•.•■*' 
 
 r . . . . 
 
£1=. 
 
 // 
 
 OF THE 
 AT 
 
 PRINCETON, N. J. 
 
 liox a *r i €> iv <j w 
 
 SAMUEL AGNEW, 
 
 OF PHILADELPHIA. PA. 
 
 j) ('use, Divis.on 
 
 © 
 
 Shelf, Section 3 
 
 /o£S7 
 
U> 
 
 a 
 
 4 -ihrtfA /^£&-r>a4 & 
 
 
 t 
 
- 
 
 N * ■ * - 
 
 « + 
 
 V 
 
Digitized by the Internet Archive 
 
 in 2011 with funding from 
 
 Princeton Theological Seminary Library 
 
 http://www.archive.org/details/humbleattempttorOOgrif 
 
AN 
 HUMBLE ATTEMPT 
 
 TO 
 
 RECONCILE THE DIFFERENCES OF CHRISTIANS 
 
 RESPECTING THE 
 
 EXTENT OF THE ATONEMENT, 
 
 BY SHOWING THAT THE 
 
 CONTROVERSY WHICH EXISTS ON THE SUBJECT 
 
 IS 
 
 CHIEFLY VERBAL. 
 
 To which is added — — 
 
 AN APPENDIX, 
 
 EXHIBITING 
 
 THE INFLUENCE OF CHRIST'S OBEDIENCE. 
 
 BY EDWARD D. GRIFFIN, D. D. 
 
 Pastor of the Second Presbyterian Church in Newark, New- Jersey. 
 
 NEW-YORK : 
 
 PUBLISHED BY STEPHEN DODGE- 
 J. Seymour, printer. 
 
 1819, 
 
B. 
 
 Southern District of New-York, ss 
 
 »R it remembered, that on the twenty-skth day of Mare'i, in the 43d vesr 
 of the Independence of the United States of \we ka, JONATHAN SKY ^OUR 
 oft tie said Uistr ct, hath deposited n thi c office the title of a Book, the ri^ht whete- 
 of he claims as Proprietor, in the words fo'iowing, to wit: 
 
 •• An humble attempt to reconcile the d{fftrences of Christians respecting the extent 
 of the Atonement, by showing that (n controversy which exists on the wbject is 
 chiefly verbal To which is added an Appendix, exhibiting the influen> e of 
 ChrisVs Obedience By Edward D Griffin D D Pastor of the Second Pres- 
 byterian Church in Newark, New-Jersey. 
 In conformity to the Act of the Congress of the United States, entitled " An 
 Act for the encouragement of Lt-arnin?. t>y securing the copies of Maps. Charts, 
 and Rooks to the authors and proprietor- of such copies, during the *im<2 therein 
 men'ioned:" And also to an Act, en'itled, "An Act, supplementary to an Act, 
 enntled. an Act for the encouragement of F.earn 112. by securing the copies "f 
 Maps Charts, and Book :o the avthors and proprietors >fuch copies, during 
 the Mine- therein mentioned, and evtenling the beiiefis thereof to the arts of de- 
 Bi^uiojf, •neraving, and etching historical *nd other prints- " 
 
 JAMES DIU. 
 Clerk of the Southern District of New York. 
 
CONTENTS. 
 
 Pag?. 
 
 Freface ■ ' 
 
 Introduction • 9 
 
 PART I. 
 
 NATURE OF THE ATONEMENT. 
 
 CHAPTER I. 
 
 Atonement merely the ground of release from the curse 13 
 
 CHAPTER II. 
 
 Influence of atonement upon divine government 22 
 
 CHAPTER III. 
 
 Matter of atonement 28 
 
 CHAPTER IV. 
 
 Christ's obedience and reward SQ 
 
 CHAPTER V. 
 
 Atonement not reconciliation 74 
 
 CHAPTER VI. 
 
 Meaning of righteousness as connected with the justification of 
 believers 105 
 
 CHAPTER VII. 
 
 Mistakes arising from drawing literal conclusions from figurative 
 premises. ,....., , >, . .:.•.•'. .113 
 
IV <K>MTENTS. 
 
 Page. 
 PART II. 
 
 EXTENT OF THE ATONEMENT. 
 
 CHAPTER I. 
 
 Curse of abandonment removed from all 173 
 
 CHAPTER II. 
 Grand point of division between the parties 1 
 
 CHAPTER III. 
 View of the subject as taken by the Synod of Dort 181 
 
 CHAPTER IV. 
 Atonement for moral agents only 193 
 
 CHAPTER V. 
 
 The two characters of man distinct and independent of each other. 196 
 
 CHAPTER VI. 
 Nothing belonged to the atonement but what was public 213 
 
 CHAPTER VII. 
 
 Attributes of moral agents 219 
 
 CHAPTER VIII. 
 
 A moral government ... .241 
 
 CHAPTER IX. 
 
 Moral agents treated as if there was no foreknowledge 249 
 
 CHAPTER X. 
 
 Moral agents treated conditionally 253 
 
 CHAPTER XI. 
 Believer and unbeliever confounded with elect and non-elect, and 
 with man as a capable agent 268 
 
 CHAPTER XII. 
 
 Treatment of agents by itself expresses divine benevolence 276 
 
CONTENTS. V 
 
 Page. 
 
 CHAPTER XIII. 
 
 Purposes of the Moral Govemour not to be confounded with those 
 
 of the Sovereign Efficient Cause 281 
 
 CHAPTER XIV. 
 Treatment of individual agents intended to influence agents gene- 
 rally 286 
 
 CHAPTER XV. 
 
 Reasons for an atonement for those who perish 292 
 
 CHAPTER XVI. 
 Extent of the provision not incidental but purposely intended 298 
 
 CHAPTER XVII. 
 
 Reprobation and the order of divine decrees 301 
 
 CHAPTER XVIII. 
 Covenant of redemption 306 
 
 CHAPTER XIX. 
 
 Our whole meaning at one view 308 
 
 CHAPTER XX. 
 
 Eotiom of the mistake lies in overlooking human agency 313 
 
 CHAPTER XXI. 
 
 Importance of correct language on the subject 320 
 
 PART III. 
 
 SCRIPTURAL VIEW. 
 
 HAPTER I. 
 
 Plan of the argument 327 
 
 CHAPTER II. 
 Benefit of the atonement m:ide over r.c all 331 
 
 CHAPTER III. 
 All men bound to make the benefit &e • « « . .343 
 
 A 2 
 
VI CONTENTS, • 
 
 Page. 
 CHAPTER IV. 
 
 Actual influence of the atonement upon all 354 
 
 CHAPTER V. 
 
 Synod of Dort agreed with us as to the actual influence of the 
 atonement upon the non-elect, and the purpose cf the Sacred 
 Persons 369 
 
 CHAPTER VI. 
 
 Testimony of Calvin, Watts, and others 373 
 
 CHAPTER VII. 
 Atonement offered and accepted expressly for all 390 
 
 Appendix . , 405 
 
 
PREFACE. 
 
 If there is a subject within the whole range of thought 
 which calls for the application of our best powers in a 
 course, ( I do not say of metaphysical, but ) of close and 
 patient investigation, it is the work of redemption. This 
 stupendous plan gives full scope to the higher orders of in- 
 tellect. " Which things the angels desire to look into." 
 I know not how often, in tracing the following pages, these 
 words have rushed upon my mind with new and deep- 
 er reasons for that angelic research. So many are the rela- 
 tions which this great work involves, so complicated and 
 various its influences, so connected it is with some of the 
 abstrusest questions relative to the nature and powers of 
 man, that the more it is studied the less will be the wonder 
 that the best instructed angel is still bending forward with 
 prying scrutiny to look into these things. 
 
 And shall the children of a day think that they have 
 learned enough on this amazing subject, when they have 
 gathered a few scraps of knowledge, — half a dozen gene- 
 ral notions respecting the mission and work of Christ, — 
 without any definite idea of the end of his atonement, or 
 the purpose which his righteousness was to answer in the 
 government of God ? How many alas ! calculate thus, and 
 content themselves with knowledge scarcely sufficient to 
 support a general faith. This is the besetting sin and 
 danger of an age of business. Thus men will not reason 
 when they see the Son of God in the clouds of heaven, and 
 find themselves at his bar. These Christians by rote ! 
 how much of the real glory of the Gospel do they lose ; how 
 much of its amazing views ; how much of its sublime con- 
 solations ; how much of its sanctifying power. And to 
 what hazard do they put their eternal interests. How are 
 
$ PREFACE. 
 
 they to know, with such a twilight vision, that it is the real 
 Gospel they believe ? that it is the very Christ of God which 
 fills their eye ? How, unless the clear and distinguishing 
 glory of Messiah falls upon their view, are their selfish 
 hearts to be tested ? Many, it is feared, go down to death 
 from our communion tables, for want of having their hearts 
 revealed and their hopes destroyed by the discriminating 
 light of those rays which beam from the face of Jesus 
 Christ. 
 
 It is time that these indolent and contracted calculations 
 were broken up. It is time that men discovered that the 
 " great mystery of godliness" presents a subject for more 
 than general and loose reflections ; that if there is any use 
 for their immortal powers, it is on this vast and unfathom- 
 able wonder of redemption. 
 
 And now if any are unwilling to harness themselves for a 
 conflict with indolence, and to bring their minds up to pa- 
 tient and elevated thought, let them close the book here. 
 But if they have entered into the feelings of heaven, and 
 caught a desire to search into a subject which a thousand 
 ages of study will not exhaust, let them offer an humble 
 prayer and then begin. 
 
INTRODUCTION. 
 
 The author of the following sheets has long believed 
 that the controversy existing among Calvinists on the 
 extent of the atonement, is little more than a dispute 
 about words, and might be terminated in a manner 
 satisfactory to both parties by kind and candid expla- 
 nations. He certainly has no pretensions to any un- 
 common skill or influence to accomplish so desirable 
 an end ; but grieved to find, on his return from a con- 
 flict with men of a far different spirit, a division among 
 brethren who are natural allies, and ought to be united 
 in the same mind and judgment, he was constrained to 
 ©ffer his thoughts, in humble hopes of persuading the 
 more candid on both sides that no serious difference 
 exists between them. 
 
 In one principle both parties are agreed ; that our 
 instructions on this subject are to be drawn from the 
 Scriptures alone, and not from bold and presumptuous 
 speculations. Reason has only to kneel and ask what 
 the Oracle says. Her province is to ascertain the 
 meaning of the sacred page by comparing Scripture 
 with Scripture, and in one description of cases, (but 
 not without great caution and humility,) with common 
 sense. The test of common sense is to be applied 
 only to distinguish between the figurative and literal 
 meaning of texts which were obviously intended to be 
 
10 INTRODUCTION* 
 
 subjected to such a scrutiny ; as for instance, those which 
 speak of God's eyes, and hands, and feet, of his repent- 
 ing, of his fury's coming up in his face, and the like. 
 The right of applying common sense in this descrip- 
 tion of cases, is a great Protestant principle, asserted 
 by all the Reformed Churches in their disputes with 
 the Romanists about transubstantiation. When our Sa- 
 viour says, " This is my. body," and, " This is my 
 blood," Protestants affirm that his language is figura- 
 tive, because a literal construction would be an out- 
 rage to common sense. In like manner when Christ 
 and believers are said to be one, common sense refu- 
 ses actually to identify them, and pronounces the lan- 
 guage figurative ; for manifestly Christ is not li- 
 terally one with believers any more than he is with the 
 bread and wine. So when it is said that he was made 
 " sin for us who knew no sin, that we might be made 
 the righteousness of God in him," common sense de- 
 cides that sin and righteousness are both used in a 
 figurative sense ; for Christ was not literally sin, but 
 was only treated as a sinner; and we are not literally 
 righteousness, but are only treated as righteous*, 
 
 A considerable part of the dispute has arisen from 
 a failure thus to distinguish between the figurative and 
 literal meaning of texts. But there are two other 
 
 * 2 Cor. 5. 21. The first clause cannot be translated, " hath made 
 him to be a sin-offering," for that would destroy the antithesis. He 
 was made sin just as we are made righteousness. Both words are figu- 
 ratively used, but from their opposition to each other neither can be 
 changed without destroying the point of the sentence. Besides, the 
 former word is restricted by being repeated with a literal meaning; 
 *' who knew no sin." The order of the words in the original is this : 
 M For him who knew no ausl^tixv, for us he hath .made ctua% r rt*v ." 
 A/un^Ttxv must not be rendered sin in one place and a sin-offering in 
 another in the same clause of a sentence. 
 
INTRODUCTION. 11 
 
 points of difference of still greater influencej one re- 
 specting the nature, the other the objects of the atone- 
 ment. 
 
 One respects the nature. We mean by atonement 
 nothing more than that which is the ground of release 
 from the curse, and we separate it entirely from the me- 
 rit of Christ, or his claim to a reward. Our brethren com- 
 prehend under the name, not only what we understand 
 by expiation, but merit also with all its claim. And if 
 they could see the propriety of limiting the term as we 
 do, few of them would deny our conclusions. In their 
 mouth the word is always co-extensive with ransom, 
 (Xur£ov,) the price of redemption, (Xwgwtftf )) and the 
 question which they raise is about particular redemp- 
 tion, on which there really is no dispute ; we believing 
 as fully as they do that redemption, in the higher and 
 more perfect sense, was accomplished only for the 
 elect. It is to be noticed that ransom, and words of 
 that nature, are used in two senses in the New-Testa- 
 ment : first, for the blood of Christ hid down for a 
 moral agent, to deliver him from death if he on his 
 part will accept the offer. This I call the lower 
 ransom, and it is exactly what we mean by the atone- 
 ment. Secondly, for expiation and merit united. A 
 ransom has two influences ; it supports the claim of the 
 redeemer, and it is that out of respect to which the 
 holder of the captives lets them go. According to this, 
 the ransom of Christ inckdes his merit, which claim- 
 ed the rele»se of the captives as his reward, and his 
 atonement, out of respect to which, as the honour of 
 the law was concerned, the Father consented to their 
 
12 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 discharge. This I call the higher ransom, and its abso- 
 lute and unfailing influence depends on tfie claim of me- 
 rit to its stipulated recompense. This was not offered 
 for all ; for none of us will say that Christ so purchas- 
 ed the whole race by the merit of his obedience, that 
 he could claim them all as his promised reward. 
 
 The second point respects the objects of the atone- 
 ment. We consider the satisfaction as made exclu- 
 sively for moral agents ; our brethren speak of it as if 
 it was made for mere passive subjects of regenerating in- 
 fluence, and in their reasonings they overlook moral 
 agents. In which character men were really contem- 
 plated in the provision, is indeed the question on which 
 the controversy chiefly hinges. If it was made for moral 
 agents, it might be made for those who were never to be 
 regenerated ; if made for passive receivers of sanctifying 
 impressions, it was made only for those who are ulti- 
 mately new-born. If made for the passive, it must be 
 absolute ; and if absolute, the event shows that it was 
 not made for all : if made for moral agents, it must be 
 conditional ; and if conditional, it could not be limited 
 to a part. 
 
 These three points comprehend the whole ground of 
 the dispute. If the parties can discriminate with the 
 same eyes between figurative and literal language, and 
 especially if they can agree to separate atonement from 
 merit, and can be of one mind respecting the character 
 in which men were contemplated in the provision; 
 there will no longer be any difference even in words, 
 sad thus this unhappy division will be healed. 
 
PART I. 
 
 NATURE OF THE ATONEMENT. 
 
 CHAPTER I. 
 
 ATONEMENT MERELY THE GROUND OF RELEASE FROM' 
 THE CURSE. 
 
 Atonement is a word wholly derived from the Old 
 Testament, and is not found in the New except once 
 by mistake, where the Greek term ought to have 
 been rendered reconciliation*. In all other instances 
 throughout the Bible it is a translation from the He- 
 brew 1DD. By this then its meaning must be limit- 
 ed. No Greek word of the New-Testament can be 
 allowed to be parallel with it that differs from *1Q5 in 
 the least shade, and no examination of other terms can 
 throw any light on this question of logomachy. *1£0 
 is the only standard by which the meaning of the Eng- 
 lish word must be controlled and fixed. 
 
 Now it is agreed that *13ID signified a covering, be- 
 cause the thing denoted was a cover for sin. It was 
 never used, I believe, in a single instance, (by what- 
 ever word translated,) to express any other idea, ex- 
 cept when applied to things wholly remote from the 
 present subject. It never glanced at any bearing on 
 our positive reward. A fair specimen of its u?e may 
 be seen in. the following passages. " Moses said untc 
 
 * Rom. 5. 11, 
 
14 INFLUENCE [PART L. 
 
 the people, ye have sinned a great sin ; and now I will 
 go up unto the Lord, peradventure I shall make an atone- 
 ment for your sin." " I have sworn unto the house of 
 Eli that the iniquity of Eli's house shall not be purged, 
 [covered,] with sacrifice nor offering for ever." " By 
 this therefore shall the iniquity of Jacob be purged ; 
 and this is all the fruit, to take away his sin." " The 
 wrath of a king is as messengers of death, but a wise 
 man will pacify it." " 1 will appease him with the pre- 
 sent that goeth before me*." The typical expiations 
 denoted by the word were generally made by the 
 n^Ofl or sin-offering, and sometimes by the D£'N or 
 trespass-offering, two words derived from roots signi- 
 fying a sin and a trespass, and the former root some- 
 times the act of cleansing by a sin-offering]. 
 
 And now to follow these shadows into the Gospel 
 dispensation, the Hebrew wcrds which denoted the sin 
 and trespass-offering are translated by the LXX, (the 
 former repeatedly]:, the latter once§,) iXatf^og, (and its 
 derivative sgiXatfjAos,) the very word by which John 
 twice designates the great propitiatory sacrificed, of- 
 fered by our Hi^h-Priest " to atone, (iXatfxstfdcu,) for the 
 sins of the peopled." The atonement of the New 
 Testament, then, was made by u an offering for sin**," 
 and by a " propitiation for our sins," That which 
 was accomplished by the great sin-offering, answers 
 exactly to the ~l£3 of the Old Testament, and is that 
 cover for sin which we call the atonement. 
 
 We have therefore no authority to call any part of 
 Christ's influence an atonement but that which consti- 
 
 * Gen. 32 20. Ex. 32. 30. 1 Sam. 3. 14. Prov. 16. 14. Is. 27. 9. 
 
 Ea. 43. 22, 23. % Ez - ,3 - 22 > 23 > & 44 « 27 > * 45 - 18 > 19 " 
 
 4 A ios 8. 14.— Hi ■ John 2 - 2 > & 4 ' 10 ' ^ Heb ' 2 ' 17, ** Is 
 
 f& 10, 
 
GHAP I 
 
 .] ON MEX. 15 
 
 tuted the cover for sin. Whatever other influence he 
 had must be* distinguished by a different name. Other 
 influences he certainly had. Other influences are even 
 ascribed to his death. But his death comprehended 
 not only an atoning sacrifice, but the highest merit of 
 obedience. To his blood our justification" is once as- 
 cribed* ; but justification in that passage means only 
 pardon, as it does also in another placet. Sometimes 
 the sacred writers, taking it for granted that more is 
 known of Christ than that he atoned, pass in their ra- 
 pid course from his expiation to the life which comes 
 through him, without stopping to notice any interven- 
 ing influence. But whatever is ascribed to his death, 
 whatever to his blood, whatever to him as the iku£rr\giw 
 or mercy-seatf, or as having opened a way to the mer- 
 cy-seat by the rending of the vail of his flesh§, still the 
 meaning of *15D confines the atonement to the cover 
 for sin. 
 
 One might suppose that the Synod of Dort, that 
 great representative of the Caivinistic world, had the 
 same view. They every where speak of the atone- 
 ment as made/or sin. and talk of its sufficiency, (ad 
 omnia peccata expiaada, as their common phrase is,) to 
 expiate for the sins of the whole world. And this is 
 the uniform acceptation of the word in common con- 
 versation, which shows the general impression as to 
 its original meaning. To atone, in every one's mouth 
 is to make reparation for an injury or amends for an 
 offence. 
 
 Now to cover sin is a figurative expression, and 
 plainly means no more than that sin is so far hid from 
 view that it is not to be punished. Atonement then is 
 
 * Rom. 5. 9.—+ Acts 13. 39. % Rom. 3. 25, 26. $ Heb. 
 
 16, 19. 20. 
 
*t> 
 
 .INFLUENCE fl'ART 
 
 .nerely that which was adapted to prevent punishment, 
 or that which came in the room of punishment and laid 
 a foundation for our discharge from every part of the 
 curse. It reached no further, and had no bearing on 
 our positive reward. This was left to another influ- 
 ence hereafter to be considered. 
 
 The curse of the law consisted of two parts, aban- 
 donment to depravity and positive misery. That the 
 former was included requires some proof. The law, 
 Lsuppose, had doomed mankind, I do not say to sin, 
 (for to punish sin with sin, or judicially to doom agents 
 co act, is a thing unknown,) but to the everlasting loss 
 of the sanctifying agency of God. If there is such a 
 thing as leaving men to judicial blindness ; if in anger 
 God abandons sinners " unto their own heart's lust," 
 to walk " in their own counsels," saying, " My Spirit 
 shall not always strive with man j" if for their iniqui- 
 ties he gives " them over to a reprobate mind," say- 
 ing, " Make the heart of this people fat, and make their 
 ears heavy, and shut their eyes ; lest they see with 
 their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand 
 with their heart, and convert and be healed* ;" then 
 there is such a thing as abandoning sinners by way of 
 punishment. And how, I ask, without giving them up 
 to tormenting passions, could there be such a hell as 
 the divine law contemplates ? And why should it be 
 thought more .inconsistent to withhold the Spirit by 
 way of punishment, than to bestow it, (as we shall see 
 that it is bestowed,) by way of reward f It greatly 
 supports this idea that the mission of the Spirit was 
 not obtained for a sinful world but by the death of a 
 Mediator. " It is expedient for you that I go away ; 
 
 » Con. 6. 3, P?. 31. U. [s< 6. ?—VZ Rom. 1, 24—3 J 
 
CHAP. I.J ON MEN. 17 
 
 for if I go not away the Comforter will not come unto 
 you, but if I depart I will send him unto you." And 
 when he " ascended on high," among other " gifts" 
 " received for men" was this, " that the Lord God 
 might dwell among them ;" and within ten days he 
 sent the blessing forth*. 
 
 These were the two parts of the penalty of the law, 
 and one could no more be set aside without an atone- 
 ment than the other. But the cover for sin removed 
 or rendered removable every part of the curse which 
 sin had incurred. That which came in the room of 
 our whole punishment, took away thfe-curse of aban- 
 donment, and rendered sin pardonable on the supposi- 
 tion of faith, and when accepted by the Father, made 
 remission sure to believers. Further it could not go, 
 and had nothing to do with our positive reward!. 
 
 * Ps. 63. 18. John 16. 7. Acts 2. 
 
 t Some have thought that the cover for sin must be extended so fat 
 as to include a foundation for our reward, by cancelling, not only the 
 deb Hum pence, (debt of punishment,) but the . debitum negligerdm, (debt 
 of negligence.) But negligence, after taking from it every thing which 
 Reserves punishment, is not sin, but a mere defect, and therefore is not 
 to be remedied by the cover for sin. It is said that sin disabled us from 
 gaining a legal title to a reward, and a cover for sin is not complete 
 till it has provided for restoring the title by grace. But it was not sin 
 that produced the disability which remains after the debt of punishment 
 is cancelled. All sin is then covered, but even then we have not a per« 
 feet righteousness from the beginning to show, and it is too late to pro- 
 duce one. This is the only difficulty. But that omission of obedience, 
 you say, was sin, and defrauded God of his rights, and drew down a 
 sentence of disfranchisement, cutting us off from ever gaining a reward, 
 The omission was indeed sin, because it was disobedience. The whole 
 sin lay in the disobedience, "for sin is the transgression of the law." 
 But there was something more in the omission than sin, there was -a., 
 defect ; there was something more in it than disobedience, there was 
 the want of obedience. As it stood related to the rights and demands 
 of God, it was positive injury and disobedience ; as it stood related to 
 the promise, it was a mere failure to produce that positive good to which 
 
 B 2 
 
fg INFLUENCE [FART U- 
 
 When J say that the curse of abandonment was re- 
 moved, I do not mean that the law ceased to pronounce 
 the sentence on men. The law never ceases to pro- 
 nounce any part of its sentence against those who have 
 once sinned, even after they are pardoned. But what 
 I mean is, that it was as consistent with the honour of 
 the law to give the Spirit to men as though the curse of 
 abandonment had not been pronounced or incurred. 
 It was not indeed consistent with the highest honour 
 of the law to give the Spirit to men till the merit of 
 Christ was introduced to make the gift a legal reward 
 to him. But it was as consistent as though the curse 
 
 the promise was made. The reward was promised, not to the absence 
 of sin, but to positive obedience ; and the mere want of that positive 
 thing, without the presence of sin, is enough to vitiate our title, and re«- 
 mains a defect after all sin, even the sin of " negligence,' 1 is covered. 
 On the other hand, all that was threatened to sin was punishment, not 
 the loss of reward ; that followed the mere want of obedience, not view- 
 ed as disobedience, but as the bare absence of good. There was no 
 need of a sentence of disfranchisement to cut us off from reward. The 
 mere failure to render that to which the promise was made, without 
 such a sentence, was enough to exclude us. If I promise a man a certain 
 reward for a day's work, and he comes at noon, there is no need of a 
 punitive sentence to vitiate his title to the stipulated recompense. His 
 mere failure cuts him off without involving the idea of punishment. 
 You say the cases are not parallel, because his failure violated no ob- 
 ligation. But so far as our omission violated obligation, it was sin, it 
 was disobedience, and stands related, not to the loss of reward, but to 
 positive punishment. In that omission there are two things, a sin and 
 a defect,— the presence of that which entitles to punishment, and the 
 absence of that which entitles to reward ; and when all the sin of the 
 amission is covered, there still remains a defect which prevents our title 
 to a recompense. When the debitum pence is cancelled all the sin of 
 Jhe omission is covered, and the debitum negligent in which remains must 
 be discharged by another influence, That other influence is the merit 
 o( Christ's obedience, and the way in which it procured our positive 
 good, was by first obtaining it as a legal reward to himself. As cer- 
 tainly then as we spread the cover for sin over the debitum negligently 
 and make it the foundation of our reward, we put merit, and not mere- 
 ty the testimony of obedience, into the atonement. 
 
ckAP. I.J ON ME*. 19 
 
 had not been pronounced. The curse therefore no 
 longer stood in the way. It was as consistent as though 
 there had been no sin. But after sin was covered, so 
 far as it stood related to this part of the curse, there 
 still remained a defect of positive righteousness. And 
 it was the principle of Eden, as will appear in another 
 place, not to grant the Spirit, after man had had an op- 
 portunity to act, but in approbation of a righteousness 
 perfect for the time the subject had been in existence, 
 and not to grant it as a covenanted reward but out of 
 respect to a finished righteousness. After sin was 
 covered, the Spirit could not be granted, according to 
 that original principle, but out of respect to the perfect 
 righteousness of Christ. The cover for sin was not 
 therefore enough to open the way for the mission of 
 the Spirit. All that it could do was to remove the ob- 
 struction which sin had raised, or that which lay in the 
 curse of abandonment, but not that which was occa- 
 sioned by the defect. This is what I mean by remov- 
 ing the curse of abandonment. 
 
 This part of the curse was removed without the 
 agency of man as a prerequisite. That is, the obstruc- 
 tion which sin had raised to the grant of regenerating 
 influence to passive receivers, was taken away without 
 reference to the conduct of the same creatures as 
 agents. No such prerequisite could be required with- 
 out preventing the removal altogether, because the 
 curse must be taken away, and regenerating influence 
 bestowed, before men would be holy. And in the na- 
 ture of things such a prerequisite could not be necessa- 
 ry. After such a death to support the penalty of the 
 law, the influence of the penalty could not be weaken- 
 ed by any favour shown to men, unless it spread a 
 shield over irreclaimable wickedness. An influence to 
 
^U INFLUENCE [PART I. 
 
 turn them from wickedness could not abate the au- 
 thority of the penalty. The atonement therefore ren- 
 dered it consistent with the honour of the law, so far 
 as the influence of the penalty was concerned, to be- 
 stow regenerating grace on men, without any previous 
 faith or repentance. And this is what I mean by re- 
 moving the curse of abandonment. 
 
 It was not so with the other part of the penalty. 
 This could not be removed without the intervention of 
 human agency. For to have applied actual remission 
 to those who should persist in rebellion, and thus to 
 have cast the shield of impunity over stubborn trans- 
 gressors, would have ruined the law and defeated the 
 very end of the atonement. Pardon then could not be 
 dispensed, (to those who hear and understand the 
 Gospel,) without the existence of faith ; and no atone- 
 ment could absolutely procure pardon which did not as 
 absolutely procure the gift of faith. Whether the 
 atonement contained all that influence which ensured 
 actual reconciliation, depends therefore on the single 
 question whether by its own unaided power it secured 
 the gift of faith. That some influence of Christ secur- 
 ed this gift to the elect, we admit and earnestly con- 
 tend : but was it the atonement ? 
 
 This is not the place to settle a question of this sort, 
 or to say any more about it than what is suggested by 
 the name. The cover for sin could only prevent the 
 evil which sin deserved, but could not secure positive 
 good, unless the mere absence of sin without positive 
 righteousness could secure good. How then could it 
 obtain the Spirit ? But you say, it could not cover sin 
 without actual pardon, and it could not secure pardon 
 without obtaining the gift of faith. True, nor does the 
 name determiue whether it is the actual cover of sin or 
 
CHAB. I.J ON MEN. 21 
 
 only a cover for sin. A cover for a cask is still called 
 by that name though it is not put on, and has an actu- 
 al and complete existence without being used. There 
 may be a cover for a moral agent, which at the risk of 
 an awful responsibility he still rejects. 
 
 This leads me to remark that if the atonement was a 
 provision for moral agents, it is wrong to say that it 
 was made only for believers. Though Christ is not 
 a mercy-seat, (iXa^/ov,) but " through faith in his 
 blood*," (cannot otherwise be propitious, or render 
 God propitious, to those who approach him,) and 
 though the atonement was to be applitd only to believ- 
 ers ; yet as moral agents have an existence indepen- 
 dent of their character, so far as it was a provision for 
 such, it was prepared for them while yet in their sins. 
 In this sense it might be made for " the ungodly," for 
 those who are neither " righteous" nor " good," but 
 " sinners" and " enemies!." 
 
 One point is fixed : the cover for sin could reach no 
 further than the curse which sin had incurred, and 
 could extend no influence to our positive reward, un- 
 less reward follows the mere absence of sin without 
 positive righteousness. It is this limitation of the 
 atonement, every where conspicuous in the Scriptures, 
 which has given rise to the opinion that the zuhole in- 
 fluence of Christ is confined to pardon. With that 
 thought I have no communion, and hope to show in 
 the Appendix that his merit is the ground of all our 
 positive happiness ; but in the body of the work I 
 have nothing to do with any thing but the cover for sin* 
 
 * Rom, 3. 25.. t Rom. 5. 6—10. 
 
22 INFLUENCE [PART I. 
 
 CHAPTER II. 
 
 THE INFLUENCE OF THE ATONEMENT UPON BIVINL 
 GOVERNMENT. 
 
 What end did the death of Christ answer as an 
 atoning sacrifice ? It opened the way for the pardon of 
 believers. But why could not believers have been 
 pardoned without it ? How did it open the way ? I am 
 not answered by being told that it expressed the wis- 
 dom and benevolence of God. Until I discover some 
 important end answered by it, I can see no wisdom or 
 benevolence in it, but something very much like a 
 waste of human life. What was that end ? Do you 
 tell me that the eternal principles of justice required 
 that sin should be punished ? But sin was not punish- 
 ed ; for innocence suffered and sin escaped. What 
 end was answered by laying this affliction on the inno- 
 cent ? Precisely the same, as respects the support cf 
 law, that would have been answered by our punish- 
 ment. The atonement, we have seen, was a cover for 
 sin, — was adapted so to bury sin from view that it 
 should not be punished. It therefore came exactly in 
 the room of punishment, and ought to answer the same 
 end. When it had done that, it had removed the ne- 
 cessity of punishment, and constituted a complete cover 
 for sin. It might answer that purpose more fully, but 
 we have no right to ascribe to it any other end. 
 
 What end then does punishment answer ? The same 
 that was aimed at in attaching the penalty to the law, 
 only in a more intense degree. And what was that ? 
 The support of the authority of the law. Without a 
 penalty the law is nothing more than a summary of ad- 
 
CHAP. IT.] ON LAW. 2& 
 
 vice, which every one is at liberty to regard or neglect 
 as he pleases. Did the penalty show God's attach- 
 ment to the precept ? But how ? By being set to guard 
 the precept, or to give authority to the law. In this 
 way alone it revealed any thing of God. Whatever of 
 him was shown by bringing forward a sanction to sup- 
 port the authority of a holy and benevolent law. and no- 
 thing more, was disclosed by the penalty. The sole 
 end of the penalty then was to support the authority of 
 the law, and to discover as much of God as such ari 
 ■expedient for such a purpose could reveal. The sup- 
 port of law therefore comprehended all other ends, 
 and may be put for the whole. The same end is an- 
 swered by the execution of the penalty, only in a 
 higher degree. Without the execution it would have 
 been the same as though no penalty had existed. The 
 law would have lost its authority, the reins would have 
 been thrown upon the neck of every passion, anarchy, 
 discord, and misery would have ravaged the abodes of 
 being, and all the happiness which is bottomed on holy 
 order, and all the discoveries of God which are made 
 in a holy and vigorous moral government, would have 
 been lost. This unbounded mischief would have follow- 
 ed a prostration of the authority of the law : that pros- 
 tration would have followed a proclamation of impuni- 
 ty to transgression : and this proclamation would have 
 been implied in a neglect to execute the penalty. The 
 only way to prevent this infinite mischief, was to pro- 
 claim and prove that transgressors should be punished. 
 In this single declaration and proof the whole antidote 
 lay. For whatever else of God was proved, if it did 
 not go to establish this, it could not uphold the autho- 
 rity of the law. H it proved that he was holy, or just, 
 or good, or true, or wise, or attached to his precept, or 
 
24 INFLUENCE [PART I. 
 
 all these together, it could not support the authority of 
 the law any further than it gave evidence that trans- 
 gressors should be punished. Nothing of God could 
 be expressed by punishment but what is contained in 
 the single proposition that he does and will support his 
 righteous law by punishing transgressors. Did it ex- 
 press his holiness, justice, benevolence, and wisdom? 
 But how ? By showing his determination to uphold the 
 authority of a righteous law by punishing sin. Besides 
 furnishing motives to obedience, it was intended to set 
 him forth as the object of confidence, complacency, 
 joy, and praise. But how ? By showing his inflexible 
 purpose to maintain his holy and benevolent law by 
 adequate punishments. The ultimate end of govern- 
 ment, as of all other things, was to exhibit the glory 
 of God, so needful to the happiness of his kingdom, 
 and to secure to him that treatment which was his due, 
 and in which the blessedness of creatures was involv- 
 ed. This was the ultimate end of punishment. But 
 before it could answer this end it must accomplish an 
 immediate purpose subservient to government and the 
 dominion of holiness. Before it could express the ho- 
 liness, justice, benevolence, or wisdom of God, or hold 
 him up as an object of confidence, complacency, joy, 
 or praise, it must be fitted to answer an important end 
 subservient to the reign of holy principles. What was 
 that end ? The support of the authority of a righteous 
 law by discovering a fixed resolution to punish trans- 
 gressors. This then was the immediate and proper 
 >end of punishment. In that punishment I care not how 
 much of God you suppose to be revealed, — how much 
 attachment to his law, how much hatred of sin, how 
 much justice, or even truth : you may add more or less 
 'of these things; but the whole is expressed in tho sin- 
 
€HAP. it;]. ON LAW. 55 
 
 gle proposition that he will support his righteous law 
 by punishing sin. To give proof that he will punish, is 
 certainly disclosing every thing of God which punish- 
 ment can reveal. The end of punishment then in any 
 given instance, besides pronouncing the subject per- 
 sonally ill-deserving, and being an exercise of justice 
 in that particular case, is merely to uphold the autho- 
 rity of the law by revealing God's determination to 
 punish transgression. 
 
 Precisely the same was the end of that which came 
 in the room of punishment and answered its identical 
 purpose. In whatever the atonement consisted, it ex- 
 pressed all that punishment would have expressed, ex- 
 cept that the Sufferer was personally a sinner ; and was 
 all that punishment would have been, except a literal 
 execution of justice. This it could not be. Justice 
 never required the personally innocent to suffer, but 
 the personally guilty ; and no plan of substitution or 
 representation, and nothing but a personal identity be- 
 tween Christ and the sinner, rendering him personally 
 a transgressor, could make out an act of literal justice 
 in the infliction of sufferings on him. Equally certain 
 it is that the sufferings did not pronounce him person- 
 ally a sinner. These two uses of punishment being 
 separated from the atonement, the only end remaining 
 is, the support of the law by showing God's determina- 
 tion to execute its penalty on transgressors. This was 
 its precise and only end. This answered, it became 
 an expression of amazing wisdom, benevolence, and 
 mercy, and laid a foundation for the most luminous dis- 
 play of all the divine perfections in the application and 
 progress of redemption. But before it could do this it 
 must answer an end properly its owqaftwhich therefore 
 is to be considered the immediate and proper end of 
 C 
 
36 INFLUENCE [PART I. 
 
 the atonement ; and that was what has already been 
 stated. It made an impression on the universe, stronger 
 than would have been made by the destruction of all 
 Adam's race, that God was determined, notwithstand- 
 ing his mercy to men, to support the authority of his 
 law by executing its penalty on transgressors. How 
 much was implied in this declaration, I am not con- 
 cerned to inquire ; — how far it " condemned sin in the 
 flesh," how far it pronounced transgression to be as 
 hell-deserving as the law had said, how far it asserted 
 the rectitude of the divine government and took the 
 part of the Father against the sins of the world. If it 
 answered any or all of these ends, as it undoubtedly 
 did, it was by giving the Father an opportunity ta 
 prove to the universe that he would execute his law on 
 future transgressors. It expressed every thing, (ex- 
 cept that the Sufferer was a personal sinner.) that 
 could have been expressed by punishment, or that 
 could be implied in a determination to punish the fu- 
 ture transgressors of a holy law. In the expression 
 of punishment or a determination to punish, you may 
 comprehend as much as you please : the same was ex- 
 pressed by the atonement. Say that punishment or a 
 determination to punish proves that God is just, and 
 attached to his law, and believes it good, and is like it 
 himself, and hates sin, and if you please, is a Being of 
 truth ; then all these were expressed in that single de- 
 claration of the atonement that he would punish sin. 
 Every thing of God which punishment could reveal, 
 was disclosed by an atonement which proved that he 
 would punish. Every end which punishment could 
 answer, (except a literal execution of justice, and an 
 implication of the moral turpitude of the sufferer,) was 
 accomplished by an atonement wnich proved that God 
 
€HAP. II.] ON LAW. 27 
 
 would punish. The whole use then of an atonement 
 which was to answer the exact purpose of punishment, 
 was to show that God was determined to support his 
 holy law by punishing sin. 
 
 Let me illustrate the operation of this august mea- 
 sure by the following case. The bank of England is 
 essential to the prosperity of the nation. The law 
 against forgery, with its penalty of death, is essential 
 to the existence of the bank. Ten noblemen are found 
 counterfeiting the notes of that institution. What is to 
 be done ? If the law is not executed every one will 
 conclude that he may counterfeit with impunity, and 
 the bank and the nation are lost. They must die. In 
 this state of things the prince of Wales comes forward 
 and offers to die in their stead. The offer is accepted, 
 and on a conspicuous hill in full view of the assembled 
 nation he is executed. What impression is made on 
 the multitude ? Do they now conclude that people may 
 counterfeit with impunity, because they see the peni- 
 tent noblemen pardoned ? No, they are more deeply- 
 impressed with the inflexible resolution of government 
 to punish forgery, than though half a nation of coun- 
 terfeiters had died. This is the point gained. The 
 law is raised to the highest pitch of authority by the 
 strongest possible proof that its penalty will in future 
 be executed. 
 
 In giving this proof, for such a purpose and at such 
 a price, the government showed their attachment to 
 the law, their abhorrence of forgery, and their deter- 
 mination to be just in the future infliction of punish- 
 ment, though justice in that instance did not literally 
 take its course. But they showed these things through 
 no other medium than a fixed resolution at all events 
 to execute the penalty of the law. In the discovery of 
 this single purpose the whole expression was involved. 
 
28 MATTER OF [PART I. 
 
 CHAPTER III. 
 
 THE MATTER OF ATONEMENT. 
 
 In examining this subject it is necessary to keep 
 immoveably before the eye the end which an atone- 
 ment was intended to answer in the government of 
 God. It was the same that would have been answer- 
 ed by punishment. And what was that ? To furnish 
 practical proof that God would support the authority 
 of his law by executing its penalty on transgressors. 
 When that proof was given, and the end of punish- 
 ment was thus answered, the Protector of the law 7 w r as 
 satisfied. The thing which produced that satisfaction, 
 was the atonement or cover for sin. When I ask after 
 the matter of the atonement, I ask what that thing was. 
 What was that by w r hich the Protector of the law fur- 
 nished the same practical proof of his resolution to 
 execute the penalty, that he would have given by pu- 
 nishment itself? My general answer is, it was humili- 
 ation imposed and sufferings inflicted by his own autho- 
 rity and hand on his beloved Son. What could so na- 
 turally show that God would inflict evil for sin, as the 
 actual infliction of evil on account of sin ? as the to- 
 kens of wrath discharged against the Son of his love 
 standing avowedly in the place of sinners ? 
 
 The law, as it stood related to transgressors, had 
 two parts, precept and penalty. As it stood related 
 to those who had not sinned, it had also a reward for 
 obedience, and I add, for nothing but obedience. Ac- 
 cordingly the task devolved on him who took the sin- 
 ner's place, consisted of two parts ; obedience which 
 stood related to the precept, and sufferings which came. 
 
CHAP. III.] ATONEMENT. 29 
 
 in the room of the penalty. By obedience also, and 
 nothing but obedience, he obtained a reward in which 
 his people were to share. In accordance with all this 
 our salvation consists of two parts ; a release from the 
 penalty, and a participation of the positive good in- 
 volved in Christ's reward. Here then in one line 
 were the penalty of the law, the sufferings of Christ 
 which came in its room, and our release from the pe- 
 nalty as the consequence. Here also in another line, 
 were the precept of the law with the reward of obe- 
 dience annexed, the obedience of Christ with the re- 
 ward which followed, and our admission to the posi- 
 tive good involved in that reward. All this appears 
 plain and natural. The sufferings and obedience of 
 Christ, two parts inseparable in fact but separable in 
 influence, constituted one whole. That was followed 
 by another whole, to wit our salvation, consisting of 
 two parts, equally inseparable in fact but separable in 
 contemplation, viz. deliverance from hell and elevation 
 to heaven. Now what I assert is, that the appropri- 
 ate influence of one part of the first whole stood rela- 
 ted to one part of the second whole, and that the ap- 
 propriate influence of the other part of the first whole 
 stood related to the other part of the second whole ; 
 in plain language, that the sufferings of Christ came in 
 the room of our sufferings, and his merit in the room 
 of our merit ; that by one he lifted us from hell to 
 earth, by the other he raised us from earth to hea- 
 ven. 
 
 There is a distinction to be set up here between the 
 matter of atonement and the making of atonement. 
 The matter of atonement was the thing which satisfied, 
 the making of atonement was the presenting of that 
 thing. When Aaron offered an expiating victim he 
 
 C 2 
 
30 MATTER GF [PART I. 
 
 was said to make atonement, though the atoning power 
 did not lie in Aaron's arm, but in the bleeding lamb ; 
 and though Aaron's action could have no other effect 
 than to present the victim to God according to his ap- 
 pointment, in other words, to bring it, with whatever 
 power it had, into the necessary relation to God. Ac- 
 cording to the same form of expression, the Priest of 
 the New-Testament is said " to atone for the sins of 
 the people," and " to put away sin by the sacrifice of 
 himself*." The same form of expression is used 
 whenever we speak of Christ's making atonement. 
 And it is common also in other matters. It is medi- 
 cine, and not the act of the physician, which works the 
 cure. But it must be administered, and administered 
 in a right way. And when this is done we commonly 
 say, the physician healed the patient. So it was the 
 sufferings of Christ and not his action which satisfied : 
 but they must be presented by the Priest, and present- 
 ed in a right way, that is, unmixed with any disobedi- 
 ence in his life : and when all this is done we very 
 properly say that Christ made atonement ; not only as- 
 cribing to him the effect of his sufferings, but referring 
 to his act in presenting them. The obedience ofj 
 Christ was necessary to atonement in the two follow- 
 ing respects. 
 
 (I.) To render him, in typical language, a Lamb 
 7oithont blemish. In plain language, his general obe- 
 dience, (and of course his general subjection to law,) 
 was necessary to set him forth as the .beloved Son, and 
 thus to render his sufferings sufficiently expressive of 
 God's inflexible resolution to punish sin. He must be 
 infinitely dear to God to give his sufferings this full ex- 
 pression. Pie must be the Son, and the well beloved 
 
 * Hcb. 2. 17. and 9. 26. 
 
GHAP. III.] ATONEMENT. 31 
 
 Son, to be thus dear. He must be subject and obe- 
 dient during his probation, to be, in the eyes both of 
 God and man, the well beloved Son ; for obedience con- 
 stituted as essential a part of the filial relation during 
 his minority, as inheritance does since he has come of 
 age. There being but one Lawgiver, and essentially 
 but one law, this subjection of the Son placed him 
 completely under the law given to other creatures. 
 And when he was under law, he was not only bound 
 by the precept, but liable to the penalty in case of dis- 
 obedience. And now his general obedience became 
 still more necessary to qualify him to make atonement, 
 as in case of disobedience, so far from being able to 
 expiate for the sins of others, he must have suffered 
 for his own. Obedience in this view went merely to 
 qualify his sufferings. 
 
 (-2.) The act of the Priest in presenting the Victim 
 must necessarily be an act of obedience. The Father 
 must command him to die, or the stroke would not have 
 come from his own hand*. But the infliction must be 
 made by the very Magistrate who is thereby to show 
 that he will punish others. At his command the Vic- 
 tim must be bound, at his word the stroke must be 
 given, and under his authority and hand the Substitute 
 must die. But in no way could the stroke be inflicted 
 by divine authority, but either by being obediently 
 submitted to, or by being forced by main strength up- 
 on one struggling against the authority ; in which lat- 
 ter case the sufferings would have been personally de- 
 
 * Compulsion, before the Son was subject to law, would neither have 
 been possible nor just. And after- he became subject, with a perfect 
 willingness to die, there was no way to control him which was necessa- 
 ry, or proper, or suited to display him as the obedient Son, but through 
 the medium of his wllh 
 
32 MATTER OP [PART I. 
 
 served, and could no more have atoned than the pains 
 of the damned. The necessity of the command ap- 
 pears in another point of view. The satisfaction must 
 be rendered to One holding the authority of the God- 
 head, and of course by One not on the throne, and 
 therefore, as the throne of God must reign over all be- 
 neath it, by One under law : and when he was under 
 law, he had no right to die uncommanded. A mere 
 consent of the Father in such a case was impossible. 
 There is no indifference in God, especially in matters 
 of so much importance ; and a distinct expression of 
 his will, however mild in form, must have had all the 
 authority of a command. 
 
 Accordingly the Scriptures teach us that the whole 
 appointment to the priestly office came from the throne. 
 ~ ti No man taketh this honour unto himself, but he that 
 is called of God as was Aaron. So also Christ glori- 
 fied not himself to be made a high priest, but he that 
 said unto him, Thou art my Son, this day have I be- 
 gotten thee* ;" alluding to the subjection which goes 
 into the very idea of sonship. The same Scriptures 
 teach us that the death of Christ was obedience ; (or 
 rather I will say, that his consent to die was such ; for 
 we cannot ascribe obedience to mere passivity or suf- 
 fering, it being in its very nature active, and always 
 consisting in some act of the mind, terminating there, 
 or producing some act of body, or preventing some act 
 of body or mind.) " This commandment have I re- 
 ceived of my Father." " As the Father gave me com- 
 mandment, even so I do." " Lo I come to do thy 
 will, O God : — by the which will we are sanctified 
 through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once 
 for all." He " took upon him the form of a servant." 
 
 * Heb. 5. 4, 5. 
 
GHAP. III.] ATONEMENT. 33 
 
 and " became obedient unto death, even the death of 
 the cross*." By this command on the one part and 
 obedience on the other the Father appeared demand- 
 ing satisfaction, and laying on the stroke with his own 
 han'd. " It pleased the Lord to bruise him." " The 
 Lord hath laid on him the iniquity of us all," saying, 
 ?t Awake, O sword, against — my Fellow"!"." 
 
 The whole influence of this act of the Son lay in its 
 being an exercise of obedience. It was not merely a 
 consent to die after being commanded, but as one 
 commanded ; a consent to be dragged to execution 
 as a culprit by divine authority, that the stroke 
 might come from him who was wont to act as the 
 legal Executioner. The whole efficacy of the act 
 was the pure efficacy of obedience, not as a merit, 
 nor as a testimony, but as mere submission to divine 
 authority. Had it not been obedience, the sufferings 
 would have been of no validity, for they would not 
 have been exacted by the supreme Magistrate from 
 the beloved Son, nor have been any evidence that he 
 would punish others. The whole effect of the act was 
 to bring the sufferings into a proper relation to God 
 by drawing out the stroke from his own hand. 
 
 This discloses the very influence of what was set 
 forth by the action of the priest under the old dispen- 
 sation. To draw my language from that type, it was 
 necessary that the divine Victim should be offered by 
 God's appointed Priest, and according to his command 
 and direction. The action of the Priest, when stript 
 of its figurative garb, was the mere yielding of sufferings 
 to the demand of the supreme Magistrate. What did the 
 action of the ancient priests express ? Merely that the 
 
 * John 10. 18. & 14. 31. Phil. 2. 8. fleb. 10, 9, 10.— t Is. 53. 8, 
 10. Zech. 13. 7. 
 
34 MATTER OP [PART I. 
 
 victim was offered to God according to his direction. 
 And what did the obedient consent of our High Priest 
 express ? Merely that the Victim was offered to God 
 agreeably to his appointment. The whole need of this 
 pontifical act was the need which existed that the suf- 
 ferings should be inflicted by the Father's authority and 
 hand. 
 
 These two operations of obedience had the exact ef- 
 fect to secure the infliction of sufferings on the beloved 
 Son by the Father's hand. One qualified the Sufferer by 
 rendering him dear to the Father, the other brought his 
 sufferings into the necessary relation to God. Now 
 did obedience enter into the matter of the atonement 
 by answering either of these purposes ? But other 
 things answered these purposes which were never put 
 into the matter of the atonement. 
 
 (1.) There were other things which constituted the 
 personal qualifications of the Sufferer, which were 
 never put into the matter of the atonement. These 
 were, first, infinite dignity, necessary to render him 
 infinitely dear and of infinite value in the sight of God : 
 secondly, a passible nature, rendering his sufferings 
 possible : thirdly, humanity, instead of the angelic 
 nature, that he might have a life to lose without being 
 annihilated ; that he might suffer in the very nature 
 which was polluted with sin, and endure the very 
 death which transgression had brought upon the race. 
 It was necessary for him to be a man for other rea- 
 sons. If his obedience must be familiarly exhibited 
 before the world to set him forth as the beloved Son 
 of God, he must obey the law which men were accus- 
 tomed to contemplate ; his obedience must be expres- 
 sed by actions common to them, and under circumstances 
 trying to feelings belonging to their nature. He must 
 
CHAP. III.] ATONEMENT. 35 
 
 of course be bound by the particular law given to 
 man ; and this he could not be without being a man. 
 For instance, he could not be bound to deny his bodily 
 appetites if he had not a body. He could not be laid 
 under obligation by the seventh commandment in par- 
 ticular, if he did not possess such appetites as are 
 common to men*. There was another reason which 
 does not belong to the present subject. He must have 
 all the sensibilities and trials of our nature, that he 
 might become an object of easy, familiar, and affec- 
 tionate confidence, as One who had learned from ex- 
 perience to be touched with the feeling of our infirmi- 
 ties!. 
 
 But we do not put into the matter of atonement the 
 passible nature and humanity of Christ, though they 
 were necessary qualifications to fit him to make expia- 
 tion ; nor yet his dignity, though that was necessary 
 for much the same reason that his general obedience 
 was. Why then should his obedience be thus distin- 
 guished ? 
 
 Supposing the interest which he had in the Fathers 
 heart had not been founded on his holy and obedient 
 character, but on such natural affections as exist in 
 men 5 should we then put his influence as a Son into 
 the matter of atonement ? Suppose your son, who has 
 no hold of your heart but what nature gave him, should 
 undertake to suffer under your authority for a rebel- 
 lious servant. Your affection for him makes his suf- 
 ferings expressive and convincing to the servants of 
 your firm resolution to support the authority of your 
 
 * I do not take into consideration the necessity of his honouring by- 
 obedience the same law which men had refused to obey. That was a 
 matter which bore relation, to his reward, 
 
 f Heb, 2. 14—18, 
 
36 MATTER OF [PART I. 
 
 laws. That practical proof of your resolution is what 
 satisfies you as guardian of the domestic code. The 
 means of that satisfaction is the matter of atonement in 
 the case. Was his influence upon your heart any part 
 of that which satisfied ? No, it only enabled his suffer- 
 ings to discharge that office. 
 
 (2.) There were other things which affected the re- 
 latioyis of his sufferings which were never put into the 
 matter of atonement. First, the voluntary consent of 
 the Second Person to come under the obligation of a 
 command to die. This was necessary to render the 
 command just, and thus to place the sufferings in a 
 proper relation to God and his law ; as otherwise they 
 would have been the sufferings of a martyr, (allowing 
 the infliction of them to have been possible,) and in- 
 stead of showing that God would punish transgressors, 
 would only have proved that he would oppress the in- 
 nocent*. But certainly we cannot put into the atone- 
 ment an act performed before there was a Mediator. 
 Secondly, his subjection to the law given to man. 
 This was necessary that the stroke which fell on him, 
 though not a literal execution of the law, might more 
 familiarly appear to be inflicted for the sin of man : 
 and so far as it had this effect, it brought his sufferings 
 into a proper relation to man, and to the Being against 
 whom man had sinned. Thirdly, the laying of the 
 scene of his sufferings in this world. This also was 
 calculated to make a more distinct impression that he 
 suffered for the sins of the human race, and served to 
 bring his death into a proper relation to him against, 
 whom the human race had rebelled. 
 
 * I do not say that the consent of the Son while under law was ne- 
 cessary to render his sufferings just ; for had he refused after his sub- 
 jection, what he endured and infinitely more would have been the just 
 desert of personal delinquency. 
 
GHAP. III.] ATONEMENT. 37 
 
 But though his antecedent consent, his subjection to 
 the law given to man, and his residence in our world, 
 had a necessary influence on the relations of his suf- 
 ferings, who ever put either of them into the matter of 
 the atonement 1 Why then should his obedience receive 
 that distinction ? 
 
 There are but four lights in which imagination itself 
 can view the obedience of Christ as related to the 
 atonement. 
 
 (1.) As mere submission to authority, and as such 
 going simply to constitute a relation. This was its 
 use in the act of the Priest. The influence of that act 
 lay not in its being a merit, or a testimony, or in its 
 rendering the Agent dear to the Father, but merely in 
 its placing him under the control of authority. 
 
 (2.) As a qualification rendering him dear to the 
 Father, not with any reference to a reward, not there- 
 fore as a merit, but merely to give his sufferings suffi- 
 cient expression. This was its use in constituting the 
 well beloved Son, or in typical language, the Lamb 
 without blemish. 
 
 (3.) As a testimony, by which something was pro- 
 nounced respecting God and his law. 
 
 (4.) As a merit, standing related to a reward. The 
 very idea of merit is, that it is something which deserves 
 approbation, reward, or whatever else befits the sub- 
 ject. 
 
 Obedience, as it stands related to the honour of the 
 law, is a testimony ; obedience, (the same identical 
 act,) as it stands related to a reward, is merit. No 
 matter in what it consists, whether in bearing witness, 
 (one may be rewarded for giving testimony,) or in 
 yielding to sufferings, or in performing any other ser- 
 vice ; yet as it stands related to a reward, it is merit, 
 
 D 
 
38 MATTER OF [PART I. 
 
 By merit I shall therefore mean obedience viewed in 
 the light of claiming a recompense. 
 
 If obedience entered into the matter of atonement, 
 it must have been in one of these four shapes. The 
 first two have already been considered, the last two are 
 yet to be examined. 
 
 Did then the obedience of Christ enter into the mat- 
 ter of atonement in the form of a testimony ? And here 
 it must be steadily kept in mind that the great point to 
 be proved was, that God would support the authority 
 of his law by punishing sin*. And now I will show 
 you, 
 
 (1.) That the obedience of Christ gave no such tes- 
 timony ; 
 
 (2.) That if it did, atonement was not made by tes- 
 
 * It has been said in a loose and indefinite way, that the testimony 
 of Christ's obedience honoured the law, and so rendered the pardon of 
 sin more consistent with its honour. But because it honoured the law 
 in one way, it does not follow that it honoured it in the same way that 
 punishment would have done, or in such a way as in any degree to an- 
 swer in the room of punishment. Because a man has been honoured by a 
 commission, it does not follow that it has become consistent with his 
 honour to conceal a culprit from the law, or to pass by a malignant in- 
 sinuation against himself. What was to be done to render the pardon 
 of sin consistent with the honour of the law ? Proof was to be given that 
 the authority of the law should still be supported by punishment. Could 
 the obedience of Christ furnish that proof? This is the sole question. 
 The testimony of his obedience did indeed honour the law ; but that 
 honouring was required for a different purpose, to render positive good 
 communicable in a way honourable to the lav.-. This, no less than 
 pardon, must be dispensed in such a way. It was a principle of the 
 first covenant that none should be rewarded till they had honoured the 
 law by the testimony of a perfect obedience. That principle was not 
 to be given up ; and therefore Christ must obey before he could be re- 
 warded with that positive good which was intended for men; It has 
 been said that obedience and sufferings united their testimony to cer- 
 tain truths. But did they unite their testimony to prove that Cod 
 would punish ? Did obedience give this testimony ? If not, it testified 
 nothing to the purpose. 
 
CHAP. III.] ATONEMENT. 39 
 
 timony, but by giving the Father opportunity and 
 means to testify in his own name. 
 
 (1.) The obedience of Christ gave no such testimo- 
 ny. It declared indeed that the Sacred Persons were 
 attached to the precept, and were like it themselves, 
 and were willing, so far as the expression of these 
 truths could avail, to promote obedience in creatures. 
 But did all this prove that God would punish sin ? 
 No, for first, we have the testimony of facts that these 
 attributes are not inseparable. How many parents, 
 good themselves, and affirming their laws to be good, 
 like old Eli, are irresolute in punishing. And until 
 you first prove the inflexible resolution and universal 
 consistency of God, you know not that the attributes 
 are united in him, and cannot argue from one to the 
 other. But after it was given out that man was to be 
 pardoned, whatever evidence had existed before, there 
 was not now sufficient light respecting that resolution 
 and consistency, till the sufferings of the beloved Son 
 furnished it. And God plainly so declared by resort- 
 ing to this new revelation of the very things in ques- 
 tion. The proof of that resolution and consistency 
 must be completed, by first proving that he would pu- 
 nish, and proving it by the sufferings of Christ, before 
 one could infer from his holiness and attachment to 
 the precept that he would punish, and before a testi- 
 mony to that holiness and attachment could throw any 
 lk;ht on the latter question. The proof that he would 
 punish must first be completed ; and that completion 
 finished the atonement, for the only object, of the 
 atonement, as we have seen, was to prove that God 
 would punish. Secondly, before this new revelation 
 was completed and had decided otherwise, it could 
 not be known, that occasional exercises of absolute 
 clemency were not consistent with a perfect character 
 
40 MATTER OF [PART 1. 
 
 and government, because it could not be known that 
 they would not subserve some important end. In- 
 deed after it was known that man was to be pardoned, 
 and before the great substitution was revealed, the 
 manifestations of God were decidedly in favour of the 
 conclusion, allowing his character and government to 
 be perfect, that absolute clemency in some instances 
 was consistent with the perfection of both. Until 
 then the atonement by its finished testimony had de- 
 cided the question, no proof of God's holiness and at- 
 tachment to his precept, nor yet of the consistency 
 and perfection of his character, could evince a uniform 
 resolution to inflict evil on account of sin. And it 
 cannot be doubted that one end of the atonement was 
 to convince the universe that no such exercise of ab- 
 solute clemency could consist with a perfect govern- 
 ment. Thirdly, whatever might be supposed to have 
 dictated the clemency to man, whether wisdom or 
 weakness, yet when the purpose was known, to all 
 the proofs that God would punish drawn from the 
 general perfection of his nature, the answer would 
 still be returned, He was such before, and yet he re- 
 solved not to punish man* Until a great and direct 
 practical proof was given that he would punish, testi- 
 monies to his holiness and attachment to his precept 
 could throw no light on his future rigour, for still the 
 answer would be, All this he was before, and yet he 
 did not punish man. 
 
 Let us put these things together and see what would 
 naturally be the cogitations of creatures in the differ- 
 ent stages of divine manifestations. From the pre- 
 cept, the penalty, the punishment of devils, and all 
 other exhibitions of God, there was evidence enough 
 before man fell to persuade the well-informed that 
 God would punish. But now a new thing is revealed ; 
 
CHAP. III.] ATONEMENT. 41 
 
 inan is to be pardoned. This raises a doubt how far 
 God will punish in future. Whence the failure no 
 one can tell, for none can know any thing of God fur- 
 ther than he is revealed in words or actions. A con- 
 sistory is held in heaven, and the question is, will God 
 punish hereafter ? Here is a fact before them ; man 
 has transgressed and is not to be punished. Whence 
 has the fact arisen ? From any reluctance to rigour 
 inconsistent with energy of government ? " God is 
 not sufficiently revealed," says Raphael. Gabriel 
 comes forward with testimony that God is holy and 
 attached to his precept, as an argument that he will 
 punish. " It does not answer," says Ithuriel ; " he 
 was as holy and as much attached to his law before, 
 and yet he would not punish man." Here Abdiel 
 rises. " For my part," says he, " I am persuaded 
 that our blessed Creator is perfect, and that it consists 
 with that perfection to let sin sometimes escape with- 
 out rebuke. Shall not patience and clemency be 
 displayed as well as justice ? 1 have heard the proof 
 of God's holiness and attachment to his precept; I 
 believe it all, but am not convinced that he will al- 
 ways be severe. I am bound to form my opinions of 
 God from what he appears in his words and actions. 
 He has not said that he will always punish* ; but in 
 this glorious clemency to man he has plainly said that 
 he will not ; and no proof of his perfection can con- 
 vince me that what he now declares is false." 
 
 It is plain that no evidence of God's holiness and 
 attachment to his precept can convince Ithuriel or 
 Abdiel that he will always exercise rigour, or furnish 
 
 * The legal threatening is not a pledge of truth that the sinner will 
 be punished ; (for then how is that pledge redeemed when he is pardon= 
 ed by the sufferings of another?) but a mere declaration of what is just 
 and may ordinarily be expected. 
 
 D 2 
 
42 kATTER OP [PART I. 
 
 the least light to lead them to such a conclusion. 
 There must be a new revelation, made by actually in- 
 flicting evil on account of the sin of man. And when 
 those holy beings saw the sword of the Almighty 
 thrust through the heart of his beloved Son, in the 
 room of the only sinners who were ever to be pardon- 
 ed, then they were convinced, not only that no irre- 
 solution or inconsistency existed in God, but that it 
 did not comport with a perfect government ever to let 
 sin escape without a frown. 
 
 But some suppose that at least the last act of Christ's 
 obedience gave out the testimony that God would 
 punish sin, because it was a voluntary surrender of 
 himself to die on purpose to convince the universe of 
 this very truth. There are two extremes about this 
 subject which we can contemplate with clearness. 
 First, if the Father, still holding the authority of the 
 Godhead, could have consented to suffer in the room 
 of sinners, it would indeed have shown his resolution 
 to punish. The king who consented to lose one of his 
 eyes to save one of his son's, and thus gave two eyes 
 to the law which demanded two, convinced his king- 
 dom that future transgressors would lose both eyes, 
 no less than though justice had taken its literal course. 
 Secondly, where the father and son have t~vo distinct 
 minds, the consent of the latter to die for transgressors 
 is no testimony that the father will punish. Take the 
 case of the prince of Wales which has been supposed. 
 In consenting to die he held this language : " I esteem 
 the penalty just and its execution important, which 
 shows that J view transgression as a great evil, and of 
 course that I regard the precept as right and valuable. 
 I am willing to give my father this opportunity to 
 prove that he will firmly execute his law, and sin- 
 cerely hope he may ; but I cannot answer for my fa- 
 
CHAP. III.] ATONEMENT. 43 
 
 ther; he must speak for himself." Now though there 
 are not in all respects two minds between the divine 
 Father and Son, they are exhibited in the economv of 
 redemption as two distinct Agents, There is a foun- 
 dation somewhere among the mysteries of the Trinity 
 and personal union for a distinction to exist between 
 the Father as holding the authority of God, and the 
 Mediator in his zvhole Person ; and not only for a dis- 
 tinction, but for opposite relations, as opposite as any 
 which can be found among men ; such as King and 
 Subject, Master and Servant, the Commander and the 
 One who obeys, the Representative of God and the 
 Representative of sinners, the Demander of satisfac- 
 tion and the Satisfier, the Inflicter of stripes and the 
 Receiver, the Hearer of prayer and the Supplicant, 
 the One who makes and performs one part of a cove- 
 nant, and the One who makes and performs the other, 
 the One who owes and grants a reward, and the One 
 who earns and receives it : otherwise there is no foun- 
 dation in the Trinity for the work of redemption. On 
 the perfect distinctness and marked and stable oppo- 
 sition of these relations, the whole efficacy of the me- 
 diatorial influence depended. And this distinction ex- 
 tends to the whole Person of Christ, as both divine 
 and human. Not a single official act can be ascribed 
 to the mere man, or to the mere God, but to the Me- 
 diator. Those acts in which the man most appears, 
 draw dignity and efficacy from the God ; and those 
 acts in which the God most appears, draw influence 
 from the man. The divinity of that Person goes 
 through and qualifies all the acts and sufferings of the 
 Mediator, and when it has done that it does no more 
 in the economy of redemption. His Godhead, as it is 
 exhibited in this august drama, merely -helps to consti- 
 tute the Person of the Mediator. Whoever found in 
 
44 MATTER OF [PART I. 
 
 the Gospel any other Second Person than the Son, the 
 Mediator, the Christ ? All that is divine in him is 
 thus set apart from the Father and included un- 
 der the name of the Mediator ; that xMediator whose 
 Person is so distinct, and whose relations are so 
 opposite to those of the Father. When the Medi- 
 ator has expressed himself, there is no other Second 
 Person to help out or to elevate the expression. Now 
 in this stupendous drama the Father alone holds the 
 arm of authority, and neither the Second nor Third 
 Person appears on the throne from beginning to end ; 
 (except the temporary authority delegated to the Son 
 as a reward, which he will resign at the end of the 
 world, when he will again become " subject" to the 
 Father, " that God may be all in all*.") In the whole 
 exhibition the Son appears either a Servant or a Vice- 
 gerent till the curtain falls. The point to be proved 
 was that God would punish; which, according to the 
 distribution of parts, could be made out only by show- 
 ing that the Father would punish. And now the 
 question is, whether the Servant in that awful tragedy, 
 in his most degrading act of submission, could pledge 
 himself for the firmness of his Master and King, and 
 for the future exercise of that authority which was 
 dragging him like a criminal to the stake ; whether 
 the. act of that Servant, urged on by the pressure of a 
 command, without the liberty of choice, with the sword 
 of the Almighty at his breast, under a necessity to 
 obey or suffer the endless penalty of the law, could 
 be considered as the testimony of a distinct and 
 independent witness, or any thing more than the 
 echo of the Father's will. No, the only decla- 
 ration which I hear from the Son is this : " I am 
 willing to give the Father this opportunity to prove to 
 
 * 1 Cor. 15. 28. 
 
CHAP. III.] ATONEMENT. 45 
 
 the universe that he will punish sin. In this I give 
 my opinion that the penalty is just and ought to be 
 enforced, that sin is evil and ought to be punished, 
 that the precept is good and ought to be supported. 
 But it is not for me who have no authority, but am 
 crushed under authority, to answer for the Father. He 
 is about to answer for himself in the awful strokes to 
 be inflicted on me." This leads me to say, 
 
 (2.) That whatever testimony the obedience of 
 Christ gave, atonement was not made by testimony, 
 but by affording the Father opportunity and means to 
 testify in his own name. A great and glorious testi- 
 mony was to be sent forth into the universe by means 
 of the atonement, but that testimony was to come from 
 the Father. He stood the Representative of the God- 
 head, filling the whole field of vision allotted to him 
 who held the arm of authority. The great question to 
 be decided was whether he would resolutely punish. 
 Who was competent to speak for God and pledge him- 
 self for the Most High ? It became him who was to an- 
 swer for the Godhead, to speak for himself. Accord- 
 ingly he appears the Principal in every part, the Ori- 
 ginater and Director of the whole. All is appointed 
 and demanded by his authority, and done in his name, 
 that the testimony may be exclusively his ; as the ex- 
 pression of a measure ordered by the master of a house 
 and executed by his servants, is the expression of the 
 master alone. The satisfaction which he demanded 
 as the Protector of the law, was not the testimony of 
 a Servant or Son, but an opportunity to give to the 
 universe with his own arm a great practical proof that 
 he would punish sin. What could the testimony or 
 obedience of another do to that end ? Nothing would 
 answer but sufferings unsparingly inflicted on the Son 
 of his love with his own hand. And^ when he had 
 
46 Matter op [part i. 
 
 drained upon him the cup of trembling, as Guardian of 
 the law he was satisfied. Had the person of the sin- 
 ner stood before him unshielded by a Substitute, he 
 would have shown with his own arm his resolution to 
 punish by sufferings inflicted on the sinner. This 
 would have been the satisfaction demanded in the 
 ease ; and no part of it would have consisted in the 
 consent of the sufferer. If the sinner was to escape, 
 the satisfaction demanded was an opportunity to inflict 
 sufferings on a Substitute, which should give out the 
 same testimony as from his own lips, or rather should 
 shed the same practical proof from the awful gleam- 
 ings of his own sword. And when he had actually in- 
 flicted these sufferings to the full extent which the ne- 
 cessity of the case demanded, and had thus testified by 
 the tremendous voice of his own authority, he was 
 satisfied. Shall we then say that the action of the 
 Father helped to make atonement ? No, for while all 
 the testimony came from him, all the atonement came 
 from the Son. The matter of atonement then came 
 from the Son. This brings us to the conclusion that 
 the matter of atonement was that which answered to 
 these two descriptions ; it was something yielded by 
 the Son, (not the act of yielding,) and something by 
 which the Father testified that he would punish sin. 
 Now certainly the testimony of Christ was not that by 
 which the Father testified. The obedience of Christ 
 was not that by which the Father proved in his own 
 Person that he would punish. The consent of Christ 
 did not show that the Father would inflict evil on sin- 
 ners without their consent. Nothing answers to these 
 two descriptions but the bare sufferings of Christ. I 
 do not say, the sufferings of — no matter who ; but the 
 sufferings of the beloved Son of God. I do not say, 
 sufferings caused by accident or self-inflicted ; but suf- 
 
GHAP. III.] ATONEMENT. 47 
 
 ferings inflicted by the supreme Magistrate of heaven 
 and earth. When we speak of the sufferings of the 
 damned, or the death of a malefactor, we always in- 
 clude the act of the magistrate : we do not mean dead 
 sufferings, but sufferings inflicted by way of punish- 
 ment. It was sufferings inflicted by the Magistrate 
 which were threatened in the divine law, and suffer- 
 ings inflicted by the Magistrate must come in their 
 room. But because the act of the Magistrate was ne- 
 cessary, to say that sufferings alone did not constitute 
 the matter of atonement, is like saying, for the same 
 reason, that sufferings alone do not constitute the pu- 
 nishment of the damned. 
 
 Let us now look at the Scriptures. And here we 
 have nothing to do with those texts which ascribe both 
 parts of salvation to the death of Christ. These may 
 raise a question whether atonement lifts us to heaven, 
 but cannot touch the question whether obedience helps 
 to deliver us from hell. The solution is, that the death 
 of Christ comprehended both atonement and merit. 
 Neither have we any thing to do with those texts which 
 seem to ascribe both parts of salvation to the obedi- 
 ence of Christ, unless in opposition to those who ex- 
 clude a vicarious sacrifice altogether. There is a pas- 
 sage of this nature in the 5th of Romans* ; where the 
 apostle is setting forth the full contrast between the 
 first Adam who plunged us to hell, and ttue Second 
 Adam who raised us to heaven, with an eye fixed in both 
 cases on the final result. In contemplating the Second 
 Adam, he is standing in heaven and seeing the re- 
 deemed arrive, and fastens his attention on the obedi- 
 ence by which the latter half of the salvation w 7 as ac- 
 complished : and this he did the rather to give a 
 full point to the contrast, the influence of the first 
 
 * Ver. 17—21. with ch. S, 23. 
 
48 MATTER OF [PART I. 
 
 Adam lying in disobedience. But if such passages do 
 not prove that obedience is the sole ground of pardon, 
 we have no right to make them say that it is the partial 
 ground, but must understand them as sinking the pro- 
 cess of pardon in the great consummation. Nor yet 
 have we any thing to do with those texts which as- 
 cribe to the Priest the act of making atonement. They 
 only affirm that he presented that which was the mat- 
 ter of the atonement to God, and thus brought it into 
 the necessary relation to him. Can any thing more be 
 gathered from the type to which they refer ? What in-, 
 fluence can possibly be ascribed to the Levitical 
 priests but that of presenting the victims to God ac- 
 cording to his appointment ? Do you add to this, a tes- 
 timony from the priest that God would punish ? But 
 how do you get this testimony out ? Through the direct 
 expression of the act as looking at the penalty ? But the 
 priest stood there, not to assume the tone of pledging 
 himself for God, but merely to do as he was command- 
 ed. Through the expression of the act as looking at 
 the precept of the moral law ? This is testimony circuit- 
 ous indeed. Let us see how it stands. Aaron's con- 
 sent to obey a ceremonial command, (no matter what,) 
 is testimony from him that all the precepts of the moral 
 law are good, a/id so good that God will not fail to pu- 
 nish the transgression of them ! and this testimony en- 
 ters into the very essence of the expiation ! No, his 
 atonement lay in no such testimony as this, (less di- 
 rect than that of his ordinary conduct,) but in the sin 
 or trespass-offering presented to God. There is one 
 passage however which speaks of the action of our 
 great High Priest, which deserves some attention. It 
 is in the 10th of Hebrews. "Then said he, Lo I 
 come to do thy will, O God : — by the which will we 
 are sanctified through the offering of the body oi Jesus 
 
CHAP. HI.] ATONEMEM. $9 
 
 Christ once for all : — for by one offering he hath per- 
 fected for ever them that are sanctified/' Here, you 
 say, a purging quality is expressly ascribed to the obe- 
 dient action of the Priest. But the fact is that a higher 
 effect is ascribed to that obedience combined with 
 the sufferings, no less than actual pardon, including the 
 action of the Spirit which obedience alone secured. 
 The apostle is speaking of the joint influence of obe- 
 dience and passion as comprehended in the death of 
 Christ, not merely to render sin pardonable, (the pro- 
 per office of the atonement,) but to accomplish actual 
 remission, involving regenerating grace. Sanctified 
 here means separated from the curse of the law, puri- 
 fied from guilt or liability to punishment, pardoned. 
 The meaning of the passage is, that by obediently 
 surrendering himself to die, and by his actual death, 
 Christ has obtained for as many as by that influence 
 have been brought into a believing state, actual and 
 everlasting remission. Here is the application of the 
 atonement as the reward of Christ's obedience, and not 
 merely the matter of expiation. But show me a text 
 which affirms that either his general or final obedience, 
 as a testimony, helped to render sin pardonable. This 
 must be adduced if any thing is done to the purpose. 
 
 I will now show you from the Scriptures that the thing 
 which was offered for sin, and which came in the room 
 of punishment, and which laid the foundation for par- 
 don, was no other than suffering. 
 
 (1.) It was this which was offered for sin, " Christ 
 died for our sins according to the Scriptures." " He 
 was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised 
 for our iniquities. — The Lord hath laid on him the ini- 
 quity of us all. He was oppressed and he was afflict- 
 ed ; — he is brought as a lamb to the slaughter. — He 
 was cut off out of the land of the living ; for the tran?- 
 
 E 
 
SO MATTER OP [PART *. 
 
 gression of my people was he stricken. — It pleased the 
 Lord to bruise him ; he hath put himjto grief. When 
 thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall 
 see his seed. — He shall bear their iniquities. — -He was 
 numbered with transgressors, and he bore the sins of 
 many." " After three score and two weeks shall Mes- 
 siah be cut off, but not for himself." " Who was de- 
 livered for our offences." " He hath made him to be 
 sin for us who knew no sin." " He loved us and sent 
 his Son to be the propitiation, [propitiatory sacrifice,] 
 for our sins." " He is the propitiation, [propitiatory 
 sacrifice,] for our sins, and not for ours only, but also 
 for the sins of the whole world." " Christ also hath 
 once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust." "Who 
 his own self bore our sins in his own body on the tree." 
 " Christ was once offered to bear the sins of manyj 
 and unto them that look for him, shall he appear the 
 second time without sin unto salvation*." 
 
 (2.) It was this which came in the room of punish- 
 ment, " He hath borne our griefs and carried our sor- 
 rows. — The chastisement of our peace was upon him, 
 and with his stripes we are healedt." 
 
 (3.) It was this which laid the foundation for pardon. 
 " Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, 
 being made a curse for us." " In whom we have re- 
 demption through his blood, even the forgiveness of 
 sins." " Being now justified, [pardoned,] by his 
 blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him. 
 For if when we were enemies we were reconciled to' 
 God by the death of his Son, much more being recon- 
 ciled we shall be saved by his life." " Almost all 
 things are by the law purged with blood, and without 
 
 * Isai. 53. 5—12. Dan. 9. 26. Rom. 4. 25. 1 Cor. 15. 3. 2 Cor. 
 5. 21. Heb. 9. 28. 1 Pet. 2. 24. and 3. 18. 1 John 2, 2. and 4. 10. 
 i Isai. 53. 4, 5. 
 
CHAP. III.] ATONEMENT. 51 
 
 shedding of blood is no remission. It was therefore 
 necessary that the patterns of things in the heavens 
 should be purified with these, but the heavenly things 
 themselves with better sacrifices than these — For it 
 is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats 
 should take away sins : — for then would they not have 
 ceased to be offered? because that the worshippers 
 once purged should have had no more conscience of 
 sins*." 
 
 But this question respecting the testimony of obedi- 
 ence, it must after all be confessed, has no very im- 
 portant bearing on the extent of the atonement. The 
 great point is to distinguish between the matter of ex- 
 piation and the merit of obedience with its claim to a 
 reward. This discrimination can be made whether 
 the testimony of obedience goes into the matter of 
 atonement or not. We can distinguish between atone- 
 ment and a claim to reward for making atonement, 
 whether the matter of expiation consists of two ingre- 
 dients or one. I suppose that sufferings alone satisfi- 
 ed and rendered sin pardonable ; but if obedience, 
 while earning a reward, sent out a testimony which 
 helped to satisfy and render sin pardonable, it is no 
 matter as relates to the distinction between the satisfy- 
 ing matter and that which constituted the claim to a 
 reward. Take the illustration before used. I want 
 to make a clear distinction between that which heals 
 the patient and that which establishes the claim of the 
 physician to a fee. According to my theory the heal- 
 ing efficacy lies in the pill ; the action of the physician 
 has no other influence than to administer it in a right 
 way ; and the claim to a fee is grounded on that ac- 
 tion. Here we can easily distinguish between the 
 liealing medicine and the action which creates the 
 
 * Rom, 5. 9, 10, Gal. 3, 13, Col. 1. 14. Heb. 9.22, 23. & 10. 2,4, 
 
£2 MATTER OF [PART U 
 
 claim. Now change the ground and assign a new 
 office to the action. Say that the physician's approach 
 had an influence upon the patient's imagination which 
 helped to work the cure. The remedy then consisted 
 of two ingredients, the pill and that influence upon the 
 imagination : the action of the physician had two ef- 
 fects ; it administered the medicine and shed a healing 
 influence : the reward is for the action still, and nei- 
 ther for the pill nor for the casual influence dropt upon 
 the patient's mind*. In this case though we cannot 
 j»et up the broad distinction between the healing mat- 
 ter and the action, we can still distinguish between that 
 matter and the action viewed as entitling to reward. 
 The action considered as sending forth such a casual 
 influence, is distinguishable from the action viewed as 
 related to a reward. The difference is still plainly 
 seen between the healing influence and the claim to 
 a fee. Upon the theory which 1 have advocated, we 
 can set up the broad distinction between the influence 
 of passion and the claim of action. But the distinc- 
 tion is visible enough upon the other plan. In either 
 way we have the distinction between the influence of 
 the atonement and the claim to a reward for making 
 atonement. 
 
 This leads us to see the immense importance~of dis- 
 criminating between the matter of atonement and the 
 merit of obedience, in order to separate the proper in- 
 fluence of the expiation from a claim to reward. Our 
 brethren have a strong reason for retaining obedience 
 in the matter of atonement. It is vital to their system 
 to place merit there, in order to give to the atonement 
 a power to secure the gift of faith, and thus to accom- 
 
 * Christ, we shall see, is rewarded only for the merit of obedience, 
 and neither for sufferings as such, nor for any testimony which his ac- 
 tion pave out. 
 
CHAP. III.] ATONEMENT. S3 
 
 plish actual reconciliation. Without an influence to 
 secure the gift of faith it must either fail to accomplish 
 reconciliation by its own power, or must obtain remis- 
 sion for stubborn unbelievers. Our brethren therefore 
 are willing to comprehend in the atonement the whole 
 influence of Christ ; and if they succeed in this they 
 carry their point, at least so far as relates to the mean- 
 ing and proper application of the term. For if the 
 atonement contains an influence which secures the gift 
 of faith, there is atonement for none but those who will 
 ultimately believe. It becomes then a vital question 
 whether merit is comprehended in the matter of the 
 atonement. 
 
 In settling this question it is necessary to recur 
 again to the radical idea of merit. In God merit is 
 excellence, viewed as deserving honour, love, grati- 
 tude, praise, and service. We put into his merit also 
 whatever he is to us or has done for us which justly 
 entitles him to our acknowledgments. In those who 
 are under law merit is obedience, considered as de- 
 serting a legal reward. It is obedience viewed purely 
 in its relation to a recompense. If then we put merit 
 into the matter of atonement, we place it there, not as 
 that by which any thing is to he proved, (for that would 
 be a testimony not a merit ;) not therefore as any thing 
 which is to witness that God will punish sin ; (indeed 
 how can the merit of one prove that God will punish 
 another ?) not therefore as any thing which is to an- 
 swer in the room of punishment. Here then we aban- 
 don the whole end of the atonement, and give up the 
 need of a vicarious sacrifice altogether. It comes out 
 that the release of the sinner is granted to Christ pure- 
 ly as a reward. And this is the ground taken by those 
 who deny a vicarious sacrifice and place the whole 
 atonement in obedience. But the fault of this scheme 
 E 2 
 
34 MATTER OF [PART I ? 
 
 is, that such an atonement furnishes no proof that God 
 will execute his law, and answers in no degree the end 
 of punishment, and therefore is not fitted to come in 
 the room of punishment and to be a cover for sin. On 
 the other hand, the dispensation of pardon on this 
 ground would be a plain declaration that God would 
 not always inflict evil on account of sin. Suppose a 
 culprit is released as the reward of a dutiful son. 
 There is no evil inflicted in the case ; what evidence 
 that any will ever be inflicted ? What has been may 
 be again, and punishment may always be set aside out 
 of favour to some one who has obeyed, or even with- 
 out that consideration. Indeed the clemency plainly 
 declares that rigour is not always necessary, and is not 
 always to be exercised. Nor can you make merit 
 partially the ground of pardon without proportionably 
 drawing after it the same effects. In exact proportion 
 as pardon is dispensed on the ground of being a re- 
 ward to Christ, and not on the ground of substituted 
 sufferings, you abate the evidence that sin must al- 
 ways receive a frown. Indeed there is no halving of 
 things in this way. If the legal impediment to pardon 
 is partly taken away by Christ's deserving a reward, 
 it must have been such as could not need a vicarious 
 sacrifice to remove it. For if the impediment was, 
 that the law had threatened sufferings and sufferings 
 must come in their room, how could the merit of a Sub- 
 stitute touch the difficulty ? And what need, 1 further 
 ask, of any thing but the sufferings of the Son of God 
 to clear away such an impediment as this ? 
 
 What possible influence could merit have in remov- 
 ing the impediments to pardon ? To what does the 
 proposition amount ? That the sins of believers are 
 pardonable because Christ deserved a reward! What 
 conceivable relation can exist between these two 
 
CHAF. III.] ATONEMENT. 55 
 
 things ? Christ's desert of reward, considered by it- 
 self, could lend no influence to render sin pardonable. 
 Where is the text that asserts or hints at any such 
 thing ? On the contraiy have we not seen that suffer- 
 ings, and sufferings alone, are every where displayed 
 in the Scriptures as the ground of remission ? 
 
 If in any way merit could enter into that provision 
 for moral agents which we call the atonement, it must 
 be on the principle that the honour of the law demand- 
 ed that the release of believers from misery should be 
 a reward to Christ. That no positive good could be 
 dispensed to men, in consistency with the highest ho- 
 nour of the law, otherwise than as his reward, I admit 
 and expect to prove. But a bare release from the 
 curse was a mere negative good, and therefore was 
 fully provided for by his " being made a curse for 
 us." It so happens indeed that the release is a re- 
 ward to Christ, as the matter lies between the Sacred 
 Persons ; because to him it is a positive good, both as 
 a public approbation of his offering and a gratification 
 of his benevolence. But whether he is gratified and 
 honoured in this thing or not, is a point lying wholly 
 between the Divine Persons, and not at all affecting 
 the atonement as a provision for moral agents. Christ's 
 being gratified and honoured by the pardon of be- 
 lievers, does not make their pardon consistent with the 
 honour of the law. And on the other hand, had he 
 ceased to exist after offering the spotless sacrifice, 
 and thus ceased to be susceptible of reward, the par- 
 don of believers would not have injured the law. 
 The provision for moral agents in relation to pardon, 
 was therefore complete without any influence derived 
 from the claim of Christ to a reward. 
 
 But you say, this is not what we mean. We allow 
 -.hat nothing helped to render the sins of believers 
 
56 OBEDIENCE [PART I. 
 
 pardonable but the sufferings of the Son of God : but 
 we insist that the cover of sin is nothing short of that 
 which accomplishes actual remission : and as merit 
 procured the gift of faith, without which pardon could 
 not be dispensed, it had an essential influence in con- 
 stituting that cover. The question then turns on this, 
 whether the *)jDD of the Bible, (viewed as accepted of 
 God,) merely obtained pardon for believers, or had a 
 further influence to make believers. This is a ques- 
 tion to be examined in another place. In the mean 
 time let it be remembered that we have arrived at the 
 conclusion, that the merit of Christ, or his claim to a 
 reward, had no influence to render the sins of believers 
 pardonable. And if it shall appear hereafter that the 
 atonement, aside from its covenanted acceptance, was 
 limited to this very influence, it will be established 
 that merit constituted no part of the cover for sin*. 
 
 +~*~* 
 
 CHAPTER IV. 
 Christ's obedience and reward. 
 
 There is one point to be settled at our entrance 
 upon this subject ; and that is, that Christ was reward- 
 ed for nothing but obedience. To one who never 
 brought this proposition before his eye, it may wear 
 at first sight a forbidding aspect; but a few reflections 
 will convince him that it must be true. Christ was 
 
 * The author has the pleasure to acknowledge his obligations to his 
 friend and brother, the Rev. Dr. James Richards of Newark, for im- 
 portant assistance in this chapter, as well as for his judicious remarks 
 on the book in general. This however is said without making him re- 
 sponsible for any of the opinions which the book contain?. 
 
i;HAP-. IV.] OP CHRIST. 57 
 
 " under law,*' and his reward was a legal one ; but 
 the law never promised a recompense to any thing but 
 obedience. No claim could be created on the Father 
 but by a promise from him, and no promise appears 
 but to One under law, for services rendered in obe- 
 dience to the command of his King. One of the du- 
 ties enjoined upon him was to lay down his life. So 
 far as that was a duty it was obedience, and no further 
 than it was a duty was it entitled to a reward. That 
 act was of greater merit than other acts of obedience, 
 because it involved greater self-denial ; but the suffer- 
 ings bore no other relation to the reward than as be- 
 ing the highest test of obedience. Christ was reward- 
 ed for his obedience " unto death," not for his suffer- 
 ings viewed as uncommanded ; not therefore for suf- 
 ferings in themselves considered. What claim could 
 uncommanded sufferings have to a reward? Should 
 4i creature in any part of the universe inflict pain on 
 himself which God had never required, who would be 
 bound to recompense him ? There is no such duty of 
 supererogation in the kingdom of God. But if the 
 sufferings of the Son, only as commanded, could be 
 entitled to a reward, it was the obedience of surren- 
 dering himself to die, and not the pain as such, which 
 created the claim. Accordingly we are expressly 
 taught that his whole reward was for obedience. He 
 " became obedient unto death, even the death of the 
 cross ; wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, 
 and given him a name which is above every name*." 
 This name was the Son of God, which he obtained 
 " by inheritance'] ;" and the plain meaning is, that by 
 filial obedience he obtained the inheritance and all 
 the honours of a Son, that is, his complete reward. 
 Having settled this point, I will now exhibit in one 
 
 * Phil, 2. 7— 11/— t Heb. 1, 4, 
 
58 OBEDIENCE [PART I. 
 
 connected view the different influences of Christ's 
 obedience, that the reader may have them clearly be- 
 fore his mind in all our future stages. 
 
 (1.) The most simple influence of obedience was in 
 the action of the Priest ; where it operated, not as a 
 merit, nor as a testimony, nor as an endearing quali- 
 ty, but as simple obedience ; having no other effect 
 than to cause the sufferings to be yielded to the de- 
 mand of the Father and inflicted by his authority and 
 hand. 
 
 (2.) Obedience constituted the well beloved Son, or 
 in typical language, the Lamb without blemish ; and 
 its influence here terminated in rendering him dear to 
 the Father, without any reference to a reward ; merely 
 making his sufferings expressive of God's inflexible re- 
 solution to punish sin. This was not therefore the 
 proper influence of merit. 
 
 These two influences went to qualify the sufferings 
 and to bring them into the necessary relation to God. 
 They therefore appertained to the atonement. 
 
 (3.) Obedience gave out a testimony honourable to 
 God and his law. Some choose to put this influence 
 into the matter of the atonement, as going to render 
 sin pardonable. Whether this is done or not is of no 
 material consequence as relates to the main question 
 to be discussed in this treatise. I suppose however 
 that its operation was merely to supply the place of 
 that testimony which our perfect obedience would 
 have given out on its way to a reward. Our obedi- 
 ence would have stood connected only with a reward, 
 and would have given out a testimony honourable to 
 the law. If the testimony of Christ takes the place of 
 our testimony, it has nothing to do with the pardon of 
 sin, but is merely an effluence of obedience as it stands 
 related to a reward. But that effluence itself, it is 
 
CHAP. IV.] OF CHRIST. 69 
 
 proper to say, bears no relation to the reward. It is 
 merely a casual influence which issues from obedience 
 as it goes along. Or to speak more literally, it is the 
 mere relation which obedience bears to the honour of 
 the law, and not the relation which it bears to a re- 
 compense. The relation which it bears to a recom- 
 pense, lies in no report which it sends forth, but in its 
 own intrinsic excellence. So the good man is reward- 
 ed for his goodness, and not for the influence which 
 his example may chance to have on others. 
 
 These three ends were answered by obedience, not 
 as a thing related to a reward, not therefore as a merit, 
 but as merely fitted to render the sufferings expressive, 
 to bring them into a proper relation to God, and to 
 honour the law. When obedience had exerted upon 
 the sufferings the first two influences, (some add the 
 third,) the atonement was complete, though not yet 
 accepted; and complete of course without the influ- 
 ence of merit, or without owing its completion to any 
 claim which Christ had to a reward : because it was 
 not necessary to the honour of the law that the release 
 of believers from misery, (a mere negative good in 
 regard to them,) should be a reward to him. And if 
 without injuring the law pardon might be granted to 
 believers without being a reward to Christ, then the 
 Protector of the law was satisfied, (so far as satisfac- 
 tion stood connected with pardon,) without the aid of 
 Christ's merit, and had in his hands all that he could 
 receive from the Son to enable him to grant remission 
 to those who would believe. And thus that provision 
 for moral agents in relation to pardon which depended 
 on satisfaction yielded to the Guardian of law, was 
 complete without the influence of Christ's merit. The 
 effect of all this was that the sins of men, allowing 
 them to be believers, were pardonable. On the ground 
 
tfO OBEDIENCE [PART 1* 
 
 of that satisfaction God could remit the offences of the 
 penitent without injuring the law, but he was not bound 
 till another influence was superadded. This was as 
 far as bare atonement, separated from its covenanted 
 acceptance, could go. 
 
 When the sins of men were thus rendered pardona- 
 ble in case they would believe, there was a change 
 wrought in their relations to the law. This change 
 we can contemplate distinctly from every thing else : 
 and can plainly see that the sufferings of the beloved 
 Son, separated from his claim to a reward, could ac- 
 complish this and no more. That which produced 
 this change in the relations of moral agents, ought to 
 have a name. I call it the atonement, and affirm that 
 it answers exactly to the *)5D of the Hebrews, when 
 the latter is separated from its covenanted acceptance. 
 But whether it does or not will appear in the next 
 chapter. 
 
 All the other influences of obedience which are to 
 be named were influences of merit, and produced their 
 effects only by obtaining a reward. Before proceed- 
 ing further therefore, let us stop and fix on some 
 marks by which a thing may be known to appertain 
 to Christ's reward. I lay down the following princi- 
 ples. All that Christ did as one of the contracting 
 Parties was to obey even " unto death. " Whatever 
 that obedience and death, stript of every extrinsic cir- 
 cumstance, could accomplish, was done by himself; 
 the rest was done by the Father, and so far as it ex- 
 pressed approbation of Christ, or honoured him, or 
 directly gratified his benevolence, was a part of his 
 reward. Every effect then which followed his obe- 
 dience and death, beyond what their own necessary 
 influence could accomplish, and was honourable and 
 gratifying to him, appertained to his rew r ard. What 
 
CHAP. IV.] OF CHRIST, 6i 
 
 then did the necessary influence of his obedience and 
 death effect? It rendered every thing which followed 
 consistent with the honour of the law, and created a 
 covenant claim on the Father for the whole. It went 
 no further. The bringing to pass of all that followed 
 was the Father's part, and was done in pursuance of 
 his' covenant engagements ; which engagements were 
 suspended on Christ's obedience " unto death." All 
 therefore which actually follpwed was Christ's stipu- 
 lated reward. I now proceed to say, 
 
 (4.) That the merit of obedience gave to the Re- 
 deemer a covenant claim to the acceptance of his 
 atonement. Because the sufferings of a Substitute 
 were capable of answering in the room-of the punish- 
 ment of the believing and reclaimed, God was not 
 obliged to accept them and release believers, until he 
 had bound himself by promise ; and that promise was 
 suspended on the condition of Christ's obeying " unto 
 death." It was that obedience then which gave him a 
 covenant claim to the pardon, on the ground of his 
 atonement, of as many as would believe. This was a 
 covenant claim to the acceptance of the atonement, and 
 rendered the pardon of believers certain. This claim 
 was completed when he expired, and was acknowledg- 
 ed when he arose*. 
 
 The atonement, viewed as thus accepted, secured 
 the pardon of believers ; and in going thus far and no 
 further it exactly answered, as we shall see in the next 
 
 * It has been said that the acceptance of the atonement as pronoun- 
 ced in the resurrection of Christ, was a public acquittal of him from 
 the guilt he had assumed, The meaning cannot be that he was ac- 
 quitted from sin, for he had no sin, but that he was acquitted from a 
 liability to suffer. His resurrection was a public declaration that his 
 sufferings were accepted for sinners, and that therefore he was undeo? 
 no necessity or obligation to suffer further. In this sense he was ac- 
 quitted as the Representative of others ; or in plain language, his atone- 
 
 F 
 
62 OBEDIENCE [PART I. 
 
 chapter, all the purposes ever ascribed to the 13D of 
 the old dispensation after it was accepted of God. 
 
 Thus it was not the same influence which atoned 
 that ensured the acceptance of the atonement. That 
 which atoned was the sufferings of the beloved Son 
 inflicted by the Father's hand ; that which ensured the 
 acceptance was the merit of Christ, constituting a claim 
 to a reward for general obedience and particularly for 
 making expiation. The completion of the atonement 
 and the security of its acceptance were two things. 
 One constituted a provision in the Father's hands for 
 moral agents ; the other appertained to Christ's re- 
 ward, and merely transferred the provision to his hands, 
 by securing to him the pardon of all who would be- 
 lieve. 
 
 (5.) The merit of obedience gave to the Redeemer 
 a covenant claim to be honoured and gratified by 
 that open recognition of him and explanation ol 
 the design of his death which gave it a bearing 
 upon public law and the relations of men ; which 
 declared its acceptance and fairly placed mankind on 
 what we call probation. The removal of the vail 
 which had concealed his glory and the design of his 
 death from men, and the whole annunciation of him to 
 the world by his resurrection and the promised mission 
 of the Spirit, belonged to the Father. His obedience 
 " unto death" entitled him to be thus publicly acknow- 
 ledged and offered to the world. That obedience wa? 
 
 ment was accepted as the ground of the pardon of those who would bc- 
 lieve. His resurrection was furthermore a public attestation of his 
 personal acceptance., as one who had obeyed and become entitled to the 
 reword. It has been said that if his sacrifice had not been accepted he 
 nevei would have left the sepulchre. This needs explanation. Had 
 not his sacrifice been accepted it would have proved that he had not 
 obeyed, and then he must have suffered the full penalty of the low, and 
 «f coin-so could not have left the sepulchre at that time, nor over with 
 idorv. 
 
CHAP. IV.] OF CHRIST. 63 
 
 terminated when he said on the cross, " It is finished." 
 This was the last act by which he yielded himself to 
 the ignominy of the sepulchre, which was to consum-. 
 mate his atonement. Now he became entitled to burst 
 from the vail which had enclosed him. He who in 
 obedience to the Father had studiously concealed him- 
 self that he might accomplish his humiliation ; who, 
 content with furnishing just evidence enough to sup- 
 port a general faith, had often charged men not to 
 make him known, and particularly had commanded 
 those who witnessed the manifestation of his sonship 
 and future glory on mount Tabor, " Tell the vision to 
 no man until the Son of man be risen again from the 
 dead* ;" was now entitled to be " declared the Son of 
 God with power — by the resurrection!, " and to re- 
 ceive that Spirit whose inspiration should make him 
 fully known, first to the disciples on the day of Pente- 
 cost, and then to the world on the evangelic page. 
 Never till then did the dearest of his disciples know 
 enough to say, " God so loved the world th»* £g g ave 
 his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in 
 him should not perish but have everlasting life." This 
 public explanation, which carried in it an offer and 
 conditional promise of life to the world ; which laid a 
 foundation for faith, and actually placed men on pro- 
 bation ; was an essential part of his reward. Thus a 
 state of probation, with all* the offers and promises 
 which it involves, was procured for the world by the 
 merit of the Redeemer. 
 
 Thus we are gradually sliding into the considera- 
 tion of that positive good which could not, consistently 
 with the highest honour of the law, be issued to the 
 world otherwise than as the reward of Christ. All 
 that was negative, or related to a mere deliverance 
 * Matt. 17. 9. 1 Rom, 1. 4. 
 
C4 OBEDIENCE [PART t.. 
 
 from the curse, might have been granted on the ground 
 of the atonement had Christ not been in existence to 
 be gratified and honoured by it. Not so with positive 
 good. It was a law of the first covenant that no posi- 
 tive good should proceed from God but in approba- 
 tion of a righteousness perfect for the time the subject 
 had been in existence. This principle, as I hope to 
 show in the Appendix, was not to be given up. And 
 by contriving to measure out all the positive good in- 
 tended for the human race as a reward to Christ, the 
 principle was preserved. And if the whole of that 
 good followed as the effect of his work, and was ho- 
 nourable and gratifying to him, we have public evi- 
 dence that the whole was to him a reward. We have 
 seen that a state of probation, with all the offers and 
 promises which it involves, appertained to his reward ; 
 and we have equal evidence that all the privileges 
 and comforts fitted to such a state came in the same 
 way. If Christ is the " Heir of all things*," and if the 
 all things which constitute his inheritance are as ex- 
 tensive as the interest which he was empowered to 
 manage, or the all things in heaven and earth over 
 which he was appointed to rule ; if his inheritance 
 comprehends all that which constituted him " the First- 
 horn of every creature," and gave him " in all things 
 — the pre-eminence," and all that by which he was 
 made " better than the angels" and " obtained a more 
 excellent name than they," to wit, the name of the 
 Son of God] j then there is nothing on earth which is 
 not included in his inheritance. If furthermore he 
 received the whole inheritance of a Son for his filial 
 conduct, as the Appendix will prove, then he obtain- 
 ed the whole by the merit of his obedience. And if 
 lastly, this whole portion of a Son was committed to 
 
 * Heb. 1. 2. 1 Col. 1. 15—20. Heb. 1. 4. 
 
€HAP. IV.] OF CHRIST. C5 
 
 him, not for bis own private use, but for the benefit of 
 those who actually partake of it, then all the blessings 
 which the universal race enjoy, as they come from 
 God, are grounded on the obedience of Christ, and 
 pass to mankind through him. 
 
 It is often said that positive blessings come to us for 
 Christ's sake, or out of respect to his righteousness : 
 what meaning can there be in these expressions other 
 than what has now been explained ? If *a positive 
 blessing is bestowed out of respect to Christ's right- 
 eousness, it is the reward of his righteousness. If it 
 is not the reward of his righteousness, how is it 
 bestowed for his sake ? This general principle being 
 settled, I proceed to say, 
 
 (6.) That the merit of his obedience obtained for 
 him the gift of faith to the elect. No truth is more 
 clearly set forth in the Scriptures, than that the raising 
 up of a holy seed was an essential part of the reward of 
 his obedience " unto death." " When thou shalt make 
 his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he 
 shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the Lord 
 shall prosper in his hand. He shall see of the travail 
 of his soul and shall be satisfied. By his knowledge 
 shall my righteous Servant justify many, for he shall 
 bear their iniquities. Therefore I will divide him a 
 portion with the great, and he shall divide the spoil 
 with the strong, because he hath poured out his soul 
 unto death*.-' Thus his obedience " unto death," 
 like travail pains, was to bring forth a numerous seed, 
 in other words, was to procure the sanctification of 
 his elect. After a prophetic account of his death in 
 the second Psalm, there is subjoined a promise of re- 
 ward : " Yet have I set my King upon my holy hill of 
 Zion. I will declare the decree : The Lord hath said 
 
 * Is. 53. 10—12. 
 F5 
 
'66 OBEDIENCE [PART X,, 
 
 unto me, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten 
 thee. Ask of me and I shall give thee the heathen for 
 thine inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth 
 for thy possession." Thus the inheritance of a Son, 
 received for his Jilial obedience, includes a redeemed 
 kingdom, a holy seed. The same truth is taught in 
 many other places. " Thou spokest in vision to thy 
 Holy One, and saidst, I have laid help upon One that 
 is mighty, I have exalted One chosen out of the peo- 
 ple. — He shall cry unto me, Thou art my Father, 
 [that is, he shall be my Son.] — Also I will make him 
 my First-born, [my Heir,] higher than the kings of the 
 earth. — His seed also will I make to endure for ever, 
 and his throne as the days of heaven*." But there is 
 no need of multiplying quotations ; his kingdom of re- 
 deemed subjects, received as the reward of his obedi- 
 ence " unto death," forms the leading topic of the Old 
 Testament and the New. 
 
 Thus the gift of faith to the elect is Christ's reward. 
 But this is not all : it could not be bestowed in any 
 ether way in consistency with the highest honour of 
 the law. The sanctifying Spirit is a positive good if 
 ihere is any positive good in the universe ; and there- 
 fore, according to the principle established in Eden, 
 was not to be granted but as the reward of a perfect 
 righteousness. In the first moment of Adam's exist- 
 ence, the necessity of the case required that the Spirit 
 should be given him not as a reward. During his 
 probation, and while a claim to eternal life was not es- 
 lablished, the Spirit was not indeed due to him as a re- 
 ward, and might, as the event proved, be withheld, 
 even before he had sinned : yet during that period it 
 could not be bestowed but in approbation of a right- 
 eousness periect for the time the subject had been i$ 
 
 • Ps. 2.6—8. k 89. 3—37. 
 
CHAP. IV.] OF CHRIST. 6/7 
 
 existence ; because as soon as the first sin- arose, and 
 approbation ceased to be entire, it could be bestowed 
 no longer. Had Adam remained faithful during his 
 probation, the Spirit would have been eternally given 
 him as a covenanted reward. And then the first mo- 
 tion of sanctifying power on his infant son, would have 
 been the reward of the perfect righteousness of the 
 father; and all subsequent motions would have been 
 the reward both of father and son. It is exactly so in 
 respect to the Second Adam. In the first moment of 
 his existence under law, the necessity of the case re- 
 quired that the Spirit should be given him not as a re- 
 ward. During his probation, and before his claim was 
 established, the Spirit could not be given him but in 
 approbation of a righteousness perfect for the time he 
 had been under law. After his probation was closed^ 
 he had an eternal claim to the action of the Spirit upon 
 his human nature as a reward. And now the first mo- 
 tion of sanctifying grace on those who were given him 
 for a seed, is solely his reward ; subsequent motions 
 are a legal reward to him, and a gracious reward 
 to them. In the case of both Adams, the honour of 
 the law required that the Spirit should be given to the 
 seed only as the legal reward of the federal Parent ; 
 that the principle of granting no positive good till the 
 law had first received the homage of obedience, might 
 be preserved. 
 
 We shall now be able to make a clear distinction be- 
 tween the provision for moral agents in relation to par- 
 don, and the influence which secures the gift of faith. 
 Whatever renders the sins of men pardonable if they 
 will believe, and especially that which secures to them 
 pardon if they do believe, is certainly a complete pro- 
 vision for them as moral agents in relation to pardon. 
 You may put into that provision whatever you please, 
 and still a provision for the pardon of men if they as 
 
88 OBEDIENCE [PART I. 
 
 agents will believe, is entirely distinct from the per- 
 sonal claim of Christ to the gift of faith to them as 
 mere passive receivers of sanctifying impressions. 
 But the matter of the provision, as I have considered 
 it, is entirely different from the matter of the claim. 
 That which renders sin pardonable, is the mere suffer- 
 ings of the beloved Son inflicted by the Father's hand ; 
 that which constitutes the claim of Christ to the gift of 
 faith, is the merit of his obedience ; as wide a differ- 
 ence as between passion and action. Or if you bring- 
 in the testimony of obedience to render sin pardona- 
 ble, still there is a manifest difference between the tes- 
 timony which obedience gives out, and the intrinsic 
 merit of it which claims a reward. In both views that 
 which renders the sins of believers pardonable, is 
 wholly distinct from that which secures the gift of 
 faith. But you say, if the provision for pardon is con- 
 sidered as embracing all that which renders the pardon 
 of believers certain, the claim of merit enters into the 
 provision, for it was merit which ensured the accep- 
 tance of the sufferings. True, but it was merit claim- 
 ing a different reward from the gift of faith. The same 
 merit may ensure the acceptance of the sufferings, and 
 thus place the provision for pardon in the hands of 
 Christ, by making sure to him the remission of all who 
 will believe, and may also secure the gift of faith ; but 
 it is merit in two distinct operations, and in two ope- 
 rations which are separated in fact : for who will 
 doubt that the sufferings were so accepted for some 
 that they would be pardoned if they would believe, 
 who yet never receive the gift of faith ? But however 
 similar the matter of the provision may be to that of 
 the claim, yet a provision for the pardon of men if 
 they will believe, is wholly different from the claim of 
 Christ to the gift of faith. Whether the atonement in- 
 cludes the provision only, or the provision and claijno. 
 
©HAP. IV.] OF CHRIST. 09 
 
 is not now the question ; but let the distinction be- 
 tween the two be marked and remembered. 
 
 Thus the influence of merit is directly concerned in 
 the application of the atonement, or in bringing about 
 actual pardon. This is the last effect of obedience as 
 it stands related to the covering of sin. Here I might 
 close the chapter ; but from a wish to exhibit all the 
 offices of obedience at one view, I will proceed in a, 
 cursory manner to its bearing on our positive happi- 
 ness and the exaltation of Christ. 
 
 (7.) As a very important part of the reward of the 
 Redeemer, the merit of obedience obtained for him the 
 sure and complete salvation of all who once believe, 
 including all the positive blessings of the life that now 
 is and of that which is to come. This will be largely 
 proved in the Appendix. All positive good was given 
 him as his reward, and thus proceeded from God on the 
 original principle of Eden. But it was not given him 
 for his own private use, but for the benefit of men ; to 
 fee partly bestowed on the race at large in comforts 
 fitted (o a state of probation, and to be in a higher 
 sense offered to all, and actually given to some as a 
 final good. Given to whom? For whom did he re- 
 ceive the final good ? Here let it be distinctly remark- 
 ed, that as the reward was bestowed for the public and 
 official obedience of Christ, the grant was of course 
 public, (to make an open exhibition of his reward and 
 his influence on the happiness of mankind,) and was 
 no part of that secret contract which selected the indi- 
 viduals of the elect. In that public grant, the good 
 that was to be offered to men, and to be bestowed on 
 them as a gracious reward, was not made over to him 
 for the benefit of the elect as such, or for the unbeliev- 
 ing elect, but for believers, the members of his body 3 
 fhe Church. This public grant of the outward parts 
 
70 OBEDIENCE [PART I. 
 
 of the inheritance, took no notice of elect or noii-elect, 
 but only of believers, the body of Christ. All things 
 were detached from Godhead and made over to him 
 for the ultimate use of his body. This form of the 
 grant accomplished two things. First, it grounded 
 the positive happiness of believers on his obedience. 
 They partake of his reward as "joint heirs" with him 
 who is the " Heir of all things." Secondly, it brought 
 the all things into a new relatioi: to a whole world of 
 moral agents. A grant made for the benefit of believ- 
 ers, was a grant made for the benefit of all who would 
 believe; leaving all at liberty to share in it if they 
 would do their duty, and becoming thus a grant for all 
 as moral agents. This was not a provision by which 
 all or any as passive receivers might obtain the first' gift 
 of faith, but it was a provision by which all as agents 
 might receive the whole amount of positive good as a 
 gracious reward for believing and obeying. In that 
 grant was contained the public ministration of the Spi- 
 rit, not for the benefit of all as mere passive receivers 
 of sanctifying impressions, but for the use of all as 
 moral agents, to give them convicting light, (such as 
 is adapted to present motives to agents,) and to be of- 
 fered to them in its highest operations as an unaliena- 
 ble good if they humbly and believingly seek it. 
 There was a provision then in this grant for the con- 
 tinued sanctification of Simon Magus if he as an agent 
 would once believe, though not for his regeneration as 
 a mere passive receiver of sanctifying impressions. 
 And this new relation to a world of moral agents of 
 the all things of which Christ is Heir, was a part of his 
 reward. He was rewarded by that grant which drew 
 the new relation after it, and which without that cir- 
 cumstance would not have been the same reward. 
 Thus the merit of Christ's obedience procured eternal 
 
CHAP. IV. J OP CHRIST. 71 
 
 life and all positive good for the race at large, in the 
 highest sense in which they could be procured for mere 
 moral agents, that is, for creatures not to be acted upon 
 by sanctifying influence except as a reward to them- 
 selves. Accordingly a part of that good, viz. a state 
 of probation with all the means and comforts which it 
 involves, is for his sake conferred on the race at 
 large, and the rest is offered to all as what he procured 
 for them in such a sense that it is to be theirs if they 
 will make it their own. 
 
 These points, I hope, will present themselves to 
 those who are acquainted with the sacred page as self- 
 evident truths. If not, I must rely on the proof to be 
 exhibited that such a provision for all as agents was 
 made in the atonement ; for it is not the object of this 
 treatise to go beyond the expiation : and none will 
 doubt, if sufferings made provision for all as agents in 
 reference to their pardon, that obedience made an 
 equally extensive provision in relation to their positive 
 happiness. Indeed many of the texts which I shall 
 bring to prove so extensive a provision in the atone- 
 ment, equally prove the other part ; but I shall quote 
 them only to establish the former point. And this no- 
 tice I give once for all, that I may not s$ em to quote 
 passages with inattention to a part of their meaning. 
 
 Thus this public grant to Christ for the benefit of 
 believers, constituted a provision for a whole world of 
 moral agents. This was its first and simplest opera- 
 tion. But besides this provision for agents, there was 
 another part of Christ's reward which related to sanc- 
 tifying impressions on mere passive receivers. This in 
 general was promised him in the public covenant, as we 
 have seen ; but the individuals who were to be the 
 subjects of these impressions were fixed in a secret 
 compact, altogether distinct from that from which the 
 
W OBEDIENCE [PART I. 
 
 public transactions took their nature and their bearing 
 upon public law, and relating merely to Christ's re- 
 ward. In virtue of that secret compact, altogether 
 distinct from that on which both parts of the provision 
 for moral agents were founded, the elect were caused 
 to believe, and were thus brought into that state where 
 all the provisions and promises could act upon them, 
 and where others also, had they of their own accord 
 believed, would have found the same provisions. 
 
 And now if you ask about the secret purposes of the 
 Divine Mind, the blessings of that grant were specially 
 intended for the elect ; but if you inquire about the 
 form of the public instrument, the blessings were deli- 
 vered to Christ for all alike. 
 
 (8.) The merit of obedience gave to the Redeemer 
 a covenant claim to the administration of his Fathers 
 government, witli all the public honours which surround 
 his throne. That government, which he desired and 
 considers a reward, he exercises, not only over mere 
 passive receivers of sanctifying impressions, (quick- 
 ening whom he will,) but over a world of moral agents, 
 offering them indiscriminately the benefits of his pur- 
 chase, and commanding, inviting, promising, threaten- 
 ing, rewarding, and punishing, as though they were 
 independent of the Spirit. This new and more be- 
 nign government over a world of moral agents, found- 
 ed on those new relations which his work had esta- 
 blished, it was an important object with him to admi* 
 nister, as calculated to bring out to view the riches of 
 the divine nature, and to promote the happiness of the 
 universe. This was the ultimate end of those provi- 
 sions for moral agents which the omniscience of God 
 foresaw would in many instances, through the miscon- 
 duct of men, fail to prove an ultimate blessing. 
 
 Thus the parts of Christ's reward were, first, the 
 
CHAP. IV.] OF CHRIST. 73 
 
 acceptance of the atonement: secondly, that public 
 recognition of him and explanation of the design of his 
 death which laid a foundation for faith ; thirdly, the 
 gift of faith to the elect ; fourthly, the grant of all po- 
 sitive good for. the use of men as probationers, and in 
 a higher sense for as many as would believe, consti- 
 tuting a provision for a world of moral agents ; fifthly, 
 the administration of his Father's government, parti- 
 cularly over a race of agents brought into a new rela- 
 tion to God. By this enumeration we may learn what 
 reward was promised to Christ in the covenant of re- 
 demption. If he had a claim to each of these parts, 
 we know that his claims could be founded on nothing 
 but contract. Either then all these things were pro- 
 mised, or God bestows sovereign rewards for which 
 the Recipient has no claim. Against the latter alter- 
 native I allege, first, that, so far as we can judge, there 
 was the same reason why the whole reward should be 
 promised as a part, — why the whole influence and ef- 
 fect of Christ's work should be settled by covenant as 
 that a part should be. Secondly, the whole reward was 
 legal and conferred by the Lawgiver ; and it is ac- 
 cording to the principles of a legal government to pro- 
 mise the whole reward beforehand. Thirdly, if it was 
 important for the honour of the law that all positive 
 good should be known to be issued as Christ's reward, 
 it would tend to make a more distinct impression of 
 this truth, to have it understood that all had been pro- 
 mised him as his reward. Fourthly, whatever God 
 saw beforehand would be a suitable reward to Christ, 
 and was determined to confer, must have been known 
 to the Son ; and the only difference between promising 
 and not promising related to the bond ; and why a part 
 of what both divine Persons knew to be a suitable re- 
 ward, and knew would be conferred, should be ex- 
 
 G 
 
ATONEMENT NOT [PART I. 
 
 empted from the bond which fixed the other part, no 
 one I believe can conceive. Fifthly, every part of the 
 reward 7uas promised in general terms in the revela- 
 tion made to the Church. And why greater promises 
 should be made in public than had been made in pri- 
 vate, it would be hard to tell. On the whole we may 
 safely conclude that Christ had a covenant claim to 
 every part of his reward, and that the reward itself 
 discloses what the covenant was. The light thus cast 
 upon the covenant of redemption, I shall have occa 
 sion to make use of in a subsequent part. 
 
 — ++— — 
 
 CHAPTER V. 
 
 ATONEMENT NOT RECONCILIATION. 
 
 The chief design of this chapter is to fix the mean- 
 ing of the w T ord atonement, and to separate that part 
 of Christ's influence which falls under this name from 
 all the rest. 
 
 We are reconciled by the atonement, because that 
 is the ground of our reconciliation : but atonement is 
 not itself reconciliation or pardon, neither does it con- 
 tain the influence which secures reconciliation. 
 
 I. Atonement is not itself reconciliation or pardon. 
 For then either no atonement was made for Paul be- 
 fore his conversion, or he was pardoned while in a 
 state of settled rebellion. The former will not be said, 
 the latter cannot be true. At the time of his conver- 
 sion, he was exlorted to be baptised and to " wash 
 away" his " sins." Then for the first time he " ob- 
 tained mercy," and found that, so far from being par- 
 
CHAP. V.] RECONCILIATION. 75 
 
 doned from eternity, he had escaped the unpardona- 
 ble sin only by acting " ignorantly in unbelief*." 
 
 It is indeed said that " when we were enemies we 
 were reconciled to God by the death of his Sont ;" but 
 this can only mean that when we were in a state of 
 enmity and condemnation, we were arrested and 
 brought into a state of holiness and justification. It 
 cannot mean that we were justified while enemies ; for 
 the great object of the Epistle, and of the context it- 
 self, is to prove, not justification without faith, but jus- 
 tification by faith. 
 
 This dream of eternal justification has no support 
 in the word of God. We read indeed of the decree of 
 election, and of a seed given to Christ before the foun- 
 dation of the world ; but these were not eternal justi- 
 fication. Condemnation and justification express the 
 relations and actual treatment of moral agents, which 
 cannot be ulder than the existence of creatures ; that 
 decree and promise regarded the elect in the light of 
 mere passive receivers of sanctifying impressions. 
 The latter appertained to the covenant of redemp- 
 tion ; justification takes place under the covenant of 
 grace. Those were a purpose and promise re- 
 specting men ; this the actual treatment of men. It 
 was eternally purposed and promised that the elect 
 as passive should be regenerated, and that when they 
 should believe they should be justified by faith, a pri- 
 vilege which was to be common to all if they would 
 believe. All that was peculiar to the elect in the pur- 
 pose or promise respected them as passive, but justi- 
 fication respects men as agents. To make that pecu. 
 liar thing justification, is utterly confounding the two 
 characters of men, and what I shall hereafter have oc- 
 casion to call the two corresponding departments of 
 divine operations. It is speaking of one department 
 
 * Acts 22. 16. 1 Tim. 1. 13. 16. + Rom. 5. 1Q„ 
 
<0 ATONEMENT NOT [PART I, 
 
 in the language of the other, and ascribing to one the 
 acts of the other ; and is as inconsistent and as expres- 
 sive of falsehood, as for Paul to have addressed a 
 Jewish synagogue as one speaking to a Roman senate, 
 giving titles and alluding to facts as present which ex- 
 isted only at Rome. 
 
 Or if you insist that the distinctive purpose and 
 promise respected the elect as agents, and secured to 
 them as such a privilege which other agents would not 
 enjoy, still it was not eternal justification. Was it the 
 eternal purpose and promise that they should be jus- 
 tified ? So it was the eternal purpose and promise 
 that they should exist, and that they should believe : 
 but did they exist and believe from eternity ? They 
 could not be justified in C/wist before they had sinned 
 and were condemned : and did they sin and were they 
 condemned from eternity ? Eternally condemned and 
 eternally justified ! An eternal design to justify was 
 no more eternal justification, than an eternal design to 
 create was eternal creation. You might as well talk 
 of the eternal enactment of the law, or the eternal 
 mission of the Spirit. 
 
 The universal language of Scripture is that justifi- 
 cation is in time. In Abraham's day the justification 
 of the Gentiles was yet future. " The Scripture fore- 
 seeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, 
 preached before the Gospel unto Abraham, saying, In 
 thee shall all nations be blessed*." Even the pre- 
 diction and promise were not justification. 
 
 There never was any agreement or understanding 
 between the Sacred Persons, either in heaven or on 
 Calvary, that agents should be justified until as agents 
 they had believed. Christ never stipulated that men 
 should be justified from eternity, but died that they 
 
 * Gal. 3. 8. 
 
€HAP. V.] RECONCILIATION. 7? 
 
 might be justified after their effectual calling. " For 
 this cause he is the Mediator of the new testament, 
 that by means of death for the redemption of the trans- 
 gressions that were under the first testament, they 
 which are called, [not they which were elected,] might 
 receive the promise of eternal inheritance." The or- 
 der of links in the golden chain is this : " Whom he 
 did predestinate, them he also called ; and whom he 
 called, them he also justified*." The whole doctrine 
 of justification by faith lies with the weight of a world 
 on the same side. 
 
 The elect themselves before their conversion, in- 
 stead of being justified, are actually under condemna- 
 tion. It is expressly affirmed that they are " by na- 
 ture the children of wrath even as others." The first 
 motion of faith in every instance, (among adults,) is 
 the boundary between a state of condemnation and 
 justification. " He that bel'eveth — is not condemned^ 
 but he that believeth not is condemned already." " As 
 many as are of the works of the law, [which is ex« 
 plained to mean, as many as have not faith,] are under 
 the curse." Accordingly pardon is every where 
 placed after repentance. " Let the wicked forsake 
 his *-ay and the unrighteous man his thoughts, and let 
 him return unto the Lord and he will have mercy 
 upon him, and to our God for he will abundantly par- 
 don." " After those days, saith the Lord, I will put 
 my law in their inward parts, — and will be their God 1 
 — for I will forgive their iniquity." What else is im- 
 plied in prayers for pardon offered up in time? 
 What else can be meant by actual remission in an- 
 swer to prayer? What else by God's being now 
 * 4 ready to pardon," and by the exhortation to sinners 
 " to tiee from the wrath to come" ? What by the pa» 
 
 * Eom, 8. 30. Heb. 9. 15, 
 
 G 2 
 
78 ATONEMENT NOT [PART I. 
 
 rabies of the publican and the prodigal son ? Paul 
 was sent to turn the Gentiles from the power of Satan 
 unto God, that they " might receive forgiveness of 
 sins." The whole consistory of apostles were sent forth 
 to preach "repentance and remission of sins," and to 
 say, " Repent and be baptised every one of you in 
 the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins." 
 " Him. hath God exalted — to give repentance to Israel 
 and forgiveness of sins." u Repent ye therefore and 
 be converted that your sins may be blotted out." 
 " Repent of this thy wickedness, and pray God, if 
 perhaps the thought of thy heart may be forgiven 
 thee*." 
 
 Thus the elect themselves plainly lie under con^ 
 demnatidn until, (if adults,) they believe. Though in 
 relation to them as passive receivers of sanctifying 
 impressions, there was a decree and promise that they 
 should receive faith, yet as agents,- (and as such only 
 do they bear any relation to the law, its precept, 
 threatening, or promise, to sin, condemnation, pardon, 
 justification, punishment, or reward,) they are not jus- 
 tified till they believe. 
 
 Nor could it possibly have comported with the ho- 
 nour of the law for any atonement, let it consist in 
 what it might, or for any thing else, to have procured 
 remission for men, and cast over them the shield of 
 impunity, while continuing to trample the law in the 
 dust, and spurning the expedient devised for its sup- 
 port. This would have ruined the law and defeated 
 the verv end of the atonement, which was to convince 
 the universe that transgressors should not go unpunish* 
 
 * Ex. 34. 9. Num. 14. 20. 2Chron. 30. 18. Neh. 9. 17. Ps. 25. 11. 
 Is. 55. 7. Jer. 31. 31—34. k 33. 8. Luke 3. 7. & 15. 11—32. Sc 18. 13, 
 14. & 24. 47. John 3. 18. Ads 2. 38. & 3. 19. & 5. 31. ic 8. 22. & 26, 18 
 Rom. 3. 28. Gal. 3. 10. Eph.2. 3. James 5. 15. 1 John 1. 9. 
 
CHAP. V.] RECONCILIATION. 79 
 
 ed. Instead of pronouncing in the ears of the whole 
 creation that the breakers of the law in all worlds and 
 ages should die, it would have proclaimed impunity to 
 rebellion in all its maddest and most confirmed ra- 
 vings. No atonement could protect a single impeni- 
 tent sinner, and pronounce upon him that he should 
 never be punished, without losing the whole expres- 
 sion which it was intended to make. Look at the case 
 of the prince of Wales. Why did he die ? To make 
 a deep impression on the multitude that no counter- 
 feiter should ever escape. Suppose that his death 
 and the covenant connected with it had bound the 
 arm of government not to strike the ten criminals 
 though going on in their old ways, and had thus let 
 them loose to counterfeit with impunity. When these 
 culprits stalk abroad untouched, and drive their nefa- 
 rious trade from year to year without a frown, who is 
 convinced by the death of the prince that the law is 
 to have its complete dominion, and that all future 
 counterfeiters shall die ? Instead of awing transgres- 
 sors, his death has thrown the reins upon their neck 
 and completely ruined the law. 
 
 Thus whatever respect the atonement might have 
 to the elect as destined to be receivers of sanctifying 
 impressions, it could not break the relation to con- 
 demnation which they as agents sustained, and pro- 
 nounce them acquitted, until, (if adults,) they had be- 
 lieved. It was not therefore, reconciliation, provided 
 a complete atonement for Paul existed before Paul be- 
 lieved. 
 
 II. Nor does the atonement contain the influence 
 which secures reconciliation. As it could not justify 
 unbelievers, it had no way to secure reconciliation but 
 by ensuring the gift of faith. And this is what is ge- 
 nerally ascribed to it by those who talk of its recon- 
 
80 ATONEMENT NOT [PART I. 
 
 ciling power. The great question then is, does the 
 atonement by its own proper influence secure the gift 
 of faith ? 
 
 This at once calls upon us to decide what the atone- 
 ment is, and how much of the influence of Christ falls 
 under this name. Our own opinion is, that the name 
 is applicable only to that which answered the end of 
 punishment, by showing the universe that God would 
 support his law by executing its penalty on transgres- 
 sors ; which thus secured the authority of the law and 
 satisfied its Protector, and besides removing the curse 
 of abandonment, reconciled with the honour of the law 
 the pardon of believers, (whether of all indiscrimi- 
 nately who would believe, or of those only who it was 
 foreseen would believe 5) which thus removed the legal 
 impediments to the acquittal of believers, and render- 
 ed their sins pardonable, and so became the ground of 
 pardon. Such an influence, separated from that which 
 secures the gift of faith, was to Paul before his conver- 
 sion, (aside from its bearing on his regeneration by re- 
 moving the curse of abandonment,) nothing but a pro- 
 vision for a moral agent, presenting to him a ground 
 on which he might be pardoned if he would believe, 
 and taking away the penal bar to his continued sanc- 
 tification, but having no power to secure the gift of 
 faith. Standing by itself, it had simply changed his 
 relations as an agent, and as it bore on pardon, had 
 merely rendered his sins pardonable if he would per- 
 form his duty, and pardonable on no other terms. 
 And after his conversion, it was such a provision ap- 
 plied, and became the ground on which a sinning 
 agent was pardoned, and so far as related to the curse 
 of abandonment, the ground on which he continued to 
 be sanctified*. 
 
 * The removal of the curse of abandonment, though even as it bore 
 on regeneration it took away what agents had caused, was no part of 
 
CHAP. V.] RECONCILIATION. SI 
 
 Here then is a mighty change wrought in the rela- 
 tions of moral agents, (whether of a part or the whole 
 of mankind I am not now. inquiring,) distinct from eve- 
 ry thing relating to the sv.me creatures as mere pas- 
 sive subjects of regeneration. The influence which 
 produced this change was certainly distinct from that 
 w r hich related to mere recipients of regenerating pow- 
 er, though both should be allowed to have existed in 
 the same thing. Now what shall we call this influ- 
 ence ? It is so distinguishable in its effects, and at the 
 same time so important, that it deserves a separate 
 name, and ought not to be lost in general appellations. 
 What name shall we give it ? Is it not in fact the cover 
 for sin ? Then we must call it the atonement. And 
 then the atonement is that which changes the relations 
 of moral agents in reference to a release from the 
 curse, and not that which procures the positive gift of 
 the Spirit to passive recipients. 
 
 This is our idea of the atonement^: but whether it is 
 correct or not depends on the question whether the 
 atonement contains that influence which secures the 
 gift of faith. In this and the foregoing chapters I have 
 been separating and shaping materials for the decision 
 of this question. Let us see to what they amount. 
 
 We have found that the atonement is the cover for 
 sin, by which is meant that it hides or is adapted to 
 hide sin so from view that it will not be punished ; that 
 therefore it came in the room of punishment and an- 
 swered the same end, or was adapted to come in the 
 
 a provision for agents but as it removed the penal bar to the gift of the 
 Spirit on their doing their duty. A provision for agents is not that 
 which undoes what agents have done, but that which agents may im- 
 prove, and the effects of which depend on their improvement as a sine 
 qua nan. This removal, as it took away the penal bar to the regenera- 
 tion of Paul, was not a provision for an agent ; as it removed the penal, 
 bar to the gift of the Spirit on his faithfully seeking it y it was. 
 
82 ATONEMENT NOT [PART I. 
 
 room of punishment and to answer the same end ; that 
 that end was to support the law by convincing the 
 universe that God would punish transgression ; that the 
 means of this conviction were the sufferings of the be- 
 loved Son inflicted by the Father's hand, which there- 
 fore constituted the matter of the atonement ; that when 
 the end of punishment was thus answered, the Protector 
 of the law was satisfied, and the legal impediments to 
 pardon were removed ; that the result of this was that 
 the sins of believers, and of none else, were pardona- 
 ble, and God could forgive them without injuring the 
 law, but was not obliged till another influence, a pro- 
 mise made to the obedience of Christ, had created the 
 bond ; that atonement is distinguishable from its cove- 
 nanted acceptance, it being that w T hich came from the 
 Son and satisfied the Father, and not the security given 
 by the Father to the Son that believers should be par- 
 doned on that ground ; that this ground on which men 
 might be pardoned, viewed as already believing, could 
 not be the influence which secures the gift of faith ; 
 that the atonement therefore, separate from its cove- 
 nanted acceptance, was, in relation to those for whom 
 it was made, a mere provision in the hands of the Fa- 
 ther for moral agents, rendering it possible for him to 
 pardon them when they should believe ; and that its 
 covenanted acceptance merely placed that provision 
 for moral agents in the hands of Christ, by securing to 
 him the pardon, on that ground, of all who would be- 
 lieve. Besides this connected chain whose links seem 
 indissoluble, we have found that an entirely different 
 influence, constituted not by sufferings, not by any 
 thing which answered in the room of punishment, not 
 by any thing which is the ground of pardon, but by 
 the merit of obedience, and consisting in a claim to a 
 reward, obtained the gift of faith for the elect. 
 
CHAP. V.] RECONCILIATION. 33 
 
 Not only are we led to this conclusion by the gene- 
 ral chain, but there is something in almost every link 
 which indicates the same thing. 
 
 (1.) The measure in question is an atonement. From 
 the accepted use of its English name I draw an argu- 
 ment. To atone, in every one's mouth is to make 
 amends for an offence, that the offender may be par- 
 doned as he is, or is capable of being, not that the ap- 
 peased may fit him for pardon. 
 
 (2.) The measure is a cover for sin : but what has 
 a cover for sin to do with securing the gift of faith ? 
 Where no sin exists God is not obliged to sanctify, 
 unless he has bound himself by covenant. When no 
 sin existed in heaven or Eden, he ceased to sanctify, 
 because he had not promised to continue his influence. 
 When sin was actually covered, so far as it bore on 
 the question of sanctification, that is, when the penalty 
 of abandonment was taken wholly away, he was under 
 no obligation to bestow the gift of faith. One hin- 
 derance to sanctification was thus removed, but no ob- 
 ligation to sanctify was created. And this is not all. 
 The mere cover for sin could not even render the gift 
 of faith consistent with the honour of the law. Some- 
 thing more than the absence of sin was required of 
 Adam, after he had entered upon existence, to render 
 the exertion of sanctifying influence upon his heart 
 consistent with the honour of the law. He must have 
 a positive righteousness, perfect for the time he had 
 been in existence, and the influence must be a token 
 -that he was thus far approved; for the moment he 
 ceased to be approved, the law forbid the influence to 
 be continued After his probation, had he remained 
 faithful, the influence would have been for ever grant- 
 ed to ; md his seed as the reward of a perfect 
 right., Aad the honour of the law required 
 
84 ATONEMENT NOT [PART I. 
 
 that it should not be bestowed in any other way. The 
 same principle still exists : and as men have not a 
 perfect obedience to show, even after the sin of diso- 
 bedience is covered, (including all the disobedience 
 of omission itself.) they can never be sanctified but as 
 the reward of Christ. After sin is covered a defect 
 remains, not caused by sin or the presence of positive 
 evil, but by the absence of positive good : and that 
 defect the righteousness of Christ must supply. The 
 mere cover for sin therefore, so far from securing the 
 gift of faith, could not even render it consistent with 
 the honour of the law. It could only remove the pe- 
 nal bar which stood in the way. 
 
 It is equally evident that a cover for sin could only 
 affect the relations of moral agents. If it covers si?i } 
 it only covers what an agent has done ; for the passive 
 have not sinned. If its whole effect and tendency is 
 to cover sin, it stretches itself over none but agents, 
 and exhausts all its virtue upon their relations. If it 
 had respect to the relation which sinners bore to the 
 law, — if its tendency was to free from condemnation 
 and punishment in a way not injurious to the law, its 
 whole aspect was upon agents ; for none but agents 
 bore any relation to law, condemnation, punishment, 
 or pardon. No relations but those of agents could 
 possibly be affected by a cover for sin, except so far 
 as the penalty of abandonment, which agents had in- 
 curred, excluded impressions from the passive. But 
 even this indirect effect on the passive was produced 
 by changing the relations of agents, by removing a 
 penal bar which they had raised against themselves. 
 
 The cover for sin then could touch none but agents. 
 It produced all its effects by changing their relations. 
 Of course it was designed for no other purpose. W e 
 know from the shape of the garment for whom it was 
 
tfHAP. V.J RECONCILIATION. 83 
 
 intended. It was never provided for men as passive, 
 but for men as active. And now if the atonement is 
 that cover, it was never offered or accepted for mere 
 recipients of sanctifying impressions, but for moral 
 agents ; not for men as active and passive both ; not 
 at once to render their sins pardonable and to obtain 
 for them the gift of faith ; but merely to be the ground 
 of their release from both parts of the curse. Be the 
 number for whom it was offered greater or less, it was 
 offered for them only as agents, to take away the pe- 
 nalty of abandonment which they as agents had incur- 
 red, and to render pardonable the sins which they as 
 agents had committed. To this I add, that it was 
 offered and accepted with an express understanding 
 that it should be applied to them for pardon only when 
 as agents they should believe : and thus the enjoyment 
 of it was not secured to them as passive and motion- 
 less, but was suspended on their own act as a sine 
 qua non, an act which they were in duty bound to 
 perform. The only operation which it had on the 
 elect themselves, besides removing the penalty of 
 abandonment, was to render their pardon consistent 
 with the honour of the law when they as agents should 
 perform a reasonable duty by believing. And this 
 makes it out to be neither more nor less, (as it related 
 to pardon,) than a provision for moral agents. No 
 matter if by another influence that effort of their agen^ 
 cy was secured ; the atonement itself, so long as the 
 enjoyment of it depended on their own conduct, was a 
 mere provision for moral agents. 
 
 (3.) The atonement, as it stood related to p?rdon, 
 was adapted to come in the room of punishment and 
 to answer the same end ; and besides removing the 
 
 H 
 
.36 ATONEMENT NOT [PART I. 
 
 curse of abandonment, it had no other use*. But it 
 could not answer the end of the punishment of a man 
 viewed otherwise than as already a believer. Faith 
 must exist then before it could accomplish any part of 
 Vhat it was adapted to accomplish in relation to par- 
 don. It was no part of its office therefore to secure 
 the existence of faith. 
 
 No substitute whatever could answer the end of the 
 punishment of continued transgressors. This end is 
 to show that God will punish sin, and to avoid the evil 
 of shielding continued transgression. But no substi- 
 tute, by protecting Judas in his mad career, could con- 
 vince the universe that God w r ould punish sin, or pre- 
 vent the evil of shielding continued transgression, but 
 would accomplish the very thing it was guarding 
 against. There would have been an end to be answer- 
 ed by the punishment of men, (besides a literal exercise 
 of justice,) had they repented and no atonement had 
 been provided for them ; and that would have been to 
 support the authority of the law by showing that God 
 would punish sin. That end of the punishment of the 
 penitent and reformed, the atonement can answer. But 
 there is another end to be accomplished by punishing 
 obdurate transgressors ; and that is to avoid casting 
 a shield over those who continue to trample the law in 
 the dust. This end no atonement can answer so as 
 to supply the place of the punishment of such : for the 
 moment it attempts to do this, it accomplishes the 
 very evil it was intended to prevent. All that an 
 atonement could do that was to answer exactly the end 
 of punishment, was to answer the end of the punish- 
 
 * I use punishment here for that part of the threatened evil which is 
 aet aside hy pardon. The curse of abandonment was really a part of 
 punishment; but for want of another term, and to avoid circumlocu- 
 tion, I am obliged to use the word here in this restricted sense a 
 
CHAP. V.] RECONCILIATION. 87 
 
 nient of a sinner already reformed. It could have no 
 influence therefore to reform hirn. As certainly then 
 as the cover for sin, (the ground of acquittal from the 
 curse,) besides removing the penalty of abandonment, 
 could do no more than answer the end of punishment, 
 the atonement could not secure the gift of faith. And 
 its being adapted to answer the purpose of the punish- 
 ment of a man whenever he will believe, constitutes it 
 in relation to him a provision for a moral agent. 
 
 But the theory which assigns to the atonement a 
 power to obtain sanctifying grace, wanders out of the 
 way and draws in an influence which, instead of an* 
 swering the end of punishment, (for the merit of one, 
 we have seen, cannot answer the end of the punish- 
 ment of another,) lays claim to a reward. That merit 
 by which faith is obtained, can in no degree come in 
 the room of punishment and help to constitute a provi- 
 sion for moral agents in relation to pardon. 
 
 (4.) The atonement was made by sufferings, or at 
 most by sufferings combined with the testimony of obe- 
 dience : but what influence have sufferings-, or suffer- 
 ings and testimony united, detached from the merit 
 which claims a reward, to obtain the gift of faith ? Or 
 to look at the thing more generally, how can suffering 
 for another what he deserves to suffer, make him holy ? 
 To intercept a stroke aimed at another, may ward it 
 off from him, but what has that to do with changing 
 his heart ? 
 
 (5.) The atonement removed the legal impediments 
 to pardon. But this position, which will be allowed 
 to describe the proper office of the atonement, does 
 not carry the idea that it removed the bar which un- 
 belief raises, but the obstructions which past sins have 
 caused and which faith cannot put away; not those 
 which arise from rejecting the Gospel, but those 
 
38 ATONEMENT NOT [PART \, 
 
 which have arisen from breaking the law. I shall 
 show presently that this was all that the *)£)D of the 
 Old Testament accomplished. 
 
 The influence which removes the legal impediments 
 to pardon is identically that which is the ground of 
 pardon, and becomes the ground merely by removing 
 the impediments. But the merit which secures the 
 gift of faith does not, as we have seen, answer the end 
 of punishment so as to become the ground of pardon. 
 Nor does the claim which it supports on God for a gift, 
 render pardon consistent with the honour of the law. 
 The gift itself is no part of the ground of remission. 
 In the public instrument of the covenant of grace, the 
 exercise of faith is made the condition of pardon ; but 
 even that is not the ground : much less is the gift of 
 faith, and still less can a claim to that gift, or the merit 
 which supports the claim, be that ground. 
 
 If then the atonement is that which removes the le ? 
 gal impediments to pardon, and thus becomes the 
 ground of remission, it is entirely distinct from the in- 
 fluence which secures the gift of faith. 
 
 (6.) The atonement is that which satisfies God as 
 Protector of the authority of the law. In that charac- 
 ter, (and in that only can the satisfaction be predicated 
 of him,) he was satisfied when the end of the punish- 
 ment of believers, (and of men in no other character 
 can it be said,) was so answered that the law was safe 
 though they were pardoned. That satisfaction of 
 course had nothing to do with making believers. It 
 was the state of finding the sufferings to have answer- 
 ed the end of the punishment of men, (whether appli- 
 cable to the whole or a part,) viewed as already believ- 
 ing, or the state of finding the sins of believers par- 
 donable. That satisfaction certainly was not pro- 
 duced by any merit supporting a claim on the Father 
 
CHAP. V.}' RECONCILIATION. 83 
 
 for an influence to make believers, for they are already 
 believers. Besides, to establish a claim against a 
 person, is a strange way to satisfy him for an offence. 
 To oblige another to satisfy me, is not to satsify him. 
 It was not merit, as we have seen, which reconciled 
 remission with the honour of the law ; and certainly it 
 was not a claim to the gift of faith which rendered the 
 sins of believers pardonable. Nor could it result from 
 that satisfaction, in itself considered, that faith would 
 ever be bestowed. Because the sins of believers were 
 pardonable, it did not follow that God was bound to 
 make men believe. And that which so secured the 
 law as to make the sins of believers pardonable, fully 
 satisfied the Protector of the law. If the law was safe 
 he had gained his point, and had not to wait for a 
 claim to be established against himself before he could 
 be satisfied. He was satisfied in the security of his 
 law if never called upon to bestow a gift on men. And 
 that relation of things which satisfaction implied, was 
 complete though none were ever to believe ; for though 
 none ever believed, it would still be true that believ- 
 ers might be pardoned without injuring the law. 
 
 If then atonement was the influence which satisfied 
 the Protector of the law, and rendered the sins of be- 
 lievers pardonable, it was not atonement which secure 
 ed the gift of faith. 
 
 (7.) The gift of faith to the elect was Christ's re- 
 ward, conferred for the merit of his obedience " unto 
 death," that is, for making atonement. There is a 
 distinction to be set up between the atonement and the 
 reward for making atonement, no less clear than be- 
 tween a day's work and its wages. And there is an 
 equal distinction to be drawn between the influence of 
 the atonement and the claim to the reward, no less ob- 
 vious than between tne influence of a physician upoa 
 H2 
 
30 ATONEMENT NOT fpAUT U 
 
 his patient and his title to a fee. Atonement exerted 
 its influence upon God's law, and spread itself as a 
 covering over sinning agents ; the claim of Christ ex- 
 erted itself upon God's promise, and stood related to 
 passive receivers of sanctifying impressions. The in- 
 fluence of the atonement was a cover which men might 
 carry home with them, and wrap around them ; the 
 claim of Christ remained in himself, and could not be 
 transferred. The influence of the atonement upon the 
 elect themselves, (allowing them to have been the 
 only objects,) was distinct from the claim of Christ to 
 their renewal and consequent salvation. 
 
 But you say, all this is not what we mean. We 
 admit that the influence which secures the gift of faith 
 is no part of that which answered the end of punish- 
 ment, which removed the legal impediments to pardon, 
 which satisfied the Protector of the law in relation to 
 the remission of sins, which is the ground of pardon, 
 which spent itself on the relations of moral agents, and 
 constituted a provision for them. All this, we a >it, 
 has nothing to do with the actual gift of faith. But 
 then the cover of sin cannot accomplish its end till sin 
 is covered or pardoned ; and it cannot secure pardon 
 unless it obtains the gift of faith. We must therefore 
 ^ive the word a wider meaning, and apply it to a 
 sufficient part of Christ's influence to secure that gift. 
 But where, I ask, is the authority for this ? Not in the 
 name ; for that, we have seen, cannot decide whether 
 the thing is the cover of sin, or only a cover for sin. 
 Where then is the proof that atonement by its own 
 separate influence secures actual pardon ? You say, 
 " The Hebrew word for atonement signifies to cover ; 
 and when sins in the Old Testament are spoken of as 
 atoned, the meaning always is that they were covered, 
 removed, never to be charged on the person who com-- 
 
CHAP. V.] RECONCILIATION. 91 
 
 mitted them. A transaction which only renders it. 
 possible for sin to be pardoned is no atonement, what 
 ever else it may be*." 
 
 This is a point not to be passed over without a dis- 
 tinct examination. Every one acquainted with the 
 Hebrew language knows that -the same word runs into 
 different meanings, preserving some general analogy 
 to the original one, but going off through several gra- 
 dations until resemblance is almost lost; and that two 
 or more branches of meaning sometimes start from the 
 same root, subdividing into other ramifications. The 
 radical meaning of 15^, the Hebrew word for atone- 
 ment, is to cover. From this root several branches 
 proceed, one of which relates to atonement. I will 
 exhibit three uses of the word, and leave it to the 
 reader to judge whether they belong to the same 
 "branch. 
 
 I. It is used in its primary sense, and without any- 
 express reference to the typical expiations. Thus it 
 signifies to cover or blot out a covenantf, to cover or 
 blot out sin by pardon\. And hence it is used for a 
 disposition to pardon, a merciful temper and conduct 
 towards offenders § ; and hence for a reconciled state 
 of feeling||. Is it certain that either of these uses of 
 the word has any reference to the application of the 
 same word to the typical expiations ? Supposing the 
 English name for atonement was cover, and you should 
 read, " Blessed is he whose transgression is forgiven, 
 
 * A manuscript which has been transcribed by many hands and 
 widely circulated, must be considered so far published as to be the pro- 
 per subject of remark, and liable to be quoted, though without a refer- 
 ence or a name. This is my vindication for those quotations through 
 the book which acknowledge no author. 
 
 f is. 28. 18 % Deut. 21. 8. 2Chron. 30. 18. Ps. 65. 3. & 78, 
 
 38. & 7^. 9. Prov. 16. 6. I«f. 6. 7, & 22. 14, & 27. 9. Jer. 13. 23, 
 
 § Eeuc. 21. 8. {J Ezek, 16, 63, 
 
82 ATONEMENT NO* fpART I. 
 
 whose sin is covered^ would you certainly infer that 
 the term in this verse was derived from the name of 
 the atonement, or had any reference to it ? If not, the 
 above uses of the word throw no light on the meaning 
 of *1£D when applied to the atonement 
 
 II, It is used in two senses, (evidently borrowed 
 from the expiations, but applied to other matters,) for 
 a means or operation effectual or ineffectual as the 
 ease might be. 
 
 (1.) The general idea suggested by those expiations 
 was that of life offered for life that the latter life might 
 be preserved. Whether, that the life might be pre- 
 served absolutely, or only that there might be a pro- 
 vision to preserve it, to take effect upon certain condi- 
 tions, was of no importance as respected the general 
 character of the transactions. In either way there was 
 life offered for life that life might be preserved. This 
 was enough, (which ever way it was,) to give curren- 
 cy to the use of the word for whatever was offered to 
 God or man in lieu of life, whether absolutely or other- 
 wise ; for it was npt the absoluteness or conditionality 
 of the offerings which connected them with the word, 
 but their being in one way or other offered for life. 
 Hence the word is used to denote a ransom given in 
 the room of life to cover or shield life : and sometimes, 
 where human qualifications were not necessary, or 
 were supposed to exist, the ransom is contemplated as 
 taking absolute effect* : in other instances it is sup- 
 posed to be frustrated through some imperfection in 
 the character or state of him for whom it was offered!. 
 
 (2.) The general idea suggested by those expia- 
 tions was that of appeasing wrath. Whether they re- 
 
 * E . 30. 2, 15, 16. P-ov. 13. 8. and 21. 18, Is. 43. 3. 1 Job 30. 
 
 18. Ps.49. 7. Prov. 6. 35, 
 
CHAP. V.J RECONCILIATION. 93 
 
 conciled absolutely, or were only a provision for re* 
 conciliation, applicable where the offender was duly 
 prepared, was of no importance as respected the ge- 
 neral character of the transactions. In either way 
 there was a design or tendency to appease wrath. 
 This was enough, (which ever way it was,) to bring 
 the word into use in the common affairs of life to ex- 
 press what is meant by the English term appease*. 
 
 III. It is used to denote the ceremonial expiations 
 themselves. These expiations were effectual in two, 
 and only two, cases: (1.) where no faith was requir- 
 ed or was possible, as in those instances where inani- 
 mate things were ceremonially purged! : (2.) where 
 faith existed, or was supposed by the temporal Head 
 of that nation to exist. In the case of individuals, the 
 very act of offering was a profession of faith, and set 
 forth, not so much the abstract power of the atone- 
 ment, as a Christian's approach to God through a Me- 
 diator, and the success that would follow. When a 
 Hebrew brought his lamb to the priest to be offered 
 for his sins, it answered to a Christian's bearing Christ 
 in the arms of his, faith to God, and saying, Here is 
 my Lamb for a burnt-offering. And that reconcilia- 
 tion will follow such an act, is what no one denies. 
 In regard to those general atonements for the whole 
 congregation which may be supposed to have turned 
 away temporal judgments, let it be remembered that 
 they were offered for a nation of professed believers. 
 And if those pictures of the real atonement-could turn 
 away temporal wrath from the visible Church, it only 
 taught us that the atonement itself will turn away 
 eternal wrath from true believers. Not only a gene- 
 ral profession of faith, but special humiliation must 
 
 * Gen. 32. 20. Prov. 16. 14.-— ■! Lev, 16. 20. Num. 35. 33. Es, 
 -13. 20, 26. and 45. 20. 
 
94 ATONEMENT NOT [PART IV 
 
 combine with those national expiations to give them 
 any effect. The great day of atonement was always 
 a day of fasting, humiliation, and prayer ; and without 
 these accompaniments it would have been of no vali- 
 dity*. 
 
 Thus where a real or visible faith existed, the cere- 
 monial expiations had a correspondent effect : but did 
 they always accomplish reconciliation ? What means 
 then that, oath, " I have sworn unto the house of Eli 
 that the iniquity of Eli's house shall not be purged 
 with sacrifice nor offering forever!" ? Could they ever 
 avail without the co-operation of a visible faith ? What 
 mean then those terrible reproofs, u I will take no bul- 
 lock out of thy house, nor he-goats out of thy folds." 
 " To what purpose is the multitude of your sacrifices ? 
 — I am full of the burnt-offerings of rams, and the fat 
 of fed beasts ; and I delight not in the blood of bul- 
 locks, or of lambs, or of he-goats. — W r ho hath required 
 this at your hands ? Bring no more vain oblations : 
 incense is an abomination unto me : the new moons 
 and sabbaths, the calling of assemblies, I cannot away 
 with ; it is iniquity, even the solemn meeting. Your 
 new moons and your appointed feasts my soul hateth ; 
 they are a trouble unto me, I am weary to bear themj" ? 
 And how came it to pass that these expiations did not 
 reconcile the scribes and Pharisees ? 
 
 Certainly then the ceremonial expiations accom- 
 plished nothing but where faith was impossible and 
 not required, or where it was supposed to exist. Or 
 if they took a man from a state of condemnation and 
 reconciled him to God, they surely obtained for him 
 the gift of faith. The great and decisive question then 
 is, did the *l£D of the Old Testament obtain the gift 
 of faith ? It certainly did not. Here 1 plant my foot. 
 
 * Lev, 23.27. 1 1 Sara. 3. 14. % Ps. 50. Isai. 1.. 
 
G-HAP. V.] RECONCILIATION, 95 
 
 Show me a single instance in which these expiations- 
 were made with any such intent. Where is the chap- 
 ter and verse ? They were never offered to procure 
 holiness, but only to obtain pardon. So far from be- 
 ing designed to ensure faith, they always supposed its 
 existence, and had no effect where it was not. 
 
 And now see how the argument from the Old Tes- 
 tament is shaped. Because the *)£0 of that dispen- 
 sation reconciled where faith was not necessary or pos- 
 sible, or where it was supposed to exist, the atonement 
 must reconcile even where it has to bring faith with it 
 for the purpose. And for this end a power must be 
 given it to obtain faith, though it never had that power 
 in one of the instances recorded in the Old Testament, 
 and though neither the gift of faith naturally follows a 
 cover for sin, nor can merit, by which the gift is ob- 
 tained, constitute that cover by answering the end of 
 punishment. No, the whole .analogy of the Old Tes- 
 tament lies against this conclusion. If then you apply 
 the name of atonement to that part of Christ's influ- 
 ence which secures the gift of faith, you contradict all 
 the instances in which the term is used in the Bible*. 
 
 The conclusion is, that the atonement neither en^ 
 sures faith by its own proper influence, nor accom- 
 plishes reconciliation without it. 
 
 The great mistake on this subject has arisen from 
 confounding the different influences which meet in the 
 death of Christ. That death, including the consent of 
 the Sufferer, is to be viewed in two lights ; as an aton- 
 ing sacrifice, and as the highest act of obedience. 
 And yet the merit of that obedience, as constituting a 
 claim to a reward, is confounded by the writers on the 
 other side with the atonement. And then they raise 
 tije question, whether the death of Christ obtained the 
 
 * The wprd in Rom. 5. 11. is not Bible but translation. 
 
96 ATONEMENT NGT [PART I* 
 
 gift of faith for the elect and thus accomplished actual 
 reconciliation. We fully acknowledge that it did ; 
 and thus the dispute ends. But when we say this we 
 do not make the same acknowledgment respecting the 
 atonement. The merit of Christ's obedience " unto 
 death" certainly obtained the gift of faith, and in union 
 with his expiation, accomplished reconciliation for the 
 elect ; but merit made no part of the atonement. 
 
 Dr. Owen, and other writers on that side, constant- 
 ly bring up the question about the death and ransom of 
 Christ, and whether redemption was universal. We 
 certainly have no dispute with them on this point. 
 Says Dr. Owen, " Redemption, which in the Scrip- 
 ture is Xurgwrfis sometimes, but most frequently ewroXy7£w- 
 <frs, is the delivery of any one from captivity and mise- 
 ry by the intervention, (Xut£*,) of a price or ransom. 
 That this ransom or price of our deliverance was the 
 blood of Christ, is evident. He calls it Xur^ov, Mat. 
 20. 28. and av7iXu*$ov, 1 Tim. 2. 6. that is, the price of 
 such redemption*," 
 
 I have no objection to all this, except a small inac- 
 curacy in the last sentence. Nothing is said in the 
 texts referred to about the blood of Christ. I admit 
 however that redemption, in thejarger sense, is our 
 deliverance from the bondage both of sin and death ; 
 that it was accomplished by the larger ransom ; and 
 that this ransom is sometimes called the blood of Christ. 
 But Xur£ov, when used for the larger ransom, ex- 
 presses more than ""5D did when standing for 
 rttonementt. It occurs no where but in the above 
 
 • Salus Electorum. p. 174. Falkirk Ed. 
 
 1" ^33- when meaning a ransom, is translated xurgoy by the LXX. 
 (Exod 21. 30. and 30. 12. Num. 35. 31, 32. Prov. 6. 35. and 13. 8.) 
 But this Greek v. ord, like the corresponding English term, expresses a 
 price which may either be absolute or conditional. There is nothing in 
 
CHAP. V.] RECONCILIATION. fft 
 
 quoted text, and in the parallel one in Mark. " The 
 Son of man came — to give his life a ransom for many." 
 av=r»Xu<r£ov occurs no where but in the passage above 
 referred to. " Who gave himself a ransom for all." 
 But the kindred words are of more frequent occur- 
 rence. Xur^wtfis appears thrice. " He hath visited and 
 made redemption for his people." " All them that 
 looked for redemption in Jerusalem." " By his own 
 blood he entered in once into the holy place, having 
 obtained eternal redemption for us.*" wiedkvrguftg oc- 
 curs ten times. It is used to denote redemption from 
 Jewish persecution, from the pains of martyrdom, 
 from the grave, and from all evil at the last dayf. 
 The other passages are as follows. " Justified freely 
 by his grace through the redemption that is in Jesus 
 Christ." " Who of God is made unto us wisdom, and 
 righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption." 
 " In whom we have redemption through his blood, the 
 forgiveness of sins." " By means of death for the re- 
 demption of— transgressions]:." The corresponding 
 verb carries the idea to a redemption from the power 
 of sin, which *l£D never expressed. " Who gave hin> 
 self for us that he might redeem, (ransom, "kur^rflai,) 
 us from all iniquity, and purify unto himself a peculiar 
 people zealous of good works." " Forasmuch as ye 
 know that ye were not redeemed, (ransomed, eXurgwfy7g,J 
 with corruptible things as silver and gold from your 
 vain conversation received by tradition from your fa- 
 thers, but with the precious blood of Christ, as of a 
 lamb without blemish and without spot ; who — was ma- 
 
 it to limit it to the absolute sense : and we shall see that this and other 
 words of a similar nature are used in a lower and conditional sense in 
 the New-Testament. 
 
 * Luke 1. 68. and 2. 38. Heb. 9. 12. 1 Luke 21.28. Rom. 8. 23. 
 
 Eph. 1. 14. and .4. 30. Heb. 11. 35. J Rom, 3. 24. 1 Cor. 1. 30, 
 
 Eph. 1. 7. Col. 1. 14. Heb. 9. 15. 
 
 I 
 
98 ATONEMENT NOT [PART I. 
 
 nifest in these last times for you who by him do 
 believe in God*." The same idea is brought out 
 where the Xur^ov or ransom is not expressed. " Who 
 gave himself for our sins that he might deliver us from 
 this present evil world." " Christ also loved the 
 Church and gave himself for it, that he might sanctify 
 and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word ; 
 that he might present it to himself a glorious Church, 
 not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing, but that 
 it should be holy and without blemish." " For their 
 sakes I sanctify myself, [devote myself to die,] that 
 they also might be sanctified through the truth!." 
 Thus by his obedience " unto death" he obtained a 
 right and claim to deliver the elect from the bondage 
 of sin by sanctifying grace. Hence it is said to 
 Christians, " Ye are bought with a price ;" (tijuwjs 
 *jyo£atf0*]7s.) And their song in heaven is, " Thou wast 
 slain and hast redeemed, {bought, viyogartas,) us to God 
 with thy blood." " And no man could learn that song 
 but the hundred and forty and four thousand which 
 were redeemed, (oi ^egewrjtew,) from the earth. — These 
 were redeemed, (r\yo£a<i6y\<iav,) from among menj." 
 Another word is used in the same sense. " The 
 Church of God which he hath purchased, (^isiro«jtfa7o,) 
 -with his own blood." " Ye are a chosen generation, 
 — a people for a purchase ;" (Xaos eg vssQmntfw ;) 
 meaning, says Parkhurst, " a people acquired or pur- 
 chased to himself in a peculiar manner§." When 
 therefore you contemplate the death of Christ as a 
 whole, including both expiation and the merit of obe- 
 dience, it did reconcile the elect to God. " It pleased 
 the Father that in him should all fulness dwell, and, 
 
 * Tit. 2. 14. 1 Pet. 1. 18—21. 1 John 17. 19. Gal. 1. 4. Eph. 5. 
 
 25—27. % 1 Cor. 6. 20. and 7. 23. Rev. 5. 9. and 14, 3. 4. 
 
 (f Acts 20. 28. 1 Pet. 2. 9. 
 
JHAP. V.] RECONCILIAOIOtt. 99 
 
 {having made peace through the blood of his cross,) 
 by him to reconcile all things unto himself; by him, I 
 say, whether they be things in earth or things in hea- 
 ven. And you that were sometime alienated and ene- 
 mies in your mind by wicked works, yet now hath he 
 reconciled in the body of his flesh through death, to 
 present you holy, and unblameable, and unreprovable 
 in his sight*." 
 
 * Col. 1. 19 — 22. Reconciliation is never ascribed to a less cause 
 than the death of Christ as a whole ; and it means, I think, the mere 
 destruction of enmity between the parties, without reference to any 
 thing positive, except as a necessary consequence. This noun and its 
 kindred verb are used in our translation of the New-Testament four- 
 teen times. In one instance, (Rom. 5. 11.) the noun ought to have 
 appeared where atonement is used ; and in one instance, (Heb. 2. 17.) 
 the verb appears where to atone ought to have been used. Fourteen 
 times then these words ought to have appeared, and fourteen times, 
 and no more, the corresponding Greek words are found in the New- 
 Testament. In six places K*rr&KKa.<T7u is used ; (Rom. 5. 10. twice. 
 1 Cor. 7. 11. 2 Cor. 5. 18, 19, 20.) in four, its derivative noun K&rx\~ 
 hotyt ; (Rom. 5. 11. and 11. 15. 2 Cor. 5. 18, 19.) in three ct7rcKZT*h~ 
 Kx<rTa>i (Eph. 2. 16. Col. 1.20, 21.) and in one JW\*<ro-a> ; (Mat. 5. 
 24.) all derived from a.Khx.o-crus, which signifies to change. The cause 
 to which the effect is ascribed, appears only in the following passages. 
 " We were reconciled to God by the death of his Son." (Rom. 5. 10.) 
 "It pleased the Father, — (having made peace through the blood of his 
 cross,) by him to reconcile all things unto himself. — And you — hath he 
 reconciled in the body of his flesh through death.'''' (Col. 1. 19 — 22.) 
 " That he might reconcile both unto God in one body by the cross." 
 (Eph. 2. 16.) The meaning of the word seems limited to the destruc- 
 tion of enmity between the parties in the following passages. " Go thy 
 way, first be reconciled to thy brother." (Mat. 5. 24.) " Let her— 
 he reconciled to her husband." (1 Cor. 7. 11.) "In Christ Jesus ye 
 who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ. For 
 he is om peace who hath made both [Jews and Gentiles] one, — having 
 abolished in his flesh the enmity, — to make in himself of twain one new 
 man, so making peace; and that he might reconcile both unto God in 
 one body by the cross, having slain the enmity thereby; and came and 
 preached peace." (Eph. 2. 13— .17.) " It pleased the Father,— (having 
 made peace by the blood of his cross,) by him to reconcile all things unto 
 himself. — And you that were sometime alienated and enemies in your 
 mind, — hath he reconciled." . (Col. 1. 19 — 21.) While we were yet 
 
100 ATONEMENT NOT [PART h 
 
 We can now understand what is meant by the larger 
 ransom. By giving himself, devoting himself to die, 
 and actively laying down his blood, Christ obtained as 
 firm a claim to the redemption of his elect from the 
 bondage of sin y (and so from that of death through his 
 expiation,) as a man could have to the release of cap- 
 tives, who had paid by contract a mighty ransom for 
 their redemption ; while the blood laid down, was that 
 out of respect to which, as the honour of the law was 
 concerned, the Father consented to their release, 
 These two parts were sufficient to constitute a com- 
 plete "KvTgov. A ransom has two influences ; it sup- 
 ports the claim of the redeemer, and it is that out of 
 respect to which the holder of the captives lets them go. 
 Let the ransom of Christ possess this double influence, 
 and it comprehends in its' matter all that was active 
 and passive in his voluntary death, and in its power, 
 not only the whole efficiency of the atonement, but his 
 entire claim to that reward which consisted in the re- 
 lease of the captives from both parts of their bondage, 
 or his perfect right to sanctify and lead them forth 
 from punishment. The part of the ransom which sup- 
 ported his claim, was the giving or sanctifying of him- 
 self, as it is expressed four times in the above quota- 
 tions ; but the part which the Father respected as the 
 ground of the release, was the blood and life laid down. 
 
 sinners Christ died for us; much more then being justified by his 
 blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him. For if when we were 
 enemies we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more 
 being reconciled, we shall be saved [from wrath] by his life." (Rom. 
 5. 8 — 10.) " Who hath reconciled us to himself by Jesus Christ, and 
 hath given to us the ministry of reconciliation, to wit, that God was in 
 Christ reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespassed 
 •unto them, and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation. 
 Now then — we pray you in Christ's stead, be yr. reconciled to Getf." 
 (2 Cor. 5. 18— 20.) 
 
CHAP. V.] RECONCILIATION. 101 
 
 Thus he actively " gave himself for us that he might 
 redeem us from all iniquity," but " redeemed us from 
 the curse of the law [by] being made, [passively,] a 
 curse for us*." 
 
 The lower ransom was the blood of Christ laid down 
 for a moral agent, to deliver him from death if he on 
 his part would accept the offer. " I exhort— that — 
 supplications — be made for all men ; — for this is good 
 and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour, who 
 will have all men to be saved and to come unto the 
 knowledge of the truth : for there is one God, and one 
 Mediator between God and men, the man Christ Je- 
 sus, who gave himself a ransom, (av<nXur£ov ? ) for allt." 
 " Even denying the Lord that bought, (ayogu&avlu,) 
 them, and bring upon themselves swift destructionj." 
 The latter word is the same that expresses the purchase 
 of believers in the following passages : " Ye are bought 
 with a price." " Thou wast slain and hast redeemed 
 us to God with thy blood." " The hundred and forty 
 and four thousand which were redeemed from the 
 earth." The higher ransom then is that which effects 
 deliverance from sin and death ; the lower ransom is 
 the means of deliverance, dependant for its effect on 
 the conduct of men. The higher ransom comprehends 
 both expiation and merit ; the lower ransom is nothing 
 but the atonement. In this lower sense redemption- 
 was as general as the means, and might be accepted 
 or refused§. 
 
 But how, if the whole claim of Christ rested on the 
 merit of his obedience, did he purchase the Church 
 with his " blood" ? And how are we " redeemed" fronj 
 our " vain conversation — with the precious blood of 
 Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot" ? 
 
 * Gal. 3. 13. Tit. 2. 14.— t 1 Tim. 2. 1—6.— t 2 Pel. 2. 1 m 
 
 § Heb. 11. 35, 
 
 I 2 
 
102 ATONEMENT NQT [PART I. 
 
 This will appear to be a very natural figure, (for 
 " purchased" is certainly figurative,) when we consi- 
 der in how many respects the blood resembled a pe- 
 cuniary price* It was the thing laid down upon the 
 board. It was the very thing which he was command- 
 ed to lay down, with a promise that if he would lay 
 down that precise thing he should have a redeemed 
 seed ; and by laying it down he purchased them. 
 What gave it a greater resemblance to a pecuniary 
 price, the thing laid down was really useful to the 
 government of the other Party. And there was a rea- 
 son for calling it " precious," with an implied com- 
 parison with other prices of less value. The self-de- 
 nial, which as the test of obedience really created the 
 claim, was in proportion to the thing laid down, just as 
 it is in proportion to the sum of money paid in a pur- 
 chase. Compared then with other tests of obedience, 
 the blood supported a greater claim, as of a thing more 
 precious ; and by its claim and self-denial united, it 
 resembled a vast treasure paid to purchase some va- 
 luable good. It had another point of resemblance* 
 A price has no claim till it is accepted ; and the blood 
 of Christ had no claim separate from that covenanted 
 acceptance which the merit of his obedience procured. 
 That merit in reality created the whole claim, but it 
 did it by laying down that blood. Here lies the dif- 
 ference from an ordinary purchase. In the latter case 
 the money, abstracted from the character of him who 
 offers it, and from all merit in laying it down, com- 
 mands the article. In the other case the blood, ab- 
 stracted from the merit of obedience, obtains nothing. 
 This discrepancy must be admitted upon every plan : 
 for who will say that the blood alone, separated from 
 the obedience which attended it, obtained the sancti- 
 fication and pardon of the elect ? The blood, though, 
 
CflAP. V.] RECONCILIATION. 103 
 
 it went into the larger ransom as the ground of the re- 
 lease, really had nothing to do with the claim but as 
 the mere test of obedience. 
 
 The only difficulty arises from our being said to be 
 redeemed from thepozver of sin by the blood of the un- 
 blemished Lamb. Here, you say, obedience is distinctly 
 referred to, but as having no other power than to qua- 
 lify the Victim. And the inference is, that the atone- 
 ment itself secured the gift of faith. We have already 
 contemplated the active form of this expression, (viz. 
 that Christ purchased the Church with his own blood,) 
 and found no difficulty in it ; and if it had been added, 
 with his own spotless blood, it would have created no 
 more difficulty ; for that was certainly understood. 
 Christ purchased the Church and redeemed it from 
 iniquity with his own spotless blood, as of a lamb 
 without blemish. We see how by a slight figure this 
 could be said in perfect consistency with our system. 
 Now Peter only leaves out the Purchaser, and throws 
 the sentence into & passive form, and with these two 
 alterations expresses the same thing. " Ye were — 
 redeemed — from your vain conversation — w 7 ith the 
 precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without ble- 
 mish." Who was the Redeemer ? Introduce his asren- 
 cy so as to give the sentence an active form, and how 
 will it read ? Christ hath redeemed you from youF 
 vain conversation with his own precious blood, as of a 
 Iamb without blemish. And this is just what we had 
 before. Peter did not intend to deny the influence of 
 Christ's merit in this redemption ; but using a passive 
 form, he had no way to bring it in. Had he expressed 
 the same idea in an active form, he might have said, 
 Christ, by obediently yielding his spotless life, claim- 
 ed and accomplished the sanctification of his elect, and 
 obtained this reward and influence by giving "himself* 
 
104 ATONEMENT NOT [PART ft 
 
 for us, an offering and a sacrifice to God for a sweet- 
 smelling savour." 
 
 As in this place the whole seems to be ascribed to 
 the passion of the unblemished Lamb, so in the 10th 
 of Hebrews every thing seems imputed to the action 
 of the Priest; and while we are contemplating the 
 Priest, he at once becomes a King. (ver. 13.) It 
 could not be expected that the apostles would pre- 
 serve all the nice classifications of systematic writers. 
 Their business was with the multitude, and they often 
 throw the subject upon the imagination and heart in a 
 rich and affecting confusion. It is not from such in- 
 sulated passages that we are to gather systems. We 
 must compare scripture with scripture, and build our- 
 selves upon the analogy of faith. 
 
 Thus if you confound the influences which meet in 
 the death of Christ, and ask what that death accom- 
 plished, we answer, reconciliation for the elect. If 
 you ask about the higher ransom, that redeemed all 
 for whom it was offered. But if you ask about the 
 atonement or lower ransom, that, even viewed as ac- 
 cepted of God, did no more for the elect themselves 
 than to remove the curse of abandonment, and to ren- 
 der it certain that they would be pardoned if they 
 would believe ; making out thus, as relates to pardon, 
 a mere provision for moral agents. This must be the 
 limit of the atonement if it did not secure the gift of 
 faith. 
 
 Whether it was in fact an atonement for all, (inten- 
 tionally or otherwise,) depends therefore on the ques- 
 tion, whether it had these two effects upon all. But 
 for this question we are not yet prepared. 
 
GHAP. VI.] RECONCILIATION, 1Q« 
 
 CHAPTER VI. 
 
 THE MEANING OF RIGHTEOUSNESS AS CONNECTED WITH 
 THE JUSTIFICATION OF BELIEVERS. 
 
 The original and literal meaning of righteousness 
 is perfect personal holiness. Used in reference to the 
 subject about which we are inquiring, it means neither 
 more nor less than that which gives a title to justified* 
 tion, not of debt, but according to God's gracious co- 
 venant, to the utter exclusion of boasting. Sometimes 
 the term seems to denote that which is the condition of 
 justification, but more generally that which is the 
 ground. The manner in which the word slid into this 
 use is obvious. Under the first covenant both the 
 condition and ground of justification were a literal 
 righteousness, or unsullied holiness. That was the 
 natural mode of justification : and in that process the 
 term justification was used in its original and literal 
 meaning, to denote a legal sentence that the person 
 respected was just. Hence it became a familiar truth 
 that a righteousness was necessary to justification, 
 and bore to it the relations both of a condition and a 
 ground. When the new method of accepting men 
 was introduced, it was natural to refer to the former 
 method as the standard, and to borrow its terms. The 
 acceptance itself, though far from being legal, was 
 called justification ; and to preserve consistency, that 
 which is the ground of acceptance, (and I think, also, 
 that which is the condition,) was called a righteous- 
 ness. The terms thus applied are plainly used out of 
 their original meaning ; for the gracious acceptance 
 of a sinner is certainly not a legal process. The jus- 
 tification is not by works of the law, and of course, the 
 
106 MEANING OP 
 
 PART 
 
 righteousness which gives a title to it is not a legal 
 righteousness. 
 
 In this way it has come to pass that whatever under 
 the new covenant gives a title to a gracious justifica- 
 tion, is called our righteousness, and the man who 
 possesses it is denominated righteous. That this is the 
 ease the following passages will show. 
 
 " Surely shall one say, In the Lord have I righteous- 
 ness ; — in the Lord shall all the seed of Israel be jus- 
 tified*." 
 
 " By the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be 
 justified. — But now the righteousness of God, [of God's 
 ordaining,] without the law, is manifested, — even the 
 righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ. 
 - — Being justified freely by his grace. — Where is boast- 
 ing then ? — Therefore we conclude that a man is jus- 
 tified by faith without the deeds of the law. — If Abra- 
 ham were justified by works he hath whereof to glory. 
 — But what saith the Scripture ? Abraham believed 
 God and it was counted unto him for righteousness. 
 Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned 
 of grace but of debt ; but to him that worketh not, but 
 believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is 
 counted for righteousness. Even as David also de- 
 scribed the blessedness of the man unto whom God 
 imputeth righteousness without works 5 saying, Blessed 
 are they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins 
 are covered : blessed is the man to whom the Lord 
 will not impute sin. [To impute righteousness then, 
 is not to impute sin, or in plain words, to forgive.] — 
 We say that faith was reckoned to Abraham for right- 
 eousness ; — and he received the sign of circumcision, 
 the seal of the righteousness of faith, — that he might 
 be the father of all them that believe, — that righteous- 
 
 * Ft. 45. 24, 25. 
 
 I 
 
CHAP. VI.] RIGHTEOUSNESS. 1(>7 
 
 ness might be imputed unto them also. — For the pro- 
 mise — was not to Abraham or his seed through the 
 law, but through the righteousness of faith. — It is of 
 faith that it might be by grace. — It was imputed to 
 him for righteousness : now it was not written for his 
 sake alone that it was imputed to him, but for us also 
 to whom it shall be imputed if we believe on him that 
 raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead ; who was 
 delivered for our offences, and was raised again for 
 ouv justification. Therefore being justified by faith, 
 we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus 
 Christ. — As by one man's disobedience many were 
 made sinners, [were condemned,] so by the obedience 
 of One shall many be made righteous, [shall possess 
 that which entitles them to justification : this is the 
 sole idea, and makes the antithesis complete.] — To 
 whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his ser- 
 vants ye are to whom ye obey, whether of sin unto 
 death, or of obedience unto righteousness, [unto that 
 which secures justification of life, as the antithesis re- 
 quires.] — The Gentiles which followed not after right- 
 eousness, [a course of conduct acceptable to God,] 
 have attained to righteousness, [that which entitles to 
 justification or acceptance with God,] even the right- 
 eousness which is of faith. But Israel which followed 
 after the law of righteousness, [the law by which they 
 hoped to be justified,] hath not attained to the law of 
 righteousness, V [could not be justified by the law, or, 
 hath not attained to the rule or method of justifica- 
 tion*.] 
 
 " A man is not justified by the works of the law, but 
 by the faith of Jesus Christ : — for if righteousness come 
 by the law, then Christ is dead in vain. — Abraham be- 
 lieved God and it was accounted to him for righteous- 
 
 * Rom, 3. 20—28. and 4. and 5. 1 ? 19. and ver, 16. and 9. 30, 31.- 
 
108 MEANING ©P [PART I. 
 
 ncss. — The Scripture, foresting that God would jus* 
 tifiy the heathen through faith, preached before the Gos- 
 pel unto Abraham. — That no man is justified by the 
 law — is evident, for The just shall live by faith. — If 
 there had been a law given which could have given 
 life, verily righteousness should have been by the law. 
 — The law was our school-master to bring us to Christ, 
 that we might be justified by faith. — Christ h become 
 of none effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified 
 by the law.- — We through the Spirit wait for the hope 
 of righteousness by faith*." 
 
 " The Scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham 
 believed God and it was imputed unto him for righteous- 
 .jiess, and he was called the friend of God. Ye see 
 then how that by works a man is justified, and not by 
 faith onlyt." 
 
 The G; spel is called " the word of righteousness, 5 -' 
 and " the ministration of righteousness," in opposition 
 to " the ministration of condemnation," because it re- 
 peals the ground and condition of justification]:. 
 
 From these passages it plainly appears that by 
 righteousness is meant nothing more than that which 
 under the gracious covenant of God gives a title to 
 justification ; a title in no sense legal, by no means 
 founded on justice, but purely of grace, to the utter 
 exclusion of boasting ; that to be " made righteous" 
 by Christ, is only to be entitled by him to a gracious 
 justification ; that to impute, reckon, or, account faith 
 for righteousness, is to accept it in the room of a lite- 
 ral righteousness ; that to impute righteousness to a 
 man, is not to impute sin, in plain words, to forgive, or 
 in a larger sense to confer on him a title to a gracious 
 
 * Gal. 2. 16, 21. and 3. and 5. 4, 5. 1 James 2. 23, 24. J 2 
 
 Cox. 3. 0. Ileb. 5. 13. 
 
SNAP. VI.] RIGHTEOUSNESS. 109 
 
 reward ; and that to impute to one the righteousness 
 of Christ, is merely to justify him, or treat him as 
 righteous, on account of the righteousness of the Re- 
 deemer. 
 
 That this term was derived from the first covenant, 
 and is used of course under the second in a figurative 
 sense, appears more evident from its being used under 
 the second, as under the first, to denote both the ground 
 and condition of justification. It more generally ex- 
 presses the ground, which is no other than the atone- 
 ment and obedience of Christ* ; but if I mistake not, 
 it sometimes denotes the condition, or that personal 
 qualification which for the sake of Christ is graciously 
 accepted in the room of a literal righteousness. The 
 sincere but imperfect obedience of Israel, (in which 
 however faith was unquestionably included,) was de- 
 nominated their righteousness. The zeal of Phinehas 
 " was counted unto him for, [in the room of,] right- 
 eousness." Abraham " believed the Lord, and he 
 counted it to him for righteousness!." It is several 
 times repeated in the New-Testament that Abraham's 
 faith, (a personal qualification,) was reckoned to him 
 for righteousness, instead of righteousness, or as being 
 what a literal righteousness was under the first cove- 
 nant, a condition of justification. - Circumcision was 
 " a seal of the righteousness of faith" or a seal of the 
 promise that faith should be accounted for righteous* 
 ness, or be accepted as the condition of justification!. 
 
 * Is. 42. 21. and 45. 24, 25. and 54. 17. and 61. 10, 11. and 62. 
 
 I, 2. Jer. 23. 6. and 33. 16. Dan. 9. 24. Rom. 5. 21. and 10. 3-^ 
 
 II. 1 Cor. 1. 30. Phil. 3. 9. 1 Gen. 15. 6. Deut. 6. 25. and 24. ' 
 
 13. Ps. 1C6.31. 
 
 | If it should be thought that this opinion is not warranted by tha 
 passages quoted, I shall not contend 'for it, as it is not material to any 
 part of the system. I see nothing however unnatural or dangerous in 
 it: but the evidence is before the reader. 
 
 K 
 
110 MEANING OF [PART T. 
 
 Thus it would seem that as under the first covenant 
 both the ground and condition of justification were a 
 literal righteousness, so under the second covenant 
 the ground and condition of justification are figura- 
 tively called by the same name ; not because they are 
 the same thing, (for then justification would be of debt 
 and not of grace,) but because they fill the same place 
 in the matter of justification. On the whole, it seems 
 undeniable that righteousness means neither more nor 
 less than that which gives a complete title to justifica- 
 tion " by grace," Of course to make one righteous 
 through Christ, or to impute to him the righteousness 
 of Christ, is to invest him, not with a personal claim 
 €n justice, but with a title to a free, gracious, unmerit- 
 ed justification through the righteousness of his Re- 
 deemer. It is to secure to him the privilege, not of 
 being considered literally righteous, (for he is not, and 
 God views things as they are,) but of being treated as 
 righteous. 
 
 The strongest figure, I believe, in the Bible to coun- 
 tenance the idea that believers have in Christ a literal 
 righteousness, and a real claim on justice, is found in 
 Rom. 8. 3, 4. " What the law could not do in that it 
 was weak through the flesh, God, sending his own Son 
 in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned 
 sin in the flesh ; that the righteousness of the laio might 
 be fulfilled in us who walk not after the flesh, but after 
 the Spirit." To understand this passage it is neces- 
 sary to take up the connexion of the whole Epistle. 
 In the first five chapiers the apostle had been support- 
 ing the doctrine of justification by faith without the 
 deeds of the law. In the last verse of the third chap- 
 ter he had started the objection, " Do we then make 
 void the law" as a rule oi life ? and had dismissed it 
 with this brief reply, " God forbid ! yea we establish 
 
«HAP. VI.] RIGHTEOUSNESS. Ill 
 
 the law." In the sixth chapter he resumes the objec- 
 tion, and shows that conformity to the law is necessa- 
 rily implied in that union to Christ by which we are 
 justified. In the seventh chapter he pursues the same 
 general subject, and explains the end which the law 
 subserves, and the relation which believers bear to it. 
 The eighth chapter opens with an inference from these 
 two subjects united, viz. justification by faith alone, 
 and the necessity of holiness : " There is therefore 
 now no condemnation to them which are in Christ 
 Jesus, who walk not after the flesh but after the Spirit, 
 For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath 
 made me free from the law of sin and death : [the 
 Gospel has delivered me both from the dominion and 
 condemnation of sin.] For what the law could not do 
 in that it was weak through the flesh, God, sending 
 his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, 
 condemned sin in the flesh ; that the righteousness of 
 the law might be fulfilled in us who walk not after the 
 flesh but after the Spirit." As though he had said, all 
 ©ur past and present sins being covered by the atone^ 
 ment of Christ, and all the defect of our obedience by 
 his obedience ; and we being brought back to honour, 
 love, and obey the law, or as he had said in another 
 place, to " keep the righteousness of the law," and to 
 " obedience unto righteousness* ;" it is, to all the pur- 
 poses of honouring the law and completing our title to 
 justification, as though the righteousness of the law, or 
 a legal righteousness, had been fulfilled in us. No 
 other can be the meaning ; for it would contradict the 
 plain argument of the whole Epistle to affirm that the 
 best Christian on earth possesses a legal righteous- 
 ness, or has in any way the righteousness of the law 
 literally fulfilled in him. The expression is obviously 
 
 * Cbap. 2. 26, & 6. 16. 
 
ilS MEANING OP [PART I. 
 
 figurative, like that in which the same apostle speaks 
 of filing up " that which is behind of the afflictions of 
 Christ— for— the Church*." 
 
 * Col. 1. 24. Some have a shorter way of getting over this text, 
 affirming that by the righteousness of the law fulfilled is us is meant 
 no more than that we " keep the righteousness of the law." But the 
 connexion between the 3d and 4th verses seems to intimate that the 
 atonement had something to do with this fulfilment of the righteousness 
 of the law in us. 
 
 I have made no account of that well known passage in the 85tb 
 Psalm, " Mercy and truth are met together, righteousness and peace 
 .have kissed each other ;" because there are reasons to doubt whether. 
 righteousness in this place means any tiling more than faithfulness. 
 Long before the days of David, " the righteous acts of the Lord," 
 meant those dispensations of providence which manifested his mercy 
 and truth*. But in consequence of the more express and ample cove-: 
 nant engagements with David and his house, such terms are more fre- 
 quently found in the Psalms, and generally mean the covenant mercy 
 or faithfulness of Godt. " God of my righteousness," appears to 
 mean, "God of my mercy^." "Let them not come into thy right- 
 eousness," that is, into thy favour}. "I will make mention of thy 
 righteousness, even of thine only ;" that is, of thy faithfulness||. The 
 fruit of mercy is once expressed by the same termlT. After David's 
 time, righteous and righteousness were often used in the same sense by 
 ether prophets** : and the practice is followed even by the writers of 
 the New-Testamenttt. A fair specimen of this phraseology may be 
 seen in the two following passages : " God, [who, it is stated in the 
 context, had bound himself by promise,] is not unrighteous to forget 
 your work and labour of love." " If we confess our sins, he is faith- 
 ful s.nd just to forgive us our sins." In the same spirit Paul saysj 
 " Henceforth there is laid up for me a crown of righteousness, which 
 the Lord, the righteous Judge, shall give me at that day." 
 
 This explanation of the passage receives considerable support from 
 its structure. It is common in Hebrew poetry for the latter line of a 
 distich to echo the sense of the former, with a small variation in the 
 
 * Judges 5. 11. 1 Sam. 12. 7. 1 Ps. 5. 8. and 31. 1. & 35. 24, 
 
 28. & 36. 6. 10. & 40. 9, 10. & 51. 14. & 71. 2, 15, 16, 19. ft 88. 12. & 
 89. 16. & 92. 15. & 103. 17. & 112. 4. ft 116. 5. and 119. 40, 123, 142. 
 
 and 143. 1, 11. and 145. 7. J Ps. 4. 1. and 59. 10, 17. fr Ps. 69. 
 
 27. 1| Ps. 71. 15, 16. H Ps. 24. 5. ** Ez. 9. 15. Is. 41. 10. 
 
 and 42.6. and 46. 13. and 6ii. 1. Dan. 9. 16. Mic. 7. 9. it John 
 
 7. 18. Rom. 3. 3—7. 2 Thes. 2. 10, 12. 2 Tim. 4. 8. JM 6 
 TO— 20. 2 Pet. 1.1. 1 Johnl. 9. 
 
CHAP. VI.] RIGHTEOUSNESS. 113 
 
 But this is not the only figurative expression which 
 has received a literal construction. Indeed the prac- 
 tice of confounding the figurative with the literal mean- 
 ing is so fruitful a source of mistake that it deserves a 
 particular consideration. 
 
 — *+h* — 
 CHAPTER Vir. 
 
 MISTAKES ARISING FROM DRAWING LITERAL CONCLW» 
 SIONS FROM FIGURATIVE PREMISES. 
 
 There are certain figurative expressions in common 
 use in the Church, partly derived from the Scriptures 
 and partly of human invention, which are calculated to 
 present to the imagination in a summary and striking 
 manner, without the process of reasoning, the general 
 influence of Christ's mediation. This advantage gives 
 them, (at least a part of them,) a claim to be retained 
 in our prayers and popular discourses. But the diffi- 
 culty is that they have been introduced into logical 
 discussions with a literal meaning, and as premises 
 from which literal conclusions are drawn. This has 
 been one of the most prolific sources of mistake. 
 
 The expressions are such as these ; that Christ pur- 
 shased the Church, that he paid their debt, that he is 
 one with them, that their sins were imputed to him 5 
 that he bore the curse of the law in their stead, that he 
 -satisfied divine justice for them, that his righteousness 
 
 words or their order for the sake of euphony. On this principle 
 righteousness in the latter line is of the same import with truth in 'he 
 former, and exactly answers to the tetm faithfulness. "Mercy and 
 truth are met together ; faithfulness and peace have kissei each 
 other," " 
 
 K 2 
 
il4 FIGURATIVE [PART I* 
 
 is imputed to them, and that they are considered right- 
 eous. 
 
 It is said in Scripture, " Ye are bought with a 
 price ;" and hence, as if ransom was used but in a sin- 
 gle sense, it is inferred, " As is the ransom must 
 be the release. — Were redemption universal, salva- 
 tion would and must be of equal extent*." And 
 as if the whole was a commercial transaction, it is 
 alleged that just enough was paid in a way of atone- 
 ment to redeem a certain number, and that this num- 
 ber can claim a release of justice itself. " If Christ 
 fully paid the price of redemption for all and each, 
 then all and each ought to be saved, and none ought 
 to perisht."^ 
 
 Because Christ answered the purpose of our punish- 
 ment, men have chosen to say that he paid our debt : 
 and from that expression, manifestly figurative and of 
 human invention, they have gone on to infer, as though 
 the whole transaction was of a pecuniary nature, that 
 he became the Bondsman of a certain number, and 
 brought himself under obligations to law and justice to 
 discharge their debt, and actually paid it in kind; and 
 that they, as exonerated debtors, have a claim on jus- 
 tice to a release. " He paid the full debt of all for 
 whom he was Surety, and he secures the eternal re- 
 demption of every one for whom he made the pay- 
 ment." " He did not undertake to see their debt paid 
 and satisfaction made by some means or other, as 
 bondsmen commonly bind themselves for their friends 
 in joint securities in order to strengthen their credit^ 
 
 * See a popular little book entitled Gethsemane, published first in 
 London, and republished in Philadelphia, with high recommendations, 
 in 1817, (containing extracts from many writor.-.} P- 21. 
 
 t The delegates from Zealand in the Synod of Dort. Acts *f 
 Synod, Part III. p. 166. 
 
CHAP. VII. J LANGUAGE. 11$ 
 
 always presuming that these bonds will be discharged 
 in whole or in the greatest part by the debtors them- 
 selves : no, he took the whole debt and the whole guilt 
 of his lost sheep upon himself alone." " He thai un- 
 dertaketh for another man's debt maketh it his own. 
 and standeth chargeable with it as if it were his own 
 personal debt : so Christ, becoming Surety for our sins, 
 made them his own, and so was punishable for them 
 as if they had been his own personal sin." He "was 
 held in the same obligation which we were under ; he 
 paid the same debt that we did owe : the curse or pu- 
 nishment w r hich we deserved was inflicted upon him." 
 " The grand question here is, for whom was Christ 
 Surety ? w T hose debt did he pay ? whose freedom did 
 he procure ? Let the event declare this : for certainly 
 Christ did not die in vain, or purchase deliverance and 
 yet lose the price he paid, or any part of the purchase 
 he made ; for this w r ould be contrary to all the rules of 
 justice and righteousness." " His death had had no 
 relation to us had not our sin been juridically adjudged 
 to be his ; nor can we challenge an acquittance at the 
 hand of God for our debts, if they were not our debts 
 that he paid on the cross*." 
 
 It is said in Scripture, " They two shall be one 
 flesh : this is a great mystery ; but I speak concerning 
 Christ and the Church f." And hence it is inferred 
 " that there is such an intercommunity of relation be- 
 tween the Saviour and his redeemed, as forms a just 
 reason for regarding them as one in a federal and legal 
 sense." " Another's act cannot be mine, either in 
 profit or loss, if there be not a legal oneness between 
 
 us.]:." 
 
 It is said in Scripture, " He hath made him to be sin 
 
 * Gethsemane p. 42, 55, 73, 91, 152. 1 Eph. 5. 31, 32, — - 
 
 | Geth. p. 66, 80. 
 
116 FIGURATIVE [PART t. 
 
 for us." " Who bis own self bore our sins in bis own 
 body on the tree." "And unto them that look for 
 him, shall be appear the second time without sin unto 
 salvation." And hence it is inferred that in the eye 
 of law and justice he was actually a sinner by imputa- 
 tion, bearing upon him by a legal transfer all the sins 
 of the elect, and no more ; that he " took upon him 
 their persons," " sustained our persons* ;" in short, 
 that sin and its guilt were legally imputed, transferred, 
 or transmitted to him, and not merely the effects of sin 
 laid upon him. " Jehovah laid or caused to meet upon 
 Christ the Surety, not the punishment only, but the 
 iniquity of them all." " Had no guilt Iain on him he 
 might have suffered, but could not have been punish- 
 ed. — What is this being made sin ? Is it Christ's being 
 a sacrifice for sin ? Yes ; but that is not all ; it notes 
 also his being under the guilt of sin." " It is not the 
 guilt of sin, (as guilt means only our obnoxiousness to 
 punishment,) that was imputed to Jesus Christ. It 
 seems not proper to speak so. But sin was imputed ; 
 and the result of that imputation was, guiltiness in the 
 eye of the law and vindictive justice." " Persons who 
 are hostile to this doctrine tell us that it was not sin 
 itself which was imputed to Christ, but the effects of 
 sin. But — the apostle — is not speaking of the effects 
 of sin, but of sin itself." " The transferring our ini- 
 quities upon him must in some way precede his being 
 bruised for them, which could not be any oilier way 
 than by imputation, whereby he was constituted by 
 God a Debtor in our stead to bear the punishment of 
 our sin. He being made sin for us, our sin was in a 
 sort made his." " Unto them that look for him, tie 
 shall appear the second time without sin unto salvation. 
 — If the words have any meaning, surety there must 
 
 * Geth. p. 49, 80. 
 
CHAP. VII.] LANGUAGE. 117 
 
 have been a sense in which when on earth he was not. 
 without sin. — If these and similar expressions do not 
 convey the idea of Christ's dying under a charge of 
 imputed sin, and of his suffering the penalty connected 
 with it, they have no meaning at all." He sustained 
 " that curse or debt of suffering which attached to those 
 on whose account he became a Surety, whose sins were 
 imputed to him, and with which he became, by his in- 
 finitely gracious and voluntary consent, legally charge- 
 able." " Their iniquity itself was laid upon him bjr 
 God the Judge of all, and he was regarded by his holy 
 Father as justly chargeable with all their iniquity, and 
 transgression, and sin. — These were set to his account 
 in law-reckoning, and laid upon him as their Repre* 
 sentative*." 
 
 It is said in Scripture, " Christ hath redeemed us 
 from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us ;" 
 and hence it is inferred that he suffered a legal punish- 
 ment, and was adjudged to it by law and justice ; a 
 punishment the same both in kind and degree that was 
 due to all the sins of the elect ; that had he atoned for 
 another sin he must have suffered more ; and that his 
 death is not sufficient for the pardon of one of the non- 
 elect. " The way in which Christ was to justify many 
 was by bearing their iniquities ; but if he did not en- 
 dure by way of punishment all that these iniquities de- 
 served, with what propriety can his bearing them be 
 assigned as a ground of justification ? Sin is sin 
 wherever it is found, whether on the sinner himself or 
 on his Substitute. Its being transmitted to the Sub- 
 stitute does not lessen its malignity, nor render punish- 
 ment less necessary. The sanction of the divine law 
 is irreversible ; it will have its course. Punishment 
 in either case is not an act of sovereignty, but of jus- 
 * Getli. 
 
118 FIGURATIVE [PART f. 
 
 tice." " That the death of Christ was a death of un- 
 exampled sufferings cannot be doubted ; but they were 
 sufferings to which he became liable as a Surety, and 
 to which, in virtue of his own voluntary engagement, 
 he was righteously judged by the law and justice of 
 God." " The sufferings of our blessed Lord were, in 
 consequence of his own voluntary engagement, a debt 
 due to divine justice." " Christ hath redeemed as 
 from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us ; 
 which he could not have been without the imputation 
 of sin, and his enduring whatever was included in that 
 curse." " If the sufferings of our Lord were not pe- 
 nal, there can be no salvation for apostate man. — What 
 will these sufferings avail if there was nothing penal in 
 them ? Mere suffering gives a right to nothing : suffer- 
 ing to be expiatory, must be voluntary, and endured as 
 the desert of imputed sin." " Christ is said to be 
 made a curse, not simply because he suffered, but be- 
 cause he was adjudged to his sufferings, that thereby 
 satisfaction might be made to the justice of God. But 
 if sin were not imputed to Christ, he could not be the 
 object of punitive justice ; for that is strange justice 
 that can be satisfied by the sufferings of a person no 
 way guilty in the eye of justice." " Either Christ 
 suffered the wrath of God, t. e. the punishment due to 
 the sins of the elect, or else God is untrue in that com- 
 mination, He that sins shall die." u To imagine that 
 sin can escape punishment, is highly dishonourable to 
 the moral government of God. For as moral precepts 
 are a transcript of the holiness and rectitude of the di- 
 vine nature, it is impossible that the sanction by which 
 infinite justice has guarded these precepts, should 
 either be annulled or relaxed-" " To me it appears 
 self-evident, either that Christ must have sustained the 
 punishment due to the sinner ; or the law have relaxed 
 
GHAP. VII.] LANGUAGE. 119 
 
 in its demands." " If the curse of the divine law has 
 not been borne by Christ, we are still in our sins, and 
 the weight of that curse will sink us into endless perdi- 
 tion." " This satisfaction is however by some per- 
 sons boldly denied ; and in perfect consistency with 
 this denial, it is said that our blessed Lord was not 
 punished : for it is easy to see that if the doctrine of 
 satisfaction be allowed, punishment must of course fol- 
 low ; for without punishment there can be no satisfac- 
 tion either to the law or to the justice of God." " The 
 chastisement of our peace was upon him. How else 
 could his heavenly Father [have] been pleased to bruise 
 him, for whom it is no more good to punish the just than 
 to clear the guilty ?" " If our iniquities were not laid 
 upon Christ, his sufferings could not be punishment, and 
 therefore not satisfactory : for where there is no . sin, 
 either actual, inherent, or imputed, there can be no 
 punishment, and of course no expiation of guilt. It 
 was no more possible for God to inflict penal suffer- 
 ings on Christ while considered in every respect as 
 perfectly innocent, than it was for him to deny him- 
 self." " It has been asked, may not God punish an 
 innocent creature as so considered ? — God cannot but 
 approve and justify an innocent creature as so con- 
 sidered ; because the innocent creature is what God 
 wills him to be according to his law, and therefore it 
 is impossible he should, under this consideration, be 
 the object of his disapprobation.— -Hence it necessa- 
 rily follows that an innocent creature, as so consider- 
 ed, cannot be impressed with a piercing sense of di- 
 vine vengeance against sin. A perception the guilt- 
 less creature may have of the evil of sin, and of the 
 wrath of God which sin demerits ; — but this is not at- 
 tended with any anguish or pain of mind ; for it is 
 only a sense of sin as charged or imputed, and of ob- 
 
120 FIGURATIVE [PARTI. 
 
 noxiousness to divine displeasure on that account, 
 which can give the soul uneasiness and torture. — 
 Each of these things enter into the very nature of, and 
 are essential to, divine punishment. Surely it is not 
 to be thought that God approves of any whom he pu- 
 nishes, that is to say, as they are the subjects of his 
 act of punishing ; and it is impossible that a creature 
 tinder the same consideration should be the object of 
 divine condemnation and justification ; for these are 
 certainly inconsistent ideas if any such there be. Nor 
 can God impress the mind of a creature with a painful 
 sense of his wrath, who is not, under any consideration., 
 'the object of his displeasure. " " What God hates in 
 man he cannot do himself. Nothing is the object of 
 God's displeasure but what is contrary to die divine 
 nature. To punish the innocent is disapproved of 
 God, because it is a dreadful violation of right and 
 justice, and is therefore contrary to the essential right- 
 eousness and justice of God. It being so, he cannot 
 condemn and punish without a righteous charge and 
 imputation of the offence." " Unless the guilt of our 
 iniquities, or the law obligation to punishment for 
 them, had been judicially charged upon him, it seems 
 to me that he could not by any rule of justice have 
 borne their punishment; for in the order of justice our 
 sins must first be supposed to be placed to his account, 
 to answer for them, before he could undergo the pro- 
 per punishment due to them; since divine justice can 
 no more punish the entirely and in all respects guilt- 
 less, than clear the guilty." " Our Lord's death was 
 penal, and the vindictive cause of it was the judicial 
 hand of God :. the same hand avenges sin that imputes 
 it; the imputation of sin and the punishment of it al- 
 ways following one another, as do the non-imputation 
 of it and an exemption from guilt and penalty." " How 
 
CHAP. VII. j LANGUAGE. 12l 
 
 could Christ die if he were not a reputed sinner ? Had 
 he noi first had a relation to our sin, he could not in 
 justice have undergone our punishment. He must in 
 the order of justice be supposed a sinner really or by 
 imputation. — 'Tis as much against divine justice to in- 
 flict punishment where there is no sin, as it is to spare 
 the offender. — Though the first designation of the Re- 
 deemer to a surety-ship or sacrifice for us was an act 
 of God's sovereignty ; yet the inflicting punishment 
 after that designation and our Saviour's acceptance of 
 it, was an act of God ? s justice. — Had that been justice 
 or injustice to Christ, to lay his wrath upon the Son of 
 his love, one whose Person was always dear to him, 
 always pleased him, had he not stood as a sinner juri- 
 dically in our stead ?" " If Christ hath been made 
 a curse for us, — he must then have the violation of 
 the law imputed to him ; otherwise the curse of it 
 could not in justice have been inflicted upon him. To 
 inflict the curse or penalty of the law upon one no 
 ways chargeable with the violation of it, is contrary 
 to the justice both of God and man." " What is pu- 
 nishment but the infliction of the curse of the law for 
 the violation of its precepts ? And if the law could 
 righteously inflict on the person of Manasseh a degree 
 of punishment proportioned to his guilt, (for without a 
 proportion between the guilt and the punishment jus- 
 tice is not satisfied,) the Substitute of Manasseh must 
 bear the same punishment, or how could he be said to 
 suffer in his stead ?" " They are in some degree 
 guilty of this, [depreciating the sufferings of Christ,] 
 who will by no means allow that Christ bore the idem, 
 the same death, the same curse, that was threatened 
 in the law as due to sin. — What was that part of the 
 sentence of the law that w r as gone out against sin, 
 which he did not submit to ? — Has the law anv thin*- 
 
 L 
 
122 FIGURATIVE [PART I* 
 
 more dreadful in all its stores than the wrath of God ? 
 And who ever bore this if the blessed Jesus did not ?" 
 " I believe that Jesus Christ — has — suffered all that 
 I was condemned to sustain." " It appears past con- 
 tradiction that the Redeemer put himself in the very 
 place where the redeemed stood, and took upon him 
 that very curse which they were bound under." " Did 
 we deserve one punishment and Christ undergo an- 
 other? Was it the sentence of the law that was exe- 
 cuted on him, or was it some other thing that he was 
 obnoxious to?" " Mention is every where made of a 
 commutation of persons, the just suffering for the un- 
 just, the Sponsor for the offender, (his name as a Sure- 
 ty being taken into the obligation, and the whole debt 
 required of him •,) but of a change of punishment there 
 is no mention at all." " Surely whatever could have 
 been justly inflicted on the sinner himself, must be 
 borne by him who shall pay the price of his release." 
 " It is reasonable to suppose that the redemption price 
 paid should bear an exact proportion to the number of 
 persons redeemed, and to the guilt and punishment 
 from which they are redeemed ; or else it cannot be 
 considered as a legal redemption." " If therefore a 
 thousand delinquents, involved in different degrees of 
 guilt, are justly liable to suffer in- their own persons 
 the punishment due to their various enormities ; surely 
 it must be self-evident that if the guilt of these enor- 
 mities be laid upon Christ as their Substitute, and he 
 suffer in their stead, he must bear the same punish- 
 ment. If this be denied, and it be allowed that the 
 Lord laid on him the iniquity of those delinquents, the 
 law of God must have relaxed in the infliction of its 
 curse, which as a moral institute was impossible." " I 
 am convinced that the sufferings of Christ were in 
 oxact proportion to the guilt of the many sinners he 
 
v'HAI\ VII.] LANGUAGE. 123 
 
 had undertaken to redeem, and that had the unworthy 
 objects of his merciful regard been more numerous, 
 these sufferings would have likewise been augmented. " 
 " ; li our blessed Lord would not have suffered more 
 had the number to be saved been much greater than 
 it eventually will be, why should he have suffered so 
 much as he actually did suffer ? — Infinite justice will 
 never inflict the least degree of undeserved punish- 
 ment." " To say therefore that the compassionate 
 Redeemer suffered less than the delinquents who are 
 redeemed would themselves have suffered, is not to 
 magnify the riches of his dying love, nor to honour 
 his atonement. And to say that these sufferings are 
 sufficient for ten times the number, is to confound all 
 our ideas of distributive justice." " The greater the 
 sin of the elect was, the more Christ suffered ; the 
 greater their debt was, the more he paid." " If, as 
 you suppose, our blessed Lord have suffered enough 
 for the salvation of all men, how happens it that all 
 are not saved ?" " The more I reflect on this highly- 
 interesting and important subject, the more I am con- 
 vinced that the sufferings of our blessed Lord were in 
 every respect commensurate to the requirements of 
 justice ; — that the divine law to which he voluntarily 
 became amenable, did not relax in any of its demands ; 
 that he did not endure a single pang more than it could 
 have righteously inflicted on the sinners themselves ; 
 and that in effecting their redemption he did not suffer 
 one less." " The punishment he suffered was in va- 
 lue and measure answerable to all the sins of all the elect, 
 past, present, and to come ; the Godhead supporting 
 the manhood that it might be able to bear and overcome 
 the whole burden of the wrath of God." " These suf- 
 ferings were absolutely necessary for the salvation of 
 the elect, or they were not. If indispensably neces- 
 sary, a greater degree of suffering could not right- 
 
124 FIGURATIVE [PART I. 
 
 eously be inflicted than was requisite for that end, or 
 in other words, than was needful to answer the claims 
 of justice. And if these sufferings, as to duration and 
 intenseness, were absolutely requisite for the deliver- 
 ance of the elect from final ruin, how is the benefit of 
 these sufferings to extend to those who make no part 
 of that number? For if our blessed Lord endured 
 more than the least possible degree of suffering, that 
 suffering could not be the result of mere sovereignty in 
 him who will minister judgment to the people in right- 
 eousness, but the apportioned desert of imputed sin. 
 It is repugnant to every principle of justice to suppose 
 that these sufferings exceeded the demerit for which 
 they were inflicted, and not less so to imagine that the 
 merit of those sufferings extended to sin that it never 
 expiated." " If therefore Christ suffered for those 
 that perish, he must have effected their redemption ; 
 but if he did not suffer for them, he must, unless a 
 part be equal to the whole, have suffered less than he 
 would have done had the weight of their sufferings 
 been added to what he endured." " If his precious 
 blood as the price was sufficient to make expiation for 
 the sins and transgressions of all men, and all are not- 
 saved, how is impetration and application of the same 
 latitude ?" " Such, it has been said, was the precious- 
 ness of the blood of Christ, that one drop would have 
 been sufficient for the redemption of the world. But 
 for this notion there is no scriptural warrant. It is 
 incompatible with the honour of divine justice in the 
 infliction of punishment on Christ." " To contend 
 that because infinite merit attached to the sufferings of 
 Christ, these sufferings must of necessity be sufficient 
 for the salvation of all men, is to limit the Holy One 
 of Israel. " " I know it has been said that though our 
 blessed Lord died intentionally for the elect only, there 
 
CttAPi VII.'] LANGUAGE. 125 
 
 is nevertheless a redundancy of merit in his death suf- 
 ficient for the redemption of all men. This 1 consi- 
 dered as a mistake." " So far from there being a re- 
 dundancy of merit connected with the atonement ot 
 Christ sufficient for the redemption of all men, that the 
 want of it renders the condemnation of the non-elect 
 indispensably requisite." " That our divine Jesus 
 could have redeemed ten thousand worlds if in the 
 everlasting covenant he had been constituted the fede- 
 ral Head and had become t:;e Surety of these worlds, 
 is cheerfully granted." " Yet we cannot perceive 
 any solid reason to conclude that his propitiatory suf- 
 ferings are sufficient for the expiation of sins which he 
 did not bear." " For had our blessed Lord suffered 
 ten thousand deaths without federal relation to man- 
 kind, the blood he shed would have been equally pre- 
 cious, yet it would not have been available for the re- 
 demption of a single individual." " As therefore the 
 sufferings of our blessed Lord were, in consequence 
 of his own voluntary engagement, a debt due to divine 
 justice, the degree of suffering could not righteously 
 exceed the demerit for which it was inflicted: nor 
 could the merit of that suffering extend to those whose 
 sins he never bore, whom he never intended to save, 
 and for whom therefore he could not justly suffer." 
 •' If the sufferings of our blessed Lord were not regu- 
 lated by the number to be saved, I think particular 
 redemption, and the doctrines connected with it, can- 
 not be successfully defended*. 
 
 From these principles, and because it is said, 
 w The Lord hath laid on him the iniquity of us all," it 
 
 * Geth.p. 8, 9, 28, 30, 31, 33, 34, 36, 37, 40, 41, 42, 43, 48, 51, 52, 
 53, 54, 57, 59, 60, 67, 68, 71, 82, 83, 84, 90, 106, 107, 111, 140, 144, 
 145, 149, 150, 151, 153, 154, 155, 156, 160, 161, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 
 170, 171, 182, 133. 
 
 L 2 
 
126 FIGURATIVE [PART I. 
 
 is inferred that the law was literally executed upon 
 Christ, and that justice was literally satisfied in' his 
 death ; so that those for whom he died cannot justly be 
 punished again, but may claim a release of justice it- 
 self. And because he is said to have been made sin 
 for us, " that we might be made the righteousness of 
 God in him," it is inferred that the righteousness of 
 Christ is legally imputed to the elect, and that they 
 are considered righteous in the eye both of law and 
 justice, and that too, (if I understand the writers.) not 
 as believers, but as mere elect. '• Christ and the 
 elect are so united, that what he did for them was 
 reckoned by justice itself accountable to the behoof 
 and concernment of each elected person, as much as 
 if every one of them had completely satisfied justice 
 in their own persons : — and — the fact of this union, 
 when reduced to practical and personal application, 
 secures the existence of genuine holiness and virtue." 
 " Faith and repentance are bestowed upon and 
 wrought in these persons, not as conditions, but as 
 blessings of that covenant." " If divine justice be 
 perfectly satisfied by the sufferings of Christ ; if it 
 could ever say, It is enough ; it could not stand with 
 the same justice still to inflict punishment." " He 
 who as the Judge of heaven and earth must always do 
 right, is said to justify the ungodly, — and that out of 
 justice, so that he is just in forgiving sin. Mercy 
 erects her throne upon the basis of justice, and both 
 equally preside at the tribunal of the Judge when he 
 pronounces the sentence of absolution." " Redemp- 
 tion is either valid or invalid. If it be valid, then it 
 will answer for the persons redeemed by it to their 
 deliverance from curse and condemnation ; or else di- 
 vine justice might be charged with injustice in exact- 
 ing a debt first from the Surety and then from the prin- 
 
GHAP. VII.] LANGUAGE.' 127 
 
 cipal." " If Christ was punished in his sufferings, he 
 bore either a part of that punishment to which we were 
 obnoxious, or the whole. — If he bore the whole, let 
 such who conceive that God punishes those for whom 
 he died, vindicate and clear his justice in so doing if 
 they are able." " The justice of God renders their 
 salvation absolutely certain ; because it would be in- 
 compatible with the first principles of equity to punish 
 in their own persons those for whose sins Christ hath 
 made ample satisfaction. — A price being paid, it is un- 
 just to detain that for which it is paid." " They for 
 whose sins complete satisfaction has once been made to 
 the justice of God by the Mediator, cannot be arrest- 
 ed by the justice of God and bound over to an ulterior 
 satisfaction for the same sins." And therefore the 
 doctrine of a general atonement is inconsistent with 
 the "justice" of God ; as on that supposition " he re- 
 ceived full satisfaction from the Son, and yet does not 
 admit all to favour." " Almighty God in the justifica- 
 tion of a believing sinner is not only gracious and mer- 
 ciful, but just and righteous in the most exalted de- 
 gree. The design and end of God in exacting satis- 
 faction from Christ, was to declare his righteousness 
 in the remission of sin. But the apostle would have 
 us take notice that our justification is an act of justice 
 as well as mercy ; and that God, as he is a just God, 
 cannot condemn the believer, since Christ has satisfied 
 for his sins." " The righteousness by which we are 
 justified before God must in a certain sense be our 
 -own in a way of right, as Adam's sin also was, though 
 performed in the person of another. Christ and Adam 
 being parallels in their head-ship, the imputation of the 
 one's guiltiness and the other's righteousness are right- 
 eously applied to their respective seeds. And this was 
 the main end of the Lord's putting those he would jus- 
 
12S FIGURATIVE [PART I* 
 
 tify into Christ, that he being made sin and a curse for 
 them, they might be made the righteousness of God in 
 him, and so God might be just in justifying them. If 
 the elect had not been in Christ, the satisfaction he un- 
 dertook for sinners could not have availed them. As 
 Adam's sin would not have been ours if not in him, so 
 neither the righteousness of Christ if not in him. Di- 
 vine justice could not have punished him for us nor ab- 
 solved us through him." " The doctrine of general 
 redemption — seems to tax God of injustice, as not dis- 
 charging those whose transgressions are answered for 
 by their Surety ; or else, that the sufferings of Christ 
 were not sufficient to make a discharge due to them." 
 " The Socinians expressly oppose the imputation of 
 the righteousness of Christ, and plead for a participa- 
 tion of its effects or benefits only. But to say that the 
 righteousness of Christ, that is, his obedience and suf- 
 ferings, are imputed to us only as to their effects, is to 
 say that we have the benefit of them and no more, 
 but imputation itself is denied." Christ " did not die 
 as a Sponsor in the place of the reprobate : — for other- 
 wise they cannot justly be punished; since God can- 
 not punish one sin twice, once in Christ and once in 
 them that perish, of whom he exacts his due even 
 to the uttermost farthing." " Christ was not an Un- 
 dertaker for a people under any general notions or 
 qualifications, (such as them that should believe on 
 him, or the like,) not knowing definitely who the per- 
 sons were ; but he was Surety and Undertaker only 
 for the elect." i; He died not at uncertainties, nor 
 laid down his life at a venture, that some might be 
 saved if they would ; but his intention is fixed : he laid 
 down his life for his sheep, for his Church, for his peo- 
 ple." " He bore the guilt of no others than those to 
 whom he is a Head, who are his body, and for whom 
 
CHAP. VII.] LANGUAGE. 129 
 
 he became a Surety. For that was the foundation on 
 which sin was imputed to him : and therefore the sins 
 of such persons only were imputed to him who are re- 
 lated to him as members." Thus the elect, not under- 
 lie aspect of believers, but as mere elect, were his 
 body, his members, one in law with him, and made so 
 before he suffered for them ; and it would have been 
 unjust for him to have suffered for others*. 
 
 What bearing these sentiments have on the limita- 
 tion of the atonement, will still more distinctly appear 
 by the following quotations. " That there is as truly 
 a federal relation between Christ and the members of 
 his mystical body, the Church, [the elect antecedent to 
 their faith,] as there was between Adam and his natu- 
 ral descendants, the Scriptures abundantly manifest : 
 and it is this federal relation which laid the foundation 
 for the imputation of their sins to Christ. — But accord- 
 ing to the sentiments opposed, — no such relation ever 
 existed ; there was no real imputation of sin to Christ, 
 nor any proper punishment inflicted on him for it ; 
 consequently the penal sanction of the law, with re- 
 ference to those who are saved, has never been endur- 
 ed. For were these important facts admitted, it is 
 easy to perceive that redemption must of necessity be 
 limited ; because no one could righteously perish for 
 whose sins plenary satisfaction had been made to di- 
 vine justice." " They insist that what Christ paid 
 for our redemption was not the same with what is in 
 the obligation, and that therefore his dolorous suffer- 
 ings were not a proper payment of our debt ; and con- 
 sequently a proper and full satisfaction for our sins 
 
 * Geth. p. 13, 14, 37, 65, 66, 79, 80, 81, 83, 97, 101, 110, 113, 115, 116, 
 117, 166, 173. Also the delegates from Gelders and Emrlen, and the 
 Dutch Professors, in th° ^ynod of Dort. Acts of Synod. Part II. p. 154^ 
 155. Part III. p. 123,131, 
 
130 FIGURATIVE [PART 1. 
 
 could not arise from his death to the law and justice 
 of God. For were this satisfaction conceded, they 
 see at once that the delinquents for whom it was made 
 must inevitably be saved*." 
 
 This whole system goes upon the principle that the 
 atonement was a legal transaction, partaking of a com- 
 mercial nature, as if money had been paid for the re- 
 demption of so many captives and no more, or for the 
 discharge of the debt of so many imprisoned bankrupts 
 and no more ; in which case, as all can see, the ran- 
 somed captives or exonerated debtors w T ould have a 
 legal claim to a discharge. To make out a parallel 
 case in a transaction where no money was paid, it is 
 necessary to establish a personal identity, (for I can 
 call it by no other name,) between the Representative 
 and the represented, which they denominate a legal 
 oneness, (the justice of which depended on his previous 
 consent,) and to make him legally guilty by imputa- 
 tion, and legally and justly adjudged to punishment in 
 the room of those whom he represented, and to make 
 him suffer a literal and legal punishment, the same in 
 kind and degree that the law had threatened to that 
 particular number. In this way law and justice were 
 literally satisfied and could demand no more ; and 
 those whose debt was thus discharged can claim of lazo 
 and justice a release, and cannot legally or justly be 
 punished again, but have a righteousness legally their 
 own by imputation, and which legally and justly enti- 
 tles them to justification ; and yet not a legal claim to 
 justification in their own persons, but in their Surety ; 
 they virtually possessing two persons, one demanding 
 of the law condemnation, the other demanding of the 
 law justification : and all this not depending on their 
 faith ; for one of the blessings to which, (though un* 
 * Geth. p. 10, 11, 20, 21, 
 
CHAP. VII. j LANGUAGE. 131 
 
 conscious of it,) they have this legal claim, is the gift 
 of faith. The result is, that Christ was a Surety, 
 Sponsor, or Representative for none but those who 
 will be saved, and could not justly suffer for any 
 whose sins were not thus finally taken from them and 
 laid upon him. 
 
 Had a legal oneness between Christ and believers, 
 (as relates to justification, not to the amount of his suf- 
 ferings,) been asserted, it would not have limited the 
 atonement ; for it would still have left to all a chance 
 to come into this relation to him by believing ; and 
 that would have been an atonement for all as moral 
 agents. It was necessary to extend the oneness so 
 far as to limit the sufferings : for had they been suffi- 
 cient for all, it must be acknowledged, since the be- 
 nefit is offered to all, that they changed the relations 
 of all, so that they can be pardoned if they will be- 
 lieve ; which again makes out an atonement for all as 
 moral agents. And if the oneness must be so extend- 
 ed as to affect the amount of sufferings, it cannot lie 
 between Christ and those indiscriminately who would 
 believe, but between him and a certain number of de- 
 signated individuals, whose sins could be exactly 
 weighed. And the oneness must have been establish- 
 ed before he suffered, as his sufferings were to be their 
 legal punishment. In every point of view the system 
 must take this precise shape in order to bear upon a 
 limited atonement, which, as the author of Gethse- 
 mane conclusively pleads, can be supported on no 
 other ground. The oneness must be legal to limit the 
 sufferings ; and when their limit is to be fixed, the 
 number and individuals for whom they are to be en- 
 dured must be known ; and since the infliction is to 
 be legal, it cannot take place till the union is first 
 formed. It 15 of course a vital principle of the system 
 
132 FIGURATIVE [PART I. 
 
 that a legal oneness was established in the covenant 
 of redemption between Christ and the elect, which 
 exists of course before they believe, and existed be- 
 fore he died, and was the ground of the imputation of 
 their sins to him ; that the elect as elect were regard- 
 ed in the covenant as his body, his members, his 
 Church, his spiritual seed, standing in the same relation 
 to him that the posterity of Adam do to their federal 
 head ; in short, that antecedent to all faith, a complete 
 legal oneness existed between the elect and Christ. 
 He was legally bound to suffer their punishment both 
 in measure and kind ; and bonds being given to that 
 effect, they had, though unknown to themselves, a legal 
 claim to a discharge. 
 
 There are, I conceive, two errours in this system. 
 The first is, that it makes the union, which really sub- 
 sists between Christ and believers, to lie between Christ 
 and the elect. The second is, that it supposes a legal 
 oneness, a legal imputation, a legal obligation to suf- 
 fer, a legal punishment, a legal satisfaction, and a legal 
 claim on the part of the redeemed. We admit a very 
 intimate union between Christ and believers, and that 
 kind of imputation both of sin and righteousness which 
 consists in treatment, and a bond on him to suffer im- 
 posed by a divine command, and the intliction of that 
 which answered every purpose of a legal punishment, 
 and a full satisfaction yielded to the Protector of the 
 law, and the claim of believers on the promise of God. 
 But we deny that either of these is legal. The mis- 
 take of supposing them such has wholly arisen from 
 drawing literal conclusions from figurative premises. 
 Because Christ is said to be one with believers, or his 
 Church, he is legally one with the elect. Because 
 he is said to have been made sin for us, (by which is 
 meant that he was treated as a sinner,) he became le- 
 
CHAP. VII. j LANGUAGE. loo 
 
 gaily guilty by imputation. Because the Lawgiver 
 demanded satisfaction of him by commanding him to 
 die, law and justice made the demand. Because the 
 iniquity of all is said to have been laid on him, he sus- 
 tained the literal and legal punishment of sin. Be- 
 cause he was dragged to execution like a criminal, 
 and fell under the stroke of him who was wont to act 
 as the legal Executioner, law and justice were literally 
 executed upon him. Because he rendered full satis- 
 faction to the Protector of the law, by securing its au- 
 thority as fully as though it had been literally execu- 
 ted, he satisfied both law and justice. Because by a 
 covenant claim he bound the arm of the Lawgiver and 
 Executioner not to strike believers, he bound the law 
 itself not to strike the elect. Because we are said to 
 be made the righteousness of God in him, (by which 
 is meant that we are treated as righteous, or have the 
 complete use of a righteousness, or possess a gracious 
 title to justification through the righteousness of the 
 Redeemer,) we are considered in the eye of the law as 
 righteous. Because by his obedience he fulfilled all 
 the demands of the law against himself, and answered 
 all the purposes of our perfect obedience, and by his 
 death accomplished all the ends of a literal execution 
 of the penalty, and thus became the end of the law for 
 righteousness to every one that believeth, he wrought 
 out a legal righteousness for the elect. And because 
 God, having thus secured the authority of the law, can 
 be just to himself, to his government, and to every 
 interest, while yet he is the justifier of him that be- 
 lieveth, the justification of the elect is an act of dis- 
 tributive justice to them. Thus by pressing, in some 
 instances, the figurative language of Scripture into a 
 literal meaning, and by twisting the truth a very little 
 
 M 
 
i34 FIGURATIVE [PART I. 
 
 in others, they arrive at all the conclusions which have 
 been enumerated. 
 
 In proceeding to detect the mistakes of this system, 
 I must begin by remarking that the atonement had 
 none of the attributes of a commercial transaction. 
 Christ paid no money for us, he only suffered. There 
 are two figures of a commercial nature which are com- 
 monly applied to the subject. The first represents 
 Christ as paying a ransom for the redemption of cap- 
 tives, or purchasing his Church ; the second exhibits 
 him as discharging the debts of imprisoned bankrupts. 
 The former is derived from the Scriptures. I have 
 already admitted that the higher ransom, which involv- 
 ed the service of his obedience " unto death," was limit- 
 ed to the elect. Their salvation was promised him as 
 the reward of that service. When he had fulfilled his 
 part of the contract, he became justly entitled to the 
 recompense, as a man is to an article which he has 
 purchased. In this sense he may be said to have pur- 
 chased the elect. And though the price is represent- 
 ed to be his blood, yet it. was -the merit of obedience 
 in laying down that blood which really earned the re- 
 ward. But this is altogether different from the atone- 
 ment. When the atonement is spoken of as a ransom, 
 it is only a price laid down to enable captives to come 
 out if they will. If this distinction is kept in mind, all 
 the appeals to our sense of commercial justice respect- 
 ing the ransom, will come to nothing. 
 
 The other figure, so far as I recollect, is purely of 
 human invention. The Scriptures, I believe, no where 
 speak of Christ's paying the debt even of believers, 
 much less of the elect as such. They speak of the 
 debt as still remaining, and as being after repentance 
 and faith gratuitously forgiven. They "teach us to 
 pray, " Forgive us our debts as we forgive our debt- 
 
CHAP. VII.] LANGUAGE. 135 
 
 ors." They illustrate our discharge by the case of a 
 servant who owed his lord ten thousand talents and 
 had nothing to pay, to whom in answer to his en- 
 treaties his lord forgave the whole. Nop can it be over- 
 looked that this notion of paying our debt, stands dia- 
 metrically opposed to every idea of pardon, and to all 
 those representations of a free and gracious justifica- 
 tion with which the Scriptures abound. What remis- 
 sion or grace can there be in discharging a bankrupt 
 when his debts are paid ? You say there w r as grace in 
 providing the Bondsman. Granted. But when the 
 Bondsman has discharged the whole score, there is no 
 grace in letting the debtor go. At least there is no- 
 thing which answers to the scriptural idea of pardon. 
 
 All the popular arguments then which are drawn 
 from the figure of paying debts, are not onty unscriptu 
 ral and of human invention, but directly opposed to 
 the word of God. There was nothing in the atone- 
 ment of such a commercial nature. And yet the whole 
 system which we are considering is built on the as- 
 sumption that this august measure had all the attri- 
 butes of a money transaction. There is only one way 
 in which the resemblance can be at all maintained ; 
 and that is by establishing a personal identity between 
 the Representative and the represented. If this could 
 be done, I admit that all the principles of a pecuniary 
 payment would apply to the case. Whether therefore 
 any of the arguments founded on commercial figures 
 are at all applicable, depends on the single question of 
 that personal identity. 
 
 In proceeding to examine this alleged oneness in 
 law, we must keep in mind between what parties it is 
 supposed to exist. Were it placed between Christ 
 and believers, it would not fix the exact amount of his 
 sufferings, and of course would have no influence to 
 
* 36 FIGURATIVE [PART 1. 
 
 limit the atonement. It is vital to the system to fix it 
 between Christ and the elect, and to establish it before 
 he suffered, and at the time he gave bonds to die. 
 The theory then labours under two distinct and power- 
 ful objections : first, that a literal legal oneness in re- 
 gard to guilt and righteousness is established between 
 two parties ; secondly, that such a oneness subsists 
 between Christ and the elect before they believe, and 
 even before they are born. I will reverse the order 
 and consider the latter first. 
 
 Whatever oneness subsists between Christ and be- 
 lievers, there appear to be insurmountable difficulties 
 in the way of making it lie between him and the un- 
 born or unregenerate elect. 
 
 First, no such oneness, I think, is spoken of in the 
 Scriptures. I read indeed that Christ and believers are 
 in some respects one, that Christ and his members 
 are one ; that Christ and his Church are one ; but 
 where do we read that Christ and the unborn or un- 
 regenerate elect are one ? I know of but one pas- 
 sage which has the semblance of favouring such an 
 opinion*, and that only speaks of a union between 
 Christ and his Church ; but then by Church here is 
 thought to be meant the whole body of the elect, be- 
 cause Christ is said to have loved and given himself 
 for it, that he might sanctify it. The question then is, 
 what is the meaning of Church in the passage referred to? 
 It is admitted on all hands that in almost every instance 
 in which the word is used in a general sense either 
 in the Old Testament or New, it means the " visible 
 Church," comprehending all those who " profess the 
 true religion!." Then the invisible or real Church 
 ought to comprehend all those who possess the true re- 
 
 * Eph. 5. 23—32. 
 
 t The Christian's Magazine, reputed to be edited by the Rev. Pr. 
 Mason of New-York. Vol. I. p. 56. 57, 64, 65. 
 
CHAP. VII.] LANGUAGE. 137 
 
 ligion. This is certainly the antithesis between a 
 visible and real Christian, and between visibility and 
 reality in every thing. Again, it is admitted that when 
 either of the Hebrew words which stand for Church 
 " occurs in the Old Testament," or the Greek word 
 " in the New, you are sure of an assembly, but of no- 
 thing more*." But the elect are not an assembly be- 
 fore they exist, nor before they are gathered together 
 in Christ, This gathering, as a distinct thing from 
 election,, is set in a strong light in the first chapter of 
 Ephesians. " Who hath blessed us, [believers,] with 
 all spiritual blessings — in Christ ; according as he 
 hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the 
 world. — Having made known unto us the mystery of 
 his will, — that in the dispensation of the fulness of times 
 he might gather together in one all things in Christy 
 both which are in heaven and which are on earth ? 
 even in him." The gathering of the elect into an as- 
 sembly or Church, then, takes place in time, and as 
 fast as they are made true believers. Accordingly all 
 the notices which we have of the real or invisible 
 Church, apply to the general assembly of actual be- 
 lievers. The description of that body is in these 
 words. " The general assembly and Church of the first- 
 born, [sons and heirs of God by regeneration and 
 adoption,] which are written in heavenf," in the re- 
 gister of the city of God : not those who were destin- 
 ed to citizenship, but those who are actual citizens. 
 " Unto him be glory in the Church by Christ Jesus 
 throughout all ages, world without endj.." And in the 
 very place under consideration, " Therefore as the 
 Church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be t© 
 
 * Christian's Magazine, vol. i. p. 55. 
 t Heb. 12. 23. % Eph. 3. 21, 
 
 M 2 
 
138 FIGURATIVE [ PART I. 
 
 their own husbands in every thing. Husbands love 
 your wives, even as Christ also loved the Church, and 
 gave himself for it, that he might sanctify and cleanse it, 
 — that he might present it tu himself a glorious Churchy 
 not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing, — So 
 ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. 
 — For no man ever yet hated his own flesh, but nou- 
 risheth and cherisheth it, even as the Lord the Church, 
 For we, [believers,] are members of his body, of his 
 flesh, and of his bones." Now the unborn or unre- 
 generate elect are not subject to Christ, are not nou- 
 rished and cherished by him, are not living members 
 of him, are not married to him. The real Church is 
 11 the bride, the Lamb's wife*." As it is the mar- 
 riage covenant which makes the wife, so it is the 
 covenant of grace between Christ and believers which 
 makes the Church. The covenant between the Sacred 
 Persons about the elect, was like the espousal of in- 
 fants to each other by the act of their parents ; but 
 marriage is effected by nothing but a mutual covenant 
 between the parties. None belong to the real invisi- 
 ble Church till they have given themselves away to 
 Christ in an everlasting covenant, and till such a mu- 
 tual affection is formed as subsists between husband 
 and wife. The Church, both visible and real, is the 
 body of Christ, and its members are members of him. 
 This is true of the visible Church. u He is the Head 
 of the body, the Church. — For his body's sake which 
 is the Church, whereof I am made a minister]," The 
 visible Church seems to be respected, if not chiefly, in 
 the following passage : " And gave him to be Head 
 (dver all things to the Church, which is his body, the 
 fulness of him that filleth all in allj." This is true 
 llso of the invisible Church ; as appears from the very 
 
 • Rev. 21. 9. 1 Col. 1. 18, 24, 25. \ Eph. 1. 22,23. 
 
CHAP. Vlli] LANGUAGE. 139 
 
 passage under consideration. " The husband is the 
 head of the wife, even as Christ is the Head of the 
 Church ; and he is the Saviour of the body. — No man 
 ever yet hated his own flesh, but nourisheth and che- 
 risheth it, even as the Lord the Church. For we are 
 members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones. 
 For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother 
 and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall 
 be one flesh. This is a great mystery ; but I speak con- 
 cerning Christ and the Church." Now. are the unborn 
 and unregenerate elect thus one flesh with Christ, and 
 members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones ? 
 Is there that nourishment derived from him while they 
 are without life ? Is there that mutual sympathy be- 
 tween him and them while they remain his enemies ? 
 Has he so many dead and putrid members hanging to 
 his body ? Very different is the view of his body 
 as given by the inspired apostle. " But speaking the 
 truth in love, may grow up into him in all things, 
 which is the Head, even Christ; from whom the whole 
 body, fitly joined together and compacted by that which 
 every joint supplieth, according to the effectual work- 
 ing in the measure of every part, maketh increase of 
 the body unto the edifying of itself in love*." It is 
 a pari of the system that the elect were " put into 
 Christ" before the foundation of the world. But the 
 Scriptures know of no such union antecedent to faith. 
 " If any man be in Christ he is a new creature." " Of 
 him are ye in Christ Jesus, uho of God is made unto 
 us — sanctification." " And I, brethren, could not 
 speak unto you as unto spiritual, but as unto carnal, 
 even as unto babes in Christ." " Who also were in 
 Christ before me." " The churches in Judea which 
 were in Christ." " We are in him that is true, eves 
 
 * JEph. 4. 15, 16- 
 
140 FIGURATIVE [PART 1. 
 
 in his Son Jesus Christ." " God — hath quickened 
 us, — and — raised us up together, and made us sit to- 
 gether in heavenly places in Christ Jesus." " Ye are 
 all one in Christ Jesus." " We being many are one 
 body in Christ, and every one members one of an- 
 other*." The idea of being in Christ, is that we are 
 so united to him as to draw present life from him, as 
 the branches from the vine ; and the bond of this union 
 is faith. " Abide in me and I in you : as the branch 
 cannot bear fruit of itself except it abide in the vine, 
 no more can ye except ye abide in me. I am the 
 vine, ye are the branches : he that abideth in me and 
 I in him, the same bringeth forth much fruit. — If a 
 man abide not in me, he is cast forth as a branch and 
 is withered!." It is a part of the system that the un- 
 born and unregenerate elect are the spiritual seed of 
 Christ, made so by their federal relation to him. But 
 if it is so, there is no analogy between the headships 
 of the two Adams. The posterity of the first Adam 
 possess his temper as soon as they exist his seed ; but 
 according to this theory, men are the seed of Christ 
 for many years without bearing his image, and while 
 remaining strangers and enemies. A seed are not 
 constituted such by covenant, but are made such by 
 birth. The seed of the first Adam become such by 
 generation, and share by covenant only his sin and 
 condemnation. If there is any analogy, men become 
 the seed of Christ by a new birth, and instantly begin 
 to partake of his holiness and justification. They are 
 never the seed of Christ till they are the sons oi God 
 and heirs of glory. u If any man have not the Spirit 
 of Christ, he is none of /iwj." Accordingly the seed 
 
 * Rom. 12. 5. and 16. 7. 1 Cor. 1. 30. and 3. 1. 2 Cor. 5. 17. Gal. 
 
 1. 22. and 3. 28. Eph. 2. 4—6. 1 John 5. 20. + John 15. 
 
 t Rom. 8. 9. 
 
CHAP. VII.] LANGUAGE. 141 
 
 that were promised Christ as a reward, were not a 
 body of unregenerate elect, but a glorious company of 
 believers. When this " general assembly and Church 
 of the first born" are contemplated in relation to their 
 Shepherd, they are the flock, the sheep who : ' know 
 his voice," and know him, and " follow him," and 
 will not follow a stranger*. The Church, the body, 
 the members, the flock, the sheep, the seed, of Christ, 
 are all terms of equal import, and denote, in their 
 proper and primary sense, not the elect as such, but 
 believers, the first born, the sons of God and heirs of 
 glory ; but are applied to those who are visibly, as 
 well as to those who are really such. Yet in one in- 
 stance the unregenerate and unborn elect are, figura- 
 tively and by way of anticipation, called the sheep : 
 " Other sheep I have which are not of this fold. — Ye 
 believe not because ye are not of ray sheept :" and 
 once, by the same form of speech, they are called the 
 children of God : " He prophesied that Jesus should 
 die for that nation ; and not for that nation only, but 
 that also he should gather together in one the children 
 of God that were scattered abroadj." On the other 
 hand, in two places those who were already the 
 Church, or believers, are spoken of under that deno- 
 ruination, but with reference to their previous elect 
 character. One of these instances is in the passage 
 under consideration. " Christ also loved the Churchj 
 [that body of men who when developed are presented 
 as the Church, the bride, the Lamb's wife, married to 
 him by covenant, united to him in mutual affection, " sub- 
 ject unto Christ," " one flesh" with him, his " body," 
 " members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones,"] 
 and gave himself for it, that he might sanctify and 
 
 * John 10. 4, 5, 8, 14, 27, 1 John 10. 16, 26. % John it. 
 
 5L 52, 
 
142 FIGURATIVE [PART 1. 
 
 cleanse it with the washing of water by the word ; 
 that he might present it to himself a glorious Church, 
 not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing, but that 
 it should be holy and without blemish." That is, he 
 gave himself that by his obedience " unto death" he 
 might ransom the elect from the dominion of sin, and 
 have a covenant right to sanctity them as his reward. 
 In this sense he effectually purchased them. Now 
 whether the term Church is applied to them viewed as 
 the unregenerate elect, or as the body of developed 
 elect under the character of believers, will appear 
 from the other instance referred to in which the same 
 form of expression is used. " Take heed therefore 
 unto yourselves and to all the flock, [the sheep, the ac- 
 credited believers of EphesusJ over the which the 
 Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the 
 Church of God which he hath purchased with his own 
 blood*." Here the Church which Christ loved and 
 gave himself for, that he might sanctify it, is found to 
 be the body of believers, contemplated with reference 
 to their former character of elect. But it is only in 
 the character of believers that the denomination of 
 Church is applied to them. When therefore it is said 
 in the fifth of Ephesians, that Christ and the Church 
 are "one flesh," we are not to understand that such 
 a union exists between him and the unborn or unre- 
 generate elect, but only between him and the body of 
 believers. 
 
 And when this passage is disposed of, I know 
 of no other which has the semblance of favouring 
 such an opinion. And to build so stupendous a 
 structure on a single passage, which at best is of 
 doubtful import, seems not to be wise or warranta- 
 ble. The other texts which occur to me undenia- 
 
 * Acts 20. 23. 
 
GHAP. VII.] LANGUAGE. 143 
 
 bly speak of believers. Take for instance that 
 in the 17th of John : " Neither pray I for these 
 alone, but for them also which shall believe on me 
 through their word ; that they all may be one, as thou, 
 Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may 
 be one in us : — I in them, and thou in, me, that they 
 may be made perfect in one." 
 
 Secondly, if Christ is one in law with the unborn and 
 unregenerate elect, then the latter were justified from 
 eternity. It is alleged that by the covenant of re- 
 demption they were put into Christ, and made fede- 
 rally one with him, as the posterity of Adam are with 
 their federal head, and were constituted his spiritual 
 seed, his members, his body, his invisible Church ; 
 and that this was the ground of the legal transfer of 
 their sins to him, by which they obtained a claim on 
 law and justice to a discharge. Then certainly they 
 were justified from eternity. Adam's posterity are 
 condemned with him as soon as they become his 
 seed ; and the elect must be justified with Christ as 
 soon as they sustain the relation of seed to him. How 
 could they be federally his seed and yet remain under 
 condemnation? If they were put into Christ, in any 
 sense in which that phraseology is used in Scripture, 
 they were certainly justified. " There is — now no 
 condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus*." 
 If they were one in law with Christ, and their guilt 
 was literally taken from them and put upon him, then 
 they were clear. Take the favourite case of a bonds- 
 man assuming the whole debt : certainly where this is 
 done the original debtor is discharged. I know there 
 is an inconsistency in the very supposition of eternal 
 justification, because justification respects the treat- 
 ment and relations of moral agents in actual exist- 
 
 * Rom. 8. 1 
 
144 FIGURATIVE [PART I. 
 
 ence. Bat if men could so far exist in the purpose 
 and view of God, as to have their guilt literally and 
 substantially transferred to Christ from eternity, they 
 could be eternally justified. Unless then we are pre- 
 pared, in the face of the entire Epistles to the Romans 
 and Galatians, to maintain the doctrine of eternal jus- 
 tification, we must abandon this idea of eternal one- 
 ness between Christ and the elect. Will you say then 
 that they are one with him as soon as they exist? 
 Then they are justified in a state of unregeneracy. It 
 is manifest that none but the justified can in any sense 
 be one in law with Christ. The man who lies under 
 condemnation at the same moment that Christ is jus- 
 tified, is neither considered nor treated as one in law 
 with him. If then the unregenerate elect are one in 
 law with Christ, and have a claim on justice to a dis- 
 charge, they are already justified, not " by faith," but 
 without faith. But this is certainly not the fact. They 
 are " by nature the children of wrath even as others*." 
 And thus they remain, until by a new birth they be- 
 come the seed of Christ, and are united to him in ho- 
 liness and justification. And when they begin to draw 
 life from him, then are they the members of his body, 
 branches of the living Vine, parts of the real invisible 
 Church. Till then they were only destined to such a 
 union. 
 
 But this legal oneness, whether with believers or 
 unbelievers, is a thing impossible. There is such a 
 thing as a legal oneness between two parties in cer- 
 tain respects, and to a certain extent. The following 
 instances may be selected. 
 
 (1.) A oneness in commercial concerns. Such an 
 identity subsists to a certain extent between husband 
 *nd wife, and between partners in trade. The rea- 
 
 * Eph. 2; 3. 
 
CHAF. VII.] LANGUAGE. 145 
 
 son is, that two persons may have a common right in 
 the same property, and according to the laws of so- 
 ciety one may bind the whole concern. One person 
 may also identify himself with another by bond. This 
 is founded in the fact that property is not inseparable 
 from the person, but is alienable at one's own discre- 
 tion. Any man has a right to give his property to 
 another, or which is the same thing, to assume his ob- 
 ligations. 
 
 (2.) Such an identity that one may act for another, 
 and lay the other under moral obligations. Thus pa- 
 rents may bind their children out to an earthly master, 
 and lay them under moral obligations to serve him. 
 Thus they may bind them out to a heavenly Master in 
 the ordinance of baptism, and lay upon them new ob- 
 ligations to serve him. This is founded on the fact 
 that parents have received from God, and in the former 
 instance from the laws of society, a right thus to dis- 
 pose of their children. 
 
 (3 ) A political oneness. All the inhabitants of a 
 country are treated as enemies whenever the govern- 
 ment sees fit to declare war. This is because they 
 are understood to be so under the control of their go- 
 vernment as to be transformed by its authority into 
 actual and voluntary enemies ; or because they are 
 considered so much the interest and care of the go- 
 vernment as to be the proper medium through which 
 revenge can be executed upon it. 
 
 (4.) A oneness between a man and his representa- 
 tive, where the latter is only the organ to execute the 
 will or to indicate the heart of his principal. Such is 
 the identity between a king and his envoy who is go- 
 verned by royal instructions. Such I understand to 
 be the identity between Adam and us. A oneness of 
 -moral character was first established between Adam 
 
 N 
 
146 FIGURATIVE [PART I. 
 
 and his posterity, so that if he was holy we should be 
 holy, if he was sinful we should be sinful. This done, 
 his outward act, (for we are no where said to be con- 
 demned for the sin of Adam's heart,) was as much the 
 index of our heart as of his own, and was made the 
 public ground of our condemnation, in the same sense 
 that our outward act would have been the ground had 
 we eaten the apple ourselves*. 
 
 * Because Adam and his posterity are supposed to present an in- 
 stance of such a legal oneness as we deny, it is necessary to dwell on 
 this subject a little. The only passage in the Bible which plainly as- 
 serts that we are condemned to more than temporal calamities and 
 death for Adam's sin, or which draws a complete parallel between 
 Adam and Christ, is found in the 5th of Romans. The extent of the 
 parallel is of course to be learned from the parallel itself, and nothing 
 appears in it to limit its universality. Our surest way then to learn the 
 connexion between the first Adam and his posterity, is from the known 
 connexion between the Second Adam and his seed. 
 
 (1) By a covenant transaction between the Father and Son, those 
 who were te be the seed of Christ were from eternity elected or ap- 
 pointed to a state of justification. To comport with this, the posterity 
 •f Adam, in consequence of a covenant transaction between God and 
 him, were, before their existence, appointed to a state of condemna- 
 
 ion. 
 
 (2) The elect are not justified before they become the seed of Christ 
 by a new birth. To comport with this, the condemnation pronounced 
 ©n the race does not apply to the individuals of Adam's posterity be- 
 fore they actually exist, and therefore not until they are shapen in ini- 
 quity and conceived in sin. 
 
 (3) The first holy bias which is given to the seed of Christ in regene- 
 ration, is not the effect but the antecedent of their justification, and is 
 produced according to the constitution established in the covenant of 
 redemption. It is however a part of his personal reward. To com- 
 port with this, the first evil bias to which the posterity of Adam are left, 
 is not the effect but the antecedent of their condemnation, and is the 
 consequence of a constitution established in the covenant with Adam 
 before the fall, by which the union of moral character between him and 
 his posterity was fixed. It resulted however from his personal con- 
 demnation. 
 
 (4) The seed of Christ are justified as fully and extensively as Christ 
 himself, being entitled to a deliverance from the power of a three-fold 
 death. To comport with this, the posterity of Adam are condemned as 
 
CHAP. VII.] LANGUAGE, 147 
 
 But that legal oneness which can make a holy Per^- 
 son chargeable in law and justice with the guilt of a 
 
 fully and extensively as he himself was to a three-fold death. But he 
 was not condemned to the first sin. 
 
 (5) The essential condition on which the seed of Christ share in his 
 justification, is that they resemble him in the temper of their hearts. 
 To comport with this, the essential condition on which the posterity of 
 Adam share in his condemnation, is that they partake of his depra- 
 vity. 
 
 (6) The righteousness of Christ is the sole ground of the justification 
 of his seed, and they are justified for his righteousness as fully as 
 though it was their own. To comport with this, as far as the nature 
 of things will admit, the offence of Adam is the sole ground on which 
 the public sentence against his posterity rests, and they are condemned 
 for his outward act as fully as though it had been their own. I say, as far 
 as the nature of things will admit ; for there is this difference in the two 
 cases as all must allow ; the personal depravity and transgressions of 
 Adam's race are a meritorious ground of condemnation, but the per- 
 gonal holiness of Christ's seed is no part of the meritorious ground of 
 their justification. 
 
 On this account, and because'it is abhorrent to all our ideas ofjustice 
 to condemn a race, vieived as personally innocent, on account of the sin 
 of another, I take the parallel to import no more than that Adam's 
 outioard act, as being the index of the hearts of all his posterity, wa$ 
 the public ground of condemning his infant race to a three-fold death ; 
 and I think the Scriptures support this idea. 
 
 First, the sin of Adam for which his posterity are condemned, was a 
 single offence. The other sins of his life had no such influence on 
 them. And the reason is, that the one offence by which he himself feli 
 under condemnation, fixed, and by fixing discovered, the character of 
 all his race. 
 
 Secondly, the offence for which Adam himself was condemned, and 
 for which his race are condemned, was an outward and visible act. 
 Not a hint either in the prohibition or sentence about the sin of his 
 heart. 
 
 Thirdly, it must always tie kept in mind that the sentence of con- 
 demnation which came on Adam and his race was a public judgment, 
 pronounced in the hearing of three worlds, and intended to affect the 
 whole human race in a state of infancy. Now it would not have 
 comported with God's manner of dealing with his creatures, to have 
 founded such a public sentence on any thing but visible conduct; and 
 as it was to spend itself on a race of infants, who, though worthy to 
 be condemned for their own depravity, would be incapable of any vi- 
 sible conduct on which the public sentence could rest, the manifest act 
 
* 48 FIGURATIVE [PART I. 
 
 sinner, and render his sufferings a literal and legal pu- 
 nishment of the sins of the latter, and cancel the sinner's 
 
 of their federal head, which at once fixed and discovered their charac- 
 ter, was made the public ground of their condemnation. They were 
 condemned for his act just as though it had been their own. and in the 
 same sense in which men are publicly condemned for any outward ac- 
 tion. There are two things necessary to give complete existence to sin, 
 so as to make it the proper ground of public condemnation ; the consent 
 of the heart, and the outward act. Now Adam for himself had both 
 of these parts of a complete transgression ; but his infant seed had but 
 one. To supply this defect, his outward act was put for their outward 
 act, as being, no less than their own, a faithful index of their hearts : 
 and thus a complete foundation was laid for their public condemnation, 
 and just such a foundation as was laid for the public condemnation of 
 Adam himself. He was publicly condemned, not for a wicked heart, 
 but for an outward transgression. But he would not have been con- 
 demned for that outward transgression had it not been the index of 
 his heart. So they are publicly condemned, not for the depravity of 
 their hearts, but for a visible act; but they would not have been con- 
 demned for that act of their federal head, had it not been an index of 
 their hearts. As an organ to express the tempers of all men, it an- 
 swered the identical purpose of an external act dictated by the univer- 
 sal consent and performed by the united hands of the whole human 
 race. 
 
 Fourthly, the phraseology of the parallel, if understood according to 
 this interpretation, is according to the established language of the 
 world. We say a man was condemned for murdering his neighbour : 
 we name only the outward action ; and yet we distinctly understand 
 that he would not have been condemned for that act had it not been 
 viewed as an expression of malice prepense ; for instance, had it 
 been done by accident or in a paroxysm of madness. This is the uni- 
 versal language of mankind, as it is also of the Scriptures. In the 
 form of expression we always found the condemnation on the outward 
 action alone, but our meaning is that it rests on the action as (he index 
 of the heart. So the apostle, in the form of his expression, founds our 
 condemnation on Adam's act alone, but his meaning is, that it rests 
 on that act as the index of our hearts. At least if he is thus under- 
 stood, he is understood according to the general language of the Bible, 
 and the established language of the world. 
 
 Fifthly, none can ever prove that the apostle means more ; for this is 
 the only passage in the Bible in which we are said to be condemned for 
 Adam's sin to more than temporal calamity and death ; and neither in 
 this nor in any other place is it hinted. that we are condemned for the 
 sin of Adam's heart. 
 
CHAP. VII.] LANGUAGE. i 4£ 
 
 law obligation to suffer, and give him a claim on justice 
 for a discharge, is a thing impossible, unless two moral 
 agents can be absolutely and indivisibly one, with an 
 intercommunion of moral qualities and sensations, which 
 at once destroys the idea of one's being personally holy 
 and the other personally a sinner. There must upon this 
 plan have been an absolute personal identity between 
 Christ and the elect, even while the latter were dead 
 in trespasses and sins and under condemnation ; and 
 then he must have been personally a sinner, and could 
 not have conveyed to them even a figurative right- 
 eousness. This talk about a legal oneness seems to 
 us about as cabalistic as the alleged identity between 
 Christ and the bread and wine ; and it manifestly sprung 
 from the same origin, the confounding of the figurative 
 and literal meaning of texts. Because Christ says, 
 u This is my body," and " This is my blood," the 
 Romish Church will have it that it is literally true i 
 
 The true reason then why we were condemned for Adam's sin, is 
 that we were depraved, and in the sight of God were fit subjects for 
 condemnation ourselves. And this has been the opinion of some of 
 the best divines of the Genevan School. We then are treated no worse 
 than we might justly have been treated had there been no federal 
 head. If it was just to withhold divine influence from Adam and the 
 angels before they had sinned, and immediately after a course of faith- 
 ful service, it would not have been unjust to have withheld that influ- 
 ence from an infant race without a federal head. And when they had 
 thus become depraved, and fit subjects for condemnation in the sight of 
 -God, justice would not have required that their visible condemnation 
 should rest on a visible ground. They might, so far as justice was 
 concerned, have been condemned for their own depravity without the 
 public act of a federal head. Adam's sin is not imputed except as be- 
 ing the visible act by which their hearts were revealed. And to talk 
 of their double guilt, (their own and Adam's united,) is like talking of 
 the double guilt of a murderer, because he did the act and had a 
 wicked heart. 
 
 According to this representation there was no such legal oneness be- 
 tween Adam and his posterity as is pleaded for in the system under 
 consideration. 
 
 N 2 
 
150 FIGURATIVE [PART I, 
 
 and because Christ and believers are said to be " one 
 flesh," like husband and wife, such a oneness must be 
 supposed between him and the unregenerate elect as 
 never existed between husband and wife, nor ever, so 
 far as we are taught, between the Divine Persons. 
 Certainly in the offices in which the Sacred Three are 
 exhibited, there is no such confusion of Persons as is 
 here made between the holy Son of God and unsancti- 
 fied sinners. Substitution does not constitute person- 
 al identity. All that is true in the case, when figures 
 are laid aside, is, that the parties are treated as one. 
 Christ was treated as a sinner on our account, and be- 
 lievers, (not the unregenerate elect,) are treated as 
 righteous for his sake. 
 
 This we understand to be the only proper idea of 
 imputation, either of sin or of righteousness. Imputa- 
 tion in neither case implies personal identity, nor does 
 it consist in considering the parties as one, (for God 
 considers things as they are,) but in treating them as 
 one. I am far from denying the doctrine of imputa- 
 tion, or wishing to lay aside the use of the word, and 
 regret that some have thought it necessary to do this, 
 imputation is a Gospel term and ought to be employ- 
 ed. But in almost every instance in which it is used 
 in the Bible, it signifies a practical reckoning of a thing 
 to a man* : only in two instances have 1 found it used 
 for an opinion of the mindt, and never for any thing 
 which implies a legal oneness between two persons. 
 Calvin also explains the term by saying, Christ " was 
 made a Substitute and Surety for transgressors, and 
 was treated as a criminal himselff." I plead for a 
 practical imputation, and deny only a legal one. Nor 
 
 * Lev. 7.18. & 17.4. 2 Sam. 19. 19. . Ps. 32. 2. with ver. 1. Rom. 
 4. 3— 10, 22— 24. & 5. 13. 2Cor. 5. 19. Gal. 3. 6. James 2. 23. 
 t 1 Sam. 22. 15. Hab. 1. 11. $ Gethsemaue p. 157. 
 
CHAP. Vll.J LANGUAGE. 151 
 
 do I make it to consist in the imputation of the effects of 
 sin and righteousness. I fully admit the imputation of 
 sin and righteousness themselves, as to every practical 
 purpose. But such an imputation as made Christ 
 guilty in the eye of the law, and makes the elect, or 
 even believers, righteous in the eye of the law, I do not 
 understand. In particular, how the sins of the elect 
 could be so imputed to Christ that he should be legal- 
 ly adjudged to suffer for them, while the law continued 
 to demand punishment of the elect themselves, and 
 held them still under condemnation, I cannot compre- 
 hend. Here are the two condemnations for the same 
 offence which are so much complained of. To avoid 
 this difficulty we must run again into eternal justifica- 
 tion. And even here we are not safe ; for the law still 
 condemns those whom grace has justified. 
 
 It is said that God could not justly inflict sufferings 
 on Christ without first legally imputing to him our sins, 
 and thus attaching to him a just liability to punishment. 
 But what is gained by this resort ? How did God le- 
 gally impute to him our sins ? Why, by commanding 
 him to die, they say. It comes out then at last, that 
 it would not have been just for God to strike had he 
 not first commanded him to receive the blow. But 
 this seems a strange way of rendering a stroke just 
 which otherwise would have been unjust. 
 
 The mediatorial law did indeed require Christ to 
 suffer. In other words, God, for reasons already as- 
 signed, commanded him to lay down his life. But 
 that the moral law which man had broken, the moral 
 law which was the exact measure of justice, required 
 an innocent Person to suffer for the guilty, is manifest- 
 ly not the fact. We have the law before us, and know 
 from the letter of it what it required. " The soul that 
 sinneth it shall die ;" not, it or a Substitute, That ad- 
 
152 FIGURATIVE [PART I. 
 
 dition is supplied by the imaginations of men. The 
 law kn jw 10 substitute. It demanded the death of the 
 identical person >vko had sinned, and not the death of 
 another. And unless another could become the same 
 person by an intercommunion of consciousness and 
 sensation, so that the punishment would attach to the 
 identical agent who had sinned, the law could not de- 
 mand his death. There could be no commutation of 
 persons here as in a money transaction. Another may 
 assume my pecuniary obligation, because he can give 
 me so much of his property ; but another cannot " take 
 upon himself my person," and " sustain my person," so 
 as to render him the " it" which the law declared 
 should die. This is what no power could accomplish. 
 
 Christ therefore could not sustain our legal punish- 
 ment, or the literal penalty of the law. If the law had 
 said that we or a Substitute should die, this might have 
 been the case ; but it said no such thing. The law is 
 before us, and we see with our eyes that it contains no 
 such clause. The plain truth is, that the sufferings of 
 Christ were not our punishment, but only came in its 
 room. They were not the death of the identical " it" 
 that had sinned. They answered indeed the same 
 purpose as related to the honour of the law, but they 
 were not the same thing, and could not be the same 
 thing without an absolute personal identity. So far 
 from enduring our punishment, the plain fact is, he 
 died to prevent our punishment. 
 
 But it is still urged with a surprising degree of tenaci- 
 ty, that the honour of God and the eternal principles of 
 right bound him to punish sin. But he did not punish 
 sin ; for the sinner escaped and the Innocent suffered. 
 It is said that 'truth required him to punish. Then 
 truth failed ; for certainly he did not punish Paul, and 
 Christ was not a sinner. But it is not so that a law- 
 
CHAP. VII.] LANGUAGE. 153 
 
 giver pledges his truth for the uniform execution of 
 every sanction. The penalt} r is not of the nature of a 
 prediction or promise, but merely states what trans- 
 gression deserves and may ordinarily expect. Other- 
 wise every act of mercy in human governments is a de- 
 parture from verity*. 
 
 It is a part of the system that Christ suffered in kind 
 precisely what was denounced against the elect. What, 
 was he given up to unholy and tormenting passions ? 
 for we have seen that such an abandonment was the 
 spiritual death included in the sentence of the law. 
 And what can be meant by his being the object of 
 God's " disapprobation," and one whom he could not 
 "approve and justify," unless the words are used in a 
 highly figurative sense, to denote the treatment which 
 it was proper for him to receive ? That God should in 
 his heart regard with holy complacency in one view 5 
 and with infinite indignation in another, the same iden- 
 tical Person, with an unmixed character, was mani- 
 festly as impossible as for the bread and wine to be the 
 real presence. That he regarded him as an object 
 standing to receive the treatment due to sinners, (so 
 far as was necessary to answer the purpose,) while yet 
 in every view he regarded his Person with unmingled 
 love, is the whole truth w T hen figures are laid aside. 
 Through all the incarnation the Father purposely 
 showed that he was not angry but well pleased with 
 the Son, that he was not punishing him as an enemy 
 who had a separate interest from his own, that he felt 
 for him through the whole scene, and that what he laid 
 on him was a sacrifice of the parental as well as of the 
 filial feelings. This appeared in bis causing the ele- 
 
 * That expression in the 85th Psalm, "Mercy and truth are met to- 
 gether," refers, I suppose, to God's faithfulness in executing his pro- 
 mises. See a note near the conclusion of the 6th chapter. 
 
154 FIGURATIVE [PART T. 
 
 ments, diseases, and demons to obey him, in the an- 
 swer of his prayer at the grave of Lazarus and in the 
 very scene of his sufferings, in the repeated declara- 
 tion from heaven, " This is my beloved Son in whom 
 I am well pleased," and in the mission of angels to 
 support him in the wilderness and in the garden. In- 
 deed the moment you lose sight of the unabated love 
 of the Father, the death of Christ no longer appears 
 that wonderful expression of God's determination to 
 execute wrath on future transgressors. In figurative 
 language, I have no objection to saying, with our cate- 
 chism, that he endured the wrath of God. But if this 
 is construed to mean that he verily believed the Father 
 was angry with him, or to mean any thing mere than 
 the withdrawment of the divine presence, and the im- 
 position of amazing sufferings of body and soul, I must 
 demur. 
 
 The life-blood of the system lies in the assumption 
 that Christ bore the exact punishment of such a num- 
 ber of sins, in measure as well as kind ; and men have 
 talked with great precision about the necessity of pu- 
 nishing " each_and every sin," and of laying " each 
 and every sin" of the elect upon a substitute*. The 
 meaning is not that he bore as much as all the elect 
 deserved for an hour or a day ; (for why should he 
 suffer exactly what was due to them for a season, and 
 not what was due to them unlimitedly ?) but the whole 
 amount of what they deserved to eternity. This is 
 manifestly the meaning. He endured " all that these 
 iniquities deserved," li the punishment due to the sins 
 of the elect," ;t the idem," " all that [they were] con- 
 demned to sustain," " whatsoever was due to the elect 
 for their sin," nothing " less than the delinquents — 
 
 * Delegates from Drent in the Synod of Dort. Acts of Synod, Pan 
 HI. p. 209. 
 
CHAP. VII. J LANGUAGE. 156 
 
 would themselves have suffered," that which was " in 
 exact proportion to the guilt of the many sinners he 
 had undertaken to redeem," that which w r as " in every 
 respect commensurate to the requirements of justice," 
 " not a single pang more or less than the law could 
 have righteously inilicted on the sinners themselves," 
 <; the apportioned desert of imputed sin." " The 
 whole debt [was] required of him." " The redemp- 
 tion price [bore] an exact proportion to the number 
 of persons redeemed, and to the guilt and punishment 
 from which they are redeemed :" " for without a pro- 
 portion between the guilt and the punishment justice 
 is not satisfied." " The sanction of the divine law 
 is irreversible," and cannot " be annulled or relax- 
 ed*." 
 
 Now if it was so, it is difficult to see what was gain- 
 ed to the universe by the death of Christ. We have 
 been accustomed to regard his substitution as a glo- 
 rious expedient to prevent misery ; but upon this plan 
 every scintilla of wretchedness w hie h Satan ever plot- 
 ted against the creation of God. was endured. But 
 there is a stronger difficulty still. A single sin de- 
 serves an endless, which is in fact an infinite punish- 
 ment. The sufferings of Christ then must have been 
 infinite for a single sin : and of course for a single sin 
 his Godhead must have suffered ; for to talk of a finite 
 nature's sustaining infinite misery in a day, however 
 supported by divinity, is, to say the least, using words 
 without a meaning. His Godhead then must have 
 suffered infinite misery, and yet but a single sin was 
 atoned for. How then was all the guilt of all the elect 
 to be expiated? Could -he endure more, infinitely 
 more, than infinite misery ? misery as many times in- 
 finite, if I may so say, as the number of sins to be par- 
 
 * Gethsemane. 
 
156 FIGURATIVE fPART I. 
 
 doned ? This is probably the most extravagant opi- 
 nion that was ever broached in the Christian Church. 
 And for it there is not a particle of countenance in the 
 word of God. Where is the intensity of our Saviour's 
 sufferings measured ? What saith the Scripture ? "Christ 
 hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being 
 made a curse for us." But how a curse for us ? by 
 suffering the infinite pains of damnation ? No such 
 thing: "for it is written, Cursed is every one that 
 kangeth on a tree*." For a Person of such infinite 
 dignity to die on a tree, a death which had been pro- 
 nounced in Israel accursed!, was as strong an expres- 
 sion of every thing which punishment could express, 
 (except the literal and legal imputation of personal 
 guilt,) as could have been made by the eternal de- 
 struction of men. This was enough, and the endu- 
 rance of the same misery in measure and kind was by 
 no means necessary. If to the purpose of supporting 
 the divine law, the sufferings of Christ, considering his 
 infinite interest in the Father's love, were equivalent 
 to the eternal misery of those for whom he died, it 
 was sufficient : and if to such a purpose they were 
 equivalent to the eternal misery of all Adam's race, 
 they were sufficient, if expressly endured for so many, 
 to make atonement " for the sins of the whole world." 
 Certain it is that he must have died to atone for a 
 single sin, for without the shedding of blood there was 
 no remission^. It is therefore fruitless to attempt to 
 decide the number for whom he expiated by the seve- 
 rity of his sufferings§. 
 
 * Gal. 3. 13. 4 Deut. 21. 23. % Heb. 9. 22. 
 
 $ A writer of much greater general consistency allows himself still 
 to reason thus : "As all sins are particular, there can be no such thin;; 
 as a general atonement unless it has respect to all the individual acts. 
 — If justice required that any one of these sins should be punished in 
 the sinner if he endures the punishment himself, it must equally require 
 
CHAP. VII.] LANGUAGE. \5*i 
 
 It follows from the foregoing reasonings, that the 
 sufferings of Christ were not a literal satisfaction of 
 law and justice, even in behalf of believers, much less 
 in behalf of the unregenerate elect. The law is be- 
 fore us, and if we can read it we can see for ourselves 
 what would have been a literal satisfaction of its claims. 
 It never demanded the death of the innocent for the 
 guilty, but the death of the identical persons who had 
 sinned : and till this is yielded the law is not literally 
 satisfied, and justice, (for the law is the exact measure 
 of justice,) is not satisfied. Justice did not take its 
 course, for the Innocent suffered and the guilty escap- 
 ed. But the authority of the law is supported, even 
 in the event of the pardon of believers, (not in the 
 event of the pardon of the unregenerate elect, for that 
 would ruin the law, and none the less for their being 
 
 that every one of them should be imputed to any Surety who undeiN" 
 takes to satisfy in his place. An atonement therefore cannot be, as 
 some suppose, a general expression of God's disapprobation of sin with- 
 out regard to particular sins. — All the arguments which demonstrate 
 the necessity of an atonement, prove that its nature must be a satis- 
 faction to divine justice for particular offences; and if general, it is a 
 satisfaction for all the particular sins ever committed. — His death was 
 therefore a real expiation, a full satisfaction for all the sins which 
 were imputed to him. If he died for all men, then he did make satisfac- 
 tion for all and every sin ever committed in the world, for the unpar-? 
 donable sin and for final impenitence as well as others. — If Christ 
 died for all men, then he died for all the sins of men. Therefore he 
 atoned for those sins which are never pardoned. But what sort of an 
 atonement is that for a sin which does not even render it possible for 
 the punishment of it to be removed ? The sin against the Holy Ghost, 
 and final impenitence and unbelief, never can be pardoned ; and to 
 suppose them atoned for is absurd." 
 
 The Scripture declares two things ; that Christ suffered for our sins, 
 and that he rendered it consistent with the honour of the law for all 
 the sins of believers to be pardoned. But that he bore each and every 
 sin even of the elect, it no where says. Such a particularization is un- 
 known to the Scriptures, and is a mere human inference from the as- 
 sumption that sin was literally and legally punished in him. But what 
 
 o 
 
158 FIGURATIVE [PART I. 
 
 elect ;) and this was enough to satisfy the Protector of 
 the law. This was the satisfaction really made. The 
 Protector of the law was satisfied : and men in ex- 
 pressing this truth in figurative language, said that 
 the law was satisfied. At length, when a system was 
 to be supported, the figurative origin of the phrase 
 was forgotten, and the literal meaning was transmuted 
 to marble and erected in the Church as a standard of 
 orthodoxy. 
 
 If law and justice were not literally satisfied even in 
 regard to believers, then law and justice do not adjudge 
 to believers a discharge, much less to the unregene- 
 rate elect. Law and justice eternally demand the 
 death of the persons who have once sinned ; and the 
 security of believers is, that they " are not under the 
 law but under grace*." They really deserve to suffer 
 
 does the writer mean by Christ's bearing each and every sin? Doe? 
 he mean that he suffered more for a thousand sins than for a hundred ? 
 This is not his meaning, for he plainly tells us, " We do not entertain 
 the opinion that the Redeemer suffered just so much for the sins of A, 
 and so much for B, Sec. and if more had been intended to be saved, 
 that he must have suffered so much more.' 1 What then does he mean : 
 If Christ did not suffer more for a thousand sins than for a hundred, 
 how were a thousand sins rather than a hundred u imputed to him" ? 
 and how did he satisfy for " all the individual acts" of the thousand ? 
 If nothing more is meant by his bearing a million of Paul's sins rather 
 than a thousand, but that he suffered for Paul's sins in general, that 
 they all might be pardoned when he should believe, then the argument 
 founded on this particularization is certainly fallacious. Then he did 
 not bear a precise number of sins ; and then the only question is, did 
 his general suffering for sin render it consistent with the honour of the 
 law for the elect only to be pardoned upon their believing, or for all 
 -men to be pardoned if they would believe ? If the latter, then his 
 death had sufficient respect to the sins of all men to constitute it a real 
 atonement for all. But this dividing up of the atonement between par- 
 ticular sins, (inferring that it was not for this and that unrenounced 
 transgression,) as though it was for sin in the abstract, and not CoK 
 Jhe sinner, is what the word of God knows nothing about. 
 
 * Rom. 6. 14. 
 
CHAP. VII.] LANGUAGE. 159 
 
 as much as though Christ had never died. To them 
 eternal punishment, though it would be a breach of 
 promise, would not be unjust. It would indeed be un- 
 just to Christ thus to deprive him of his stipulated re- 
 ward ; but it would not be unjust to them, because they 
 personally deserve it. They do not merit what he 
 merits. They cannot claim from justice what he claims 
 from justice. They have the use of his righteousness, 
 or a gracious title to justification on his account ; but 
 his righteousness is not literally their righteousness, 
 but only comes in its room. Otherwise there is nei- 
 ther grace nor pardon in their acquittal. If you say 
 that to them it is grace and pardon, though to Christ 
 it is an act of justice, this is precisely what we mean ; 
 and then we ought to hear no more of their claim on 
 justice. All that a Substitute could do for them was to 
 reconcile their pardon with the honour of the law; but 
 he could not lay an obligation on the law to justify 
 them, as if they had a literal righteousness. By his obe- 
 dience "unto death" he could create an obligation on the 
 Father to fulfil his covenant, but he could not bind the 
 law to repeal its sentence, " The soul that sinneth it 
 shall die," and to declare transgressors justified: for 
 that after all would have been a justification by law. 
 It is said that the justification of believers is an act 
 both of mercy and justice. If it is meant that it is an 
 act of mercy to them and of justice to Christ, I agree. 
 But if it is meant that it is both mercy and justice to 
 them, it is like saying that a man delivers his neighbour 
 a sum of money as a gratuitous gift, and at the same 
 time to pay a debt of that amount. No proposition can 
 be more contradictory than that the justification of a 
 transgressor is a legal transaction, or that a sinner is 
 literally righteous, or that a man is justly entitled to 
 pardon. 
 
160 FIGURATIVE [PART I. 
 
 But you say that though the believer is undeserving 
 in himself, the Redeemer has made over to him his own 
 claim, and given him a right to plead that at the bar 
 of eternal justice ; just as a man makes over to another 
 a pecuniary claim against a third person. This notion 
 of a commercial transfer has occasioned all the mis- 
 take. The creditor, it is said, only demands his money ; 
 and if the debt is paid by a third person, justice can 
 ask no more. This would be a fair illustration if Christ 
 had actually paid our debt ; but he only prepared the 
 way, as we have seen, for the debt to be freely for- 
 given. The case adduced therefore is really no illus- 
 tration. In an affair of debt, the creditor has indeed 
 no just claim for any thing but his money. He has no 
 right to prevent a third person from making a present 
 to the debtor. When that third person comes forward 
 and pays the debt, he really makes a present to the 
 debtor of the whole amount. He actually increases 
 the debtor's property ; and the creditor's claim is as 
 really cancelled as though the money had passed 
 through the debtor's own hands. It is easy thus to 
 transfer property by gift, but not thus easy to transfer 
 personal merit, with which moral or distributive justice 
 is concerned. In this difference lies the fault of the il- 
 lustration. A man may make over his property and 
 render a pauper rich ; but a holy person cannot make 
 over his moral character and render a sinner personal- 
 ly righteous, nor transfer the benefit of his sufferings 
 so as to render a transgressor personally undeserving 
 of punishment. By suffering for him he may render it 
 unnecessary to the public good for him to suffer ; and 
 the ruler, finding the necessities of the law answered, 
 though not one of its demands, may graciously forgive : 
 yea he may have promised to forgive, and may be 
 bouiH^ to pardon by truth and wisdom^ and even by 
 
CHAP. VII.] LANGUAGE. 161 
 
 justice to the substitute, but not by justice to the sinner 
 himself, so long as it remains true that he personally 
 deserves punishment. 
 
 But let us examine this subject to the bottom. A 
 man personally deserving to die, it is said, may de- 
 mand from justice, in other words from law, an acquit- 
 tal, under the claim of another who has suffered for 
 him. But how came the substitute by such a claim ? 
 He may indeed have a demand on the ruler, founded 
 on a promise, for the pardon of the offender ; but who 
 gave him a claim on the law for a sentence that the 
 transgressor has never broken it? or a demand bind- 
 ing the law to pardon ? (the law pardon ! ) or binding 
 the law to accept an innocent victim for the guilty ? 
 The law, which, (to make the case a parallel one,) is 
 the exact and unchanging measure of justice, said that 
 the sinner, not an innocent substitute, should die. That 
 then, and nothing but that, is the claim of justice, — the 
 unchangeable, indestructible claim of justice. How 
 came a substitute possessed of a demand which anni- 
 hilates this, and renders the immutable claim of justice 
 unjust? Even the administrator of the law cannot be 
 bound by justice, (other than that justice to the substi- 
 tute which arises out of a promise of reward,) to accept 
 the sufferings of an innocent person in the room of the 
 guilty. How can he be ? If the brother of a murderer 
 comes forward to-day and offers to die in the crimi- 
 nal's stead, are the rulers of the land bound by justice 
 to accept the substitution and to let the murderer es- 
 cape ? But how came they bound ? Their law, which, 
 (to make it a parallel case,) is the exact measure of 
 justice, said nothing about a substitute, but merely 
 that the murderer should die. That then, and nothing 
 but that, is justice, or can become justice ; and not; ing 
 else can annihilate justice, and take its place, its name, 
 O 2 
 
162 FIGURATIVE [PART U 
 
 aid its nature. On what principle then can the sub- 
 stitute force himself upon them, and in the name of 
 justice demand the release of one whom their law and 
 justice condemn ? 
 
 But suppose the rulers have stipulated with the inno- 
 cent brother to accept his substitution, and have thus 
 allured him on to death, nay, have inflicted the stroke 
 with their own hand, are they, (but they are still not 
 their law,) — are they not now bound by justice to 
 release the criminal ? I answer frankly, not by justice 
 to the criminal, but certainly by both truth and justice 
 to the substitute. Here is a claim of justice to be 
 satisfied. By what ? By the fulfilment of a contract 
 on the part of the rulers. But we have been speaking 
 of a claim of justice supposed to have been satisfied by 
 the death of the innocent brother. By this insensible 
 transition from one claim to another the confusion is 
 introduced*. No one doubts that it is an act of jus- 
 tice to Christ to do to those for whom he died accord- 
 ing to all the antecedent stipulations, and therefore to 
 regenerate the elect and to justify and save believers. 
 But we are not speaking of a claim of justice to be 
 satisfied by an act of the Father, but a claim supposed 
 to have been satisfied by the death of the Son ; not of 
 a debt of reward due from the Father to the Son, but of 
 a debt of suffering due from sinners to the divine law. 
 It is admitted that Christ by his obedience " unto death" 
 rendered a stipulated service which justly entitled him 
 
 • Thus Dr. Owen : " He who without the consideration of the obla- 
 tion of Christ could no but punish sin, that oblation being made, cannot 
 punish those sin- lor which Christ offered himself. Yea he is more 
 bound in strict right and injustice, in respect of Jesus Christ, to confer 
 grace and glory on all those for whom he died*." We ought to settle 
 once for all whether God owes the accpuittal to Christ or to the sinner. 
 and keep to one point. 
 
 * Gethsemane, p. 83. 
 
:iIAP. VII. J LANGUAGE, 183 
 
 to the promised reward ; but this is not saying that by 
 his expiation he paid to eternal and immutable jus- 
 tice, whose rights are not conventional, all that was 
 due from believing sinners. He created a debt in fa- 
 vour of himself, but did not pay what sinners owed. 
 He made out a claim on justice by his obedience, but 
 did not satisfy one by his expiation. After the Fa- 
 ther had constituted him the Saviour of the world, and 
 had publicly promised to accept his sufferings in be- 
 half of believers, and had secretly covenanted to com- 
 municate faith to the elect, he owed it to him to do as 
 he had said. This was a claim against the Father. 
 But the question is whether the atonement satisfied a 
 claim which the divine law had against sinners. This 
 was a claim for the death of the transgressor in person, 
 and not of an innocent substitute. This claim was 
 certainly not enforced ; but instead of that enforcement 
 the death of Christ was accepted as ah equal honour 
 to the divine law. This is the plain matter of fact in 
 whatever language it may be wrapped up, 
 
 But it is asked, if one person has a just claim on an- 
 other for kind treatment, can he not transfer that claim 
 no less than a pecuniary one to a third person ? This 
 question cannot refer to the claim of Christ to be him- 
 self the object of the Father's love, (for that of course 
 he cannot transfer,) but to his claim to the salvation 01 
 believers. Can this claim be transferred to them ? If a 
 child, you say, visits one whom his father has befriend- 
 ed, he feels himself invested with a personal claim to a 
 kind reception, and if otherwise treated, resents it as a 
 personal injury, and not merely as an act of injustice 
 to his father. Granted. But who gave him that 
 claim ? Not his father, but his God. The fifth com- 
 mandment has invested every man with a right to be 
 treated according to the relations which he sustains, 
 
164 FIGURATIVE [PART I. 
 
 The son of a king is entitled to more respect than the 
 child of a beggar, and the son of a benefactor stands in 
 a different relation from the son of an enemy. The 
 child of Your friend has a claim of that general sort 
 which is possessed by your neighbour, and approach- 
 ing to that which your orvn child possesses. Your own 
 child has a peculiar personal claim upon you ; but did 
 you give him that claim against yourself? No, it was 
 given him by God. But who or what gave the Medi- 
 ator a claim to the pardon of a sinner, but the promise 
 of God ? That promise fastens the claim immoveably 
 in himself, and created no such relation for the sinner 
 as gave him a right by any law to urge the claim in his 
 own person. It cannot possibly be in him unless he 
 has actually performed the same service, or is abso- 
 lutely identified with the Person of Christ. The claim 
 of the Redeemer to the salvation of believers has never 
 been transferred or alienated, but remains in himself. 
 He has not put it into their hands as though about to 
 Jeave them, and sent them into the world endowed 
 and alone. No, he abides with them, and is himself 
 at once their Guardian and their title to life. It is for 
 his own mere sake, from direct regard to him, and to 
 satisfy a claim which his obedience created, and which 
 must be unalienably his own so long as it remains true 
 that the obedience was his and not another's, that they 
 receive their mercies from hour to hour. 
 
 This love of independence which grasps the thought 
 of having the claim in our own possession, is much 
 like the wish of the heir to get the inheritance out of 
 the hands of the parent ; or that propensity in men, 
 which, though not opposed to receiving existence from 
 God, cleaves to the idea of having been set forward 
 with a self-moving power. We have indeed a claim. 
 
CHAP. VII.] LANGUAGE. 165 
 
 but it is of a far different sort ; not on justice, but on a 
 promise dictated by free, rich, and amazing grace. 
 
 On the whole, if God should refuse to regenerate 
 the elect or to save believers, in other words, should 
 treat any of Adam's race less favourably than was 
 stipulated in his public or private promises, it might 
 be a breach of faith, it might be a dereliction of the 
 principles of wisdom and general goodness, it might be 
 injustice to the Mediator, but it would not be injus- 
 tice to men : that is, it would not be treating them 
 worse than they personally deserve, or worse than they 
 must continue to deserve, though omnipotence were 
 exhausted in transferring guilt and righteousness, so 
 long as it shall remain true that they have ever sin- 
 ned. 
 
 And this accords with the consciousness of every 
 true believer, whatever systematic phrases he may be 
 accustomed to use. When he is humbled in the dust 
 at the feet of his Maker, it is farthest from his thoughts 
 to make demands on justice. His language then is, 
 " God be merciful to me a sinner." And when he ob- 
 tains a sense of pardoning love, he is the more con- 
 founded, and opens not his mouth for shame, because 
 a holy God is pacified towards him for all that he has 
 done. Every day of his life he confesses that itwould 
 still be just in God to send him to perdition. And if it 
 would be just, justice still demands his death. And if 
 justice demands his death, justice is not satisfied. 
 
 The literal truth is, that Christ answered all the pur- 
 poses to the divine law which could have been accom- 
 plished by the actual satisfaction of its demands 
 against believers, and the actual satisfaction of justice 
 upon them. And this being done, it may be said by 
 an easy figure, that law and justice are satisfied. And 
 though these expressions are not scriptural but of hu» 
 
166 FIGURATIVE [PART ft 
 
 man invention, I do not object to their use in prayer 
 and popular discourses. But every divine and every 
 Christian ought to know that they are figurative ex- 
 pressions, and not attempt to draw from them literal 
 conclusions. 
 
 The foregoing remarks apply to believers. But in 
 order to bring this notion of a literal satisfaction to 
 bear upon the limitation of the atonement, it is neces- 
 sary to make out a satisfaction for the elect as elect. 
 Then from the time it was made, and even from the 
 time that bonds were given to make it, they were more 
 than justified in our sense of the word ; they were ac- 
 quitted by law and justice, in other words, could de- 
 mand of law and justice a sentence that they were as 
 free from sin as the angels in heaven. And then du- 
 ring all the days of their unregeneracy, law and justice 
 had no demands against them. No condemnation or 
 even censure could reach them. Amidst all their rebel- 
 lions and blasphemies, they stood as perfectly acquitted 
 as Gabriel ; law and justice both bending over them 
 with their protecting shield, and constantly pronoun- 
 cing them as spotless as heaven. 
 
 This is not Scripture. Christ never in any sense 
 made over his claim to the unregenerate elect. They 
 had no claim but to perdition, lying at full length un- 
 der the undiminished pressure of the curse, — " children 
 of wrath even as others." Peter himself had no right- 
 eousness till he believed. " Christ is the end of 
 the law for righteousness" only " to every one thatbe- 
 lieveth ;" and it is constantly called " the righteousness 
 of faith" " the righteousness which is of faith," " the 
 righteousness which is by faith" " the righteousness 
 which is of God by faith," " the righteousness of God 
 which is by faith," and the righteousness to which man 
 
CHAP. VII.] LANGUAGE. 167 
 
 believeth with the heart.* Christ could not be the 
 end of the law for righteousness to unbelievers. He 
 could not answer the purpose to the law of a literal 
 fulfilment of its demands on them, so as to reconcile 
 with its honour the pardon of those who continue to 
 trample its authority in the dust. We see at a gj 
 that this was impossible. He could in no degree re- 
 lieve the elect as elect, as unbelieving sinn a 
 the pressure of condemnation. He conic not . 
 fore, (in the language so much approved 1 charge or 
 assume the debts of the unregenerate elect. I ' ould 
 not then stand the absolute Surety or Sponsor of 
 such. 
 
 No, you say, but he stood th te Surety and 
 
 Sponsor of the elect viewed as belie^trs. If you mean 
 that he covenanted with the Father about the gift of 
 faith to them as the reward of his obedience " unto 
 death," I agree. But when you speak of suretiship 
 and sponsorship, you refer to his assumption of their 
 debts and obligations, and plainly have your eye on 
 his atonement. But the atonement did not obtain for 
 them the gift of faith. The suretiship and sponsor- 
 ship therefore did not secure to them the character of 
 believers. That was done by an influence lying 
 wholly without these offices. The virtue of these 
 offices must be spent, and the reward for executing 
 them bestowed, before the elect would be believers. 
 In other words, the atonement must be finished, aid 
 the reward for making it conferred, before they could 
 receive the gift of faith ; for that gift was Christ's re- 
 ward for making atonement. Or to resort to the fa- 
 vourite phraseology, their debts must be assumed z nd 
 
 * Rom. 3. 22. and 4. 11, 13. and 9. 30. and 10. 4, 6, 10. Phil. 3, 9. 
 Heb. 11. 7. 
 
168 FIGURATIVE [PART I. 
 
 discharged by their Surety, and he must be recom- 
 pensed for having finished the work, before they would 
 believe. Did he then pay the debts of believers or 
 unbelievers ? They must be freed from debt, and the 
 reward of their liberation must be bestowed, before 
 they will believe. Do they go out believers or unbe- 
 lievers? Plainly if Christ was an absolute Surety or 
 Sponsor for so many elect sinners by name, he sus- 
 tained this relation to them not as believers but as un- 
 believers. 
 
 This lays open at once the fallacy of that dream 
 about an absolute suretiship, and sponsorship, and re- 
 presentation for the elect, which has been bred in the 
 imaginations of good men. These terms, especially 
 the first two, belong to the legal system, and plainly 
 glance at a money transaction and a legal commuta- 
 tion of persons. And let it be remembered that they 
 are purely of human invention. But if in any sense 
 it is proper to say that Christ was a Surety, Sponsor, 
 or Representative, he was so, not to men as passively 
 appointed to receive sanctifying impressions, but only 
 to moral agents and believers ; for to none but agents 
 do those relations belong which such an office was 
 capable of affecting. I am willing to consider him in 
 the light of a Representative, but he was so only in 
 the public transactions, and not in the secret covenant. 
 In a conditional sense he may be considered the Re- 
 presentative of a whole world of moral agents: but 
 if you speak of a higher suretiship or representation, 
 indissolubly connected with saving effects, it respect- 
 ed only believers. Those for whom such a suretiship 
 is undertaken, must from its commencement be enti- 
 tled to a discharge, exonerated from obligation to suf- 
 fer, acquitted. Every analogy testifies that believers 
 only are represented in this higher sense. Adam re- 
 
CHAP. VH.j LANGUAGE, 16$ 
 
 presented a posterity whose temper was like his own, 
 and would not have been their representative without 
 that essential circumstance : and if any analogy exists 
 between the two headships. Christ must represent, in 
 this higher sense, only a seed who resemble him in 
 character. The very idea of Adam's representation 
 was, that it involved his posterity in his own condem- 
 nation as fast as they become his posterity by actual 
 existence : to comport with this, Chrises higher re- 
 presentation must involve men in his own justification 
 as fast as they become thus represented* Are the Re- 
 presentative and the represented treated as one ? none 
 are treated like Christ but the justified, " the bride, 
 the Lamb's wife." Whom should the Head repre- 
 sent but the body, the members ? But in the higher 
 sense he is the Head of believers only. No others 
 are invested with his righteousness and ow r ned in the 
 presence of his Father ; no others are accepted through 
 his intercession. They are " his body, the fulness of 
 him that filleth all in all*." 
 
 * To this latter idea of representation the view is confined in the.. 
 Body of Christ, written by the Rev. James M'Chord* of Lexington, 
 Kentucky, a man of no ordinary powers of mind. He overlooks the 
 representation of men as moral agents, or he would be in agreement 
 with us at almost every point. Mr. M'C/s system is as follows. The. 
 covenant of grace was made with Christ as the Head of the body, the 
 Church ; which, whatever numbers it contains, constitutes, together 
 with the Head, in all periods of time, one moral unit. Christ repre- 
 sented, not the elect as such, not the world at large, but the Church, 
 as a body, and every individual which belonged to it at the time of his 
 death ; and every one, though unknown to the covenant before, be- 
 comes represented as soon as he believes. As the atonement was 
 sufficient for all, and the covenant was restricted to no number, Christ is 
 capable of becoming a Representative of one as well as another, provided 
 they believe. Thus the privilege of an atonement is open to all alike, 
 though no expiation is actually made for any but believers. A possible, 
 salvation is thus provided for all. The covenant which secured tbe 
 salvation of the elect was quite a different thing, being made. $ot 
 
 P 
 
170 FIGURATIVE [PART I. 
 
 The foregoing remarks give a different view to the 
 whole transaction. In this representation you find 
 not that legal oneness between Christ and the elect, 
 that legal imputation of a precise number of sins to 
 him, that legal punishment and literal satisfaction of 
 law and justice for a given number, and that legal ac- 
 quittal of all for whom satisfaction was made, which 
 involve the consequence that all for whom it was made 
 must in justice to them be pardoned. Nor do vou 
 find that legal identification from which it can be in- 
 ferred that all for whom it was made must in justice to 
 Christ be pardoned. Whether all for whom as moral 
 agents he atoned, (and none but agents sustained those 
 relations which an atonement could affect.) must in 
 justice to him be brought to repentance and pardon, 
 depends on the nature of that secret covenant by which 
 his claims were regulated. That which could give to 
 his death such a bearing upon public law and the legal 
 relations of men as to constitute an atonement, let it 
 be distinctly remarked, was not a secret compact be- 
 tween the Sacred Persons, but the public avowal of the 
 design of his death. The secret covenant related sim- 
 ply to his reward for making atonement. Whether 
 
 between God and the Messiah, but between the First and Second 
 Persons of the Trinity, with a view to the latter's becoming the Messiah. 
 In short he excludes from the atonement everything which discrimi- 
 nates the elect, and holds out a provision which is capable of becoming 
 an actual atonement for every man if he will but accept it. Here then 
 is a conditional atonement for all us moral agents; and this is exactly 
 what those eastern brethren mean with whom Mr. M'C. is considera- 
 bly displeased. The key which he wanted to unlock every ward which 
 he failed to open, is to be found in the existence and attributes i : 
 agents. When he has ramiliarized his mind to this subject, ins con- 
 troversy with those who maintain a general atonement will cease. 
 But insulated as Mr. M'C, was, and embarra.sed in various « 
 he seems to have been, it is not so great a wonder that he raw some 
 things obscurely, as that he discovered so much, 
 
CHAP. VII.] LANGUAGE. 171 
 
 therefore any for whom he atoned, (that is, any whose 
 legal relations he so changed that they could be par- 
 doned if they would believe,) could in justice to him, 
 (injustice to themselves they certainly might,) be left 
 unsanctified and perish, depends on the nature of the 
 secret covenant which regulated his claim to a reward. 
 If it was the mutual understanding of the Sacred Per- 
 sons in that covenant, that the public annunciation 
 should be so shaped as to give the atonement a bear- 
 ing on a whole world of moral agents, in a way honour- 
 able and gratifying to Christ, while only a part should 
 be sanctified and given him for a seed ; then no in- 
 justice is done to Christ if a part of those for whom 
 he atoned are left unsanctified and perish. If it shall 
 appear that besides the secret covenant, in which the 
 elect were v distinguished only as passive receivers of 
 sanctifying impressions, there was a sort of open and 
 visible compact between the Father and Son, (the 
 public annunciation before referred to,) according to 
 which the atonement was publicly offered and accept- 
 ed for a whole world of moral agents, to have this pre- 
 cise operation, " that whosoever believeth should not 
 perish ;" then all injustice is wiped from the transac- 
 tion, and every thing is made out for which we plead, 
 
 THE WHOLE DIFFERENCE AT ONE VIEW. 
 
 The point of separation between the parties, so far 
 as the nature of the atonement is concerned, plainly 
 lies here. It is agreed on all hands that expiation 
 and satisfaction stand together as cause and effect; 
 but our brethren make both of these commensurate 
 with the higher Xvrgov or ransom by which the higher 
 *»T§u<fis or redemption was accomplished, and then 
 
172 FIGURATIVE LANGUAGE. [PART %, 
 
 Taise a question about particular redemption. Particu- 
 lar redemption, (meaning- by redemption the effect of 
 Chat ransom which included both expiation and merit.) 
 they can prove ; and if this was all they attempted, 
 the dispute would be at an end. But by uniting the 
 two distinct influences of expiation and merit in what 
 they call the atonement, they make the atonement ac- 
 complish the whole redemption from sin and death, 
 and constantly speak of the higher ransom as having 
 no other influence than to expiate and satisfy. The 
 inference is, that no expiation or satisfaction was made 
 for those who do not feel all the influence of the high- 
 er ransom, in other words, are not redeemed from the 
 power of sin. And when they have put into satisfac- 
 tion the whole influence of merit with all its claim to 
 reward, satisfaction itself has a claim. And when they 
 find satisfaction with a claim, forgetting that they put 
 into that satisfaction a claim to a reward, *they know- 
 not how to make out the claim without making the 
 satisfaction a literal satisfaction of lazo and justice. 
 And to get at this there must be a literal legal oneness 
 between Christ and the elect. This is manifestly the 
 process by which the whole scheme has come irato ex- 
 istence, 
 
PART II. 
 
 EXTENT OF THE ATONEMENT, 
 
 CHAPTER I. 
 
 THE CURSE OF ABANDONMENT REMOVED FROM ALL. 
 
 According to the foregoing pages, the only effects 
 which the atonement had on Peter were these two : it 
 removed the curse of abandonment, and thus took 
 away the penal bar to his sanctification, and it ren- 
 dered his pardon consistent with the honour of the 
 law on the supposition of his believing. Had it these 
 two effects on all ? If so, it was in fact a general 
 atonement, whether intentionally or otherwise. The 
 main question then may be resolved into these two : 
 did the atonement remove the curse of abandonment 
 from all ? and did it render the pardon of all consist- 
 ent with the honour of the law in case they should 
 hear the Gospel and believe ? The former question 
 will be disposed of in this chapter, the latter will then 
 claim our undivided attention. 
 
 After such a death in our world to support the pe= 
 nalty of the law given to men, no favour shown to the 
 human race could weaken the influence of the penalty, 
 unless it spread a shield over irreclaimable wicked- 
 ness. No power exerted to turn men from wickedness 
 could weaken it, be they who they might, So iar then 
 P 2 
 
174 • FIRST PART OP THE CURSE [PART II. 
 
 as the influence of the penalty was concerned, it had 
 become consistent with the honour of the law to grant 
 the Spirit to all men. And this is what 1 mean by re- 
 moving the curse of abandonment. 
 
 If it shall appear that the atonement rendered the 
 pardon of all men consistent with the honour of the 
 law, on condition, not that they should rtceive faith, 
 but that they as agents should believe, then it left no 
 legal bar to their full discharge from every part of the 
 curse but their own evil agency, and therefore no re- 
 striction, imposed by the curse> on the sanctifying 
 agency of God. 
 
 In the public explanation accompanying the atone- 
 ment, it was not to be expected that any notice would 
 be taken of its influence on the grant of regenerating 
 grace ; for that explanation, as we shall see hereafter, 
 referred only to agents, but this grace is bestowed on 
 passive receivers. All that could be expected, in re- 
 lation to the Spirit, from an explanation thus limited, 
 was a general notice that a way wag opened to bestow 
 this blessing on all who as agents would believe. That 
 notice was given. " God so loved the world that he 
 gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth 
 in him should not perish but have everlasting life ;" 
 implying that they should eternally be sanctified. 
 " He that believeth on me, as the Scripture hath said, 
 out cf his belly shall (low rivers of living water. But 
 this spoke he of the Spirit which they that believe on 
 him should receive." " Repent and be baptised 
 every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the 
 remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the 
 Holy Ghost*." It will appear hereafter that nothing 
 is promised on the condition of faith which it would 
 injure the law to grant, allowing the fact to take place 
 
 * John 3. IS. and 7. 38, 39. Acts 2. 33. 
 
CflAP. I.] REMOVED FROM ALL. 175 
 
 that all respected in the promise should of their own 
 accord believe. If then the Spirit was promised to 
 Simon Magus on the condition of his faith, the law 
 would not have been injured had he actually believed 
 and received the Spirit as a gracious and eternal re- 
 ward. And if the Spirit was communicable to him on 
 the condition of his faith, the curse of abandonment 
 was removed ; for that was involved in a judicial sen- 
 tence which declared that Simon Magus should never 
 on any conditions receive the sanctifying Spirit to 
 eternity. 
 
 But it was not mere atonement which produced this 
 whole effect. The merit of Christ, as we have seen, 
 was requisite to complete the opening for the mission 
 of the Spirit; for it was necessary to the'highest ho- 
 nour of the law that all positive good should be grant- 
 ed as the reward of a perfect righteousness. Atone- 
 ment removed the penal bar which sin had raised ; 
 merit gave opportunity for the blessing to come as the 
 recompense of a full homage to the law. 
 
 But when we introduce the merit of Christ, it must 
 be acknowledged that this was not employed to make 
 provision for the regeneration .of Simon Magus. That 
 is, the covenant of redemption did not provide for his 
 regeneration as a part of Christ's reward. In this re- 
 spect complete provision was not made for his regene- 
 ration in consistency with the highest honour of the 
 law. This however was no defect of the atonement, 
 (for it remained after sin was covered and the penal 
 bar removed.) but lay in the single fact that the rege- 
 neration of Simon was not promised to Christ. And 
 this was a matter which respected Simon, not as a mo- 
 ral agent, but as a mere passive receiver of divine im- 
 pressions. As a moral agent the very obedience of 
 Christ made provision for his sanctification. That is. 
 
276 FIRST TART OF THE CURSE, &C. [pART II. 
 
 it provided for his continued sanctification if he would 
 once believe. For though in that seeret covenant 
 which respected passive receivers, his regeneration 
 was not connected with Christ's reward, yet the pub- 
 lic explanation accompanying the death of the Media- 
 tor, which related to moral agents, and was a sort of 
 visible compact between him and the Father, gave him 
 an open right to claim as his reward the continued 
 sanctification of the whole world if they as agents 
 would once believe. Thus by the merit as well as the 
 atonement of Christ provision w r as made for a whole 
 world of moral agents in reference to their sanctifica- 
 tion, that is, a provision which they might enjoy by 
 doing their duty. 
 
 In every view but one the atonement was a mere 
 provision for moral agents. As it bore on regenera- 
 tion, it barely removed a penal bar to sanctifying im- 
 pressions on passive receivers : but even this was ac- 
 complished by an operation on the relations of moral 
 agents ; for it was the removal of a curse which moral 
 agents had incurred. In every other point of view the 
 atonement was purely a provision for moral agents. 
 As it opened the way for the Spirit to be given them 
 as the gracious reward of their faithful seeking, it was 
 such. As it bore on pardon it was such altogether. 
 The way is now prepared to consider it in the latter 
 light alone. And here the question is, did it recon- 
 cile with the honour of the law the pardon of Simon 
 Magus in case he of his own accord would believe ? If 
 it did, it was a complete provision for him as a moral 
 agent, and as full an atonement for him as for Peter, 
 whether intentionally 50 or otherwise. 
 
CHAP. II. J GRAND POINT OF DIVISION. 177 
 
 CHAPTER If. 
 
 GRAND POINT OF DIVISION BETWEEN THE PARTIES. 
 
 "When the Remonstrants," says Dr. Watts, "as- 
 sert that Christ died for all mankind, merely to pur- 
 chase conditional salvation for them ; and when those 
 who profess to be the strictest Calvinists assert [that] 
 Christ died only — to procure absolute and effectual 
 — salvation for the elect ; it is not because the whole 
 Scripture — asserts the particular sentiments of either 
 of these sects with an exclusion of the other. But the 
 reason of these different assertions of men is this, that 
 the holy writers in different texts pursuing different 
 subjects, and speaking to different persons, sometimes 
 seem to favour each of these two opinions ; and men 
 being at a loss to reconcile them by any medium, run 
 into different extremes, and entirely follow one of 
 these tracks of thought and neglect the other. But 
 surely if there can be a way found to reconcile these 
 two doctrines, of the absolute salvation of the elect, — 
 and — the conditional salvation provided for all man- 
 kind ; — this will be the most fair, natural, and easy 
 way of reconciling these different texts of Scripture, 
 without any strain or torture put upon any of them*." 
 
 This " medium" of reconciliation, this hidden cause 
 of the diversity of language in the sacred writers while 
 " pursuing different subjects," the same distinguished 
 writer sought and found. The clue which he disco- 
 vered lay among the relations of moral agents, where 
 we shall seek it in the following pages. 
 
 As that class of Calvinists who advocate a general 
 atonement are among the firmest supporters of abso- 
 
 * Watts' Works, Vol. VI. v. 2S6, 2S/V 
 
178 w GRAND POINT [PART li. 
 
 lute personal election, and as those who sustain the 
 opposite side generally admit that all are bound to 
 live by the atonement, I have often asked myself, 
 where can this difference lie ? To what radical princi- 
 ple can it be traced ? Where is the angle of separa- 
 tion ? As both parties are agreed in their cardinal po- 
 sitions, by what means do they arrive at such oppo- 
 site conclusions ? The following is thought to be the 
 solution of the mystery. 
 
 One party contemplate men as passive receivers of 
 sanctifying impressions ; and their question is, how 
 many did God intend by regenerating influence to 
 make partakers of the benefit of the atonement ? The 
 answer is, the elect. And so say we. The other par- 
 ty contemplate men as moral agents ; and their ques- 
 tion is, how many did God intend to furnish with a 
 means of pardon which they should be under obliga- 
 tions to improve for their everlasting good ? The an- 
 swer is, all who hear the Gospel. And so say our 
 brethren. Thus the dispute turns out to be chiefly 
 about words. Whose language is the most correct, 
 depends on the question whether the atonement in its 
 own proper influence was adapted to affect men as 
 moral agents or as passive subjects of divine impres- 
 sions. If it spent all its force on agents, then in de- 
 ciding for how many it was provided, we must see on 
 how many it left those traces which belong to agents. 
 If on the other hand it exhausted itself on passive sub- 
 jects of sanctifying impressions, we have only to ask, 
 how many in consequence are sanctified ? 
 
 J am inclined to think that this is the original angle of 
 separation, and that the dispute about the nature of the 
 atonement is rather consequential. The mistake of our 
 brethren, as we view it, has arisen from not keeping these 
 two characters of man distinct. They have confounded 
 
chap, ik] or division. 179 
 
 the two, and by confounding have buried up the agent, 
 undrr the passive receiver ; and what was intended for 
 the agent they would not allow was intended for the 
 man unless he was to be sanctified. The two charac- 
 ters, I shall have occasion to shov hereafter, are about 
 as distinct as body and soul ; and on their marked se- 
 paration the solution of almost every difficulty in me- 
 taphysical theology depends. And had our bret 
 kept the distinction plainly before them, they would 
 have seen that the atonement was for agents and agents 
 alone ; and then they would have had nothing to do 
 with the question how many were to be passively re- 
 generated. And then they could not have reasoned 
 about the nature of the atonement as they have done. 
 The mistake lies in not perceiving that an atonement 
 intended merely for agents, is completely for them 
 without reference to the question whether the same 
 creatures are to be regenerated. 
 
 The question which continually lies before our bre- 
 thren is, how many did the Sacred Persons intend to 
 save by an influence on them as passive. Hence they 
 tell us, " When a question arises concerning any trans- 
 action, for whom it was done, it is decided by ascer- 
 taining the intention of the principal agent." Christ 
 " may be said to have died for all whom he designed to 
 bring to salvation, and for none else." " It will be 
 pretended that Christ died for all, but suspended the 
 benefit of his death upon a condition. Be it so. Then 
 when Christ died he knew whether that condition 
 would ever take place ; or rather he knew that it 
 never would in those to whom he had determined not to 
 give faith. And to say that a person does a thing to 
 take effect on a certain condition which he is sure will 
 never occur, is the same as to say that he does a thing 
 without any view to that effect." Our question has 
 
180 GRAND rOlNT [PART II. 
 
 nothing to do with any of these matters, but is merely 
 this; whose relations to the divine law did the Sacred 
 Persons intend so to change that they could be par- 
 doned if they would believe ? 
 
 Our question always is, for whom did Christ atone ? 
 The question of our brethren is, for whom did he die ? 
 meaning, for whom did he offer the double influence of 
 expiation and merit, which met in his death and con- 
 stituted the higher ransom ? And what they maintain 
 is not so much a limited atonement as particular re- 
 demption. But they do not distinguish between the 
 tw r o ; and in the midst of an argument to disprove a 
 general atonement, you will find them urging the in- 
 fluence of Christ's merit on the gift of faith.. The 
 Scriptures " require indeed faith as an instrument of 
 receiving the benefits of Christ's death ; but this very 
 faith is the effect of Christ's meritorious death and 
 prevalent intercession ; and is of course bestowed on all 
 those for whom he shed his precious blood." " The 
 death of Christ, considered in unison with his obedi- 
 ence, is the meritorious cause of all spiritual blessings. 
 It is therefore the cause of the gift of faith." It cer- 
 tainly is ; but this has nothing to do with the extent 
 of the atonement. 
 
 But notwithstanding these discrepancies, when our 
 brethren come to speak of the real effects of the atone- 
 ment on moral agents, they admit all that we plead 
 for. This they do as often as they allow that the non- 
 elect lose the benefit by their own fault ; a point full} T 
 settled by the general consent of the Calvinistic world. 
 The following is the testimony of the Synod of Dort, 
 a body which for two centuries has been quoted as 
 the oracle on the other side. " That many who are 
 called by the Gospel do not repent or believe in Christ, 
 but perish in unbelief, does not arise from the z6aM a 1 ; 
 
QHAP. II.] OF DIVISION. 181 
 
 the sacrifice of Christ offered on the cross, nor from 
 its insufficiency, but from their own fault*." Now if 
 the non-elect have an atonement so within their reach 
 that they are bound to use it for their benefit, and pe- 
 rish, not for want of an atonement, but by their own 
 criminal rejection of it, then an atonement was pro- 
 vided for them as much as it could be for moral 
 agents. The difference therefore is still about words. 
 The two questions, for whom did Christ atone ? and 
 for whom did he die? (meaning by the latter, whom 
 did he intend to save by an operation on them as pas- 
 sive ?) require directly opposite answers : and from 
 the different answers which they have received, men 
 have appeared to each other to be contending for op- 
 posite systems, when in fact they were in the main 
 only supporting different truths. The former ques- 
 tion has been largely discussed by the divines of New- 
 England ; the latter was agitated by the Synod of 
 Dort. I will first take up the question in the shapfc 
 in which it was handled by the Synod. 
 
 ■»♦» 
 
 CHAPTER III. 
 
 VIEW OF THE SUBJECT AS TAKEN BY THE SYNOD OF 
 DORT. 
 
 This Synod was convened at Dort in Holland, un- 
 der the auspices of prince Maurice the stadtholder^ 
 by an order of the states-general dated Nov. 11,1617$ 
 and consisted of delegates from the different provinces 
 of Holland, from Great-Britain, the Reformed Church- 
 es of France and the French Netherlands, Switzer- 
 
 * Acts of the Synod of Doit. Part I. p. 290, 
 
 Q 
 
182 views or THE [part 11, 
 
 land, Geneva, the Palatinate, the Wetteraw, Hesse, 
 Bremen, and Emden. 
 
 For near twenty years the United Provinces had 
 been agitated by the new doctrines broached by James 
 Arminius, the celebrated founder of the sect which 
 still bears his name*. After his death the ministers 
 who adhered to his cause formally seceded, and by 
 an instrument which they called a remonstrance, and 
 from which the party took the name of Remonstrants, 
 put themselves under the protection of the states of the 
 province of Holland and West-Friesland. This oc- 
 curred in June 1610. In the following August and 
 September, several students in divinity being about to 
 be examined before different classes, the Remonstrants 
 drew up five articles, (in opposition to predestination, 
 limited atonement, total depravity, special grace, and 
 the perseverance of the saints,) and obtained an order 
 from the states to the classes to require in the examina- 
 tion no other declaration on these subjects than a sub- 
 scription to the articles. Thus arose into form and no- 
 tice the celebrated Five Points. 
 
 After years of grievous contention this national Sy- 
 nod was convened, for the purpose of settling all ques- 
 
 * This extraordinary man was born in Holland in 1560, and was 
 ordained pastor of a church in Amsterdam in 1588. In 1603 he was 
 appointed to the divinity chair in the university of Leyden. From this 
 time his opinions began to excite public attention, t but they were not 
 openly avowed till the year before his death, which occurred Oct. 19, 
 1609. His eulogium was written in verse by the celebrated Grotiu-. 
 who, together with Vossius and many other learned men, took a di.~ 
 I inguished part in supporting the Arminian cause. The principal oppo ■ 
 ncnt was Francis Gomarus, from whom the orthodox party were some- 
 times called Gomari^ts. After the fall of the Arminian sect, Grtrtihs 
 was arrested by the order of prince Maurice and sentenced to 
 .onment for lile ; but he escaped by the ingenuity of his wife, who had 
 him conveyed from the fortress iu a chest pretended to be tilled with 
 bool.s. 
 
CHAP. III.] SYNOD OF DORT. 180 
 
 tions in dispute ; with a particular order to discuss first 
 of all the Five Points, and to refer all their decisions 
 to the states-general for confirmation. The Synod 
 was opened on the thirteenth of November 1618, and 
 continued its sessions till the ninth of the following 
 May*. They proceeded immediately to cite thirteen of 
 the Remonstrants to appear and defend their doctrines. 
 The cited obeyed the summons on the 6th of Decem- 
 ber, and were dismissed on the 21st of January. On the 
 24th of April the Synod deposed the thirteen pastors 
 with some others, and enjoined it on the provincial sy- 
 nods, and the different classes and presbyteries, to 
 proceed against the whole sect without delay, and not 
 to suffer one of them to remain in office or in the com- 
 munion of the Church. All this was confirmed by the 
 states-general in July following, by an order forbidding 
 any doctrine contrary to the expositions of the Synod 
 to be taught in any of the churches, and enjoining it 
 on all ecclesiastical bodies, governours of colleges, pro- 
 fessors, ministers, magistrates, and civil officers, to see 
 the law carried into rigorous execution. The even: 
 was the imprisonment and banishment of the Armi- 
 man ministers, and the violent prostration of the whole 
 party, agreeably to the intolerant principles common 
 to all Europe in that day. 
 
 This is the Synod, which, uniting in one voice the 
 Caivinistic world, just one century after the commence- 
 ment of the Reformation, has been appealed to ever 
 since as the grand authority next to the Bible for de- 
 ciding all questions in Caivinistic divinity. 
 
 The question respecting the design of Christ's death 
 was brought before the Synod in the following shape. 
 The Arminians maintained that the mission of Christ 
 
 * The president was John Bogerman, pastor of a church in Leuwai- 
 den, in West-Friesland, the residence of the prince of Orange,. 
 
184 VIEWS OF THE [PART tU 
 
 placed all men in all respects on an equal footing, and 
 left the rest to be done by the self-determining power of 
 the will ; that his death reconciled God to the whole 
 human race, and by restoring their lapsed powers and 
 the freedom of their will, placed them in a condition, 
 with the aid of common grace, to work out their own 
 salvation without any supernatural influence ; that 
 there was no decree or intention of God to apply the 
 atonement to one more than another, and for aught 
 he would do the whole rate might have perished 
 after all. In short the main question turned on pre- 
 destination and the dependance of the human will*. 
 
 This the Synod perceived, and shaped their answer 
 accordingly. They say in the outset : " The Remon* 
 strants in this article do not treat of a new subject. 
 For formerly the Sem4-Pelagians of Marseilles and Sy- 
 racuse maintained the same in these words : Our Lord 
 Jesus Christ died for the universal human race, and no 
 man is wholly excepted from the redemption of his blood, 
 though he goes through this whole life with a mind most 
 alienated from him : because the sacrament of mercy be- 
 longs to all men ; by which very many are not renewed, 
 for this reason, because they are foreknown to hold that 
 it is useless to be renewed. As far therefore as belongs 
 to God, eternal life is provided for all ; but as far as 
 appertains to the freedom of the will, it is obtained by 
 those who of their own accord believe in God, and receive 
 the aid of grace through the merit of believing. In 
 which article, although in appearance they amplified 
 the grace of God and the redemption of Christ, they in 
 truth diminished both, ascribing to God indiscriminate 
 grace, to Christ the merit of redemption, to free will 
 the efficacy of both : and while they would overturn 
 the doctrine of predestination, which the apostolic 
 
 • Acts of Synod, Part I. p. 129, 130, 246, 247. Part II. p. 129, 
 
€HAP. III.] SYNOD OF DORT. 185 
 
 Austin defended, they in truth tore up the foundation 
 of the whole Gospel, attributing the cause of faith and 
 perseverance, and therefore of human salvation, to God 
 and Christ indiscriminately, to the humour and will of 
 man determinately. — 
 
 In like manner these, while in this article about the 
 obtaining of reconciliation with God for all men through 
 the death of Christ, they in appearance amplify the 
 grace of Christ's death, do in truth the same thing that 
 those did ; and while they think to tear up from its 
 foundation the apostolic predestination of God, (which 
 discriminates those who are to be saved from those 
 who are not to be saved,) to introduce in opposition to it 
 their own eventual predestination, of those who of their 
 own accord believe and persevere, or determine them- 
 selves to faith and perseverance, a predestination pos- 
 terior to faith and perseverance, (which in truth ought 
 to be called ;?os£destination instead of predestination.) 
 .hey do, by making the human will the governour of 
 resistible grace, and subjecting reconciliation through 
 the death of Christ to the will of men, completely de- 
 prive faith of all grace, and weaken the consolation 
 to be derived from the death of Christ*." 
 
 The Synod then proceed to consider at large the 
 purpose of the Sacred Persons ; and while they admit 
 that Christ died and willed to die for all in respect 
 to the sufficiency of his ransom, they deny that it was 
 his purpose or the purpose of the Father actually to 
 save the whole racet. 
 
 When they oppose the unqualified assertion of the 
 Remonstrants that Christ died for all, they explain 
 their meaning, and plainly tell us that it is the inten- 
 tion as to the final result that they deny. " To die for 
 anyone," say they, "is properly to free him from 
 
 f Part I. p. 246, 247 f p , 248. 
 
 Q 2 
 
*86 VIEWS OP THE [PART Ii. 
 
 death by one's own death, or to die in his place that 
 he may live ; as appears from 2 Sam. 18, 33. Would 
 God I had died for thee ! that is, in thy place that thou 
 mightest have lived*." 
 
 They object also to the assertion of the Remon- 
 strants, that Christ reconciled God to the whole world, 
 and obtained remission of sins for all and eacht. This 
 obtaining by request, (for such is the meaning of the 
 word impetratio which the Remonstrants had used.) 
 cannot, say the delegates from South- Holland, be se- 
 parated from the application : " for an obtaining by 
 request, (as lawyers, the best interpreters of the mean- 
 ing of words, confess,) includes and presupposes a con- 
 cession of the thing solicited. Thus with them an ob- 
 tained rescript is when the prince has granted and the 
 supplicant has gained. And in our common language, 
 when we say an office or benefit has been obtained by 
 request for any one, we mean not only that the right 
 to that benefit has been obtained, but the actual pos- 
 session and concession of itf." 
 
 " This whole thing," say the delegates from West- 
 Friesland,." which they have endeavoured to hide and 
 bring in under the fringe of this article, lurks in this, 
 that not content with the received doctrine of the suf- 
 ficiency of Christ's death, they have invented such an 
 obtaining of remission of sins for all and each as is se- 
 parated from all participation of remission ; where we 
 must particularly note, that when they propose to treat 
 of the death and satisfaction of Christ, of its fruits and 
 efficacy, and the blessings obtained by it, they do not 
 explain the manner of the satisfaction, nor make any 
 mention of the gifts of the Holy Spirit, for instance, 
 of faith, perseverance, and the restoration of the divine 
 image within us, or of the renovation of our nature ; by 
 
 * Part I. p. 247. 1 p. 248, 249. % Part III. p. 145. 
 
CHAP. III.] SYNOD OF DORT. 18? 
 
 which they suggest, what elsewhere they plainly bring 
 out, that Christ obtained salvation that there might be 
 a possibility of the remission of sins and of the recon- 
 ciliation of men to God, but that all participation of 
 that good is suspended on their performing, of their 
 own accord, the prescribed conditions, that is, on man 
 and his free will*." 
 
 " Here it is to be noted," say the delegates from the 
 synod of Groningen and Omlands, " that the question is 
 not about the sufficiency of Christ's death : for we af- 
 firm without hesitation that the sacrifice of Christ pos- 
 sesses so great power and value that it is abundantly- 
 sufficient to atone for the sins of all men, as well actual 
 as original *, and that no one of the reprobate perishes 
 for want of the death of Christ, or through its insuffi- 
 ciency : but the question is, whether, according to the 
 intention of God the Father and Son, remission of sins 
 and reconciliation with God were actually obtained for 
 more than the electt." 
 
 From these extracts it appears what the chief points 
 of dispute between the Synod and the Remonstrants 
 were. The question was by no means the same that 
 is agitated at the present day, but turned chiefly on 
 the intention of the divine mind as to the application of 
 the atonement, and the strange notions brought for- 
 ward to disprove special grace •, in other words, on pre- 
 destination and the dependance of the human will. 
 And though those venerable fathers, from the kind of op- 
 ponents they had to deal with, were more cautious than 
 we are in the use of universal terms, and on the na- 
 ture of the atonement sometimes lost themselves in 
 figurative language, chiefly from not distinguishing be J 
 tween atonement and the higher ransom : yet on the 
 whole they can scarcely be said to be contending with 
 
 * Part III. p. 173. 4 p, 193, 
 
138 VIEWS OF THE [PART II. 
 
 us ; for I shall shjpw in another place, by copious ex- 
 tracts from their reasonings, that they fully admitted 
 all the great principles which support our conclusion. 
 
 And now in return I will acknowledge and vindicate 
 all that they defended against the inroads of the Armi- 
 nians. This I will do under the following heads. 
 
 (I.) A part of the human race were elected in 
 Christ, and chosen to salvation by his death, before the 
 foundation of the world. " Blessed be the God and 
 Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us 
 with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ, 
 according as he hath chosen us in him before the foun- 
 dation of the world, that we should be holy and with- 
 out blame before him in love ; having predestinated 
 us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to 
 himself according to the good pleasure of his' will." 
 " Who hath saved us and called us with a holy calling, 
 not according to our works, but according to his own 
 purpose and grace which was given us in Christ Jesus 
 before the world began." " Elect, according to the 
 foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctifica- 
 tion of the Spirit unto obedience, and sprinkling of the 
 blood of Jesus Christ." The non-elect are those 
 " whose names are not written from the foundation of 
 the world in the book of life of the Lamb slain*." 
 
 (2.) This number were promised and given to Christ 
 as the reward of his obedience a unto death." Their 
 salvation was promised him. " Paul, a servant of God 
 and an apostle of Jesus Christ, according to the faith 
 of God's elect, — in hope of eternal life, which God 
 that cannot lie promised before the world began." 
 Promised to whom ? no man was there to receive the 
 pledge : promised undoubtedly to Christ. They were 
 given to him. " All that the Father invcth me shall 
 *Eph.l.3-^, 2 Tim. 1.9. 1 Pet. 1.2. Rev. 13.8. and 17. 8. 
 
CfiAP. III.] SYNOD OF DORT. 189 
 
 come to me, and him that cometh to me I will in no 
 wise cast out. — And this is the Father's will which 
 hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I 
 should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the 
 last day." " I hav ^manifested thy name unto the 
 men which thou gavest me out of the world : thine 
 they were, and thou gavest them me. — I pray not for 
 the world, but for them which thou hast given me. — 
 Keep through thine own name those whom thou hast 
 given me. — Those that thou gavest me I have kept*." 
 They were given to him as a reward of his obedience 
 " unto death." This has been proved in a former chap- 
 ter, and will be still further established in the Appen- 
 dix. They were given him to be through sanctification 
 the co-partners of his inheritance. It was fore-ordain- 
 ed in the decree of election that he should be " the 
 First-born among many brethren," and share with 
 them the inheritance of the universe. " Whom he 
 did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conform- 
 ed to the image of his Son, that he might be the First- 
 born among many brethren." And among the rea- 
 sons for conferring on him, in reward of his obedience, 
 the dominion of the universe, a leading one was, that 
 he might complete the salvation of his elect* ? Thou 
 hast given him power over all flesh, that he should 
 give eternal life to as many as thou hast given him." 
 <; Him hath God exalted — to be a Prince and a Saviour, 
 for to give repentance to Israel and forgiveness of 
 sinst." 
 
 (3.) The salvation of the elect was that part of 
 Christ's personal reward which had a principal in- 
 fluence in inducing him to die. It was an important 
 
 * John 6. 37, 39. and 17. 6—12. Tit. 1. 1, 2. 1 John 17. %. 
 
 Aets 5. 31. Rom. 8. 29. 
 
1 30 VIEWS OF THE [PART II. 
 
 part of " the joy that was set before him," in view of 
 which he " endured the cross, despising the shame*." 
 This prospect, which so much influenced his own 
 mind through his whole course, it was natural for him 
 to allude to while seated in thpfcosom of his family. 
 With his eye on Calvary, and with the joy of millions 
 rising before him, he unbosomed to his disciples this 
 great motive which urged him to the cross. " I lay 
 down my life for the sheep. — And other sheep I have 
 which are not of this fold : them also I must bring." 
 Then turning to the Jews, " But ye believe not be- 
 cause ye are not of my sheept." It has been already 
 remarked that by sheep is primarily meant, not the 
 imregenerate elect, but believers. The fold is that 
 which is enclosed by the pale of the Church, and the 
 flock are the Church considered as an assembly of 
 believers gathered together in Christ. And here the 
 sheep " hear" the porter's " voice," and " know his 
 voice," and "follow him," "and a stranger will they 
 not follow." The elect Gentiles are therefore called 
 sheep plainly by way of anticipation. But still as 
 there is an evident allusion to the election of the sheep, 
 I cannot but think that Christ intended to express, 
 not that the sins of the elect would be atoned for more 
 than others, but that in the motive which prompted 
 him to the sacrifice, he had a special reference to the 
 salvation of the elect as a part of his promised re- 
 ward. By a similar anticipation the unregencrate 
 elect appear to be called the children of God, and a 
 similar reference to them seems to be expressed, in 
 the following passage : " This spoke he, [Caiaphas,] 
 not of himself, [not at his own suggestion,] but being 
 high-priest that, year, [and in honour of his office be- 
 ing visited with a temporary inspiration,] he prophc- 
 • Heb. 12. 2. 1 John 10. 3—29. 
 
CHAP. III.] SYNOD OF DORT. 191 
 
 sied that Jesus should die for that nation ; and not for 
 that nation only, but that also he should gather toge- 
 ther in one the children of God that were scattered 
 abroad*." By running back the contrary way, be- 
 lievers, under the name of the Church, appear to be 
 spoken of with reference to their previous elect cha- 
 racter in the following passage : " Christ loved the 
 Church and gave himself for it, that he might sanctify 
 and cleanse it with the washing of w T ater by the word ; 
 that he might present it to himself a glorious Church, 
 not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing, but 
 that it should be holy and without blemisht." Some 
 suppose that the sanctified and the children are spoken 
 of under the character of elect in the following place : 
 " Both he that sanctifieth and they who are sanctified 
 are all of one : for which cause he is not ashamed to 
 call them brethren [and children.] — Forasmuch then 
 as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he 
 also himself likewise took part of the same, that 
 through death he might — deliver themj." And in 
 the following : " For their sakes, [they were be- 
 lievers at the time, but it is supposed to refer to 
 them as elect,] I sanctify myself, [devote myself to 
 die,] that they also might be sanctified through the 
 truth§." There are other passages which plainly 
 declare that Christ by the merit of his obedience 
 " unto death" obtained the gift of the Spirit as his 
 reward, and thus became our " sanctification and re- 
 demption," and saved " his people from their sins," 
 and accomplished the double purpose of purging our 
 u conscience from dead works to serve the living God." 
 " Who gave himself for our sins that he might deliver 
 us from this present evil world." &i Who gave him-- 
 
 * John 11 51, 52. 1 Eph. 5. 25—27.-* $ Heb. 2. 11— Jo. 
 
 —r-$ John 17. 19. 
 
?92 VIEWS OF THE [PART |I. 
 
 self for us that he might redeem us from all iniquity, 
 and purify unto himself a peculiar people zealous of 
 good works." " Ye were not redeemed with corrupt- 
 ible things as silver and gold from your vain conversa- 
 tion, — but with the precious blood of Christ ; — who 
 verily was foreordained before the foundation of the 
 world, but was manifest in these last times for you who 
 by him do believe in God." " For it pleased the Fa- 
 ther that in him should all fulness dwell, and, (having 
 made peace through the blood of his cross,) by him to 
 reconcile all things unto himself. — And you that were 
 sometu le alienated and enemies in your mind by wick- 
 ed works, yet now hath he reconciled in the body of 
 his flesh through death, to present you holy, and un- 
 blamable, and unreprovable in his sight*." 
 
 Indeed nothing is more evident than that the merit 
 of Christ in actively giving himself to die, obtained the 
 sanctification of the elect as his reward, and that the 
 prospect of this reward, so gratifying to his benevo- 
 lence from the direct love which he bore them, consti- 
 tuted one of the leading motives which urged him to 
 the cross ; that he died to secure this interest, so pe- 
 culiarly his own as one of the contracting Parties, 
 much in the same sense as a man performs a prescri- 
 bed task for a stipulated recompense. But this has 
 nothing to "do with the extent of the atonement, nor 
 with any question relative to its equal bearing on mo- 
 ral agents. 
 
 This distinction between expiation and the claim of 
 merit to a reward, appears not to have been made by 
 either party in the days of Dort. The Remonstrants 
 in particular were totally blind to all that influence of 
 Christ which went in to constitute the higher ransom. 
 
 ♦ Mat. 1.21. Luke 1.71— 75. 1 Cor. 1. 30. Gal. 1/4. Co'. ?. 19— 22. 
 Tit. 2. 14. Heb. 9. 14. 1 Pet. 1. 18—21, 
 
CHAP. IV.] SYNOD OF BORT. 193 
 
 So far from saying with them, that his only influence 
 and end was to render God able and willing to esta- 
 blish with men a covenant of grace*, I say and insist, 
 that so far as services could earn a stipulated reward, 
 he actually " purchased" the salvation of every indi- 
 vidual of his elect, and had a right to claim it at the 
 hands of justice. They who overlook or fail to dwell 
 largely on this glorious truth, will be in danger of 
 crowding Christ too much out of their religion. To 
 -turn the eye of the mind full upon it, to admit the whole 
 view, and to dwell upon it with devout and grateful 
 transport, will, as every one can testify who has tried 
 the experiment, open more fully and affectingly to 
 view, that which all must see is the great subject mat- 
 ter of the Bible, Christ, the power of God 3 and the 
 wisdom of God, to the salvation of men. 
 
 - ■ +♦ + « 
 CHAPTER IVo 
 
 ATONEMENT FOR MORAL AGENTS ONLY. 
 
 None but moral agents bear any relation to law, 
 obligation, guilt, pardon, rewards, or punishments ; 
 and none else can bear any relation to an atonement 
 which was intended to support law, to expiate guilt, 
 and to lay a foundation for pardon. The passive had 
 not sinned ; the passive needed no pardon. The only 
 way in which passive receivers of sanctifying impres- 
 sions could be affected by an atonement, was indirect- 
 ly, by its removing the curse of abandonment which 
 sinning agents had incurred. But even this was ac- 
 complished by a mere operation on the relations of 
 
 v * Acts of the Synod of Dort, Part II. p* 139> 
 
 R 
 
131 ATONEMENT FOR [PART II, 
 
 agents. The whole force of the atonement was spent 
 on those relations. 
 
 This is what we mean when we say that the atone- 
 ment was a measure of moral government, A moral 
 government is onlv the treatment which God renders 
 to moral agents. As he stands related to creatures in 
 this character, he is the Moral Governour, Now the 
 atonement was plainly an expedient of the Moral Go- 
 vernour to support the moral law, (the constitution of 
 amoral government,) and thus to open a way for the 
 pardon of sinning agents. The satisfaction was de- 
 manded by the Protector of the law, and was rendered 
 to him who holds the rights of justice, (as all acknow- 
 ledge who talk of satisfying justice,) and was accepted 
 by him who otherwise was determined to punish sin. 
 In every point of view it was a measure adopted by 
 God in the character in which he stands related to 
 moral agents. 
 
 Thus the atonement spent its force on the relations 
 of agents, and except by way of consequence, had no 
 effect on men in any other character. 
 
 But it was for agents in another respect ; it was a 
 provision for them. By a provision for moral agents 
 is always meant a means of instruction, holiness, use- 
 fulness, or happiness, which they may improve, and 
 are under obligations to improve, and on the improve- 
 ment of which as a sine qua non the benefit depends. 
 Here I must introduce a principle which 1 shall have 
 occasion to display more at large hereafter. A moral 
 agent must be contemplated as a whole, as possessing 
 that entire assemblage of attributes which constitute 
 him such, and not as one maimed of half his qualities. 
 His essential properties cannot be divided. Now one 
 of the tilings w ikh essentially belong to him is, that he 
 mustac/, and on his action his happiness depends One 
 cannot be a moral agent without falling under this law. 
 
CHAP. IV.] MORAL AGENTS ONLY. 195 
 
 You cannot therefore contemplate a man as needing an 
 atonement, without contemplating him as one, who, if 
 he has opportunity, is to act towards the atonement, 
 and is to enjoy or lose the benefit according as he re- 
 ceives or rejects it. If you keep up the idea of a mo- 
 ral agent, you cannot separate these things. Any thing 
 therefore which is done for a moral agent, is done for 
 his use after the manner in which things are for the use 
 of free moral agents, or creatures governed by motives 
 and choice, and bound to act. That is, it is done that 
 he may use it if he pleases, and that he may be under 
 obligation to use it. Unless the effect is thus suspend- 
 ed on his agency, the thing is not prepared for him as 
 an agent. No matter what other provision which re- 
 spects the same creature as passive, has secured the 
 action of the agent; yet the provision for the agent 
 necessarily suspends a good on his own conduct. Now 
 as an agent must not be divided, whatever is done for 
 him in a way to affect his relations, makes a provision 
 for him as an agent, that is, a provision for him to im- 
 prove. And all that is gained by changing his rela= 
 tions, (so far as the pure agent is contemplated,) is to 
 bring a good so within his reach that he may enjoy it. 
 if he will accept it, and must accept it to enjoy it, If 
 cannot be for an agent in a higher sense. In a higher 
 sense it may be for the man, for under that name both 
 the active and passive characters are included. The 
 atonement could not be a provision for a guilty agent, 
 without having changed his relations as a transgressor ; 
 it could not change his relations as a transgressor, 
 without being, (besides removing the penal bar to re- 
 generation,) a provision for a moral agent to improve ; 
 provided men are ever in a holy manner to seek sanc- 
 tification of God and to receive it as a gracious re- 
 ward, and provided the consistency of their pardon 
 always depends on their turning from sin. N 
 
196 THE TWO CHARACTERS [PART II. 
 
 Thus the atonement was for moral agents in two in- 
 separable respects : it affected their relations, and was 
 a provision for them to improve. And it was for men 
 in no other character, except by way of consequence 
 
 +++ 
 
 CHAPTER V, 
 
 THE TWO CHARACTERS OF MAN DISTINCT AND INDEPEN- 
 DENT OF EACH OTHER. 
 
 The moment we have found that the atonement was 
 for none but moral agents, we refuse to take any fur- 
 ther notice of mere passive receivers of sanctifying 
 impressions ; that is, we refuse to take into account, 
 in settling for whom as agents atonement was made., 
 whether the same persons as passive were predestin- 
 ed to be regenerated : and the reason is, that these 
 two characters are altogether distinct and independent 
 of each other, and what is true of the one is none the 
 less true for any thing which concerns the other. This 
 is the corner stone of the whole system, and requires 
 to be laid with firmness and care. 
 
 The foundation of the whole divine administration 
 towards the human race, lies in this, that men sustain 
 two relations to God. As creatures they are necessa- 
 rily dependant on him for holiness, as they are for ex- 
 istence, and as such they passively receive his sancti- 
 fying impressions ; and they are moral agents. Now 
 the great truth to be proved is, that these two charac- 
 ters of men, (passive receivers and moral agents,) arc 
 altogether distinct and independent of each other. And 
 the proof is found in the single fact, that their moral 
 agency is in no degree impaired or affected by their 
 
CHAP. V.] OF MAN DISTINCT. 197 
 
 dependance and passiveness, nor their passiveness 
 and dependance by their moral agency. That is to 
 say, they are none the less dependant, (as Arminians 
 would make us believe,) for being moral agents ; and 
 on the other hand, (and this is the main point to be 
 proved,) they are none the less moral agents, (as An- 
 linomians seem to suppose,) that is, are none the less 
 susceptible of personal and complete obligations, for 
 being dependant. For instance, they are none the 
 less bound to believe because faith is " the gift of God," 
 nor to love, because love is " the fruit of the Spirit.' 5 
 Their obligations rest on their capacity to exercise, not 
 on their power to originate; on their being rational, 
 not on their being independent. On the one hand, the 
 action of the Spirit does not abate their freedom. The 
 soul of man is that wonderful substance which is none 
 ihe less active for being acted upon, none the less free 
 for being controlled. It is a wheel within a wheel, 
 which has complete motion in itself while moved by 
 the machinery without. While made "willing," it is 
 itself voluntary and of course free. On the other hand, 
 the absence of the Spirit does not impair the capacity 
 on which obligation is founded. The completeness of 
 moral agency has no dependance on supernatural im- 
 pressions, and on nothing but a rational existence 
 combined with knowledge. The bad equally with the 
 good are complete moral agents, the one being as de- 
 serving of blame as the other are of .praise : otherwise, 
 (which for ever settles the question,) the unsanctified 
 are not to blame and cannot be punished. To deny 
 that men are under obligations to be good without a 
 divine influence, wouid plunge you into this trilemma : 
 you must resort to the old Arminian dogma of the self- 
 determining power, or you must prove that God an- 
 swers unholy prayers, or you must boldly affirm that 
 R 2 
 
138 THE TWO CHARACTERS [PART II. 
 
 totally depraved sinners are under no obligation to be 
 holy. For how can they be under obligation to be 
 holy through a divine influence, unless they can obtain 
 that influence by an unholy prayer, or can originate a 
 better spirit of supplication by the self-determining 
 power ? What, then, are men to be sent forth in their 
 own strength ? No, but they are bound to feel perfect- 
 ly right at once, and with that temper to cast them- 
 selves on God for security against a future abuse of 
 their agency, a future violation of their obligations. 
 They are bound to feel perfectly right at once, and 
 with that temper to acknowledge their absolute de- 
 pendance : for on the one hand that would only be a 
 confession of the truth, and on the other, we know 
 from facts which fill the universe that their dependance 
 is no abatement of their obligations. 
 
 This is the very point from which have proceeded 
 one half of the disputes of the Christian Church. They 
 have aJl arisen from the difficulty of familiarizing to 
 the mind the consistency between dependance and ob- 
 ligation, passiveness and freedom. Illumine this inch- 
 square, and the whole farrago of metaphysical litiga- 
 tion would vanish. Pelagians, Semi-Pelagians, Armi- 
 nians, Semi-Arminians, and Semi-Calvinists, would no 
 longer tremble at the idea of absolute dependance as 
 destructive of freedom, nor would fatalists infer from 
 that dependance that men are machines. 
 
 That these two characters are each perfect in itself 
 and unaffected by the other, is no less evident than that 
 creatures can deserve praise and blame. As crea- 
 tures they must be dependant on the Spirit ; and to 
 be susceptible of praise and blame, is the very defini- 
 tion of a moral agent. 
 
 The character of agents as distinct from recipients 
 is sufficiently entire ia itself, and at the same time suf- 
 
6HAP. V.] OF MAN DI3TLYCT. 199 
 
 ficiently real and important, to be the basis of the 
 whole fabric of a moral government. The whole 
 structure is obviously founded in this truth, that men- 
 are complete moral agents without supernatural influ- 
 ence, and none the less for their dependance. God 
 does not command or invite them to come on condition 
 that they are draivn, but lays upon them the obligation 
 without reference to the action of the Spirit. He does- 
 not threaten or punish them because they fail to re- 
 ceive his influence, but because they do not act. He 
 makes experiments upon them, he presents instructions 
 and motives, he charges them with privileges, just as 
 though they were independent. 
 
 On this principle he proceeds in his commands. He 
 requires all rational creatures to be holy, sanctified or 
 unsanctified. He lays this command on angels : foF 
 what is their holiness but conformity to his will ? He 
 lays this command on good men ; and without refer- 
 ence to any spiritual assistance, says, " Remember 
 from whenGe thou art fallen and repent." He lays 
 this command on the worst of hypocrites, and without 
 the least abatement for their dependance, says, " Hear 
 the word of the Lord, ye rulers of Sodom : — wash ye ? 
 make you clean : — cease to do evil, learn to do well.' 5 
 He lays this command on a profligate world, on mil- 
 lions who will never be sanctified ; for he " command- 
 eth all men every where to repent." He lays this 
 command on devils ; or devils do not at present sin 5 
 ; ' for sin is the transgression of the law," and " where 
 no law is there is no transgression*." Indeed if in any 
 acts of authority God was limited by his dominion 
 over the mind, he could never command further than> 
 
 * Rom. 4. 15, 1 John 3. 4,- 
 
200 THE TWO CHARACTERS [PART II. 
 
 he makes " willing," and of course could never have 
 an opportunity to punish. 
 
 On this principle he proceeds in the dispensation of 
 rewards and punishments. Without reference to any- 
 divine influence exerted or withheld, he will say at 
 last, " Come ye blessed ; — for I was a hungered and 
 ye gave me meat. — Depart ye cursed ; — for I was a 
 hungered and ye gave me no meat." " Because I — 
 called and ye refused, — I also will laugh at your ca- 
 lamity." 
 
 On this principle he proceeds in all his invitations, 
 promises, threatenings, and expostulations. " He that 
 believeth — shall be saved, but he that believeth not 
 shall be damned." " If ye be willing and obedient, 
 ye shall eat the good of the land; but if ye refuse and 
 rebel, ye shall be devoured." " Look unto me and 
 be ye saved, all the ends of the earth." " O that they 
 were wise, that they understood this, that they would 
 consider their latter end !" " O that my people had 
 hearkened unto me, and Israel had walked in my ways ! 
 I should soon have subdued their enemies, and turned 
 my hand against their adversaries." " Hear, O hea- 
 vens, and give ear, O earth ! — I have nourished and 
 brought up children, and they have rebelled against 
 me!" 
 
 On this principle he proceeds in all his experiments 
 upon the human character. " Then said the lord of 
 the vineyard, what shall I do ? I will send my beloved 
 son ; it may be that they will reverence him." " Be- 
 hold these three years I come seeking fruit on this 
 figtree and find none : cut it down, why cumbereth it 
 the ground? And he answering said unto him, lord, 
 let it alone this year also, till I shall dig about it and 
 dung it; and if it bear fruit, well; and if not, then 
 after that thou shalt cut it down." Not a hint of any 
 
CHAP. V.] OF MAN DISTINCT, 201 
 
 influence from without but simple cultivation ; the is- 
 sue was suspended on the intrinsic energy of the tree. 
 These representations have been considered as made 
 after the manner of men, but in truth they are the na* 
 tural language of one agent making experiments upon 
 ether distinct and complete agents. Specimens of 
 the same sort may be seen in the parables of the ta- 
 lents and the pounds. 
 
 On this principle he proceeds in estimating the op- 
 portunities and privileges of men, and in assigning the 
 cause of their destruction. " My well-beloved hath a 
 vineyard in a very fruitful hill. And he fenced it, and 
 gathered out the stones thereof, and planted it with the 
 choicest vine, and built a tower in the midst of it, and 
 also made a wine-press therein. And he looked that it 
 should bring forth grapes, and it brought forth wild 
 grapes. — What could have been done more to my vine- 
 yard that I have not done in it ?" " There was a cer- 
 tain householder which planted a i&neyard, and hedg- 
 ed it round about, and digged a wine-press in it, and 
 built a tower, and let it out to husbandmen, and went 
 into a far country. And when the time of the fruit 
 drew near, he sent his servants to the husbandmen that 
 they might receive the fruits of it. — Last of all he sent 
 unto them his son, saying, they will reverence my 
 son." " Wherefore is there a price in the hand of a 
 fool to get wisdom, seeing he hath no heart to it ?" 
 ; ' This is the condemnation, that light is come into the 
 world and men loved darkness rather than light be- 
 cause their deeds were evil. For every one that doth 
 evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light lest 
 his deeds should be reproved." " Ye will not come 
 to me that ye might have life." They " that were 
 bidden to the wedding" " would not come." " His 
 citizens hated him and sent a message after him,' saying r 
 
202 THE TWO CHARACTERS [PART II. 
 
 we will not have this man to reign over us. — Those 
 my enemies which would not that I should reign over 
 them, bring hither and slay them before me." 
 
 Thus Gabriel, and Paul, and Christians on earth, 
 are complete moral agents, and are bound to act, irre- 
 spectively of the spiritual influence by which they are 
 moved ; and wicked men and devils are complete mo- 
 ral agents, and are bonnd to be holy, without the Spi- 
 rit, and none the less for their dependance. Neither 
 the dependance of men therefore, nor the gift or with- 
 holding of the Spirit, needs to be taken into account in 
 any declaration concerning them as moral agents, or 
 concerning the outward privileges which belong to 
 them as such. Moral agents, so to speak, are com- 
 plete entities in themselves, without respect to the 
 passive character belonging to the same creatures. 
 
 These two characters of men are about as distinct 
 as body and soul. Like body and soul they are uni- 
 ted together in ths^same person ; and this gives them 
 a necessary relation to each other, (resembling that 
 between body and soul,) in the three following re- 
 spects. 
 
 (1.) The soul is stimulated to action by what is 
 needed by the body, and by what is done for the body ; 
 and agents are excited to holy action by motives 
 drawn from the dependance of creatures, and from the 
 decrees and operations of God respecting them as 
 passive. God himself draws motives from election 
 and regeneration to move them to submission, adora- 
 tion, gratitude, and praise. 
 
 (2.) The soul is bound to act in view of the wonts 
 of the body, and in view of what is done for the body ; 
 to ask God for blessings on the body, and to thank 
 him for thoso blessing when conferred: and men are 
 bound to act in view of their dependance, and towards 
 
CHAP. V.] OF MAN DISTINCT. 203 
 
 God as related to passive subjects of decrees and im- 
 pressions. They are bound to acknowledge their de- 
 pendance, to pray for the Spirit on themselves and 
 others, to be thankful for influences already re- 
 ceived, to believe and acquiesce in the decree of elec- 
 tion, to thank God for their own election as far as it is 
 known, and to submit the fate of the wicked to his 
 sovereign disposal. God himself commands these 
 things. 
 
 (3.) The soul is rewarded and punished by what is 
 done to the body ; and the dependance of men consti- 
 tutes a sort of capacity for rewards and punishments, 
 God promises them his influence as a gracious recom- 
 pense, and bestows it in answer to prayer, in fulfil- 
 ment of a covenant, or as a general token of favour ; 
 in all which you may trace the idea of reward. The 
 whole process of sanctification after the first act of 
 faith, seems to be of this nature ; for however sove- 
 reign it may be in point of time, manner, and degree, 
 it was in general promised to the first act of faith, and 
 is certainly a token of favour. On the other hand, 
 God withholds from men his influence, and abandons 
 them to judicial blindness and tormenting passions, by 
 way of punishment. 
 
 Regeneration can never be the reward of the person 
 regenerated, for before the change he had nothing wor- 
 thy of recompense. But the regeneration of one per- 
 son may be the reward of another. It may be a re- 
 compense to Christ, a token of favour to a parent or 
 minister, a fulfilment of a covenant with the Church, 
 or an answer to prayer. On the other hand, regene- 
 rating influence may be withheld from one as the pu- 
 nishment of another. So, to keep up the- comparison 
 already begun, the soul of one may be rewarded or 
 punished by what is done to the body of another. 
 
'204 THE TWO CHARACTERS [PART II. 
 
 In these three respects the two characters stand re- 
 lated to each other. These then may be considered as 
 exceptions ; and to save repetition I shall hereafter re- 
 fer to them as such. But with these three exceptions, 
 the two characters are as disconnected and indepen- 
 dent of each other as though they belonged to two se- 
 parate persons. A provision for one is as distinct 
 from every thing relating to the other, as a provision 
 for the soul is distinct from a garment for the body. 
 Accordingly, with the above exceptions, God, in his 
 whole treatment of moral agents, proceeds without the 
 least apparent reference to the dependance of the same 
 creatures on the Spirit, and shapes all his measures, 
 to all appearance, as though he had no control over 
 the mind but by motives. This he does even in regard 
 to good men. He lays upo« them obligations irre- 
 spective of the influence which he has covenanted to 
 bestow. But as the influence in this case is really a 
 reward to holy agents, I shall take no further notice of 
 it, but shall confine myself to the regenerating power. 
 This, as it relates to the subject of the change, is cer- 
 tainly no part of the treatment of moral agents. To 
 him it is not a reward, and has no respect to any thing he 
 has ever done. This then, and the decree concerning 
 it, are clearly without the pale of a moral government, 
 and may be set in distinct contrast with the whole treat- 
 ment of agents*. These are the two points of opposi- 
 tion which I wish to set up ; — election and regenera- 
 tion on the one hand, and a moral government on the 
 other. And what I assert is, that in all the treatment 
 
 *' The decree of election was a. reward to Christ, and a part of a 
 moral government in relation to him; and the regeneration of a child 
 may be the reward of a parent, and so a part of a moral government to 
 him. But the child is not treated as an agent in the process, but a? 
 mere passive receiver. 
 
CHAP, vlj OF MAN DISTINCT. 205 
 
 of moral agents, and in all the provisions for them, 
 God acts, with the exceptions already made, without 
 the least apparent reference to election or regeneration. 
 I have shown you two independent characters on 
 earth. Tf God acts towards these according to truth, 
 there will be a counterpart of them in the heavens : 
 he himself will sustain two characters, (with the excep- 
 tions already made,) altogether independent of each 
 other. As he stands related to the moral agent, he is 
 the Moral Governour; as he stands related to the 
 mere passive receiver, he is the Sovereign Efficient 
 Cause. I say then, if he acts towards these two inde- 
 pendent characters of man according to truth, the Mo- 
 ral Governour will appear in his operations indepen- 
 dent of the Sovereign Efficient Cause. And so it 
 is. No one can open his Bible without seeing these 
 two independent and seemingly opposite characters in 
 every page. In one place you hear God speaking as 
 one who has absolute control over the mind and can- 
 not be disappointed : " My counsel shall stand and I 
 will do all my pleasure." " The king's heart is in the 
 hand of the Lord as the rivers of water ; he turneth it 
 whithersoever he will;" in another, you see him a 
 supplicant at the doors of men, earnestly striving to 
 reform them, with no power or instrument in his hand 
 but motives ; and you see him, after exhausting his 
 means, retiring from the field apparently disappointed 
 and grieved. " As I live, saith the Lord God, I have 
 no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but that the 
 wicked turn from his way and live. Turn ye, turn ye 
 from your evil ways, for why will ye die ?" " O that 
 my people had hearkened unto me, and Israel had 
 walked in my ways !" " How often would I have 
 gathered thy children together, even as a hen athereth 
 her chickens under her wings, and ye would not." " Q 
 
 S 
 
206 THE TWO CHARACTERS [PART II. 
 
 that they were wise, that they understood this, that 
 they would consider their latter end !" " What could 
 have been done more to my vineyard that I have not 
 done in it ?" This is not the language of figure, nor 
 any thing after the manner of men in such a sense as 
 to prevent it from being the plainest and simplest dia- 
 lect of a moral government. These two characters, 
 which appear every where as distinct as though they 
 belonged to two separate beings, will account for all 
 that diversity of language in the sacred Scriptures 
 which has given rise to so many opposite systems. 
 Out of these different exhibitions of God most of the 
 metaphysical disputes have arisen. One class of men, 
 fastening their eyes on one of these characters, have 
 in different degrees excluded election and special 
 grace; while another class, too much confining their 
 attention to the other character, have proportionably 
 overlooked a moral government. But the grand key 
 to unlock every difficulty is found in this, that one of 
 these characters stands related to men as moral agents, 
 and the other to men as passive receivers of sanctify- 
 ing impressions ; and the latter two being distinct and 
 independent of each other, the former two, to accord 
 with truth, must be equally so. 
 
 These two characters of God are not only distinct, 
 but in some respects are opposite to each other. In 
 one character God wills to suffer men to sin, when his 
 influence could easily prevent ; in the other he ear- 
 nestly forbids them to sin, and urges all the motives in 
 the universe to dissuade them. In one character he 
 wills to suffer men to perish, when his influence could 
 easily prevent ; in the other he swears by his life that 
 he has no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but that 
 they turn and live ; and then presses them to return as 
 though his own existence was at stake. In one cha- 
 
CHAP. V.J OF MAN DISTINCT. 207 
 
 racter he determined before the non-elect were made 
 that they should be left to destruction ; in the other he 
 would have us to understand that he made them from 
 the purest benevolence ; and to confirm this, he has 
 spread an ocean of atoning blood between them and 
 perdition, and follows them with his entreaties even to 
 the gates of hell. Nothing but the confounding of 
 these two characters, or rather the annihilation of that 
 of Moral Governour, prevents men from seeing that 
 God could provide an atonement for the non-elect : 
 and that character annihilated, there is no avoiding 
 the broad and unqualified assertion that he made them 
 to be damned. Contemplate God in a single charac- 
 ter, and there is no vindicating the sincerity of his in- 
 vitations to the non-elect : for then the whole that can 
 be said is, that he presses those to live whom he has 
 unchangeably doomed to destruction. Not a word of 
 explanation can be offered ; and it is as though a man, 
 sustaining a single character, should pursue the same 
 contradictory course. But view God in this double 
 character, founded on the double relations of men, and 
 admit that their capacity is a sufficient ground of treat- 
 ing them as distinct and independent agents, and all is 
 plain. In short this distinction between the active 
 and passive characters of man, and between the cor- 
 responding characters of God, will clear up very many 
 difficulties which are otherwise insolvible*. To blend 
 
 * I am so convinced that this distinction will clear up most of the 
 solvible difficulties in metaphysical theology, that I could wish to see 
 some abler pen pursue the subject through all its ramifications, I have 
 C/nly time to drop the following hints as a specimen. 
 
 (1.) The seemingly contradictory language which runs through tbe 
 Bible is thus explained. In one form God speaks as related to agents, 
 with nothing but motives to employ ; in the other, as related to passive 
 subjects of sanctifying impressions, over whom he has absolute control. 
 
 (2.) It reveals the consistency between dependanc© and freedom* 
 
20S THE TWO CHARACTERS [PART I*, 
 
 them would introduce endless confusion into every 
 part of the divine administration. And to fill the eye 
 with one to the exclusion of the other, and to build on 
 that a system of religion, would lead to the most de- 
 structive heresies. Cover man's dependance on the 
 Spirit, and we are Pelagians : take away his moral 
 
 Freedom is the unrestrained exertion of our own agency. Dependance 
 leaves our agency entire, and of course unshackled. 
 
 (3.) The consistency between decrees and free agency. Decrees do 
 not touch us until they are executed upon us by the power of motives, 
 •r by an influence to mould our disposition. If we follow motives we 
 are voluntary and free : if our hearts are moulded by a divine influ- 
 ence, we are only dependant. As men have all the attributes of agents 
 none the less for what befals them as passive, God may make and exe- 
 cute a decree concerning the passive and leave agents free. 
 
 (4.) The consistency between election and the fact that all may 
 come. Election only respects the passive, coming is the act of an agent. 
 Election only touches the question whether we shall be disposed to 
 come ; it does not interfere with the fact that if we come we shall be 
 veceived. 
 
 (5.) The consistency between eloction and a fair chance for all. 
 Fair chance is predicable only of an agent, and is where a blessing is 
 so put within his reach that he may enjoy it by doing his duty. Elec- 
 tion only respects the question whether he shall be inclined to do his 
 duty. 
 
 (6.) The difference between God's secret or decretive and his re- 
 vealed or preceptive will. The former respects the passive, (except so 
 far as it is to be executed by motives ;) the latter, agents. 
 
 (7.) The propriety of exhorting sinners to repent and believe, and 
 not merely to use means and do the best they can. Their moral agen- 
 cy and obligations are not impaired by their dependance, nor by the ab- 
 sence of the Spirit. 
 
 (8.) We see what it is which constitutes the difference in the tenour 
 of different preachers. Some dwell more on the duties of agents, or 
 morality, others more on the aid secured for the passive, calling on men 
 to cast themselves "on Christ and the covenant. And by keeping in 
 view the two characters of man, we may see why and how far both 
 methods ought to be pursued. As to the reason why, the whole man 
 ought to be addressed : as to the proportion of bearing on the respec- 
 tive characters, not enough on the one hand to make legalists, not 
 enough on the other to make Antinomians. To omit to notice, or to 
 lay too much stress on either character, will lead fto some errour af 
 head or heart. 
 
I 
 
 CHAP. V.] OF MAN DISTINCT, 509'. 
 
 agency, and the government of God degenerates into 
 Stoical fate. The only difference between the Calvin- 
 istic doctrine of decrees and the Stoical doctrine of 
 fate, is found in the distinct, complete, and free agency 
 of man, by which he differs from a mere machine. 
 
 These operations of the Moral Governour and So- 
 vereign Efficient Cause may be called the two great 
 departments of the divine administration. And they 
 are so distinct that when a man opens his eyes in one, 
 he cannot, so to speak, see the other. If standing in 
 one department, a Christian should ask why he obtain- 
 ed mercy, the question would be, why he was regene- 
 rated : and the answer would be, because' God has 
 ; ' mercy on whom he will have mercy." If standing 
 in the other, he asks the same question, the inquiry 
 will be, why he was not punished with judicial blind- 
 ness, and why he was not debarred when he applied 
 for pardon : and the answer will be, on the one hand, 
 because he had not committed the unpardonable sin, 
 and on the other, because God wished to glorify his 
 grace for the encouragement of others who should be 
 disposed to apply. It was in the latter department 
 that Paul stood when he contemplated the reasons of 
 the mercy extended to him. " I obtained mercy be- 
 cause I did it ignorantly in unbelief. — For this cause f 
 obtained mercy, that in me first Jesiis Christ might 
 show forth all long suffering for a pattern to them who 
 should hereafter believe on him." When the great 
 preacher of election opened his mouth on such a sub- 
 ject, you might expect to hear, among the antecedent 
 causes, something of that electing decree and of the 
 gift of that soul to Christ. Not a hint or breath of any 
 such thing. He seems never to have heard of elec- 
 tion. The only reasons assigned why he himself was 
 not actually left to go down to the pit, are these two : 
 
 IS -2 
 
210 THE TWO CHARACTERS [PART IX* 
 
 that this knowledge had not been sufficient to render 
 his sin unpardonable, and that God wished to make 
 him a monument of mercy for the encouragement of 
 other returning sinners. So perfectly distinct are the 
 two departments, like two different worlds, and so im- 
 possible, when a man opens his eyes in one, even to 
 see the other. And this is the difficulty with our bre- 
 thren. Their eyes are so immoveably fixed in the de- 
 partment of the Sovereign Efficient Cause, that they 
 never go out of it to contemplate a moral government 
 in relation to the atonement. They ask, in the light 
 of their favourite department, why Simon Magus pe- 
 rished ; and they answer truly, because he was not 
 elected. If they would go into the other department 
 and ask the same question, the answer would be, be- 
 cause he rejected the remedy which was so brought 
 within his reach that he conld not lose it without enor- 
 mous guilt; in other words, because he rejected an 
 atonement which was prepared for him as a moral 
 agent. 
 
 The Moral Governour, with the exceptions already 
 made, proceeds in all his administration without the 
 least apparent reference to election and regeneration, 
 and constructs his measures just as though men were 
 independent. The reason is, there is in man, re- 
 garded purely as an agent, (which he completely is 
 when separated from the sovereign influences of the- 
 Spint,) a full foundation for all the treatment and mea- 
 sures which are fitted to moral agents. A measure for 
 a moral agent is complete without being so shaped as 
 to have a manifest bearing on the same man in a cha- 
 racter in which he is not an agent. Nor can it be so 
 shaped without ceasing to be a simple measure for a 
 Ynoral agent. And the being who brings it forward, if 
 he speaks according to truth, must simply declare it 
 
CHAP. V.] OF MAN DISTINCT. 211 
 
 intended for the moral agent, and must say no more. 
 The measure may be expected, by way of consequence. 
 to affect the man in another character ; and the author 
 of the measure may so declare : but in explaining the 
 direct and proper influence of the measure itself, he 
 cannot in truth allude to any but a moral agent. Ac- 
 cordingly the Moral Governour, with the exceptions 
 already made, proceeds through the whole of his ad- 
 ministration as though the other department did not 
 exist. Particularly in contemplating the privileges of 
 men, as we have seen, he appears to have no know- 
 ledge of election or regeneration whatever. 
 
 Now the atonement was certainly provided by the 
 Moral Governour, because it was a provision for moral 
 agents. It follows then that in making this provision 
 he had no regard to the distinction of elect and non- 
 elect. An atonement made for agents, could know 7 
 nothing of passive regeneration or any decree concern- 
 ing it. 
 
 When I say this of the Moral Governour, 1 do not apply 
 it to theDivineMind xmlimitedly, but only to God in that 
 character in which he stands related to moral agents. 
 If it be asked respecting God unlimitedly, whether he 
 would have provided an atonement if he had not deter- 
 mined to bestow the gift of faith and consequent salva- 
 tion on the elect, I am willing to answer no. Not that 
 it would have been inconsistent for him to have treat- 
 ed the whole race as mere agents, as he now treats a 
 part, (allowing wisdom to have seen a reason for so do- 
 ing ;) but I suppose that he would not have entered on 
 a system of mercy towards a world without intending 
 to glorify himself in both characters, and to gratify his 
 benevolence more fully than he could have done by 
 the operations of the Moral Governour alone. But 
 certainly the saivation of the elect was not all that he 
 
212 THE TWO CHARACTERS, &C. [PART II. 
 
 intended to gain. He had a purpose to answer to- 
 wards the non-elect as subjects of moral government, 
 much the same that he accomplishes by giving them 
 laws. He has ends to answer by a benignant govern- 
 ment over agents, wholly distinct from any which he 
 attains by sanctifying impressions on the heart. All 
 this is said of God unlimitedly. But in the foregoing 
 remarks respecting the Moral Governour, I referred 
 not to the secret motives of the Divine Mind, much less 
 to any purposes respecting the passive, but to the 
 avoiced designs of God in bringing forward a measure 
 for the benefit of moral agents. 
 
 I admit also that God in his secret covenant, in 
 which he treated about men as passive recipients of 
 sanctifying impressions, had much to do with election, 
 and that too in preparing the way for the atonement. 
 He gave the elect to Christ as a reward for the merit 
 of his obedience in making expiation. But that secret 
 transaction, as I expect to show in the next chapter, 
 did not provide the atonement, by giving to the death 
 of Christ its expiating virtue. This was done by the 
 public transactions, in all which God appeared as the 
 Moral Governour. It was the Moral Governour who 
 commanded the Son to die, and laid upon him the 
 stroke ; who thus as the Protector of the law demand- 
 ed and received satisfaction ; who accepted the offer- 
 ing, and pronounced it accepted by the resurrection 
 of Christ. It was he who came forward with the 
 atonement before the world, declared the purpose for 
 which it was made, and offered it to men as a provi- 
 sion of his own. It was the Moral Governour then 
 who appointed, provided, and produced the atonement. 
 And what I mean is, that in all these public transac- 
 tions he had no declared reference to elect or non- 
 elect, but appeared as one bringing forward a measure 
 
€HAP. VI.] ATONEMENT NOT SECRET* 21 £ 
 
 solely for moral agents, to be indiscriminately applied 
 to all who as agents would believe. 
 
 -+ ♦ » 
 
 CHAPTER VI. 
 
 NOTHING BELONGED TO THE ATONEMENT BUT WHAT 
 WAS PUBLIC. 
 
 The greatest mistake of all has lain in the supposi- 
 tion that the secret covenant between the Father and 
 Son gave to the atonement its influence and power, like 
 a contract between two merchants respecting the pur- 
 chase of goods. This representation carries too much 
 the appearance of something mercenary and selfish on 
 the part of the Father, as though the thing demanded 
 was merely to gratify his own personal feelings. All 
 the statements about the pearl paid in secret, or by a 
 secret understanding, for the redemption of a hundred 
 of the thousand prisoners, are of this nature. Where 
 the thing demanded is money or a precious stone, to 
 gratify a private and personal feeling, the contract 
 which gives it all its claim may be made in secret. 
 But the Father had no such individual feeling to gra- 
 tify. He had no desire or demand but for an opera- 
 tion upon public law for the benefit of the universe* 
 Nothing could have the least influence to satisfy 
 him but that operation upon public law. The argu- 
 ments on the other side constantly assume that the 
 atonement was offered and accepted secretly for a cer- 
 tain number. But it was not offered or accepted se- 
 cretly. The offering was among the most public trans- 
 actions of the universe ; and the acceptance was no 
 less notorious than the resurrection of Christ, the pro- 
 
214 ATONEMENT [ PART II. 
 
 clamations of the Gospel, and the acquittal of the saints 
 in glory. And had it been offered and accepted pri- 
 vately, as the pearl is represented to have been, it 
 could have had no effect. 
 
 We are now upon a track which will lead to an easy 
 decision of the question. The atonement was cer- 
 tainly a measure exclusively for moral agents, and 
 therefore was provided by the Moral Governour. But 
 in that secret covenant God was not the Moral Govern- 
 our towards men, but the Sovereign Efficient Cause : 
 'in other words, he did not treat about men as moral 
 agents, but about men as passive receivers of regene- 
 rating influence. He only promised that the elect 
 should be made to believe, and thus be brought into 
 that pale where remission would meet all indiscrimi- 
 nately who should enter. This covenant then was no 
 part of the provision of the Moral Governour for moral 
 agents. 
 
 Nor did this covenant give to the atonement any of 
 its influence upon the relations of moral agents. So 
 far as it was a contract for something which should 
 have this effect, it was merely a stipulation that there 
 should be an atonement ; but the matter and influence 
 of the atonement were the same as though such a stipu- 
 lation had never been, except that without the consent 
 of the Son his subjection and sufferings would neither 
 have been possible nor just. That covenant was the 
 mere yielding of consent on the part of the Son, and 
 the fixing of his reward on the part of the Father. 
 That might have been all, and the elect might have 
 been pardoned as a reward or favour to Christ without 
 his sufferings, had it not been necessary for the honour 
 of the law to produce a change in their legal relations 
 as agents. This was the proper and exclusive office 
 of the atonement. The whole of this was done by 
 
CHAP. VI j NOT SECRET. 215 
 
 the public command to the Son to die, the public in- 
 fliction of the stroke upon him, and the public expla- 
 nation of the design. These public transactions were 
 the whole which constituted an atonement for Peter. 
 It was not a secret contract about him as passive, nor a 
 secret stipulation that there should be an atonement, but 
 a public offering for him as an agent, which rendered 
 it consistent with the honour of the law for him to be 
 pardoned when he should believe. And besides re- 
 moving the curse of abandonment, this was all that 
 atonement did for Peter : for it is not atonement which 
 creates the fact that men are pardoned ; that is done by 
 the intervention of another influence which secures to 
 them the gift of faith. It was the public transactions, 
 and not a private treaty, which made it to be an atone- 
 ment for him. The meaning of its being offered for 
 him is, not that God designed it for the benefit of the 
 man by an operation on him as passive, but that the 
 public transactions gave it a bearing on him as an 
 agent, that is, on his legal relations. In determining 
 then for whom or how many it was offered, we have 
 not to consult the secret covenant, but only to look on 
 the face of the public transactions. It could not be 
 for Peter further than it was made to be for him by 
 the public transactions ; and it was for as many as the 
 public transactions made it to be. It was to exert its 
 whole influence upon public law. That influence was 
 wholly derived from the open and avowed bearing of 
 the thing upon agents and their relations ; that is, upon 
 creatures who had sinned and who must act, and 
 on whose action the effect must depend. And it was for 
 as many agents as by that public bearing it rendered 
 pardonable if they would believe. The public expla- 
 nation which gave it that bearing, then, is the only in- 
 strument which contains the express purpose. The 
 
216 ATONEMENT [PART 11. 
 
 whole that we mean therefore when we say that the 
 atonement was for all, is, that it was stated in the pub- 
 lic instrument to be for every man indiscriminately who 
 would believe, and that it became a provision for all 
 by the bearing it took from this public statement. 
 
 Let us look again at the case of the prince of Wales. 
 The whole end to be accomplished by his atonement 
 was, a public conviction that forgers should die. How 
 could that conviction be wrought on the multitude by 
 any secret purpose of the prince or his father, or by 
 any secret agreement between them ? Allowing the 
 king to have power to change the hearts of the crimi- 
 nals, and to have made some private promise to the 
 prince on that subject, what has this to do with public 
 law, or with rendering it safe to pardon the men after 
 they are reclaimed? The whole that was to accomplish 
 this must be public. And if the death of the prince 
 could do nothing without an express purpose, we see at 
 once where that express purpose must be found, and 
 in what form. It must not be found in the secret co- 
 venant between the parties, (it might as well be no 
 where,) but in the public proclamation. And it must 
 not be about the formation of the character, (allowing 
 such a power to exist,) but about the pardon of the 
 criminals. Admit now that the death of the prince 
 could not convince the public that forgers w T ould die if 
 it shielded any who continued to transgress : then the 
 proclamation must be, that he dies to obtain the par- 
 don of the culprits provided they reform. This done, 
 if the life of the prince is known to be as valuable in 
 the eyes of the government as that of the ten, not a 
 man in England will dread the authority of the law the 
 less if all the ton reform and live. There is then a 
 full atonement for the ten, though in the event but five 
 accept the offer. 
 
CJHAF. VI.] N0T SECRET. 217 
 
 But still the mind cleaves to the idea of some secret 
 sense in which the satisfaction was offered and accept- 
 ed. Let us therefore pause a little longer on this 
 thought. After Christ had openly and professedly 
 died in the room of all in such a sense that all might be 
 pardoned if they would believe, how by any secret un- 
 derstanding or compact could he atone in any higher 
 or other sense for the elect ? A thousand private pur- 
 poses and agreements, and a thousand deaths for them 
 in particular, could accomplish no more by way of 
 atonement than was done for all by that public trans- 
 action. How then could he limit the expiation to a 
 part ? If it had been gold or a pearl that had made the 
 satisfaction, it might by a secret understanding have 
 been offered and accepted for a few. But how by any 
 secret covenant could one die in the room of a given 
 number, when his death, as publicly explained, actual- 
 ly cleared out of the way of all every impediment to 
 pardon but unbelief; and that was a difficulty not to 
 be removed by his dying in their stead, but by the 
 meritorious influence of his obedience ? What chance, 
 was there for any private transaction in things pro- 
 perly belonging to the atonement ? What room was 
 left for any thing to be done in secret analogous to the 
 private offering of the pearl for one in ten ? Who was 
 there to witness such a covert and deceptive trans- 
 action ? Who has been in the cabinet and brought 
 back the report ? Who knows that the satisfaction, 
 after all these public appearances, was not offered and 
 accepted in good faith for the whole ? 
 
 Suppose for a moment that it was as we have repre- 
 sented ; that the Redeemer by his sin-offering cleared 
 every difficulty out of the way of the pardon of all but 
 unbelief, and then by the merit of his obedience se- 
 cured the gift of faith to the elect : and what more 
 
 1? 
 
218 ATONEMENT [PART II. 
 
 could he have done for his chosen by any thing public 
 or private ? What need then of searching for a private 
 transaction appertaining to the atonement itself? 
 
 Having thus found that the atonement was that pub- 
 lic measure which was brought forward before the 
 world by the Moral Governour, (or by God as he stood 
 related to moral agents,) and that no part of it lay in 
 the secret department of the Sovereign Efficient Cause, 
 (or God as he stood related to mere passive receivers 
 of sanctifying impressions ;) we may now resume the 
 train of thought which was suspended at the close of 
 the last chapter, and see My, as analogous to all his 
 other operations, and zvhy, as growing out of truth it- 
 self, the Moral Governour, in providing and producing 
 the atonement, should proceed just as though men were 
 independent agents, and without the least apparent 
 reference to election or regeneration. 
 
 I have seen a concession from an amiable and dis- 
 tinguished writer on the other side, which if steadily 
 kept in view will set all right at last. In showing that 
 the non-elect perish by their own fault notwithstand- 
 ing that there is no atonement for them, he says, " We 
 must in all cases be careful not to confound the secret 
 purposes of God with the rule of our duty. Between 
 these two things there is often no coincidence." Now 
 after " the rule of our duty," only add, nor with any 
 other measure of moral government, and every thing is 
 settled : for then we shall not confound any thing re- 
 lating to election w ith the atonement. And why should 
 not this be added? Is it not as wrong to confound 
 God's secret purposes respecting the passive with any 
 of the measures adapted to agents, as with that parti- 
 cular one which we call law? and wrong for the same 
 reason, because the two are distinct? "We must" 
 therefore " be careful not to confound the secret pur- 
 
-CHAP. VII.] NOT SECRET. 219 
 
 poses of God with the" atonement. " Betwren these 
 two things there is often no coincidence." 
 
 This care we profess to exercise. We do as we un- 
 derstand from the Scriptures that God himself does. 
 When we speak of a measure properly intended for 
 moral agents, we know nothing about men as destined 
 to be the subjects or not the subjects of passive rege- 
 neration. W T hen we speak of the designs and acts 
 of the Moral Governour, we know nothing about 
 the Sovereign Efficient Cause, but speak of God as he 
 appears in the public order of a moral government, and 
 scruple not, because the Scriptures do not scruple, to 
 ascribe to him all the aims which the measures of that 
 ^government are calculated to accomplish. When we 
 place ourselves in a moral government, we cannot see 
 the other department, but speak of the glorious Being 
 at the head of this as though he sustained no other 
 character. In short we express ourselves in the pure 
 dialect of a moral government. And when we turn to 
 the atonement, we know nothing about men as elect 
 and non-elect, but as capable agents, or if we look to 
 their moral character, as believers and. unbelievers. 
 And then an atonement which was offered that " who- 
 soever believeth" might " not perish," which placed, 
 and was designed to place, remission so within the 
 reach of all that they may enjoy it if they will do their 
 duty, and are solemnly bound to make it their own^ 
 and cannot lose it without enormous guilt, we unhesi- 
 tatingly pronounce an atonement for all. 
 — *~+~* — 
 CHAPTER VII. 
 
 ATTRIBUTES OF MORAL AGENTS. 
 
 But of what avail to the non-elect for God to open 
 the way for them to be pardoned upon their believipg, 
 
220 ATTRIBUTES OF [PART II. 
 
 when he had determined never to impart to them the 
 gift of faith ? It was no atonement for them after all. 
 This is the greatest difficulty that rises up in the mind. 
 I must however remark, that in this question you speak 
 of the same man in two distinct characters, as distinct 
 as two different persons, and might as well ask, of 
 what avail a privilege to Peter since Judas was never 
 to be sanctified ? When you speak of an atonement for 
 a man, you speak of a privilege for a moral agent ; 
 but when you speak of his being regenerated, you 
 change the scene in a moment, and refer to him only 
 as passive, in which character privileges have no re- 
 lation to him. 
 
 This objection goes further : it really overlooks all 
 that in human agents which renders them the proper 
 subjects of moral government, and on which the whole 
 structure of a moral government is founded. Is there 
 in a moral agent without the Spirit bottom enough to 
 support such a privilege, so as to render the provision 
 worthy of any account? If not, there is not bottom 
 enGV.gh to support any other of the measures of a mo- 
 ral government, such as law, punishment, and the like. 
 
 The root of the difficulty lies in overlooking the ca- 
 pacity of unsanctified men. And without capacity they 
 are no longer agents : and when they cease to be 
 agents, they indeed cease to be susceptible of the pri- 
 vilege of an atonement. If the non-elect are as pow- 
 erless in regard to faith as dead masses of matter, I 
 admit that the atonement was not made for them in 
 any sense ; and then I must consider the appearances 
 of such a provision as calculated to deceive. But if 
 they possess the full capacity which is the proper 
 ground of treating them as moral agents, then there is 
 an atonement for them as agents none the less for their 
 being unsanctified. If a feast is brought into a room 
 
CHAP. VII.] MORAL AGENTS. 221 
 
 surrounded, with statues, and it is determined to impart 
 life only to half; there may be a ludicrous proclama- 
 tion that it is for as many as will receive it, but after 
 all it would be preposterous to say that it was provi- 
 ded for all. But if it is brought into a room surround- 
 ed with living men, and they are all to share it if they 
 will, and are invited and urged to partake, then it may 
 truly be said to be provided for all, though in the event 
 a part refuse the invitation. The question then about 
 power is really a vital one* 
 
 On this and some other accounts it becomes neces- 
 sary to analyze a moral, agent and to see exactly what 
 he is, what attributes he possesses, what relations he 
 sustains, and what effects an atonement made for moral 
 agents ought to have on him. 
 
 It is important in the outset to gain precise ideas of 
 a moral agent, and to carry the definition in our minds 
 through the whole discussion. A moral agent then is 
 a being capable of deserving praise and blame. But as 
 there are no works of supererogation, and no moral 
 goodness among creatures but what lies in conformity 
 to the will of God, nothing is entitled to praise from 
 him but the fulfilment of an obligation, or to blame from 
 him but the violation of an obligation. A moral agent 
 then, (to carry back the idea one step further,) is a 
 creature capable of fulfilling or -violating obligations. 
 But as he cannot fulfil or violate an obligation of which 
 he is not susceptible, the radical definition of a moral 
 agent is, a creature susceptible of obligations. And as 
 the bonds are actually imposed by divine authority on 
 all who are capable of receiving them, the definition 
 which accords with matter of fact is, a creature under 
 obligations. When therefore we inquire what consti- 
 tutes or is the basis of moral agency, we are only ask- 
 T 2 
 
222 ATTRIBUTES OF [PART II. 
 
 ing what that is in the creature which is the foundation 
 of obligation. 
 
 That foundation is no other than the faculties of a 
 rational soul, to which, in reference to the present sub- 
 ject at least, I am willing to add light. What is it 
 which makes a man rather than a brute bound to love 
 and serve God ? His relations to God ? But a brute 
 has the relation of a creature, and a creature preserv- 
 ed and fed. A divine command ? The question then 
 Returns, why is a man more fit to receive a divine com- 
 mand than a brute ? There must be a basis to support 
 the obligation distinct from the authority which impo- 
 ses it, as a platform is distinct from the hand which lays 
 a substance upon it. The command only imposes it 
 from above, but does not support it from beneath. 
 That thing in the creature which can sustain the obli- 
 gation more than if the command was laid upon the 
 air, or a block, or a brute, is the secret after which I 
 am inquiring. What is that thing ? You say it is a 
 rational soul. Then the intellectual faculties are the 
 basis of the obligation. The true doctrine on this 
 subject is, that wherever a rational soul is found, there 
 are talents which God has a right to command. 
 
 This basis is not at all affected by the state of the 
 temper. With the same capacity and light, a bad man 
 is as much bound to love and serve God as a good 
 man. A depraved disposition does not destroy or 
 weaken the basis, nor does a holy heart go in to con- 
 > titute or complete it. If it did, a holy disposition 
 would be that in the creature on which rests the obli- 
 gation to be holy ; and where the disposition is want- 
 ing there could be no obligation, and of course no sin. 
 And until a thing can be the foundation of itself, there 
 could be no holiness, because there could be no obli- 
 gation to be holy. The disposition itself would not be 
 
CHAP. VII. J IfORAL AGENTS. 223 
 
 holy, for it would not be the fulfilment of a previous 
 obligation, but the basis of one to follow. The pre- 
 vious obligation could not exist without holiness ; but 
 the previous obligation must exist and he fulfilled be- 
 fore holiness can exist. A holy disposition there- 
 fore would be impossible : and then an obligation to 
 holiness could not exist : and then there could be no 
 violation of an obligation, in other words, no sin. Try 
 the principle in another light. If disinclination to 
 duty destroys obligation, there is no stable landmark 
 between right and wrong, but a moveable spectre which 
 recedes before inclination ; and so long as a man fol- 
 lows his inclination, (which he is sure to do as long as 
 he is free,) he cannot sin. And as it is not sin to be 
 forced against one's inclination, the possibility of sin- 
 ning is excluded : God could not create a being capa- 
 ble of sinning : and then every law, human or divine, 
 which attempts to control the inclination, or to impose 
 an obligation in opposition to it, is tyrannical, and pu- 
 nishment in every form is oppression : no distinction 
 remains between moral good and evil ; every feeling 
 of disapprobation or resentment against another <is 
 founded in a delusion ; and instead of a kingdom of 
 moral agents, the Governour of the world is left alone 
 amidst the lumber of innumerable automata. To all 
 this length you must go, or return back to the plain 
 principle of common sense, that a rational soul, what- 
 ever its temper may be, is bound to submit to the go- 
 vernment of God. 
 
 There is no need therefore of recurring to our ori- 
 ginal purity in Adam to find the foundation of obliga- 
 tion. Under the notion that sinners have no more 
 power to believe than stocks, men have attempted to 
 justify the universal command on the ground that the 
 power was lost by our own fault. If a servant, say 
 
224 ATTRIBUTES OF [PART II, 
 
 they, has cut off his hands to avoid labour, his master 
 may still require his daily task, and punish him for the 
 neglect. But if a solid ground of obligation indepen- 
 dent of Adam still remains in the soul, there is no need 
 of resorting to this labouring principle to vindicate the 
 command. We lost nothing in Adam, (so far as con- 
 cerns the present subject.) but a right temper; and 
 the want of that does not impair the basis of obliga- 
 tion which exists in ourselves. What else can you 
 imagine we lost ? Power ? But what power distinct 
 from a good heart ? Have we not still power to love 
 God if our heart is well disposed ? Do you mean a 
 power to make the heart good, or a self-determining 
 power of the will ? But did Adam himself possess that ? 
 What had he which we have not but a right temper? 
 And that could not have been the ground of obliga- 
 tion had it continued. Besides, this resort to original 
 holiness for the ground of obligation involves so many 
 seeming absurdities, that it ought not to be made with- 
 out the most urgent necessity. Take the case of the 
 servant. His sin was one, the act of disabling him- 
 self. For this he might be punished as long and as 
 much as that single act deserved. But to impute sin 
 to him for not performing his task after it had become 
 impossible, is contrary to all truth and justice. He 
 was not to blame for that omission. With the best 
 dispositions he could not have prevented it. If God 
 looks at the heart, and accepts " a willing mind" 
 where there is nothing else to give, he could not have 
 seen that servant striving with the best desires to per- 
 form his task without hands, and blamed him for the 
 failure. The sin was but one. And if this illustrates 
 the case of Adam's posterity, there is but one sin to be 
 charged against them all, and that was committed in 
 Eden. The idea of different degrees of criminality is 
 
€HAP. VII.] MORAL AGENTS, 225 
 
 a dream; and men would have been as guilty, and 
 might have received the same punishment, had they 
 been born without reason. No personal act of theirs 
 is sin, and it is no matter what they do. These con- 
 sequences must follow, or there must be in the present 
 structure of the soul a foundation of obligation altoge- 
 ther independent of Adam's innocence or fall. And 
 where do the Scriptures teach us that men have not in 
 themselves a complete foundation of obligation without 
 resorting to Adam ? What text from Genesis to Reve- 
 lation hints at such a thing ? The notion is altogether 
 a human inference. So far from supporting such a 
 thought, the Scriptures pointedly charge sinners with 
 faculties which render them without excuse,, alleging 
 that they have eyes but see not, ears but hear not. 
 hearts but do not understand, talents but will not em- 
 ploy them, a price in their hands with no heart to im- 
 prove it ; and constantly treat them as moral agents in 
 their own persons, and as fully so as if there had been 
 no federal head. 
 
 This independent basis of obligation is what we 
 mean, and all that we mean, by natural ability. 
 We certainly do not mean by this phrase a power 
 to originate the disposition, or a self-determining power 
 of the will, but merely a power to love and serve God 
 if the heart is well disposed. This power lies in the 
 physical faculties of a rational soul, connected with 
 light. Without the faculties a man could not love 
 God even were it possible for him to have a good 
 heart ; but with the faculties and sufficient light he 
 could. The faculties with the light therefore constitute 
 exactly a power to love and serve God if the heart is 
 well disposed. And when we ascribe this power to 
 sinners, we only assert that they have the physical facul- 
 ties of a rational soul ; and our single object is to make 
 
226 ATTRIBUTES OF [PART ir* 
 
 out a complete basis of obligation. It is so self-evi- 
 dent that a man cannot be bound to perform natural 
 impossibilities, or to do what with the best disposi- 
 tions he has no power to accomplish, (as for instance 
 to make a world,) that we find it necessary to prove 
 the existence of such a power in order to fasten upon 
 the conscience a sense of obligation. But call it by 
 whatever name you please, the whole that we mean is, 
 that the physical faculties, accompanied with light, are 
 a complete and bona fide basis of obligation, indepen- 
 dent of the temper of the heart, or the action of the 
 Spirit, or original righteousness or sin, and none the 
 less for man's dependance. This is all that any Cal- 
 vinist ever meant or can mean by natural ability*. 
 
 About the existence of the thing therefore, which 
 we call natural ability, there can be no dispute. None 
 can doubt that the worst of men are rational beings, or 
 that their natural faculties constitute a power to love 
 and serve God if their hearts are well disposed. And 
 few will doubt that it is on this account that they are 
 capable of receiving obligations from a divine com- 
 mand. If any controversy remains it must be about 
 the name : and the question will be, whether a power 
 to love and serve God if the heart is zoell disposed, can 
 properly be denominated an ability. For as to the 
 term natural, long and venerated custom, as well as the 
 necessity of having a word of such an import, has fas- 
 tened to it a meaning opposite to moral. And if the 
 thing in question is properly called an ability, it cer- 
 tainly is not a moral one, (is not deserving of praise or 
 
 P* Even those Cnlvinists who deny the existence of disposition, and 
 place every thing in exercise, and of course see no sense in the appended 
 clause, "if the heart is well disposed," mean nothing more by ability 
 than the physical power?, and have no other end in asserting it than 
 to make out a proper basis of obligation. 
 
CHAP. VII.] MORAL AGENTS. 227 
 
 blame.) and therefore must be distinguished by the op- 
 posite epithet. In vindication of the term ability I 
 submit the following remarks. 
 
 (1.) When the word is thus applied it expresses 
 what is generally meant by power. When in the 
 common affairs of life we say that a man has power to 
 do a thing, we seldom refer to his willingness, and 
 never to an ability to originate his disposition, but. 
 to a capacity to do the thing if he is so inclined. 
 When we excuse him for not making or succeeding 
 in an attempt, on the ground that he was not able, we 
 never allude to his disinclination, nor to his incapacity 
 to control his disposition, but to the want of natural 
 strength even with the best desires. And when we. 
 affirm that he is not bound to perform impossibilities, 
 we always mean that he is not obliged to do more 
 than he can with a well disposed heart. 
 
 (2.) As the natural faculties constitute that capacity 
 in which the obligation to serve God is founded, they 
 bear the same relation to the obligation that the mus- 
 cular strength of a slave does to the obligation to lift 
 a weight when bidden by his master. Without the 
 strength no command could fasten the obligation upon 
 him ; with the strength he is reasonably bound. In 
 like manner without the faculties no command could 
 lay the obligation upon us ; with the faculties the bond 
 is reasonably imposed. That muscular strength of 
 the slave you call power? because it constitutes an 
 ability to lift the weight if he is so inclined, and be- 
 cause it forms the proper ground of obligation : and 
 why not for the same reasons call the physical facul- 
 ties in question by the same name ? 
 
 (3.) As the denial of every species of power pre- 
 sents the monstrous idea of a command to do impos- 
 sibilities, it conveys a false and injurious idea of God^ 
 
228 ATTRIBUTES OF [PART II. 
 
 and serves to relieve the conscience of a sense of 
 blame. On the other hand, when the alleged ability 
 is qualified and limited by the term natural, and is so 
 explained as to exclude a self-determining power, the 
 phrase has no tendency to hide our dependance, while 
 it has all the advantage of justifying God and fasten- 
 ing upon the conscience a sense of obligation and 
 guilt. 
 
 (4.) No impediment lies in the way of a sinner's 
 loving God but a depraved temper, for which he is 
 wholly to blame. If you are disposed to call this de- 
 praved temper an inability, there is no inability in the 
 way but a blamable one. Now only admit that an in- 
 ability which is blamable is properly called moral, 
 and that the opposite of moral is natural, (barely these 
 two things,) and there is no avoiding the phrase in 
 question. If there is no inability but what is blamable 
 or moral, there is none which is blameless or natural. 
 And if there is no natural inability, there must be natu- 
 ral power. 
 
 Thus it appears that there exist in men physical 
 faculties which constitute a natural ability to serve 
 God, and which, independently of their present tem- 
 per, or their original righteousness, or any divine in- 
 fluence, and none the less for their dependance, form 
 the proper basis of obligation. This principle, on 
 which is bottomed the whole structure of a moral go- 
 vernment, is confirmed by all its measures and deci- 
 sions. 
 
 Having thus laid open the foundation of moral agen- 
 cy, I will now proceed to exhibit the attributes of mo- 
 ral agents in their order. To moral agents belong, 
 
 (1.) Capacity. What they are capable of doing if 
 well disposed, they may be said to have a capacity for 
 doing, or a natural ability to perform. In particular. 
 
CHAP. VII. J MORAL AGENTS. 229 
 
 till who hear the Gospel possess that kind of power to 
 believe which is the foundation of obligation. This 
 capacity or basis of obligation is altogether separate 
 from every thing belonging to the passive character of 
 men, and must be contemplated without reference to 
 ihe action of the Spirit, or to any decree respecting 
 that action. 
 
 (2.) Instruction. This is necessary to agents on 
 two accounts. First, because knowledge, as needful 
 to guide the understanding, is intimately associated 
 with the capacity. Secondly, to furnish motives to in- 
 fluence the heart and will. This introduces an im- 
 portant circumstance in relation to agents, viz. that in 
 all instances they are governed by motives. Take 
 away the connexion between motives and volition, and 
 mind would be extinct Not merely rational action, 
 but all action of mind would cease. The maniac is 
 still governed by motives, though distorted by a dis- 
 tempered fancy ; and even that semblance of mind 
 which exists in a brute, is governed by motives, 
 
 In both of these points of view instruction is ad- 
 dressed to men only as agents. Only as agents can 
 knowledge guide them, only as agents can motives 
 prompt them. Upon this principle it is that instruo 
 lions are poured upon them without apparent refer- 
 ence to their passive character, or to any action or 
 decree of God concerning it. 
 
 (3.) Law. This is necessary for agents both to im- 
 pose obligations and to present motives. The con|- 
 mands, promises, and threatenings which go in to con- 
 stitute law, are addressed to men only as agents. The 
 passive have nothing to do with these things. 
 
 (4.) Obligation. This rests upon capacity or na- 
 tural ability, in other words, upon the physical facul- 
 ties accompanied with light. It is not diminished by 
 
 V 
 
-30 ATTRIBUTES OF [PART It. 
 
 the dependance of man, nor by a bad temper, nor by 
 the absence of the Spirit ; nor is it increased by origi- 
 nal holiness, nor by a good temper, nor by the influ- 
 ence of the Spirit, further than the latter presents light 
 to the understanding, or is a mercy to be acknowledg- 
 ed. In contemplating men therefore as creatures un- 
 der obligations, we have nothing to do with their de- 
 pendance, or their temper, or the action of the Spirit, 
 (further than is above expressed,) or with any decree 
 concerning that action. 
 
 (5.) Moral character, good or bad. This is formed 
 by the fulfilment or violation of obligations, by an 
 agency as distinctly their own and as entire as though 
 they were independent. As moral character is calcu- 
 lated from their obligations, it is as independent of 
 every thing passive as the obligations themselves. 
 
 (6.) Deserts, — merit or demerit, a title to reward or 
 a liability to punishment. These all result from their 
 character, as grounded on their obligations and con- 
 duct, and are as independent of every thing passive as 
 the character and obligations themselves. None but 
 agents bear any relation to these things. 
 
 (7.) Condemnation. This is founded on their de- 
 serts, and is equally independent of every thing pas- 
 sive. None but agents bear any relation to condem- 
 nation. 
 
 (8.) Pardon and justification. These are merely 
 the changing of the relations of agents, the freeing of 
 them from punishment, and the entitling of them tore- 
 ward. These acts respect only agents ; the passive 
 have nothing to do with them. 
 
 (9.) Provision for pardon and justification. This 
 of course was made for agents alone, and therefore 
 without visible reference to men as merely passive, or 
 to the regenerating influence of the Spirit, or to any 
 
CHAP. VII.] MORAL AGENTS. 231 
 
 decree concerning that influence. As it was made for 
 agents, for beings who were to act towards it, and on 
 whose action as a sine qua non the effect was to de- 
 pend, its avowed end must have been to open the way 
 for their pardon and justification if they would believe. 
 
 (10.) Subjection to a final examination of character. 
 Men will appear before the tribunal only as agents : 
 not as those who have received or failed to receive 
 divine impressions, but as those who have acted right 
 or wrong. 
 
 (11.) Rewards and punishments. These will be 
 administered to men in the same character in which 
 they appear before the tribunal. 
 
 ANOTHER SERIES. 
 
 (1.) Possibility of action. This grows out of their 
 capacity, which without this would be no capacity. 
 What is a capacity for action where the action is a 
 natural impossibility ? As the capacity from which the 
 possibility of action is calculated, is not affected by 
 the presence or absence of the Spirit, nor by any de- 
 cree concerning his influence, nor yet by the certainty 
 that the capacity will not be employed, they who 
 speak and act in reference to agents have aright, with- 
 out regard to any of these things, to assume that their 
 action is possible, and to speak and act as though it 
 was likely to happen. Even the omniscient God, as 
 we shall see in another place, shapes his measures as 
 though their action was probable, even when he fore- 
 sees that it will never occur. On the same principle 
 we have a right, whenever an argument requires it, to 
 make the supposition of the return of the very devils 
 to holiness. As agents they have a capacity to re-* 
 turn ; and all the language of the universe respecting 
 ijie possibility of action refers of course to agents. 
 
232 ATTRIBUTES OF [PART !<•' 
 
 It has been said that for the non-elect to accept the 
 atonement is naturally impossible, because it was de- 
 termined not to dispose them to accept. Now this is 
 wholly confounding the two characters of men, and bu- 
 rying their capacity and agency under their depend- 
 ance. They have as agents no capacity to act, be- 
 cause as passive they are not acted upon ! What more 
 could you say if they were blocks ? The issue, I know, 
 will be the same as though the capacity did not exist, 
 but still the capacity makes all the difference between 
 the government of God and fate. If you choose to say 
 that it is morally impossible for them to " come" on 
 account of their wicked hearts, to this, though it ap- 
 plies to them as agents, we do not object. 
 
 (2.) Susceptibility of offers, invitations, and expos- 
 tulations. These are all addressed to agents alone, 
 without respect to any thing but their capacity. They 
 constantly allude to the possibility of their action and 
 to their obligations, and are founded on the assumption 
 that these do indeed exist. 
 
 (3.) Probation or trial. This is only an opportuni- 
 ty afforded agents to act out their character and 
 show to the universe what they will do in the circum- 
 stances in which they are placed, irrespectively of any 
 influence to be exerted on the same creatures as pas- 
 sive. I add to the definition, that it is an opportuni- 
 ty to act in reference to a reward or punishment pro- 
 posed. The placing of a creature on probation is the 
 treating of him as a mere agent, without respect to his 
 purely passive character, and therefore without refer- 
 ence to any aids of the Spirit except by way of re- 
 ward. The difficulty which has been found in defi- 
 ning a state of probation, disappears when the subject 
 is viewed in this light; and the objections which have 
 been raised against the term, moy perhaps be aba?:- 
 
CHAP. VII.] MORAL AGENTS. 233 
 
 doned. These have arisen from overlooking the cha- 
 racter of men as agents, and the fact that probation is 
 for them only as such, and from filling the eye with ab- 
 solute decrees and promises which relate to them as 
 purely passive, or passive in reference to the promised 
 influence, and from making too much account of fore- 
 knowledge. Probation is a term found only in the di- 
 alect of a moral government, and is with entire con- 
 sistency excluded by those who speak only in the lan- 
 guage of the other department. But if it is proper and 
 according to truth for God to treat men as agents even 
 under the economy of grace, it is proper for him still 
 to put them on probation. When the term is thus ex- 
 plained, what objection to its use ? Is election brought 
 against it ? But God treats agents, as we have seen, 
 just as though there was no election. Is foreknow- 
 ledge brought against it ? But God treats agents, it 
 will appear hereafter, just as though there was no fore- 
 knowledge. Are the absolute promises of the cove- 
 nant brought against it ? These are made to men as the 
 reward of agents, but are fulfilled upon them as pas- 
 sive receivers. Now it will appear hereafter that 
 while to men as passive receivers of stipulated impres- 
 sions, the promises of God are absolute, to the same 
 men as mere agents, his treatment is still conditional. 
 While in the former character men have full evidence 
 that they shall never be left to apostacy, in the cha- 
 racter of mere agents, whose persevering holiness is 
 both a duty and essential to salvation, their final ac- 
 ceptance is still suspended on their enduring to the 
 end. Probation therefore, as the treatment of mere 
 agents irrespective of divine influence to incline them 
 to act, may exist after the full assurance of hope, and 
 for the same reasons, after abandonment to judicial 
 blindness. What objection then to the word ? It im- 
 U 2 
 
234 ATTRIBUTES OP ['PART II. 
 
 ports nothing uncertain in the divine mind, nothing un- 
 stable in the covenant of redemption or of grace, but 
 merely the treatment of men as rational and accounta- 
 ble beings. It imports, in short, exactly what is set 
 forth in the parables of the talents and the pounds** 
 and in many other parts of Scripturef. 
 
 To agents also belong all individual experiments 
 upon the moral character. None but agents have a 
 moral character to develope. Such experiments are 
 made of course without reference to any thing passive 
 in men, and just as though they were independent. 
 
 (4.) Opportunity or a fair chance to obtain good. 
 A fair chance actively to obtain, is where a blessing is 
 so placed within the reach of an agent that he may 
 enjoy it by doing his duty. The expression always 
 alludes to his capacity and the possibility of his ac- 
 tion. Opportunity is predicable only of agents, as it 
 would be preposterous to say that a man has an op- 
 portunity to receive a divine impression which is to 
 be made without respect to any thing he has ever done 
 or will do. The term ahvays refers to some action 
 which may follow ; and the thing, limited as it is to 
 
 * Mat. 25. 14—30. Luke 19. 12—26. 
 
 t " I know," says Dr. Watts, " it has been the opinion of some pep- 
 sons»th»t this life is not properly called a state of probation, or trial of 
 men for eternity ; because the final event is not uncertain, since it is 
 known to God already, and partly determined by him. And yet these 
 very persons will say that a season of affliction or temptation is a sea- 
 son of trial to the people of God ; for it is so called in Scripture : 2 Cor. 
 3.2. Heb. 11. 36. 1 Pet. 4. 12. and 1 Pet. 1. 7. it is called the trial of 
 our faith, &c. Now I would fain know whether the event of every sea- 
 son of trial, of every kind of men, — be not known to God. And in this 
 sense it is not uncertain. And yet Scripture with much propriety calls 
 one a season of trial : and I see no reason to exclude th« other from the 
 same name; especially since the sacred writers use it for wicked men 
 also 1 ev. 3. 10. 'I will keep thee from the hour of temptation,' or 
 • which shall come upon all the world, to try them which dwell 
 upon the earth.' » Watts' Works, Vol. 6. p. 285. Note. 
 
CHAP. VII.] MORAL AGENTS. 235 
 
 agents, is entire without the Spirit or any decree con- 
 cerning his influence*. 
 
 (5.) Privileges. The radical definition of a privi- 
 lege is, a means of happiness which a man has a ca- 
 pacity, (or is able if well disposed,) to improve for his 
 good. It is always reckoned originally from his natu- 
 ral ability. But in a moral government a shorter 
 course is taken, and it is reckoned immediately from 
 his obligations, which are founded on his ability. 
 Whatever he ought to improve, is accounted a price 
 put into his hands. The definition of a privilege then 
 in a moral government is this, a means of holiness or 
 happiness which one is under obligations to improve 
 for his good. The word never denotes a final bless- 
 ing, but 'a means which will lead to a final blessing if 
 rightly improved. 
 
 Privileges are predicable only of agents. We do 
 not speak of the privilege of being acted upon, the 
 privilege of being the passive subject of impressions. 
 It may be a favour to be impressed. It is a mercy to 
 be elected and regenerated, but not a privilege, except 
 so far as it is capable of being improved by an agent. 
 It is indeed a privilege to be permitted to pray for the 
 Spirit, but this is the privilege of an agent. It is a 
 privilege that the mission of the Spirit has been pro- 
 cured for men, for it is a blessing which they may im- 
 prove by faith and prayer for their good. But no- 
 thing is a privilege but what belongs to an agent. 
 
 A privilege then is complete without any influence 
 of the Spirit inclining the man to improve it. It m 
 complete provided his obligation to improve it is com- 
 plete. If he possesses that ability to use a blessing 
 
 * Chance, like possibility, is not equally confined to the active sense. 
 Thus we say that a man stands a chance to draw a prize, or to be re* 
 generated. But opportunity excludes the passive sense altogether. 
 
236 ATTRIBUTES OP [PART tU 
 
 for his good which is the bona fide basis of obligation^ 
 it may be charged against him as a privilege with as 
 much reason as though the enjoyment of it depended 
 on his stretching out the hand. A benefit so placed 
 within his reach that he ought to make it his own, is 
 his own. It is a blessing in his hands till he throws it 
 away ; and the traces of it will still be found upon 
 him as an accountable being. Otherwise the abuse of 
 privileges is a phrase altogether without a meaning, 
 and is no more applicable to men than to statues. It 
 is only because it is difficult to realize the complete- 
 ness of the obligations of the non-elect to believe, 
 that we doubt whether the atonement is a complete pri- 
 vilege to them. We pore so much on their inability, 
 and lay the ground of their obligation so much in 
 Eden, that it becomes difficult to realize that they are 
 under the same present, personal obligations to believe 
 that they are to do any outward act. If remission 
 was offered them on the simple condition of their 
 stretching out the hand, it would be easy to see that the 
 privilege was complete, because it would be obvious 
 that their obligation was perfect. Only let it be 
 realized that without reference to Adam they are under 
 as entire obligations to believe as they would be to 
 extend an arm at the divine command, and every dif- 
 ficulty vanishes. 
 
 Or to take the subject in another view, what more 
 could be done for mere agents? If a foundation is 
 laid in the atonement for them to be pardoned if they 
 will believe, and the offer is made to them, accompa- 
 nied with those instructions and commands which lay 
 them under complete obligations to obtain remission, 
 and which leave them no excuse for perishing, what 
 more could be done for mere agents ? If more is done 
 it must be by regenerating influence on the passive ; 
 
CHAP. VII.] MORAL AGENTS. -37 
 
 but no power could make that any part of a privilege. 
 When God has made those arrangements which com- 
 plete the obligations of men to be saved, he can lift his 
 hand to heaven, and without a figure, bat merely id the 
 character in which he stands related to agents, truly 
 and literally say, " What could have been done more 
 to my vineyard that I have not done in it ?" 
 
 And yet it is asked, what possible privilege could 
 the atonement be to men dead in trespasses and sins, 
 and on whom God was determined not to exert a life- 
 giving power ? What could the atonement prove to 
 them but an aggravation of their torment ? And these 
 questions have been urged with as much confidence as 
 it would have been asl^ed, what privilege can light be 
 to a man born blind ? This mighty difficulty which 
 struggles in so many minds, has arisen from overlook- 
 ing the capacity of sinners, and from placing them be- 
 fore the eye as mere passive recipients, in an affair 
 which concerns them only as moral agents. And when 
 moral agents are put out of view, and men are regarded 
 merely as passive subjects of absolute, immutable, 
 efficient decrees, why then indeed you cannot find upon 
 the non-elect any privilege, or any chance or possi- 
 bility of obtaining life. These things were never 
 affirmed of men, except by a confusion of terms, in 
 any other character than that of moral agents. Bui 
 to deny that a means of happiness which men are 
 bound to use for their good is a privilege, unless they 
 are acted upon by the Spirit, is to change the whole 
 language of the Bible for a dialect befitting a course 
 of action upon passive machines. It is to break up 
 all the language of the world. And it is manifestly 
 untrue; for the worst of men are still moral agents, and 
 under reasonable obligations to live by the atonement ; 
 and the language of the Bible on this subject expresses 
 
238 ATTRIBUTES OF [PART IF. 
 
 realities, or guilt is a name and punishment oppres- 
 sion. It is so or the capacity of creatures, separate 
 from the action of the Spirit, is no adequate basis to 
 support any of the measures of a moral government. 
 Why then issue laws where men are not to be con- 
 strained to obey ? or invitations and promises where a 
 sovereign power is not to give them effect? In short, 
 upon this principle the measures of a moral govern- 
 ment, separated from the action of the Spirit, are as 
 unsuitable for men as for stocks. 
 
 But to put the fact that the atonement is a privilege 
 to the wicked beyond all doubt, I can bring the whole 
 weight of the divine integrity to support it. That 
 God does account to men as privileges whatever they 
 ought to improve for their happiness, and holds them 
 as responsible for abused privileges as for a violated 
 law, we have already seen. And now to come to the 
 very thing itself, the atonement, yes the atonement, as 
 being exactly what it is, an expiation for sin, is charg- 
 ed against the wicked as a privilege ; and the charge 
 will be acted upon in proceedings most demanding 
 the precision of justice and truth. It is not true merely 
 in the shape of a nice and studied phraseology, but is 
 a ponderous reality which will be recognised in the 
 most solemn transactions of the universe. The just 
 God, as I shall show hereafter by a large and lumi- 
 nous array of texts, not only pronounces with all his 
 veracity that the wicked possess the privilege, but 
 will judge them at the last day for throwing it out of 
 their hands, and will found on that fact, stable enough 
 to support the infinite weight, the retribution of eternal 
 fire. Could God himself give testimony more decided 
 than this ? If then the moral government of God is 
 not a delusive show, and considering the undeniable 
 sensibilities of creatures, a system of palpable op- 
 
CHAP. VII. j MORAL AGENTS. 239 
 
 pression, it never ought to have been doubted that the 
 atonement is a privilege even to those who reject it. 
 
 But how can it be a privilege to them if it did not 
 render their pardon possible even on the supposition 
 of their faith ? The pearl, it is said, would have been 
 paid for the 900 prisoners had it bern foreseen that 
 they would accept the offered release ; but it was not 
 paid for them, and a natural impossibility lies in :he 
 way of their coming out. According to this represen- 
 tation the atonement is not a privilege to those who 
 perish, but only would have been h^d it been foreseen 
 that they would believe, ft ought not then to have 
 been charged against them as such. 
 
 These are all the attributes which it seems neces- 
 sary to name. But before the chapter closes I will 
 make a few general remarks. 
 
 All the attributes which have been mentioned are 
 inseparably united in every moral agent, and can no 
 more be divided than the essential properties of mat- 
 ter. For instance, there is no such thing as being a 
 sinner, and needing an atonement, without a capacity 
 to accept it. For without a capacity to believe there 
 would not be a capacity to obey ; and without a capaci- 
 ty to obey there would not be a capacity to sin. You 
 must not split up and divide the essential attributes of 
 a moral agent. You must not contemplate him as a 
 •sinner, without contemplating him as capable of faith, 
 To say that he needs an atonement, and yet labours 
 under a natural incapacity to believe, is the same sun^ 
 tiering of essential properties, and the same contra- 
 diction, as to say that a mass of matter has shape but 
 not impenetrability, or that a ball is not round. Fur- 
 ther, if a man has a capacity to believe, then his faith 
 is naturally possible, then he is susceptible'of a fair 
 offer of life, of a fair opportunity or chance to obtain 
 
•240 ATTRIBUTES 0P [PART If. 
 
 it, of the complete privilege of an atonement, and of a 
 course of probation or trial. Such a possibility of 
 action and susceptibility of privileges are inseparable 
 from capacity, are inseparable of course from a sin- 
 ner. A man cannot be one to whom an atonement is 
 adapted, that is, a sinner, but in the character in which 
 he is capable and susceptible of all these things. And 
 to call him a sinner, and yet deny the natural possi- 
 bility of his believing, or his fair chance to live by the 
 atonement, or the completeness of his privilege, (al- 
 lowing the Gospel to be in his hands,) is the same 
 contradiction as is noticed above. Further, if the 
 atonement was made for sinning agents, it was made 
 for them as creatures who were to act towards it, who 
 were to accept or reject it ; otherwise the essential 
 attributes of agents are divided. Now if the enjoy- 
 ment of it depends on their accepting it, in other 
 words, if they cannot enjoy it without accepting it, 
 then it was made with a distinct understanding that it 
 was njt to be enjoyed by them without their fulfilling 
 that condition. In this sense the provision was made 
 for them conditionally. It must have been so made if 
 made for sinning agents, or the essential attributes of 
 agents are divided. No matter what influence on the 
 same creatures as passive was to secure their faith ; 
 yet the provision for agents, which could not be en- 
 joyed without their act in believing, was certainly con- 
 ditional as to its application. Further, if the atone- 
 ment so far affects any agent that he is susceptible of 
 the offer of its benefits, it must affect all his other re- 
 lations which are capable of being affected by such a 
 measure ; it must give him a fair opportunity or chance 
 to live by it, must put him completely upon probation, 
 and be to him a perfect privilege ; otherwise the es- 
 sential attributes of an agent are divided. If the 
 
CjHAP. VlII.j MORAL AGENTS. 241 
 
 atonement so affected the relations of Simon Magus 
 that he could receive the offer of pardon by it, then it 
 gave him a fair chance for pardon, put him fully upon 
 probation, and was to him the complete privilege of an 
 atonement. 
 
 Keeping in mind that the atonement was made for 
 none but moral agents, we can now see what kind of 
 effects we must look for on men in deciding for how 
 many it was made. We must search only for those 
 effects which would result to agents, and not for any 
 which belong to mere receivers of sanctifying impres- 
 sions. These two characters of man are as distinct 
 as body and soul. Now in examining whether a pro- 
 vision for the soul is complete, you have not to ask 
 whether it involves a provision for the body. For 
 the same reason, in deciding whether the atonement 
 was a complete provision for Simon Magus as a moral 
 agent, you have nothing to do with the question whe- 
 ther it stood connected with a design to regenerate 
 him. If you find on him the offer of pardon by it, and 
 a capacity to accept the offer if well disposed, or a na- 
 tural possibility of believing, then you find on him a 
 fair chance to live by it, and the complete privilege of 
 an atonement, and find him fully placed by it in a state 
 of probation. And then you find upon him all the 
 effects which could result from the atonement to a mere 
 moral agent. And then you may pronounce unhesi- 
 tatingly that it was fully made for him as such. 
 
 ■»♦ » 
 
 CHAPTER VIII. 
 
 A MORAL GOVERNMENT. 
 
 Before I proceed to other principles observed m 
 the treatment of agents. I will stop here and exhibit 
 
 X 
 
°24 c 2 A MORAL [PARTIS 
 
 the outlines of a moral government. As this is no- 
 thing more than the treatment of moral agents, and 
 a treatment according to truth, or according to the 
 powers and attributes which they possess, the discus- 
 sion will form a counterpart to the last chapter, and 
 will go to confirm the principles there laid down. On 
 this account I introduce it here. I have other reasons 
 for presenting the subject. Were the mind familiariz- 
 ed to the principles and operations of a moral govern- 
 ment, it could more easily contemplate men in the 
 distinct character of moral agents, and see some mean- 
 ing in a provision for them as such. It seems to have 
 been thought that such a provision, when separated 
 from regenerating power, is worthy of no account ; in 
 other words, that a mere measure of moral govern- 
 ment is of no importance to men when separated from 
 the acts of the Sovereign Efficient Cause. This would 
 be true if men were stocks, but cannot be true if there 
 is in them a foundation for treating them as rational 
 and accountable beings. That treatment by itself forms 
 an immensely important part of the divine administra- 
 tion ; and it may serve to correct the mistake to see 
 how much of the glory of God, even under the dis- 
 pensation of grace, this department really compre- 
 hends. 
 
 In a limited sense a moral government is the mere 
 administration of law ; but in a more general and per- 
 fect sense it includes the whole treatment which God 
 renders to moral agents. This treatment certainly 
 constitutes a distinct and very important department 
 of divine operations, and ought as a whole to be co- 
 vered by a general name. And what name more pro- 
 per than moral government, especially as the thing 
 accords with the variety of particulars comprehended 
 under the name of government in human affairs ? The 
 
CHAP. VIII. J GOVERNMENT. 243 
 
 government of Great Britain consists not merely in 
 making and executing laws, but in all those operations 
 in which the rulers as such come into contact with the 
 subjects as such. If they establish churches for pub- 
 lic worship, and sunday-schools for instruction, and 
 saving banks as a motive to diligence and economy, 
 and hospitals as a merciful provision ; if they make 
 experiments upon the temper of their subjects, or enter 
 into contract with individuals ; if they grant audiences, 
 and receive petitions, and pardon criminals, and grant 
 pensions and privileges ; these are all the operations 
 of the government of Great Britain. In like manner 
 I comprehend in a moral government, not only the 
 dispensation of law, but all the institutions of religion, 
 all the instructions furnished, all the motives presented, 
 all provisions made for moral agents, all experiments 
 upon the human character, all covenants entered into 3 
 all audiences granted, all answers to prayer, all acts 
 of pardon and justification, all privileges afforded, and 
 whatever else belongs to creatures as capable of ac- 
 tion and choice, as governable by motives, as suscep- 
 tible of instruction and obligations, of praise and blame, 
 of opportunities and privileges, or in a word, as sub- 
 jects of moral discipline. 
 
 The whole fabric rests upon the principle that all 
 this treatment is suited to rational creatures even with- 
 out the Spirit, in other words, that they are complete 
 moral agents without supernatural influence. The 
 Moral Governour grounds his claims, not on their tem- 
 per, nor on their original righteousness, nor on any 
 spiritual aids afforded, but on their physical faculties 
 accompanied with light, or their natural ability. By 
 comparing their obligations with their conduct, and 
 without reference to any thing else, he judges of their 
 efcaracter and deserts. From their obligations he 
 
244 A MORAL [PART II* 
 
 estimates their privileges, reckoning to them as such 
 whatever they ought to improve for their good. Where 
 a blessing is so placed within their reach that they can 
 enjoy it by doing their duty, he charges against them 
 an opportunity or fair chance to obtain it. He makes 
 experiments upon their temper just as though they 
 were independent. In all his measures he assumes 
 from their capacity that their holy action is possible. 
 He presents instructions and motives fitted to influence 
 rational beings as though he expected the effect from 
 their own independent powers. He commands, in- 
 vites, rewards, and punishes, as though there was no 
 Spirit. With the exceptions mentioned in a former 
 chapter, he never once alludes to the passive charac- 
 ter of men throughout the whole administration of a 
 moral government, but holds his way through the world 
 with an eye apparently filled with agents alone. He 
 sets before him a race of distinct and complete agents, 
 and proceeds like an earthly prince who has no con- 
 trol over the minds of his subjects but by motives. 
 This must be apparent to any one who opens his Bi- 
 ble, and has already been proved by quotations suffi- 
 ciently numerous. In short a moral government is a 
 world by itself, because moral agents, so to speak, are 
 complete entities in themselves. 
 
 These principles of a moral government, which are 
 every where conspicuous on the sacred page, are what 
 Arminians have discovered, and set themselves to de- 
 fend, in opposition to doctrines which they thought 
 irreconcilable with these. As advocates for the fun- 
 damental laws of a moral government, they deserve 
 real praise : but their errour has lain in not perceiving 
 that all the attributes of moral agency are perfectly 
 consistent with absolute dependance. If ever this 
 unhappy division in the Church is healed, it must be 
 
CHAP. VIII.] GOVERNMENT. 245 
 
 on the ground here taken, by showing that respectable 
 class of men that all the prerogatives of a moral go- 
 vernment can be maintained in perfect consistency 
 with absolute election and special grace. 
 
 Considered in relation to its dominion over the 
 mind, a moral government may be called a govern- 
 ment of motives; for these are the instruments by 
 which it works. It is a course of acting, not upon 
 the disposition by insensible influence, but upon the 
 reason and conscience of a rational being by manifest 
 motives. The only exception is where sanctifying 
 power is exerted by way of reward, or out of gracious 
 respect to something which an agent has done. But 
 all sovereign influences of the sanctifying Spirit, as 
 well as all decrees concerning them, belong to the 
 other department*. 
 
 * In other respects sovereignty is not excluded from a moral govern- 
 ment. It is largely exercised in the rewards and punishments of the 
 present life, in respect of time, manner, and degree. It is exercised in 
 the changes of dispensations, in the enactment of positive statutes, ia 
 the different degrees of light afforded to different nations and ages, ia 
 the enlightening influences of the Spirit on the unregenerate, (whicb 
 are as really a part of the treatment of agents as any other instruction,) 
 and in many other respects. The atonement itself was sovereignly ap- 
 pointed. Nothing limits sovereignty but law and covenant. If any 
 thing more is included in a moral government than what is according to 
 law or covenant, it must be sovereignly directed. 
 
 The whole process of sanctification after the regenerating act, seems 
 to fall within this department : for though the same sovereignty attends 
 it as to time, manner, and degree, that marks the other rewards of the 
 present life^ it is still of the nature of a reward, and was in general 
 promised assach to the first act of faith. If however any part of it 
 can be considered so purely sovereign as not to fall under the charac- 
 ter of a reward, that part, I own, must be excluded from a moral go- 
 vernment ; for nothing entitles a motion of the Spirit to be brought into 
 this department but its being eithear a reward or a mere act of illumi- 
 nation. 
 
 I have not dared with certainty to place any thing in the other de- 
 partment but election and regeneration. The formation of the natural 
 disposition belongs to the Creator: the changes made m it by natural 
 X 2 
 
246 A MORAL [PART II., 
 
 Besides the purely sovereign impressions on the 
 mind, (not meaning however those which barely illu- 
 mine, nor those which are made by motives,) I know 
 of nothing done in time among all the works and ways 
 of God which ought to be excluded from a moral go- 
 vernment, but the mere operations of the Creator and 
 Preserver; nor these so far as they are a reward 
 or punishment to any, or are primarily intended to in- 
 struct or furnish motives". 
 
 causes, except so far as they are a reward or punishment, seem to stand 
 among the operations of the Preserver. If the convicting influences of 
 rhe Spirit barely convey light to the mind, they are ascribable to the' 
 Moral Governour ; for light is'only for agents. The impressions, other- 
 wise than sanctifying, which are made to incline men to particular ac- 
 tions, appear to be produced by motives addressed to an existing tem- 
 per, and so far belong to the Moral Governour. If besides all these, 
 there are direct impressions, purely sovereign, before or after regenera- 
 tion, sanctifying or otherwise, they must be placed in the department 
 of the Sovereign Emcient Cause. 
 
 * Creatures must exist before they can be governed, and they must 
 be sustained in existence in order to continue subjects of moral dis- 
 cipline. Their mere creation and support therefore do not belong to a 
 moral government, except so far as these are a reward or punishment to 
 -some. The creation of Isaac and Samuel, though to themselves no part of 
 a moral government, was a gracious recompense to their parents. Men 
 may be sustained in life as a reward or punishment to themselves, 
 (Exod. 20. 12. Rom. 9. 22.) or as a punishment or reward to others, or 
 in answer to their prayers : (Judg. 2. 3. Mat. 9. 18, 25.) and they may 
 be cut off as a punishment to themselves or others. (2 Sam. 12. 14, 
 Ps. 55. 23.) 
 
 How far the whole visible universe and the operations of nature 
 around us, viewed in relation to creatures already existing, stand con- 
 nected with a moral government, is a more difficult question. So far as 
 any of these things are a reward or punishment, or are primarily in- 
 tended to instruct or furnish motives, they belong to this department. 
 Thus fruitful seasons are either a reward, (Deut. 28. 12.) or a source 
 af instruction and motives. (Acts 14. 17.) Thus the briers and thorns 
 are a punishment, (Gen. 3. 18.) and the tokens of God in heaven and 
 earth are a warning. (Ps. 65. 8.) But how far do the works of nature 
 belong to a moral government as mere sources of instruction and mo- 
 rives? We must not include every thing in this department which was 
 intended to instruct or move creatures to action, for then we must ex- 
 
CHAP. VIII.] GOVERNMENT,. 247 
 
 It is the Moral Governour alone who is approached 
 by creatures ; and it is in this character that God is 
 respected in almost all those efforts of creature agency 
 which we call religion and virtue. It is almost solely 
 in this character that he is the object of love, because 
 it is almost exclusively in this that his moral perfec- 
 tions appear. Faith perhaps is still more limited. 
 Besides election, and the first and second creation, and 
 preservation, it has no other object than the Moral Go- 
 vernour with his provisions, acts, and declarations. 
 That faith without which it is impossible to please 
 God, is a belief " that he is, and that he is a Rewarder 
 of them that diligently seek him*." Instead of busy- 
 ing itself with the question whether I am elected, its 
 proper office is to believe that God will be to me " a 
 Rewarder" if I diligently seek him. All the exercises 
 of repentance and trust, and most of those of gratitude 
 and submission, respect God in the same character, 
 
 elude nothing. All that God has ever done was intended to enlighten 
 creatures and to subserve a government by motives, But instructions and 
 motives subservient to the government of a family, may be drawn from, 
 facts which constitute no part of family government. If a measure has no 
 other end than to instruct or move, like some things contained in the Bi- 
 ble ; or in case it has another end,if that end applies exclusively to agents, 
 (like the divine law, which, while it teaches and offers inducements, im- 
 poses obligations ;) then it properly belongs to a moral government. But 
 if its primary end does not respect agents distinctively, but the whole 
 man, (like the creation of him and a world for him to dwell in,) or 
 other animals, or the general constitution of the universe, then, though 
 like all other things it was intended to furnish instructions and motives, 
 it cannot fall within this department. To allude again to domestic go- 
 vernment, it is one thing to build a house for the family to dwell in and 
 receive the proper discipline, and another to construct a house in minia- 
 ture for the purpose of teaching them some mechanical principles. 
 Now we dare not conclude that any of the works of nature are held up 
 as a splendid show, a dead picture to exhibit the divine perfections, but 
 rather that they display the wisdom and goodness of God by answering 
 some important end. This end is to decide where they are to fall in 
 the division of departments. 
 
 *Heb.ll.6. 
 
248 A MORAL [PART II. 
 
 Obedience has no other object, for none but the Moral 
 Governour commands* With him our business lies 
 through the whole course of our active virtue. In 
 every part we proceed as though nothing was settled 
 from eternity, and except a submission to the eternal 
 purpose of God, set ourselves to raise others to happi- 
 ness as though we never heard of an absolute decree. 
 We transact with the Moral Governour in almost all 
 our worship. Prayer has no other object. Its concern 
 lies not with election, but with the present will of him 
 who " is a Rewarder of them that diligently seek him." 
 Its sole encouragement is drawn from the promise of 
 the Moral Governour; and a long pondering on elec- 
 tion, by turning the eye from him, is apt to damp the 
 spirit and discourage the effort. When we pray for 
 the regeneration of others, we do not ask the Elector 
 to change his eternal decrees : we address ourselves to 
 the Moral Governour alone, and hope to be rewarded 
 by an act which to them will not be a recompense. 
 
 A moral government wields all the motives in the 
 universe. It comprehends the entire system of in- 
 struction intended for creatures. The Bible lies 
 wholly within its bounds. It comprehends the public 
 dispensation both of law and Gospel, with the whole 
 compages of precepts, invitations, promises and threat- 
 enings. It comprehends the atonement, and all the 
 covenants made with men, and all the institutions of 
 religion, with the whole train of means and privileges. 
 It comprehends the whole doctrine and process of jus- 
 tification, with all spiritual influences which either en- 
 lighten or reward. It comprehends a throne of grace, 
 with all the answers to prayer. It comprehends a 
 day of probation, with all the experiments made upon 
 the human character. It comprehends the entire sys- 
 tem of grace, with the bare exception of election and 
 
CHAP. IX.] GOVERNMENT. 249 
 
 regeneration. It comprehends all the rewards and 
 punishments of the present life. It comprehends the 
 day of judgment, and all the retributions of eternity. 
 It comprehends all the sensible communion between 
 the Infinite and finite minds ; all the perceptible inter- 
 course between God and his rational offspring ; all the 
 treatment of intelligent creatures viewed otherwise 
 than as passive receivers of sovereign impressions. 
 In short it is the public government of God over the 
 universe. And I may add, it forms the subject matter 
 of nine-tenths, perhaps of ninety-nine-hundredths of 
 the Bible. Almost all the language of the world re- 
 fers to agents and belongs to the dialect of a moral 
 government. Surely this is not a part of the divine 
 operations to be buried up under the tapestry of se- 
 cret decrees. Surely the language which befits this 
 great system of administration, and which expresses 
 its vital principles, is not to be frittered away into 
 figures of speech, into idioms after the manner of 
 men, or laid aside for a dialect supposed to be better 
 adapted to the secret counsels of the Incomprehensi- 
 ble Mind, 
 
 CHAPTER IX. 
 
 MORAL AGENTS TREATED AS IF THERE WAS NO FORE- 
 KNOWLEDGE. 
 
 The only part of a moral government which disco- 
 vers prescience, is prophecy. All the other parts are 
 framed together with the same consistency of relation 
 as if there was no foreknowledge. Break up this 
 principle, and plant the eye of prescience visibly in 
 every part of a moral government, and you turn the 
 
250 FOREKNOWLEDGE [PART II. 
 
 whole into confusion : the entreaties of God to the 
 non-elect would appear like mockery, and many of 
 his declarations false. God proceeds in his treatment 
 of moral agents as though it was perfectly uncertain 
 how they will act till they are tried. The reason is-, 
 that the capacity and obligations on which the treat- 
 ment is founded, are in no degree affected by fore- 
 knowledge. This neither weakens an obligation, nor 
 helps to create one which would not otherwise exist. 
 It does not weaken an obligation, and therefore does 
 not prevent the issuing of commands and invitations ; 
 for these only express the obligations of men with pre- 
 cision, without any thing prophetic as to their conduct 
 or destiny. Nor yet does it help to create an obliga- 
 tion which would not otherwise exist. To this maxim 
 I wish to draw particular attention. Were there no 
 foreknowledge, neither the nature of things nor any 
 command could impose on men an obligation to accept 
 a privilege which in relation to them had no existence, 
 (for that would be a natural impossibility,) nor, unless 
 deceived, to believe the privilege tu be fur them in 
 such a sense that they could enjoy it by doing their 
 duty ; for that would be an obligation to believe a lie. 
 This would be common sense if there was no fore- 
 knowledge. Now what I assert is, that the fore- 
 knowledge of God that they would not accept the pri- 
 vilege if provided for them, did not render it proper 
 for him, without providing it, to command them to re- 
 ceive it and to believe that it was provided for them. 
 They could not be under obligation, nor could any 
 command lay them under obligation, to accept a pri- 
 vilege which in relation to them had no existence, 
 nor, unless deceived, to believe a lie. The incon- 
 sistency of attempting to impose such an obligation, 
 will appear by making the supposition, (and of moral 
 agents we have a right to make the supposition,) that 
 
CHAP. IX.] ALTERS NOTHING. 251 
 
 they should exert or try to exert their agency in this 
 way. The moment they should make the attempt, 
 they would find one part a natural impossibility, and 
 in performing the other, unless deceived, they would 
 actually do wrong. No power therefore could lay 
 upon them an obligation to accept a privilege which, 
 from the foreknowledge that they would reject it, had 
 not been so provided for them that they could enjoy it 
 by doing their duty. Accordingly the Moral Govern- 
 our no more attempts to impose the obligation without 
 providing the privilege, than would any fair and ho- 
 nourable man. He does not command impossibilities, 
 secure in the foreknowledge that creatures will not 
 obey, and then punish them for ever for not doing 
 what no power with the best dispositions could have 
 done. He does not thus tyke advantage of his 
 superior knowledge to oppress. He does not thus 
 practise upon the ignorance of creatures, sure at last 
 to detect the imposition. 
 
 By this principle let us test the correctness of a 
 fashionable similitude. A pearl, sufficient in value 
 to redeem a thousand prisoners, is offered and accept- 
 ed for a hundred. It being foreseen that none J^ut the 
 hundred will accept the offer of release, advantage is 
 taken of the sufficiency of the price to tender liberty 
 to the thousand and to command them to come out. 
 This is the very simile chosen by some on the other side 
 to exhibit the strength of their cause. I have nothing 
 to do here with the propriety of the offer, my business 
 is solely with the justice of the command. According 
 to this representation, an attempt is made to fasten 
 upon nine hundred prisoners for whom no ransom has 
 been paid, an obligation to come out on the ground of 
 a ransom really offered for others, but only in appear- 
 
252 FOREKNOWLEDGE ALTERS NOTHING. [PART II, 
 
 ance for them*. Now in this case it is not true that 
 they could come out if they would obey the command. 
 The reverse is true. If they should obey they would 
 be stopped. And when they are told that they can 
 come out if they will obey, a downright falsehood is 
 imposed upon them, under security that they will not 
 detect the imposition by making the attempt. And on 
 this falsehood an essay is made to found an obliga- 
 tion, — an obligation to do a natural impossibility, — 
 which but for the deception practised upon them they 
 would see to be as impracticable as to make a world. 
 The sufficiency of the price in this case is only a cover 
 to conceal the imposture, and cannot be a ground of 
 obligation. It cannot even seem to them to bear the 
 most distant relation to an obligation, but by a palpa- 
 ble delusion. This then cannot be a just representa- 
 tion of that provision on which God rests the general 
 obligation of men to accept the atonement. It must 
 be true, that, just as the provision now is, and not as it 
 would have been had their faith been foreseen, they 
 can be pardoned in consistency with the honour of 
 the law if they will believe ; a supposition which we 
 have none the less right to make of agents on account 
 of the foreknowledge that they would not believe. 
 
 Now if the atonement is for all in such a sense that, 
 just as it now is, they may be pardoned by it if they 
 will believe, it is an atonement for all in the highest 
 sense in which it can be for moral agents. 
 
 * The confusion here arises from not distinguishing between the 
 nigher ransom and the atonement. Because the former was not paid 
 for all, (that is, Christ did not so purchase all by his merit that he could 
 :laim them as his reicard,) atonement was nounade for all. 
 
CHAP. X.] AGENTS TREATED CONDITIONALLY. 253 
 
 CHAPTER X. 
 
 THORAL AGENTS TREATED CONDITIONALLY. 
 
 The evidence of this fact is found in the conditions 
 on which salvation is offered on every page of the Bi- 
 ble, and in all the promises and threatenings both of 
 law and Gospel. Men have started at the idea of con* 
 ditions under a dispensation of grace, as partaking too 
 much of a legal character : but when the nature of a 
 condition in a moral government is explained, it will 
 be found to be an essential ingredient in all that treat- 
 ment of moral agents which is accompanied with au- 
 thority. Where the holy agency of creatures is a ne- 
 c essary antecedent to the enjoyment of any good, the 
 Moral Governour states the fact. The statement of 
 that fact, accompanied with the authority with which 
 he cannot but require the holy action, is all that is 
 meant by a condition in a moral government. A con- 
 dition is only that fact stated with authority. You 
 cannot therefore separate conditions from the authori- 
 tative treatment of agents, so long as their holiness is 
 essential to their happiness, and so long as God in an}' 
 way pronounces that fact. It is only because men are 
 contemplated purelyas passive that conditions are ex- 
 cluded ; and in that view they are consistently exclu- 
 ded, for they belong only to the treatment of moral 
 agents. Nor are conditions inconsistent with free 
 grace, unless the requirement of holiness as essential 
 to happiness is inconsistent with free grace. Nor yet 
 do conditions imply any thing incompatible with abso- 
 lute promises. They are used, we shall see, in the 
 treatment of believers who are already embraced by 
 an absolute covenant, and even after they have attain= 
 
 Y 
 
254 AGENTS TREATED [PART U. 
 
 ed to the full assurance of hope, nay after they have 
 reached their eternal home. 
 
 In those measures of a moral government which are 
 accompanied with no authority, conditions of course 
 do not appear ; for instance, in those sovereign gifts 
 which are suited to a state of probation. In these 
 God appears not the Lawgiver, but the merciful and 
 long suffering Saviour, who is willing to afford men the 
 best opportunity to prepare for their last account, to 
 grant them a state of tranquillity suited to reflection, 
 and to encourage their faith with abundant tokens of 
 his mercy. 
 
 The only case connected with authority in which 
 consequences are not suspended on conditions, is 
 where absolute good is secured as a reward for condi- 
 tions already fulfilled. Thus all the absolute promises 
 and irrevocable grants made to the Church and its in- 
 dividual members, in relation to themselves or their 
 seed, are gracious rewards for acts already done, or a 
 character already formed. 
 
 But the authoritative treatment of pure agents, (or 
 agents considered without reference to the Spirit,) is 
 never absolute. These irrevocable grants respec' 
 men in the double character of agents and passive re- 
 ceivers of sanctifying impressions. To the agents they 
 are a reward, but they are to be executed by sanctify- 
 ing impressions on the passive : and the very promise 
 implies a security of spiritual aid, for no such grants 
 are made to men viewed as apostates. In like manner 
 the absolute promises respecting the seed imply that 
 they shall be sanctified. But whatever promises are 
 made to men, or to their parents concerning them, with 
 a special reference to their passive character, yet when 
 these same persons come to be directly dealt with as 
 pure agents, the issue is still suspended on their own 
 
CHAP. X.J CONDITIONALLY. 255 
 
 conduct. Thus the promises to Abraham that his seed 
 should possess the land of Canaan and all the bless- 
 ings of the Church, were absolute* ; and yet the whole 
 issue was suspended on their own conductt. And the 
 way in which these two things are reconciled is, their 
 holy character was securedj. Thus also the promise 
 10 David that his seed should possess the throne of Is- 
 rael, was absolute§ ; and yet th« privilege was sus- 
 pended on their obedience||. In like manner the pro- 
 mises to Christ respecting the elect were absolute, as 
 are also the promises to believers as recipients of the 
 Spirit ; and yet when the elect and even believers come 
 to be treated as pure agents, the issue is still suspended 
 on their own conduct. And this is sometimes done by 
 lips which at the same moment are speaking of the 
 covenant of grace, and the general consequences of 
 Christ's death, and its express acceptance for our jus- 
 tification. Thus a moral government, in dealing with 
 pure agents, is so regardless of the decrees, and pro- 
 mises, and influences which respect the passive, that 
 it goes around them, and wanders over them, without 
 appearing to see them. Take the following specimens. 
 " It was not written for his sake alone that" faith " was 
 imputed to him" for righteousness ; " but for us also, 
 [certainly including millions of the elect and even of 
 
 » Gen. 12. 7. 8c 13. 14—17. 8c 17. 7, 8. & 28, 4, 13—15. & 48. 4. & 50. 
 24. Exod. 2. 24. 8c 6. 3—8. 8c 12. 25. Deut. 4. 37. & 10. 15. & 12. 20. 
 ic 26. 18, 19. Josh. 21. 43—45. 8c 22. 4. & 23. 5, 10. Ps. 105. 6—45. 
 
 1 Exod. 23. 20, 22. Lev. 20. 22. 8c 26. 41, 42. Num. 14. 30, 34. 
 
 Deut. 1,8. 8c 4. 1,25— 31, 40. 8c 5. 16,33. & 6. 3, 15, 18. & 7. 7—15, 
 &3. 1. &11. 9, 21. and 12. 28. and 13. 17. and 19. 8,9. and 28. 11. 
 and 30. 16,20. and 32. 47. 2 Chron. 33. 8. Jer. 11. 4, 5. and 35. 
 
 15. Zech. 11. 10. X Gen - 18> 18 > 19 - $ 2 Sam. 7. 12—16, 
 
 2 Chron. 13. 5. Ps. 89. 3, 4, 28—37. j| 1 Kin. 2. 3,4. and 3. 
 
 14. and 8. 25, 26. and 9. 1—9. 1 Chron. 22. 9—13. and 28. 7, 
 2 Chron. 7. 17—22. Ps. 132, 12.. Jer. 17, 25. 
 
25G AGENTS TREATED [PART II. 
 
 believers,] to whom it shall be imputed if we believe 
 in him who raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead ; 
 who was delivered for our offences, and was raised 
 again for our justification." " In whom we have re* 
 demption through his blood. — And he is the Head of 
 the body, the Church. — For it pleased the Father that 
 in him should all fulness dwell, and, (having made 
 peace through the blood of his cross,) by him to recon- 
 cile all things unto himself; by him, I say, whether 
 they be things in earth or things in heaven. And you 
 that were sometime alienated and enemies in your 
 mind by wicked works, yet now hath he reconciled in 
 the body of his flesh through death, to present you 
 holy, and unblamable, and unreprovable in his sight, 
 if ye continue in the faith." " If that which ye 
 have heard from the beginning shall remain in you, yc 
 also shall continue in the Son and in the Father." 
 " It is impossible for those who were once enlightened, 
 - — if they shall fall away, to renew them again unto 
 repentance. — But beloved, we are persuaded better 
 things of you, and things that accompany salvation, 
 though we thus speak. For God is not unrighteous to 
 forget your work and labour of love. — Let us hold fast 
 the profession of our faith without wavering. — For if 
 we sin wilfully after that we have received the know- 
 ledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice 
 for sins. — If any man draw back my soul shall have no 
 pleasure in him. But we are not of them who draw 
 back unto perdition, but of them that believe to the 
 saving of the soul*." 
 
 Even after believers are assured that their present 
 character is holy, and that as recipients they shall 
 continue to receive effectual aid, as agents they are 
 
 * Rom. 4. 23— 25. Cot: 1. 14—23. Hcb. G. 4>— 11. and 10. 23— 
 39. 1 John 2. 24. 
 
CHAP, X.] CONDITIONALLY. 25? 
 
 still treated conditionally. Paul himself, with all his 
 confidence, was still taught to suspend his salvation on 
 his own persevering holiness. " I keep under my 
 body and bring it into subjection, lest that by any 
 means when I have preached to others I myself should 
 be a cast-away*.' 5 The principle of employing threats 
 to stimulate agents to the attainment of a good already 
 pronounced certain, is exemplified in an occurrence 
 which took place in this same apostle's voyage to 
 Rome. He had declared by revelation that there 
 should "be no loss of any man's life." And yet 
 when the sailors were about clandestinely to leave the 
 ship, he disclosed their purpose and affirmed, " Except 
 these abide in the ship ye cannot be savedt." 
 
 Though a distinct annunciation of threats is fitted 
 only to a state of probation, yet an authoritative con., 
 necting of holiness and happiness must remain while 
 creatures continue under government. Even the pe- 
 nalty of the law must continue to furnish motives. 
 Christ did not die to support a penalty of transient 
 importance, and which after a few years should cease to 
 have any influence upon agents. He did not die to se- 
 parate the penalty from the law after probation should 
 end, and thus annihilate the vigour of a moral govern- 
 ment to eternity. Paul is still under the empire of 
 law, and a law of course which is supported by a pe- 
 nalty ; a penalty which instead of being annihilated at 
 Calvary, continually drawls new strength from the tra- 
 gedy there displayed. At the same time that as a reci- 
 pient he hears the covenant say that his sanctification 
 shall be perpetuated, as ah agent he hears the law say, 
 not only that he shall die for past transgressions, but 
 ihat he shall die for every one which he may hereafter 
 
 * 1 Cor. 9, 27, + Acts 27. 22—31 
 
 Y 2 
 
^53 AGENTS TREATEB [PART II. 
 
 commit. And though he is not under law as a cove- 
 riant of works, and would be pardoned by grace, (as 
 after he was united to Christ on earth,) even should he 
 commit many sins, yet the mediation of Christ never 
 provided that a slave of sin should be taken out of the 
 hands of law. Should Paul apostatize to complete 
 and continued rebellion, (which as an agent he is capa- 
 ble of doing,) the law would still take its course upon 
 him. And if his continued holiness is thus necessary 
 to his continued happiness, and that fact is in any way 
 pronounced by the same authority that requires his 
 holiness, (and without that fact lurking more or less 
 visibly behind the command there is no authority,) 
 then he hears the divine authority, (the same that once 
 spoke in the Gospel,) say, that if he returns to con- 
 firmed rebellion he shall be delivered over to the law, 
 and be punished moreover as a Gospel despiser. But 
 how, you ask, can such a motive influence Paul when 
 he knows that he shall be kept from falling ? A man 
 is held from throwing himself from the top of a build- 
 ing, and knows he shall be held. He knows also that 
 if he should throw himself down he would be dashed 
 in piece*. The knowledge of the latter fact prevents 
 him from being willing to take the leap. While Paul 
 is held from falling by an influence on him as passive, 
 and knows that he shall be held, he needs motives as 
 an agent to make him willing to stand. He could not 
 be willing without motives, whatever divine power 
 should be exerted upon him. Why then, you ask, is 
 not Paul still on probation, as much at least as after he 
 had attained to the full assurance of hope on earth ? 
 Because he is openly confirmed in holiness and happi- 
 ness by way of reward. When the agent is thus pub- 
 licly rewarded by confirmation, the agent is no longer 
 on probation. An assured hope of that reward was 
 
CHAP. X.] CONDITIONALLY. . % 259 
 
 not the possession. This it is, and not the absence of 
 conditions, which distinguishes heaven from a state of 
 probation*. 
 
 This mode of treating pure agents, notwithstanding 
 the absolute promises which respect the same crea- 
 tures in the double character of agents and recipients, 
 rests on the three following reasons. 
 
 (1.) There is nothing in their dependance nor in 
 the promised influence to prevent them from being, in 
 respect to the very thing to which they are to be in- 
 clined, complete agents, with all the obligations of 
 agents, and with an unbroken relation to the authority 
 and claims of the Moral Governour. Of course it is 
 proper for him to treat them as agents, with no more 
 reference to the promised influence than he has to 
 election in his commands to the wicked ; and to re- 
 quire their duty in the tone of a lawgiver, who as such 
 must always appear with a penalty in his hand. 
 
 (2.) There is nothing in the promised influence to 
 weaken the indissoluble connexion between their holy 
 action and the salvation contemplated. The promise 
 did not engage to dispense with that action, but to 
 secure it. The connexion between the action and the 
 salvation is as close as though the stipulation had not 
 been made, and may be pointed out and insisted on 
 without contradicting the promise. Two things are 
 true of them : as passive they will receive effectual 
 
 * This shows that the threats held out in the Bible against apostacy, 
 are no evidence against the perseverance of the saints. They are ra- 
 ther the means by which the perseverance of holy agents is secured*. 
 It shows also that the conditional treatment of believers is not incon- 
 sistent with the completeness of their justification. The irrevoca- 
 ble title to life made over in their justification, comprehended, and 
 secured to them a.s recipients, their continued sanctification ; but still 
 as pure agents they might continue to be treated conditionally. I will 
 add, that the new relation is not the less real or complete for not being 
 certainly known to the subject. 
 
260 AGENTS TREATED [PART If. 
 
 aid ; as agents they must continue in holiness or die. 
 The latter proposition authoritatively pronounced, 
 amounts to all that is contained in a divine threat. 
 The way then is open, as though the promise did not 
 exist, for the Moral Governour to display the infran- 
 gible connexion between their holiness and happiness 
 with all the authority and claim attached to his office* 
 (3.) While as recipients they stand related to an ab- 
 solute promise, as agents they must still be carried 
 along by motives. Moral agents cannot act without 
 motives whatever exertion of sanctifying power is 
 made. This exercise of authority furnishes the very 
 motives required. While probation lasts, a form of 
 more distinct menace is used, as better calculated to 
 influence the Church at large. It proclaims the ne- 
 cessity of persevering holiness in tones of awful ma- 
 jesty and terrour ; and these, coming to the ears of 
 multitudes who are still in doubt about their salvation, 
 are calculated to stimulate them to exertion as the only 
 means of making their calling: and election sure. Nor 
 is this form lost upon those who at present possess the 
 full assurance of hope, for it stands ready to rouse 
 them to action whenever their graces languish and 
 their hopes of course decline. 
 
 Thus it appears that neither the covenant with 
 Christ nor the absolute promises to believers prevent 
 their salvation from still being suspended on their 
 own conduct; that neither election nor oaths break 
 up that conditionality which pervades every part of 
 the treatment of pure agents. It ought not therefore 
 to seem strange if notwithstanding all the absolute de- 
 crees and covenants connected with the work of re- 
 demption, that provision for agents which we call the 
 atonement should be found to be conditional. It must 
 fall under this fundamental law of a moral government. 
 
GHAP. X.j CONDITIONALLY. 2GJ 
 
 For in the first place, the holy action of men towards 
 it was necessary to their enjoyment of its benefit. 
 They could not be pardoned by it till as agents they 
 had believed. In the second place, from the moment 
 it met the eyes of men, (and the whole provision was 
 made in public,) it was encircled on all sides with 
 authority, peremptorily demanding their faith. Here 
 then are the two circumstances which call forth a con- 
 dition in all other cases. It was a matter connected 
 with authority, and the enjoyment of it did depend on 
 the very faith which was demanded. Only one thing 
 more was necessary. Did God state the latter fact ? 
 If he did, you have all that goes into the definition of 
 a condition in a moral government. Then in produ- 
 cing the atonement before the world, he authoritatively 
 pronounced that the enjoyment of it depended on the 
 faith of men. And there is the condition on the very 
 face of the express purpose. 
 
 If the atonement was offered for agents, (and none 
 else needed expiation or satisfaction, and none else 
 could receive pardon,) then it was a provision to be- 
 nefit them upon their acting the part of agents towards 
 it, or else the essential attributes of agents are divi- 
 ded. If the effect was not suspended on that effort of 
 their agency, it was not made for agents, (for creatures 
 capable of acting, and on whose action their happi- 
 ness depends.) but for the purely passive t for men in 
 a character in which they had not sinned. 
 
 After the atonement was accepted, God was bound 
 either to pardon believers as believers, or the elect as 
 elect. And if you can tell which, you can tell for 
 which description it was accepted, and of course for 
 which it was offered. If God did not engage to par- 
 don any by the atonement till as agents they had be- 
 lieved, then it was never offered or accepted with any 
 
262- .AGENTS TREATED [PART I*. 
 
 intention that it should benefit men as mere elect, but 
 only those who should believe. That act is as much 
 their own. and as essential to the benefit, and as authori- 
 tatively pronounced to be so, as though there was no 
 Spirit. And this is the full definition of a condition. 
 
 In settling the extent of the atonement in this light, 
 the only question is, was the benefit suspended on the 
 faith of a particular number of men, or was it plainly 
 declared that " God so loved the world that he gave 
 his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him 
 should not perish" ? The question is answered. 
 
 When our brethren oppose the idea of conditions, 
 they have a very different matter in their eye. Their 
 question is about the secret purpose of the divine 
 mind, and how many, as the reward of his merit, 
 Christ obtained a right to rescue from sin and death 
 by an operation on them as passive. And therefore 
 they ask, not about the atonement, but about the end 
 ©f his death as a whole. And when they have limited 
 the question to the secret purpose of the Divine Per- 
 sons, they find the omniscience of God arrayed against 
 conditions. " To die conditionally for a person, is a 
 strange mode of speaking, especially as it relates to 
 One who is omniscient." \ivur question had been be- 
 fore the writer, he would not have employed such an 
 argument as this. For who will say that conditions 
 are excluded from a government over moral agents, 
 though exercised by an omniscient God ? The mean- 
 ing of the writer comes out more fully. " It will be 
 pretended that Christ died for all, but suspended the 
 benefit of his death upon a condition. Be it so. Then 
 when Christ died he knew whether that condition 
 would ever lake place, or rather he knew that it never 
 would in those to whom he had determined not to give 
 faim. And to say that a person docs a thing to take 
 
chap. x.J Conditionally. 263 
 
 effect on a certain condition which he is sure will 
 never occur, is the same as to say that he does a 
 thing without any view to that effect " Plainly fas- 
 tening the attention to the secret purpose of Christ. 
 But who, except an Anninian, ever thought that the 
 secret purpose of Christ about the application of his 
 death by regeneration, was conditional ? The limita- 
 tion of the writer's meaning to the secret purpose is 
 still more obvious. " If he died for them only on 
 some condition, then if that condition never takes 
 place he did not die for them." That is, if he never 
 imparts faith to them as recipients, he did not die with 
 any intention to make them partakers of his atonement 
 by such an operation. And no one says he did. We 
 have nothing to do with the secret purpose of Christ 
 about an operation on passive recipients. We are 
 only inquiring about a provision for moral agents, and 
 whether in the declared purpose for which it was pub- 
 licly brought forward, their faith was not demanded as 
 a necessary antecedent to its application, and whether 
 it was not pronounced applicable to all indiscrimi- 
 nately w 7 ho would believe. 
 
 But no account is made of all this through the con- 
 stant confounding of expiation with the claim of merit. 
 " They, [the Scriptures,] require indeed faith as an 
 instrument of receiving the benefits of Christ's death : 
 but that very faith is the effect of Christ's meritorious 
 death and prevalent intercession, and is of course be- 
 stowed on all those for whom he shed his precious 
 blood." " The death of Christ, considered in unison 
 with his obedience, is the meritorious cause of all spi- 
 ritual blessings. It is therefore the eause of the gift 
 of faith. Those therefore for whom Christ has died, 
 will sooner or later, in consequence of that offering, be 
 made partakers of faith, with which all spiritual fcles- 
 
264 AGENTS TREATEB [PART II. 
 
 sings are connected." All this is true of the higher 
 ransom, or the united influence of expiation and merit : 
 but the atonement had no concern with securing the 
 gift of faith. 
 
 And yet because the Scriptures speak of the higher 
 ransom as absolute, it is insisted that the atonement 
 itself was not conditional. " It is no where said [in 
 the Bible] that Christ died to render it possible for 
 God to receive sinners on such terms as he might 
 choose to appoint." Where then is that passage 
 found which says, " God so loved the world that he 
 gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believe th 
 in him should not perish" ? 
 
 The same confusion between the higher and lower 
 ransom leads to such as this : "It is an unworthy 
 thought of the Almighty Saviour that he should per- 
 mit Satan to triumph over millions of those whom he 
 purchased with his own blood." If this is said of the 
 higher ransom, I agree; but if it is said of the lower 
 ransom or atonement, the apestle Peter thought 
 not so; for he expressly tells us of those " who privily 
 shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the 
 Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves 
 swift destruction*." 
 
 It is only of the higher ransom that the following 
 assertion is true. " If — Christ has laid down his life 
 and shed his blood for the redemption of any of our 
 race, and if God as the universal Governour has ac- 
 cepted the ransom in their behalf, it cannot be other- 
 wise but that it will have the effect of obtaining, soon- 
 er or later, their actual redemption." This is true ol 
 that ransom whose absolute and unfailing influence 
 lies in the claim of merit to a reward. And yet the 
 same affirmation is undistinguishingly extended to the 
 
 * 2 Pet. 2. I; 
 
CHAP. X.] CONDITIONALLY. 26$ 
 
 expiation and satisfaction. " If they, [our sins,] are 
 really expiated, they never can rise in judgment against 
 us." " It will be said that this satisfaction screens 
 from punishment those only to whom it is applied. 
 But I answer, if really made for any individuals, it will 
 be applied to their benefit. 1 ' This is a specimen of 
 the whole reasoning. Because merit secured to Christ 
 the regeneration and pardon of the elect as his re- 
 ward, expiation and satisfaction must be equally ab- 
 solute. But where is the proof of this ? It is easy to 
 construct popular arguments founded on inapplicable 
 analogies ; but we want some tangible proof that for a 
 certain number of moral agents expiation and satisfac- 
 tion were made absolutely, that is, without respect to 
 their character ; and we must have proof as strong as 
 the oath of God, before we can set aside a thousand 
 texts to the contrary. 
 
 But it is said that the atonement was offered for the 
 elect absolutely, yet not carrying with it this implica- 
 tion, be their character what it may, because the cha- 
 racter itself was secured. But what secured it ? Not 
 the atonement. That provision for moral agents was 
 a world by itself, and in its arrangements and form 
 took no notice of such an impression to be made upon 
 passive subjects. 
 
 In the same spirit it is alleged that the atonement 
 was made absolutely for the elect viewed as believers. 
 In answer to the objection, " If Christ died not for 
 me I cannot be saved because there is no atonement 
 for me," it is said, i: The cause of your perishing is 
 your own unbe.lief : for if you had been viewed as a 
 believer when the atonement was made, you would have 
 been included." What is the meaning of this ? Was 
 faith foreseen as anterior in the order of nature to the 
 atonement itself? and was this the reason that expia- 
 
 Z 
 
266 ASENTS TREATE1> [PART II. 
 
 tion was made for the elect ? And were the non-elect 
 excluded from the provision because of their unbelief, 
 when it is said in the same paper that all the faith in 
 the world was obtained by the death of Christ ? 
 
 The atonement made for the elect absolutely as be- 
 lievers ! I admit that the merit of Christ absolutely 
 procured for them the gift of faith ; yet not for them as 
 believers but as unbelievers. And how, before a man 
 has faith, a thing can be done for him as a believer, 
 and yet be done for him absolutely, is hard to tell. 
 If the influence of the thing is to secure his faith, 
 it is for him not as a believer but as an unbeliever*. 
 If the influence of the thing does not secure his faith, 
 and yet was done to benefit him only as a believer, it 
 suspended the effect on his own act as certainly as 
 faith is an act of his own. No matter how sure that 
 act was made by another influence, yet if he cannot 
 enjoy the benefit without performing a duty, the en- 
 joyment is suspended on his performing a duty. If 
 men have any agency in believing, to say that the 
 atonement was made for them absolutely as believers, 
 is to say that it was made for them absolutely on the 
 condition of their faith. This manner of viewing 
 things entirely overlooks the agency of man, and 
 makes him as passive in believing as in the com- 
 plexion he wears. Before one is born a provision 
 ma\ be made for him as a zohite man and yet be abso- 
 lute, because he has no part to act in forming his own 
 complexion : not so for a good man, if that goodness 
 implies any agency of his own. This is the grand 
 mistake which runs through the system. They every 
 where sink the agency of man in the mere receiver, and 
 reason about him as though he was a passive tablet. 
 
 * The atonement therefore could not secure the gift of faith unles? 
 it was offered for unbeherers. 
 
^HAP. X.] CONDITIONALLY. 267 
 
 Thus this concession that the elect were included in 
 the provision as believers, and that the non-elect were 
 excluded only for the want of faith, is really giving up 
 the point. For then the latter would still be included 
 if they would believe. And that is all the provision 
 we plead for. No, you say, it is now too late: from 
 their foreseen unbelief the pearl w 7 as not offered for 
 them. The question then comes to this, did the atone- 
 ment render those pardonable indiscriminately who 
 would believe, or only those who it was foreseen would 
 believe ? 
 
 It must never be lost sight of that the satisfaction 
 was in no sense or degree made in secret. We have 
 nothing to do with the hidden purpose of the divine 
 mind, or any private covenant between the Sacred 
 Persons. The whole question turns on the construc- 
 tion to be put upon the public instrument. If in those 
 open transactions and explanations which constituted 
 the whole atonement, and laid before the world the ex- 
 press purpose, it was given out that it was offered for 
 those who should receive faith, then it was offered ab- 
 solutely for the elect and the elect alone. But if it 
 was declared to be offered for the benefit of all indis- 
 criminately who would exercise faith, then it was a pro- 
 vision for a whole world of agents, and its application 
 was suspended on a condition. 
 
 This was manifestly the fact. " To him give all the 
 prophets witness, that through his name whosoever 
 believeth in him shall receive remission of sins." 
 " Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay- 
 down his life for his friends. Ye are my friends if ye 
 do whatsoever I command you." I die a Substitute for 
 you, Peter and John, if ye obey me. " This is the 
 will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the 
 Son and believeth on him, may have everlasting life*" 7 
 
■'268 CONFUSION [part II. 
 
 " Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every 
 one that believeth. 15 " Even the righteousness of God 
 ■which is by faith, of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all 
 them that believe ; for there is no difference, for all 
 have sinnedV 
 
 Now if the atonement was thus conditional as to its 
 application, it could not as a provision be limited to a 
 part, unless the condition w T as to some a natural impos- 
 sibility. For then it could have no other effect on 
 Paul than to secure his pardon when he should believe, 
 and it must secure to all a pardon in case they woidd be- 
 lieve. Here then, (allowing faith not to be a natural 
 impossibility,) is a provision for all as capable agents, 
 and such a provision as gives them all a fair chance* 
 It w r ould be different if they were passive blocks. 
 Here is a feast for all who are found in a certain 
 house. The whole multitude without are able to enter 
 if so disposed. There is then a provision for all in 
 such a sense as to give them all a fair* chance. It 
 would be different if they were chained to the earth. 
 So a bounty given to a seminary to be divided among 
 the scholars who prove diligent, is by the very circum- 
 stance of its conditionally a provision for the whole 
 school as capable agents. 
 
 CHAPTER XT. 
 
 BELIEVER AND UNBELIEVER CONFOUNDED WITH ELECT 
 AND NON-ELECT, AND WITH MAN AS A CAPABLE 
 AGENT. 
 
 When wc say that the atonement was for Simon 
 Magus, we mean that it was a provision for him as a 
 
 * John 6. 40. & 15. 13, 14. Acts 10. 43. Rom. 3. 22, 23. and 10. 4. 
 
CHAP. XI.] OF NAMES. 269 
 
 capable agent. But when our brethren deny that it 
 was for him, they constantly allude to the secret pur- 
 pose of God about its application. And from fasten- 
 ing their eye thus on the secret purpose, which re- 
 spected passive receivers of regenerating influence, 
 they have in a great measure lost sight of man as a ca- 
 pable agent, and reasoned about him as though he had 
 nothing to do with exercising faith, but only with re- 
 ceiving it. Hence they tell us, if the atonement was 
 made to benefit believers and not unbelievers, it was 
 not made for Simon Magus, for he was never to be- 
 lieve. Here again comes out the fault of the whole 
 system. It was not a provision for him as a capable 
 agent, because it was not to benefit one of his character ; 
 entirely burying his agency, and making the character 
 as passively received and as essential to the man as 
 complexion and sex. Had it been for white men and 
 not for black men, or for men and not for women, you 
 might have said of that Ethiopian that it was not for 
 him, or of this female that it was not for her. Or if it 
 had been publicly and avowedly offered for the re- 
 ceivers of faith, and not for the benefit of believers, then 
 you might have said that it was not for Simon Magus, 
 for he was never to receive faith. But, if it was publicly 
 offered for the use of all indiscriminately who as agents 
 would believe, and Simon was not a dead mass of mat- 
 ter, but endowed with natural ability to believe, then 
 it was a complete provision for him as a capable agent. 
 And then unbelief was not essential to him, like mind 
 itself, but was a character which he had assumed on his 
 own responsibility. The man will be charged with an 
 atonement which was never made to benefit the unbe- 
 liever. But our brethren first sink the man in the un- 
 believer, and then make the unbeliever the mere non- 
 recipient of faith. 
 
 Z 2 
 
270 CONFUSION [PART H. 
 
 And when they have thus annihilated human agen- 
 cy, and set men before them as mere passive receivers 
 or non-receivers of faith, then they proceed with per- 
 fect consistency and say; if the atonement was made 
 to benefit believers and not unbelievers, it was not 
 made for the non- elect, for they will never believe. 
 Here they get unbelievers and non-elect confounded. 
 Now believer and unbeliever denote agents of certain 
 characters, but elect and non-elect are terms of passive 
 import, like chosen and rejected, and denote men pas- 
 sively appointed to receive or not to receive regene- 
 rating influence. But in arriving at this point they 
 make no new mistake. When they have set men be- 
 fore them, not as those who are to exercise faith, but 
 as those who are to receive it. and make them entirely 
 passive in their faith and unbelief, it is no matter 
 whether they exclude them as unbelievers, or as men 
 passively appointed to be non-recipients of faith. 
 Had the atonement not been for black men or for wo- 
 men, you might have said that it was not for those who 
 were foreordained to that complexion or sex : that is, 
 you might have affirmed the same thing of them as ap- 
 pointed to such a distinction, that you wou Id assert of them 
 as actually possessing it, because in the appointment 
 and the possession they are equally passive. So if men 
 were as passive in their unbelief as they are in their 
 non-election, you might affirm the same thing of them 
 as non-elect that you do of them as unbelievers. But 
 now to confound these terms, is to bury up their agency 
 in rejecting the Gospel, and utterly to change the 
 principles of the divine administration. Because men 
 are denied the benefits of the atonement as unbelievers, 
 you exclude them as non-elect. But to debar them as 
 non-elect, is to cut them ofT without their own fault ; 
 to shut them out as unbelievers, is to make their own 
 
G-IIAP. XI.] OF NAMES. 271 
 
 sinful rejection of the Gospel the ground of their ex- 
 elusion. In short this confounding of unbelievers and 
 non-elect completely overlooks the agency of men, 
 and brings into use such a language as would befit 
 them if they were mere machines. 
 
 And yet this very practice gives to our brethren al- 
 most all the texts which even have the semblance of 
 supporting their cause, and it appears also in a num- 
 ber of their terms and popular arguments. Thus be- 
 cause Christ laid " down his life for his frien ds" they 
 infer that he died only for the elect. " If a man pay 
 a ransom price to redeem his own friends from captivi- 
 ty, however great the price, or however many others 
 may be in captivity, yet when it is inquired, for whom 
 was the price paid ? the answer is, for his friends whom 
 he designed to redeem." But if the atonement of 
 Christ was to benefit all who would be his friends, it 
 was a provision for all as capable agents, for no natu- 
 ral inability, and nothing but a blamable temper, pre- 
 vents any from being his friends. In the same manner 
 whatever is said of the Church, (." the general assem- 
 bly" of heirs, the people who "in the dispensation of 
 the fulness of times" are gathered " together in one — 
 in Christ," the body with its living members compact- 
 ed together and drawing present life from the Head, 
 the bride already married to Christ by a voluntary co- 
 venant*,) they apply unqualifiedly to the elect. But 
 though in one or two places the body of believers, un- 
 der the name of the Church, are spoken of with special 
 reference to their antecedent election, and to their re- 
 demption from sin by the larger ransom, yet the unre- 
 generate elect are never comprehended under the name 
 of Church. Thus too whatever is said of the sheep, 
 (the flock, by whose footsteps believers are exhorted 
 
 * Eph. 1. 10, 22, 23. and 4. 16. Heb. 12. 23. Rev. 21. 9, 
 
272 CONFUSION [part Ii. 
 
 to go forth, who are under the sensible care of the 
 good Shepherd, and are led by him into " green pas- 
 tures" and " beside the still waters," who know him, 
 and hear his voice, and follow him, and will stand on 
 his right hand to receive a gracious reward*,) they ap- 
 ply to the elect as such, merely because once by way 
 of anticipation Christ calls the unregenerate elect his 
 sheept. And they reason about the sheep and goats as 
 
 * Ps. 23. Cant 1. 7, 8. Mat. 25. 33. John 10. 14, 27. 
 
 t John 10. 16. In this chapter Christ sets before him the sheep as 
 a flock already gathered and under his care ; and in what he says about 
 laying down his life for them, lie alludes to the fidelity of a shepherd in 
 exposing his life to defend his flock, actually assembLd around him, from 
 beasts of prey. " The good shepherd giveth his life for the sheep. Bui 
 he that is a hireling and not the shepherd, whose own the sheep are not, 
 seeth the wolf coming and leaveth the sheep and fleeth, and the wolf 
 catcheth them and scattereth the sheep. The hireling fleeth because 
 he is a hireling and careth not for the sheep. I am the good Shepherd, 
 and know my sheep, and am known of mine. — My sheep hear my voiee, 
 and I know them, and they follow wie." He had begun the discourse by 
 saying, "He, [that pastor in the Church,] th.n entereth in by the door, 
 [Christ is the door, ver. 7, 9.] is the shepherd of the sheep, [of the 
 church, or body of believers.] To him the porter openeth, and the 
 sheep, [believers,] hear his voice ; and he calieth his own -beep by 
 name £>nd leadelh them out, [from other sheep who are false professors, j 
 And when he putteth forth his own sheep he goeth before them, [in a 
 way of holy example and instruction,] and the sheep fellow him, [in a 
 life of holiness;] for they know his voice. And a stranger will they 
 not follow, but will flee from him; for they know not the voire of 
 strangers. — All that ever came before me are thieves and robbers ; but 
 the sheep did not hear them." In all this he meant nothing by sheep 
 but members of the visible Church, and except one allusion to false 
 professors, true believers. He then changes the figure, and from the 
 door through which the under shepherds enter, he becomes the Shepherd 
 himself: but still the primary meaning of sheep is believers. When he 
 calls the elect Gentiles his sheep, it is plainly by anticipation; but 
 when he speaks of laying down his life for his sheep, he means for the 
 gathered and existing flock, such a flock as a hireling Jewish pastor 
 would abandon to the wolves. This was accomplished when it was 
 said, " Awake, O sword, against my Shepherd." But who at that time 
 were the flock? the unregenerate elect or believers? It is added, 
 " Smite the Shepherd and the sheep shall bescattered." This, we are 
 
CHAP. XI.] OF NAMES. 273 
 
 though these terms denoted the elect and non-elect, 
 when in fact, with the single exception already noticed, 
 they uniformly stand for the good and bad*. In the 
 same way they make the seed of the serpent to mean 
 the non-elect, and argue that the Seed of the woman 
 would not die for the seed of the serpent ; as though 
 the elect themselves were not the seed of the serpent 
 while continuing to possess the spirit of the serpent. 
 In the same way they make the people of God to be sy- 
 nonymous with elect. " For whom Christ offered him- 
 self as a sacrifice, for the same does he intercede ; (for 
 his priestly office is not performed for any by halves :) 
 but he intercedes, it is agreed, for none but his own 
 people : therefore he died for none but his own peo- 
 ple." " He intercedes, it is agreed, for none but his 
 own people !" But who are his own people ? Not the 
 elect as such, not the unconverted elect, but believers. 
 
 * Unless John 10. 26. is an exception. 
 
 expressly told, was fulfilled whe ) the twelve disciples forsook him and 
 fled*. In another place by the sne-^p which he came to save he plainly 
 me-ns believers, viewed with reference to rheir lost condition as sin- 
 ners. "Take heed that ye desp'se not one of these little ones. — For 
 the Son of man is come to save that which was lost. How think ye ? 
 if a man have a hundred sheep, and one of them be gone astray, doth 
 he not leave the ninety and nine, and goeth into the mountains, and 
 seeketh that which is gone astray ? And if so be that he find it, veri- 
 ly I say unto you, he rejoiceth more of that sheep than of the ninety 
 and nine which went not astray. Even so it is not the will of your 
 Father which is in heaven that one of these little ones should perisht." 
 On another occasion he gave a similar representation to justify himself 
 in associating with publicans and sinners, who, with Matthew at their 
 head, flocked to catch the word of life from his lipsi. But notwith- 
 standing all this evidence that by the sheep for which he laid down his 
 life he meant believers, I have admitted that in the assertion he glan- 
 ced at the previous election of those believers, and at the special refer- 
 ence which he had to them as his reward. 
 
 * Zech. 13. 7. Mat. 26. 31. 1 Mat. 18. 10—14. $ Luke 15. 
 
 with chap. 5. 27—32. 
 
274 CONFUSION [part II. 
 
 " In the place where it was said unto them, ye are not 
 my people, there it shall be said unto them, ye are the 
 sons of the living God." " I will call them my peo- 
 ple which were not my people, and her beloved which 
 was not beloved*." If by this exclusive interces- 
 sion you mean that Christ pleads for the pardon and 
 acceptance of none but believers, we agree ; but what 
 is this to the purpose ? We never thought that he died 
 to procure the pardon and acceptance of any but be- 
 lievers. I suppose that the intercession of Christ is 
 the silent plea or influence of his expiation and merit, 
 (for it is not limited to pardont ;) and that of course 
 it is just so far offered for all as his expiation and me- 
 rit affect all. He intercedes then that millions who are 
 never saved may have a day of probation, and the of- 
 fer of life, and the common and convicting influences 
 of the Spirit. He intercedes that all indiscriminately 
 may be saved who will believe, offering thus his effect- 
 ual intercession to all, and making it to all a complete 
 provision for moral agents. "He is able — to save 
 them to the uttermost who come unto God by him, see- 
 ing he ever liveth to make intercession for themj." 
 He intercedes that the elect may have the gift of faith : 
 and when as agents they believe, he employs for them 
 that full intercession which he offers to others. After 
 the same manner when the sacred writers say that 
 Christ atoned for them, our brethren will always have 
 it that they speak of themselves as elect, and not as 
 moral agents and believers. But this is assumed with- 
 out a particle of proof. In this way it is that they find 
 an atonement which accomplishes reconciliation. They 
 hear the apostles say that they and other believers had 
 been saved from wrath by the blood of Christ, mean - 
 
 • Hos, 1. 10. Rom. 9. 25, 26. * John 17. % Heli. 7. II 
 
^HAP. XI.] OF NAMES. 275 
 
 ing that as believers they had been pardoned on the 
 ground of the atonement; and they at once conclude that 
 all this is said of them as elect, and that of course the 
 atonement reconciles all for whom it was offered. 
 
 In this way it is that they discover in the Scriptures so 
 many appearances of a limited atonement. Take 
 away those texts which speak of believers, and they 
 will be surprised to find how few remain which glance 
 at any special reference to the elect. The whole of 
 this number which I have been able to discover, after 
 examining the collection made by the Synod of Dort, 
 were presented in a former chapter ; and they express 
 either the power of the larger ransom, or the reference 
 of Christ to the elect as his reward. Not one of them 
 touches the question now in debate. I have been 
 struck with the fact that in an ingenious treatise lately 
 written to prove a limited atonement, when the author 
 came to produce his direct texts, in the form of a dis- 
 tinct argument, he quoted but these two : " I lay down 
 my life for the sheep," and, " The Church — which he 
 hath purchased with his own blood ;" two texts of 
 which, (if they are not limited to believers,) the former 
 expresses the special reference of Christ to the elect 
 as his reward, and the latter the power of the larger 
 ransom. For the rest the author chiefly relies on 
 election, foreknowledge, the secret purpose of God, 
 and the limitation of the larger ransom ; neither of 
 which is denied, or has any thing to do with the present 
 question. 
 
276. LOVE EXPRESSED [PART II. 
 
 CHAPTER XII. 
 
 THE TREATMENT OF AGENTS BY ITSELF EXPRESSES 
 DIVINE BENEVOLENCE. 
 
 God feels a benevolence towards all his creatures, 
 even towards those whom he never sanctifies. That 
 is, he does not delight in their misery, but delights in 
 their happiness as a thing in itself agreeable, and 
 would never sacrifice their happiness but to promote 
 a higher good. This benevolence towards the un- 
 sanctioned he is able to express otherwise than in 
 words, or he is not. If not, he can never bring any 
 proof of its existence, except what depends on his 
 treatment of the sanctified. If he can express this be- 
 nevolence in actions, it must be by the mere treatment 
 of agents. 
 
 And this is the fact. Those measures which are 
 calculated to promote the happiness of creatures if 
 they will do their duty, do really express his be- 
 nevolence towards them, though never attended with 
 sanctifying influence. That foundation in moral 
 agents which gives to the measures this expression, is 
 their capacity to use them for their good, or what we 
 call their natural ability. For if they had no more 
 power to derive happiness from them than stocks, the 
 treatment, so far from being an expression of benevo- 
 lence, would be a mockery. But with that power, all 
 those provisions and mercies, all that display of light, 
 and motives, and long-suffering, which are calculated 
 to promote their happiness if they will do their duty, 
 are indications of that common benevolence which 
 God feels towards all. If they are no indications 
 without sanctifying influence, any more than if men 
 
CHAP. Xfl.] WITHOUT SANCTIFICATION. 277 
 
 were blocks, what becomes of the capacity on which 
 all their obligations are grounded ? It is plainly no 
 adequate foundation to support any of the measures of 
 a moral government ; and those measures without the 
 Spirit are as unsuited to men as to the beasts of the 
 field or the clods of the valley. 
 
 Now apply this to the atonement. By such a pro- 
 vision for those who eventually perish, God puts re- 
 mission within the reach of their natural power, and 
 lays them under reasonable obligations to live, and 
 fastens the blame of their destruction on themselves, 
 and wipes off the charge of forcing them to death 
 against their will. And all this he instructs us to be- 
 lieve is a genuine expression of benevolence towards 
 them, and if he is sincere it really is. If any thing 
 which he can do can indicate his philanthropy to- 
 wards them, what more than making, at so vast an ex- 
 pense, such a provision for their pardon that nothing 
 but their own distinct and voluntary agency can work 
 their ruin ? Any thing analogous to this in human 
 affairs would certainly be indicative of love ; and God 
 has no way to discover his feelings towards the per- 
 sons of the unsanctified but by conduct according with 
 the manner of men. If his foreknowledge or failure 
 to sanctify must silence that expression, there is no 
 way in which he can act out the real temper of his 
 heart towards the persons of those who perish. How 
 then came we by the knowledge that such a temper 
 exists ? 
 
 This provision for the finally impenitent, he himself 
 teaches us to believe, makes the same expression of 
 character as though he had no foreknowledge or domi- 
 nion over the mind. And if we find any difficulty in 
 viewing it apart, and giving full credit to the discove- 
 ries which it separately makes, we ought to put it 
 
 2 A 
 
278 LOVE EXPRESSED [PART JJ. 
 
 down to the weakness of our apprehensions, to the 
 incapacity of a finite mind to comprehend the Infinite, 
 on whom it devolves not only to govern the universe 
 by law and motives, but to form the dispositions of his 
 creatures. But certainly it was his intention to make 
 an impression on us that he is in all respects what he 
 appears in a moral government to be. Certain it is 
 that when he provided an atonement which all might 
 have for accepting, and which all had natural ability 
 and were under obligations to accept, he intended to 
 make an impression on us of his real benevolence to- 
 wards the whole human race. What does he plainly 
 say ? " God so loved the world that he gave his only 
 begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should 
 not perish but have everlasting life. For God sent 
 not his Son into the world to condemn the world, but 
 that the world through him might be saved." " Not 
 willing that any should perish, but that all should 
 come to repentance." u Who will have all men to 
 be saved and to come unto the knowledge of the 
 truth." "As I live — I have no pleasure in the death 
 of the wicked, but that the wicked turn from his way 
 and live." " How often would I have gathered thy 
 children together, even as a hen gathereth her chick- 
 ens under her wings, and ye would not." " O that they 
 were wise, that they understood this, that they would 
 consider their latter end* !" If by fastening our eyes 
 on foreknowledge, and election, and the passiveness of 
 men, we get confused and lose somewhat of the ex- 
 pression which the atonement really makes, yet with- 
 out the most blasphemous imputations we cannot doubt 
 that these declarations of the Moral Governour ex- 
 plain the genuine feelings of his heart. We may be as- 
 
 * Deut. 32.29. Ezek,. 33. 11. Mat. 23. 37. John. *. JG, 17. 1 Tim. 
 .2, 4. 2 Pet. 3. 9. 
 
CHAP. XII.] WITHOUT SANCTIFICATION. 279 
 
 sured that we convey right ideas of him when we say, 
 that his exertions for the salvation of the wicked Is- 
 raelites proceeded from unfeigned love. What does 
 he tell us himself? "In all their affliction he was 
 afflicted, and the Angel of his presence saved them ; in 
 his love and in his pity he redeemed them, and he bore 
 them and carried them all the days of old. But they 
 rebelled and vexed his Holy Spirit ; therefore he was 
 turned to be their enemy and fought against them." 
 " 1 removed his shoulder from the burden, his hands 
 were delivered from the pots. Thou calledst in trou- 
 ble and I delivered thee, I answered thee in the secret 
 place of thunder, I proved thee at the waters of Meri- 
 bah. — But my people would not hearken to my 
 voice, and Israel would none of me. So I gave them up 
 unto their own hearts' lust, and they walked in their own 
 counsels. O that my people had hearkened unto me, 
 and Israel had walked in my ways ! I should soon have 
 subdued their enemies, and turned my baud against 
 their adversaries*." We may be assured that we 
 convey right ideas of him when we say that he sent 
 the Gospel to the inhabitants of Capernaum for their 
 good, as an act of unfeigned mercy, and from perfect 
 good will to them. The whole ministry of Christ to 
 that city was evidently intended to make this impres- 
 sion. And what was the meaning of his tears over 
 Jerusalem ? Did they discover no interest in the hap- 
 piness of its inhabitants ? 
 
 But it is flatly denied that the death of Christ was 
 any expression of benevolence to the non-elect ; and 
 the Church has heard the affecting denial. " What 
 induced him to die for these, seeing he had passed 
 them, and in the language of Scripture hated them ? If 
 $e died for them, he either had a motive or not. If he 
 
 * Ps. 81. 6—14. Isai. 63, 9, 10. 
 
280 LOVE EXPRESSED [PART II, 
 
 had, what was it? Not any peculiar love, for this he 
 entertained not. Was it from some general affection to 
 them as creatures ? but they had forfeited all regard 
 from the Creator." This distressing suggestion by 
 fair implication goes all the way of affirming that no- 
 thing which God can do is expressive of benevolence 
 to those whom he fails to sanctify; that all the boun- 
 ties and efforts of heaven are no indications of mercy 
 or goodness while men are bent on their own destruc- 
 tion ; that neither the creation nor preservation of the 
 non-elect, neither temporal blessings nor the means of 
 grace, are any tokens of good will to them ; in short 
 that God has no benevolence towards them, not even 
 a " general affection to them as creatures." And have 
 we come to this ! that some of the rational creatures 
 of God are excluded from his benevolence ! What feel- 
 ings then has he towards them ? Is it absolute indiffer- 
 ence ? or is it malice ? But God's professions are far 
 differ*^ ^ distinctly c | a ;- ; *e praise of benevo- 
 lence for his common mercies to the evil and unthank- 
 ful, and in these acts sets himself forth as an example 
 of genuine love to enemies. "Love your enemies. — 
 that ye may be the children of your Father which is 
 in heaven, for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and 
 on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the 
 unjust." " The Lord is good to alt, and his tender 
 mercies are over all his works." " Despisest thou the 
 riches of his goodness, and forbearance, and long-suf- 
 fering, not knowing that the goodness of God leadeth 
 thee to repentance ?" Before " all nations," even 
 while they were left " to walk in their own ways," " he 
 left not himself without witness, in that he did good 
 and gave" them " rain from heaven and fruitful sea- 
 sons, filling" their " hearts with food and gladness*." 
 
 * Ps. 145; 9. Mat, 5. 44, 45. Acts 14. 16,. 17. Rom. 2. 4. 
 
«?HAP. XIII.] WITHOUT SANOTIFICATI0N. 281 
 
 But all this upon your plan is a delusive show, and the 
 bounties of God to the heathen discovered only his ex- 
 istence and power, which alone could not render them 
 " without excuse." 
 
 According to this alarming principle the non-elect 
 have no reason but ignorance of their own reproba- 
 tion to thank God for any thing he has ever done ; 
 and when they awake in hell they will never again 
 accuse themselves of ingratitude to eternity. And yet 
 unthankfulness is numbered among their worst sins*. 
 In short the pernicious influence of this sentiment is to 
 persuade all men, in proportion as they waver about 
 their own election, to doubt whether they have any 
 cause to thank God for their existence or for one of 
 all his mercies. And what must be the tendency of 
 such a doctrine, no one, I should think, could doubt. 
 
 In opposition to all this I plead that the death of 
 Christ, so far as it is known, lays the whole human 
 race under obligations to gratitude, not founded on any 
 opinion which they may form of their own election, or 
 on the darkness which may hang around that question, 
 but on a vast, and obvious, and common benefit, 
 strongly marked with benevolence to the race at large ; 
 that every man, without waiting to ascertain his future 
 destiny, is bound to bless God " for his unspeakable 
 gift," and to acknowledge the greatness of the love in 
 relation to himself. 
 
 — ^^^ — 
 CHAPTER XIII. 
 
 THE PURPOSES OF THE MORAL GOVERNOUR NOT TO BE 
 CONFOUNDED WITH THOSE OF THE SOVEREIGN EFFI- 
 CIENT CAUSE. 
 
 What then, has God two minds ? No, but he acts in 
 two characters, founded on the two relations of men ; 
 
 * 2 Tim. 3. % 
 
 2 A 2 
 
982 DESIGNS OF GOD IN [PART II. 
 
 two characters in most respects independent of each 
 other, because the two relations of men are equally in- 
 dependent ; two characters, as far as they are inde- 
 pendent, just as distinct as though they belonged to 
 two separate beings : and you may speak of the de- 
 signs of the Moral Governour and the designs of the 
 Sovereign Efficient Cause as distinctly as though they 
 ware the counsels of two minds ; and in many respects 
 you must speak so or not express the truth in intelli- 
 gible language. 
 
 If the treatment of agents by itself expresses the 
 divine benevolence, then you must speak of God in 
 that character in which he stands related to agents, as 
 constructing his measures ybr their good: for to say 
 that a measure is not constructed for their good, and 
 yet that it expresses benevolence towards tbem, is a 
 contradiction according to all the language established 
 and understood in the world. And if we must say of 
 the Moral Governour, (without reference to election or 
 regeneration, which lie out of his sphere,) that he con- 
 structs his measures for their good, then we must say 
 that he designs them for their good. In all other cases 
 known to men, the unqualified design of the agent is 
 necessary to the benevolent expression of the action : 
 and without the ascription of such a design to the Mo- 
 ral Governour, there is no conveying to the multitude 
 the idea, and turning over the idea in all its familiar 
 forms, that the measures express his benevolence. 
 "We must therefore make the ascription, without any 
 misgivings on account of foreknowledge or election, 
 or we have no way to affirm intelligibly and familiarly 
 of any measure unaccompanied by sanctification, that 
 it expresses the benevolence of God. 
 
 It answers an important end for God to appear be- 
 fore his creatures in a character which stands related 
 
CHAP. XIII.] DIFFERENT CHARACTERS. 283 
 
 to agents, and to speak of himself, and allow his crea- 
 tures to speak of him, in a form which would express 
 the benevolence of a temporal prince who had no con- 
 trol over the minds of his subjects but by motives, and 
 in that character to say, u O that they were wise!" 
 and, " Turn ye, for why will ye die ?" It gives him an 
 opportunity to express towards millions a benevolence 
 which otherwise would not be revealed, and to treat 
 his creatures according to their rational nature. And 
 there is no deception in the case. The Being who sus- 
 tains this character means not to say that he does not 
 support another in which he can control the heart, or 
 that the Divine Mind is really disappointed. He takes 
 abundant care to guard against this mistake. He only 
 means to express his benevolence by a language and 
 measures fitted to moral agents. And it is of infinite 
 importance that he should have full credit for all the 
 exhibitions made in this character. But the moment 
 you deny to the Moral Governour all purpose of mer- 
 cy towards the unsanctified, (though at infinite expense 
 he has put life within their reach, and exhausted argu- 
 ments to persuade them to live,) you annihilate the 
 whole expression of benevolence made in the pure 
 treatment of agents, and cover up one of the depart- 
 ments in which God has chosen to manifest himself. 
 
 By denying to the Moral Governour such a benevo- 
 lent aim, and confounding his designs with those of the 
 Sovereign Efficient Cause,, you would spread confusion 
 through every part of the divine administration, and bring 
 upon God and the language he employs charges which 
 I tremble to name. You might construct propositions 
 upon this principle which would amount to impeach- 
 ment and blasphemy, and impute to God a character 
 more baleful and disastrous than that of Satan. In this 
 way you would denounce one half of his administra- 
 
284 DESIGNS OF GOD ISf [PART IK. 
 
 tion as a farce. You would contradict the sincerity 
 of his offers to the non-elect, and even bring upon him 
 the horrid charge of making them to be damned. The 
 Sovereign Efficient Cause, it is admitted, had no 
 thought of mercy towards them, no purpose to answer 
 by them in the world : and if the Moral Governour is 
 not allowed to have any benevolent designs concerning 
 them, for what purpose were they created ? No one 
 has any thing to do with them in a way of favour ; 
 were they made solely to be damned ? And as to the 
 insincerity of the offer, you present God as saying, 
 " Turn ye, for why will ye die ?" and " O that they 
 were wise !" while in no character has he any thought 
 or desire of mercy towards them. But separate the 
 Moral Governour from the Sovereign Efficient Cause, 
 and allow him to express his benevolence in that in- 
 dependent character in which he has nothing to em- 
 ploy but motives, and all is plain. 
 
 I dare not therefore say of God unqualifiedly that he 
 had no purpose of mercy towards the non-elect. Such 
 language, I am persuaded, conveys wrong ideas of him, 
 and contradicts that expression of benevolence which 
 the measures of his government were intended to make. 
 
 All those measures which are calculated to promote 
 the happiness of creatures indiscriminately, ought to 
 be spoken of as having such an aim, except in rela- 
 tion to those whom the Moral Governour himself has 
 publicly sentenced to judicial blindness or shut up in 
 hell. Of the former class we have a right to say, that 
 he bears long with them on purpose " to show his 
 wrath and make his power known," in their more ag- 
 gravated destruction*. But to impute to God such a 
 design in sending the Gospel to men merely because 
 they are non-elect, would be a dangerous falsehood, 
 
 * Rom. 0. 22. with Is. 6. 10. 
 
CHAP. XIII.] DIFFERENT CHARACTERS. 2Q5 
 
 calculated to hide one half of the exhibitions which 
 he makes of himself in the Gospel. Our brethren 
 reason as though all the non-elect were given over to 
 judicial blindness ; whereas this abandonment is the 
 act of the Moral Governour, who himself, so to speak, 
 knows not a non-elect person on earth. 
 
 And now to show you what has called for these re- 
 marks, I present the following. " Can it be said with 
 reason that Christ when he hung on the cross poured 
 out his life and his soul for those whom he never in- 
 tended to save ? Here Arminians, and even Luther- 
 ans and Baxterians, have a subterfuge. They say it 
 was the will of God to save all men. But those with 
 whom we now contend agree that his purpose was to 
 save the elect only, and they reject the distinction of 
 antecedent and consequent will ; and therefore to them 
 there is no evasion. — If he died for those whom he 
 had no intention to save, it is incumbent on those who 
 maintain the opinion to point out for what end. No 
 wise agent performs an important work without hav- 
 ing an important end in view. Let them tell us then 
 what was the end of Christ in dvine for those whom 
 he had no intention of saving." 
 
 The writer was not sufficiently acquainted with the 
 opinions of those with whom he had to " contend." 
 We do not indeed say of God in his whole character 
 that it was his purpose to save all men. Neither do 
 we explain any difficulties by resorting to an antece- 
 dent and consequent will. We admit that the Sove- 
 reign Efficient Cause absolutely decreed the charac- 
 ters of men, so far as whether he would make them 
 holy or leave them to themselves. But we think that 
 all these difficulties which have perplexed the Church 
 in consequence of viewing God in a single character, 
 may easily be solved by contemplating him in two. 
 
286 THE EMISSION OP [PART II. 
 
 While we do not say of the Sovereign Efficient Cause 
 that he suspended any thing on the conduct of men, or 
 had the least reference to that conduct in one of his 
 decisions, (because his decrees and acts terminate 
 upon men as purely passive ;) we scruple not to attri- 
 bute to the Moral Governour all the aims which the 
 measures of his government are calculated to accom- 
 plish. We readily yield to the Sovereign Efficient 
 Cause every thing that the highest Calvinist ever did, 
 and none the less ascribe to the Moral Governour 
 every thing, as relates to the present subject, that an 
 Arminian ever cfid. In particular we find no difficulty 
 in saying of the Ruler of agents, that he wills the sal- 
 vation of all to whom the Gospel is sent. And we un- 
 derstand Peter and Paul as speaking of God in the 
 same character, and meaning the same thing, when 
 they say of him that he u will have all men to be saved 
 and to come unto the knowledge of the truth j" " not 
 willing that any should perish, but that all should 
 come to repentance*." We dare not therefore say of 
 him who provided the atonement, (for that was the 
 Moral Governour alone,) that he had no intention to 
 benefit the non-elect, nor do we generally speak of 
 him as even knowing such a class of men. 
 
 ♦♦<* 
 
 CHAPTER XIV. 
 
 THE TREATMENT OF INDIVIDUAL AGENTS INTENDED 
 TO INFLUENCE AGENTS GENERALLY. 
 
 The question often arises, why all this labour and 
 expense to exert upon creatures the dominion of mo< 
 
 -r 1 Tim. 2.4. 2£et. 3. 9. 
 
GHAP. XIV.] MOTIVES A GREAT END. 287 
 
 tives, when without motives God could sway them by 
 his power as he pleases ? But without motives he 
 could not sway them to rational action, nor furnish 
 them with rational enjoyment. He could not sway 
 them to any action, nor furnish them with any enjoy- 
 ment. The maniac, the beast, the worm, is governed 
 by motives. The moment you pass the empire of mo- 
 tives you are among insensible objects. The sway of 
 which you speak must be supported by impressions 
 on insensitive machines. There is no way to secure 
 holy order and happiness but by motives fitted t© 
 awaken the best affections and the purest joy. Sanc- 
 tifying pow T er without these would produce no more 
 than it did on the infant Jeremiah and John. While 
 yon speak of a sway by main strength without motives, 
 what sense in talking of the anarchy which would 
 have resulted from giving up the law by pardoning 
 without an atonement ? What need of an atonement 
 or a law when motives are no longer needed ? The 
 only benefit of either is in the motives which they 
 present. 
 
 To fill the universe with motives then is the great 
 point. The more those which prompt to love, obe- 
 dience, gratitude, joy, and praise, are spread, the 
 richer and happier the universe is. A God of bene- 
 volence could not therefore but wish to bring forth all 
 those motives which his own infinite perfection could 
 furnish, all that could appear from a full exposition of 
 the reasonableness of his claims and his unmingled 
 benevolence, all that could appeal to the reason, the 
 conscience, the hopes, the fears, or the ingenuousness 
 of creatures. 
 
 This is the end for which all the manifestations of God 
 have been made. If he exerts authority, it is to fur- 
 nish motives to creatures. If he instructs, invites. 
 
288 THE EMISSION OP [PART II. 
 
 promises, or threatens, it is with no other view. What- 
 ever direct e.id any measure may have, its ultimate end 
 is this. God glorified is the universe filled with mo- 
 tives, drawn from himself and prompting creatures to 
 love, joy, and praise. 
 
 Now these motives are chiefly derived from the pure 
 treatment of moral agents. By reverting to the chap- 
 ter on a moral government, it will be seen how vast a 
 proportion of the divine manifestations are made in 
 this separate department. 
 
 The treatment of agents by itself is therefore a sys- 
 tem of incalculable importance. That general treat- 
 ment which is bottomed on their capacity, and would 
 have no meaning without it ; which assumes at every 
 step that they have natural ability to act without the 
 Spirit, and is in truth the same as though they were 
 independent ; which comprehends all the instructions 
 given, all the authority employed, all the obligations 
 imposed, all the motives presented, all the provisions 
 made, all the invitations offered, all the long-suffering 
 exercised, all the guilt charged, all the rewards con- 
 ferred ; this system, separate from the sovereign ope- 
 rations of the Spirit, is of immeasurable importance. 
 Laying out of account the direct ends which the mea- 
 sures are calculated to accomplish, the system as a 
 whole is of unspeakable importance as a mere source 
 of motives* 
 
 Considered in this light, and not barely as expres- 
 sive of direct benevolence towards the objects con- 
 cerned, the system is one which God has been at infi- 
 nite expense to perfect. If to give machines a right 
 direction by blind impressions was enough, and it was 
 not important to support the dominion of motives over 
 the reason and conscience of creatures, (an empire al- 
 together distinct from the exertions of sovereign power 
 
CHAP. XIV.j MOTIVES A GREAT END. 289 
 
 upon the mind.) why the penalty of the law ? and why 
 the infinite expense incurred on Calvary and in hell ? 
 
 But it must never be supposed that the Moral Go- 
 vernour intends, to draw motives from measures which 
 hold out a false show. It is because they are what 
 they profess to be, that they are real exhibitions of 
 God and fitted to influence creatures. 
 
 Thus we find the Moral Governour pursuing a sys- 
 tem of measures unfeignedly expressive of benevo- 
 lence towards all whom they are adapted to serve, and 
 entitled to be spoken of as aimed at their good- And 
 this he does, not only with a direct view to the imme- 
 diate end which the measures are calculated to accom- 
 plish, (at least in human language it must be so ex- 
 pressed,) but for the purpose of sending out motives to 
 affect moral agents generally. It is with this emission 
 of motives that we are now concerned. 
 
 Here we must fasten our eyes on the Moral Govern- 
 our alone, and think and speak of him as presenting 
 the motives in every instance from direct benevolence 
 to the person concerned, and with a sincere aim at 
 his good, (as the thing must be expressed in human 
 language,) except in reference to those whom he him- 
 self has already given over to judicial blindness or to 
 punishment. The array of motives is as directly cal- 
 culated for the happiness of all to whom they are pro- 
 fessedly addressed, as the "rain from heaven and 
 fruitful seasons." The latter may be abused, and so 
 may the former. But while creatures have a capacity 
 to improve the blessing, it is certainly calculated for 
 their good, and ought to be spoken of as aimed at 
 their happiness. Any thing analogous to this between 
 man and man would be called seeking the happiness 
 of those concerned : and it would be so called m 
 the government of God were it not for his foreknow* 
 2 B 
 
290 THE EMISSION OF [PART IX. 
 
 ledge and control over the mind : and if other truths 
 are not concealed, it may be so called without conveying 
 any false idea of him : and it is so called by " Lutherans 
 and Baxterians," and by the Bible itself; and ought 
 to be so called, because it is in fact as expressive of 
 direct benevolence as what is so denominated among 
 men, and because there is no other way of familiarly 
 expressing this great truth.. 
 
 We must not therefore say of the measures of mercy 
 which relate to the unsanctified, that they are intended 
 to furnish motives for the sole benefit of elect men and 
 angels only, but for the everlasting benefit of the persons 
 concerned, and of all other moral agents through the 
 universe, except those who are already given over to 
 judicial blindness or to punishment. In these matters 
 the Moral Governour knows no creature as elect or 
 non-elect. His subjects lie before him in three classes ; 
 as those who are on probation and unabandoned, as 
 those who are confirmed in holiness and happiness by 
 way of reward, and as those who are sealed or delivered 
 over to punishment. To say in relation to the first 
 class, that the benevolent aim is confined to a part, is 
 to say that their happiness is sought by an insincere 
 treatment of the rest. 
 
 Now then to apply all this to the atonement. The 
 ultimate design of the mediation of Christ was to fill 
 the universe with motives, by bringing out to view the 
 secrets of the Eternal Mind. He came to be " the 
 image of the invisible God," " the face" in which he 
 should be seen, " the word" by which he should be ex- 
 pressed*. 
 
 But the direct end of the atonement, as related to 
 the discoveries of God, was not to reveal the Sove- 
 reign Efficient Cause, but to bring out to view the glo- 
 
 • John 1. 1. 2 Cor. 4. 4, 6. Col. 1. 15. 
 
CHAP. XIV.] MOTIVES A GREAT END. 291 
 
 ries of the Moral Governour. The whole ground of 
 the design lay among the relations subsisting between 
 him and moral agents. It was the difficulties which 
 arose in the favourable treatment of them which gave 
 rise to the august mechanism of the whole plan ; and 
 the change wrought in their relations constituted the 
 whole of the wonderful result. The exhibition to be 
 made of God by the direct operation of this great mea- 
 sure, was in his relations to moral agents and in his 
 treatment of them. This end had no dependance on 
 the sovereign acts of the Spirit. 
 
 "By such a provision for a sinning agent the Moral 
 Xjovernour intended to furnish motives for the everlast- 
 ing benefit of that individual, and of all other rational 
 creatures not already given over to destruction. It 
 would be a great mistake therefore to suppose that the 
 end of an atonement for Peter was limited to the par- 
 don of Peter. Even as Peter himself was concerned, 
 it had the further design to affect him for ever as an 
 exhibition both of awful firmness in supporting the law 
 and of amazing mercy. He was still to remain under 
 moral government and the control of motives. His 
 happiness was not to consist in a release from the re- 
 straints of law, but in living under the dominion of the 
 everlasting King, in seeing all his rights secured, in 
 contemplating his astonishing grace, and in being 
 urged by competent motives ;to unceasing love, obe- 
 dience, and praise. 
 
 But the atonement for Peter had a further end. It 
 was intended, (according to the dialect which it is ne- 
 cessary to use,) favourably and eternally to affect all 
 other moral agents not already given over to destruc- 
 tion. The fundamental principle in which lay the 
 necessity of an atonement was, that not even the elect 
 eould be pardoned unless the whole universe were 
 
292 REASONS FOR THE [PART IK 
 
 made to see that the law was not to be given up. 
 This conviction must be spread that God might still 
 by sufficient motives support his empire over the ra- 
 tional creation : and that empire he wished still fur- 
 ther to strengthen by vast discoveries of his grace. 
 As Ruler of the whole universe, perhaps of more 
 worlds than there are dusts in this, and looking for- 
 ward to an eternal reign, he did not limit his view to 
 the deliverance of a part of Adam's race. When that 
 was done he had just begun his course. He wished 
 to hold out the unchangeable authority of his law, and 
 the infinite benignity of his government, to affect the 
 intelligent universe to eternity). 
 
 — ++~* — 
 
 CHAPTER XV. 
 
 REASONS FOR AN ATONEMENT FOR THOSE WHO PERISH. 
 
 There is a loud call made upon us for these rea- 
 sons. Were we at all straitened for an answer, we 
 might silence the demand by asking, what reasons for 
 the offer to those who perish ? This, you say, is made 
 that God " may do what is agreeable to his own most 
 holy nature, and that it may be made fully to appear 
 how great is the malignity and obstinacy of those 
 whom he punishes." Had we no other reason to give 
 for the provision on which the offer is founded, you 
 ought not to complain. 
 
 But really there was no chance for a limited and 
 absolute atonement without consequences at which we 
 shall all revolt. If the whole provision was made in 
 that open and visible manner which was necessary to 
 give it an operation upon public law, there was no 
 
CHAP. XV.] GENERAL FROVISION, 293 
 
 Way of limiting it but by calling a part of the race by 
 name. This is not all. If it was provided for moral 
 agents, it was not provided for creatures viewed as 
 related to regeneration, for this change is wrought 
 upon passive receivers. By the capacity which moral 
 agents possess, they have in themselves, without the 
 Spirit, a complete foundation for all the' treatment 
 which might be rendered to independent beings, and 
 no less a foundation for merciful than for punitive 
 treatment. Being thus complete entities in them- 
 selves, as distinguished from the passive character, 
 God, if he acts according to truth, will shape and car- 
 ry forward the measures which relate to them without 
 noticing in his outward dispensation the other cha- 
 racter. If then in providing an atonement he must 
 have called a part by name, he must have said to Saul 
 of Tarsus, without any reference to his regeneration, 
 For you, bloody as you are, this atonement is abso- 
 lutely provided, and do what you will you shall never 
 be punished,, Not a word about his repenting or be- 
 lieving, for that would have been a conditional atone- 
 ment. And to Simon Magus he must have said, There 
 is no atonement for you ; and should you. repent, and 
 believe in an atonement for others, still you cannot be 
 pardoned. A limited and absolute atonement pub- 
 licly provided for moral agents, must have divided the 
 race in this way. To the non-elect it would have 
 been the same as to the damned, and to the elect a 
 prostration of all moral government. 
 
 But all this is not giving the reasons. There is no 
 difficulty however in doing this provided God can ex- 
 press his benevolence in the treatment of agents by 
 itself, and we are allowed to ascribe to the Moral 
 Governour. without reference to the Sovereign Effi- 
 cient Cause, a benevolent design. This is really the 
 2JB2 
 
294 REASONS FOR THE [PART II* 
 
 dialect in which we ought to speak of the subject, and 
 the only one which does justice to the God of love. 
 
 In this dialect then 1 shall name two ends, the one 
 immediate and the other ultimate. The immediate 
 end was the pardon of all indiscriminately to whom 
 the Gospel was to be sent ; the ultimate end was to 
 manifest divine grace in this merciful and sincere 
 treatment of a world, and thus to fill the universe with 
 motives for the eternal benefit of all rational creatures 
 not already given over to destruction. 
 
 (1.) The immediate end. In this dialect, in which 
 elect and non-elect are unknown, we must give the 
 same reason for an atonement for Simon Magus as for 
 Peter, to wit, a direct regard to his deliverance from 
 the curse. To neither was it an expression of electing 
 love, (for election lay in another department,) but 
 only of that common benevolence which God feels to- 
 wards all his creatures. There was in this thing as 
 complete an exercise and expression, (for the latter 
 without the former would have been feigned,) of com- 
 mon benevolence to Simon Magus, as there is of ma- 
 ternal feeling where a mother runs to catch a falling 
 infant. There was a difference as to the expected re- 
 sult, because God was omniscient. But his benevo- 
 lence for Simon was as real as the affection of the 
 mother, and this was as natural and unerring a way to 
 express the one as her haste the other. At least he 
 has warned the universe to consider his merciful treat- 
 ment of the wicked as the organ by which his benevo- 
 lence is expressed. No language which is adapted to 
 our finite minds can completely express the Infinite : 
 but in such imperfect language as we possess we must 
 say, if we would express the truth to common appre- 
 hensions, that the Moral Governour 7villed not that 
 Simon M should perish, but that" he " should <K>me to 
 
GHAP. XV.] GENERAL PROVISION. 295 
 
 repentnnce." Tell me then why the mother ran to 
 catch hee falling infant, and I will tell you. ii. language 
 consecrated by the Holy Ghost, why God provided an 
 atonement for Simon. 
 
 Some are for limiting the end of this provision to 
 the ultimate end. But this is saying that the universe 
 were to be instructed and affected by an insincere 
 show of mercy to Simon. This merciful treatment was 
 no more exclusively designed to send out motives to 
 others, than the punitive treatment which he receiv- 
 ed. Both were intended for this end ultimately, but 
 both had an end which immediately respected the 
 subject. There was in him as perfect a foundation to 
 support the privilege of an atonement, as to sustain a 
 punishment for rejecting it. His capacity made it as 
 proper for God to provide the privilege for him, (just 
 as though he was likely to use it without the Spirit,) 
 as for God to punish him for not using it, The mercy 
 then, no less than the punishment, may be contem- 
 plated as lying between God and Simon, and as being 
 expressive of the divine character in its direct aspect 
 upon him. 
 
 (2.) The ultimate end. This was to exhibit God 
 and fill the universe with motives, benevolently in- 
 tended to affect Simon and all other rational creatures 
 not already given over to destruction. 
 
 As the authority of the law was concerned, we have 
 already seen the necessity of a general provision, as 
 without prostrating the law it was impossible to divide 
 the inhabitants of the same world. And as the honour 
 of mercy was respected, a provision for the whole 
 would manifestly do more than a provision for a part. 
 The highest exhibition of this attribute that could be 
 made in the pure treatment of agents, was here to be 
 "brought forth, Over this entire world the Moral Go- 
 
29Q REASONS FOR THE [FART Ih 
 
 vernour wished to extend the sceptre of his grace, and 
 to send out hence a report which should fill other worlds 
 with motives to love and praise him to eternity. The 
 universe itself was to feel the effects of Calvary for 
 ever. 
 
 And now if you ask what was gained by this gene- 
 ral provision, my answer is, it gave that glorious Sove- 
 reign who fills the public throne of the universe, not 
 the cabinet of private decrees, who governs his sub- 
 jects by motives, not by mechanical force, whose bu- 
 siness during a state of probation is to express their 
 duties, not their destinies, to provide privileges, not to 
 constrain their acceptance ; it gave .him an opportunity 
 tocome«out to this entire world with his renovated law, 
 with new favours in his hands, with new claims to the 
 homage and gratitude «of men, with new splendours 
 around his throne, with a sceptre dipt in blood, sure to 
 bring more glory to himself, more confusion to his 
 enemies, and more good to the universe. It gave him 
 a chance to add one proof of his inflexible adherence 
 to his law which no other circumstance could furnish, 
 a practical declaration that transgressors should not 
 escape though his own Son had died for them. It gave 
 him on whom devolves the task of punishing the wick- 
 ed, an opportunity to prove that he does not delight in 
 their misery, to acquit himself in a double sense of their 
 blood, and to make this appeal through heaven, earth, 
 and hell, " What could have been done more to my 
 vineyard that I have not done in it V It gave him a 
 chance to come into contact with subjects in a new re- 
 lation, and such a relation as subjects will never again 
 sustain to eternity, — that of creatures wading to perdi- 
 tion through the blood of Christ expressly shed for 
 their redemption, and a compassionate Sovereign 
 ^landing over them and urging and beseeching them 
 
SHAP. XV. J GENERAL PROVISION. 297 
 
 to live. This exhibition of character, both human 
 and divine, will bring an inconceivable amount of 
 additional lustre to a throne of mercy, as well as to 
 a tribunal of justice. 
 
 The establishment of this more benignant and glo- 
 rious empire over a world of moral agents, became the 
 personal interest of Christ, as the universal govern- 
 ment, and this part among the rest, belonged to his 
 stipulated reward. From the form of the dominion as 
 it appears in his hands, we know that this part was in- 
 cluded in the covenant. Besides a power to quicken 
 whom he will, he holds a beneficent empire over a 
 world of moral agents, founding his claims on their 
 capacity, and treating them indiscriminately as under 
 a dispensation of grace. Had we no other evidence 
 of this, the second and third chapters of Revelation 
 would furnish enough. As surely then as he was in- 
 fluenced by " the joy that was set before him," the 
 erection of this dominion was one of the motives which 
 urged him to the cross, * 
 
 We must not therefore suppose that the salvation of 
 the elect was the sole reward or motive of Christ. 
 This new relation of a world of moral agents, and the 
 administration of a benign government over the whole f 
 are two items which must be added to the account. 
 
 But does this addition diminish the believer's com- 
 fort ? It is so said. " This doctrine of a general atone- 
 ment takes away from the true believer one of the 
 most interesting and edifying views of this event which 
 can be presented to him. When he contemplates the 
 death of Christ, he beholds the most striking and 
 affecting manifestation of the peculiar love of God to 
 him. But if the atonement be as much for those who 
 are reprobates as for him, how is it an evidence of any 
 great or special lo\e ? It is no ground of consolation 
 
298 GENERAL PROVISION [PART II* 
 
 to know that Christ loved me and gave himself forme, 
 because the reprobate may know the same." Per- 
 petually confounding the atonement with the higher 
 ransom. We acknowledge that Christ " gave him- 
 self" in a peculiar sense for the elect, and obtained 
 their salvation as the reward of that active virtue. And 
 there is on our plan undiminished reason for all those 
 grateful and triumphant feelings which an Owen was 
 so zealous to cherish. But is the death of Christ " no 
 consolation" to me because he atoned for others ? Am 
 I so bent on monopolizing the whole influence to my- 
 self? And is it " no consolation" that he has thrown 
 around his Father's sceptre a splendour of mercy which 
 sends its radiance even to the gates of hell ? 
 
 CHAPTER XVI. 
 
 THE EXTENT OF THE PROVISION NOT INCIDENTAL BUT 
 PURPOSELY INTENDED. 
 
 Some have said that the influence of the atonement 
 upon the non-elect was merely casual, and arose from 
 their living in the same world, and under the same law, 
 and possessing the same nature with the elect, and the 
 same world and nature in which Christ suffered, and 
 the same law under which he lived, and from the ne- 
 cessary sufficiency of his merit, resulting from his infi- 
 nite dignity and worth. But by whatever means the 
 atonement acquired this influence, certain it is that it 
 was the determinate purpose of God that it should pos- 
 sess it, not because it could not be avoided, but to ex- 
 press his unfeigned benevolence, and to answer the im- 
 portant ends of a moral government. 
 
We say that God designed the atonement for all. 
 What do we mean ? Not that he intended to make all 
 partakers of tne benefit by an operation upon them as 
 passive ; but that he designed by its influence so to 
 change their relations as moral agents,, that should they 
 hear the Gospel and believe, he r.onld pardon them all 
 without injuring the law, and that a foundation should 
 thus be laid for a fair and reasonable offer, and pro- 
 mise, and command to all ; and furthermore, that he in- 
 tended to send the Gospel into the world, which but 
 for the depravity of men would spread like lightning 
 to the utmost bounds of the earth ; and that he deter- 
 mined to force its way to millions who would never be 
 sanctified, and thus to place in their hands a means of 
 pardon which they should be under obligations to im- 
 prove for their everlasting good. That all who hear 
 the Gospel have the benefit so within their reach that 
 they could make it their own by doing their duty, and 
 are bound to make it their own, I shall now assume. 
 The question then is, whether God determined it should 
 be so, — whether as Moral Governour he had any pur- 
 pose to answer by putting the privilege into the hands 
 of those who were never to be sanctified, or whether 
 he did it incidentally through their relation to the com- 
 mon world, the common nature, and common law. We 
 say he had important purposes to answer, and did it 
 with fixed design, to gratify his benevolence, and to 
 accomplish the same ends that are attained by other 
 mefsi res of a moral government. And we allege that 
 the fact of his having done it affords the same evidence 
 of a settled purpose, that the existence of creatures 
 does of a previous design to create. 
 
 It ought not to escape attention that the privilege 
 is fastened upon them by a law commanding them 
 to believe : for without the command it would not be 
 
300 GENERAL PROVISION [PART II. 
 
 a privilege in the estimation of a moral government, as 
 it would not be a means of happiness which they would 
 be under obligations to improve for their good. The 
 question then is, whether that law was given them in- 
 cidentally, — whether the privilege was thus authorita- 
 tively thrust into their hands, not with fixed design, to 
 answer the purposes of a moral government, but casu- 
 ally, through their connexion with the common world, 
 the common nature, and common law. How will this 
 matter appear at the judgment of the great day ? When 
 they shall be arraigned one by one, and punished se- 
 verally for rejecting the privilege, will it then seem 
 that the talent was not intentionally committed to them 
 as their Lord's servants, but casually fell upon them 
 as they stood in the crowd ? By the same rule you 
 might say that all other laws and mercies come to them 
 casually, and that the Moral Governour had no end 
 at all to answer by them in a way of favour, but 
 only found them in his way as he came to treat with 
 others. But besides that this w r ould cut off every act 
 of God from being an expression of benevolence to- 
 wards them, (as a favour done by accident is no indi- 
 cation of love,) I would ask, how come they in exis- 
 tence ? and for what end were they created? Were 
 they incidentally made ? or were they brought into 
 existence for the sole purpose of being damned ? As 
 Sovereign Efficient Cause, it is agreed, God had no fa- 
 vour for them or purpose to answer by them : and if as 
 Moral Governour he had no privilege to put into their 
 hands, as an expression of love, and to answer the ends 
 of government, but only found them in his way as he 
 came to bless others, I ask, who placed them there ? 
 and for what end ? In no character has God any favour 
 for them ; were they created solely to be damned ? 
 If you admit with the Church at large that the atoiae- 
 
t»HAF. XVII.] NOT INCIDENTAL. 301 
 
 ment was expressive of benevolenco to the non-elect, 
 you must no longer say that the privilege was not in- 
 tended for them, for that would be bringing words 
 against each other in a flat contradiction. Those who 
 have chosen to ascribe its influence upon this part of 
 the race to its sufficiency, have still generally allowed 
 that its bearing upon them was according to God's de- 
 terminate counsel, and indicative of benevolence. This, 
 as we shall see in another place, was the concession of 
 the Synod of Dort, and even of those members who had. 
 ■he most contracted views of the subject. 
 
 CHAPTER XVIL 
 
 REPROBATION AND THE ORDER OF DIVINE DECREES. 
 
 In an argument intended to prove that God had ho 
 motive to provide an atonement for the non-elect, be- 
 cause he had jio regard for them even as creatures, but 
 " hated" them, a respectable writer proceeds as fol- 
 lows. " Some hope to get over the difficulty by pla- 
 cing the decree of redemption before the decree of elec- 
 tion. They conceive that God first determined to give 
 his Son a ransom for the whole human race, and then, 
 foreseeing that none would accept the offer if left to 
 themselves, he elected a certain number on whom he 
 determined to bestow the gift of faith. To this theory 
 I object the following things. (1.) That there is no 
 succession in the divine decrees, but God wills all 
 things by one most comprehensive and perfect pur- 
 pose. (2.) Admitting an order in the divine decrees, 
 this order is preposterous ; because it supposes God 
 to determine upon a most important and costly means 
 2 C 
 
302 ORDER OF [PART 1£. 
 
 before he had proposed any particular end to be ac- 
 complished by it. Or if he designed the salvation of 
 the whole world in giving Christ a ransom for them, 
 his purpose was not accomplished. (3.) It furnishes 
 no sufficient motive to produce such a grand event. 
 (4.) Or if it be alleged that the love which was so ex- 
 ceedingly great had all men for its object, why, after 
 doing so much for their salvation, did it become inef- 
 fective and leave so many of them to perish for ever ? 
 —How can the reprobation of a part be reconciled 
 with love so great ?" 
 
 It is agreed on all hands that there is no order of 
 time in the divine mind ; but whether there is not in 
 the divine decrees what is called the order of nature, 
 is another question. It either is so or it is not. Let 
 us suppose that it is not. Then it was the u compre- 
 hensive purpose" of God to do just as he has done, — 
 to save the elect from sin and death through a Media- 
 tor, and to send the non-elect to hell for rejecting a 
 Mediator provided for them as moral agents. And 
 what is gained by this resort ? Let us now take the 
 other supposition, viz. that there is an order of nature 
 in the divine decrees. And here I will pause to show 
 that this is certainly the case. First, there is an or- 
 der in things. Holiness in creatures is before reward, 
 sin is before punishment, ruin is before the work of a 
 Redeemer. Secondly, there is an order in the divine 
 acts, God imparts holiness before he rewards ; he 
 suffers men to sin before he punishes or pardons ; he 
 left man to fall before he sent a Redeemer. If the 
 acts did not follow each other in this order they would 
 not be suitable, and some of them would not be just. 
 On the scale of creatures they succeed each other in 
 the order of time ; and even to God they must follow 
 each other in the order oi nature, or they would not 
 
CHAP. XVII.] DIVINE DECREES. 303 
 
 appear to him suitable and just. Thirdly, if the acts 
 of God, even as contemplated by himself, follow each 
 other in the order of nature, so must his purposes. 
 These must take the same order or they would not be 
 wise, and some of them would not be just. His pur- 
 pose to make men holy, is in the order of nature be- 
 fore his purpose to reward ; his purpose to leave man 
 to fall, is in the same order before his design to pu- 
 nish or pardon, or to provide a Saviour. 
 
 There is one thing more to be settled before I draw 
 the conclusion. God's decrees concerning moral 
 agents must be distinguished from his decrees about 
 passive recipients. We have seen that the purposes 
 of the Moral Governour and those of the Sovereign 
 Efficient Cause must not be confounded. Now whe- 
 ther the decree of the Sovereign Efficient Cause about 
 abandoning the non-elect, was before or after the de- 
 cree respecting the fall of man or the atonement, it is 
 not at all necessary to inquire. Allowing it to have 
 been before both, and the non-elect as passive recipi- 
 ents to have been abandoned by a purpose prior to all 
 others, yet as moral agents they still had in them a 
 foundation to support the privilege of an atonement. 
 These two characters both in God and man are so in- 
 dependent of each other, that a decree of the Sove- 
 reign Efficient Cause about the passive could not pre- 
 vent the Moral Governour from proceeding to provide 
 a privilege for the same creatures as moral agents, nor 
 from expressing in that provision the unfeigned bene- 
 volence of the divine mind. Now when we inquire 
 about the order of decrees on such a subject as this, 
 we must confine ourselves to the decrees of the Moral 
 Governour: and a decree of the Moral Governour 
 about making a creature miserable, is only a decree 
 about his punishment. The question then is, whether 
 
304 ORDER OP [PART 1,1. 
 
 the Moral Governour decreed to punish men for re- 
 jecting a Saviour, before he decreed to provide a Sa- 
 viour. The question answers itself. The Moral Go- 
 vernour had nothing to do with men as elect and non- 
 elect, but merely as moral agents, and in reference to his 
 final treatment of them, as believers and unbelievers. 
 And his decree to punish any for rejecting a Saviour, 
 must be founded on his foreknowledge that they would 
 thus reject. This was all the decree that the Moral 
 Governour could pass respecting the misery of those 
 who were to hear the Gospel. 
 
 This distinction between the two characters of God, 
 founded on the two independent characters of men, 
 would have prevented all the disputes between the 
 Supralapsarians and Sublapsarians. The former, had 
 not the two characters been confounded, could not have 
 held that the non-elect were created merely to glorify 
 justice. The rights of justice belong to the Moral 
 Governour, whose motives are to be separated from 
 every question relative to regeneration, and who must 
 be considered as directly aiming at the happiness of 
 those whom his measures are calculated to serve. 
 
 The principal mistake of the above extract lies in 
 supposing that the merciful treatment of agents by it- 
 self was no object or motive with God, and no expres- 
 sion or dictate of benevolence. Allow this to have 
 been an object with him, and there was motive enough 
 to induce him to provide a privilege for those as agents 
 whom as passive he had abandoned. Allow this to be 
 a dictate and expression of benevolence, and a provi- 
 sion for agents could be prompted by philanthropy 
 without being accompanied by electing love. If the 
 Moral Governour chose to express the general bene- 
 volence of the divine mind towards certain objects, it 
 did not follow that the Sovereign Efficient Cause must 
 sanctify them. 
 
CHAP. XVII.] DIVINE DECREES. 305 
 
 It is of no consequence therefore whether the decree 
 of election or that respecting the atonement had the 
 priority, because they were decrees of God in two dis- 
 tinct and independent characters. 
 
 The fact however appears to be, that the decree of 
 the Sovereign Efficient Cause respecting a division of 
 character, (which was in reality the decree of election 
 and non-election,) was subsequent in the order of na- 
 ture to his decree respecting the fall of man, and to the 
 decree of the Moral Governour respecting the atone- 
 ment. No distinction was decreed in the character of 
 men in relation to the fall : all fell. The division of 
 character was ordained to be subsequent to this, and 
 subsequent, as I shall now show, to the provision of a 
 Saviour. When men were all fallen, and doomed to 
 the curse of eternal abandonment, not one of them could 
 receive the Spirit but through a Mediator. Not one 
 of them therefore could be elected to " be holy*' 5 un- 
 til a Saviour was decreed. Accordingly the earliest 
 account which we have of election is, that the objects 
 were chosen in Christ : " Chosen — in him before the 
 foundation of the world ; — predestinated — unto the 
 adoption of children by Jesus Christ." God hath 
 " called us with a holy calling,— according to his own 
 purpose and grace which was given us in Christ Je- 
 sus before the world began." "According to the 
 eternal purpose which he purposed in Christ Jesus." 
 M Whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be 
 conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the, 
 First-born among many brethren}.™ 
 
 This order in God's decrees, however, does not im- 
 ply that he had not before him the whole plan anterior 
 to the commencement of the order, or that he decided 
 one part without reference to another. For instance, 
 
 * Eph. 1. 4.— t Rom, 8. 29. Eph. 1. 4, 5. & 3. 11. 2 Tim. 1. 9, 
 2 C 2 
 
306 eevENANT of [part h* 
 
 he saw that he could glorify his justice in punishment, 
 and his grace in the work of redemption, before he de- 
 creed to suffer the fall of man, and he passed this de- 
 cree with his eye fixed on the measures which he might 
 subsequently adopt. And yet he could not absolutely 
 decree to punish or to pardon till he had first deter- 
 mined to permit sin. 
 
 The order then seems _to have, been this. The 
 Sovereign Efficient Cause resolved to permit the fall 
 of man : the Moral Guvernour next decreed a provi- 
 sion for the whole human race : the Sovereign Effi- 
 cient Cause then decided how many on the one hand 
 he would incline to believe, and on the other, not how 
 many he would make sinners, but how many creatures 
 who had forfeited every divine influence he would let 
 alone. 
 
 This being what we consider the fact, we are not 
 pleased with the term reprobate, because it seems to 
 imply that some were excluded from a chance of sal- 
 vation by the limited provision of the Moral Govern- 
 our, if not from holiness by the positive act of the 
 Sovereign Efficient Cause. We prefer the term non- 
 elect, because this leaves it to be supposed that after 
 being provided for they were left to themselves. 
 
 ♦♦» 
 
 CHAPTER XVIII. 
 
 COVENANT OF REDEMPTION. 
 
 We have discovered that " the joy — set before' 5 the 
 R"> cmer consisted ef three parts, the establishment 
 of a new relation for a world of moral agents, an ab- 
 solute salvation for the elect, and the administration 
 
CHAP. XVIH.J REDEMPTION. 307 
 
 of the government of the universe. These then were 
 the three parts of the reward promised him in the co- 
 venant of redemption. 
 
 From whichever Person the first proposition is con- 
 ceived to have come, the surrender and accord of the 
 Son must have been substantially as follows. From 
 regard to thy law and the human race, 'I will become 
 incarnate and die, to place salvation within the reach 
 of all who hear the Gospel ; and in return I ask for 
 them a state of probation and a general offer of mercy. 
 This I am willing to grant them because I love them 
 all and wish to manifest this love to the universe. But 
 as they will not bow unless subdued, I claim a right to 
 sanctify a certain number. I expect also the govern- 
 ment of the universe, that I may display thy glory in 
 the merciful treatment of a world of moral agents, and 
 in the salvation of my elect. These three parts are 
 my reward. 
 
 This is altogether different from the offering of the 
 pearl as an absolute price for a part and in no sense 
 for the rest. It is offering nothing. It is only agree- 
 ing to offer, and stipulating about the reward. The 
 distinction between this private covenant and the pub- 
 lic transaction which constituted the whole atonement, 
 may be illustrated thus. A regiment revolts. The 
 colonel publicly offers to die for the mutineers, not to 
 shield them in rebellion, not to save them from punish- 
 ment whether they return to duty or not, but to give 
 them an opportunity to return and live. This privi- 
 lege is obtained for the whole regiment, but extends 
 no further. For though the life of the officer was 
 worth that of all the men in ten revolted regiments, 
 and might have answered for them all if expressly of- 
 fered for so many, yet as it was not, its influence was 
 limited to one. This was all that constituted atone- 
 ment in the case. ^/ 
 
 ft % 
 
308 THE WHOLE [PART II. 
 
 Now upon this transaction ingraft another. Suppose 
 the general has powjer to change the hearts of the rebels. 
 To gratify the benevolence of the generous victim, he 
 secretly engages to bring one half to accept the offer- 
 ed pardon. This was an essential part of the motive 
 which induced the substitute to die. Sincere benevo- 
 lence to the whole, and a wish to support a vigorous 
 and benign government, were other parts. But if it 
 be asked for whom atonement was made, the answer 
 is, for the whole revolted regiment. 
 
 ■ ■»♦» — . 
 CHAPTER XIX. 
 
 OUR WHOLE MEANING AT ONE VIEW. 
 
 What do we mean by for when we say that the 
 atonement was for all ? Not that it was for them con- 
 sidered merely as sentient ; in other words, not that it 
 was the secret purpose of God to make them all happy 
 by the provision through an operation on them as pas- 
 sive ; but that it was for all as moral agents. When 
 we say that it was for all as moral agents, we mean 
 four things. (1.) That in its actual influence it chang- 
 ed the relations which all as moral agents sustained to 
 the divine law. (2.) That it thus became, in relation 
 to all who hear the Gospel, a provision for moral 
 agents, and a real privilege. (3.) That the provision 
 and privilege were purposely intended for all. (4.) That 
 the atonement was expressly offered for all. 
 
 (1.) hi its actual influence it changed the relations 
 which all as j ;oral agents sustained to the divine law. 
 It removed .lie curse of abandonment which all as 
 •agen.ts had incurred, and k rendered their pardon con- 
 
 4 « 
 
CHAP. XIX.] AT ONE VIEW. 309 
 
 sistent with the honour of the law on supposition that 
 they should hear the Gospel and believe. It was 
 this change of relation which laid the foundation for a 
 fair offer of pardon to all, and for a reasonable com- 
 mand to all to make the benefit their own*. 
 
 (2.) By this means the atonement became, in relation 
 to all who hear the Gospel, a provision for moral 
 agents. The whole benefit is offered to them, and as 
 far as can be done before they have performed their 
 part, is actually made over to them by covenant, and 
 they are commanded to receive it. This done, it is a 
 complete provision for them as moral agents. It 
 places pardon so within their reach that they can pos- 
 sess it by only doing their duty, no natural impossi- 
 bility lying in the way, and nothing but a bad temper 
 for which they are wholly to blame. Just as the pro- 
 vision now is, and not as it would have been had it 
 been foreseen that they would believe, they are capa- 
 ble of living by it if well disposed, and are bound to 
 live by it, and cannot lose it without wickedly throw- 
 ing it away. And it is charged against them in the ac- 
 counts of a moral government as an atonement for 
 them ; and those who fail to make it finally their own, 
 will be eternally punished for that greatest of all sins* 
 Thus they are brought into a salvable state and fairly 
 put upon probation. 
 
 Now this is all that can be meant by its being a pro- 
 
 * This explanation shows how wide from the mark the objection is 
 which is derived from the nations who never heard the Gospel. Because 
 the relations of all men were thus changed, it did not follow that the 
 Gospel must be preached to all. Much like this is the objection that 
 when Christ died many were in hell. So when he died many were in 
 heaven ; and according to this objection he could not atone for them, 
 nor was their salvation founded on his death. But the fact is, that he 
 virtually died the day that Adam fell, and every thing proceeded a> 
 though this had actually been the ca?c. 
 
310 THE WHOLE [PART U. 
 
 vision for moral agents. If more is meant it respects 
 men not as agents but as passive recipients. If I say 
 that sanctification was provided for men, I speak of a 
 provision for them as passive. If I say that absolute 
 salvation was provided for the elect, I speak of some- 
 thing prepared for them as agents, and something 
 procured for them as recipients. But if I speak of a 
 mere provision for agents, 1 mean a provision which is 
 to benefit them upon their acting the part of agents to- 
 wards it, and the effect of which is suspended on their 
 own conduct. A provision for moral agents as such, 
 cannot be otherwise than conditional in this sense. 
 
 Now a provision which thus affects all men, may be 
 said to be for all, in the same sense as a law is for 
 those who refuse to obey it, or as Bibles and sabbaths 
 are for those who abuse them, or as an estate is for a 
 prodigal son who forfeits or squanders the inheritance. 
 It gives all a fair chance to live ; a fair chance being 
 where a blessing is so brought within the reach of an 
 agent that he can enjoy it by doing his duty. It is to 
 all a complete privilege ; privileges being only means 
 of happiness which men are under obligations to im- 
 prove for their good. The privilege of an atonement 
 is as completely brought to all, as any advantage was 
 ever brought to a man which he wickedly threw away. 
 It is as perfectly in their hands as any privilege was 
 ever in the hands of a man which he failed to improve. 
 The whole advantage of an atonement, as far as de- 
 pends on -God, is as much in the hands of one as an- 
 other, bating the single circumstance of the gift of 
 faith ; and that has nothing to do with the subject, for 
 we are speaking of men, not as recipients of faith, but 
 as creatures bound to believe. It could not have been 
 for them as moral agents in a higher sense ; for if a 
 higher sense is added, it respects them not as agents 
 but as passive receivers, or at most as sentient, 
 t 
 
CHAP. XIX.] AT ONE VIEW. 311 
 
 (3.) This influence upon all was not incidental, but 
 purposely intended. It was the deliberate design ot 
 the Moral Governour to put the privilege into the 
 hands of all, from the purest benevolence, and, (as it 
 must be expressed in the dialect of a moral govern- 
 ment,) with a sincere aim at their good, as well as to 
 manifest his mercy to the universe. 
 
 (4.) The great question remaining is, how came the 
 atonement to have such an influence upon all ? Through 
 its sufficiency, say our brethren : and some of them il- 
 lustrate that sufficiency by the value of a pearl ex- 
 pressly not offered for a part. But we allege that it 
 must have been expressly offered for all as moral 
 agents to obtain such an influence. But when we say 
 that it was expressly offered for all as moral agents ? 
 we allude solely to the purpose declared in the public 
 instrument. We mean that in the public explanation 
 accompanying the atonement, it was stated to be for 
 the benefit of all as moral agents, that is, for the use of 
 all indiscriminately who as agents would believe. 
 
 These four particulars comprehend our whole mean- 
 ing, and if admitted, plainly make out an atonement for 
 all as moral agents. 
 
 And when we have gained this point, we take off all 
 restraint and say plainly that it was for all ; because 
 in its proper influence it was for none but moral agents. 
 It spent all its force upon their relations, and even to 
 Paul was no more than a provision for a moral agent. 
 And when we have made out that it was expressly of- 
 fered for all in public, we throw away all qualifying 
 terms, and say unlimitedly that it was expressly offer- 
 ed for all ; because in private it was not offered for any. 
 The secret covenant between the Sacred Persons 
 merely regulated Christ's reward. It was not this but 
 the public explanation which gave to his death that 
 
312 THE WHOLE AT ONE VIEW. [PART II» 
 
 bearing upon public law which was necessary to render 
 the elect themselves pardonable. In the latter then we 
 must look for the express purpose. And when we turn 
 our eye towards the public instrument, we find the sa- 
 crifice offered for none but moral agents, and for all 
 indiscriminately, subject to a conditional application. 
 
 On the question whether the atonement was equally 
 for all, and in what sense it was not ; when we speak 
 of the secret purpose and motive of the divine mind, 
 and speak of man as a whole, we cannot say that it 
 was as much intended for Simon Magus as for Paul. 
 But when we would express the proper influence and 
 tendency of the measure itself, we must speak of men as 
 moral agents only, and then we must pronounce it as 
 much for one as another. Its influence upon all was 
 equal. It removed the curse of abandonment from 
 Simon as much as from Paul, and rendered one as par- 
 donable on the supposition of his faith as the other. 
 And this is all that it did for either. As a privilege it 
 was equally designed for both by the Moral Governour, 
 and was, in itself considered, an equal expression of 
 benevolence to both : and when we use the popular di- 
 alect of a moral government, we must say unqualified- 
 ly that it was designed for both alike. And certainly 
 in the express purpose, as it appears in the public in- 
 strument, there is no discrimination, no hint of any 
 such distinction as elect and non-elect. " God so lov- 
 ed the world that he gave his only begotten Son, that 
 whosoever believeth in him should not perish." — This 
 is all we mean. 
 
GMAP. XX.] HUMAN AGJNCV OVERLOOKED. 313 
 
 CHAPTER XX. 
 
 THE BOTTOM OF THE MISTAKE LIES IN OVERLOOKING 
 HUMAN AGENCY. 
 
 In all the views which our brethren take of the non- 
 elect in relation to this question, they overlook their 
 existence as moral agents, and affirm the same things 
 of them as might be affirmed if they were passive 
 blocks under the hands of the engraver. This is the 
 principal source of the whole mistake. That it is 
 so will appear from the following aspects of their 
 system. 
 
 (1.) When there is an atonement which is a com- 
 plete provision for the non-elect as moral agents ; (one 
 which changed their relations to the divine law, and 
 placed pardon so within their reach that they can en- 
 joy it by only doing their duty, and ought to make it 
 their own, and are commanded to do it, and are pu- 
 nished for not doing it ;) still they say it was not for 
 them, because it was not the purpose of God to dis- 
 pose them to accept it by an operation on them as 
 passive. This is entirely burying up the moral agent, 
 and leaving nothing in the man for an atonement to 
 respect when the receiver of impressions is taken 
 away. Further, when there is an atonement which 
 spent all its force on the relations of moral agents, 
 and is nothing but a provision for men in that charac- 
 ter, still they say it was not for this part of the race, 
 though they allow that it affected them in every way 
 in which it could affect mere moral agents. That 
 which is nothing but a provision for moral agents, and 
 is allowed to have been such to Simon Magus, was not 
 for Simon Magus, because he was not constrained t# 
 
 2 D 
 
314 HUMAN AGENCY [PART II. 
 
 accept it by an influence on him as passive. This is 
 burying up his agency to purpose. Further, an atone- 
 ment which was expressly offered in public for this 
 part of the race as moral agents, was still not for them, 
 (though it bound them to live by it, and had thus all 
 the attributes of a provision for them as moral agents,) 
 and we must go in search of some unknown offering 
 made in secret for men in another character. Thus 
 the pearl was not offered for the 900, though it bound 
 them to come out, and therefore, unless the bond was 
 unjustly imposed, was a provision for them as moral 
 agents, and of course must have been offered for them 
 as such. If in contemplating their rights as agents, 
 the principle was fixed between the offerer and re- 
 ceiver that they should not be stopt if they attempted 
 to come out, and this right was announced and made 
 aver to them by promise, then the pearl was offered 
 and accepted for them as moral agents : and yet it was 
 not offered for them, as though a moral agent amount- 
 ed to nothing. 
 
 In some of the arguments on the other side it is even 
 assumed that there is no such thing as a provision for 
 moral agents. They reason thus : if God foresees 
 that men will reject the provision he will not make it ; 
 and if he makes it he will not suffer them to reject it, 
 A prudent physician, say they, would not prepare a 
 medicine for those who he foresaw would refuse it, 
 nor suffer those for whom it was prepared to cast it 
 away if he could alter their minds*. Then there is 
 no such thing as a provision for moral agents. Or 
 rather the very existence of moral agents is overlook- 
 ed in such reasonings as this. 
 
 (2.) It is a fundamental principle of the system that 
 
 * Delegates from Dreat m the Synod of Dort. Acts of Synod, Part 
 
 in. P . 207. 
 
■CHAP. XX.] OVERLOOKED, 315 
 
 men without the Spirit have no power to believe, that 
 is, no capacity which can be called a natural ability. 
 Then indeed without the Spirit they are not moral 
 agents, for capacity, we have seen, is the very foun- 
 dation of moral agency. Accordingly some have the 
 consistency to deny that there is in natural men a pro- 
 per basis of obligation without resorting to Adam. In 
 general they will not admit the natural possibility of 
 the non-elect's believing, nor even allow us to make 
 the supposition of such an event. From not perceiv- 
 ing that their capacity is a full foundation for the pro- 
 vision of privileges, just as though it was certain they 
 would improve them, and enough to justify the expres- 
 sion that they can improve them, they are unable to 
 see that the non-elect bear any more relation to an. 
 atonement brought to their door and offered to them, 
 than masses of inanimate matter; and often ask, of 
 what avail such a provision without the gift of faith? just 
 as they would ask, of what avail a provision for the 
 xlead ? Of course they will not allow that it gives them 
 a fair chance to live, or is to them a complete privilege 
 though chances, (thus actively considered,) and privi- 
 leges, are predicable only of moral agents. Its being 
 for them as moral agents is a fact of great magnitude 
 and importance, but this is wholly sunk. 
 
 (3.) They cannot see that the atonement expressed 
 the least benevolence to the non-elect, any more than 
 if it had suspended pardon on their possessing the in- 
 tellect of a Locke or the strength of a Hercules. They 
 do not see that the natural powers of men in such a 
 case constitute a foundation for treatment by which 
 benevolence can be expressed, no less than if pardon 
 was suspended on their stretching out the hand. And 
 this leads to the conclusion that nothing which God 
 can do for those who remain unsanctified, can indicate 
 ibenevolence towards them. And the next step is to 
 
316 HUMAN AGENCY [PART II. 
 
 affirm that he has no benevolence towards them, not 
 even a "general affection to them as creatures." And 
 then he could have no motive to make the provision for 
 them, and it could not be designed for them, but must 
 have fallen out a provision for them in some incidental 
 way, though fastened upon them severally as such by 
 express law. In short moral agents are such abso- 
 lute non-entities, that God could have no motive to 
 make a provision for them as such ; and therefore to 
 place the decree respecting the atonement before that 
 of election, is to charge him with resolving on a costly 
 measure without a motive. 
 
 (4.) This total sinking of moral agency appears in 
 their placing a limited atonement on a level with non- 
 election, both as to the possibility of pardon and the 
 sincerity of the offer. 
 
 First, as to the possibility of pardon. In answer to 
 the objection, " If Christ died not for me I cannot be 
 saved, because there is no atonement for me," it is 
 said, " Any objection of this sort — is more directly 
 levelled at the doctrine of particular election, than at 
 that of particular redemption." " The decree of elec- 
 tion and reprobation most certainly fixes the event of 
 the salvation or damnation of every individual of the 
 human race. And what advantage is gained by sup- 
 posing that Christ has made an atonement for those 
 whose eternal destiny to destruction is immutably 
 fixed ? Wherein has this scheme the advantage over 
 the one which we advocate ?" 
 
 If men were blocks, a decree not to impart life to 
 them would leave them in the same condition as a ne- 
 glect to make a provision for their use on the supposi- 
 tion of their living. And if non-election placed men 
 where a limited atonement would have done, it is be- 
 cause they are as powerless as blocks. No man for a 
 
CflAP* XX. J OVERLOOKED* 317 
 
 moment could have supposed the two cases parallel 
 without forgetting that the non-elect possess a capaci- 
 ty to believe. The certainty that they will perish is 
 indeed the same on either plan ; and so it is on the 
 bare supposition of foreknowledge. But here lies the 
 difference. Upon this scheme men are debarred in- 
 dependently of their own act; upon ours their own 
 rejection of the Gospel is the ground of their ex- 
 clusion. On one supposition the acceptance of the 
 benefit is a natural impossibility, because no benefit 
 was provided for them ; on the other, it is perfectly 
 easy for them to Jive if only well disposed. This 
 difference could not have been overlooked had not 
 the existence of creature agency been buried from 
 view. And the existence of that makes all the dif- 
 ference between a righteous moral government and 
 fate. That certainty which involves the spontaneity 
 of creatures, is consistent with freedom and the govern- 
 ment of a just God ; that certainty which is indepen- 
 dent of their voluntary action, is fate^ as despotic as 
 .ever the Stoicks feigned. 
 
 Secondly, as to the sincerity of the offer. " The 
 same objection," it is said, " may be made to the sin° 
 cerhy of offering salvation to those whom God in the 
 ■decree of election has passed by, as, to those who are 
 not included in the decree of redemption." Nothing 
 could- render the offer insincere but a natural impossi- 
 bility in the way of accepting it. This would : as the 
 offer of escape to a prisoner on condition of his deci- 
 phering a scrawl which really had no meaning, would 
 only be sporting with his misery. Insincerity placed 
 in any tking else, would render all the offers of an om- 
 niscient God even to the =elect insincere, unless simul- 
 taneously accompanied by an influence to consiraia 
 ftheir acceptance* ^Now if a decree to withhold ihe 
 3D2 
 
318 HUMAN AGENCr [PART II. 
 
 Spirit rendered it as naturally impossible for the non- 
 elect to accept the offer as the want of an atonement 
 would have done, it is because without the Spirit they 
 are as powerless as statues. All that in creatures 
 which supports the whole fabric of a moral govern- 
 ment, is entirely overlooked in such reasonings as 
 this. 
 
 (5.) The same thing appears in the confounding of 
 elect and non-elect with believers and unbelievers, and 
 all these with capable agents. The atonement was not 
 for Simon Magus as a capable agent, because it was not 
 for him as an unbeliever, and therefore he was exclu- 
 ded as non-elect ; annihilating thus the capable agent, 
 and making him as passive in his unbelief as in his 
 non-election. If unbelief had been as essential to 
 him and as passively received as complexion, this 
 would have been right. For had the atonement not 
 been offered for people of his colour, you might have 
 said with truth that it was not for Simon as a man, be- 
 cause it was not for a person of such a hue, and that 
 therefore he was excluded as one predestined to that 
 complexion. But to reason thus about his unbelief, is to 
 reduce him from an accountable being to a passive 
 tablet, and the moral government over him to inexora- 
 ble fate. 
 
 In like manner they make it the same thing for an 
 atonement to be for Paul as a believer and for Paul as 
 elect; and because they understand it to have been 
 for him absolutely as elect, they say it was for him ab- 
 solutely as a believer. But this, unless his own act in 
 believing is reduced to nothing, is saying that it was 
 for him absolutely on the condition of his faith. 
 But they exclude the condition, and thereby reduce 
 hi> own act to nothing. It might have been absolute- 
 ly for one as a white man. because he has no agency 
 
CHAP. XX. J OVERLOOKED! 319 
 
 in forming his own complexion ; but to say thai, it was 
 absolutely for Paul as a believer, is to annihilate the 
 moral agent and leave nothing but the passive receiver 
 of faith. 
 
 (6.) The same thing appears in the opposition which 
 is made to the dialect of a moral government, as sa- 
 vouring too much of legality for the reign of grace and 
 the Spirit ; though it is the only language in which 
 the duties, rights, and relations of moral agents can be 
 expressed. This may be exemplified in the mark of pro- 
 scription set upon conditio?! and probation. The things 
 denoted by these terms, we have seen, must accompa- 
 ny moral agents, the one until they are fixed in happi- 
 ness or misery, the other as long as their existence re- 
 mains : and nothing but the habit of burying from view 
 this character of men seems sufficient to account for 
 the opposition made to the terms. This cause comes 
 out more fully in some of their reasonings about the 
 things. " If he died for them only on some condition, 
 then if that condition never takes place he did not die 
 for them." What more could be said if they were 
 stocks ? On this principle nothing can be done for 
 mere moral agents more than for clods, and their ra- 
 tional powers, separate from the Spirit, are no proper 
 basis to support the measures of a moral government. 
 Nothing can be done for a clod that is not done for it 
 as passive, because it is nothing but passive. And 
 this reasoning assumes that nothing can be done for a 
 man unless it is made effectual by an operation on him 
 as passive ; thus sinking his active nature altogether. 
 
 It is -not difficult to see by what habits of thinking 
 great and good men have fallen into this mistake* 
 They have fixed their eyes so steadily on secret de- 
 crees and the passiveness of men, and pondered so 
 •■rauch on faith as " the gift of God," and so little on 
 
32G IMPORTANCE OF [PART II. 
 
 faith as the duty and act of the creature, that they have 
 lost sight of moral agents and a moral government. In 
 particular the idea of reprobation has so fastened it- 
 self upon their minds, that they have been unable to 
 ascribe to God in any character a serious aim to pro- 
 vide the means of salvation for the non-elect. In this 
 way they have lost those discoveries of divine benevo- 
 lence which are made in the treatment of agents by it- 
 self. But let them turn their eye full upon the rational 
 faculties of man, and familiarize to their minds the 
 operations of God in that independent character m 
 which he stands related to moral agents, and they will 
 find a new world opened to their view, and will see 
 that one very interesting part of the divine manifesta- 
 tions has been lost. And then they will easily admit 
 •the views of a moral government which their brethren 
 entertain, without renouncing election and special 
 grace, and will find nothing in a general atonement 
 4o weaken the security of believers or the special love 
 of God to the elect. And if any thing is gained bjr 
 .these views, it is .certain that nothing will be lost. 
 
 — ^4-# — 
 
 CHAPTER XXL 
 
 THE IMPORTANCE OF CORRECT LANGUAGE ON THE 
 SUBJECT. 
 
 If the atonement was for all men as moral agents, 
 •it is proper to say unlimitedly that it was for alL 
 Whatever is true of the moral agent, may be affirmed 
 unqualifiedly of the man. Whatever is predicable of 
 a person either in his active or passive character, we 
 aifirm unlimitedly of that individual, leaving it to the 
 
«HAR XXI.] CORRECT LANGUAGE. 3.21 
 
 predicate to determine whether it respects him as an 
 agent or a recipient. Thus we say of the man that 
 he is under obligations, that he enjoys privileges, that 
 he is good or bad, that he is entitled to reward or punish- 
 ment; all which is true of him as an agent. Thus we 
 say of the man that he was elected or not elected, that 
 he has been regenerated or not regenerated ; all which 
 is true of him as a recipient. In like manner we say of 
 a man that he is wise, of a woman that she is beauti- 
 ful, of a house that it is white, or that it is capacious ; 
 leaving it to be gathered from the predicates whether 
 the former attributes belong to the body or mind, and 
 whether the latter appertain to the covering or the in- 
 terior of the building. If then the atonement is for all 
 men as moral agents, it is proper to affirm without li- 
 mitation that it is for all. And if it is right to assert 
 unqualifiedly of men what is true of them as moral 
 agents, it is proper to affirm unlimitedly of God what 
 is true of him as Moral Governour, leaving it to the pre- 
 dicates to determine in what character they respect 
 him. And this is the way in which he is spoken of 
 throughout his word. 
 
 In this way we must speak or depart from the esta- 
 blished use of language, and either utter an implied 
 falsehood, or fall into tautology. The atonement was 
 a measure as exclusively adapted to agents as law it- 
 self. Try then the principle by the case of a law. 
 We say unqualifiedly that such a law was made for the 
 people of the United States. That is correct. But if in 
 reference to their double character, we say that it was 
 made for them in a- certain sense, we utter an implied 
 falsehood, for it was made for them as completely as a 
 law could be made for any people. If we say it was 
 made for them as agents, we use tautology, (such as I. 
 have been obliged to use through this wl)C>ie treatise,) 
 
■322 IMPORTAx\CE OF [PARTJI. 
 
 for no law can be made for men in any other character. 
 But when a law or an atonement is made for men as 
 agents, to say unqualifiedly that it was not made for 
 them, because they are not prevented from abusing if. 
 by another power operating upon them as passive, is 
 something more than an implied falsehood, it is ex- 
 pressly untrue. The same when we speak of the de- 
 sign of God. To say that he did not design his law 
 for Ahab, because he did not intend by sanctifying influ- 
 ence to render it an ultimate blessing to him, is mani- 
 festly false. And it is the same when we say that he 
 did not design the atonement for Ananias and Sap- 
 phi ra. 
 
 That language should be employed which expresses 
 the truth on the subject. If God has provided an 
 atonement for all, we ought to say so, that he may 
 have the glory, and that men may know their privi- 
 leges and their hopes. 
 
 So far as the dispute is verbal, a phraseology ought 
 aot to be adhered to which does not express the truth. 
 And how far it is verbal, is a question of some impor- 
 tance. Now our brethren in detail admit all that we 
 ask. This they do as often as they say that Christ 
 died " that whosoever believeth in him should not pe- 
 rish ;" and as often as they allow that all may enjoy 
 the benefit by believing, and are bound to make it 
 their own. And yet when they come to general pro- 
 positions, they contradict the one which we support, 
 and distinctly say that the atonement was not for all. 
 This is because they do not attach to the general pro- 
 position the same meaning that we do. And the rea- 
 son of this is, they are not agreed with us as to the cha- 
 racter in which men are to be spoken of in this matter. 
 We contend that they ought to be spoken of as moral 
 agents ; they speak of them continually as passive re- 
 
CHAP. XXI. ] CORRECT LANGUAGE". 323 
 
 ceivers. In general they do not mean to deny what 
 really is meant by the atonement's being for all as mo- 
 ral agents, but they so annihilate agents as to make 
 no account of this. When therefore we say that it 
 was for Simon Magus, (meaning that it was for him as 
 a capable agent,) they, though they allow what we 
 mean,, refuse to use our language, and say decidedly 
 that it was not for him, because they overlook his agen> 
 cy, and speak of him as merely sentient and passive. 
 The proposition that it was for him, has a different 
 meaning with them from what it has with us, because 
 they see him not as an agent. And if they could see 
 him as an agent, so as to attach the same meaning to 
 the proposition that we do, they would not deny it. 
 So far the dispute is verbal. But the mistake lies deep* 
 er than words, and consists in overlooking the natural 
 ability of man. This is the bottom of the difficulty. 
 Though therefore there is much logomachy in the 
 contest, yet if we are right our brethren labour under 
 a real mistake. On a subject where they ought to 
 speak of men exclusively as moral agents, they con- 
 stantly reason about them as though they were passive 
 tablets, no more capable of believing than the clods of 
 the valley. And when they refer to the purpose of 
 God in this provision, they constantly speak of him 
 only as intending or not intending to make impres- 
 sions on passive recipients. This is plainly turning 
 the Moral Governour out of a transaction which was ex- 
 clusively his own, and transferring the whole business 
 to the Sovereign Efficient Cause. This has been the 
 grand mistake of Calvinists of the type of a part of the 
 Synod of Dort. They have reasoned right against the 
 Arminians about election and regeneration, but on se- 
 veral points have plainly lost sight of moral agents and 
 a jnoral government. On the other hand, the Armini- 
 
324 IMPORTANCE OF [pARTIi. 
 
 ans have had many correct ideas of a moral govern- 
 ment, but have been as blind as Bartimeus to all the 
 secrets of the other department. And thus these two 
 parties have gone on contending from age to age, and 
 after all both have been right — and both wrong. 
 
 This limiting phraseology, mean what it may, (for 
 it has different meanings in different mouths,) is far 
 from being harmless. Whatever latent reservations 
 may lurk beneath it, on its face it carries a wrong 
 view of the nature of the atonement itself, making it 
 an absolute provision for a part instead of a condition- 
 al provision for all. If it means, to deny that the pro- 
 vision was for all as agents, tins is so incongruous with 
 the offer to all as agents, and the obligations laid upon 
 all as agents to live by it, and the punishment of all as 
 agents who reject it, that, in spite of all explanations, 
 it amounts, though unintentionally, to an impeachment 
 of the sincerity and justice of God. If without assert- 
 ing any thing concerning agents, it only buries them 
 from view, even then, by leaving no sense in which the 
 atonement could respect the non-elect, it carries men 
 to the frightful length of denying that it was any ex- 
 pression of benevolence to this part of the race, or 
 even that God has any benevolence towards them, or 
 so much as a " general affection to them as creatures." 
 And this takes from them all reasons for gratitude, ex- 
 cept what is founded in ignorance of their destiny, and 
 leads all men to doubt, in proportion as they hesitate 
 about their own election, whether they have any cause 
 to thank God for their existence or for one of all his 
 mercies. If it distinctly admits what is meant by an 
 atonement for all as agents, and yet persists in affirm- 
 ing that it was not for all, it exactly annihilates moral 
 agents, and that capacity on which human obligations 
 rest, and the basis which supports the whole fabric of 
 
-HAP. XXI.] CORRECT LANGUAGE. 3^5 
 
 a moral government. This is the greatest objection 
 of all. And to make even this more intense, the phra- 
 seology in question propagates an errour so disastrous. 
 By means of this, the plain portable position that Christ 
 did not die for all, is carried through the world, and 
 calls to its support all those reasonings and forms of 
 speech which conceal the foundation of human obliga- 
 tions, and cast obscurity over all the relations and 
 principles of a moral government. The world need a 
 right phraseology on this subject, to familiarize to their 
 minds their own distinct and complete agency, their 
 obligations, guilt, and privileges, -and the claims and 
 mercies of God. But the dialect in question carries in it 
 a systematic concealment of human agency and God's 
 direct claims upon mankind, and is not unlike what the 
 sinner himself employs, when, filling his eye with the 
 divine decrees, he takes shelter in the plea that he is a 
 machine. With the better part it does not lead to a 
 denial of the desert of punishment, but it obscures their 
 personal responsibility, and sends them back to Adam 
 to make out what otherwise would seem an insufficient 
 ground of condemnation. It hides the direct and per- 
 fect claims which God has upon rational creatures will- 
 ing or unwilling. To expose and urge these claims 
 direct, is the best way to make sinners and even Chris- 
 tians feel their obligations, privileges, and inexcusa- 
 bleness. It is the deadening of this sense which.makes 
 stupidity. 
 
 A self justifying race are sufficiently prone to plead 
 that they are machines, that God is a hard master re- 
 quiring more than they are able to perform, that they 
 are not answerable for their impenitence and unbelief, 
 that while the Spirit is withheld they have not a fair 
 chance for salvation,, and enjoy no privileges, and are. 
 2 E 
 
326 IMPORTANCE, &C [PART II. 
 
 under no obligations to Christ. And it deserves so- 
 lemn consideration how far the incorrect language of 
 good men on this subject, has tended to confirm and 
 propagate a delusion so destructive to the souls of 
 men. 
 
PART III. 
 
 SCRIPTURAL VIEW. 
 
 CHAPTER I. 
 
 PLAN OF THE ARGUMENT. 
 
 All that we have to prove from the Scriptures is, 
 that the atonement, where the Gospel comes, is a pro- 
 vision for all as moral agents ; that in order to become 
 such, it changed the relations which all as moral agents 
 sustained to the divine law ; and that, to produce this 
 effect, it was expressly offered with such an intent. 
 
 That is a provision for a moral agent which he 
 is capable of improving for his good if well dispos- 
 ed, and is bound to improve. The obligation can- 
 not be imposed without the capacity. We have seen 
 that no bond, except by means of deception, can be 
 laid on a man to accept a privilege, which, from the 
 foreknowledge that he would not improve it, was not 
 provided for him ; for that would be an obligation.^:© 
 perform an impossibility. The capacity implies that 
 the provision is made in such a sense, that, just as it now 
 is, he can actually enjoy it by doing his duty. Simon 
 Magus, had Simon Magus believed, (and as the thing 
 was not a natural impossibility we have a right to 
 make the supposition,) would have found a provision 
 ready for him, just as the purpose of the atonement 
 
323 PLAN OP the [part. in. 
 
 then stood, or he had not a capacity to make it his 
 own even by believing ; for had he believed it would not 
 have been his own. The 900 prisoners, in the case 
 of the pearl sufficient for 1000 but offered for 100, 
 could not have come out had they accepted the offer. 
 You say it was foreknown that they would not accept. 
 Be it so. Yet if the herald at the door had told them 
 that they could then come out by accepting, he would 
 have uttered a falsehood ; for had they attempted it 
 they would have been stopt. It is in vain to say, u If 
 you suppose one thing changed in a series establish- 
 ed by infinite wisdom, you ought to suppose a cor- 
 responding change in the whole system : if you sup- 
 pose that a non-elect man may believe, you should 
 suppose at the same time that both the decree of elec- 
 tion and redemption correspond with this event, and 
 then all difficulty will be removed." I have nothing 
 to do with that supposition. I am speaking of men as 
 moral agents, whose capacity and freedom are not im- 
 paired by any decree, and whose faith, be decrees 
 what they may, we have a right to speak of as possi- 
 ble. If we may not speak of them thus, what is their 
 capacity ? that of a block : and nothing remains but 
 perfect fatality. And if we may speak thus of the 
 non-elect, (not as non-elect but as moral agents,) then 
 we may suppose, without reference to any decree, 
 what would happen in case they should believe. And 
 now it is either true in such a case that they would 
 find a provision ready for them, just as the purpose of 
 atonement now stands, or else it is not true that they 
 have a capacit} 7 to use it for their benefit. If they 
 cannot enjoy it without changing a decree of God, as 
 your supposition implies, the thing is a natural im- 
 possibility. But if they would find a provision for 
 them in case they of their own accord should believe. 
 
CHAP. I.] ARGUMENT. 329 
 
 then an atonement was made for them in such a sense 
 that they can enjoy it by doing their duty. And that 
 is a complete provision for them as moral agents. 
 
 And if the atonement is such a provision for them 
 as moral agents, it certainly changed their relations 
 to the divine law, and from a state in which they could 
 not be pardoned on any terms, brought them into a 
 condition in which their pardon is possible, and in 
 which nothing stands in the way but their own un- 
 belief. 
 
 How the atonement came to have this influence on 
 those who remain unsanctified, is another question. 
 Some ascribe it to its sufficiency, others to the express 
 purpose for which it was offered. One thing is cer- 
 tain. No sufficiency could have produced this effect 
 which should have left their discharge impossible even 
 on the supposition of their faith. It could not there- 
 fore be such a sufficiency as is ascribed to the pearl, 
 which, valuable enough to redeem 1000, is offered 
 and accepted for 100, leaving it impossible for the 
 rest to come out even should they accept the insidious 
 offer. It is not indeed necessary to that sufficiency 
 that there should have been a secret purpose to make 
 ■ men "willing" by an operation on them as passive; 
 but it is necessary that the sacrifice should have been 
 understood to be offered and accepted in such a sense 
 for them, that should they of their own accord believe 
 they would be discharged. It must have been offered 
 and accepted with an express purpose of affecting 
 their relations exactly in this manner, " that whoso- 
 ever believeth — should not perish." That is, it must 
 have been expressly offered and accepted for them as 
 moral agents, 
 
 These are the only points necessary to be support- 
 2E2 
 
330 PLAN Or THE ARGUMENT. [PART III. 
 
 ed, and the basis which I shall place beneath them is 
 the word of God. 
 
 I will begin at the concession of the Synod ofDort, 
 that the non-elect do not perish " for want of the sa- 
 crifice of Christ, — nor through its insufficiency, but by 
 their own fault." This concession implies a provision 
 made for them in such a sense that they can enjoy it 
 by doing their duty. It implies a provision offered to 
 them with the promise of pardon if they will accept it, 
 or how is their failure their own fault ? It implies a 
 command to believe, or how do they violate an obliga- 
 tion ? And the offer, promise, and command, imply 
 that the atonement so changed their relations as to 
 render their pardon consistent with the honour of the 
 Jaw if they would believe. And this it could not have 
 done without being expressly offered for them as mo- 
 ral agents. After this manner I shall construct my 
 argument. The whole may be comprised in the four 
 following propositions. 
 
 I. In the offers and promises of the Gospel, the be- 
 nefit of the atonement is not only proposed, but actual- 
 ly given and made over to all as moral agents, as far 
 as it can be before they have performed their part. 
 
 II. The benefit of the atonement is so brought within 
 the reach of all who hear the Gospel, that they are 
 bound to make it their own, and can enjoy it by only 
 doing their duty. 
 
 III. The atonement so changed the relations of all 
 men to the divine law, as to render their pardon con- 
 sistent with the honour of the law in case they hear 
 ihe Gospel and believe. 
 
 IV. The atonement was expressly offered and ac- 
 cepted for all as moral agents. 
 
CHAP. II.] THE BENEFIT OFFERED TO ALL. 331 
 
 CHAPTER II. 
 
 THE BENEFIT OF THE ATONEMENT MADE OVER TO ALL, 
 
 The first proposition is, that in the offers and pro- 
 mises of the Gospel, the benefit of the atonement is 
 not only proposed, but actually given and made over 
 to all as moral agents, as far as it can be before they 
 have performed their part*. 
 
 If pardon by the atonement is really offered to all, 
 with a promise that it shall be theirs if they do not cast 
 it away, then, (allowing the acceptance not to be a 
 natural impossibility but their duty,) the whole benefit 
 ie made over to them as moral agents, as fully ^s it 
 can be before they have performed their part. The 
 complete privilege of an atonement is theirs. And if 
 this is the case the matter is settled. There is no 
 longer any need of inquiring about the nature of the 
 expiation, or the express purpose for which it was of- 
 fered : we find the privilege actually in the hands of 
 all. God himself guarantees that the nature of the 
 satisfaction was such as to warrant the universal grant, 
 and that is enough for us. 
 
 The offer and promise certainly prove that the pro- 
 vision was for all as capable agents, or for all in such 
 a sense that they can actually enjoy it by doing their 
 duty. And this is all we ask. 
 
 But an attempt is made to account for the offer on the 
 ground of the sufficiency of the atonement, without sup- 
 posing the provision in any sense for all. " That may 
 
 * Our view of the grant differs from that of the Remonstrants in this. 
 We say it is all God can do for moral agents otherwise than as a re- 
 ward ■ they said it was all he could do for wen without destroying their 
 freedom. Their errour lay in denying special grace in regeneration. 
 
332 THE BENEFIT [PART III. 
 
 be sufficient for the ransom of 1000 prisoners which in 
 fact is paid for one hundred. Suppose the ransom 
 price to be a pearl of exceeding great value, much 
 more than sufficient to redeem all the captives in pri- 
 son : but the person paying it had it in view only to re- 
 deem his own friends. This intention in the redeemer, 
 and the acceptance of the price by the authority which 
 holds them in bondage, constitutes this pearl a ransom, 
 and confines it to the number for whom it was design- 
 ed. But the pearl itself is sufficient to ransom all the 
 rest of the captives if it had been applied to their ad- 
 vantage. To carry on the illustration. Suppose that 
 the person undertaking to redeem his friends should 
 say, ' I will have proclamation made in the prison that 
 every one who will acknowledge me as his deliverer, 
 and will subject himself to my authority, may imme- 
 diately come forth upon the footing of the ransom 
 which I have paid ; for none but my friends will ac- 
 cept these terms. The remainder will prefer their 
 prison to liberty, which can only be had by submission 
 to one whom they inveterately hate.' Now the per- 
 son commissioned to carry these tidings to the prison, 
 would feel himself authorized to proclaim deliverance 
 to every one who was willing to accept the terms, and 
 use arguments and motives to induce them to submit : 
 but the event would be that none would accept the of- 
 fer but the real friends of the redeemer. This he knew 
 from the beginning; and therefore he paid the ransom 
 for no others. Is there any thing insincere in this whole 
 transaction? The messenger is not authorized to de- 
 clare that the whole arc certainly ransomed, but that 
 there is a ransom provided for every one who will ac- 
 cept the terms." 
 
 Now this is as ingenious as it could be ; and all that 
 is wanting to make it a just representation, is an agree- 
 
«HAP. II.] OFFERED TO ALL. 333 
 
 merit publicly made with the retainer of the prisoners that 
 if the 900 attempt to come out they shall not be stopt. 
 Then, whatever foreknowledge there might be of the 
 refusal of a part, there would be a ransom paid for all 
 as capable agents. But for want of this the represen- 
 tation does not agree with the Gospel : for that the 
 Father has publicly engaged not to cast off any of the 
 human race who come to him, every reader of the Bi- 
 ble knows. For want of this the representation disa- 
 grees with the Gospel in a point which gives the trans- 
 action the appearance of great unfairness. If the 900 
 had attempted to come out they would certainly have 
 been stopt, and none the less for the value-of the pearl. 
 That value was only a blind, and in no degree justifi- 
 ed the offer. But for the advantage gained by a de- 
 ceptive appearance, the proclamation might as well 
 have been made without that sufficiency. Such a doc- 
 trine tends to make every one distrust the sincerity of the 
 offer, and to say, as the unbelieving are too apt to do, It 
 does not mean me, and I shall not be accepted if I go. 
 In all this it differs from the Gospel. Who will pre- 
 tend to say that if Judas had believed, (and I hope 
 enough has been said to justify the supposition,) he 
 w r ould have been rejected ? But if he had believed? 
 you say, it would have been foreknown, and the atone- 
 ment would have been made for him. And are you 
 sure it would have been foreknown ? We have no other 
 idea of God's foreknowledge than that it is founded on 
 his own purpose to produce or permit. He therefore fore- 
 knew whether he should give faith to Judas. But this 
 possible action of which I am speaking, would not have 
 been caused by God, nor have grown out of any pur- 
 pose of his. Plow then should it have been foreknown ? 
 No event is in fact unforeknown ; because, beyond 
 what is produced by the direct influence of God, the 
 
334 THE BENEFIT [PART 11I« 
 
 universe is governed by motives, the tendency of which 
 he perfectly understands. But the possibility of the 
 action under consideration, did not depend on the mo- 
 tives which God had actually spread, but on the facul- 
 ties of a rational soul. Had Judas done as he ought, 
 an event w T ould have taken place which was never 
 foreseen. And had he done as he ought without the 
 influence and motives which God controlled, (and his 
 obligations were independent of both,) an event would 
 have taken place, which, so far as we can judge, could 
 not have been foreseen. No such event ever did or 
 will occur : I only make these remarks to show how 
 independent of divine foreknowledge the natural pos- 
 sibility of action is. Unnumbered actions which God 
 never foreknew, are still naturally possible, or pre- 
 science reduces every thing to fate. 
 
 It is on this ground that God, in all his treatment of 
 moral agents^ (except in the single instance of pro- 
 phecy,) proceeds just as though he had no foreknow- 
 ledge. The capacity cfr creatures to act, and of course 
 the natural possibility of their action, and their obliga- 
 tions, are independent of prescience ; and the Moral 
 Governour, founding his course on that capacity and 
 possibility, and on those obligations, holds his way as 
 though nothing was foreseen. 
 
 In the case of the prisoners, you are reduced to this 
 dilemma. Either the offer of release to the 900 was 
 made deceitfully, or on the avowed principle of setting 
 them free without a price paid for them. And are you 
 prepared to say that God has avowed the principle of 
 offering to the non-elect a pardon unfounded on the 
 atonement ? that when he would not discharge his own 
 elect without exacting life for life, he has offered to re- 
 lease others without an expiation? The other alterna- 
 tive is chosen, and God is set forth as offering the b<^ 
 
CHAP. II.J OFFERED TO ALL. 335 
 
 nefit of a ransom which has never been' paid, and ten- 
 dering a deliverance which if accepted would be de- 
 nied : for it is truly said in the same paper, that " the 
 death of Christ must expiate our sins before any way 
 can be opened" for pardon. 
 
 If prescience is to have any influence in such a mat- 
 ter, why do you stop here ? It ought to carry you to a 
 denial that the offer was designed for the non-elect. If 
 foreknowledge prevented the atonement from being 
 made for them, foreknowledge would prevent the offer 
 from being intended for them. And some have actu- 
 ally gone to this length, and affirmed that the offer is 
 made only to the " thirsty" and those who " will" 
 come, and was not designed for those who it was fore- 
 seen would not be thirsty or willing. 
 
 This brings us to the proof that the offer and pro- 
 mise are indeed made to all. Facts will not bear you 
 out in saying that the offer is made only to the elect, and 
 falls on the ear of others incidentally, like a preacher 
 addressing a select society, heedless of the strangers 
 who have mingled with the crowd. No, the speaker 
 calls those- strangers by name, and declares that he 
 means them, and lays them individually under the 
 most solemn obligations to receive the message, and 
 afterwards sends them all to prison for rejecting it. 
 Those who refused to come to the wedding, were the 
 identical persons to whom the invitation had been ex- 
 pressly sent ; and the wicked at last will be condemn- 
 ed for the rejection of calls made to them in particular*. 
 
 Either the grant is so completely made to all and 
 each as to lay a foundation on which faith with all its 
 confidence, (for it must not wavert,) can rest its eter- 
 nal and infinite concerns, or every act which appropri- 
 ates the Gospel to one's self antecedent to the full 
 
 * Prov. 1, 24—31. Mat. 22. 1—14. 1 James 1. 6, 
 
336 THE BENEFIT [PART III. 
 
 assurance of hope, must be presumptuous. If the 
 grant is made onjy to the elect, no man has a right to 
 rest his own soul on the promise, until, from his feel- 
 ings towards the abstract Gospel, he knows himself to 
 dp one of the elect. And throughout his life, in pro- 
 portion as he questions his election, he must be per- 
 plexed with doubts about his right to take the invita- 
 tion to himself and rest his soul on Christ. In all its 
 appropriating acts, his faith can never exert its ener- 
 gies unrestrained, but must be cramped and manacled 
 with the unceasing apprehension that it has no warrant 
 to make the appropriation. Am I elected? will be 
 the leading inquiry, instead of, What has God pro- 
 mised ? 
 
 I argue the same thing from the very nature of 
 faith. This is a belief either of a divine testimony or 
 promise. But there is no testimony that this, that, or 
 the other man is elected : the testimony respects the 
 public mission of Christ, and the method and condi- 
 tions of salvation. So far then as testimony is con- 
 cerned, faith must exert all her attributes independent- 
 ly of the question who is elected. And if there are 
 any personal concerns to transact with Christ,— if I 
 am to receive him form?/ Saviour, and not merely to re- 
 gard him as a Saviour in gGneral, I must unreservedly 
 receive him for my own on the authority given in the 
 public dispensation of the Gospel, without reference 
 to the question whether I am elected. If this is 
 the nature of faith, then in that public dispensation the 
 grant must be made to all. Turn now to the promise. 
 I cannot believe a promise to me if there is none. I 
 have no right to believe that God will be " a Reward- 
 er" to me on any conditions, if there is no promise to 
 me. But it is the privilege and duty of all men, with- 
 out waiting for evidence of their election, to exercise 
 
CHAP. II. j OFFERED TO ALL, 337 
 
 this confidence, which indeed is so essential a part of 
 faith that without it no man can gain the favour of 
 God. " Without faith it is impossible to please him, 
 for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and 
 that he is a Rewarder, [of the elect ? no, without dis- 
 tinction,] of them that diligently seek him*." This 
 confidence, which certainly every man is to exercise 
 in relation to himself, and not merely in reference to 
 others, is thus made the very definition of faith itself. 
 And it will appear in another place that every man is 
 commanded upon pain of death to believe. Every 
 man then is laid under bonds to exercise unwavering 
 assurance that he himself shall be accepted if he dili- 
 gently seeks. Whatever opinion he may form of his 
 state and character, he must believe this as firmly as 
 his own existence. A doubt on this subject is the 
 very unbelief against which eternal plagues are de- 
 nounced. The grand effort of every sincere and en- 
 lightened seeker is to work his soul up to this confi- 
 dence, which would be dashed in a moment by a 
 doubt respecting the extension of the promise to him. 
 This bond on every man infallibly proves a condition- 
 al promise to every man on which his confidence may 
 rest. 
 
 And this has been the common opinion of the Cal- 
 vinistic world. It was the opinion of Calvin himself. 
 In his Comment on Rom. 5. 18. we find this declara- 
 tion : " He makes this the common grace of all be- 
 cause it is set before all, not because it is actually ex- 
 tended to all. For though Christ suffered for the sins 
 if the whole worlds and by the goodness of God is in- 
 discriminately offered to all, yet all do not embrace 
 himf." 
 
 *' Heb. li. €,— -t Quoted in Watts' Work?, vol.. 6, p. 287, 
 2 F 
 
338 THE BENEFIT [PART III. 
 
 This was also the opinion of the Synod of Dort. 
 " The promise of the Gospel is this, that whosoever 
 believes in Christ crucified shall not perish but have 
 everlasting life ; which promise, together with the 
 command to repent and believe, ought without dis- 
 tinction and indiscriminately to be announced and 
 proposed to all people and men to whom God in his 
 good pleasure sends the Gospel." " As many as are 
 called by the Gospel are called in earnest ; for in 
 earnest and most truly does God show in his word 
 what is agreeable to him, viz. that the called come to 
 him. In earnest likewise he promises to all who come 
 to him and believe, rest to their souls and eternal life. 
 And that many who are called by the ministry of the 
 Gospel do not come and are not converted," is not to 
 be imputed as a fault to the Gospel, nor to Christ of- 
 fered in the Gospel, nor to God calling by the Gos- 
 pel, but to the called themselves*." The delegates 
 from Great Britain say, " There is no mortal who may 
 not truly and in earnest be called by the ministers of 
 the Gospel to a participation of remission of sins and 
 eternal life through this death of Christ. — Nothing 
 false or dissembling goes under the Gospel ; but what- 
 ever in it is offered or promised to men by ministers, 
 is in the same manner offered and promised to them 
 by the Author of the Gospel. — In this merit of Christ's 
 death is founded the universal Gospel promise, ac- 
 cording to which all who believe in Christ do actually 
 obtain remission of sins and eternal life. That this 
 promise is universal, and founded in the death of 
 Christ, appears from Acts 10. 43. Although there- 
 fore this promise is not promulgated to all in every 
 place and time, it is of such a nature that it might truly 
 be announced to all and each. — The administration of 
 
 * Acts of Synod, Part I. p. 289, 298. 
 
v.HAP. 11.] OFFERED TO ALL. 339 
 
 grace in the Church, where, according to this promise, 
 of the Gospel, salvation is offered to all, is enough to 
 convict all the impenitent and unbelieving that it was 
 by their own fault, and either through their neglect or 
 contempt of the Gospel, that they perished and lost 
 the offered benefit*." The delegates from Hesse say, 
 " The Gospel is proclaimed indiscriminately to all, to 
 the elect and reprobate!." Matthias Martinius, one 
 of the delegates from Bremen, says, " The exercise 
 of this love to man appears in the outward call to the 
 elect and reprobate without distinction. — And there- 
 fore upon whatever man we fall, to him we are the 
 messengers and publishers of this salutary gracej." 
 Henry Iselburg, another delegate from Bremen, says, 
 " The remedy of sin and death, our Lord Jesus Christ, 
 is proposed and offered by the preaching of the Gos- 
 pel, not to certain persons only, or to those alone who 
 are to be saved, but to the elect and reprobate indis- 
 criminately 5 and all without distinction are invited to 
 a participation or fruition of it, and to eternal life 
 thereby§." The Dutch Professors say, " It is not 
 denied by the orthodox that this ransom of Christ is 
 to be indiscriminately announced as such, [as being 
 sufficient to save all who believe,] to Christian peo- 
 ple, and to whomsoever the Gospel is preached, and 
 to be offered in the name of Christ, and that in ear- 
 nest, and according to the counsel of the Father; the 
 hidden decisions of God being in the mean time left 
 to himself, who dispenses this grace and applies it as 
 far as and to whomsoever he will ||." 
 
 Some members of the Synod did indeed acknow- 
 ledge that their own practice was to present the offers 
 of the Gospel only to the thirsty and penitent ; aileg- 
 
 * Acts of Synod, Part II. p. 101, 102 -t p. 114, ± p. 134, 135, 
 
 6 p. 141. 1| Part III. p. 122. 
 
340 THE EENEFIT [PART III. 
 
 ing that when they preached repentance to all it was 
 not preaching the Gospel. What, not when like John 
 the Baptist they preached " repentance for the remis- 
 sion of sins"? or like the apostles, said to the unre- 
 generate multitude, " Repent and be converted that 
 your sins may be blotted out*"? But if they still he- 
 sitate to present the Gospel to the carnal, I will spread 
 before them the following page. " Wisdom hath 
 builded her house, she hath hewn out her seven pil- 
 lars, she hath killed her beasts, she hath mingled her 
 wine, she hath also furnished her table ; she hath sent 
 forth her maidens, she crielh upon the highest places of 
 the city. Whoso is simple let him turn in hither, and as 
 for him that zvanteth widerstanding, she saith to him, 
 Come eat of my bread and drink of the wine which I 
 have mingled: forsake the foolish and live, and go in 
 the way of understanding." " Hear the word of the 
 Lord, ye rulers of Sodom ; give ear unto the law of 
 our God, ye people of Gomorrah.- Wash ye, make 
 you clean, put away the evil of your doings from be- 
 fore my eyes, cease to do evil, learn to do well. — 
 Though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white 
 as snow ; though they be red like crimson, they shall 
 be as wool." " We pray you in Christ's stead, be ye 
 reconciled to God." But this is preaching repen- 
 tance ; what then will you say of the next ? " Look 
 unto me and be ye saved, all the ends of the eartht." 
 That the call is extended to the non-elect, is a fact 
 expressly asserted in so many words : " Many be call- 
 ed but few chosen." Those who belong to this class are 
 invited when they are hardy enough to make light of the 
 invitation, and even to destroy the messengers who 
 brino- it. " The kingdom of heaven is like unto a certain 
 
 * Mark 1. 4. Acts 3. 19. 1 Prov. 9. 1—6. Is. 1. 10—18. ana 
 
 45. 22. 2 Cor. 5. 20. 
 
CHAP. II.] OFFERED TO ALL. 341 
 
 king which made a marriage for his son, and sent forth his 
 servants to call them that were bidden to the wedding, 
 and they would not come. Again he sent forth other 
 servants, saying, tell them which are bidden, Behold I 
 have prepared my dinner, my oxen and my failings arc 
 killed, and all things are ready, come unto the marriage. 
 But they made light of it and went their ways, one to 
 his farm, another to his merchandise. And the remnant, 
 took his servants and entreated them spitefully and 
 slew them. But when the king heard thereof he was 
 wroth, and he sent forth his armies and destroyed 
 those murderers and burnt up their city. Then saith 
 he to his servants, the wedding is ready, but they which 
 were bidden were not worthy : go ye therefore into 
 the highways, and as many as ye shall find bid to the 
 marriage. So those servants went out into the high 
 ways, and gathered together all as many as they found, 
 both bad and good, and the wedding was furnished 
 w>th guests. And when the king came in to see the 
 guests, he saw there a man which had not on a wed- 
 ding garment. And he saith unto him, friend, how 
 earnest thou in hither not having a wedding gar- 
 ment ? And he was speechless. Then said the king 
 to the servants, bind him hand and foot, and take him 
 away and cast him into utter darkness ; there shall be 
 weeping and gnashing of teeth. For many are called 
 but few are chosen*." 
 
 All this was fulfilled in the invitations to the Jews, 
 and in the commission to the apostles, " Go ye into all 
 the world and preach," not repentance only, but " the 
 Gospel to every creature. He that believeth and is 
 baptised shall be saved, but he that believeth not shall 
 be damnedt." 
 
 The preachers of the Old Testament had made in- 
 
 * Matt. 20. 16. & 22. 2—14 „t Maik 16. 15, 16. 
 
 % F 2 
 
342 THE BENEFIT [PART III* 
 
 discriminate offers of life to the Jews in the name of a 
 Saviour to come. a To him give all the prophets wit- 
 ness, that through his name whosoever believeth in 
 him shall receive remission of sins." Christ himself 
 did the same. " He that believeth on the Son hath 
 everlasting life, and he that believeth not the Son shall 
 not see life." " Thus it behooved Christ to suffer, 
 and to rise from the dead the T third day, and that repent- 
 ance and remission of sins should be preached in hia 
 name among all nations." To the " wretched, and 
 miserable, and poor, and blind, and naked/' he said, 
 " I counsel thee to buy of me gold tried in the fire that 
 thou mayst be rich, and white raiment that thou mayst 
 be clothed." " Behold I stand at the door and knock ; 
 if any man hear my voice and open the door, I will 
 come in to him and will sup with him and he with me." 
 " The Spirit and the bride say, come ; and let him 
 that heareth say, come ; and let him that is athirst 
 come ; and whosoever will let him take the water of 
 life freely." After the same manner the apostles 
 preached. To a mixed assembly of Jews and hea- 
 then, in the first Gospel sermon ever preached in the 
 place, one of them said, " Be it known unto you there- 
 fore, men and brethren, that through this man is preach- 
 ed unto you the forgiveness of sins ; and by him all 
 that believe are justified from all things from which ye 
 could not be justified by the law of Moses*." 
 
 Thus the grant is actually made to all, lay- 
 ing a solid foundation for their faith. By this impor- 
 tant circumstance the non-elect are distinguished from 
 devils. The latter have no foundation for faith, be- 
 cause there is no promise for them to believe. A God 
 of truth has not unbarred their prison and assured 
 
 * Luke 24. 47. John 3. 36. & 5. 24. Acts 10. 43. & 13, 38, 39, 
 Rev. 3. 17, 18, 20. and 22. 17. 
 
CHAP. II.] OFFERED TO ALL. 343 
 
 them of mercy through his Son if they will accept it. 
 The promise and oath of God have not fallen on the 
 ear of hell. This vast difference lies between devils 
 and non-elect men. One have a stable foundation for 
 their faith, — for a full assurance that they shall be par- 
 doned by Christ if they will believe ; the other have 
 no foundation at all. One have an actual grant of 
 pardon made to them as moral agents, as far as it can 
 be made before they have performed their part ; the 
 other are delivered over to gleamless despair. One 
 can easily make remission their own if only well dis- 
 posed ; the other could not be discharged if they were 
 as holy as Gabriel. One will actually be pardoned if 
 they believe, the decree of non-election notwithstand- 
 ing 5 the other have nothing to believe but the sen- 
 tence of eternal reprobation. One hear it said, with 
 an eye directly fixed on them, " Behold I have pre- 
 pared my dinner, my oxen and my fatlings are killed, 
 and all things are ready, come unto the marriage ;" 
 affirming in the plainest terms, the provision was made 
 for you; the other are constantly hearing the sentence, 
 " Depart, ye cursed." And yet was no discrimina- 
 tion made between non-elect men and devils in the 
 provision for pardon ? 
 
 CHAPTER III. 
 
 ALL MEN BOUND TO MAKE THE BENEFIT THEIR OWN. 
 
 After all that has been said, if the benefit is offer- 
 ed to the non-elect upon impossible conditions, it is 
 still not provided for them as moral agents, and the 
 grant really amounts to nothing. This is the \ery 
 opening by which some who admit the universality of 
 
344 ALL BOUND TO MAKE [PART III. 
 
 the grant, elude the force of this stupendous fact. 
 It is impossible, say they, for the non-elect to be- 
 lieve, because faith is " the gift of God ;'? and on 
 this assumption they proceed to draw their conclu- 
 sions just as though the non-elect were dead mass- 
 es of matter. If this was the case, or if salvation 
 had been offered them upon any condition which they 
 had not natural ability to fulfil, (for instance, on their 
 possessing the strength of a Goliath or the intellect of 
 an Aristotle.) then indeed the offer would not have 
 proved a provision for them as moral agents. But if 
 the benefit had been suspended on their stretching out 
 the hand, it would have been easy for all to see that it 
 was provided for them as capable agents, though they 
 should have lost it by refusing to perform that act. Now 
 if they do possess a capacity which is a bonajiie basis 
 of obligation, and which bears the same relation to the 
 obligation to believe that muscular strength would 
 to the obligation to extend an arm at the divine com- 
 mand ; if they can be as reasonably required to do the 
 one as the other, and as reasonably punished for the 
 neglect, without resting any part of their obligation 
 on Adam ; then a benefit which is suspended on their 
 faith, is just as much provided for them as moral agents, 
 (or as creatures under obligations,) as though it had 
 been suspended on their stretching out the hand. And 
 the only reason why it is not easy for us to realize this, 
 is the difficulty we find in apprehending that their na- 
 tural powers are as complete a basis of obligation in 
 the one case as in the other. If it was familiar to the 
 mind that a rational creature, separated from the Spi- 
 rit, is as perfectly and reasonably bound to believe on 
 Christ as to extend an arm at the divine command, 
 every difficulty would vanish. We should then see 
 that the benefit of an atonement is as completely pro- 
 
OIIAF. III.] TEE BENEFIT THEIR OWN". 345 
 
 vided for those who remain unsanctified, as the house 
 which they are at liberty to occupy, or the office which 
 is suspended on their own choice. 
 
 It becomes then a question of vital importance 
 what relation unbelievers bear to faith in point of abi- 
 lity and obligation ; whether they are to be viewed in 
 this matter as impotent machines, or as men possess- 
 ed of ample natural powers and under reasonable 
 bonds. 
 
 This brings us to the second proposition in the plan 
 of the argument, which was, that the benefit of the 
 atonement is so brought within the reach of all who 
 hear the Gospel, that they are bound to make it their 
 own, and can enjoy it by only doing their duty. No- 
 thing is necessary to support this proposition but the 
 two following facts. 
 
 (1.) The faith on which the benefit is suspended is 
 required of all. Of every man that "charity" is de- 
 manded which " believeth all things." And many 
 texts might be quoted like the following: " This is his 
 commandment, that we should believe on the name of 
 his Son Jesus Christ." To the unbelieving Jews who 
 afterwards died in their sins, such injunctions as these 
 were addressed: "Repent ye and believe the Gos- 
 pel." " Though ye believe not me, believe the works." 
 " While ye have the light believe in the light." " This 
 is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he 
 hath sent*." 
 
 (2.) The unbelief of sinners is condemned and pu- 
 nished. " He will reprove the world of sin, — because 
 they believe not on me." " Ye have not his word 
 abiding in you, for whom he hath sent him ye believe 
 not. — Ye will not come to me that ye might have 
 
 * Mark 1. 15. John 6. 29, and 10, 33. and 12. 36. 1 Cor. 13, 7. 
 1 John 3. 23. 
 
346 ALL BOUND TO MAKE [PART III* 
 
 iife." " If ye believe not that I am he, ye shall die 
 in your sins." " He that believeth not shall be dam- 
 ned." " He that believeth not is condemned already, 
 because he hath not believed in the name of the only 
 begotten Son of God. And this is the condemnation, 
 that light is come into the world and men loved dark- 
 ness rather than light because their deeds were evil." 
 " 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 which believe not." {i That they all might 
 be damned who believed not the truth but had plea- 
 sure in unrighteousness." " To whom swore he that 
 they should not enter into his rest, but to them 
 that believed not?" That tremendous burst of wrath 
 which overwhelmed the Jewish nation, and which 
 follows them to this day, is a standing monument to 
 the world of the vengeance of God against unbelief. 
 So completely does the fault lie on sinners, that God 
 wipes his hands of their blood, and in a manner which 
 implies that he has not failed to make ample provision 
 for them, says, " What could have been done more to 
 my vineyard that 1 have not done in it ?" " As I live 
 — I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but 
 that the wicked turn from his way and live : turn ye, 
 turn ye, — for why will ye die* ?" 
 
 That the wicked lose the benefit of the atonement 
 by their own fault, is supported, as we have seen, 
 by the collective testimony of the Synod of Dort. I 
 will now add the opinion of several of the particular 
 classes of delegates. Those from Hesse say, that 
 mankind " are all commanded to believe in Christ, and 
 that the unbelieving are justly condemned for their un- 
 
 *Isai. 5.4. Ezek. 33. 11. Mar. 16. 16. John 3. 18, 19, and 5. 
 33, 40. and 8. 24. and 16. 8, 9. 2. Cor. 4. 3, 4. 2. Thes. 2. 12. Hch 
 3. 18. 
 
CHAP. III.] THE BENEFIT THEIR OWN. 347 
 
 belief*." Those from the Wetteraw say, " The suffi- 
 ciency and magnitude of the ransom of Christ, as re- 
 lates to the reprobate, has a double end, one in itself 
 and the other by accident. — The end by accident is, 
 that they may be without excuse : because they perish, 
 not by the fault of Christ, but by their own ; since by 
 their own unbelief they reject the benefits of Christ 
 offered in the Gospel?." Matthias Martinius, a dele- 
 gate from Bremen, says, " In this [outward] call are 
 to be distinguished these things : the historical narra- 
 tive concerning Christ, the command to believe, the 
 interdiction of unbelief, the promise of eternal life 
 made to believers, the threatening of damnation to the 
 unbelieving. And if any one does not believe, the 
 issue of this call is condemnation, and expressly for 
 this reason, because he does not believe in the name 
 of the only begotten Son of God. (John 3. 18.) But 
 this issue in itself is not intended by God, but follows 
 by accident through the fault of man. — For these 
 things, [which are required as conditions of salvation,] 
 men are bound by the power of a divine command 
 to perform themselves ; and they who are not able to 
 do this, are not able through their own fault?." A mo- 
 ral inability, Henry Iselburg, another delegate from 
 Bremen, says, "All and each are sincerely and seri- 
 ously commanded to believe in Christ ; — and they who 
 do not believe in the name of the Son of God are justly 
 condemned. — No one of the reprobate can be con- 
 demned and perish for want of the death of Christ, 
 or because there was not in him a sufficient remedy 
 against destruction, but each one through his own fault 
 entirely§." The delegates from Drent say, " It is 
 most; true that the reprobate perish by their own 
 fault||.» 
 
 * Acts of Synod, Part II. p; 114.-1 p. 128.— % p. 134, 137.— 4 p, 
 141, 142.— JJ Pait IH. p. 205, 
 
348 AXL BOUND TO MAKE [PART III. 
 
 Thus it is agreed on all hands that those who re- 
 main unsanctified have the benefit of the atonement so 
 within their reach that they ought to make it their own, 
 and have no right to lose it, and are charged with a 
 most unreasonable and wicked neglect in not apply- 
 ing it to themselves ; that God peremptorily forbids 
 them to do without it, and when they attempt to put it 
 from them, will take no excuse, and at last will visit them 
 with eternal punishment for throwing it out of their 
 hands. He actually enters against them, in the ac- 
 counts of a moral government, the charge of an atonement, 
 as a provision made for their use, as a privilege, a ta- 
 lent committed to them ; and he will act upon this 
 charge at the judgment of the great day and through- 
 out eternity. In that part of his administration in 
 which he is the most scrupulous to weigh all things in 
 exact scales, and to express all matters with literal 
 truth, he will pronounce, in tones as deliberate and 
 solemn as eternal damnation, that an atonement was 
 provided for them, and that they madly threw it away. 
 
 Now this decides the question. There is no occa- 
 sion any longer to inquire about the nature of the 
 atonement, or the express purpose for which it was of- 
 fered ; we find the privilege actually in the hands of 
 all. . Their obligation to use it for their benefit, makes 
 it true, independently of every other circumstance, that 
 if. is for them as moral agents. 
 
 I know of but one way in which an evasion of this 
 argument can even be attempted. It will be said that 
 God, foreknowing that the non-elect would not accept 
 an atonement if provided for them, did not make the 
 provision ; and yet, concealing the fact from them, and 
 to bring out their hearts to view, commanded them to 
 accept it, This is exactly the case presented in the 
 
CHAP. III.] THE BENEFIT THEIR OWN. 349 
 
 parable of the prisoners and the pearl. By this case 
 then let the principle be tried. 
 
 Whether the ransom was accepted for the 900 as 
 capable agents, depends on the question whether they 
 zcould have been stopt had they attempted to come out. 
 That it is lawful to make the supposition of such an 
 attempt, though it was foreknown that it would not be 
 made, appears from this : foreknowledge does not 
 cause an event, and therefore has no influence in mak- 
 ing it certain, but is only a perception of what that 
 certainty is. Where it is foreseen that an event will 
 not take place, the foresight has no influence to pre- 
 vent its occurrence, or to destroy the power of crea- 
 tures to produce it, or to render the occurrence a na- 
 tural impossibility. If the certainty which exists in 
 the thing itself has no influence on any of these mat- 
 ters, the knowledge of that certainty manifestly has not. 
 But if the certainty which exists in the thing itself des- 
 troys the power of creatures to do otherwise than 
 they do, and renders a different course a natural im- 
 possibility, then every thing is fate and men are ma- 
 chines. Foreknowledge has no more influence on the 
 event, or on the possibility of its being otherwise, or 
 on the power of creatures, than after knowledge. But 
 after we know a thing to be certain by actually wit- 
 nessing the event, we perceive that neither this cer- 
 tainty nor this knowledge had any influence on the 
 power of the agents concerned. In the case under 
 consideration, we plainly see that neither the fore- 
 knowledge that the 900 would not come out, nor our 
 after knowledge that they did not come out, had any ef- 
 fect on their power. They certainly were able to come 
 out. Upon the principle now opposed, because a 
 thing is certain we may not make the supposition of its 
 being otherwise. But even after the event, we do 
 
350 ALL BOUND TO MAKE [PART III. 
 
 make this supposition continually. In explaining the 
 influence of causes, or the relation between antece- 
 dents and consequents, we constantly say, had circum- 
 stances been so and so, consequences would have been 
 thus and thus : and we have a right to speak in this 
 manner of all events which do not involve a natural 
 impossibility. We have a right then to ask what 
 would have been the consequence had the 900 accept- 
 ed the offer. 
 
 And now in such an event they either would have 
 been stopt or they would not. If they would, the 
 whole transaction was a trick, and no command, unless 
 supported by falsehood, could have imposed on them 
 an obligation to come out, because the thing was a 
 natural impossibility. And if this is the case with the 
 non-elect, it is not true, as the Synod of Dort affirm, 
 that they do not perish "for want* of the sacrifice 
 of Christ :" they do perish in one sense for want of 
 that sacrifice, and in another through their own unbe- 
 lief. They perish for want of the sacrifice in this 
 sense, that they would perish if every other cause were 
 removed ; in other words, should they actually be- 
 lieve they would not be pardoned. 
 
 On the other hand, if the prisoners would not have 
 been stopped, but would have been permitted to come 
 out on the ground of the ransom offered, then that ran- 
 som was certainly accepted for them as capable agents. 
 And if you have evidence that they would not have 
 been stopt by their retainer, it must be because he had 
 publicly engaged that they should come out if they 
 would on the ground of the ransom paid. And if he 
 had made such an engagement, he had, by a public 
 covenant, accepted the ransom for them as capable 
 agents. No matter what secret respect the redeemer 
 had to the happiness of the hundred. No matter what 
 
CHAP. III.] THE BENEFIT THEIR OWN. 351 
 
 foresight the retainer had of the obstinacy of the rest. 
 Here is a public acceptance of the ransom for the 900 
 as capable agents. And pray what more was done, 
 or could be done, for the favoured hundred ? The ran- 
 som was not accepted for them in case they would not 
 come out. No, you say, but the redeemer and re- 
 tainer both knew they would. Granted : but still their 
 coming out was an exertion of their own agency, 
 which must not be buried up or passed over in silence. 
 This thing, which belonged neither to the redeemer nor 
 retainer, but to themselves, was a necessary antece- 
 dent to their deliverance, and ought to be spoken of as 
 such. The ransom then was manifestly offered for the 
 hundred to procure their deliverance on the supposition 
 of their coming out ; and it was publicly agreed be- 
 tween the parties that it should obtain the deliverance 
 of the 900 on condition that they would come out. The 
 only difference was, that the parties foreknew tha tone 
 class would come out, and that the other would not. But 
 as this foreknowledge did not destroy the complete- 
 ness of moral agency, nor any of its attributes, but left 
 every thing pertaining to the agents unimpaired and 
 unchanged, it did not prevent the ransom from being as 
 completely offered and accepted for the 900 as agents 
 as for the rest. 
 
 On the whole, if the obligation of sinners to make 
 the benefit their own, does not prove that the atone- 
 ment was offered and accepted for them as moral 
 agents, it does not prove that the benefit would be 
 theirs even should they fulfil their obligations. And 
 then it is made their duty to secure an advantage 
 which they could not secure by doing their duty. They 
 are commanded to do a natural impossibility upon 
 pain of damnation, and are eternally punished for not 
 performing what with the best dispositions they could 
 
352 ALL BOUND TO MAKE [PART III, 
 
 not have done. And they would have seen the oppres- 
 sion of the command had they not been blinded by 
 deception. 
 
 No such thing as this is found in the Gospel. The 
 Father, who is represented by the retainer of the pri- 
 soners, has solemnly and publicly covenanted that all 
 shall go out on the ground of the atonement if they 
 will believe, and has thus openly declared it accepted 
 for all as moral agents. He is the " King which made 
 a marriage for his Son, 5 ' and sent his servants to say 
 to the identical persons whom he afterwards destroy- 
 ed, " Behold I have prepared my dinner, my oxen and 
 my fadings are killed, and all things are ready, come 
 unto the marriage.'' I have prepared my dinner/or 
 you if you will receive it; all things are ready for you 
 if you will partake. It was in obedience to his com- 
 mand that the Son declared, " He thatbelieveth — shall 
 be saved." "This is the will of him that sent me, 
 that every one which seeth the Son and believeth on 
 him, may have everlasting life*." Thus the Father 
 has solemnly pledged himself that he has accepted the 
 atonement for all ; and this information is brought to 
 the world by the Redeemer himself. The Parties then 
 are both active in proclaiming this public acceptance 
 of the atonement for all. It is in vain longer to insist 
 on any secret intention of Christ ; here is his own 
 voice openly pronouncing the atonement accepted for 
 all by the mutual understanding of the Parties. On 
 supposition then that they who remain unsanctified 
 should believe, they certainly would be pardoned. 
 
 But it is said, if this supposition is made we must 
 also suppose that the decree of redemption accorded 
 with this fact. No, but the message to the identical 
 persons who perished, and in the very circumstances 
 
 *Mat. 22. 4. Mar. 16. 16. John 6. 40. 
 
CHAP. HI.] THE BENEFIT THEIR OWN. 35 
 
 in which they then stood, was, " All things are ready" 
 for you ; not, all things would have been ready had it 
 been foreseen that you would come. It was declared 
 that the oxen and failings had been actually killed in 
 sufficient numbers to supply them all, and that they, 
 invited as they were, stood in such a relation to the 
 feast that they could that day enjoy it by only accept- 
 ing the offer ; implying that no natural impossibility 
 lay in the way, as in the supposed case of the pearl. 
 Had it only been true that the feast would have been 
 so prepared for them had it been foreseen that they 
 would accept it, what was said was palpably false. 
 Nor can it be alleged that this was only a parable. 
 The plain and direct language of the Gospel to those 
 who remain unsanctified, is exactly the same. The 
 individuals of that number are expressly told to-day, 
 that the atonement has been, not would have been, ac- 
 cepted/or them, in such a sense as to place remission 
 within their reach. Without the least reference to 
 foreknowledge, and as the purpose of atonement now 
 stands, they are told that they, the present capable 
 agents, (and they are just as capable as though a dif- 
 ferent result had been foreseen,) can receive the bene- 
 fit only by believing ; that it is their indispensable 
 duty to make it their own ; and that if they fail to ap- 
 propriate it to themselves, they shall be eternally 
 punished for that most unreasonable neglect. All this 
 is said to them to-day, just as foreknowledge and the 
 purpose of atonement now stand. And if it is not so, 
 the report is not according to truth, and the command 
 and subsequent punishment are — what I will not 
 impute to the righteous Governour of the world. 
 
 2 G 2 
 
354 INFLUENCE [pART HI. 
 
 CHAPTER IV. 
 
 ACTUAL INFLUENCE OF THE ATONEMENT UPON ALL. 
 
 The third proposition laid down in the plan of the 
 argument was, that the atonement so changed the re- 
 lations of all men to the divine law, as to render their 
 pardon consistent with the honour of the law in case 
 they hear the Gospel and believe. Before I proceed 
 to the proof of this proposition, I wish to draw the 
 reader's attention closely to the following remarks. 
 
 (1.) If it is allowed that the atonement did change 
 the relations of all men to the divine law, in this pre- 
 cise respect, that it rendered their actual pardon con- 
 sistent with the honour of the law if they would be- 
 lieve ; the whole is granted that any one pleads for, 
 as respects the actual influence of the atonement on 
 those who perish. The only remaining question then 
 will be, how came it to have such an influence on 
 all? 
 
 (2.) If the atonement did render the pardon of all 
 men consistent with the honour of the law in case 
 they would believe, then it essentially changed the 
 relations of all men to the divine law as it did not that, 
 of devils. In their natural relation as transgressors, 
 they could not have been pardoned consistently with 
 the honour of the law even had they returned to holi- 
 ness. This was the very reason why an atonement 
 was necessary. Had it been consistent with the ho- 
 nour of the law to pardon sinners on their mere return 
 to holiness, their actual pardon might have been ac- 
 complished by the mission of the Spirit without an ex- 
 piation for sin. Devils still retain this natural relation 
 to the law ; and should they return to holiness, (a sup- 
 
CHAP. IV.] UPON ALL. 355 
 
 position allowable even of them as moral agents,) they 
 could not be pardoned. If then the atonement did render 
 the pardon of all men consistent with the honour of the 
 law in case they would believe, it essentially changed 
 the relation of all men to the law as it did not that of 
 devils. 
 
 (3.) If the relations of all men to the divine law are 
 thus changed, or if their pardon has become consistent 
 with the honour of the law in case they will believe, 
 this change has been wrought by the atonement. No- 
 thing else has taken place to produce it ;*■ nothing else 
 could. If any thing but an infinitely dignified sacri- 
 fice could have rendered the pardon of men consistent 
 with the honour of the law on any terms, the Son of 
 God would not have died. 
 
 (4.) If the relations of all men to the divine law are 
 not thus changed, or if their pardon has not become 
 consistent with the honour of the law on the supposi- 
 tion of their faith, then a part could not be pardoned 
 even should they believe. Believe what ? The pro- 
 mise and oath of God that they shall be pardoned if 
 they do believe. Had not that promise been made, 
 there would have been no more foundation for their 
 faith than for that of devils ; and it would have been ut- 
 terly without a meaning to talk of their being pardon- 
 ed in case they would believe. The very supposition 
 of its being consistent with the honour of the law for 
 them to be pardoned if they believe, implies that there 
 is something in relation to their own ^salvation for 
 them to believe. It implies that the promise of God 
 has assured them that they shall be pardoned by the 
 atonement if they do believe. And this promise could 
 not have been made had not the atonement rendered 
 their actual pardon consistent with the honour of the 
 law on the supposition of their faith. This leads di- 
 
356 INFLUENCE [PART III, 
 
 rectly to the proof of the proposition at the head of the 
 chapter. 
 
 This proof is contained in the two propositions 
 which went before ; viz. that in the offer and promise, 
 the benefit of the atonement is actually given and made 
 over to all who hear the Gospel, on the condition of 
 their faith ; and that they are laid under obligations to 
 make it their own, and are punished for throwing it 
 away. It ought to be distinctly noticed, that if these 
 two facts prove that the relation of all men to the di- 
 vine law is changed, they prove that it was changed 
 by the atonement. The offer and promise are of par- 
 don through that very sacrifice ; and the faith com- 
 manded is a reliance on that expiation and promise. 
 Let us then consider the argument, first, as it is drawn 
 from the grant, and secondly, as it is deduced from the 
 obligation. 
 
 (1.) As it is drawn from the grant. The benefit of 
 the atonement is offered to all. Should all accept, (and 
 this supposition is allowable,) would they or would 
 they not find their pardon to be consistent with the ho- 
 nour of the law? If not, they might justly complain of a 
 grievous deception. If the king who invited the guests 
 to the marriage feast, had made provision only for 
 half, you would certainly have charged him with du- 
 plicity and mockery. True, you say, because he 
 could not foresee how many would come. And has it 
 not been proved that all the measures of a moral go- 
 vernment have the same consistency of relation as 
 though there was no foreknowledge ? The character 
 in which God stands related to moral agents, is pre- 
 served as consistent with itself as that of any wise and 
 just earthly prince can be. The Moral Governour, to 
 whom appertained both the atonement and offer, would 
 no more invite a greater number than he had provided 
 
HAP. IV.] UPON ALL. 357 
 
 for, than would any fair and honourable man. If am- 
 ple provision is not made for all, that class of Chris- 
 tians alone take consistent ground who deny the uni- 
 versality of the offer. Again, in the offer and promise 
 there is a foundation laid for the faith of all. And can 
 it be supposed that there is a foundation laid in the 
 grant for all to believe, and no foundation in the atone- 
 ment for their faith to profit them ? Then they stand 
 after all exactly on the ground of devils, — with this 
 difference against them, that they are tantalized with of- 
 fers, which, should they attempt to seize them, would 
 escape from their grasp. In the case of devils, there is 
 no atonement and no foundation laid for their faith. 
 This is consistent. But to lay a foundation for the 
 faith of men, and no foundation for their faith to profit 
 them, would in human transactions be stigmatized with 
 an epithet which I dare not even by supposition apply 
 to the blessed God. That Christ is offered to those to 
 whom he could not become a Saviour 'even should 
 they believe, — to whom he would be no bless- 
 ing if they should receive him, is what I hope no one 
 will continue to maintain. A foundation for faith, and 
 no foundation for faith to profit ! I wonder that single 
 thought should have left a remaining doubt below the 
 sun. No foundation for faith to profit! But there is. 
 The promise expressly affirms it. The oath of God 
 declares to every man who hears the Gospel, that if he 
 will believe his faith shall profit him through the ex- 
 piation of Christ. That such a foundation then is 
 laid in the atonement, we have no less proof than the 
 oath of God. And what fact in the universe was ever 
 supported by better evidence ? At any rate, if the 
 promise is true, all men would be pardoned by the 
 atonement should they believe, even if the ex- 
 piation has not rendered their discharge consistent 
 
358 INFLUENCE [PART III, 
 
 with the honour of the law. They must be pardoned 
 or the oath of God fails : and if the atonement has not 
 rendered their acquittal consistent with the honour of 
 the law on the supposition of their faith, the plain truth 
 is, that the death of Christ does not support the grant 
 which has been founded on it. 
 
 (2.) Another argument may be drawn from the uni- 
 versal command to believe, and the punishment of 
 unbelief. What is the faith thus enjoined on every 
 man ? A belief that God will be to him " a Rewarder" 
 if he diligently seeks him*. It is a firm persuasion 
 that God will pardon and save him through the atone- 
 ment and righteousness of Christ if he believes, and 
 that his acquittal and salvation, in such an event, have 
 been rendered consistent with the honour of the law 
 by the sufferings and obedience of his Redeemer. On 
 every man, without waiting for evidence of his elec- 
 tion, such a faith is enjoined by the positive command 
 of God. And does God command men to believe a 
 lie ? And does he punish them with eternal destruc- 
 tion for not crediting a falsehood ? 
 
 Upon the top of these two arguments I will bring- 
 forward the general confession of the Church. That 
 the atonement has reconciled with the honour of the 
 law the pardon of every man if he will believe, is a 
 fact acknowledged in the daily practice of every minis- 
 ter of the Gospel. None of us hesitates to say to an 
 assembly of unregenerate men, among whom we al- 
 ways presume there are some of the non-elect, if you 
 will all believe you shall be pardoned through the 
 atonement of Christ ; which is to say, that the atone- 
 ment has reconciled with the honour of the law the 
 pardon of every soul in the assembly if he will be- 
 lieve. We go to the next assembly and address them 
 
 * Heb. 11. 6. 
 
CHAP. IV.] UPON ALL. 369 
 
 in the same words. And if the whole race of Adam 
 were living at once, not one of us, 1 suppose, would 
 scruple to say the same to all. And when we take 
 the race in detail, by conversing with individuals in 
 private, we say to the unregenerate as fast as they 
 come, if you will believe you shall be pardoned through 
 the death of Christ; which is to say, the atonement 
 has rendered it consistent with the honour of the law 
 for you in particular to be pardoned if you will be- 
 lieve. And were it possible for the whole race of 
 Adam to pass in succession before us, not one of us 
 would hesitate to say the same to every individual. 
 
 If it be alleged that we should thus speak from not 
 knowing who the elect are, I answer, Christ him- 
 self, who did know, spoke in the same manner. He 
 said to every one, if thou believe thou shalt be saved. 
 How often, may we suppose, he pronounced this pro- 
 mise w T ith an eye fixed on Judas. 
 
 The Synod of Dort, though they ascribe this gene- 
 ral influence of the atonement to its efficiency, every 
 where represent that it reconciled with the honour of 
 the law the pardon of every man if he will believe, a 
 thing which they never said of devils. The follow- 
 ing is the language of the whole Synod. " The pro- 
 position that Jesus Christ the Saviour died for all and 
 each, is ambiguous through imperfection. If you add 
 believers, the proposition will be clear and true ; if 
 men, it remains ambiguous : for it can be understood 
 either of the amplitude of the merit of Christ's death, 
 which is in the highest degree sufficient for the recon- 
 ciliation of all men, or of its efficacy, actually recon- 
 ciling all men. In the former sense the proposition is 
 indeed true ; for the death of Christ, in point of its 
 amplitude and power, is a remedy in the highest de- 
 gree sufficient to atone for the sins of all men and 
 
360 INFLUENCE [PART III, 
 
 every man ; nor to actual reconciliation is any thing 
 wanting to all and each who receive it by faith. In 
 this sense Christ may be said to have died for all men 
 and every man. And in the same sense the sayings 
 of Scripture, where Christ is said to have died for all, 
 (1 Tim. 2. 6.) to have tasted death for all, (Heb. 2. 9.) 
 to be a propitiation for the sins of the whole world. 
 
 (1 John 2. 2.) ARE COMMONLY AND NOT IMPROPERLY 
 
 understood, though they may be taken also in a more 
 restricted sense*." The Synod affirm " that as to 
 the sufficiency of his ransom and merit, Christ died 
 
 AND WILLED TO DIE FOR ALL AND EACH :" and they 
 
 add, " If they, [the Remonstrants,] deny their agree- 
 ment [with this,] how do they not blaspheme the death 
 of the Son of God as an insufficient ransomt ?" Now 
 this is all we mean. Christ died and willed to die for 
 all and each, so far as to render their pardon possible 
 and certain if they would believe ; that is, he died 
 and willed to die for all and each as moral agents. 
 
 The delegates from Great Britain say, " God, pity- 
 ing the lapsed human race, sent his Son, who gave 
 himself as the price of redemption for the sins of the 
 whole world.— Christ therefore so died for all men. 
 that all and each, faith intervening, can obtain remis- 
 sion of sins and eternal Jife by virtue of that ransom. 
 — In this merit of Christ's death is founded the uni- 
 versal Gospel promise, according to which all who 
 believe in Christ do actually obtain remission of sins 
 and eternal life J." 
 
 The delegates from Hesse say, " About the first pro- 
 position, [viz. that Jesus Christ, the Saviour of 'he 
 world, died for all and each of mankind,] we would 
 not contend with any man ; since the Sacred Writings 
 
 * Ads of Synod, Part I. p. 247, 248. 1 p. 248, 249. 1 Part 
 
 II. p. 100, 101.. 
 
CHAP. IV.] UPON ALL. 361 
 
 expressly say thatChrist died for all, (but never for each,) 
 and is a propitiation for the sins of the whole world. The 
 true meaning of which phraseology we think to be this : 
 that so great is the worth, power, value, and price of 
 the passion and death of Christ, that it is abundantly 
 sufficient to atone for the sins of all men and every 
 man, as many as have lived, do live, or shall hereaf- 
 ter live. — This passion and death were necessarily of 
 infinite value, insomuch that all and each of mankind, 
 provided only they cleave to Christ by a true faith, 
 will, through or on account of his passion and death, 
 be received into the grace and favour of God, and ob- 
 tain remission of sins, righteousness, and eternal life. 
 Whence the word of the Gospel concerning Christ Je- 
 sus crucified, is proclaimed to the elect and reprobate 
 respectively, and all are commanded to believe in him, 
 with this promise subjoined, that all who do believe in 
 him shall obtain reconciliation with God, remission of 
 their sins, righteousness, and eternal salvation." 
 u They, [the Remonstrants,] have added this declara- 
 tion, that Christ by his death procured reconciliation, 
 not for the elect alone, — but also for all other men, and 
 that according to the counsel and decree of the Fa- 
 ther : which wor^s are capable of a double meaning. 
 The first is, that it was the counsel and decree of God 
 the Father that Christ by his passion and death should 
 pay such a ransom, that, in itself considered, it should 
 be of so great worth, and power, and value, that it should 
 be abundantly sufficient to reconcile all and each of 
 mankind to God. — And in this sense it is true ; nor 
 was it ever denied by the doctors of the Reformed 
 Church. For such as the ransom of Christ — in itself is, 
 such God the Father from eternity willed it to beV 7 
 The delegates from the Wetteraw say, " Christ is 
 
 * Acts of Syaod, Part II. p. 114, 116. 
 
 2H 
 
362 INFLUENCE [PART I£JU 
 
 an expiation for the sins of the whole world so far as 
 relates to the worth and sufficiency of his ransom." 
 " When Christ is said to have died for all, this can be 
 understood of the sufficiency of the merit, or the magni- 
 tude of the price." They quote with approbation from 
 one who says, that " the merit of Christ has an equal 
 bearing on all as to its sufficiency, but not as to its effi- 
 cacy. — The sufficiency and magnitude of the ransom 
 of Christ, as relates to the reprobate, has a double 
 end; one in itself and the other by accident. The end 
 in itself is, that God may testify that he is not delight- 
 ed with the perdition of men, seeing he gave his only 
 begotten Son that every one who believes in him may 
 not perish but have eternal life* The end by acci- 
 dent is, that by means of its magnitude and sufficiency 
 the reprobate may be without excuse. " And they add 
 themselves, " For these perish, not by the fault of 
 Christ, but by their own, since by their own unbelief 
 they reject the benefits of Christ offered in the Gos- 
 pel." " The reprobate are bound to believe this ? 
 that the merit of Christ is of so great worth that it is 
 able to profit them also : and it would indeed profit 
 them if they would believe the Gospel and repent*." 
 
 Matthias Martinius, one of the delegates from Bre- 
 men, says, " There is in God a certain common love 
 to man with which he regarded the whole lapsed 
 human race, and seriously willed the salvation of all 
 The exercise of this love to man appears in the out 
 ward call to the elect and reprobate without distinc 
 tion. — Jn this call are to be distinguished these things 
 the historical narrative concerning Christ, the com 
 mand to believe, the interdiction of unbelief, the pro 
 mise of eternal life made to believers, the threatening 
 of damnation to the unbelieving. And if any one does 
 
 * Acts of Synod., Part II. p. 125, 128, 128, 129. 
 
CHAP. IV.] UPON ALL. o6\i 
 
 not believe, the issue of this call is condemnation, and 
 expressly for this reason, because he does not believe 
 in the name of the only begotten Son of God. (John 3. 
 18.) But this issue in itself is not intended by God, 
 but follows by accident through the fault of man. — 
 Moreover, this outward call — necessarily requires ante- 
 cedent to itself these things ; the promise and mission 
 of the Son, (formerly future, now past,) and redemp- 
 tion$ that is, the payment of a price to atone for sins, 
 and God rendered so placable as to require no other 
 sacrifice for the sins of any man, content with this 
 only most perfect one, and that for the reconciliation 
 of men there be no need of any other satisfaction, any 
 other merit for them, provided, (what in remedies must 
 be done,) there be an application of this common and 
 salutary medicine. If this redemption is not supposed 
 to be a common blessing bestowed on all men, the in- 
 discriminate and promiscuous preaching of the Gos- 
 pel, committed to the apostles to be exercised among 
 all nations, will have no foundation in truth. But 
 since we abhor to say this, it ought to be seen to how 
 their assertions agree with the most known and lucid 
 principles, who unqualifiedly deny that Christ died for 
 all. Nor here will it be enough to assert such a suffi- 
 ciency of redemption as could be enough ; but it is al- 
 together such as is enough, and such as God and 
 Christ have considered enough. For otherwise the 
 Gospel command and promise are destroyed. For how 
 from a benefit, sufficient indeed, but not designed for 
 me by a sincere intention, can the necessity of believ- 
 ing that it belongs to me be deduced? What then 
 shall we call this redemption ? This redemption is in 
 the new world what creation is in the old : to wit, as 
 the creation of man is not the image of God, but is 
 that foundation without which the image of God could 
 
364 INFLUENCE [PART III. 
 
 not have place in him ; so also redemption is no part of 
 the image of God, but is that in which is founded the 
 whole exercise of the prophetic and kingly offices of 
 Christ, and his priestly intercession. But care must 
 be taken not to carry this comparison too far. This 
 redemption is the payment of a price due for us cap- 
 tives, not that we should go forth from captivity at all 
 events, but that we should be able and be bound to go 
 forth : and in fact we should go forth if we would be- 
 lieve in the Redeemer, acknowledge his benefit, and 
 thoroughly become members of him as the Head. 
 And therefore upon whatever man we fall, to him we 
 are the messengers and publishers of this salutary 
 grace, (saving however to believers only,) from the 
 very office of piety and charity." " The Lord even 
 merited grace for all men ; but not for all men that 
 grace which depends on particular election. What 
 then ? That which is promised on condition of faith. 
 For certainly to all men is promised remission of sins 
 and eternal life if they believe. Here therefore it ap- 
 pears that a conditional remission of sins and salva- 
 tion belong to all, but not a promise to give strength 
 and excite the actions by which that condition is ful- 
 filled. For these things men are bound by the power 
 of a divine command to perform themselves ; and they 
 who are not able to do this, are not able through their 
 own fault." " Christ merited the favour of God for 
 all, to be actually obtained if they believe. — This his 
 favour God declares in common in the word of the 
 Gospel." " Christ died for all in regard to the merit 
 and sufficiency of the ransom, for believers only in re- 
 gard to the application and efficacy. In support of 
 which very sentiment many testimonies of the fathers, 
 and schoolmen, and more recent doctors of the Church, 
 can be cited when there is need." " He who despises 
 
CHAP. IV.] UPON ALL* 365 
 
 the offering of Christ made on the cross, loses all the 
 right which he might have had in it, and thereby ag- 
 gravates damnation to himself: — and the Gospel, 
 which in itself is a savour of life unto life, becomes to 
 the unbelieving a savour of death unto death, by acci- 
 dent, through their own fault." Among the proposi- 
 tions which Martinius pronounces false, are the fol- 
 lowing : " Christ died in no sense for them that pe- 
 rish ;" and, " The decree of particular election, or 
 reprobation of certain persons, cannot consist with the 
 universality of Christ's death*." 
 
 Henry Iselburg, another delegate from Bremen, 
 says, " Such is the worth and virtue of the passion ; 
 death, and merit of Christ, that, by itself and in its own 
 nature, it is abundantly sufficient to atone for and take 
 away all the sins of all men, and to obtain and confer 
 on all and each, without exception, reconciliation with 
 God, grace, righteousness, and eternal life. And 
 therefore the remedy of sin and death, our Lord Jesus 
 Christ, is proposed and offered by the preaching of the 
 Gospel, not to certain persons only, or to those alone 
 who are to be saved, but to the elect and reprobate, 
 indiscriminately ; and all without distinction are invi- 
 ted to a participation or fruition of it, and to eternal 
 life thereby ; and all and each are sincerely and seri- 
 ously commanded to believe in Christ, to live to him, 
 and to come to the acknowledgment of the truth ; and 
 they who do not believe in the name of the Son of God 
 are justly condemned In this sense Christ is rightly 
 said to have died sufficiently for all, as all who believe 
 in him and seek his aid are able and bound to obtain 
 reconciliation, remission of sins, and the inheritance of 
 eternal life ; as the sins of no mortal are so great that 
 the sacrifice of Christ cannot suffice to atone for them 5 
 
 * Acts of Synod, Part II. p. 133—139. 
 
 2H2 
 
§66 INFLUENCE [PART III. 
 
 as not one of the human race is alien from him in the 
 same sense and degree that' Satan and the evil angels 
 are. And this is the will and intention of God 
 from eternity, that the death of Christ should be suffi- 
 cient for all in such a sense and degree, that God can 
 require no other sacrifice or satisfaction for the sins of 
 men but that one alone, to atone for every evil, (per- 
 manent impenitence and the sin against the Holy 
 Ghost excepted ;) and on the other hand, that he may 
 account and esteem it in the highest degree sufficient 
 to merit every salutary good, and that there may be 
 no need of any other merit for men. Wherefore no 
 one of the reprobate can be condemned and perish for 
 want of the death of Christ, or because ihere was not 
 in him a sufficient remedy against destruction, but 
 each one through his own fault entirely*." 
 
 Ludovicus Crocius, the other delegate from Bre- 
 men, says, " So great is the worth, price, power, value, 
 and sufficiency of the death of Christ, that it wants no- 
 thing at all to the purpose of meriting, acquiring, and 
 obtaining reconciliation with God and remission of 
 sins for all men and every man. It was the counsel, 
 aim, and intention, not only of God the Father in de- 
 livering the Son to death, but of the Son also in dying, 
 to acquire, obtain, and merit, by that most precious 
 death and passion, for all and each of human sinners, 
 that if they repent and believe in Christ when they 
 become capable of instruction, they may be able to be 
 reconciled to God and receive remission of sins. 
 Christ having suffered and died according to his own 
 and his Father's counsel, did by his death and passion 
 merit most sufficiently for all and each of human sin- 
 ners, that if they only repent and believe, they may 
 be able to be reconciled to God, or be restored to his 
 favour and bosom. — This doctrine, as being most true. 
 
 * Acts of Synod, Part, II. p. 141, 142. 
 
CHAP. IV. J UPON ALL. 367 
 
 as being agreeable to the Scriptures, to the nature of 
 the thing, to the confession of the Church, (and the 
 church of Bremen expressly,) to the better and more 
 common sentiment of the fathers, and of the theologians 
 both ancient and modern, is necessarily, (as I believe,) 
 to be uncorruptly and sacredly retained and defended 
 in the Church of God, as well for the glory of God, 
 (which is so illustrated that his truth in cailing, his 
 equity in commanding, his justice in threatening, ap- 
 pear to all who seriously contemplate the Scriptures,) 
 as for the edification, growth, and consolation of the 
 called in true faith and piety, and finally, for the sa- 
 lutary avoiding and refutation of divers heresies which 
 like rocks surround this doctrine*." 
 
 The Dutch Professors say, " We confess that the 
 merit and value of the death and satisfaction of Christ 
 is so great, and of so great a price, as well on ac- 
 count of its perfection, as the infinite dignity of his Per- 
 son, that it is not only sufficient to atone for all, even 
 the greatest sins of men, but also to save all the pos- 
 terity of Adam, though they were many more, provided 
 they embrace it by a true faith.- — It is not even to be 
 doubted that it was the intention of God the Father in 
 delivering his Son, and of Christ in offering himself, 
 that he should pay such and so great a ransom : for 
 whatever Christ accomplished by his death, this he 
 accomplished according to the Father's intention and 
 his ownt." 
 
 The delegates from the synod of G elders say, 
 " What is here asserted, (that Christ died for all, and 
 that none but believers are actually made partakers 
 of remission,) if it is spoken of adults, we believe it 
 with the whole heart: for the Scripture inculcates this 
 so often, and in such express terms, that no one, un- 
 
 * Acts of Synod, Part II. p. 150, 151.— t Part III. p. 121. 
 
369 INFLUENCE [PART III. 
 
 less he is manifestly impious, can deny or call it in 
 question. We add, — that the power and worth of the 
 passion of Christ was in itself sufficient to take away 
 the sins of all men and every man*." 
 
 The delegates from Friesland, complaining of the 
 unfairness of the Remonstrants, say, " Neither does 
 it escape them that the doctrine of the sufficiency of 
 the merit of Christ's death to atone for the sins of all 
 and each of mankind, if all and each would believe, 
 has hitherto been constantly and firmly held and taught 
 in all the Dutch churches without a dissenting voice. 
 They are not ignorant, moreover, that this distinction 
 has been used in a sound sense by very many of the 
 orthodox, that Christ died for all and each in respect 
 to the sufficiency of the ransom, but for the elect and 
 believers in regard to its efficacyt." 
 
 The delegates from the synod of Groningen and 
 Omlands say, " Here it is to be noted, that the ques- 
 tion is not about the sufficiency of Christ's death ; for 
 we affirm without hesitation, that the sacrifice of Christ 
 possesses so great power and value, that it is adundant- 
 ly sufficient to atone for the sins of all men, as well 
 actual as original ; and that no one of the reprobate 
 perishes for want of the death of Christ, or through 
 its insufficiency!." 
 
 The delegates from the synod of the French Ne- 
 therlands say, u The price of redemption which Christ 
 offered to his Father, considered in and by itself, is 
 most valuable and sufficient ; so that all might be re- 
 deemed by the value and worth of Christ's death if 
 all and each would believe||." 
 
 * Acts of Synod, Part III. p. 127.— + p. 172.— i p. 193. 
 
 II p. 210. — The author is the more assured of having done justice to the 
 sentiments of the Synod, for having submitted his translation to the clas- 
 sical eye of Samuel Baldwin Esq. of Newark, an elegant scholar, 
 and to whom he is happy thus publicly to acknowledge himself in- 
 debted. 
 
CHAP. V.] AGREEMENT OF THE SYNOD OF DORT. 369 
 
 CHAPTER V. 
 
 SYNOD OF DORT AGREED WITH US AS TO THE ACTUAL 
 INFLUENCE OF THE ATONEMENT ON THE NON-ELECT, 
 AND THE PURPOSE OF THE SACRED PERSONS. 
 
 In every dispute it goes half-way to settle the ques- 
 tion, to know precisely the points in which the par- 
 ties differ and in which they agree. In the present 
 controversy it is of the last importance to know this, 
 as in the main the parties have certainly been con- 
 tending for different truths ; one filling their eye with 
 the secret purpose of God about the application of 
 the atonement, the^other with the influence which the 
 atonement had upon- the relations of agents. On the 
 former subject there can be no diversity of opinion 
 among us ; and I am happy now to be able to show 
 that on the latter subject, in the Calvinistic world at 
 large, there is no dispute. 
 
 The Synod of Dort was a fair representative of the 
 Calvinistic world one century after the commencement 
 of the Reformation. Their opinions will certainly dis- 
 close what the doctrines of the Reformation were, es- 
 pecially as they tell us that their churches had uniform- 
 ly held the same belief from the beginning. And they 
 must also be considered no contemptible witnesses of 
 the sentiments of the school-men and fathers. 
 
 In the Synod there was not a perfect harmony of 
 opinion, some having more enlarged vie^s than others 
 of the principles of a moral government. It is fair 
 then to discriminate between the concessions which 
 came from different sides of the house, and after pre- 
 senting those which were the highest, to give those 
 which appear to have expressed the views of the Sy» 
 nod at large. 
 
370 AGREEMENT OF THE [PART III* 
 
 Of all the concessions those of the delegates from 
 Great Britain and Bremen were the most ample. The 
 former say, that God pitied the human race, and sent 
 his Son who gave himself as the price of redemption 
 for the sins of the whole world, and died for all, so 
 that all by believing may be saved. The latter give 
 their opinions separately, but they are agreed in these 
 points : that it was the eternal counsel of God that 
 Christ should die for all in point of the sufficiency of 
 his atonement ; and that it should not be such a suffi- 
 ciency as would have been enough had other circum- 
 stances concurred, but such as would actually be 
 enough, and such that no other satisfaction could be de- 
 manded of any sinner provided he would believe. 
 They maintain that no man is alien from Christ in the 
 same sense and degree that devils are, and that none 
 perish for want of a complete expiation. Two of these 
 delegates unite in saying, that it was the counsel of 
 God that Christ should merit a conditional salvation 
 for all ; and affirm that this doctrine was supported by 
 " the better and more common sentiment of the fa- 
 thers, and theologians ancient and modern," and by 
 " the confession of the Church." One of them is still 
 more explicit, lie asserts that God loved the whole 
 human race and seriously willed their salvation ; that 
 the price of redemption was actually paid for all, and 
 sincerely intended for all, and that the aggravated 
 misery of those who perish was not in itself designed, 
 but follows by accident through the fault of man ; (he 
 is speaking in the dialect of a moral government ;) that 
 had not such a conditional salvation been provided 
 for all, the offer a'nd promise would not have been 
 founded in truth, nor the command reasonable ; that to 
 make out all this, it was not necessary that faith should 
 have been procured for all, for this men are bound 
 
• HAP. V.] SYNOD OF DORT. 371 
 
 by a divine command to exercise themselves, and if 
 they cannot it is their own fault ; that therefore elec- 
 tion and reprobation are not inconsistent with the uni- 
 versality of the atonement ; and that the unqualified as- 
 sertion that Christ did not die for all, is one of those 
 propositions which contravene the most known and 
 obvious principles. 
 
 But there are two things which the Synod assert 
 with a general voice. 
 
 (1.) That those texts which declare that Christ died 
 for all, " are commonly and not improperly under- 
 stood" in a literal sense. Some of f he middle men, 
 and even some of the strongest advocates for a limit- 
 ed atonement, distinctly support this construction of 
 the texts. The delegates from Hesse say, " About 
 the first proposition, [viz. that Jesus Christ, the Sa- 
 viour of the world, died for all and each of mankind,] 
 we would not contend with any man ; since the Sacred 
 Writings expressly say that Christ died for all, (but 
 never for each,) and is a propitiation for the sins of 
 the whole world." The delegates from the synod of 
 Gelders say, " What is here asserted, (that Christ 
 died for all, and that none but believers are actually 
 made partakers of remission,) if it is spoken of adults, 
 we believe it with the whole heart : for the Scripture 
 inculcates this so often, and in such express terms, 
 that no one, unless he is manifestly impious, can deny 
 or call it in question." The delegates from Friesland, 
 complaining of the unfairness of the Remonstrants, 
 say, " They are not ignorant, moreover, that this dis- 
 tinction has been used in a sound sense by very many 
 of the orthodox, that Christ died for all and each in 
 respect to the sufficiency of the ransom, but for the 
 elect and believers in regard to its efficacy." 
 
 (2.) That the atonement was sufficient for all. 
 
372 AGREEMENT 0F-THE [PART III. 
 
 This they understood to be the real meaning of those 
 texts which speak of a universal expiation. Now 
 every thing depends on ascertaining what the Synod 
 meant by this sufficiency. Was it merely a sufficien- 
 cy of the Victim, which would have been enough had 
 he been offered for all, or a sufficiency of actual atone- 
 ment? Was it such a sufficiency as could have been 
 enough, or such as really was enough ? Was it such a 
 sufficiency as still loft a natural impossibility in the way 
 of the pardon of the non-elect even should they be- 
 lieve, or a sufficiency, (even as foreknowledge and the 
 purpose of atonement then stood.) which placed re- 
 mission completely within their reach as moral agents, 
 and- made it possible and certain that they would be 
 pardoned if they would believe ? The Synod shall 
 decide. They affirm with one voice, "that as to the 
 sufficiency of his ransom and merit, Christ died and 
 willed to die for all and each." " The death of 
 Christ, in point of its amplitude and power, is a remedy 
 in the highest degree sufficient to atone for the sins of 
 all men and every man ; nor to actual reconciliation is 
 any thing wanting to all and each who receive it by 
 faith." It " is the only and most perfect sacrifice and 
 satisfaction for sins, of infinite value and worth, abun- 
 dantly sufficient to atone for the sins of the whole 
 world*." Or as the same idea is amplified by some 
 of the members, "This is the will and intention of 
 God from eternity, that the death of Chrift should be 
 sufficient for all in such a sense and degree, that God 
 can require no other sacrifice or satisfaction for the 
 sins of men but that one alone, — and that there may 
 be no need of any other merit for men :" so that none 
 perish " for w;ant of the death of Christ." The dele- 
 gates from Hesse say, " His passion and death were 
 
 * Acts of Synod, Part. I. p. 289. 
 
CHAP. V.] SYNOD OF DORT. 373 
 
 necessarily of infinite value, insomuch that all and 
 each of mankind, provided only they cleave to Christ 
 by a true faith, will, through or on account of his 
 passion and death, be received into the grace and 
 favour of God." They add, " It was the counsel and 
 decree of God the Father that Christ by his passion 
 and death should pay such a ransom. — Nor was it ever 
 denied by the doctors of the Reformed Church.'' The 
 delegates from the Wetteraw say, " Christ is an expia- 
 tion for the sins of the whole world so far as relates to 
 the worth and sufficiency of his ransom." The end of 
 this sufficiency in itself considered, say they, is, " that 
 God may testify that he is not delighted with the per- 
 dition of men, seeing he gave his only begotten 
 Son that every one who believes in him may not pe- 
 rish but have eternal life." The Dutch Professors 
 give the same account of the sufficiency, (which they 
 call the sufficiency of Christ's " satisfaction^) and of 
 the purpose of the Sacred Persons concerning it. The 
 sufficiency is defined in the same manner by the dele- 
 gates from the synod of Gelders, and by those from 
 the synod of Groningen and Omlands, and by those 
 from the synod of the French Netherlands, and by 
 those from Friesland. The latter affirm that the suffi- 
 ciency, as thus defined, "has hitherto been constantly 
 and firmly held and taught in all the Dutch churches 
 without a dissenting voice." 
 
 Such were the views entertained of the sufficiency 
 of the atonement by the Calvinistic world one century 
 after the commencement of the Reformation, and if we 
 can trust the uncontradicted testimony of several bo- 
 dies of delegates, by the Reformed Church from the 
 beginning, and by the better and larger part of the 
 schoolmen and fathers. According to all these, it was 
 the eternal purpose of the Sacred Persons, (to express 
 2 I 
 
374 AGREEMENT OF THE [PART III. 
 
 the divine benevolence towards those who perish,) 
 that the death of Christ should possess such a suffi- 
 ciency as to render it an expiation for the sins of the 
 whole world, and give it such an influence as to make 
 the pardon of all and each possible and certain if they 
 would believe : that on this account he may be said to 
 have died for all, and that this may be considered the 
 meaning of those texts which speak of a universal 
 atonement. Now this is enough. Such a sufficiency, 
 I fully acknowledge, is competent to support the sin- 
 cerity of the offer and promise, and the justice of the 
 command and punishment; and I must be allowed to 
 add, it constitutes a complete and designed atonement 
 for all men as moral agents. 
 
 But this is a very different representation from that 
 of the prisoners and the pearl. The points of contrast 
 between the two theories are strongly marked. 
 
 (1.) The Synod say that Christ died and willed 
 to die for all in respect to the sufficiency of his 
 ransom ; but the pearl was in no sense paid for 
 all, and nothing in the transaction would justify the 
 use of such an expression. When the Synod af- 
 firmed that the universal terms found in the Bible 
 might be applied literally, that Christ might truly be 
 called a propitiation " for the sins of the whole world," 
 they could not have had such an image in their mind 
 as that of a pearl paid expressly for a part and ex- 
 pressly not paid for the rest. 
 
 (2.) It appeared to be the general voice of the Sy- 
 nod, and was expressly affirmed by several bodies of 
 delegates, that this sufficiency of the death of Christ 
 did express, and was intended to express, the divine 
 benevolence towards all. But the payment of the 
 pearl exclusively for the hundred, expressed no love 
 for the 900 who were excluded ; and it is a part of the 
 
CHAP. V.J SYNOD OF DORT. 375 
 
 system connected with this representation, that the 
 atonement was no indication of benevolence to the 
 non-elect. 
 
 (3.) The sufficiency maintained hy the Synod is 
 not that which would have been a provision for the par- 
 don of the non-elect had their faith been foreseen, but 
 is a provision which they may now enjoy. It is a suf- 
 ficiency wholly independent of foreknowledge. It is 
 a sufficiency which is ready for them even while they 
 are known to be non elect. The delegates from the 
 Wetteraw say, " The reprobate are bound to believe 
 this, that the merit of Christ is of so great worth that 
 it is able to profit them also; and it would indeed profit 
 them if they would believe." "The sufficiency and 
 magnitude of the ransom of Christ, as relates to the re- 
 probate, has a double end." Matthias Martinius says, 
 " Nor here will it be enough to assert such a suffi- 
 ciency of redemption as could be enough ; but it is al- 
 together such as is enough, and such as God and 
 Christ have considered enough. For otherwise the 
 Gospel command and promise are destroyed." Henry 
 Iselburg says, " No one of the reprobate can be con- 
 demned and perish for want of the death of Christ, or 
 because there was not in him a sufficient remedy 
 against destruction." The delegates from the synod 
 of Groningen and Omlands say, " No one of the repro- 
 bate perishes for w^ant of the death of Christ, or through 
 its insufficiency." It, was plainly the opinion of them 
 all that the sufficiency changed the relations of the re- 
 probate themselves. But the relations of the 900 
 could not be affected by the value of the pearl, and 
 nothing but an imposition upon their ignorance could 
 lead them to imagine such a change. 
 
 (4.) The sufficiency maintained by the Synod is 
 such that the ransom of Christ " wants nothing at all- 
 
376 AGREEMENT OF THE [PART. III. 
 
 to the purpose of meriting, acquiring, and obtaining 
 [a conditional] reconciliation with God and remission of 
 sins for all men and every 'man." It is such that "God 
 can require no other sacrifice or satisfaction for the 
 sins of men but that one alone," and such that there is 
 ,; no need of any other merit for men." But can a41 
 this be said of the pearl ? Should the 900 accept the 
 offer, would their retainer be bound by the ransom to 
 discharge them ? What has bound him ? The ran- 
 som was not paid for them ; nor has he promised to 
 accept it in their behalf. Its value cannot bind him, 
 for the whole was given for the hundred. He cer- 
 tainly would have a right to demand, and would de- 
 mand, another ransom. If you say he has promised 
 to accept it for the 900 in case they will come out, 
 then the ground is changed and the dispute is ended. 
 For then there is a ransom publicly accepted for them 
 as capable agents. And this is all we ask. 
 
 (5.) The sufficiency which the Synod supported is 
 such as places remission within the reach of every 
 man who hears the Gospel, and leaves nothing in the 
 way but a wicked heart. This cannot be said of the 
 pearl. It had no influence on the 900 at all, except 
 what existed in their own imaginations. It did not 
 bring deliverance within their reach, only in a delu- 
 sive appearance. It left their escape still as much a 
 natural impossibility as ever. And yet the same re- 
 spectable writer that makes this representation, says 
 to a non-elect man, " It is still true, if you believe you 
 shall be saved. If you believe there is atonement for 
 you." He had lately said, " The death of Christ 
 must expiate our sins before any way can be opened" 
 for pardon. That non-elect man had been told that 
 Christ did not expiate his sins ; and now he is assured 
 that there is an atonement ready for him if he will re- 
 
CHAP. V.] SYNOD OF DORT. 377 
 
 ceive it. This certainly is what the words import, 
 (and what the preaching of the same class of men 
 continually imports,) but this was not the meaning of 
 the writer. His meaning was, all who in fact believe 
 will find an atonement. But he ought not to have 
 said to a moral agent whose faith was naturally possi- 
 ble, and acknowledged to be such in the very form of 
 the address, and for whom he knew no expiation had 
 been made, (for the man is addressed as non-elect,) 
 " If you believe there is atonement for you." If 
 I say to a man from the roof of my house, leap up 
 to me and I will give you a kingdom, I only trifle with 
 him ; we understand each other. But if because I 
 know a man is effectually induced to go another way, 
 I say to him, if you will come into my house, (an ac- 
 tion which is possible,) you will find a feast prepared 
 for you, when no feast is provided, I deceive him and 
 utter a falsehood. It would have been false if the 
 herald had told the 900, you may come out if you 
 please. 
 
 On the whole, the sufficiency set forth by the Synod 
 was not like the value of a costly pearl expressly not 
 paid for a part of the prisoners, but the sufficiency of a 
 ransom in such a sense offered for all as purposely and 
 expressly to secure pardon to them in ease they would 
 believe. 
 
 If I rightly understand the Synod, (and I think I 
 certainly do if they are consistent with themselves,) 
 they differed from us in nothing but in identifying 
 the atonement with the higher ransom. Their ques- 
 tion was about the united influence of Christ's ex- 
 piation and merit, which they contemplated under the 
 name of his meritorious death ; and the shape of their 
 question was, for whom did he die ? meaning, whose 
 salvation did he intend to merit and receive as his 
 2 I 2 
 
378 CALVIN, WATTS, [PART III. 
 
 reward? And this carried them to the secret purpose 
 of the divine mind, and the private covenant between 
 the Sacred Persons, respecting the application of the 
 atonement. And when they had fastened their eye 
 there, they overlooked the public explanation in which 
 we find the express purpose, together with all the influ- 
 ence which that explanation had to render the death of 
 Christ a complete atonement for a whole world of mo- 
 ral agents. And then they had no way to account for 
 the influence of the atonement upon all, but to ascribe 
 it to its sufficiency. But that sufficiency, as they ex- 
 plained it, really constituted all that we mean by a 
 general atonement. In short, had the Synod distin- 
 guished as we do between expiation and merit, they 
 would have had no dispute with us even in words. 
 
 *~^ 
 
 CHAPTER VI. 
 
 TESTIMONY OF CALVIN, WATTS, AND OTHERS. 
 
 Doctor Watts says of Calvin, " that some of the 
 most rigid and narrow limitations of grace to men are 
 found chiefly in his Institutions, which were written in 
 his youth : but his Comments on Scripture were the 
 labours of his riper years and maturer judgment*." 
 With this remark he introduces the following Com- 
 ments of that distinguished Reformer. 
 
 Mat. 26. 28. [" This is my blood of the New- Tes- 
 tament which is shed for many for the remission of 
 sins."] " Under the name of many he denotes, not a 
 part of the world only, but the whole human race." 
 
 1 Cor. 8. 11, 12. [" Through thy knowledge shall 
 the weak brother perish for whom Christ died."] " If 
 
 * Watts' Work?, Vol. 6. p. 287. JN T ote. 
 
CHAP. VI.] AND OTHERS. 379 
 
 the soul of every weak person vvas the purchase of the 
 blood of Christ, he that for the sake of a little meat 
 plunges his brother again into death who was redeem- 
 ed by Christ, shows at how mean a rate he esteems 
 the blood of Christ." 
 
 1 John 2. 2. [" He is the propitiation for our sins, 
 and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole 
 world."] " Here a question is raised, how the sins 
 of the whole world are atoned for. — Some have said— 
 that Christ suffered for the whole world sufficiently, 
 but for the elect alone efficaciously. This is the com- 
 mon solution of the schools : and though I confess this 
 is a truth, yet I do not think it agrees to this place." 
 
 2 Pet. 2. 1. [" There shall be false teachers among 
 you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, 
 even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring 
 upon themselves swift destruction."] " Though 
 Christ is denied in various ways, yet in my opinion 
 Peter means the same thing here that Jude expresses , 
 viz. that the grace of God is turned into lascivious- 
 ness. For Christ has redeemed us that he might have 
 a people free from the defilements of the world, and 
 devoted to holiness and innocence. Whosoever there- 
 fore shake off the yoke and throw themselves into all 
 licentiousness, are justly said to deny Christ by whom 
 they were redeemed." 
 
 Jude 4. [" Turning the grace of our God into las- 
 eiviousness, and denying the only Lord God, and our 
 Lord Jesus Christ."] " He means that Christ is 
 really denied when those who were redeemed by his 
 blood again enslave themselves to the devil, and as 
 far as in them lies, make that incomparable price vain 
 and ineffectual*." 
 
 This is decisive as relates to Calvin; and shows 
 
 * Watts' Works, Vol. 6. p. 287, 283. 
 
380 CALVIN, WATTS, [PART III. 
 
 that in his maturer years his opinion was the same as 
 that of the schoolmen and fathers before him, and the 
 same as that of the Calvinistic world a century after. 
 
 The seraphic Watts wrote a treatise on purpose to 
 support the very sentiments contained in these sheets. 
 I cannot refrain from presenting a syllabus of his argu- 
 ment in his own words. 
 
 "I. It is very hard to vindicate the sincerity of the 
 blessed God or his Son in their universal offers of grace 
 and salvation, and their sending ministers with such mes- 
 sages and invitations to accept of mercy, if there be 
 not such a conditional pardon and salvation provided 
 for them. — It is hard to suppose that the great God 
 who is truth itself, and sincere and faithful in all his 
 dealings, should call upon dying men to trust in a Sa- 
 viour for eternal life, when this Saviour has not eter- 
 nal life intrusted with him to give them if they do re- 
 pent. It is hard to conceive how the great Govern- 
 our of the world should be sincere in inviting and re- 
 quiring sinners who are on the brink of hell to rest 
 themselves on an empty word of invitation, a mere 
 shadow and appearance of support, if there be nothing 
 real to bear them up from those deeps of destruction, 
 nothing but mere words and empty invitations. Can 
 we think that the righteous and holy God would en- 
 courage his ministers to call them to lean and rest the 
 weight of their immortal concerns and happiness upon 
 a Gospel, a covenant of grace, a Mediator, and his 
 merit and righteousness, kc* all of which are a mere 
 nothing with regard to them, a heap of empty names, 
 an unsupporting void which cannot uphold them ? — I 
 think we must cancel all these Scriptures, and deny 
 all offers of grace and salvation made to sinners in ge- 
 neral, if Christ procured and provided nothing for 
 them. — 
 
CHAP. VI.] AND OTHERS. 381 
 
 II. It is very hard to defend the sincerity of the 
 ►Spirit of God in awakening the consciences of these 
 persons sometimes who are not elected, and stirring 
 them up to think of receiving the salvation of Christ 
 upon the terms of the Gospel, if there be no such 
 salvation conditionally provided for them to receive. — 
 
 III. It is equally difficult to vindicate the equity of 
 God as the Judge of all men, in condemning unbeliev- 
 ers, and punishing them eternally for not accepting 
 the offers of pardon, if there was not so much as a 
 conditional pardon provided for them ; and for not 
 resting upon the merit of Christ and receiving his 
 salvation, when there was no such merit appointed for 
 them to rest upon, nor any such salvation for them to 
 receive. — Can we think that the righteous Judge of 
 the world will merely send words of grace and salva- 
 tion amongst them, on purpose to make his creatures 
 so much the more miserable, when there is no real 
 grace or salvation contained in those words ? — 
 
 IV. It is very hard to suppose that when the word 
 of God, by the general commands, promises, threaten- 
 ings, given to all men whatsoever, and often repeated 
 therein, represents mankind as in a state of probation, 
 and in the way towards eternal rewards or eternal 
 punishments, according to their behaviour in this life ; 
 I say, it is hard to suppose that all this should be 
 no real and just representation, but a mere amuse- 
 ment. — 
 
 V. This seems to be a fair and easy way to answer 
 several of those texts of Scripture which represent 
 God as the Saviour of all men, &c. — Nor can I see 
 any reason why the strictest Calvinist should be an- 
 gry that the all-sufficient merit of Christ should over- 
 flow so far in its influence as to provide conditional 
 salvation for all mankind, since the elect of God have 
 
382 CALVIN, WATTS, j>ART III. 
 
 that certain and absolute salvation which they contend 
 for secured to them by the same merit. — 
 
 VI. That all mankind have some conditional salva- 
 tion provided for them, and some real grace and par- 
 don offered them by a new covenant, appears from this, 
 that all men, both wicked and righteous, or just and 
 unjust, shall be raised from the dead, to give an ac- 
 count of things done in the body, whether good or 
 evil, and to receive rewards or punishments in their 
 body as well as in their souls, according to their im- 
 provement or misimprovement of the dispensations un- 
 der which they have lived. — Now surely this resurrec- 
 tion of all mankind must be built upon the foot of a 
 new covenant given or offered to all mankind, since 
 the old covenant of innocency, or the law of works, 
 appoints eternal life without dying for the obedient, 
 and death without a resurrection for the disobedient. — 
 There was therefore doubtless a general proclamation 
 of pardon and salvation to all mankind — contained in 
 the first promise, or the Gospel that was preached to 
 Adam, the first father of mankind : — and this was again 
 preached to all the world by Noah, the second father 
 of mankind : — otherwise, I think, the resurrection 
 would not reach to every man and woman in the world. 
 Let it be considered also, that this very resurrection 
 of the bodies of sinful mankind, brings with it an ad- 
 ditional penalty and misery beyond what the law of in- 
 nocency threatened. — Now this cannot, with such evi- 
 dent, justice, be indicted upon the non-elect if they are 
 under no other covenant but that of innocency. — For 
 since the broken law or covenant of works leaves the 
 body under the power of death for ever, we can hard- 
 ly suppose that the Son of God, the chief Minister of 
 his Father's grace, would provide a resurrection of the 
 body for the breakers of that original law, merely to 
 
CHAP. VI.] AND OTHERS, 333 
 
 put them to severer punishments and more intense tor- 
 ments than that broken law threatened, if theie were 
 not some advantage in the nature of things derived to 
 them from his mediation to balance it. — He will never 
 give them reason to complain that with regard to them 
 he came not to be a Mediator or Saviour, but merely 
 to add to their misery by a resurrection to eternal 
 pain, without any equivalent of hope ; or that he came 
 to expose them to double damnation for refusing his 
 grace, when he had none for them to accept. — ' God 
 sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world, 
 but that the world through him might be saved. 5 — 
 
 The doctrine of reprobation, in the most severe and 
 absolute sense of it, stands in such a direct contradic- 
 tion to all our notions of kindness and love to others? 
 in which the blessed God is set forth as our example, 
 that our reason cannot tell how to receive it. — When 
 therefore I hear men talk of the doctrine of reprobation 
 with a special gust and relish, as a favourite article, 
 I cannot but suspect their good temper, and question 
 whether they love their neighbour as they do them- 
 selves. — 
 
 I would ask leave also in this place to inquire, what 
 great advantages can be derived to religion or Chris- 
 tianity by endeavouring to limit the extent of the death 
 of Christ, and to take away all manner of hopes, and 
 prayers, and endeavours from the non-elect ? Does 
 the doctrine of election of persons obtain any further 
 confirmation by it ? No, by no means. Their sal- 
 vation is secured whatsoever becomes of the rest of 
 mankind, whether they have any hopes or no. — Are 
 the eler t any way discouraged by [such a general pro- 
 vision ?] Not in the least. But many persons who 
 are awakened to a sense of sin, and are seeking after 
 Christ for salvation, by this narrow doctrine may be 
 
384 CALVIN, WATTS, [PART III, 
 
 terribly discouraged from receiving his offers of grace, 
 when they are taught to doubt whether there be any 
 grace provided for them, or whether Jesus be appoint- 
 ed to act as their Saviour. It may be the means to 
 drive some persons to despair, when they hear that 
 unless they are elected they may seek after salvation 
 by Christ in vain. — And it may tempt them to begin at 
 the wrong end, and seek to pry into the counsels of 
 God, and inquire after what they can never know, that 
 is, their election of God, before they dare trust in 
 grace or submit to the Gospel of Christ. — 
 
 Objection I. But may it not be said here, if there 
 be only an outward sufficiency of salvation provided 
 for the non-elect, by a conditional pardon procured 
 through the death of Christ, — but no inward sufficien- 
 cy of grace provided, — the event will be infallibly 
 and necessarily the same, — since they of themselves— 
 cannot believe, for by the fall all men — became — 
 dead in sin ? 
 
 Answer. — The final event will be the same as if they 
 were under a natural impossibility, or utter natural 
 impotence. — Yet we must say still that sinners are not 
 under such a real natural impossibility of repenting and 
 believing as though they were naturally blind or 
 dead. — It is plain that these natural faculties, powers, 
 or capacities are not lost by the fall ; for if they were, 
 there would be no manner of need or use of any mo- 
 ral means or motives, such as commands, threatenings, 
 promises, exhortations. These would all be imper- 
 tinent and absurd, for they could have no more influ- 
 ence on sinners than if we command or exhort a blind 
 person to see, or a dead body to rise or move — All the 
 other impotence and inability therefore in sinners to 
 repent or believe, properly speaking, is but moral. — 
 1 grant this inability — has been sometimes called by 
 
CHAP. VI.] AND OTHERS. 385 
 
 our divines a natural impotence, because it arises from 
 the original corruption of our nature. — But this spring 
 of it is much better signified — by the name of native 
 impotence, to show that it comes from our birth ; and 
 the quality of this impotence is best called moral, being 
 seated chiefly in the will and affections, and not in any 
 want of natural powers or faculties to perform what 
 God requires. — Even in things of common life the can- 
 not sometimes signifies nothing but the will not* Luke 
 11.7. ' Trouble me not, my door is shut, my children 
 are with me in bed, I cannot rise to give thee ;' that is, 
 I will not. — They have natural powers or faculties in 
 them, which if well tried might overcome their native 
 propensity to vice, though they never will do it*. — Let 
 this then be constantly maintained : there is a natural 
 inward sufficiency of powers and faculties given to 
 every sinner to hearken to the calls — of — the Gospel, 
 though they lie under a moral impotence ; and there is 
 an outward sufficiency of provision of pardon in the 
 death of Qhrist for every one who repents and accepts 
 the Gospel. — And thus much is sufficient to maintain 
 the sincerity of God in his universal offers of grace 
 through Jesus Christ, and his present commands to all 
 men to repent and trust in his mercy, as well as to vin- 
 dicate his equity in the last great day when the impeni- 
 tent and unbelievers shall be condemned. Their death 
 lies at their own doors. — I think this distinction of na- 
 tural and moral power and impotence will reconcile all 
 
 * To show that this distinction of natural and moral inability is not 
 new, I will present the following quotation from Burkitt under Mat, 
 13. 52. and Mar. 6. 5. ["He could there do no mighty work."] 
 "Christ was unable because they were unwilling: his impotency was 
 occasioned by their infidelity: he did not because he would not." 
 "Christ had a natural ability to do mighty works there, but no moral 
 ability. — He could not because he would not.' 7 
 
 2K 
 
386 ©ALVIN, WATTS, [PART Hi. 
 
 the various expressions of Scripture on this subject, 
 both to one another as well as to the reason of things, 
 which can hardly be reconciled any other way. 
 
 Objection II. — Since the great God — foreknows 
 they will never accept the salvation of Christ, — does 
 not this future certainty of the event lay an effectual 
 bar against their believing ? — We inquire also further, 
 can his offers of grace be sincere to persons whom he 
 foresees will certainly reject it ? — 
 
 Answer I. — The mere foreknowledge of any event, 
 without any real influence from the power that knows, 
 does not make the event necessary. — 
 
 Answer II. — The Gospel is never sent — to any peo- 
 ple — when God foresees there are none at all that will 
 accept of it. Now in the way of God r s government of 
 this world, he deals with mankind as a number of free 
 and moral agents. — God's secret foreknowledge of 
 those who will not accept it, is by no means a suffi- 
 cient reason to prevent — the general offers of his grace 
 to them, because the design of his government is to 
 treat mankind as reasonable and moral agents. 
 
 Answer III. — There may be valuable and unknown 
 €n d s — attained by his sincere forbidding sin to crea- 
 tures whom he knows resolved to practise it. — The 
 wisdom, holiness, and dignity of his government 
 must be maintained in all the just appearances of it, 
 though sinners will rebel against it ; for the honour of 
 divine government, in the authority, wisdom, and holi- 
 ness of it, is of much more importance than the wel- 
 fare of ten thousand of his creatures. — 
 
 Answer IV. Whether or no w T e can guess at any of 
 the reasons of God's government or conduct in this 
 thing, yet the matter of fact is certain and beyond all 
 dispute*." 
 
 * Watts' Works, Vol. 6. p. 283—296. 
 
CHAP. VI.] AND OTHERS. 3B7 
 
 To this powerful testimony of the ethereal Watts, I 
 might add the judgment of most of our standard Eng- 
 lish Annotators. The following specimens are selected. 
 
 PooPs Continualors. Heb. 2. 9. [" That he by the 
 grace of God should taste death for every man."] " To 
 render sin remissible to all persons, and them salvable, 
 God punishing man's sin in him, and laying on him the 
 iniquities of us all; (Isai. 53. 4 — 6. 1 John 2. 2.) and 
 so God became propitious and plausible to all : and if 
 all are not saved by it, it is because they do not repent 
 and believe in him. (2 Cor. 5. 19 — 21)." 
 
 Burkitt, 1 John 2. 2. [ u He is the propitiation for 
 our sins, and not for ours only, but also for the 
 sins of the whole world."] " Christ our Advocate 
 became a propitiation for us, and for the whole race 
 of mankind, for all that lived before us or shall live 
 after us. — There is a virtual sufficiency in the death of 
 Christ for all persons, and an actual efficacy as to all 
 believers. — Our Lord Jesus Christ, suffering death 
 upon the cross for our redemption, did by that one ob- 
 lation of himself once offered, make a full, perfect, and 
 sufficient sacrifice, oblation, and satisfaction for the 
 sins of the whole world." 
 
 Henry, 1 Tim. 2. 1 — 8. [" I exhort therefore that 
 first of all supplications — be made for all men : — for 
 this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our 
 Saviour, who will have all men to be saved and to come 
 to the knowledge of the truth. For there is one God, and 
 one Mediator between God and men, the man Christ 
 Jesus ; who gave himself a ransom for all."] " One 
 reason why all men are to be prayed for is, because 
 there is one God, and that God bears a good will to all 
 mankind. — This one God will have all men to be 
 saved ; that is, he desires not the death and destruc- 
 lion of any, (Ezek. 33. 1 1 .) but the welfare and salva= 
 
388 CALVIN, WATTS, [PART III. 
 
 tion of all ; — and none perish but it is their own fault. 
 (Mat. 23. 37.) — There is one Mediator, and that Me- 
 diator gave himself a ransom for all. As the mercy 
 of God extends itself to all his works, so the mediation 
 of Christ extends itself thus far to all the children of 
 men, that he paid a price sufficient for all mankind. 
 He brought mankind to stand upon new terms with 
 God, so as that they are not now under the law as a 
 covenant of works, — but under grace. — He gave him- 
 self — a ransom for all, so that all mankind are put in a 
 better condition than that of devils. He died to work 
 out a common salvation.— God hath a good will to the 
 salvation of all ; so that it is not so much the want of 
 a will in God to save them, as it is a want of will in 
 themselves to be saved in God's way. Here our bless- 
 ed Saviour charges the fault : ' Ye will not come unto 
 me that ye might have life.' (John 5. 40.") Under 
 2 Pet. 2. 1 . the same commentator says, " He — paid a 
 price sufficient to redeem as many worlds of sinners as- 
 there are sinners in the world." 
 
 Doddridge, The same passage. " Who indeed wills 
 that all men should be saved and come to the acknow- 
 ledgment of the truth. — I must confess I have never 
 been satisfied with that interpretation which explains 
 all men here merely as signifying some of all sorts and 
 ranks of men ; since I fear it might also be said, on the 
 principles of those who are fondest of this gloss, that 
 he also wills all men to be condemned. — The meaning 
 therefore seems to be, that God has made sufficient 
 provision for the salvation of all, and that it is to be 
 considered as the general declaration of his will, that all 
 who know the truth themselves should publish it to all 
 around them. — And one Mediator between God and men, 
 even the man Christ Jesus, who hath not undertaken 
 to plead for this or that nation or party of men alone. 
 
CflAP. VI.J AMD OTHERS. 389 
 
 but whose kind office in the court of heaven, where 
 he now dwells, extends in some degree to the whole 
 human race, and who refuses not the blessings he has 
 procured to any that with sincerity and humility cast 
 themselves upon him. 55 
 
 Scott. The same passage. " It seems improper to 
 say — that ' all men 5 signifies * some of all sorts. 5 — This 
 provision and appointment has been made and reveal- 
 ed for the common benefit of the human race, — that all 
 who will may come in this way to the mercy-seat of 
 a pardoning God. — This Mediator therefore gave him- 
 self ' a ransom for all,' as ' the Lamb of God who 
 taketh away the sins of the world ; 5 that by theall-suf- 
 ilcient atonement of his death upon the cross, and the 
 redemption there made, a foundation might be laid for 
 the hopes of sinners all over the earth, and that all 
 who believe might actually be saved by it.— There are 
 but few of those thai limit such expressions to ' some 
 of all sorts, 5 who do not allow the all-sufficiency of 
 Christ 5 s atonement, and admit that all men should be 
 called on to believe in him, and that all who do be- 
 lieve will be saved by him. 55 Under John 1. 29. the 
 same commentator says, "On this ground any man 
 may come to the throne of grace for all the blessings 
 of salvation ; nor does he want any other plea than 
 that ' Christ has died, yea rather is risen again, and 
 ever liveth to make intercession for us.' — This general 
 proposal and declaration of the death of Christ as a 
 common benefit to all throughout the whole world who 
 desire to avail themselves of it, is entirely consistent 
 with a particular purpose of God in making ' his peo- 
 ple willing in the day of his power.'' 55 
 
 The sentiment contained in these quotations, it may 
 be proper to add, has !1 along been held by the great 
 body of the English divines, not only in tiie establish- 
 
 2K2 
 
390 EXPRESSLY [PART III. 
 
 ment, (of which there can be no doubt,) but among the 
 Dissenters, the Baxters, the Wattses, the Doddridges, 
 and the like. And it is certainly at the present day 
 the common belief in those two countries where the 
 true Church is chiefly found, I mean Great Britain and 
 the United States. At a moment when the millennium 
 is near, and great light is rising on the world, this is 
 found to be the general faith of the purest branches of 
 the Church. And if we go abroad to Catholic regions, 
 and even search among all the denominations which 
 bear the Christian name, this will be found to be the 
 belief almost universally associated with the religion of 
 the JNew-Testament. 
 
 CHAPTER VII. 
 
 ATONEMENT OFFERED AND ACCEPTED EXPRESSLY FOR 
 ALL. 
 
 The fourth proposition in the plan of the argument 
 was, that the atonement was expressly offered and ac- 
 cepted for all as moral agents. 
 
 That the atonement was made for all as moral 
 agents, we have the plain evidence of our senses. We 
 see it applied to all as moral agents, first in the offers 
 and promises, and then in the command and threaten- 
 ings, and in the punishment of unbelief. It is no longer 
 a question whether the privilege was provided for all, 
 when we see it actually in their hands. 
 
 The three propositions which have already been 
 proved, viz. that the death of Christ rendered the par- 
 don of all consistent with the honour of the law in case 
 they should hear the Gospel and believe ; that in vir- 
 
CHAP. VII.] FOR ALL. 391 
 
 tue of this general change in the relations of men, par- 
 don is actually made over to all who hear the Gospel. 
 as far as it can be made over to moral agents before 
 they have performed their part ; and that the benefit 
 is so brought within their reach that they can enjoy it 
 fey only doing their duty, and are bound to apply it to 
 themselves ; do together make out the truth complete, 
 that an atonement is provided for all as moral agents. 
 The single proposition that the death of Christ render- 
 ed the pardon of all consistent with the honour of the 
 law if they would believe, comprehends the whole. It 
 expresses the entire influence of the atonement, (ex- 
 cept what relates to the curse of abandonment.) and all 
 that any Calvinist on our side ever asserted. How the 
 atonement came to have such an influence upon all, is 
 now the only question that remains. Some ascribe this 
 to its sufficiency, others to the express purpose for 
 which it was offered. Of the former there are two 
 classes. One allow to that sufficiency all that we 
 mean by a general atonement : the other represent it 
 by the value of a pearl expressly not offered for a 
 part ; and to give it a greater bearing on non-elect 
 men than devils, they resort to the common world, the 
 common nature, and common law. We take the other 
 ground, and affirm that nothing could have given the 
 atonement such an influence but an express purpose 
 bearing upon all men as moral agents. 
 
 I may subject myself to voluntary sufferings io the 
 age of Methuselah, without an express object, and it 
 will never convince the community that the law of the 
 land will be executed upon thieves. But let my friend 
 steal and be bound to the stake : let me at that moment 
 cover his body with my own, and take the stripes 
 avowedly in his stead : and all the spectators are as 
 much convinced that the law will continue to be exe= 
 
192 expressly [part in. 
 
 cuted against theft, as though the offender himself had 
 suffered. The pith of the applicability lies in the ex- 
 press purpose. Look again at the case of the prince 
 of Wales. The object of his death was to convince 
 the public that future forgers would die. Had he suf- 
 fered by his own or another's hand without giving out 
 that he died in the room of any, it would have done no- 
 thing at all towards producing this conviction ; and the 
 pardon of the criminals, however reclaimed, would 
 have ruined the law as much as though the prince had 
 not suffered* 
 
 That express purpose which was necessary to give 
 the atonement such a general bearing, it is not difficult 
 to find. " As Moses lifted up the serpent in the wil- 
 derness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up, that 
 whosoever believeth in him should not perish but have 
 eternal life. For God so loved the world that he gave 
 his only begotten Son, that zchosoever believeth in him 
 should not perish but have everlasting life. For God 
 sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world, 
 but that the toorld through him might be saved*." Here 
 is express purpose enough to answer every purpose. 
 There is no longer any need to resort to the unintelli- 
 gible notion of sufficiency ; here is the express pur- 
 pose itself reaching to a whole world of moral agentst. 
 
 * John 3. 14—17. 
 
 t It is curious to see to what straits, from not attending to this ex- 
 press purpose and its proper influence, men are reduced in accounting 
 for the universal offci. Dr. Gray of Baltimore, with ail his talents and 
 learning, has not escaped without difriculty in bis Fiend oj the Refor- 
 mation. He was too enlightened not see that the o'Ter and promise, 
 and command, are extended to all, and that t>^ deny the i nj (ability 
 of Christ's righteousness to ; ,; ildleadtobh sphemous conj ,jcncrs. 
 He therefore resorts to the ) it the imputal ility does not impend 
 
 on his representative chi r< r !. he might u^ the Saviour of 
 
 those whom he didi r. r s - I Why then not of devils ? And 
 
 how after all does Dr. G. j . » and command? \A hy thus: 
 
CHAP. VII.] FOR ALL. 393 
 
 Sufficiency avail without an express purpose ! Was 
 it ever known or heard of that Christ rendered it con- 
 sistent with the honour of the law for any to be par- 
 doned even by faith without dying as their proper and 
 avowed Substitute ? Did you ever read of any influence 
 which he exerted upon the actual or possible pardon 
 of men but by dying in their stead, " the just for the 
 unjust" ? How in any other way could he have such 
 an influence ? If a real and acknowledged Substitute 
 W;as necessary to actual pardon, it was equally neces- 
 sary to the grant of conditional pardon, if the grant 
 was made in good faith : and if without expressly dying 
 for men he could obtain the one, he could the other, 
 
 God requires of all the righteousness of the law : Christ's righteousness 
 is the righteousness of the law : therefore God must require all to pre- 
 sent the righteousness of Christ : thus establishing a legal identity be- 
 tween the righteousness of Christ and the personal righteousness de- 
 manded of us, though he had allowed that we are not one with Christ 
 or with Adam except in a figurative sense. Besides, why was not this 
 reasoning extended to devils ? God requires of them the righteousness 
 of the law, (or their present sin is not transgression :) Christ's righteous- 
 ness is the righteousness of the law : therefore he must require devils to 
 present the righteousness of Christ. 
 
 After all Dr. G. is not so much out of the way as it might seem. 
 His mistake arises solely from misapplying the term representation. 
 He supposes Christ to have represented men in the secret covenant 
 rather than in the open transactions. And yet he has correct ideas of 
 what took place in that secret covenant, making it to be nothing but 
 the yielding of consent on the one part, and the gift of the elect as a 
 reward on the other. So that he really means no more than that the 
 imputability of Christ's righteousness does not depend on men's hav- 
 ing been given him as a reward : and he pronounces the opposite sen- 
 timent, (viz. that the righteousness of Christ is imputable only to the 
 elect,) one of the two great sophisms which have corrupted the doc- 
 trines of the Reformation. He goes further, and introduces the Son of 
 God as saying to all who hear the Gospel, that by an express agree- 
 ment with the Father, he through his death has obtained a right to as- 
 sure them that they shall be saved by his mediation if they will believe. 
 In that agreement with the Father, then, he represented, or transacted 
 for, a whole world of moral agents. 
 
 Dr. G. is dealing with Mr. M'Chord because the latter makes repre» 
 
394 EXPRESSLY [PART III. 
 
 and the whole world might have been discharged with- 
 out an express atonement. 
 
 The pardon of the non-elect possible without an ex- 
 press Substitute! Then they are treated with more in- 
 dulgence than the chosen themselves. Is it to be be- 
 lieved that when God would not release his own elect 
 without exacting life for life, he has offered to forgive 
 others without a satisfaction ? 
 
 Either then Christ expressly atoned for all, or a part 
 could not be pardoned even should they believe, and 
 ought not to be blamed for losing the benefit. There 
 is no avoiding this dilemma unless some way can be 
 discovered in which he could reconcile with the ho- 
 nour of the law the pardon of a part, on the supposi- 
 
 sentation to be necessary to the imputability of righteousness. But 
 the difference between them is chiefly about words. They mean dif- 
 ferent things by representation. Mr. M'C's theory is, that Christ re- 
 presented only the Church or body of believers, (had Dr. G. attached 
 the same idea to representation he would have said the same,) leaving 
 to all a chance to come in and share in the representation. In this 
 he really makes out a representation of all as moral agents, the very 
 thing that Dr. G. virtually admits : and he plainly concedes all that 
 Dr. G. appears to mean by the representation of the elect. So that 
 the dispute is chiefly about words, and turns on the question what 
 transactions and influence ought to fo.ll under the name of representa- 
 tion. In one respect Dr. G. has the advantage. Mr. Ivj'C. in allow- 
 ing none to be represented till they believe, overlooks their previous 
 representation as moral agents which his own theory implies. Dr. G. 
 turns upon him and sa}^, if Christ is the Head, (he makes Head and 
 Representative the same,) of none but believers, he has no right to 
 command unbelievers. Let him be the Head and Representative of 
 •ill as moral agents, and every difficulty vanishes. 
 
 Thus these two able writers are struggling together on the borders 
 of truth ; and nothing is necessary to bring them together, and to unite 
 them both in perfect accord with us, but to fix their eye on moral 
 agents, and on this public express purpose concerning all men as such/ 
 It is pleasant to see with what Christian urbanity these distinguished 
 men treat each other. Mr. IVl'C. has the generosity to concede to Dr. 
 G. the reputation of possessing the highest literary attainments in our 
 country. 
 
CHAP. VII. j FOR ALL. 39a 
 
 tion of their faith, without expressly atoning for them. 
 Can that way be found ? This brings us at once to 
 the alleged sufficiency. Could then the / and 
 
 purity of the Victim accomplish this? Let us n>st 
 suppose that these attributes had nothing to point 
 their influence to non-elect men more than devils. 
 How then could they affect the former more than the 
 latter? None can doubt that the Son of God was 
 competent to atone for devils, had circumstances 
 given his death a bearing upon them. But the suf- 
 ficiency of the Victim did not extend to them a suffi- 
 ciency of actual atonement, rendering their pardon 
 consistent with the honour of the law on the supposi- 
 tion of their return to holiness. It is plain therefore 
 that the sufficiency of the Victim could not have this 
 effect on non-elect men, without something to bring it 
 to bear on them as it did not on devils, and making 
 out for them a competency of actual atonement. If 
 there is no other sufficiency for them than that of the 
 Victim, they still stand exactly on the footing of de- 
 vils ; and then they could not be pardoned even should 
 they believe. Why then the offer and command to 
 them, and the condemnation for losing the benefit ? 
 What have they to do with a sufficiency which has 
 nothing to do with them ? 
 
 Take now the other supposition, that the dignity and 
 purity of the Victim were brought to bear on non-elect 
 men as they were not on devils. How was this done ? 
 By his taking, it is said, the nature of man, and sub- 
 jecting himself to the law given to the human race, 
 and dying in a world which they inhabited. And 
 what did all this accomplish? A sufficiency of actual 
 atonement for the non-elect ? No ; for it is asked, 
 " Why need we contend for an actual atonement for 
 those who never will believe ?" A sufficiency then of 
 
396 EXPRESSLY [PART III. 
 
 what ? " Of Christ's merit :" and " this sufficiency," 
 it is added, "depends upon the dignity of his Person 
 and the greatness of his sufferings." Then it might 
 be sufficient for devils No ; it is not " true that the 
 merit of Christ can be asserted to be sufficient for de- 
 vils," for want, it seems, of the three circumstances 
 meeting in their case. Then the " sufficiency" of his 
 " merit" for non-elect men " depends" not merely 
 " upon the dignity of his Person and the greatness of 
 his sufferings." But what does this sufficiency of 
 merit do for the non-elect ? It renders their salvation 
 possible. For in making out that a limited atonement 
 does not place them " in the same condition with de- 
 vils," it is stated to be one of the points of difference 
 against the latter, that " their salvation is in the na- 
 ture of things impossible." Here then is a sufficiency 
 of merit which renders the salvation of the non-elect 
 possible without any " actual atonement" for them. 
 Salvation possible without an actual atonement ! The 
 elect themselves were never thus indulged. But how 
 does the sufficiency of Christ's merit render the salva- 
 tion of the non-elect possible without an " actual 
 atonement"? Why, just as a ransom paid for 100 
 prisoners renders possible the release of 900 for whom 
 it was not paid. This is the very simile chosen to il- 
 lustrate the principle ; and it plainly shows that the 
 sufficiency pleaded for by this respectable writer did 
 not render the salvation of the non-elect possible, but 
 left them after all " in the same condition with devils," 
 with this difference against them, that they are tanta- 
 lized with offers and promises, and oppressed by com- 
 mands and threatenings, which they ought never to 
 have received. 
 
 Our brethre.'j, while they deny an " actual atone- 
 ment" for the non-elect, acknowledge that the death of 
 
CHAP. VII. J FOR ALL. 39? 
 
 Christ rendered their pardon consistent with the ho- 
 nour of the law if they would believe. And pray what 
 other "actual atonement" was made for Peter? But 
 how do they get this influence out of the death of 
 Christ ? They ascribe it to " the dignity of his Person 
 and the greatness of his sufferings," brought to bear 
 upon the non-elect as they do not upon devils, by the 
 common law, the common world, and common nature, 
 while they are expressly excluded. Let us see whe- 
 ther these three circumstances, without an express 
 purpose, and directly against the express purpose, 
 could produce so mighty an effect. 
 
 Could the common law work this wonder ? But what 
 is njeant by this emphasis laid on a common law ? Is 
 it meant that all the transgressions of that law were aton- 
 ed for in a mass ? Then the guilt of the non-elect was 
 expressly expiated. Is it meant that such a satisfac- 
 tion was made as to prevent the law from being injur- 
 ed whoever of the human race should be pardoned on 
 their believing ? This is exactly what we assert, and 
 then it was expressly made for all men as moral 
 agents. Is it meant that it was offered for those trans- 
 gressions of the law only which the elect would com- 
 mit? The question then returns, did an atonement 
 expressly offered for a part of the transgressions of a 
 law, and expressly not offered for the other part, ren- 
 der it consistent with the honour of the law for the ex- 
 cepted transgressions to be pardoned on any terms ? 
 Then there was as complete an atonement for the ex- 
 cepted transgressions as for the rest, and the excep- 
 tion was no exception : and as there is essentially but 
 one divine law in the universe, the great law of love, 
 (holiness being radically the same in all worlds,) what 
 should hinder the sins of devils, (who are under the 
 2 L 
 
398 EXPRESSLY [PART HI. 
 
 same general law,) from sharing an equal influence 
 with the excepted transgressions of men ? 
 
 Did the common world and nature produce so great 
 a wonder ? That is to say, did these render the par- 
 don of some consistent with the honour of the law, on 
 the supposition of their faith, for whom atonement was 
 expressly not made ? How could they nullify an ex- 
 press exception and render it no exception ? And 
 what particle of proof from the Bible of this omni- 
 potent influence of a common world and nature ? Where 
 is the chapter and verse ? 
 
 In the supposed case of the prince of Wales, be- 
 sides the ten noblemen, say there were twenty more 
 who had committed the same crime. Keep in mind 
 that the onlv way in which he could render the pardon 
 of any consistent with the honour of the law, was by 
 making as strong an impression as their death would 
 have made, that the law was still to be executed on 
 future offenders. Suppose now that the prince expressly 
 offered himself for the ten, and expressly did not offer 
 himself for the twenty ; how could his death answer in 
 ihe room of the punishment of the twenty, or on any 
 conditions render their pardon consistent with the ho- 
 nour of the law ? Could his living under the same 
 law that all had broken, and atoning for that species of 
 crime which all had committed, and belonging to the 
 same kingdom, and having the blood of an Englishman 
 in his veins, and the honours of a prince upon his head, 
 make any difference in favour of those who were ex- 
 pressly excluded ? Who, after seeing the twenty par- 
 doned for whom he did not die, would conclude that 
 all future forgers would be punished ? And if the 
 twenty could not be discharged on any terms, it is not 
 true that his death rendered their pardon consistent 
 
CHAP. VII.] FOR ALL. 390 
 
 with the honour of the law on certain conditions : and 
 the offer to them on those conditions, would either be 
 deceptive or a bare-faced mockery. 
 
 This one decisive fact still rises before us : the three 
 circumstances were all tried upon the elect, and they 
 could not procure pardon for the chosen of God, with 
 all the faith imparted to them, without an atonement 
 expressly offered for them. And it is wonderful if 
 they exerted a more powerful influence upon the non- 
 elect, and brought them into a salvable state, not only 
 without an atonement, but notwithstanding their ex- 
 press exclusion. 
 
 But if the three circumstances must be allowed to 
 liave the mighty influence pleaded for, then in all fair- 
 ness they ought to be considered as containing in them- 
 selves the express purpose in favour of all. The im- 
 maculate and dignified character of the Victim could 
 no more affect non-elect men than devils, without some 
 intelligible reference to the former rather than the lat- 
 ter. If the three circumstances contained that refers 
 ence, and pointed to the human rather than the ange- 
 lic part so intelligibly that their language is under- 
 stood on earth, (and if not understood how comes this 
 influence to be so confidently ascribed to them ?) then 
 in all reason they ought to be regarded as expressing 
 themselves the universal purpose. If they brought 
 the sacrifice so to bear upon all as to render all men 
 pardonable upon their believing, and did this by indi- 
 cating a reference to the race at large, then they help- 
 ed to accomplish an actual and complete atonement 
 for all as moral agents, and wrought this effect by ex- 
 pressly announcing to the world the universal re- 
 ference. 
 
 Thus it seems that nothing could give the atonement 
 such an influence on the race at large as it confessedly 
 had,, but an express declaration, some way pronounced. 
 
400 EXPRESSLY [PART III. 
 
 that it was so offered and accepted for all as to have 
 this precise effect, " that whosoever believeth — should 
 not perish." Such a declaration we find in words. 
 And when we have found the very thing that was ne- 
 cessary to give the atonement this effect, why should 
 we look any further, or lose ourselves in unintelligible 
 language about a sufficiency which without the ex- 
 press purpose would have amounted to nothing ? 
 
 Let us now repair to the Scriptures. And here the 
 first thing that strikes us on every page is, that the 
 atonement was expressly accepted for all. This ap- 
 pears as often as we hear the Father tender life to all, 
 and promise with an oath that they shall live on the 
 ground of that satisfaction, provided they believe. 
 This is pledging all that is sacred in him that he has 
 accepted it in behalf of a whole world of moral agents. 
 It is itself the public and formal acceptance. 
 
 And when we look for the express and universal 
 purpose of the offering, the evidence is equally decisive, 
 iiiiS purpose is found in whatever declares to the 
 world, directly or indirectly, that Christ died to make 
 atonement for all. And what less than this can be 
 meant by the " price" in the hand of a fool which he 
 has no heart to improve ? or by the repeated declara- 
 tion that God " has no pleasure in the death of the 
 wicked, but that the wicked turn from his way and 
 live;" that he is "not willing that any should perish, 
 but that all should come to repentance" ? or by the 
 universal call, attended by the proclamation that " all 
 things are ready" ? or by the pressure of the command 
 upon all, and the awful punishment of unbelievers ? 
 or by the solemn appeal, " What could have been done 
 more to my vineyard that I hare not done in it ?" What 
 else can be meant by the " birth-right" which all are 
 warned against selling, and which when sold cannot 
 
CHAP. VII.] FOR ALL. 401 
 
 be recovered though sought " carefully with tears" ? 
 But you ask for something more direct. What then 
 will satisfy ? Do you require an explicit declaration 
 that Christ died for all, even for as many as were 
 dead ? " VVe thus judge, that if One died for all, then 
 were all dead, and that he died for all, that they which 
 live should not henceforth live unto themselves, but 
 unto him which died for them and rose again." " We 
 trust in the living God who is the Saviour of all men, 
 specially of those that believe." " I exhort there- 
 fore that first of all supplications — be made for a 11 men, 
 for kings, and for all that are in authority : — for this 
 is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour, 
 who will have all men to be saved and to come unto 
 the knowledge of the truth. For there is one God, and 
 one Mediator between God and men, the man Christ 
 Jesus, who gave himself a ransom for all." We must 
 pray for all because there is a Mediator and a ransom 
 for all, and because God wills all men to be saved. 
 And no one can open his Bible without finding these 
 words put into his mouth : " All we like sheep have 
 gone astray, and the Lord hath laid on him the iniquity 
 of us all." Would it satisfy you better to hear it said 
 that he died for each and every one ? " We see Jesus, 
 who was made a little lower than the angels for the 
 suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour, that 
 lie by the grace of God should taste death for every 
 man ;" (**$% -a-uvra^ for every one.) Do you insist on 
 a positive declaration that he atoned for the whole 
 world? " He is the propitiation for our sins, and not 
 for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.'' 
 " The Lamb of God which taketh away the sin of the 
 world.'' " The bread of God is he which — giveth life 
 unto the world." " The bread — is my flesh which I 
 will give for the life of the world." Do you demand 3 
 2L2 
 
402 EXPRESSLY [PART III. 
 
 categorical assertion that he died for the identical per- 
 sons who eventually perish ? " Through thy know- 
 ledge shall the weak brother perish for whom Christ 
 died." " Destroy not him with thy meat for whom 
 Christ died." " There shall be false teachers among 
 you who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even 
 denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon 
 themselves swift destruction." The prophecy of 
 Caiaphas foretold that Christ should die for the Jewish 
 u nation," the mass of whom went to their place*. 
 
 Forced attempts have been made to explain away 
 the literal and obvious meaning of these texts, leaving 
 the Bible really too uncertain to support any thing. 
 But the Synod of Dort, who spoke the language of the 
 Calvinistic world two centuries ago, allow to them 
 their literal import, and tell us that the same had been 
 the common construction. And indeed what need of 
 this effort to limit these passages, since in their most uni- 
 versal form they prove no more than that Christ died 
 for all in such a sense as to render their pardon con- 
 sistent with the honour of the law if they would be- 
 lieve ; a position which must be admitted to be true if 
 these texts were out of the Bible. 
 
 And now I ask, what proof from Scripture or reason 
 can be set against all this mass of evidence ? Reason 
 is silent ; but what counteracting testimony can be 
 brought from the word of God ? Not a particle. You 
 may find there the doctrine of election. You may 
 find a seed given to Christ as a personal reward for 
 the merit of his obedience " unto death." You may 
 find notices of the larger ransom, made up of expia- 
 
 *Prov. 17. 16. Isai. 5. 4. and 53. 6. Ezek. 33. 11. Mat. 22. 4. 
 John 1. 29. and 6. 33, 51. and 11. 50—52. Rom. 14. 15. 1 Cor. 8. 
 11. 2 Cor. 5. 14, 15. 1 Tim. 2. 1—6. and 4. 10. Hcb. 2. 9. and 12. 
 T6 ; 17. 2 Pet. 2.1. and 3. 9. 1 John 2. 2. 
 
CHAP. VII.] FOR ALL. 403 
 
 lion and merit, by which he purchased the sanctifica- 
 tion and salvation of the elect. You may find the 
 Redeemer in his work on earth manifesting, even with 
 the consent of the Father, a special reference to the 
 elect as the interest which fell to him as one of the con- 
 tracting Parties ; and may find the completion of their 
 salvation a leading end of his receiving the kingdom. 
 This is all you will find : and all this, if I mistake not, 
 has been shown to be consistent with a general atone- 
 ment. Is it then too much to say, that the whole array 
 of evidence which has been spread over this and the 
 foregoing chapters, stands without a scintilla of oppos- 
 ing testimony ? that the unnumbered texts which have 
 been quoted, which with their kindred ones form the 
 whole texture of divine Revelation, have nothing to 
 weaken their force or limit their universality ? 
 
 I have heard excellent men say, in answer to every 
 argument which could be urged, I am resolved to abide 
 by the language of Scripture. Rut 1 entreat them to 
 consider who it is that abides by the language- of 
 Scripture. There is not a text in the Bible which as- 
 serts that Christ did not atone for all ; but there are 
 many which affirm in the plainest terms that he did. 
 We are under no necessity to put a forced construction 
 on a single passage ; but our brethren are obliged to 
 limit the most universal terms. They are grieved that 
 we, (as they view the subject,) appeal from Scripture 
 to human reasonings ; and yet how often, when press- 
 ed with some of our plain texts, they will turn and say, 
 I cannot conceive that God should provide salvation 
 for those whom he did not intend to save. This very- 
 resort to human reasoning frequently appears to be the 
 strongest bar against their admitting the plain and ob- 
 vious meaning of ihe word of God. I say this with all 
 tenderness, and if I wound a feeling by it, I shall wish 
 that it had been suppressed. 
 
APPENDIX, 
 
 EXHIBITING THE INFLUENCE OF 
 
 CHRIST'S OBEDIENCE, 
 
 AND SHOWING THAT ON THIS GROUND THE CHURCH RECEIVE 
 
 ALL POSITIVE GOOD: 
 
 IN OPPOSITION TO THE THEORY WHICH REPRESENTS 
 
 TO BE THE ONLY BLESSING 
 
 PROCURED BY 
 
 THE REDEEMER. 
 
APPENDIX. 
 
 An opinion has gone forth that Christ procured for us 
 no other benefit than pardon ; that besides clearing from 
 the current of blessings those obstructions which sin had 
 thrown upon it, he is in no sense the ground of our posi- 
 tive happiness ; and that in respect to sanctification, he 
 only made such a work consistent with the wisdom of God 
 by rendering remission possible. Such a sentiment ought 
 to be subjected to a rigid and solemn scrutiny. 
 
 That Christ must have had a. reward, and one awarded 
 by law, is just as certain as that he was " made under law" 
 and received a command to die. If the Father assumed 
 the rights of the Godhead, and took the ground of authori- 
 tatively requiring the service, he must reward it as a ser- 
 vice done to himself. But whatever reward Christ receiv- 
 ed, was for his obedience alone, and not for his sufferings 
 as suck. Sufferings viewed by themselves, that is, as un- 
 commanded, could be entitled to nothing. Besides, the 
 law promised no reward to any thing but obedience. 
 
 Now if Christ received a reward, it must have consisted 
 in blessings for men. He had no private wants to supply, 
 no selfish propensities to satisfy by a personal and separate 
 good : and without blessings for men he could have had no 
 redeemed kingdom to reign over, not a gift in his hand 
 ever to tender to the human race, and nothing at all to 
 gratify his benevolence. 
 
 Our general opinion is, that for his filial obedience he 
 received the inheritance of a Son, and was made " Heir of 
 all things ;" and that in the "all things" was compre- 
 hended the whole amount of positive good ever intended for 
 a fallen race, or ever to be placed within their reach, in- 
 cluding whatever was to be conferred on them sovereignly 
 or in gracious rewards, or offered to them on the condition 
 of their faith. We believe that all these things were given 
 to him as the legal reward of that amazing exhibition of 
 holiness which he made under law, and belong to the ge- 
 neral estate which he holds by a mediatorial claim, and 
 were made over to him, not for his own private use, but to 
 be disposed of exactly as they are, — some in sovereign gifts, 
 some in gracious rewards, and some barely offered to capa- 
 ble agents, leaving the issue to be decided by them. 
 
408 APPENDIX. 
 
 The C( gifts" which we suppose he " received for men,'* 
 may be divided into two classes : first, regenerating grace 
 for the elect as passive recipients ; secondly, the good ob- 
 tained for moral agents. In the latter class we understand 
 to be comprised whatever he bestows in sovereign gifts 
 fitted to a state of probation which moral agents enjoy, in- 
 cluding the enlightening influences of the Spirit on the un« 
 regenerate ; whatever he imparts to believers in gracious 
 rewards, comprehending their continued sanctification ; and 
 whatever he offers to men on the condition of their faith, 
 constituting a provision for moal agents to improve. I 
 shall glance at both classes, but shall dwell chiefly on the 
 latter. And in considering the good obtained for moral 
 agents, though I shall refer occasionally to what he sove- 
 reignly bestows, I shall principally attend to that which he 
 offers to men on the condition of their faith, and confers on 
 believers in gracious rewards. 
 
 It is no part of our system that Christ obeyed in our room 
 to supersede the necessity of our obedience, as he suffered in 
 our room to supersede the necessity of our sufferings. The 
 obedience which we owed he was never bound to pay, but 
 only that which was due from him. The obedience which 
 was due from him we never owed, and we still are bound to 
 render that which was demanded of us. He obeyed for 
 himself, and we obey for .ourselves. 
 
 Nor yet is it any part of our system that we are rewarded 
 for two things at once. (Christ's obedience and our own,) 
 but rather that two persons in different senses are reward- 
 ed by the same thing. A divine reward is a token of ap- 
 probation presented as a motive to virtue, and is the re- 
 compense ol him alone who is therein approved. It may 
 be legal, and it may be gracious. Qur obedience, begun 
 late and continuing imperfect, is not entitled to reward by 
 law, but yet is a thing really approved ; and therefore is 
 fitted to receive, not the legal, but the gracious tokens of 
 approbation. What Christ receivi d was in approbation of 
 his righteousness alone, and was of course a reward to none 
 but himself. The direct act of giving to him, though for 
 the use of those who should be approved, was not itself the 
 approbation of them. But the grant consisted in blessings 
 for our use. When those blessings come from his hands, 
 they are tokens of approbation of none but us. The same 
 blessing therefore which to him is the reward of law, is to 
 us the reward of grace. As it issued from Godhead, it was 
 his reward not ours : as it comes from his hands, it is our 
 
APPENDIX. 409 
 
 reward not his. Though therefore we are blessed for his 
 sake, (as without his righteousness to detach the blessings 
 from God they could not have come to us,) we are rewarded 
 solely for our own ; that is, the benefits as they come from 
 his hands, are to none but us the tokens of approbation 
 presented as motives to virtue. 
 
 We may see therefore in what sense it can be true that 
 e ernal life is granted for Christ's sake alone, and yet is a 
 token of approbation to us, and would not have come to us 
 had we not been approved. As it came out from Godhead 
 according to law, it came for his sake alone ; but it was 
 delivered to him, not for his own private use, but for the 
 benefit of those who would obey him. It would not have 
 been a reward nor an honour to Christ to have deposited 
 with him eternal life for those who should remain his ene- 
 mies ; nor would it have comported with the honour of the. 
 law to have delivered to him that blessing for those who 
 should refuse to obey. And this distinction in favour of 
 believers was because they were fit to be approved. While 
 therefore the blessing comes out from God on Christ's 
 account, it comes to us as a gracious token of approba- 
 tion. 
 
 But it is said that if Christ is the ground of what believ- 
 ers obtain, they must all receive equally. Not so. It was 
 the very idea of his reward that his disciples should receive 
 according to the interest which they hold in his heart, or in 
 proportion as they love and obey him. The good was dealt 
 out to him with an express understanding that it should go 
 to them according to this rule. The only reward, (as relates 
 to the present subject,) which he ever desired, was that his 
 disciples should receive at his hands the gracious tokens of 
 approbation according to their fitness to be approved. Thus 
 while his merit is the legal ground, their holiness, which 
 constitutes a sort of spiritual capacity, is the measure of 
 their blessedness. 
 
 A parent labours for a man and receives his wages in ar- 
 ticles of clothing for his children of different ages, which 
 he could not wear himself. It is as much a transaction be- 
 tween him and his employer, and the reward is as much his 
 own, as though it had consisted in money. But he did not 
 fulfil an obligation which belonged to the children, or do a 
 work in their room which they were bound to perform. They 
 were never under obligations to render that service. When 
 he has received the articles, he deals them out to his chil- 
 dren according to their ages and character, and gives to 
 Q M 
 
410 APPENDIX. 
 
 none further than they are approved, except what he sove- 
 reignly bestows to put them in convenient circumstances to 
 render the service required. 
 
 This is the explanation of the system, and now for the 
 proof. The principle which I set up is, that it did not 
 comport with the highest honour of the law for God to is- 
 sue a single positive good but out of respect to a perfect 
 righteousness. It was as much a principle of the first co- 
 venant not to bestow a cup of cold water out of respect to 
 any other than a righteousness perfect for the time the sub- 
 ject had been in existence, as it was that Adam should not 
 be confirmed in happiness without an obedience entire 
 through the period of his probation : for the moment the 
 first sin appeared, the law doomed the transgressor to the 
 loss of all things. The following reasonings therefore will 
 as much prove that every particle of positive good ever des- 
 tined to reach a sinful world, was granted as a reward to 
 Christ, as that the blessings were which constitute the re- 
 ward of believers. The latter however I have chiefly in 
 view. 
 
 In the two great instances of a government by law which 
 have come to our knowledge, it was a principle to require 
 creatures to obey before they were confirmed in holiness 
 and happiness, and not to confer a covenant claim to im- 
 mortality but as the reward of a finished righteousness. 
 The inhabitants of heaven were not confirmed at first, for 
 some of them fell; and it was long before we heard of 
 " elect angels." Man was not confirmed at first, and the 
 issue is known to us all. This requisition of obedience as 
 an antecedent to the gift of eternal life, was not indeed so 
 absolutely necessary as the punishment of sin without an 
 atonement; but it answered the important purposed' ho- 
 nouring the law. It held this language in the ears of the 
 universe : no creature shall receive eternal life till he has 
 first done homage to my law. There was indeed no other 
 way of conferring immortality in a governmental form. In 
 any other way it must have been a sovereign gift. On either 
 plan the gift to the possessor and the direct benevolence of 
 God would be the same ; but the method chosen had the 
 advantage of showing God's determination to honour his 
 righteous statutes. 
 
 This then must be considered the settled principle of the 
 divine law. And there was no reason why the principle 
 should be given up under the Gospel. No necessity < list- 
 ed for the abandonment ; for nothing was easier than to 
 
APPENDIX. 411 
 
 make over to Christ as a legal reward the whole inheritance 
 for the benefit of the "joint heirs." This indeed was not 
 so necessary as an atonement in the matter of pardon, but it 
 answered all the purposes of the original principle. 
 
 Atonement covered sin and placed us back where Adam 
 stood the moment he was created, before he had either 
 obeyed or transgressed. But how is eternal life to reach 
 us ? Upon the original principle it must be the reward of a 
 perfect obedience. Well, you say, when all the believer's 
 sin is covered, the imperfection of his obedience is covered 
 also ; and that obedience, standing thus spotless, may be 
 rewarded for its own sake. It may indeed without that ut- 
 ter prostration of government which would have resulted 
 from pardon without an atonement, but not without depart- 
 ing from one of the two great principles of the law. These 
 were, to punish sin, and to grant no reward but to a perfect 
 and uninterrupted obedience. But your theory represents 
 God as coming down from this high ground to reward an 
 obedience which possesses neither of these attributes. That 
 its imperfection is covered, only takes away its sin ; but it 
 still wants something positive to make it sterling. No co- 
 vering of imperfection can add to it that standard weight and 
 measure which the law requires. No washing can render it 
 that thing to which the reward was originally promised. If 
 the recompense is dealt out directly to this shrivelled mor- 
 sel, more than half of the original demand of the law is gi- 
 ven up. This is the precise thing that has been overlook- 
 ed. Because God could daily bestow good on Adam for 
 his own works, it is inferred that he may on believers after 
 their sin is covered; not considering that in the former in- 
 stance he rewarded a perfect and uninterrupted obedience, 
 and in the latter, would recompense one defective in both of 
 these respects. This would certainly be a very material 
 change in the principles of the divine administration, and a 
 change altogether at the expense of law. It would be an 
 innovation wholly needless, and ought not to be believed 
 without decisive evidence. 
 
 But it is said that to suppose God unwilling to reward 
 the obedience of his people after their sin is covered, with- 
 out calling in the aid of another's righteousness, would mi- 
 litate against his grace and benevolence. But why ? If a 
 certain amount of good is dispensed te the ill-deserving, 
 which upon every principle is both benevolent and gracicus, 
 why should these qualities be diminished by any respect 
 that may be paid, on account of the honour of the law, to 
 
412 APPENDIX. 
 
 the obedience of Christ ? If the law refuses to deliver that* 
 good to any but a perfect obedience, and God, to save the 
 honour of the law, contrives to measure it out to Christ, 
 with intent that it shall go through him to sinners, is it not 
 as great a favour to the ill-deserving as though it had pass- 
 ed directly to them ? And is not the benevolence as great 
 at least as though it had rushed to the conclusion without 
 respect to the law ? The gift is the same to the sinner, and 
 finds him as ill-deserving, as though it had come in the 
 other way, while the method chosen subserves the further 
 end of honouring a righteous law. The only difference is, 
 that upon one plan the principle of the law is adhered to, 
 on the other it is given up. And why the benevolence or 
 grace should be the greater for selecting the manner most 
 injurious to the law, when no one is benefited by it, would 
 be hard to tell. At any rate upon this principle grace and 
 benevolence are both excluded from pardon. It is admitted 
 on all hands that this favour is granted to sinners out of re- 
 spect to the atonement of Christ : and did any one but an 
 infidel ever dream that the grace or benevolence of pardon 
 was the less on that account ? And if without impairing 
 the benevolence or grace of the gift, remission can be ad- 
 ministered on account of the expiation of Christ, why not 
 eternal life on account of his obedience ? 
 
 Having thus stated the ground on which our principle 
 rests, and cleared off some of the objections, I will now bring 
 forward the proofs that such a principle does exist under the 
 administration of grace. I will first suggest some consi- 
 derations which appear to have less weight, and then others 
 of a more decisive character. 
 
 (1.) The plan in question sends us immediately to God 
 for all positive good ; not indeed as sinners, for our sin is 
 covered by the atonement, but as having nothing to offer 
 but an imperfect obedience. All that Christ does is to 
 cover the sin of that imperfection, leaving the imperfection 
 still remaining : and after men are thus purged from guilt, 
 with all that defect of positive righteousness they are sent to 
 God without a Mediator for their whole positive salvation. 
 After the sin of withholding ninety degrees of obedience is 
 pardoned, ten degrees are accepted, without a Mediator, 
 where the law demanded a hundred. 
 
 (2.) This system takes away one half of a Saviour and 
 one half of his praise. According to its representation, 
 Christ procured our release from priscn, and secured us 
 against a return to the prison-house, and then left us to 
 
APPENDIX. 413 
 
 make our way through the world alone, to rise to opulence 
 and a throne by our own independent merit, supported by 
 such strength and favoured with such mercy as we may ob- 
 tain from God without a Mediator. We are left to tight 
 the world, the flesh, and the devil without the Captain of the 
 Lords host, and to conquer, not under his banner, but in 
 a separate warfare. Half of our dependance on Christ is 
 thus taken away ; and for all the positive good of both 
 worlds we must rely on our own works, or on the mercy of 
 the pure Godhead, The Redeemer is turned out of one 
 half of our religion, and the whole is left cold and gloomy. 
 We no longer feel that every particle of food, and every arti- 
 cle of raiment, was procured by our divine Friend, and 
 turn him off with the frigid acknowledgment that he was 
 the mere antecedent of these gifts. Our common comforts 
 upon this plan are not half so sweet, nor the crown in pros- 
 pect half so precious. How delightful to view all these 
 things as Christ's, earned by his obedience, and laid up in 
 him for our use. 
 
 (3.) We have been accustomed to consider Christ the 
 centre of all Bible truths ; but this scheme separates from 
 him the whole action of the Spirit, and every smile and fa- 
 vour of heaven.' It separates from him, or attaches to hirn 
 but loosely and in a consequential way, the greater part of 
 the Bible. It is a comfortless theory which thus associates 
 with our blessed Redeemer a bare escape from prison, and 
 no positive good, no light, no consolation, no inheritance. 
 
 (4.) We have been accustomed to suppose that the inter- 
 cession of Christ is for more than pardon, and have even 
 heard him say, " I will pray the Father and he shall ive 
 you another Comforter." And again, " Holy Father, keep 
 through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, 
 that they may be one as we are. — I pray not that thou 
 shouldst take them out of the world, but that thou shouldst 
 keep them from the evil. — -Sanctify them through thy truth. 
 — Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which 
 shall believe on me through their word ; that they all may 
 be one ; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they 
 also may be one in us. — Father, I will that they also whom 
 thou hast given me be with me where I am, that they may 
 behold my glory which thou hast given me*." This seems 
 to have been more than a prayer of the man, and nothing 
 less than the intercession of the Mediator ; for he repeatealy 
 
 * John 14. 16, and 17. 11—24* 
 
 2M2 
 
414 APPENDIX. 
 
 alludes to his mediatorial fidelity, reward, and authority. 
 Now it is apparent that the whole of his intercession must 
 be founded on what he himself has done and suffered ; other- 
 wise it would seem to be an unmeaning and useless thing-, 
 and merely to import that God needs solicitation as one 
 loath to give. Indeed as it is made in heaven, we can form 
 no other idea of it than as the silent plea or influence of 
 what he did and suffered on earth. His intercession for 
 pardon we know is founded on his death ; for had not this 
 been offered, that could not have been made. By a parity 
 of reason, if he pleads for more than pardon, this part of his 
 intercession must be founded on his positive righteousness. 
 It would seem therefore that we must either reject the theory 
 in question, or plainly assert, notwithstanding the quota- 
 tions which have been made, that Christ intercedes for no- 
 thing but pardon. 
 
 (5.) The Church is called "the bride, the Lamb's wife, " 
 and believers are denominated his "seed." The principal 
 idea suggested by these figures is, not that they are par- 
 doned on his account, but that they inherit from him or for 
 his sake. A wife or child is not generally pardoned on ac- 
 count of the husband or father, but they uniformly inherit 
 with or from their correlates. I am sensible that these 
 names are applied for other reasons ; but so far as they sug- 
 gest the treatment which believers receive on Christ's ac- 
 count, they point us to the inheritance rather than to 
 pardon. 
 
 (t>.) It would seem reasonable to suppose that all the 
 good which is suspended on faith in Christ, and especially 
 on trust in him*, was procured by Christ ; and that faith 
 and trust, when they take hold of that offer and promise, 
 rely on him as the Procurer of all that is there engaged : 
 otherwise it is difficult to see how faith and trust in that 
 promise are faith and trust in Christ, any more than in Ga- 
 briel or Adam. Are they so called because he procured 
 pardon, and thus opened the way for eternal life to be be- 
 stowed w ithout further respect to him ? This certainly has 
 the appearance of being far-fetched. To talk of a son's de- 
 pending on a father for an estate which he is to earn him- 
 self or receive as a present from another, merely because 
 the father pays his debt and sets him at liberty to work for 
 himself or apply to another, is manifestly using language 
 pa a way calculated to deceive. Are these graces so called 
 
 * Pf. 2. 12. Rom. 15. 12, Eph. 1. 12, 13. 
 
APPENDIX. 154 
 
 merely because they expect to receive from the hands of 
 Christ as God's Distributor ? or merely because the pro- 
 mise has been announced by him and his commissioned ser- 
 vants ? Upon these principles we might with some reason 
 talk of faith and trust in the " ministering spirits, and 
 in other instruments of promised good, (for they are real 
 distributors,) and faith and trust in the angels of Bethle- 
 hem, and in ministers of the Gospel, tor they have proclaim- 
 ed the promises of God. 
 
 But it is still more difficult to see upon this plan why 
 eternal life should be promised, and promised exclusively, 
 to a trust in Christ for salvation. I can see a good reason 
 for connecting pardon with a reliance on him for that dis- 
 charge ; but why a trust in the word and agency of a mere 
 instrument should be the all in all in the condition of eter- 
 nal life, — why a bare Agent, appointed to utter the words 
 and distribute the goods of another, should so till the whole 
 field of vision, and occupy the place which would seem bet- 
 ter to befit the Being who employed him, is not so easy to 
 explain. 
 
 That eternal life is promised to faith and trust in Christ, 
 and suspended on no other condition, tht Scriptures abun- 
 dantly teach. " God so loved the world that he gave his 
 only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should 
 not perish but have everlasting life." " This is the will 
 of him that sent me, that every one that seeth the Son and 
 believeth on him, may have everlasting life, and I will 
 raise him up at the last day." " For this cause I obtain- 
 ed mercy, that in me first Jesus Christ might show forth 
 all long-sutfering for a pattern to them which should here- 
 after believe on him to life everlasting." " Lord, to 
 whom shall we go ? thou hast the words of eternal life*." 
 
 ' Now why is this ? According to the common understand- 
 ing of Christians, it is because the life is in Christ as the 
 Vine, and is derived from him to the branches, and because 
 faith is the very bond which so unites us to him that we can 
 draw life from him. And this accords with the represen- 
 tations of Scripture. " This is the record, that God hath 
 given us eternal life, and this life is in Ms Son. He that 
 hath the Sen hath life, and he that hath not the Son hath 
 not life. These things have I written unto you that believe 
 on the name of the Son of God, that ye may know that ye 
 have eternal life, and that ye may believe xm the name of 
 
 " * John 3. 36. and 6. 40, 63. 1 Tim. 1. 1G. 
 
416 APPENDIX, 
 
 the Son of God " This then was the reason why faith in 
 Christ was urged, and why eternal life was suspended on it : 
 " This life is in his Son." Christ is the fountain of 
 eternal life, and faith is a coming to him for supplies. '* Ye 
 will not come to me that ye might have life," According- 
 ly the life promised to faith is received through his name. 
 " These are written that ye might believe that Jesus is the 
 Christ the Son of God, and that believing ye might have 
 life through his name*.'* 
 
 (7.) It would seem strange if Christ was appointed to 
 manage more than his own inheritance, — if more was com- 
 mitted to him for distribution than he received as a re- 
 ward, — if he gives gifts as a Mediator which as Mediator he 
 did not procure. I know of no reason why any blessing 
 should come down through him as the channel of con- 
 veyance, which was not procured by his own proper influ- 
 ence. 
 
 Now he does impart all the good which the Church ever 
 receive in this world or the world to come. " Whatsoever 
 ye shall ask in my name, that will I do." To him is com- 
 mitted the ministration of the Spirit, by which he becomes 
 the Prophet of the world, and diffuses all the light which 
 illumines the minds of men. He is " the true Light that 
 lighteth every man that cometh into the world." " All 
 things are delivered unto me of my Father ; and no man 
 knoweth the Son but the Father, neither knoweth any man 
 the Father save the Son, and he to whomsoever the Sou 
 will reveal him." By the same means he subdues and 
 sanctifies the world. " 1 will not dare to speak of any of 
 those things which Christ hath not wrought by me, to 
 make the Gentiles obedient." " Who by him do believe in 
 God." " Unto every one of us is given grace according to 
 the measure of the gift of Christ. — That Ave henceforth be 
 no more children, — but — may grow up into him in all 
 things, which is the Head, even Christ ; from whom the 
 w T hole body, fitly joined together and compacted by that 
 which every joint supplieth, according to the effectual 
 working in the measure of every part, maketh increase of 
 the body unto the edifying of itself in love." " Thou shalt 
 call his name Jesus, for he shall save his people from their 
 sins," " There shall come out of Zion a Deliverer, and 
 shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob." By the same 
 means he imparts streuglh. " He said unto me, my grace 
 is sufficient for thee, for my strength is made perfect in 
 * John 5. 40. and 20. 31. 1 John 5. 11- 1 3. 
 
APPENDIX. 417 
 
 weakness. Most gladly therefore will I rather glory in my 
 infirmities, that the power of Christ may rest upon me." 
 " I can do all things through Christ which strengthened 
 me." " Without me ye can do nothing." By the same 
 means he gives refreshment. " They drank of that spirit- 
 ual rock which followed them, and that rock was Christ." 
 By the same means he imparts comfort. " Our consola- 
 tion — aboundeth by Christ." Not only has he the entire 
 ministration of the Spirit, but he distributes the final re- 
 ward. " I give unto them eternal life." "To him that 
 overcometh will I give to sit with me in my throne, even as 
 I also overcame and am set down with my Father in his 
 throne ;" his own reward thus empowering him to reward 
 his disciples. " Keep yourselves in the love of God, look- 
 ing for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ unto eternal 
 life*." 
 
 (8.) I draw another argument from what in Scripture is 
 called " the fulness" of Christ, particularly from his ful- 
 ness of " grace." This fulness is spoken of in the first 
 chapter of John, and again in the Epistle to the Colossians ; 
 and in both places it is a plenitude of grace and truth. 
 The passage in John is as follows : " We beheld his glory, 
 the glory of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace 
 and truth. — And of his fulness have all we received, and 
 grace for grace. For the law was given by Moses, but 
 grace and truth came by Jesus Christ." Let us examine 
 what these two parts of his fulness mean. 
 
 [I.] His fulness of truth. When it is said that truth 
 came by Christ, we are to understand, not only that he was 
 the reality of what had been set forth in the shadows of 
 the Old Testament, but that the whole revelation of God 
 was made by him. By the fulness of truth in him, we are 
 to understand three things. First, that he had a perfect 
 knowledge of the mind and will of God ; as it is said in 
 the very next verse, " No man hath seen God at any 
 time ; the only begotten Son which is in the bosom of the 
 Father, he hath declared him." Secondly, that the whole 
 amount of truth belonged to him as his own, and that the 
 Spirit of revelation was his subordinate Agent. " When 
 he the Spirit of truth is come, he will guide you into all 
 
 * Mat. 1. 21. and 11. 27. John 1. 9. and 10. 28. and 14. 13. 
 and 15. 5. Rom. 11. 26. and 15. 18. 1 Cor. 10. 4. 2 Cor. 1. 5. 
 and 12. 9. Eph. 4. 7—16. Phil. 4. 13. 1 Pet. 1. 21. Jude 21. Rev. 
 3. 21. 
 
418 APPENDIX. 
 
 truth ; for he shall not speak of himself, [at his own sug- 
 gestion,] but whatsoever he shall hear that shall he speak. 
 — He shall glorify me, for he shall receive of mine and 
 shall show it unto you. All things that the Father hath 
 are mine ; therefore said I that he shall take of mine and 
 shall show it unto you*." Thirdly, that the revelation 
 made by him was an ample disclosure of the secrets of the 
 Eternal Mind, sufficient for all the purposes of faith and 
 practice, without any supplement drawn from human rea- 
 son. " He whom God hath sent speaketh the words of Gcd, 
 for God giveth not the Spirit by measure unto himf." 
 Hence to reach the perfection of revealed knowledge, is to 
 "come — unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of 
 Christ %. " This idea is plainly illustrated in the passage in 
 Comssians, as we shall presently see. 
 
 [2.] His fulness of grace. By grace is plainly meant all 
 besides truth that " came by Jesus Christ," in contradis- 
 tinction to the law which " was given by Moses." All 
 grace is asserted to have come by Christ. If then it is any 
 grace to bestow the Spirit and eternal life on sinners, these 
 also " came by" him. If it was not so, or if any part of 
 grace was not found in him, how could there be in him a 
 fulness of grace ? and how could we read of " the fulness 
 of the blessing of the Gospel of Christ^" ? To talk of a 
 fulness from which we all receive, when there is nothing but 
 a sort of negative influence to prevent punishment, would 
 seem to be an extraordinary dialect. Fulness is altogether 
 a positive term, and imports not barely enough to save us 
 from the deepest poverty and ruin, but an abundance to 
 make us rich. \ never hear of the fulness of Christ with- 
 out having the idea awakened of unlimited stores of positive 
 good laid up in him from which the whole Church are sup- 
 plied : and then I can see a glorious import in the term, — a 
 meaning too rich and vast to be relinquished till demonstra- 
 tion tears it from me. 
 
 This fulness of grace consists of three parts. First, a 
 plenitude of pardon, sufficient for sins however great or nu- 
 merous. Secondlv, a plenitude of the Spirit, given to 
 Christ without measure ; from which fulness we r« < eive 
 "grace for grace," and are "strengthened with might" 
 "according to the riches of his glory||." Thirdly, a pleni- 
 tude of inheritance. The fulness is particularly marked as 
 being that of " the only begotten of the Father," who gives 
 
 * John 16. 13—1.-. 1 John 3. 31. % E P h - 4 - 13 - 1 Rom - 
 
 IS. 29. (| £j>h. 3. 16. 
 
APPENDIX. 419 
 
 to all that receive him, " power to become the sons of 
 God*," in other words, "joint heirs" with him to "the 
 riches of the glory of his inheritance!. " 
 
 All these ideas are plainly comprehended in the fulness 
 mentioned in Colossians. To that passage let us now di- 
 rect our attention. " In whom we have redemption through 
 his blood, even the forgiveness of sins ; who is the image 
 of the invisible God, [by whom he is revealed,] the First- 
 born of every creature, [the Heir of all things,] — the Head 
 of the body, the Church, [the fountain of influence ; " the 
 Head," as it is said in the same passage, " from which all 
 the body, by joints and bands having nourishment minister- 
 ed and knit together, increaseth with the increase of God,"] 
 — the First-born from the dead, [who not only rose first, 
 but rose to inherit as the eldest Son,] that in all things he 
 might have the pre-eminence. For it pleased the Father 
 that in hhn should all fulness dwell: — whom we preach, 
 warning every man, and teaching every man in all wisdom, 
 that we may present every man perfect in Christ Jesus, 
 [perfect in knowledge, holiness, and justification ;] — that 
 their hearts might be comforted, being knit together in 
 love, and unto all riches of the full assurance of understand- 
 ing", to the acknowledgment of the mystery of God — and 
 of Christ, in whom are hid all the treasures of wisdom 
 and knowledge, [the fulness of truth, competent to furnish 
 a complete revelation.] And this I say lest any man should 
 beguile you with enticing words. — Beware lest any man 
 spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tra- 
 dition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not 
 after Christ ; for in him dwelleth all the fulness of the 
 Godhead bodily ; [knowledge is a part of " the fulness of 
 Gcl| :"] and ye are complete in him ; [so far as instruc- 
 tion is concerned, ye have need of nothing more than " the 
 fulness — of the Gospel of Christ." But this is not all : for 
 as wisdom, love, and power, the sum of the divine perfec- 
 tions, go in to constitute " the fulness of the Godhead bodi- 
 ly," ye are complete in Christ not only in point of instruc- 
 tion, but in regard to his influence as King, Heir, Sanctifi- 
 er, and Deliverer from the bondage both of Jewish ordinan- 
 ces and cf t'atan. Ye are complete in him,] which is the Head 
 of all principality and power ; in whom also ye are cir- 
 cumcis'.. with the circumcision made ivithout hands. — 
 You — fiaih he quickened, — having forgiven you all tres- 
 
 * .John 1. 12—14. f Eph. 1. 18. + Eph. 3. 19. 
 
420 APPENDIX. 
 
 passes, blotting out the hand-writing of ordinances that 
 was against us ; — and having' spoiled principalities and 
 powers, he made a show of them openly*." These are 
 " the unsearchable riches of Christ," and " the exceeding 
 riches of — grace — through" himf : and they all go in to 
 constitute that fulness of grace and truth which is found in 
 him. 
 
 Having suggested these considerations, I now proceed to 
 arguments of a more decisive cast. 
 
 I. That which is our righteousness in the sight of God 
 is no other than the righteousness of Christ*, and is said to 
 be in €hrist§, to be of Christjj, to be by the faith of 
 Christ^, ana " is called the righteousness of God, because 
 appointed by him**. The term is obviously taken from 
 the first covenant, as appears by the frequent comparison 
 between a legal righteousness and this. * 4 Moses descnbeth 
 the righteousness which is of the law, that the man which 
 doth those things shall live by them : but the righteousness 
 which is of faith sptaketh on this wise." " If righteous- 
 ness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain." " If 
 there had been a law given which could have given life, ve- 
 rily righteousness should have been by the law." " That 
 I may win Christ, and be found in him* not having my own 
 righteousness which is of the law, but that which is through 
 the faith of Christff." Now what ought to be the influ- 
 ence of a righteousness which thus plainly comes in the 
 room of a legal one and takes its name ? Under the first 
 covenant, a righteousness both protected the subject from 
 punishment and entitled hira to positive good. If then 
 " the Lord our righteousness" does only the former and 
 not the latter, he is but half what a righteousness was un- 
 der the first covenant, (leaving the rest to be supplied by 
 our own works,) and the very term in the Gospel is sunk 
 down to one half of its original meaning. But who told us 
 that the word is thus changed ? If you use a term to-day 
 which I know had a definite meaning yesterday, I am bound 
 to understand it in the same sense, unless you plainly tell 
 me that its import is altered. Where has God told us that 
 righteousness under the Gospel met»ns but half what it did 
 under the law? On the contrary, the very nature of the 
 word precludes the possibility of such a change. Kighte- 
 
 * Col. 1. Sc 2. 1 Eph. 2. 7. & 3. 8. 1 Jer. 23. 6. & 33. 16. 
 
 $ Isai. 45. 24. 1| lsai 54. 17. & 61. 10. TT Rom. 3. 22. 
 
 ** Rom. 1. 17. & 3. 21, 22. & 10. 3. 2 Cor. 5. 21. Phil. 3. 9. 
 
 It Rom. 10. 5, 6. Gal. 2. 21. & 3. 21. Phil. 3. 3, 9. 
 
APPENDIX. 42 i 
 
 ousness is a term altogether of a positive import. It im- 
 plies more than a title to be exempted from an ignominious 
 death : it imports the claim of one who is right : who not 
 only has not transgressed, but has done all that was required. 
 A righteous man is something more than a man who is not 
 a malefactor. To say of one that he does not deserve to be 
 executed, would be a poor compliment to a righteous per- 
 son. We do not talk of the righteousness of a culprit just 
 released from the state-prison, because the law has no 
 longer a penal demand against him. And the term has a 
 meaning no less positive in the New-Testament. " They 
 being ignorant of God's righteousness, and going about to 
 establish their own righteousness, [certainly something- 
 more than avoiding crimes and escaping punishment,] have 
 not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God*." 
 Self-righteousness always means, as it does in this place, a 
 pretended claim, not so much to pardon, as to a reward. 
 We read of " the blessedness of the man unto whom God 
 imputeth righteousness icithout worksf." But why with- 
 out works ? What have good works to do with pardon ? 
 This is only not to impute bad works. " Christ is the end 
 of the law for righteousnesst :" but is the law nothing but 
 a penalty ? and is its whole end answered, so as to make out 
 a righteousness, without fulfilling the precept ? Thus we 
 see that the term in the New-Testament has not lost its 
 original meaning. If then Christ is our righteousness, he 
 must do more than save us from the death of a malefactor, 
 he must be the ground of all the treatment which belongs 
 to the righteous. If his righteousness has the same influ- 
 ence, and answers the same end in the government of God, 
 that the perfect righteousness of men would have done ; or 
 if the common expression is true, that believers are treated 
 as righteous on his account ; then he is certainly the ground 
 of their title to life. To talk of their being treated as 
 righteous on his account, and to deny that they receive 
 eternal life for his sake, is to say that a personal right- 
 eousness would not have entitled them to the rewards of 
 heaven. 
 
 But there is no need of further reasoning ; it is a plain 
 matter of fact, spread obviously to view on the sacred page, 
 that the same righteousness that procures pardon entitles to 
 eternal life. " Moses describ&th the righteousness which 
 is of the law, that the man which doth those things shall 
 
 *Rom. 10.3. 1 Rom. 4. 6. iRom. 10. 1 
 
 2 N 
 
422 APPENDIX. 
 
 live by them : but the righteousness which is of faith 
 speaketh on this wise, — that if thou shalt confess with thy 
 mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thy heart that 
 God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved : 
 for with the heart man believeth unto righteousness, and 
 with the mouth confession is made unto salvation." "If 
 there had been a law given which could have given life, ve- 
 rily righteousness should have been by the law, [to wit, 
 that righteousness which now gives life J] — We through 
 the Spirit wait for the hope of righteousness by faith." 
 " Henceforth there is laid up for me a crown of righteous- 
 ness." Noah " became heir of the righteousness which is 
 by faith." Abraham believed God and it was counted un- 
 to him for righteousness. Now to him that worketh is the 
 reward not reckoned of grace but of debt ; but to him that 
 worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the un- 
 godly, his faith is counted for righteousness. — The promise 
 that he should be the heir of the world, was not to Abra- 
 ham or his seed through the law, but through the righteous- 
 ness of faith. For if they which are of the law be heirs, 
 faith is made void, and the promise made of none effect." 
 " If by one man's offence death reigned by one, much more 
 they which receive abundant of grace and of the gift of 
 righteousness, shall reign in life by One, Jesus Christ. 
 Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all 
 men to condemnation, even so by the righteousness of One 
 the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life. 
 For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, 
 so by the obedience of One shall many be made righteous. 
 — That as sin hath reigned unto death, even so might grace 
 reign through righteousness unto eternal life by Jesus 
 Christ our Lord*." 
 
 As righteousness signifies merely that which entitles 
 to justification, this argument will really be carried for- 
 ward in a new form under the following head. 
 
 II. Justification in its whole extent is allowed to be ground- 
 ed on Christf : but though the term is sometimes used with 
 I reference to pardon*, in its larger and more common 
 sense it comprehends a title to eternal life. Some of the 
 passages just quoted plainly show this, particularly that in 
 which the contrast between the first and second Adam is 
 
 • Row. 4. 3, 4. 13, 14. and 5. 17—21. anil 10. 5, 6, 9, 10. Gal. 3. 
 
 21. and 5. 6. 2 Tim. 4. 8. Heb. 11. 7. 1 Isai. 45. 24, 25. and 53. 
 
 |1. Rom. 3. 20—28. and 4. 25. and 5. 1, 9. 1 Cor. C 11, Tit. 3. 6, 7- 
 T Acts 13. 39. Rom. 5. 9. 
 
APPENDIX. 423 
 
 drawn. So do all those which assert that justification is not 
 by works. Pardon not by works ! what has pardon to do 
 with works ? The mention of works suggests no ether idea 
 than that of reward. James of course uses the term in the 
 larger sense, when, to prove that a justifying- faith is opera- 
 tive, he asserts that we are justified by works and not by 
 faith only*. In the following passages also the word obvi- 
 ously means the same. " Not the hearers of the law are 
 just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified." 
 " Who shall lay any thing to the charge of God's elect r it 
 is God that justifieth. Who is he that condemneth ? it is 
 Christ that died, yea rather that is risen again.'''' " Who 
 was delivered for our offences, and was raised again, [by 
 way of recompense,] for our justification ; [we sharing in 
 his reward, according to the principle, " Because I live ye 
 shall live also."] Therefore being justified by faith, we 
 have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ ; by 
 whom also we have access by faith into this grace wherein 
 we stand, and rejoice in hope of the glory of God. — 
 For if when we were enemies we were reconciled to God by 
 the death of his Son, much more being reconciled ice shall 
 be saved by his life." " The Scripture, foreseeing that 
 God would justify the heathen through faith, preached be- 
 fore the Gospel unto Abraham, saying, In thee shall all 
 nations be blessed. So then they which be of faith arc 
 blessed with faithful Abraham, [receive ail the blessings 
 promised to faith, which are manifestly included in that 
 justification w T hich the Scripture foresaw.] — That no man 
 is justified by the law in the sight of God, is evident, for, 
 The just shall live by faith. And the law is not of faith, 
 but, The man that doth them shall live in them. Christ 
 hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, — that the bless~ 
 ing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles through Jesus 
 Christ, that we might receive the promise of the Spirit 
 through faith.— -If the inheritance be of the law it is no 
 more of promise, but God gave it to Abraham by promise. 
 : — Is the law then against the promises of God ? God forbid : 
 for if there had been a law given which could have given 
 life, verily righteousness should have been by the law. — 
 The law was our school-master to bring us unto Christ, that 
 we might be justified by faith. — Ye are all the children, 
 [and of course heirs,] of God by faith in Christ Jesus. — 
 And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and 
 heirs according to the promise." " That being justified 
 
 * James 2. 14—26, 
 
424 APPENDIX. 
 
 by his grace, we should be made heirs according to the 
 hope of eternal life.** 3 
 
 If justification is an act or sentence declaring- the subject 
 entitled to all the good promised to faith, then it confers a 
 title to eternal life as well as to pardon ; for we have seen 
 that both are unchangeably promised to the first act of faith 
 in distinction from all subsequent works. And why should 
 not both titles be embraced under the general name of justi- 
 fication ? Ought there not to be a word to express the 
 whole amount of these new claims ? Why should an essen- 
 tial part be left without a name ? And is not justification a 
 proper word for that purpose ? Why is it not ? What was 
 its original meaning under the first covenant from which it 
 is manifestly taken ? It there denoted a title to life as well 
 as an acquittal from blame. And why should it not mean 
 the same under the new covenant ? What has operated to 
 change its import ? The principal force of the word still 
 is and always must be positive. To justify a man, plainly 
 signifies to invest him with a claim to be treated as just, 
 and of course to entitle him to all the rewards of well doing. 
 Under the law it would have given him a claim to the eter- 
 nal life engaged to obedience ; under the Gcspel it ought to 
 entitle him to the whole amount of blessedness promised to 
 faith. Why should not justification by faith secure all that 
 faith claims by covenant ? If the promise does not deceive, 
 the moment a man believes, he becomes entitled to eternal 
 life as well as to pardon. All that good is instantly con- 
 ferred on faith by the act or sentence of God. If that act 
 or sentence is called justification, (and why should it not 
 be ?) the question is decided. 
 
 Further, justification in the larger sense is expressly 
 grounded on Christ's obedience. " As by one man's diso- 
 bedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of 
 One shall many be made righteous :" or as it is expressed 
 in the preceding verse, " so by the righteousness of One the 
 free gift came upon all men unto justification of life :" or 
 as it is in the verse still preceding, " much more they 
 which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of right- 
 eousness, shall reign in life by One, Jesus Christf." 
 
 III. Eternal life is declared in the plainest terms to be 
 in, by, and through Christ. "That they may also obtain 
 the salvation which is in Christ Jesus with eternal glory." 
 " For God hath not appointed us to wrath, but to obtain 
 
 m U. 19. Rom. 2.* 13. and 4. 25. and 5. 1, 2, 10. and 8. 38, 
 34. Gal. 3. S— 29. Tit. 3. 7. 1 Rom. 5. 17—1°. 
 
APPENDIX. 425 
 
 salvation by our Lord Jesus Christ ; who died for us, that 
 whether we wake or sleep we should live together with 
 him." "The gift of God is eternal life through Jesus 
 Christ our Lord/' " Unto him that — washed us from our 
 sins in his own blood, and hath made us kings and 
 priests unto God and his Father, — be glory." " God hath 
 from the beginning chosen you to salvation ; — whereunto 
 he called you by our Gospel, to the obtaining of the glory 
 of qux Lord Jesus Christ." " If in this life only we have 
 hope in Christ, we are of all men most miserable." " The 
 riches of the glory of this mystery, — which is Christ in 
 you the hope of glory.''' " God sent his only begotten Sen 
 into the world that we might live through him.." 1 (i Which 
 is the earnest of our inheritance until the redemption of the 
 purchased possession." " Who of God is made unto 
 us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctincation, and re- 
 demption." lt The bread of God is he which — giveth life 
 unto the world. — I am that bread of life. — If any man eat 
 of this bread, he shall live for ever. — As the living Father 
 hath sent me, and I live by the Father, [that life does not 
 mean preservation from hell,] so he that eateth me, even he 
 shall live by me. 1 ' " If any man thirst, let him come unto 
 me and drink." " I will give unto him that is athirst of 
 the fountain of the water of life." "lam the way, and 
 the truth, and the life." " I am the resurrection and the 
 life." 6 * When Christ who is our life shall appear, then 
 shall ye also appear with him in glory." " That which was 
 from the beginning, — -which we have seen with our eyes, 
 ■ — and our hands have handled of the Word of life : for the 
 Life was manifested, and we have seen it, and bear witness, 
 and show unto you that Eternal Life which was with the 
 Father, and was manifested unto us." " We are in him 
 that is true, even in his Son Jesus Christ. This is the true 
 God and Eternal Life*." 
 
 IV. We are directed to ask for all things, and to render 
 thanks for all things, in the name of Christ. *« Whatsoever 
 ye shall ask in my name, that will I do. — If ye shall ask 
 any thing in my name, I will do it." "I have chosen 
 you, — that whatsoever ye shall ask of the Father in 
 my name, he may give it you." " Whatsoever ye 
 shall ask the Father in my name, he will give it you. 
 
 * John 6. 33, 48, 51, 57. and 7. 37. and 11. 25. and 14. 6. Rom. 
 6. 23. 1 Cor. 1. 30. and 15. 19. Eph. 1. 14. Col. 1. 27. and 3. 4. 
 1 Thes. 5. 9, 10. 2 Thes. 2. 13—17. 2 Tjra. 2. 10. 1 John 1, 1, 2. 
 and 4. 9. and 5. 20. Rev. 1. 5, 6. and 21. 6. 
 
 2 N 2 
 
426 APPENDIX* 
 
 Hitherto ye have asked nothing- in my name ; [because h<? 
 had not yet finished the work which was to constitute his 
 claim ;] ask and ye shall receive, that your joy may be 
 full.— At that day, [after my title is completed,] ye shall 
 ask in my name*. " Whatsoever ye do in word or deed, 
 do all in the name of the Lord Jesus, [by, or from respect 
 to, his authority,] giving thanks to God and the Father by 
 him." " Giving thanks always for all things unto God 
 and the Father in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ." 
 "I thank my God through Jesus Christ for you all." " I 
 thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord." Unto him be 
 glory in the Church by Christ Jesus throughout all ages, 
 world without endf." 
 
 To ask in the name of Christ, can mean nothing less than 
 to pray that blessings may be granted for his sake, or out 
 of respect to his merit. To give thanks in the name of 
 Christ, is to thank God for blessings received on his ac- 
 count. To give thanks by or through Christ, is to deliver 
 our tribute into his hands to be presented to the Father, as 
 the ancient priests used to present the thank-offerings and 
 other gifts and sacrifices of the people. 
 
 To escape the point blank force of these texts, it has 
 been said, that in asking for positive blessings in the name 
 of Christ, we are conscious that our guilt stands in the way 
 of our receiving, and our meaning is, that we may be par- 
 doned for his sake, that so the mercies may come directly 
 to us without his further influence. Now this after all 
 would be asking nothing in his name but pardon, and the 
 command as well as our prayers would hold out a false ap- 
 pearance. Had we been directed to recognise over our food 
 and in all our petitions our need of pardon through Christ, 
 that we could have understood : but expressly to tell us to 
 ask ail things in his name, in the same unlimited manner in 
 which we are directed to ask pardon in his name, and to 
 mean only the latter, would certainly seem to be an extra- 
 ordinary mode of directing ignorant creatures. 
 
 V. The most decisive as well as complicated argument I 
 have reserved for the last. The Son of God, in reward of 
 his filial obedience, was constituted " Heir of all things," 
 and received an inheritance which comprehended all the 
 blessings which ever come to us. 
 
 To exhibit a connected view of this interesting subject, 
 it is necessary to go back to the essential ideas of sonship. 
 
 * John 14. 13, 14. and 15. 16. and 16. 23, 24, 26. 1 Rom. 1. B. 
 
 and 7. 25. Eph. 3. 21. and 5. 20. Col. 3. 17. 
 
APPENDIX. 427 
 
 Wherever the relation, character, and circumstances of a 
 father and son are perfect, there are three ideas essentially 
 involved in sonship ; generation, filial obedience, and inhe- 
 ritance. If the last two are united without the first, as in 
 the case of adoption, the relation is imperfect. If the first 
 and last exist without the second, the character of the son 
 is defective. If the first two are found without the last, the 
 circumstances or character of the father is not good, 
 These three parts go in to constitute the sonship of Christ ; 
 and in reference to every one of them he is apparently said 
 to have been begotten. The first is beyond dispute*. In 
 respect to the second, as obedience was a vital part of the 
 character of the Priest, and as his ordination to that office was 
 really an appointment to a course of filial obedience, or an 
 introduction to the character and conduct of a Son, that 
 ordination is apparently called his generation. " No man 
 taketh this honour unto himself, but he that is called of 
 God as was Aaron. So also Christ glorified not himself to 
 be made a High Priest, but, \he that ordained him to that 
 office, you would expect to hear : the same thing is express- 
 ed in other words : but] he that said unto him, Thou art 
 my Son, this day have I begotten thee : as he saith also in 
 another place, Thou art a Priest for ever after the order 
 of Melchisedecf ." Accordingly when he was publicly in- 
 ducted into the priestly office by baptism and anointing;, 
 (agreeably to the Mosaic forms,) at the moment of receiv- 
 ing the divine unction which constituted him a Priest, he 
 was named from heaven the Son of God, beloved because 
 obedient^. The very name involved the idea of obedience. 
 " Though he were a Son, yet learned he obedience by the 
 things which he suffered^." As if it had been said, Though 
 he was one whose very nature it was to obey, yet he was 
 perfected in that virtue by the things which he suffered. 
 As to the third, there needs nothing more to support it 
 than a single sentence in Paul's sermon at Antioch in Pisi- 
 dia : " The promise which was made unto the fathers, God 
 hath fulfilled the same unto us their children in that he 
 hath raised up Jesus again : as it is written in the Second 
 Psalm, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee\\." 
 If we turn back to the Second Psalm, we shall find these 
 words to be the public acknowledgment which God made 
 over the sepulchre, when he raised the sleeping Saviour to 
 
 * Luke 1. 35. 1 Heb, 5. 4—6, ±Mat. 3. 17 iHeb. 5. 8. 
 
 — fl Acts 13, 32, 33. 
 
428 APPENDIX. 
 
 the possession and honours of a Son, and set him King 
 upon the holy hill of Zion, and gave him the heathen for his 
 inheritance. This reason for the appellation of Son, and 
 for the expression in the Second Psalm, is again recognised 
 by the same apostle in his Epistle to the Hebrews : " Be- 
 ing* made so much better than the angels as he hath by in- 
 heritance obtained a more excellent name than they : 
 for unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art 
 my Son, this day have I begotten thee* ?" Here he is ex- 
 pressly said to have " obtained" the " name" of the " Son" 
 of God "by" the "inheritance" which he received. And 
 in the Epistle to the Philippians it is affirmed, that he was 
 exalted to this name as the reward of his obedience : " He 
 humbled himself and became obedient unto death, even the 
 death of the cross : wherefore God also hath highly exalted 
 him, and given him aNAME which is above every name\ ;" 
 to wit, the name of the Son of God. The same reason 
 for the appellation is suggested by Gabriel in his message 
 to Mary : "He shall be great, and shall be called the Son 
 of the Highest, and the Lord God shall give unto him 
 the throne of his father David%.' ,y Accordingly when his 
 glorified state was set forth on mount Tabor, where God had 
 decked him in the robes prepared for the " Heir of all 
 things," the voice from heaven again pronounced, "This 
 is my beloved Son in whom I am well pleased§." And one 
 of the witnesses tells us, " We beheld his glory, the glory 
 of the only begotten of the Father\\." It is because his 
 obedience "unto death" entitled him to the portion of a 
 Son, and because he arose to possess the inheritance, that 
 the grave is represented as the womb in which he was con- 
 ceived, and his resurrection as the completion of his genera- 
 tion. He is called "the First-born from thedead," and " the 
 First-begotten of the dead," and is said to have been " de- 
 clared the Son of God with power — by the resurrection^]"." It 
 is by a continuance of the same figure that the "joint heirs," 
 who inherit in consequence of his having risen to the estate 
 of a Son, are said to have been " begotten — again unto a 
 lively hope by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the 
 dead, to an inheritance incorruptible and undeliled**." The 
 same form of speech is used whenever the adoption of be- 
 lievers is spoken of, or whenever they are called the sons 
 
 * Heb. 1. 4, 5. tPhil. 2.8, 9. tLuke I. 32. $ Mat. 17. 5. 
 
 John 1. 14. Compared with 2 Pet. 1. 16—18. H Kom. 1. 
 
 4. Col. 1. 18. Rev. 1. 5. ** 1 Pet. 1. 3, 4. 
 
APPENDIX. 429 
 
 of God. These terms, (though the latter refers also to their 
 new generation and filial spirit,) always allude to their in- 
 heritance. 
 
 This inheritance was conferred on the Mediator as the 
 reward of that amazing 1 exhibition of holiness which he 
 made under law, in other words, for his obedience " unto 
 death." "Therefore doth my Father love me, because I 
 lay down my life that I may take it again, This com- 
 mandment have I received of my Father." " He — became 
 obedient unto death : — wherefore God also hath highly 
 exalted him, and given him a name which is above every 
 name." In that remarkable description of the inheritance 
 of the ' ; Son" and " Heir of all things," which is contain- 
 ed in the first three chapters of the Epistle to the Hebrews, 
 the ground of the whole is stated in these emphatic words : 
 " Thou hast loved righteousness and hated iniquity ; there- 
 fore God, even thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of 
 gladness above thy fellows.''' And it is added, " Consider 
 the Apostle and High Priest of our profession, Christ 
 Jesus, who was faithful to him that appointed him, as also 
 Moses was faithful in all his house. For this man was 
 counted worthy of more glory than Moses.— Moses verily 
 was faithful in all his house as a servant, — but Christ as a 
 Son over his own house*.'" Indeed the very name of in- 
 heritance denotes the estate to be the reward of his filial 
 obedience. He received nothing by birth, but by merit. 
 And what he received by merit and not by birth, was called 
 the portion of a Son, not so much in reference to his gene- 
 ration, as to his filial obedience. In that filial character, 
 and in the reward which followed, and which hence took 
 the name of inheritance, lie two parts out of three of the 
 whole meaning of Son of God. 
 
 What then was his inheritance ? I will first premise that 
 it comprehended every thing which he received by way of 
 reward. Whatever was bestowed as the recompense of his 
 obedience, was granted for his fi Hal obedience, for only as 
 a Son was he bound to obey. And whatever was granted 
 for his filial obedience, was the portion of a Sim, or his 
 inheritance. If any inheritance was conferred for his filial 
 obedience, why should it not comprise every thing which 
 he received in that way ? Why should half of his reward 
 take this name and not the whole ? Let it not then be 
 
 * John 10. 17, 13, Phil. 2. 8, 9. Heb, 1. 9. and 3. 1—6. 
 
430 APPENDIX. 
 
 thought that any part of his possession or power, (the 
 whole of which was conferred as a reward,) belongs to him 
 as a mere distributing Agent, and not as the " Heir of all 
 things ;" that any part of what he governs and gives re- 
 mains undetached from Godhead, ungranted to the Media- 
 tor, and passes through him as the mere channel of convey- 
 ance. It is all his own inheritance, his own " purchased 
 possession." His dominion itself is only the appendage of 
 heirship : for it belongs to the heir when he comes of age 
 to manage his own estate, to press every thing which he 
 lawfully may into subserviency to it, and to give it to whom- 
 soever he pleases. It was " by" the " inheritance" solely, 
 and not by any dominion distinct from this, that in point of 
 outward state he was made " better than the angels," and 
 "obtained a more excellent name than they*." It was 
 only as "the First-begotten," or "Heir of all things," 
 that he was exalted to receive the worship of augelsf. It 
 was only as "the First-born from the dead," " the First- 
 born of every creature," that in point of outv/ard glory he 
 had " in all things — the pre-eminence;*;." In short he re- 
 ceived nothing into his hands but what he inherited as the 
 " Heir." We may therefore unhesitatingly conclude that his 
 whole reward went into the inheritance, and remains his own 
 property, detached from pure Godhead, held by a mediato- 
 rial claim, and placed in a new relation to this world. Ac- 
 cordingly we shall tind the different parts of it interchange- 
 ably spoken of as an inheritance and as a reward. 
 
 Let us now see what that inheritance contains. It com- 
 prehends all the nations of the earth, over whom, as an ap- 
 pendage of heirship, he exercises dominion both to save and 
 to destroy. " Why do the heathen rage and the people 
 imagine a vain thing ? The kings of the earth set them- 
 selves, and the rulers take counsel together against the Lord 
 and against his Anointed ; [alluding, as we are expressly 
 told, to the combination of Pilate, and Herod, and the rulers 
 and people of Israel, and the Roman soldiers, against 
 Christ§.J — Yet have I set my King upon my holy hill of Zi- 
 on. I will declare the decree : the Lord hath said unto me, 
 Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee ; [referring, 
 as the Holy Ghost declares, to his resurrection|j.] Ask of 
 me and I shall give thee, [manifestly by way of reward,] 
 the heathen for thine inheritance, and the uttermost 
 
 * Heb. 1. 4. f Heb. 1. 6. with ver. 2. % Col. 1. 15—18. 
 
 Acts 4. 25—27. J] Acts 13. 33. 
 
APPENDIX. 4:31 
 
 parts of the earth for thy possession. Thou shalt break 
 them with a rod of iron ; thou shalt dash them in pieces 
 like a potter's vessel. — Kiss the Son, [the Heir,'] lest he be 
 angry, and ye perish from the way when his wrath is kin- 
 dled but a little. Blessed are all they that put their trust 
 in him*." 
 
 The inheritance includes all worlds and things through the 
 universe, over which, as lawful Owner, he is appointed to 
 rule. " God— hath in these last days spoken unto us by 
 his Son, whom he hath appointed Heir of all things : — who, 
 — when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on 
 the right hand of the Majesty on high ; being made so 
 much better than the angels as he hath by inheritance ob- 
 tained a more excellent name than they : for unto which 
 of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this 
 day have I begotten thee ? and again, I will be to him a 
 Father,, and he shall be to me a Son ? And again, when 
 he bringeth in the First-begotten into the world, he saith, 
 And let all the angels of God worship him. — Unto the Son, 
 [the Heir,] he saith, Thy throne, O God, is forever and 
 ever. — Thou hast loved righteousness and hated iniquity ; 
 therefore God, even thy God, hath anointed thee with the 
 oil of gladness above thy fellows. — But to which of the an- 
 gels said he at any time, Sit on my right hand until I make 
 thine enemies thy footstool ? — For unto the angels hath he 
 not put in subjection the world to come whereof we speak : 
 but one in a certain place testified, saying, What is man 
 that thou art mindful of him ? — Thou madest him a little 
 lower than the angels ; thou crownedst him with glory and 
 honour, and didst set him over the works of thy hands. 
 Thou hast put all things in subjection under his feet. For 
 in that he put all in subjection under him, he left nothing 
 that is not put under him, [nothing but God himself, as it 
 is said in another place-j*.] But now we see not yet all 
 things put under him : but we see Jesus, who was made a 
 little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, 
 crowned with glory and honour*." '• He — became obedi- 
 ent unto death :— wherefore God also hath highly exalted 
 him, and given him a name -which is above every name ; 
 that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things 
 in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth ; 
 and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is 
 Lord to the glory of God the Father}|." " Jesus knowing 
 
 * Ps. 2. 1—12. 1 1 Cor, 15. 24—23. — -t Keb. 1. and 2. 
 
 || Phil. 2. 6—11, 
 
432 APPENDIX. 
 
 that the Father had given all things into his hands," said 
 after his resurrection, " All power is given unto me in 
 heaven and in earth." And not to him as a mere distri- 
 buting Agent, but for his Ovvn. " All things that the Fa- 
 ther hath are mine*." Indeed all things were expressly 
 made "for him," as " the First-born of every creature/' 
 " the First-born from the dead," the " Heir of all 
 thingsf." 
 
 In other places ail worlds and things are represented as 
 given him for a reward. " For the joy that was set before 
 him" he " endured the cross, despising the shame, and 
 is set down at the right hand of the throne of God.'''' 
 " For to this end Christ both died, and rose, and revived, 
 that he might be Lord both of the dead and living." I 
 will " divide him a portion with the great, and he shall di- 
 vide the spoil with the strong, because he hath poured out 
 his soul unto death}." 
 
 This is a general view of the inheritance. Before I de- 
 scend to those particulars which will bear more directly on 
 the subject, I will remark here, that he received this general 
 inheritance for the use of the Church and the world. There 
 was a special reference to the elect. If he received " power 
 over ail flesh," a leading object was, " that he should give 
 eternal life to as many as" God had " given him." If he 
 was "exalted," a principal end was, that he might " be a 
 Prince and a Saviour, for to give repentance to Israel and for- 
 giveness of sii)s§." Did he obtain the Spirit ? it was in- 
 deed to call the race at large, and to sanctity and comfort 
 all who would believe ; but it was also to regenerate his 
 chosen. Did he obtain dominion over angels ? if it was 
 that they might be " ministering spirits" to a world of mo- 
 ral agents, it was in a special sense that they might " min- 
 ister for them who shall be heirs of salvation||." When I 
 say that he received the inheritance for the use of the 
 Church, 1 mean two things: first, that he received it for 
 the unfailing advantage of his elect, whom he had obtained 
 a right to form into a Church by sanctifying grace: se- 
 condly, that he received it for the benefit of all who would 
 believe, holding it thus as a provision for a whole world of 
 moral agents, and as such offering the benefit of it to all. 
 In both senses it may be said, the Father " raised him from 
 
 * Mat. 23. 13. John 13. 3. and 1G. 15. 1 Col. 1. 15— IS. 
 
 X Isaiah. 53. 12. Rom. 14, 9 Heb. 12. 2. * Joim 17. 2. Acts 
 
 5. 3i. jl Heb. 1.14. 
 
APPEXDIX. 433 
 
 the dead and set him at his own right hand in the heavenly 
 places, far above all principality, and power, and might, 
 and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in 
 this world but also in that which is to come, and — put all 
 things under his feet, and gave him to be Head over all 
 things to the Church, which is his body, the fulness of 
 him that fill eth all in a//*." In both senses I wish to be 
 understood when I say, if he vanquished the powers of 
 darkness, it was not in a separate warfare, but in the ser- 
 vice of the Church, and for her use : if he took possession of 
 heaven, it was " to prepare a place for" his followers-]-. 
 Even his personal splendours are only the royal robes ap- 
 pended to his regal office, which he holds for the benefit of 
 the Church. But a part of the general estate was received, 
 not for the Church as such, that is, not to be given in re- 
 wards to believers, and offered as such to men, but to be 
 bestowed on the race at large in sovereign gifts fitted to a 
 state of probation. 
 
 In proceeding to the particular parts of the inheritance, 
 I shall present them in two general divisions ; those which 
 respect the elect distinctively, and those which relate in- 
 discriminately to a world of moral agents. 
 
 (1.) The elect themselves as a redeemed kingdom, and 
 the regenerating influence by which they are constituted a 
 holy seed, and the sanctifying influence and inheritance by 
 which they are graciously rewarded, all belong to the in- 
 heritance and reward of Christ. 
 
 The elect themselves, as a holy seed and redeemed king- 
 dom, belong to his inheritance. " Thou spokest in vision 
 to thy Holy One, and saidst, I have laid help upon One that 
 is mighty, I have exalted One chosen out of the people. — 
 He shall cry unto use, Thou art my Father ; [that is, he 
 shall be my Son.] — Also I will make him my First-born, 
 [my Heir,] higher than the kings of the earth. — His seed 
 also will I make to endure for ever, and his throne as the 
 days of heaven." " I shall give thee the heathen for thine 
 inheritance J." The elect belong to his reward. "When 
 thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his 
 seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the Lord 
 shall prosper in his hand. He shall see of the travail of his 
 soul and shall be satisfied. By his knowledge shall my 
 righteous Servant justify many, for he shall bear their ini- 
 quities." " We, brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of 
 
 * Eph. 1. 20—23. -f [John 14. k % Ps. 2. 8. & 89. 3—37. 
 
 2 O 
 
434 APPENDIX. 
 
 promise*." The regenerating- influence by which they are 
 constituted a holy seed, belongs to his reward. Hence they 
 are said to be created and begotten "in Christ," and 
 to be regenerated for his sake. God has " saved us by the 
 washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Ghost, 
 which he shed on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our 
 Savioury." Indeed the Heir himself, as an essential right, 
 received uncontrolled power to raise them from the death of 
 sin. " As the Father raiseth up the dead and quick- 
 eneth them, even so the Son quickeneth whom he will. 
 — For as the Father hath life in himself, so hath he given 
 the Son to have life in himseifj." Both the influence by 
 which they are regenerated, and the sanctifying influence 
 by which they are graciously rewarded, belong to his pro- 
 mised recompense. What else can be meant by our being 
 " chosen — in him before the foundation of the world, that 
 we should be holy and without blame before him in love'' 1 ? 
 God has " saved us and called us with a holy calling, not 
 according to our works, but according to his own purpose 
 and grace which was given us in Christ Jesus before the 
 world began ;" that is, made over to Christ for us§. We 
 are distinctly taught that he obtained their complete sanc- 
 tiflcation as the reward of his obedience " unto death." He 
 " loved the Church and gave himself for it, that he might 
 sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the 
 word ; that he might present it to himself a glorious Church, 
 not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing, but that it 
 should be holy and without blemish." " Who gave himself 
 for our sins that he might deliver us from this present evil 
 world." " Who gave himself for us that he might redeem 
 us from all iniquity, and purify unto himself a peculiar 
 people zealous of good works." " For their sakes I sanc- 
 tify myself, [devote myself to die,] that they also might be 
 sanctified through the truth||." The inheritance also, which 
 they receive as a gracious recompense, is a part of his pro- 
 mised reward. What else can be meant by the eternal elec- 
 tion of men in him to the inheritance ? " Blessed be the 
 God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blessed 
 us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ, 
 according as he hath chosen us in him before the founda- 
 tion of the world ;— having predestinated us unto the adop- 
 tion of children by Jesus Christ to himself." " Paul,— an 
 
 • Isai. 53. 10, 11. Gal. 4. 28. 1 1 Cor. 4. 15. 2 Cor. 5. 17. Epl>. 
 
 2 10. Tit. 3. 5, 6. 1 John 5. 21, 26. JEph. 1. 4. 2 Tim. 1 
 
 J 9 . 1| John 17. 19. Gal. 1. 4. Eph. 5. 25-27. Tit. 2. 14. 
 
APPENDIX. 435 
 
 apostle of Jesus Christ, according to the faith of God's elect, 
 — in hope of eternal life which God that cannot lie pro- 
 mised before the world began.''' Promised to whom ? To 
 Christ unquestionably*. 
 
 (2.) Passing- by the special notices of the elect, I say in 
 general, that all the positive good, (including expressly sanc- 
 tification and eternal life,) which is offered and promised to 
 men on the condition of their faith, (constituting a com- 
 plete provision for a world of moral agents,) and actually 
 bestowed on believers in gracious rewards, is comprehended 
 in the inheritance of Christ. 
 
 The general administration of the Spirit, for the sancti- 
 fication of all who will believe, belongs both to his inheri- 
 tance and reward. First, it belongs to his inheritance. 
 " When he the Spirit of truth is come, — he shall not speak 
 of himself, [at his own suggestion,] but whatsoever lie shall 
 hear that shall he speak. — He shall glorify me, for he shall 
 receive of mine and shall show it unto you. All things that 
 the Father hath are mine ; therefore said I that he shall 
 take of mine and shall show it unto you." The grant was 
 made to him as the beloved Son and Heir. " God giveth 
 not the Spirit by measure unto him ; the Father hveth the 
 Son and hath given all things into his handf." Second- 
 ly, it belongs to his promised reward. "It is expedient 
 for you that I go away ; for if I go not away the Comforter 
 will not come unto you, but if I depart I will send him un- 
 to you." This gift could not be bestowed till Christ had 
 earned his reward. " The Holy Ghost was not yet given, 
 because that Jesus was not yet glorified." But when he 
 "ascended on high," among other gifts for men he receiv- 
 ed this, " that the Lord God might dwell among them ;" 
 and within ten days he sent the blessing forth. On that 
 occasion Peter was instructed to make the following ex- 
 planation : " Being by the right hand of God exalted, 
 and having received of the Father the promise of the Holy 
 Ghost, he hath shed forth this which ye now see and 
 hearj." Accordingly the sanctifi cation offered and grant- 
 ed to men, is every where ascribed to the essential influence 
 of Christ. " The law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus 
 hath made me free from the law of sin and death." " This 
 is he that came by water and blood." " The grace of God 
 which is given you by Jesus Christ." " Filled with the 
 
 * Eph. 1. 3—5. Tit. 1. 1, 2. 1 John 3. 34, 35. k 16. 13—15.- 
 
 t Ps. 68. 18. John 7. 39. & 16. 7. Acts. 2. 33. 
 
436 APPENDIX. 
 
 fruits of righteousness which are by Jesus Christ." We 
 are said to be sanctified, built up, and established " in 
 Christ," and to conquer in and through him. We are said 
 to be " dead with" him, to be " quickened together with 
 him," to be "risen with him," " that the life — of Jesus 
 might be made manifest in our body." We are said to 
 " know — the power of his resurrection," to be " dead to 
 the law by the body of Christ, that we should be married 
 to another, even to him who is raised from the dead, that 
 we should bring forth fruit unto God," and to be " alive 
 unto God through Jesus Christ our Lord." Christ is set 
 forth as the all in all in the cure of our spiritual maladies, 
 and in the support of our spiritual life ; as being not merely 
 the channel through which the streams flow, but the source 
 itself. The cures which he wrought in the days of his flesh 
 exhibit him, not as an under physician dealing out the medi- 
 cines of another, but as the healing fountain. Is no other 
 idea to be awakened in our minds by all those affecting re- 
 presentations of him as the olive-tree constantly shedding 
 its oil to feed the lamps, as the good olive and vine nourish- 
 ing the branches, as " the Head by which all the body, by 
 joints and bands having nourishment ministered and knit 
 together, increaseth with the increase of God," but that he 
 is the mere Agent to dispense supplies which might have 
 come through another hand ? He is a " quickening Spirit," 
 not merely as King, but as "the last Adam :'' and sancti- 
 fication is Christ within us, not merely his image, but his 
 life : " I live, yet not I, but Christ liveth in me." " Know 
 ye not — that Jesus Christ is in you except ye be repro- 
 bates ?" " If Christ be in you, the body is dead because 
 of sin, but the spirit is life because of righteousness." 
 Christ is "the Author and Finisher of our faith;" and it 
 is he who pronounces, " Behold I make all things new*." 
 
 In like manner that eternal life or inheritance which he 
 offers to a world of moral agents, and bestows on believers 
 as a gracious reward, belongs to his own inheritance. We 
 inherit through him. " In whom also we have obtained an 
 inheritance." " As many as received him, to them gave he 
 power to become the sons of God." " When the fulness of 
 
 * Zech 4. 2—14. John 15. 1—6. Rom. 6. 2 — 11. and 7. 4. and S. 
 2, 10, 37. and 11. 17. and 12. 5. 1 Cor. 1. 2, 4. and 6. 15. and 12. 
 12—27. and 15. 45, 57. 2 Cor. 1. 21. and 2. 14. and 4. 10, 11. and 
 13. 5. Gal. 2. 20. Eph. 2. 20—22. and 4. 15, 16. and 5. 30. Phil. 
 1. 11. and 3. 10. Col. 2. 7, 11—13, 19. Heb. 12. 2. 1 John 5. 6. 
 Rev. 21. 5. 
 
APPENDIX. 437 
 
 time was come, God sent forth his Son made of a woman, 
 made under the law, to redeem them that were under the 
 law j that we might receive the adoption of sons. Aud be- 
 cause ye are sons, God hath sent forth the Spirit of his Son 
 into your hearts, crying, Abba Father. Wherefore thou 
 art no more a servant but a son ; and if a son, then an heir 
 of God through Christ." The last clause shows what is 
 always meant by a son of God. In Christ as the Second 
 Adam, and not merely by his Kingly power, the believing 
 dead will be raised to immortal life. " For since by man, 
 [by the sin of one man,] came death, by man, [by the right- 
 eousness of one man,] came also the resurrection of the 
 dead. For as in Adam ail die, even so in Christ shall 
 all be made alive*." Thus he who is the Alpha, is the 
 Omega also of our salvation. 
 
 Accordingly all the promises which are offered to the 
 world and applied to believers, expressly including those of 
 the Spirit and of the inheritance, were really made to Christ, 
 and reach us as the oil on Aaron's head did the skirts of his 
 garments. " Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of 
 the law, — that the blessing of Abraham might come 
 on the Gentiles through Jesus Christ, that we might 
 receive the promise of the Spirit through faith, [that is, 
 as a reward.] — Nov/ to Abraham and his Seed were the pro- 
 mises, [all the promises,] made. He saith not, And to 
 seeds, as of many, but as of One, And to thy Seed, which 
 is Christ. And this I say, that the covenant that was 
 confirmed before of God in Christ, [this shows what is 
 meant by promises made in Christ,] the law — cannot dis- 
 annul. — For if the inheritance be of the law, it is no more 
 of promise ; but God gave it to Abraham by promise. 
 Wherefore then serveth the law ? It was added because of 
 transgressions, till the Seed should come to whom the pro- 
 mise [of the whole inheritance] was made. — The Scripture 
 hath concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith of 
 Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe. [This 
 shows what is meant by a promise inherited by faith in 
 the Redeemer.] — The law is our school-master to bring us 
 unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith. But after 
 that faith is come, we are no longer under a school-master, 
 [no longer minors incapable of the inheritance conferred in 
 justification ;] for ye are all the children, [heirs,] of God 
 by faith in Christ Jesus. — And if ye be Christ's, then are 
 
 * John 1. 12. 1 Cor. 15. 21, 22. Gal. 4. 4—7. Eph. 1. 11. 
 20 2 
 
43o APPENDIX. 
 
 ye Abraham's seed, [as being the seed of Abraham's greater 
 isorif] and heirs according to the promise. Now I say that 
 the heir, as long as he is a child, difrereth nothing from a 
 servant, though he be lord of all." Hence the promise of 
 inheritance, and all other promises, are in Christ. " The 
 mystery of Christ — is now revealed, — that the Gentiles 
 -should be fellow heirs [with the Jews,] — and partakers of 
 Ms promise in Christ." "The promise of life which is 
 in Christ Jesus." " For all the promises of God in him 
 are yea, and in him amen*." 
 
 Now the promises made to Christ, either in the covenant 
 of redemption or in the revelation to the Church, implied 
 nothing less than that the things promised were to be the 
 reward of his work on earth, and what his services might 
 fairly claim. I can conceive of but two other grounds on 
 which they can be supposed to have been made to him. 
 First, a guardian may receive promises that his wards shall 
 be endowed, not for his sake but their own. Secondly, a 
 parent may be made acquainted with a similar design respect- 
 ing his children, and though the estate is to be conferred for 
 their conduct alone, yet the information may be given as a 
 real reword to him. Neither of these cases illustrates the 
 subject. As to the former, if the promises were not intend- 
 ed as a reward to Christ, but only deposited with him as 
 the Guardian of his people, why were they made to him be- 
 fore the foundation of the worldf ? The Church were not 
 there to enjoy the pledge, and when the intelligence reaches 
 them, it makes them no more assured than the simple pur- 
 pose of the Father would have done. As to the latter, if 
 the promises were intended as a reward to Christ, the re- 
 compense could not lie in the pleasure of receiving new in- 
 formation. The Second Person in the Trinity needed not 
 to be informed. Indeed what can be understood by a pro- 
 mise in the divine cabinet ? Not a declaration in words, 
 and yet something more than a mere design. It was a pur- 
 pose connected with a bond ; a bond not arising out of the 
 intention itself, as out of the verbal promise of a man, but 
 from the very service which the Son was to render. It 
 was a mere recognition of the claim which his work on 
 earth would create, and an unchangeable resolution to satisfy 
 it ; a claim not originally binding on the Father, but growing 
 
 * 2 Cor. 1. 20. Gal. 3. 13—29. and 4, 1. Epb. 3. 4—6. 2 Tim. 1. 1. 
 
 1 We have seen that the promises of the covenant of redemption 
 were not limited to the elect, but extended to a world of moral agents, 
 securing to Christthe salvation of all who would believe. 
 
APPJESDiX. 439 
 
 out of the acceptance of the Son's submission. And as to 
 the promises which appear in the public revelation, why 
 should they be made to Christ at all, and not to the Church 
 directly, if they were not intended to announce to the world 
 that the things promised come to us as his reward ? 
 
 On what other ground can you account for the abso- 
 lute form of the promises, ensuring- to every believer con- 
 tinued sanetihxation and eternal life ? Is it because those 
 believers were elected ? But the same absolute covenant is 
 tendered to the world at large. Every man, elect or non- 
 elect, is assured that if he will once believe, he shall be 
 kept by the power of God through faith unto salvation. 
 Now why is this ? Why if Christ is not the ground of the 
 promises, and if it is not secured to him, without reference 
 to election, that no member shall ever be torn from his 
 bleeding side, — that no moral agent who will once believe 
 in him shall ever perish ? Why, unless it has been promised 
 of him as the "First-bom" and Heir, "If his children 
 forsake my law and walk not in my judgments, — then will 
 I visit their transgression with the rod and their iniquity 
 with stripes ; nevertheless my loving kindness will 1 not 
 utterly take from him, nor suffer my faithfulness to fail*" ? 
 If after removing our guilt, Christ has left us exactly where 
 Adam stood the moment he was created, — to transact di- 
 rectly with God, and receive only what we can earn ; why 
 this "everlasting consolationf " to us more than to Adam ? 
 Mere freedom from guilt in the Gospel sense, creates no 
 more necessity that men should be kept from falling away, 
 than original innocence did. Whence then this "better 
 covenant, — established upon better promises 1 ' ? these " ex- 
 ceeding great and precious promises" by which we become 
 "partakers of the divine nature," and are assured of "all 
 things that pertain unto life and godliness;^' ? If the in- 
 fluence of Christ ends with pardon, and believers stand be- 
 fore God in the same relation that Adam did, why this 
 pledge against apostacy ? Do you say that Christ pro- 
 cured their eternal pardon ? What, without procuring their 
 sanctifi cation ? We have seen that he cculd not even 
 render their pardon possible but on the supposition of their 
 being holy. If then he did not obtain their sanctifi cation, 
 he could not obtain absolute pardon for them a moment, and 
 created no reason why God should issue absolute promises 
 either of sanctification or eternal life. Why then were they 
 
 * Ps. 89. 27—33. t2 Thes. 2. 16. -± Heb. 8. 6. 2 Pet. 1. 3, 4. 
 
44 APPENDIX. 
 
 issued ? We have been accustomed to suppose that it was 
 because the salvation of believers was made over to Christ 
 as his reward. No such thing- upon this plan, and we are 
 left to account for this wonderful change in the treatment 
 of spotless creatures without any reasons drawn from a 
 Mediator. Tell me then in what sense he is " the Media- 
 tor" of this " better covenant, — established upon better 
 promises*" ? If he did nothing but render sanctification 
 and pardon consistent with the honour of the law, and had 
 no influence in obtaining these absolute promises, how is 
 he the Mediator of a better covenant than the conditional 
 one at Sinai ? for this is the thing- asserted. How in any 
 other sense than as the mere Promulgator ? The argu- 
 ment of the apostle is, that Christ has " obtained a more 
 excellent ministry" than the Levitical priests, " by how 
 much also he is the Mediator of a better covenant" than 
 that at Sinai. The superiority of the covenant is explain- 
 ed to consist in its absolute form, ensuring both sanctinca- 
 tion and eternal life. The Sinai covenant, to which were 
 appended all the bloody sacrifices, certainly secured the 
 pardon of every one who would believe, and secured it 
 through the atonement of a Saviour to come. If in this 
 new and absolute covenant the Mediator has no higher in- 
 fluence, that is, no influence to make the covenant absolute, 
 his " more excellent ministry" turns out to be the mere 
 promulgation of " better promises' 1 which he had no hand 
 in procuring. And then if an angel had been sent to an- 
 nounce these absolute promises, (allowing any reason for 
 their being made,) he would in as high a sense have exer- 
 cised this "more excellent ministry," and been "the medi- 
 ator" of every thing in this "better covenant" which dis- 
 tinguished it from that at Sinai. 
 
 Now if all the positive good ever promised to the world 
 on the condition of their faith, was really measured out to 
 Christ as his reward, and expressly for the use of those 
 who would believe, then it comes to them because it was 
 first given to him . And this is his own account of the mat- 
 ter. " The glory which thou gavest me I have given them, 
 that they all may be one as we are ; / in them and thou in 
 me, that they may be made perfect in one, and that the 
 world may know — that thou hast loved them as thou hast 
 loved me\" The whole amount is this : he earned the in- 
 heritance, and his seed share it with him. By whatever 
 
 * Heb. 8. 6. 1 John 17. 22—26. 
 
APPENDIX. 441 
 
 means it happens, all things are actually made over to them 
 by covenant. Now on what ground do they claim ? and 
 are not the "all things" which are given to them the iden- 
 tical "all things" which were made over to the universal 
 "Heir" ? If so, how came they in possession of the very 
 things which were given to Christ ? Are there conflicting 
 claims ? or do they inherit under him ? Let the word of 
 God decide. "All things are yours : whether Paul, or 
 Apollos, or Cephas, or the world, or life, or death, orthings 
 present, or things to come, all are yours, and ye are 
 Christ's, and Christ is God's*." Hence the seed "inhe- 
 rit all thingsf." In particular they inherit the promises 
 of eternal life. "Followers of them who through faith and 
 patience inherit the promises. For when God made pro- 
 mise to Abraham, — he swore by himself : — wherein God, 
 willing more abundantly to show unto the heirs of promise 
 the immutability of his counsel, confirmed it by an oath : — 
 which hope — entereth into that within the vail, [takes hold 
 of heaven,] whither the Forerunner is for us entered, 
 even Jesus, made a High Priest forever J." That is, 
 he has entered upon the inheritance as our Forerunner, 
 to take possession of it for our use, and by his priestly in- 
 tercession to obtain the acknowledgment of our title to it 
 as joint heirs : and the hope which follows him thither, 
 is grounded on the promise of inheritance made to Abra- 
 ham and his Seed, which Seed was Christ. As the ancient 
 Church inherited from Abraham the land of Canaan§, the 
 type of heavenj|, so we " inherit" from Christ the " better 
 country," as "heirs together of the grace of life," "heirs 
 according to the hope of eternal life^[," and are said to 
 have an " inheritance in the kingdom of Christ," and to 
 reign "with" him, and even to be "partakers q/Christ**." 
 Hence in that great description of the inheritance of 
 the "Son" and "Heir of all things," in the first chapter 
 of Hebrews, we read of the " heirs ;" the meaning of which 
 is found in this, " If children, then heirs, heirs of God and 
 joint heirs ivith Christ-ff" At one time he is the Parent 
 from whom the seed inherit, at another time, "the First- 
 born among many brethren," — really the " Heir," but ad- 
 mitting his younger brethren to share with him. "Whom 
 
 * 1 Cor. 3. 21—23. 1 Rev. 21. 7. + Heb. 6. 12— 20. 5 Gen. 
 
 15. 7. Ps. 37. 29, 34. and 105. 11. 1| Isai. 60. 21. 1 Mat. 19. 
 
 29. and 25. 34. Mar. 10. 17. Tit. 3. 7. 1 Pet. 3. 7. ** Eph. 
 
 5. 5. Heb. 3. 14. Rev. 3. 21. and. 20. 4, 6. tt Rom. 8. 14—17. 
 
 Heb. 1. 14, 
 
442 APPENDIX. 
 
 he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed 
 to the image of his Son, that he might be the First-born 
 among many brethren*." 
 
 It might be expected therefore that every thing would be 
 ascribed to his essential influence. Andso we find it. " In" 
 and " through him we — have — access — unto the Father," — 
 "boldness and access with contidence. ,, We are "com- 
 plete in him," " perfect in Christ," "approved in Christ," 
 "accepted in the Beloved,'''' (that is, because lie is be- 
 loved',) and our acceptableness is called " a sweet savour of 
 Christ," he and not our works being the acceptable incense. 
 Even common blessings come to us through him ; and to 
 rejoice in them religiously, is to rejoice in Christ. " That 
 your rejoicing may be more abundant in Jesus Christ for 
 me by my coming to you again." Those salutations at 
 the beginning and end of the Epistles, " The grace of our 
 Lord Jesus Christ be with you," " The Lord Jesus Christ 
 be with thy spirit," "Grace be unto you and peace from 
 God our Father and from the Lord Jesus Christ;" were 
 breathings of desire for all good on those addressed, and ac- 
 knowledgments that all good came through the Redeemer. 
 Hence that confidence of the apostle, "My God shall supply 
 all your need — by Christ Jesus ;'" and that devout and com- 
 prehensive acknowledgment, "To us there is but one God, 
 the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him ; and one 
 Lord, Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we 
 
 BY KIMf." 
 
 And now is it too much to say of the scheme against 
 which these arguments are arrayed, that it takes away one 
 half of a Saviour and one half of his praise ? Nor is it the 
 least important part that it filches from us, so far as our 
 comfort and gratitude to Christ are concerned. To fill the 
 eye with him as the " Heir of all things," "the First-born 
 among many brethren," who has taken possession of the 
 inheritance in our name, to manage it as our Guardian, and 
 to reserve it for us against our arrival ; to view every comfort, 
 every morsel of daily food, as purchased by him, and as be- 
 longing to the mediatorial esta'e ; is one of the sweetest and 
 sublimest contemplations that ever occupied the Christian 
 mind. To know that we are indebted to him for all things, 
 is the richest ingredient in prosperity, and the brightest 
 gem in the immortal crown. Do you tell me that it is no 
 
 * Rom. 8- 29. 1 Rom. 16. 20. 1 Cor. 8. 6. 2 Cor. 2. 15. with 
 
 Eph. 5. 2 and Phil. 4. 18. Eph. 1. 6. and 2. 13. and 3. 12. Phil. 1. 
 26. and 4. 19. Col. 1. 28. and 2. 10. 2 Pet. 1. 2—4. 
 
APPENDIX. 443 
 
 matter whether blessings come through Christ or directly 
 from the Father, as upon either plan they are equally se- 
 cure ? This is precisely the Socinian plea. The worst 
 evil in the Unitarian heresy is its tendency to lower down 
 the influence of Christ in the business of man's salvation, 
 and to send a fallen race immediately to God. Exactly in 
 proportion as Christ is excluded, our faith, dependance, 
 gratitude, and all our religion is changed. If Socinianism 
 changes it entirely, this errour changes it in part. Give 
 me a religion which yields to Christ all his influence and 
 all his honours, — which in every part of salvation makes him 
 our ALL in ALL, 
 
ERRATA. 
 
 Page 26, line 1? from top : for a personal sinner read personally a sinner. 
 
 86, top line : insert t after i. 
 
 • 162, Note, line 2 from top : insert t after no. 
 
 204, Note, line 2 from bottom : insert a at the end of the line. 
 
 210, top line : for this read Aw. 
 
 232, line 7 from bottom : for a mere read an. 
 
 279, line 16 from top : for hearts' 1 lust read heart's lust. 
 
 290, line 11 from top : strike out sole. 
 
 300, line 13 from bottom : for come read came. 
 
 334. A small inaccuracy crept into this page between the 2d and 
 
 10th line from the top. The reader is desired to consider the 
 passage as standing thus : But the possibility of the action un- 
 der consideration, did not depend on the power of motives to 
 influence the temper which that sinner actually possessed. 
 The temper itself was not necessary. It was certain, but the 
 certainty was not that plvysical necessity which rendered a 
 different issue naturally impossible. Had Judas felt as he 
 ought, he would have fallen under the control of motives in 
 a way different from what was ever calculated in heaven. 
 Had he done as he ought, an event would have taken place 
 which was never foreseen. And had he felt and done as he 
 ought without the influence which God controlled, (and his 
 obligations were independent of that,) an event would have 
 taken place. &r. 
 
"OH. I 
 
 ■9