to re
ceive pardon, and that God is ever disposed to bestow pardon on those
who are qualified to receive it, still it would by no mean's follow, that
repentance, however sincere, would, of itself, secure to its subjects divine
forgiveness. For many things, in themselves considered, may be desir
able, in the view of the Divine Being, which, when viewed in relation to
other things, he cannot desire. If sin could be considered as injurious to
37*

438 SCRIPTURE DOCTRINE OP ATONEMENT.
God, in a private capacity only, we might, indeed, conclude, that since
he is infinitely benevolent, he would readily pardon the penitent. Our
confidence in this conclusion would receive support from the rule pre
scribed for our conduct in cases of private offence. " If thy brother
trespass against thee, rebuke him ; and if he repent, forgive him." But
let sin be considered as committed against God, not in a private, but in a
public capacity, as the Governor of the universe, and, certainly, no such
conclusion can be fairly drawn.
A benevolent individual might grant an immediate, and unconditional
pardon of an offence which had been privately committed, in a case
where only the offender and himself were concerned ; while, at the same
time, if he sustained the character of a public magistrate, the same be
nevolence might lead him to withhold pardon from a criminal, although
he should have full evidence of his repentance. If he viewed immorality
as a disorder tending to the corruption and ruin of his subjects, bis be
nevolence would, above all things, lead him to adopt the most effectual
measures to prevent the evil. — Hence he might behold a criminal, in
the exercise of unfeigned repentance, in the most fit state to receive par
don ; and he might even acknowledge that the penitent criminal, so far
as it respected himself, being truly penitent, was qualified to receive for
giveness ; he might feel benevolence towards him, and a strong disposi
tion to pardon him ; and yet this very benevolence might lead him to inflict
the deserved punishment. If he believed that granting pardon, even to
the penitent, would give encouragement to transgression, by leading his
subjects to entertain a light opinion of the wickedness of transgression,
he would withhold his pardon. For his benevolence would no more al
low him to exceed the bounds of wisdom in granting pardon, than it
would the bounds of justice, in executing punishment. Accordingly, all
temporal princes and governors, who have professed a regard for tbe
public good, have ever deemed it necessary to qualify and guard their
pardons in such a manner as in their judgment was calculated to extir
pate a spirit of disorder, and promote a spirit of loyalty and obedience
among their subjects. Indeed, it is the united voice of the civilized
world, that it would be unwise and unsafe to dispense pardon in any
other way.
It must be evident, therefore, that, before any argument in favor of
the absolute pardon of all who repent, can be allowed to result from the
natural fitness of the penitent to receive it, or from the disposition of be
nevolence to bestow it on all who are the subjects of such fitness, it cer
tainly must be shown, either that sin is no offence,, otherwise than as it is
an affront offered to God, in a private personal capacity ; or, that repent
ance effectually repairs all the damages which the sin repented of has

THE SUBJECT INTRODUCED. 439
occasioned, or has a tendency to occasion, in the system of intelligent be
ings. But neither of these things, it is apprehended, can be made to
appear. But, in the economy of redemption, pardon is offered to the guilty.
On condition of repentance, the gospel promises not only an exemption
from punishment, but an eternal inheritance of glory. Yet, what is re
pentance, that it should thus be available with God ? It cannot be thus
available, surely, by virtue of its own natural value. For the most
which can be said in favor of a sinner who repents is, that, having re
belled, he now gives up his rebellion and returns to his duty. What,
then, can this possibly merit ? Can it entitle him to the pardon of his
sins, for which he actually deserved destruction ; and also to a new and
glorious state of existence in heaven ? Surely the conscience of no re
penting sinner, unacquainted with the gospel, would ever suggest a hope
of this inestimable good. Yet God has, in his abundant grace, offered
and promised not the pardon of sin only, but eternal blessedness and
glory also to all who will truly repent. It is, therefore, as unreasonable
as it is unscriptural, to suppose that God has done this merely because
a state of repentance is the most fit state, in which a sinner can be to re
ceive pardon. Such a state being the most fit, it is obvious, indeed, that
the repentance of a sinner is necessary; but it by no means appears,
that this is all that is necessary. It shows a reason why repentance is
required ; but it certainly does not show that it did not behoove Christ to
suffer in order that the sinner, prepared by repentance, might be con
sistently forgiven.
The sufferings of Christ constituted the most affecting scene which was
ever exhibited on earth. His death was the most grand and awful event
which the world ever witnessed. In view of it, the sun withheld his
beams, and the heavens were clothed in mourning ; the earth trembled,
and the graves of the dead were opened. Nature sympathized with her
suffering and dying Lord. But, why did it please the Lord thus to
bruise his Son ? Why did it behoove the Son of God thus to suffer? It
certainly affords very little satisfaction to answer such inquiries, by re
solving the necessity of this august event into the mere sovereign pleas
ure of Jehovah. If the question were asked, why it is necessary that a
sparrow should fall, it might be a satisfactory answer to say, God has
been pleased so to order it ; because it cannot be reasonably expected,
that God will assign to his creatures, the reasons of his conduct respect
ing every event, which is of no greater magnitude than this.
But, though events of the smallest magnitude may thus be resolved
into the sovereignty of God, it by no means follows, that events of the
greatest magnitude may be disposed of in the same manner. The Scrip-

440 SCRIPTURE DOCTRINE OP ATONEMENT.
tures assure us, that God loved the Son, and was well pleased in him.
How, then, should he smite him, awake the sword against him, and put
him to grief? Our feelings revolt at the thought that the Father of
mercies should ever be pleased to do this, unless there existed some im
portant reason, some urgent necessity for the affecting procedure. If the
Scriptures furnished us with no means of ascertaining what that necessity
was, yet, in view of the divine attributes, we should be constrained to
believe that such necessity existed. But, thanks be to God, who has not
left us in darkness respecting this primary article of our holy faith, he
has clearly revealed to us the reason, why the Son of man must be lifted
up ; why his cross should be so highly extolled by the inspired writers,
and why the blood of sprinkling should speak better things than the
blood of Abel. Perhaps there is no one passage in the Scriptures,
which more clearly unfolds this great doctrine, than that of the Apostle
Paul, Bom. 3 : 25, 26 ; "Whom God hath set forth, to be a propitiation,
through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission
of sins which are past, through the forbearance of God. To declare, I
say, at this time, his righteousness, that he might be just, and the justi
fier of him that believeth in Jesus." In this passage, and the context, we
have something more than a bare mention of the atonement, or a decla
ration concerning it ; we have rather a development of its nature and
necessity. The apostle here expressly informs us, that the sufferings of
Christ were necessary, to declare God's righteousness for the remission
of sins ; that God might be just, and yet the justifier of the sinner, who
believeth in Jesus.
There is such a connection between the doctrines of grace, that it is
sometimes difficult to illustrate one of them clearly, without bringing
others into view. This is peculiarly the case with the doctrine of atone
ment. Two of the points, more immediately connected with this, are to
tal depravity, and justification by grace through faith. These points are
illustrated, in tbe passage last quoted, and its context, in their natural
order and necessary connection. One is mentioned as a ground of the
necessity of atonement; and the other as a consequence of atonement.
The atonement would never have been necessary, if man had not sinned ;
neither could sinners ever have been justified by grace, if Christ had not
died. The apostle clearly illustrates this order and connection of these
leading doctrines. On the subject of depravity, he quotes from the
Psalms the following description of the character of man, in his natural
state: "There is none that understandeth ; there is none that seeketh
after God. They are all gone out of the way ; they are together be
come unprofitable ; there is none that doeth good, no not one. Their
throat is an open sepulchre ; with their tongues they have used deceit ;

THE SUBJECT INTRODUCED. 441
the poison of asps is under their lips ; whose mouth is full of cursing and
bitterness ; their feet are swift to shed blood ; destruction and misery are
in their ways ; and the way of peace they have not known ; there is no
fear of God before their eyes.''
From this description of the character of man, the apostle concludes
that no flesh can ever be justified by the deeds of the law. " Therefore,
by the deeds of the law shall no flesh be justified in his sight." This
very naturally leads to the atonement as being necessary to the salvation
of any sinner. And, if there is no way in which sinners can be saved,
except through the atonement, it plainly follows, that justification must
be " freely, by grace." This tbe apostle states. " Being justified freely
by his grace, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus."
Having thus cleared his way, with much ease and perspicuity he un
folds the nature and necessity of Christ's atonement. " Whom God hath
set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare bis right
eousness for the remission of sins that are past through the forbearance of
God." By this it appears, that God could not have declared his righteous
ness in forgiving sins, if he had not set Christ forth to " be a propitiation."
It also appears, that the work of Christ, wliich was strictly propitiatory,
was, he shed his blood ; so that if he had not shed his blood, all which
he did besides could have made no propitiation. " He was set forth to be
a propitiation through faith in his blood." It appears, moreover, that the
nature of the atonement is such, that God cannot appear righteous, in
saving any, unless they have faith in Christ's blood. The object for
which he was set forth was, " to be a propitiation through faith in his
blood." This the apostle teaches us was done, that God might " declare
his righteousness for tbe remission of sins ; " or, in other words, that he
might appear righteous in forgiving sins. Having said this, he proceeds,
in the next verse, to state the same thing again, in language a little dif
ferent, as if anxious, by all means, to prevent mistakes, on a subject of
such importance. " To declare, I say, at this time, his righteousness,
that he might be just, and the justifier of him that believeth in Jesus."
On tbe whole, it appears evident that the doctrine, which the apostle de
signed to teach, is this ; if God bad not set forth Christ to shed his blood
for the remission of sins, he could not have been just, in saving sinners ;
nor can he now, unless they believe in Jesus.
This passage of the apostle will be made the theme of the fobowing
discussion. No one will be surprised, therefore, if it should be frequently
mentioned, and alluded to, in the course of the work. If the reader is a
believer in the correctness and divine authority of the sacred Scriptures,
he will readily assent to any thing, which shall be fairly proved from
them. In perfect consistency with this, however, he may, if inquisitive,

442 SCRIPTURE DOCTRINE OP ATONEMENT.
desire to know why God could not have declared his righteousness, if he
had pardoned sinners, without setting forth Christ to be a propitiation.
He may wish to see the very reasons pointed out, which would have ren
dered such a procedure inconsistent with a manifestation of divine right
eousness ; that is, he may wish to see the very thing which rendered
atonement necessary, and have the precise obstacles which stood in the
way of the sinner's happiness clearly pointed out. If this necessity
should be distinctly brought into view, and the obstacles plainly de
scribed, he may then wish to know what Christ has done, to meet that
necessity and to remove those obstacles. He may also wish to see
clearly how what Christ has done meets that necessity, and the precise
manner, in which those obstacles are removed. If all this should be ac
complished, it will certainly afford him much satisfaction to find the
scheme fully supported, by the uniform tenor of inspired truth. How
far this is accomplished, in the fobowing essay, is submitted to the judg
ment of the impartial reader.

CHAPTER n.
SOME OBSTACLES POINTED OUT, WHICH STOOD ET THE WAT OF GOD'S
PARDONING SINNERS WITHOUT AN ATONEMENT.
That some atonement was necessary, is so clearly revealed in Scrip
ture, and so evident from the event of Christ's death, that among those
who have professed to believe the Bible, it has never been extensively
denied. The reasons why it was necessary, have furnished a subject of
more dispute. Some have supposed it was necessary to conciliate the
divine feelings, and render God propitious. They have imagined, that
when man sinned, the anger of God was so enkindled against him, and
his indignation so excited, as to exclude from his bosom all compassion
towards him, and all disposition to do him good; and hence that the
atonement was necessary to cool the divine anger, and to produce in
the mind of God, a disposition more favorable to the sinner. In short,
that it was necessary Christ should suffer, and die on tbe cross, that the
Supreme Being might become compassionate towards sinners.
But this differs very widely from the view which the Holy Scriptures
give us of this subject. They represent the Supreme Being as feeling
tenderly compassionate towards sinners, antecedently to the atonement,
and as being no more compassionate towards them since Christ died,

NECESSITY OP AN ATONEMENT. 443
lhan he was before. If there had been no atonement, his compassion
would have been the same. If atonement had been impossible, or, in the
view of infinite wisdom, ineligible, still the divine compassion would have
been just as great, as it is now since Christ has died. In this case,
though God would have been under a moral necessity of executing the
penalty of his law upon sinners, yet he would have felt the same com
passion and kindness towards them whieh he now feels ; and if it could
have been consistent to do them any good, he would have been as much
inclined to do it as he now is.
We have abundant evidence in the death of Christ itself, that his
death was not necessary to induce the Supreme Being to exercise benev
olence, and the tenderest compassion towards sinners. For surely, if
God had not been benevolent, if he had not been gracious, and full of
compassion to sinners, he would never have concerted the scheme of
atonement, at infinite expense, to do them good. If he had not already
loved the world, it is inconceivable that he should have given his only
begotten and well-beloved Son, that whosoever believeth in him should
not perish, but have everlasting life. Accordingly, the Scriptures evi
dently lead us to view the gift of Christ, to a lost world, as a fruit of that
tender compassion, and as a wonderful expression of that love, which
God felt towards sinners, before any atonement was made for them.
" God commendeth his love towards us, in that, while we were yet sin
ners, in due time, Christ died for the ungodly." Rom. 5:8. " Herein is
love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us, and sent his Son to be
the propitiation for our sins.'' 1 John 4: 10. This same love and com
passion, under the influence' of which God gave his Son to be a sacrifice
for sin, must forever have remained his immutable disposition, even if
Christ had never died.
The scheme which supposes atonement necessary that a change might
be produced in the personal feelings of the Divine Being, or to render
him compassionate towards sinners, presents a very unscriptural idea,
both of the nature of sin, and of the character of God. It represents sin
as being injurious to God in a private personal capacity only ; and it
represents God as being in the highest degree inexorable. For, if sin
be injurious to God in a private personal capacity only, and he be not an
inexorable, but a compassionate being, he might certainly pardon, at
least as many sinners as repent, without any atonement whatever. But
sin should not be considered in this light. It is an offence against God,
in a public capacity, as the Supreme Governor of the universe. Hence,
notwithstanding God is infinite in benevolence and compassion, he can
not grant pardon to sinners, unless it can be done under such circum
stances, and in such a way, as render it consistent with the highest inter-

444 SCRIPTURE DOCTRINE OF ATONEMENT.
est of the great community over which his government extends. " If
wisdom obligeth a temporal prince, in his narrow sphere, on several
accounts, duly to guard and qualify his pardons ; how much more is it
reasonable and expedient, that the Father and Ruler of all things, whose
government comprehends and inspects the vast systems of intelligent na
tures that are, and all that, to all eternity, may possibly be ; how much
more reasonable is it, that he should order the grand dispensation of
granting pardons to a sinful world, in a proper and suitable manner."
If, with the difficulties in view which have stood in the way of dis
pensing pardon, even among temporal princes, we place ourselves back,
in our imagination, to the time when the parents of our race first sinned,
and inquire why God might not continue them in a state of happiness,
notwithstanding their transgression, it is believed difficulties in the way,
of very serious importance, may be easily discovered. Though we cer
tainly shall find no want of kindness and compassion in the divine feel
ings, yet other difficulties may readily be perceived, to remove which an
atonement was indispensably necessary, as they were, otherwise, wholly
insurmountable. God had given his rational creatures a law, as the rule
of their conduct, and sanctioned this law with an awful penalty. Instead
of continuing obedient to this law, and conforming to this rule, our first
parents departed from it, and transgressed. If, in these circumstances,
God had directly pardoned them, and continued them in a state of hap
piness, without any adequate atonement, would not his character have
appeared questionable, in the view of other intelligent beings ? By such
a procedure, would he not have' given rational creatures reason to con
clude, or at least to suspect, that he had either given them a law which
he did not esteem good, or that he was destitute of a disposition to vindi
cate and support one, which he did esteem good ? In this way, then,
how could he declare bis righteousness ? How could he appear just ?
Perhaps, indeed, on a careful inquiry, it may be found evident, that, if
God had pardoned sinners without an atonement, he would have ap
peared very unjust in several things, which are infinitely important to
the universe.
f 1. He would have appeared unjust to his holy law. It is unjust to
treat any thing with less respect than it really deserves. A law cannot
he treated with respect, unless it is executed. Every good law ought to
be respected ; and, therefore, ought to be executed ; while a bad law is
entitled to no respect ; and, therefore, ought not to be executed. Hence,
to decline executing any law is to treat that law as a bad one. It is
treating it as every wise and good being would treat a bad law. If, then,
any being should treat a good law in this manner, he would treat it with
great disrespect. He would practically say it ought to be treated as a

NECESSITY OF AN ATONEMENT. 445
#
bad law ; which must be exceedingly disrespectful, and of course highly
unjust. Every one must see that to treat a good man, who deserves high
respect, as a bad man who deserves no respect, would be highly unjust.
The case is precisely the same with respect to a law. To treat a good
law as a bad one ought to be treated, is, in the nature of things, as unjust
as to treat a good man as a bad one ought to be treated.
Now the law of God is infinitely holy and just and good ; and, being
such, is infinitely deserving of respect ; and, since God is an infinitely
just and good being, it must be morally impossible, that he should treat
his law in any other manner than it ought to be treated. He cannot
treat it disrespectfully. But mankind have sinned, and transgressed this
law ; for which transgression it condemns them to eternal misery. If, in
these circumstances, God had given up the penalty of the law, and of
fered pardon to guilty man, without an atonement, he would have treated
tbe law precisely as a bad law ought to be treated ; and, of course, with
the highest injustice and disrespect. But if, when man sinned, God had
executed the penalty on him, he would have treated the law with re
spect, as a good law ought to be treated ; and, since the law is perfectly
good, this would have been to treat it justly, or as it deserves to be
treated. Thus any procedure which should diminish aught from this
respect, would be injustice to the law. If, then, the penalty should be
remitted, something else must be done, which would manifest for the law
as much respect as the complete execution of its penalty ; otherwise, the
law must be treated unjustly. But if any thing of this kind could be
done, then God might grant pardon to sinners without doing any injus
tice to the law; because, in bestowing pardon in this way, he would show
as much respect for his law as he could show by executing its penalty.
Any thing which should fully answer this purpose, must be, so far, a
complete atonement. It is obvious, therefore, that, if sinners were to be
pardoned, atonement was necessary, in order that proper respect might
be shown to the divine law.
Besides, if God had pardoned sinners without any atonement, he would
not only have treated his law with great disrespect, but he would have
utterly failed in the support of its authority. There is no way in which
a violated law can be supported, without either executing its penalty, or
doing something else, which, as a substitute, will answer the same ends.
To neglect the execution of the penalty, when the law is violated, is, in
effect, to destroy the existence of the law to which it is annexed ; for a
law, destitute of authority, is, in reality, no law. But every good law
certainly has a just claim upon the lawgiver, to cause its authority to be
respected. Hence, if God, by neglecting to execute bis law, i-hould de
stroy its authority, it is manifest that he would treat it with the greatest
38

446 SCRIPTURE DOCTRINE OF ATONEMENT.
injustice. If, when mankind sinned, God had proceeded to execute on
them the penalty of his law, he would, in this way, have completely sup
ported its authority ; and, in this respect, have done it justice. But,
without executing the penalty, he could not be just to his law, unless
something could be done, which, as a substitute, would as fully support
its authority. Any thing which would do this, would be, in this respect,
a satisfactory atonement. On the ground of such an atonement, God
might appear just to his law in pardoning transgressors ; because par
doning them, in this way, would not injure its authority. But if God
had pardoned sinners without such an atonement, he must, of necessity,
have destroyed the life and authority of an infinitely good law ; and this
must have been infinite injustice. Atonement was necessary, therefore,
that sinners might be pardoned, consistently with doing justice to the
law. 2. If God had pardoned sinners without an atonement, he must have
been unjust to his kingdom.
That a king may be just to his kingdom, he must adopt aU proper
means to promote its best interest. That this may be attained, one
thing, which is essentially necessary, is, that peace and harmony may be
secured as far as possible. But that peace and harmony may be se
cured among moral beings, they must be placed under the authority of
good and wholesome laws, which are calculated to discountenance vice,
and encourage virtue. There is no other way in which moral beings
can be properly governed. If, then, a king desires to promote the inter
est and happiness of his kingdom, this desire will lead him to enact good
laws for its government ; laws which have a tendency to restrain and
suppress the various kinds of wickedness which disturb the peace of
society. But every good law must be enforced with some suitable pen
alty.* Should a law be enacted without any penalty, however suitable
and important its provisions, it must be destitute of all authority. It
would be of tbe nature of advice, rather than of law. For it could have
no more power or tendency than mere advice, to restrain from immoral
ity. But if it be necessary that vice should be suppressed or restrained,
that the best interest of a kingdom may be secured, it must be equally
necessary that efficient laws should be made against it ; and, that laws
may be of this character, they must be enforced with proper penalties.
* " What can bo the benefit of a law (if indeed there can be a law) without penal
sanctions ? It can suggest no motive to obedience from tho consideration of any good
as its reward ; nor restrain from disobedience by the fear of evil. That, indeed, can,
with no propriety, bo termed a law, which has no sanctions — which does not enforco
duty by the consideration of the good and evil consequences which shall follow obedi
ence, and the reverse." — West on Atonement, p. 180.

NECESSITY OF AN ATONEMENT. 447
Every king, therefore, is under obligation to his kingdom, to enact laws,
enforced with suitable penalties, against the practice of vice. If he do
otherwise, he must conduct towards his kingdom with the greatest injus
tice. Because, in no other way can he possibly secure the great object
of government.
But if the well being of a kingdom require that laws be enacted
against vice, and enforced with penalties, it must equally require that
these laws be faithfully executed. However good laws may be in them
selves, if they are not carried into execution, they lose their force and
energy, and utterly fail of securing the ends for which they were de
signed. A good king, therefore, having made laws for the benefit of his
kingdom, will be very careful to have them executed. Should any king
do otherwise he would not promote the best interest of his kingdom.
Instead of restraining, he would encourage wickedness. His subjects,
perceiving that he disregarded and slighted his own laws, would be en
couraged to disregard and slight them likewise. Seeing the laws were
not executed, they would not fear the penalty. They would be under
no more restraint than if no laws existed. The kingdom would be filled
with vice and confusion, and would soon come to an end. Whenever
any government ceases to execute the penalty of a law, that law is vir
tually repealed, because it ceases to produce any effect, and becomes a
nullity. Some governments seldom repeal laws in any other way.
Whenever any law is judged to be improper, or no longer necessary,
instead of being formally repealed, the execution of it is discontinued.
The penalty is no longer inflicted. This is designed to answer, and does
really answer, the purpose of a repeal. It is necessary, therefore, in
order that any king may be just to his kingdom, that he should not only
enact good laws, enforced with proper penalties, but that he should cause
these laws to be faithfully executed.
All this is as necessary in the divine government, as in human govern
ments, and indeed as much more necessary, as the former is more impor
tant than the latter. It is, in the nature of things, impossible, that God
should govern moral beings, as moral beings, in any other way than by
laws. It is not intended, that God has not power enough to govern
them by impulse, as he governs the material world ; for he unquestiona
bly has. This, however, would not be to govern them as moral beings,
but as material objects. God may as well govern material objects, as
such, by the influence of motives, as he can govern moral beings, as
such, without the authority of laws.* When God gave existence to in-
* "Moral creatures act from motive: and we know of no other way in which
moral government can be exercised over them, than by rules of conduct prescribed and
enforced by promises and threatenings. Creatures, incapable of influence from motives

448 SCRIPTURE DOCTRINE OP ATONEMENT.
telbgent beings, he was under the necessity either of leaving them to
themselves, without retaining any government over them, or of placing
them under the authority of a moral law. For, since it is absurd to
suppose a race of moral beings governed as such, without moral laws, it
follows, that God must govern moral beings by laws, or else exercise no
government over them. But it must be obvious, that it is utterly irrec
oncilable with wisdom and goodness, to create intelligent beings, and
then leave them without government. It clearly results, therefore, that
God was under a moral necessity of placing moral beings under moral
laws. It must be evident, moreover, that a penalty was no less neces
sary to give efficacy to the law of God, than it is to any other law.
Hence it follows, that when God placed intelligent beings under a
moral law, he was under a moral necessity of enforcing that law with a
proper penalty. He is, also, under the same necessity of executing the
law, by inflicting the penalty on every transgressor ; unless something
can be devised, which will, as a substitute, equally secure the bfe and
energy of the law.
From what has already been said, it is evident that the law of God was
necessary to secure the best interest of his kingdom, by discountenancing
disobedience or wickedness. Justice to his kingdom required that such
a law should be given to his moral subjects ; because its best interests
could not be secured in any other way. But no law can have any influ
ence to deter moral beings from vice, unless enforced by a proper pen
alty ; nor can it continue to have influence, unless the penalty is executed
when the law is violated. Hence if when God gave a law to the sub
jects of his kingdom, prohibiting wickedness, he had suffered it to be
transgressed with impunity, the law would have had no tendency to re
strain them. Every law must be enforced, or its authority must cease.
If, when mankind transgressed the divine law, they had been suffered to
escape with impunity, it must entirely have destroyed the authority and
force of the law. Moral beings would have perceived that it was not the
determination of God to execute the penalty of his law. When they had
learned this, all the restraints which the law had imposed on them would
be immediately removed. But if, instead of this, moral beings perceive
that God is determined to support his law by executing its penalty, they
of good and evil, happiness and misery, are neither themselves moral, nor proper ob
jects of moral government. And where creatures are subjected to no rules of conduct
enforced by promises and threatenings, we see no sense in which they con be under
law. It is essential to moral law, that it contains rules of action enforced by promises
and threatenings. These are fit to operate as motives on the minds of moral creatures.
But if the force of the threatenings of the word of God be destroyed, the influence of
the promises must equally ccaso ; and moral government will then be at an end." —
West, p. 185.

NECESSITY OF AN ATONEMENT. 449
will be under a powerful restraint, because they will be afraid to trans
gress, lest the penalty should be inflicted on them. In no other way is it
possible that the law should impose any restraint, which might not have
been equally imposed by mere advice.
If, when man transgressed, God had executed the penalty on him,, this
would have afforded evidence to all moral beings that he was determined
to execute the penalty of his law on transgressors. This would have had
a powerful tendency to restrain them from disobedience. They would
have been afraid to transgress. Had God done this, therefore, he would
have done something which would tend to deter others from transgres
sion, and to secure peace and order in his kingdom. In this way be
would have been just to his kingdom. But if when man became a sin
ner by transgressing the divine law, God had pardoned him without any
atonement, this would have been evidence to inteUigent beings that he was
not determined to execute tbe penalty of his law. They would, of course,
have ceased to be afraid of the penalty, and the law would no longer
have imposed any restraint upon them. If, then, God had pardoned sin
ners without an atonement, he would not have done any thing to deter
others from disobedience. Instead of preventing, he would have encour
aged wickedness. For when moral beings perceived that God did not
respect his own law, they would have been encouraged to treat it with
disrespect. When they perceived that God did not honor it, by support
ing its authority, they would have been encouraged to dishonor it, by dis
obeying its precepts. In this way, instead of deterring moral beings from
disobedience, God would have encouraged them in it. This, instead of
promoting and securing, would have destroyed the best interests of his
subjects. Hence if God had pardoned sinners without an atonement, he
must have been infinitely unjust to his kingdom. If, however, any thing
by way of atonement could be done which would tend to deter others
from disobedience, as effectually as would the execution of the penalty of
the law on transgressors, God might, out of respect to this, pardon, trans
gressors and be just to his kingdom still. But any atonement which
would not be as effectual in deterring others from disobedience, as, the
execution of the penalty of the law would be, must be insufficient ;, be
cause this would not secure the good of the kingdom so effectually.. The
execution of the penalty of the law on those subjects who had trans
gressed, would have deterred other moral subjects from transgression,
and in this way have done justice to the kingdom ; but justice could not
be done by any thing short of this, unless it were something which, as a
substitute, would as fully answer the same purpose ; that is, be equally
effectual in deterring others from disobedience. It was necessary,, there-
38*

450 SCRIPTURE DOCTRINE OF ATONEMENT.
fore, that there should be an atonement in order that God " might be just,
and the justifier of" those who had transgressed his law.
3. If God had pardoned sinners without any atonement, he would have
been unjust to himself.
Every good being, in order to do justice to his own character, must
manifest his goodness. A wise being, in order to do justice to his char
acter, must manifest his wisdom ; or, at least, he must not manifest any
thing which is opposite to wisdom. All must allow that if one being
should knowingly give a wrong representation of the character of another,
who is wise and good, he would be very unjust. But if a good and wise
being should give a wrong representation of his own character (if this
¦ were possible) there would be the same injustice done, which there would
if the same representation were made by another. The injury done to
the good character would be the same in the one case as in the other.
Hence it must be evident that if God is good, if he is wise, and if he is
consistent in his conduct, he must manifest his goodness and his wisdom,
or be very unjust to his own character. But if God had pardoned sin
ners without any atonement, he could not have manifested either his good
ness, wisdom, or consistency of conduct. This may clearly appear from
the following considerations.
First. In this way, he could not have manifested any regard for holi
ness, or any hatred of sin.
By God's pardoning a sinner is meant his receiving him to favor, and
treating him as if he had never sinned. If, therefore, he had pardoned
sinners without any atonement, it must have been impossible, in the
nature of things, for him to have given intelligent beings any reason to
believe that he is more opposed to sin than to holiness. For, in this
case, he would have treated sinners in the same manner that he treats
holy beings. He would have put no difference between the holy and
the profane. He would have manifested no more disapprobation of the
disobedient than of the obedient; nor any more complacency in the
obedient than in the disobedient. It is plain, therefore, that in this way
be could not have manifested any regard for holiness nor hatred of sin.
Hence be would have done infinite injustice to his own character. He
never could have appeared an object of holy love and reverence. Holy
beings never could have felt safe in his hands. They must have lost
that confidence and delight in his character, which resulted from contem
plating him as a being who loved righteousness and hated iniquity.
It is vain to object to this, that God might have manifested( his
hatred of sin by a public declaration of it, even though he had pardoned
sinners. There is no more sure method of determining what any being

NECESSITY OF AN AtONEMENT. 451
is, than by ascertaining what he does. The declarations of no being can
command rational belief, while these declarations are manifestly contra
dicted by his actions. If an earthly sovereign should treat his obedient
and disobedient subjects precisely in the same manner, they would both
conclude, that disobedience is just as pleasing to him as obedience. If a
parent should neglect to punish his disobedient child, and to reward the
obedient, they would justly come to the same conclusion. No profes
sions of the sovereign or of the parent to the contrary would command
rational belief, because their actions would contradict them. The case
would be precisely the same with respect to the Supreme Being, if he
should profess a regard to holiness and a hatred of sin, and not act
accordingly. If, when mankind sinned, God had executed the penalty of his law
upon them, this would have manifested his hatred of sin. By this,
therefore, he would have appeared just to his own character. But in no
other way could he be just to himself, unless it were by - something,
which, as a substitute for the execution of the penalty of the law, would
make an equally bright display of his hatred of sin. If any thing of this
kind could be done, which would manifest the divine hatred of sin as
fully as would the just punishment of it, this would be a satisfactory
atonement. Out of respect to such an atonement, God might pardon
sinners, and still be just to his own character. His pardoning sinners on
account of such an atonement, would not lead holy beings to distrust the
integrity of his character. But if God should pardon sinners without
such an atonement, his character must appear at least doubtful, if not
decidedly bad. Holy beings, perceiving that he treated the holy and
wicked alike, would be utterly unable to determine, from bis conduct
towards them, which acted most agreeably to his mind.* In this situa-
* "It is a common and a just observation, that actions speak louder than words ;
yea, a maxim on which we so firmly rely, that we give the whole weight to the former
when they contradict the latter. AU agree that the mind and will of God may be
intelligibly expressed in words. Yet no one will deny that they may be written in
much deeper and more legible characters in the sensible pleasures and pains which he
may bestow or inflict upon us. Therefore the evidence of God's love of virtue and
his hatred of vice must ultimately be derived from the treatment he gives his crea
tures. In this, we ultimately and most sensibly discover his view of the characters of
his creatures, and the estimation in which he holds them ; and in this we most clearly
discover the feelings of the divine mind towards virtue and vice. If the views which
the Supreme Being entertains of characters, and the feelings of his mind towards
those who sustain them, are most clearly discovered in the treatment of his creatures,
in the natural good and evil he ultimately brings upon them ; then, of course, where
the treatment is tho same, we are to judge that the feelings, the disposition of tho
divine mind toward the objects, are also the same. What but this can be the rule of
our judgment ? If God's treatment be tbe best and ultimate rule of judging, then

452 SCRIPTURE DOCTRINE OF ATONEMENT.
tion, being unable to learn his character, they could not feel safe. His
treating the unholy as holy beings ought to be treated would, at least,
lead them to suspect, that he might treat his holy subjects as unholy
ones deserve to be treated. And thus, in their perplexity, they might
fear him, but they could never love or trust him. But if they perceived
that he would never pardon sinners without an atonement, this would
show them his regard for holiness and his hatred of sin, and would secure
their confidence and inspire their love. Thus it appears that an atone
ment was necessary to the pardon of sinners, in order that God might
manifest his hatred of sin, and thus be just to himself.'*
Secondly. If God had pardoned sinners without an atonement, he
could not have manifested any wisdom in giving tbe law, but would have
been chargeable with the greatest inconsistency of conduct.
It is evidently impossible for God to manifest any wisdom in giving a
law which could answer no valuable purpose. But, certainly, if be had
entirely neglected to execute tbe law which be has given, this law must
have been utterly useless. Nor would he have appeared merely desti
tute of wisdom ; but his conduct would have involved glaring inconsis
tency. This inconsistency might have been thus stated : God has given
a law to his creatures, which he refuses, or, at least, entirely neglects to
support. This law is either good, or not good. If it is not good, why
did he give it ? If it is good, why does he not execute it ? In either
case, he must be chargeable with imperfection. If God has given a law
to his creatures which is not good, it must be because he either could
not devise, or did not choose, a good one. In the one case, he must be
deficient in wisdom ; in the other, he must be destitute of goodness.
But if the law be good, and God does not support it, this must be either
because he is not able, or because he does not choose, to support it.
Here, therefore, must be, either a deficiency of power, or, as before, a
destitution of goodness. In either case, tbe divine character is ruined.
But if God had pardoned sinners, without an atonement, all this must
have followed. It must have been forever true, that God had given a
law, and refused or neglected to support it ; that he had denounced evil
similar treatment authorizes us to believe that he holds all the subjects of it in equal
estimation, and is equally pleased or displeased with one as with another. If God
¦should treat the virtuous and vicious alike, from whence could we infer his approba
tion of the former, or his abhorrence of the latter 1 If his treatment of them in his
government be the same, then cither Ms government fails of expressing his proper
character, or his character is not uniform and perfect. And if God's actions and
conduct towards his creatures do not truly express his character, his mind and will,
how shall we know that his word does ? And by what methods can we ever come to
the knowledge of the divine character t " — West on Atonement, p. 18, 19.
* See West on Atonement, p. 28.

NECESSITY OF AN ATONEMENT. 453
against transgressors, and never fulfilled his threatening. In this case,
his character could never have been cleared of the most glaring incon
sistency, and imperfection.
Nothing can be plainer than this, if God does not execute what he has
threatened, he must appear inconsistent, if not destitute of virtue.* If it
was necessary, when God gave his law, that he should enforce it with an
awful penalty, or accompany it with the threatening, " In the day thou
eatest thereof thou shalt surely die," it must, for the same reason, be nec
essary, that this threatening should be executed. If tbe execution of this
threatening would be hard, unmerciful, or unnecessary, then the threat
ening itself must have been highly unreasonable. If it would be wrong
in God to execute what he has threatened, it must follow, that he has
threatened to do wrong. But if it would not be wrong in God to execute
his threatening, then, certainly, it must be wrong not to execute it ; for
if he should not execute bis threatening, it would be in reality an ac
knowledgment that his threatening was unreasonable and unnecessary,
and that, on this account, it ought not to be executed. It would appear,
on the part of God, like repentance ; as if he now regretted that he had
annexed any such threatening to his law, and resolved that he would be
more reasonable than to carry it into execution. It is necessary, there
fore, that God should execute what he has threatened, unless something
be done by way of atonement, which, as a substitute, will fully answer
the same purpose, in order that his own character may remain unsullied,
and he appear glorious in holiness.
If, when mankind sinned, God had executed the penalty of the law
upon them, his conduct would then have appeared consistent. He would
have appeared just to himself. Hence, in order that he might pardon
sinners, and still appear consistent, it was necessary that something
should be done, by way of atonement, which would answer every pur
pose, which the execution of the penalty of the law would have answered.
When all these purposes were answered, by an atonement, as fully as
they could have been by the execution of the law, then God might par
don sinners, and be consistent, and just to his own character. But any
thing, which would have failed of answering all these purposes, could not
# " If it bo unnecessary to the glory of the divine character, and the good of God's
moral government, that he should express his displeasure against sin, when it had ac
tually taken place, by inflicting natural evil ; it was of course unnecessary, that God
should ever threaten the sinner with natural evil. Where the general good doth not
require punishments to be inflicted, it doth not require that they should be threatened.
So also in cases where benevolence will not express displeasure, it will not threaten
creatures with it. It discovers capriciousness and want of wisdom to annex penalties
to laws which never need bo executed — to express displeasure in words, in cases
wherein it doth not in fact exist." — West on Atonement, p. 148.

454 SCRIPTURE DOCTRINE OF ATONEMENT.
have been a sufficient atonement. This must be evident from the con
sideration, that nothing short of the execution of the whole penalty could
answer the ends of the law.
Some have supposed that though an atonement was necessary, in order
that sinners might be pardoned, yet it was not necessary that the atone
ment should be sufficient to answer all the purposes which the execution
of the penalty of the law would have answered. But thi3 cannot be true,
unless it is also true that if there had been no atonement, it would not
have been necessary to execute tbe whole penalty of the law on trans
gressors. But the same reasoning which shows that it was necessary that
any part of the penalty should be executed, also shows that it was equally
necessary that the whole should be executed. For if it is not necessary
that God should execute aU that he has threatened, it must fobow that he
has threatened too much, and, consequently, that his threatenings are un
reasonable and improper. If God's threatenings are too severe, if they
are unreasonable, then it was unreasonable for God to make them. And
it is readily granted, that if divine threatenings are unreasonable, if the
penalty of the law is too great, then it is not necessary that it should be
fully executed. But if the penalty be not unreasonable, if it be not too
great, then it is necessary that the whole should be executed. Because
if it should appear that God had given a law, and annexed a penalty
which is hard and unreasonable, it must be impossible ever to clear the
divine character of imperfection. But if God had neither executed the
whole penalty of the law, nor done any thing by way of atonement which
would fully answer the same purposes, his conduct must have impbed an
acknowledgment that the penalty of his law was unreasonably severe, and
ought not to be fully executed. There was, therefore, the same necessity
that God should execute the penalty of his law fully, in order to preserve
his character, that there was that he should execute it in part. No ob
jection can be urged against one, which will not be against the other with
equal force. If God has made threatenings which are unreasonable, in
any respect, it as really proves him imperfect, as though they were un
reasonable in every respect. But if God should not execute his threat
enings in every respect, it would be an acknowledgment that they are, in
some respect, unreasonable. It was necessary, therefore, that God, if he
would do justice to bis own character,* should execute, literally, all his
* " Where evil need not bo executed, it never need be threatened. We seo no val
uable end answered by threatenings which never need be executed. When executions
are unnecessary, threatenings aro equally so — yea, more; inasmuch as threatenings,
which are designed nover to be executed, and never need be, necessarily sink the char
acter of the ruler, and bring his authority into contempt. It cannot but bo seen, that
if tho glory of God do not requiro him to execute, neither does it to threaten. All

SUFFICIENCY OF CHRIST'S SUFFERINGS. 455
threatenings, unless something could be done by way of atonement which,
as a substitute, would fully answer all the same purposes. Hence it is
evident that an atonement was necessary, in order that sinners might be
pardoned. This exactly agrees with the view which the apostle has given of the
subject in the third chapter of his Epistle to the Romans. Having freely
remarked on the universal and total depravity of mankind, and shown the
impossibility of their being justified by the law, he introduces the method
of justification revealed in the gospel. " But now the righteousness of
God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the
prophets; even the righteousness of God, which is by faith in Jesus
Christ, unto all, and upon all them that believe. — Being justified freely
by his grace, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus ; whom God
hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare
his righteousness for the remission of sins. — To declare, I say, at this
time, his righteousness, that he might be just, and the justifier of him that
believeth in Jesus." Here the apostle decides the point respecting the
necessity and design of atonement ; that it was to manifest the rectitude
of the divine character ; that God might be just in the justification of

CHAPTER HI.
WHETHER THE SUFFERINGS OF CHRIST WERE SUFFICIENT TO REMOVE
THE OBSTACLES WHICH STOOD IN THE WAY OF THE PARDON OF
SINNERS. Before the subject of this chapter is introduced, it may not be amiss
to call the attention of the reader to a brief review of the preceding one.
For, unless the obstacles, which stood in the way of God's pardoning sin
ners, be distinctly in view, we certainly cannot be well prepared to un
derstand what Christ has done to remove them. Let it be carefully
remembered, then, that the atonement was not necessary to soften the
feelings of God, and render him kind and compassionate. The divine
feebngs towards sinners, considered as objects of benevolence and com
passion, are not in the least degree altered. God felt the same tender-
objections, therefore, against the necessity of atonement, in order to the pardon and
salvation of sinners, lie with equal weight against every threatening we find in the book
of God." — West on Atonement, p. 179.
* See Wardlaw and Macknight on this passage.

456 SCRIPTURE DOCTRINE OF ATQNEMENT.
ness and compassion towards them before atonement was made, which he
now feels ; and if atonement had been impossible, or ineligible, in the
view of infinite wisdom, still the divine benevolence and compassion to
wards them would have been for ever tbe same. If there had been no
atonement, it is indeed true, God could never have pardoned them, but
the reason would not have been found in the want of benevolence, or
compassion. He would have been prevented by difficulties of quite a
different nature. So that, although he would have been, in this case, for
ever inflexible, yet he would never have been unmerciful, or destitute of
compassion. The insuperable difficulties which stood in the way of
God's pardoning sinners without an atonement, have been brought into
view. It has been shown, that, if God had pardoned sinners without
any atonement, he must have been altogether unjust in several tilings,
which are of infinite importance to the system of moral beings.
1. He would have been unjust to his holy law, as he could neither
have shown it the respect which it deserves, nor supported its authority.
This, however, as a righteous lawgiver, he was under obbgation to do.
2. He would have been unjust to his kingdom. He would have done
nothing to deter others from disobedience, and thus to secure that order
and harmony among his subjects, which the good of his kingdom justly
demanded. 3. He would have been unjust to himself. He would not have mani--
fested his regard for holiness, and his hatred of sin ; nor any wisdom, or
consistency of conduct, in giving the law. In this way he would have
ruined his most excellent and glorious character.
These difficulties were an insuperable barrier against the pardon of
sinners, without an atonement. To remove these difficulties, the atone
ment was necessary. That God might be just, in these respects, while
he pardoned sinners, was the object of the atonement. And in order
that this object might be accomplished, it was necessary that the atone
ment should answer all the purposes which the complete execution of
the penalty of the law would have answered. Otherwise, it would be
insufficient. It was necessary that it should manifest as high respect for
the law, and do as much for the support of its authority, as the complete
execution of its penalty would have done. Otherwise, God could not he
just to his law in pardoning sinners. It was necessary that it should be
calculated as effectually to deter others from disobedience, as the full
execution of the penalty of the law would have been. Otherwise, in
pardoning sinners, God could not be just to his kingdom. It was also
necessary, that it should manifest God's regard for holiness, and hatred
of sin, as clearly as the full execution of the penalty of the law would
have done. Otherwise, in granting pardon, he could not be just to his

SUFFICIENCY OF CHRIST'S SUFFERINGS. 457
own character. In short, that his righteousness might be declared, and
he be just, and the justifier of any sinner, it was necessary that the atone
ment should fully and completely answer aU the purposes which the full
and complete execution of the penalty of the law would have answered.
The way is now prepared to inquire, more directly, in what the atone
ment of Christ consists ; or, in other words, what Christ has done to
remove those obstacles which stood in the way of the pardon of sinners.
To ascertain this, only two inquiries wiU be necessary ; one, concerning
what Christ has done by the way of suffering ; and the other, concerning
what he has done in the way of active obedience. These two inquiries
may determine the point ; because these things comprise all that Christ
ever did in our world.
Some suppose that the atonement of Christ consists in what he did by
way of suffering. Others suppose it consists in his active obedience.
And others, that it consists in both. One or other of these opinions must
be according to truth ; for nothing but what consists in sufferings, or in
obedience, has ever been done by Christ which has any relation to the
subject. In order to ascertain, with certainty, in which of these opinions
the truth bes ; that is, whether the atonement of Christ consists in his
sufferings alone, or in his obedience alone, or in both united ; it will be
necessary to compare his sufferings, and his obedience, severally, with the
necessity of atonement.* If, on examination, it should appear that the
sufferings of Christ fully meet all the necessities of atonement ; that is,
answer aU the purposes which the execution of the penalty of the law
would have answered, and that the obedience of Christ does not answer
these purposes; it will follow, as an undeniable consequence, that the
atonement consists in sufferings. If, on the other hand, it should appear
upon examination that the obedience of Christ fully meets all the neces
sities of atonement, or answers all the purposes which the execution of the
penalty of the law would have answered, and that the sufferings of Christ
do not, then it will follow, by unavoidable consequence, that the atone
ment consists in obedience. But if it should appear that neither the obe
dience nor the sufferings of Christ alone are capable of meeting all the
necessities of atonement, but that, united, they fully accompbsh this end,
then the conclusion must be, that Christ's atonement does not consist
wholly in sufferings, nor wholly in obedience, but partly in each, or in
both united.
Our first inquiry will be concerning what Christ did by way of suffer
ing. That Christ did suffer, is a truth clearly estabbshed in the holy
Scriptures. He was a " Lamb slain from the foundation of the world."
* By necessity of atonement, I mean those circumstances of the case which rendered
atonement necessary. 39

458 SCRIPTURE DOCTRINE OF ATONEMENT.
Rev. 13 : 8. "In whom we have redemption through his blood, the for
giveness of sins according to the riches of his grace." Eph. 1:7. " By
his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained
eternal redemption for us." Heb. 9:12. " Who, his own self, bare our
sins in his own body on the tree." 1 Pet. 2 : 24. " He hath borne our
griefs, and carried our sorrows. — He was wounded for our transgres
sions, he was bruised for our iniquities, the chastisement of our peace was
upon him, and with his stripes we are healed." Isa. 53 : 3, 5. " He is
our passover, sacrificed for us." 1 Cor. 5:7. " Now, once, in the end of
the world, hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself."
Heb. 9:26. "0 fools, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets
have spoken ! Ought not Christ to have suffered these things, and to en
ter into his glory ? " Luke 24 : 25. " Thus it behoved Christ to suffer, and
to rise from the dead on the third day." Luke 24 : 46. The Scriptures
abound with similar declarations. Let us, then, inquire whether the suf
ferings of Christ meet all the necessities of atonement. Are they suffi
cient to answer all the purposes which would have been answered by the
execution of the penalty of the law ?
1. Do the sufferings of Christ make it manifest that God respects bis
holy law ? Do they manifest as much respect for the law, as the execu
tion of its penalty would have, done ; so that God, in pardoning sinners
out of respect to Christ's sufferings, can be just to his law ?
That a satisfactory answer may be given to these inquiries, it is neces
sary that we be able to state clearly how God would have manifested re
spect for his law, if he had literally executed its penalty; or in what that
manifestation of respect would have consisted. If we can state clearly
and definitely how the execution of the penalty upon sinners would have
manifested God's respect for his law, then we shall be prepared to ascer
tain with equal clearness whether the sufferings of Christ manifested the
same respect.
The execution of the penalty would not have manifested God's respect
for the law, unless it had, in his view, involved in it an evil, in itself con
sidered. The manifestation of respect would not have consisted in sim
ply satisfying the literal demands of the law ; but, rather, in submitting
to an evil, for the sake of those demands. By God's submitting to an
evil is meant, his consenting that a thing should take place, which must
be, in its own nature, disagreeable to his benevolent heart, if viewed in
dependently of all other things. The misery of mankind, which would
have been the effect of the execution of the law, would have been such
an evil. If, when mankind sinned, God had been entirely destitute of
benevolent and compassionate feelings towards them, so that their misery
would not have been an evil in his view, he would not, in this case, have

SUFFICIENCY OF CHRIST'S SUFFERINGS. 459
manifested respect for his law, by executing its penalty upon them. But
if he felt really benevolent and compassionate towards them, so that their
misery appeared, in his view, to be a great evil ; and if, with such feel
ings respecting their misery, he had proceeded to execute the penalty on
them, he would have shown great respect for his law. Suppose that,
when mankind sinned, it had been evident to all intelligent creatures
that God felt indifferently towards them, whether they should be happy
or miserable ; that their happiness and misery, considered in themselves,
were equally desirable, so that, independently of tbe demands of his law,
and all consequences to the universe, he was no more inclined to make
them happy than to make them miserable ; is it conceivable that, in this
case, his executing the penalty annexed to transgression, would have
manifested any respect for his law ? But, on the other hand, suppose it
was evident that his feelings towards them were benevolent, and he. was
disposed to do them good if it could be done with propriety ; that he was
possessed of kindness and compassion towards them, so that their misery
must be, in his view, a great evil considered in itself ; and that, notwith
standing these feelings, he had made them miserable, because his law
demanded it, is it not evident that he would have manifested great
respect for his law ? If, then, God had executed the penalty of his law,
it is obvious his manifestation of respect to it would have consisted in his
submitting to an evil on account of it.
This may be illustrated by an easy comparison. Suppose a king
should enact a law against some particular kind of Wickedness, and
should threaten every transgressor with death. Suppose, further„that
tbe first transgressor is one of his favorite generals ; one whom the king
loves, as is evident to all his subjects, with a peculiarly tender affection.
Now let the king proceed to execute the threatening, and take the life
of the transgressor, and it is plain, that he would manifest great respect
for his law. None would doubt, in this case, whether he were disposed
to treat his law with respect. They would see the highest proof of it.
This evidence, too, would result from his having submitted to a great
evil, rather than not execute his law. And, as his manifestation of re
spect for his law would consist in his willingness to submit to an evil
rather than that the law should not be executed, it must be obvious, that
the greater tbe evil is to which he would submit rather than not execute
the law, the greater would be the manifestation of respect for his law.
But if the first transgressor, instead of being a great favorite, should be
one whom the king is known to hate ; one against whom it is evident he
wishes to find some occasion to take his life ; and should he, under these
circumstances, proceed against the offender and cause the law to be exe
cuted, this surely would be no manifestation of respect for the law.

460 SCRIPTURE DOCTRINE OF ATONEMENT.
However much the king might really respect bis law, yet, since it is
web known that he wished for some occasion to take the life of the hated
person, he would not, by actually taking it, discover any respect for his
law ; because, in this case, he would have conducted towards the trans
gressor in precisely the same manner, if, in truth, he had been entirely
regardless of his law. Though he executes his law, he does not, for the
sake of executing it, submit to any evil. For the same reason, if, when
mankind transgressed, God had not viewed their misery as an evil, he
could not have manifested respect for his law, by executing upon them
its penalty.
From the foregoing reasoning it must clearly follow, that whatever
evil God has submitted to on account of his law, must manifest his re
spect for it. If, then, the sufferings of Christ were really an evil in the
sight of God, and he submitted to them on account of his law, it must be
evident that they are sufficient to show his respect for his law.* It can
not admit of a rational doubt, that the sufferings of Christ were a great
evil in the sight of God. His sufferings were of the most ignominious
and painful nature. Considered in themselves, his sufferings must have
been an evil of very great magnitude. And as Christ was the only be
gotten and well-beloved Son of God, these sufferings must have been an
evil, in his view, peculiarly great. Hence, for God to submit to such an
evil, on account of his law, must be a manifestation of respect to it ex
ceedingly great. Thus we see that the sufferings of Christ are sufficient
to manifest God's respect for his law.
But it may still be asked, whether it appears that the sufferings of
Christ manifested, on the part of God, as much respect for tbe law, as
the execution of the penalty would have done ? Are the sufferings of
Christ as great an evil, in themselves considered, as the misery of all
mankind would have been ?
To this it may be replied, that it is not necessary. It is not necessary
that the sufferings of Christ should be, in themselves considered, so great
an evil in the view of God, as the misery of all mankind would have
* Any thing which would manifest God's displeasure against sin would show his
respect for his law. No sacrifice, however, could manifest such displeasure, unless it
involved some natural evil ; and that evil would be tho preciso thing which would
manifest the displeasure. This sentiment is correctly expressed by Hampton, in his
" Candid remarks on the doctrine of atonement." His words are (replying to Tay
lor), "I must freely confess, notwithstanding what you have said, No. 160, that I
cannot see (at present however) that any sacrifice for sin can be an indication of the
divine displeasure against it, any otherwise than as it implies, in one respect or
another, some suffering or loss upon account of it ; which suffering or loss, therefore,
must be the thing which shows that displeasure against it." — Taylor and Bampton on
the Atonement, p. 285.

SUFFICIENCY OF CHRIST'S SUFFERINGS. 461
been. It is sufficient if God shows as much respect to his law, by
the sufferings of Christ, as he would have done by the execution of
the penalty on mankind. To this end, all that could be necessary
was, that the sufferings of Christ should be, evidently, as great an evil
in the view of God, as the misery of mankind could have been mani
fested to be, in case tbe penalty of the law had been executed upon
them. If the penalty had been executed upon them, it never could have
been known, how great an evil their misery was in his view ; because,
in that case, it never could have been known how much he loved them.
It is plain that their misery, which would have resulted from the execu
tion of the law, would have been an evil, in his view, great in propor
tion to the strength of his benevolence. Of course this evil must appear
to other beings great, in proportion to their apprehension of the strength
of his benevolence. But the strength of God's benevolence towards sin
ners never could have been manifested to the degree in which it now
appears, if the penalty of the law had been executed. For it is only in
the sufferings of Christ for sinners that divine love appears in its glorious
fulness. It was in Christ's dying " for us, while we were yet sinners,"
that God commended " his love towards us." Rom. 5:8. " In this was
manifested the love of God towards us, because that God sent his only
begotten Son into the world, that we might live through him." 1 John
4 : 9. Other beings, therefore, would never have known how " God
loved the world," if he had not given his only begotten Son to die on the
cross for sinners.
It hence follows, that if the penalty of the law had been executed, God
would not have manifested that the misery of mankind was an evil, in
his view, in any measure so great, as it now appears to be in view of
what Christ has suffered. And yet, executing the penalty would have
been all that the law required. By doing it, God would have submitted
to an evil sufficiently great, in the apprehension of other intelligent be
ings, to have manifested all that respect for the law which the circum
stances of the case required.
It is not necessary, therefore, that the sufferings of Christ should ap
pear to be so great an evil, in his view, as he lias now manifested the
misery of mankind to be ; but only as great as he would have mani
fested it to be if Christ had not suffered. If this is done, God will
manifest as much respect for his law, by the sufferings of Christ,
as he could have done by the execution of the penalty on sinners,
although the real evil, in the former case, is less than in the latter.
That the sufferings of Christ are as great an evil, in the view of God,
as he could have manifested the misery of mankind to be if Christ
had not suffered, must be evident to every one who considers that his
39*

462 SCRIPTURE DOCTRINE OF ATONEMENT.
sufferings were the painful and shameful sufferings of the well beloved
of the Father.*
Thus we see that the sufferings of Christ may be sufficient to mani
fest, on the part of God, as much respect to his law as the full execution
of the penalty would have done. In view of Christ's sufferings, there
fore, God may be just to his law, and the justifier of him who believeth
in Jesus. Thus far the sufferings of Christ most amply meet the neces
sity of atonement.
2. Does it appear that God could be just to his kingdom in pardon
ing sinners out of respect to the sufferings of Christ ? Will the suffer
ings of Christ be as effectual in deterring the subjects of divine govern
ment from disobedience, as the execution of the penalty of the law would
have been ?
A satisfactory answer to this inquiry may be easily given. It cannot
be difficult to show why the execution of the penalty of the law would
have had a tendency to restrain and deter others from disobedience. This
being done, it Will be easy to show that for precisely the same reason the
sufferings of Christ are sufficient to secure the same end.
If God had executed his law on mankind when they sinned, other
moral beings would have seen that he was determined to support his law.
The execution of the penalty would have appeared to them a great evil ;
and it would have appeared to be their unavoidable portion, should they
follow the example of guilty man. Hence they would be afraid to sin.
But certainly the sufferings of Christ must be calculated to produce the
same effects in their minds. When they saw that Christ must undergo
such dreadful sufferings that rebel man might be pardoned, they would
* " The same measure of natural evil, the same quantity of pain, is expressive of
very different degrees of displeasure, according to the difference of character and dig
nity in the person on whom it is inflicted. Tor a king to imprison his son for a crime,
awes his subjects more than tho execution of a common felon, and may do more to
establish his authority, and gain respect to his government. The reason is, that his
regards to the rights of government are more strongly painted in the former ease than
in the latter. So for God to inflict pain on a mere man, would naturally express dis
pleasure to spectators : but if the same degree of natural evil brought on him who is
his fellow, his anger would glow in brighter and more awful colors, and strike the
spectators with a reverence and fear which tho other instance could not beget." — West
on Atonement, p. 73.
The correctness of tho sentiment expressed in tho foregoing quotation is very obvi
ous. No one will doubt the statement, that if a king should imprison his son for a
crime, it would awe Ms subjects more than it would if ho should execute a common
felon, and that it would do more to establish his authority, and gain respect to his
government. No one will doubt that his regards to the rights of government would
bo more strongly painted in tho former case than in the latter ; and for this very obvi
ous reason, ho would bo considered as submitting to a much greater evil, in tho im
prisonment of his son, than ho would in the execution of the felon.

SUFFICIENCY OP CHRIST'S SUFFERINGS. 463-
clearly see that God was determined to support his law. Considering
the infinite dignity and excellency of Christ's person, his sufferings would
appear to them an infinite evil. ' Hence they would fear that the evil
threatened in the law would unavoidably fall on themselves, should they
dare to transgress ; and especially after such a solemn warning. When
the Jews were leading our Saviour to Mount Calvary, to crucify him, he
said, " If they do these things in the green tree, what shall be done in the
dry ? " If Christ, a perfectly innocent and holy being, when acting the
part of a Mediator between God and sinners must endure such dreadful
sufferings, what may incorrigible offenders expect ? The reflection is cer
tainly natural. Since God would not show favor to sinners unless his
beloved Son, who was infinitely holy, would die for them, those who con
tinue in their sins cannot rationally hope to escape condign punishment.
The sufferings of Christ, therefore, must have the same effect in deter
ring others from disobedience, which the full execution of the penalty of
the law would have had.
Should it be asked how the sufferings of Christ can be as effectual in
deterring others from sin as the execution of the law would have been,
since the execution of the law would have been really the greatest evil,
the answer, which has already been given to a similar question, must be
virtually repeated. If the foregoing reasoning is correct, the execution
of the law would have tended to deter other beings from transgression,
because it would have shown them God's determination to maintain good
government, notwithstanding the dreadful evils in which it might involve
the guilty.
The more exalted their apprehensions might be of his benevolence, the
more effectually would the execution of his law convince them of his in
flexible determination to restrain wickedness. Because the more benev
olent he might be, the greater would be his unwillingness to make his
creatures miserable. His benevolence would render their misery, in his
view, a great evil. It would be such an evil as his benevolence would
never consent should take place, unless, in his apprehension, the circum
stances of the case rendered it indispensably necessary. In the execution
of the law he would submit to a great evil for the sake of deterring others
from transgression. And the greater that evil might be, the more irre
sistible would be the evidence which would result from it, that the guilty
must suffer. Intelligent beings, then, would feel the force of this restraint
(not necessarily, according to the real greatness of the evil to wliich God
would submit, but) exactly in proportion to their apprehension of the
greatness of it. All that is necessary, then, in order that the sufferings
of Christ may be as effectual in deterring others from transgression as
the execution of the law would have been, is, that his sufferings should be

464 SCRIPTURE DOCTRINE OF ATONEMENT.
evidently as great an evil, in the view of God, as the misery of mankind
could have been manifested to be, in case the penalty of the law had been
executed. If tbe penalty had been executed, however, it never could
have been known how great an evil their misery was, in his view, be
cause in that case it could not have been known how much he loved them.
It is not necessary, therefore, that the sufferings of Christ should appear
to be so great an evil in the view of God, as he has now manifested the
misery of mankind to be ; but only as great as he would have manifested
it to be, if Christ had not suffered. If this is done, other intelligent be
ings will be as effectually deterred from transgressing the law, by the
sufferings of Christ as an atonement, as they could have been by the ex
ecution of the penalty on sinners, although the real evil in the former
case is less than in the latter. In view of the sufferings of Christ, there
fore, God may be just to his kingdom, and " tbe justifier of" sinners who
believe in Jesus. In this respect, also, the sufferings of Christ amply
meet all the necessities of atonement. But,
3. Do the sufferings of Christ manifest God's regard for holiness, and
hatred of sin, so that, out of respect to these sufferings, he can be just to
himself in pardoning sinners ?
Most certainly. If it be asked how, the answer is, In the same way
that the execution of the law would have done it. If Christ, the beloved
of the Father, must shed bis blood in order that sin may be pardoned, it
proves" that God is irreconcilably opposed to it, as clearly and as fully
as this could have been done by the execution of the penalty of the law
on mankind. If the misery of mankind which the execution of the pen
alty of the law must have occasioned, being a great evil, was capable of
manifesting God's abhorrence of sin ; then, for the same reason, the suf
ferings of Christ must be capable of manifesting his abhorrence of sin ;
for these are, also, a great evil.
It is most evident, from Scripture, that our Lord's sufferings and death
were indications of divine displeasure against sinners. The Scriptures
abundantly teach that it was God who brought the sufferings of Christ
upon him. He was the great agent, and wicked men and devils were
only instruments in his hand. " The Lord hath laid on him the iniquity
of us all. It pleased the Lord to bruise him ; he hath put him to grief."
Isa. 53 : 6, 10. Natural evil is that which God uses to show his dis
pleasure against his disobedient creatures. Now, if God was not dis
pleased, why did be bring the most exquisite sufferings upon his beloved
Son ? Nothing can be more certain, however, than that God was not
displeased with Christ himself, when these sufferings were inflicted.
Never was tbe Son more an object of the Father's complacency, than at
the very moment when he was expiring, in excruciating anguish, upon

SUFFICIENCY OF CHRIST'S SUFFERINGS. 465
the cross. Hence, the Scriptures teach us, that on account of these very
sufferings, he is raised to distinguished glory. Because "he humbled
himself and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross,
therefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which
is above every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow,
of things in heaven, and things in earth, and that every tongue should
confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.'' Phil.
2: 8-11. But if God was not displeased with his beloved Son, then, un
questionably, he was displeased with sinners, for whose transgressions
Christ " was wounded," for whose " iniquities " he " was bruised." For
that he was really displeased is certain. Accordingly, in the sufferings
he inflicted upon our blessed Saviour, he is represented as making use of
such instruments as express anger, as a " rod," and a " sword ; " " Awake,
0 sword, — smite the shepherd." Zech. 13 : 7. Here God is figuratively
represented as striking and smiting his Son with a rod, and a sword, as
a man smites bis enemy. The circumstances attending his death, also,
indicate the divine displeasure. He was left of God to the rage of his
enemies ; to their bitter reproaches, and cruel insults. He was even de
nied the common civilities paid to the worst criminals. When in the
most excruciating pain on the cross, and surrounded by insulting foes, he
exclaimed, in the agony of his soul, " My God, my God, why hast thou
forsaken me ? "
Since it cannot be admitted that these memorable words of our expir
ing Lord expressed any sense of divine displeasure against himself, they
must necessarily be understood, as importing the overwhelming sense
which he had of God's anger against sinners, on whose account he was
then delivered up to death.* It is certain that the Father did, ia some
sense, forsake the Son, when in the most critical and awful situation
imaginable, when expiring in the utmost agony for a sinful world ; for
this Christ asserts. It is certain, too, that this was something which he
considered a dreadful evil. But if God were not displeased, why did
he give up the beloved Son to such a cruel death ? Why did he, in any
sense, forsake him in this critical and awful moment ? Let any pne
candidly consider, that all the evils which Christ endured,, were brought
on him by the Father ; that God is represented as the prime agent in
the surprising work ; as using hostile weapons ;, as chastising and cor
recting with a rod and a sword ; let him behold the tremendous scene
on Mount Calvary, and hear the groans of our expiring Lord ; and let
him recollect that he thus suffered and died for sinners ; and, surely, he
cannot fail of seeing a most striking manifestation of God's opposition to
* " The atonement," says Magee, p. 36, "on the part ofi God,, becomes a public
declaration of his holy displeasure against sin.'-

466 SCRIPTURE DOCTRINE OF ATONEMENT.
sin. He must perceive as much opposition to sin manifested on the part
of God, as the misery of mankind could ever have manifested.
Here, again, it can be no valid objection that the misery of mankind
which the execution of the law must have involved, would really have
been, in itself, the greatest evil ; because, as already shown, it never
could have been manifested that it was the greatest evil, in the view of
God, if Christ had not suffered. Still, therefore, the sufferings of Christ
must be capable of manifesting as much opposition to sin, on the part of
God, as the sufferings of mankind could ever have manifested. But if
God is opposed to sin, he must regard holiness. The sufferings of Christ,
in this way, fully manifest the wisdom and consistency of divine conduct
in giving the law. In view of Christ's sufferings, therefore, God may be
just to himself, and yet be " the justifier of him that believeth in Jesus."
Thus it appears that the sufferings of Christ most fully meet all the
necessities of atonement ; that is, answer the same valuable purposes
which the execution of the penalty of the law would have answered.*
Various similitudes have been used by writers on this subject for the
purpose of illustration. But, perhaps, no one is more pertinent, or has
been oftener repeated, than the story of the atonement which Zaleucus
made for his son. Zaleucus enacted a law against adultery. To give
it authority, that it might answer the end for which it was enacted, he
enfdrced it with a penalty. He threatened the transgressor with the
loss of both his eyes. His own son transgressed. Zaleucus loved his
son, felt compassionate towards him, and desired to pardon him, pro
vided certain difficulties, which stood in the way, could be removed.
These obstacles were similar to those which, as we have seen, stood in
the way of God's pardoning sinners.
1. Zaleucus perceived that if he should pardon his son without
doing any thing to answer the demands of the law, he would treat his
law as if it were not good, and would not show it that respect which it
deserved. In order, therefore, to be just to his law, he found he must
put out the eyes of his son, unless something else could be done, which,
as a substitute, would show equal respect for his law, and equally tend
to support its authority.
* " On the whole, the Scripture represents the atonement which Christ has made,
by which sinners are delivered from the curse of the law, the wrath to come, to consist
wholly in his suffering unto death for their sins, by wliich he suffered tho evil which
the law threatens for sin, or a complete equivalent, so as fully to answer the end of the
threatening of the law, and all the purposes of moral government, consistent with the
pardon of the sinner, as much as if the curse had been executed on the transgressor :
and that this was ono great, and tho most important, essential and difficult part of tho
work of tho Redeemer, and really implies the whole." — Bopkins's System, pt. 2, p. 475.

SUFFICIENCY OF CHRIST'S SUFFERINGS. 467
2. Zaleucus perceived that if adultery was not checked, it would
greatly disturb the peace and mar the happiness of his kingdom. He
also knew that nothing was so well calculated to restrain his subjects
from this crime, as the prompt execution of cogent laws. And he knew,
moreover, that if he should pardon his son without any thing to express
his abhorrence of his son's crime, this would have no tendency to deter
others from the like offence but would rather greatly encourage them
in it. Thus he perceived that the peace and happiness, if not even the
very existence of his kingdom, depended much on the execution of his
law ; so that if he would be just to bis kingdom, and do what was in
cumbent on him to promote its happiness, he must proceed against his
son and execute the penalty of his law upon him, unless something could
be done, which, as a substitute, would be equaby effectual in deterring
others from tbe bke disobedience.
3. Another difficulty stood in the way of pardon. Zaleucus was
really opposed to adultery, as his law declared him to be. He knew,
therefore, that he could not be just to his own character, unless he mani
fested his hatred of this crime. If he proceeded against his son in the
execution of the law, and put out his eyes, this would manifest this
hatred. But if be granted a pardon without showing his hatred of
adultery in some other way, it could not appear that be did bate it.
Hence he found it was absolutely necessary, in order to do justice to his
own character, that the penalty of the Law should be executed upon his
son, unless something could be done which, as a substitute, would equally
manifest his hatred of his son's crime.
Zaleucus, it appears, was determined to show respect for his law ; to
do what he could to deter others from disobedience ; and to show to his
subjects hi3 hatred of adultery, even at the expense of his son's eyes,
unless it could be done as fully some other way. But if all this could
be as completely effected in any other way, he was anxious to spare his
son. That he might secure all these ends and be just to his law, to his
kingdom, and to himself, and at the same time spare his son from total
blindness, Zaleucus caused one of his own eyes to be put out, and one
of his son's. But how does it appear that this would answer the
purposes designed ? Particularly,
1. How could Zaleucus in this way manifest respect for his law?
The answer is, in the same way precisely in which he would have
manifested respect for his law, if he had caused the penalty to be lite
rally executed upon his son. If he had caused his son's eyes to be put
out, bis manifestation of respect for his law would evidently have con
sisted in his appearing to be willing to submit to an evil on account of
its demands. But in causing one of his own eyes to be put out that

468 SCRIPTURE DOCTRINE OF ATONEMENT.
one of his son's eyes might be spared, he surely manifested an equal
wilbngness to submit to an evil on account of his law. This, therefore,
was as capable of showing respect for his law as the other. When his
subjects perceived that he would not so much as spare one of the eyes
of his son but at the expense of one of his own, they could not fail of
being impressed with the idea, that he had great respect for his law ;
because they could not but perceive that he was willing, on account of
bis law, to submit to a great evil. It matters nothing as to the respect
shown to the law, whether the evil consisted in one thing or another,
provided it was a real evil, and was submitted to on account of the law.
Zaleucus, therefore, in what he did, manifested great respect for his law.
It is evident, however, that the real evil in this case was not so great
as must have been suffered if the penalty of the law had been literally
executed ; for it is not so great an evil, in itself considered, for two men
to lose one eye each, as it would be for one to lose both eyes. Yet it
seems evident, that Zaleucus manifested as much respect for his law as
he could possibly have manifested by causing the law to be executed
literally on his son
The reason is obvious. He submitted to an evil which, every one
must see,' could not be otherwise than very great in his view, because it
inflicted severe pain and loss upon himself. Whereas, if he had exe
cuted the law upon his son, his subjects could not have known how great
that evil was in his view, because they would not have known how
much he loved him. If he had not felt an uncommon degree of love for
his guilty son, he would probably have chosen to execute the law, rather
than adopt the expedient so painful to himself. If his love for his son
had been only of an ordinary character, he would, in all probability,
have considered the execution of the law a smaber evil than that to
which he actually submitted. If he had executed his law, his subjects
would have had no reason to believe that he had any more love for his
son than the ordinary affections of a parent. Indeed, this would have
been enough to have rendered the execution of the penalty a sufficient
exhibition of respect for the law. But it seems he had more than the
ordinary affections of a parent. His love was peculiarly strong. Indeed,
it was so wonderful, that he chose to inflict severe pain upon himself,
rather than execute the full penalty upon his son. It was his uncom
mon love for his son which rendered the expedient he adopted the
smallest evil in his view ; while, at the same time, it was the adoption of
the expedient which developed the existence of his uncommon affection
for his son, in the view of his subjects. It is not necessary, therefore,
that the expedient adopted of destroying one of his own eyes, for the
sake of saving one of his son's, should be so great an evil in his view,

SUFFICIENCY OF CHRIST'S SUFFERINGS. 469
as he has now manifested, that the loss of both his son's eyes would have
been ; but only as great as be would have manifested it to be, in case he
had executed the law upon his son, and, of consequence, made no disclo
sure of uncommon affection for him.
Suppose another king, in a neighboring kingdom, had enacted pre
cisely such a law as Zaleucus did. Suppose that his son, also, had
transgressed. And suppose that he had proceeded against his son accord
ing to the letter of the law, and caused both his eyes to be put out
Would this king have manifested a wiUingness to submit to a greater
evil than that to which Zaleucus submitted ? Is it not evident, on the
contrary, that if 'Zaleucus had loved his son no more than this other
king would have appeared to love bis, he, too, would have spared
his own eye, and caused his law to be literally executed, and both
the eyes of his son to be put out ? On the whole, is it not plain
that Zaleucus manifested, at least, as much respect for his law in saving
one of bis son's eyes at the expense of one of his own, as he could have
done by causing tbe law to be literally executed ?
2. How could Zaleucus, in this way, as effectually deter others from
tbe crime of adultery, as he would by the strict execution of the penalty
of the law ?
To this it may be answered, that when his subjects perceived that he
would not even spare his own son, in any other way than that of sub
mitting to so great an evil, they would certainly possess the highest
evidence that he was determined, at all events, to support the authority
of his law. They would have as much evidence of this, as even the ex
ecution of the penalty upon his son could have given them. Hence, so
far as the authority of law could restrain, they would be effectually
restrained from the prohibited crime. Nor is it less evident,
3. That what Zaleucus did, would manifest his utter abhorrence of
the sin of adultery. It must have manifested his irreconcilable hatred
of it as fully as the literal execution of his law, even upon his own son,
could possibly have done it.
Hence it is evident, that Zaleucus might be just to his law, to his
kingdom, and to himself, in pardoning his beloved, though guilty son, out
of respect to his own sufferings. 40

470 SCRIPTURE DOCTRINE OF ATONEMENT.

CHAPTER IV.
WHETHER THE OBEDIENCE OP CHRIST CONSTITUTES ANY PART OP THE
ATONEMENT.
In order to show in what the atonement of Christ consists, it has
been judged that two inquiries, and only two, would be necessary.
Two inquiries, one concerning Christ's sufferings, and another concern
ing his obedience, must be necessary, because his sufferings and his
obedience are distinct things;* and they are sufficient, because these
two things comprise all which Christ ever did in this world. That it
might be ascertained clearly whether the atonement made by Christ
consisted entirely in his sufferings, or entirely in his obedience, or partly
in one and partly in the other, it has been judged needful to compare
severally his sufferings and his obedience with what rendered an atone
ment necessary. The first inquiry has been made, the comparison insti
tuted, and the result seen. It has been found, that the sufferings of
Christ fully answer all the ends for which atonement was necessary ;
they remove all the obstacles which stood in the way of God's pardoning
sinners ; they answer the same valuable purposes which the bteral exe
cution of the penalty of the law would have answered. It clearly
results, therefore, that the atonement of Christ might consist entirely in
his sufferings. If, however, under the second inquiry, in comparing the
obedience of Christ with what rendered an atonement necessary, it
should appear that this, also, removes the obstacles which stood in the
* Obedience to the moral law is here intended.
There are several passages of Scripture in which Christ is spoken of as being obedi
ent, where it is evident no reference is had to any requirement of the moral law. It is
represented that he received a commandment to lay down his life, and that in dying
he was obedient to the command of the Father. In Phil. 2 : 8, Paul says he " became
obedient unto death, even the death of the cross ; " which certainly can have no refer
ence to any requirement of the moral law. Also, in Bom. 5 : 19, the term obedience
is used with evidently the same meaning. Christ received a great commission or com
mand from the Father to come and redeem sinners. His coming to redeem them
would constitute obedience to that command. But it certainly would not imply the
manner in which they were to be redeemed. Suppose the commandment he received
from the Father was to come and redeem sinners, by mere sufferings on the cross,
would it not then be perfectly proper and natural to say that he " became obedient
unto death, even the death of the cross 1 " Would it not also be perfectly proper and
natural to say (especially if drawing a parallel between the first and second Adam),
"so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous." The obedience of
Christ in this sense may truly be said to comprise all that he ever did in this world.
In this sense, therefore, his obedience is not to be considered in distinction from his
sufferings, or from any action of his life.

THE OBEDIENCE OF CHRIST. 471
way of the pardon of sinners, and answers the valuable purposes which
the complete literal execution of the penalty of the law would have an
swered, it would seem to be reasonable to conclude, that the atonement
consisted partly in obedience and partly in sufferings. But if, instead
of this, it should appear clearly that the obedience of Christ does not
answer those ends for which atonement was necessary, either in whole
or in part, then no such conclusion can be reasonably drawn ; but it must
follow unavoidably, that the atonement of Christ not only might, but
actually did, consist wholly in his sufferings.
In making the proposed inquiry, the obstacles which stood in the way
of God's pardoning sinners without an atonement, or, what rendered an
atonement necessary, should be kept steadily in view.
1. The law of God threatened transgressors with eternal punishment ;
and this law being just, and- deserving of respect, must be fully supported.
2. The weU-being of God's kingdom requires that' disobedience should
be totally discountenanced, in order to which it is necessary that the
laws of the kingdom be thoroughly executed.
3. God loves holiness, and is infinitely opposed to sin ; and it is neces
sary, in order to display bis true character, that this should be mani
fested. But if God had pardoned sinners without an atonement, he could
neither have supported his law, discountenanced wickedness, nor mani
fested his abhorrence of sin, and love of holiness. Hence if sinners were
pardoned, an atonement was indispensably necessary.
If God had literally executed the penalty of his law on transgressors,
he would have been just to his law, his kingdom, and his own character.
And if he pardoned sinners he must do it in a way which is consistent
with his being equally just in each'of these respects. The atonement,
therefore, must consist in something which answers all these purposes
as fully as they would have been answered by the complete execution of
the penalty of the law. It must manifest, on the part of God, as high
respect for the law, and do as much to support its authority ; it must be
calculated as effectually to discountenance disobedience ; and it must
manifest God's regard for holiness, and his hatred of sin, as fully as the
complete execution of the law would have done ; otherwise it would be
really no atonement ; it would not open a way in which God might be
just to his law, his kingdom, or his own character, in pardoning sinners.
But could the obedience of Christ answer all or even any of these ends ?
1. Could God have been just to his law in pardoning sinners out of
respect to Christ's obedience ? Does the obedience of Christ manifest
God's respect for his law as fully as the execution of its penalty on the
transgressor would have done ?
If it has been clearly shown how God would have manifested respect

472 SCRIPTURE DOCTRINE OF ATONEMENT.
for his law, if he had executed its penalty, and in what such a manifesta
tion of respect must have consisted, the inquiries now proposed may be
easily answered. It may easily be shown with equal clearness whether
the obedience of Christ is sufficient to manifest the same respect. It
must be carefully remembered here, that, if the execution of the penalty
of the law on transgressors had not involved a real evil in the view of
God, his causing it to be executed could not have manifested any respect
for his law. In case of the execution of the penalty, the manifestation
of respect would not have consisted in merely satisfying its literal
demands, but rather, in submitting to an evil, for the .sake of satisfying
those demands. Though it has been shown already, it may not be use
less to repeat, that if, when mankind sinned, God had not felt compas
sionate towards them ; if he had been actuated by no benevolence, so
that their punishment and misery would not have been an evil in his
view, he could not, in this case, have manifested any respect for his law,
by executing its penalty upon them. But if he felt benevolent towards
them, so that their misery appeared to him a great evil ; if, in this view
of their misery, he had proceeded to execute the penalty of his law upon
them, it is plain he would have shown great respect for his law.
Since, then, it appears plain, that God could no otherwise manifest re
spect for his law, in executing its penalty, and making the transgressor
miserable, than by submitting to what he evidently viewed as an evil,
how is it possible that his respect for his law could be manifested by the
obedience of Christ ? Was that an evil ? Was it, could it possibly be,
a great evil in the view of God ? How could Christ, who was " holy,
harmless, undefiled," do any otherwise than obey ? Would he not have
obeyed perfectly if he had come into the world for any other purpose ?
If he had not obeyed, would not this have constituted him a sinner, and
brought him into a state in which, instead of procuring pardon for others,
he would have needed it for himself?* Was his obedience more than
* It is evident that if Christ had not fully obeyed the law, after he was made under
it, he would necessarily have disobeyed it. If he had disobeyed, his disobedienco
would have been a practical justification of sinners, and a disapprobation of God's re
quirements. Hence appears the necessity there was of his perfect obedience for him
self; for " without this it could not have appeared that Christ in every thing justified
God, and wholly condemned the sinner. And had not the man Jesus Christ most per
fectly justified God, and condemned tho sinner, his offering up himself upon the cross,
instead of being a sweet incense, would only have been falling a victim to the just in
dignation of his injured sovereign." — West on Atonement p. 69.
If it should bo thought that Christ's obedience must have constituted some part of
the atonement, because it made him a more excellent being ; it may be answered, his
wisdom made him a more excellent being ; so did his power ; but neither constituted
any part of atonement.

THE OBEDIENCE OF CHRIST. 473
perfect ? Could it have been less ? Christ obeyed the divine law, and
thus showed it his respect. But how does this manifest God's respect
for the law ? Angels, too, obey the law perfectly, and thus show it their
respect. But this no more proves that God respects the law, than the
disobedience of angels and men proves that God is disposed to treat his
law with disrespect. If the obedience of Christ be not an evil, in the
view of God, it is not seen how it can manifest his respect for his law,
so as to constitute an atonement, out of respect to which he can be just
to his law. in pardoning sinners.
2. Can God be just to his kingdom in pardoning sinners out of re
spect to the obedience of Christ ? Can the obedience of Christ possibly
be as effectual in discountenancing wickedness, as the execution of the
penalty of the law would have been ? It can scarcely be pretended.
If when mankind fell God had executed the penalty upon them, this
would have given other moral beings evidence that he was determined
to support his law. The evil, involved in the execution of the penalty,
would have appeared to them great ; and they would have concluded
that it must be their unavoidable portion in case they should transgress.
Convinced of the divine determination to punish transgressors, they
would have been under a powerful restraint. But can it be supposed
that the obedience of Christ is calculated to produce the same effect ?
How can it ? What can the obedience of Christ do towards convincing
moral beings that God is determined to support his law ? Moral beings,
who have never sinned, do not consider obedience to God an evil. So
far from it obedience is, in their view, a great good. It is delightful to
obey themselves, and to see others obey. The obedience of Christ,
therefore, is not calculated effectually to deter moral beings from sin.
It may, indeed, by way of example allure the righteous to press forward
in obedience. But, certainly, it cannot impose any restraint upon the ill
disposed. It cannot produce any such effect upon them as would have
been produced by the execution of the penalty of the law. It cannot,
therefore, answer the same valuable purposes in relation to the support
•of government. Of consequence, it could not make any atonement, out
of regard to which God can be just to his kingdom in pardoning sinners.
That it might be a satisfactory atonement, it must be calculated to. deter
others from disobedience as effectually as the full execution of the pen
alty of the law would have done. So far as it falls short of this, it must
be utterly inadequate to the purposes of atonement. But since the obe
dience of Christ cannot be viewed, by holy beings, as an evil, or any
token of the divine displeasure, it must be obvious, that it cannot have
this tendency in any degree. Hence it is evident, that it must be ut
terly insufficient to constitute any part ofthe atonement.
40*

474 SCRIPTURE DOCTRINE OF ATONEMENT.
Suppose, for further illustration, that one law of a certain family is,
that one child of the family shab attend school, unavoidable hinderances
excepted, every day ; and that if he needlessly absent himself, he shall
feel the rod, as a punishment for his disobedience. After a time, how
ever, the child becomes weary of his sehool, and, instead of attending
according to the command of the parent, spends several days in play or
idleness. The parent, informed of the transgression, calls the child to
account. He is convicted, and the parent prepares to inflict the punish
ment. At this instant another child of the family intercedes for the of
fender, and offers to make satisfaction. Being asked how, he replies,
that he will attend the school himself, as many days as the delinquent
has been absent. Now if the parent should accept the offered satisfac
tion, and dismiss the offender, would this support the law of the family ?
Would it be calculated, effectually, to deter the child from future disobe
dience ? Would it convince the rest of the family that punishment must
be the certain portion of the disobedient ? Would it effectually restrain
them from trifling with the laws of the family ? It cannot be pretended.
With as much propriety might a criminal, convicted of murder, be par
doned out of regard to the intercession of some kind and benevolent
friend, whose intercessory plea might be, that he, himself, had never
murdered. 3. Neither can God be just to himself, in pardoning sinners, out of
respect to the obedience of Christ. The reason is obvious. The obedi
ence of Christ cannot make a manifestation of God's hatred of sin, and
regard to holiness, to that extent, which would have resulted from an ex
ecution of the penalty of the law. Nor is it very conceivable how the
obedience of Christ should manifest God's abhorrence of sin, and love
for holiness, to any extent, beyond what appears from his giving, the law
at first. If the obedience of Christ is considered, as perhaps it ought,
merely in relation to his human nature, it does not appear that it is ca
pable, any more than the obedience of angels or men, of showing what
God's feelings are towards holiness and sin. In this sense it is true,
when Christ obeyed he manifested his regard for holiness. And it is
equally true, that the obedience of angels manifests their regard for holi
ness. But neither the one nor the other furnishes evidence that God
regards it. If, however, one could, the other must, for the same reason ;
and, of course, the mission of Christ must have been altogether unneces
sary ; because the obedience of angels would have answered the same
purpose. Nothing can be plainer than this, that the obedience of one
being cannot manifest the opposition of another being to disobedience.
If it could, then a judge might pardon every criminal, because some
honest man had not transgressed the same law ; and, at the same time,

THE OBEDIENCE OP CHRIST. 475
make a full display of bis hatred to disobedience, than which nothing
can be more absurd.
In favor of considering Christ's obedience to tbe law, in relation to his
human nature merely, it may be observed, that, in his divine nature, he
was the lawgiver. And obedience to a law always supposes a previous
obligation to the lawgiver. Hence it would seem that Christ, in his di
vine nature, could not have been under the law, at least in the same
sense that men are. In his divine nature, therefore, he could not have
rendered precisely that obedience which man failed to render. Neither
can it be supposed, that, in his divine nature, when he was incarnate, he
obeyed the divine law in any sense different from that in which God
has obeyed it from eternity. It is not seen, therefore, how Christ's obe
dience to the law could manifest God's regard for holiness, on account of
his personal union of the divine and. human natures, any more than if no
such union had existed. It is not necessary, however, that this point
should be urged. Let it be admitted that Christ, even in his divine na
ture, was made under the law ; that Deity in his person, in a strict and
proper sense, assumed all the obligations which the divine law imposes
on men, and discharged them, and still it could not be shown that this
proves God's regard for holiness. If giving the law did not manifest a
regard for holiness, certainly obeying it cannot. For if God might be
supposed to give the law, from any other motives than a regard to holi
ness, he certainly might be supposed to obey it, from the same motives.
No obedience of Christ, therefore, on account of his being divine, can be
a ground for pardoning sinners, any more than his giving the law at
first can be a reason for pardoning ; that is, a reason why the law ought
not to be literally executed ; because one no more manifests God's re
gard for holiness than the other.
How would a king appear who should attempt to justify himself in
pardoning every criminal, on the ground that he had never himself trans
gressed ; alleging, that his not transgressing his own law was a sufficient
proof that he was utterly opposed to transgression ; and that, therefore,
he would not punish others ? How would this support the authority of
his laws ? How would it deter his subjects from disobedience ? How
would he manifest his unshaken attachment to good order among them ?
Zaleucus enacted a severe law against adultery. His son transgressed.
Now what if he had pardoned his son on the ground that himself and
others had obeyed the law? Would this have manifested on his part a
proper respect for the law? Would it have supported its authority?
Would it have had the least tendency to restrain others from the same
offence ? Would it have manifested any abhorrence of his son's crime ?
Would his subjects have concluded that Zaleucus was determined, at all

476

SCRIPTURE DOCTRINE OF ATONEMENT.

events, to support his law ; that every transgressor must suffer ? It is
obvious no such conclusions could be drawn. His obedience could not
have been viewed as any atonement whatever. The pretended satisfac
tion must have appeared to them a mere imposition. They would have
viewed it with contempt.
Thus it appears plain, that the obedience of another can be no ground
of pardon for an offender. The obedience of Christ is not sufficient to
answer any of those purposes for which atonement was necessary, that
sinners might be pardoned. It cannot furnish any ground, on which God
can be just to his law, to his kingdom, or to his own character, in par
doning the guilty. It appears safe, therefore, to conclude, that it consti
tutes no part of the atonement. Indeed, it is not possible that any
demonstration can be more certain, unless the view which has been
given of the reasons why atonement was necessary is altogether incor
rect. It is confidently believed, however, that no reasons can be given
why an atonement was indispensably necessary, which will not also
evince a necessity, equally indispensable, that it should consist in suffer
ings. Those who have placed the atonement in Christ's obedience, have
always found a difficulty in showing why any atonement was necessary.
Indeed, that there was any necessity for it, many have actually denied.
But unless atonement were necessary, it is inconceivable that a holy and
wise God should ever have given up his beloved Son to be a propitiation
for sin. And if atonement were necessary, for the reasons which have
been assigned, then it is certain that it consisted in sufferings ; because
the sufferings of Christ fully meet that necessity, whilst nothing else can
answer the purpose.
This doctrine is also abundantly evident from the event of Christ's
death. For unless the sufferings of Clirist were necessary for an atone
ment, it must be impossible to show any purpose for which they were
necessary. But, certainly, they were necessary for something. Christ,
surely, did not die in vain. He never could have wiUingly consented to
the death of the cross, if it had not been to answer some valuable pur
pose. No man, of even common wisdom and goodness, would willingly
consent to great sufferings, unless his sufferings might evidently be pro
ductive of great good. Much less can we suppose that Christ, who was
infinitely wise and good, would have consented to such sufferings as he
sustained, unless it had been for the attainment of some good of propor
tionable value. But what wise and valuable purpose was answered by
his death, if it were not the purpose of atonement ? What was the great
good attained by his sufferings and death, unless it were a consistent
ground for pardoning sinners ? It is easy to see that his obedience was
necessary, even though it constituted no part of the atonement. But his

THE OBEDIENCE OF CHRIST. 477
sufferings could not be necessary on the same ground. His obedience
was necessary for himself. Being made under the law, if he had not
obeyed, he must have become a sinner. If he had not obeyed, he could
not have been the brightness of the Father's glory, and the express
image of his person ; he could not have been the chief among ten thou
sand, and altogether lovely ; and instead of being the web-beloved of the
Father, he must have incurred his displeasure.
But though his obedience was necessary for himself, his sufferings were
altogether voluntary. They could not have been for himself. They
must, therefore, have been for the purpose of atonement, or for no pur
pose of which we are able to conceive. It is inconceivable, moreover,
that the Father should have consented to his sufferings on this ground.
The Father loved him with peculiar affection. Yet he was " delivered
by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God," and " by wicked
hands " was " crucified and slain." " It pleased the Father to bruise him,
and put him to grief; to lay the chastisement of our peace upon him.''
Now, how can we possibly account for this, if his sufferings were not
necessary for atonement ? Are human parents, who tenderly love their
children, willing to bruise them and put them to grief, when it is not nec
essary ? Are they willing to give them up to the smiter, and to consent
to their death, when it can answer no valuable purpose ? How, then,
could God, who is infinitely benevolent and compassionate, be willing
that his beloved Son should be put to grief, be despised, and even cruci
fied, when it was not necessary ? If the sufferings and death of Christ
were not necessary to the pardon of sinners, why did not the Father send
his angels and deliver him, when he saw the anguish of his soul in the
garden, and heard his fervent prayer that, if it were possible, the cup of
his afflictions might pass from him ?
Besides, the Scriptures are unintelligible if the atonement of Christ
consisted in his obedience ; for they plainly ascribe it to his sufferings and
death. " Who his own self 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." 1 Pet. 2 : 24. " He hath borne our griefs, and
carried our sorrows — 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." Isa. 53 : 4, 5. " The Lord hath laid
on him the iniquity of us all." Isa. 53 : 6. " Yet jt pleased tbe 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." Isa. 53: 10-12. "Who was delivered
for our offences." Rom. 4 : 25. Nothing can be more plain than these
declarations of Scripture.

478 SCRIPTURE DOCTRINE OP ATONEMENT.
If language is capable of conveying ideas, these passages certainly
prove that the atonement of Christ consisted in his sufferings. In Scrip
ture Christ is frequently called a sacrifice. " For even Christ, our pass-
over, is sacrificed for us." 1 Cor. 5 : 7. He is said 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 of the world," to have appeared, " to put away
sin by the sacrifice of himself." When he is called a sacrifice, reference
is evidently had to his shedding his blood. He is the great propitiatory
sacrifice to which the Jewish sacrifices pointed. From these sacrifices,
too, an undeniable argument may be adduced, in confirmation of the re
sult of the inquiry already made. The Jews were commanded to offer
beasts in sacrifice for their sins. These sacrifices were considered as
making atonement for the people.. " And the Lord called unto Moses,
and spake unto him out of the tabernacle of the congregation, saying,
Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them, If any man of you
bring an offering unto the Lord, ye shall bring your offering of the cattle,
even of the herd, and of the flock. And if his offering be a burnt sacri
fice of tbe herd, let him offer a male without blemish ; he shab offer it of
his own voluntary will, at the door of the tabernacle of the congregation,
before the Lord. And he shall put his hand upon the head of the burnt
offering, and it shall be accepted for him, to make atonement for him.
And he shall kill the bullock before the Lord ; and the priests, Aaron's
sons, shall bring the blood, and sprinkle the blood round about upon the
altar. And he shall slay the burnt offering, and cut it into his pieces, —
and the priest shall burn all on the altar, to be a burnt sacrifice, an offer
ing made by fire, of a sweet savor unto the Lord." Lev. 1 : 1-7, 9.
Thus were the children of Israel commanded concerning their sacrifice
for sin ; they were to kill the beast, and burn it on the altar ; and this
sacrifice was to make an atonement for their iniquities. That these sac
rifices were designed to prefigure the great propitiatory sacrifice which
the Son of God should make of himself, is evident from the account which
is given of them in the New Testament; particularly in the epistle to
the Hebrews. The apostle calls these sacrifices a shadow of things to
come ; an example, pattern, and figure ; and he refers them to Christ.
" Wliich are a shadow of things to come ; but the bodj- is Christ." Col.
2:17. " Who serve unto the example and shadow of heavenly things."
Heb. 8:5. " It was therefore necessary that tbe pattern of things in the
heavens should be purified with these ; but the heavenly things them
selves with better sacrifices than these." Heb. 9 : 23. " But this man,
after he had offered one sacrifice for sins, forever sat down on the right
hand of God." Heb. 10: 12. "For such an high-priest became us, —
who needeth not daily, as those high-priests, to offer up sacrifice first for

THE OBEDIENCE OF CHRIST. 479
his own sins, and then for the people's ; for this he did once, when he
offered up himself." Heb. 7 : 26, 27. From these passages it is evident
that the Jewish sacrifices had reference to th.e sacrifice which Christ
would make of himself for the sins of the world. Indeed, they were of
bttle, if any consequence, any further than as they pointed to this great
atoning sacrifice. If, then, we can ascertain what it was in the Jewish
sacrifices Which was considered as making atonement, we may know what
constituted the atonement of Christ.
Now, it is evident, the conduct of the priests did not make atonement.
They were no more than the instruments by which the atoning sacrifices
were offered. This is all that is intended, when they are spoken of as
making the atonement. God required that the beasts which were to be
offered should be free from blemishes. But the atonement did not con
sist in this ceremonial purity. This was only a prerequisite. But the
atonement consisted in the sacrifice itself ; or in the life or blood of the
beast which was offered. This God has expressly declared. "And the
bullock for the sin offering, and the goat for the sin offering, whose blood
was brought in to make atonement." Lev. 16 : 27. The children of Israel
were forbidden to eat blood ; and God assigned this reason for the prohi
bition, that he had given the blood to make atonement for them. " And
whatsoever man there be of the house of Israel, or of the strangers that
sojourn among you, that eateth any manner of blood ; I will even set my
face against that soul that eateth blood, and will cut him off from among
his people. For the life of the flesh is in the blood ; and I have given it
to you upon the altar, to make an atonement for your souls ; for it is the
blood that maketh an atonement for the soul." Lev. 17: 10, 11. Thus
God assures us that it was the life, or blood of the beast offered upon the
altar, which made the atonement in the Jewish sacrifices.
This naturally and even necessarily leads us to the conclusion that
the atonement of Christ consisted in his offering up his life or shedding
his blood ; otherwise the Jewish sacrifices were not proper representa
tions of this great propitiatory sacrifice for the sins of the world. For
how could these sacrifices be types, and Christ's sacrifice of himself the
antitype, if the atonement by these consisted in shedding blood, but the
atonement by Christ in something else ? How could these bloody sacri
fices be typical of Christ's obedience ? On the ground that they were,
where would be the resemblance ?
It may be further observed, that almost every thing in and about the
tabernacle was to be sprinkled with blood, that it might be rendered cere-
moniaUy clean. When Moses had spoken every precept to all the
people, according to the law, he took the blood of calves and of goats
with water, and scarlet wool, and hyssop, and sprinkled both the book

480 SCRIPTURE DOCTRINE OF ATONEMENT.
and all the people, saying, This is the blood of the testament, which God
hath enjoined unto you. Moreover, he sprinkled likewise with blood
both the tabernacle and all the vessels of the ministry. And almost all
things, by the law, are purged with blood." Heb. 9 : 19-22. Particu
larly, the high-priest could not enter into the holy place, which prefigured
heaven, without the purification of blood. Now what could be the
design of this ceremonial cleansing by blood ? Why could not the high-
priest, without being cleansed by blood, enter into the holy of holies?
Does not all this teach us that we are cleansed from sin and saved from
wrath only by the precious blood of Jesus Christ ? Does it not show us
that it is only by virtue of his blood that we can ever enter into heaven ?
Does it not necessarily lead our minds, to the blood of Christ as that
which alone makes atonement for sin? If it do not, in vain do we
attempt to derive any instruction from these things.
This representation also agrees with the general tenor of Scripture on
this subject. We have already examined a considerable number of pas
sages, which expressly point us to the death of Christ as that which
makes atonement. It may be shown, moreover, from many other Scrip
tures, that every thing belonging to our salvation which may be consid
ered a fruit of atonement, is also grounded on the love of Christ. If we
are redeemed, or bought, the blood of Christ is the price ; if we are
cleansed, or sanctified, it is by the blood of sprinkling ; if we are recon
ciled, the blood of Christ hath broken down the partition waU. Indeed
every blessing of the gospel is a blood-bought blessing.
Christ is abundantly represented as redeeming and purchasing his
saints, as captives are redeemed from captivity by the payment of a
price. " Who gave himself for our sins, that he might deliver us from
this present evil world." Gal. 1:4. " Christ bath loved us, and hath
given himself for us, an offering and a sacrifice to God for a sweet-
smelling savor." Eph. 5:2. " Who gave himself for us, that he might
redeem us from all iniquity." Tit. 2 : 14. " Ye are bought with a price."
1 Cor. 7 : 23. These passages have evident reference to the death of
Christ as the ransom or price which he gave for us. " The church of
God, which he hath purchased with his own blood." Acts 20 : 28.
" Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible
things, as silver and gold, — but with the precious blood of Christ." 1
Pet. 1 : 18, 19.
The atonement of Christ is that which lays a foundation for our sanc
tification and deliverance from sin. " Christ also loved the church, and
gave himself for it, that he might sanctify and cleanse it with the wash
ing of water, by the word." Eph. 5 : 25, 26. " But after that the
kindness and love of God our Saviour towards man appeared, not by

THE OBEDIENCE OF CHRIST. 481
works of righteousness, which we have done, but according to bis mercy
he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy
Ghost, which he shed on us abundantly, through Jesus Christ our
Saviour." Tit 3 : 4, 5. " For their sakes I sanctify myself, that they
also might be sanctified through the truth." John 17 : 19. But, accord
ing to the voice of inspiration, it is the blood or death of Christ, which
is available here. " Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his
own blood, he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained
eternal redemption for us." Heb. 9 : 12. "For if the blood of bulls and
of goats, and the ashes of an heifer, sprinkling the unclean, sanctifieth to
the purifying of the flesh ; how much more shall the blood of Christ, who,
through the eternal Spirit, offered himself without spot to God, purge
your conscience from dead works to serve the living God ? " Heb. 9 : -
13, 14. " The bodies of those beasts, whose blood is brought into the
sanctuary for sin, are burnt without the camp. Wherefore, Jesus also,
that he might sanctify the people with his own blood, suffered without the
gate." Heb. 13: 11, 12. And agreeably with this, the apostle John
says expressly, " The blood of Jesus Christ cleanseth from all sin." 1
John 1 : 7.
It is through the atonement surely, that sinners are brought into
a state of reconcibation with God. But this, the Scriptures assure us,
is effected by the death or blood of Christ. " For if when we were ene
mies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son." Rom. 5 ; 10,
" But now in Christ Jesus, ye who sometimes were far off, are made nigh
by the blood of Christ. For he is our peace, who hath made both [Jews
and Gentiles] one ; — and that he might reconcile both in one body by
the cross, having slain the enmity thereby." Eph. 2 : 13, 14, 16. "-And
having made peace through the blood of his cross." Col. 1 : 20. "And
you, that were sometimes alienated, and enemies in your minds by
wicked works, yet now hath he reconciled, in the body of his. flesh,
through death." Col. 1 : 21.
The atonement of Christ is certainly that on account of which saints
are pardoned and justified. But in the Bible, saints are said toi be
pardoned and justified by the blood and death \of Christ. " Being-
justified freely by his grace, through the redemption that is in Christ
Jesus ; whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation- through faith in
his blood." Rom. 3 : 24, 25. " Being now justified by bis blood." Rom*.
5: 9. "In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the-
forgiveness of sins." Eph. 1 : 7. Said our- Lord at the institution of the-
ordinance of the supper, "This is my blood of the new testament,
which is shed for many for the remission of sins." Matt. 26': 28. And
the apostle in his epistle to the Hebrews, declared, " Without shedding- of

482 SCRIPTURE DOCTRINE OF ATONEMENT.
blood there is no remission." Heb. 9 : 22. According to these Scrip
tures, believers are forgiven and justified solely on account of the death ,
of Christ, or the effusion of his blood as a sacrifice for sin.
Once more. It is evident from the sacred oracles, that all, who
obtain salvation, are saved by virtue of Christ's atonement. The whole
gospel is proof of this. But there are several passages which very plainly
show that salvation is on account of Christ's sufferings and death. " And
for this cause he is the Mediator of the new testament, that by means
of death for the redemption of the transgressions, — they which are
caUed might receive the promise of eternal inheritance." Heb. 9 : 15.
" Now once, in the end of the world, hath he appeared to put away sins
by the sacrifice of himself. — Christ was once offered to bear the sins of
many ; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time,
without sin, unto salvation ; " that is, unto the complete salvation of all
that look for him. Heb. 9 : 26, 28. " For when we were without
strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly. — Much more, then,
being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through
him." Rom. 5 : 6, 9. " For God hath not appointed us to wrath, but to
obtain salvation through our Lord Jesus Christ, who died for us."
1 Thess. 5 : 9, 10. Here the apostle plainly tells us, that we receive
eternal salvation through Christ, on account of his death. " We see
Jesus, who was made a bttle lower than the angels for the suffering of
death, crowned with glory and honor, that he, by the grace of God,
should taste death for every man. For it became him for whom are all
things, in bringing many sons unto glory, to make the captain of their
salvation perfect through sufferings." Heb. 2: 9, 10. "Though he
were a Son, yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered ;
and being made perfect [through sufferings], he became the author of
eternal salvation unto all them that obey him." Heb. 5 : 8, 9. " Hav
ing, therefore, boldness to enter into the holiest by the blood of Jesus."
Heb. 10 : 19.
In this last passage, we perceive an evident allusion to the high-
priest's entering into the most holy place of the tabernacle, through the
cleansing of blood. By this, the spirit of inspiration would evidently
teach us, that the way in which we must enter into heaven, is by being
cleansed in the blood of Christ. Indeed, all these Scriptures direct us
to the blood of Christ, as being emphatically that on account of which
believers are saved. The redeemed in heaven, undoubtedly, must know
precisely what that is, on account of which they are admitted to that
blissful world. Yet from a passage in the book of Revelation, which
describes their heavenly worship, it appears that they consider the blood
of Christ as the foundation of all their glory. " And they sung a new

THE OBEDIENCE OF CHRIST. 483
song, saying, thou art worthy to take the book and to open the seals
thereof; for thou wast slain, and hast redeemed us to God by thy
blood." Rev. 5 : 9.
Thus the sufferings and death of Christ are singled out in Scripture,
and spoken of by way of eminence in a multitude of places, as being the
price of our purchase, and as laying a foundation for our sanctification,
for our reconciliation to God, for our forgiveness, and, finally, for our
eternal salvation in heaven. The sufferings and death of Christ, too,
completely secure all the ends for which atonement was necessary ;
remove all the obstacles which stood in the way of God's showing favor
to mankind, and making them eternally happy after they had sinned ;
and answer all the valuable purposes which could have been answered
by the execution of the penalty of the law.
How, then, can there be any room to doubt whether the atonement
of Christ consisted in his sufferings and death ? Is not this idea plainly
supported by all the representations of Scripture on the subject ? Indeed,
is it possible that the subject should be more plain ? EspeciaUy, when
we reflect that the obedience of Christ does not secure any of the ends
which rendered an atonement necessary, as it could not in the nature of
things answer the purposes which might have been answered by the
execution of the penalty of the law, the very thing which was necessary
in order that the penalty might be consistently remitted ; and when we
consider, moreover, what still more ought to satisfy every believer in
revealed religion, that the notion that the atonement of Christ consisted
in his obedience, by no means agrees with the uniform voice of inspira
tion on the subject.
Indeed, it may justly be questioned, whether there is a single passage
in the Bible, which fairly implies that the active obedience of Christ
constituted any part of the atonement. Perhaps there is no passage
more bable to be so understood, than Jer. 23 : 6. " This is his name
whereby he shall be called, The Lord our righteousness." But what
is there, even in this, which fairly implies that the obedience of Christ
constituted the atonement either in whole, or in part ? What is there
in it which any common reader, unbiassed by preconceived opinions,
would be liable to understand in that way ? This passage was' a mere
prediction that a name, by which Christ should be called, would be,
"The Lord our righteousness." Undoubtedly, the reason why he
should be so called was, because he would make an atonement for his
people, and open a consistent way for their pardon and admission into
heaven ; to that happiness to which they would have been entitled by
their own righteousness, if they had never sinned. The passage may
be considered as implying this. But it certainly does not give any

484 SCRIPTURE DOCTRINE OF ATONEMENT.
intimation concerning the particular thing which Christ would do to
make that atonement, or the manner in which he would open that con
sistent way of pardon. If his atonement had consisted in his active
obedience, this text would have given no intimation of it ; nor could he,
with any more propriety, be called " The Lord our righteousness," than
he now can, in view of his sufferings and death. He is, also, said to
be made unto his people " wisdom, righteousness, sanctification, and
redemption." But, surely, no one would think of arguing from hence,
that wisdom constituted any part of the atonement.
Another passage which has been supposed by some to favor the no
tion that the atonement of Christ consisted in his obedience is, Isaiah
42 : 21, " The Lord is well pleased for his righteousness' sake ; he will
magnify the law and make it honorable." If it were unquestionable
that this should be considered as referring to Christ, and should it be
granted that he did magnify the law and make it honorable in any sense
which may be supposed ; still it would by no means follow, that this con
stituted any part of the atonement. Doubtless oar Lord did many things
on earth which were never designed as any part of his propitiatory work.
So that if all were granted concerning this passage which can reasonably
be asked, still it would avail nothing. The needed proof must still be
sought somewhere else. Many good critics, however, suppose the pas
sage has no reference to Christ. They think it might be more correctly
translated, " Jehovah delighteth in his righteous one ; he wiU prosper
and honor his administration." (See also, Poole, in loc.) Those who
have considered this passage as evidence that the atonement of Christ
consisted in his active obedience, have generally supposed that the atone
ment was necessary to show the justice of the law. They have appre
hended that, if God had forgiven sinners without an atonement, the jus
tice of the law could not have appeared ; that, therefore, Christ obeyed
the law, made it appear just and reasonable, and so made atonement.
Now if it were admitted that an atonement was necessary on this
ground, still it would not be easy to see how the obedience of Christ
could make the law appear reasonable. If the law were not reasonable
in itself, aside from the obedience of Christ, his obedience surely could
not make it reasonable. Indeed, unless the law were good, antecedently
to his obeying it, there could be no reason why he should obey it, nor
any merit in his obedience. The reasonableness of the law, therefore,
instead of resting on the obedience of Christ, is itself the very foundation
on which the reasonableness of his obedience rests. And if the obedience
of Christ did not make the law reasonable, it certainly could not make it
appear to be reasonable in the view of creatures. For, if the law ap
peared to creatures to be unreasonable, they would, of course, perceive no

THE OBEDIENCE OF CHRIST. 485
reason why it should be obeyed by Christ, or by any other being. The
truth is, the law is in itself most reasonable ; and nothing more is neces
sary that creatures may perceive it to be reasonable, than that they
should understand those things on which its reasonableness depends.
But its reasonableness does not depend on the conduet of any being in
the universe, either of God, or of Christ, or of creatures. It depends on
what the law itself requires, on the capacities of the beings to whom it is
addressed, and the relations they sustain to God and to each other.
Only let creatures clearly understand these things, and they could not
fail to perceive the perfect reasonableness of the divine law. A little
candid and impartial attention to the word of God would teach them this,
which, from the mere obedience of Christ, they could never learn.
Another consideration which clearly shows the incorrectness of this
scheme is, that it manifestly inverts the order of divine truth. For, if
tbe obedience of Christ makes the law appear reasonable, and so makes
atonement, it must certainly follow that instead of discovering the grace
of the gospel, in the reasonableness and holiness of the law by which
men are condemned, we must go to the gospel itself to learn that the law
is reasonable. Besides, if we do not perceive the reasonableness of the
law, aside from any consideration of what is contained in the gospel, how
can we ever obtain any just views of the gospel ? For, unless the law
first appear holy, just, and good, how can we view the gospel as any other
than a dispensation designed to deliver us from the unjust punishment
of an unreasonable law ? It is evident, therefore, that neither Christ's
obedience, nor his atonement, was designed to manifest the reasonableness
of the law. So far from this, that the reasonableness of the law is the
very foundation of the gospel, and must be perceived before the propriety
of that dispensation can be discovered.
Besides, as has been observed, Jesus Christ, both as God and man,
was as much bound to obey the law as any other being in the universe.
It is true, as God he was riot under law in every sense as a creature is ;
for there was no being above him to command him, to threaten him with
a penalty, or to promise him a reward. Yet he was as really bound by
the moral law, that eternal rule of rectitude, as any creature is. It is
the glory of the divine Being, that all his feelings and all his conduct are
in perfect conformity with this unerring rule. And, as a creature, Jesus
Christ was, in every sense, as much bound to obey the law as is any
other creature. Neither as God, nor as man, therefore, was he any
more holy than he ought to be. How, then, could his obedience, any
more than the obedience of any other being, make the law appear rea
sonable, or make atonement ?
The notion that atonement was necessary to make the law appear
41*

486 SCRIPTURE DOCTRINE OF ATONEMENT.
reasonable, is evidently incorrect. No obscurity attending the law pre
sented any obstacle in the way of God's pardoning sinners. The real
difficulties which stood in the way of this have been brought into view.
But these the obedience of Christ could not remove. If God had par
doned sinners without an atonement, he could not have appeared just ;
he would not have shown that he approved of the law, loved hobness,
hated sin, and was determined to maintain good government. How,
then, could he omit punishing the transgressors of his law ? Here was
the necessity of atonement, which Paul stated, " to declare God's right
eousness, that he might be just, and the justifier of him that believeth in
Jesus." What, then, if the obedience of Christ did make the law appear
reasonable (which, however, it neither did nor could), how would this
remove any difficulty which stood in the way of the salvation of sinners ?
Surely, God would not show the righteousness of his character by refus
ing to punish the transgressor of a law which was made to appear so rea
sonable and good ! Hence, it appears, that the scheme which places the
atonement in the obedience of Christ, is totally without foundation, either
in reason or the word of God.*
* It is true, obedience was implied in Christ's sufferings ; not, however, obedience
to the moral or ceremonial law ; but obedience to a law peculiar to the undertaking
of Christ as a Mediator. He had received a, commandment from the Father to come
and redeem sinners by his death. Dying, therefore, was obeying. Hence the apostle
says, he " became obedient unto death ; " and also, that "by the obedience of one shall
many be made righteous." But does it hence follow, that atonement consisted in
obedience 7 If so, then it was, in the nature of things, impossible for God to require
an atonement which would not consist in obedience. Then, also, it would be using
language with propriety to say, " God gave Clirist a commandment to come and make
an atonement for sin, by suffering the death of the cross ; and Clirist came and obeyed
that commandment; therefore, his atonement consists in obedience." It is presumed,
however, that no one would wish to advocate the logical propriety of such a statement
It would certainly bo at variance with the common use of language. God has given
his ministers a command to go into all the world and preach the gospel to every crea
ture ; and he has ordained by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe.
In obedience to this command, ministers go forth and preach, and sinners, who hear
and believo tho gospel, aro saved.
Now, in speaking of their salvation, it would be much more agreeable to the com
mon use of language to say they aro saved by the preaching of the gospel, than it
would to say they aro saved by tho obedience of ministers. Paul stated in his defence
before Agrippa, that Jesus met him on his way to Damascus and said unto him, " I
have appeared unto thee for this purpose, to make thee a minister and a witness both
of those things which thou hast seen, and of those things in the which I will appear
unto thee, delivering thee from tho people, and from tho Gentilos, unto whom now I
send thco, to open their eyes, and to turn them from darkness to light, and from the
power of Satan unto God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins, and inheritance
among them which are snactificd by faith that is in me." Ho then adds, " Where
fore, 0 king Agrippa, I was not disobedient unto the heavenly vision ; but showed

THE OBEDIENCE OF CHRIST. 487
There is another scheme, which, while it allows that the sufferings of
Christ atone for sin, supposes that his active obedience procures heaven
for believers, which, with the most important passages adduced to sup
port it, will be considered in another place.
first unto them of Damascus, and at Jerusalem, and throughout all the coasts of
Judoa, and then to tho Gentiles, that they should repent and turn to God, and do
works meet for repentance"
Paul was obedient to tho heavenly vision, went to the Gentiles and to the pcoplo,
and turned thein from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan unto God. It
would cortaiuly bo proper, thon, in spoaking of his conduct, in relation to his com
mission, to call it obodiencc, and to say that by his obedienco to the heavenly vision
many woro mado righteous.
But in speaking of his conduct in relation to the effect ho produced, when ho turned
men " from darkness to light," where the question would particularly respect tho
moans by which that effect was produced, it would bo more proper to say, it was ac
complished by preaching tho gospel ; or (in the language of Paul himself), by show
ing " them that they should repont and turn to God, and do works meet for repent
ance.'' So, when wo speak of tho sufferings of Christ, in relation to that command
ment which he had received of his Father, to lay down his life, it is certainly proper
to call them obodienco. But when we speak of the samo sufferings, designed particu
larly as a substitute for the execution of tho penalty of the law, there certainly docs
not appear the samo propriety in using tho same language. And this is doubtless the
reason why, notwithstanding the multitude of instances in which the sufferings, the
blood, and the. death of Clirist are montionod in tho Scriptures, as the ground of our
redemption to God, tho subjoct is so seldom mentioned under the more general term,
obodienco. And, moreover, if the foregoing view of the necessity of atonement is correct, that
necessity could no more be met by the obedienco implied in Christ's sufferings, than
it could bo by his obedience to tho moral law. And for tho obvious reason, that it
answered no bettor as a substitute for the execution of the penalty. It did no more
to accomplish the valuable purposes which the execution of tho law would have ac
complished. Tho good effects which the execution of the penalty of the law Would
have producod, would have resulted from the evil which it involved. But certainly
the sufferings of Christ, considered merely as obodienco, involved no evil. As mere
obodienco, thorofore, they made no atonement. It was the bare suffering, tho more
evil (in tho languogo of Hampton in reply to Taylor), it was the loss sustained,
wliich answered the valuablo purposes, in the support of divine government, &c,
which would havo resulted from the execution of the law, and which was evidently
the only tiling necessary in order to tho setting aside of that execution.

488 SCRIPTURE DOCTRINE OF ATONEMENT.

CHAPTER V.
FULL ATONEMENT, AND SALVATION WHOLLY BY GRACE, CONSISTENT
WITH EACH OTHER.
The Scriptures plainly teach, that though Christ has made a full and
complete atonement for sin, yet the salvation of sinners is entirely of
grace. " By grace ye are saved." Eph. 2 : 5. Many, however, have
found it difficult to treat the subject as though these doctrines were rec
oncilable, the one with the other. But this difficulty has probably
arisen from mistaken views of the nature of the atonement which Christ
has made. Understanding the atonement to be, literally, a purchase, or
the payment of a debt, some have inferred from it, that, since Christ is
represented as a propitiation for the sins of the whole world, all men
must be saved ; others, that, inasmuch as it is evident that all will not be
saved, the atonement could hot be made for all ; and others, again, that,
if sinners are saved on account of the atonement, their pardon and salva
tion cannot be of grace.
These conclusions are much more consistent with the premises, from
which they are respectively drawn, than either the premises or conclu
sions are with the truth. For, if the atonement did consist in the pay
ment of a debt literally, it seems very obvious that there could not be
any grace exercised in the acquittance of sinners, and that atonement
and actual salvation, must be co-extensive. If Christ has really paid the
debt of sinners, they, of course, must be free. Justice must be satisfied,
and can make no further demand. On this ground it must, indeed, fol
low, that if Christ died for all, then all will be saved ; and that if all are
not saved, then he could not have died for all. And it equally follows,
that none can be saved by grace. Their debt being paid, it cannot be
forgiven. ^
Since, therefore, the Scriptures represent the pardon and salvation of
sinners as being whoUy of grace, we may be certain that the atonement
cannot be the payment of a debt, nor, strictly, of the nature of a pur
chase. This, too, it is apprehended, has already been made evident, in
what has been shown concerning the necessity and nature of atonement.
But since many, at the present day, have adopted this scheme of the
atonement, and have deduced sentiments from it which are of the most
dangerous tendency, it may not be improper to examine, a little more di
rectly, the reasoning by which they endeavor to make their scheme con
sistent with the exercise of grace, in the actual bestowment of pardon
and salvation.

FULL ATONEMENT, AND SALVATION WHOLLY BY GRACE. 489
The Scriptures are so very explicit and particular, respecting the terms
of pardon and justification, that few believers in divine revelation can be
found, who do not appear anxious to have it understood that, in some
way or other, they hold the doctrines of grace. It has been said by
some, that though atonement be the payment of a debt, yet the pardon
of a sinner may be called an act of grace, because it is founded in other
acts, which certainly are acts of grace. God's giving his Son to make
atonement, and his actually making it, are acts of grace. And since the
pardon of sinners has its foundation on these gracious acts, it may be
called an act of grace itseff. But this is, certainly, strange reasoning.
To say that pardon is an act of grace, only because it is grounded on
other acts which are gracious, is nothing less than to say, that it is an
act of grace, though it is not an act of grace.
Besides, on the ground of the scheme in question, it is futile to talk of
pardon. When a debt is paid, what can remain to be forgiven ? The
notion, however, is not more inconsistent with itself, than it is with Scrip
ture. "In whom we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness
of sins, according to the riches of his grace." Eph. 1:7. " Being jus
tified freely by his grace, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus."
Rom. 3 : 24. These passages of Scripture, and many others of similar
import, plainly imply, that forgiveness and justification are themselves
acts of grace, and not merely that they are grounded on other acts of this
nature. Nor is this all. Pardon, or forgiveness, in its very nature, impbes
grace. So far as any crime is pardoned at all, it is pardoned graciously.
It is impossible to forgive in any other way. Pardon, on the ground of
justice, would be a contradiction in terms. To pardon a sinner is to treat
him more favorably than he deserves ; to release him from a punishment
which he has justly merited ; and to confer on him a favor, to which he
has no claim. Pardon always implies this. If a criminal be pardoned,
he is treated more favorably than he deserves. His release from punish
ment is a favor which he can have no right to demand. This circum
stance, that he cannot demand it, constitutes his release an act of grace ;
and the same circumstance renders it an act of forgiveness. Without
this circumstance, no acquittal can be an act, either of pardon or grace.
Others, again, among those who consider the atonement as the pay
ment of a debt, have attempted to solve the difficulty by saying that,
though the pardon of the sinner is not an act of grace to Christ, since he
has paid the debt; yet it is an act of grace to the sinner, because the
debt was not paid by himself, but by Christ, his surety.
It may be observed in reply, that as to the release of the debtor, it
makes no difference who pays the debt. Whoever may make the pay-

490 SCRIPTURE DOCTRINE OF ATONEMENT.
ment, if the debt is paid, it can never be forgiven. If a creditor has re
ceived payment of his demand, he is under obligation to discharge his
debtor, whether he paid the debt himself or some other person paid it for
him. This must be evident to every candid mind. No creditor can re
fuse to give up an obligation after it is fully paid, without the most mani
fest injustice. But an act of grace is what no being can be under obbga
tion, to him who receives it, to perform. If a being is under obbgation
to another to perform an act in his favor, that act must be an act of jus
tice, and not of grace. Hence there can be no grace in giving up a de
mand which is fully satisfied.
What, then, becomes of the boasted arguments of those who plead for
universal grace, on the ground that Christ has paid the debt for all men.
Alas, what gross delusion ! They talk about grace, free grace for all
men, and yet exclude every idea of grace in the pardon of sinners, by
alleging that Christ has paid their debt. If their debt is paid, they can
never be pardoned. But if sinners may be pardoned for Christ's sake,
then their debt is not paid ; and, consequently, God is under no obliga
tion to exercise pardon on account of the atonement. Thus it appears
that the argument for universal salvation, deduced from the notion that
Christ has paid the debt for sinners, is totally groundless. Take it which
way we will, it is mere delusion.
The truth is, Christ has paid no man's debt. It is true, indeed, that
our deliverance is, in Scripture, sometimes called a redemption ; and this
word refers to the deliverance of a prisoner from captivity, which is often
effected by the payment of a sum of money. Christ is also Cabed " a ran
som," and we are said to be " bought with a price." But it must be re
membered that these are figurative expressions. They are designed to
communicate this idea, that as the payment of money as the price of bb-
erty is the ground on which prisoners are released from captivity, so the
atonement of Christ is the ground on which sinners are pardoned, or set
free from a sentence of condemnation. These passages, thus understood,
appear intelligible and consistent; whereas, understood literally, they
would contradict other plain declarations of the Word of God. For sin
ners are certainly represented in Scripture as being pardoned of free
grace; which, it is evident, cannot be said with propriety of captives whose
liberty is purchased. Besides, these passages literally bring mto view
the payment of money and the discharge of debt. But surely no one will
suppose that sinners have literally plundered the treasury of heaven, and
deprived God of property, and that the business of the Redeemer was to
refund the money which they had thus wrongfully taken away. We have
not been " redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold ; but with
the precious blood of Christ." It is evident, therefore, that these are

PULL ATONEMENT, AND SALVATION WHOLLY BY GRACE. 491
metaphorical expressions, and were never designed to be taken in a sense
strictly literal.
The Scriptures, indeed, use a variety of metaphors in describing the
necessity and nature of atonement. When sin is represented under a fig
ure, we find the Saviour introduced under a corresponding figure. If sin
is a disease, and " the whole head sick, and the heart faint," Christ is a
physician. There is balm in Gilead, and a physician there. If sin is
hunger and thirst, Christ is the bread and water of life. If sin is error,
in a road or path, Christ is then the wray. And if sin is a debt, Christ is
then a price.
Let passages of this description be understood literally, and they im»
mediately become not only unintelligible, but plainly contradictory. But
let them be understood metaphorically, as was evidently designed, and
they are intelligible, consistent, and fraught with instruction. If sin is
called a disease, we are not to understand that it may be healed as easily
as bodily diseases are, or in the same manner ; but we are rather to infer,
from this representation, the greatness of the evil ; and that as diseases
of the body which are not healed bring forth, so sin, if it be not destroyed
in us, will inevitably issue in a more dreadful death of the immortal soul.
If sin be spoken of as a debt, it is not to show us that it may be paid by
another ; but it is rather to signify to us that our sins render us account
able to God, though not precisely in the same manner, yet as certainly
as debtors are to their creditors, and that a day of reckoning must come.
If sin is a debt, and also a disease, and Christ a price to pay the debt,
and a physician to heal the disease, we are no more authorized to infer
that he has paid the debt, than we are to conclude that he has healed the
disease, which we know is not the fact. The truth is, neither debt nor
disease does specifically describe the nature of sin. Nor does the pay
ment of a debt, nor the healing of a disease, with any greater literal cor
rectness describe the work of the Redeemer.
From what has been shown concerning the necessity and nature of the
atonement, it is evident not only that it does not at all consist in th'e pay
ment of a debt, but that it is perfectly consistent with free grace in the
pardon of sinners. Grace and justice may be considered as opposite
terms. Where one begins, the other necessarily ends. That action
which justice requires cannot be of grace. An action, to be gracious,
must be unmerited ; and, if unmerited, it must be what no being is under
obligation to perform. An act of grace, is what may be performed, or not
performed, without any injustice. The bestowment of a favor, which
miobt have been withholden without any injustice, is an act of grace ; but
nothing short of this can be grace. The term justice is used in three
different ways.

492 SCRIPTURE DOCTRINE OF ATONEMENT.
1. It is used in relation to the property of individuals.
2. It is used in relation to the moral character of individuals.
3. It is used in relation to the interest and well-being of society at
large. The first kind of justice, which has respect to exchanging property,
consists in giving every man his own without respect to moral character.
To be just in this sense of the word, debtors must satisfy the equitable
demands of their creditors, and creditors, when these demands are
satisfied, must give up their obligations. That grace which would be
opposed to justice in this sense, would consist in giving money where it
is not owed, or in giving up obligations without receiving their value.
But, as the controversy between God and sinners is not concerning
property, this kind of justice and grace is not at all concerned in the
present inquiry.
It is the second kind of justice which relates to the treatment of
moral beings, in regard to their character, to which this inquiry has
respect. To treat moral beings exactly according to their real char
acter, is an act of justice. To treat them more favorably than is corre
spondent with their character, would be an act of grace. To treat them
more severely than is correspondent with their character, would be an
act of injustice. Now, this kind of justice has not been satisfied, in the
least degree, by the death of Christ. His sufferings have made no
alteration, at least no favorable alteration, in the character of sinners.
Their personal demerit is as great as it would have been if no atonement
had been made. Indeed, in a multitude of instances, it is much greater.
For if Christ had not come, they had not had so great sin ; but now,
they have both seen and haled, both him and his Father. Mankind are
now by nature, subjects of the same evil heart of unbelief of which they
were the subjects, before Christ appeared to make atonement for sin.
It is still true that their throat is an open sepulchre, the poison of asps
is under their lips, their mouth is full of cursing and bitterness, their feet
are swift to do mischief [to shed blood], and the way of peace they have
not known. It is still true, that their whole head is sick, and their
whole heart faint. In point of personal merit, even now they deserve
the damnation of hell. Should God now send them to that place of
torment and confine them there for ever, he would treat them according
to their personal character, and, consequently, do them no injustice.
But if, instead of sending them to hell, he is pleased to pardon them and
restore them to his favor, he treats them more favorably than is corre
spondent with their moral character, and, consequently, their salvation
must be entirely of grace.
And, since it is evident that the moral character of sinners is not

FULL ATONEMENT, AND SALVATION WHOLLY BY GRACE. 493
made better by the atonement of Christ ; and, of course, that this kind of
justice, which consists in treating moral beings according to their char
acter, is not in the least degree satisfied ; it must follow, that there is as
much grace exercised in pardoning sinners out of respect to the atone
ment, as there could possibly have been in case they had been pardoned
without any atonement. Indeed, it was utterly impossible, in the nature
of things, that this kind of justice could be satisfied. Nothing which
Christ did, either in obedience or sufferings, could possibly alter the
moral deserts of sinners. Nor was it, in the least, necessary that justice^"
in this sense of the term, should be satisfied. The moral desert of the
sinner, considered in itself, presented no obstacle in the way of his
salvation. If it had, it would have been an obstacle in the way of grace ;
and if it had been removed, grace would have been excluded.
It is the third kind of justice mentioned, which has been satisfied by
the death of Christ. This, if it be proper to call it justice, is fully
satisfied. For, by the sufferings and death of Christ to atone for sin,
God has fuby manifested a proper respect for his law, has made it evi
dent that he loveth righteousness and hatetb iniquity, and has done what
was needful to deter his other subjects from disobedience ; so that be
may now pardon sinners without doing any injustice to his kingdom in
general. He may be just, and the justifier of him who believeth in
Jesus. But while the obstacles arising from the regard which God had
to his own character, and the highest good of his kingdom, which,
without atonement, opposed the salvation of sinners, are all happily
removed by the propitiation of Christ; still, as has been shown, the
moral character of sinners remains unaltered, their personal ill-desert
the same. Hence, notwithstanding God may pardon them without
injuring his kingdom, yet he is under no more obligation to do it as it
respects them, than he would have been, if no atonement had ever been
made ; nor will he do them any more injustice in sending them to hell,
than he would have done in doing the same thing, if Christ had never
died. It is evident, therefore, that there is as much grace exercised in
the pardon of sinners, as there would have been, if they had been
pardoned without any atonement whatever.
What, then, must be the disappointment of those, who flatter them
selves that all mankind must be saved, because Christ has made atone
ment for their sins. How inconsistent must it be, to talk of salvation
by grace, and yet suppose, that God is under obligation to save all man
kind on account of Christ's death! As well might it be argued, that
God is under obligation to save faUen angels, for whom Christ never
died. 42

494 SCRIPTURE DOCTRINE OF ATONEMENT.

CHAPTER VI.
ANSWER TO AN OBJECTION; IN WHICH IT IS SHOWN IN WHAT SENSE
CHRIST DIED IN THE ROOM AND STEAD OF SINNERS J THAT HIS SUF
FERINGS WERE NOT PUNITIVE, ETC.
OBJECTION.
The Scriptures evidently teach that Christ died in the room and stead
of -sinners ; and if he did thus die, they must be exempted. If A. enlist
into the army, and B. offer to go in his room and is accepted, most cer
tainly A. is exempted from service. So if Christ really tasted death for
every man, and died in their room and stead, then must they be exempted.
ANSWER.
It is granted that if Christ died in the room and stead of sinners, in the
same sense in which B. is supposed to go into service, in the room and
stead of A., then all those for whom he died must be exempted from
death. It is very plain, however, that in this case their deliverance
would not be of grace. There can be no grace in A.'s exemption from
service, when it has been procured by an acceptable substitute. Nor
would there be any grace in releasing a captive, when a full ransom had
been paid. Therefore, since it is evident that the pardon and salvation
of sinners is of mere grace, it must be equally evident that those passages
of Scripture which speak of Christ as dying in the room of sinners, and
as giving his life a ransom for them, are not to be understood literally.
They are to be regarded as metaphorical expressions, designed to com
municate this general idea, that as B.'s consenting to perform the services
which A. stood engaged to perform is the ground on which A. is released ;
and as the payment of money, or some other equivalent, is the ground of
the release of a captive'; so the death of Christ is the ground on which
believing sinners are pardoned and saved.
Indeed, the metaphor may be carried still further. A. is released on
the principle that B.'s services will answer the same valuable purposes
which would be answered by the services of A. The captive, too, is re
leased on the principle that the money, or other consideration paid as a
ransom, will answer as valuable purposes as might be expected from re
taining the captive in servitude. So the believing sinner is released from
punishment on the principle that the sufferings of Clirist answer the same
valuable purposes which the execution of the penalty of tbe law would
have answered in honoring and supporting die law, displaying the char
acter of God, and securing the highest interest of his kingdom. These

ANSWER TO AN OBJECTION. 495
important ends being as well answered by the death of Christ as they
could have been by the execution of the penalty of the law, God has de
clared his righteousness for the remission of sins, and can be just to his
law, to his kingdom, and to hbnself, and yet be the justifier of those who
bebeve in Jesus.
When the righteous penalty of a law is executed upon a transgressor,
it is said to take away his guilt, or to remove his desert of punishment.
If this principle be correct, which it is presumed none will deny, it must
follow that if it were possible for sinners to suffer the full penalty of the
divine law and still live, this would effectually remove their ill desert.
If the guilt and ill desert of sinners could have been removed in this way,
and this should be considered a valuable object which might have been
secured by executing the penalty of the law on them, it must be acknowl
edged that this is an object which the death of Christ does not effect.
Nor was it possible that it should effect this ; because guilt or ill desert
is a personal thing wliich cannot be removed either by the sufferings of
a substitute, or by any thing else, except the suffering of the full penalty
by the guilty person. Neither was it necessary that the sufferings of
Christ should take away ill desert, in order to their being a sufficient
atonement. It is enough if they remove the obstacles which stood in the
way of the pardon of sinners which have already been considered. If ill
desert bad been removed, it would have precluded the necessity and even
the possibility of pardon. When the full penalty of the law has been
executed on a criminal for any offence, there can be no such thing as
pardoning him for that crime. As the law has nothing more to exact,
there is nothing to be forgiven. So if ill desert could be removed in any
other way when it should be removed, as no evil could be justly inflicted,
there could be nothing to forgive.
If, then, Christ had removed or taken away the ill desert of sinners,
there could be no grace manifested in their salvation. In this sense,
therefore, the death of Christ cannot be considered as being in the room
and stead of sinners. Hence, whether the Scriptures do teach that Christ
died in the room and stead of sinners, must depend entirely on the mean
ing which is affixed to these terms. If we understand by them that the
sufferings of Christ have answered all the purposes which the execution
of the penalty of the law would have answered and occasioned, provided
it had been possible for sinners to survive this execution, both in respect
to supporting the divine government and removing the ill desert of sin
ners, it is evident the Scriptures teach no such doctrine. But if nothing
more be intended by Christ's dying in our room and stead than that he
suffered, that it might clearly appear that God would support and honor
his law, that the divine character might be clearly exhibited and vindi-

496 SCRIPTURE DOCTRINE OF ATONEMENT.
cated, and the highest interest of the universe secured ; in short, that God
might be just to his law, to his character, and to his kingdom, and yet
the justifier of him who believeth in Jesus ; then it is, unquestionably a
doctrine plainly taught in Scripture.
If, however, this be all that is intended by this form of speech, in our
room and in our stead, it may not be unsuitable to inquire whether other
words and forms of expression might not be used, which would commu
nicate the idea with much greater clearness. Notwithstanding the long
practice even of the best writers has sanctioned the use of these terms,
yet surely we should not, on that account, indulge such a fondness for
them as to refuse to lay them aside, if continuing the use of them would
endanger the salvation of one soul, who, through ignorance or willingness
to be deluded, might infer from them that since Christ has died in our
room and stead, we certainly cannot be bable to death. If, indeed, the
terms were scriptural, these observations might with more appearance of
justice be deemed sacrilegious ; though even in that case they would, like
many other Scripture phrases, need explanation. But the truth is, that
though they have been so long and so often used that many, probably,
are scarcely aware of tbe fact, yet they really have no place in the Bible.
Those passages of Scripture, which have usually been rebed on as
proof that in a strict and literal sense Christ died in our room and stead,
by no means prove the doctrine. We read, indeed, that " Christ died
for the ungodly ; " that " Christ died for us ; " and that Christ hath once
suffered, — the just for the unjust." But surely these expressions are
far from proving that he died in our room and stead, in a strict and
literal sense. An impartial reader would be quite as bkely to under
stand them to mean, that he died for our benefit, or on our account, as
that he died in our room and stead. Nor is there any thing in the
original terms, am and vitzQ, which restricts them to such a meaning.
The word dvn, indeed, in some situations may mean instead of; but in
other situations, it certainly signifies nothing more than for the sake of,
for the benefit of, &c. In Eph. 5 : 31, it merely signifies for. "For
this cause;" drci rovtov. In Heb. 12:2, it signifies for the sake
of. " Who, for the joy that was set before him ; " aim trig, &c In
Matt. 17 : 27, it signifies for the benefit of. " That take, and give unto
them, for me and thee ; " dvii tuov xui aov, &c. The same may be
shown of vnsQ. It sometimes signifies in the stead of, and sometimes
for, on account of, &c. Nothing can be determined, with certainty, merely
from these prepositions, whether the phrase, died for the ungodly, should
be understood instead of the ungodly, or for the benefit of the ungodly.
We read concerning Christ that " he was made sin for us ; " by which
we understand that he was made a sin offering. But it cannot reason-

ANSWER TO AN OBJECTION. 497
ably be supposed, that he was made a sin offering instead of us ; that is,
that we must have been made a sin offering, in the same sense in which
he was, if he had not substituted himseff for us.
Nor when we read that " he was sacrificed for us," are we to suppose
that if he had not been made a sacrifice, we must have been sacrificed.
" He died for our sins ; " but, most certainly, not instead of our sins.
Such expressions as these are to be understood and explained, in agree
ment with the general tenor of Scripture on this subject. And being
thus understood, they will afford no countenance to the notion that Christ
died in the room and stead of sinners, in such a sense as to render them
any less liable to punishment, merely on account of his death, than they
would have been, if he had never died. If all mankind understood the
doctrine of atonement by Jesus Christ, there would be less danger of con
veying wrong ideas by using the terms, in our room and stead, than
there is at present. Or, if these terms, as they are used, were universally
understood in such a sense as to communicate the precise idea which
the Scriptures inculcate concerning the substitution of Christ's suf
ferings for the execution of the penalty of the law, the use of them would
certainly be unexceptionable. But that neither of these things is true,
is evident from the melancholy fact, that many of the wicked are
confidently expecting future blessedness, merely because they believe
that Christ has paid their debt, by suffering the penalty of the law in
their room and stead. This belief, in all probability, has been induced,
in a multitude of instances, by an improper use of these unscriptural
terms. Another thing which has probably contributed in no small degree to
confirm men in this delusion, is calling the sufferings of Christ punitive
justice, the punishment due to sinners, and the penalty of the law. For
when the sinner is led to believe that Christ has suffered punitive justice,
the very punishment due to him for his sins, and that, too, in his room
and stead, the inference is too plain to his darkened understanding;
and too pleasing to his depraved heart, to be easily relinquished. When
the premises have been laid for him by teachers of divine truth, and. he
has arrived at the pleasing conclusion by a liftle process of his own
mind, or by the aid of those who directly strengthen " the hands of the
wicked, that he should not return from his wicked way, by promising
him life," it is no matter of wonder, that he should be unwilling to be
driven from this " refuge of lies." While such is the dangerous ten
dency of such forms of expression, it is not only certain that they have
no place in the Bible, but that they are manifestly incorrect.
The Scriptures do not teach us that the sufferings of Christ were
punitiye, the punishment due to sinners, or the penalty of the divine law.
42*

498 SCRIPTURE DOCTRINE OF ATONEMENT.
Nor is it necessary on any account that they should be so considered.
It is sufficient that they answer the same valuable purposes, with re
spect to the law, the character, and the government of God, which inflict
ing the punishment due to sinners, or the execution of the penalty of the
law would have answered. That they do fully answer these purposes,
is abundantly evident. Christ was set forth to be a propitiation, — to
declare God's righteousness for the remission of sins, — that he might be
just, and the justifier of him who believeth in Jesus. And if the suffer
ings of Christ were designed to answer the same valuable purposes, with
respect to the law, character, and government of God, which the punish
ment due to sinners, or the execution of the penalty of the law would
have answered, then it is evident that they are different things. That
one thing answers the purpose of another, certainly impbes that it is a
different thing from that, the purpose of which it answers; for we
never speak of a thing as answering the purpose of itself. Christ has
often been cabed a substitute for sinners. If there be any correctness in
calling him a substitute for sinners, it must be because his sufferings
were, in some way, designed as a substitute for their punishment. But
if his sufferings are in any sense a substitute for their punishment, it
must be evident they cannot be themselves that very punishment ; for a
thing cannot be a substitute for itself.
If we keep in view the obstacles which stood in the way of the par
don of sinners without an atonement, and what Christ has done to re
move those obstacles, it will be easy to perceive the precise object of his
substitution. If a correct account has been given of the necessity of an
atonement, and of what Christ has done to meet that necessity ; and if
the penalty of the divine law, and the execution of that penalty, may be
considered as distinct things ; it wiU follow that the sufferings of Christ
were a substitute for the execution of the penalty, rather than for the
penalty itself. For it has been shown that God could not be just to his
law, his character, or his kingdom, without executing the penalty of his
law on transgressors, unless something else could be done, which, as an
atonement, would answer the same purposes as well ; that is, as well as
the execution of the penalty. For it is evident that if the law were
transgressed, the penalty itself, without being executed, could answer no
valuable purpose. Hence it must be the execution of the penalty, for
which the sufferings of Christ were substituted.
The execution of a penalty, and the punishment or sufferings of the
guilty, on whom the penalty is executed, may be viewed as distinct
things. They are, indeed, inseparably connected ; but this connection
does not imply that they are not different things, but the contrary. The
just punishment of a guilty person, when suffered, constitutes part of his

ANSWER TO AN OBJECTION. 499
character.* It is on this ground that enduring a just punishment is
supposed to remove ill desert. But the execution of the penalty affects
only the character of him who enforces the law.
Hence it is evident the execution of the penalty of a law and the suf
fering of an offender, which is a consequence of such an execution, are
distinct things, and exhibit different characters. One exhibits the
character of him who enforces the law, and the other the character of
him who suffers the penalty. Since these are different things, it must
here be evident, also, that the sufferings of Christ must have been de
signed as a substitute for the execution of the penalty of the law, rather
than for the punishment due to sinners. For it must be obvious, that
the sufferings of Christ must have been designed to exhibit the character
of God, honoring and supporting his law, showing his opposition to sin,
and promoting tbe interest of his kingdom, rather than to make an exhi
bition of the character of sinners in endless misery, enduring the punish
ment due to them for sin, and thus removing their ill desert. It appears
clearly that it was indispensably necessary that such an exhibition of the
divine character should be made, in order that sinners might be consist
ently pardoned.
But if the ground on which an atonement was necessary has been
correctly stated, it is equally manifest that there was no necessity for
making a representation of the state of sinners in endless misery. In
deed, if such a representation could have been made, it would not have
removed one of the obstacles which stood in the way of the salvation of
sinners. Such a representation could have made no manifestation of
God's opposition to sin, or his regard to the general good. If the object
of the sufferings of Christ were merely to make a representation of what
sinners deserve, which must be true if his sufferings were the punish
ment due to sinners, or merely a substitute for that punishment, it is in
conceivable how God can, on account of those sufferings, " be just, and
the justifier of him who believeth in Jesus." For if the sufferings of
Christ show that sinners deserve everlasting punishment, which, on this
scheme, they were designed to show, this surely cannot be a sufficient
reason why they should be saved from everlasting punishment, and
raised to endless glory and felicity.
Should it be said that the sufferings of Christ, as a substitute for the
* It is to be remembered, that in personal character I include punishment endured,
as well as actions performed. When a man has broken any law, and has afterwards
suffered the penalty of that law, as he has by the transgression treated the law with
contempt, so by suffering the penalty he has supported the authority of it ; and the
latter makes a part of his personal character, as he stands related to that law, as really
as the former. — Edwards's Three Sermons on Atonement.

500 SCRIPTURE DOCTRINE OF ATONEMENT.
punishment of sinners, were designed to answer the same purposes which
would have been answered by the sufferings of sinners, if they had been
able to suffer, and actually had suffered the full punishment which their
sins deserved, it may be repbed that the only purpose which would have
been answered by the sufferings of sinners, if they had been able to
suffer, and had actually suffered the full punishment which their sins
deserve, would have been to remove their ill desert and restore their
characters. It is true, that if sinners had suffered the punishment due,
according to the supposition, the divine law would have been supported,
the character of God displayed, and the good of the universe secured ;
but these important objects would not have been accomplished by the
sufferings of sinners. It would have been the execution of the penalty
wliich would have secured these. Suffering the punishment would, in
part, have constituted the character of those who suffered ; while it
would be the execution which supported the law and displayed the char
acter of God. Hence, it is evident, that the sufferings of Christ are to
be viewed as a substitute for the execution of the penalty of the law, and
their efficacy as consisting in answering the same valuable purposes
which the execution of the penalty of the law would have answered.
The sufferings of Christ, viewed in this light, constitute an ample atone
ment. " By atonement is here meant that which magnifies the broken
law of God, and does it the same honor which would have been done by
the execution of its penalty whenever it be incurred.*
Some have supposed that the sufferings of Christ must have been the
* West on Atonement, p. 158. In p. 175, he says, "Unless punishments tend to
deter from crimes — unless they exhibit a character in the righteous Governor of the
world which excites » fear of offending on one hand, and a confidence in his protec
tion and defence of the innocent on the other ; it must appear that they are useless,
either as a manifestation of the glory of God, or a security of the peace and welfare of
his kingdom. It is the visibility of the just displeasure of the holy God against
offenders that renders punishments useful, and promotes the honor and security of the
divine government. This righteous displeasure is expressed in words in the threat
enings of the law of God ; and in its effects in the destruction wliich will be inflicted
on final impenitents. Jf this displeasure against the deserving object, in every in
stance of transgression, be expressed and become visible, the law is honored, its end
answered, and its authority supported — for, not the sufferings of the sinner do this,
but the character, the just anger of God appearing in them. In whatever way this
holy displeasure of God against the sinner becomes visible, the ends of government,
for aught we can see, are answered."
If, according to the sentiment expressed in the foregoing quotation, it is " not the
sufferings of the sinner," but the visibility of tho character of God, as manifested in
the infliction of those sufferings, that honors, answers the end, and supports the au
thority of the law, then it is plain, that tho forementioned distinction between the
sufferings of sinners, and the execution of the penalty is not only correct, but impor
tant.

ANSWER TO AN OBJECTION. 501
very punishment due to sinners, because the apostle speaks of his death
as a " curse." " Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law,
being made a curse for us." It is argued that this curse is the curse of .
the law, which must be the punishment due to sinners.
To this it may be answered, that it does not appear that the curse of
the law in this passage means the punishment due to sinners. It may,
as probably, mean the penalty of the law. This, and the actual suffer
ing of transgressors who have incurred it, are different things. If the
sufferings of Christ may be considered as a substitute for the execution
of the penalty of the law, the apostle's meaning will not appear to be
very obscure, though we should not consider Christ's being made a
curse as expressive of his suffering the very punishment which sinners
deserve. It should be remembered, that it is not uncommon to meet
with passages in the sacred writings which were never designed to be
understood in a sense strictly literal. This, too, is obviously the case
with the passage now under consideration, even if we should allow that
the curse which Christ was made was, the very punishment due to
sinners ; for, surely, no one will suppose that the apostle meant to assert
that Christ was made punishment. The word curse, when used in
Scripture in relation to God's law, properly signifies the just sentence
of the law, condemning to everlasting death. But no one would under
stand the apostle to mean, that Christ redeemed us from such a sentence,
by being made such a sentence himself. This passage, therefore, must
be understood as in some degree figurative ; as are many other passages
which relate to Christ. He is made to his people " wisdom, righteous
ness, sanctification, and redemption." "By his stripes we are healed."
" He is the end of the law for righteousness," &c.
It may not be improper to observe further, that there is something
exceedingly unnatural, as well as unscriptural, in the idea that the
sufferings of the Saviour were, in any strict sense, a punishment. For
a punishment, strictly speaking, always implies guilt or ill-desert. At
least those by whom it is inflicted, would have it understood that the
sufferer is deserving of evil. Where there is no guilt, punishment
cannot be properly inflicted. Nor were tbe sufferings which were inflicted
on Christ the same as those to which sinners are doomed, as a just
punishment for their sins. It is true, the infinite dignity of his person,
and the greatness of the pain he endured, are sufficient to render his
sufferings an infinite evil. Yet this infinite evil was not precisely the
same which mankind must have endured, had the penalty of the law
been inflicted on them.
Should it even be allowed that all the evil which Christ suffered
was impbed in the punishment to which sinners were liable, still, this

502 SCRIPTURE DOCTRINE OF ATONEMENT.
would not prove that his sufferings were that punishment. But even
this may be doubted. It is plain, indeed, that his bodily pain might
have been implied in the death with which sinners were threatened ; but
that his mental sufferings could be impbed in that threatening is not
equally evident. It is probable that his mental sufferings consisted
principally in the effect which a view of God's anger against sinners
would necessarily produce in his benevolent heart. " The reason why
the mind is affected in the view of objects, is not, originally, their rela
tion to a private, separate interest ; but their relation to an interest, to
wliich the affections are united, be it either public or private. There
fore, in proportion to the concern which the man Jesus Christ felt for
the salvation of his people, would his mind be affected, in view of that
dreadful wrath there was against them. This is not only conceivable,
but is a supposition altogether natural. Therefore, that the divine
anger, which was exhibited to the view of Christ, was not against him
personally, but against the church, is a consideration which gives us no
reason to suppose that it might not affect him with very deep distress.
Christ had no degree of selfishness. His and his church's interest were
one. Therefore, his good-wiU to the church would occasion the divine
displeasure to be as sensibly felt, as if it had been against him ; at least
as far as he perceived it, and had a view of it communicated to him." *
If we suppose that, as our Lord approached his death, the Father
made to him more clear and full manifestations of his anger against
sinners, for whom his love was so strong, that he was about to lay down
his life for them, this may account for that excessive sorrow and amaze
ment which so overwhelmed him in the garden, and again on the cross.
But this is a kind of distress which, it is presumed, no one will suppose
constitutes any part of the punishment of the damned. In every view
which can be taken of the subject, therefore, it appears manifestly
incorrect to say, that the sufferings of Christ were the penalty of the
law ; or that he, in his death, suffered in the room and stead of sinners,
the very punishment which they deserved.
It is said that the wife of Benevolus was guilty of a crime, by which,
according to the law of the state, she exposed herself to a punishment
which she could not endure and survive. Benevolus approved of the
law, and believed that if it were disregarded, and the penalty not
inflicted, the consequences to the state would be dreadful. Therefore,
though he loved his wife tenderly, yet such was his regard for the good
of the community, that he chose that she should be punished, rather than
that the authority of the law should be destroyed, and that confusion
introduced into the state which he believed would be the consequence.
* West on the Atonement.

ANSWER TO AN OBJECTION. 503
But desiring that his wife might be spared, if it could be done in any
way consistent with the public good, and supposing that his own con
stitution was sufficiently firm to enable him endure the evil with which
she was threatened, and' that his enduring it would support the authority
of the law, as effectually as would the execution of its penalty on her, he
offered to take the evil upon himself. His offer was accepted, and he
actually suffered.
On the foregoing statement it may be proper to remark, that the
atonement which Benevolus is supposed to make for his wife, was not
satisfactory, merely on account of his suffering precisely the same evil
with which his wife was threatened. If he had suffered any other evil
sufficiently great, it would have answered the desired purpose just as
well. On this principle, fines are sometimes substituted for corporal
punishments. It makes no difference whether the evil consist in one
thing or another, provided it is great enough to convince the subjects of
the kingdom that transgression must be followed by evil consequences,
proportioned to the guilt incurred. Any thing which is calculated to
produce this conviction, as fully and as clearly as would the literal execu
tion of tbe penalty of the law, must constitute a satisfactory atone
ment ; because, in this case, the authority of the law is not weakened,
nor is any encouragement given to transgression. The atonement which
Zaleucus made for his son was equally satisfactory with that of Bene
volus, although the evil to which he submitted was not the very evil
with which his son was threatened.
It may also be observed, that the sufferings of Benevolus did not an
swer all the purposes which would have been answered by the punish
ment of his wife. If she had suffered the punishment which she de
served, this punishment would so far have constituted her character, as
to have removed her ill desert, and secured her from further sufferings,
on account of her offence, on principles of justice. In this case there
, could have been no grace in forbearing to inflict further punishment.
But in the case which has been supposed, nothing of this appears. The
sufferings of the husband constituted no part of her character, and re
moved no part of her ill desert. Nor was it necessary, nor even possi
ble, that they should. If the same ends could be answered by his suffer
ings which would have been answered by the execution of the penalty
of the law, this was sufficient. If she had herself endured the deserved
punishment, two objects would have been accomplished. One would
have been accomplished by the execution of the penalty ; the other, by
enduring deserved punishment. The object accomplished by the execu
tion of the penalty of the law would have been, the support of the au
thority of the law and the government. The object accomplished by

504 SCRIPTURE DOCTRINE OF ATONEMENT.
enduring the deserved punishment would have been the removal of per
sonal ill desert. One would have displayed the character of him who
administered the government ; the other would have gone to constitute
the character of the person, from whom ill desert would have been re
moved, by suffering the deserved punishment. One would have been
consistent with the free pardon of the criminal ; the other, having done
away ill desert, would have entitled to an exemption from further suffer
ings, on principles of justice.
On the whole, it is evident, that the sufferings of Benevolus were de
signed to support the authority of the law and government, rather than
to remove the personal ill desert of his wife ; that they were a substitute
for the former, rather than the latter ; and that the wife of Benevolus
was as much indebted to grace for her release from punishment, as she
could have been had she been released from punishment without the
substitution of her husband's sufferings. So, if the atonement of Christ
was necessary to answer the same purposes which the execution of
the penalty of the law would have answered, namely, to exhibit the
disposition of the divine mind ; to show God's regard for his law, his de
termination to maintain its authority, his love of righteousness and hatred
of sin ; it must plainly follow, that the sufferings of Christ were designed
as a substitute for the execution of the penalty of the law. If this view
of the subject be correct, it must be exceedingly evident, that there was
not that interchange of persons, with respect to rewards and punishments,
between Christ and sinners, which some have supposed.

CHAPTER VII.
AN INQUIRY CONCERNING IMPUTATION.
It has been the opinion of many, that in order for guilty man to be
justified through Christ, it is necessary that his righteousness should be
imputed to them, so as to be a ground on which they may be considered
righteous in law. For it is added, there must be a perfect righteousness
somewhere, to lay a foundation for justification; and hence, since man
kind have no perfect righteousness of their own, the righteousness of
Christ must be imputed to them. What is really intended by these things
it is not easy to ascertain. If the sentiment be, that Christ's righteous
ness is transferred to the believer so as to become his righteousness, it is
believed to be utterly without foundation. Righteousness, as well as sin,
must be entirely a personal thing, in such a sense that it cannot be trans
ferred- The righteousness of Christ, like that of every other holy being,

AN INQUIRY CONCERNING IMPUTATION. 505
consists entirely in his actions, feelings, and attributes. Essentially it
consists in his love to God and other beings, and is as unalienably his,
as is any attribute of his nature. Is it even possible that the actions
which Christ performed while here on earth, in which his righteousness
in part consists, should be so transferred from him to believers as to be
come actions which they have performed ? Could the righteous words
which he spake be transferred from him to saints, so as to become the
righteous words which they have spoken ? The bare mention of the
idea must be sufficient to evince that in the very nature of the thing it
must be impossible. Christ's exercises of holy love could no more be
taken from him and transferred to believers, so as to become their exer
cises of holy love, than his miraculous acts of walking upon the water, or
raising the dead, could be transferred in the same way ; and both, for
aught we can perceive, must be at least as remote from all possibibty as
the papal notion of transubstantiation.
If by Christ's righteousness being imputed to believers for their justi
fication, be not meant that bis righteousness is so transferred to them as
to become their righteousness ; but that God views and represents them
as righteous, by virtue of the righteousness of Christ ; then the inquiry
which arises is, whether God do not view and "represent things precisely
as they are ? Can he view things any otherwise than as they are in re-
abty? If be can, what evidence have we that he does not view the
bread and wine used in the sacramental supper as being the real body
and blood of Christ ? And if he ever represent any thing different from
what it really is, what ground can there be for confidence in his repre
sentations ? But if God do both view and represent things as they really
are, he surely cannot view and represent sinners as being perfectly right
eous ; because this certainly is not their character. God does, indeed,
view and represent Jesus Christ as being perfectly righteous ; and the
reason is, because he is perfectly righteous. But saints are not perfectly
righteous. On the contrary, they have been totally sinful; and though
now pardoned and justified, in point of strict justice, they still deserve
eternal punishment, and God will for ever view and represent them in
this light. The Scriptures nowhere teach either that God does now, or
that he will in the day of judgment, view and represent believers as pos
sessing in any sense a perfect righteousness. It is true, they lead us to
believe that saints will finally be freed from all sin ; but they equally
lead us to believe that even then it will appear that they, as well as the
finally impenitent, have sinned and come short of the glory of God, and
in point of merit really deserve damnation. How else will every mouth
be stopped, and all the world become guilty before God? But if God
will cause all this to appear, how can he with any propriety be said to
43

506 SCRIPTURE DOCTRINE OF ATONEMENT.
view and represent saints as being perfectly innocent or righteous, on ac
count of the righteousness of another ? Besides, if God were to view and
represent guilty beings as righteous, only because some other being is
righteous, he would certainly view and represent things very differently
from what they really are, to suppose which would be blasphemous.
But if by the imputation of Christ's righteousness to saints for their
justification, is not intended either that his righteousness is transferred to
them and becomes then* righteousness, or that God views and represents
them to be righteous on Christ's account, the inquiry must still remain,
What does this language mean ? Some have said that saints receive
Christ's righteousness by faith, for their justification. But this assertion
is really no more intelligible than the other. For it is difficult to see how
saints can receive that righteousness of Christ which consisted in his own
personal actions, affections, and properties.
We read in the Scriptures of different kinds of faith ; as of a faith to
remove mountains ; a faith to be healed ; faith which Paul preached ;
and faith in the blood of Christ. Now why cannot one of these kinds of
faith receive the righteousness of Christ, as well as another? How can
faith in the blood of Christ, any more than a faith to remove mountains,
receive Christ's righteousness ? Each of these kinds of faith, except that
which Paul preached, is a mere exercise of the creature ; and how can
one exercise of a creature receive Christ's righteousness, any more than
another? Faith in the blood of Christ, and repentance for sin, are both
exercises of the same heart ? The difference between these exercises
consists merely in their object. Faith is an exercise of a good heart, in
view of the sufferings of Christ as an atonement for sin. Repentance is
an exercise of the same heart, in view of sin as being against an holy
God. How, then, can faith receive the righteousness of Christ, any more
than repentance ? Can a believer's act of faith receive Christ's act of
faith ? Does the believer's exercise of faith receive Christ's exercise of
love ? Or is it the believer's love which receives that ? How can the
believer's faith receive Christ's love, any more than the bebever's love
can receive Christ's faith? Or how can the believer's faith receive
Christ's love, any more than it can receive his walking on the sea ?
It is confidently believed that neither Scripture nor reason affords any
more warrant for the opinion that it is even possible for the believer's
faith to receive Christ's faith, or love, than for the opinion that a bebev
er's walking in the highway receives Christ's walking upon the water.
If the meaning be, that saints, by faith, make the righteousness of Christ
their own, the question still is, How can these things be ? How is it pos
sible that the righteousness of one being can become the righteousness of
another being ? When Christ said to his disciples, " Except your right-

AN INQUIRY CONCERNING IMPUTATION. 507
eousness shall exceed the righteousness of the Scribes and Pharisees, ye
shall in no wise enter into the kingdom of heaven," he certainly did not
mean to teach that we must, somehow, obtain the righteousness of some
other being.
Whatever the meaning of the language under consideration may be,
if, indeed, it have any proper meaning, it must be liable, furthermore, to
this capital objection, that, contrary to the whole tenor of the gospel, it
supposes that the salvation of sinners is altogether upon the principles of
law and justice. For if -Christ has suffered the full penalty of the law,
as a legal substitute for any part of mankind, then justice, in every sense,
is satisfied ; it has received its full demand ; and, therefore, can require
no further sufferings. Indeed, its demands must now be heard on the
other hand ; it must demand their exemption from all punishment, be
cause the whole, which was ever due to them, has been inflicted on
Christ, their legal substitute. It is very easy to see that, on this ground,
no forgiveness or grace could be exercised in setting men free from
punishment. This would only be treating them justly.
So if Christ, as a substitute for believers, has obeyed the law, so that
God justifies them, and makes them happy, out of respect to the righte
ousness of Clirist, considered as theirs, then saints are really justified by
works in a law sense ; not, indeed, by their own works, but by the
works of their legal substitute. If saints are justified by tbe obedience
of their substitute, it is the same thing as if they were, justified by their
own obedience, so far as it respects their being justified by works. It is
evidently all on the principles of law and justice ; and there is no grace
in the matter. If a man engage to perform a certain work, for a reward
which is proposed, it makes no difference whether he do the work him
self, or procure another to do it for him. Let the work be done, accord- \
in» to agreement, and he is entitled to his reward. So if Christ has
done for believers the work which the law required them to do, God is
now bound, on the principles of strict justice, to bestow the promised re
ward, eternal life. There is no grace, but stern, unbending justice here.
Should it be said that saints are still unworthy, in themselves, and so
do not deserve happiness, it may be answered, that they are not unwor
thy, in the sense in which they are viewed, as possessing Christ's per
fect righteousness. So far from it, that in this sense they merit eternal
happiness, by their substituted perfect righteousness. However guilty
they may be, in themselves, still, in the sense in which they are consid
ered as having a perfect righteousness, they must be made happy, accord
ing to strict justice. Besides, on this scheme, they have suffered, in their
substitute, all they deserve to suffer ; and, therefore, all their sin is, in a
law sense, as though it had never been. And, since all their ill desert

508 SCRIPTURE DOCTRINE OF ATONEMENT.
has been done away, and they now have a perfect righteousness in their
substitute, they can make a legal demand of happiness. In the day of
judgment they may say, " Jesus Christ has been accepted as our substi
tute ; he has suffered for us the full demand of the law ; and we have a
perfect righteousness in him ; we, therefore, demand debverance from
the curse, and eternal happiness on the ground of law."
Should it be said that it was grace in Jesus Christ to take the place
of tbe transgressor, it may be answered, that this removes no difficulty ;
for, still, after Christ has suffered and obeyed, "as a legal substitute, there
can be no grace in delivering bebevers from punishment, and making
them happy. This act of God must be as strictly an act of justice, as
though there had been no grace in Christ's taking the place of transgres
sors. Upon this scheme, that Christ has suffered and obeyed as a legal
substitute for the elect, there can be seen no forgiveness, grace, nor
mercy, in their deliverance from punishment, or in their admission to
happiness. All still proceeds on the principle of law and justice, con
trary to the decided testimony of the gospel, which certainly is, that the
salvation of sinners, from beginning to end, is all of grace. Not of
works, not of law ; but, entirely, by another dispensation. The law has
nothing to do in the affair, otherwise than by teaching men their guilty
and miserable situation, and thus leading them to embrace the new and
gracious method of salvation made known in the gospel.
And, besides being contrary to Scripture, this scheme is absurd in
itself. For, in a law sense, one being cannot suffer or obey for another.
The voice of the law is, " The soul that sinneth, it shall die ; " not
another for him. Nor does the law require or admit of the obedience
of one being in behalf of another; but it requires perfect obedience of
every person for himself. " The righteousness of the righteous shall be
upon him ; and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him.*
* The opinion that there must be a perfect righteousness somewhere to lay a foun
dation for justification, probably originated in a mistaken idea that the term justifica
tion, as used in the gospel, must have much the same meaning that it has in law
books. But why are we not as much bound to understand the word pardon or for
giveness, as meaning what they do in law books, as we are to understand justification
in this manner " If, however, we understand both pardon and justification according
to their import in law books, we shall make the Scriptures involve the most manifest
absurdity and contradiction. Tor the Scriptures evidently speak of the same persons
as being both pardoned and justified. But in the sense in which the terms are used
in law, if sinners arc pardoned they cannot be justified ; and, on the other hand, if they
are justified they cannot be pardoned. It would be nonsense to speak of a man as
being both pardoned and justified, in respect to the same charge, according to law. To
avoid this difficulty no one surely will feel disposed to say, that sinners are justified
on one ground and pardoned on another ; that their salvation is partly through tho
law by justification, and partly through the gospel by forgiveness. The truth is, if,

AN INQUIRY CONCERNING IMPUTATION. 509
If the meaning of the language under consideration be, that Christ's
righteousness or active obedience procures heaven for believers ; that,
as his sufferings were necessary to open a consistent way for the pardon
of their guilt, so his obedience was necessary in order to open a way in
which they might be consistently admitted into heaven; it may be
answered, that, on this ground, there would be as much propriety in say
ing that the sufferings of Christ are imputed to believers, as in saying
that his righteousness is imputed to them. If the necessity of his right
eousness, in order to procure their admission into heaven, renders it
proper to say that his righteousness must be imputed to them, must not
the same or a similar necessity of his sufferings, in order to procure their
pardon, evidently render it equally proper to say, that his sufferings
must be imputed to them ? But, it is not true that Christ's righteous
ness has the same, or a similar influence, in opening a consistent way for
our admission into heaven, which his sufferings have in opening a con
sistent way for our pardon.
If tbe view which has been given of the necessity of atonement, in
order to the pardon of sinners be correct, it appears evident that they
may be admitted to heaven, as well as pardoned on account of the suffer
ings of Christ. The atonement did not consist in removing the ill deserts
of sinners ; nor was it necessary (had it been possible), that their ill
deserts should be removed, that they might be consistently pardoned.
But if they might be consistently pardoned, notwithstanding their ill de
sert, unquestionably, after they are pardoned, they may be consistently
admitted to heaven notwithstanding their want of personal merit. Had
atonement been necessary to do away the ill deserts of sinners, and this
had actually been effected by the sufferings of Christ, it is allowed that
it would have been consistent to suppose that the active obedience of
Christ was necessary to furnish them with positive merit. But in this
instead of going to law books to learn what justification means, we would be contented
with the account given of it in the gospel, wo should find no more necessity for a per
fect righteousness somewhere to be u, ground of justification, than we should to be a
ground of forgiveness.
Every one must perceive that it would be folly to pretend that a perfect righteous
ness is necessary as a ground of forgiveness. Yet, according to the gospel, this would
be no more unreasonable than the other. For, according to the Scriptures, the
ground of our justification is nothing different from the ground of our forgiveness.
Indeed, forgiveness and justification are used in the gospel as synonymous terms.
Hence, we read of " being justified freely by his grace, through the redemption that is
in Christ Jesus " — who was set forth — to declare God's "righteousness for the re
mission of sins." Rom. 3 : 24, 25. "Be it known unto you, therefore, men and
brethren, that through this man is preached unto you the forgiveness of sins : and by
him all that believe are justified from all things, from which ye could not be justified
by the law of Moses." Acts 13 : 38, 39.
43*

510 SCRIPTURE DOCTRINE OF ATONEMENT.
way there could have been no grace in the sinner's pardon, or in his
being admitted into heaven. In this case, Christ would literally have
paid his debt, and purchased his inheritance of glory.
Another consequence must be, that since Christ has tasted death for
every man, every man's debt is paid, and every man's heaven is purchased.
So that every man may demand both a discharge from evil, and an in
heritance of glory. It is true, probably, that few would be willing to
acknowledge these consequences which fairly result from such a scheme ;
yet they seem to be unavoidable.
Besides, it may be pertinent to inquire, what reason can be assigned
why such an interchange of persons between Christ and sinners, as
some have supposed, was necessary. What were the obstacles which
stood in the way to prevent infinite goodness from bestowing pardon
and heaven on those who had none to endure the punishment due to
them, or to furnish them with a perfect righteousness ? Abundant rear-
sons have been given why atonement was necessary, in order that the
guilty might be pardoned. But none of these reasons apply in the
case before us.* None of these reasons rendered it in the least degree
necessary, that their ill desert should be removed, or that their blessed
ness should be purchased. But what other reasons can be assigned
which will apply ? It is confidently believed that no one can tell. Nor
will it be less difficult to show the consistency of such an atonement with
grace in the pardon of sinners. And, besides, either partial atonement
or universal salvation must be the result of the scheme.
If, to avoid these consequences, it should be said, that, although atone
ment was not necessary to remove personal ill desert in order that sin
ners might be consistently pardoned, it does not hence follow that there
is no necessity of an imputation of Christ's personal righteousness, in or-
* " It is unquestionably true, that Christ was set forth to be a propitiation to declare
God's righteousness ; and the great ends of righteousness required that there should
be an atonement for sin, in order to prepare the way for its remission. But it is to be
remembered, it was the righteousness of God, as it related to the execution of threat
ened and deserved punishment, that needed to be declared, in order to the exercise of
pardoning mercy; and not as it related to tho bestowment of rewards: — Righteous
ness, as it respected rendering vengeance to enemies, not favor and protection to
friends. God's favor for the righteous, and his approbation of their characters, would
not have been rendered suspicious by a total neglect to execute punitive justice; —
unless, indeed, his benevolent regards to their best interest, and his distinguishing ap
probation of their characters, should become suspicious by his neglect to avenge them
on their adversaries. But the very supposition of a possibility that God's benevolent
regards to the righteous should bo rendered doubtful by his neglecting to punish the
wicked, strongly implies that it was tho righteousness of God, as it relates to the exe
cution of punishment, that needed to be declared, in order tp the pardon of the sin
ner." — West on Atonement, p. 30, 31.

AN INQUIRY CONCERNING IMPUTATION. 511
der that the believer may be consistently admitted to heaven ; it may be
repbed, that this is not the argument. If want of personal merit, or per
fect righteousness is any barrier against a sinner's gracious admission to
heaven, let the objector make it appear ; and, when he has done this, let
him have the goodness to show, that personal ill desert does not present
a barrier against bis. pardon, which is equally insuperable. If a sinner, ^
notwithstanding his personal demerit, may be graciously pardoned, it is
believed it cannot be shown why a believer, notwithstanding his want of
a perfect righteousness, may not be graciously admitted to heaven.
" God commendeth bis love towards us in that while we were yet sin
ners, Christ died for us. Much more, then, being now justified by his
blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him."
Much dependence is placed on certain passages of Scripture, which
speak of Christ as being " our righteousness," for the support of the
scheme in question. Christ is called " the Lord our righteousness.'7
But how does it appear that, therefore, his righteousness is imputed to
us ? Why would it not be just as natural to infer, from his being called
" our life," that his life is imputed to us ? And, also, when we read that
he is made of God unto us wisdom, sanctification, and redemption, that
his wisdom must be imputed to us, &c.
One passage which is much relied on to prove that Christ's righteous
ness is imputed to the believer, is, Phil. 3:9. " And be found in him ;
not having on mine own righteousness, which is of the law, but that
which is through the faith of Christ ; the righteousness which is of God,
by faith." This passage is thus paraphrased by Dr. Doddridge : " I am
happy enough if I may be found in him, vitally united to him by a true
faith and love, and so taken under his protection and favor ; not having
on mine own righteousness, which [is] of the law ; such righteousness as
only consists in observing the precepts and expiations of the Jewish re-
bgion which I was once so solicitous to establish ; nor any confidence in
any legal righteousness whatever, as my plea before God ; but that I
may be interested in that which [is] by the faith of Christ, the righteous
ness which is of God through faith ; that which he has appointed we
should obtain and secure, by believing in his Son, &c. Rom. 3 : 22, is
also quoted, with much confidence: "Even the righteousness of God,
which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all, and upon all them that bebeve ;
for there is no difference ; '' which Dr. Doddridge paraphrases thus :
Even the righteousness of God, which he hath appointed us to seek, by
the exercise of a living faith in the power and grace of his Son Jesus
Christ ; to whom he commands us to commit our souls, with all humble
and obedient regard.
This way of obtaining righteousness and life is now, I say, made mani-

512 . SCRIPTURE DOCTRINE OF ATONEMENT.
fest to all, and like a pure, complete, and glorious robe, is put upon all
them that believe ; for there is, in this respect, no difference at all between
one believer and another." AU similar passages may be explained in a
similar manner. While it is nowhere explicitly asserted that the right
eousness of Christ must be, or ever is imputed to believers, or that his
active obedience procures heaven for them, the Scriptures do plainly
teach, that heaven is procured for them by his sufferings and death ; or,
in other words, that his sufferings and death procure heaven for them, in
the same sense in which they procure their pardon. " As Moses lifted
up the serpent in the wilderness, even so -must the Son of Man be lifted
up, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish but have everlast
ing life." John 3 : 14, 15. This passage plainly teaches us, that the
very object for which the Son of Man was lifted up [on the cross] was,
that believers might have everlasting life. " For Christ, also, hath once
suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God."
1 Pet. 3 : 18. The phrase "bring us to God," in this passage, it is pre
sumed, all will agree, implies that divine intercourse to which saints, in
heaven, are admitted.
But, surely, this passage cannot be fairly explained without admitting
that the purpose for which Christ suffered was, that he might open a
consistent way, by his sufferings, for believers to be admitted to this in
tercourse. Indeed, if the reasons which have been already stated, show
ing why an atonement was necessary to open a way for the pardon of
sinners are correct, it must appear evident that no obstacles stood in the
way of the admission of sinners to heaven, which did not stand in the
way of their being pardoned ; and, on the other hand, that whatever op
posed their pardon, equally opposed their admission to heaven. It must
follow that the same, and only the same atonement which was necessary
to render their being pardoned consistent, was necessary to render their
admission to heaven consistent.
Hence we may safely conclude, that if it became God to " set forth
Christ to be a propitiation, through faith in his blood, — that he might be
just, and the justifier of him that believeth in Jesus ; " it equally " became
him, — in bringing many sons unto glory, to make tbe Captain of their
salvation perfect through sufferings." Heb. 2:10. Indeed the Scrip
tures explicitly authorize the belief that " for this cause he was the Me
diator of the new testament, that, by means of death, — they which are
called, might receive the promise of an eternal inheritance." Heb. 9 :
15. Hence we are taught to anticipate the very song which will be
sung by all the redeemed of the Lord when they arrive at heaven, and
surround the throne of the Lamb with the four living creatures, and the
four-and-twenty elders, " Thou art worthy, — for thou wast slain, and
hast redeemed us to God by thy blood." Rev. 5 : 9.

NECESSITY OF FAITH. 513

CHAPTER VIIL
REASONS WHY FAITH IN THE BLOOD OF CHRIST IS NECESSARY, IN-
ORDER THAT SINNERS MAY BE JUSTIFIED.
The Scriptures evidently teach, that faith in the blood of Christ is
necessary in order that sinners may be justified through him. Christ is
"set forth to be a propitiation, through faith in his blood." He suf
fered, that God " might be-just, and the justifier of him that believeth."
Notwithstanding the all-sufficient atonement he has -made, "he that
bebeveth not shall be damned." This, too, is perfectly consistent. For
it is reaby as necessary that sinners should have faith in the blood of
Christ, in order that God may be just in justifying them, as it was that
Christ should suffer. Indeed, the same reasons which rendered the
sufferings of Christ necessary, rendered it equally necessary that sinners
should believe ; because the same obstacles which stood in the way of
the pardon of sinners without an atonement, still stand in the way of the
pardon of those who have not faith. That this may be clearly perceived,
however, it will be necessary to keep in mind the necessity and nature
of the atonement.
If the atonement consisted in the literal payment of a debt, it is
acknowledged the case would be different. If sinners had, literally,
owed divine justice an infinite debt, and Christ had stepped into their
place and paid it by his sufferings and death, it is very evident, that
faith in his blood would not be necessary to their justification. If the
debt of sinners has been paid, it cannot be again demanded whether they
have faith or not. If one person owe another, and a third* person pay
the debt, and. procure a discharge, it surely cannot be necessary that
the person discharged should have knowledge of the transaction^, in
order to his being free from his creditor. Or, if he be informed that his
debt is paid, it can make no difference, with respect to the demands, of
his creditor, whether he believe the information or not. His not, be
lieving, surely, cannot prevent its being discharged. Just so,, if' the-
atonement of Christ consisted literally in paying the debt of' sinners,, it.
can make no difference with respect to their discharge,, whether- they-
have any knowledge of, or belief in, what has been-, done- or- not..
Whether they believe, or disbelieve, the debt must be discharged..
But the truth is, the atonement of Christ is not the literal payment of
a debt. He has not satisfied the demands of the- Utw in, this sense..
The law as much demands the punishment of sinners,, and as loudly
curses every one who continueth not in all things written.in.it, until he

514 SCRIPTURE DOCTRINE OF ATONEMENT.
obtains forgiveness, as it would have done if Christ had never died. All
who have ever offended, even in one point, are as much guilty of
transgressing the whole law, and actually owe as much to divine justice,
until it is freely forgiven, as they would if Christ had not tasted death
for them. Christ is not the end of the law in such a sense as to have
annulled its claims. He did not come to destroy the law ; but to fulfil.
The law is not made void, through faith ; but it is estabbshed. The
great design of the atonement was not to pay the debt of sinners ;
but to open a way in which they might consistently be forgiven.
Instead of paying a debt, therefore, it consisted in making as full a
manifestation of God's respect for his law, and determination to support
it ; of his abhorrence of sin, and bis love of holiness ; and of his determi
nation to promote and secure the highest interest of his kingdom; as
could have been made by a bteral execution of the penalty of his law
on transgressors ; that so " he might be just, and the justifier of him that
believeth in Jesus."
If this view which has been given of the atonement and of the
grounds on which it was necessary be correct, it will be easy to per
ceive that there is now the same necessity that sinners should have
faith in the blood of Christ, which there was that Christ should be set
forth as a propitiation, in order that God may be just in justifying them.
Faith in tbe blood of Christ may be defined as implying a cordial
reception of the sufferings of Christ, or a cordial satisfaction in them, as
a necessary, all-sufficient, and infinitely glorious atonement for sin. The
necessity of such a faith may appear, from the same considerations
which have been urged in showing the necessity of atonement.
1. God could not be just to his law, if he should pardon sinners who
have no faith.
As there would have been great impropriety in God's pardoning
sinners, without manifesting at the same time his regard for his law, so
it must be evidently improper, that any should be justified, unless they
respect the same law. Indeed, the same respect for his law which
rendered it necessary that God should provide an infinite atonement,
in order that he might pardon sinners consistently with his infinite per
fections, must entirely prevent his justifying any who remain opposed
to his law. For, should he justify any such persons, he would, in this
very act; greatly dishonor his law ; he would countenance sinners in
dishonoring it; he would even justify them in their unreasonable
opposition to its demands. Hence, if God does really respect his law,
as we have seen, then it is plain he can never justify any in their oppo
sition to this law. But all those who have not faith in the blood of
Christ, are acting still in opposition to the law of God.

NECESSITY OF FAITH. 515
As has been observed, faith in the blood of Christ implies cordially-
receiving and approving of Christ's sufferings as a necessary atonement.
But if sin is riot an unreasonable and evil thing ; if the law, of which
sin is a transgression, is not good ; then the sufferings of Christ could
not be necessary as an atonement. The sufferings of Christ could not
be necessary unless it were, in some way, to support the divine law.
Faith in the blood of Christ, implying a cordial satisfaction with what
Christ has suffered for the support of the divine law, as being indis
pensably necessary for the pardon of sinners, therefore '•implies respect
for the law itself. While, on the other hand, unbelief, as it is a re
jection of the atonement of Christ as being unnecessary and useless,
dishonors the law which the atonement was designed to support.
Hence faith is evidently necessary in order to justification. For, if
God should justify sinners who are destitute of faith, he would act di
rectly against himself. While he testified that the atonement of Christ
was necessary to the pardon of sinners, he would justify those who
reject this testimony, and make him a liar. Indeed it is impossible
that he should justify any on the ground of the atonement who have not
faith ; because both the atonement and faith are equally necessary, and
for the same reasons. Notwithstanding the atonement, therefore, God
cannot be just in justifying sinners, unless they believe in Jesus. He
did not set Christ forth as a propitiation to declare his righteousness
for the remission of sins in any other way, than through faith in his
blood. It was not that he might be just, and the justifier of him who
believeth not in Jesus ; but " that he might be just, and the justifier of
him that believeth."
2. God could not be just to his kingdom if he should justify sinners
who have no faith in the blood of Christ.
Since the atonement was necessary that, if sinners were pardoned, the
subjects of God's kingdom might yet be deterred from disobedience, and
that the interests of holiness might be promoted, it must be evident that
God cannot consistently justify sinners who have not faith ; because this
would have a tendency to promote unholiness. In this case, God would
even justify sinners in their wickedness. Faith in the blood of Christ
implies a cordial approbation of what he has done for the salvation of
sinners. Any thing short of this must be rebellion against God. Sin
ners must either approve or disapprove of what Christ has done. If
they disapprove of the atonement, they must disapprove of the divine
law ; and, consequently, of the character of the Lawgiver, which is there
delineated. If they have faith, they acquiesce in Christ's work of atone
ment, and approve of the law and character of God ; but if they have
not faith, they remain in opposition to God, and to the whole economy

516 SCRIPTURE DOCTRINE OF ATONEMENT.
of grace. No sinner, therefore, can have any true hobness, unless he
has faith in the blood of Christ.
Hence it follows, that if God should justify any sinner who has not
faith, instead of promoting, he would destroy the interest of holiness.
Instead of punishing sinners who despise and reject Christ, he would
justify them. This could have no tendency to deter others from disobe
dience, but would encourage them in it. Moral beings, perceiving that
God was not so opposed to sinners, who opposed and slighted Christ, and
thus manifested their disrespect to the law which he died to honor, and
their disapprobation of the character of God which he died to display,
but that he would justify them, it is impossible that they should either
believe him an enemy to transgression, or discover any consistency in
his character. They would conclude that Christ was set forth to be a
minister of sin ; not to condemn sin in the flesh, but to justify those who
continue in the practice of this evil and bitter thing. Hence it appears
plain, 3. That God could not appear just to his own character, if he should
justify sinners who have no faith.
Consistency is one thing which is essential to the perfection of any
character.. But, it is obvious, that should God justify sinners who are
destitute of faith, he would aGt very inconsistently. He would appear
at variance with himself, destroying at one time what he had done at
another. By the requirements and threatenings of his law he manifested
a regard for holiness and an abhorrence of sin. In giving his beloved
Son to die on the cross to make an atonement, he manifested the same
feelings, and displayed the same glorious character. But should be now
"justify those who have no faith in the atonement, no acquiescence in it,
and no approbation for it, he would counteract and contradict what has
thus been manifested in his law, and in the sufferings and death of Christ.
In doing this, he would justify those who were opposed to Christ, which
would be an implicit acknowledgment that their opposition was right ;
indeed, it would be taking part with them in their opposition. Hence
his character would appear inconsistent and suspicious. Holy beings
would be at a loss what opinion they might form respecting his real
feelings. They might fear him ; but they would lose their confidence,
and would scarcely find it in their hearts to love him. Since, therefore,
all who are destitute of faith in the blood of Christ are opposed to him,
it is impossible that any such can ever be justified. Faith in the blood
of Christ is, therefore, indispensably necessary to justification. Christ is
not the end of the law for righteousness to unbelievers, or to them that
have not faith ; but he " is the end of the law for righteousness to every
one that believeth."

NECESSITY OF FAITH. 517.
It may not be impertinent to observe here, moreover, that if God
should justify those who have no faith, it could answer no very valuable
purpose, even to those who should be thus justified, as it could not avail
to secure their happiness. Sinners cannot be made happy without being
brought into a state of reconciliation with God, nor can they be recon
ciled unless they have faith in Christ. Reconciliation to God implies
faith in Christ, and faith in Christ implies reconciliation to God. They
so include each other, that where one is wanting the other cannot subsist
Every one who is truly reconciled must be pleased with what God does,
so far as it is made known to him. For so far as any one is displeased
with what God does, so far certainly he is unreconciled. Hence, if sin
ners are not pleased with what God has done, in causing an atonement
to be made for sin, they are in a state of unreconcibation. They remain
at variance, and at enmity with God. But if they are pleased with the
atonement of Christ and so reconciled, they have faith in his blood.
This is the very thing which is required in order to justification. Faith
in the blood of Christ consists very much in being pleased and satisfied
with what God has done, in giving his Son to die to make atonement for
sin, and in cordially receiving tbe Son as an all-sufficient Saviour as he
is offered in the gospel. But nothing short of this can be called recon
ciliation to God. Every thing short of this involves opposition and
enmity. Since, therefore, sinners must be reconciled to God, or they must be
miserable ; and since reconciliation to God implies faith in the blood of
atonement, it is plain that faith in Christ is necessary to the happiness of
sinners. Hence it appears that if God should justify sinners who have
no faith, he would not only justify opposition to Christ and opposition to
himself, but be would do that which would be altogether useless. For,
though they were thus justified, sinners could have no peace in their
opposition ; they could not be happy. They would still be • like the
troubled sea when it cannot rest. But, certainly, the very idea of justi
fying one who is opposed to God, is highly repugnant to reason as well
as to Scripture. There is, therefore, no possible way in which sinners
can be justified, excepting through faith in the blood of Jesus Christ.
" Therefore, being justified by faith, we have peace with God, through
our Lord Jesus Christ ; whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation,
through faith in his blood, — that he might be just, and the justifier of
him that bebeveth ia Jesus." 44

518 SCRIPTURE DOCTRINE OF ATONEMENT.

CONCLUSION.
On reviewing the foregoing pages, it appears that the opinion which
some have entertained that the atonement of Christ was necessary, for
the purpose of exhibiting evidence to the minds of intelligent beings that
tbe divine law is just and reasonable, must be entirely erroneous. The
truth is, no such evidence was wanting. Intelligent beings well under
stood that the law was holy, and just, and good. But if it had been
otherwise, if such evidence had really been wanting, it would be impossi
ble to find it either in the obedience or sufferings of Christ. If, pre
viously to the atonement of Christ, there had been any ground of rea
sonable doubt concerning the justice of the divine law, the nature of the
case would have required evidence of a different kind from any thing
which results from the life or death of Christ to have removed it. The
obedience of Christ could not have answered the purpose. For if the
justice of a law be suspected, the justice of him who gave the law must
be equally called in question ; and, consequently, no conduct of his,
founded on this suspicious law, can be considered as free from the same
suspicion.* If a king should make a bad law, doubtless the same motives which
induced him to make it might also induce him to obey it. His obedi
ence, therefore, could do nothing towards removing the grounds of sus
picion. Neither could the sufferings of Christ have answered any such
purpose. It has been shown, indeed, that the sufferings of Christ answer
the same purposes which the execution of the penalty of the law would
have answered. But still they do not prove the law to be just ; for this
would not have been proved by the execution of the penalty. Should a
king give an unjust law and govern his subjects by it, rigorously execut
ing its penalty on every transgressor, it must be obvious, surely, that this
could not prove the law to be just. Nor would the mere execution of
the penalty of a good law afford any better evidence of its goodness.
But if the case were otherwise, and it could be shown that the obedi
ence or the sufferings of Christ did actually prove that the divine law is
just, still, how could this make the necessary atonement ? The atone
ment was necessary, not that God might be just in condemning trans-
* " So long as we judge a rule itself to bo bad, no conduct of any one formed upon
it will make us believe it to be good. While wo dispute the righteousness of the rule
given, we dispute tho righteousness of him who gave it. And in that ease, his obey
ing it himself will no more convince us of its equity, than his administering govern
ment over us in conformity to it." — West on Atonement, p. 27.

CONCLUSION. 519
gressors, but that be might be just in justifying and saving them, if they
would belieye in Jesus. . But how could proving the law to be just answer
this purpose ? In other words, how could proving the law to be just
afford any reason for remitting its penalty, and pardoning the trans
gressor ? If it could do it in any way, must it not follow that the more
clearly it appears that a law is just, the more easily may its penalty be
dispensed with ; and, on the other hand, that the more doubtful it is
whether a law is just, the more indispensably necessary it must be that
its penalty should be rigorously executed ?
Equally erroneous is the opinion that the atonement was necessary to
show that the divine law may be obeyed by man. What Christ has done
and suffered does not prove this. It is true, Christ obeyed the law ; but
how this can possibly afford any evidence that man is capable of obeying
it, does not appear. For Christ was not a mere man. In his glorious
person the divine and human natures are united. Hence his obedience
no more proves that a mere man is capable of yielding a perfect obedi
ence, than his walking on the sea, raising the dead, and performing other
wonderful works is evidence that any mere man can do the same things.
But were it otherwise, and the obedience of Christ did prove that man
has power to obey as perfectly as he obeyed, still it would be difficult to
see how this would render it consistent that sinners should be pardoned.
Are they less criminal because the law wliich they have disobeyed is one
which they had full power to obey ? If they had been incapable of obey
ing the divine law, would this have rendered it more necessary to punish
their disobedience ? If God had pardoned sinners on the ground that
the law they had violated was shown to be just, and capable of being
obeyed by man, bow would this support the authority of that just and
reasonable law ? Would this have any tendency to deter others from
disobedience ? Would it manifest clearly God's love of righteousness
and hatred of iniquity ? Would any consistency of conduct appear in
giving such a law, and then neglecting to execute its penalty ? Would
its being shown to be a good law be a sufficient reason why its penalty
should not be executed ? It is bebeved no one would choose to answer
these questions in the affirmative.
It appears, also, that Christ's death was not a ground of redemption,
merely as being a means of sanctification. It is evident, indeed, that
Christ's sufferings and death, when viewed aright, must be a powerful
means of promoting those dispositions of mind which are necessary to
eternal life ; and hence some have been led to suppose that the virtue
and efficacy of Christ's death should not be viewed in any other light.
Since none can be saved unless they are sanctified by his blood, or death,
it has been concluded that the only reason why God forgives sins and

520 SCRIPTURE DOCTRINE OF ATONEMENT.
bestows other blessings on account of his death is, because this is a proper
means of cleansing from sin. This scheme supposes that atonement was
necessary for no other purpose than to furnish sinners with those personal
qualifications without which they cannot receive pardon.
To explain the scheme it has been said that God " wants neither our
information nor importunity to engage bis kind regards ; but he requires
us to pray to him for his blessing and favors, in order to improve our
minds in pious and virtuous dispositions. He wants not our assistance
for the relief of the indigent and distressed ; but he has made it our duty
to succor them, for the exercise of our benevolence. He wants no sac
rifice to excite or assist his mercy ; but we may want it to increase and
strengthen our virtue." And " as our prayers are a reason of God's con
ferring blessings upon us, because our prayers are means of producing
pious dispositions in our minds ; so the blood of Christ — makes atone
ment for sin, or is a reason of God's forgiving our sins, because the blood
of Christ is a mean of cleansing us from sin." This scheme is unsatis
factory for several reasons.
1. According to this scheme the death of Christ is an atonement only
so far as it is a mean of cleansing from sin ; and its virtue consists only
in being such a mean ; from whence it would seem evidently to follow,
that any thing else, which is a mean of sanctifying and cleansing from
sin, must, at least, so far as it actually produces this effect, constitute as
satisfactory an atonement as has been made by the death of Christ.
Prayers, alms, and sufferings for Christ's sake, as well as the blood of
Christ, are means of promoting pious dispositions in the mind, sanctifying
the affections, and cleansing from sin. The institutions of the gospel are
all means of sanctification. ' The preaching of the gospel is particularly
designed as such a mean ; the word of God generally is so designed ;
Christ prayed for the elect, " Father, sanctify them through thy truth, thy
word is truth ; " and the Holy Spirit is designated to the particular work
of sanctification. If, then, the blood of Christ makes atonement, only be
cause it is a mean of cleansing from sin, it must be difficult to see why
all these other things do not answer the same purpose ; yet neither of
them is ever said to make atonement.
2. The scheme in question appears to suppose that the sanctification
and cleansing of sinners was all that was necessary to render it consistent
for God to grant them pardon and salvation. But certainly it must re
quire some very explicit declaration of Scripture to authorize a belief that
had this been all that was necessary, a God of infinite wisdom could not
devise any means of sanctifying and cleansing them, which would have
been less expensive than the sufferings and death of his beloved Son ; or
that if such means could be devised, a God of infinite benevolence would

CONCLUSION. 521
not have chosen them. The Scriptures, however, give no intimation of
any such thing.
3. However this scheme may be considered as combining the glory
of God with the good of bis creatures, it seems evidently to make the
glory of God but a secondary object ; but this appears to be inconsistent
with the Scriptures, which plainly represent God as seeking his own
glory supremely in all he does.
4. Although, in this scheme, the death of Christ is named as making
atonement, yet it represents the atonement as consisting rather in a
mere circumstance attending the death of Christ, namely, its tendency to
promote sanctification. Indeed, it may be doubted whether even this
circumstance would be the very thing ; for the value of this must
depend on the effect produced in cleansing from sin. So that, after all,
the sanctification of the sinner would, in fact, be the atonement. This
appears to be the precise reason why God exercises pardon. Hence it
is not seen why a sinner, who might attain to as high a degree of sancti
fication in some other way, would not be as proper a subject of pardon,
nor why God would not be as readily disposed to pardon him. But
this would be yielding to those who have denied atonement all that they
have contended for ; as it would be granting that atonement was not
necessary that God might be just in pardoning and saving sinners ; and
that he could not consistently with infinite benevolence, withhold pardon
from any penitent. It would, however, be very inconsistent with the
Scriptures, which declare that Christ was set forth to be a propitiation
through faith in his blood, — that God might be just and the justifier of
him that believeth in Jesus ; and which plainly intimate, that without
shedding of the Saviour's blood, there can be no remission.
Again; from the view which has been taken of the necessity and
nature of the atonement, we may learn in what sense the sufferings of
Christ may be considered as pleasing to God. It has been said, " Mere
pain cannot be agreeable to a God of infinite goodness." From whence
it has been inferred, that the sufferings of Christ were of no avail, any
further than as they exhibited evidence of his disposition to obey. " The
bare distress and pain of the Saviour, in themselves simply considered,
had no virtue in them and were of no worth ; but the disposition of mind
with which he endured those extreme agonies and pains, the temper
expressed under them were of infinite worth."
, The correctness of this opinion may be reasonably doubted. It is
admitted, however, that if by the sufferings of Christ, considered in them
selves simply, be meant his sufferings abstracted from his obedience ;
and not only so, but abstracted also from all consequences to the uni
verse as it respects supporting the divine law and government, and
44*

522 SCRIPTURE DOCTRINE OF ATONEMENT.
displaying the divine character and glory ; in short, so abstracted from
every thing in the universe, as to do no good in any sense, it must indeed
follow that they are of no worth.
But it may be doubted, also, whether the disposition manifested by
such sufferings in the same sense abstracted from every thing, would
really be of any more worth. Indeed, if the sufferings of Christ be
considered in any sense which would render them useless, it is not seen
how a disposition to endure them can be of any worth. What wisdom
or virtue can appear in a disposition to endure useless or worthless
sufferings ? If the sufferings of Christ were of no worth except as a
medium through which Christ displayed the strength of his disposition
to obey, it will follow that the atonement consists in the strength of his
disposition to obey. It would hence follow, that whatever would
answer to display the strength of Christ's disposition to obey as fully as
his sufferings did, would answer the same purposes in respect to the
atonement. If, then, it be true that " without shedding of blood there is
no remission " of sins, it must follow that there was no possible way in
which an infinite God could display the strength of Christ's disposition
to obey, so fully as by his sufferings and death. A conclusion which
necessarily results from this is, that since the display of Christ's dispo
sition to obey was of infinite worth, his sufferings must be of equal
worth, because they constituted the only possible medium through which
this disposition could be displayed.
From what we have seen of the necessity and nature of atonement,
it is evident that notwithstanding the disposition of Christ to obey was
of infinite worth, it did not, however, constitute any part of the atone
ment. As has been shown, it did not answer any of those purposes for
which atonement was necessary. To answer these purposes, the
sufferings of Christ were indispensably necessary. If, then, there was
any worth in the atonement, the same worth is found in the mere
sufferings of Christ, because in these sufferings is the atonement found ;
and if there were any thing pleasing to God in the atonement, then were
the sufferings of Christ pleasing to him for the same reason.
It is an unquestionable truth, that God is, in some sense, pleased with
whatever answers a valuable purpose. Things may answer valuable
purposes, and be objects of choice on account of those purposes ; and in
connection with those purposes may be viewed as pleasing, all things
considered, though they are in their own nature displeasing, and would,
if they did not answer those purposes, be highly disgusting. This is the
case with the misery of the damned. Undoubtedly that would be highly
displeasing to infinite benevolence, if it did not answer a valuable pur
pose. But as far as that misery is necessary to support the authority of

CONCLUSION. 523
the divine law and the honor of the divine government, it is unques
tionably, on the whole, pleasing to God ; nor is it seen why the suffer
ings of Christ, if they be supposed to answer the same purposes, may
not be, in the same sense, pleasing.
The sufferings of Christ were designed as a substitute, not for the
punishment of sinners, but for the execution of the penalty of the law.
They answer the same purposes which would have been answered by
the execution of that penalty in case there had been no atonement. But,
if it were pleasing to God to annex a penalty to his law, and if he be a
consistent being, it is not seen why it may not be pleasing to have that
penalty executed upon transgressors. But, if the execution of that
penalty might be pleasing, why might not any thing else, which would
answer the same valuable purposes, be equally pleasing ?
The sufferings of Christ were designed to answer these purposes, and
it has been shown that they do answer them fully. Hence, it is evi
dent, they are agreeable to God. It is not supposable that they were
agreeable in any other sense ; nor is it supposable that Christ would
have consented to suffer, or that the Father would have consented that
he should suffer, if they had not been agreeable in this sense
Hence we may conclude that he suffered nothing more than an infi
nitely wise God judged necessary, that these important purposes might
be fully answered. He suffered nothing in vain. What he began in
the manger, he finished on the cross. Nothing more can be intended, by
his suffering under Pontius Pilate, than that he then finished tbe great
work. He then completed that course of sufferings which was necessary
to answer the great ends of his incarnation.
It may be observed further, that in God's requiring the sufferings of
Christ in order to pardon believing sinners, there is nothing arbitrary.
He did not require this without sufficient reasons. The honor of his
law, the glory of his character, and the interests of his kingdom rendered
it necessary. Some have supposed that the constitution of the gospel,
which requires full atonement before sinners can be pardoned, repre
sents the Supreme Being as deficient in goodness. But this, surely,
must be a great mistake, unless he would have appeared possessed of
more goodness if he had executed the -penalty of his law on all trans
gressors, without having mercy on any of them, For, surely, no one can
rationally suppose that God would have appeared as possessing more
goodness, if he had suffered his holy law to fall into contempt, his sub
jects to transgress with impunity, and the affairs of his kingdom to go to
confusion and ruin. Such a procedure, on the part of the divine Being,
might, indeed, have rendered the state of incorrigible offenders less de
plorable ; but it would have been totally inconsistent with the blessedness
of holy beings, or the general good of God's universal kingdom.

524 SCRIPTURE DOCTRINE OF ATONEMENT.
The doctrine of atonement, therefore, instead of lowering our ideas of
God's goodness, greatly exalts them. Indeed this is the doctrine which,
above all others, produces this effect. The sufferings of Christ declare
God's goodness, as well as his righteousness. Herein " was manifested
the love of God."
Some have supposed, that if Christ's sufferings constituted a full atone
ment for all those for whom he died, he must have endured as much
pain as all those for whom he died would have endured, in case they had
suffered the full punishment due to them for their sins ; and that, if this
is the case, there is nothing gained by the substitution, because the evils
which the damned would suffer would no more than counterbalance the
evils which Christ has suffered, leaving nothing gained in favor of the
general good. To this it may be answered, that, even on this ground,
much would still be gained. Though it is true that nothing would be
gained by avoiding positive evil, yet much would be gained by obtaining
positive happiness. For while the two evils exactly balanced, the hap
piness secured by the everlasting redemption of a great multitude which
no man can number, would greatly overbalance the sum of happiness
which the man Christ Jesus lost during the short period of his sufferings,
if this could be considered as loss, on the whole, to himself. But even
this is not to be admitted. On the contrary, there was a gain of happi
ness even to Christ himself, in consequence of his sufferings. Hence we
are assured that, " for the joy which was set before him," he " endured
the cross, despising the shame." There would, therefore, even on this
ground, evidently be a great gain of happiness in the universal system.
But besides, there is no reason to believe that the sufferings of Christ
were of an amount, in point of quantity, equal to all which those for
whom he died must have endured. It does not appear to have been nec
essary, considering the innocency and dignity of his character, that the
real evil endured by Christ should be so great as the evil of the suffer
ings of those whom be redeemed must have been. It is quite sufficient
if God's regard for his law, his opposition to sin, and his love for the
general good, be as fully manifested in the sufferings of Christ, as they
could have been by the execution of the penalty of the law.
The objection, which has sometimes been made, that the doctrine of
atonement represents God as being inexorable, is also groundless. For
certainly no one can rationally suppose that God is inexorable, merely
because he will not pardon sinners in a way which is totally inconsistent
with the honor of his government, the well being of his kingdom, and the
glory of his own character. Instead of inexorability, or a deficiency of
goodness, every display which God has made of himself in the great
work of man's redemption, has been a display of infinite benevolence or
love. Even his anger is to be viewed as the result of benevolence.

CONCLUSION. 525
We read much in the Scriptures of the anger of God. " He is angry
with the wicked every day ; " and his " anger burns to the lowest hell."
But from these and other similar passages, we are to understand no more
than the eternal opposition of God's benevolence to every thing, which
opposes his glory, and the highest good of his kingdom. God never in
dulged any other anger towards any creature, however rebellious and
wicked, than what necessarily results from his supreme regard to the
glory of his own name, and the highest good of the universe. Nor does
the death of Christ render God propitious to sinners in any other sense
than this ; as it supports the authority of his law and kingdom, it renders
the pardon of sinners consistent with the highest good of his kingdom, and
with his own glory.
It hence appears, moreover, that the atonement of Christ is, in a strict
and proper sense, for all mankind. Christ tasted death for every man ;
for the non-elect as much as for the elect. Indeed, election has nothing
to do with atonement, any more than it has with creation, resurrection
from the dead, or the general judgment.
From the necessity and nature of the atonement it is evident that its
extent is necessarily universal. It was necessary to remove obstacles
which stood in the way of God's pardoning sinners. These obstacles have
been considered ; and it has been shown that the death of Christ com
pletely removes them. Nothing, therefore, now remains in the way of
God's pardoning any sinner whatever of the human family, who will com
ply with the conditions of the gospel on which pardon is offered. Neither
the compliance of sinners with these terms, nor their non-compliance can,
in the least degree, affect the nature or the extent of the atonement.
Though the operations of the Holy Spirit are necessary to produce in the
hearts of sinners a compliance with these terms, and though these opera
tions are indeed granted to some, while they are withholden from others ;
yet this is not owing to any thing particular in the nature of the atone
ment ; but it is owing merely to the " purpose of God, according to the
election of grace." The Scriptures are remarkably plain on the point
now before us. Christ testified that " God so loved the world, that he
gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not
perish, but have everlasting life." John 3:16. And the apostle John,
addressing his Christian brethren, said, " If any man sin, we have an ad
vocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous. And he is the pro
pitiation for our sins ; and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the
whole world." 1 John 2 : 2.
But though the atonement is, strictly speaking, for all mankind, one as
much as another, this does not imply any obligation on the part of God,
either to Christ or to sinners, to save any of them. Notwithstanding the

526 SCRIPTURE DOCTRINE OF ATONEMENT.
atonement, God is at full liberty to save, or not save, just as the general
good may require, and his unerring wisdom dictate. If the general good
require that any of those for whom Christ died should be left to continue
in impenitency, and to perish in their sins, God may thus leave them, in
perfect consistency with the nature and design of the atonement.
Whether the general good requires the salvation of a great or a small
number, is a question which cannot be decided merely from the nature
of the atonement. For if God had designed the salvation of only a small
number, the same atonement, for aught we are able to see, would have
been necessary to render his conduct consistent in pardoning that few,
which has now been made as a ground of offering pardon to the whole.
Indeed, if instead of designing the salvation of any, God had only designed
to make a free and gracious offer of pardon and salvation to all who would
repent and believe, leaving them entirely to their own choice whether to
repent and believe, or not, still the same atonement must have been
made. For it is plain that God could not consistently offer pardon to
sinners on any ground which would not fully justify him in actually grant
ing it, in case they comply with the conditions on which it is offered.
But whether they shall be made to comply with these conditions, by the
sanctifying agency of the Holy Spirit, or whether they shall be left to
follow the dictates of their own wicked heart, and finally perish in unbe
lief, or whether there shall be an election of grace among them, and some
be called and sanctified, while others are left to their own choice, are
questions to be decided on other grounds than atonement. Because the
direct object of atonement might be fully accomplished in either case.
This object, as has been shown, was to make a manifestation of the
divine character, to declare the righteousness of God. This manifesta
tion God has made. He has shown his hatred of sin and love of holi
ness. He has shown his regard to his own glory and the best interest
of his kingdom. He has, also, manifested a merciful and gracious dispo
sition towards sinners ; for he has offered them pardon and eternal life,
on condition that they believe in Jesus. These things constitute the ob
ject of atonement, and these things will for ever appear, even though no
sinner should ever believe, or be saved. It will for ever appear that all
was done on the part of God which was necessary, in order that salvation
might be freely offered. It will also appear that the free offer of salva
tion was actually made. God may for ever say, in view of these things,
"What could I have done more in my vineyard, that I have not done in
it?" And Christ may say to a world of ruined sinners, "Ye would not
come unto me that, ye might have life." The direct object of atonement,
therefore, may be accomplished, though no sinners should be saved.
Notwithstanding all the atonement has done, there still remains ah

CONCLUSION. 527
obstacle in the way of salvation. The unbelief of sinners must be re
moved. They must believe in Jesus, or his atonement can never save
them. This is an obstacle which the atonement of Christ does not re
move. Neither is there any thing in the nature of atonement which
requires that God should remove it. The truth is, mere atonement has
nothing to do with its removal. God may remove it or not, as in his
view the interest of his kingdom and his own glory may require. If the
interest of his kingdom and his own glory require that this obstacle be
universally removed, no doubt it will be done.
But we have no evidence that this is the case. We indeed have evi
dence that the glory of God and the interest of bis kingdom require, that
this should be done in some instances ; because we see that it is done.
We see that the unbelief of sinners is removed, and they become believers
in Jesus. But there are multitudes of others concerning whom this does
not appear. The Scriptures also assure us that some believe, and they
assure us, too, that some do not bebeve " All men have not faith."
They describe mankind as constituting two classes, the righteous and the
wicked, the believing and the unbelieving. Nor have we any evidence
that these two classes will not continue to exist for ever.
The mere goodness of God certainly does not afford proof that they
will not thus continue to exist. For if the existence of sinners, in unbelief
and misery, were inconsistent with the goodness of God, they certainly
could not thus exist at the present time. We know, however, that they
do thus exist. But if their present existence in this state is not incon
sistent with divine goodness, then we have no evidence that their future
state may not also be sinful and miserable. No doubt God is as able to
make all mankind holy and happy in this world as he will be in the
world to come. But since he does not make them holy and happy now,
notwithstanding his infinite goodness, we have no evidence that he will
do it hereafter. Doubtless the reason why God does not make all his
creatures holy and happy in the present world is, because his own glory
and the general good require otherwise. But if the glory of God and
the general good may require that some of God's creatures should be
suffered to continue in unbelief and misery in this world, we have no evi
dence that his glory and the general good may not require, that they
should be suffered to continue in the same state, in the world to come
and during eternity. It is certainly as conceivable that sin and misery
should be subservient, or even necessary to the glory of God and the
general good in the world to come, as that they are so in this world.
It has been shown that the atonement of Christ answers the same val
uable purposes, at least in relation to all that believe, that the complete
execution of the penalty of the law would have answered. Nothing

528 SCRIPTURE DOCTRINE OF ATONEMENT.
more than this was necessary. Nothing less than this was sufficient.
If, then, God should give faith to all mankind, he might, out of respect to
the atonement, save them all, and at the same time promote his own glory
and the good of the universe to the same extent which might have been
done by the execution of the law.
But it does not hence follow that God will give faith to all ; nor, if he
should, that this would promote his glory and the good of his kingdom in
the highest degree. It might, indeed, promote these objects in as high a
degree as they could have been promoted by the execution of the law ;
but the execution of the law could not have promoted them in the highest
degree. If it could, then certainly the law would have been executed.
For surely no one can suppose that God would have given up Christ to
the sufferings of death, if his glory and the interest of his kingdom might
have been as well secured by the execution of the law. And yet all
that was necessary in order that the sufferings of Christ should constitute
a complete atonement was, that they should answer the same valuable
purposes respecting the character and government of God, which the
execution of the law would have answered.
From whence it must follow, that the execution of the law would not
have promoted the glory of God and interest of his kingdom in the
highest degree. The sufferings of Christ, however, in order to constitute'
complete atonement, needed only to answer the same purposes which the
execution of the law would have answered. Nor have we any evidence
that they do, in themselves, answer any other purpose. Neither the
execution of the law, nor the atonement of Christ, therefore, in itself, is
capable of promoting the highest glory of God, or the best interest of bis
kingdom. If one could, the other must, for the same reason.
It may be asked, then, why should infinite wisdom choose the method
of atonement, rather than the execution of the law ? The answer is, the
atonement, though it does not of itself promote any object which might
not have been promoted by the execution of the law, yet it opens a way
in which God can introduce other measures, and accomplish other pur
poses, which could not have been introduced and accomplished in case
the law had been executed ; and these other measures and purposes pro
mote his glory and the interest of his kingdom in the highest degree.
If the penalty of the law had been executed upon all transgressors, God
never could have displayed his justice and mercy to the degree in which
they now appear. The atonement, however, opens the way in which
God makes this display in the highest perfection.
It is by means of atonement that God has opportunity of displaying
his justice in the highest degree. If the penalty of the law bad been
executed on all transgressors, it is true the justice of God would have

CONCLUSION. 529
appeared in some degree. It would have appeared in as great a degree
as that state of things would have required. But it would not have ap
peared to that degree which the present state of things, under the gospel,
requires. For, in order that the glory of divine justice may fully appear,
it is necessary that the evil nature of sin should fully appear. But this
never could have appeared to the extent that it now does, if atonement
had not been made. Indeed, by the atonement, sinners are brought into
a new situation in relation to their God, in which their sins become vastly
more aggravated than was possible before. If no atonement had been
made, the guilt of sinners would have been incomparably less than it now
is. Sin now appears to possess a degree of malignity which never could
have appeared if Christ had not come into the world as a Saviour.
Hence he declared, " If I had not come and spoken unto them they had not
had sin, but now they have no cloak for their sin." We are not to un
derstand by this declaration of our Saviour that he meant that mankind,
strictly speaking, would have been free from sin if he had not come.
We are rather to understand that the sins of those who reject him are
much greater, in consequence of this rejection ; indeed, that they are
incomparably greater. If he had not come, the sins of mankind, in com
parison with what they now are, would have been as nothing. Yet, in
order that the justice of God in the punishment of sinners may appear in
the highest degree, it is necessary that the evil nature of sin, in its full
extent, should appear.
Antecedently to all consideration of atonement, mankind, as sinners,
actually deserved endless punishment. If no Saviour had appeared, and
no offer of pardon been made, God would have been just in the inflic
tion of this punishment. No doubt holy angels, who beheld, would have
glorified his justice. In this case, however, the depth of human deprav
ity, and the extent of the malignity of sin, could not have appeared. It
could not have been seen that sin was so exceedingly malignant, and
mankind so exceedingly fuU of it, as to be ready to reject a Saviour and
his salvation when freely offered. If any one, except the Supreme Be
ing himself, had informed angels that mankind had become so exceed
ingly depraved that even if a Saviour should be provided and salvation
should be freely offered, on the most reasonable condition, they would
all make light of it, and ungratefully reject the offer, it is probable
angels would have doubted whether such wickedness were possible. If
mankind, antecedently to the revelation of God's purposes of mercy, had
been so informed, probably they, too, would have rejected the idea, and
with indignation. All this, however, is true, and must be seen, before
the justice of God, in his opposition to sin, can fully appear. But this is
what could never have been seen, if the penalty of the law, without
45

530 SCRIPTURE DOCTRINE OF ATONEMENT.
atonement, had been inflicted. Neither could it have been seen, if, when
atonement was made, God had given faith to every sinner. Because, in
that case, it never could have appeared that the wickedness of mankind
was so great, that, if left to their own choice, they would forever reject a
bleeding Saviour. Yet all this must appear, in order that the justice of
God, in his opposition to this wickedness, may fully be seen. And if
the nature of sin is really so bad that a sinner, left to himself, wiU con
tinue his ' opposition to divine grace, during eternity, then this must be
manifested, in order that the justice of God, in punishing such wicked
ness, may fully appear.
Divine grace, also, must forever appear great, in proportion to the
greatness of the wickedness that is pardoned. If, then, God would dis
play the full extent of the riches of his grace, to the view of intelligent
beings, he must so order his providence respecting sinners, as to make a
clear manifestation of the evil nature of sin, even though it should be at
the expense of leaving some to their own perverse and wicked choice, to
be forever living examples of what all sinners must have been, had not
divine grace plucked them as brands from the burning.
Thus it is evident that the glory of God may require that the extent
of his justice, and the riches of his grace, be forever manifested, by leav
ing some sinners to their own chosen way, in perpetual unbelief; that
he may, as saith the apostle, " show his wrath and make his power known
on vessels of wrath fitted to destruction." Nor is it difiicult to see how
the universe of holy beings may be constantly benefited by such a dis
play. Certainly, all holy beings must always be interested in every dis
play of the justice and grace of God. Even when the smoke of the
torment of the damned ascendeth up forever and ever, inspiration assures
us that they cry " Alleluia." Especially will redeemed sinners feel a
deep interest in these displays. Our Saviour has plainly taught us, that
he to whom much is forgiven, will love much.
If, then, the happiness of saints in heaven will principally consist in
loving God, for his rich grace in their salvation, thev will certainly be
much interested in every display which is made of the depth of wick
edness from which they have been delivered, and the awful but just
punishment from which they have been saved. But this is what they
never could have clearly seen, if divine grace had brought every sinner
to embrace the Saviour by faith, as soon as his atonement had been an
nounced. We have no reason to doubt, therefore, that divine justice,
notwithstanding full atonement, does actually require that unbelieving
sinners should be finally punished, according to the full demerit of their
6ins. By their unbelief, they not only make a much greater manifestation

CONCLUSION. 531
of the evil nature of sin, but they also become much more guilty.
Their sins are much more heinous. They really deserve a much greater
punishment for rejecting the blood of Christ, than they ever could
have deserved if atonement had not been made. If, then, the divine
law should take its course on them now, since they have so much en
hanced their guilt by neglecting a Saviour, surely its demands must be
much more awful than they ever could have been, if no Saviour had
bled. Had the original penalty been executed, and no salvation offered,
their sin, and consequently their desert of punishment, would have been
nothing in comparison with what they now are.
What, then, if the sufferings of Christ do answer all the valuable pur
poses which the execution of the law would have answered, provided no
atonement had been made ? Does this prove that the execution of the law
can answer no valuable purpose now, when, in fact, the guilt of sinners
. is actually increased to an incomparable degree, by their sinning against
the atonement? If a delinquent debtor, at a time when his debt
amounted only to a hundred pence, was offered a free discharge of it,
provided he would perform a certain condition, would this entitle him to •
a discharge afterwards, when instead of performing the required condi
tion, he had increased his original debt to ten thousand talents ? Vain is
every hope of eternal life which is not founded in the blood of Christ,
and authorized by a living faith !
For, as has been abundantly shown, the same obstacles which stood in
the way of God's pardoning sinners without an atonement, stand equally
in the way of his pardoning those who do not receive Christ by faith, as
their Redeemer and Saviour. God cannot be just and the justifier of
any who do not believe in Jesus. If, then, the general good required
that none should be pardoned without an atonement, it must still require,
notwithstanding the atonement, that none be pardoned except they be
lieve. Withholding pardon from unbelievers, therefore, is so far from
being inconsistent with full atonement for all mankind, that it is required
by it. Both are on the same ground equally necessary.
Benevolus, in the atonement made for his wife, is supposed to have
been actuated by a regard for the public good ; a desire to support the
authority of the law, and the interest of the community. If, having suf
fered, he had communicated a knowledge of the fact to her, and she had
wholly disapproved of the substitution, and clearly manifested her deter
mination to continue in the practice of the same wickedness for which
she had been condemned, could he consistently with his regard to the
good of the community, the very motive from which he consented to
suffer, even desire her pardon ? If he should in this case insist on her
beino1 pardoned, would he not contradict all the evidence which be had

532 SCRIPTURE DOCTRINE OP ATONEMENT.
before given of being actuated by a regard to the laws and interests of
the community ?
If the son of Zaleucus had disapproved of his father's expiation, caUed
it folly, and openly avowed his determination of persisting in his crime,
it is evident the good king could not have pardoned him. The atone
ment he had made was indeed ample, but his son's wicked opposition and
contempt presented a new obstacle in the way of his being pardoned.
The father had made an exhibition of high respect for his law. If, there
fore, the son had remained in open and manifest opposition to this law, the
father could not have justified him, without justifying opposition to the
very law which himseff had suffered to support. If he should now jus
tify his son in this opposition, he would completely counteract aU the
effect of the atonement which he had made. He would appear very in
consistent destroying, at one time, what he had done, at great expense at
another. His subjects would have no evidence that he was determined
to support the authority of his law. The immorabty which it prohibited
would not be prevented. Tbe laws and authority of his government
would fall into contempt, and his kingdom would be ruined.
Delusive, indeed, are all the expectations and hopes of the wicked,
which are built merely on the universality of the atonement ; or, on the
ground that Christ has tasted death for every man ; while the very na
ture of the atonement is such, that God cannot be just, and the justifier
of any who do not bebeve in Jesus ; while the very blood which was
shed " for every man," reiterates the awful declaration of Christ, " He
that believeth not shall be damned."

APPENDIX,

CONTAINING

REMARKS ON THE DOCTRINE OF UNIVERSAL SALVATION.

Having exhibited in the foregoing work a view of atonement which, if
correct, sets aside one of the principal arguments on which reliance has been had
for the vindication of the doctrine of universal salvation, I propose to add here
a few observations on what I apprehend must be the- principal remaining
arguments in favor of that system.
I certainly shall not err by assuming that the above-mentioned sentiment
ought never to be embraced without the most conclusive evidence of its truth.
For, certainly, nothing short of the most enbghtened assurance that the scheme
cannot possibly prove false, can justify any one in risking the salvation of
his immortal soul upon its correctness.
But where shall we find this clear evidence, this infallible proof on which a
man may safely venture his eternal all ?
I know of but two sources from which evidence can be derived, namely : —
The analogy of nature, and the doctrines of revelation. If the sentiment
cannot be proved from one or the other of these, it may safely be affirmed that
it is without support.
By the analogy of nature, I mean the correspondence of one thing with
another in the natural world. The laws of nature are supposed to be steady
and uniform in their operation. Events, which have uniformly occurred in
time past, we believe will continue to occur uniformly in time to come. Our
evidence in favor of the continued occurrence of these events, is from the
analogy of nature. And this is the only principle (except immediate revela
tion from God), upon which we can ever calculate any future event with any
degree of certainty or even probabihty. We believe that day and night, seed
time and harvest, summer and winter, will continue to succeed each other.
These events have succeeded each other so long and so unifonnly, as to prove
that they occur according to the uniform laws of nature. So long, therefore,
as the laws of nature remain what they now are, these events will regularly
45 * (533)

534 APPENDIX.
occur. Our belief in their future occurrence, therefore, is reasonable, because
it is according to the analogy of nature.
Since the earth always has yielded productions necessary to supply the
wants of man and beast, it is reasonable to bebeve it always will until it is
destroyed. But the evidence on which this belief is founded, and which, indeed,
renders it reasonable, is the analogy of nature.
But is there any thing in the analogy of nature which affords evidence that
mankind will all be happy in the world to come ? What are the facts in
nature from which their future salvation can be certainly inferred ? Are they
all happy now ? Have they always been perfectly happy ? If so, the analogy
of nature certainly does afford an argument in favor of their future happiness.
But if not, if pain and misery always have prevailed among them, why is it
unreasonable to conclude (judging from the analogy of nature merely), that
pain and misery probably always will prevail among them ? The fact that
pain and misery prevail among God's creatures now, proves irresistibly that
they are not incompatible with his government. Why, then, is it unreasonable
to conclude that they always will prevail, at least in as great a degree, as they
always have done ?
Will you tell me, that although mankind suffer pain and misery in then-
present existence, yet there are certain principles of improvement in their
eondition which constantly tend to a better state ; that tbe longer they five,
the more knowledge they acquire and the more happy they become ; and that
in this way the operation of these principles will prepare them for complete
and perfect happiness in the next period of their existence V
I answer : If this were a fact, and the evidence of it clear, if the supposed
principles of improvement in the present condition of human existence have a
manifest and constant operation as has been supposed ; if the longer men live
the happier they become, and this were the case with them universally ; it
certainly would be reasonable to conclude that they will probably be happier
in the next period of their existence. From the analogy of nature, we should
conclude that their miseries probably will come to an end. The same mode of
reasoning from the past to future, which would lead to the conclusion that they
will suffer pain and misery in the world to come, would also, from this supposed
fact, justify the belief that probably this pain and misery .will eventually
become extinct. We should expect they would suffer pain and misery in the
future world, because they always had, in a greater or less degree, suffered them
in this world. But according to the supposed fact, their pain and misery in this
world had constantly diminished ; so that if they could have stayed long enough
here, their suffering continuing to diminish in its accustomed ratio, would
eventually have become extinct. I see not but this would be a fair argument
But the argument fails, becauso the supposed fact, on which it is founded,
does not exist. It is not true that mankind do grow happier, the longer they
live. It is not true that their sufferings do universally and constantly di
minish with tho multiplication of their years. It is not true that extreme old
a"e is the period of human life which approximates nearest to a state of per
fection in happiness. No, this is not the period of earthly existence univer-

APPENDIX. 535
sally desired on account of its perfection of health, its freedom from perplexing
care, and its exquisite relish for tbe pleasures of life. In these respects, the
period of youth is evidently far preferable. The supposed fact, therefore,
instead of being true, is actually the reverse of truth. The conclusion must
therefore be reversed.
How often do we hear persons say, that their childhood and youth have been
far the most happy periods of their life ! But, if there is a just foundation in
human experience for tho remark, it certainly furnishes an argument from the
analogy of nature, very unfavorable to future happiness. If mankind are
afflicted with pain and misery during all that part of their existence with which
we are acquainted ; and not only so, but this infebcity actually increases, and
their situation in relation to happiness becomes more and more unfavorable
the longer they live ; if their capacity for happiness actually decreases, as they
approach a future state, until their present life is terminated in the, agonies of
death ; certainly, no argument from analogy can be hence drawn in favor of
their future happiness.
Moreover, in the present state of existence, it is an_ obvious fact that the
happiness and misery of mankind very much result from their own character
and conduct This is strikingly the case with the miseries of poverty, disease,
and disgrace, which so uniformly overtake, the idle, the intemperate, and the
dissipated. And, indeed, almost every case of human misery on earth may be
traced to some impropriety of conduct in the sufferer. But if improper con
duct subjects to suffering in this life, it is certainly reasonable to suppose it
will subject to the same calamity in tbe life to come. If a man who possesses
an unholy, revengeful, and malicious disposition cannot be happy in this life,
what reason have we to suppose that he can be happy in the life to come ?
Since mankind manifest very different dispositions and characters, and are
evidently happy or miserable, very much according to this difference in the
present world, we have reason to expect that this will continue to be the case
in the world to come.
But perhaps you will say, as many indeed have said, that all men become
perfectly holy at the moment of death, and that this change prepares them for
immediate and everlasting happiness. In answer, I would inquire what evi
dence you have for this opinion. Are you acquainted with any events in na
ture which are analogous to it ? According to this opinion, thousands and mill
ions who have lived all their days in sin, and actually become more and more
hardened in iniquity, and perhaps closed their probationary life in some very
daring act of wickedness, have been suddenly changed and prepared for heaven.
This must have been the case with the inhabitants of the old world, who were
destroyed by the deluge ; with the inhabitants of Sodom and Gomorrah, and the
cities of the plain ; with Pharaoh and his hosts ; and even with the traitor Judas,
the son of perdition. But have you ever known any events in nature which
bear any analogy to this? With what sudden changes of this very favorable
kind are you acquainted ? *
* Multitudes of the wicked have been suddenly destroyed by the awful judgments of
God in the midst of their wickedness. But if all men become perfectly holy, and go im-

536 APPENDIX.
But perhaps you believe that the unrighteous will suffer a temporary punish
ment in the world to come, and that this will be the means of their conversion,
and will prepare them for everlasting happiness. But, I ask again, where is the
proof of your opinion ? With what events are you acquainted which furnish
evidence that such salutary effects will result from punishment in the world to
come ? Do such effects result from it in the present world ? Is it a fact, that
such is the constitution of nature, that punishment uniformly tends to make the
wicked better ? Is it a fact, that the more a criminal is punished, the more ef
fectually he is reformed ? Is this the case generally with Sabbath breakers,
who have been prosecuted and fined for violating the sanctity of the Lord's day ?
Is this the case, too, with thieves, who have been publicly scourged for their
larcenies ? And do counterfeiters, swindlers, and perjurers descend from the
ignominious pillory and come forth from the gloomy dungeon, evidently purified
by the fire of their chastisement? This evidently is not the case. But if pun
ishments do not convert the wicked in the present world, what evidence have
we that they will do it in the world to come ? We certainly have none from
the analogy of nature.
But if the case were otherwise, and it could be proved that future punishment
will inevitably produce repentance, it would by no means follow that the damned
will certainly be saved. If their punishment should humble and reform them,
it would still be uncertain whether God would pardon and release them from
suffering. In the present world we know he does not do it. Repentance and
reformation do not prevent the evil consequences of past transgression. Health
mediately to heaven at the moment of their death, it must be a great mercy to be thus
destroyed. For certainly it must be a much greater privilege to dwell in heaven, than
to dwell in this world of sorrow. The wicked, then, who do not " live out half their
days," are great gamers by their wickedness. Multitudes of them have been thus de
stroyed; and, according to this doctrine, sent directly to heaven. On this scheme, how
highly favored were the inhabitants of the old world, who had corrupted their way to
such a degree that divine vengeance would not suffer them to live? Every imagination
of the thought of their heart was evil, only evil, and that continually. And it repented
God that he had made man upon the earth; and he determined not to bear with them
any longer. So he opened the windows of heaven and poured out upon the earth a flood
of vengeance, and, in the most awful manner, destroyed all the inhabitants of the earth
(except Noah and his family), and in his hot displeasure against them, took them all im
mediately into heaven. But Noah, because he was righteous and God loved him, was
continued yet a long time in this world of sorrow, to encounter trials and dangers, and
to suffer hardships and privations for some hundreds of years, before he could be admit
ted to that blissful world.
So, also, the inhabitants of Sodom and Gomorrah were the blessed of the Lord. For
they became so wicked that the Lord, in vengeance, consumed them with brimstone and
fire, and in his hot displeasure took them all in a moment into his own bosom ; while
Lot, as a reward of righteousness and a token of divine approbation, must live and suffer
yet a long time in this vale of affliction, before he could bo allowed tho privilege of join
ing his former neighbors and acquaintance, in singing the song of redeeming love!
And Judas the traitor, the son of perdition, had the happiness to arrive in that world,
for which Paul ardently desired to depart this life, that he might go long before any of
his fellow disciples.
I only ask, whether a scheme involving consequences like theso can bo considered
reasonable ?

APPENDIX. 537
ruined, reputation blasted, and interest squandered, by intemperance and volup
tuousness, we certainly know cannot be restored by mere repentance and refor
mation. But if God's treatment of us in tbe future state will be of the same nature
which we find it to be in this, what evidence can we have that repentance will
procure a release from punishment then, which it does not procure now ? Since
we know that repentance does not stop the evil consequences of sin in this
world, how can we know that it will stay tbe arm of avenging justice in the
world to come ? Since there are evidently cases in which crime, and misery are
so connected that repentance ever so sincere and reformation ever so complete
cannot separate them in this world, how do we know that this will not be the
case with sinners in the world to come ? Most certainly the analogy of nature
affords no such assurance.
On the one hand, it affords no assurance that punishment will certainly lead
to repentance ; nor, on tbe other, that, if it did, repentance would certainly lead
to salvation.
But you say you rely with confidence on the goodness of God. You cannot
believe that the unbounded goodness of the Creator is consistent with the final
misery of any of his creatures.
I answer ; if the unbounded goodness of God is inconsistent with the final
misery of any of his creatures, why is it not inconsistent also with their present
misery ?
It is a fact, too obvious to be denied, that the goodness of God is not such as
excludes evil from existence. If it were true that the goodness of God possesses
this quality, there would be nothing felt among all his creatures, except unin
terrupted and perfect happiness. Now, if this were the case ; if no evil did ex
ist in the world ; if all rational beings were virtuous and happy ; evidence of
the continuance of such a state of things would be highly probable. If we ob
served and experienced nothing but virtue and happiness in the world, we
should naturally conclude that evil probably never would be felt upon the
earth. I say probably, because even in this case we should not have ppsitive
proof. We should have no positive proof that evil did not exist somewhere ;
nor that it certainly would not be introduced among us. Merely not having
evidence that evil would come, could not afford proof that it certainly would
not come. It is possible that there may be some worlds in the universe where
evil never has been known. Now the inhabitants of such worlds would have
much better ground to infer from the goodness of God the universal happiness
of rational beings, than we have. Yet such an inference would be infinitely
erroneous. This our miseries loudly teach.
The fact is, the moment we allow the principle that a Being of perfect
goodness cannot suffer the existence of evil among his creatures, the inference
becomes irresistible that the great Deity, the Creator of the world, is not a
Bein<r of perfect goodness. Or, if we adopt the principle that evil is not incon
sistent with the perfect goodness of God, then wo cannot, infer, from the mere
goodness of God, that evil will ever cease to exist. If infinite wisdom and
goodness chose that a system of finite beings, embracing both good and evil,

538 APPENDIX.
should exist, then we do not know that this kind of system will not continue to
exist time without end. There is no principle of reason which evinces the
contrary. For it is obvious that the continuance of evil cannot be any more
contrary to tbe divine goodness than the present existence of it The same
argument, then, from the goodness of God to prove universal future happiness,
will equally prove universal present happiness. The argument, therefore, is
false because it contradicts fact. In reasoning from the goodness of God
merely, we have as much evidence that all mankind are now, and always have
been, perfectly happy, as we have that they ever will be. But we certainly
know that God has not that kind of goodness which prompts him to make all
mankind happy in this world ; how then can we know that he has that kind of
goodness which will prompt him to make them all happy in the world to come ?
Our divine Creator has so constituted things that some men are virtuous and
others wicked in this world ; how then do we know that this will not be the
case in a future world ? He has constituted things so that some are happy and
some are miserable in the present world ; how then do we know that this will
not be tbe case in the world to come ?
The existence of evil in this world certainly proves one of two things ; —
either the divine Creator is not perfectly good, or the existence of evil is con
sistent with perfect goodness. If we allow the former inference to be correct,
and suppose that the Deity possesses only a partial measure of goodness, we
surely cannot know that he will make all men bappy hereafter. For certainly
the idea that God is only so far good as to make men partially happy in the
present state is not enough to prove that he will make them all perfectly
happy in a future state. But if we adopt the other inference, and allow that
the existence of evil is compatible with perfect goodness in the Creator, we are
then left without the least shadow of an argument that the goodness of God
will ever exterminate sin and suffering. What is now consistent with the
goodness of God, may be consistent with it millions of years hence, and even for
ever. The mere perfect goodness of God, therefore, affords no evidence that
evil will ever come to an end. It affords no proof that all men will be made
permanently happy.
It is a fact, that such is the present constitution of things that some objects
are pleasing to some men and displeasing to others ; the same things which give
happiness to some men, give disgust and misery to others. The plain and
humbhng doctrines of tbe gospel ; the pure and spiritual worship of God ;
lively, ardent, and animated zeal in religion ; these things give high joy and
satisfaction to some, and occasion deep disgust to others. Now we have no
evidence that this state of things will not continue for ever. The joys of
heaven being purely religious joys, there is nothing unnatural or irrational in
the idea that these things should give high joy and satisfaction to all those whose
taste is prepared to relish them; and intolerable disgust and anguish to all
those whose taste is opposed. So long as this is the present state of things, we
have no evidence from reason that any essential alteration will take place in a
future state. It is clear, therefore, that the analogy of nature or the light of
reason affords no evidence, that all mankind will be happy in the world to
come.

APPENDIX. 539
If, then, the light of reason affords no proof that all men will be happy in a
future state, where shall we go for the requisite evidence ? Shall we go to the
Bible ? Is it there to be found ? Does the sacred volume clearly and decidedly
teach that there is no such thing as evil in the world to come ? That there is
no danger of being hurt of the second death ? Does it inform us so plainly that
there is no danger of our being mistaken and deceived, that all sin and suffer
ing will be hereafter completely destroyed and for ever unknown ? Do tbe
oracles of the living God explicitly inform us that mankind, whether they re
pent or not, whether they believe or not, whether they are holy or not, will all
assuredly attain to perfect happiness, when death has transmitted them from
time to eternity ? If the inspired writers believed while they wrote, that man
kind will all become finally happy, we should suppose they would have plainly
expressed the sentiment We should suppose they would have expressed
themselves so plainly, that no persons would ever be in any doubt concerning
their meaning. If all mankind will be finally made happy, then it is just as
certain that the wicked will be happy in the world to come, as it is that the
righteous will. And, if the inspired writers believed this, we should suppose
they would have expressed their belief. And if they have expressed their be-
bef that the wicked are as certain of final happiness as the righteous are, we
should suppose they would have done it plainly. We should suppose they
would have done it so plainly that no one would be in any danger of misunder
standing their meaning. We should suppose they would have been as plain
and explicit, when they expressed their belief that the wicked will be finally
saved, as they were when they expressed their belief that the righteous will be
saved. Now it is a fact, that whenever the inspired writers speak of the future
state of the righteous, they speak in a language which is so plain that no one
can misunderstand their meaning. Indeed, the instance was never known of
any person's entertaining any doubts whether the righteous in the world to
come will be happy. Now, if the inspired writers believed that there is the
same certainty that the wicked will be finally saved, why have they not ex
pressed this belief in the same open, frank, and unequivocal manner ? If they
believed this doctrine and were honest, it is not seen why they have not done
it If they believed that the wicked will be finally happy, why should they
be any more liable to speak of their future state, in a way calculated to lead
people to believe that they never shall be happy, than thcy-wcro to speak of
the righteous in that way ? It is a palpable fact, that the Scriptures never, in
a single instance, speak of the righteous in a way which can lead any one to
suppose that they shall never be happy. It is also a notorious fact, that the
Scriptures do uniformly speak of the wicked in such a way as has generally
led people to believe that they never shall see life. Indeed, it is uniformly the
case through the Bible, that the language which is used in describing the future
state of the wicked, is directly the reverse of that which is used in application
to the righteous. Now, how is this reconcilable with common honesty on the
part of the sacred writers, if they supposed that the wicked shall all be finally
saved ? On the ground that they believed such doctrine, there is a kind of
double dishonesty running through tbe whole course of their writings. For it

540 APPENDIX.
is a truth that they never have, in a single instance, plainly and explicitly ex
pressed this belief. They have never once said that a wicked man, dying in
impenitence and unbelief shall surely find mercy, or be eventually pardoned,
or be finally restored. And the reason of this neglect has not been because
they have never spoken of tbe death of the wicked, for they have often spoken
of it. Here, then, is one part of the dishonesty. The other is, whenever they
speak of the death of the wicked, and the future state of the impenitent and
unbelieving, they uniformly represent them as in a ruined and hopeless state.
They assure us that " the hope of the wicked is as a spider's web," and " like
the giving up of the ghost ; " that " the hope of unjust men perisheth ; " and
that " when a wicked man dieth, his expectation shall perish." Now how can
this language be reconciled with common honesty, if the writer of it at the time
he wrote really believed that all the wicked shall in some future time be re
stored ? One inspired writer assures us, that " He that being often reproved,
hardeneth his neck, shall suddenly be destroyed, and that without remedy."
But, how can this be reconciled with common honesty if the writer really be
lieved that when the wicked are destroyed there shall be a remedy ? The
prophet Ezekiel denounced a woe against those who " strengthened the hands
of the wicked, that he should not return from his wicked way by promising him
life." Now where was the honesty of the prophet when he denounced this woe,
if at the same time he believed that a promise of life might be truly made to the
wicked ? Indeed, if there was a just ground on which life might be promised
to the wicked, the woe would more justly apply to those who refuse or neglect
to make them this promise. If the prophet had believed that the wicked
should eventually see life, and had been honest, he would have said, Woe unto
them who refuse or neglect to promise life to the wicked. But where do we
find so much as a single passage in the whole Bible which is evidently of this
import ?
If the wicked shall in some future day be restored to the favor of God, Jesus
Christ undoubtedly knew it. He, too, is a teacher to whom no one would wish
to impute dishonesty. He was always frank, candid, and unequivocal in all
his declarations. He was always willing to disclose the whole truth. He gave
abundant testimony that the righteous shall be saved. He spake on this subject
so plainly that no one can misunderstand him. But lias he with equal plain
ness declared thaf. the wicked shall be saved ? or that they shab be finally re
stored ? The passages in which he has declared that the righteous shall be
saved are almost innumerable. Will any one pretend that he has made this
declaration as often concerning the final state of the wicked ? But why should
he not do it as often if the doctrine is true ? Surely we need as much evi
dence to convince us that the wicked shall be finally saved, as we do to prove
that the righteous shall be saved.
But why should I inquire for so many declarations of Christ concerning tbe
final salvation of the wicked, when it is a solemn fact that there is not one.
No, in all our Lord's discourses, in which he seemed to speak of every thing,
there is not a single declaration to be found which promises life to the wicked.
But, on the other hand, his discourses abound with contrary declarations ; " that

APPENDIX. 541
they shall be destroyed ; " and that " where he goes they shall never come."
And these awful denunciations are as numerous as his promises of life to the
righteous. When we look for Christ's promises of life to the righteous, we find
they are numerous. If we look to find, in his discourses, promises of bfe to the
wicked equally numerous, we look in vain. If we look to find, in all his dis
courses, so much as a single promise of life to the wicked, we again look in vain.*
* It is said, if Christ did not teach the doctrine that all men will be saved, other in
spired writers have plainly taught it. I answer, if they have, they have plainly contra
dicted themselves ; for they have plainly taught a contrary doctrine. But if they have
contradicted themselves, their testimony is good for nothing; and we are, after all, left
entirely to the light of nature, which, we have already seen, affords no evidence that all
will be saved.
But so far are the inspired writers from contradicting themselves on this subject, that
it may be safely affirmed that no passage from their writings can be produced which
may not be fairly explained, according to the analogy of sacred Scripture, without any
implication of the above-mentioned sentiment. For a fair and candid explanation of all
the passages on which Universalists have relied for support of their scheme, the reader
is referred to Edwards against Chauncy.
There are certain passages of inspired truth which have no reference to mankind uni
versally ; but only to that part of them who are in Scripture denominated the righteous,
believers, saints, the people of God, &c., which promise salvation to those to whom they
refer. The Universalist, however, understands them as referring to all mankind; and
infers from them that all will be saved. Matt. 1 : 20, 21, is one of these passages. The
angel of the Lord appeared to Joseph, saying — Mary thy wife — shall bear a son, and
thou shalt call his name Jesus, for he shall save his people from their sins. Now unless
all mankind are Christ's people, in the sense of this passage, it certainly affords no argu
ment in favor of the salvation of all. If mankind are divided into two classes, the right
eous and the wicked ; if the righteous, in distinction from the wicked, are denominated
the people of God; if Christ spake the truth, when he said, My sheep hear my voice; but
ye (addressing the unbelieving Jews) are not my sheep, then passages of this description
are not to the point.
There are certain other passages on which strong reliance has been had, on account of
the supposed universal import of the word all. As proof that this word is often used in
Scripture, with evidently a limited import, I adduce the following passages: Matt. 10:
22. And ye shall be hated of all men for my name's sake. Our Lord certainly could not
mean that mankind universally would hate his disciples. He evidently meant no more
than that those who were enemies of the gospel would hate them. In 2 Tim. 4 : 16, Paul
states that when he appeared before Coesar all men forsook him. But certainly he could
not mean to say that the whole human race forsook him. See, also, Mark 1: 20, 37. 11:
32. Acts 4: 21. 19: 19. Eom. 16: 19. 1 Cor. 9: 22. 10: 33. 2 Cor. 3: 2.
There is, also, a small class of texts which are merely expressive of the general benev
olence of God, which have been much used by Universalists in support of their scheme.
As a specimen of these I will mention two. 1 Tim. 2:4; " Who will have all men to be
saved, and come to the knowledge of the truth." Ezek. 18 : 32 ; "I have no pleasure in the
death of him that dieth, saith the Lord God."
As I have already referred the reader to Edwards against Chauncy for a fair and candid
explanation of all those sacred passages which Universalists have considered favorable to
their sentiments, I will conclude this note with a quotation from that work, which will
serve as an explanation of" the two last-quoted passages, and also as a specimen of the
clear and conclusive manner in which that author answers Universalian arguments. In
reply to Dr. Chauncy's arguments from 1 Tim. 2: 4, he says: " It appears from various
passages of Scripture that God is frequently said to will things which do not in fact come
46

542 APPENDIX.
But if we look for his denunciations of wrath against the wicked, and his une
quivocal threatenings that they shall not see life, we find them in abundance.
These we find quite as often, and quite as plain, as we do his promises of life to
the righteous. Now, what is the evident and inevitable eocclusion to be drawn
from this fact ? Supposing Christ to be an honest, candid, and faithful teacher
of truth, what shall we conclude ?
Let us look at a few of Christ's plain and candid representations of truth in
relation to this subject, and see how they would be likely to appear to a candid
and impartial hearer. Wc will begin with the parable of Lazarus the rich man.
" There was a certain rich man, which was clothed in purple and fine linen,
into existence, or with respect to which his will is not efficacious ; as in the following
passages: Matt. 23: 37; "0 Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets" and
stonest them which are sent unto thee ; how often -would I have gathered thy children
together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not ! "
Hos. 11:8; " How shall I give thee up, Ephraim ? How shall I deliver thee, Israel? How
shall I make thee as Admah? How shall I set tliee as ZeboimV mine heart is turned
"within mc, my repentings are kindled together." Deut. 5 : 28, 29 ; " They have well said
all that they have spoken. 0 that there were such an heart in them that they would
fear me, and keep my commandments always ! " Chap. 32 : 28, 29 ; " For they are a na
tion void of counsel, neither is there any understanding in them. 0 that they were wise,
that they understood this, that they would consider their latter end ! " Psal. 81 : 13 ; "0
that my people had hearkened unto me, and Israel had -walked in my ways ! " Isa. 48:
18 ; "0 that thou hadst hearkened to my commandments ! Then had thy peace been as
a river, and thy righteousness as the waves of the sea." Luke 12:47; "And that ser
vant which knew his Lord's will, and prepared not himself, neither did according to his
will," &c. Matt. 21: 31; " Whether of them twain did the will of his Father? They
say to him, the first."
Now, what right had Dr. C. to suppose that the will of God, in 1 Tim. 2 : 4, is not used
in the same sense as in the passage just quoted? And if it be used in the same sense,
there is no more absurdity in supposing that the will of God should be resisted in the oue
case, than in the other ; no more absurdity in the supposition that God should will the
salvation of all men, and yet all should not be saved; than that he should will to gather
together the inhabitants of Jerusalem, as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings ;
and yet that they should not be thus gathered.
Beside the text quoted above, I may further refer to Ezek. 18 : 32 ; "I have no pleasure
in the death of him that dieth, saith the Lord God." Yet his death did, by the words of
this text, take place in fact. So that here is a most plain instance of an event which
takes place contrary, in some sense, to tho pleasure or will of God. — Dr. C.'s reasoning
is this: Whatever God wills, will come to pass. To apply this reasoning to the texts
la='c quoted, it will stand thus: Whatever God wills, will come to pass. But God wills
the continued life of him that dieth; therefore it comes to pass, that he who dieth does
not die.
The truth is, God wills the salvation of all men, in the same sense that he wills the
immedintc repentance and sanctification of all men, or as he wills them to be as perfect
in this life as their heavenly Father is perfect. He now commands all men everywhere
to repent, to believe the gospel, and to comply with the necessary conditions of salvation;
and complying with these conditions, they shall be saved immediately after the present
state. So that God's willing that men should be saved, no more proves that all men will
be saved, than his willing that all men should immediately repent; or than his willing
that all men should be perfect in this world, and comply with his law as perfectly as the
angels do in heaven, proves that those things will actually take place in this world."
— Edwards against Chauncy, p. 211, 212.

APPENDIX. 543
and fared sumptuously every day. And there was a certain beggar named
Lazarus, which was laid at his gate, full of sores. And it came to pass that the
beggar died, and was carried by the angels into Abraham's bosom. The rich
man also died, and was buried : And in hell he lifted up his eyes, being in tor
ments, and seeth Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom. And be cried,
and said, Father Abraham, have mercy on me ; and send Lazarus, that he may
dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue ; for I am tormented in
this flame. But Abraham said, son, remember that thou in thy lifetime re-
ceivedst thy good things, and likewise Lazarus evil things ; but now he is com
forted, and thou art tormented. And besides all this, between us and you there
is a great gulf fixed ; so that they which would pass from hence to you cannot ;
neither can they pass to us, that would come from thence.'' Now if Christ may
be considered a plain, honest, and candid teacher of truth, what must we under
stand from this representation ? Would a candid and impartial hearer obtain
an idea from it that there is any ground of hope for the wicked in a future
world ? Would he not rather obtain the idea that when the wicked die they
have then received all their good things, even to a drop of water, which they
ever can receive ? Would not an impartial hearer understand the language of
Abraham to the rich man as fairly implying all this ! The rich man petitioned
for a single drop of water. Abraham told him he could not have it. And then
assigned two reasons why he could not. One was, because in his lifetime he
had received his good things. What an awful thought ! that because he had
received his good things he now could not any more receive any favor, no, not
so much as a drop of water. And the other reason is equally awful and deci
sive. A great gulf was fixed between them, so that it was impossible for any
one to pass. Now if we may suppose that Christ was honest and candid, and
did not wish to make any wrong impressions on the minds of his hearers ; nor
to state things in a manner which would be liable to lead them into a belief of
erroneous sentiments ; what must we think of the representation in this para
ble ? If our Lord had designed the parable for no other purpose than to give
assurance that those who die in wickedness shall never be saved, or obtain any
future favor, however small, I ask, how could he have represented this truth in
a more forcible and plain and unequivocal manner ?
The parable of the tares of the field is also equally explicit. " Another para
ble put he forth unto them, saying, The kingdom of heaven is likened unto a
man, which sowed good seed in his field. But while men slept, his enemy
came and sowed tares among the wheat, and went his way. But when the
blade was sprung up, and brought forth fruit, then appeared the tares also. So
the servants of the householder came and said unto him, Sir, didst thou not sow
good seed in thy field ? From whence then hath it tares ? He said unto them,
An enemy hath done this. The servants said unto him, Wilt thou then that we
go and gather them up ? But he said, nay ; lest while ye gather up the tares,
ye root up also the wheat with them. Let both grow together until the harvest,
and in the time of harvest I will say to the reapers, Gather ye together first the
tares, and bind them in bundles to burn them ; but gather the wheat into my
barn." That this important parable might be correctly understood, our Lord

544 APPENDIX.
has himself, in his usually plain and honest manner, explained it His expla
nation is this : " He that soweth the good seed is the Son of Man ; the field is
the world ; the good seed are the children of the kingdom ; but the tares are
the children of the wicked one ; the enemy that sowed them is the devil ; the
harvest is the end of the world ; and the reapers are the angels. As therefore
the tares are gathered and burned in the fire ; so shall it be in the end of the
world. The Son of Man shall send forth his angels, and they shall gather out
of his kingdom all things that offend, and them that do iniquity, and shall cast
them into a furnace of fire ; there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth." This
explanation is so remarkably plain that all comment upon it is utterly needless.
In the parable of the supper also, Christ teaches in language most explicit,
that all who slight the invitation, shall be for ever excluded. " Verily I say
unto you, that none of those men which were bidden, shall taste of my supper."
In Christ's description of the day of judgment, he explicitly teaches the same
truth. When the Son of Man shall come in his glory and all the holy angels
with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of bis glory ; and before him shall
be gathered all nations ; and he shall separate them one from another, as a
shepnerd divideth his sheep from the goats, and he shall set the sheep on his
right hand, but the goats on the left. Then shall the king say unto tbem on
his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared
for you, from the foundation of the world. — Then shall he say also unto them
on the left hand, Depart from me ye cursed, into everlasting fire prepared for
tbe devil and his angels. — And these shall go away into everlasting punish
ment; but the righteous into life eternal." Now who can suppose, if Christ
was honest and unwilling to mislead the people, that he would make such plain
and pointed declarations concerning the future state of the wicked ; and make
them too so often, and in fact make no other representation concerning their
future condition ; if at the same time, he believed that they all will be finally
happy ! The supposition is too absurd to be believed. Either Christ did not
believe that the wicked who die in their sins will finaUy be saved ; or, he did
not honestly declare his sentiments. Indeed, tho common manner of his preach
ing was such as actually made the impression on the minds of his hearers that
the wicked will be finally destroyed, " and that without remedy." They who
heard him, received the impression also that the number of those who will
finally perish in their sins will be much greater than the number of the saved.
His preaching, instead of leading them to think that he supposed all would be
saved, was directly calculated to make them believe that he supposed but few
would be saved. He preached, " Strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which
leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it ; " but " Wide is the gate, and
broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in
thereat." Preaching in this manner, it is not strange that people should believe
he held that but few will be saved. Hence we read that one said unto him,
" Lord, are there few that be saved ? " Now, how unaccountable it must be
if Christ preached that all will be saved, that any of his hearers should ask
such a question ! Lord, are there few that be saved? Who ever yet heard of
any person's putting such a question to a Universal preacher ? It was, however,

APPENDIX. 545
a very natural question to ask Christ. It was a question which the general
tenor of his preaching was calculated to prompt. But let us see how he an
swered it. If he had preached in such a manner that his hearers had not
clearly understood his meaning, here was a most favorable opportunity to
make further explanation and correct their mistake. If be believed that all
will be finally saved, here was a most favorable opportunity to make it known.
It was, indeed, an opportunity which he as a teacher could not honestly avoid
improving for the purpose. For, if he had hitherto kept his sentiments on this
point concealed, he was here brought to a trial that must disclose them ; or,
he must absolutely refuse to answer an honest question ; or, he must declare an
untruth. For the very question is asked him, " Lord, are there few that be
saved ? " Does he say no ; the number saved cannot properly be called few :
They are many. Does he say, By far the greater part will be saved ? Does
he say, All will eventually be restored ? No, nothing like this. But his
answer is directly the reverse. His answer is, " Strive to enter in at the strait
gate ; " that gate which, in another place, be declared but few find. For, says
he, " many will seek to enter in and not be able.'' The many will not be able.
These are they that go in at the wide gate, leading to destruction. Now, who
that believes Christ was honest and acquainted with his subject can suppose
that he believed in finiversal salvation ; or, in final restoration ! Our Lord
continues his answer still further. " When once the master of the house is
risen up, and hath shut to the door, and ye begin to stand without and to knock
at the door, saying, Lord, Lord, open unto us ; and he shall answer and say
unto you, I know you not whence ye are. Then shall ye begin to say, we have
eaten and drunk in thy presence, and thou hast taught in our streets. But he
shall say, I tell you I know not whence ye are ; depart from me, all ye workers
of iniquity. There shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth when ye shall see
Abraham and Isaac and Jacob, and all the prophets in the kingdom of God,
and you yourselves thrust out."
But, perhaps you wish to know whether Christ is not the Saviour of the
whole world ?
I answer, yes ; and he knew perfectly well how many of the whole world
would embrace tbe salvation he offered, so as to be actually saved by him, arid-
has expressly assured us that the number of such is but few.
Do you ask, then, in what sense he can be called the Saviour of the whole
world ? I answer ; in the same sense that a physician may be said to be the
physician of a whole town when there is no other one, and this one is abun
dantly able to do all the business if tbe people would apply to him ; while at
the same time one half of the sick have no faith in him, and will not apply to
him, and actually die for want of his help.
And now, reader, let me tell you that Jesus Christ is your Saviour ; but, if
you do not believe in him and make application to him for pardon, you must
die in your sins, and perish for ever. On the authority of his own word I
assure you, " He that believeth not shall be damned."
46*

RECOMMENDATIONS.

From the Rev. Dr. Emmons. Franklin, August 27, 1817.
After hearing the Rev. Caleb Burge read his manuscript on the atonement of
Christ, I am ready to say that I think he has treated the doctrine with great inge
nuity and propriety ; and that his Essay is calculated to meet and refute the gross
and dangerous errors which have long and extensively prevailed upon this very
important subject. I hope his piece will be published and widely circulated.
NATHAJSTAEL EMMONS.

From the Rev. Dr. Worcester. Salem, August 29, 1817.
Having so far attended to the Eev. Caleb Burge's manuscript on the doctrine of
atonement as to get a view of his plan, his leading sentiments, arguments, and illus
trations, and his manner of discussion, I feel no common degree of freedom and
satisfaction in expressing an opinion in favor of its publication. The subject, at all
times of the highest importance, demands at the present day most particular attention.
Mr. Burge's discussion of it appears to be able, luminous, and interesting ; and I de
voutly hope that the publication will conduce extensively to the honor of God our
Saviour, and to the advancement of his gracious and holy cause.
S. "WORCESTER.

From the Rev. Dr. Spring. Newburyfort, August 30, 1817-.
Having attended to the Essay of Mr. Burge on the atonement, I readily remark
that I am peculiarly pleased with his luminous manner of treating the subject. As
the salvation of man is the glorious expression of the divine perfections, the writer
has permitted the inspired writers to explain themselves and each other upon the
cardinal point. The atonement, therefore, as he presents it, is tbe harmony of the
sacred writings; and is calculated to comfort Zion, and administer instruction to
sinners. SAMUEL SPRING.

From the Rev. Dr. Burton. Thetford, Sept. 12, 1820.
Having heard the Rev. Caleb Burge read the substance of what he has written on
the atonement, I am ready to say that in showing why an atonement for sin was
necessary, and in what it consists, he has elucidated the subject more fully and
clearly than any author whom I have read ; and in every part of it he has reflected to
view much light ; and I can cheerfully recommend it to the attention of the public,
and hope he will consent to publish it for the benefit of the churches. ASA BURTON.
(546)

DIALOGUE

ON

THE ATONEMENT.

WILLIAM R. WEEKS, D.D.
(647)

DIALOGUE ON THE ATONEMENT.*

Paulinus. 1 understand that you think it improper to say that Christ
died for all men ; is it so ?
Aspasio. I do think it improper. I think he died for the elect only.
P. Will you be so kind as to state the arguments on which you rely
to prove that Christ died for the elect only ?
A. I will. My first argument is this : " The motive which induced
the Father to send the Son, and which induced the Son to undertake to die,
was special love to the elect. Those, therefore, who were not elected,
were not properly the objects of the death of Christ." How can you
elude the force of this argument ?
P. I shall say, it takes for granted that which ought to be proved,
namely, that it was special love to the elect which induced Christ to lay
down his life. I avoid your conclusion by denying your premises.
A. If you say it was not special love to the elect which induced
Christ to lay down his life, " you will contradict the whole word of God,
which represents the death of Christ as the effect of the greatest love
ever exhibited."
P. I grant that the Scriptures represent the death of Christ as an ex-
* The following dialogue was published in the Utica Christian Repository, in the
year 1823, with a preface as follows : —
Mr. Editor, — It is known perhaps to many of your readers, that a manuscript
lecture is in circulation, written by a Professor of Divinity at ono of our Theological
Seminaries, to prove that Christ died for the elect only. With a view to discuss the
arguments contained in that lecture, I have thrown together some thoughts in the
form of dialogue. Of the speakers, Aspasio represents the author of that lecture, and
Paulinus, an advocate for a general atonement. Of the language put into the mouth
of Aspasio, that which is taken from the lecture is marked with inverted commas ; of
course the author of that lecture is not responsible for any thing that Aspasio says,
which is not so marked. Y.
[549]

550 DIALOGUE ON THE ATONEMENT.
pression of tbe greatest love ever exhibited. But what then ? Love for
whom ? That is the question.
A. Love for the elect undoubtedly.
P. Love for the elect, you say; but what saith the Scripture? " God
so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever
bebeveth in him should not perish, but have everlasting bfe." John 3:16.
I know that some who advocate your opinion put in the word elect before
world in this text, and make it read " God so loved the elect world,"
&c, and then bring it forward to confirm your opinion ; but I think you
will not venture to make such an interpolation.
A. But what kind of love could God feel for the non-elect ?
P. What kind of love could God feel for the elect before then* regen
eration, while they were yet enemies ? I know of but two kinds of love
which God can feel towards his creatures. One is, a love of esteem or
complacency which he feels for those who are already holy, and cannot
feel for any others ; for he cannot look with complacency upon those
who are totally unlike himself; he cannot esteem those who are totally
destitute of any moral goodness ; he cannot debght in those who do
nothing but sin ; he hates all the workers of iniquity. Before regenera
tion the elect are the same in their moral character as the non-elect.
They are by nature children of wrath even as others.
A. I grant that God cannot feel this kind of love for the elect before
regeneration, any more than for the non-elect. But what is the other
kind of love of which you speak ?
P. It is the love of benevolence or good-will. This has for its object
all creatures capable of enjoyment or suffering, and regards the happiness
of each one according to its real worth. Now the happiness of an indi
vidual is not, in itself, any more valuable if he is elected than if he is not
' elected. But God regards things according to then- real worth. His
regard for the happiness of the non-elect, therefore, is the same as for
that of the elect. When this kind of love is exercised towards the
guilty, it is called compassion. It is this which is expressed in the invi
tations of mercy which are addressed to sinners, in the commands to
choose life, in the warnings, expostulations, and entreaties with which
God calls upon the wicked to forsake their wickedness and turn to him.
It is this compassion for sinners which is expressed in the oath of God.
" As I live, saith the Lord God, I have no pleasure in the death of the
wicked, but that the wicked turn from his way and live." It was this
compassion for sinners which led the Saviour to weep over Jerusalem,
and to say, " O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and
stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered
thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her

DIALOGUE ON THE ATONEMENT. 551
wings, and ye would not ! " Finally, it is this compassion for sinners,
which is expressed by the Father, in giving his Son to die, and by the
Son in laying down his life. And this is the plain import of the" text
before mentioned, " God so loved the world that he gave his only begot
ten Son.''
A. But why should the non-elect be considered as the objects of this
love ? Had they not " forfeited all regard from their Creator ? "
P. And had not the elect also forfeited all regard from their Creator ?
What was there in the elect before regeneration to entitle them to this
regard from him, any more than the non-elect ? I see no force in your
question unless the reason why some are elected rather than others is,
that they are not so guilty ; a notion very acceptable to the human heart
because well adapted to flatter its selfishness and pride.
A. But if God really felt such love for all men as to give bis Son to
die for them, why does he not save them all ?
P. Because they reject offered mercy, and refuse to accept the Saviour
that is provided ; our Lord says, " ye will not come to me that ye might
have life."
A. But if he loved them enough to give his Son to die for them, did
he not also love them enough to change their hearts, and make them
willing to accept the offered mercy ?
P. If their happiness were the only thing he regarded, he would
doubtless change their hearts, and make them all happy. Can you tell
me why God chooses to save a part rather than the whole of mankind ?
A. I suppose he loved a part more than he did the rest, and so gave
his Son to die for them and not for the rest.
P. But why should he love the elect before regeneration more than
the non-elect ? No reason appears. They are no better by nature, nor
is their happiness in itself any more valuable. That he does love them
any more is a mere assumption of your own, and has no countenance
from the word of God.
A. What reason, then, can you give, why he saves a part rather than
the whole of mankind ?
P. If their happiness was the only thing to be regarded, he would
save them all. Why does not the humane and compassionate judge ac
quit the murderer and set him at liberty, instead of pronouncing upon
him the sentence of the law ? Is it because he has no compassion for
him ?
A. No ; that cannot be the reason. He cannot be humane and com
passionate if he does not feel strongly for the miserable culprit. I have
never heard a good judge pronounce sentence of death upon a criminal
without seeing him, at the same time, deeply moved and affected even to

552 DIALOGUE ON THE ATONEMENT.
tears. But while he feels strongly for the culprit, and is moved with
the tenderest compassion for him, his regard for the public good predom
inates over his regard for the happiness of the criminal, and he gives
him up to suffer the punishment he deserves.
P. You have given the true reason why God saves a part rather than
the whole of mankind. He feels as strong and lively a compassion for
the non-elect as for the elect. But while he is moved with the tenderest
compassion for them, his regard for the public good predominates over
his regard for their happiness, and he gives them up to suffer the punish
ment they deserve.
It is evident, therefore, that God felt no special love for the elect, no
love of a different kind, or of a different degree, from that which he felt
for the non-elect. He loved one as much as he did the other ; and in
the exercise of that love for all, be gave his Son to die for all.
What is your second argument, to prove that Christ died for the
elect only ?
A. My second argument is this : Christ in undertaking the office of
mediator, had a certain number given to him of the Father, whose salva
tion he undertook to accomplish, by dying for them and preparing them
for heaven. Now, " if only a part of the human family were given to
Christ, in the eternal counsels of peace, how can it be supposed that he
should, for no important purpose, die for others ? "
P. If I rightly understand your argument, it is this : The great object
of Christ in laying down his bfe, was tbe salvation of those for whom he
died. But as he did not intend to save any but the elect, he could not
have died for any others. Do I understand you ?
A. You do. " Christ has died on the cross. The question is, for
whom did he die ? Certainly if we can ascertain his own design in this
awful transaction, we have an answer to the question. But tbe death of
Christ is a means of salvation. Properly, then, he may be said to have
died for all whom he designed to bring to salvation, and for none else.''
P. I grant freely that only a part of mankind were given to the Son
in the covenant of Redemption, and that the salvation of these was one
important object he had in view in laying down his life. But I see not
how it follows that this was his only object, or even his principal object.
A. But if you hold that " he died for those whom he had no intention
to save, it is incumbent on " you " to point out for what end. No wise
agent performs an important work without having an important end in
view." Tell me, then, if you can, " What was the end of Christ in dying
for those whom he had no intention of saving ? "
P. The great end of God in all that he has done is to promote his own
glory. For this he has created angels and men, and for this he has

DIALOGUE ON THE ATONEMENT. 553
formed, and will carry into effect,( the whole plan of his administration.
This is an end worthy of himself. To make any thing less than this his
ultimate end would be infinitely unworthy of him. Do you admit this ?
A. Certainly. I believe that " For his own glory he hath foreordained
whatsoever comes to pass."
P. The great end of God, then, being his own glory, whatever be has
done is to be considered as intended to promote this. Whatever comes
to pass was foreordained by infinite wisdom and goodness, in order to pro
mote this great end. Did God determine to create angels ? It was to
promote his own glory. Did he determine that some of them should per
severe in holiness, and be forever happy ? It was to promote his own
glory. Did he determine that some of them should fall into sin, and be
forever miserable ? It was to promote his own glory. Did he determine
to make man ? It was to promote his own glory. Did be determine
that man should fall into sin, and come under the condemnation of his
law- ? It was to promote his own glory. Did he determine to save a part
of mankind from sin and misery through a Redeemer ? It was to pro-
'mote his own glory. Did he determine that a part of mankind should be
left to perish in their sins ? It was to promote his own glory.
A. But because God makes his own glory his chief end, does it follow
that he has no regard to the good of creatures ?
P. By no means. He regards the happiness of every creature accord
ing to its real worth. But the happiness of all creatures taken together
is not worth so much as the glory of God. For what comparison can
there be between finite and infinite ? To represent God as disregarding
the happiness of any of his creatures, would be to represent him as a
cruel, unfeebng, and odious tyrant. But to represent him as regarding
the good of creatures more than his own glory, would be to represent him
as valuing a less good more than a greater good, which would be incon
sistent with infinite goodness. While, therefore, be makes his own. glory
his primary object, he makes the good of creatures a secondary ©bjiect..
If you ask, then, what was the motive which induced the Father to»gi*«e
his Son to die for the elect ? I answer, regard for his own glory was his-
chief inducement, and regard for their happiness was a secondary induce—
ment. Each of these had influence with him in proportion, to its intrinsic-
importance. A. Very well. But what was the motive which induced the Father
to give his Son to die for the non-elect ?
P. The same answer may be given. Regard for his own glory was
his chief inducement, and regard for their happiness, was a. secondary in
ducement. 47

554 DIALOGUE ON THE ATONEMENT.
A. How is the glory of God promoted by his giving his Son to die for
the non-elect?
P. His mercy is glorified in the offer of forgiveness, which is made to
them for Christ's sake ; his truth and sincerity are glorified in his inviting
them to turn and live ; his patience and long-suffering are glorified in his
bearing so long with all their ingratitude, and contempt of offered mercy ;
and finally, his justice is glorified *n their aggravated condemnation for
having rejected the Saviour that was provided for them.
A. But why could not his mercy be glorified in the offer of forgive
ness to them, if Christ had not died for them ?
P. Could mercy have been glorified in the pardon of sinners, if no
atonement had been made ?
A. By no means. " Without the shedding of blood is no remission."
If sinners had been forgiven without an atonement, it would not have
been a manifestation of the glorious attribute of mercy, but of a weak and
inglorious partiality for the wicked.
P. If, then, where no atonement is made, no forgiveness can be granted,
it follows that where no atonement is made, no forgiveness can be offered;
at least, there is no manifestation of mercy in such an offer. For if the
offer should be accepted, the forgiveness could not be granted. What
will the non-elect think in the great day, if they find that forgiveness was
offered them on the part of God, with the greatest appearance of compas
sion for them, and at the same time discover that if they had accepted
the offer forgiveness would have been refused ? Will their mouths be
stopped ? Will they not rather be opened wide ? Will they not consider
it, and justly too, as so far from being a manifestation of mercy, that it
was altogether insincere, and no better than mocking their misery ?
A. But you suppose a case that never can happen. " If you suppose
a non-elect man may believe, you should suppose, at the same time, that
both tbe decree of election and of redemption correspond with this event ;
and then all difficulty will be removed."
P. The non-elect are either able or unable to accept the offer. BT
they are able, then the case can happen ; and the appearance of mercy,
expressed in the offer, should be judged of accordingly. If they are un
able, then the difficulty is greatly increased ; for they are not only tanta
lized with the offer of forgiveness which cannot be granted, but they are
mocked with proposals which they cannot comply with. It is like calbng
upon a drowning man to take hold of a rope and save himself, when
there is not only no rope within his reach, but he has no hands to take
hold of one if there were.
But if Christ has died for all men, they can all be forgiven if they will

DIALOGUE ON THE ATONEMENT. 555
repent and believe. And so the offer of forgiveness can be consistently
made to them on the part of God, and be a real expression of his mercy.
And since they are all moral agents, and able to accept the offer, their
salvation is, by this means, put entirely at their own option. Should an
earthly government offer pardon to a criminal, upon the easy condition
of his own voluntary acceptance, and should it appear that every obstacle
was removed, so that he might be pardoned if he would, there would be
no doubt of the merciful disposition of that government. Even the crim
inal himself would say, with his dying breath, " The government was
merciful, but I would not receive pardon at their hands."
A. What have you to say respecting the truth and sincerity of God ?
P. If Christ has died for all, then the truth and sincerity of God are
glorified in his inviting aU to turn and live. If Christ has died for all,
then he has made ample provision for the salvation of all, provided they
will comply with the prescribed conditions. When a man makes a feast
and invites twenty persons to come and partake of it, what does the invi
tation say to all and each of them, come, for there is provision made to
entertain you ? or, come, for there is no provision made for you ? Cer
tainly, the invitation amounts to a declaration that there is provision
made for every one who is invited ; and it is so understood by those who
are invited. And if it were not so understood, it would not be consid
ered a sincere invitation, but a gross insult. If the master of the feast
should say, I invite twenty when there is only provision made for five ;
you are all invited to come, but if you come only five can be received,
and the rest must go empty away. What would be thought of such a
man ? But the invitations of the gospel are not attended with any such
declaration. They say, " Come, for all things are ready." No minister
of the gospel is sent to say to the non-elect, Come, for there is no provis
ion made for you ; come, for if you do you will be shut out.
A. But the ministers of the gospel do not know who the elect are, and
therefore they cannot do otherwise than invite all indiscriminately.
When they address a company of sinners, they do not know but that they
are all elected ; and therefore, they can sincerely invite them all.
P. But the ministers of the gospel are only servants, sent in their
master's name to proclaim his invitation. The invitation is his, not theirs.
And he knows for how many he has made provision. The question is,
how he can sincerely invite all to come. The invitation to any one cer
tainly holds' out the idea that there is provision made for him. He so
understands it ; and it is intended that he should so understand it. He
must so understand it not to feel himself insulted by the invitation. If
he understands that he is invited while at the same time there is no pro
vision made for him, he will feel it as a gross imposition. Or, if he

556 DIALOGUE ON THE ATONEMENT."
should not discover it till long afterwards ; if he should at the time sup
pose the invitation to be sincere, but should afterwards discover that no
provision was made for him, and that if he had come he would have been
excluded, be cannot look back upon the transaction and consider it in
any other light.
A. But the invitations of the gospel are not in fact made to all the hu
man race. A great part of the world have never heard the gospel.
P. The ministers of the gospel are commanded to preach it to every
creature. That they have not done so is a fault of theirs, for which they
will have to answer to their master in the. great day. The invitations of
the gospel are, therefore, in fact, directed to every creature. But, Aspa
sio, do you think that all are elected who hear the gospel preached ?
A. No. I have no reason to think that.
P. Then the fact that the gospel has not been actually preached to
every creature will avail you nothing. It looks like a mere subterfuge,
intending to evade coming to the point and meeting the difficulty fairly.
A. But I think the invitation may be given to all men as sincerely,
upon my plan, as upon yours.
P. How can that be ?
A. I will teb you. Suppose a thousand captives are confined in
prison — suppose a person wishes to redeem one hundred of them, and,
for that purpose, pays to the authority which holds them in prison a pearl
of great value, " sufficient to redeem all the captives in prison ; but the
person paying it has in view only to redeem his own friends ; this inten
tion in the redeemer, and the acceptance of the price by the authority
which holds them in bondage, constitutes the pearl a ransom, and con
fines it to the number for whom it was designed. But the pearl itself is
sufficient to ransom all the rest of the captives if it had been applied to
their advantage. To carry on the allusion, suppose that the person un
dertaking to redeem his friends should say, ' I will have prodamation
made in the prison that every one who will acknowledge me as his de
liverer, and will submit himself to my authority, may immediately come
forth on the footing of the ransom which I have paid ; for none but my
friends will accept these terms, the remainder will prefer their prison to
bberty, which can only be had by submission to me, whom they inveter-
ately hate.' Now the person commissioned to carry these tidings to the
prison would feel himself authorized to proclaim deliverance to every one
who was willing to accept the terms, and to use arguments and motives
to induce them to submit ; but the event would be, that none would ac
cept the offer but the real friends of the redeemer. This he knew from
the beginning, and therefore he paid the ransom for no others. Is there
any thing insincere in this whole transaction ? "

DIALOGUE ON THE ATONEMENT. 557
P. Was the pearl paid for the whole, or only for a part ?
A. It was paid only for the hundred who were intended to be re
deemed. There was nothing paid for the rest.
P. Then its value makes no difference. If the whole price was paid
for the hundred, there was nothing paid for the nine hundred. They
are in just the same situation as to the possibility of their debverance, as
if no ransom had been paid for any. The great value of the pearl seems
to me only a blind, to prevent the true state of the case from being* seen.
What if some of the nine hundred had accepted the offer, and attempted
to come out, would they not have been stopped at the door by the keep
ers of the prison ? Would they not have been told there is no ransom
paid for you ; you cannot be released ?
A. You ought not to ask such a question ; for it was foreseen that
none of them would accept the offer.
P. But there is a wide difference between their being hindered only
by their own voluntary refusal of the offer, and their being hindered also
by the want of a ransom being paid for them. In the one case they
could come out if they would ; in the other they could not come out if
they would. In the one case their liberation is possible, and depends on
their own voluntary choice'; in the other their liberation is impossible,
for if they should choose to come out, and make the attempt, they would
find the doors locked and barred against them. If the ransom had been
paid for the whole, and their liberation had been rendered possible, and
had been made to depend entirely upon their own voluntary choice, then
they could all be sincerely invited to come out ; but if the ransom was
paid only for the hundred and nothing was paid for the rest, their libera*
tion was impossible ; it did not depend upon their own voluntary choice ;
they could not come out if they would ; and therefore to make the offer
to them and call upon them to come out, is just as if one should go to
the doors of a prison, and looking through the grates should call upon
the prisoners to rise and come out, when they were fast bound in chains
and the doors are locked and barred against them, which would be but
mocking their misery.
A. I think the patience and forbearance of God towards the non-elect
appears as great upon my plan as upon yours.
P. How so ?
A. Because " those who are not elected are nevertheless under the
government of God, and bound by his laws ; if, therefore, they live where
the gospel is preached they cannot but be required to believe in Christ,
for it is a reasonable duty. It is required by the moral obligation which
they are under ; for the law of God certainly binds all men to the per
formance of every holy act." When, therefore, they refuse to obey his
47*

558 DIALOGUE ON THE ATONEMENT.
laws, and provoke him by then* transgressions, his patience and forbear
ance are manifested in not cutting them off at once, and sending them
to the regions of despair as they deserve.
P. I grant that the non-elect are under the government of God, and
bound by his laws ; and that they are required to love God with all their
hearts, and to express that love by all those holy acts which are suited
to their condition and circumstances. So are the devils. They are un
der the government of God too, and bound by his laws ; and they are
required to love God with all their hearts, and to express that love by
all those holy acts which are suited to their condition and circumstances.
But will you say that the devils are bound to receive Christ as their
Saviour ?
A. No. " Devils are confined in chains of darkness. They have no
offers of mercy. They receive no benefits, and then* salvation is, in the
nature of things, impossible ; for though Christ's merit is of infinite value
in relation to the object he had in view, yet we have no right to assert
that obedience to a human law, and suffering the penalty of that law,
would be a sufficient atonement for beings of an infinitely different spe
cies, of whose sin we have no particular information."
P. But the devils "are, nevertheless, under the government of God,
and bound by his laws ; " and " the law of God certainly binds all to the
performance of every holy act." Why should they not " be required to
believe in Christ, for it is a reasonable duty ? "
A. I have given the reason already. It is not a reasonable duty for
them, because their condition and circumstances are different.
P. Very well. And for the same reason, upon your plan, the non-
elect are not bound to believe in Christ. He did not die for them.
There is no atonement for them. " Their salvation is, in the nature of
things, impossible ; for though Christ's merit is of infinite value in rela
tion to the object he had in view," it was not his object to die for the non-
elect. His death is of no value in relation to them. If they appear to
have any offers of mercy, it is only in appearance, and not in reality. It
is only because the elect are so mingled with them that the ministers of
the gospel cannot distinguish, and so are compelled to make an indis
criminate offer ; it is not because there is any mercy for them which
they can have, for where no atonement is made, no mercy can be exer
cised. If they receive any benefit now, it is only for the elect's sake,
and because they are so mingled with them that they cannot but partake
of common favors, as the barren rock shares in the rain from heaven
which falls on the fruitful field. It is not because they enjoy any of those
privileges of a state of probation, which constitutes a fair opportunity for
securing their salvation. They have no such opportunity. There is no

DIALOGUE ON THE ATONEMENT. 559
atonement for them. It is a reasonable duty for all those for whom
Christ died to believe in him, to receive him as their Saviour ; but it is
not a reasonable duty for devils, because Christ did not die for them ;
and, for the same reason, it cannot be the duty of the non-elect upon
your plan. They cannot have Christ for their Saviour, for he did not
die for them.
A. How, then, do the patience and forbearance of God appear greater
upon your plan than upon mine ?
P. The patience and forbearance of God in sparing the guilty is great
in proportion to the number and magnitude of their offences. The non-
elect are guilty of all those offences against God, upon my plan, which
they are upon yours and others besides, great and numerous and aggra
vated. A. What are they ?
P. On my plan the non-elect are guilty of rejecting a Saviour that is
provided for them ; of hating and persecuting and crucifying the Son of
God who loved them, and wept over them, and poured out his life's blood
for their souls. They are guilty of despising the mercy of the Father,
who calls upon them in the most affecting terms and expostulates with
them, and warns them and intreats them to repent and be saved, declar
ing, with all the solemnity of an oath, " As I live, I have no pleasure in
the death of the wicked, but that the wicked turn from his way and live.''
They are guilty of resisting and grieving the Holy Spirit, who strives
with them and reproves them, and calls upon them to embrace the Sa
viour who died for them. They are guilty of wasting their period of
probation, and shining away their day of grace ; of refusing to secure the
salvation of their souls when it is put in their own power, and of wan
tonly and wickedly throwing themselves away when eternal life is brought
within their reach. With these sins they are not chargeable upon your
plan, for no salvation is provided, no Saviour has died for them, no mercy
can be had, no opportunity for securing eternal life is afforded. Since,
therefore, the non-elect on my plan are guilty of these great and aggra
vated sins, with which on your plan they cannot be chargeable, the pa
tience and forbearance of God in sparing them from day to day is, on my
plan, far more gloriously displayed than they can be upon yours.
A. You will at least acknowledge that the justice of God is glorified
in the condemnation of the non-elect, even though no Saviour died for •
them? P. Yes ; but in a degree far less.
A, How so ?
P. The non-elect, as well as others, are bound to love God with aU
their hearts, and to keep his commandments perfectly ; and for refusing

560 DIALOGUE ON THE ATONEMENT.
to do this they are justly condemned. For this they would be justly
condemned, though no Saviour had been provided. So far the justice of
God would be glorified in their condemnation, whether Christ died for
them or not. But if Christ has not -died for them, the justice of God
cannot be glorified in condemning them for rejecting a Saviour. There
is no Saviour for them that they can reject. The justice of God cannot
be glorified in condemning them for refusing to secure the salvation of
their souls. There is no salvation brought within, their reach which they
can refuse. The justice of God cannot be glorified in condemning them
for despising his offered mercy. There is no mercy for them which they
can despise. If, therefore, on your plan the wicked are inexcusable for
not loving and serving God, on mine they are doubly inexcusable. If
on your plan they are justly condemned for refusing to love and serve
God, on mine they are justly condemned for the same thing ; and besides
this, they are justly condemned for rejecting a Saviour that was provided
for them, for throwing away their souls when their salvation was put
within their power, and for despising the mercy which they might have
enjoyed. A. You also mentioned God's regard for the happiness of .the non-
elect, as a secondary inducement with him to give his Son to die for them.
How does it show any regard for their happiness, when, according to your
own representation, their condemnation, becomes only more aggravated in
consequence ?
P. It must be remembered that it becomes so through their own fault.
They neglect to improve the privileges put into their bands. They might
be saved if they would, but they will not.
A. But this was known to God from the beginning, and therefore it
seems to me that a regard for their happiness would have dictated that
no such privileges should be given them which they might abuse. How
can it be any privilege for a man to be put into a situation to increase his
guilt, and consequently his misery ?
P. Do you believe, then, that the non-elect enjoy no privileges or bless
ings in this life ?
A. I would not say that. I admit that they "are placed here in a
condition of comfort, or at least, in a mixed state, where many blessings
and privileges are enjoyed ; and this occurs in consequence of the medi
ation of Christ." And in this their situation differs from that of the
devils. " Devils are confined in chains of darkness. They receive no
benefits." P. How can the common blessings of life which they enjoy be consid
ered any blessings to them, since they abuse them also to increase their
guilt and aggravate their final condemnation ? And how is it any kind-

DIALOGUE ON THE ATONEMENT. 561
ness to bestow such blessings upon them, when it was known from the
beginning that they would so abuse them ?
A. That which is in its own nature a good, and capable of being im
proved by us to our advantage, is a blessing, and must be so considered
whether we improve it or not.
P. Then you have answered your own question. That which is in its
own nature a good, and capable of being improved by us to our advan
tage, is a blessing ; and it is a privilege to have it bestowed upon us, and
a kindness in the bestower, whether we improve it to our advantage or
not. By Christ's dying for the non-elect, they are placed in a situation
very different from that in which they would have been if he had not
died for them. If he had not died for them they would have been in a
situation at least substantially the same as that of the devils. They could
have had no privileges. . No blessings could have been bestowed upoa
them. They could receive no benefits. For where there is no atone
ment, no mercy can be shown. But since Christ has died for all, all " are
placed in a condition of comfort, or at least in a mixed state, where many
blessings and privileges are enjoyed." But besides this, those who live.
where the gospel is preached, non-elect as well as others, are placed in
a situation in which they enjoy the means of grace, and have an oppor
tunity to secure the salvation of their souls. A Saviour is provided, an
atonement js offered them, pardon and peace are proclaimed in their ears,
the Father invites, the Saviour entreats, the Holy Spirit strives. Eter
nal life is brought within their reach, and urged upon them. The welfare
of their immortal souls is put into their own bands, and they may secure
it if they will. Are these no privileges ? Are they not in themselves a
great good, and capable of being improved by them to their own unspeak
able advantage ? In this way, therefore, God shows his regard for their
happiness ; and manifests the strongest solicitude for their welfare. And
if they perish after all this, they will be without excuse, and their blood
will be upon their own heads.
Thus then, Aspasio, I have pointed out " for what end " God gave- his
Son to die for those " whom he had no intention of saving." It was to
glorify himself, and to manifest his regard for their happiness. It was
to put them into a state in which they might be saved if they would, and
to make it depend entirely upon their own choice whether they were
saved or not ; that thus, in throwing away their souls, they might be ren
dered doubly inexcusable, and their blood might be upon their own heads.
Till, therefore, you can show that these things are of no importance, you
ought not to conclude that Christ died for the elect only, because he could
have " no important purpose " in dying for others. What is your third
argument to prove that Christ died for the elect only ?

562 DIALOGUE ON THE ATONEMENT.
A. My third argument is this : — " The death of Christ was a real
atonement, a ransom price, an expiation, and a propitiation for sin ; a full
satisfaction to law and justice ; and must therefore be efficacious in behalf
of those for whom he died. If he died for all, then all must be saved.
Consequently, if only a part of the human race shall certainly be saved,
Christ died only for that part."
P. This argument depends entirely upon the nature of the atonement.
From your views of its nature, you conclude that it was made for the
elect only. My views of its nature are probably different from yours.
From my views of the nature of the atonement, I conclude that it was
made for all men. Will you state your views of its nature ?
A. I will. " The word atonement, though often used in the Old Tes
tament, is not found in, the New Testament except in one instance, Rom.
5 ; 11, where it ought to have been reconcihation. In the view, however,
of our translators, there was but little difference between these two words,
for he whose sins are atoned is reconciled. Of such an atonement as
leaves the person for whom it was made forever under the guilt of his
sins, they had no idea." " The Hebrew word for atonement signifies to
cover ; and when sins in the Old Testament are spoken of as atoned, the
meaning always is that they were covered, removed, never to be charged
upon the person who committed them." " When in common language a
man is said to have atoned for his fault by any means, what do we mean
by the word ? Why, that the punishment which he had incurred is actu
ally removed, or ought to be removed."
" Another word used in the New Testament is propitiation." " A pro
pitiation is that which propitiates, which expiates, which procures exemp
tion from punishment, which renders favorable the person to whom it is
offered." " Another set of words by which the death of Christ is frequently ex
pressed, signify the price paid for the redemption of captives." " The
life of Christ is called the ransom." " Now this ransom, being paid and
accepted, was considered a sufficient price to obtain the liberation of all
those for whom it was offered. When a sufficient price is paid for the
redemption of a captive, he cannot with propriety be detained in slavery."
" Those, then, for whom Christ has paid a ransom, will surely be actually
redeemed." " Another word, which has formerly been in more constant use with
orthodox Christians than any other, is satisfaction." " Justice is consid
ered as offended, and insists upon the condign punishment of the sinner.
A surety offers to make satisfaction for the offence, by obeyino- the law
and suffering its penalty. The offer is accepted. The satisfaction is
made, and acknowledged to be sufficient. Now the. question is, can they

DIALOGUE ON THE ATONEMENT. 563
for whom this satisfaction has been made be punished for the same sins
for which justice is declared to be satisfied ? How can the same crimes
be punished twice over in a just government ? "
P. If I understand your argument, it is this : The satisfaction which
Christ has made consisted partly of his obedience, and partly of bis suf
ferings, and is of such a nature that those for whom it was made cannot
be justly punished. And therefore all those must be saved for whom it
was made. Do I understand you ?
A. You do. For " how can the same crimes be punished twice over
in a just government ? *" But will you give me your views of the nature
of the atonement, that I may see how you avoid the same conclusion ?
P. I will. But let us first inquire for what purpose an atonement
was necessary. If we can get clear ideas of the purpose for which an
atonement was necessary, it will help us to judge of its nature. If we
can find out what end the atonement was intended to answer, we can bet
ter understand the nature of the atonement which infinite wisdom con
trived to answer that end.
A. Very well. Proceed.
P. First, then, I ask whether an atonement was necessary to restore
to man his moral agency. Some think that by the fall man had lost his
moral agency, and that an atonement was necessary to be made that it
might be restored. I think it could not be necessary for any such pur
pose, because man had not lost his moral agency by the fall. A moral
a"ent is one that performs moral actions. Moral actions are those which
have moral qualities, that is, are either holy or sinful. If man by the
fall had lost his moral agency, he had become incapable of moral action,
that is, he had become incapable of doing any thing either holy or sinful.
But to suppose that man by the fall had become incapable of sinning, is
absurd. An atonement, therefore, was not necessary to restore to man
his moral agency, for he had not lost it.
2. I ask whether an atonement was necessary to be made in order to
excite the compassion of God. This, I think, no one will affirm ; though
some things which you said respecting propitiation seem to look like it.
You said " A propitiation is that which propitiates, which renders favor
able the person to whom it is offered." If you mean that a propitiation
is that which renders it consistent for the person to whom it is offered to
show favor, I have no objection to the idea. But if you mean that a pro
pitiation is that which renders the person to whom it is offered disposed
to show favor ; if you mean it is intended to move him to show favor,
when without it he would have no such inclination, it cannot be correct
as applied to God. He is compassionate in his very nature. " God is
love." He who feels no compassion for the miserable, cannot be a good

564 DIALOGUE ON THE ATONEMENT.
being. To say that an atonement was necessary in order to move God
to compassion, and dispose him to show mercy, represents him as a being
destitute of goodness. It represents him as a hard, unfeeling, and cruel
tyrant. Instead of representing him as he is, a being of boundless mercy
and goodness, every way worthy to be loved, it represents him as a most
odious and implacable being, whom every one ought to hate. And fur
ther, to say that an atonement was necessary to excite the compassion of
God, would be the same as to say that the plan of saving shiners did not
originate with him. He had no disposition to save them ; he felt no
compassion for them ; he was hard and unfeeling and implacable, till the
Lord Jesus, who was a more benevolent being, and pitied their miserable
condition, undertook for them, and by his sufferings and death moved the
Father to compassion. But such a representation would be very differ
ent from that given in the Scriptures. The Scriptures say, " God so
loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son." It was bis com
passion for sinners which moved him to provide a Saviour. It was not
necessary, therefore, that an atonement should be made to move him to
compassion. 3. I ask whether an atonement was necessary to pay God for favors
to be bestowed upon us. Such an opinion, I think, cannot be consistent
with the representations of Scripture. The Scriptures everywhere speak
of the favors we receive from God as grace alone. Grace is favor be
stowed upon the ill deserving. The favors we receive from God are not
only grace to us who do not deserve them, but it is grace in God to be
stow them ; and the bestowment of them is spoken of as a manifestation
of the " riches of his grace." Where any good bestowed is paid for, there
is no room for grace in the bestower. It is frequently thought that Christ
obeyed in the room of sinners ; and that bis obedience created a claim
upon God for the blessings he bestows. And that as this obedience was
rendered by Christ in the room of sinners, the merit of it is transferred
to them, and they consequently have a just claim to those good things for
which it paid. This seems to me to bear too close a resemblance to
the old popish notion, upon which the sale of indulgences was founded ;
which was, that Christ had, by his obedience, created a large fund of
merit, which was put at the disposal of the Pope, as bis representative,
and might by him be sold out to those that had need. But the blessings
God bestows upon men are entirely of grace, and of course they were not
paid for by any thing which Christ did. And consequently an atone
ment was not necessary to pay God for favors to be bestowed upon us.
A. You were inquiring why an atonement was necessary. Have you
any further inquiries to make ?
P. Yes. I ask, fourthly, whether an atonement was necessary to sat-

DIALOGUE ON THE ATONEMENT. 565
isfy commutative justice. You speak of the atonement as a satisfaction
to justice. So do I. But what kind of justice ? There are three kinds
of justice, differing from each other as they have relation to different
things. These are, commutative justice, which relates to commercial
transactions, distributive justice, wliich relates to moral character, and
pubbc justice, which relates to the public good. Was an atonement nec
essary to satisfy commutative justice ? ' It is plain that it was not. For
atonement " has relation to sins committed." There is nothing here of
a commercial nature. I know that some represent the atonement as a
payment of a debt. They represent the sinner as owing a debt to God,
and being shut up in prison because he has nothing to pay. They rep
resent Christ as taking upon himseff the payment of that debt, and thus
purchasing his release. If this were literaUy true, I grant that the atone
ment would be necessarily limited ; for all those must be discharged whose
debt is paid. And not only so, but justice would demand their discharge.
, The creditor could not hold them any longer without the greatest injus
tice and oppression. There could be no grace in their discharge ; for
where a debt is paid there is no grace in releasing the debtor. You will
say, perhaps, that the grace of the gospel consists in the gift of a Saviour,
and not in the sinner's discharge after his debt is paid. I grant that it
would be grace in the creditor to provide for the debtor the means of
paying his debt ; but is that all the grace of the gospel ? Is there, in
deed, no grace in the sinner's discharge? When Christians^ go to a
throne of grace in prayer, do they go to demand their right ? Do they
go to claim justice at the hands of God ? Do they not go rather to sue
for favor, as suppliants ? Do they not go to ask for grace ? And do not
the Scriptures uniformly speak of the sinner's discharge as an act of
grace ? Do they not say, " We are justified freely by his grace ; " " We
have the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of his grace ? " It
is evident, then, that an atonement was not necessary to satisfy commu
tative justice.
I acknowledge that some of " the words by which the death of Christ
is frequently expressed, signify the price paid for the redemption of cap
tives, and that the life of Christ is caUed a ransom." But this language
is evidently figurative. The blood of Christ was not gold nor silver, nor
any other commercial medium. To take figurative language, and draw
conclusions from it, as if it was bteral, will certainly lead us into mis
takes. If this language were to be understood literally, it would indeed
follow, as you say, that " When a sufficient price is paid for the redemp
tion of a captive, he cannot with propriety be detained in slavery." It
would indeed follow that those for whom the ransom price was paid will
surely be actually redeemed. And it would likewise follow, that they
48

5G6 DIALOGUE ON THE ATONEMENT.
are actuaUy redeemed from eternity, and are not under condemnation at
all ; since from the moment Christ undertook to pay their debt it was
considered as virtually paid. He is considered as the " Lamb slain from
the foundation of the world." - At any rate, after their ransom was actu
ally paid by his death, " they could not with propriety be detained m
slavery." But the Scriptures represent all who are not actually in Christ
by faith as under condemnation. "He that believeth not is condemned
already, and the wrath of God abideth on him." But all such literal con
clusions, drawn from figurative language as if it were literal, are drawn
without any foundation, and are a most unwarrantable perversion of the
word of God. The atonement^ therefore, was<not a commercial transac
tion, and it was not necessary- that an atonement should be made to satisfy
commutative justice.
5. I ask whether an atonement was necessary to take away our ill
desert. This, I think, cannot be said with propriety, although some things
which you have said seem to imply it. Speaking of the translators of the
Bible, yeu say, " Of such an atonement as leaves the person for whom it
was made forever under the guilt of his sins, they had no idea." Guilt
means ill desert. He who has committed a crime is guilty. And after
he is pardoned, he is still guilty ; for it is still true that he has done wrong,
and nothing can render it untrue. If he has been pardoned, it is still
true that he has done wrong; and as long as it remains true that be has
done wrong, so long it will remain true that he is guilty, and deserves
punishment. His pardon exempts him from suffering the punishment he
deserves, but does not take away his ill desert. The sinner has broken
the law of God, and therefore is guilty ; and tbe fact that Christ has died
to procure his pardon, cannot alter the fact that he has transgressed, and
therefore cannot alter the truth that he deserves to be punished. And
if he is penitent, he feels guilty ; he feels that he deserves the displeasure
of God. And if he is assured that God has forgiven him, that assurance
does not diminish his sense of his own unworthiness and ill desert, but
rather serves to increase it. The real penitent loathes and abhors him
self as much after he is forgiven as he does before. He feels -just as
guilty after all apprehension of punishment is removed as he does before.
The greatest saint in heaven must still feel disposed to abase himself be
fore God, for the sins he committed while on earth; and will have
the sense of his ill desert continually increasing, as long as he continues
in the light of eternity, to see more and more of the evil and odious na
ture of sin. An atonement, therefore, was not necessary to take away
our ill desert. No atonement could take it away. And no real penitent
can ever feel disposed to palliate or diminish his ill desert, or to wish
others to think it less than it really is. He feels that he is a monument
of grace, and is willing that others should think so too.

DIALOGUE ON THE ATONEMENT. 567
6. I ask whether an atonement was necessary to satisfy distributive
justice ? Distributive justice has relation to moral character. It demands
that every person should be treated according to his moral character. It
demands that the guilty should be punished, and the innocent set free.
The demands of distributive justice are the same as the demands of the
moral law. The moral law requires perfect obedience, upon pain of eter
nal death. It requires that those who have disobeyed should be pun
ished. Do you think that the atonement satisfied distributive justice ?
A. Yes. I think that the atonement '' was a full satisfaction to law
and justice." " Justice is considered as offended, and insists on the con
dign punishment of the sinner. A surety offers to make satisfaction for
the offence, by obeying the law and suffering* its penalty. The offer is
accepted. The satisfaction is made, and acknowledged to be sufficient."
This is the atonement.
P. But the law demands that the soul that sinnetb should die. How
can the death of another answer that demand ?
A. By the transfer of the sinner's guilt to the person of the surety.
"It deserves to be noticed that in the sacrifices which were typical of the
great atonement, the idea of the transfer of the sinner's guilt to the expi
atory animal is carefully kept up."
P. The law demands that the soul that sinneth should die. It does
not demand that another should die in his place. Tbe law says nothing
of the substitution of another in the place of the offender. No such sub-
¦ stitution, therefore, can answer the demands of the law.
A. But if the sins of an offender can be transferred to the surety so
as to become truly and properly his own, then by his death the dentands
of the law can be answered, and distributive justice satisfied.
P. If the sins of the offender can be transferred to the surety so as to
become truly and properly his own — but that cannot be done. What I
have done is my own act, and cannot, by any process, become tbe act of
another. A. But if another person of his own accord, offers to bear the punish-
ment of your offences, may he not do it ?
P. If another person of his own accord offers to bear the suffering,
which was due to me for my offences, he may do it. But it cannot be
punishment to him. Punishment supposes guilt. He cannot take my
actions upon himself so that they shall become his own actions and cease
to be mine. He cannot become guilty without his own personal trans
gression. If he suffers in my place, therefore, his sufferings are not
punishment to him.
I have other objections, however, to the notion of a transfer of our
sins to Christ.

568 DIALOGUE ON THE ATONEMENT.
1. If our sins are so transferred to Christ as to become his sins, they
are no longer ours. We are spotless and holy in our own persons, as
God himself. And how inconsistent this is, with the feelings of all real
Christians, and with the representations of Scripture respecting them, I
need not take time to show.
2. If our sins are so transferred to Christ as to become his sins, we
have no need of repentance, for we have no sins of which to repent. It
is perfectly idle to talk of our repenting of sins which are not our own.
3. If our sins are so transferred to Christ as to become his sins, we
cannot be the subjects of grace. Grace is favor shown to the guilty. If
our guilt is transferred to Christ, we have none left ; and it is as improper
to talk of our. being treated with grace as it would be to say it of the
holy angels who never sinned.
4. If our sins are so transferred to Christ as to become his sins, and
we have none left, we cannot receive pardon at the hands of God.
There is no pardon where there is no guilt. Pardon exempts a criminal
from the punishment he deserves. There is no pardon in excusing an
innocent person from suffering. He does not deserve to suffer. But the
Scripture says, "We have the forgiveness of sins, according to the
riches of his grace."
5. If our sins are so transferred to Christ as to become his sins, then
he suffered justly as an evil-doer, and one that deserved not only to die
¦ on the cross, but also deserved eternal damnation, as the greatest sinner
in the universe. But the Scripture says he died "the just for the
unjust." A. If the demands of the law are not answered by the death of Christ,
if distributive justice is not satisfied, then, when sinners are exempted
from punishment, why is not the law dishonored and injustice done ; and
that too by the authority of God himself? But the Scripture teaches
that Christ magnified the law and made it honorable ; and it speaks of
the death of Christ as taking place, that God might be just and the justi
fier of him that believeth in Jesus.
P. The reason why the law is not dishonored when sinners are ex
empted from suffering the punishment it demands is, that Christ has
magnified the law and made it honorable, and it is for His sake that they
are exempted from punishment. The reason why no injustice is done,
when sinners are exempted from suffering the punishment which distrib
utive justice demands, I will give after I shall have given my view of
the nature of the atonement. And before I do that, I will ask once more
why an atonement was necessary?
A. I have given the reason. The Scripture says it was, "that God
might be just, and the justifier of him that believeth in Jesus."

DIALOGUE ON THE ATONEMENT. 569
P. Very well. But just to whom ? Just to the sinner ? No ; for, if
he treats the sinner according to justice, he will punish him for ever.
It is that God might be just to himself, just to his own character, as the
righteous Governor of the universe, just to the great interests of the
universe, which it belongs to him as the Supreme Ruler to promote.
A. How could the atonement accomplish that end, without satisfying
distributive justice ?
P. By satisfying public justice. Public justice has relation to the
great interests of the universe, and demands that they should be secured.
It demands that the greatest good of the universe should be promoted,
that the greatest possible sum of happiness among intelligent beings
should be brought into existence. The greatest good of the universe
comprises the glory of God and the happiness of all holy creatures. The
glory of God forms by far the greatest part. To glorify God is to dis
play his perfections, to let the universe see what God is. That all God's
perfections should be seen to the best advantage, a system must be con
trived which would give opportunity for the exercise of them all. That
his mercy might be seen, it was necessary that there should be sinners,
and that sinners should be pardoned, and raised to a throne of glory in
heaven. But how could this be done ? How could the sinner be for
given, and be raised to a throne of glory in heaven ? The law had
threatened eternal death as the just demerit of sin. By giving a law
with this penalty annexed, God had declared that he was infinitely op
posed to sin, and hated it with all his heart. The object of the penalty
annexed to the law was to show the evil nature of sin, and how the Law
giver felt towards it. For God to exempt the sinner from punishment
without an atonement, and to exalt him at his own right hand, would be
to say, in the strongest language, that sin was not an evil, but a good, and
that he did not abhor it, but regarded it with approbation, and was dis
posed to confer upon it the highest rewards. And for God to do any
thing which could be so construed, would be infinitely dishonorable to
himself, and subversive of the highest interests of the universe. It would
be a violation of public justice. Unless, therefore, something could be
done to prevent these consequences, we must conclude that sin could
never be forgiven, and that the law must take its course and be executed
upon transgressors.
A. Yes. " If we form honorable ideas of the perfections of God, we
must suppose that his treatment of sinners will be uniform, and therefore
that all will suffer exactly in proportion to their demerit, unless some
scheme be devised by which the ends of punishment can be completely
answered, and yet the sinner spared."
P. You have brought to view the true reason why an atonement was
48*

570 DIALOGUE ON THE ATONEMENT.
necessary, and what purpose it was intended to answer. The atonement
was a " scheme devised " by infinite wisdom, " by which the ends of pun
ishment can be completely answered, and yet the sinner spared." The
great end of punishment was to manifest God's hatred of sin. If any
expedient could be found out which would answer that end, as well as the
actual infliction of the threatened penalty upon transgressors, then that
penalty could be dispensed with, and mercy might be exercised in the
pardon of sinners. Such an expedient infinite wisdom has devised. The
Lord Jesus Christ has laid down his bfe " the just for the unjust." By
his death the evil of sin has been made to appear in - a light infinitely
stronger than it ever could have appeared in the condemnation of a
world. By doing this, he has magnified the law and made it honorable,
although the execution of its threatening of death to the sinner is dis
pensed with. By his death, public justice is satisfied. The evils which
would have ftfilowed from the pardon of the sinner without an atonement
are effectually guarded against. And now, God can be just, just to him
self, just to his own character as the righteous governor of the universe,
and yet forgive sinners for Christ's sake.
A. And yet I should- say that the demands of the law are answered by
what Christ has done.
P. No. The law did not demand the death of Christ. It demanded
the death of the sinner. The death of Christ, therefore, has not met its
demand. But by the death of Christ, that has been done which magni
fies the law, and renders it consistent with its honor that its demands
should be dispensed with, as respects all those who will accept of Christ
as their Saviour.
A. But if distributive justice is not satisfied in behalf of sinners, then
when they are exempted from punishment, why is not injustice done ?
You promised to answer this question.
P. I will answer it. Distributive justice demands that the soul that
sinneth should die. It demanded that Christ should be honored, and the
sinner punished. By Christ's dying, while the sinner bves, therefore,
its demands are not met. No injustice is done, however. Injustice con
sists in treating persons worse than they deserve. No one is treated
worse than he deserves. When persons are treated better than they de
serve, that is not injustice, but grace. Grace has respect to distributive
justice, and suspends its exercise towards the guilty. If you insist that
distributive justice must be satisfied in all cases, you. shut out the possi
bility of grace altogether. ' There can be no grace unless the guilty are
exempted from the punishment which distributive justice demands.
Perhaps you will ask, why then was not injustice done to Christ, since
he suffered what he did not deserve ? To this I answer, his sufferings

DIALOGUE ON THE ATONEMENT. 571
were perfectly voluntary. He took them upon himself. If those suffer
ings had been inflicted upon him without his consent, he would have
been treated with injustice. But distributive justice was not exercised
in the infliction of those sufferings' upon him, for he was not a sinner.
A. How does it foUow, from this view of the nature of the atonement,
that it was made for all men ?
P. It was a satisfaction to public justice by which the ends of punish
ment are answered ; and the exercise of mercy in the pardon of sinners
is rendered consistent with the honor of the law and the character of God
as a righteous governor. In consequence of it, God can be "just and
the justifier of him that bebeveth in Jesus." It is, from its very nature,
as sufficient for one man as for another, and for all men as for one man.
And as all men. receive some benefits from this atonement, according to
your own concessions, for you say that " in consequence of the mediation
of Christ, men are placed here in a condition of comfort, or at least in a
mixed state, where many blessings and privileges are enjoyed ; " and as
this atonement lays a foundation for the offer of mercy to be sincerely
made to all indiscriminately, as you also grant, I see not how you can
possibly avoid the conclusion which I draw from it, that it* was actually
made for all men.
A. But the atonement was a cover for sin. " The Hebrew word for
atonement signifies to cover." When, therefore, sins are spoken of as
atoned, the meaning is that they were covered, removed, never to be
charged upon the person who committed them.
P. Do you bebeve that the elect are under condemnation till the mo
ment they believe in Christ ?
A. Yes. The Scripture says, " He that believeth not is condemned al
ready, and the wrath of God abideth on him."
P. The atonement was made eighteen hundred years ago, and those
of the elect who have not yet believed are still under condemnation.
But their sins were atoned for as soon as Christ had laid down his life.
According to you, therefore, their sins were actually " covered, removed,
never to be charged upon " them ; and yet they are not covered nor
removed, but are charged upon them, and for them they are condemned
already, and the wrath of God abideth on them. This looks very much
like a contradiction.
A. How, then, do you consider the atonement a cover for sin ?
P. There is a difference between a cover for and a cover of. That is
a cover for, which is prepared and adapted to be a cover of. The atone
ment is a cover for sin, because it is adapted to be a cover of sin ; but it
does not become a cover of sin to any individual till be puts it on, that is,
till he actually bebeves in Christ and receives his pardon. ,

572 DIALOGUE ON THE ATONEMENT.
A. But atonement means the same as reconciliation. " For he whose
sins are atoned is reconciled."
P. Reconciled, and yet under condemnation ! Reconciled, and yet in
his sins ! Reconciled to God, and yet hating him with all his heart ! No ;
it is impossible. The apostle prays sinners to be reconciled to God. He
does not pray them to make atonement. Sinners never make atone
ment; that was the work of Christ. Sinners become reconciled by
accepting the atonement which Christ has made. Atonement and recon-
cibation are therefore very different things.
A. But "the end actually accomplished by the death of Christ must
be learned from the sacred Scriptures, and not from the theories of man."
Men may theorize very speciously ; " But this is a point of too much mag
nitude to be decided by mere reasoning. Let us hear what God hath
spoken : ' To the law and the testimony,' we make an appeal, and by
them we are wilbng it should be decided."
P. I cordially agree with you in this, and beg you will bear it in
mind when we come, by and by, to see " what God hath spoken," as to
the extent of the atonement. For the present I wish merely to consider
j-our arguments. What is your fourth argument to prove that Christ
died for the elect only ?
A. It is this : " Christ offered himself a sacrifice to satisfy divine jus
tice in the office of a priest." Now, " His priestly office is not performed
for any by the halves." Therefore " for whom Christ offered himself a
sacrifice, for the same does he intercede. But he intercedes, it is agreed,
for none but his own people ; therefore, he died for none but his own
people." P. I grant that Christ is the priest of his people, and that he does not
perform his priestly office for any " by the halves." But to conclude
from this that he will intercede for the salvation of all those for whom
he died, is to take it for granted that he could not possibly die for any
but his own people. - It is to take it for granted, that he could not have
any object in dying for any, unless he intended to save them. To as
sume this is to assume the very point in dispute. To assume the point
in dispute, is what logicians call begging the question. It is usually con
sidered an indication of a weak cause, and that the supporter of it feels
it to be so.
A. Do you grant, then, that Christ intercedes for none but his own
people ?
P. No. I grant that he does not intercede for the salvation of any
but his own people, for he did not intend to save any others. But he
intended to secure the enjoyment of " many blessings and privileges " to
the non-elect, as you grant. Now, if he intended by his death to obtain

DIALOGUE ON THE ATONEMENT. 573
for the non-elect those blessings, I see not why it should be thought in
credible that he should ask the Father to bestow them. He intended by
his death to procure for the non-elect a period of probation and the offer
of mercy : and I see not why it should be thought incredible, that, after
having died to procure for them these blessmgs, be should ask the Father
to bestow them.
A. But does not Christ say expressly, " I pray for them : I pray not
for the world, but for them which Thou hast given me?"
P. In that particular prayer he prayed for his disciples, and for none
others. And he prayed for such blessings for them as are never be
stowed upon any but his disciples. But this does not prove that when
God bestows other blessings upon other men, he does not do it in answer
to the requests of his Son. You beg the question, therefore, in both
points of your argument. And besides that, you contradict what you
had before granted, that " many blessings and privileges " are bestowed
upon the non-elect, " in consequence of the mediation of Christ." Medi
ation includes intercession as well as atonement. According to your
own concession, therefore, he does, in some respects, intercede for the
non-elect. What is your fifth argument ?
A. It is this : " The death of Christ is the cause of all spiritual bless
ings ; it is, therefore, the cause of the gift of faith. Those, therefore,
for whom Christ died, will be made partakers of faith. But none receive
the gift of faith but the elect ; therefore Christ died for none else."
P. This argument is a mere sophism. It has all the formality of a
regular syllogism, but nothing more. I will give you one or two like it.
1. God is the giver of all good things; he is therefore the giver of
faith. But he gives faith to none but the elect ; therefore he gives no
good things to any but the elect. 2. The combined influence of the rain
and the sun is the cause of vegetation. But there is no vegetation upon
the barren rock ; therefore, the rain never descends and the sun never
shines upon the barren rock. But these conclusions are evidently false,
and so is the one you draw. To make your argument correct, it ought
to be this : the death of Christ secures the enjoyment of all spiritual bless
ings to those for whom he died ; it therefore secures to them the gift of
faith. But faith is given to none but the elect ; therefore Christ died for
none else. This would be a correct syllogism, and the conclusion would
fobow, if it were true, that the death of Christ does actually secure the
enjoyment of all spiritual blessings to all those for whom he died. To
assume that it does is to assume the very point in dispute. It is beg
ging the question again. This argument, however, is good on the other
side, and proves that Christ died for all men.
A. How so?

574 DIALOGUE ON THE ATONEMENT.
P. Thus : the death of Christ is. the cause of all the blessings be
stowed upon sinful men. No blessings can be bestowed upon sinners
without an atonement. Therefore, no blessings can be bestowed upon
any of our sinful race for whom Christ did not die. But many blessings
are bestowed upon all men ; therefore, Clirist died for all men. What is
your sixth argument?
A. It is this : " If Christ actually died for all men, then he died for
many whose salvation had become impossible, and to whom the offer of
mercy never could be made ; " for they were already in hell. Did he die
for those already in hell ?
P. " If Christ actually died for all " the elect, " then he died for many
whose salvation " was already accomplished, " and to whom the offer of
mercy never could be made ; " for they were already in heaven. Did
he die for those already in heaven ?
A. Yes. For those already in heaven had gone there by faith in the
Saviour that was to come.
P. And those already in hell bad gone there for want of faith in the
Saviour that was to come. The truth is, the Saviour was revealed im
mediately after the fall, and men were saved by faith in him, or con
demned for their unbelief, just as they are now.
A. But " of what avail is it to the soul in torment, that Christ is dying
for him on earth, seeing his misery is not the least mitigated thereby ? "
P. That is, what good could it do him ? This, again, is assuming
that Christ could not have any object in dying for any, unless he intended
to save them. It is begging the question again.
A. But " If Christ died for all, then justice was, at the same moment,
exacting punishment from the offender himself, and from the Redeemer."
And " how en a the same crimes be punished twice over in a just govern
ment?" P. They cannot be punished twice over. Christ was not punished at
all. And the satisfaction he made was not a satisfaction to the law, nor
to distributive justice. It follows from your principles and not from
mine, that the law is satisfied twice over, or rather, as I should think,
three times over.
A. How so ?
P. You believe that Christ obeyed the law for his people, do you not ?
A. Yes. He made satisfaction " by obeying the law," as well as " by
suffering its penalty."
P. Was not Christ's obedience perfect ?
A. Yes. The Scripture says, He was "holy, harmless, undefiled,
separate from sinners."
P. Does not perfect obedience satisfy the law ?

DIALOGUE ON THE ATONEMENT 575
A. Yes. Where there is perfect obediefice, the law has no further
demand. P. If Christ obeyed the law perfectly and did that for his people, that
was satisfying the law once. Then, if he suffered the penalty of the
law, and bore the punishments of their sins, that was satisfying the law
twice. And after that, they are forgiven ; that is, after the demands of
the law have been satisfied twice over, they are dispensed with by for
giveness ; which is equal to satisfying it the third time.
A. But, " if Christ died for all men, then he atoned for sins which are
never pardoned. But what sort of an atonement is that for a sin, which
does not render it possible for the punishment of it to be removed ? The
sin against the Holy Ghost, and final impenitence and unbelief, never
can be pardoned, and to suppose them atoned for is absurd."
P. On the same principle I should say, while the elect are without
repentance their sin cannot be pardoned. But to suppose a sin atoned
for which cannot be pardoned is absurd. Therefore, to suppose the sin
of the elect atoned for while they are without repentance is absurd.
The truth is, that the reason why the sin against the Holy Ghost, and
final impenitence and unbelief, are not pardoned, is because they are not
repented of, not because the atonement is not as sufficient for them as for
any other sins. What is your seventh argument ?
A. It is this : " The death of Christ is of no avail to those who have
never heard of this event ; for how can they believe in him of whom
they have not heard ? " Now, if Christ died for all men, would he per
mit so many milbons of them to remain in total ignorance of an event in
which they are so deeply interested ?
P. That is, again, what good could it do them ? This is assuming that
Christ could not die for any unless he intended to save them, which is
begging the question again. And you have answered this argument
yourself, as often as you have conceded that " in consequence of the me
diation of Christ " all men do enjoy " many blessings and privileges."
But if you still ask why God does not actually send the gospel to all men,
I will answer it when you have answered a few questions like these :
Why does he not actually save all men ? Why does he not, at least, save
all who enjoy the light of the gospel ? Why does he not place all the
elect in the same favorable circumstances for knowing and serving him?
Why does he not create them all with the same natural powers of body
and mind, and give them all the same opportunities for improvement, that
they may aU be prepared for the same degree of happiness in heaven ?
Why does he convert one in the morning of life, and another not till the
close of it ? Why does he favor one with the clearest knowledge of di
vine truth, and leave another to embrace many errors, which greatly retard

576 DIALOGUE ON T--IE ATONEMENT.
his growth in grace, and consequently lessen his religious enjoyment and
usefulness ? If Christ loved them well enough to die for them and save
them, why did he not love them enough to make them as wise and as
holy as Gabriel ? What is your eighth argument to prove that Christ
died for the electr only ?
A. It is this : " It is derogatory to the honor of the Redeemer that so
great a portion of those for whom he died should ultimately perish. It is
an unworthy thought of the Almighty Saviour, that he should permit Sa
tan to triumph over millions of those whom he purchased with his own
blood." P. This argument begs the question again. It supposes that Christ
did not die for any but those he intended to save. It would indeed be
" derogatory to the honor of the Redeemer," that a great portion of those
whom he intended to save " should ultimately perish." It would indeed
be " an unworthy thought of the Almighty Saviour, that he should permit
Satan to triumph over millions of those whom he intended to save?' But
that is not tbe case. He saves all he intended to save. And he accom
plishes the objects he had in view in dying for others. What these ob
jects are, has been already shown. What is your ninth argument ?
A. It is this : " This doctrine of the general atonement takes away
from the true believer one of the most interesting and edifying views of
this event which can be presented to him. When he contemplates the
death of Christ, he beholds the most striking and affecting manifestation
of the special love of God to him. But if the atonement is as much for
reprobates as for him, how is it an evidence of any great and special love ?
It is no ground of consolation to know that Christ loved me, and gave him
self for me, because a reprobate may know the same."
P. How can it be any satisfaction to me to enjoy the common bless
ings of Providence, unless I have them all to myself? How can it be
any gratification to me to sit down to a table loaded with all the dainties
in nature, if other persons are invited as well as I ? How can it be any
consolation to me to know that I am going to heaven to enjoy the pres
ence of my God and Saviour, if millions of the human race are to enjoy
them as well as myself? My enjoyments of them will surely be dimin
ished in exact proportion to the number of those who shall with me be
partakers of them. Are these Christian feelings ? Are they agreeable
to the common feelings of humanity ? what is it but naked selfishness ?
What is your tenth argument ?
A. It is this: "The sacred Scriptures in many places restrict the
death of Christ to his people."
P. Will you favor me with some of these many places ? "
A. Yes. Christ says, "I lay down my life for the sheep." Again, it
is said, " The church which he purchased with his own blood."

DIALOGUE ON THE ATONEMENT. 577
P. But where is the restriction ? I confess I do not see it. He laid
down his life " for the sheep." Who disputes that ? If it was the will
of God " that he should taste death for every man," he must of course
have laid down his life for the sheep.
A. I acknowledge " that these and such like passages do not, in so
many words, declare that he died for no others. Yet they have no force
or apparent propriety, unless thus understood."
P. You acknowledge, then, that the passages you mention do not ex
pressly restrict the death of Christ to his people ? The whole force of
your argument, then, comes to this : These passages do not appear to
you to have any force or propriety, unless you understand them agreea
bly to your own scheme. But if we form our opinions first, and then in
terpret tbe Scriptures in such a manner as to make them accord with our
opinions, I am afraid we shall never come to any certainty respecting
any of the doctrines of the Bible.
A. But " if Christ laid down his life for his sheep, as such, whether
yet called or not, then he lays not down his life for the goats, or for those
who are not of his fold. If he, as the shepherd, lays down his life, then
certainly for none but his sheep."
P. I feel no difficulty in admitting that there is a sense in which Christ
laid down his life for the sheep, in which he did not -for others. But I
contend also that there is a sense in which he laid down his life for all
alike. As far as his object in laying down his life was to secure the sal
vation of those for whom he died, he laid down his life for the sheep only;
for he never intended to secure the salvation of any others. But as far
as his object in laying down his life was to place men in a state of pro
bation, in a state in which they might be saved if they would ; in a state
in which their salvation or their perdition should depend entirely upon
their own voluntary choice, so far he laid down his life for all alike. If
you understand these and such like passages in the first sense, I have no
objection ; for on that point we have no dispute. But to infer from that
that he could have no object in laying down bis life for others, is to take
for granted the very point in dispute. The passages you mention are
totally silent on that subject ; and, therefore, are nothing to the purpose.
Have you any other argument to prove that Christ died for the elect
only? A. Yes. It is inconsistent with the doctrine of particular election to
suppose that Christ died for all men.
P. How so ?
A. The doctrine of election is, that God gave a certain number of our
fallen race to the Son, and the salvation of these he undertook to accom-
pbsh by laying down his bfe. To suppose, therefore, that all men were
49

578 DIALOGUE ON THE ATONEMENT.
given to him, and that he undertook to save all by laying down his bfe,
is inconsistent with the doctrine of election.
P, This is not my view of the doctrine of election. You put the doc
trine of election in the wrong place, and confound the decree of election
with the covenant of redemption. My view of tho subject is this : All
men sinned — Christ laid down his life for all — the offer of mercy is au
thorized to be made to all — all, with one consent, refuse the offer. Here,
then, comes in the purpose of election — God determined that he would
make some willing to accept the offer. And in pursuance of this deter
mination, he sends his Spirit to make them wibing in the day of his power.
A. " To this theory I object that there is no succession in the divine
decrees, but God wills all things by one most comprehensive and perfect
purpose." P. I grant that there is no succession in the divine decrees, as to the
order of time. They have all existed from eternity. But there is a suc
cession in the order of nature ; and you yourself suppose it as much as I
do. You suppose that it was determined that man should fall, and need
a Saviour ; and that in consequence of this, God determined to provide a
Saviour for a part of mankind.
A. " Admitting an order in the divine decrees," the order you suppose
" is preposterous ; because it supposes God to determine upon a most im
portant and costly means, before he had purposed any particular end to
be accomplished by it."
P. Not at all. The particular end God had in view to accompbsh
was his own glory. As means to accomplish this great end, infinite wis
dom has devised, infinite goodness adopted, and infinite power is carrying
into execution, the whole plan of the divine administration. This great
plan includes all events. All events, therefore, are to be considered as
means, which infinite wisdom has contrived to operate in different ways
for the accomplishment of this great end. The fall of man, the death of
Christ for all, the offer of mercy to all, the rejection of tbe offer by all,
the making of some willing to accept it, tbe salvation of those who do ac
cept it, the aggravated condemnation and final perdition of those who per
sist in their refusal — ¦ these are all means, and " most important and costly
means " too, for the accomplishment of that great end. And I see not
why the order in which I have mentioned them is not their natural order.
A. But I have another objection ; your scheme " furnishes no suffi
cient motive to produce such a grand event " as Christ's dying for all
men. P. No sufficient motive ! Is the glory of God no sufficient motive ?
Where will you find one of greater magnitude ? But the ends accom
plished by Christ's dying for all men have been already pointed out. I

DIALOGUE ON THE ATONEMENT. 579
need not repeat them here. Have you any other argument to prove
that Christ died for the elect only ?
A. I have mentioned the principal ; but I will suggest one more, the
identity of atonement and redemption. As they signify the same thing,
all who are atoned for are redeemed. But the elect only are redeemed ;
therefore the atonement was made for none else.
P. Atonement and redemption are not the same thing. Atonement is
satisfaction for sin; redemption is deliverance from sin. The atonement
was finished when Christ rose from the dead ; but the redemption of any
individual is not finished till he is freed from sin by complete sanctifica
tion, and received to heaven. Christ is said to have " obtained eternal
redemption for us ; " not eternal atonement, surely. The apostle exhorts
Christians, " Grieve not the Holy Spirit of God, whereby ye are sealed
unto the day of redemption ; " not the day of atonement, for that was past
already. And when the Son of Man shall be seen coming in the clouds
of heaven, his people are exhorted, "Then look up, and lift up your heads :
for your redemption draweth nigh ; " not your atonement draweth nigh,
for that was accomplished long since. If atonement and redemption were
the same thing, it would be as improper to pray for redemption as for
atonement. To pray for atonement would be to pray that Christ might
die again. No Christian prays for atonement. But Christians may pray
for redemption. They may pray with the Scripture saints, " Draw nigh
unto my soul, and redeem it." " Redeem me, and be merciful unto me."
Atonement and redemption, therefore, are different things ; and the ar
gument which is built upon their identity is built upon the sand.
A. Will you state your arguments to prove that Christ died for all
men? P. Most of them have been brought into view in the course of the
preceding discussion ; but I will briefly repeat them.
1. All who hear the gospel are invited to partake of its blessings.
But if Christ has not died for them all, they cannot be sincerely invited.
The invitation amounts to a declaration that there is salvation provided
for them, which they may have if they will. If Christ has not died for
them all, this declaration is untrue, and the invitation a mere mockery.
2. It is made the duty of all who hear the gospel to accept of Christ
as their Saviour. But it cannot be their duty, if Christ has not died for
them. It cannot be the duty of devils to accept of Christ as their Sa
viour, for he did not die for devils.
3. Those who refuse to accept of Christ as their Saviour are con
demned and punished for their unbelief. But how can they be justly
punished for not accepting a Saviour who was never provided for them ?
4. The atonement was a satisfaction to public justice, designed to ren-

580 DIALOGUE ON THE ATONEMENT.
der it consistent for God to show mercy ; and from its very nature must
be general.
5. All men do receive many blessings at the hands of God, as you
have granted. And " this occurs in consequence of the mediation of
Christ," as you have also granted ; for where there is no atonement, no
mercy can be shown. Since many mercies, therefore, are actually be
stowed upon all men, on account of Christ's death, it foUows that Christ
died for all.
6. All men are placed here in a state of probation. A state of proba
tion for eternity necessarily supposes that those who enjoy it have an
opportunity to secure their eternal salvation. But those for whom Christ
did not die have no such opportunity. No exertions of theirs could
ever render it possible for them to be saved.
7. The testimony of Scripture is express and full upon this subject.
Let me remind you of what you have said yourself. " This is a point of
too much magnitude to be decided by mere reasoning. Let us hear what
God hath spoken. ' To the law and the testimony,' we make an appeal."
What, then, do the Scriptures say upon this subject ?
1 John 2:2; " And he is the propitiation for our sins ; and not for
ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world."
Heb. 2:9; " But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the
angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honor ; that he
by the grace of God should taste death for every man."
1 Tim. 2:6; " Who gave himseff a ransom for all, to be testified in
due time."
2 Cor. 5 : 14, 15 ; " For the love of Christ constraineth us, because we
thus judge, that if one died for all, then were all dead. And that he
died for all, that they which live should not henceforth live unto them
selves, but unto him wliich died for them, and rose again."
John 1 : 29 ; " The next day, John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and
saith, Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the
world!" John 3:16; " For God so loved the world that he gave his only be
gotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have
everlasting life."
That Christ died for some who actually perish, see 2 Pet. 2:1; " But
there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be
false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies,
even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring' upon themselves
swift destruction."
A. But you must admit that the words world and all are sometimes
used in a limited sense ; and therefore they may be so used in these

DIALOGUE ON THE ATONEMENT. 581
passages. " The word world is used in the sacred Scriptures for the
whole fabric of heaven and earth, sometimes for the heavens distinguished
from the earth, for the men in the world, either the whole or a part,
sometimes for the Roman empire, for God's people, for the wicked,
and for a worldly condition or state." " It is evident," then, " that no
great stress should, in this argument, be laid on a word so vague and
ambiguous in its meaning." "The word all, is in the same predica
ment." P. I am wiUing to grant, for the sake of giving your objection all
possible force, that these words are used in the various senses you men
tion. Not, however, that I believe the word world is ever used for God's
people as distinguished from others. What, then, is the force of your
objection ? It is plainly this, that because these words are sometimes
used in a limited sense, they may be so used in the texts I have quoted,
and that you are at liberty to put this construction upon them if you
please. But where will this principle lead us ? Let us apply it to a
few cases. The word God is sometimes used to signify a civil ruler,
therefore, according to this principle of interpretation, it may be so un
derstood in any given text. " In the beginning God created the heavens
and the earth," may mean, In the beginning a civil ruler created the
heavens and the earth. The word everlasting is sometimes used to
signify a limited duration; therefore, it may be so understood in any
given text : and, " These shall go away into everlasting punishment,"
may mean, These shall go away into a punishment of limited duration.
And when the saints are promised everlasting life, it may mean a life of
limited duration. And when Christ is styled the "Mighty God, the
Everlasting Father," it may mean, the mighty civil ruler, the Father of a
limited duration. The word salvation is sometimes used to signify de
liverance from a temporal calamity ; therefore, it may be so understood
in any given text, and there may be no salvation but deliverance from
temporal calamities. The word resurrection is sometimes used to signify
regeneration ; therefore it may be so understood in any given text, and
there may be no resurrection foretold in the Scriptures but regeneration.
The word baptism is sometimes used to signify sufferings ; therefore, it
may be so understood in any given text ; and the command to the
apostles to go and baptize all nations may mean that they should go and
inflict sufferings upon all nations. A principle of interpretation which
leads into such absurdities cannot be admitted as a correct rule of inter
preting the word of God. Under the operation of such a rule, the Bible
would become, as some pretend it is, a book by which any thing can be
supported and nothing proved. Every part of it would become " vague
and ambiguous in its meaning." 49*

582 DIALOGUE ON THE ATONEMENT,
A. How can we know, then, when to understand these universal terms
in their limited, and when in their unlimited sense ?
P. When a universal term is to be understood in a restricted or lim
ited sense, that restriction or limitation is made manifest by the manner
in which it is used, or by something which accompanies it. And this is
& general rule for the interpretation of Scripture. The Scripture means
as it says ; that is, every word is to be understood in its plainest and most
obvious sense, unless the manner in which it is used, or something which
accompanies it, makes it manifest that it is used in that instance in a
different sense. If this is not the way in which Scripture is to be un
derstood, how shall we ever know what the Scripture teaches on any
subject ? And more especially, how shall plain, unlearned people know
any thing about the doctrines of the Bible ? The Bible was intended for
a Revelation. It was intended for the use of the ignorant, and for chil
dren. It is declared to be so plain that he that runneth may read, and
the wayfaring man, though a fool, need not err. But if the Holy Ghost
has made a mistake on this subject, and used words so " vague and am
biguous in their meaning " that no dependence can be placed upon them,
" it fails of being " a Revelation, " whatever may have been intended."
A. But the passage you mentioned in the Epistle to the Hebrews,
" that he should taste death for every man," is not translated right. The
original is, " vneo navrog, for all. Man is not in the text. And the
question is, to whom this all refers."
P. I must beg leave to differ from you there. And I think such an
objection comes with a very bad grace from one who claims that tbe
translators of the Bible were of the same opinion with himself, on the
subject of the atonement. Tlavtog is an adjective, in the masculine
gender, singular number, and must agree with some noun, understood,
of the same gender and number. The word man, therefore, is un
doubtedly the word understood, and was properly supplied by our trans
lators. But if you object to the word man, I am willing to leave it out ;
and then the literal rendering of insQ navrog would be " for every
one ; " and the most natural and obvious meaning would be, that Christ
tasted death for every man, woman, and child of our race. If it had
been for all, the original would have been insQ ndvrtSv, in the plural.
But even that would have been no better for your cause.
A. I wish also to make an observation upon the passage from the
Epistle to Timothy, " Who gave himself a ransom for all." The
whole stress of the argument here is upon the word all ; but our breth
ren who oppose us here must quabfy the word all, as used in the fourth
verse, " Who will have all men to be saved," and therefore, they should
allow us to do the same in the sixth.

DIALOGUE ON THE ATONEMENT. 583
P- Not at all. We do not " qualify the word all as used in the
fourth verse." We believe it means all, in both verses. There is no
manifest restriction accompanying it, in either case, and therefore we
protest against any such restriction being put upon it, by any human
authority. A. Then you must believe that all men will actually he saved !
P. By no means. We believe that God does, in itself considered,
sincerely desire the salvation of all, because it is, in itself, very desirable
that all should be saved. But he does not, on the whole, all things con
sidered, determine to save all ; because it is not, on the whole, best that
all should be saved.
Since, therefore, the Scriptures plainly declare, that " God so loved
the world, that be gave his only begotten Son," and that " He is the
propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only, but also for the sins of
the whole world," and that Christ " gave himself a ransom for all."
" That he by the grace of God should taste death for every man," that
he " died for all," and is " the Lamb of God which taketh away the sin
of the world," and that some who perish " bring upon themselves swift
destruction," by " denying the Lord that bought them," you must allow
me to bebeve that Christ did not die for the elect only, but for all men.

END.

INDEX.

Ability, the basis of obligation, 282-284, 359.
Agency, human, not to be overlooked, 339-343.
Abminius, James, 255.
Atonement, definition of the, lxx, 147, 189-195.
lies at the foundation of the Gospel, 113, 435.
a peculiar and distinguishing doctrine of the Gospel, 110, 435.
originated by sovereign grace, xv.
nature of the, 103, 104, 158-168, 441, 562-572.
not tbe payment of a debt, x, xiv, lxi, Ixxii, 104, 513, 514, 564—566.
nature of the, misapprehended, 36, 37, 147-210.
not reconciliation, 186-203, 572.
consists in, what, not in showing that the divine law is jYist, 29-31 .
not in removing the guilt or ill desert of sinners, 509.
not in active orpositive obedience, 31-34, 130-132, 470-487,522.
not in the payment of a debt, 18, 224, 489, 490, 513.
has none of the attributes of a commercial transaction, 223.
in sufferings and death, li, Hi, lxxi, 100, 123, 457-469, 476^483.
all the reasons wliich prove the necessity of, show that it consisted in suf
ferings, 476.
matter of the, 99, 156, 173.
necessity of the, 1-14, 101-104, 113-119, 436, 442-457, 562-572.
why necessary, 6-14, 436, 569-572.
entirely on God's account, xi, 114-119.
not to make God benevolent or compassionate, 442, 443, 455> 563.
not to restore man to his moral agency, 563.
not to pay for favors to be bestowed upon us,. 564.
not to satisfy commutative justice, 565.
not to take away ill desert, 566.
not to satisfy distributive justice, 107, 567-571.
to remove obstacles in tho way of pardon, 456.
to declare God's righteousness in pardoning sinners, 444-455.
satisfies public justice, 106, 569.
in what sense a cover for sin, 148-150, 571, 572.
the benefits of, brought within the reach of all moral agents, 361.
all who are saved, are saved by virtue of the, 482. (585)

586 INDEX.
Atonement — continued.
applied by divine sovereignty, xv, xlvii, lxxvi.
does not take away the ill desert of sinners, lii, liii, lvii, 495, 509-512.
must manifest as high respect for the law, be fitted as effectually to discountenance
sin, and must manifest God's regard for holiness, and his hatred of sin, as fully
as the complete execution of the penalty of the law would have done, lxix, 463,
494-504, 528.
shows that God acts from the most noble benevolence, 36.
useful as motive to holiness, xi.
expresses God's benevolence to all, 315-318.
not limited, 133. See extent of.
designed to manifest the divine attributes, lxviii.
to support the divine law, 29.
to satisfy the justice of God toward himself, 91, 101, 102, 124.
a declaration of God's hatred of sin, and love of holiness, 31.
shows in what sense, the sufferings of Christ were agreeable to God, 35.
by the, great gain accrues to the universe, 33.
forgiveness in consequence of the, 3.
a substitute for the punishment threatened, 8, 41, 154.
by the, the law and government of God supported, 8, 19.
without an, God would have appeared unjust to his law, 444-446, 456.
unjust to his kingdom, 446-450, 456.
unjust to himself, 450-456.
God not arbitrary in requiring an, 41.
and divinity of Clirist, inseparably connected, 108.
we cannot make an, 9, 10, 11.
none but Christ can make an, 1 1 .
Socinian view of it inconsistent, 11-14.
by Christ, and free grace, consistent, 1 5-28.
is pardon through the, an act of justice or grace, 20-28.
docs not diminish, but magnifies the grace of God, 18.
a declaration of the evil of sin, 18.
of the rectitude of the divine law, 18.
manifests God's hatred of sin, 31.
did not satisfy justice towards sinners themselves, 120.
merited nothing, 121, 122, 132, 133.
that, which would answer for a few, is adequate for all, 526.
grace consistent with, 15-28.
same grace exercised in pardoning by, as if none were made, 121.
not merely expedient, 122.
extent of the, general or unlimited, xi, xiv, lix, lx, 119, 123, 133, 249-343, 525,
549-583.
not incidental, but purposely intended, 329-331.
a measure exclusively for moral agents, 275-278.
a public transaction and not limited to a part, 275.
a general provision, reasons for, 327.
importance of correct language on, 343-347.
necessarily universal, 525.
a complete provision for moral agents, 336-338.
reasons for an, for those who perish, 325.
benefit of the, made over to all, 350-358.

INDEX. 5§f
Atonement — continued.
all men bound to make the benefit of the, their own, 359-365.
actual influence of the, upon all, 365-r374.
Synod of Dort, on the actual influence of the, upon all, and as sufficient for all,
375-380.
testimony of Calvin, Watts, and others o*i the universality and all-sufficiency of
the, 381-388.
offered and accepted, expressly for all, 388-397.
whole meaning of the extent of the, at one view, 336-338,
importance of correct language on tlje subject of, 343.
Scriptural view of the, 348.
plan of the argument, 348.
Scriptural doctrine of the, 435-442.
view of, as taken by the Synod of Dort, 148, 254.
for moral agents only, 262.
nothing belongs to, but what was public, 275.
purchase by the, Scripture view of, 125, 132.
God can consistently pardon believing sinners on account of the, x, xlii', lvii, 123.
none can be pardoned by the, without accepting the punishment of their sins,
123, 124.
Pres. Edwards' limitation of the word, xx.
equivalent to the punishment of (be sinner, 9.
not the reason why some and not others aire regenerated, xi.
why the, sometimes represented by obedipnee and sometimes by suffering, 135.
controversy about the, among Calvinjsts, much of it about words, 143, 251.
point between the two partjes, 2"jl.
the ground of release from the curse, 147.
influence of, upon divine government, 152.
in what sense a satisfaction, 37, 38.
in what sense God was under obligation to accept the mediation and atonement
of Christ, 40, 41.
that constitution syhich requires an, in order to pardon, not arbitrary, 41 .
in what sense the, renders God propitious to sinners, 41.
does not represent God as inexorable, 41, 42, 524.
imputed righteousness, Pres. Edwards and T. Hooker, 51, 54, 504-512.
sufficiency of the, for all mankind, 455^469.
sufficiency of the, no argument for universal salvation, 51, 52, 493, 527, 533.
though the, is for all mankind, this implies no obligation on the part of God to
6aye any of them, xi, xliii, Hi, lvii, lxi, lxxv, 525.
object of the, to declare the righteousness of God in granting pardon, 526.
though the, has been made, an- obstacle still remains, 527.
removed the curse of abandonment from all, 249, 250.
on the ground of the, salvation offered to all, on condition of faith in, 59.
a universal door of mercy opened by the, 80, 81, 525.
nothing to be inferred from $he, as to the numher to be saved, 109, 525.
Socinians no reason to object to the doctrine of, 59, 62, 122.
Dr. Priestley's views of, 60, note.
full atonement and salvation by grace, consistent with each other, 470.
opens the way, in which God makes the display of his justice and mercy in the
highest degree and perfection, 528-530.
greatly exalts our ideas of God's goodness, 524.

588 INDEX. B.
Baptist Writers, on the atonement, lxxix.
Baxter, held that God's threatenings do not oblige him to fulfil them, xvi.
Beza, his interpretation of 1 Pet. 3:19, xxxv.
Bellamy, his views of Rom. 4 : 5, xl.
of Christ's obedience as .God, xl-xlii.
of Old Calvinism, xxxix, xlii.
held that the atonement does not oblige God to save the elect, xliii.
on general atonement, xiv.
refers the application of atonement to divine sovereignty, xlvii.
his agreement with other divines, Ixii-lxv, lxxi.
Believers and Unbelievers, confounded with elect and non-elect, and with man
as a capable agent, 310.
Btjrge, Eev. Caleb, 435-545.
recommendations of his Essay, lxxx, 549.
C.
Calvinism, Old, relation of Pres. Edwards to, xi.
Bellamy to, xxxix, xlii.
Hopkins to, xlix.
on Hmited atonement, xlvi.
on appHcation of the atonement, xlviii.
Capacity op Man, the foundation of obligation, 265, 315.
Capacity op Saints in heaven for happiness, xii.
Creation, God's design in, 97, 98.
Christ, the end of the law for righteousness to beUevers, 67-72.
to them in a peculiar sense, 73-76.
the end of the ceremonial law, 67.
not the end of the moral law, 67.
has not paid the debt for us, 18, 19, 104, 513, 564-566.
the end of the law as a covenant, 68, 69.
hath not so saved his people, that they cease to have guilt, 68.
but that personal righteousness is still necessary, 68.
did not suffer in quantity equal to what all his people would have suffered, xxx-
xxxii, 34.
an infinite gain to the universe, 34.
constituted a public representative, 69.
in what sense he purchased salvation, 127.
what he did to purchase, to redeem mankind, 126, 127.
what he did by way of suffering, 457.
in him dwelt all the fulness of the godhead, 100.
will become of none effect to multitudes, 81.
obedience and reward of, 174-185.
has made complete atonement, 136.
a substitute in the room of sinners, 117.

INDEX. 589
Christ — continued.
bis obedience to the precepts of the law without submitting to the curse would
not have proved the justice of that curse, 35.
what rendered the vicarious sufferings of, necessary, 49, 50.
redemption of, an astonishing expedient of wisdom and goodness, 50.
believers cannot do too much for Christ, 136.
sufferings of, characterize the Gospel scheme, 90.
the most affecting scene, 439.
essential to his character as a Saviour, 89, 100.
make it manifest that God respects his law, 458-460.
evince the infinite value God sets upon his own character and law,
89.
constitute the atonement, 100.
sufficiency of, for the pardon of all sinners, 455-469.
to answer all the purposes which would have been
answered by execution of the law, 458-469.
out qf respect to the, how a gain to the universe, 237.
indications of divine displeasure against sin, 89, 464.
whether strictly penal, x, xviii, xxix, li, lxxiv, 498-502, 522.
ground of deliverance, xviii.
equivalent to the evils threatened, xxi, 9.
showed Ms love for those under the curse, xxii.
differed from those of the damned, xxvi.
why vicarious, necessary, 49.
occasioned partly by sympathetic love, xxix, xxxviii.
and death constitute the atonement, li, Hi.
a means of sanctification to himself, xxix.
analysis of the, xxv-xxvii, Hi, Ixxii.
open the way for our salvation, xliii, lvii.
exhibit God's hatred of sin, lxviii.
not a substitute for the punishment of sinners, but for the execution
of the penalty of the divine law, 498-502, 523.
not a literal satisfaction of law and justice, x, 239.
not arbitrarily required, 523.
necessary for an atonement, 117, 476, 477, 522.
effectual to deter from disobedience, 462-469.
can God out of respect to the, be just to himself in pardoning 1 464-
469.
his kingdom, 462.
not a punishment due to sinners, 500-502.
a substitute for tho execution of tho penalty of the law, and thus
constitute an ample atonement, 495-504.
did not take away the ill desert of the sinner, but sustain the law,
and make it consistent for God to pardon, xlii, lvii, 495-500.
in what sense he died in the room and stead of sinners, and that his sufferings were
not punitive, in answer to an objection, 494-504.
obedience of, constitutes no part of the atonement, x, Hi, lxxi, 32-34, 470-487.
does it secure positive blessings t xii, liv, lvi.
whether imputed to the elect ? x, xix, xxy, xxxvi, liv, lvi, lix,
lxxvi.
distinguished by some into active and passive, xvii, lvi.
50

590 INDEX.
Christ — continued.
sanctified through suffering, xxix, xxx.
felt no remorse or despair, xxxi.
his bearing the burden of sin defined, xxviii.
humiliation of, by some made a part of the atonement, xxxiv.
his redeeming, purchasing, buying, and ransoming mankind in what sense, 133-
135.
righteousness of, not imputed in the sense of transfer, 504-512.
did he die for all mankind, or only for the elect? eleven arguments for the latter
answered, 549-583.
died for all men, shown in six particulars, 579, 580.
his disposition to obey constituted no part of the atonement, 522.
no legal oneness between, and belieycrs, 224--23.4.
Covenant <>p Redemption, 335.

D.
Dependence, no abatement of obbgation, 265.
Difficulty solved, 15-28.
Doctrines op Grace, a connection between them, 440.
Doddridge, his interpretation of 1 Pet. 3 : 19, xxxv.

E.
Edwards, Pros., the elder, his relation to old Calvinism, xi.
exalts God's sovereignty i-i connection with the atonement, -di-xv.
on God's obligation to fulfil a threatening, xv-xvii.
on the distinction between active and passive righteousness, xvii.
on the character of Christ's obedience, xviii.
teaches that we are delivered from hell on the ground of Christ's agonies, but
admitted into heaven on the grounds of his merits, xviii, xix.
imputation of Christ's righteousness defined by, xix.
his vague use of language, xxi*-xxiv, xxxviii.
his definition of merit, xxiv.
his analysis of Christ's sufferings, xxv.
on the character of Clu-ist's sufferings, occasioned partly by his sympatlictic love
of sinners, xxvi, xxx, xxxviii.
his explanation of Christ's bearing our sins, xxviii.
distinguishes suffering in view of sin, from suffering as tho penalty of sin, xxix.
taught that Christ's sufferings were less than the penalty of the law, xxx-xxxii.
on the distinction between punishing of persons, and of their sins, xxxii-xxxiv.
his distinction between the humiliation and suffering of Christ, including both
in the atonement, xxxiv.
his distinction botween God's treating and his regarding men as righteous, xxxvi.
his definition of justification, xxxvii.
on limited atonemont, xlvii.
his agrcoment with other divines, xiv, xlvii, lxii-lxv.
successors of, ix, xviii, xxxiii, lxii, lxv.

INDEX, 591
Edwards, the Younger, 3-42.
bis connection with other divines, lxiii, Ixvi, lxviii.
Ms reasons for studying the subject of the atonement, briv.
Edwardean Theory of the Atonement, defined, ix-xi.
its effects on Universalism, lxxix.
Emmons, 111-136.
his criticism on Edwards, lxv.
his writings on the atonement, lxxix. F.
Eaith, an act, xl, xlix.
essential to secure the blessings of the atonement, 527,
no justificatipn or pardon without faith, 513^-517.
obstacles in the way of the pardon of those who have not faith, 531.
the requisition of, lessens not the all-sufficiency of Christ, nor the glory of free
grace, 78, 80.
different kinds of, 506.
unbelief enhances sin and guilt, 530-532.
what meant by, 450.
has no merit of condignity or congruity, xiv
Forgiveness, an act of the most free and abundant grace, 3, 24—27.
through the atonement only, 4, 5, 8.
wholly through the atonement of Christ, and yet entirely by free grape, 15-24;
this difficulty solved, 15-28.
without atonement, inconsistent with the authority of the divine law, 7, 8, 444.
obtained only through tbe atonement of Christ, 4.
in consequence of the atonement, 3.
offered and promised to all who repent, 439,
wholly of grace, not of debt, 3, 15-28, 51^63.
provision for, 286.
not deserved, 63.
faith indispensable to, 514-517.
within the reach of all moral agents, 336.
obstacles in the way of, without atonement, 442-456.

G.
God, his design in creation, 97, 98.
without an atonement, would have been unjust to his law, to his kingdom, and to
himself, in forgiveness, 444-456, 514-517.
cannot forgive, but can reward sinners without atonement, 135, 136, 450,
could not have been just to himself and law in pardoning put of respect to obedi
ence, 471.
is he under obligation to fulfil a threatening, xv, 1.
his great aim in his works, lxvii.
not angry with Christ, lxxiii.
whether under obligation in justice to save the sinner, xi, xliii, lii, lvii, lxi, lxxv.
Government of God, not one of force, but of Jaw, 101.
an exhibition of his feelings and character, 452, 453, note.

592 INDEX.
Grace, explained, 21-28, 51, 104, 105.
consistent with atonement, 25.
more grace in forgiveness through the atonement, than without atonement, 27, 28.
all blessings matters of mere grace, 53, 54.
promises to insure salvation to believers, 62.
Griffin, 137-427.
his object in writing on atonement, lxix, 143-145.
H.
Happiness of Saints in Heaven, xii.
Hopkins, Dr: S., his relation to old Calvinism, xlix.
regards faith an act, xlix.
on God's obligation to fulfil a threatening, 1.
teaches that the atonement consists merely in Christ's sufferings and death, li.
his analysis of Christ's sufferings, Hi.
on tho atonement as not delivering from ill desert, Hi, lvii.
on Christ's obedience as securing positive favors, Hv ; as a servant, liv.
on Christ's obedience and sufferings as inseparable, Iv.
uses Edwardean phraseology, lvi.
his definition of imputation, lviii, lix.
on general atonement, lix.
holds that God is not obbged to save the elect, lxi.
his connection with other divines, lvi, lxii, Ixvi, Ixxi.
his criticism on Edwards, Ixiv. I.
Ill desert, not removed by atonement, lii, lvii.
Imputation of Christ's righteousness, x, xix, xxxvi, liv, lvi.
definitions of, xxv, lviii, lix, lxxvi.
the idea of, 211-213, 234.
an inquiry concerning, 504-512.
Inability, none except moral, which does not excuse, 35.
J.
Justice, 20 ; the meaning of the word, 105.
not satisfied without punishment, 239.
commutative, 20 ; not satisfied by Christ, 37, 105, 239.
distributive, 20-24 ; not satisfied by Christ, xx, xxiii, 37, 39, 106, 121.
sometimes regarded as demanding our justification, xiv.
public, 21-23, 106 ; satisfied by the death of Christ, 37, 51, 106.
the word as used by the Apostle Paul, 24.
the sense in which it admits of the salvation of sinners, 39, 40.
the amiableness and awfulness of vindictive, evinced, 71.
the word used in three different senses, 20, 105, 492.
and sovereignty distinguished by Pres. Edwards, xv.
will eternally demand the punishment of the regenerate, x.
general, satisfied by Christ's sufferings, x, xxiii.
Christ suffered to honor, xxii.

INDEX. 593

Justification, gospel, explained, xxxvii, 46, 48.
implies acquittance from all sin, 46, 48.
through faith, perfectly consistent with full atonement, 134.
wholly of grace, 15-28, 45-64.
implies'the grant of a title to eternal life, 47, 48.
the redemption of Christ, the essential ground of, 48.
a distinction between that of works and faith, 56.
by faith, founded in the fitness of things, 76-78.
a consequence of atonement, 75-80, 513.
no justification or pardon without faith in Christ, 513-517, 533.
and pardon the same, 508, 509, note.
bebevers only have, 75.

Law, nature of the divine, 91, 95.
divine, contains a prescription of duties, 92.
duties prescribed, comprehended in love, 92.
contains comminations of divine vengeance against transgressors, 93.
tends to secure the highest happiness of rational creatures, 94.
no force without a penalty, 100, 153, 445-450.
essential to moral government, 102, 445-450.
requires perfect obedience, 99.
man has incurred the penalty of, 96, 440.
how Clirist is the end of the, for righteousness, 67, 72.
how God would have manifested respect for his law, by the execution of its pen
alty, 458-469.
respect for, shown in God's manifestation of displeasure against sin, 460, note.
holy, just, and good, and must be respected, 444-455.
man under condemnation by the, 445.
penalty cannot be remitted, without a substitute, 445.
not the, in two parts, 149.
Love, a principal source of Christ's sufferings, xxix, xxxiii.
Luther, held that Christ Uterally paid our debts, lxi.
M.
Man, moral state of, 95, 97.
Maxcy on Atonement, lxxix, 89-110.
Men are complete moral agents, and none the less for their dependence, 265.
as moral agents, and as passive recipients, 252, 264.
this Griffin regards as the angle of separation between the two parties that hold
to general and limited atonement, 252.
as moral agents, under obligation to be good without divine influence, 265-270.
distinction between the active and passive characters of, will remove difficulties,
271-274.

Merit of condignity and of congruity, xiv, 40.
Pres. Edwards' definition of, xxiv.
the idea of personal, exploded, 51, 57.

594 INDEX.
Merit — continued.
creatures have no, 55.
Christ's, not imputed to believers, 55-58, 61, 62, 132, 133
not acquired or lost by proxy, 57.
none by Christ, 51-60, 121, 132.
the phrase, merits of Christ, leads to Antinomianism, 133.
Mistakes, from drawing literal conclusions from figurative premises, 210-221.
Moral Agents, attributes of, 279-286.
atonement for them and them only, 262, 292.
treated as if there were no foreknowledge, 298.
treated conditionally, 300-310.
treatment of, expresses divine benevolence, 315.
treatment of individual, intended to influence moral agents generally, 322.
Moral Governor, 323-325.
purposes of the, not to be confounded with those of the sovereign efficient cause,
319.
Moral Law and Government, what is it, 293-298.
necessary, 6.
not one of force, 101.
implies a penalty, 6.
penalty necessary to the existence of government, 7, 101.
the divine, supported by tbe atonement, 8, 9.
0.
Obligation, rests upon capacity or natural abibty, 285.
of God to fulfil a promise and threatening, xv, 1.
Obedience, of Christ, does not constitute any part of the atonement, 32-34, 130,
470-487.
not sufficient to answer any of those purposes for which atonement was necessary,
476, 483.
of another can be no ground of pardon for an offender, 476.
necessary to render him a fit offering, 158.
See Clirist, obedience of. P.
Pardon of Sinners, see forgiveness.
Penalty of the Law, Christ's sufferings not the exact and Hteral, x, xxx, li.
design of the, lxvii.
Probation or Trial, 287.
Punishment, distinguished from suffering, xxix.
future not discipHnary, 109.
demanded by distributive justice, x.
duration of future, 94.
Purchase of Christ's blood, 125-132.
not in a literal sense, 125-132.

INDEX. 595
R.
Redemption, covenant of, 335.
Regeneration of the elect an act of sovereignty, xv, xlvii, lx.
Repentance, makes no atonement, 9-11 ; not aU that is necessary, 439.
Reprobation and the order of divine decrees, 331.
Righteousness, how Christ is the end of the law for, 67-72.
meaning of a, connected with the justification of the believer, 205.
of Christ not transferred, or imputed to believers, 51, 52, 511, 512.
meaning of, 207, 209.
not imputed, 132, 133. S.
Sinners, condemned for their unbelief, 360.
no claim on account of personal conduct, 23.
the benefits of the atonement brought within their reach, 360.
forgiven on Christ's account, rewarded on their own account, 135.
the guilt of, not transferable, 567, 568.
Smalley, 48-85.
his connection with Hopkins, Ixni.
his criticism on President Edwards, xiv, lxv.
Sovereignty of God, decides who shall be regenerated, xi,
distinguished strict justice, xv.
originated the atonement, xv.
in the application of the atonement, xii, xv, xlvii, lxxvi.
Sufferings of Christ. See Christ.
Synod of Dort, views of, 254-262, 375. T.
Threatening, obligation of God to fulfil a, xv, L
Total Depravity, a ground of the necessity of atonement, 95-97, 440.
U.
Universalism, its connection with old Calvinism, Ixxviii.
its connection with the Edwardean Theory, lxxix.
Universalists, held that our sins would be separated from as at the judgment,
xxxiv.
Universal Salvation, remarks on the doctrine of, 83-85, 533.
not to be inferred from the atonement, 58, 59, 65, 109, 133, 493, 530-532.
"W.
Watts, asserts that Christ died for all, 251.
testimony of, and others, 381-388.

596 INDEX.
Weeks, Dr., his Dialogue, 547-583.
occasion of his Dialogue, lxxx.
West, Dr. Stephen, his agreement with other divines, Ixxi, Ixxii ; his connection
with other divines, lxv-lxvii.
on God's grand aim in all his works, Ixvii.
on the design of penalties, Ixvii.
held that the atonement expresses exactly the same as punishment would have
expressed, lxvui.
on the atonement as honoring the law, lxix.
his definition of atonement, Ixx.
held that the atonement consists merely in Christ's sufferings and death, Ixxi.
held that Christ did not Hterally satisfy the law, Ixxii.
held that Christ's sufferings were not strictly penal, lxxiii.
held that God is not obliged to save the elect, lxxv.
rejects the old methods of describing the imputation of Christ's righteousness, Ixxvi.
asserts God's sovereignty in applying the atonement, Ixxvi.

END.

Ill