7- Stom f 0e £ifirar£ of (professor Wifftam ^nrjj (Breen Q&equeaf0eo fig 0im to f 0e feifirarg of (prtncefon £0eofo tal to the objection, viz : that the corrupt lusts prevent the understanding from seeing spiritual things aright. We agree in the fact. But now these lusts are as much in the mind as the powers of understanding. The de- ficiency, therefore, is in the mind, and we cannot look beyond itself, for the causes of this deficiency. If you conceive the understanding to be one part of the mind, and the lusts another part of the mind, standing between the former and the sun of Righteousness ; I ask, why does not the understanding remove the obstruction ? If it cannot remove the obstruction, it must abide in dark- ness. And this is the evidence of its imbecility. But I am not now to discuss the doctrine of ability, and the preceeding, will, I hope, satisfy you as to the humbling fact in reference to the whole race of Adam, thatbyrea-? CONSEQUENCES OF ADAM's SIN. 101 son of sin they have " become vain in their imaginations, and their foolishheart was darkened" — "professing them- selves wise, they became fools," "darkness covered the earth, and gross darkness the people." SECTION III. The moral affections of Adam and his posterity be- came depraved by his sin. Few men have been so left to the unrestrained do- minion of sin, as to have denied altogether its corrupt- ing influences on the heart — as to have maintained that the feelings and affections of the race are, and always have been such as became the Creator originally to pro- duce. Rarely has the effrontery of infidelity so run riot, as to charge upon the Creator, the folly and the crime of creating man as he is, with all his wickedness in him. On the contrary, it is generally agreed, even by the open neglecters of religion, that man was originally created holy and upright — that his corruption did not originate with his maker, but had its origin in his own voluntary action. All, it appears to me, who admit an essential difference between virtue and vice, go thus far in the way of truth. The bible account of man's corruption is simple. He disobeyed the command of God, and God left him, in a degree, to the desires of his own heart. Previously to this dereliction from the path of duty, the divine power sustained and directed the action of human affections to- wards himself; but afterwards God withheld, to some extent, those influences by which the heart of Adam was drawn toward himself, and a consequence was, aliena- tion from his maker; Adam's ieelings and affections wandered after forbidden joys. He sought his happi- ness, not in the delightful communion of God ; but in intercourse with the creature. Like his children in a distant age, he loved and served the creature more than the Creator. His conduct in hiding from God, to which we have referred for another purpose, is also available here. It shews an alienation of affection. Had his 4e- 9* 102 CONSEQUENCES OF ADAM'S SIN. light been in God as the chief'good, this desire for con- cealment could not have possessed his mind. Of his moral feelings we have not another exhibition in the bible history ; but the course of God's dealings plainly shows that man's heart was not upright in him — he sought out many inventions. " Adam being in honour abode not." Now '* who can bring a clean thing out of an un- clean ? Not one." Consequently as was the parent of the race so is the race. Many a proverb expresses this general truth. "The stream cannot rise higher than the fountain." " Men do not gather grapes of thorns, nor figs of thistles." " Every tree is known by its fruit." The parent stock of the race, must send forth scions ac- cording to its own nature. Such is the judgment of common sense : that is, of mankind in general, as ex- pressed in the proverb — like begets like. Such also is the plain declaration of the Bible. " Adam begat a son in his own likeness, after his image; and called his name Seth." That his first son was morally depraved, his conduct testifies; and that his second was so also, Abel's sacrifice, which he offered to God, fully acknowledged. " And Abel he also brought of the firstlings of his flock and of the fat thereof." Here was a bloody sacrifice, wherein there is set forth and confessed, on the part of the worshipper, desert of death. The I ory of the race from that period until Noah's mission, a space of more than fourteen hundred years, brief as it is, affords sufficient evidence on the point of moral character, greatly to strengthen our position. And at ; is period, the testimonies are exceedingly plain as pointed, as plain. For "God saw that the wickf of man was great in the earth, and that every in agination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually." " The earth also was corrupt before and the earth was filled with violence: And God l< Iced upon the earth, and behold it was corrupt, for a^i fle: h had corrupted his way upon the earth." Gen. 5, 11, 12. Hence the flood of waters. But not all the bill( ws of the deluge could wash away the pollu- tion of the earth. We see the foul stain immediately CONSEQUENCES OF ADAM's SIN. 103 after its close. The vineyard of Noah, the tower of Babel, the plains of Nineveh — the wars of the kings, the life even of Abraham and Isaac, of Jacob and of the twelve patriarchs, do they not all testify to the truth, that the whole race is corrupt ? What is history, but a criminal record ? What are chronological epochs and eras, but points rendered illustrious by some splendid re" suit of immorality? Shall I spend your time and my labour in making more evident, the truth of a position, whose truth burns in every sting of a condemning conscience ; as it throbs in every sally of unholy desire ? Must the forms of ar- gument be followed up, when you can no more doubt of the truth to be convinced than you can doubt of your own existence ? Is it possible, in the entire compass of human thought, to select a truth more thoroughly riveted in the convictions of the race, than this very truth, that the earth is corrupted before God — the thoughts of man's heart are only evil continually — the heart is de-- ceitful above all things and desperately wicked ? Surely not, and therefore I lorbear. But let us remember dis- tinctly, the matter before, as merely a matter of fact — such is the moral character of the race. This is the fact. The mode as to its legal bearings is not before us. We have seen, indeed, how it follows Adam's"sin ; but the nature and necessity of this consequence will appear in our next. Let us close this with one or two reflections. 1. We are mortal. Our bodies are infected with the virus of corruption and tend rapidly to decay. Death will soon shut our eyes on all that earth holds dear to us. A century hence, and this living earth, we call ourselves and which we cherish so tenderly, will lie un- discriminated in its kindred clay. What a fact, this for the contemplation of the rational mind ! How humbling to human pride ! How instructive to the wise in heart ! ! 2. " Vain man would be wise, though man be born like a wild ass*s colt, 1 ' Pride of intellect ! how pre- sumptuous ! Let us remember that our intellectual strength must come from God. 3. Who of us can wash his hands before God, and tft)4 ORIGINAL SIN. say I am clean ? Yea, let us bide our heads in tho dust before him. Our first father became corrupt and we are unclean. Let each one for himself confess, " Behold I was shapen in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me." Yet let us not faint, but pray. ** Purge me with hyssop, and I shall be clean ; wash me, and I shall be whiter than snow." CHAPTER VIII. ON ORIGINAL SIN. SECTION I. Hie Definition of the term. ** Sin is the transgression of the law." With this definition of the Apostle, I am content. A better I am persuaded no man will ever present in so few words. That it covers both the negative and positive precepts we have already seen ; or, to speak with more preci- sion, it extends to all the acts of mind, whether such as occur when it determines to obey God, in his command to abstain from bodily action ; or when he directs to perform it. The body is the mere index to the mind, like the face of a clock, shewing its internal action ; but with this exception, that like the hands of a clock which are too loose on their axis, it often fails to point out the movement of the mind within. Now we are not up to the line of truth and duty, when we look merely at the external face; we must have regard to the inward move- ments : the mind itself — the soul is the moral being, it alone is capable of committing sin. And with Paul we have seen, that sin is the mind's acting contrary to law, The theory therefore, which makes sin a mere negative is to be discarded as mere theory, inconsistent with scripture language and with the truth and facts of the ORIGINAL SIN. 105 case, and at variance with sound philosophy, that is, with common sense. Sin is the transgression of the law. Original sin must then be the original transgression; or the transgression at the origin or beginning. And it is obvious, the term must be attached to some person or persons before it becomes expressive of any particular sin. A sin which occurred at the origin or beginning of what ? or whom ? The sense of the phrase, original sin, must materially depend upon the response to this enquiry. Should it be answered: at the origin of mo- ral beings; — then, as the angels were created and some of them fell, perhaps before man was created, certainly before he fell, original sin must mean the sin of Satan— the first sin of which we have any knowledge. But in this sense the word is not at all used by Theological writers: and, as it is not a Bible expression, we must ascertain its right meaning from those who do use it. To this we may be aided by contrast. The Westmin* ster divines, and others, use the phrase, original right" eousness, to signify that uprightness, holiness, recti- tude of moral character, which Adam possessed at his creation and before he sinned : and this they bring into immediate contrast with the sin in question. " By this sin [original sin] they fell from their original righteous* ness." And so, in the IX Article, the English estab- lishment says of original sin,|it is that " whereby man is very far gone from original righteousness." In this, which I think is the primary, though not the chief appli- cation of the term, it is not restricted to the act of Adam and Eve. For we find it extended by almost all wri- ters and in almost all evangelical confessions, to the immediate effects of the act upon the persons of the actors. Thus, in the two confessions just mentioned, they speak of man's loss of " original righteousness," and of his being " of his own nature inclined to evil ;" of destitution of holiness and of communion with God and so he became dead in sin, and wholly defiled in all the faculties and parts of soul and body." But in the same confessions, and in very many other writings, the phrase is applied to the act of Adam, in* 106 ORIGINAL SIN. elusive of its immediate consequences to his posterity also. Hence they speak " of original or birth-sin," and after mentioning ».• the guilt of Adam's first sin" — the want of righteousness, corruption, inability, opposi- tion to all that is good and inclination to all evil, they add, " which is commonly called original sin" We have therefore this two-fold practical definition of the phrase original sin, in both of which there is a depar- ture from the strict signification of the terms respective- ly, viz: the first act of Adam's disobedience and its effects upon himself ; and, the same act with its effects upon his people. Should it be objected that this is a very vague defini- tion, it makes nothing precise and certain. I answer, let us ever be on our guard against the supposition that the definition of mere terms or phrases, can ever give us an accurate idea of the things. This is not at all the design of defining terms. The definition of a word, simply, and only, points out to what thing we apply it. The precise explanation, exposition, or if you will, de- finition of the thing, is a subsequent matter, in compari- son with which, the former is a mere trifle. To know that men have agreed to apply the name limestone, to a certain solid substance, is not without some advantage; but to know what are the properties and uses of that substance is quite a different thing, and of infinitely greater advantage. To know that theological writers apply the phrase, original sin, first to Adam's first of- fence and its effects upon himself personally, and also, in the second place, to Adam's first offence, and its ef- fects upon his posterity, will be found useful ; inasmuch as it will enable me to turn your attention toward the thing, in either case, by the simple utterance of the words. But to understand the thing — to comprehend the relations of Adam and of his people to God and his law; their liabilities in consequence of that act, and its effects upon him and them ; — this, how different and Jiow infinitely more important ? IMPUTATION. i(V? SECTION IL The definition of the thing* Now the explanation of the thing, to which the phrase original sin is applied, is already in part, before you. The effects of his act, in some degree, immediate and more remote upon Adam, and also upon his peo- ple, in reference to their physical, intellectual and moral constitutions formed the subject of the last chapter; and yet they are intimately connected with this discussion, and indeed form a part of it. We felt ourselves obliged to anticipate a little, the question concerning the legal relations of Adam. The fact, that the precept of the law holds him responsible ; and the fact, that superad- ded is the penal claim, were distinctly stated. The reasons why it must necessarily be so, were also exhi- bited, at least so far as to point out the ruinous conse- quences of maintaining, that the precept and the penalty cannot both simultaneously hold the subject of law. The action of charging upon Adam his sin ; and the action whereby its legal consequence is declared, next claims our attention, The former of these is called imputation ; the latter condemnation. SECTION III. Of Imputation. The Hebrew word (Hashab) for impute, occurs with great frequency and is variously translated. It signi- fies that operation of the mind, whereby we form a judgment. It is often difficult to discover and lay open this sense ; but I think it always includes the notion of comparing two things together and marking their agree- ment or difference. This is the leading idea — this ^ope- ration of the mind is what the Hebrew word is designed to express. Hence it signifies to think. Gen. xxxviii, 15; "And Judah saw her, and thought her to be an harlot." Gen. l, 20: "But as for'you, ye thought evil 108 IMPUTATION. against me, but God meant [thought'] it unto good." 1. Sam. i. 13. — "Eli thought she had been drunken." The word is sometimes translated by esteem. Isa. xxix. 17. "Your fruitful field shall be esteemed as a forest." — liii. 3, 4. "He was despised and we esteemed him not —we did esteem him smitten of God." In all which cases it is not difficult to perceive the operation of mind, or process of thought to which I have alluded. Judah compared in his mind the appearance of Tamar, with the idea and dress of a harlot, and perceived their agree- ment. Here the judgement was in default, but the pro- cess did take place and he was of opinion, they agreed. Joseph's brethren compared their distorted ideas of his conduct with their notions of what he ought to be, and they perceived a disagreement ; and therefore connected him with evil. But God, who seeth things as they are, thought otherwise. Eli compared Hannah's behaviour to a drunken person, and perceived an agreement — he imputed drunkenness to her; just as his brethren imputed evil conduct to Joseph, and as Judah imputed unchastity to Tamar. So the fruitful field of the Israelites should be compared to a forest and perceived to agree — so Jesus appeared as a root out of a dry ground — they compared him with their ideas of Messiah and they found a dif- ference ; and he was esteemed to be smitten of God. The unbelieving looked upon the suffering Saviour; they compared him with such as are under God's judgements and seeing the agreement, they so considered him. They imputed to him the character of a malefactor. There js therefore a judgement of the mind in every act of imputation. " To impute," says Dr. Owen, " unto us, that which is really ours, antecedently unto that imputation, includes two things in it, 1. An ac* knowledgment or judgement, that the thing so imputed is really and truly ours, or was. He that imputes wis- dom or learning unto any man, doth in the first place acknowledge him to be wise or learned. 2. A dealing with them according unto it, whether it be good or evil. So when upon trial a man is acquitted because he is found righteous ; first he is judged and esteemed right- eous, and then dealt with as a righteous person, his righteousness is imputed to him." Justification, p. 148. tMPUtATIOtf. 109 So Adam in the case before us. His conduct is com- pared with the law under which he Was placed : it is perceived to disagree ; unrighteousness is seen to be in him : and accordingly he is thought to be — he is esteem- ed, unrighteous : his unrighteousness or sin is imputed to him. The term is applied to express the keeping of pecuniary accounts ; wherein there is a debtor and a creditor. — Some things are set down against, and some in favor of the person ; these are compared together, and as the agreement or excess is, so is the balance a debt or a cred- it. 2. Kin. xii. 15, " Moreover they reckoned not with the men into whose hands they delivered the money to be bestowed on the workmen ; for they dealt faithfully." And xxii. 7 — "there was no reckoning made with them." Here they kept no reckoning, no account of receipts and expenditures. Lev. xxv. 50, "And he shall reckon with him that bought him, from the year that he was sold to him, unto the year of jubilee : and the price of his sale shall be according to the number of years." — And xxvii. 18, — "then the priest shall reckon unto him the money, according to the years that remain." He shall adjust the account and strike an equable balance. Here again, we have the process of comparing the things together and marking their agreement or difference. It is the plain and simple operation which a judge per- forms in the discharge of his official duty. He sets down, all the items presented against the person to be judged. He marks his entire conduct: compares it with the law's prescription and declares the difference or agreement, and holds him to the legal consequences. This process is imputation: and the imputation is just only when these items really belong to the individual. Should the Judge put down, for, or against a man, any thing that was not really and truly his, it would be an unjust imputation ; and judgment founded upon it would not be according to truth. The thing imputed must, as Owen says, be " really and truly ours, or in us." Adam must have actually sinned, he must have stood to the law in the relation of a sinner, or sin could not be im- puted or set down against him. But he did eat the fruit 10 110 IMPUTATION. and his sin is imputed to him : and he is held to its just consequences. You will observe then, that a man's own acts are im- puted to him, and because they are his own. So Lev. xvii. 4, — "blood shall be imputed unto that man, he hath shed blood" If he had not shed it, it would not have been set down against him. So the person who improperly sacrifices, " it shall not be accepted, neither shall it be imputed [set down to his benefit] to him that offereth it;" — Lev. vii. 18. In like manner Shimei 2 Sam. xix. 19) "said unto the king, Let not my Lord impute iniquity to me, neither do thou remember what thy servant did perversely." He acknowldges his offence and it was impossible the king should not think that Shimei had committed the offence. What did the of- fender desire ? Simply that the king would not so set it down against him, as to hold him responsible for it — to fasten upon him the just and lawful consequences — the punishment deserved. It is perhaps impossible to find a plainer illustration of the force and'meaning of imputation, than we have here. This man had com- pared his own conduct, in cursing David and casting stones, with the law, by which he was bound to obey the king 1 , whom God and the people had placed over him. He saw the disagreement, and knew the king saw it too. His eye glanced at the just consequences, and to avert it, he makes suit to his restored monarch. The precise object of his anxious desire, is, that the punish- ment he deserved might not be inflicted — that the king would not hold him to the legal and penal results of his own acts. To impute a man's iniquity to him, is there- fore, nothing more or less, than to set it to his account and to hold him liable to punishment for it. Can any man suppose that Shimei wished the king to believe that he did not curse him and caststones ? Why does he con- fess it? The thing is utterly absurd. It was no part of his expectation to make the king believe that the of- fensive acts were not his. But now, if the imputation of righteousness means, that the righteous acts of one man become the personal acts of another man — or if the im- putation of one man's sin to another, means that the sin- IMPUTATION. 1 1 I ful acts of the one person become the sinful acts of the other person, then the non-imputation of Shimei's in- iquity must mean, that he did not do the acts — that in not imputing them, the king should really believe he never did perform them ! On the contrary, if the impu- tation of iniquity is simply the seting of it down and the holding of a person responsible for its legal consequences; viz, its just punishment; so the imputation of right- eousness, is — not the thinking that the person did the act ; but the setting of it to his account, the holding of him liable to its legal consequences ; viz, its just reward. Thus "Phinehas stood up and executed judgement : and so the plague was stayed : and that was counted [im- puted^ unto him for righteousness." — Psa. cvi. 30, 31. God viewed the act of Phinehas ; compared it with the holy law ; found it agreeing therewith ; set it down to his account; and held him to its just consequences ; viz: he rewarded him. " The righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him." There are therefore, as before stated from Owen, these two things always in the act of imputation, viz, 1, The perception and accounting of the thing imputed, as belonging to the person to whom it is imputed ; and 2. The determination to give to him the just and legal consequences of it. The commenda- ble act of administering summary justice in the case, is seen and accounted as belonging to Phinehas. The act of eating the forbidden fruit is seen and accounted as belonging to Adam. This is the first part of impu- tation. The purpose or determination is conceived, to give to Phinehas the just and lawful results of his act, a suitable benefit or reward. The purpose of letting the just and legal effects of his act fall upon Adam is enter- tained — he shall be punished. This is the second part of imputation. The absence of either of these will de- stroy the true idea of imputation. To view and account any act or thing as belonging to an individual, where it is not, is plainly to violate the law of truth : and to fol- low that up with the legal consequences, is plainly to violate justice. To account truly an act as belonging to a person and yet not to append to that act its rightful re- sults, is equally to sin against the laws of justice. But 1 12 CONDEMNATION. when both exist — when, upon an inspection of the case, it is seen, that Adam did the act — it is his ; truth is maintained in this part of the imputation : and when the purpose is entertained to let things be connected in fact, which are connected in law ; viz : the sinful action and its punishment, justice is upheld. Thus far imputation, both as to the term and the thing, in its primary application ; that is, its applica- tion to individuals and their own personal acts. We reserve its application to other cases for another chapter. SECTION IV. Of Condemnation. The action of declaring the legal consequences of im- puting to Adam his own sin is Condemnation. In defining the term Justification, we had occasion to see, that it stands in contrast with condemnation. That describes the act of a judge in passing a sentence in fa- vour ; this, the act of passing a sentence against a person. Now before either can righteously occur, the operation covered by the term imputation, must take place ; and the parts of it be conducted respectively under the au- spicious administration of truth and justice. For no man can be justly and truly condemned, until an un- lawful act shall have been truly charged to him, until the determination be passed, that its legal consequences shall be connected with him. The former of these oc- curred in the case of Shimei. King David charged him with the crime. The latter did not take place ; for the King, being sovereign, as well as judge, determined, not to allow the law here to do its full execution. Had Abishai killed Shimei, he would have been guilty of murder. The sovereign interposed and averted the tongue of the judge, and, of cource, the sword of the ex- ecutioner. The judge did not pass a sentence of con* demnation and the executioner dared not strike the vic- tim of justice. In the case of Adam, both parts of impu- tation occurred. His act is charged upon him and the purpose is conceived and entertained of treating him ao* GUILT. 1 13 eordingly. Here you have the full idea of imputation. But you have more than this. The purpose to let the act be followed by its just consequence is also expressed. *' Cursed is the ground for thy sake — dust thou art and unto dust shalt thou return." Now this expression is condemnation. This is the last act of the judge directly toward the individual offender. It only remains for him to turn the executioner and bid him r to do his duty. Such was the unhappy condition of the parent of the human race. He had acted c ntrary to law. The judge had compared his conduct with the law, and mark- ed their contrariety. He had entertained the purpose to deal with him according to his deeds — had imputed to him his sin. He had declared this purpose — had condemned him. Adam therefore is guilty of death. SECTION V. Of Guilt. Let us settle the meaning of this term. This is the more necessary, because its theological sense is differ- ent ; in some degree from the sense in which it is often taken in common conversation. We use it simply to describe the state and condition of a person who has passed under the law's condemnatory sentence. It is generally true, that he is deserving of punishment: but this idea is expressed in a^hej terms ; and guilt implies simply, the persons exposed to punishment, because the law has pronounced upon him its sentence of condem- nation. In theological discussions we ought to adhere to scrip- ture usage, in the meaning of terms which are used in t ! i e Bible : and generally, where words are used often iD both the Old and the New Testaments, the usage of the former ought to govern : just as the meaning of a word in the English Bible, is never to be settled by a refer- ence to English authorities, but to the original scriptures. Let us therefore appeal to the Old Testament. And here we find the term guilty used as a translation for a single Hebrew word, but seventeen times. One of these 10* 114 GUILT. occurs in Numbers xxxv. 31. "Ye shall take no sat- isfaction for the life of a murderer, which is guilty of death ; but he shall be surely put to death." Here the word rendered guilty (Kashang) means ill desert, and this is the only instance where the word is so translated. In the other sixteen, cases, the Hebrew word (asham) signifies simply obligation — or liability to the penal claims of law. Of these sixteen it is used (Lev. iv. 13, 22, 27, and v. 2, 3, 4, 5, 17.) eight times in reference to the sins of ignorance, whereby ceremonial guilt is contracted. In Lev. vi. 4, it is applied to sins of moral turpitude knowingly committed, such as lying, decep- tion, false swearing. But a careful inspection will shew that in every case the sin and the guilt are distinguish- ed from each other. " If the whole congregation of Is- rael sin through ignorance — and are guilty." " When a ruler hath sinned and done somewhat through igno- rance — and is guilty." "If any one of the common people sin through ignorance — and be guilty." Here it is manifest the term sin, expresses the wrong-doing, and the term guilty expresses the liability to penal con- sequences : and accordingly, the law proceeds to affirm the ceremonial penalty. In Gen. xlii. 21, Joseph's brethren " said one to another, we are verily guilty concerning our brother — therefore is this distress come upon us." They felt some of the penal evils of their sin and confessed their liability to suffer- — their obli- gation to penalty. In Judges xxi. 1, the people had sworn " There shall not any of us give his daughter un- to Benjamin to wife," but relenting afterwards, some of their leaders laid the plot to let the Benjamites steal their daughters, and should the parents complain, they pri^ vately assured the Benjamites, they would not be rigid in holding them to punishment for violating their oath— m " we will say unto them — ye did not give unto them at this time, that ye should be guilty ," That is — thai your oath should bind you to its punishment. Those who had married strange wives, Ezra x. 19, " put away their wives and being guilty" — obnoxious to penal evil •— - fhey offered a suitable atonement. Pro. xxx. 10, " Accuse not a servant unto his master, lest he curse GUILT. 115 thee, and thou be found guilty'''' — liable to suffer. Ezek. xxii. 4. "Thou art become guilty in the blood which thou has shed." — Here again the wrong-doing, is distin- guished from the exposure to penal suffering on account of it. Zech. xi. 4, 5, " Thus saith the Lord, my God; feed the flock of the slaughter ; whose possessors slay them, and hold themselves not guilty:" — not liable to punishment, because the laws are prostrated and unable to execute just vengeance. The term occurs once as a noun. Gen. xxvi. 10. Abimelech complains that Isaac's conduct might have brought guiltiness upon us" — exposed us to penal evils as did Abraham's on a former occasion. Dr. Owen, after a very clear statement of the case, says, " Guilt in the scripture, is the respect of sin unto the sanction of the law, whereby the sinner becomes ob- noxious unto punishment. And to be guilty is to be vrc68vxo$ ty £ew, liable unto punishment for sin, from God, as the supreme law-giver and judge of all." Justi. 178. On this point, the Princeton Repertory, vol. 2. 440, quotes Owen, and Grotius, and Edwards, and Ridgeley, and quotations might be greatly extended ; but the Bible is the best authority. Such is the Bible meaning, and ought to be the theological meaning of the term guilt. In closing for the present let us remark. 1. God's imputations are according to both truth and righteousness. If you sin, be sure your sin will find you out. God will reckon it to you and hold you respon- sible for its legal consequences. Men indeed may, through want of knowledge, not impute your offences to you ; or imputing them, may, through want of regard to righteousness, refuse or neglect to hold you responsible ; but not so God — " Shall not the judge of all the'earth do right." And if he will impute iniquity, who can stand before him ? 2. The annunciation, by due authority, of the act of imputation, is a condemnatory sentence. And this fol- lows the other, in every righteous government, by an inevitable moral necessity. It is not a moral possibility to withhold the declaration, when the facts exist. It would be to connive at sin, and become partaker in its 116 IMPUTATION. iniquity. Condemnation must therefore pass upon every sinner. 3. How mournful the fact before us ! The great pro- genitor of the human race, a condemned malefactor, at the bar of his Maker! A little time previously, high in favour with God — holding familiar intercourse with him as a man converseth with his friend — now alas, fallen — degraded — condemned ! How is the gold become dim ! How is the most fine gold changed ! 4. Mark, once more, the intimate connexion between religion and that moral government which constitutes civil society. Their principles are identical. Their doctrines are the same. A truly religious man, who be- lieve the doctrines of the Bible, must necessarily be a good member of society — a good citizen — a patriot — a lover of his country, and of mankind. SECTION VI. " The sin of Mam is rightfully imputed to his posterity.''' This language I have borrowed from Stapferus, through Edwards, who quotes it with approbation vol. it. 545 ; because it accurately expresses the next topic of our discussion. To evince its truth, it will be necessary to recall and apply some of the first principles of morals already settled. We must ever bear in mind, that our discussion is upon a question of legal relations — a ques- tion of right. And one of the truths most important in this case, is, that every moral head, or federal representative, binds, by his action, the moral body of which he is the head — the persons whom he represents. The destinies of the head and body are the same. They are a moral unity. Whatever be the number of persons represented, wheth- er ten, or ten million times ten millions, it is the same ; the act of the one is the act of the whole. I trust we have settled this principle. We have seen, that either it is true, or there neither is, nor can be, moral govern- ment in the universe, nor human society in this world. IMPUTATION. 117 We have also enquired into the matter of fact and found it so to be, that Adam was appointed of God, head of the whole human race — a representative, who acted for all human persons. There existed a moral unity. " I think," says Edwards n. 542, "it would go far to- wards directing to the more clear conception and right statement of this affair, were we steadily to bear this in mind : That God, in every step of his proceeding with Adam, in relation to the covenant or constitution estab- lished with him, looked on his posterity as being one with him. And though he dealt more immediately with Adam, it yet was as the head of the whole body, and the root of the whole tree ; and in his proceedings with him, he dealt with all the branches, as if they had been then existing in their root." " From which it will follow, that both guilt, or expos- edness to punishment, and also depravity of heart, came upon Adam's posterity, just as they came upon him — " " I think this will naturally follow on the supposi- tion of there being a constituted oneness or identity of Adam and his posterity in this affair." " The guilt a man has upon his soul at first ex- istence, is one and simple, viz : the guilt of the original apostacy, the guilt of the sin by which the species first rebelled against God." If the fact be so — if Adam did represent — did act for his people, then they acted through him and by him, just as we republicans act through and by our represen- tatives in Congress. Consequently, his act is as right- fully imputed to us as it is imputed to him. Why is it rightfully imputed to Adam ? Because it is his, and in accounting it his, God sustains truth : and in purposing to deal with him accordingly, and holding him responsible for its legal consequences, he acts according to justice. Why is it rightly imputed to his posterity? Because it is theirs — not indeed personally, but morally, legally — . just as the acts of every agent or representative, are the acts of his principle, and binds him : — and^vhen God ac- counts it theirs, he sustains truth, and when he' holds them to the legal consequences, he sustains justice. The first words of Edward's treatise on original sin, 118 IMPUTATION". are these, viz: "By Original Sin. as the phrase has been most commonly used by divines, is meant the in- nate sinful depravity of the heart. But yet when the doctrine of original sin is spoken of. it is vulgarly un- derstood in that latitude, which includes not only the depravity of nature, but the imputation of Adam's first sin : or. in other words, the liableness or exposedness im's posterity, in the divine judgement, to partake of the punishment of that sin. So far as I know, m of those who have held one of these, have maintained the other ; and most of those who have opposed one, have opposed the other:" n. 310. This extract gives us the true definition of guilt : it is the liable. - r exposedness of Adam's posterity, in the divine judgement, to partake of punishment; and the rendering of this sentence, is imputation : whereby his posterity is exposed to punishment on account of Adam's sin. 1st Having thus [recalled the first principles from which the result follows, and presented anew the dis- tinct idea of imputation, let us open the sacred volume and see whether cases do exist, wherein the acts of one person are reputed inlaw, the acts of another — are im- puted to another — i. e. are so accounted to another, that he is held responsible in law for them — i. e. is guilty — is liable to the legal consequences. A few cases only may be cited. 1. The league, covenant or treaty, which Joshua made with the ambassadors of the Gibeonites. is a case in point: Joshua ix. Here was a covenant entered into by the ambassadors on the one hand ; and by Joshua and the princes of Israel on the other hand. But nei- ther of the high contracting parties acted for himself, simply. They all felt that they acted for their nations -ly : and although there was deception on one sid because the league was confirmed by an oath : it was held to be binding, not upon the ambassadors and representatives simplv, but upon the nations, whom they represented : and that even tho' the people of Israel mannered much against it. Here is a clear case, where- in the act of one set of men passes over and binds others. IMPUTATION. 119 And why ? simply, because it was their act, performed by them in their representatives. And thus it is with all treaties between nations. 2. In like manner, in the covenant at Sinai, to which we have already had reference, not the persons who were present, and they alone were bound by the act — but it extended over the nation and bound them all, even until the days of Messiah's flesh. De t. v. 3. On the same principle, the sin of David in numbering Israel, was a national sin — it was committed by the head of the nation and the nation was held liable to its conse- quences and suffered grievously. 3. So, the whole business of suretyship, rests on the same foundation. A man voluntarily becomes responsi- ble, for his friend ; so that in case of his failure, his acts in contracting a debt comes upon him as surety, he is bound in law to make it good. " Be not. one of them that strike hands, or of them that are sureties for debts. If thou hast nothing to pay, why should he take away the bed from under thee." Pov. 22, 26. Thus " Jesus was made surety of a better testament," Heb. 7, 22. and the responsibilities of those, for whom he was'surety, lay upon him — he was bound, just as his people were bound. This suggests a 4th Instance — viz : that of Paul, when he assumed the debt of Onesimus. Phile- mon's servant had run off from his master and perhaps purloined his goods or money ; he fell in with Paul and heard the 'gospels of his salvation ; it was blessed to him and Onesimus became a good man ; Paul sent him back to his master, though he had a desire to retain him to wait upon himself, "But without thy mind, would I do nothing." In sending back this runaway servant, Paul tells the master, "If he have wronged thee or oweth thee ought, put that on mine account; I, Paul, have written it with mine own hand, I will repay it." Philem. 18, 19. The word translated " put that on mine account" is the same as found in Rom. v. 13. " sin is not impu- ted where there is no law." " Put that on mine ac- count" charge it — impute it to me. Here is the principle for which we contend. Wheth- er the imputation of it to Paul ever took place, we 120 IMUPTATION* know not ; nor is it a matter of any consequence. The apostle recognises the correctness of the principle. The acts of Onesimus in becoming indebted, pass over as to their legal and binding effects — not as to their moral character, this is absurd and impossible ; but as to their legal obligation. If Philemon accepts the surety and transfers the debt to Paul, then is Onesimus set free. If he merely agrees to hold Paul responsible, in case Onesimus fail of payment, he holds both responsible. The imputation consists precisely in his holding Paul bound in law to pay the debt. And it is only necessary farther to observe, that the imputation here, as always, rests upon the previous moral union of the persons. Had Philemon, without any evidence of Paul's connex- ion with Onesimus, put his debt down to Paul's ac- count, it would have been an unjust imputation and he could not have vindicated it in law. Hence the particu- larity with which the apostle specifies his signature : this is the legal evidence of his consent. 2d. Here we meet an objection against the imputation of Adam's sin to his posterity : it is maintained by the entire Pelagian interest, that the sons of Adam are in- deed responsible and do become guilty of his sin, so soon as they by actual, personal sin consent to Adam's deed, but not before. Hence the same parties deny, that original sin of itself condemns any one. It does not attach until after actual sin. A surety is not bound, say they, until he consents. To impute a debt to a man and hold him to payment, who has not given his personal consent to it, would be unjust; neither would it be just to charge the sin of Adam upon his innocent posterity. On this we remark, 1. To charge sin upon the innocent, would indeed be iniquity : but the ques- tion in controversy is, whether Adam's posterity are innocent — whether they are not justly under condem- nation because of his sin ; and this question depends manifestly upon the previous question, whether they acted in and through him — were they represented by him ? If they were, then his act was legally their act ; for he acted for them. 2. As to consent being neces- sary to create a moral union ; the principle is sound IMPUTATION. 121 and true, but it has its limits and its exceptions. The consent of every individual person in a nation is not necessary to give validity to a treaty or a law, and yet they are all bound by it. The consent of Adam was not necessary as a pre-requisite to his creation ; or to his being placed under the law of God. True, he did consent to obey God; but I deny that the obligation is based on the consent. For if consent here was the basis of obligation, who shall say that the with- drawal of consent, does not put an end to obligation ? On the contrary, the obligation to obey God is natural and necessary and can never cease, as we have seen and therefore Adam could not withhold his consent without violating his obligation. No man's consent is now asked whether he will or will not be bound by the laws of God or his country. Every man is so bound, whether he consent or not. No man's consent is asked, whether he will or will not be a son of Adam either in a physical or a moral sense. God has made every man so, and it would be no greater absurdity to maintain the de- pendence of the physical relation upon the individual's own consent, than of the moral. The infant orphan's consent is not necessary to the validity of his guardian's appointment and the legality of his acts. We are there- fore thrown back upon the mere question of fact ; did God appoint Adam the representative head of his race ? On this simply, depends the question of the imputation of his sin to them. If God did constitute them a moral unity, the question is settled : he sinned, and the guilt of this sin is imputed : they are held liable to its penal con- sequences — that is death. 3, This argument thus far, is what logicians term a priori; that is, an argument from first principles, or principles proved to be true, to their results. Having seen reasons to believe, that God entered into covenant with Adam, in which he appointed him the representa- tive head of his posterity, we are thus shut up to the doctrine, that his sin is imputed to them — they are liable to its penal consequences. Let us now reverse the op- eration and reason a posteriori ; that is, backward, from effects, to their causes — from the ruin in which we find II 122 IMPUTATION. man actually involved, to the moral causes of that ruin. And, 1. There is here a resumption of a truth already re- cognised, viz : that human sufferings have their origin in human sins — that all the sorrows that flesh is heir to, are consequent upon dereliction of principle — that phys- ical evils are connected with moral evils. The mind refus- es to believe that a world of sorrows can be disconnected from a world of sins. The belief in a wise, holy, just, and good Being, who rules in the heavens above, and in the earth beneath : who regulates and governs the plan- ets in their ceaseless round, and superintends all human affairs, so that an hair cannot fall from our head, without his will — the belief in such a Being - , seems to involve the idea that suffering results from sin. " Shall not the Judge of all the earth do right?" "'Hath there been evil in the city, and the Lord hath not done it 7 ." "Wilt thou slay the righteous with the wicked ?" We set it down then as a moral axiom, that pain and anguish, dis- traction and turmoil, sickness and death, can exist under the government of a benevolent and righteous God, only as the just and necessary consequents of moral evil. 2. But that such do exist in our own world, is as evi- dent as that the world itself exists. "We can no more disbelieve the reality of our own being, and that of the earth, and the fullness thereof, than we can disbelieve the general prevalence of pain, and sickness, and death. Man is born to trouble as the sparks do ascend. Few and evil have been the days of the vears of my life. No man needs proof of the fact, that earth has its sorrows, deep seated, and incurable by earthly means. 3. Hence the unavoidable inference, that earth has its sins. Man has violated the divine law, and hence the evils incident to his condition. These are simply a par- tial expression of God's displeasure against him for his transgressions. This is a plain and simple and satisfactorv way of ac- counting for the miseries of our own world; and in this there is a very general agreement. It seems to com- mend itself to the common sense of all men. The bar- barous people of Melita, reasoned thus when they saw IMPUTATION. 123 the venomous beast fasten on Paul's hand. " No doubt, said they, this man is a murderer, whom, though he hath escaped the sea, yet vengeance sufFereth not to live. This connexion between suffering and sin, we have seen, is indispensable in a righteous government. The latter named, must always be antecedent to the former, in point of fact. Here, there is no room for discussion and scarcely any for illustration. But again, 4. 1 remark, that guilt must precede punishment. A man must be condemned before he can be rightfully executed. The law must pronounce its sentence, before the officer can proceed to take vengeance. Consequently, in a perfectly righteous government, its execution is evidence of the justice of a sentence. Now such a government is God's. If therefore, men suffer under it, we may rest satisfied, they suffer in consequence of just liability to suffer. God does injustice to no man, and therefore we infer, that all suffering men, are sinful men — are con- demned men — are guilty men. These truths are so plain and elementary — these rea- sonings so common place, that we can scarcely bear their rehearsal. Who denies them ? Who is ignorant of them? Who needs to have them expanded, illustrated, explained, enforced, in order to his reception and belief of them ? It is with difficulty I have prevailed on my- self to put them down here, even thus briefly. And yet they are momentous truths and have an overpowering influence in the discussion of this doctrine. Let the reader look again at them. Are they not true ? May you not with perfect safety commit yourself to them ; and abide the results ? 5. We conclude, that, inasmuch as all men do suffer, all men were condemned — are guilty — are justly liable to suffer. From this conclusion there is no escape. If, in God's moral government, suffering is consequent upon guilt, and guilt consequent upon sin, then wherever we find the first, we must believe the others to be pres- ent, or we must charge God foolishly. The universal prevalence of pain and sorrow, and anguish, and death, proves either the universal prevalence of sin, and guilt ; or that the universal Governor is not a regarder of justice. 124 IMPUTATION. To avoid this argument from closing in upon them and compelling their admission of the doctrine of origi- nal sin, some reply, that the universality of suffering must be referred to sin indeed ; yet to no sin of Adam ; but only to the personal sins of men. Each man suffers for his own acts and not at all for any participation of his in Adam's first transgression. In view of this we admit, it is true, unquestionably, the personal acts of individuals, are sufficient to bring condemnation and death upon them. But as to all sufferings which precede the personal, sinful acts of the individual, here is no explanation what- ever. We have settled the moral principle, that sin and guilt must precede suffering. How then account for all the pains and sorrows of infancy? What personal acts, bearing a moral character, of the new-born — vea of the unborn babe, are these, to account for its excruciating agonies ? Does moral agency commence prior to birth ! Or will any man deny all connexion between the suffer- ing of infant humanity, and a pre-existent moral cause? Let us look at these in order ; for strange as it may ap- pear to you, each has had its advocates. (1) Unwilling to admit the pre-existent sin of Adam and the infant's participation in the act of its repre- sentative, as accounting for its agonies, some recent speculators have maintained, that infants begin to sin personally, before birth, and being actual sinners, their sufferings are thus accounted for ! Well, if the position could be maintained, from reason and scripture, it would indeed invalidate our argument from effects to causes. Let us look into the Bible and see whether it throws any light upon this question of infants sinning before they are born. " When Rebecca also had conceived by one, even by our father Isaac, (for the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the pur- pose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth) it was said unto her, the elder shall serve the younger." Rom. ix. 10 — 12. Here is unquestionably a difficult passage for those who maintain the doctrine of actual, personal sinning before birth. The children (and that just before birth) had IMPUTATION. 125 done no good or evil. It would seem that Paul did not believe in this aute-birth actual sin. Moses, Deut. i. 39, speaks of the children of the Israelites in the wilderness, who "in that day had no knowledge between good and evil." Now, that the good and evil here, could be na- tural good and evil, is hardly credible, for the new-born bade desires the sincere milk, and will reject nauceous drugs. Undoubtedly, the common meaning attached to the words, is the correct one : viz. that their little babes could not distinguish moral good and evil — right and wrong. Now, if there was no capacity to know a right and a wrong in actions, there could be no right or wrong actions. Actual sin is impossible. And this is in accordance with the general sense of mankind. Infants are not treated as moral agents, be- cause they are supposed incapable of discerning right and wrong. It is therefore undeniable, that as human persons, they do not sin, and cannot sin, either imme- diately after, or before birth. If they commit actual sin before they see the light, it must be independently of the body, and how far this is different from the doctrine of transmigration of souls, I leave its friends to explain. Meanwhile, we rest in the confidence, that no actual sin of the infant exists, prior to its suffering, as the moral cause of that suffering. This christianized figment of pagan mythology, gives no substantial aid to the oppo- nents of the doctrine of original sin. The facts remain unexplained by it. Infants do suffer, therefore they are guilty : sin they have upon them. 5. Secondly. The attempt to account for the suffer- ings of infants, by viewing them all as disciplinary only, is equally unavailing. The advocates of this allege, that God deals with infants as an earthly parent does, when he chastises his children. It is to teach them virtue — to induce them to shun vice : a system of discipline. To this we reply, that it is a virtual denial of the principle already settled, that the sufferings of moral beings, must have their cause in sin. Or if it is not a rejection of this principle, it makes the effect precede its cause. Infants are made to suffer, in the government of God, not on account of sin committed, but on account of sin to be 11* 126 IMPUTATION. hereafter committed ; or rather, on account of sin, the per- petration of which, is to be prevented by the suffering. But neither of these is practiced by any wise and up- right parent. What father chastises an unoffending child, lest he may hereafter offend ? "What government punishes the innocent, lest they mightbecome guilty ? What sound philosopher- puts the effect before the eausej and makes the effect,, effectual ih preventing the 'exis- tence of that which caused its own existence I ■' * We are thrown back therefore upon the sober fact of the case. Infants, all infants, and so all the children of Adam, without exception, do suffer — many of them, in- tense agonies and death — before they have committed in their own proper persons, any actual sin. If the suf- ferings of moral beings must necessarily be preceded by sin, as their moral cause, and if there is no actual,' per- sonal sin, we are forced back upon original sin, as'thar which creates liability to suffering, and affords a satis- factory solution to the difficulties of the case. The true and real cause of the sickness, pain, and death of infants, is their sin, committed, not by themselves, actually and personally, but federatively, in their first falher Adam ; who, appointed by his Creator for this end, acted for them, and they sinned in him and fell with him in his first transgression. Thus, we are led back from effects to their causes; just as we were before led from causes to their effects : we are irresistablv borne towards the conclusion, that the sin of Adam is rightfully imputed to his posterity. CHAPTER IX. ON ORIGINAL SIN. ARGUMENT— AN EXPOSITION OF ROMANS V. 12 21.. The reasoning in the preceding chapter, is substantial- ly borrowed from the Apostle Paul : and I propose now, to present a brief exposition- of that difficult, and very important passage, Rom. v. 12 — 21. The general analysis given by Dr. Hodge, is undoubt- edly the true one, and it is stated in those lines of light which always follow his pen : I therefore quote his summary, from 'the abridged commentary: viz. " According to this view of the passage, it consists of five parts. " The first, contained in v. 12, presents the first mem- ber of the comparison between Christ and Adam. "The second contains the proof of the position, as- sumed in the 12th verse, and embraces verses 13, 14, which are therefore subordinate to v. 12. Mam, there- fore, is a type of Christ.. " The third, embracing vs. 15, 16, 17, is a commen- tary on this declaration, by which it is at once illustrated and limited. " The fourth, in vs. 18, 19, resumes and carries out the comparison commenced in v. 12. " The fifth forms the conclusion of the chapter, and contains a statement of the design and effect of the law, and of the gospel, suggested by the preceding compari- son, vs. 20, 21." 1. A comparison is instituted between Adam and Christ, in regard to their legal relations and not to their personal, moral qualities. This comparison is begun in v. 12,* wherein it is affirmed, (1.) That sin entered * I once thought the comparison full within the verse ; but am now satisfied the general opinion is correct. See sermon in the Presbyterian Preacher. 128 ORIGINAL SIN. through Adam upon the world, (2) That through sin, death entered, and (3) Thus death passed upon all men, through him in whom all sinned. Now, it is in refer- ence to this last, that the parenthesis occurs. That part of the comparison, which affirms the points of re- semblance in Christ's legal relations, to those of Adam, is postponed, until proof is offered of the position, " in whom all sinned :" then it is resumed and the compari- son completed.* 2. This translation gives the literal and true meaning of the language — "death passed through the one in * The point which I desire to establish by a critical examination, is, that t' 9 *» whom all sinned." That there is an ellipsis of 81a rov ivbs through the one is manifest from the 17th verse, where it is affirmed, that death reigned through the one } 8ta tov evoj, which is the identical idea expressed here, 130 ORIGINAL SIN. law — for sin is not imputed — men cannot be held pun- ishable for sin, who have had no knowledge of a law, for " sin is the transgression of the law." (3) Yet from Adam to Moses, during a space of twenty-five centuries, death swayed his iron, but righteous sceptre over the entire race of Adam. But death has no power to de- stroy, except as he derives his power from the law ; be- cause the law exists for the protection of innocence and for the punishment of guilt. Seeing therefore, that the punishment was rightfully inflicted, it is undeniable that sin was imputed, and the sinner held to be guilty before the law. But how does this prove that men sinned — all men in Adam ? If they, in and by their own personal The phrase upon all men death passed in through the one:\s equiv- alent to the phrase "by one's offence death reigned through the one." The ellipsis in the 12th verse, of these words through the one, occurs simply because, the w.iter had mentioned, in the two preceding lines, that sin entered through the one man and death through sin. To avoid tautology, he omits, as unnecessary, the writing of the §ia a fouth time in the same sentence. 3. Our next examination is into the scriptural meaning of the words £$ cj translated for that. The position maintained is, that it is here correctly translated only by the words in whom, or in which — by whom or which. And let us pursue the same mode — let us refer to all the instances wherein the words occur in the New Testament. (1) Matt. xxvi. 50, "And Jesus said unto him, Friend iq> $ wherefore art thou come V But the reading which many prefer — with Griesbach i$ — the accusative neuter which is correctly ren- dered on account of what, if doubtless, the genuine and true reading, Friend, for what — on account of what, art thou come? This must therefore be dismissed as not affording really an example. (2) Mark ii. 4, and Luke v. 25 — " they let down the bed £ ^ 3 £ wherein, in which, he lay" — "he took up that whereon | 9. But if you substitute the literal ren- dering, by which, you will both improve the doctrine and state the meaning. — We groan, being burdened, by or in which [groaning] we do not wish to be unclothed — our groaning is not be considered as expressing a restive discontent and wishing for death. (6) There is another case very similar to Phil. iv. 10, in Luke xi. 22. where the same preposition is connected with the feminine relative. '•But when a stronger then he, shall come upon him, and overcome him, he taketh from him all his armour wherein £$ y in which he trusted." Thus this form of expression cannot possibly be considered as a causal particle, in three of the five cases in which it occurs. It is not at all necessary to consider it so in any one instance. The plain and obvious translation, — that which the rules of grammar and the drift of the apostles reasoning both require, \s,in whom, and I can see no good reason why we should abandon it, simply because it is ex- cepted against by the enemies of evangelical doctrine, though, we ought never to build any important doctrine upon a mere verbal criticism. Nor do I propose it here. What I insist on, is simply that, inasmuch as sound criticism and the current of the apostle's reasoning, conspire to establish that translation which makes the truth most clearly manifest, we are bound in faithfulness to the text to receive and defend it. 132 ORIGINAL SIN. Death is the wages of sin and they received them. Thev were therefore due injustice. On account of what sin ? Personal sin ? This is impossible, for there was none, nor could be. Nay but on account of their sin in Adam, " who is the type of him that was to come." Thus briefly but forcibly and clearly does the Apostle close in the argument for the truth, that all sinned in Adam. In closing it, however, he intimates a similarity be- tween Adam and him that was to come, i. e. Christ, as to certain points. A type is a likeness, pattern, exam- ple, prepared by sculpture, drawing, impression, with a view to be imitated afterwards. " See that thou make all things according to the pattern, type, shewed thee in the mount." Heb. viii. 5. This example gives the true meaning of the word, and accordingly, it is used to describe the resemblance, in the hands and feet of the Saviour, to the instruments by which he was fastened to the wood, — " the print, type, of the nails." " Ye took up the tabernacle of Moloch, and the star of your God Remphan, t /z.g - ?o , es, types, which ye made to wor- ship." Acts vii. 43. " These things were our examples, types.'"' 1. Cor. x. 6, and v. 11, — "All those things hap- pened to them for examples; types ; and they are writ- ten for our admonition." And six other times it is used in the New Testament in the same sense. Christ and Adam then are alike — the latter was a type, an exam- ple, a pattern, a print, a figure, of the former. 3. But now it is obvious, that points of resemblance may be, and yet other points of dissimilarity exist too. Our printing types and the letters formed by them, are alike and yet very unlike. What are the points of like- ness intended between Christ and Adam ? What are the unlike points ? Personal, moral character, is surely not intended: but legal relations. They both stand as cov- enant representative heads to distinct bodies of men, whose destiny is effected by their conduct, respectively. And, as resembling objects may have their points of resemblance made more prominent and striking, by bringing into view the points of difference, the Apostle suspends still farther the comparison begun in the 12th verse, that he may draw this contrast. " This he does, uomans v. 12 — 21. 133 says Dr. Hodge, principally by shewing in verses 15, 16, 17, the particulars in which the comparison does not hold." Verse 15. " But not as the offence, so also is the free gift." The o (Fence is Adam's sin imputed ; the free gift is Christ's righteousness imputed : and these are cppo- sites. Now if by the offence of the one, [Adarnj tne many [all, v. 18] died, much more the grace of God and the gift [of righteousness, v. 17] by grace, which is, or belongs, to the one man, Christ Jesus, abounded unto the many [the all of v. 18]. By the sin of Adam, the many died. Not, Adam occasioned their death, but he caused it : not as David occasioned the death of Ahim- elech and the priests, but as Saul and Doeg caused their death. 1. Sam. xxii. 18, &c. By the grace of Christ, which includes the bestowment of all his merits, consist- ing of his entire acts of obedience and his sufferings — the many live — his grace abounds through righteousness unto eternal life. There is here a point resemblance ; viz. in the federative or representative principle involved in both. There is also a point of contrast ; viz. the ac- tion of the one is to death ; of the other, to life. Hence, the emphasis of the sentence lies on the much more. If one bad act, brought death upon all represented in it ; much more, shall innumerable good acts, bring life to all represented in them. Verse 16 contains another point of contrast; viz. Not as [the offence] through the one sinning, [so is] the gift. For the judgment was from one [offence] to con- demnation. By Adam's one sin, as the just and effi- cacious procuring cause, a sentence of condemnation (xatuxpLfia) was brought upon all his people. But on the contrary, " the free gift," which was secured by Christ's entire life, consisting of innumerable acts of obedience and of all his sufferings, delivered his people " from many offences," and secures to them " a sen- tence of justification." (Stxcu'u/ta.) Here, it is to our purpose to remark particularly, the condemnation is from one offence, viz: Adam's first sin. Language can- not express the thought more definitely. He does not say, the one offence of Adam opened the way for many 12 134 ORIGINAL SIN. offences to follow in his people, and for those many of- fences — their personal sins — the condemnation comes. His language absolutely excludes this. He says, (*£ hoe) from the one, is the judgement to condemnation. No other sin is necessary to bring the sentence of condem- nation upon men — no voluntary act of theirs, as an evi- dence of their consent — nothing but the one offence is o concerned in it. The first, and main idea of original sin is the guilt of Adam's first sin. In other words, his poster- ity, by reason of his sin, are under coridemnalion, and consequently liable to suffer all that sin deserves. Verse 17, is an enlargement of the 15th, with an addi- tional illustration personifying death, borrowed from the 14th. For, if by the transgression of the one, [^dam~j death obtained a rightful dominion, through the one \j>ia r« hoi] and exercises it [ipmduwst, has reigned and is reigning as king,] ; much more they which receive abundance of grace, and of the gift of righteousness, shall reign in life through the one. Jesus Christ. If the King of terrors received by the one transgression of Adam, his iron sceptre, for the destruction of men: much more shall the justified in Christ, live and reign with him. "As it was by one man, antecedently to any concurrence of our own, that we were brought into a state of condemnation, so it is bv one man, without anv merit of our own, that we are delivered from this state. If the one event has happened, much more may we ex- pect the other to occur. If we are thus involved in the condemnation of sin, in which we had no personal con- cern, much more, shall we, who voluntary receive the gift of righteousness, be not only saved from the con- sequences of the fall, but be made partakers of eternal life." Hodge on Rom. p. 127. Thus, in verses 13 and 14 is proved the truth of the affirmation in the close of v. 12 — viz: that all sinned in Adam. Thus in vs. 15. 16. 17, is proved the truth of the affirmation in the close of the 14th verse ; viz. that Adam was a type of Christ. Having proved the truth of his whole first branch of the comparison, viz: that sin and death passed upon all men, through him in whom all sinned, he proceeds in v. 18, to complete the comparison. ROMANS V. 12 21. 135 44 In very deed, therefore, as through one's offence, [transgression] it [sentence] came upon all men unto con- demnation: so also through one's righteousness [8i.xaiuy.a- roj, justification v. 16. ftj 8ixalu>/xa, a sentence declaring the person righteous] [it] the free gift, came upon all men, unto justification [_8t,xaMaw, justifying, the process of judging] of life. 4 ; Therefore, as by the offence of one, judgement came upon all men to condemnation; even so, by the righteousness of one, the free gift came upon all men un- to justification of life." As we are all condemned, through the righteousness of Adam — even so we are all justified through the righteousness of Christ. Condem- nation is by Adam : justification by Christ. Death by Adam : life by Christ. Here we again remark, is the essence of our doctrine of original sin ; viz. guilt — lia- bility to penal evil . But you see, the matter of the comparison is really a contrast ; the resemblance is the manner. As by the offence — even so by the righteousness. It is the same in 1. Cor. xv. 22. ' 4 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ, shall all be made alive/' The precise point of resemblance, or likeness, or type, as in v. 14, lies in the manner of becoming condemned, on the one hand, and justified on the other — of dying by Adam, and being made alive by Christ. The manner, it is affirmed, is, the same in both cases. And to perceive the resem- blance, we must enquire how — in what manner did all become involved in condemnation and death, by Adam? how, — in what manner are all secured of justification and life by Christ ? The answer here, is obvious enough, from the doctrine of federal representation and the con- sequent imputation of the guilt of the representer to the represented. How did all come under condemnation, and thus die in Adam? In what manner? On what principle? In this way ; viz: He represented, or acted f r them in the covenant of works ; consequently, his act in sinning, was imputed to them ; they were held liable to punishment for it, and thus died in him. How do all men eome under justification, and thus become alive in Christ? In what manner? On what principle? Exactly 136 ORIGINAL SIN. in the same manner; viz: He represented them, or act- ed for them, in the covenant of grace; consequently, his act in obeying, was imputed to them — they were held lia- ble to reward for it, and thus live in him. Thus, all whom Adam represented, were condemned and died in him. Dr. Hodge, in his incomparable com- ment on this passage, gives us the essence of the whole in three lines: "Paul's doctrine, therefore, is, 'As on account of the offence of Adam, all connected with him, are condemned : so on account of the righteousness of Christ, all connected with him have the justification of life.' " This same reasoning applies to the comparison of the 19th verse : where it is affirmed, that by the disobedi- ence of the one man [Adam] the many were made sinners, and that " by the obedience of the one [Christ] the many shall be made righteous. It is not affirmed that the many were put by Adam's act into such a state, that so soon as they would act for themselves, they would be sinners ; nor that the many were put into such a state by Christ's acts and sufferings, that so soon as they would act, they would be righteous. The language is positive, and cannot be made to express such a meaning. By Adam's act, his people became sinners in the eye of the law, and were by it, held liable to suffer. By Christ's acts, his people became righteous in the eye of the law, and are by it, held liable to happiness. And in both cases, the meaning is precisely the same : it is by their sustaining to their respective federal representatives, the relations constituted by the covenants entered into by God, with the first and the second Adams, respec- tively. v. The fifth division of the context includes vs. 20, 21, and seems to have some specific purpose, though brought in incidentally as it were, in connexion with the expansion and final statement of the comparison. The specific, yet apparently incidental purpose, is, to forestall and foreclose the objection of the Jew, who still entertained the notion that the Mosaic law must have some essential agency in the sinner's justification. Whereas, the Apostle runs entirely beyond the days of Moses, and ROMANS v. 12—21. 137 comes down to a period after his law ceases. What then, the Jew asks, is the use of the law? If justifica- tion has no intimate connexion and no dependence on the law of Moses, " wherefore then serveth the law ?" Of what use was it ? The law here, is manifestly not the moral law, as it is set forth in many parts of Moses' writings ; nor the gospel truths also exhibited in the same ; but all that which became of binding obligation, because it is revealed by Moses. That is, all the posi- tive rules, commanding as duties, things which were not obligatory as duties before. The moral la\v r and gospel promises existed prior to the Sinai institutions, and really form no peculiar part of them. If therefore, reasons the Jew, justification and salvation took place, as you have proved, before, and after the law of Moses, and consequently, independently on it, I should like to know, of what use it is. " Wherefore then serveth the law ?" Paul answers this question, Gal. in. 19. "It was added, because of transgression." — So here, "the law entered," it " was super-induced on a plan already laid," for this precise end, to increase upon the minds of the Israelites, a sense of the great evil of sin, by exposing them to a vast variety and number of dangers to sin. Transgres- sions are multiplied to them, and ceremonial purifica- tions are perpetually required for these multiplied trans- gressions, and thus there is kept up a constant remem- brance of their sinfulness ; and thus the law of Moses was a pedagogue to lead these children to Christ. It had this important bearing upon the interests of salva- tion, that its yoke of bondage on their neck, made them feel the necessity of Christ's freedom ; and its ceremo- nial purifications directed them to Him. Thus, the practical effect of the Mosaic law is, to mul- tiply transgression, and thus sin abounded: but another effect is to turn the mind, in multiplied proportion, to the source of pardon ; and so grace did far more abound and overflow'. Having thus foreclosed the Jew's objection, the Apos- tle returns upon the general comparison, and resuming his beautiful trope, represents sin as a monster king, en- dued with legal power, and exercising it in and by his 12* 138 ORIGINAL SIN. prime minister death. He had in v. 14, represented death as the king who reigned over all men ; now he enthrones sin, which is the cause of death — to which death is only ministerial ; for the power to hurt, the sting of death is sin. It is sin therefore, that acts the part of a king, and death follows his train. But grace too is enthroned ; she sits a queen and ex- ercises her sovereign power with an heavenly benignity. Majesty attends her steps ; righteousness and truth go before her ; not an act of her's sacrifices the interests of either; neither of them is crushed beneath her triumph- al car, nor are they dragged in servile chains at her chariot wheels — they go before her, as heralds of the coming joy ; they tell of a fulfilled law, of an exhausted curse, of a hell extinguished in the blood of calvary, of a heaven lighted up by the life of Jesus. Application. — Come then, # ye degraded, lost and ruined subjects of the King of Terrors, and bow before the majesty of our queen. In her hand is the golden sceptre, which if a man but touch, with the outstretched and trembling hand of faith, he shall live forever. "He that liveth and believeth in me, shall never die.'* 2dly. Who can but admire the profound simplicity of the apostle's reasoning? This is one of those splendid passages, which, whenever his attention can be arrested to the meaning of the language, compels the learned infidel to admire the power of Paul's logic, though he may despise the purity of his doctrine. You have here a splendid exemplification of the argument from effects, to their causes. You see also how much the power of argument depends upon the mind's capaci- ty to trace resemblances. 3. Where men enjoy the gospel and its ordinances, the presumptions and probabilities are all favourable to them, and go to encourage diligence in the use of means. How much more abundant the grace of Christ, than the ruin of Adam! If unlike things may be compared in quantity, how much more of merit is there in the obedi- ence of Christ, than of demerit in the disobedience of Adam. Hence the certainty of death by the one en- SALVATION OF INFANTS. 139 hatices, to every one that believes in him, the certainty of life by the other. 4. It does not however, follow that all men are or will be saved ; but only that all whom Christ represented ; just as all whom Adam represented die in him. 5. Who they are, whom Christ represented, can be as- certained to us, only by the evidences of true conversion. Christ represented all that will ever reach eternal hap- piness — all that will ever be qualified for its enjoyment — all good and true believers in all ages of the world, and to the end of time — all that immense multitude which no man can number, who shall sing the song of Moses and the Lamb. That we mav be found anions: that countless throng, let us labor, and pray, and suffer with him, so shall we be glorified together. CHAPTER X. ORIGINAL SIN PROVED FROM THE SALVATION OF THOSE THAT DIE IN INFANCY. The limits of legitimate enquiry, it is of sOxTie impor- tance to know. And it is not a little difficult to deter- mine, in many cases, where they lie. Owing to this difficulty, and the consequent uncertainty, as to the lim- its of attainable knowledge, much labor, no doubt, has been spent in vainly attempting to pass beyond the bar- riers which divine wisdom has erected. "Secret things," it is admitted, 4i belong unto the Lord our God, but those things which are revealed, belong unto us, and to our children;" let us therefore, in our enquiries into the the condition of these immense multitudes of our race, who die in infancy, be peculiarly cautious not tc over- step the boundaries of prudence and revealed wisdom. In the preceding chapter, I have developed the argu- ment for the doctrine of original sin, from the fact of in- 140 ORIGINAL SIN. fants' sufferings. Now I propose to deduce another from the fact of their ultimate salvation. In its prosecu- tion, a number of distinct remarks will be necessary. SECTION I. Infants go to Heaven. It is not inconsistent with any doctrine of the Bible, that the souls of deceased infants go to heaven. And yet it is a doctrine taught only by implication, and learn- ed only by inference. There is no direct and express declaration of scripture to this amount. The Saviour declares [Math, xviii. 3, &c] "Except ye be converted and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, &c." From the 3d. verse, we would incline to believe that infants, prior to moral agency and before actual sin, were intended; — but the 6th v. seems to exclude that thought ; for they are such as are capable of exercising faith in Christ. And no doubt it is the simplicity of their belief that con- stitutes the point of the comparison. Except ye be con- verted and become as little children, whose leading char- acteristic is, to believe their parents, with a simple and unwavering confidence, ye cannot be saved. The per- sons spoken of, are little ones, yet so matured as to believe in Jesus : this context, therefore, says noming on the question about infants who die prior to moral agency. The case, [Math. xix. 14,] is not more explicit. — 41 Suffer little children and forbid them not, to come unto me, for of such is the kingdom of heaven." The king- dom of heaven here, is beyond question, the visible king- dom, viz : the church of God. The Master does not say the church, or kingdom consists of them ; but only, that it is theirs, it belongs to them, [rowvtcov iativ^ they have a right of possession in it. The question cannot be rea- sonably raised here, as to their moral character, but only as to there legal, or ecclesiastical rights. Under the old dispensation, they were recognised as belonging to th« SALVATION OF INFANTS. 141 church ; and her spiritual care was extended over them and her seal was put upon them. The disciples seem not to have comprehended the genius of the new dis- pensation here, as in other things, and were for keeping back the little children ; but the Lord asserts their rights, and encourages their approach. The only thing: in this context, that would seem to constitute a basis for the inference, that infants are saved, is, the fact of his laying hands on them, and blessing them. There is however, no ground to infer any thing in reference to those that die in infancy, for this is man- ifestly not the class of infants presented in the context. In Rev. xi. 18, the prophet speaks of " them that fear thy name, small and great ;" and in xix. 5, he ex- claims. " Praise our God, all ye his servants, and ye that fear him, both small and great," and in xx. 12, he avers that he " saw the dead, small and great stand be- fore God; and the books were opened." — The first passage may possibly relate to the same event as the last, viz : the process of judgement: but the second re- fers to the glorious of the millenial morning ; and I doubt very much, whether the phrase, small and great has any reference whatever to size — to infancy and manhood ; rather does it refer to the state and condition of men in society in this life. Princes and nobles, as well as the humblest of the race, are called upon to bow before the Lord, and to give in their account to our Re- deemer. If this be the true view, then these passages say nothing on the condition of those who die before moral agency. Nor can I find any other passage in the sacred volume that speaks explicitly. God indeed does promise to every believer to be a God unto him and to his seed after him. This max) include the chil- dren that die in infancy ; but it certainly does include those, who grow up to man's estate. On what ground then, do we rest our faith that our little ones, who are removed, are taken to God ? How do we know, that these tender scions are transplanted into the paradise of God on high ? The only true an- swer is, that we do not know it positively to be so. It is only a high presumption — an opinion rather that an 142 ORIGINAL SIN. article of faith. There is nothing in the thought opposed to the general drift of scripture doctrines ; but on the contrary, it is agreeable to the general spirit of the gos- pel and the particular passages above cited : and more- over, it is very agreeable to the feelings of afflicted parents. If these things be so, it might repay for the trouble, to enquirs, why such studied silence seems to pervade the sacred volumns ? Why is no express mention made of the salvation of infants? Has God no wise design in it ? Has he not given sufficient encouragement to the faith of true christians to sustain and comfort them in sorrow — whilst he has withheld from the unbelieving all the comforts of faith ? To me this appears to be the state of the case. From the promises of the gospel, and our compliance with God's requirement to dedicate our infant offspring to Him, we who believe, have sufficient ground of encouragement ; whilst to those who despise his grace, and reject his ordinances, there is no" conso- lation ministered. Thus, in the silence of scripture, there is wisdom. Rebellious men, on the one hand, are not allowed to eat the fruit of the tree of life; whilst on the other, no flaming sword repels th3 children of the covenant. Besides, our opinions are utterly una- vailing to the dying infant; he is beyond any agency of ours, but that of prayer, and to this, there is promise. As to the opinion that all who die in infancy, both chil- dren of believers and unbelievers, christians and pagans, go to happiness and heaven, it may be harmlessly en- tertained : it may however operate an evil influence upon the minds of unbelieving and wicked parents; and that it does so operate, I have not the least doubt. Tell wicked, graceless and profligate parents, who despise Jesus and his religion, that their dead infant is gone to happiness, and you encourage them to continue in un- belief; for they can and do see that this is all you could tell the most pious, and devoted and prayerful believers, concerning their offspring. You thus, put no difference as to comfort in existing circumstances, between the precious, and the vile, and encourage a continuance in the wickedness and crime of despising gospel ordinances. INFANT SALVATION. 143 Whilst therefore, I have no objection to the opinion, that all who die in infancy, go to happiness; yetl must think, that, in reference to the infants of unbelievers, it is mere opinion ; and not a doctrine taught expressly, or by fair implication in the word of God ; and that, although it is in all probability an opinion according to truth ; still, not having a divine warrant for it, and it being of evil tendency, we are not warranted in its unqualified asser- tion before an unbelieving world. For our purposes, and, it appears to me, for all the benevolent purposes of the gospel, it is sufficient to affirm, concerning the de- ceased infants of believing parents, that they are gone to glory. • SECTION II. These infants come to eternal happiness through Jesus Christ, our Lord — they are saved and are indebted to Jesus for their salvation. (1) In proof of this position, I adduce the case quoted above, where Jesus commands, "suffer little children and forbid them not, to come unto me." — and where all, both small and great are commanded to praise our God. True, I have set these aside as proof texts in the case, and I adduce them only as a bar to those who may feel dis- posed to demur at my interpretation. If they insist that these texts are applicable to the souls of dead in- fants, then I insist that they are pertinent proofs that such are saved through Christ. (2) In the account given of the final judgement, Matt, xxv. the immense throng" are divided into two parts, and into two only. In one or the other of these two, every individual of the human race is included. No third party or portion is ever mentioned — they are the sheep and the goats — the righteous and the wicked — the children of God, and the children of the ivicked one — the elect and the reprobate. There are then but two classes, and consequently, one of these classes includes the happy souls of them that die in infancy. But now this immense thiong, on the right hand, are the same 144 INFANT SALVATION. as the immense multitude mentioned in Revelations, vii. chapter, which no man can number, who shout " Salva- tion to our God, which sitleth upon the throne, and unto the Lamb," "and have washed their robes, and made them white in the blood of the Lamb" — the same mul- titude, mentioned in chapter xix. the voice of whose thunderings rolls along the skies, " saying, Allelujah ; for the Lord God Omnipotent reigneth ; let us be glad and rejoice, and give honour to him ; for the marriage of the Lamb is come, and his wife hath made herself ready." Now, can any man, we ask, whose soul is sanctified by the washing of the Lamb's blood, affirm, that in this thundering acclamation of redeemed millions, there's not a single note from infant lips ! From the grand choir which makes heaven's high arches ring, when the man of Calvary saith " Come ye blessed of my Father," must all infants be excluded ! Must all the little mourners of Rama be cut off from rejoicing now ! ! Not an infant be allowed to tune its voice to praise redeeming love ! ! ! Beleive it, if ye can, ye mothers in Israel ! Believe it, ye who have closed in death the eyes of loveliness — who have deposited in clay the fragile forms which fade in immortality ! Believe it, ye whose souls anticipate with joy, the promised morn, when youth and "beauty im- mortal shall wake from her tomb ;" — whose ears hope then to hear, in clear and silvery tones, from lips denied such utterance here below, the song of Moses and the Lamb! Ah ! no ! This ye cannot believe. For faith must have the evidence of testimony to rest upon : and God has recorded no testimony against the doctrine of infant salvation. No part of the Bible affirms, that they are received to eternal happiness, on any other grounds than through the blood and righteousness of your blessed Redeemer. Ah! no! — parental faith, and parental feel- ing unite in the blessed hope, that their dead infants shall live and reign with Christ, forever — that heaven's music would be incomplete without the symphony of their sweet voices — that until they strike their lofty note, half the praises of redeeming blood remain unsung. Let it then be a settled truth with us, that infants who SALVATION OF INFANTS. 145 die and go to heaven, are redeemed from death and hell, by the blood of Calvary — they are washed in the same fountain with their redeemed parents, and enrobed with them in the same garments of a Saviour's righteousness — their sin is pardoned through the same atonement, and they are justified by the obedience of the one Re- deemer. Reader, have I your judgement — I know I have your heart — but have I your understanding — your head with me in this conclusion ? I scorn to take advantage of your tender feeling. Let reason and judgement be convinced. Before we proceed, let us be agreed here. For it may perhaps turn out, that from the inevitable consequences of admitting the above truth, you may wish to flinch hereafter. Hence my deep anxiety to carry your most deliberate and thorough convictions with me. Please to turn back and inspect afresh, the two preceeding re- marks ; if you are fully convinced of their truth, we shall proceed. SECTION III. Only Sinners can be saved. Jesus Christ came to save sinners, and he finished the work given to him by the Father. " I came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance." " To seek and to save that which was lost." "I am not sent but to the lost sheep of the house of Israel." " They thzt are whole, have no need of the physician ; but they, tfiat are sick." "This thy brother was dead and is alive again, he was lost andds found." No position can be laid down, more consonant with scripture and with common sense, than this. Let us look at it in a little of its detail. (1.) Repentance cannot take place except where there is sin. The reason is plain. Repentence is the mind's turning from sin to God, with loathing- and abhorence of sin, and sorrow for it ; and love to God and holiness. If a being is holy and free from all sin, there is no room for repentance — the thing is impossible. A man con- not repent of sin in which he had no participation. 13 146 INFANT SALVATION. (2.) Regeneration is that spiritual change which is effected by the Holy Ghost, in and upon the soul of man, at his conversion. It implies the soul's being in a state of spiritual death. That which is not spiritually dead cannot be made spiritually alive again. True, believers " have passed from death unto life." They were dead — so dead, that except they be born again — made anew to live, they could not enter into the kingdom of God. Jesus did not come to save, by the renewing of the Holy Ghost, those who were always alive and never were dead. As a saviour he has to do only with the lost. If any man be not dead in sins, he cannot be made alive in Christ. If there is no hurt in the daughter of my peo- ple, she has no need of the balm of Gilead, and the physician there. If there be no blindness, there can be no restoration of sight. If there be no disease in the feet and ancle bones, there can be no deliverance from that lameness. (3.) Pardon of sin implies its guilt. Pardon is the lifting up from a person, of the punishment which he deserves — to which by a sentence of law he is exposed. It is an authorative removal of that punishment, so that it cannot be inflicted upon him. If no sin is justly charged upon a man, he cannot be pardoned. Pardon is an act of sovereignty ; but even sovereignty cannot par- don, where there is no guilt. Let the sovereign of a nation offer pardon to a virtuous, upright citizen, who has offended no law, and what will he think ? How will his indignation kindle ? Pardon ! for what ? Forgivness ! how insulting? No, even the sovereign of the universe, cannot pardon a sinless creature. (4.) For holy beings who have never sinned, there can be no atonement rendered. He who has offended no law, has no restitution to make to an offended law : and he who has no restitution to make to violated law, can have no heed and no room, for a friend to make resti- tution. Unless I am a slave to offended justice, no man can purchase my freedom. Unless I am a captive sold under sin, no man can pay the price of my redemption. (5.) If any man have the righteousness of the law in himself, and of himself, he cannot be justified through the INFANTS NEED SALVATION. 147 righteousness of another. Whosoever of you are justi- fied by the law, ye are fallen from grace — i. e. from jus- tification by grace: this ye have renounced. Either the meritorious obedience of Christ, or that of the man him- self, must justify him. Either, a man must wear the seamless robe of Immanuei's righteousness, or he must wear the tattered garments of his own. In this case, he is justified by works, and receives heaven as his own reward : in that, he is justified by grace, through faith in the righteousness of Christ ; and receives heaven, as a gift of God. From these particulars it is obvious, to a demonstra- tion, that sinful, polluted, condemned, and guilty persons only, can be saved, through Jesus Christ our Lord. Consequently I remark, SECTION IV. Infants are guilty, condemned, polluted, and sinful beings. (1.) If they were not made sinners by the disobe- dience of the one Adam ; they could not be made right- eous, by the obedience of the other. If we maintain their salvation through the righteousness of Christ; there is no alternative, we must maintain their previous sin- fulness, through the disobedience of Adam. (2.) Regenerated and sanctified, they cannot possibly be, unless they were previously polluted and dead. The Holy Ghost cannot remove from them pollution, if they have none. He cannot give them holiness, if they have it already. He cannot restore them to life spirit- ual, if they have never lost it — unless they were dead, they could not be made alive again — unless they were lost, they could not be found. Here, also, there is no eva- sion. Either, you must deny the doctrine of infant re- generation — you must deny that they are born of the spirit; or you must admit that they are by nature, dead in trespasses and sins. " There is no regeneration, or renovation," says Richard Baxter, "but from sin." On this point, the fact of infant circumcision and baptism, con- 148 ORIGINAL SIN. stitute a cogent argument. It was pressed upon Pelagius and his followers, by Augustine and others, with over- powering effect. Pelagius denied the doctrine of origi- nal sin. "Therefore, we conclude," says his friend Julian, •' that the triune God, should be adored as most just, and it has been made to appear most irrefragably, that the sin of another, never can be imputed to little children." And again, " Hence, that is evident, which we defend as most reasonable, that no one is born in sin, and that God never judges man to be guilty, on account of his birth." Pelagius was bearded with the fact that children are " baptised for the remission of sins," and he could never meet the argument, yet could he never es- cape from it. He expressed great indignation, never- theless, at a report which took the air, that he denied infant baptism ; affirming in strong terms, the falsehood of the report; and that he maintained the baptism of in- fants, according to the universal custom of the church. But now, if baptism means any thing at all, it means that those who are washed, were polluted. " I will pour water upon him that is thirsty — I will pour my Spirit upon thy seed, my blessing upon thine offspring." — Cleansing, by the blood and spirit of Christ, is most un- questionably intended, in the ordinance of baptism. Most assuredly, therefore, the baptising of infants, which has been practiced universally by the church universal, from the beginning of the Christian dispensation, until since the reformation, teaches that infants need to be washed by the blood of Christ, and renewed by the spirit of our God. 3. Gratitude for pardon, no infant lips can ever utter, unless it has been condemned, and held liable to punish- ment. The fact of infant lips being engaged in praising redeeming love, is therefore conclusive evidence, that they feel themselves indebted to Jesus for their redemp- tion — that they have received through him the remission of sins — that He suffered for them the pains of death — that He made for them an efficient atonement — rendered a full satisfaction to the injured law. Let me close this argument by a quotation from " the Vindication," 102. 103. INFANTS NEED SALVATION. 149 " Against this doctrine [which denies original sin] Richard Baxter directed his mighty pen. Works, Vol. xiii. 91, &c. "You cannot," says he, " exempt in- fants themselves from sin and misery without exempt- ing them from Christ the Redeemer and the remedy. " He then pours forth more than half a page of texts, and proceeds : " If infants have no sin and misery, then they are none of the body, the church, which Christ loved and gave himself for, that he might cleanse it." You will observe how specifically he fastens down sin as well as misery upon infants, and then he men- tions the guilt and the punishment of sin in the case of infants. " But what need we further proof, when we have the common experience of all the world ? Would every man that is born of a woman, without ex- ception, so early manifest sin in the life, if there were no corrupt disposition at the heart ? And would all man- kind, without exception, taste of the punishment of sin, if they had no participation of sin, if they had no participation of the guilt? "Death is the wages of sin ; and by sin 1 death entered into the world, and it passeth upon all men, for that all have sinned." Rom. v, 12. Infants have sickness, and tor- ments, and death, which are the fruits of sin. And were they not presented to Christ as a Saviour, when he took them in his arms and blessed them, and said "of such is the kingdom of heaven?" Certainly none that never were guilty, nor miserable, are capa- ble of a place in the kingdom of the Mediator. For to what end should he mediate for them? or how should he redeem them that need not a redemption? or how should he reconcile them to God, that never were at enmity with him? or how can he wash them that never were unclean ? when the whole have no need of the physici- an. Matt./ix. 12. He " came to seek, and to save that which was lost." Luke xix. 10. and to save " the peo- ple from their sins," Matt. i. 21. They are none of his saved people therefore, that had no sin. He came " to redeem them that were under the law." Gal. iv. 5. But it is most certain that infants were under the law, as well as the adult: and they were apart of "his people 13* 150 ORIGINAL SIN. Israel, whom he visited and redeemed." Luke i. 68. If ever they be admitted into glory, they must praise him, " that redeemed them by his blood." Rev. v. 9. [p. 94,] "Infants then, are sinners, or none of those that he came to save. Christ hath made no man righteous by his obedience, but such as Adam made sinners by his disobedience, "«—" There is no regeneration, or renova- tion, but from sin," [p. 95] " If they think that any in- fants are saved, it is either by covenant, or without ; there is some promise for it, or there is none." [96] He concludes. " By the fulness of this evidence, it is easy to see, that infants and all mankind are sinners, and therefore have need of a Redeemer." Richard Baxter then, hath fully taught, 1. That in- fants are polluted and need regeneration. 2. Are dead spiritually and need regeneration. 3, are guilty, liable to, punishment, and can be pardoned. Thus the salvation of infant humanity contains evi- dence irresis table, that it was lost. Thedoctrine of ori- ginal sin, both as to pollution and guilt, is presupposed by the doctrine of infant salvation. They stand or fall together. He that denies the presence of the poison, must as a rational man, reject the antidote. In closing this argument let us remark : 1. The whole question relative to the state of infants, is of importance chiefly — almost solely, because of its connexion with the more general doctrine of original sin, and so with the more general doctrine of legal impu- tation. As to those who die in infancy, it can only af- fect them so far as the prayer of faith and piety is in- strumental in their salvation. Those who believe their infant offspring to be under the curse by nature, do also believe that the same principles of law, by which they were brought to this wretched condition, are applied in the covenant of grace, and do secure their redemption ; a means towards which, is, diligence, faith and prayer, on the part of their parents. And hence, the general, and, as I suppose, notorious fact, that those parents who feel, that they themselves have been the means of bringing their dear babes under the curse, by being the connecting links between them and Adam, do also feel INFANT NEED SALVATION. 151 an awful and solemn responsibility resting upon their souls, viz : the obligation to be the means of bringing their beloved offspring into the new covenant, that they may enjoy the blessing. 2. We see from this argument, the atheistical ten- dency of the Pelagian scheme, or that system which denies original sin — which denies that infants, before they sin personally themselves, are sinners under con- demnation. I say, the tendency of the system is athe- istical. To be convinced of this, you have only to sit down with these doctrines before you, at the cradle of expiring infancy. Mark there the inward struggle, the outward contortion, the deep heaving sigh of that ten- der bosom, the wild rolling eye, the quivering lip, the agonizing shriek, the dying groan, the parting breath ; and tell me, is there a righteous God ? This child has no sin upon him in any sense ; wherefore these suffer- ings ? If love and beauty, and innocence, and holiness can thus suffer, who governs the world 1 Who gives life and takes it thus away ? Cruel monster ! that can thus sport with agonies unutterable ! ! Can spotless justice and almighty power dwell with him ! ! ! Either then, infants are justly liable to suffer pain and sorrow and death, or there is no God. 3. What a dreadful evil must sin be ! which thus brings down the tokens of Heaven's displeasure, thou- sands of years after its perpetration ! One single trans- gression of God's law, has brought an entire race — myriads of millions of immortal minds, under the ven- geance of an Almighty arm ! What then must be our final doom, seeing such effects follow from one sin ; if we add thousands of actual transgressions to the sin of our nativity, and crown the whole by trampling under foot the law of God, accounting the blood of his cove- nant an unholy thing, and doing despite to the spirit of his grace ! ! Forbid it gracious Heaven. Amen and Amen. CHAPTER XI. THE UTTER INABILITY OF MAN, IN HIS FALLEN STATE, TO MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF LAW, AND THEREBY TO RESTORE HIMSELF TO THE FAVOUR OF GOD. SECTION I. The general notion of Ability and Inability. These terms are of opposite significations, and there- fore, the exposition of one, will afford the true idea of the other also. But there are few words so difficult to un- derstand, as ability and inability ; and that, because of the intrinsic difficulty of the subject. How do we ac- quire the idea of ability, or power? is a question which has vexed the world of philosophers no little. Toward procuring a correct response, let us remark, 1 st. Power or ability (for I use them as synonomous) is a relative idea. That is, it has reference to something to be done, or resisted. We can have no notion of power, but relative- ly to action, for the accomplishment of something; or of passive resistance. Power, to do what? Ability, to re- sist what ? Therefore 2. The notion of power seems to be derived from the perception of changes, occurring in things without us, and thoughts and feelings within us. This appears to have been the idea of Mr. Locke ; ana therefore he distinguishes it into active and passive pow- er: or, as subsequent philosophers have improved the phraseology, into power and susceptibility. If this be correct — if our notion of power is relative to changes perceived by us, we learn 3. The notion of cause and effect. Changes that are seen or felt, in frequent connexion with each other especially if they occur in the same order — are, by a very general law of the mind, deemed to have a necessary connexion ; so that the one must be followed by the other. Whilst we are entirely ignorant ABILITY AND INABILITY. 153 of what it is, yet we are necessitated to believe, that there is something in the one adapting, or suiting it to be the predecessor of the other. This adaptation, we call the power or ability in the cause, to produce the effect. For example, we observe a change takes place on the snow, whenever the warm sunshine lights upon it. It liquifies and runs off, in the form of water. This is the effect, and that is the cause. There is a poiver in the sun's rays to melt snow. A man stoops and grasps a fifty-six pound weight with his hand, and straightens himself up. The weight rises off the ground. He has power to lift it. But now the man grasps a ton weight, and endeavors to straighten himself, and does not ; he is not able, he has not power to lift a ton. Again, he con- structs a compound lever, or a pulley and tackle, and applies it to the ton, and lifts it: he has ability to lift a ton. Now these two propositions, viz : a man is able to lift a ton : and, a man is unable to lift a ton— both are true : and yet they appear contradictory. Evidently, therefore, the term ability, is used in different senses. In the former, it refers to physical ability, in the latter, to intellectual, so to speak, or mechanical, combined with physical ability. The particular kind of power, must depend upon the particular nature of the change effected. Ability is a relative idea. Causes and effects have a natural adaptation or suitableness, one to the other. If this could be kept steadfastly in mind, it appears to me, it would deliver us from a vast amount of confusion on this subject. All kinds of power or ability, imply some obstacle, opposition, or counterbalancing power, or force. I can form no idea, notion, conception, or thought of power, without having express reference to some kind, or character of resistance, or force to be overcome by it — some change to be effected. The attempt to form such an idea, is an attempt to conceive of a pair of bal- ances, with but one scale. Now the denomination of the power, depends upon the nature of this related force — the character of the ability is ascertained, only from the nature of the change effected. If it be a change upon mere inert matter, as the change upon the snow, by the sun's action, it is mere physical power. If it be 154 ABILATY AND INABILITY. a change upon mind, wherein ignorance has given place to knowledge, it is intellectual power. If it be a change upon the moral feelings, it is moral power. Now these three are clearly distinct. That ability, or power, by which the man lifted the half hundred weight, is physical or natural ability : and no man can be at any loss to distinguish it from that intellectual ability, which is exerted in planning and calculating the power of a compound lever or tackle, or the distance of a planet, or the duration of an eclipse of the sun. And yet, in these latter operations, the former power is in requisition : for by it he makes the figures of his calcu- lation. But surely no man will say that it was physical ability that calculated the eclipse, or intellectual ability that held the pencil, and marked the characters on the slate. Moreover, as we have seen, chap. i. sec. v. vi. rational intelligence, or intellectual power, may exist, and that in connexion with volition, apart from moral agency. There must be, sec. vii. also moral poiuer — an ability to perceive a right and a wrong in intelligent action. Until the rational being, who has also physical power, possess this moral sense, having no moral power, he is of course not a moral agent. Animal appetites may operate as motives, leading him to act in the use of means to gratify themselves, but until he is able to distinguish a rig/it and a wrong morally, that is, in reference to God's law, he cannot be influenced by motives of a moral nature. But as the Creator has en- dued man with such power, and as this, though in an impaired stat?, still abides with him, he, of course, is ac- countable for its exercise. Now, to the existence of moral power, intellectual power is necessary, and to the manifestation of each, physical power is equally indis- pensable. That is, a man must have natural ability in order, not to the exercise of intellectual and of moral ability, but to the manifestation of that exercise. The soul may reason, and its moral qualities be called into action, independent of mere physical power — as after death — but as its actions are made known in this state, only by th? physical powe s of the body, these are ne- cessary to communicate the knowledge of its operations. ABILITY AND INABILITY. 155 But their possession does not involve the other. It can- not be said of a horse, that he has physical ability^ to calculate an eclipse, or to obey the moral law of God. He lias more natural ability than a man has, but physi- cal ability cannot, without ridiculous absurdity, be af- firmed to be the antecedent cause of intellectual or of moral effects. It is surely, no more absurd to affirm, that a horse has natural ability to calculate an eclipse ; than to affirm, that a man has natural, or even intellec- tual, ability to obey the moral law of God. The horse has strength, more than need be expended in making the figures of the calculation ; but then, the expenditure of this kind of ability, in no conceivable degree, could secure the effect required, viz : the calculation of an eclipse. The man has physical and intellectual ability, more than are requisite to be expended in keeping many of the moral precepts of the law, but no possible amount of expenditure of such power, could secure the effect re- quired ; viz: moral obedience. Nothing but moral power can be the antecedent cause of moral effects: nothing but intellectual power can be the antecedent cause of intellectual effects : nothing but physical power can be the antecedent cause of physical effects. To af- firm that a horse has physical power to draw a train of cars on a rail road, is to speak truth and common sense. But to affirm that a horse has physical power to run a line of levels, and calculate the proper grading of the road, is to sin against truth and common sense. And why ? Simply, because, it is asserting the connexion of things, as cause and effect, which are not so connected, nor can be. Now, I aver, that it is equally absurd to affirm, that man has natural ability to keep the moral law ! natural ability to exercise moral causation ! ! na- tural ability to love God and man ! ! ! We are told, that it requires no more natural ability to love God, than to hate him. No truly ; and it re- quires no more moral ability to be an ass, than an ele- phant : and it requires no more intellectual power to be a clod, than a paving stone. There is probably, less natural and intellectual ability in Gabriel, than in Satan. But what hence results ? Why, this — that no measure 156 DISTINCTION OF NATURAL of ability can go beyond its own kind. If physical and intellectual power could secure moral results, the devil would probably be above the mightiest and the holiest angel in heaven. But, inasmuch as love to God, is a moral effect, it never can proceed from these powers of Satan, for they are not moral. The general notion of ability then, is, that quality or those qualities in a cause which being appropriately used, produces its ef- fect. A man's ability to lift a stone, lies in the muscles and bones &c, of his physical frame. His ability to calculate an eclipse, lies in his intellectual powers, as developed by his education. His ability to love God and his neighbour, lies in his moral powers of percep- tion and feeling, as developed and sanctified by the Spirit of God, who, therein, sheds abroad the love of God in his heart. SECTION II. The common distinction of natural and moral in- ability staled. " We are said to be naturally unable to do any thing, when we cannot do it, if we will, because, what is most commonly called nature, does not allow of it, or because of some impeding defect or obstacle that is extrinsic to the will ; either in the faculty of understanding, consti- tution of body, or external objects. Moral inability consists, not in any of these things ; but either in the want of inclination ; or the strength of a contrary incli- nation ; or the want of sufficient motives in view, to in- duce and excite the act of the will ; or the strength of apparent motives to the contrary. Or both these may be resolved into one ; and it may be said in one word ; that moral inability consists in the opposition or want of inclination. For when a person is unable to will, or choose such a thing, through a defect of motives, or prevalence of contrary motives, it is the same thing as being unable, through the want of an inclination, or the prevalence of a contrary inclination, in such circumstan- ces, and under the influence of such views." Edwards' AND MORAL INABILITY. 157 works, ii. 35. Natural inability, this great theologian divides into two parts, viz : " because nature does not allow of it," and " because of some impeding defect." But in breaking down the latter into the three particulars, he includes one, which, it appears to me, comes in un- der the prohibition of nature. The impeding obstacle or defect lies, either in the faculty of understanding, constitution oibody, or external objects. Nature does not allow a man to live in water, or a fish on land. This is a natural inability. The natural man discerneth not the things of the Spirit of God ; for they are foolish- ness unto him : neither can he know them, [xai 6v 8vvatai yvuvcu~] and he is not able to know them." 1 Cor. n. 15. This, according to Edwards here, is a natural inability: for it is the inability of a natural man : and it arises from " some impeding defect or obstacle, in the faculty of understanding." Mephibosheth was naturally unable to go out and meet David, because of bodily constitution — he was lame. Saul was unable to seize David and put him to death, because of external hindrances. Moral Inability Edwards makes to be simply the absence of a will — it "consists in the opposition or want of inclination" — unwillingness. "A drunkard, he says, under s.:ch and such circumstances, may be unable to forbear taking strong drink" — he is unwilling to abstain — because of the " prevalence of contrary motives." If the writer does not labour under a natural inability *.' in the faculty of understanding:," this distinction simply is, that, moral inability is a wantofivillingness; and natural inability is opposition of nature rendering the thing impossible ; or defect in our intellectual, or bodily powers, rendering it impossible to us. This distinction has been thought of great importance in treating of man's moral agency in his present fallen condition. It is often maintained, that man has a natu- ral ability — that is, he has all the powers of body and mind — (not the faculties simply, but the power of exer- cising them) necessary to enable him to fulfill all moral duty ; he lacks only the moral ability — the will : and if he had this moral ability or will, he would have all that is necessary to fulfil the whole law of God. This, it is 14 158 ABILATY AND INABILITY. thought, indispensible to maintain, in order to sustain his agency. It is feared, that if the total inability of man to save himself and lead a holy life, is set before him, it will discourage effort, and seal him up in a state of antinomian fatalism : hence some kind of ability must be asserted in order to encourage to effort and counteract the tendency to apathy. If this be not the historical fact, as to the distinction, it is at least un- questionably the present use of it. Men are told that they are able, whensoever they will, to make them a new heart, and to lead a life of holy obedience. This suggests. SECTION III. Objections to the natural ability and moral inability doctrine. 1. To speak of inability of will is an abuse of lan- guage. Edwards felt and acknowledged this, [ii. 37.] For after stating the distinction he says, " But it must be observed concerning moral inability, in each kind of it, that the word inability is used in a sense very diverse from its original import. The word signifies only a natural inability, in the proper use of it ; and is applied to such cases only wherein a present will or inclination to the thing, with respect to which a person is said to be unable, is supposeable." He proceeds to show the impropriety of predicating inability of the will. And, 2. The absurdity of this is my second objection against the doctrine. And this absurdity no man has better exposed than Edwards himself, ii. 38. Having defined freedom and liberty to be "The power, oppor- tunity or advantage that any one has, to do as he pleases, 1 '' he says — " then it will follow, that in pro- priety of speech, neither Liberty, nor its contrary, can properly be ascribed to any being or thing, but that which has such a faculty, power, or property, as is called a will. For that which is possessed of no ivill, cannot have any power or opportunity of doing accord- ABILITY AND INABILITY. 159 ing to its will, nor be necessitated to act contrary to its will, nor be restrained from acting agreeably to it. And therefore to talk of Liberty or the contrary, as be- longing to the very will itself, is not to speak good sense; if we judge of sense, and nonsense, by the ori- ginal and proper signification of words. — For the will itself, is not an Agent that has a will: the power of choosing, itself, has not a power of choosing. That which has the power of volition is the man, or the soul, and not the power of volition itself. And he that has the liberty of doing according to his will, is the Agent who is possessed of the will; and not the will which he is possessed of." These sentiments Edwards borrowed from Locke, whose doctrines ought to have prevented much contro- versy and contention. He had perceived the confusion resulting from our speaking of the faculties of the mind, by a kind of personification — intimating " that this way of speaking of faculties, has misled many into a confus- ed notion of so many distinct agents in us, whieh had their several provinces and authorities, and did com- mand and obey, and perform several actions, as so many distinct beings" — B. 2. C. 21. s. 6. Whereas the truth is, the will of man, is the mind or soul exer- cising choice, and the whole action of the mind in thus choosing, is called volition. Hence Mr. Locke, shows, as Edwards above, that "Liberty belongs not to voli- tion." — " Suppose," says he, " a man carried, whilst fast asleep, into a room, where is a person he longs to see and speak with ; and be there locked fast in, be- yond his power to get out; he wakes, and is glad to find himself in so desirable company, which he stays willingly in, i. e. prefers his staying to going away: I ask, is not this stay voluntary? I think nobody will doubt it; and yet being locked fast in, it is evident he is not at liberty not to stay, he has not freedom to be gone. So that liberty is not an idea, belonging to voli- tion, or preferring, but to the person having the power of doing, or forbearing to do, according as the mind shall choose or direct." n. 21, 10. And in 14, he re- jects the question whether man's will be free or no? 160 DISTINCTION OF ABILITY. as unreasonable and unintelligible — like the question whether a man's sleep be swift or his virtue square — " liberty being as little applicable to the will, as swift- ness or motion is to sleep, or squareness to virtue." It seems then, that neither ability nor freedom can, with any propriety, be predicated of the ivill. They are both attributes of persons and not attributes of attri- butes. But if freedom and ability cannot be ascribed to the will, neither can bondage and inability be so predi- cated. What could be meant by a bond or enslaved will? What by a will disabled I Hence to call the mere absence of choice— the want of a preference in the mind, by the name of inability, is at once to abuse lan- guage and to introduce confusion of thought, to the great perplexity of the subject, and the injury of truth and sound philosophy. 3. This distinction is useless — it relieves the subject of morals and relgion of no difficulty. The purpose for which it is introduced; viz: to constitute the basis of mor- al agency, is not subserved by it. We have seen the true ground and rule of duty to lie in the will of God, made known to man. The Creator originally endowed man with certain powers, and prescribed the rule of ac- tion. To reduce the standard of moral obligation to the present ability of man, is the distinguishing feature of the Armerian scheme. A man cannot be bound to do, what he is unable to do — Inability cancels moral obliga- tion. Ability — present ability is the measure of present duty. On this let us have a few particular observations. (1) It will be admitted, that a man is bound morally, "to provide for those of his own household." But the drunken gambler, who has squandered away an abun- dant patrimony, destroyed his health and reduced him- self to a poor, weak, helpless wretch, is not able to pro- vide for his household ; therefore he is not bound to provide : for no man can be bound to do what he is un- able to do ! But if a man is not under obligation he can- not sin against obligation; consequently, the drunkard's present neglect of his family is no sin at all. (2) These things being so, we see, that sin is its own apology and its own cure. Its own apology, for every thing but the NATURAL AND MORAL 161 first act : and its own cure, because whenever the disa- bilities, resulting from it, are complete, it can be no longer sinful. (3) As I have elsewhere observed, " Apply this principle to the commercial transactions of society. A man contracts a debt within the compass of his pres- ent ability — he perversely and wickedly squanders his estate, gambles away his property, and disables himself from payment, is he therefore not bound ? Is he free from moral obligation to pay it? Must justice break her scales, and no more hold up an equal balance, because he chooses to be a villain ? Oh no ! the children of this world are wise in their generation. The merchant may forgive the debt ; but forgiveness implies obligation to pay. The master whose servant has maimed him- self may omit to demand service or to punish for its neglect, but it is an omission of mercy. The law may not prosecute the rum-seller who poisons his neighbour into intemperance and ruin — the beggared wife and chil- dren may be unable to exact justice of him, but then it is because cupidity and lust are more powerful than justice. (4.) " This principle is a subversion at once, of all moral government. Let it be known throughout the moral universe, that inability (resulting from the most perverse wickedness) cancels moral obligation, and there will henceforth commence a jubilee in the realms of rebellion" — (5.) But the argument most conclusive, perhaps, against this limit to moral obligation, is that which takes its advocates on their own principle. They maintain, that man has the natural ability, viz: the phy- sical power, and the intellectual power — which qualify him to obey all Gods commands ; and if he had not, he could not be bound to obey : that is — natural ability qualifies for moral duty : and where this is not, there can be no moral obligation. Then I say, if natural inability cancels moral obligation, much more does moral inability cancel moral obligation. But now they admit that man labors under a moral inability, con- sequently, they much more destroy the foundations of moral agency. 4. But should we even wave all objections to the ac- curacy and abstract truth of the distinction, there is a 14* 1 62 ABILITY x most serious objection to its practical application. If man had natural ability to keep all the divine commands, and lacked moral ability only, still in applying the doc- trine, its advocates loose sight of the latter half of it, so that in broad terms, they affirm that man is able to meet all the requisitions of God. Full ability is asserted and insisted on, as indispensible to moral agency. And when this belief exists in the mind, it leads to many ruinous results, (a) It puffs up the pride of the heart. A man who believes that he is able to do all that God re-, quires of him, Avill of course despise the proffered mercy of the gospel. "I was alive," says Paul, " without the law once." He felt himself able to do all things him- self. And such is the natural and necessary tendency of the doctrine that a man has it all in his own power and can repent and believe, and be saved, just any mo- ment he pleases. This is the general belief of impeni- tent men. This is the broad road of Armenian anti- nomianism, along which the almost entire mass of the unbelieving millions, are trooping downward to the chambers of eternal death. To convince them of their utter helplessness — oh, here is the difficulty, which noth- ing but the almighty energies of the Holy Ghost can overcome, (b.) When such persons do become a little alarmed, they ordinarily put themselves upon severe supposed duties, and having made a few efforts, they suppose themselves willing now to use their sufficient power, and speedily speak peace to themselves, and procure some self-deluded mortal, like themselves, to daub with untempered mortar; and to encourage hopes, and so they settle down unconverted, proud professors of religion ; they continue for a little while and then wither away. Thus much, it seemed necessary to say. in reference to this metaphysical ability doctrine. The fearful hav- oc which both its use and its abuse, have produced and are now producing, in the American churches, renders it imperious upon all, who wish to see the humbling doctrines of human dependence upon divine grace for salvation, triumphant, to hold it up in the light of sound reason and sacred scripture. The latter will next claim our attention. AND INABILITY. 163 SECTION IV. Man's inability, as taught in the Bible. We have seen, that the metaphysical distinction of ability, into natural and moral, has no foundation in rea- son and nature and man ; and that its use has been at- tended with very mischievous consequences to the cause of truth and of human salvation. Let us now turn to the sacred scriptures, and ascertain, if pos- sible, what they say in reference to man's duty and inability. And in this enquiry let us be guided by the obvious and natural arrangement before presented ; viz : Let us enquire what the Bible says concerning the bod- ily, mental and moral powers or abilities. 1. His bodily powers are in a ruined state — his fac- ulties are enfeebled, and this as a result of his sin. And here, it may be well to remark, that little is affirmed di- rectly, of this in the sacred scriptures. The proofs are rather indirect. They seem to assume the fact of man's powers being prostrated by sin, as so obvious that all the race must feel and confess it : and this kind of as- sumed concession is stronger proof than any direct as- sertion. So the bible rarely, if ever, directly and formally asserts the existence of God. yet it very abundantly tes- tifies to that fundamental principle of religion. In like manner is assumed, oftener at least, than directly affirm- ed, the doctrine that the bodily powers of the race have been injured by the fall. Among the numberless pas- sages to this effect, let us advert to the following : Rom. v. 12. ** by one man sin entered into the world and death by sin." This has express reference to the words of the covenant, " in the day thou e ate st thereof, thou shalt surely die." It is a fact, that death is the result of sin. Now, that bodily death is included under this, will not be denied by any ; and especially is it not denied by those whom we oppose here ; for their policy has been to confine the threatening of the covenant, to the death of the body. The only question is, whether death im- plies a failure of the powers of the body ; whether sick- 164 INABILITY ACCORDING ness, feebleness, the wasting of the energies of the body is included. If this can be admitted — and how can it be denied ? — then the bible does teach physical inability — bodily infirmity, as a result of sin. The sorrows and sufferings of the body have all one common origin. " Because thou hast harkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it, cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life." Are not sickness, painful weariness, faintness, and feebleness and all the calamities of the body, in- cluded ? " Unto the woman he said, I will greatly mul- tiply thy sorrow and thy conception." Can there re- main in any mind the shadow of a doubt .' Does not every one feel within himself the evidence of sins en- feebling influence ? Do not rioting and drunkenness, chambering and wantonness — do not all sensual indul- gences tend to destroy the powers of nature ? Surelv, we waste time and insult the common sense of man- kind, in delaying to prove what needs no proof. No man can be ignorant of the facts, and of the principle, that when the talent is abused, it should be taken from the possessor. The only thing necessary farther, is distinctly to call to your notice the connexion between bodily disease, pains, and sorrows, prostration and feebleness, and the moral causes of them ; viz : the sins of men, and es- pecially, our first sin. The helpless sorrows and suf- ferings, and feebleness, and often death of infant human- ity, all result from sin — sin in the first of the race — the sin of all, through their first head, Adam. The very feebleness — the loss of power — the derangement of our faculties, all originate in sin, as their moral cause, and are penal results of it. The command, "take the talent from him," is founded upon the fact of its abuse — the priva- tion is penal — it is an expression of displeasure against the sin of misuse. As certainly as the sin of intemper- ance is followed by loss of bodily health, soundness of con- stitution, trembling, feeblenss mania, delirium tremens, — that hell upon earth — and death, so certainly has the TO THE BIBLE. 165 sin of Adam opened the door of numberless maladies and paralysed the physical energies of the whole race. 2. Equally clear and humiliating is the truth, that the intellectual powers have suffered by the fall. Here let us particularize. (1) The fact of human ignorance, is as clearly exhib- ited in the scriptures, as it is set forth before the eyes of all men. Men's minds, their understandings are very defective. " Having the understanding darkened, be- ing alienated from the life of God, through the igno- rance that is in them, because of the blindness of their heart." Eph. iv. 18. A very early display of this ig- norance, I have already referred to. This attempt to conceal themselves from the searching eye of God, be- trays in our first parents, ignorance as well as guilt. Had not " their foolish heart been darkened," (Rom. i. 21) such attempt had not been made (22,) " professing themselves to be wise they became fools." And the Apostle gives as proof of it, their idolatry, v. 23. "And changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an im- age." So Isaiah, lxiv. 18. "They have not known nor understood : for he hath shut their eyes, that they cannot see, and their hearts that they cannot understand, v. 19. And none considereth in his heart, neither is there knowledge nor understanding to say, I have burned part of it in the fire," and wilh a part of the same tree hath he made a God. And Paul was sent, Acts xxvi. 18. to the Gentiles, " to open their eyes and to turn them from darkness to light," and Christ was raised from the dead, v. 23, "to shew light unto the people and to the Gentiles." And Paul says, n. Cor. iv. 3, 4. " 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." It is superfluous to adduce scrip- ture farther. The entire gospel scheme, presupposes a state of dreadful and soul destroying ignorance. The revelation of God's will and the system of means for illumination, presupposes darkness. (2.) This darkness — this ignorance is to man unaided by supernatural power, insuperable. Man never would —man never could — he has not the intellectual power 166 INABILITY ACCORDING to overcome this ignorance — to dispel this darkness. He labours under an imbecility of mind, to such a de- gree as to render it impossible for him to discover the true knowledge of God, and to understand the things of the Spirit of God. He has an understanding by which he can know natural things — can reason and investigate truth and learn much of God's wisdom, displayed in the works of creation — he can — he is able to know the mor- al truths of God's word as mere abstract propositions — he can reason about them, but to have a true, saving, spiritual apprehension of them is beyond his unaided powers. He is not able to know the things of the Spir- it. There is a positive defect and inability in the mind. i. Cor. ii. 14. " But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God." By the natural man here is unquestionably meant, the unregenerate man— the man in whose soul the great work of spiritual illu- mination and regeneration has not been affected — an un- converted man. This is manifest from the whole train of the Apostles remarks. In v. 12, he says, " Now we" christians, believers — "have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God," and for what end was the spirit sent into the hearts of these sin ners ? For this end precisely, that they might be rescued from the chains of ignorance — that their inability of mind might be removed — that the scales might fall from their eyes — " that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God." " Which things [of the spirit] also we speak," "not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth ; but which the Holy Ghost teacheth." Here is a contrast between man's wisdom and its teach- ings, and the Spirit's wisdom and his teachings — "com- paring spiritual things with spiritual. For the natural man receiveth not the things of the spirit." The natural man is the unregenerated and unbelieving man : as is farther evident from the contrast between him and the spiritual man, v. 15. The Apostle then goes on to render a reason, why the natural or unregenerate man does not receive the things of the spirit; and this reason is a most cogent one. He does not receive them ; that IS? he rejects them, because they are absurd, in his ap- T0 THE BIBLE. 161 prehension ; and it is not in the nature of the human mind to receive as truth, that which it deems to be ab- surd — " for they are foolishness unto him." But this raises another question. Why do the things of the spirit appear to the unconverted man foolishness ? Are they not in themselves the consummation of wisdom? And if so, how can they be to the sound understanding of unconverted men, foolishness ? Wisdom is not folly. But it may so appear and be so treated, and that even by the mind which in other things, is not destitute of powers of perception. Wise sayings uttered in an un- known tongue, are foolishness to me. The lofty wis- dom of the astronomer is foolishness to the simple, un- lettered christian. Because why ? He cannot under- stand them. He has not the powers of mind to grasp the mighty thoughts and to comprehend the sublime demon- strations. The things of the Spirit are foolishness to the unrenewed man, because, he cannot know them — he is 6v SiWrcu not able to know them. Still the question rolls back upon us. Why is not the uncon- verted man able to know the things of the Spirit? Has he not a clear and discriminating mind ? Has he not a strong calculating head ? Can he not reason correctly, after having perceived with precision ? Do not uncon- verted men give us the most illustrious exhibitions of the power of human intellect ? Are not many of them the very giants of intellect? Why then are they not able to know the things of the Spirit? This also, Paul meets ; because these things require a peculiar power of dis- crimination, which the unconverted have not — " they are spiritually discerned:" and the natural man is not a spiritual man. Until he is taught of God — unless the "eyes of his understandingbe enlightened," Eph. i. 18, he will never see any beauty in the son of man, or wis- dom in the spirit, v. 15. "But he that is spiritual, discerneth all the things [of the Spirit] yet he himself is discerned of no one." So, John viii. 43. Jesus asks " why do ye not understand my speech ? Even because ye cannot — ye are not able to hear my word." But the knowledge, of which we here speak, is con- nected with salvation ; for none have it, or can have it, 168 INABILITY ACC0RD1N except the spiritual — those who are taught of the spirit. Salvation is everywhere connected with the knowledge of Christ, " and this is eternal life, to know thee, the only true God and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent." This is equivalent to coming unto God or Christ. Now he says, John vi. 44. "No man can come to me except the Father which hath sent me, draw him : and I will raise him up at the last day. It is written in the prophets, And they shall be all taught of God. Every man, there- fore that hath heard and learned of the Father cometh unto me." Here it is manifest that being taught of God and having learned of the Father, are equivalent phrases with conversion, and coming unto the Father. But now the Redeemer affirms explicitly that "no one is able to come — ov&cio Sviurw i%^iu — to him unless the Father draw him, and I will raise him up at the last day." He most intimately connects the drawing of the Father, with his raising the body from the dead. Why this ? Unless that the Father's drawing, is like the Son's raising — that is, by a divine and almighty energy. And this is explicitly shewn in the explanation he gives v. 65. " Therefore I said unto you, that no man can come un- to me, except it were given unto him of my Father," — the coming to Jesus is given to the sinner: the drawing is a gracious exercise of the divine power. Whenever that energy is put forth and the sinner is restored to spiritual life : whenever he becomes a spiritual man, he comes : but not until then. The lame man cannot walk and leap, until hfi is made whole by a divine power. True, he is commanded to rise up and walk : but it is equally true, that he cannot— -he is not able, until he is restored. It is well worthy of remark, that this word, draw. is always used in scripture as expressive of force or power, which, in the face of resistance, overcomes. Allow me to adduce all the cases: John xviii. 10. Pe- ter having a sword, drew it. xxi. 6, 11 — "they were not able to draw the net" — into the ship. "Peter drew the net to land." Acts xvi. 19. "They drew Paul and Si- las into the market place, unto the rulers." xxi. 30. " they took Paul and drew him out of the temple." TO THE BIBLE. 169 James n. 6. " Do not rich men oppress you, and draw you before the judgement seats?" It is always a draw- ing by force, and where the thing drawn, has life, it is a drawing against the inclinations, wishes and desires. The fishes floundered and resisted — the prisoners are dragged against their inclination and desire. These are the only cases, except the one before us, and the parallel passage, chap. xii. 32, where Christ says, " And I, if I be lifted up, will draw all [my people] unto me" — where the drawing is the same as here. Now, the uniform use of the word teaches us the important truth, that man before, and at the time the gospel net is thrown around him, is indisposed to come to Jesus — and when he feels himself enclosed by it, and the truths of God's word begin to cramp him up, he resists and flounces and tights against God, until the divine Spirit changes his heart, and then he is made willing, and comes to Jesus. He is arrested by a process of law, and is dragged, bv the power of the law in his conscience, before his judge, righting and resisting all the while, until the Holy Ghost touches his heart of stone, and it is changed, and the wild maniac comes to his right mind, and follow Him who lead captivity captive. Now, we are not to be mis- understood, as though we taught, that a man is saved by a kind of physical compulsion. He is saved contrary to what was his ivill, and wish, and desire, and inclina- tion of heart, before the spirit renewed his mind. In this sense, he is saved against his will. But in the work of drawing him, by the power of his Holy Spirit, God t4 worketh in him both to will and to do"— God, of his good pleasure, ivorketh both the willing and the do- ing. That is, the Holy Ghost, by his almighty power, renewing the mind, changes the will; so that he, who at first resisted, now ceases to resist — he who at first refused to do. and to come, now, becomes active and laborious in running the race set before him. 3. The intellectual inability of man, is proved by the scripture doctrine of the Spirit's illumination, it. Cor. iv. 6. " God who commanded the light to shine out of darkness, hath shined in our hearts, to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus 15 170 INABILITY ACCORDING Christ." Hence, "the Spirit of wisdom and revelation in the knowledge of him," is given by the Father. Eph. i. 17. Previously to which gift of the Spirit, "ye were sometimes darkness, but now are ye light in the Lord," chap. v. 8. " This is the anointing which ye have received of him — and ye need not that any man teach you." i. John in. 27. " But the comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my room, he shall tell you all things." John xiv 26. 44 for he shall receive of mine, and shall shew it unto you." xvi. 14. From these passages it is evident, (1.) That the mind of man is in a state of spiritual darkness. (2.) That it remains, and will remain so, until the Spirit of God give light or knowledge. (3.) That this giving of light and knowledge, is by a divine influence, analagous to that by which the light at first creation, was produced and made to shine. As to all spiritual, saving knowledge of the truth, the mind, is like the chaos, before the eternal first said '* let there be light." Darkness covers the earth and gross darkness the people. Now in this state, it is im- possible for man to understand — he cannot discern the things of the Spirit. I know it is affirmed, that man has the eye — the or- gan of vision, and therefore, he has the ability to see, al- though he has no light. Only remove the obstructing window shutters, and the prisoner in the dungeon sees ; he therefore had the ability to see before. Let us not deceive ourselves or others. It is not true that a man who has an eye in a sound state, has ability to see. It is false, in fact. Without light, he cannot see — he is not able to see; he has not ability to see. It is not true either, in point of fact, that a man who has a sound eye and light too, can see all things, which are perceptible, even by other eyes. The myops can behold near ob- jects clearly, and not distant ones — he is not able to see afar off. So a man may be able to see, with the mental eye, some things, who cannot see other things. Ability is the adaptation of the cause to produce the effect. The eye of the myops is adapted to produce the effect of vision as to near objects ; but not as to distant objects. TO THE BIBLE. 171 The mind's eye of the natural man, is adapted to be the cause of mental vision, as to natural things, but not as to spiritual things. Mental ability to understand a math- ematical demostration may exist, where there is an inability of mind to comprehend the beauties of a painting, or a poem or a piece of music. To affirm that this man of abstractions is able to understand and perform music, to write epic, or to pencil the canvass into life, is to affirm an untruth. Just so, to affirm that he " that lacketh these things," — the chris- tian graces of faith, virtue, knowledge &c. 2. Pet. i. 6, 9 — can see spiritually, is to contradict the express de- claration of scripture, which is, that he " is blind and cannot see afar off." " Thou blind Pharisee." " Ye blind leaders of the blind." Either therefore there is in the unrenewed mind, an incompetency, an incapacity, an inability to understand the things of the Spirit ; or the whole language of the bible on this subject is adapted to deceive us : and the fact of restoring sight to the natural- ly blind, is not intended to teach us our need of the same divine power to recover the soul to spiritual vision. But I wish to present this as a distinct argument. 4. The miracles of healing, performed by the Sa- viour are designed to teach men their need of superna- tural power, for the restoration of the soul to a state of holy, spiritual life. Particularly, the restoration of sight is adapted and intended to teach the doctrine for which we contend. " For judgement, I am come into this world ; that they which see not, might see ;— -" I am the light of the world: he that folio weth me, shall not walk in darkness, but shall have the light of life." Surely, no man can read these, and such as these texts, without imbibing the conviction, that the Bible inculcates the doctrine of man's native blindness of mind, and his utter inability to understand the things of God, until the day star of supernatural illumination shines into his mind. Bartimeus was not less able to see the multi- tude as they passed by than the most learned Pharisee was to discern spiritual things. Lazarus was not less able to come forth out of the tomb, before the divine 172 INABILITY ACCORDING poiver restored him to life, than the "blind Pharisee," to understand the doctrines of salvation. Now, we need only farther remark concerning this intellectual defect or mental inability to understand the things of the spirit, it is, according to Dr. Edwards, a natural inability, an impeding defect, or obstacle, extrinsic to the will, in the faculty of understanding ! It is sometimes objected to this, that, the defect itself cannot be pointed out, and consequently, the thing done, when this inability is removed, cannot be explained. What is the deficiency ? Where does it lie ? How is it removed ? What faculty has a renewed sinner, that is not possessed by the impenitent? What is done to ena- ble, to give capacity to understand spiritual things I To all these, we answer : they are founded on our ignorance and may easily be retorted. What faculty had the lame man after he was healed, that he had not before ? Was there added a bone, muscle, or tender to his bodily frame ? What was done to him ? It is mani- fest, that ignorance of the change and the mode of its production are no proof against the fact. The blind man knew nothing, but that "he put clay upon mine eyes and I washed and do see — how he opened mine eyes, I know not." But now, the fact of spiritual illumination is just as perfectly well known to the subject of it, as the fact of natural restoration to sight. And all pious men, of all sects, acknowledge a difference, and refer it to the spirit of God. III. The moral powers of the soul are paralysed by the fall. We have seen with Edwards and Locke, that to a.s- scribe inability to the will, is philosophically absurd : and yet, wise men do so speak. We must, therefore, exercise due caution, or we shall entirely misunderstand them. By inability of will, is meant simply unwil- lingness or disinclination. Now, that man is unwil- ling— that he is disinclined to holy things, none deny. This, the state, and the almost universal practice of the race most sadly testify. Who needs proof of it ? Who asks for evidence to shew, that man is inclined to evil as the sparks do ascend ? There is no room for doubt, TO THE BIBLE. 173 and can be no need of proof here. Every man's eyes and inward consciousness are sufficient for him. But it may be of some consequence to see the con- nexion of this with the preceding. The will is the mind choosing: and choice implies motive in view. To choose without a motive influencing to choice, is not conceivable. Now, the motive to an act of choice is, as we have seen, some apprehended good, to which the mind is drawn by its apprehension or view of it as a good. The motive is the thing, as it is seen or per- ceived by the mind. When a child, or a man, being offered an orange of wax, supposing it a real orange, and a real apple, chooses the orange, the motive of the choice, is not a waxen orange ; but a real orange ; the deception and mistake, has given a reality to the motive in the mind, which did not exist in the thing. The power, therefore, of any thing, as a motive, depends upon the mind's present view and estimate of it. But now it is clear, that this view and estimate depend wholly, upon the mind's powers of perception, and these upon the organs and medium. To illustrate. The waxen ball, being painted so as to resemble an orange, produces, through the organ of vision, a belief, that it is an orange, and thus, choice is determined. The waxen ball is chosen and the real apple is rejected. But change the organ of perception — let the smell and the feeling be brought to bear ; then the mind's appre- hension and belief are changed, and these change also, the choice — the will is to take the apple. Darkness then, in the understanding — ignorance in the mind — inability of intellect, most materially affects motives and choice. Now, if, as some have supposed, the mind had a power to act contrary to motive, it would manifestly not be a moral being at all : for the very essence of morali- ty is a capacity to be influenced to action by considera- tions of right and wrong. If a rational mind, could act without motive, which to me, appears a contradiction in terms, it would certainly not be a moral act. If, as I suppose, it belongs to the very essence of reason and morality, to be actuated bv motives ; and if motives are 15* 174 INABILITY ACCORDING the mind's views of things, it is easy to see how the understanding is the governing faculty : and the under- standing being blinded by sin and its corrupting lusts, it is easy to see how the enlightening of the mind, must lead to the sanctification of the affections, and rectifica- tion of the will. There is no possible — no conceiva- ble way of changing the human will, but by changing the views which the mind has of the subject matter be- fore it. The will cannot be forced. You can induce the child, or man, to prefer the apple to the orange ; — that is, to a change of will, only by a change of motive. And how is this effected, when the subject matter be- fore the eye is the very same ? If the subject matter before the mind is the same, there can be no change of will. But if you inform the hungry child that the orange is not an orange and cannot be eaten, but that the apple is a delicious reality ; you place a new motive before the mind and the consequence is, a new choice — • a change of will. Other mode of access to the will there is none, but through the understanding. What men have been accustomed, unphilosophically, to call inabili- ty of will, is nothing more or less, than simply, "a de- fect of motives" — " a want of sufficient motives, to in- duce, or excite the act of the will" — i. e. to induce the mind to a choice. But as choice may, and often does occur, without any moral character — as when I choose between figures and letters in numbering chapters, or as when a horse chooses between hay and corn fodder, — it is obvious that the inability of mind to choose holy things, lies in the want of moral motives: i. e. in spirit' ual blindness ; in the loss or derangement of the powers of moral perception. This I have not been able in the previous discussion, to keep entirely separate from the idea of intellectual inability : yet I trust we have seen (Chap. i. S. vn.) full evidence, that a moral sense or power of preception there is, and that this is the basis of moral agency. Now it is the derangement of the mind, by sin, which effects this power of perceiving right and wrong, that enfeebles or destroys the force of moral motives. Unrenewed and renewed men, look at the same subject matter; but then moral perceptions ^r« TO THE BIBLE. 175 quite different ; and therefore their motives are quite different, [the things actually seen by their minds are different ; and by necessity, different effects must be produced upon them. The one sees " a root out of a dry ground," in which there is " no form nor comeli- ness;" the other sees one " altogether lovely;" by the former, he must be despised and rejected, who is by the latter, loved and embraced. Whilst such are the views of the individuals, respectively, such must be their choice and conduct. It is impossible to be otherwise. You must change their moral perceptions, before it is possi- ble their volition should change. Now the precise thing we insist on here, is that no human power — no created power can change the moral perceptions of sinful man. He is unable to change himself. "The Ethiopian cannot change his skin — nor the Leopard his spots." None but the creating — the regenerating energies of God's Almigh- ty Spirit can change the mind, so as to enable man that is blind to see God's light clearly. Here then precisely lies the moral inability of man — not in the will, for the supposition is nonsense — but in the want of adequate powers of moral perception — the moral sense is protract- ed: the mind is unable to discriminate between good and evil, truth and falsehood, right and wrong, God and Mammon, Christ and Belial. Not that it can perceive no difference ; for this we admit ; but it cannot appreci- ate in any tolerable degree, the excellence of truth, and the glory of its Author, on the one hand ; and the base- ness of falsehood, and degradation of vice, on the other. Nor are you to suppose that man has the adequate facul- ties for this moral perception, and wants only the moral light. Just the reverse ; the moral light shines all around him ; but his powers of vision are gone : he walks in darkness whilst the noon tide splendors of the sun of righteousness pour all around him. He gropes for the way and stumbles over the very rock of ages, into the slough of despond. Wretch that he is ! he must ever remain so, for any relief that can spring from earth. Onward he totters toward the gulph of eternal dis- pair, and soon must he plunge in, and buffet the fiery flood unless the Father of mercies cry to the Son of hi* 176 INABILITY ACCORDING TO THE BIBLE. love. " Let there be light," and the Spirit of all grace shines into his heart to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God. Now this change in the mind, is effected by the divine power. It is supernatural. Created agency may be employed as a means, or instrument, but the power is God's alone. It is the same power as that by which Christ was raised from the dead. Such is the Bible doctrine of inability. What are its practical tendencies and effects ? 2. To stain the pride of all human glory. To bring down the lofty looks of man. To make all men feel themselves less than the least of God's mercies. 3. To produce that state of feeling dependence on divine power and grace, which is indispensable, as the antece- dent of forgiveness of sins through the blood of atone- ment. 4. To exalt the condescension and law of God in the apprehension of the humbled sinner. He only who feels himself absolutely helpless, will surrender him- self to sovereign mercy and grace. He only who feels himself already sinking under the billows of a justly in- censed indignation, will explain in tones of piercing agony, " Lord save me or I perish." 5. To place the crown of glory on the only head worthy to wear it. " Not unto us, O Lord, not unto us, but unto thy name, give glory, for thy mercy and for thy truth's sake." Ps. 115, 1. 1. To awake the sin secure soul, who feels that he can repent and be saved, whenever he pleases, to a sense of his lost and ruined state. The thought is awe- ful ! and leaves no rest in the mind. Lost, and no help ! No power in me, or any creature to save me ! O, "dread- ful ! CHAPTER XII. THE GOSPEL REVEALS THE ONLY EFFECTUAL REMEDY FOR THE EVILS OF THE BROKEN COVENANT. We have looked into the great general principles of moral government, as established by the Creator, and re- vealed in the sacred scriptures. We have examined, in considerable detail, the spe- cial modifications of that government, as it was extend- ed over man, in his primitive condition. We have discussed the question of the extent of the covenant made with Adam, and the Representative char- acter which he sustained. We have settled the meaning of certain terms, impor- tant in this discussion — Just, Righteous, Righteousness, Justify, Justification. We have enquired what was requisite to Adam's justification, according to the terms of the covenant, and have found one thing only, necessary, viz : Righteous- ness, conformity of his conduct with the law. We have contemplated the fact — that he violated his covenant engagement — disobeyed God ; and conse- quently, incurred the penalty, which constitutes an ad- ditional requisite in order to his justification. V- We have examined the physical, intellectual, and mo- ral consequences of Adam's sin upon himself, and his posterity. We have canvassed the fundamental doctrine of ori^ ginal sin — including the general doctrine of imputa- tion. We have attempted an exposition of that difficult, and very important portion of the divine word, contained in Rom. v. 12—- 21, as an argument on this great doc- trine. We have deduced, from the case of those who die in infancy, an argument for the same doctrine. 1^8 THE GOSPEL REVEALS A REMEDY. We have seen the utter inability of man, in his fallen state, to meet the requirements of law, and thereby, to restore himself to the favour of God. In which, we have examined the metaphysical distinction of ability into moral and natural. The result of this discussion and examination, is, a thorough conviction, that man is fallen, ruined, lost, undone, and totally helpless in himself — an outcast from God and Heaven, and helplessly undone, by the broken covenant of works. We are now prepared to enter upon the most impor- tant question of a remedy. How shall the fearful cala- mities consequent upon sin, be obviated ? Is there a possibility of man's escape from the just and legal con- sequences of his transgression ? and of his receiving the blessings and the benefits originally proffered as the reward of obedience ? The original law given to him, and which was ordained unto life — which was so ad- justed that obedience to it, must be followed by life, but where transgression has been found unto death, — can it yet be restored and fulfilled, and thus life be still secured to lost man ? Is there any where, an arm al- mighty to save ? Can man yet be just with God? Our theme is the affirmative response : " for behold I bring unto you good tidings of great joy, which shall be unto all people ; for unto you is born, in a city of David, the Saviour, which is Christ the Lord. ' The Bible reveals a remedy. And here our first position, SECTION I. Is, that the Gospel is a remedial law. By this, is meant, that the scheme of redemption re- vealed in the Bible, professes to counteract the evils, re- sulting from a former scheme ; to make amends for its violation ; to provide a remedy for the moral diseases introduced through its agency ; and so to heal the hurt of the daughter of my people. The evidence may be found in the professed design of the Saviour. He came to fulfil all righteousness THE GOSPEL A REMEDIAL LAW. 179 —to seek and to save that which was lost — to heal the sick — to cleanse those infested with the lepro- sy of sin — to rescue man from the condemnation of the law, and to restore him to the favour and enjoyment of God — to throw open the prison doors, and to proclaim liberty to the captives — to give sight to the blind — to make the lame walk, and the tongue of the dumb 'sing for joy. The entire phraseology of scripture shews, that the gospel is a remedy for evils consequent upon some scheme of law, which preceded it. It is not a device original, in and of itself; but is manifestly based upon the hypothesis of another covenant having pre? ceded it, at the head of which, is another Adam, of whom this second man is the anti-type. The actual work ac- complished by the Lord from Heaven, is remedial. He restores from the ruins of the fall. SECTION II. The Gospel, like every remedial law, establishes the principle of the original Institute. This is implied in the term, by which I have express- ed the idea. To speak of remedying a defect, suppos- es the continuance of the thing in which it exists. In human legislation, an original statute defines its object, and the principle by which it proposes to accomplish it. The general law for the establishment of schools in this Commonwealth, specifies its object — the education of the entire mass of the people : It also settles the great principle upon which it shall be done — by a fund provided by the State, and a tax levied by the people upon themselves directly. This is an original statute. But now, many defects may be developed in the applica- tion of its detail. These, it may be possible to cure, without abandoning either the object, or the general principle by which it is proposed to secure it. Subse- quent laws may correct the defects, and all such laws are remedial, and in our legislation are called supple- ments. Should our Legislature hereafter determine to abandon the object, or the principle, they must pass a re- 180 THE GOSPEL A REMEDIAL LAW. pealing act. But moral laws cannot be repealed, even by a divine ordinance. They are an expose of the di- vine perfections and are eternal like their author ; and hence the reason why the law given to Adam, could never be repealed, abrogated or set entirely aside.* It is a moral law, andean no more be changed, than God himself, of whose perfections it is a transcript. By a change in man, it has wrought death, and must continue to work death, unless the omniscient Legislator provide a remedy. The law, he can never repeal : a supple- ment remedial he has revealed in his holy word. The obligation upon Adam and his race, to obey God, as we have seen, never can cease : the motive to obedience, held out in the promise of life, never can be withdrawn. " If thou wilt have life, keep the commandments." The gospel does not make void the law ; "God forbid ! yea, we establish the law." But " what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh — by man's failure — 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." So far therefore, from the gospel being an original law, defining and fixing its own principles, irrespective of any pre-existing scheme, or system of law, it is simply a remedial scheme, designed to confirm, and establish the eternal principles of right, laid down in the law and covenant given by his Creator to man. Material things are subject to mutation. Earth's surface may be the theatre of ten thousand ever shifting scenes, whose last drama may be a renovated world, emerging from a] de- luge of fire. Material suns and systems may be blot- ted out from the page of existence ; but God's law is immutable as his own eternal throne. " 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." It is not denied, that the law here includes the Mosaic * See Gray's Mediatorial Reign, p. 144. THE GOSPEL A REMEDIAL LAW. 181 writings, and the prophets, but it is unquestionably true, that the main substance of the whole, is the moral law, which is interspersed throughout the scriptures. The truth of our second position will be, if possible, more clearly manifested by reference to the fact, that the gospel reveals no new moral principle — prescribes no rule of action different from the moral law. New motives to holy action — new views of God's benevolent character, it does indeed present. But the impulsive power of these, is not in a different, but in the very same direction as the previous moral system. Gratitude and love are presented in a new and stronger light ; but they are not new duties — they were of old, even from the beginning, binding upon man. In the progress of this discussion, we shall see that every leading doctrine of the new covenant, was previously in operation in the old — that the covenant of works involves all the elements, whose application, in the covenant of grace, is productive of so many blessings to man and so much glory to God. It may be suggested, that faith and repentance are du- ties enjoined in the gospel: audit maybe asked, are they not peculiar to the gospel ? Were men, before its promulgation, called upon to believe and repent? As to faith, it may be remarked, in reply, that the general principle is a part of the moral law of man's creation. It is as much a part of man's nature, to be- lieve in testimony, as to perceive truth, and to reason about it ; to love his fellows, and himself. The gospel requires the exercise of the principle of faith, in refer- ence to anew testimony; and it makes provision for the renewal of the mind, by which, the man is enabled to such exercise. But it introduces only a new modifi- cation of that trust and confidence in God, which ha« always been obligatory on man. Repentance is not a moral principle at all. It is the turning of the heart, the mind, the soul, the man from sin to God. It consists essentially, in the action of the man : and, as a moral action, may be resolved into hat- red of sin, which is only a form of holy feeling — the re-action of love to God and holiness : and that love it- 16 182 THE GOSPEL PROVISION. self, called into action by faith's view of the bleeding cross. Every one of its elements, may be found in the requirements of the moral law. All that is new in the duty of repentance, is the peculiar circumstances which occasion its exercise. True, if by repentance be meant compunction of conscience, and sorrow for sin, it might be, with some plausibility, affirmed to be, a new duty, unknown to the moral law. These, however, I hope to shew, are only accompaniments, at most, and not re- pentance. Indeed, they are not always, even accom- paniments ; for they often occur, where there is never a true turning of the heart to God. Let us then, view the gospel as a remedial law — a scheme devised by infinite wisdom, to remedy the evils resulting to lost man, from the violated covenant, and designed, not to abrogate, but to establish its principles, and secure its objects. SECTION III. The gospel must provide a complete fulfilment of the positive precept of the law, or covenant of works. In the original institute, the whole substance of moral obedience was summed up in the single precept, relative to the fruit forbidden. As the law is a unity, and he who offends in one point is guilty of all ; so when the spirit of obedience is tested in a single point only, and confined to that point, a failure here, brings upon man the guilt of the whole — he is liable to the whole penalty. Now this was the sum total of the law, as a covenant given to Adam, that he should obey, and as the reward of obedience should receive life. This glorious reward was held up as the motive prompting to choice on the side of law and right. The law was ordained unto life. This is its object, and to this it was adapted. But it failed in the hands of the first Adam, and the second comes in to make it good, to establish its principle and secure its object. Life, as the reward of active obedi- ence to law, must be guaranteed by the surety of this better covenant, established upon better promises. And REMEDIAL SCHEME. 183 the expansion of this obedience over ten thousand points, which originally was confined to one, does not alter the nature of the transaction. It may indeed, en- hance its value ; as he who is exposed to the possibility of failure, in a variety of ways, may be supposed more meritorious in his obedience, than he who possibly can err in but one. The spirit of subordination to the will of God is the same, whether one, or one million of acts be the expression of it. "My meat is to do the will of him that sent me," said the second Adam, and wherever this is the ruling spirit, there the right to the reward of life still exists. The remedial scheme must reveal this spirit, and develope it in full action according to law. SECTION IV. // must remedy the failure — must make amends for the positive evils under the original institute. Under the administration of the first Adam, sin in- curred death. The law having been transgressed, there was no evasion of its penal claim. The faithfulness of God to his own declaration, was pledged to see the sanctions of justice fully carried out. The character of his moral government over the universe, and even the reality and perpetuity of it, imperiously demanded that she should hold an equal balance. Disease and death have occurred ; and these most especially, demand the interposition of a remedy. The law worketh death, and that, by its legitimate and necessary action. Now, death and disease must be counteracted, before it is possible that the great object of the original institute can be at- tained. Justice is as much concerned to inflict merited punishment, as to bestow merited reward. Clearly then, such infliction, where it is merited, must precede the bestowment of reward, and hence, the remedial law must provide an adequate satisfcation to the claims of insulted justice. This we shall hereafter contemplate under the head of atonement. 184 COVENANT REPRESENTATION. SECTION V. The two preceding grand requisites in the remedial law, must be secured on the principle of the original institute; viz: by a covenant representation. First, it must be by covenant, that security may be given, and confidence won. If there is no pledge, prom- ise or guarantee, on the one hand, that the evils of sin shall be remedied, and the terms of the first covenant fulfilled; there could be no ground, on the other, to ex- pect deliverance from condemnation, and security in life. The nature of moral government must be changed, if God could grant to man, life on any other terms, than had been prescribed in the law, and agreed to by man. An arbitrary bestowment of life, irrespective of, and in opposition to the claims of violated law, would have been a virtual abrogation of it, and inconsistent with the very nature of a remedial scheme. But how the remedy could be by an adequate sacrifice, rendering satisfaction for sin, without the voluntary action of the Surety, it is impossible to conceive. If a Surety be admitted at all, it must be by agreement of the party offended and the person offered as Surety. But again, this is necessary, in order to its being by representation, according to the original covenant. Ruin was brought upon the whole race, through their connec- tion with their moral head ; so the remedy for that ruin, must be through the agency of their moral head. The great fundamental doctrine of all social organization, without which, there can be no government of any kind, of man over man — the doctrine of representation, and of consequent imputation, stands out in bold relief and lu- minous prominence, upon the whole front of that moral constitution, originally given to man. This must appear also, with a correspondent prominence, upon the front of that splendid structure which the Son of God is erect- ing to the praise of his glorious grace. It was never de- signed, in the former case, that human persons, all and DEDUCTIONS. 185 each, should be insulated, and stand firm, here one, and there another ; or should fall on the right hand, and an the left. Such a scheme would have left man essentially unsocial, and peopled a world with spirits of precisely opposite characters. On the contrary, God made man social ; and enstamped this character on his constitution: and in the representative doctrine of the covenant of works, you have the elemental principle of all social rela- tions. By this is man attached and united to his fel- low : he is made dependent, as to his moral destinies, and social interests, upon the action of his moral head : and thus, a necessity exists, perpetually, in his very na- ture, for society. Now, the gospel discovers to us no design to interfere with this tendency, but it uniformly promotes it. It furnishes, as the detail will evince more fully, a moral head to that immense multitude, who shall stand ultimately before the throne of Messiah, and go away into life eternal. It puts into the safe-keeping of this glorious Head, the moral destinies of the body. It sets him forth as bearing a representative relation to his people, both in his active obedience, the fulfilment of all the holy precepts of law : and in his extinguishing its penal claim. Always, and every where, Jesus is repre- sented as obeying, and suffering, and dying, and rising, and ascending, and reigning, for his people. In concluding this chapter, let us remark. 1. It is vain to expect, by philosophical research, to discover any new principles in morals. Even the reve- lation of Jesus Christ, is but the modified application of that morality, which was of old, even from everlasting. 2. The doctrine of Neo-nomianism, or that which af- firms under the gospel, a new law of grace, reduced in the severity of its demands to the present capacities of men, is without foundation in the word of God. There is not even a partial abrogation of the demands of justice. 3. We learn hence, how to value the doctrine of God's covenant with man. It contains the substance of all moral rule. 4. The importance of possessing that revelation, which makes known the only remedy. Where there is no such vision, the people perish. 16* 186 THE COVENANT OL GRACE. 5. How solemn the obligation upon all who have it, to let it be known in all the earth ! JEIow beautiful upon the mountains are the feet of him, that- bringeth good tidings ! CHAPTER XIII. THE COVENANT OF GRACE. In treating of the general idea of a covenant, we had occasion to remark, that it consists of three parts, viz : the parties, the terms, the agreement. These all, we found when discussing the covenant of works, or that which God established with Adam ; and these all, we shall find in the following enquiry into the covenant of grace. SECTION I. The parties are two, viz: God, the Father, and Jesus Christ, the Son. " I have made a covenant with my chosen." Psalm lxxxix. 3. This passage is primarily applicable to the son of Jesse, but principally to David's greater son. Who is meant here, by God's chosen or elect, is mani- ifest from the language of Isaiah, lxiv. 1. " Behold my servant, whom I uphold, mine elect — or chosen one — in whom my soul delighteth." Which passage is applied Math. xii. 18 — 20, to Jesus, our mediator. And in Isa. lv. 3. " Incline your ear, and hearken unto me ; hear and your soul shall live ; and I will make an everlasting cove- nant with you, even the sure mercies of David ; that is, of the beloved one." Here you have the language of gospel invitation to the sinner : God, the Father invites him to come, that he may be brought actually into the covenant of his own Beloved Son, and partake of its blessedness. This gives us incidental evidence (which is THE COVENANT OF GRACE. 187 the strongest kind of evidence) of the existence of such covenant: and it is called " the sure mercies of the Be- loved one," to intimate the relation which the Beloved sustains to it as surety , and the consequent permanency of the covenant, and safety of those who are actually brought into it. This language, "I have made a covenant with my chosen" also intimates, as Mr. Boston remarks, "the party proposer — though he was the party offended, yet the motion for a covenant comes from him. The Father of mercies beholding a lost world, his bowels of mercy yearn towards, the objects that his sovereign pleasure pitches upon : and that mercy seeks a vent for itself, that it may be shewn to the miserable." Body of Di- vinity, v. ii. 4, 30. When this covenant is presented anew to Abraham, the blessing of salvation which it goes to secure, is said to have been "confirmed of God in Christ." Gal. in. 17, and the same Apostle assures us, that its establish- ment was prior to the existence of the world. Titus i. 2, 3. "In hope of eternal life, which God, that can- not lie, promised before the world began ; but hath in due time manifested his word through preaching." How God should promise "eternal life before the world began," on any other hypothesis than that of a compact, agreement, covenant, with the Son, on the behalf, and for the benefit of his people, it is to me impossible to con- ceive. A similar testimony we have in Eph. 1. 4. " Accord- ing as He [God the Father] hath chosen us [all believ- ers] in him, [Jesus Christ] before the foundation of the world." Here is the exercise of electing love, prior to creation. So Rev. xiii. 8. and xvii. 8. " Their names were written, before the foundation of the world, in the book of life of the slain Lamb. "The former of thesetexts, for want of a point after " slain," is equivocal, and hence some suppose it refers the slaying of the Lamb, to a period anterior to the world's creation: whereas, the plain and obvious intention, in both, is, to refer the writing of their names in the Lamb's book of life, to a period be- fore creation : that is, they were chosen in Christ, be- 188 THE COVENANT OF GRACE. fore the world was: the promise, in the covenant of grace, existed before creation. To whom was the promise made ? There was, as yet, no man — so far as we know, no angel. The notion of a promise, implies a person to whom it is given — to whom there is a pledge of veracity. To suppose a promise, without two per- sons at least, appears to me, absurd. The idea of writ- ing their names in the Lamb's book of life, implies that the Lamb, i. e. Christ, the second person of the God- head, so furnished by God, as to be capable in due time of suffering, did then exist, and had a book of life. The confirming of a covenant, of or by God, in Christ, before the promulgation of the law, implies that there was a covenant, prior to the law — a better covenant than that given to Adam, and than that given to Moses, — better, because established upon better promises ; even the pledged veracity of God, who cannot lie. SECTION II. This covenant is gracious, because eternal. The benefits of it are all gratuitously bestowed. Man to whom they come, has no claim of right, in himself, to them. That which is not, can have no attributes, no claims, no rights. Man did not exist, and yet a covenant was made between God, the Father, and God, the Son, which guaranteed to men unspeakable blessings — eternal consolations. Is it possible to conceive, any thing more perfectly beyond the reach of human merit — more purely the fruit of simple benevolence, on the part of God. It is "an everlasting covenant," not only in reference to its results, and extension into the future, but in reference to the past — it is eternal — it existed before the world was. " I was set up," says the wisdom of God, that is, the Messiah, "I was set up — I was annointed — from everlasting, from the begining, or ever the earth was." Prov. viii. 23, This annointing of the Son as a cove- nant head, is the same as the confirming of the cove- nant of God in Christ. THE TERMS. 189 SECTION III. The Terms. First, The stipulation on the part of God the Father ; or the things which the Son was required to do. Every covenant must be proposed by one party ; and each of the terms must be suggested first, by one. The scrip- tures represent the Father as originating this covenant. Its source is his everlasting love — the pure fountain of his own boundless benevolence. Hence, the apostolic benediction speaks of the love of God. Now, the prop- osition of the Father is, that the Son shall fulfil his Fa- ther's will, in saving lost men. This can be effected, only by fulfilling all the law, under whose penalty the scheme of redemption contemplates the objects of mercy. This scheme is remedial : and, as we have seen, must meet the penal, and the preceptive claims of law. Two things, therefore, are required of this surety — 1st. He must suffer whatever is included in the law's demand against his principal. He must pay the debt of his peo- ple's iniquities. 2d. He must accomplish the righteous- ness required of Adam — He must fulfil the precept. " But further," says Witsius, vi. 249, expressing the same truth, " as Mediator and Surety, he is under the law, in another manner, and that two ways. 1. As en- joining the condition of perfect obedience, upon which he and his, were to partake of happiness. 2. As bind- ing to the penalty due to the sins of the elect, which he had taken upon himself." These are the two items, which the original institute make indispensable to the justification of fallen Adam, and his posterity: and con- sequently, the remedial scheme must meet them both. Secondly. The restipulation, on the part of the Son, viz : That the reward of life to all his people, for whom he is Surety, shall be given to them through him, and the glory of their salvation, shall be his. This is the valuable consideration, on the part of the Father, which constitutes the whole transaction, a compact or covenant. The Father proposes, and promises this reward. This, too, is indispensable as the basis of moral confidence. 160 THE AGREEMENT. Correspondent to this promise of the Father, is the Son's engagement to fulfil all righteousness. Thus, there is a mutual pledge, promise, or guarantee and se- curity, that the things to be accomplished by the cove- nant, shall not fail. Let us not however, suppose, that this, like contracts among men, results from a feeling of want. Fair cove- nants with us, must be productive of mutual advantages. The design is, to accomplish some useful purpose. The intent and purpose of this covenant, is to exhibit the di- vine perfections, and thus, to secure a revenue of glory to God, whilst it dispenses infinite blessings* to man. To speak of gain to God, absolutely, is improper ; be- cause he is infinite in all perfections, and increase or diminution, in regard to him, are ideas wholly inapplica- ble. Yet, we may speak, and often do speak, of in- creasing the glory of God. Glory is the manifestation of excellence, and such manifestation, or display does admit of degrees, even in reference to the Creator. Just in proportion, as the attributes of the divine character are expressed in his works of creation and providence, does the glory of God increase. Now, the covenant, of which we speak, guarantees and promises the manifes- tation of God's love, in a manner and degree, not else- where to be found ; and therefore, the interests of his glory, are greatly promoted by it. We may scarcely allude to a penalty, where the cov- enanting parties are both absolutely infallible. Penal sanction implies the possibility of failure ; and therefore, we may not ask, what must have been the consequences to Christ and his people, had he failed. It is obvious, that he could never have arisen from the dead, nor his people with him. But it is not wise to reason from hypothesis," impossible in themselves, and we forbear. SECTION IV. The agreement. The principle, that mutual consent creates moral union, runs deep into the social system of man. The laws of THE AGREEMENT. 191 eternal right are the only limit to it. Whatever is law- ful and right to be done, that, two or more persons may- consent and agreee to do: and in the doing of it they are one. The voluntary action of the parties is neces- sary to any compact, contracted or covenanted. Did the Father and Son consent to carry on and com- plete this glorious scheme of remedy, for a ruined race ? Where is the evidence of it? Let us turn to Psalm xl. 6 — 10. " Sacrifice and offering thou didst not desire; mine ears hast thou opened : burnt offering, and sin offer- ing hast thou not required. Then said I, Lo, I come ; in the volume of the book it is written of me, I delight to do thy will, O my God, yea thy law is within my heart. I have preached righteousness in the great con- gregation ; Lo ! I have nof refrained my lips, Lord, thou knowest." Now an infallible interpreter tells us, that it is Jesus who here speaks. Heb. x. 5. " Wherefore when he cometh into the world he saith, sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared me. In burnt offerings, and sacrifices for sin, thou hast had no pleasure ; Then said I, Lo, I come, (in the vol- ume of the book it is written of me) to do thy will, O God." A comparison of these, and an inspection of the Apostle's reasoning, must satisfy us, that the Father's expressed will was, that the Son should suffer — and that the son acquiesced in the same — I delight to do thy will. Here is mutual consent — the agreement of the parties. So that we have here, all the essentials of a covenant." To the same purport is the declaration of the Lord, by Isai. xlii. 6. where, speaking of his chosen servant, who should not cry, nor lift up, nor cause his voice to be heard in the street, nor break the bruised read, nor quench the smoking flax, he says, " I will keep thee, and give thee for a covenant of the people." Jesus is the federal head, with whom the Father has established his covenant for his people's salvation. Parallel to which passage is, xlix. 8. where the Father saith of Him, " I will preserve thee, and give thee for a covenant of the people, to establish the earth, to cause': to inherit the desolate heritages ; That thou mayest say to the prisoners, Go forth." The grand purpose is here stated, 192 THE FULFILMENT OF THE COVENANT. to release the prisoners, from the chains of sin, to estab- lish the great principles of moral government — to remedy the mischiefs of the fall, by confirming the principles of the original institute. Hence, Messiah is called the Messenger of the cove- nant — the one who "was sent of God as an ambassador. All these, and a thousand other testimonies of scripture, clearly shew the consent and co-operation of God, our heavenly Father, and Jesus, our divine Redeemer, in the glorious federal compact, which secures the eternal well- fare of all them that believe. CHAPTER XIV. THE FULFILMENT OF THE COVENANT. 1. ON THE PART OF THE LORD'S SERVANT. 2. ON THE FATHER'S PART. SECTION I. Jesus did obey all the precepts of the law of God, and thus fulfilled all righteousness. Preparatory to this, we ought to remark, that in the fulness of time, he assumed human nature, in a miracu- lous manner. This was necessary to the work he had undertaken. The obedience of man, is that to which the life of man is promised. An angel's obeying, would not have been the establishment of the original law ; nor could life for man have been claimed as the reward of angelic obedience. By man came death, and conse- quently, by man, must come the resurrection from the dead. It was indispensable that he have a body, and be in full possession of humanity : that he might obey, and die for man. That he did run the round of human duties, the his- Christ's obedience. 193 tory of his life fully testifies. ' ; He was subject unto his parents" — he respected the laws of his country — he punctiliously regarded tli3 laws of God — he submit- ted to every institution of religion. When John " for- bad him, saying, I have need to be baptized of thee, and comest thou to me ? he answering, said unto him, Suffer it to be so now, for thus it becometh us to fulfil all righteousness." No duty was he ever known to neglect — no sin was he ever known to commit — he did no evil, neither was guile found in his mouth — he went about doing good. Of his perfect compliance with the whole require- ments of law, the most satisfactory evidence is present- ed, in the testimony of the court, which handed him over to the executioner. Every species of malignity had been at work from the beginning ; and all possible ingenuity had been exercised to detect in his conduct, some omission, or some actual sin, that might lead to his condemnation. But after malignity and genius, under its influence, had exhausted their efforts, the judge is constrained to declare, when delivering him up to the will of his malignant foes, " I find no fault in him." It was never, even attempted to be proved, that he had done any thing contrary to the pure and holy law of God. So perfectly had his life carried convic- tion to the understandings of his enemies, of his spot- less purity; and so fully had it overawed their spirits, that no attempt was ever made to prove any immoralitv or impiety against him. Hence, an Apostle affirms, " Christ is the end of law for righteousness, to every one that believeth," Rom. x, 4. He is the end, or termination of the law ceremonial — it is fulfilled in him, and comes to a close and must cease. Ho is the end at which it aimed, to which it constantly directed the eye of faith. He is th- end, or fulfilment and completion of the moral law- All its requirements are met by him. It is a transcript of the moral perfections of God — an expression of his holy will ; and wherever these perfections exist, as qualities of the mind, they will shew themselves by their accordance with the law. But in the person oi' 17 194 Christ's obedience, vicarious. Jesus, all holy properties are found in measurele^ abundance ; and, consequently, their perfect coinci- dence with the precepts of the divine law, was to have been expected. " In him dwelt the fulness of the Godhead bodily" — as embodied — as incarnate, he pos- sessed all divine perfections, and consequently, all those requisite to a fulfilment of the moral law. On this point, I shall not detain you ; because, the matter of fact is so obvious ; and because, no person denies the truth of it. Even infidelity — in its Pagan, Mahomedan and Christian forms, — all infidels have ac- knowledged the spotless, moral character of Jesus our Redeemer. There is a glory and a splendour in the Sun of Righteousness, at which the Vulture eyes of infidelity blench ; on which, only the Eagle eye of a sanctified faith, can look with unqualing steadfast- ness. SECTION II. The obedience of Christ is vicarious: or, in other words, he, in all this, acted for his people, repre- sentatively. On this subject, three opinions have been advanced. 1. That the obedience, or righteousness of Christ, was, in no sense vicarious. But on the contrary, that he acted simply for himself, as a moral being — that all he did, grew out of, and was necessary to his moral rela- tions, and went simply to meet the requirements of law upon himself, personally, and had nothing to do, and could have nothing to do, with any other moral being]; only, so far as his example might have a moral force. This way, go various classes of heretics, and the mo- ther of all abominations. 2. Others maintain, that Christ's righteousness was necessary for himself, personally, and also, that he acted for his people, in the accomplishment of it. They view him, as individually, under the law, apart from the consideration of his representative character, and of course, bound for himself, to fulfil it : but also, that he Christ's obedience, vicarious. 195 was under the law, federally, for his people, and for them bound to obey. This opinion is deemed erroneous ; although not so utterly off the foundation of a sinner's hope, as the for- mer. It is erroneous, because, 1. Christ never existed in his Mediatorial character, except as a representative head. His moral headship existed by covenant, from eternity, and his susception of our nature, was the le- gal result, and constituted part and parcel of the cove- nant itself. Now, if the God-man — the Messiah, never existed in any other character, he could never be bound in any other : and consequently, his righteousness could not be for himself, but only for his people. 2. Another phase of the same thought is, that the human nature of Christ, never had a separate existence — it never was a human person ; and therefore, a right- eousness for its sake, could not be necessary. 3. The Messiah is a divine person, and to talk of a divine person being bound to procure righteousness, as the title for himself to eternal life, is, at the very least, to approximate blasphemy. A divine person not enti- tled to eternal felicity, unless he go through certain acts of obedience to law ! The thing is preposterous. He has " life in himself," eternally, necessarily, and un- changeably. For himself he could not merit eternal life. A person cannot earn by his merits, what he al- ready possesses eternally, and must forever possess. He needs no such merit — he can have none such. The righteousness of Christ is not, nor is it conceivable it can be his title, by which he holds a place in heaven. The fountain of life cannot be dependent upon the stream that issues fro in it, for either the beginning, or the continuance of its own existence. I therefore, think, that the doctrine here rejected, is dangerous. It has been unadvisedly admitted, by some sound men with- out, as I fondly hope and believe, duly weighing the consequences. Should we concede that Christ's right- eousness was necessary for himself, I see not how we can maintain by sound reason, his Godhead on the one hand against the Socinians ; or the imputation of his 196 ATONEMENT. righteousness on the other, against the Pelagians, Ar- minians and Socinians. 3. The third opinion is the true evangelical doctrine, that Christ's whole righteousness was wrought out for his people. Not being in any sense necessary for his own justification, in order to life, it goes entire, to the benefit of his people. Having never performed an act of obedience, in any other character, than that of a re- presentative, none others, but his represented ones, can possibly be interested in it. But I may not here anti- cipate the doctrine of imputation. SECTION III. Jesus did satisfy the penal claims of law for his people : or the doctrine of atonement. 1. "Atonement, (kapher — xata , k , kayr l .) — This is the characteristic appellation of the doctrine. It occurs fre- quently in our English translation of the scriptures, but only once in the New Testament. The Hebrew word which is so translated, signifies a covering. The verb means to cover, to draiv over; whence it comes, by an easy and natural process, to signify to forgive, to expiate, to propitiate ; that is, to cover an offence from the eye of offended justice by means of an adequate compensation. The term is applied to the mercy-seat, which was the lid or covering of the ark of the covenant, a divinely ap- pointed symbol closely connected with the presentation of sacrifices on the day of expiation. The idea, that seems to be expressed by this word, is that of averting some dread consequence by means of a substitutionary interposition. It thus fitly denotes the doctrine of sal- vation from sin and wrath, by a ransom of infinite worth. The Greek word more closely harmonises with the Eng- lish term atonement. It signifies reconciliation, or the removal of some hinderance to concord, fellowship, or good agreement. This is the true import of the term at-one-ment, the act of reconciling or uniting parties at variance. ' The next day, he (Moses) showed himself unto them, as they strove ; and would have set them at ATONEMENT. 197 one again, saying, Sirs, ye are brethren ; why do ye wrong one to another?' Acts vii. 26. Sin has placed God and man apart from one another ; all harmony be- tween them has been broken up; and those who once dwelt together in perfect concord, have been separated and disjoined. What Christ has done has had the effect of reconciling the parties — of restoring them to a state of one-ness with each other. The Deity is at-oned ; God is brought to be at-one with his people ; the work of the Redeemer is a proper at-one-ment. 'We joy in God, through our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom we have received the at-one-ment.' " Symington on Atonement, p. 7. This extract gives a clear and honest exhibition of the term atonement : and I only add, that the strict and prop- er meaning of the word, refers to the consequence — the effect of the death of Christ, rather than to the cause whence it proceeds. The reconciliation is an effect ; the satisfaction rendered by the blood, death, suffer- ings of our Saviour, is the cause. It will be important to bear in mind also, that in theological discussions, the former, rather than the latter, forms the subject matter of controversy. They who deny the penal and vicari- ous nature of Christ's death, do, for the most part, ad- mit this reconciliation, as a result. The questions at is- sue, relate to the nature of the connexion between the sufferings of the Redeemer and the at-one-ment, or bring- ing together of the parties who were at-odds ; viz : God and man. 2. As to the truth, that Jesus did suffer and die, there is no dispute. As to the nature and extent of his suffer- ings, there is. Let us look a little into the matter; and (1.) as to his whole life. He was born under circum- stances well adapted to make this world a scene of suf- ferings. He lived amongst a poor and oppressed peo- ple, and though history is silent on the subject, we may well suppose he had at least the ordinary trials of such a lot. He could not indeed, be well styled " a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief," had he lived thirty years, free from great and sore afflictions, and had his grief3 and sorrows been of only three years continuance. 17* 198 ATONEMENT. (2) The next point, claiming our attention, is Gethsem- ane. Here, we have evidence of extreme anguish — ex- cruciating agony. " My soul is exceeding sorrowful even unto death." " And being in an agony, he prayed more earnestly ; and his sweat was, as it were, great drops of blood, falling down to the ground." It would be difficult to present more unequivocal proof, of extreme sorrow, and suffering, than is here displayed. How can we account for this agonizing exclamation, and this bloody sweat? (a) Can it all result from the foresight he had of the shame and sufferings, that awaited him on the morrow ? Is it nature sinking under the load of contumely and the bodily pains which are inseparable from a death by crucifixion? Is not the soul of Jesus sustained by the consciousness of rectitude ? And does not conscious rectitude give fortitude, and nerve the heart for heroic endurance ? Who will charge the Son of God with pucilanimity ? It is therefore, no satisfactory account of the facts, to say, that his sufferings are the result of anticipated pains. Did ever the most hardened wretch, with conscience stinging, like ten thousand scor- pions, sweat blood at every pore ? Oh no ! To suppose that alone, to be the cause of this baptism of blood, were to exhibit the Redeemer of the world as destitute of he- roic fortitude. This cannot be the reason. And yet there was no visible, no physical cause: what then ? (b) Some invisible agency there must have been : what was it? I answer, The foul spirits of hell — the leader of the fallen angels and his bands. These were per- mitted by God, to assault him, and try their last efforts to turn him from his purpose. What the forms of attack — how malignant spirits operate to cause pain to other spirits, we know not. But several reasons conduce to the opinion here expressed. And first, it is an assault most reasonably to have been expected. The purpose of Jesus was to die, and " through death, to destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil." Most reasonably, therefore, might he expect him to put forth one more desperate struggle to maintain his usurped do- minion over men. Satan summons all his legions and puts the issue in a last and fearful assault. "He shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel." Now, ATONEMENT. 199 what might be reasonably looked for, is not without some allusion to it in scripture. For I remark again, Jesus had been led up of the spirit into the wilderness to be tempted of the Devil : and he was tempted. Satan practiced many arts to lead him aside from the path of duty. " And when the Devil had ended all the temptation, he departed from him for a season." Luke iv. 13. (a#pt xatpov) until a season. This word rendered for, properly means until, and is mostly so translated. It marks properly, the limit of time. The very same expression occurs, Acts. xiii. 11. "thou shalt be blind, not seeing the sun for a season," — until some period referred to. So, Luke i. 20. "thou shalt be dumb, and not able to speak until the day that these things shall be performed." So, Luke xvii. 27. " they did eat, they drank — until the day that Noe en- tered into the ark." " The Devil departed from him until a season." What season? If the season of a sec- ond assault ever occurred, it must be that before us. We have no account of any other. The language ob- viously implies, that the tempter was again to return, and here is the only period to which we can refer his re- turn. On this supposition, we see good reason for this sorrow unto death — these sighs and groans, and bloody sweat. Foiled in his various attacks — disappointed in his malignant attempt to cut off the babe of Bethlehem ; a hundred times thwarted and forced to abandon his ground and leave the subjects of demonical possession ; utterly unsuccessful in his long and laboured assault upon Jesus at his entrance upon his public ministry, Satan has looked upon the growing interests of the Sa- viour's kingdom, with tormenting anxie'y. He has marked His steady advance toward the completion of his purpose and his work. The more he contemplates the perfection of our Redeemer's character, the more does his own malignity lash him up to higher and more determined wrath. The nearer our Saviour approxi- mates the consumation of his work, the more terribly fixed and desperate and determined becomes the opposi- tion of his deadly foe : and now " the hour is come," and no time is to be lost ; he therefore, rallies to the 200 ATONEMENT. charge all the mighty fiends of hell, and down upon the solitary mourner in Gethsemane, he pours his malignant legions. Hence this sorrow unto death ; hence these sighs, and tears, and groans, and bloody sweat; hence this agonizing prayer, "Be not far from me; for trouble is near; for there is none to help. Many bulls have compassed me : strong bulls of Bashan have beset me round. They gaped upon roe with their mouths, as a raving and a roaring lion*" Ps. xxii. 11. And hence resulted the fact before alluded to, "I saw Satan as lightening, fall from heaven:" for here was fought the sorest, and the last battle. The first onset was that which caused mourning in Rama ; the second general assault was in the wilderness of Judea, and the third here, at the very heart of the Redeemer's kingdom, and it consists of three distrmct actions, for Jesus went and came once and again : after which the agony ceased and he returned to his disciples, and immediately delivered himself up to his fleshly foes. The (c) third reference is to the cross. Jesus was nailed to the tree and endured unutterable things. These may be viewed, in reference to his body and his soul. The body of the Redeemer endured whatever of pain and anguish can result from this form of death. And it is difficult for us, in this day. when his blessed gospel has meliorated the condition of all men ; even of those, who still treat its messages with contempt, duly to estimate such sufferings. Now, even when justice is most se- vere and determined in taking vengeance, the execution of her sentence, is accompanied with many molifying circumstances. The criminal is ordinarily launched upon the unknown ocean of a vast eternity, in the most easy and expeditious manner. The very executioner soothes and sympathises with the sufferer. Not so, the sorrows of our Saviour. Spiked fast to the cross, whilst his body is in full health and midlife vigour, he is lifted up and suspended by his lacerated hands and feet, until worn out with intense agony, the body dies. Scarcely does savage barbarity ever exceed, among the most fe- rocious tribes of wild men, the ingenuity of this form of torture. Meanwhile, he is the object of profane scoffing ATONEMENT. 201 and jeers — he is cursed and ridiculed, aud refused the most simple and customary anodyne, a refreshing drink. Hardly dares the tear of sympathy to trickle down in si- lence, and the sigh of compassion is smothered, even in the bosom that gave him birth. " I have trodden the wine press alone, and of the people there was none with me." But we are mingling with his bodily pains, things that ought to be viewed separately. The agonies of his hu- man spirit, " when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin" — these are indeed his sufferings. In compari- son with these, all his bodily pains are nothing. Dread- ful as they were, they cannot be compared with what his soul experienced. For the contemplation of these, we have not much express scripture. This, I think, is designed to prevent us from indulging a too curious and minute scru- tiny. General indeas only are thrown out ; to these be our attention confined. Two forms of sufferings will appear, by an inspection of the scriptures ; viz : the pos- itive goings forth of God's wrath ; and the withdrawal of all sensible evidences of his love. God the Father commissions the sword, Zech. xiii. 7. "Awake, O sword, against my shepherd, and against the man that is my fellow ; saith the Lord of Hosts : smite the shepherd." So, Isa. xliii. 10. " It pleased the Lord to bruise him ; he hath put him to grief; when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin ; 2. Cor. v. 21. " He hath made him to be sin for us." That is, he made him a curse, a sin offering — Eph. v. 2. "An of- fering and a sacrifice for sin." And bv the reply to Pe- ter, " Put up thy sword into the sheath ; the cup which my Father hath given me, shall I not drink it ?" it is manifest, that the sufferings were from the Father. " It became God — to make the Captain of salvation perfect through sufferings." Heb. n. 10. In view of those texts, it appears to me impossible to evade the conclusion, that God's displeasure was mani- fested, his wrath was poured into the cup. Nor ought our ignorance as to the manner in which this may have been effected, to throw a straw of difficulty in the way of our faith. Jesus, as we shall see hereafter, bore the 202 ATONEMENT. sins of his people, and God laid on him those tokens of his displeasure, which otherwise must have fallen upon us. Our inadequacy to comprehend what God did — or how he could kindle upon him the burning fire, through which he was offered up a burnt offering, is no reason at all in the face of the fact, and the necessity of the fact. It pleased the Father to bruise him — he did bruise him ; he did make him to suffer : and the bitterest ingredient in the cup, is the withdrawal of his countenance. " My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me." My timed followers, and even Peter, so bold and confident — all have forsaken me and fled ; but O my Father ! why hast thou forsaken me ? Thus hangs the man of Calvary — abandoned of all men and forsaken of God — bearing alone the reproach and the sin of his people — burning as a sacrifice in the fire of God's eternal spirit. Heb. ix. 14. Here let us stand still — nor prosecute the enquiries vain. How could a holy soul suffer? How could a holy Farther inflict it? How. much did he suffer? Could he suffer enough in so short a space of time, to satisfy for all the sins of God's redeemed ? Nay, but O, vain man! withhold thy steps — and put off thy shoes from off thy feet : this is holy ground. Canst thou measure the depths of God's wisdom ? Hast thou a measure or a scale to estimate pain, and take an exact account of a- gonies ? Tell me then, the value of that sweat drop, that oozes from his blessed brow, as he lies yonder on the cold earth in Gethsemane ! — and that blood gore, that overtakes it, and mingles as they trickle down his blessed face. What is their value ? And that heart bursting sigh — " if it be possible, let this cup pass" — And those crimson streamlets, from his gracious tem- ples. — And those flowing currents from his pierced and beneficent hands ? What dost thou deem all these to be worth ? And that agonizing shriek, " Eli, Eli, lama Sabachthani" — Weighed in thy balances, Oh, philoso- pher, what is its worth ? But now, if there is more folly than presumption, in any attempt at reply ; if there is less philosophy, than piety,_then stay thy hand ; for " the Lord is in his holy ATONEMENT. 203 temple, let all the earth keep silence before him." Heb. 2,20. 3. The magnitude of the Saviour's sufferings, is there- fore, incomprehensible. Whatever was in that cup, he drank it. The requisitions of law, he met them all. We pretend not to define or measure. This only is manifest from the proceeding ; they were unutterably great — unutterable even by himself. Articulate speech fails, and the stronger language of sighs and groans ne- ver could reach and express the whole truth. One other consideration let me present. If bodily pains were all the Saviour endured — if, as some will have it, he experienced no curse — suffered nothing but the agonies of body, inseparable from death by crusi- fixion ; then why this great commotion ? Why this Gethsemane scene ? Where is the fortitude of the man of Calvary ? Why this complaint — this exclamation on the cross ? Has Jesus less moral heroism than the blaspheming murderer at his side ? If his pains were merely bodily, he surely suffers in comparison even with thousands of malefactors. He suffers in compari- son with Stephen and James, and Paul and Peter, and ten thousand of his martyred disciples, in after ages, who endured greater torments than he did, and exulted in the same. How many blessed martyrs have gone rejoic- ing to the stake, and poured forth their hymns of praise, and their songs of thanksgiving from the midst of the burning flame ? If therefore, the Redeemer's sufferings were no greater than theirs, his fortitude was less, and the very object of them, according to those who deny their vicarious nature, is defeated. If he suffered, merely to give an example of patient endurance what a complete failure ! Now, in opposition to all this, we maintain both their vicarious nature, and their tran- scendant magnitude. See if there be any sorrow like unto my sorrow ! 4. The sorrows of the Saviour's life and death, were all by appointment of God, the Father. To this the texts above quoted, are plain and pertinent. To these may be added a few moie. Isa. liii, 6, " the Lord hath laid on him, the iniquity of us all." Acts, vii, 20, 204 LEGAL SUBSTITUTION. " Him being delivered by the determined counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain." Acts 4, 27, 28, "both Herod and Pontius Pilot, were gathered together, For to do whatsoever thy hand and thy counsel de- termined before to be done." It is surely a work of supererogation to labour the proof of a position so plainly taught in the scriptures. Jesus was appointed by the Father to these sufferings. He put the cup into his Son's hand — and even when that son, with sighs and groans, and tears and bloody sw r eat, entreated that the cup might pass from him, the Father refused to re- move it. That so it must be, was the Father's will, and unchangeable. 5. These sufferings were required by the eternal laws of right, or they were not. We present either alterna- tive, to all who deny the doctrine of vicarious satisfac- tion by Christ's death. We deem, that other alternative, there can be none. That Jesus should suffer, was either right, or wrong, not in reference to the mere human agency, concerned, but in regard to the act of God, in allotting this portion to him. In this aspect of the case, no man who accredits the Bible, can hesitate. All indeed, but the Atheist, must at once, reject the lat- ter. Shall not the Judge of all the earth do right ? If therefore, it was right in God his Father, so to appoint his own Son to suffer, we are thrown upon another di- lemma, viz : Jesus must have been liable, in the eye of the just and holy law of God, so to suffer, either on account of his own personal sin, or that of others, as- sumed by him. The former to affirm is blasphemy, the latter leads us to — SECTION IV. The doctrine of legal substitution. 1. Substitution is the removal of one thing and the putting of another in its place. The golden shields, made by Solomon, and hung up in the temple, were removed, and brasen shields were put in their place — SUBSTITUTION. 205 Were substituted for them. Saul's armour, was substi- tuted for David's sling and stone ; but afterwards, these were restored. Anciently, chains of iron were used for the rigging of ships, and leather for sails ; the mod- erns have substituted cords and canvass. Horses, a few years since, were exclusively used to draw car- riages with passengers, from one part to another ; now, to a large extent, steam engines, are put in their place — are substituted for them. So one man is often substituted, or put in the place of another. The citizen soldier is allowed, by our laws, to put another in his place, in the ranks of his country's defence — the latter is substituted for the former. 2. This change of place, whenever the law covers and sanctions it, is properly called legal substitution ; and can occur only in reference to personal acts ; and when one person is put in the place of another, with a view to his acting for him, it is called vicarious substitution; and is but another name for the doctrine of federal re- presentation, or rather is the preparatory to such repre- sentation. Now, in order to legal or vicarious substitution, there must be a person bound by law, to some certain duties — secondy, a person not so bound under law, who may be put under the legal obligations of the other, upon his removal ; and thirdly, a person representing the law and ruling in the whole transaction. In the case of military service, just referred to, the principal is held under law, to certain services, involv- ing laborious efforts and peril of life. The law has a claim upon him, which it will not forego. But as the claim is for specific services and the sufferings and peril which may be contigent thereto, the law concedes a change of person, whilst it demands identity of service. The object of the legal claim, may be as effectually secured by a substitute, as by his principal ; and when the ends of law are fully accomplished, justice is satis- fied, and of course awards the meed of due applause. The possibility of legal substitution, therefore, im- plies in the principal, an obligation to do or to suffer 18 206 SUBSTITUTION. something ; and a willingness to have this claim trans- ferred, or passed over to another person : or, in other words, a willingness, that another person shall take his place and abide his responsibilities. It implies in the substitute, a moral right, that is, a right in the eye of the moral law, to come under the obligations of the other. The thing to be done or suf- fered, must, in itself, be such a thing as is right for him to do or to suffer. He must have a right of control over himself in reference to the services required. He can have no right to give away services to, or for ano- ther, which were not his own. Hence, manifestly, a man has no right to offer himself as a substitute for a person condemned to death ; he has no right to give a- way his life, for it is not his own. It belongs to God, and none but God who gave it, has a right to destroy it. A man may forfeit his life to the laws of God and his country, and thus throw it away : but he has no right to do so. The act is criminal. It partakes of the nature of suicide, and for it, as well as for the crime V; which caused the forfeiture, God will hold him respon- sible. So, personal services, a minor has no right to give away by substitution ; for they are not his own ; they belong to his parent or guardian. Before he can have a right to expend them for the benefit of another, he must have the right in himself to expend them for him- self. A minor, therefore, however willing, cannot of himself, become a legal substitute. Another phase of the same idea, is, that the person substituted, must be duly qualified to perform the servi- ces to which his principal was bound. To engage to perform what a man is unable to perform, is an immo- rality and a fraud, both upon the principal and the law. Another indispensable to legal substitution, is, a wil- lingness to assume the responsibilities of the principal. It must be voluntary, in order to be right. There is, in fact, in every case, a virtual covenant, agreement or contract, between the principal and his substitute — a mutual consent, creating a moral union between them as parties. SUBSTITUTION". 207 But these are not the only requisites to substitution. It is not sufficient, that there be a principal, under cer- tain obligations, and willing 1 to have them transferred — that there be a substitute, having a moral right to re- ceive the transfer, an ability and a willingness to meet the obligations of his principal. Every instance of le- gal substitution, is a covenant of three parties. The law, also, has a voice in the matter. It has a specific claim upon the individual. A. is bound to certain duties — or to endure certain penal evils. In either case the law knows only A. It can claim, of A only. It has nothing against B and can claim nothing at his hand. A's willingness to transfer his liabilities to B ; and B's willingness to receive them and abide the consequences, lays the law under no obligation to admit the arrange- ment. If I employ A to do a piece of work, 1 am un- der no obligation to put it into the hands of B, C, or D, or any other whom A may send as a substitute. I know only the party contracting, and the admission of another in his room, is purely optional with me. I may think D and C unsuitable to the service, and in- sist upon A fulfiling his contract. I may think B as competent as A to secure my object, and may agree to the substitution: but this is manifestly, anew item in the contract. It brings in another party. It is now a con- tract of three parties. Hence it is obvious, that on the part of the law, there must exist a moral right to approve the substitution. If the law's claim upon A is for something over which B has no right of control as to himself, the law can- not approve the transfer. To put B to death for the crime of A would be unjust, even with consent of both; unless B had a right to give that consent: — that is, unless B had a right to dispose of his own life at plea- sure. But as this is not the case with any mere crea- ture — as no mere creature has a right over his own life, to destroy it at pleasure, so, no man can have a right to substitute himself for another doomed to death, and the law cannot consent to such substitution. It can only originate with that sovereignty which is above the law. This reasoning will apply in all cases of criminal a- 208 SUBSTITUTION. ward. Suppose A condemned to ten years confine- ment in the penitentiary, and suppose B willing and able to do the labour, and to endure the hardships a- warded to A, can such a substitution take place? Would it be morally risfht ? Could the law allow it ? To these interrogatories, the common sense of mankind, and the laws of all civilized countries give but one response. All revolt against the punishment of the innocent in room of the guilty. And the reason is obvious. No man has a right to sell his own freedom. A did wrong in becoming bound to durance vile : it was his crime. B's rights and duties are reciprocal. God made him free, and the possession of this precious treasure, is, it- self, evidence of an obligation to preserve it, and to im- prove it. It is a talent, which he has no right either to bury in the earth or to lay up in a napkin. He must use it, or be criminal. He has no right to throw it away, and therefore, substitution in such case, is not al- lowed. Every man is under eternal obligations to pre- serve and to imnrove his natural and unalienable rights, and cannot, without criminality, ever be Avilling to sur- render them. I have no more right to sacrifice my free- dom, than to cut off my hand or my head. Each of these would be wrong, and a man cannot have a right to do wrong. Legal substitution, therefore, can occur only within the limits of personal rights. Just so far as I have, in the eye of law, human and divine, entire control over my person and conduct, and so far only, can I consent to be substituted in room of another, to sustain his legal responsibilities. Such is the simple doctrine of vicarious substitution. Our next position is, SECTION V. That this doctrine is embodied in the doctrine of Atonement. 1. The whole body of God's redeemed ones, are the principal. " I lay down my life for the sheep." "He suffered, the just for the unjust." "He was wounded SUBSTITUTION. 209 for our transgressions." In the condition of the lost, whom He came to save, we have the two great requi- sites to a principal, (a) God's redeemed were bound under his law to the endurance of his wrath. This is the common lot of the race, as we have seen at due length. All have sinned and do come short of the glory of God. The whole world has become guilty before God, and therefore it is appointed by a decree of heaven, unto man once to die. The wages of sin is death. Guilt is the bond which binds the sinner to the stake for eternal burnings. This state of the race makes it neces- sary to procure a substitute, as it lays open the oppor- tunity — it creates the possibility of substitution, (b) All. the people of God are (or will be) willing to accept the proffered substitute. Naturally of themselves, they are- hostile and unwilling; but supernaturally — through the teachings of the word, and the almighty workings of the Holy Ghost, they become willing, and do humble them- selves, and embrace the proffered boon of heaven. They; are made to feel their lost estate, and exposure to wrath. They are enabled in God's light, to see light clearly, and seeing the suitableness of the offered salvation, they be- come willing in the day of God's power. (2) The substitute is Jesias, the Lamb of God. And. we have in him the three requisites. (1) He had a moral right to make the substitution: i. e. to put himself under the legal responsibilities of Ms people. For He has "life in himself" — it is his absolutely, and independent- ly. In John x. 17, 18. He is very particular in the statement of this position. " Therefore doth my Father love me, because I lay down my life, that I might take it again. No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself: I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again." The power here, unquestion- ably involves the right to use it. His life, which he lays down for his sheep, is his own, by an underived title. It belongs to him essentially, and He may there- fore, do with it as seems good in his own sight. The hu- manity of our Lord is a miracle as to its origin. It was not produced as other human beings are produced ; but beyond the range of the ordinary laws of our nature. 18* 210 SUBSTITUTION. Its mode of existence is a miracle ; it is not sustained by a divine power existing apart from itself; but it is, and always has been, in personal union with the self-exis- tent Jehovah. As he holds his life, as man, not de- pendency on another, but in himself, he may lay it down at pleasure. Where he dependent — did he hold his life by suffrance, he could not rightfully give it away: but inasmuch as the Father hath life in himself, and so hath He given to the Son to have life in himself, it is at his own disposal. He may voluntarily surrender it, by putting himself into the legal relations of those who are under condemnation, by the judgement of the holy God. There is this clear difference between the man Jesus and all other men, that they all are dependent for life and all its attributes, upon another — even upon God the Creator, and, of course, not one of them has a right over his own life ; but Jesus has such a right in and of him- self. The importance of this point is not in proportion to the time spent in its illustration ; but its obvious plainness and simplicity, prevents the necessity of dwel- ling longer on it. 2. Jesus was able to meet the claims of law upon those for whom he became a substitute. He could and did, as we have seen, fulfil the entire law of God by a of life, active holy submission to all its commands. He could and did endure pain and anguish inconceivable. (3) These he voluntarily undertook. •' Lo, I come, in the volume of the book it is written of me — I delight to do thy will, O my God." 3. God the Father, supervising the claims of eternal righteousness, had (1) a demand on man for perfect and full obedience and entire satisfaction for sin. These we fully set forth, when speaking of the effects of the bro- ken covenant. (2) He had a right to transfer those claims to his Son ; or in other words, there was no prin* ciple of law violated, when the Father accepted the sub- stitution of his Son in the room of lost man. And (3) this was actually done. The Father did lay the burden of our iniquities upon him, and was pleased to bruise him. SUBSTITUTION. 211 SECTION VI. The doctrine of substitution, proved and illustrated by the typical sacrifices. Under the old dispensation, various offerings were prescribed by law, and the bloody sacrifices all repre- sented substantially the same thing. Moses describes the essence of the whole in a few words ; the worshipper he says, (Lev. i. 3, 4.) " shall offer it of his own volun- tary will, at the door of the tabernacle of the congrega- tion 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." Here is substition — it is accepted for him — to make atonement for him. In these offerings, there is, 1. a confession or remembrance of sin. The worshippers are still reminded that they stand charged with sin. 2. There is an acknowledgement that life is forfeited. The life of the animal is destroyed, and its body, in whole or in part, is burnt upon the altar — -a most significant mode of confessing, not only the sins of the worshipper; but also that these sins deserve God's wrath and curse — in whose execution the worshipper sees the everlast- ing ruin of his soul ; and is thus led to deep concern for his safety. 3. There is expressed a hope of escaping the death due for sin. The worshipper is restored to favour. His past sin is remembered no more against him. He is admitted to the communion of the church — to the congregation of the Lord. 4. This deliverance from ceremonial guilt is through the sufferings of anoth- er. His victim has bled ; and he escapes. The offering is substituted in place of the offerer, the one dies and the other lives. On the great day of atonement, when the High Priest confesses over the scape goat, the sins of the people, and sends him away unto the wilderness, and when he slays the other goat to make an atonement for the people, the same truths are set forth. So, the paschal lamb represents a suffering Saviour, 212 SUBSTITUTION. whose flesh is meat indeed, and whose blood is drink indeed. And a single inspired allusion is sufficient to satisfy every candid reader of the true intent and mean- ing of this thing. Christ, our passover, is sacrificed for us, let us therefore go forth to him who has suffered with- out the gate. Never could it be supposed that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins ; but those sacrifices were typical — they pointed to Christ the Lamb of God, who, through the eternal Spirit, offered himself a sacrifice for his people. As the High Priest laid the sins of the people upon the victim's head, so God our Father laid our iniquities upon his own Son. As the devoted victim must die : so the devoted Redeemer must die. SECTION VII. This doctrine alone can account for the fact, that Je- sus suffered, bled and died. We have seen that the Son of God did suffer most excruciating agonies — that this was by express ap- pointment of the Father — that when the Father was in- treated to let the bitter cup pass, it did not pass — the Saviour drank it in all its bitterness. This is the fact. God did bruise him. Now this was either right or wrong. The sufferings of Christ were inflicted on him, by God, either in pur- suance of the claims of divine justice, or in opposition to them. Now which? Was it wrong in God to put such a cup into the hands of Jesus, and to constrain him to drink it ? — to refuse to let it pass from him, though entreated by all that is tender and sympathising in the bleeding agonies of Gethsemane ! Was it wrong in God to nail him on the accursed tree ! ! Was it wrong in God to withdraw from his own Son, the tokens of his love, and to leave him to all the agonies of one forsaken ! ! ! Was all this wrong ! ! Nay, but shall not the judge of all the earth do right ? How then could it be right, to inflict such pain upon one so holy, harmless, undefiled and separate from sin- SUBSTITUTION. 213 ners ? He that condemneth the righteous, is an abomi- nation to the Lord ; how much more he, who both con- demns and executes the righteous ? How then shall we exonerate the divine government from the enormous cruelty and the flagrant injustice of imposing the most awful sufferings upon the holiest, and the loveliest and most upright of all the subjects of its laws ? Here is a problem in the moral universe — a spectacle to angels and to men. Heaven's first born, and best beloved — the sum of all moral perfections — the personified essence of all moral virtues — the brightness of the Father's glory — the express image of his person, writhing, bleeding, dying by God's appointment ! ! ! Amazing scene ! Well might yonder sun hide his head! Well might all hell rejoice ! Well might all heaven tremble ! Well might mightiest Archangels feel for their crowns, and tremble for their heads! Well might their trembling hearts exclaim, It such innocence, such holiness, such righteous- ness, can suffer such things; alas for us! where the guaran- tee of our safety ? If no mountain load of sin imputed, bows that blessed head; alas, for the moral universe!! God has forgotten to be just ! Cruelty and unrighteous- ness are the habitation of his throne — wrathful and in- discriminate destruction go before him ! ! ! Leaving out of view, the doctrine of vicarious substi- tution, I ask, is it possible, for any rational mind to avoid these horrible and tremendous conclusions ? How can you solve the problem in any other way than this, which charges God foolishly ? I therefore, leave the burning point of this sword, in the conscience of all who deny the doctrine of Christ's being a substitute in room of his people, and bearing their sins in his own body on the tree: and turn to this glorious and blessed truth, as containing a full and thorough solution of the pro- blem before us. Jesus was the substitute of his people— their Pas- chal Lamb. By his own voluntary deed, he put him- self in their legal position. He undertook for them, to meet all the claims of law. God the Father, consented to the substitution; because the Son had a right over his own life and could lay it down at pleasure. Jesus 214 SUBSTITUTION. having thus taken upon himself, the legal respon- sibility of his people, is bound to do and to suffer in their place and room, all that they were bound to do and to suffer. Their sins were laid upon him. The cords by which they were bound to the stake, are loos- ed from off them, and bound upon him. The law lays hold upon Him. Justice commands, " Smite the Shepherd and the Sheep shall be scattered." He is wounded for our transgressions — he is bruised for our iniquities — the chastisement of our peace is upon him — and by his stripes we are healed, for the Lord laid on him, the iniquities of us all ; and therefore was He pleased to bruise him. Thus, the doctrine of substitution solves the moral problem: and presents us at once, with the most illus- trious exhibition of the immaculate purity of divine justice and of its eternal inflexibility. To the cross of Calvary the universe is triumphantly pointed, as illus- trating in the highest possible degree, the glory of the divine justice. On that awful mount she stands. The scales of eternal equity in one hand, and the flaming sword of immutable righteousness in the other. A bleeding, weeping Christ before her. The groans and tears and bloody sweat of Gethsemane, pleading with ten thousand tongues, "let this cup pass!" Heaven and all its hosts of angels, aghast and in wondring a- mazement. Hell, deluded hell, in malignant joy, watching the grand result. Justice — stern, and un- yielding, utters her fiat — Smite the Shepherd. Oh, what a groan was there ! " It is finished." The deed is done. Justice is satisfied. The moral govern- ment of the universe is established upon her eternal basis. Hell is disappointed. The curse is merged in Calvary's blood and forever lost. The barrier is remov- ed, mercy, with her bow of promise, ushers forth — a ruined world is saved. CONSEQUENCES OF SUBSTITUTION. 215 SECTION VIII. The conseqences of legal substitution. 1. To the substitute. For all the purposes, for which he is a substitute, he lies under the same legal obligations, under which his principal lay. If his prin- cipal was bound to active, obedience to the law, so is he. If the principal was held under the curse, or penal sanction of the law, so is He. He must endure it all. Hence the impossibility, of this cup passing away, be- cause of the immutability of divine justice. If the principal should himself satisfy all claims of law against himself, he must be released from punish- ment, and made happy forever, according to the terms of the covenant, wherein God promised life to man. So Christ, the sinner's substitute, surety, and friend, having finished the whole work given him, having for his people, and in their responsibilities, fulfilled all law, must rise from the dead and live forever. Hence, " he could not be holden of death." It is a moral im- possibility. Justice — the very same stern justice which demanded of Him, obedience and death, now demands his release from that death. Her claim is satisfied and she has no more disposition than power to retain her captive in chains. The same divine fiat which said, " Smite the Shepherd," now proclaims, " Raise him to everlasting glory, and " let all the angels of God wor- ship Him". Unto him let every knee bow, and every tongue confess. He has glorified me above all the crea- tures of God, and let all the creatures of God — through everlasting ages, exhalt his glory in the highest. From the actual substitution of Christ — his actual meeting of all claims against his people and him, re- sults his universal dominion. "All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth." This dominion is found- ed in right. Because he hath established the great prin- ciples of moral government, therefore is its actual ad- ministration over the universe, entrusted to his hands. Because he humbled himself and became obedient until 216 CONSEQUENCES OF SUBSTITUTION. death, therefore hath God highly exalted him, and given him a name, which is above every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow and every tongue con- fess. From this substitution, results the Redeemer's right in his people, and his claim to their release from all the consequences of sin. He has met those consequences, and has a claim to their exemption. He has paid the price of their redemption, and is entitled to their deli- verance. To retain them in bondage, after He demands their release, were the height of injustice. Such power, the law has not. It must recognize the claims of our blessed substitute, the moment he puts them in. Hence results, the mission of the spirit at the inter- cession of the Son. "Him the Father heareth always." This is not the place to dwell upon the intercession of Christ, nor the mission of his Spirit. I only remark the connexion in law and in right, between these things. These follow as a matter of moral necessity, as peremp- tory and inevitable, in a legal or moral point of view, as any consequence in the natural world, follows its natural antecedent. It is not more a matter of necessi- ty, that a ponderous body projected into the air, must descend again to the earth, than that the deliverance of his people from the bondage of the law, and of sin, and of death, should followChrist's legal substitution in their room, and his consequent obedience and death for them. Equally clear is Christ's right to his people's rescue from the grave, and their eternal blessedness in heaven. Their reception to everlasting glory and security there- in, by an irreversible decision of eternal judgment, is one — and indeed the main right, title and claim ? of Je- sus, founded on the fulness of his own satisfaction to all the claims of all law, human and divine, ceremonial and moral. 2. To the principal^ The results of substitution are correspondently important. He is released from those demands of law, for which his substitute has already satisfied by his death. This grows out of the very nature of moral government — the CONSEQUENCES OF SUBSTITUTION. 217 nature of justice. That a man should be held liable to suffer, after the law has said, in reference to its own claim against him, it is finished, is a contradiction, in terms. It is affirming a thing to be, and not to be, at the same time. Guilt, or liableness to punishment, lies upon him, after it has been taken off him and put upon the head of his substituted Surety, and he has taken it away ! The Lamb of God has taken away the sins of the world, and yet they lie upon it ! The sinner is re- deemed, and yet he is in bondage ! ! The curse has been laid upon the head of his Surety; and yet it is laid upon his head ! The one has suffered all that justice demand- ed or could demand, and yet the other is still bound to suffer ! ! That has drunk the bitter cup to the very dregs; and yet this must drink it all ! ! Clearly then, it is a moral impossibility, laid in the very nature of God's eternal righteousness, that the sheep of Christ's flock, should not be. with him, in due time, to behold his glory and to enjoy him forever. 3. In reference to God the Father, as the executor of justice — atonement, in the general sense of the English term — reconciliation results. The parties of- fended, and at variance, viz : sinful man and the sin- hating God, are brought together. The cause of God's displeasure towards man — the only possible cause, is sin. If then, the cause be removed, the effects must pass off. God is angry with the wicked on account of their wickedness. Their sins only render them odious in his sight. But their sins are removed, taken away, and forever washed out by the blood of Christ ; conse- quently, their Father's displeasure must cease, and he admit them to his favour, which is life, and to the parti- cipation of his loving kindness, which is better than life. We are reconciled to God by the death of his son. But here, it is of no small importance to distinguish, between offended God and offending man, in reference to this reconciliation. God's indignation burns eternally against all sin. His justice requires its punishment. His holiness requires, with equal rigidness, holiness in man, and in case of its absence, he cannot look with complacency upon him. Now the eye of God is turned 19 218 CONSEQUENCES OF SUBSTITUTION. upon the all perfect satisfaction rendered by Christ's death, and He is pleased : it is turned upon the infinite- ly perfect righteousness of Christ, in his obeying the law, and He is satisfied, and delights therein. God is reconciled — He is no longer angry with the sinner ; for he is no longer a sinner in the eye of God, and of his justice. But as to the man, — his actual reconciliation — the re- moval of all feeling of enmity to God, and the substitu- tion in their place, of all holy affections — of supreme and ardent love to God — this is quite a different thing. It follows as an inevitable, but not immediate consequence of substitution and satisfaction. It is inevitable, as we have seen, because of the very nature of moral law and government, from Christ's satisfaction by his substitu- tion. But it follows mediately, viz: through the agency of the divine Spirit, which agency operates in the con- version and sanctification of the soul. This therefore, belongs not to the question of legal relations at all ; but will come in properly, when our attention shall be claimed by the moral affections, accompanying the change of legal relations. Then we shall find, that re- conciliation, in the sense of propitiating us to God — i. e. rendering us well disposed, friendly, and imbued with a spirit of love to him — flows from renovation by the Holy Ghost, and that in view of Christ's propitiato- ry sacrifice. CHAPTER XV. THE EXTENT OF THE ATONEMENT. This is a very vexed question, and were it one mere- ly of doubtful disputation, and not vital in its impor- tance, on the great subject of Justification, we might avoid the discussion of it, as entirely controversial. But, inasmuch, as the extent of the atonement depends upon its nature, the enquiry will, I trust, be at once interesting and profitable. In the discussion, I shall pursue the didactic form first ; and shew the true doc- trine, as a necessary result of the preceding views : and then take up the erroneous sentiments and evince their true character and tendencies. SECTION I. Let us recall a few leading principles, heretofore set- tled. 1. In the government of a holy God, an innocent be- ing cannot suffer. To suppose that God would lay the punishment of sin — or treat a moral being, entirely free from sin, as a sinner, by delivering him up to suffer, is to charge God foolishly. 2. The sufferings of Jesus were by appointment of God, therefore, as he had no sin of his own, 3. He must have suffered for the sins of some other person, or persons. I say person, because, 4. We have seen, that the idea of a person represent- ing or acting morally for a nature, for a mere abstrac- tion that never existed, and never could exist, is a spe- culation too foolish to claim serious attention. 5. Jesus, in acting and suffering for persons, stood in their moral relations — he occupied their place — he bore their legal responsibilities. For, 6. There is no other reasonable solution of that stu- pendous moral phenomenon, presented on the cross of 220 EXTENT OF ATONEMENT. Calvary. If Jesus did not legally bear the sins of some others than himself, then his sufferings, by appointment of God, exhibit the monster crime of the universe, and God is its author. Hence it is evident, 7. That Jesus did suffer for sin. But sin is a perso- nal matter ; and the sin that caused his death, must have been the sin of some human person or persons. 8. The person or persons whose sins lay on Jesus, and caused his death, are his principals ; that is, they are the persons for whom he acted and suffered — whose sin "he put away by the sacrifice of himself." Hence, 9. They whose sins " he bore in his own body on the tree," whose sins he suffered for — (because this is what is meant by his bearing them) — cannot, without the most palpable violation of all right, and law and justice, be themselves constrained to suffer for the same sins. "Shall not the judge of all the earth do right ?" There- fore, 10. The atonement — the satisfaction rendered to di- vine justice, is as extensive so, as the sheep of Christ's flock, and no more — the atonement is as long and as broad as the salvation of God. Or in other words, they whose sins are washed out in the blood of Calva- ry, must be saved, and none others con be. " There is none other name under heaven, given among men, whereby we must be saved." In other words, They, and all they for whom Christ died — for whom he paid the ransom, or price of redemption, will be saved, and none others. To maintain any other doctrine, is to a- bandon the atonement altogether. To this agrees the language of the Bible. "Christ loved the Church and gave himself/or it" " He was wounded for our transgressions — bruised for our iniqui- ties, the chastisement of our peace, was laid upon him, and by his stripes we are healed." " I lay down my life for the sheep." "My sheep hear my voice and they follow me, and I give unto them eternal life, and they shall never perish, neither shall any pluck them out of my hands." PROOF FROM REDEMPTION. 221 SECTION II. Proof from Sacrifices. To this agrees the doctrine of sacrifices. The victim is offered up for the worshipper, " to make atonement for him." The sacrificial and scape goats, on the great day of atonement, bear the sins of the church, or con- gregation of the Lord. We shall search in vain in the sacred volume, for a sacrifice that was offered indefi- nitely, for no person, or any at all, or any one indis- criminately. And the reason is plain. There is no such sacrifice: and in the very nature of the thing there can be none such. Because there can be no indefinite sin — no sin committed by persons indefinitely. Sin is always a personal matter, and until some man shall point out indefinite sin, it will be vain and foolish, to talk of indefinite atonement for sin. SECTION III. Proof from the general opinions of Men. But this principle is found also, in the common sense of mankind, as it is emdodied in their legal enactments and their commercial regulations. Every where, their responsibilities are personal and special : never indefi- nite. To talk of an indefinite satisfaction for an offence against the laws of the land, or the indefinite payment of a debt, or the indefinite obligation for a debt, is to utter incomprehensible and indefinite folly. SECTION IV. Proof from the idea of Redeeming. The same is evinced by all the language and image- ry which represent this doctrine as a j redemption. Here Christ is the Redeemer — the one who purchases back the lost property of God, viz : his people, who 19* 222 PROOF FROM REDEMPTION. are carried away captive by sin and Satan. They are his redeemed ones. The price which he pays for them, — the ransom, is that atonement which, by his death he renders to the law, which had sold them into captivity. Duly to appreciate the force of these expressions, it is necessary to bear in mind, that human language is greatly influenced and modeled by human customs. Many habits of society it is necessary to understand, as a means of arriving at the true meaning of its lan- guage. Among the ancient customs of this nature, is that of making slaves of the prisoners of war : and the consequent custom of recovering these again to free- dom, by purchase. Very frequently, wealthy friends interpose in behalf of unfortunate prisoners. In this case, the price demanded for their release, is not in pro- portion to their value. For the sons of the wealthy were likely to be less worth, as slaves, than the sons of the poor. But the price of redemption,'or the ransom was, designed to be proportioned to the wealth and influ- ence of the friends at home. The will of the master fixes its amount. And the payment of the ransom is part of the work or process of redemption. It is, how- ever, only a part of it. The mere delivering of a sum of money into the hands of a man, unaccompanied by a declaration of the intention, is not a purchase. It may perhaps, be a deposit, but it does not necessarily imply a contract. It may be for safe-keeping. It may be in payment of a debt. It may be a donation. The trans- action has no moral or levw) arc the strongest that can be used to express endless dura- tion : or the end of the being, or thing to which they are applied. No words in the Greek language are of more determined character. And therefore, this term is ap- plied to signify the endless happiness of the righteous — " the righteous into life eternaV — "these into punish- ment eternal" it is the same Greek word. If then, as universalists would have it, everlasting or eternal means 20 230 universalist's objection. only a long time, but not forever ; then it follows, that the righteous are not to live forever : the very same word describes the duration of the punishment and the duration of the life. If the criticism be good against the endless duration of the punishment; it is equally good against the endless duration of the happiness : if it extinguish hell fire ; it also extinguishes the life of heaven. But more than this ; it brings the existence of the divine being himself to a close. For the Greek word for everlasting, or eternal, is the strongest used to express the duration of God's existence. Paul says, Christ offered himself " through the eternal spirit'' (Heb. ix. 14.) and in Rom. xvi. 26, he speaks " of the everlasting God," in both which places, he uses the same word, which is applied to mark the duration of heaven and of hell. Thus, by one single criticism, hell and heaven, angels, and men, de- vils, and God — all — all are swept off. So nearly does the universalist's doctrine approach to dark, doleful, damna- ble atheism. Perhaps indeed, this is the object. These men wish, perhaps, to get clear of all belief in the being of a God, in hope of escaping the lashes of a con- demning conscience, that refuses to submit to the hum- bling doctrines of the cross. Alas ! vain hope. Hell is not so easily put out. God is not thus obliterated. Ah, no ! The dreadful reality recoils upon us continually. " The sinner must be born again, " Or drink the wrath of God," in an eternal hell. But many refuse the proffered sal- vation, die in their sins, and are forever lost. Now, against these plain scriptures, it is vain to urge abstract reasonings. Must not, say these men, punish- ment be proportional to crime : and if so, does it not fol- low, that those who have sinned less than others, must be punished less, and so at last cease to suffer ; when they have suffered their portion. To this, the answer is very simple. To all men the punishment is everlast- ing, as to duration, but the Bible represents it as differ- ing in degree. The servant who knew his lord's will, and did it not, shall be beaten with many stripes — shall suffer a more severe punishment, than he who knew not universalist's objection. 231 his lord's will. In the future state, the degrees of pun- ishment, as also, the degrees of happiness, will differ ; but all will be alike in duration. Another consideration leads us to the same conclu- sion ; it cannot be doubted that the wicked in hell, will gnaw their tongues for pain, and blaspheme God. Fiend- ish wickedness will be their employment. But this wickedness must be followed by its proper punishment ; and thus, eternity of torment, and that a progressive tor- ment, is before every impenitent, lost soul. He must be- come in the course of ages, a giant devil. Again ; The modern doctrine of universal salvation, admits some punishment in future ; but insists that after a time, all will be saved. That is — those whom the in- vitations of the gospel, the love of Christ exhibited therein, and all the means of grace, failed to convert unto God, are sent to hell for a while; and there, by some more efficacious process than Christ and his church could use, are soon converted, burnt clean, and fit for heaven. That is, the devil is a more successful preach- er than Jesus Christ ! Hell is a more hopeful place for conversion than earth ! ! Christ converts whom he can here, and the hard cases are put into more powerful hands ! ! ! Oh, horrible impiety! Lastly, The same reasoning, which would reject the doctrine of endless punishment, because of its inconsis- tency with the love and compassion of God, would re- ject all punishment. For, manifestly, if punishment can be dispensed with, in any degree, it can be, in every de- gree. If the divine compassion is inconsistent with the infliction of pain upon the creature, for one part of du- ration, it must equally so for another. To this, it will be answered, that punishment must be proportioned to crime. Some punishment is due to every crime, and the more crime, the more punishment. I reply, that the only power to determine the measure of penal suffering, is the power of the lawgiver. Who shall grade the rewards of iniquity? Who shall fix the quantum or duration, if not God himself? But if God in his law fixes and grades the punishment of crime, is \i not manifest that we are wholly dependent upon reve- 232 INDEFINITISM. Lition for our knowledge of both? Where, but in the Bible, can we find any certain decision as to either ? Human legislators are competent, within their sphere, to graduate crime and punishment ; but their sphere is earth. This life only, is subject to their control. They never pretend to do more than punish for injuries done to society. They leave vengeance to Him, to whom alone it belongeth. What may be the amount and du- ration cf pain due to" sin, no man ever pretended to say. And the reason is obvious ; man has no measure of crim- inality, absolutely ; nor can he measure pain and anguish. The possibility of measuring either, is utterly beyond our reach : consequently, to strike the grade and propor- tion, is altogether impossible. God only can measure crime, and He only can apportion its punishment. To the revelation of his will we must look for light upon this subject. And here t as we have seen, the duration of punishment described by the same terms, by which He describes his own duration ; the duration of the soul ; of heaven and of hell — it is " everlasting fire" — it is "eter- nal punishment" — it is a " worm that never dies" — its victims "shall never enter into my rest" — "they shall not see life" — n cooling drop of water shall never touch their burning tongues — the gulf that separates them from life is impassable — they are sealed up in endless despair. The doctrine, then, that Christ redeemed and saved all, is untrue. The atonement, therefore, in its actual efficacy, as well as in its intrinsic nature, is not univer- sal; but particular; not general; but definite. EXTENT OF THE .ATONEMENT. SECTION II. Objection second — Indefinitism . The second theory which lies in our way, concern- ing the extent of the atonement, is that of indefinitism. And one of the peculiar difficulties we find in meeting INDEF1NIT1SM. 233 it, is the fact of its own indefinite character. It assumes several forms, two of which I shall endeavour to arrest and examine, viz : 1. That Christ died for all men alike. 2. That he died for no man, or set of men at all, but simply to satisfy public justice. As to the former of these theories, if I have been able to understand the meaning of its advocates, they main- tain, that Jesus offered himself a sacrifice for the whole of the human race : each and every one of the natural descendants of Adam are alike included in it, and what- ever may be the value of the atonement, every human being has an equal right to it; and it may in truth be said, of every one, Christ suffered and died for him, to make atonement for him. This is the doctrine of the redemp- tional Universalists, and with these we have settled ac- counts. But those with whom we have now to do, deny the universality of its application. They say, the ap- plication of this universal atonement, is particular. It becomes actually availing to a part only — to those who believe and repent — to the elect. To this I answer, 1. If the atonement be universal, the salvation — that is, the actual application of it, must be universal too ; or then, the word atonement cannot be taken in the sense of the English word — reconciliation, restoration to divine favour ; nor can it mean the rendering of complete and full satisfaction to God's justice for man's sin. Because, manifestly, if the atonement, (meaning the reconciliation) be universal, the salvation is so too. For all who are reconciled, made friendly, restored to favor with God, are happy — are saved. The concep- tion, that persons who are in a state of friendship with God, are found in Hell, is monstrous. No man can entertain it in his belief. Nor can atonement mean satisfaction for their sins : because, to suppose that men, whose sins are satisfied for, — against whom justice has no demand, shall burn in an eternal hell, is to maintain even a more horrible blasphemy than in the former case. It is, as we have seen, to charge the pure and holy and just God, with 20* 234 . INDEFINITISM. the most iniquitous crime of exacting full satisfaction for their sins from his own son, until, both the son and the Father testified it finished ; and yet of inflicting the punishment of these very sins upon themselves. Thus, if youadmitthe doctrine of a real satisfaction to justice, by thesufTerings'ofChrist;andif, atthesame time, you maintain, that this satisfaction is for all men, you must maintain that all men are saved, or that God sends to eternal torment those — a part of those, against whom the law has no demand — whose sins Christ has taken away ! Such is the dliemma — plain to the common sense of all men — in which the advocate of a general but a real atonement, places himself. On one or the other of its horns he must hang. If he shrink from the idea, that God sends to perdition — to hell — a part of those, for whose sins his justice has received full satisfaction — if his soul tremble at such an insinuation — if this horn pierce him beyond endurance; then he has no re- treat, but into universal redemption — he must maintain, according to common sense — that all whose sins are ta- ken away by the death of Christ, must escape eternal torment, that is, according to him — all men ate saved. There is thus, no stopping place, between universal atonement — meaning thereby, full satisfaction to di- vine justice-— and universal salvation. The ideas, therefore, of a general atonement, and a particular re- demption, are irreconcileably inconsistent. They are contradictories, and can never agree. It by no means relieves, or even alleviates the diffi- culty, to say, that Christ, in atoning for the sins of all, opened the door for all ; so that all could be saved if they would : but inasmuch as they will not come to him, their refusing to come cuts them off. For, whilst it is true, that they refuse to come, and therefore perish; it is also true, that this refusal to come is, itself a sin — the sin of unbelief — and they are condemned through it. But they could not be condemned for it, if it had been taken away by Christ's atonement; therefore, the sin of unbelief remains unatoned for, and consequently, it is not true that He took away all sin, of all, by the sacri- fice of himself. INDEFINITISM. 235 But. as 1 am using Dr. Owen's argument, let me state it in his own words. (On Redemption, B. in. C. 3.) " If Christ died in the stead of all men, and made satisfaction for their sins, then he did it for all their sins, or only for some of their sins. If for some only, who then can be saved? if for all, why then are not all saved ? They [his opponents] say, it is because of their unbelief; they will not believe, and therefore, are not saved : that unbelief, is it a sin, or is it not ? If it be not, how can it be a cause of damnation ? If it be, Christ died for it, or he did not. If he did not, then he died not for all the sins of all men: if he did, why is this an obstacle to their salvation ? Is there any new shift to be invented for this ? or must we be contented with the old, viz: because they do not be- lieve : that is, Christ did not die for their unbelief, or rather, did not, by his death, remove their unbelief; be- cause they would not believe, or because they would not themselves remove their unbelief ; or, he died for their unbelief conditionally, that they were not be- lievers. These do not appear to me to be sober asser- tions." This argument has long been opposed by cavill, but has never been fairly rebutted. After all that has been said in opposition to it, it remains unanswered, for the good and sufficient reason, that it is unanswerable. For manifestly, if Christ by his death took away all the sins of all men, he took away the sin of unbelief; and con- sequently, no man can be condemned for unbelief ; for what is taken away by such a sacrifice as Christ offered, no longer remains, and can no longer procure condem- nation. But if he did not take away this sin of unbe- lief, "by the sacrifice of himself," then he left untaken away, the very worst sin in all the catalogue of crime: for " he that believeth not, shall be damned." And to affirm that Christ satisfied conditionally, for the sin of unbelief in all men, and that their belief is the condi- tion on which their unbelief is taken away, is to make the removal of unbelief, the condition of its removal ! Christ's death shall atone for their unbelief, on condition that they first of themselves become believers. God 236 INDEFINITISM. for His sake, will forgive their sin of unbelief, so soon as it no longer exists ! ! He will heal their disease on condition that thev first heal it themselves ! Christ will save their souls from hell, on condition that they them- selves first escape from hell and come to heaven ! ! Here is the essence of the Pelagian heresy — an attempt to bring in human merit, as partially the basis of human salvation. Scarcely can the heresy be named which does not grow from some cancerous root of Pelaganism. The above argument is obviously designed to operate upon those, who have scriptural views as to the nature of the atonement — who admit, that the Saviour, did, as the vicarious substitute of his people, offer up himself a sacrifice for sin, thereby making satisfaction to divine justice and reconciling man to God. And it is fondly hoped, that its simplicity, plainness and force, will lead them to the conclusion, that this full and perfect satis- faction, must be followed by full and perfect reconcilia- tion: that to maintain, that Christ thus acted and suf- fered for all human persons, is to maintain that all hu- man persons must be saved ; which is not true — that therefore He did not make satisfaction for all, but only for those, and for all those who shall go away into ever- lasting life — for all the redeemed. If this conclusion be not admitted, then it must be denied, that Christ offered any real propitiatory, vicarious sacrifice, and thereby made any real full and complete satisfaction to the claims of justice for any sinners whatever. For obviously, if he suffered alike for all men — if he made atonement equally for all men, and yet all men are not saved — sal- vation, is not secured by the atonement at all. If Christ paid the price of redemption for all men — if he redeemed all men alike, and yet all men are not redeem- ed, his redemption is worth just nothing at all — salva- tion is not an effect of it. Hence, the first form of indefinitism must be aban- doned. There is not a tenable port in the whole ship. Every point is assailable, and there is no safety in her. Universalism rakes her from stem to stern. Paulism, Calvanism, and Christianism, rends her canvass, and pierces her sides and leaves not a solid plank in her INDEFINITISM. 237 hull. She is obliged to strike; but first she calls in her lagging sister in the rear. 2. The second form of the doctrine of indefinite atone- ment, claims our attention, viz : That Christ Jesus, our Lord, did not make restitution to divine justice at all, for the sins of any man, or set of men. He did not die for men in such sense as to purchase salvation. His ob- ject, in giving himself up to death, was simply to afford an exhibition of God's hatred against sin. God was determined to pardon the sins of men ; but then to pardon sin, — to pass it by, and not punish it, might give reason to believe that his moral government did not require sin to be punished. Thus the confidence of the moral universe in God might be shaken. Holy and righteous beings seeing unholy and unrighteous beings admitted to favour equally with themselves, might begin to tremble for their own safety. If this, say they, may be, what prevents a reverse change from occcurring ? Why may not holy beings be thrust down to hell, in violation of justice, if unholy beings may be raised up to heaven in violation of justice. Thus the pillars of Jehovah's throne begin to totter. The moral fabric of the universe to vacillate. To prevent this, and to give firmness to the system — to establish public justice and so to secure the rights of the universe, God holds up in the sufferings of his own Son, an awful display of his hatred against sin : and so gives assurance that whilst he does pardon sinners, he yet hates sin. To illustrate and enforce this theory, an old scholastic distinction of justice is sometimes adopted. Justice, say the friends of this system, is divided into three kinds ; viz : commutative, distributive and public. " Commutative justice respects property only. ' It consists in an equal exchange of benefits,' or in restor- ing to man his own." " Distributive justice respects the moral character of men. It respects them as accountable creatures, obedi- ent or disobedient. It consists in ascertaining their vir- tue and sin, and in bestowing just rewards, or inflicting just punishments." •' Public or general justice, respects what is fit or right 238 INDEFINITISM. as to the character of God, and the good of the universe. In this sense, justice comprises all moral goodness, and properly means the rightousness 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 tarnish his glory, or subvert the authority of his law." Such is the surgical operations which the old scholas- tic theological dissecting knife, in modern hands, has per- formed upon a simple and indivisible attribute of God ! The demonstration then proceeds. " Did Christ satisfy commutative justice? Certainly not." That is, for sins about property, Christ has made no satisfaction! He has made no restitution; restored nothing to the violated law." So, distributive justice Christ did not satisfy. For all sins respecting moral character he made no distribution ! Paul is now as deserving of hell torment as Judas is ! ! But public justice Christ did satisfy. Christ's atone- ment rendered it right and proper to forgive sin. Such forgiveness is consistent with the good of the universe. Public justice is perfectly satisfied by the death of Christ.* Now, in view of such representations, you will please to remember, that the doctrine of vicarious substitution, representation and consequent imputation of the believer's sin to Christ, and of Christ's righteousness to the believ- er, is denied by these moral dissectors of God's justice. Jesus bore no sin — he was not held by the law of God as responsible for the sins of his people. There is a moral sensitiveness — or I might say, sentiment all sm, connected with the error we combat, which shudders at the doctrine of sin being imputed to Christ and of his being held guilty in the eye of the law. That Christ should be viewed as a sinner, and treated by the law as an offender, for the sins of his people, is a thought too horrible for the delicate sensibility of a Pelagian heart. Whereas the Bible says "he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin." 2. Cor. v. 21. He was held * See Dr. Moxcey, quoted in Ridgley, n. 276, note. INDEFINITISM. 239 and accounted a sinner and consequently suffered. Re- collecting these, let us remark on the above distinction and the scheme it is adduced to support. 1. The distinction has no foundation in the word of God. Not one scripture, it is believed, nor allusion of scripture can be fairly adduced to support it. Where does the Bible say any thing about public justice ? The passage, Rom. in. 21. " But now the righteousness of God without the law, is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets," is indeed, brought forward by the author quoted above, and its terms transposed and its meaning, as I think, perverted. In the preceding part of the chapter, Paul had shewn, not that public justice had been violated — he knew of no such thing — but that men had individually sinned and were individually deserving of death. The sins, which he particularizes, are chiefly of the very kind which the distinctions we oppose, clas- sifies under offences against commutative and destribu- tive justice. And yet Paul is made to teach that public justice alone, is satisfied ! 2. This division of divine justice has no foundation in sound philosophy — that is, in common sense. Justice is that, in a moral being, which leads him to act rightly, that is, according to the laws of morality, in reference to others — to give to every one his due. It is the same principle, as to its essential nature, in the humblest pri- vate individual, the mightiest earthly monarch and the eternal Judge. The ten thousand modes of its manifes- tation modify not its nature, but only its form of expres- sion. To administer justice is to give to every one what is right — what the rule of law, under which he is placed, allows to him. To give him more or less, is injustice. When we say, God is just, the meaning plainly is, that He gives to his creatures what is due to them, agreeably to the law under which he has placed them. 3. On this scheme, which denies the imputation of the sins of his people to Christ, it is no easy matter to see how public justice, in the sense even of those who hold the distinction, can be satisfied. Jesus Christ is not viewed by the law as a sinner — the sins of his peo- 240 INDEFINITISM. pie are not imputed to him — he is not liable to punish- ment on their account — he was not the substitute, the representative of his people — he did not act for them, or suffer for them as a vicarious person. Such are the grounds held, and to account for Christ's sufferings and man's salvation, they say he died to satisfy public jus- lice ! "Perfect justice therefore, is done to the uni- verse, though all transgressors be not punished accord- ing to their personal demerit." Perfect justice is done, though justice is not at all administered ! Transgressors are not punished ; yet perfect justice is done ! ! But even this is not the weakest nor the tenderest point. " Perfect justice is done," How ? Why by God's putting the bitter cup of his wrath into the hands of his own Son ; although that Son had himself done no wrong, nor was he in law, according to these men, ac- countable for the sin of any others. No sin is imputed to him, either of his own or his people's, and yet he suffers, bleeds and dies in extreme agony ! The Lamb of God — holy, harmless, undefiled and separate from sinners ; no guile in his mouth, no guilt on his head — no endless catalogue of his people's sins laid upon him ; heaven, earth, and hell testify "he did no evil" — and yet it pleased the eternal Judge to bruise him ! " Per- fect justice is done." Oh, if this be "perfect justice," who will define perfect injustice? Where, out of hell, or in it, shall we search for that transaction, which shall be held up before the moral universe as the most illus- trious and revolting instance of unalloyed iniquity, im- piety and injustice 1 If this be an " exhibition" of God's hatred against sin ; Oh, where, in his wide universe, shall we search for an exhibition of his love to holiness l If the deep groans of Gethsemane and the piercing shriek of Calvary, are unavailing to remove this cup, and yet no sin was imputed to Jesus, to what transaction shall we turn our eyes as the monster cruelty of this universe ? Look at the case, with the unclouded eye of calm reason. The son of God does suffer. But, say's the system we combat, he is not guilty — he has no sin of his own — no sin of others is imputed to him, which can be the just moral cause of his death — he dies not to sat- SUFFICIENCY OF THE ATONEMENT. 241 isfy the law for his people's sins — but only to exhibit God's hatred against sin in general — and to give assu- rance to the moral universe that God is just whilst he forgives sin : and so to quiet the fears of holy angels and men, and rivet the convictions of unholy angels and men, that God is just. Now, I ask you, can you conceive of a more dread- ful act of injustice than is presented in the sufferings of Christ, on the supposition that his people's sin is not imputed to him ? If you cannot, I ask again, how can this give security to the moral universe ? Must it not do exactly the contrary ? May not Gabriel say, If Jesus thus suffered, having no sin to ac- count for, of his own or any others', may not I also, and all this shining host be brought to endure such degra- tion and anguish '? Where is our security ? Whose head so high as not to be thus bowed down ? Whose crown so safe, as not to be thus cast to the dust? Return we then, dear reader, to the simple and glori- ous doctrine of salvation, by and through the vicarious obedience and death of our divine Surety. He bore our sins in his own body on the tree. Thus God's justice is satisfied and calls for our deliverance from death, and restoration to eternal joys. Here is nothing indefinite — nothing uncertain — nothing conditional — here is "an everlasting covenant with you, even the sure mercies of David." SECTION III* The intrinsic sufficiency of the Atonement. We have been shut up, by an examination into the nature of that special form of moral government, which God has extended over man, — 'and by an inspection of its principles, as they are applied in "the covenant of grace, — we have been shut up to the conclusion, that the death of the Son of God, rendered a true, proper arid vicarious satisfaction to divine justice, for all the sins of all the saved ; and that this, its essential nature, is the very thing, in the atonement, which secures the salva- 21 242 SUFFICIENCY OF THE ATONEMENT. tion of all God's people. The legal restitution which Christ, as their representative, rendered to the law for his people, renders their salvation sure and certain, as a matter of right to their Saviour. But, it is said, is not Christ's death and its attendant sufferings, intrinsically of themselves, sufficient for the salvation of all mankind ? Is not his atonement of suffi- cient value for the redemption of all men ? Is it not of infinite worth, and therefore, sufficient for all ? And may we not therefore say, he died for all ? To these interrogations a serious and calm response is due: and, 1. As to the sufficiency of the atonement: It is plain, that the sufficiency of any penal satisfac- tion, depends entirely upon the law prescribing it. The will of God only, can define what the law shall de- mand as a satisfaction. That, and that only, is suffi- cient, which meets the precise claim of justice. Less than this, Christ could not offer, and close the offering by saying, " it is finished:" more than this, God could not put into the cup of his sorrows. 2. I must think, that the honor done to divine justice, by the death of Christ, is equally great, as if all the race of Adam had been left to drink the wrath divine forever. Consequently, the stability of God's moral government, is as complete, as if man had never sinned. God has given to the moral universe, in the infliction of this punishment upon his own Son, for the sins of his people, the highest testimony of which we know any thing, of his hatred towards sin; as he has given in his resurrection and the salvation of all for whom He prays the Father, the most illustrious display of his righteous regard to his own righteous law. 3. I must also think, that the sufferings of Jesus have nothing to do with the number of the finally saved. The penalty of the law is the same, whether one or two, or a thousand persons are concerned. Whether the Fa- ther gives ten millions to his Son as the reward of his service — or ten million times ten millions, the obedi- ence and sufferings of Jesus are the same. It was for him to meet the claims of law. But the demand of law SUFFICIENCY OF THE ATONEMENT. 243 was obedience and death. This obedience 10 the pre- cept, and this meeting of the penalty is the same, whether one man or the whole race are to be saved. I have, therefore, no sympathy with the doctrine, that the sufferings of Jesus must have been graduated according to the number of the saved : so that if the number were increased, there must be a pro rata increase to his suf- ferings. This doctrine seems to be founded on the hypothesis of a scale to measure pains: at least it ques- tions the correctness of a principle sanctioned by sound laws among men, viz: that penal inflictions have no re- gard to the number of persons implicated. If one man be murdered by one man, the one murderer only is put to death: if ten men be murdered by one, the penalty is the same — one man only dies : If ten men are concern- ed in the murder of one, the ten must be put to death. The law connects sin and death. Here again, let me call your attention to the identity of principle in the doctrines of grace and the morality of the common laws which govern society. Let us ever bear in mind, that God has made it necessary for man to act, in the affairs of this life, to a large extent, upon the great principles embodied in the covenants. The truths of religion are none other than the eternal truths of unchanging moral- ity. If then the sufferings of the Redeemer must be the same, whether one or one million be the number of his people; and if the number can be defined by none but God himself, the question about the extent of the atone- ment is, in reality, a mere question of fact — does God save all men ? Did the Father give all men to Christ as his peculiar people? Did Christ undertake, in the cove- nant of grace, to bring all human beings to eternal glo- ry? And these amount to the inquiry — are all men saved ? For surely, all that the Father hath given him, he hath kept and will raise them up at the last day, Jn. xvn, 6—12. "I pray for^them; I pray not for the world ; but for them which thou hast given me." Was it the design and purpose of Christ, when he paid the ransom, to deliver by it, the whole of mankind ? If it was not his purpose, then, in no sense can it be said, he 244 FALLACIOUS ARGUMENT. redeemed all men — in no sense can it be said, he made atonement for all. Jesus, by appointment of the Fa- ther, suffered the penalty of the law. Now, the persons who are to be saved by his death, are they for whom he made atonement. He could not have suffered at all, unless the sins of his people had been laid upon him. These sins were laid upon him by the Father — "the Lord hath laid on him, the iniquity of us all," Isa. liii, 6. And in the preceding' verso, the prophet defines the phrase, "us all," when he says, " with his stripes we are healed." The sins of all the persons who are heal- ed, were laid on Christ by the Father. Thus, as we have already seen, the very nature of the transaction defines its limit. The intention of the Father and the Son, is abundantly revealed : it is to save his people — to redeem them from all iniquity — "I pray for them ; I pray not for the world, but for them which thou hast given me" — Unless, therefore, it can be shewn, that the intention of the Father and the Son was, and is, to save all mankind — that is, unless it was their intention to do what the Bible tells us never shall be done — it re- mains true, the atonement was made for the saved only, and not at all for the damned. Jesus never intended to bring to eternal life, those of whom he says, "these shall go away into eternal punishment" — " depart from me, ye cursed, I never knew you." Now this intention is the limit and bound of the atonement. It is the in- tention that constitutes it an atonement. Whilst, there- fore, it remains an admitted and glorious truth, that the satisfaction is sufficient, because it is a satisfaction ; and the atonement infinitely valuable in itself, still it is an atonement and satisfaction made only for the flock of the great Shepherd. SECTION IV. But Christ died in some sense for all men. There is yet another shade of the doctrine of general atonement, to be noticed very briefly, viz: that, as the surgeon of a regiment, is the surgeon of every man in FALLACIOUS ARGUMENT. 245 it, so that every soldier and officer may point to him, and say, 'that is my surgeon,' so is Christ the Saviour of all the world; so that every man may say, 'that is my Saviour.' As every soldier has a right to call upon the surgeon, so every sinner has a right to call upon Christ. This comparison is fallacious. 1st. Because the military surgeon is employed and paid for his services; and those services are a part of the consideration in the contract between the soldier and his government, at the time he enlisted, and he has a right, which he can enforce, to command the services of the Surgeon. But the great Physician renders all his services gratuitously. 2d. Because, the regiment is put under the surgeon's care — the whole regiment. He is not the surgeon of the whole army. His duties do not call him beyond his own specific charge. Now here the comparison holds in part. The Great Physi- cian has his specific charge. He is not bound nor does he administer his spiritual medicines to the soldiers of another leader : the legions of the damned are not heal- ed by the Great Physician : nor can they in truth af- firm, 'he is our physician.' 3d. Because, The com- parison is deficient in another respect. All the soldiers of the regiment do not need the services of a surgeon — that necessity is a contingency. But all his spiritual army, who are by the Lord of Hosts, put under the Captain of Salvation, ?do need his healing medicines, and are utterly unable to perform any services in the ranks, until after He shall have applied the balm of Gilead to the healing of their hurt. To make the comparison hold, every soldier must be in the hospital, (or in the grave,) and utterly helpless ; and the surgeon must be bound to restore every man of them to the ranks and ensure his life through the war. Reasonings, from these loose analogies, are very f\x\? safe. 21* 246 respite — Christ's atonement. SECTION V. Ml men enjoy a respite from death and hell, in conse- quence of Christ's atonement. Here is a sense in which it can be said the atonement is general. If the meaning be, that wicked, unbelieving men — men who finally perish, do experience many temporal blessings, and a respite from eternal burnings, as a consequence of the satisfaction of Christ, I admit it. If there had been ten righteous men in Sodom, it would not have been destroyed. This is a clear Bible principle. Man by sin, forfeited that right to food and clothing which God gave to him at his creation ; and the right can be restored only by a reversion of the act of forfeiture. Thus, true believers in Christ have, in and through him, a right to their daily bread. The righteous, and the righteous only, have a promise in the Bible, of food and all other necessaries. And because, the present race of wicked men, are the forefathers of a race, who are or shall be the seed of the blessed, they are spared. Thus the world of ungodly men are saved from death, for a time, by the good providence of our Heavenly Father, "the living God, who is the Saviour ef all men, especially of them that believe," 1. Tim. iv, 10. And this I take to be the true meaning of the passage. This phase " the Living God" is not applied in the scriptures as a distinguishing epithet of Christ; but as descriptive of the Father, as the God of providence. The Apostle is speaking of trust in God, not as to the direct matter of salvation, but as to temporal good things — the bounties of providence. God saves men from death, and bestows his favours upon all men ; but has, and exercises a special regard to them that believe. Yet, whilst these things are so, it appears to me alto- gether improper to say, that the atonement is for all men. The circumstance of tne unbelieving and ungodly world deriving benefit incidentally from the atonement, by no jneans justifies the language, that it was made for them. CHAPTER XVII. OBJECTIONS FOUNDED ON PARTICULAR TEXTS, AGAINST THE DOCTRINE OF LIMITED ATONEMENT, STATED AND ANSWERED. It will not be expected, that I should take up and re- spond to all the arguments for all kinds of indefinite and universal atonement, which claim a foundation in some text of scripture. This work has been done by various hands; and the reader is referred to Dr. Owen's "Death of death, in the death of Christ," for a most masterly exposition of all these passages, b. iv. c. ii. — v. Ail that the nature of my undertaking will allow, is a re- futation of a few of the stronger arguments, by a fair exposition of the passages on which they are attempted to be founded. And first, let us lay down the principle of interpretation upon which we proceed f Viz : General terms must be restricted and under- stood, in consistency with the nature of the subject dis- cussed and the general drift and meaning of the writer. This rule is well established amongst critics; as to com- mon sense it is obviously true. Let us apply to a few of the texts supposed to teach indefinite atonement. There are two classes of these texts ; viz : those where the term world occurs, or whole world ; and where the term all or every occurs. SECTION I. Arguments from the term, world, answered. The very strongest perhaps, is 1. John ii. 1, 2. " And if any man sin, we have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous ; and he is the propitiation for our sins : and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world." Hence it is 248 ARGUMENTS FROM THE argued, in some sense, Christ is the propitiation for the sins of all men, or the whole world means all men. The point toward a fair exposition here, is to settle the meaning of propitiation. The Greek word, fauopos, is used in the New Testament in only one other place, viz : 1. Jhon iv. 10. God " sent his Son to be the pro- pitiation for our sins." It is used in the Septuagint five times; viz: Am. viii. 14. " They swear by the sin of Samaria, and say, "Thy God O, Dan, liveth." Here sin stands for sin offering. And inasmuch as the real and efficient sin offering of the Bible, is also the Priest who offers it, the object of their idolatrous worship, is called their sin offering or propitiation. So it is in Ezek. xliv. 27. "he shall offer his sin offering saith the Lord God" — his sin offering — that which appeases God. Num. v. 8. Here it is translated atonement — a sin offering procur- ing reconciliation. In Psalm cxxx. 4. it is translated, forgiveness . "But there is forgiveness with thee" — a propitiatory sacrifice that ensures pardon. The verb is used, Luke xviii. 13. " God be merciful to me a sin- ner" — be propitiated, rendered friendly and so extend pardon. So, the only other place in which it occurs, Heb. ii. 17, — " to make reconciliation for the sins of the people — to propitiate — to render God friendly and secure forgiveness to the people. So the kindred word translated propitiation, Rom. iii. 25. " whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the confession of sins." And, Heb. ix. 5. it is trans- lated mercy seat, " the cherubim of glory overshadowing the mercy seat" — the mercy seat of the ark, being an em- blem of Christ as the reconciler between God and man. From all these it is manifest, that propitiation is the actual restoring to favour and friendship, of those who were alienated and hostile. This, Jesus does by his removing of sin, the cause of enmity between God and man, and the consequent procurement of forgiveness from God and gratitude and love from man. To render God propitious and man alive to a sense of divine good- ness, is the full idea of propitiation. Now, that Jesus is the propitiation — that he has actually restored friend- TERM, WORLD, ANSWERED. 249 ship between man and God is certain. But to what ex- tent? Has he propitiated God to all mankind, and all mankind to God ? Then is universal salvation true. But universal salvation is false, therefore Christ has not propitiated all men. What then will you do with the universal terms, " the whole world?" I remark, 2. It is manifest in the very words themselves, that all men absolutely are not meant. Because he is speak- ing expressly of believers, " little children," such as rest with childlike credulity upon their Father's word — chil- dren in knowledge, many of whom were for limiting salvation to the Jews, and could scarce endure a Gentile believer to come into the church, except at the door of circumcision. The opposition that the Apostle makes between us and the world, in this very place, is sufficient to manifest j unto whom he wrote. So, John says, (gospel xi. 51, 52,) " he prophesied that Jesus should die for that nation, And not for that nation only, but that also he should gather together in one," all men of all nations ? — no — " but the children of God that were scat- tered abroad" among all nations. To this, the passage before us is a parallel. Jesus is the propitiation — he re- stores to friendship the children of God, not only among us Jews, but also, those scattered over the whole world. 3. The phrase, whole world, is by the other terms of the text and by the general drift of this writer, limited to " the whole world" of God's children — the entire body of his redeemed ones. That the words do not in every place necessarily mean all mankind, it will be suf- ficient for us to shew. For, if sometimes the general terms are, by necessity, restricted, we are under no ob- ligation to admit them as absolutely universal here. Dr. Owen thinks that there is but a single case in which they must thus be understood. (1) We quote Luke, ii. 1. — "there went out a decree from Csesar Augustus, that all the world should be taxed." Here all the world is certain- ly no more than the Roman empire. It will not affect this, that the terms are different (rtaaav ?r ( v 6vr t ov fiiv^v) they are equivalent to whole world — all the inhabited earth. Now, is it true that all the inhabited earth, i. e, ■ 250 ARGUMENTS FROM THE all men were included in this decree ? Clearly, the gen- eral term is limited by the sense and the connexion. (2) Col. i. 6. '• The gospel is come unto you as it is in all the world." Does all the world here mean, ab- solutely and unqualifiedly, all mankind ? Had all men absolutely heard the gospel ? Why then do we still la- bour to send missionaries ? Manifestly, the universal terms must be restricted by the sense and connexion. All the world, can therefore, only mean, that the gos- pel, instead of being confined to the land of Judea and the lost sheep of the house of Israel, is gone abroad, without restraint, into very many places. (3) Very similar to this, is Rom. i. 8. — "your faith is spoken of throughout the whole world" (£v 6?.a *<$ xosfi^t.) Must this mean that the faith of the Roman believers was known and spoken of by all the race of man ? Did all men every where speak of it ? Did one man out of every ten thousand in the Roman empire know any thing about it ? But, moreover, this speaking about their faith, is approbatory : they who spake of it, commended it. Did all the people of Rome, and of the empire, and of all other nations, admire and commend the faith of the handful of obscure believers at Rome ? How perfectly absurd ! What then does he mean ? Obviously, the be- lieving world — the world of believers. The disciples every where heard of their faith and thanked God for it. The whole world here, is equivalent to the Jwhole body of believers. (4) 1. John v. 19. " We know that we are of God, and the whole world lieth in wickedness." Here is the same phraseology and in the same epistle : what does it mean ? All men ! every individual of the race ! Why, the first clause says nay, " we know that we are of God:" and can they be of God and yet lie in wicked- ness! Evidently therefore, the whole world here means, the world of unconverted men — all the race, except the children of God who have tasted of his grace. Now, if it is undeniable, that the universal phrase whole world, here means onlv the world of unconverted men ; I want to know by what rule we are bound to understand the same phrase in chapter ii. 2, as absolutely universal. TERM, WORLD, ANSWERED. 151 There exists as clear and cogent reasons for limiting it there, to the world of believers, as here, to limit it to the world of unbelievers. Rev. iii. 10. " I will keep thee from the hour of temptation, which shall come upon all the world." (5) Rev. xii. 9. "that old serpent, called the devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world." Yet, the Bible tells us that the devil, would, if it were possible, deceive the very elect ; plainly intimating that it is not possible, and this the former text proves. God so exer- cises his divine power and grace, that Satan, working with all his skill, through the emissaries of Rome, shall yet not succeed in deceiving the true church. The whole world here is the mass of unbelieving men, to the exclusion of those who wondered not after the beast. (6) Rev, xiii. 3. " all the world wondered after the beast." Here, all the world means only the apostate Roman Catholic Church — not all the human race — nor even all the world of nominal christians ; God always had a chosen generation, who never bowed the knee to the thirty thousand Gods of pagan or of christian Rome. It is surely unnecessary to prosecute the investigation. The Greek term for world, signifies any organized and arranged system, and so it is applied to the system of a lady's dress. Peter says of christian women, "whose adorning," (whose ivorld) let it not consist in external arrangements, but in internal graces. Even the strong phrase whole world, does never mean all men; but only all of the class referred to. So, in the passage before us, Jesus is the propitiation, not only for the sins of us Jewish believers, but of the whole world of redeemed men — the whole body of the elect. SECTION II. The arguments from the general term all, stated and answered. The advocates of a general atonement build much upon those expressions of scripture, where the general term, all, is applied to the saved. Let us examine a few 252 ARGUMENTS FROM THE of the cases chiefly relied on: and let us keep in view, the rule of interpretation, which limits general terms by the sense and connexion. 1. The passage, 1. Tim. n. 4, 6, is a chief depen- dence — " who will have all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth." Christ " gave himself a ransom for all." Hence it is inferred, that Christ died equally for all men : (the atonement was made for all men.) It is plain, that the whole force of the inference rests upon the vagueness of the term all — all men. If this does mean all and every one of the human race, abso- lutely; then, not only is general atonement, but univer- sal salvation also, true. The entire argument, ,there- fore, turns upon the single word all. If all and all men, always, and every where in the Bible does, and must necessarily, include the entire race, we concede the argument ; but if, as we have seen, it never is so used in the Bible, or at least very rarely, then no rea- son forbids our limiting it here according to the sense and connexion. The Greek word for all, occurs more than twelve hundred times in the New Testament, and therefore we cannot examine all places. It occurs twenty four times in 1. Tim. Now, if in a majority of them, it cannot possibly be understood in its absolutely universal sense, it ought to relieve us from all difficulty with it in this argument. Let us then advert briefly to those cases in the twenty-four, where the interpretations must be re- stricted. Ch. t. 16, — " that in me first, Jesus Christ might shew forth all long suffering." Will any man aver thence, that the totality, the whole of God's long suffering was in Paul? Has Jesus never shewn anv long-suffering in any but Paul ! Such is the absurdi- ty and the falsehood, which the general construction would force upon the Apostle's language. What then does he mean ? Any child in interpretation, can tell you. He means to affirm, that a large measure — a great deal of divine forbearance had been displayed in his case. Ch. ii. 1. "I exhort therefore, that first of all, sup- TERM ALL, ANSWERED. 253 plications, &c. be made." The first of all, is connect- ed with the exhortation — but if not, it effects not the ar- gument. Did Paul mean that the first thing of all in the universe, that should be done, should be to pray for all ? The persons addressed must not bend the knee — they must not meet for prayer, they must not eat, or sleep or stand or walk or breathe, until they prayed for all! Nay, but the plain meaning is, that in a very special manner, and very largely, christians should pray. Ch. ii, 1. " prayers, &c. for all men." Does he mean here that we shall pray for the dead? for the damned! for those of whom John says, " there is a sin unto death, I do not say that he shall pray for it!" for those of whom Jesus says, "I pray not for the world!!" To assert that all, here, includes the whole race of men absolutely, is to affirm what Jesus, and John his ser- vant, and the general current of scripture denies. What then does the Apostle mean by all men ? Lei himself answer. "For kings and for all that are in au- thority, claimed and the command to cease rebellion is sounded in their ears. The purpose of the proclamation is, to reach them whom the Lord their God shall call : but in accomplishing this, an opportunity is necessarily of- fered to the other revolters to revolt more and more. But the nature of unbelief, as the crowning sin, will come in better after we shall have examined the doctrine of faith. CHAPTER XIX. the saviour's intercession. That a man be indifferent to the effects of his own actions — the success of his own enterprise, is scarcely conceivable. All the laws, which ordinarily prompt to action, must first be reversed; and to account for any action at all, would be very difficult. Our simplest no- tion of a moral act involves the idea of moral motive operating upon and determining choice; and to suppose a state of indifference as to results, is to suppose, that the results themselves could operate as a cause of ac- tion, until the very moment of their achievement, and then cease to have any power to influence the mind. It may well, therefore, be doubted, whether a state of indifference to the success of his own labours, is possi- ble with any rational mind. And should such a state actually occur, it might well be enquired whither that mind had not lost its balance and ceased to be a moral agent. Now this characteristic of our rational nature — this essential attribute of its moral character, was not want- ing in the Saviour of men. Petulance of anxiety for results, he never did display; but the steadfast fixedness of his eye and heart upon the hour of his sorrows and the worlds triumph, shewed that the glorious results, being the recompense of his own reward, were never matters of indifference to him. To suppose, that after he had endured the pains and privations of this sorrow- ful life, the groans and agony of Gethsemane and of Calvary, he henceforth ceased to regard the permanent issues of the whole, were to suppose in him strange contradictories indeed. Such, no reader of the Bible can believe to exist. On the contrary, every careful reader must believe that Jesus always looked and still looks with intense interest upon the effects of his own obedi- 276 THE SAVIOURS INTERCESSION. ence and death, and that he now exercises his divine government over the universe, with a direct and special and principal regard to these glorious results. Such temper he displayed immediately after his resurrection, and before his ascension. His promises relative to the mission of the Holy Ghost, and their fulfilment at the pentecostal feast, are a beautiful illustration of his deep concern for consequences. The purpose of this chapter is to illustrate the outgoings of this principle in the doctrine of the Saviour's intercesssion. SECTION I. The meaning of the term and thing. Intercession is coming between, and implies three persons or parties. The middle person is the Interces- sor. Hence, Jesus is called Mediator — that is, the middle person — one who throws himself between God and man. Man had offended against his Maker's law and was justly obnoxious to the full weight of its sen- tence. To the infliction of death the law prompts ; the sword of justice uplifted in the hand of God, is about to smite the offending rebel down to perdition ; Christ steps in between — he mediates in arresting or staying the stroke — rather in changing its direction and turning the sword's burning point in upon his own soul. The Shepherd is smitten, that the sheep may escape. This doctrine we have canvassed at some length. But now, having mediated so far as regards the claims of law upon his people, and so mediated as to turn the aveng- ing stroke of justice from his people upon himself: and having done every thing else which the law's claim upon his people contained, he feels his work for them yet far from being completed. They, — many of them are yet in the gall of bitterness and bond of iniquity; mul- titudes of those whom he must bring to glory are yet unborn. Hence an all-pervading feeling on their be- half, occupies the bosom of him who sitteth upon the throne. He steps in between the Father and his offend- ing children, and entreats for them the blessings they THE SAVIOURS INTERCESSION. 277 need. Intercession is a part of mediation, and includes all the prayers which Christ, our Great High Priest offers up for us — " he ever liveth to make intercession for us," Heb. vii, 25: to manage our business for us before God. Such is the force of the Greek. So in Acts xxv, 24, " And Festus said, King Agrippa, ye see this man about whom all the multitude of the Jews have dealt ivith mef it is the same word — have in- ter ceded. So Rom. viii, 27 — " because he maketh inter- cession for the saints" — he manageth the saints busi- ness — he dealetk for the saints. And v, 34. Who al- so dealeth for — manageth with God the affairs of the Saints. It does not properly mean only to pray for. For the Jews dealt with Festus, not by asking benefits of him for Paul; but they endeavoured to procure a sen- tence against the Apostle, and thus to compass his death. Their dealing, therefore, was the presentation of charges, and proof, such as they had. So Rom. xi, 2. " Elias maketh intercession to God against Israel." And in doing this, he states their crimes, v. 3, ''Lord, they have killed thy prophets and digged down thine altars." One other case occurs j Xew Testament, 1 Tim. ii, 1, "I will, that first dj" all prayers, supplications and Intercessions be made." Here it is clearly manifest that intercessions are somewhat different from prayers and importunate entreaties. This third expression, in- tercessions — is not mere sound without precise mean- ing ? It signifies, The presentation cf a case be- fore a judge and the claiming of a decision according to law. Such was the action of the Jews before Festus. They importunately urged the judge to pass on Paul's case, according to their representations of it. Such was the action of Elias, he presented the sins of Israel before God, and urged the expression of his vengeance upon them. Such, I contend is the meaning in all the other cases. When the Spirit, Rom. viii, 26, maketh inter- cession for us with unutterable groanings, — he presents our case — the case of Christ's people and earnestly de- mands a decision in their favour according to law — he manages their cause for them. When Christ v. 34, 24 278 Christ's intercession. "maketh intercession," it is the same. He presents the cause of his people. He shews before the presence of the Fathers tribunal, where he is " our advocate," that all his people have in himself fulfilled all law in all respects, viz : He, for them, has paid the penalty and fulfilled the precepts. Consequently he urges a decision in their case, and that a favourable decision. He claims it on the ground of his own merits — merits which he evinces, are for them, and therefore they ought to be pardoned and justified and saved. Jesus our ad- vocate manages our whole cause for us. Thus the Greek word, translated intercession, does not necessari- ly mean praying for; it often means praying against. It may include either, for it simply describes all the ac- tions and doings of one who urges and presses a suit in court, that it may be decided: and that irrespective of that decision whether it be for or against. Applied to Christ, it of course includes whatever he does towards procuring, at the bar of God, a decision in favour of his people. He is their advocate with the Father and pleads their cause. Now this suggests the idea of accusation and an op- posing pleader. So the Bible has it ; Satan is called 44 the accuser of the brethren," Rev. xxii, 10. And in- asmuch, as there is a powerful " adversary," there ought to be a powerful advocate. In Math, v, 25, we are advised, " agree with thine adversary quickly, whilst thou art in the way with him, lest at any time the ad- versary deliver thee to the judge, &c;" which shews that the adversary is the person prosecuting a claim against another. Hence Peter, i. v, 8, admonishes us, 44 be sober, be viligant; because your adversary the de- vil, as a roaring lion, walketh about." And the widow, Luke xviii, 3, cried, 4 'Avenge me of mine adversary." Give judgment in my case. The phraseology of the Bible all leads us to the idea of an accuser, who is a pleader against; a tribunal at which he wishes to pro- cure a sentence against a person; an advocate — one who pleads for the person accused and shews cause why a favorabe sentence should be pronounced, and thence urges the court for such a sentence. The intercession Christ's plea. 279 of Christ then, consists of his plea and his claim found- ed on his plea* SECTION II. Christ's plea on behalf of his people. This plea consists of two parts ; viz : that which goes to repel the accusation ; and that which goes to establish the very opposite of it. As to the former, its nature must in all cases be determined by the nature of the accusation; for it consists in resistance to it. Now, the accusation brought by the adversary, is that these men have sinned and, according to the law, ought to be delivered over to himself, to become a part of his accursed and wicked crew. Satan desires to have them as his own subjects, and the ground of his claim is, that they have identi- fied their interests with his, and of right and law are doomed to be with him. Against this, " our advocate with the Father" puts in the counter plea, that he himself has suffered in the room of his people — has met the entire penal claims of law against them ; so that their deliverance into the hands of the tormentor, would be unrighteous ; for it would be a second infliction of penal evil for the same sins. Satan claims them as sold slaves under sentence of law. Christ claims them as having redeemed them from the curse of the law and points to his pierced feet and hands and side — to his tears and groans and bloody sweat. Hence obviously, he admits, that once the accusation was just and their deliverance into the tormentor's hands would have been right; but now the torment — the punishment due, by course of law and right, has been inflicted upon himself as their surety, and hence, he claims the re- lease of his people from all the agonies of the curse. This part of Christ's advocacy is beautifully repre- sented in the law of Moses. The High Priest repre- sents Christ, in the progress of his ministrations, this High Priest offers up the sacrifice on the altar of burnt offerings, without the tabernacle. This is Christ suf- fering without the gate. The Priest then takes a part of 280 Christ's plea. the blood and passes through the blue vail into the most holy place and sprinkles it on the mercy seat; this is Christ passing through the blue vault of heaven into the presence chamber of the great King and carrying with him the evidence of his sufferings and death. The Priest thus secures forgiveness of sins for the people ; Christ thus repels the accusation of the adversary and evinces the right in himself, to his people's deliverance — that is, he obtains the remission of their sins. (Heb. ix.) "Neith- er by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood, he entered in once into the holy place, hav- ing obtained eternal redemption for us" — " but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us." " Wherefore he is able also to save them to the uttermost that come unto God by him, seeing he ever liveth to manage their cause with God — to make inter- cession for them." A very material — an all important part of Christ's intercession is his presenting the evi- dence of his death — that is, his satisfaction rendered to divine justice for his people's sin. Without this, his appearance before God for us were all in vain. And this vanity is also illustrated by Moses. If even the high priest, without having first offered the proper sac- ifice, enter the most holy place, within the vail, he shall die. (Lev. xvi. 2.) The sacrifice must first be of- fered, before he dare enter into the most holy place and before he can take fire and the incense, which represents prayer, and offer them before the mercy seat. Here, the incense sets forth Christ's supplication for his peo- ples's pardon : and it becomes available only by fire from the altar of burnt offerings. That is, the entire offering of Christ's prayer for his people, depends upon his previous sacrifice. Unless he carries with him the memorial of his own blood, this incence of his prayer can have no odor : his cause is lost. 2. The second part of Christ's plea consists in pre- senting the evidence of his having fulfilled all righteous- ness for his people. Not content with their rescue from the positive suffering of the curse, he proceeds to assert a claim for them to positive blessedness. He shews, that as the second Adam, he has established for his peo- Christ's claim for his people. 281 pie, by his own perfect obedience, the ground on which life was promised to the first Adam and all his posterity. And consequently all that life and happiness which was promised in the covenant to the children of the one, must of right pass over and belong to the children of the other. Now this plea, in which he evinces the perfection of his atonement and of his obedience, our Advocate lays down as the basis of his claim. SECTION III. Chrisfs claim on behalf of his people. This of course consists of two parts, corresponding to the basis of it. ■* He claims for them exemption from the penal evils of the curse : as we have already seen. And this includes their deliverance from guilt and woe ; which deliverance is, of course, not an abstraction ; not a mere name ; but a blessed and glorious reality. Hence the Holy Spirit is sent to rescue them from the spiritual death which sin had brought into their souls, and to inform them of the fact that their sins are forgiven — that the plea of their advocate is sustained in the court of heaven ; and they are now the reconciled children of God. Now you will observe, this mission of the Spirit, and his entire work of regeneration, and bearing witness in the souls of Christ's people, that they are his, is obtain- ed by our Advocate, as matter of right to Him : He claims it: and " him the Father heareth always ;" con- sequently the Holy Spirit is sent. This accords to what lie states, John xvi. 7 : " It is expedient for you that I go away ; for if I go not away, the Comforter will come unto you ; but if I depart I will send him unto you." Ch. xv. 26 : " But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me." Analagous to these sacred truths are the affairs of men. All our rules of right are from God. Whenever 24* 282 Christ's claim a faithful advocate at a human tribunal evinces the jus- tice of the cause he has espoused, and secures a sentence in favour of his client, he claims — and justice gladly re- sponds to his claim — he claims the release of the priso- ner. It is justice that throws open the prison door, and proclaims liberty to the captive. It is justice that wings the messenger of mercy from the throne of God — justice to the Redeemer is mercy to his redeemed ones. 2. The other point, in the claim of our Advocate, re- gards the precept of the law. According to the essential nature of moral government, the law holds out some good as the motive to its obedience ; when the mind yields to the force of motive and obeys, the good thing proffered must, of right, be given. This is the essence of the covenant of works. God commanded obedience, and promised life. In the original form, this covenant was broken by man, and thus came death. In great con- descension, God set on foot a remedial covenant, in the hands of an infallible surelv — the second Adam. Here is the point in which mercy is exercised. By no prin- ciple of law was God bound to do this : it is wholly gra- tuitous and gracious. But now, this second Adam per- forms the obedience required— he establishes the princi- ple of the original institute, and claims for his own people the promised life. The claim, you will see, is based upon the fact of his having fulfilled the law by an entire, total, and complete obedience. To such obedi- ence God at first promised life to man ; and now Christ, as the Advocate of his redeemed people, presses his right to their blessedness forever. In his plea he gives evidence of this fact, and having- proved a full compliance with the conditions of the promise, he looks to the Fa- ther for a similar compliance in the bestowment of life. " Father, I will that those also, whom thou hast givew me, be with me where I am ; that they may behold my glory, which thou hast given me :" John, xvii. 24. With these views before us. let us remark in conclu- sion: 1. The loose and undefined notion, entertained (it is to be feared) by not a few, that Christ's intercession is simply, his bald and naked request or prayer for men, FOR HIS PEOPLE. 283 is erroneous, and consequently mischievous. It i3 er- roneous, because it omits the main matter of interces- sion, viz: the plea on which the prayer is founded: the argument of the cause. It leaves out of view, par- tially, if not totally, the moral and legal relations of the parties. It is mischievous, for the same reason ; and hence leads to low thoughts of Christ and his work. If he only prays — asks benefits for his people, that can be done by a fellow sinner, or a saint on earth and in hea- ven. Sincere and ardent and importunate prayer is of- fered up by men for their fellow men. If this is all Christ does, then men may as well approach God through the intercession of St. Patrick or St. Peter, or the blessed Virgin. Hence all the idolatry of the popish system. On the contrary, if the chief item in intercession be and is Christ's plea, in which he shews his fulfilment of all claims of law upon his people, then all men must see and feel a vast difference between the intercession of Christ and that of mere men. We may intercede for our friends, but we have no merit of our own to plead. We may refer to Christ's all-sufficiency, and through him have acceptable approach to God. 2. We see why our persons must be accepted with God, before our prayers and other services can be. There is no way of acceptable approach to Him, but through Christ, who is the way, and the truth, and the life. Unless, therefore, we come unto God by him, he is not able to save us to the uttermost or to the least de- gree. All Christ's power to save depends upon his atonement and obedience. 3. We learn why it is that Christ never prayed for all men indefinitely. The fact is undeniable ; unless, in- deed, you choose to contradict his own express words : " I have manifested thy name unto the men which thou gavest me out of the world I pray for them ; I pray not for the world, but for them which thou hast given me — Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word," John xvii. 6, 9, 20. The fact of Christ's prayer being limited 284 Christ's claim to and for those whom the Father gave him, and to whom he grants faith to believe, being plainly undenia- ble, we see the reason of it. His prayer is founded on his plea of right, and can only extend as far as his plea. The Father gave him a portion " out of the world ;" the rest of the world or race of men he left to their own ways. The Son "giveth his life for these sheep ;" and for these only can he put in a claim of right, and de- mand their deliverance from death and hell and sin : to them he gives eternal life, "and this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent." " For I have given unto them the words which thou gavest me." If, on the contrary, Christ should pray for those whom the Father never gave to him ; whom he never redeemed; to whom he shall say " depart from me, ye cursed into everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his angels," then it could not be said, that he put in a plea and a claim of right for them : it could not be said " him the Father heareth always." But it could be said — Jesus has prayed in vain : he has advocted the cause of devils and spirits damned and lost forever ! Will any man af- firm it? Dare any say of the "Advocate with the Fa- ther," that he undertook a bad cause and failed in it? If this is a blasphemy too gross, let us return from it to the plain Bible doctrine, that Christ puts in a plea for his people, which the Father admits, and a claim which he grants. 4. We learn why our prayers for ourselves and for others, are often not heard. They are inconsistent with the will of God and not based upon the atonement, and do not of course go up perfumed with the incense of Christ's intercession. Every prayer offered in faith — that is, offered to God in the exercise of a real and true confidence in the all sufficiency of Christ, is and shall be answered, in substance, if not in the form we may have expected. " Verily, verily, I say unto you, whatsoever ye shall ask the Father in my name, he will give it you. Hitherto have ye asked nothing in my name: ask and ye shall receive, that your joy may be full." John xvi, 23, 24. " In my name," here, cannot surely mean, a FOR HIS PEOPLE. 285 simple sounding of the word Jesus or Christ. But it is the heart's confidence in the fulness of his atoning sac- rifice and his justifying righteousness. Now this con- fidence, trust, faith, is a grace of the Spirit, and can ex- ist only in the soul that is regenerated and united in fact, as well as law, with Jesus Christ. " Likewise the Spir- it also helpeth our infirmities : for we know not what we should pray for as we ought, but the Spirit itself inaketh intercession for us with groanings which cannot be uttered." 5. It will be repetition but I call it up for distinct re- membrance — Christ's work, viz : his obedience and death are the basis of his intercession. 6. The sanctification of the soul, its repentance, new obedience, faith, regeneration; all are consequences of the mission of the Holy Spirit to that Soul ; and this mission is a consequence of Christ's intercession : and this intercession being based on his work of atonement ; therefore the whole work begins at the altar. Our High Priest offers up the victim ; viz : himself; he taskes the blood into the most holy place and appears now in heav- en for us ; he presents the plea of his own obedience and death, and on that founds his claim to his people's release from sin, death, hell and the grave; the Father sends the Spirit; the Spirit restores to life the dead soul, produces faith, repentance, love and holy obedience ; we ask in faith and our joy is full. CHAPTER XX. ON SAVING OR JUSTIFYING FAITH* The connexion which the sacred scriptures affirm everywhere, between faith and salvation, very fully evin- ces the importance of the topic upon which we now en- ter. " Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved" — " He that believeth on the Son hath ever- lasting life ; and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God abideth on him." Faith and life, unbelief — the absence of faith and death. How important then to have correct views of its nature and operations. SECTION I. Faith as a General Principle. That all men believe very many things — that it is a law of man's nature to repose confidence in the testimo- ny of his fellow men, is so perfectly notorious, as to re- quire no argument or illustration. That there exists in the mind a disposition, a habit, an inclination to trust, confide, believe in testimony, is equally plain and undeniable. That this disposition, hab- it, inclination, is prior to the respective acts of believing, to me at least, appears equally plain : and there is no difficulty thrown around this doctrine of a habit ox prin- ciple of faith more than around any other habit or prin- ciple of action. That is, prior to any and to all acts of believing, there is, in the constitution of the mind itself, a something which adapts it, which fits it, which in- clines and predisposes it to put forth such acts of be- lieving. Now this principle of faith is original in the human mind. That is, man is by nature inclined to believe FAITH IN ITS PRINCIPLE. 287 what is told to him. It is not an acquired habit, but comes into the world with him. It is as much a part of his nature as the habit of body by which he is inclined to breathe as soon as he is ushered into life : or as the disposition to draw his nourishment from his mother's breast, or to reason, or be excited to joy or sorrow. Without this principle of faith, he would not be man ; but an entirely different being. He could never believe — there could be no such thing as faith in the act — no such thing as confidence in testimony — no knowledge derived from this source — no human society. It is the more important to be well settled on this point, however small a matter and however clear, it may seem, because of the important position which the opposite sentiment occupies in certain systems of unbe- lief. By an assumption, as false as it is gratuitous, in- fidelity has attempted to remove the foundations of the Apostles and prophets. The false assumption is, that faith, or the disposition to rest upon testimony, is an acquired habit not an original law of man's nature. Believing is the result of experience. We hear a testi- mony — some man tells us something; we subsequently ascertain that the thing is, as he told us ; we rest upon his declaration, with a small measure of confidence. Again he testifies to another and another, and our grow- ing experience of his veracity, is the measure of strength in our growing habit of belief. Now I aver this to be contrary to universal fact. So far from belief being thus the product of experience, faith in human testimony is natural and unbelief is the result of repeated experience. Every man must feel within himself the conscious- ness of this truth. All I need, is simply to refer him to it. He at once accredits the declarations of others; and finds an effort to be continually necessary to guard him against the evils of too hasty a belief. Hence the ease with which children and inexperienced persons — in- experienced in the duplicity and untruth practised by men towards one another — are duped and often injured, through their unsuspicious confidence. Hence the pro- verbial credulity of little children. There is not a 288 FAITH IN ITS PRINCIPLE. trait of their character more prominent than this — their unreserved confidence, trust, faith in testimony. They at first believe all that is told to them. So thoroughly is this the leading characteristic of children ; that we constantly refer to them as illustrations of the same quality in grown persons. A man is disposed to believe all he hears, — we say of him, he is as simple as a child. The Saviour who " knew what was in man," speaks of this same law, when he says, "except ye be convert- ed and become as little children" — that is, credulous of all their fatiier tells them — believe every thing — "ye cannot enter into the kingdom of God." Faith is the door of entrance into it — he that believeth is saved — if ye therefore become not as little children in this main feature of their character, ye are lost and undone. But if ye exercise toward God that simple confidence, that firm belief which a child reposes in its father, ye are the sons of God. Here then, we rest with confidence. The principle of faith in testimony is an original element of the human constitution. It is one of the chief avenues to knowl- edge. Indeed it is the main avenue. Almost all the knowledge we have, has entered by this door. Let a man draw a line between the amount of knowledge he posesses, which entered his mind by faith — i. e. for which he simply trusts in the veracity of others ; and that which he has independently upon testimony, and how insignificant the one in comparison of the other ? What we know by faith, includes the entire facts of his- tory — all knowledge, except that which is the direct re- sult of personal observation — which is original with the individual. Reject all knowledge obtained by faith, and what diminutive pigmies modern infidels would then be ! Let the knowledge breathed into them by the breath of testimony, be let off, and the baloon of their vanity would soon collapse into a very insignificant concern. It is rather a singular fact, that the infidel philosophers, who denying this primitive law of mind, should be more es- pecially than other men, dependent on the faith of testi- mony for their knowledge and distinction. Many of the FAITH IN GENERAL. 289 most popular historians are infidels : and it seems not to have occurred to them, that in rejecting or attempting to discard faith, because of its important influences in reli- gion, they have been laboring to pull down the pillars of their own temple of fame. " Their folly shall be known to all men." (2.) Perception of truth secures belief. — This law of the human understanding is arbitrary and absolute. It is not optional — it is not a matter of choice, whether we believe or not. When the mind ; that is, the man — the person — when I perceive a thing to be true, I have no power to disbelieve it. If it were otherwise — if man had a power to withhold his belief after he perceived the truth of the thing, it might be a very convenient way of obtaining relief in times of trouble. Why should a man will the belief of that which gives him pain ? If a mere act of volition could regulate our belief, disastrous news would have a remedy at hand. The fact, however, is far different. A man's belief is directly and necessarily as the perceptions of his own mind. Testimony, or the affirmation of rational agents, is one of the modes by which the mind perceives truth. We speak, indeed, in a figure, of believing the testimony of our own senses. We often attribute speech and in- telligence to our own eyes and ears, and say we believe what they tell us. That is r the senses are avenues to knowledge ; and what is conveyed to the mind through them, we rest upon as truth. This confidence or rest- ing is also involuntary. It is not a matter of choice whether we believe or not in the reality of cold that freezes us ; or fire that burns us. The same law holds good as to the testimony of our fellow men. Our con- fidence, trust, reliance upon their solemn declaration, is the means of almost all the knowledge we possess ; nor is our exercising of this trust a voluntary matter. Our minds are so constituted, that no opposition of feelings and desires can secure a state of distrust, when we have clear testimony to the truth of any thing. We often wish we could disbelieve what we hear, but in vain. We perceive the truth, and, according to the clearness of our perception, rest or rely upon it. 25 290 FAITH IN GENERAL. (3.) For, I remark again, truth, or the reality of things, is that to which the mind looks. And in moral agents, veracity, or that quality of mind which prompts to state honestly our own perceptions of truth, is the basis of our confidence. Exactly as we discover in a witness the requisite knowledge of the thing about which he testifies, and the attribute of veracity, so will be the measure of our faith or reliance upon his tes- timony. Had we never known an instance of preva- rication or falsehood, the law of belief would have remained unbroken, and men would always believe every testimony delivered to them. (4.) The intellectual and moral powers of man have been so deranged by his sin, that he has, in his fallen state, no faith in God ; because no clear and correct no- tions of his character, his law and his government ; and in this alienated state he ever would remain, but for the renewing of the Holy Ghost. "The natural man re- ceiveth not the things of the Spirit of God, &c." This utter inability to any thing good has been fully discuss- ed. The bible doctrine most plainly is, that all mankind are by nature in a state of unbelief, and consequently of death. The essential requisites to a true faith, viz : a spiritual understanding — a holy vision of divine things — a view of God as the sum of all excellence — he has not, and never, without supernatural aid, can have. A relict of the original law of belief he still has, as of all the other original laws of mind ; and this enables him, in some degree, to perceive truth and veracity in his fellow men, as to the affairs of this life. But in all that relates to the spiritual world, he is darkness and death. We have also seen that this want of capacity to know the things of the Spirit, and consequently to believe the testimony of God, in his law and in his gospel — for the former is as much God's testimony as the latter — this incapacity is man's sin, and not his apology. This pre- pares the way for, FAITH A DUTY. 291 SECTION II. Faith in God is a duty. This posiiion must be viewed in a twofold aspect, viz : in reference to the twofold division of the divine testimony — the law and the gospel. 1. The law of God is called a testimony ; inasmuch as it is such an exhibition of his perfections as is calcu- lated and intended to reprove all iniquity. In and by it God testifies or bears witness to his own glorious per- fections, and against the corruptions of the race. Hence the two tables of stone on which its summary compend was written, are called his testimony. God directs Moses, Ex. xxv. 21, 16. "And thou shalt put the mercy seat above upon the ark, and in the ark thou shalt put the testimony that I shall give thee" — that is, the tables of the law. Ex. xxxi. 18, " two tables of testi- mony, tables of stone; written with the finger of God." Hsnco th© nrk, in which this sacred deposit was laid up, is called (Ex. xli. 3) " the ark of the testimony" — and the tabernacle, the tabernacle of testimony — and of wit- ness. Now God requires man to accredit this testimony of his law : And we have seen that its obligation is per- petual : no man can ever escape from it. But this re- quirement embraces not simply the acknowledgment of its truth, but the practical acknowledgment. He who believes the declarations of God in his law, sets to his seal that God is true. But this belief must be a practi- cal principle. If a man say he believes the wages of sin to be death eternal, and yet revels in iniquity, the latter, viz : his conduct speaks his real belief in opposition to the former. He contradicts himself, and cannot be believed. But if a man professes in words to believe the testimony — all the testimonies of God's law, and lives, or endeavors to the utmost to live and act agree- ably to them, his actions combine with his words, and shew the reality of his belief. Thus you perceive, how unbelief lay near the root of 292 FAITH A DUTY. the tree forbidden — the serpent's temptation is the insin- uation of an untruth — " Ye shall not surely die:" and the original sin of our race included belief in the lie. You see also how, enforcing the duties of the law — the belief and practice of this part of God's testimony, is connected with and leads on to the duties of the gos- pel and its promises. He who in reality believes the truths of the law, will try to practice them. He will soon find his awful deficiency: he will soon tremble under apprehension of its terrific denunciations. He will soon cry out for pardoning mercy. He will soon have an open ear to the invitations of grace and the pro- mises he will soon believe to the saving of his soul. 2. Thus we are led to the second grand division of the divine testimony. God has in the sacred scriptures, revealed his will concerning the salvation of the lost. Having enjoined a return to the fullest confidence, trust and obedience to God, he extends his testimony in the form of a promise of life and salvation to every repenting and returning rebel. Now, as it never can cease to be the duty of man to confide in his ATakpr. thf rpfusal to return is sin: as we have before seen. Hence the con- stant connexion of the mandate with the j)romise, " be- lieve — and thou shalt be saved. V It is unnecessary here, to dwell upon the authorita- tive character and form of Christ's teaching, and the ob- ligations which lie upon all men to whom he sends the message, to receive it. This has been sufficiently evinced. Every where, men are commanded to repent and believe the gospel: and every penitent believer has the promise of salvation. But " how can these things be ?" If the views already given of man's utter incapa- city to make himself a new heart, repent and believe in Christ, be correct, what mockery, to tell a man he shall be saved if he do these things, and yet tell him he can- not do them I This leads us to another position. SAVING FAITH A GRACE. 293 SECTION III. Faith — saving faith is a grace. It may be necessary here to mark a distinction be- tween gifts and graces. Any benefit conferred short of salvation, where no claims of right to it existed, is a gift. Thus the power of speaking with tongues, wheth- er miraculously or not, the power of working miracles, Sofa. TEXTS ILLUSTRATED MORE OR LESS, Gen. ii. 16, 17, p. 47 Lev. i. 3, 4, 211 Deut. xxvm. 66, 303 Psa. xl. 6, 10, 191 " lxxxix. 3, 186 Prov. tiii. 23, 188 Isa, xlii. 6, 191 " xlix. 8, 191 " lv. 3, 1 86 Math. v. 25, 278 " xvin. 3, 140 " xvin. 3, 288 " xix. 14, 140 " xx. 28, 223 Luk. iv. 13, 199 Joh. vi. 4, 168 " x. 17, 209 Acts xxv. 24, 277 Rom. i. 8, 250 " v. 12, 21, 127 " viii. 26, 27, 34, 277 " x. 4, 193 " xi. 2, 3, 277 1 Cor. ii. 14, 166 ". xv. 22, 135 1 Cor. xv. 22, Gal. hi. 17, Col. i. 6. « i. 28, 1 Tim. i. 2, 4, 6, " ii. 1, 4, " n. 4, 6, 10, " iv. 10, " vi. 10, Tit. i. 2, 3, Heb. ii. 9, " vn. 25, " ix. 12, " x. 5, " xi. 35, 1 Pet. in. 3, 2 Pet. in. 9, Jas. n. 24, 1 Joh. ii. 12, " v. 19, Rev. v. 9, " xii. 9, " xiii. 3, " xx. 12, 261 187 250 261 252 277 257 246 255 187 259 277 224 191 224 251 258 317 247 250 224 251 251 278 AIV index of subjects. Ability and inability, 152 natural and moral, 156 objections, 158 as taught in the Bible, 163 Assurance of Faith, 303 of understanding, 304 of hope, 304 of sense, 305 Atonement-general idea, 196 limited, 2, 19, 221 objections to it refuted, 227 God's design, 243 intrinsic sufficiency, 241 indefinite, 232 Owen's dilemma, 235 argument from term world, 247 all, 251 general gospel call, 265 Call, general gospel, 265 Christ's obedience and death, vicarious., 194 Covenant, general notion, 42 of works, established, 45 violated, 87 effects, 94 of grace, 186, 188 its fulfilment, 192 Creator supreme, 13 Creature dependent, 15 28 326 INDEX. Depravity, total, a result of sin, 101 Edwards' — view of ability and inability, 158 Faith, as a general principle, 281 essential part of man's nature, 286 a duty of the law, 291 saving, a grace of the Spirit, 293 an instrument, 299 appropriation of, 300 assurance of, 303 Freedom of will, 158 Gospel, a remedial law, 178 establishes the principles of the origi- nal, institute, 179, 182 call, its command general; its promi- ses particular, 267 Guilt — defined, 113 Ignorance — a result of sin, 97, 165 insuperable by man's power, 165 Illumination proves mental inability, 169 Inability proved by the miracles of healing, 171 Infants are saved, 139 Intercession, its nature, 275, 277 its grounds, a claim of right, 279, 281, limited to God's redeemed, 281 Imputation, 107, 116 applied in Justification, 308 Justice — commutative, distributive, &c, erro- neous distinction, 237 Justification, and related terms defined, 72 requisites to Adam's, 82 Law and Gospel not antagonist to each other, 268 Man's primeval state, 37 INDEX. 327 Moral government in general, 13 obligation rests on the will of God, 16 agency, requisites to 21 — 36 sense requisite, 37 Original sin, vdefined, 104 proved from the case of infants, 139 Perseverance of saints, secured, 311 Probation, must be limited, 84 Propitiation, 248 Prayer of faith always heard, 284 Punishment — future, intense and eternal, 228 Ransom, part of Redemption, 223 Redemption, 221 Reconciliation, 196, 217 Remedial law, 179, 184 Repentance, a contingency in morals, 181 Representation, doctrine in general, 50 Representative character of Adam, 58 not dependent on his physical constitution, 64 Righteousness, term defined, 78 Sacrament of supper, illustration of appropria- tion of faith, 301 Self-love, 29 Soul, not subservient to the body, but vice versa, 66 Substitution, legal 204 essential to atonement, 208 proved by typical sacri- fices, 211 only can account for Christ's death, 212 consequences of it, 215 Sufferings of Christ, vicarious, 200 their magnitude, 203 by God's appointment, 203 were right or wrong, 204 328 INDEX. Unbelief, an acquired habit, 287 Union with Christ, 307 Universalists' objection to particular atone- ment, 227 doctrine palatable to the carnal heart, 228 makes hell a place for conversion and sanctifi- cation, 230 Will, inabilility not predicable of 172 of God, basis of moral obligation and rule of duty, 16, 19 Works, good, their necessity and true posi- tion, 316 \ 3