\-p:"'p

¦

Mot24

•'*¦«. (0

Jj^.^.^.u/'dL^

ON

THE DOCTRINE

OF

THE ATONEMENT.

I. THE NECESSITY OP THE ATONEMENT.
II. ITS NATURE.
III. ITS NATURE.
IV. ITS EXTENT.

BY NATHAN S. S. BEMAN,
PASTOR OP THE PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH IN TROY.

TROT:
PUBLISHED BY WILLIAM 8. PARKER.
TUTTLE AIU> RICHARDS  PRINTERS.

January 1825.

Northern District of New-York, la wit:
Be it remembered, That on the Eleventh day
. of October, in the Forty-ninth year of the Independ
ence of the United States of America, a. d. 1824,
• Nathan S. S. Bemaw, ofthe said District, hath de
posited in this Office the title of a Book, the right
whereof he claims as Author in the words following, to wit :
" Four Sermons: on the Doctrine of the AtoUfment. I. The
" necessity of the Atonement. II. Its Nature. III. Its Nature.
"IV. RsEttent. 'By Nathan S. S; Bemanj Pastor ofthe Presby-
K terian Church in Troy."
In confoFfflity to tire'acl of the GonfreslFof the United States,
entitled " An act for the encouragement of learning, by securing
the copies of Maps, Charts, and Books, to the authors and proprie
tors of such copies, during the times therein mentioned ;" and also,
to the act entitled " An act supplementary to an act entitled ' An
act for the encouragement "8f Warning, by securing the copies of
Maps, Charts, and Books, to the authors and proprietors of such
copies during tlie tinifes me>te1nJm'e'nttotae&i''ahU"fettehdingthe be
nefits thereof tb'ttie arts of designing, Engraving and Etching his
torical and other prints." R. R. LANSING, Clerk
Ofthe Northern District of New- York,

TO THE MEMBERS
OE THE
Vresbyteriaw ClaurcYv &l Congregation
IN THE CITY OF TROY ;
FOR WHOM THE FOLLOWING SERMONS WERE ORIGINALLY
PREPARED,
AND FOR WHOSE MORE IMMEDIATE BENEFIT THET ARE NOW
PUBLISHED,
THIS LITTLE VOLUME
IS AFFECTIONATELY INSCRIBED,
BY THEIR FRIEND
AND PASTOR
The Author.

PREFACE.

The following Sermons, on the Doctrine of the
Atonement, were not originally designed for the press.
They were prepared, and preached to the congregation,
in the month of October, 1823, and are now given to the
publick for reasons which the author . deems it his duty
and privilege frankly to state. , . ,
These Sermons, he has reason to believe, were the
means of doing good, at the time they were delivered.
They excited considerable attention to this great and
fundamental doctrine of the Christian system, and im
parted, as he hopes, some instruction to those who had
not made this doctrine, in all its relations, a subject of
particular and critical investigation. A request was
made, by a number of individuals, whose judgment the
author highly respects, for their publication, when first
delivered — but a compliance with that' request was de
ferred for the present.
Since that period the doctrine of the Atonement has
become; in various forms, the subject of publick discus
sion. Several sermons, on this important point in the
ology, have been recently published, arid these sermons
1*

VI PREFACE.
have been subjected to two or three times the number
of reviews. This doctrine is one which is fairly before
the churches, and,, in this state of inquiry and investi
gation, the writer of these pages has thought best to add
this little volume to the productions, on this subject, al
ready in the hands of the christian publick. Whether
his decision, in this matterY has been expedient, or for
the best, must be left for others- to determine.
But it may be thought by some, that there is no de
mand for another treatise on this doctrine. In reply to-
this suggestion, the following considerations have occur
red to the author. The more elaborate works, on this
subject, such as Edwards, West, Griffin and Magee, are
not in the hands of every christian reader ; and if they'
were, these works are, in some instances, too volumin-
ous, and, in others, perhaps too intricate for many who
might read, with interest and profit, a treatise of greater
simplicity, or brevity. These sermons are designed to
fill an humbler, but perhaps not a less useful place, than
that occupied by these more critical and finished pro
ductions. As to single sermons, and especially those
which have been recently published, on this doctrine,
they have generally aimed at the discussion of some one
point, or they have been designed to combat what was
deemed some local errour ;. and,, . consequently, .they
have presented tmt a partial view of this subject.

Another fact has had considerable weight. In this re
gion works on the Atonement, have not been much read ;
and it is thought that something published here, may be
perused by many who might not otherwise direct their
attention particularly to the investigation of this subject.
An apology is due to the publick for the delay which
has attended this work. The simple matter of fact is
this. The pecuniary situation of the writer, would not
authorize this publication on any other terms than that
of subscription. Proposals, for this purpose, were is
sued several months since, but sufficient attention was
not devoted to this business, in order to obtain the requi
site number of subscribers, till the present time.
These sermons will, no doubt, be found, in many re
spects, very defective ; but such as they are, they are
now committed to the candid and prayerful perusal of
the publick, and to the ultimate and sovereign disposal
of the great head of the church.
Troy, December, 1824.

SERMON X.
THE NECESSITY OF AN ATONEMENT.
Hebrews, ix. 22. — " Without shedding of blood is no
remission."

There are two diatmctrmethods in which God re
veals himself to rational creatures. One is by the dis
pensation of the law, and the other, by the dispensation
of the gospel. The moral law has annexed life to per
fect and uninterrupted obedience. It is by the equitable
awards of this law, that the angels participate the bliss of
heaven ; and, by the terms of the same legal covenant,
too, Adam, and all his posterity, would have been exalt
ed to a triumphant immortality, had sin never entered
our system, or diffused its poison through our hearts. —
But to sinners, the moral law is the ministration of
death ! It speaks terrours to the conscience now ; and
where pardon is not obtained, its accents will grow more
and more terrifick while eternal ages shall endure. This
is the certain effect of being abandoned to the penal op
eration of the law. Like the arm of Jehovah, the pen
alty of the law, in such a case as this, cannot, and will
not bend.
It is the gospel alone which proposes a remedy for
human transgression ; and, in this gospel, the doctrine

10 THE NECESSITY OK
of the atonement is fundamental. So numerous, and so
important are the bearings of this doctrine upon the gos
pel scheme, that if you annihilate the atonement, you
have no gospel left. There is no way in which God,
consistently with the principles of the divine law, can
forgive the sinner ; for " without shedding of blood is
no remission."
In this part of his epistle to the Hebrews, the apos
tle is discussing the typical import of those rites which
were enjoined by the law of Moses — and particularly
of those sacrifices whose blood was considered essential
to the forgiveness of sin. "~ The rituat or ceremonial
law, of which the apostle is treating in the context, was
the gospel in type or shadow ; and the offerings which
were enjoined by that law, derived all their efficacy from
Jesus Christ, who was, in the fullness of time, to appear
in our world, and " put away sin by the sacrifice of
himself." Under this law, or the typical dispensation,
the victim was slain, or his blood was shed ; and through
this significant ceremony, as prefiguring " the Lamb of
God which taketh tiway the sin of the world," pardon
and eternal life were obtained.
" Almost all things were by the law purged with blood,
and without shedding of blood is no remission." The
law here spoken of, is not the moral, but the ceremonial
law, which, as we have before intimated, was ttye gospel
of Christ exhibited or expressed by symbols. Under
that dispensation, as well as under the present, there
could, be no remission of sin without the shedding of
blood ; without shedding the blood of the typical sacri-

AN ATONEMENT. 11
flees which pointed tb Christ ; atrd without shedding the
Wwyd of Christ himself, from whom these ceremonial or
legal sacrifices derived thei]1 sanctifying and saving pow
er. " Without shedrfiflg of blood is no remission." —
T*hese words assert the necessity of an atonement to the
forgiveness of Sin ; and to this purpose we shall apply
them in this discourse.
The' necessity of an atonement, is the subject of our
present remarks. We premise in the
First place, That an atonement for sin was not neces
sary, as Some have supposed, to incline God the Father
to the exercise of mercy.
Few doctrines of the christian system have caused
more controversy in the world than the doctrine of the
atonement ; and it may be affirmed with equal truth,
that it has been often misuriderstood and mis-stated by
its friends as well as its etremies. One fruitful source
of misconception and confusion in relation to this point,
is the very commoii fault 6f attributing a literal meaning
to the figurative language which frequently occurs in the
bible when treating of this doctrine. The nature of
these figurative representations will be more particular
ly considered on a future occasion. It is sufficient for
our present purpose to remark, that many appear erro
neously to suppose, that the atonement Was intended to
incline God to exercise mercy towards our guilty race.
The representation of the affair, in their minds, is
something like this. God had threatened the transgres-

IS THE NECESSITY OF
sor witheternal punishment, and till the whole amount
of suffering due to the sinner, be inflicted on his substi
tute, God has no compassion for the rebel, and no dispo
sition to save him. The debt must be legally paid, and
then the prisoner may be released ; the ransom must be
literally offered, and then the captive can be redeemed.
This view of the necessity of an atonement, would
forever annihilate the divine attribute of .mercy. But
we wish not to press this point for the present. We
conceive, that God was as much inclined to have mercy
upon our world without an atonement as with it, provid
ed, at the same time, it could be done with equal pro
priety and safety. The atonement was in no sense the
exciting cause of mercy to the sinner, but was merely
the means selected by infinite wisdom for the expression
of this mercy without the sacrifice of, the moral govern
ment of God. The existence of the attribute of mercy,
and the inclination to its exercise too, was, like God
himself, eternal ; ,and the atonement operated not as. a
bribe upon the divine feelings, but served merely to ren
der the , pardon and salvation, of the sinner consistent
with the other principles or perfections of his nature.
Thus the atonement was not the cause of mercy, but
the mode in which mercy was to be expressed. But
Secondly. The atonement was necessary, as an ex
pression of God's regard for the moral law.
The importance and value of the moral law, cannot
have escaped the observation of any intelligent and re
flecting mind. This law is, in every respect, adapted

AN ATQNEMNET. 1$
to the rational universe. Under its, operation all heaven
is full of happiness ; and were its authority universally
revered, and its precept universally obeyed, the con
stituents of heavenly felicity would be found in every
place. Both the precept and the penalty pf the mora} law,
are infinitely excellent. Its demands and sanctions are
just what they should he ; they are what God approves,
and what tend to the peace and order and happiness of
intelligent beings. So perfect is this rule of action, that
where there is no transgression, there can he no suffer
ing. All natural evil, or misery, is the consequence of
moral evil, or sin. The penalty of the moral law, is:
just as important as the precept ; and the regard which
God entertains for the latter, must be just as strong as
the regard which he cherishes fqr the former. His love
to Jhe precept ofthe law, will be regulated by, the. quan
tity of good which the practical operation of this pre
cept, when cordially obeyed, is calculated and intended
tp produce ; and his love fqr the penalty, will be in ex
act proportion to the practical evils which, result from
transgression. In one word, God loves the whole law,
comprising both the precept and the penalty, as he loyes
himself; or as he loves the order and happiness of the
universe. Now it appears to us, that this .regard or affection of
God for the moral law, renders an atonement necessary
to the salvation qf the sinner. Man has violated the
precept pf this law, and he is, consequently, exposed
to ita penalty. In his treatment of man, God must eith-

14 THE NECESSITY OF
er take sides with the law,- or he must take sides witli
the transgressor. Should he receive the sinner into fa
vour notwithstanding the violated precept and the threat
ened penalty ofthe law, he would give evidence that he
had abandoned this rule of moral action ; and that, in
the case of redeemed man, at least, the transgressor of
the law, stands on the same ground as those who have
never trampled upon its precept. We say, that such a
course would imply an abandonment of the moral law.
In this case, God would say, by a publick act — an act
which is connected with eternal consequences, that he
is willing to wink at the violations of the preceptive re
quirement, and to dispense with the penal sanctions of
this correct and holy rule.
We know from the bible and from the nature of the
case, that God must cherish an affection infinitely strong
for the moral law. It is a part of himself. It is an in
dex of his own feelings in relation to spiritual or moral
acts. It is an expression of his regard for the harmony
and happiness of moral agents or the rational creation.
In God's treatment of sinners, we know of but two ways
in which he can continue to give evidence of his affec
tion for the moral law. One is by executing the penalty
in its full force and without mitigation upon every trans
gressor, and the other is by requiring such an atonement
for sin as shall answer, in the moral government of God,
the same purpose intended to be secured by the inflic
tion of the threatened curse. Should the former course
be pursued, every individual of our race, must perish
forever. There would be no distinction between, the
condition of fallen angels, and the condition of fallen

AN ATONEMENT. I 5
man. That heavy curse which consigns the soul to
eternal death, would fall upon us without discrimination
and without hope.
It would appear then, that one ofthe following things
must be true — that God must give up the moral law and
save the sinner without an atonement ; or he may con
tinue to cherish his regard for this law and condemn the
sinner for ever ; or he may love the law with an undi
minished and eternal affection, and, at the same time,
save the sinner, provided such an atonemeut be made
and accepted as shall answer every purpose which could
be effected by the literal and rigid execution of the pen
alty of the law itself. As important and necessary,
then, as it is that God should cherish and express a su
preme regard for his own good and perfect law — so im
portant and necessary is it, that God should require an
atonement in order to the pardon and salvation o£ the

Thirdly. The atonement was necessary, in order
to evince the divine determination to punish sin, or to
execute the penalty of the law.
The penalty of the moral law which is the second
death, or death eternal, was expressive of the divine
displeasure against transgression. Sin is that hateful
thing with which God has no communion. He does and
must hate it with a perfect and eternal hatred. This he
has said in the penalty of the divine law — and this pen
alty, like the precept, is "holy, and just, and good."
The curse of the law was annexed by God himself, and

16 THE NECESSITY OP
it was then, and ever will be expressive of his own mor
al feelings.
The penalty of the law is contained in such passages
as these : — "In the day that thou eatest thereof thou
shalt surely die"—" The soul that sinaetHt Shall die" —
¦*' Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things
which are written in the book of the law to do them."
In the case of the sinner who is saved, it is evident that
these threatenings are not literally fulfilled. Now sup
pose the sinner had been taken out of the hands of the
law and shielded from its penalty, without the adoption
of any measures on the part of God to change the moral
relations of this sinner— without any expression of the
divine feelings towards the transgressor which should e-
vince that God took sides against him with the law- — With
out any atonement which should come in the place of the
literal execution of the penalty of the law — and what
evidence could we have, that God still regards not only
the preceptive requirement, but the penal sanction of
this law with approbation, and is determined to execute
the threatened curse upon the wanton transgressor ?
The act which would save a sinner in these circumstan
ces, would leave the penalty of the law a dead letter.
It would introduce infinite confusion into the moral gov
ernment of God ! It would be an act of violence to the
holy sanction of the law, by forcibly Wresting the crimi
nal from the hands of justice, by exempting him from
punishment, and by restoring him to peculiar favour.
As no reason would appear to the universe, in this case,
why God should thus interpose between the penalty of
the law and the transgressor — the salvation of thasinner,,

AN ATONEMENT.

17

in such circumstances, would furnish no inconsiderable
evidence, that the feelings of God had changed in rela
tion to sin and the penalty of the law. There could be
no certainty, that he ever would punish, or that any
threatened evil would ever be inflicted. The conse
quence would be, the prostration of all law and govern
ment, and the introduction of a wide-spread and wasting
anarchy. If the moral law, with its awful and eternal sanctions,
was ever necessary to the welfare of the rational sys
tem, it must always continue to be so ; and God, as the
moral governour, must so manage all his operations,
whether of justice or of mercy, as to leave upon the
minds of dependant creatures a deep impression, that
the penalty of the law will be executed, and that the
sinner must perish. But this leads us to remark,
«¦
Fourthly. That the necessity of an atonement will
farther appear, if we contemplate the relations of this
doctrine with the rational universe.
AH the operations of God, as the moral governour,
must necessarily be publick, and are intended to make a
publick impression, or an impression upon rational crea
tures. Moral beings are governed by motives— and al
most all the motives which are operative and efficient,
particularly those of a holy character, have some con-
nectioh with the governmeht of Goil — that is with his
publick administration.
We may very naturally suppose, that it was the in
tention of God, in saving sinners, to make a grand im-
2*

18 THE NECESSITY Of
pression upon the universe ; and we believe the neces
sity of an atonement will strikingly appear, if we trace
the different and opposite effects which would probably
be produced upon intelligent beings by the salvation of
men either with or without a propitiation or sacrifice
for sin.
What effect would the salvation of sinners without an
atonement, probably have upon the angels of heaven ?
Aside from the scheme of redemption, -they know God
principally through the medium of the moral law. They
feel the spirit, and comprehend the principles of this
law much more perfectly than we do, or are capable of
doing in the present world. ' They have always been
accustomed to view this law as perfect, both in precept
and penalty, and they have, no doubt, ever associated
with disobedience, the certain and eternal curse of God.
In the case of their fellow angels, who once shone as
morning stars with them, ' they have seen the first act of
rebellion followed by instantaneous and everlasting ban
ishment from heaven. This example has taught them
to revere the law, and to expect the infliction ofthe pen
alty upon every transgressor. " The soul that sinneth
it shall die," speaks not only in the written penalty of
the law, but it now resounds through heaven, in its exe
cution, in tones as loud and solemn as eternal flames can
utter! ' Fvery angel feels the impression which this pub
lick act is calculated to make ; and while he dreads, with
a new sensation, the penalty, he clings more closely to
the precept of the law. But suppose the provisions of
this law were entirely set aside, in our world, as would
be the case if sinful men were to be saved without an

AN ATONEMENT. 19
atonement, and what impression would this act probably
make upon the angels of God ? There would be in the
treatment of apostate angels and apostate men, two op
posite and conflicting acts in relation to the infractions
of the same law ; and the mystery involved in these acts,
the most exalted Seraphim in heaven, could never com
prehend or solve ! They could have no evidence now,
that God will punish the sinner by inflicting the penalty
of the law. Their personal observation of the divine
conduct is limited to two facts or examples ; in the for
mer, the sentence was executed ; in the latter, accord
ing to the supposition, the transgressor was shielded
from the threatened and impending curse. To them no
reason appears why the conduct of God, in the one case,
should be different from his conduct in the other. The
final impression which would be made upon their minds
by these facts would be, that God may or may not exe
cute the penalty of the violated law upon the sinner. —
Such a course of conduct would be calculated to shake
the very confidence of angels in the government of God,
and to prostrate his authority even in the empire of
heaven. But angels are not the only creatures concerned in
this business. Men are the inspectors ofthe divine con
duct, and their opinions of the character of God, must
be essentially influenced by the manner in which sinners
are saved. Even redeemed man, if his salvation were
effected without a propitiation for sin, on comparing his
condition as an heir of glory with the penalty of tlie law
which might have been inflicted upon him, and which he
deserved to feel, would be thrown into utter and infinite

20 THE NECESSITY OF
confusion. He must consider his salvation as brought
about in direct opposition to the principles of the law—
in apparent, if not manifest, defiance of the threatened
curse ; and with all his veneration for the; divine charac
ter, he could not vindicate, even to his own satisfaction,
the divine conduct in this act. The most which could
be said by way of apology would be, that mercy had
triumphed over justice. In a private individual this
might be considered an amiable weakness — but in a
judge, even upon a human tribunal, it would be deemed
a sacrifice of principle — -and in the moral governour of
the universe, it must involve a direct contradiction of
his former declarations, and consequently evince, as far
as creatures could determine, a diminution of hatred for
sin and a loss of affectionfor the penalty ofthe law. And
if these might be the reflections of a redeemed sinner,
what would probably be the reflections of an impenitent
sinner ? It would be impossible to make him believe,
that the threatening ofthe law would be inflicted on any.
And when condemned, in the day of judgment, his mouth
could not be sealed in eternal silence, as it will be under
the operation of that system which includes an atone
ment. As it respects fallen angels, they would be thrown into
equal perplexity by the salvation of man without a pro
pitiation for sin. In their Own case, the penalty of the
law is executed without delay — upon a part of the hu
man family, in the process of time, the same penalty is
inflicted, while another part of this sinful family are
shielded from the curse, received into favour, and event
ually taken to heaven. Now let all this be done without

AN ATONEMENT. 21
an atonement, and, in the estimation of fallen angels,
you create war between God and his own eternal law*
You make his publick and solemn acts — acts on which
are suspended eternal consequences— opposite and con
tradictory and irreconcilable to each other. You ren
der him, at least, apparently mutable and capricious in
his feelings toward the law, and his treatment of trans
gressors. But let an atonement intervene-^-such an atonement
as we shall attempt to describe in a future discourse,
and this darkness which would otherwise hang around
the divine administration, and these perplexities, are dis
sipated at once. It is on Calvary that justice consents
to the exercise of mercy. The death of Christ, so far
as the honour of the divine law and the dignity of the
divine government is concerned, has become a complete
substitute for the death of the sinner ; and no practical
principle of law or government, is now sacrificed in his
salvation. If the penalty of the broken law is not liter
ally executed, that has been done or effected by the
atonement, as we shall hereafter show, which will place
the moral government of God on higher and more solid
ground than could have been done by the infliction of the
curse upon the sinner himself. This the angels of hea
ven already see. This the redeemed sinner feels, and
will continue to feel to all eternity. This is, no doubt,
understood by apostate angels ; and this will be com
prehended and acknowledged by sinners from our world,
who, by the rejection of the gospel, shall hereafter be
come their companions in the world of despair.

22 THE NECESSITY OF
Much more might be said on this subject, but what
has now been advanced is deemed sufficient to establish
the point, that an atonement was necessary in order to
open a consistent way for the pardon and salvation of
the sinner.
A few practical remarks will close our discourse.
First. This subject teaches us our obligations to God
for providing an atonement for our guilty race.
The condition of the human family as sinners, with
out an atonement, may be easily discovered in connection
with the preceding discourse. If nothing had been con
trived or executed, on the part of God, to change the
moral relations of sinners, their condition would be pre-;
cisely that which is contemplated and pointed out by the
law. The moral law makes but a single demand, and
this demand is perfect obedience ; and if this be with
held, it points out no course, it prescribes no alternative,
but the execution of the penalty. It makes no compro>-
mise with the transgressor — it proposes no terms of ac
commodation — it publishes no overtures of peace. —
These things are no part ofthe legal covenant. It con
tinues to require obedience — and it must inflict eternal
punishment for want of a full and cheerful compliance
with this demand. All men are transgressors of the
moral law, and, by the terms of this law, all men must
perish for ever. From this condition, no creature can
deliver us. Our own efforts cannot change our relations
to the law — and even angels, were they to embark in
our favour, could render us no essential service. The

AN ATONEMENT. 23
law must go on to inflict that death which it threatens,
unless God himself provide a remedy. No being can
do it, but the author of the law. And no expedient can
furnish a remedy s except dne which shall answer the
same purpose as the execution of the penal threatening.
This expedient, or provision, is to be found in the atone
ment made by Jesus Christ. It is by this atonement,
that the condition of men is made to differ from the con
dition of devils. While the latter are given up to the
punitive operation of the law, the former are placed un
der a dispensation of mercy.
For this distinction we are indebted to the sovereign
goodness of God. It was his law, that demanded our
blood ; and it was his wisdom that contrived a way in
which the honour of the law could be supported, and
his mercy restore and save the sinner. For this won
derful plan, we owe eternal gratitude to God.
Secondly. Pardon, without an atonement, must have
led to the subversion of moral government.
The rational universe, considered as responsible a-
gents, are governed by motives. These motives are ad
dressed to hopes and fears, and to every principle bf
rational calculation. The penalty of the law, by show
ing the consequences of transgression, becomes a pow
erful motive to obedience. The execution of this pen
alty upon the transgressor, must have a practical effect
upon all who witness the solemn transaction. They see
the consistency of the threatening with its actual inflic
tion. The publick declaration and the publick act of

24 THE NECESSITy OF
the law-giver, are in this case, coincident one with the
other. But should this penalty be set aside, and no sub
stitute, as it respects the divine government, be intro
duced, the authority of law is prostrated at once. The
threatening of the law-giver, as expressed in the letter,
is contradicted by his subsequent publick conduct. In
the law he has said, the transgressor " shall die,"-^-in
his providence, or in the course of hjs administration,
he says, the transgressor shall live, and inherit the king
dom of heaven. As the divine conduct will speak loud
er than the divine declaration, the penalty of the law
would, in time, be looked upon as an empty threatening
which was never intended to be carried into execution.
This would be the impression made not only upon our
world, but upon all worlds. The penalty of the law is
completely and for ever annihilated ; and as a statute
without a sanction is a dead letter, you have a universe
without law. What is now called the moral law, instead
of binding the creature to perpetual obedience and con
signing the transgressor to endless perdition, becomes a
mere matter of admonition or advice. As the whole
authority of God, is embodied in the penalty of the law,
by destroying this penalty, you prostrate the authority
of, the independent moral Governour. Yon have now
no government left in the universe. This would be the
effect of making the penalty of the law bend to the case
of the sinner. This would be the consequence of sav
ing sinners without an atonement — .without an adequate
substitute for the literal infliction of the threatened curse.
We hesitate not to say, that it would be better for Adam
and all his posterity to perish, than for these consequen
ces to result from their salvation. We venture to affirm,

AN ATONEMENT. 25
that God would sooner crush a thousand worlds and
wrap their inhabitants in eternal flames, than to suffer
the stability of his throne, in this manner, to be shaken,
or the consistency of his moral government to be thus
impeached. Thirdly. The rejection of the doctrine of the atone
ment, mars the whole system of gospel truth.
Strike out this doctrine from the- book of God, and
you take away every thing peculiar and precious from
the gospel of Christ. Remove the atonement, and what
remains of the gospel becomes another system — a sys
tem incapable of bringing glory to God or consolation to
man. How entirely different from the gospel scheme, is that
system which is sometimes inculcated for christian doc
trine. Instead of the Great Atoning Victim who was to
take away sin hy the sacrifice pf himself — J esus Christ
is represented as a Great Prophet, raised up for the sole
purpose of teaching a more perfect system of moral
precepts than had ever before been delivered to our
race-1— to confirm these precepts by his example, and
thus to point out the way to a better world. With this
system the Deity and Atonement of Christ, have no con
nection. The evil of sin is not estimated by the holiness
of that God against whom it is committed ;' and the pen
alty ofthe law is set aside as a matter of no. consequence
to the universe. To the convicted sinner, this system
opens no door of hope ; to the troubled conscience it
imparts no celestial balm. This, in the language of the
3

26 THE NECESSITY OF
apostle Paul, is " another gospel" — and with him we
may.say, "Though we, or an angel from heaven,
preach any other gospel unto you than that which we
have preached unto you, let him be accursed."
The downward progress of sentiment when the doc
trine of the atonement is rejected, is matter of. publick
notoriety. The divinity of Christ and the doctrine of
the Trinity, we need not observe, are swept away as a
natural and necessary consequence. Sin, which may be
pardoned without any expression of God's feelings of
disapprobation, is considered as a trivial fault ; and no
great veneration is entertained for a law whose require
ments and penalty may be. easily dispensed with, in or
der to accommodate and rescue a depraved and rebel
lious creature. When the moral law is thus degraded,
no great affection can be cherished for the gospel ; for
the gospel derives all its value from the fact, that it opens
a way of salvation for those who are justly and for ever
condemned by the law. When the requirements and
sanctions pf the law, and the provisions of the gospel,
are .thus prostrated, littie veneration will be felt for the
bible. It may continue nominally to occupy the place
of an inspired volume, but one offensive or mysterious
part after another, will be lopped off, till, though receiv
ed in the gross, fr is rejected in detail. WhUe one hand
is ostensibly employed in pressing Ihe holy Oracles to
the heart, the other is busy in pluckihg put the leaves
and in committing them tp the flames. v We have now
arrived upon the borders of open infidelity — and should
the remaining belief in the being of a God be too pain
ful for the conscience, Atheism may constitute the last

AN ATONEMENT. 27
item in the melancholy and downward series. Such has
been the progress of thousands who have begun their
declension, by denying the important and fundamental
doctrine of the atonement. As we would wish, my
brethren, that we may not be left to make war upon the
bible, and that our last hope of safety may not be extin
guished in eternal darkness, let us cling to the doctrine
of our text — " without shedding of blood is no remis
sion."

SERMON XI.
THE NATURE OF THE ATONEMENT.
-» e©e<"-
Gal. iii. 13.—"" Christ hath redeemedus from the curse
of the law, being made a curse for us,"
In a former discourse, we undertook to show, that
the doctrine of the atonement, is a fundamental article
in the christian system, and an essential pre-requisite to
the salvation of fallen man. The necessity of such a
provision was, in that place, urged on the. ground, that
this was the only way in which God could furnish an ex
pression of his regard for the moral law, evince his de
termination to punish sin or execute the penalty of the
law, and thus to vindicate his character and establish
his government in the estimation of the rational uni
verse — while he extends pardon and eternal life to the
sinner. That an atonement embracing and securing these ob
jects, has been made, is abundantly asserted in the sacred
volume. " He was wounded for our transgressions,
he was bruised for our iniquities ; the chastisement of
our peace was upon him ; and with his stripes we are
healed." " The Lord hath laid on him the iniquity of
us all." " But God commendeth his love towards us, in
3*

30 THE NATURE OF
that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us." —
" In due time Christ died for the ungodly." " Christ
hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made
a curse for us." " Herein is love, not that we loved
God, but that he loved us, and sent his Son to be the
propitiation for our sins." " Thou wast slain, and hast
redeemed us to God by thy blood."
Believing that the necessity of an atonement has been
fully established, and relying upon the truth of those de
clarations of the bible in which it is asserted, that Je
sus Christ has made such an atonement as was demanded
by the condition ofthe sinner, the character of God and
the honour of the law, it becomes a matter by no means
of trivial importance to ascertain and define the nature
of that satisfaction which he has rendered to God on our
behalf. Much indistinctness and confusion have existed,
and do still exist, in the christian church, in relation to
this point. Persons who contend earnestly for the doc
trine of the atonement, nevertheless differ as to its na
ture ; and differ so considerably too, that it is far from
'being a matter of idle speculation to inquire which side
of this question, is supported by reason and revealed
truth. Our object in this inquiry is not controversy, but
Candid and christian discussion.
As it respects the nature of the atonement made by
Jesus Christ, two opinions deserve our particular notice.
One opinion supposes the Redeemer to be in a strict and
literal sense the representative of the elect — and to have
suffered for them, as their substitute, the penalty of the
law ; and those for whom he thus suffered, are, on legal

THE ATONEMENT. 31
principles, eventually liberated from the curse, and re
stored to the favour of God. The other opinion repre
sents the Lord Jesus as suffering, not the literal penalty
of the law, but that which would furnish, in the moral
government of God, an adequate and practical substitute
for the infliction of this penalty upon transgressors, so
far as they shall welcome the provisions of this atone
ment, or, in other words, so far as divine mercy shall
interpose for their salvation. The distinction here made
will be clearly understood in the progress of that discus
sion wliich will occupy our attention in the present and
the following discourse.
It is supposed by some, that the atonement made by
Jesus Christ, consisted in his suffering, in a strict and
literal sense, the penalty of the law in the room of his
people. To examine this sentiment, and to show its in
correctness, is the object of our present remarks.
And here it may be proper to premise, that the scrip
tures frequently describe the atonement in language of
a figurative character ; and the literal construction which
has been put upon this language has, no doubt, some
times embarrassed the subject and misled the honest in
quirer. We are informed by the pen of inspiration^
that Christ "hath purchased'' the church "with his
own blood." Christians are said to be " bought with a
price." Christ was " made a curse for us" — and "he
hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin." These
and many other passages of similar import, are often
pressed into a literal exposition, while their figurative
character is entirely overlooked. When the scriptures

32 THE NAT17RE OF
tell us, that Christ " hath purchased" the church, or
that believers "are bought with a price," they do not
intend to teach us, that the salvation of sinners through
the atonement, is a pecuniary transaction,; and regulated
according to the principles of debt- and Credit ; but that
their salvation was effected, in the moral government of
God, by nothing less than the consideration— the stipu
lated consideration of the death of 'his beloved Son. —
When it is asserted, in our text, that " Christ hath re
deemed us from the curse ofthe law, being made a curse
for us" — we are to understand, that Christ was him
self treated as an accursed being, in his death upon the
cross, that the mercy of God, through this great trans
action, might save the sinner from the curse, or the
threatened penalty ofthe law. If he was made "to be
sin for us," it was in a sense which consisted with per
fect innocence-^-for he " knew no sin." And when he
suffered, it was " the just for the unjust." But some of
these passages Will come under a more critical review
in. another place. ><>< ¦> ' ¦¦'•¦ •'¦';
To these figurative expressions are superadded others
of human origin — such as these : " Christ has paid our
debt — has answered the demands of the law, and satis
fied the justice of God in our behalf." If we say that
Christ has paid our debt, it is true only in a figurative
sense ; and can mean no more nor less than this, that
the sufferings of Christ accomplished the same purpose,
in the divine administration, which would have been ac
complished by our rejection and punishment. If he has
answered the demands of the law, or satisfied the jus-
Ike of God, by the atonement, we cannot mean, that the

THE ATONEMNET. 33
law has really inflicted the penalty which it threatened
against the transgressor, or that the divine justice took
its natural course when the innocent suffered, and the
guilty were spared. The purpose or intention of the
law, is answered ; and the law-giver who is the inflexi
ble and immaculate guardian of the law, is satisfied by
the. atonement. He is so well satisfied, that he suspends
the penalty of the law which would fall upon the sinner,
and upon no one else — so well satisfied, that he arrests
the hand of justice whicli would consign the rebel to
eternal flames, and rescues this same rebel, as a peni
tent and believing sinner, by the intervention of his sove
reign grace.
That Jesus Christ did not, in a strict and literal sense,
suffer the penalty of the law, as the substitute of his
people, may be established bythe following considera
tions. <
First. This idea of the atonement would involve a
transfer of characters, which is inconsistent with the
principles of reason and scripture.
Those who contend, that Christ literally suffered the
penalty of the law in the room of his people, in such a
sense that justice has no farther demand upon them ;
that he paid their debt in such a sense, that they must
receive a legal discharge, have contrived a kind of com
mutation of moral character between Christ and those
for whom he died, in order to justify the positions assum
ed in relation to this doctrine. Substitution and impu
tation, are intimately connected with this sentiment, and

34 THE NATURE 6V
ought to be examined and explained. In this system,
Christ is the legal substitute of the elect, and their sins
are so imputed to him, that Christ becomes liable to the
penalty of the law, and those for whom he suffers, are,
in due time, necessarily and legally exempted from the
curse. We do by no means intend to deny the doctrines
of substitution and imputation, but to this construc
tion of them, we do enter our entire and unqualified dis
sent. It is for ever impossible, in the very nature of
things, that Christ should become liable to suffer that
punishment which the law denounced against the trans
gressor — and against him alone. The law has no penal
demand against Christ— and such a demand it can never
establish. " The soul that sinneth, it shall die," is the
threatening of the law. Against the innocent it contains
no commination, it utters no curse, and, in this case, the
law can, in strict propriety, inflict no punishment. The
idea, that Christ so took the legal place of the sinner,
and that the1 iniquities of his people were so imputed to
him, that the law required his death and justice demand
ed the release of those fbr whom he expired, appears
to us unscriptural and absurd. The law can have no
penal demand except against the offender. With a sub
stitute it has no concern ; and though a thousand substi
tutes should die, the law, in itself considered and left to
its own natural operation, would have the same demand
upon the transgressor which it always had. This claim
can never be invalidated. This penal demand can never
be extinguished. Fully aware ofthe truth of these po
sitions, some have pushed the theory of substitution to
meet the exigencies of the case. The sins of his peo
ple, say they, were so laid upon Christy that he became,

THE ATONEMENT. 35
in the eye of the law, the sinner, and was legally pun
ished to the full amount of all that demerit which was
attached to the sins of those who will finally be saved
by his blood. This is a common idea of substitution. —
But this idea involves a literal transfer of characters. On
this scheme Christ, and not man, is the sinner. But
Christ and man cannot exchange characters, because sin
and hohness are personal, and cannot be transferred
from one moral being to another. The sinful or holy
act of one person, may, in a thousand ways, affect an
other — exert an influence upon his happiness or mise
ry — but it can never be so transferred as to become his
sinful or holy act. The bible always represents Christ
as holy, and men as unholy ; and the children of God,
while they have felt themselves vitally interested in the
atonement made by Christ, have confessed their own
sips, and relied for pardon and acceptance upon the mer
cy of God alone. Certainly this looks very little like
having so obeyed the law and suffered its penalty, in the
person ofa substitute, as to be discharged, on legal prin
ciples, from guilt and liability to punishment.
In what sense Christ was tbe sinner's substitute, and
in what sense sin was imputed to Christ, will more fully
appear in the progress of this discussion. Let it suffice,
for the present, to remark, that whatever Christ suffer
ed, he suffered as an innocent being — not on legal prin
ciples, but by express stipulation or covenant with the
Father. He did not assume the character of the sinner,
and could not, in a literal sense,, endure that curse which
the law pronounces alone upon the guilty. He suffered
and died, "the just for the unjust" — and those suffer-

36 THE NATURE OF
ings which he endured as a holy being, were intended,
in the case of all those who are finally saved, as a sub
stitute for the infliction of the penalty of the law. We
say a substitute fc me infliction of the penalty ; for the
penalty itself, if « De executed at all, must fall upon the
sinner, and upou no one else. But —
Secondly. That idea of atonement which supposes
that Christ It erally suffered the penalty of the law for
those who shall finally be saved, destroys all mercy in
God the Father.
According to this system, the persons of the Trinity
are not perfectly harmonious in their feelings respecting
man's salvation. The eternal Father, as the guardian of
the law and the governor ofthe universe, it would seem,
has no pity for sinners and no disposition to save them,
aside from the atonement ; and this atonement which
procures his assent to the salvation of fallen man, in
volves a full and literal infliction of the penalty of the
law. At least, something like this representation of the
affair, is given by some. But if the penal denunciation
of the law be expressly executed, then justice has no
farther demand ; and God, as the God of justice, has no
farther demand.
Where then is the mercy,, the rich and sovereign mer
cy, displayed in the redemption of sinners — and whose
praise has been sung on earth, and will be for ever sung
in heaven ? Certainly, if justice has had its full de
mand, there can be no room for the exercise of mercy.

Jt\RE AXON-EJIENT. fjrt
But it may be said,, that the mercy p the sinner is just
the same whether he be saved with or without an atone
ment j,; whether this atonement involved a literal inflic
tions 9fj the penalty of the law, or whether it embraced
sufferings which were accepted in the place of that
curse which was denounced against him as a transgressor.
Be it so, that the mercy to redeemed man is, the same,;
hut by whom js this mercy exercised 1 Surely not by
God the Father, Itjsavital principle of that scheme.
against which we, ^oatead*. to, represent, tjie Father .as
rigidly insisting upon the infliction of the whole penalty
of the law, before he consents to the offer pf salvation
to a rebellions world. Every particle of this curse must
he inflicted. . Jivery jot and tittle of the law must he
executed. Now, ifj when tho penalty; of the law was about ta
fall pn sinners, the Son of God came forward and en
dured the. exact amount of that suffering due, on legal
principles, to these sinners, be the niunher great or
small, then the whole mercy involved in their redemp
tion is expressed by Christ alone. The Father as one
of the persons of the Trinity,. .is inflexibly just without
any inclination to the exercise of mercy ;, while the Son
is so merciful, that he has suffered the most rigid de
mands of the, law, in order to obtain the consent of the
Father to the salvation of his people, .This, representa
tion, appears toi us derogatory ^O the character pf Gpd,.
It annihilates4he attribute of mercy,, and represents tiie,'
Son as a kind of milder?; Peijty whp has. interposed and
answered the stepa demands of the; Father, in^bebalf of
his peopleji and, in this way» fiteraHy^ purc-hased' thei»
4

38 THE NATURE OE
from perdition. This view of the case does not corres
pond with the declaration of Christ himself respecting
the Father. "God so loved the world, that he gave
his only begotten Son, tbat whosoever believeth in hint,
should not perish, but have everlasting life." The love
Of God to our world, was the cause, and not the effect,
of the atonement. The mercy of God needed no sacri
fice to excite it. The atonement made by Christ was
not necessary for this purpose. This attribute had al
ready fixed upon its object— the salvation of sinners.
The penalty of the law, in the case of those who be
lieve and are saved, is not to be inflicted. And now tbe
great question is, what expedient shall be adopted —
what expression of the divine feelings shall be made to
the universe, in order to guard the throne of God from
encroachment, and secure the same objects which would
have been secured by the execution of the law' itself ?
This expedient is to be found in the atonement made by
Jesus Christ, which will be more fully illustrated on a
future occasion. We remark —
Thirdly. That if Christ literally endured the penal
ty of the law, in the room of his people, then there is
no grace in their restoration to the favour of God.
The idea of debt and credit furnishes a favorite mode
of illustrating the doctrine of the atonement with those
who hold the system of literal and legal substitution.—
Christ is said to have paid the debt for5 his chosen peo
ple ; and; in consequence of this act of Christ, they are,
on legal principles, released from future punishment. —
As we totally discard this representation of the affair,, it

T«E ATONEMENT. 3fl
may be proper to examine, for a moment, the figure it
self, and then its application to the case in hand.
This figure is of a pecuniary or commercial charac
ter, and may be easily understood. Your neighbour be
comes indebted to you in a large amount, which he is
utterly unable to pay. You resort to legal coercion — in
stitute a prosecution, and eventually lodge him in prison.
A third person, actuated by benevolence, inquires into
the affair — is touched with pity for the tenant of the
jail — becomes his legal-surety — pays the whole demand —
and restores him to personal freedom. Now we ask,
on what principle that man is permitted to cross the
threshold of his prison ? Must he come to your, feet,
and beg to be released ; or may he boldly demand liber
ation on the principles of law 2 And when he again re
joices in the light of heaven, to whom shall he express
his gratitude ; to his benefactor who paid the debt, or
to you who set him at Uberty when the last jot and tittle
of your demand was extinguished? It is manifest that
you have no farther claim upon this man, because the
debt is paid. He has a legal right to a discharge ; and,
on the score of gratitude, he is indebted to that benefac
tor alone who cancelled the demand.
Apply this illustration to the doctrine of the atone
ment. Man had violated the law of God, and, as a trans
gressor, was exposed to the penalty. This penalty, ac
cording to the scheme now under consideration, the law
giver is determined to enforce. The whole race are
about to perish, when Christ suffers the exact penalty
«of the law for a certain part of these offenders ; dis-

m

THE NATURE OF

charges the whole moral demand against rheta ; and
those for whom he thus suffered, are liberated from the
curse, and restored to the favor and affection of God.*
Now if this be a true representation of the affair, on
what principle " are thosfe persons for whom such an
atonement has been made, discharged from the penalty
of the law ? That very threatening which the law ut
tered against these sinners, has been inflicted on Christ;
and, by this act, the whole demand of the Father was
extinguished. The law has no farther claim. Justice
has' no farther claim. . The whole amount of penal suf
fering has heen endured by JesWs Christ in the charac
ter of a legal Substitute. We ask, 'if such an atonement
as this had been made, on what principle these persons
would be released from future punishment ? ' Must they

. * This representation, of the atonement is ndticedOby Thomas
Erskine, Esq. an acute and discriminating writer " On the In
ternal Evidence >for the truth of Revealed Religion^" Philadel
phia edition, p. §5, S*6. Speaking ofthe dnclMne of the atone
ment, he remarks— ">ft lias "been sometimes so incautiously stated,
as to give ground to cavillers for tlie charge that the christian
scheme represents God's attribute of justice as utterly at variance
with every moral principle. The allegation has assumed a form
somewhat resembling this, *that, according to Christianity, God
indeed apportions to every instance and degree of transgression
its proper punishment ; bat ftrat, While he rigidly exacts this pun-
ishment, he is not much concerned whether /the person who pays
it be the real criminal or an innocent being, provided only that it
is & full equivalent ; nay, that he is under a strange necessity to
cancel guilt whenever this equivalent of punishment is tendered
to him by whatever hand.' This perversion has arisen from the
habit among some writers on religion of pressing too far the analo
gy between acrimeand'a pecuniary debt."

THE ATONEMENT. 41
beg of God to spare them from the curse of the law,
and save them from going down to the prison of de
spair ? This would be unnecessary, because it is the
very vital principle of this -scheme., that the whole penal
demand has been answer ed. Jesus Christ is represent
ed as having suffered the identical amount which their
sins deserved, and as the law -cannot punish twice for
•one and the same offence, they can sustain no liability
io punishment. Shall they bless God, that their sins
are pardoned by his rich and abounding grace ? We
-ask, how can grace or pardon consist with such an atone
ment as we have just described ? What grace or fa
vour did you grant your.debtor, when you released him
from prison, after his surety had paid the demand ? —
None at all. You did only that which the law would
-compel you to do. You liberated 'the debtor when the
¦whole amount was discharged. And if Christ has suffer
ed that very penalty involved in the eternal condemna
tion of the elect, as some contend, tfhen they ought to
be liberated on the principles of law. Their debt is
paid. The law has no farther demand ; and grace and
pardon are out of the question. There is but one be
ting in the universe to whom these persons would be in
debted for their release ; and that is the friend who paid
their debt, or suffered the penalty of the law in their
stead. A moment's reflection will teach us, that this is not
the representation of the atonement given in the bible.
Notwithstanding what Christ has donej in order to pre
pare the way for man's salvation, we are every where
taught, that we are saved by grace, and that a free par-
4*

46 THE'NATtJRE'tiF
dOh is consistent with full atonement. "Being justified
freely by his grace, through 'the redemption that is in
Jesus Christ."* We need no other1 proof "than this, that
Christ did not pay the debt, or literally suffer the penal
ty of the law for his people, tte merely prepared the
way fbf our debt to be" remitted — or in plain language,
and without toy metaphdr, for our sins to be forgiven.
Fourthly. On the principle of a legal substitution
arid a literal infliction of the penalty of the law, the
; * The objection against the scheme that Christ literally endur
ed the penalty of the law in the room of his people, that it pre
cludes the idea of grac6 in their restoration to the favour of God,
is answered in something like the following manner by those who
hold to this doctrine. The grace consisted iri providing an atone
ment, ahd in Christ's suffering the punishment due to his people as
ajnnera. The reward was due toChrist, and thisrewardis made
over to his people by an act of grace.
The great objection against this thebry is, that it does not cor-
cof respond with the bible. The gift of Christ as Mediator, it is
true, was an utispsakable gift ; and the sufferings bf Christ for
men, were the effect bf so veriegm love ; but- all this does not save
thesinner. The way is only prepared. The door is open. Mercy
can now operate. But "the sinner is still under condemnation :
and if he is saved, at all, he must be saved as much by an act of
free grace as if no atonement bad been made. " Being justified
freely by his grace, through the redemption, that is in Jesus
Christ." — Rom. iii. SA. "In whom we have redemption through
his: blood, even the forgiveness of sins." — Col. i. 14. Sinners, that
is penitent and believing sinners, are " j u sti fled freely by his grace,"
su»d, they receive " the forgiveness of sins": through the atonement.
And these aots of acquittal and forgiveness, are subseqent to, an<3
- ..fr "  - ¦ ' - - '
distinct from, the atonement itself.

THE ATONEMENT. 4.1
atonement would bring no accession of happiness to the
universe. The system which is now under consideration repre
sents the Lord Jesus Christ as undertaking to make an
atonement for a definite number of our race. These
persons are the elect, or those who will finally be saved.
This atonement which he made for them, consisted in
suffering the penalty of the law in their?stead. It is not
considered enough, on this plan, for him to suffer what
would answer in the place of the infliction of the.penal-
ty ; but he must suffer the identical curse which -.they
deserved, and which they had incurred by their sins.
The amount of Christ's sufferings must be just the same
as the aggregate sufferings included in the eternal con
demnation cf. all those who are saved by 'his merit. —
There was first a literal transfer of all their sins to
^Christ, which rendered him legally bound to suffer their
punishment, and then each and all of these sins were
expiated by his enduring theoriginal penalty Which was
threatened in the law. The agonies which Tie suffered
were equal to the endless misery of all those who will
be saved by his interposition in their behalf.
To this view of the atonement we farther object, be
cause it annihilates every particle of benevolence in the
gospel. If Christ suffered the same misery in kind and
degree which was due to the whole number who will be
saved, and which they must have suffered, had no atone
ment been made, we are unable to discover that wisdom
and goodness which we have ever considered prominent
.features iri the gospel scheme. We have been in the

44 -fat. NATURE OF
habit of looking upon this system as the grand device ot
heaven for preventing misery and for increasing happi
ness. But if Christ suffered all that the law would in
flict to eternity upon the vessels of mercy, then there is
no gain on the principles of general benevolence. The
same misery is endured, in the rational system, which
would have been endured, had the whole race of Adam
perished without the provisions of the gospel. Satan
has met with no defeat. If he has not literally accom
plished the xuin of the whole family of man, he has ac
complished that which amounts to the same thing.- He
•-has secured a part as the victims of despair, and for
those who are rescued from his grasp, he has received
-a full and malignant compensation. In the place of the
eternal misery of each .redeemed soul, he has seen the
same amount of suffering inflicted on the Son of God.—
This is -by 'no means such a triumph over Satan as the
bible describes. This is not such & gospel as inspiration
reveals. A system which prevents no misery, and which
brings no accession to the happiness of the universe-^a
•system whose grand and distinctive characteristick is
that it devises a way in which the innocent may suffer a
certain amount of misery which was due to the guilty,
would hardly excite, as the gospel does, the wonder and
admiration of 'the angels in heaven. Read the parable
of thelostsheep, and you will learn, that the plan of re
demption will increase, as it was designed to do, the
happiness of the universe. Read almost any page of
the New Testament, and you may infer the same truth
which the apostle Paul distinctly expresses, in his Epis-
'to the Ephesians— that " the principalities and powers
in heavenly places" learn " by the church tbe manifold
wisdom of God."

THE ATONEMENT. 46
It may be objected to the general train of reasoning
adopted in this discourse, and particularly to the argu
ment distinctly stated under the present head;, that it is
not contended, that the penalty of the law was, in a
strict and literal sense, inflicted on Christ. We reply,
that we have met the doctrine as it is stated and defend
ed by many. It is frequently proclaimed from the pul
pit, and the sentiment may be found distinctly expressed
in a great variety of publications both of ancient and
modern date, that Christ sustained the exact amount of
misery due to those who are to be saved by his blood.
It is true, that men who have candidly examined the ob
jections which are urged against this scheme, have, par
ticularly of late, adopted -a qualified mode of expression
in relation to this point.' They contend, that the real
penalty of the law was inflicted on Christ ; and, at the
same time, acknowledge, that the sufferings of Christ
were not the same, either in nature or degree, as those
sufferings which were threatened against the transgress
or. The wo^ds of our text are considered by many as
furnishingumeuuivqcal testimony to the fact, that Christ
¦endured the penalty of the'law in the room of his peo
ple. " Christ "hath redeemed us from the curse of the
•law, being made a curse for us." But it is, in no shape,
asserted here, that Christ suffered the penalty of the
law- The apostle tells us in what sense he was "made
a curse for us." " Cursed is every one that hangeth
on a tree." Believers are saved from the curse or pen
alty of the law by the consideration, that Christ was
" made a curse" for them in another and a very differ
ent sense. He was " made a curse" in as much as he
..suffered, in order to open the door of hope to man, the

46 THE NATURE OF
pains and ignominy of crucifixion. He hung upon a
tree. He died as a malefactor. He died as one ac
cursed. If this, text proves that Christ suffered the pen
alty of the law, it does, at the same time, by the princi
ples of legitimate exposition, prove, that the penalty of
the law was crucifixion or hanging upon a tree. But
the penalty of the law was eternal damnation, threaten
ed against the transgressor alone, and liable to be exe
cuted upon him, and upon no one else.
As to the declaration, that Christ actually suffered the
penalty of the law in. the place of his people, and yet
did not sustain, either in nature or degree, that misery
which their sins deserved, it appears to us a contradic
tion in terins. The penalty of the law was something
definite. It embraced sufferings of a certain kind, and
it extended those sufferings to certain fixed and estab
lished limits. Now if, while Christ was suffering, he en
dured a misery essentially different, in its character,
from that which was threatened in the penalty of the
law, and if it differed no less in its quantity than its na
ture, how could it be, in any sense, an infliction of the
threatened curse ? The thing is impossible. If God
had threatened to inflict a certain kind and a certain de
gree of penal evil upon the transgressor, can we say
that this identical curse was executed because an inno
cent being sustained a different kind and a different de
gree of suffering ? The position is utterly absurd.-—
How can we affirm, that it is the same penalty, when
•when we acknowledge, that both its character and
(quantity are different, and the subject upon whom it

THE AT0NEM8NT. 47
is inflicted altogether an opposite one from that contem
plated in the law itself ?*¦

* There are but two theories respecting the nature of the
atonement, which have any claim to self-consistency. One is, that
Christ suffered in the most strict and literal sense the penalty of
the law for his people, and the other, that his sufferings were a
substitute for the penalty of the law which, if executed, would
have been the measure of their punishment.
The first of these theories we have seen is utterly at war with
the bible arid common sense. And yet it is far more consistent
with itself, than that mixed theory which many have been com
pelled of late to adopt in order to shield themselves from the ar
guments of their opponents. We mean that sentiment which de
clares that Christ suffered the penalty of the law for his people,
and yet he did not suffer it in nature or degree. That is, he suf
fered something essentially different from the penalty, and yet this
was the penalty itself!
In a sermon by Dr. Dana, of Londonderry, preached and print
ed since these sermons were written, we find this sentiment : " In
as much as the scripture expressly declares that, in redeeming us
from the law, he was made a curse far us, we are constrained to
conclude, that his sufferings were a substantial execution of the
law ; a real endurance of the penalty, so far as the nature of the
pase admitted, or required." p. 8, 9. In another place he says,
« We contend not that the Redeemer endured precisely the same
misery in kind and degree to which the sinner was exposed."
The penalty ofthe law either wo* or was not inflicted on Christ.
If it was inflicted, then it must have been inflicted in kind. and der
gree. If not, then his sufferings were something specifically dif
ferent from the penalty. To . talk of " a real endurance of the
penalty, so far as the nature of tbe case admitted, or required," is

J

48 THI nato&e or
Two Reflections will close our present discourse
First. Incorrect ' views ofthe nature of , the atone
ment,, frequently lead to great errours in religion.
A denial of the doctrine of the atonfement, is^a funda-
Xs>, say t^at it.was.nqb ",a.B,R«l„endiuranSfeo^ the, pena-Hj?,'). far
cause- "-the nature ofthe, case" did n.ot admit qr require it.j .
But why is it necessary to support the position, that the curse of
the law was, inflicted -en. CJirist ?, If it should be said, that the di
vine verapity was pledged tq execute the law — .we reply, that the
divine, veracity can find no. support, in tha,t kind of infliction, of
the curse which is here supposed.. . " A, substantial executipn.fif
the law" — an " endurance of the penalty, eo far as the nature sfc
the case admitted, or required"— an infliption of suffering, npt,u,pon
the transgressor, but upon a surety, when- the law- had not jnade
the most distant allusion to a surety, certainly has much more the
appearance of evasion thaD execution of the- law. If both the
nature and degree of sufferings involved in. the penalty of the
law, may be dispensed with, on the same principle v the penalty
itself may be set aside, provided the glory of the lawgiver and
the happiness bf the uhiverse can be secured in some other way.
The moment a man admits, that Christ did not suffer, in the most
rigid sense, the penalty of the law — that his misery was not the
same in nature and degree which the law had threatened — that
he did hot suffer the same punishment wliich would have been in
flicted upon those who will finally be' saved^— and' that the atone
ment Was hot, in every feature of it, a " quid pro quo" transac
tion — a transaction for value received — that moment he admits a
principle- whbH-is u*te*ly at warwith the theory of legal suHsti-
tution -and infliction of penalty, and will never be able to makfe
his system correspond each and every part with the rest till he
adopts that view of the Mediation of Christ whieh we have en
deavored to present ift ottr next discourse.

TBIE atonement. 49
mental errour, and- is commonly the first step towards
tb^e rejection of the bible as containing a revelation from
God. The admission or denial of this cardinal senti
ment-, will give form and feature to our whole system of
theological views. The same remark will apply, with
some qualification, to the opinions which we entertain
respecting the nature of the atonement. If, for instance,
we adopt the sentiment of legal substitution, and say,
that Christ literally sustained the penalty of the law in
the room of a precise and. definite number of our race,
how perfectly easy and natural.it is to adopt the deduc
tion, that these persons are saved by an act of justice ?
Each and all of their sins, to the full extent of their de
merit, have been punished in the person of a legal spon
sor, and now the law has no farther demand. Indeed,
in these circumstances, justice calls for their release,
because her last claim has been extinguished. To pun
ish these persons, would bean act of wanton injustice
and cruelty. Whether such a sentiment as this, or a
sentiment leading to such conclusions, is calculated to
excite humility in the bosom of the sinner, let the can
did judge.
But transitions, in theology, from one kindred errour
to another, are easy. And so it happens in the case
now under consideration. This system, at least as it
has been adopted by many, supposes an eternal union
between Christ and; those for- whom he died- What he
did, they themselves ; have performed. In consequence
of this legal oneness, they are not only released from
punishment by an act of law* but in Christ they are
eternally justified. We have now arrived within the
5

50 the nature op
limits of Antinomianism, than which, a sorer evil has
rarely afflicted the church. A few lines more will finish
the picture. Let it only be understood, that Christ has
so obeyed the law in the place of his people, that they
are released from legal obligation — and so suffered its
penalty in their stead, that they are legally exempted
from punishment, and you have presented before you
the whole size and complexion and feature of that mon
ster who has orthodoxy inscribed upon his forehead,
and carries a proud and unsanctified heart in his bosom !
This is the enemy of God in the specious garb of pecu
liar zeal for his truth.
Secondly. We may learn from the preceding discus
sion, in what sense we are to understand Substitution
and Imputation.
It niay be" said, that the positions taken in this dis
course, involve a denial of bPth these doctrines. To
this assertion we are by no means ready to subscribe.—
The atonement was a substitute for the infliction of the
penalty of the law — or the sufferings of Christ were a
substitute for the punishment of sinners. In the case
of all believers, and such and such only will be sav
ed, the misery which Christ endured, is the real and
only ground of their release, because without these suf
ferings, or the atonement, there could have been no
pardon or grace for sinners. He suffered what was ne
cessary to be endured, in order to bring rebels within
the reach of mercy. Thus, in the administration ofthe
divine government, the sufferings of Christ come in the
place of the eternal condemnation of every ransomed

THE ATONEMENT. al
soul — that is, of every penitent and believing sinner. —
This is vicarious suffering. It is the suffering of Christ
in the place of the endless suffering of the sinner. If
we understand the import of language, here is real sub
stitution. " He was wounded for our transgressions, he
was bruised for our iniquities ; the chastisement of our
peace was upon him ; and with his stripes we are heal
ed." As to imputation, we do deny that the sins of men, or
of any part of our race, were so transferred to Christ,
that they became his sins, or were so reckoned to him,
that he sustained their legal responsibilities ; but this
does not necessarily involve a denial of the doctrine. —
Christ was treated as though he had been a sinner — and
as his sufferings answered the purpose of the sinner's
punishment, and are the ground of his pardon, it may
be said with respect to all believers, that their sins were
imputed or reckoned to Christ, and his righteousness is
imputed or reckoned to them. That is, Christ was treat
ed as sinners deserved, and sinners are treated as Christ
deserves. Or in other words, the sufferings of Christ
form the basis of the sinner's forgiveness. " He hath
made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin ; that we
might be made the righteousness of God in him."

SERMON XXX.
THE NATURE OF THE ATONEMENT.
Romans iii. 26. — '.' To declare, I say, at tMs time _Ms
., ^righteousness : that he might be, just, and thejustifier
[of kirn, which believeth in Jesus."',,:
Few things have a more deep and extensive influ
ence uponour religious opinions, than the ideas we en
tertain respecting the atonement made' by Jesus Christ.
Having on a former occasion endeavoured to establish
the necessity of a propitiation for sin', w^proceeded in
our last. discourse-to a partial consideration of its nature.
Two. opinions, in relation:. to this branch of our subject,
and which differ materially from each other, were then
stated as having a claim upon our serious investigation.
One represents the Lord Jesus Christ as the legal'sub-
stitute of the elect — as having: suffered, in this char
acter, the exact penalty of the law in their stead-Mind
as having released them, on the principle's of justice,
from that curse which was pronounced upon them as
transgressors. This representation of the nature of
the atonement we considered inadmissible on the follow
ing grounds. 5*

64 f HE NATURE OP
Such a satisfaction as is here defined would imply an
exchange or transfer of moral character between Christ
and those for whom he died. Christ could not be
punished,- on legal principles^ till he Was guilty in the
eye of the law — and his people could not be justified
by the principles of the law, till its penalty was literally
inflicted. This trarfsfer of character sP as to render
Jesus Christ the sinner, and the soul for whom he died,
innocent, appears to us Without foundation in reason or
scripture. The same system would destroy all mercy
in God the Fatheg; in the1 salvation of sinners, because
it represents God as, totally disinclined to' the exercise
of compassion, till every jot and? tittfe off' the legal
curse was inflicted. On the same principle grace or
pardon, in the release; of the- sinner from future punish
ment would be out of the question— for what grace, or
pardon, or favour,, can there he; in the. discharge! of- a
debtor whose, demand has been>cancelled tt> the " utter
most farthing,?" And as to the; benevolence off tire gos-
pefywe ane. utterly unable to discover how such a fea«
ture Can consist wittodhat ide& of the atonement) whieh
represents Christ a* having suffered' the same quantity
of penali evii. which would have been embraced in the1
future condemnation of all those who will be redeem
ed, by his; sacrifice. What wisdom, pr benevolence pan
there be, in a plan or expedient which-shall, inflict a,cer-
tain degree of suffering upon thg. innocent whp could
never rdW?^e it, in order, to- spare the guilty from
precisely the same degree, «f suffering, and^ to which,.
4oo, tjisjr, sins hfd;just}yc exposed them?
The other opinion of the atonement which hss been

TOE ATONEMENT. 55
slated,, and? which will now come under consideration,
represents the Lordi.Jes.Uft Christ as suffering, not the
literal penalty ef the law,, but, that which will fully
vindicate the divine character and support the divine
government, while Gp<fc, at the same- time, extends par-
<h>n and eternal life to the sinner. This, in our opinion,
is the only correct and rational idea of the atonement,
and the one presented by the Apostle in the text and the
context. He had jfcsjb. given us, afeuve, a description of the d®-
pJiOTaMe state of njankjnd as, rebel* against God ; and1
aftes declaring unequivocally- lihe: impossibility of justifi
cation by the deeds; ojf| the law, he adveuts-. to that scheme
of Bestoration. which is, revealed; in the gospel. This;
scheme was contrived for sinners* Justification, ia. hy
grace, and yet this grace is expressed through an atone
ment, " Eyeing; justified fae&p by his grace , through the
redemption which is; im J_*sug> Christ." Whate<«er this
price of redemption offered by Jesus Christ is, it cer-
tainly does not so answer the penal demands of the law,
as. to discharge the, sinner* or to admit of his restoration
toitbeifavjou? of God on any- other principle than that of
grace alpne. This " propitiation" God hath set forth,
ob exhibited, to. the universe,, to declare. his righteous*
ness;; f'thathe might- be just, andthe justifier of bin*
whkh beheveth hfc Jesus." The object of the atone
ment* inhere stated; in explicit terms. It was required
and made im pude^tp, open a consistent way for the pub
lication, of pardonj pr for the- exercise of grace to sin
ners. , Itst purpose was to declare the "righteousness"
oi; moral rectitude and perfection of God in dispensing,

56 THE NATURE OP
in this instance, with the literal execution of the penalty
of the law, and in bestowing eternal life upon those who
deserved to die. This satisfaction was required, that
God might be " just"— just to himself as the moral gov
ernour, and just or faithful to tiie interests of the uni
verse over which he presides, even in justifying and
saving the believing sinner.
But a more clear and satisfactory illustration of this
idea of the atonement, will be attempted in answer to
the following inquiries. What were the feelings of God
toward our fallen world, without respect to a propitia
tion ? , Why was npt pardon absolute, without any con
nection with a sacrifice for sin ? • And how did the atone
ment made by Christ,- prepare the way forthe exercise
of mercy to sinners ?
First. ' What were the feelings of God toward our
fallen world, without respect to a propitiation for sin ?
The representation which has often been made ofthe
divine character, as connected with the moral law and
the doctrine of the atonement, we have often thought
highly derogatory to the Godhead. ' The eternal Father
is exhibited before us, as a being of unbending justice,
and as determined, at all events, to maintain the honour
of the law by inflicting the last particle of penal evil
which it has denounced against the sinner. The mercy-
exhibited in the gospel, is considered an attribute or
feeling altogether superinduced- by the propitiatory sa
crifice which was offered up by Jesus Christ. When
all the suffering which was included in the penalty of

THE ATONEMENT. 5*7
the law, had been endured by1 a substitute, then and not
till then, is the compassion of God excited for perishing
sinners. However it may appear to others, we frankly
acknowledge, that this description poorly corresponds
with that character of God which is delineated in the
bible. All his attributes are independent of time and
circumstance. The scriptures teach us, that God was
inclined to mercy, in his treatment of our apostate world,
irrespective of any atonement or satisfaction whatever.
So for frbm being*the effect or consequence, mercy is
the exciting and efficient cause of that propitiation which
was made in the person of Jesus Clirist. " For God so
loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son>
that whosoever believeth in him, should not perish, but
have everlasting life."
God was not only inclined to exhibit the attribute of
mercy, in our world, but he positively and irreversibly
determined, in his own infinite mind, to unfold this per
fection bere below, and to rescue multitudes of our race
from the curse of that law which they' had viblated. —
This feeling of compassion, ih Jehovah, was infinitely
strong ; this determination to save sinners, was settled
and eternal. It is the deliberate purpose of God to
set aside the penalty of the law, at least, so far as it re
spects the salvation of many sinners in our world. Mer
cy is to be displayed and glorified in the salvation of
men ; and the grand, question now is; not wh&t shall be
done to excite the compassion of God for a ruined world,'
but in what way shall that eternal love which is in ac
tive operation, be expressed, so as to shield the .sinner
from the curse of the law, on the one hand, and to se-

38 THE NATURE OP
cure the divine honour and integrity, on the other ? —
But this leads us to our
Second Inquiry — Why was not pardon absolute; with*
out any connection with a sacrifice for sin ?
All the reasons which may have existed in the divine
mind, in favour of an atonement, it would be bold and
presumptuous for us to undertake to determine or ex
plain. Some of these, according to Pur apprehension,
were stated, in a former discourse, on the subject of the
necessity of a propitiation for sin. Without treading
upon the ground then occupied, we have a few consider
ations to suggest in answer to the inquiry which we haVe
just stated above. The spirit of the inquiry is this.- — i-
If sinner's are to be saved by grace, and by gfac'e alone,-
why was not pardon or forgiveness directly and abso
lutely bestowed upon them, without the intervention or
sufferings of a mediator ? To the humble christian we
might reply, that this was not the plan of salvation
adopted by infinite wisdom — and this reply should be
deemed sufficient. The bible has so informed us. If
any are still disposed to push the inquiry, why pardon
could not have been extended to the sinner without an
atonement, we reply, that there was the same necessity
for an atonement, as there originally was for the penalty
ofthe moral law ; or as there is, that this penalty should
ordinarily be executed upon the transgressor.
The penalty of the moral law was intended to operate
as a powerful motive to obedience— and the execution
of this penalty, whenever it takes place in the universe,

THE ATONEMENT. 59
becomes an awful warning to deter others from trans
gression. Now if the penalty of the law were never to
be executed, its whole authority would be annihilated.
It would become more feeble and inefficient, than if no
penalty or threatening, had ever been annexed. If the
order and happiness of the universe, under the moral
government of God, require laws with suitable penal
sanctions — and require, too, that these laws be execut
ed ; then it would seem, that, whenever pardon is to
take the place of the penalty of the law, a substitute
for the execution of tbe threatened curse, would be
proper, in order to preserve the divine authority from
aspersion, and to guard the throne of heaven from en
croachment. Should it still be urged, that human gov
ernments frequently grant absolute pardons, or exempt
the criminal from the legal penalty without any refer
ence to a propitiation, we reply, that from the imper*-
fection of human governments, this may sometimes be
the best thing which can be done ; but eveTy interfer
ence with the direct operation of the law, weakens its
authority, and gives countenance to crime. It is a well
known fact,' that in every country, offences abound in
direct proportion to the difficulty of conviction, and the
facility of pardon. In the moral government of God,
which is the only perfect government in the universe,
the penalty of the law is always equally important and
necessary ; and in case this penalty is to be set aside and
not executed, in any particular instance, thiere is the
same necessity that the moral governour should furnish
a publick substitute for the infliction of the curse, as
there was that the law should originally include a penal
sanction. Our conclusion from this mode of reasoning

§0 T.HE NATURE OS
would be, thai in the government of God, pardon could
never be granted, except through the^mtervention of an
atonement; that.is, tiie penalty of the moral law would
never be set aside without the adoption of those pre-
cautionary measures, which would secure tiie order and
prosperity of -the universe, as effectually, to say the
least, as the infliction of the penal curse itself, could
do. Thirdly. How did- the atonement made by Jesus
Christ, prepare the way for the exercise of mercy to
sinners ? -
That the object of the atonement was, not. to pay our
debt or to obliterate our guilt, but to prepare the way
for a free pardon, and a gracious acceptance with God,
appears from the whole drift of the Apostle's reason*
ing in the paragraph from which our text is selected.— -
Sinners ace, represented' as being justified freely by
grace, and yet tins is effected through the redemption
thaf is in Jesus Christ. God required an atonement,
that he ntight declare his " righteousness," er the moral
propriety of his administration, in saving sinners—
" that he might be just, and the justifiei of him which
believeth in Jesus?'— -that God might be both just and
merciful. This is the pjroper time to inquire in what sense the
justice of God was satisfied by the atonement made hy
Jesus, Christs. That y&y, incorrect ideas are not unfre
quently attached to this expression — ideas entirely dif
ferent from those intended to be conveyed by the Apos-

THE ATONEMENT. 61
tie, in our text, there can be but little doubt. The
term justice is used in different senses. Its legal accep
tation, or its use as connected with the operation of law,
is twofold, which critical writers have distinguished by
the epithets of commutative and distributive. Commu
tative justice, which may with equal propriety be styled
pecuniary or commercial justice, is wholly confined to
the regulation of property and the payment of debts.—
It is hardly necessary to say, that this kind of justice
can have nothing to do with a violation ofthe moral law,
or with that atonement which has been made for sinners
by Jesus Christ. And yet, plain as the case is, how
many have been misled and bewildered by placing a lit
eral construction upon the figurative language of the
scriptures in relation to this transaction. The august
business which involved the honour of, the divine gov
ernment, the death of the Son of, God and the redemp
tion of immortal man, is degraded to the level of a pe
cuniary transaction — is brought down to a mere matter
of debt and credit. We repeat the declaration that com
mutative justice has nothing to do with the affair. If
the blood of Christ, or the atonement is the price of our
redemption, . it is so only in a metaphorical sense, as
furnishing a consistent ground for our free pardon and
gracious acceptance.
Distributive justice respects the moral character aid
conduct of creatures, and consists in rewarding, or pun
ishing them according, to their merit, or their ill-desert.
Now this kind of justice does respect the subject under
consideration ; and much of the difficulty attending the
atonement, may be settled at once, if we can determine
6

62 THE NATURE OF
the question whether distributive justice was, or was not
satisfied by the death of Christ. Many contend, that
this is the fact. Man had broken the "law of God —
Christ became his substitute — stood in his place  and
was punished to the full extent of the penalty of the
law. In consequence of this vicarious sacrifice, man
is acquitted by the law, because justice is satisfied, and
there is no farther penal demand against him. This is
the representation sometimes, and not unfrequently, giv
en of the atonement. But can this statement of the affair
be defended on the principles of distributive justice ? —
Certainly not. In the transaction under consideration
neither Christ nor the sinner is treated according to his
character, or according to the terms or principles of the
moral law. Christ had perfectly and uniformly obeyed
the law, and by this law he must be justified, and not con
demned and punished. On the other hand, the sinner
had violated the moral law, and this law could never ac
quit him. The death of Christ, in itself considered,
had no influence upon the moral character ofthe sinner.
He may, by the grace of God, be rescued and saved
through this death, but in the eye of the law he is still
a sinner and deserves to be punished. The law knows
nothing of punishing the innocent and acquitting the
guilty. The principles of distributive justice sternly
forbid it. The idea of such a substitution and imputa
tion, as would render Christ guilty and the sinner holy,
has been Considered on a former occasion — and may
with safety he pronounced unworthy of a place in a sys
tem of enlightened theology. We conclude, then, that
distributive justice, or justice in its common and appro
priate sense, in relation to rewards and punishments.

THE ATONEMENT. 63
Was not satisfied by the atonement made by Jesus Christ.
The moral law, when violated, has but one demand, and
that demand is the death of the transgressor. But in
the gospel,'of which the atonement is" an essential part,
the principles of distributive justice are overruled 6or
set aside. The innocent and meritorious suffers, and
the guilty is screened from punishment. This is a sov
ereign act of God as the moral governour «t, Should it
be again asked — if the arm of distributive justice can
be arrested, and is to be arrested-; — and the law that
threatened, in this instance, is not to inflict the curse —
why was not this sovereign and special interposition so
managed as not to involve the sufferings and death of
Jesus Christ ? We recur to the doctrine which we have
before advanced and defended — that the penalty of the
law is essential to the existence and happiness of a moral
government ; and the only method in which the execu
tion of this penalty can be suspended, is to furnish an
adequate, and practical, and publick substitute in its
place. The ends or objects of distributive justice must
he secured. And this substitute by which these ends
or objects are effectually accomplished, is to. be found
in that atonement which is revealed in the gospel.
But there is a third sense in which the term justice is
frequently used, and the consideration of which will lead
us directly to the nature of that satisfaction which Jesus
Christ has made for sinners — we mean what is common-/
ly denominated general or public justice. In this accep-'
tation, it has no direct reference to law, but embraces
those principles of virtue or benevolence by which we
are bound to govern our conduct ; and by which God

64

THE NATURE OK

himself governs the universe. It is in this sense that
the terms foeaiov, "just," and fotaiotfimie, "righteous
ness," occur in our text. These terms are precise
ly of the same import, except one is a substantive and
the other an adjective ; and in this connection they
stand directly related tothe atonement. The apostle
teaches us, that God required a propitiation for sin, that
he might declare his righteousness or justice ; thaf he
might be righteous or just, and " the justifier of him
which believeth in Jesus." Now we conceive, that this
I assage, thus explained, throws much light upon the na-
lure of tbat satisfaction which Christ has rendered to
the justice of God. This atonement was required, that
God might be "just," or righteous, that is, that he
might do the thing which was fit and proper, and best
and most expedient to be done ; and, at the same time,
be perfectly at liberty to justify " him which believeth
in Jesus." The legal obstacle to man's salvation was
removed by the sacrifice of Christ.
The whole doctrine of the atonement, so far at least
as its nature is concerned, can now be placed before
you in a few words. Commutative justice was not sat
isfied by the atonement, because the whole transaction
was of a moral and not of a commercial character. Dis
tributive justice was not satisfied by this transaction, be
cause the innocent suffered, in order to open a way for
the pardon of the guilty. The penalty of the law,
strictly speaking, was not inflicted at all ; for this penal
ty in which was embodied the principles of distributive
justice, required the death of the sinner, and did not
require the death of Christ. As a substitute for th* *"

THE ATONEMENT. 65
fliction of this penalty, God did accept of the sufferings
of Ius Son. The relation of the sinner to the curse
which this law pronounces .against the transgressor is
just the same which it. was without an atonement. He is
the same guilty creature that he was before satisfaction
was made. The law has the same demand upon him,
and utters the same denunciation of wrath against him.
The law, or justice, that is distributive justice, as ex
pressed in the law, has received no satisfaction at all. —
The whole legal system has been suspended, at least, for
the present, in order to make way for the operation of
one of a different character. In introducing this sys
tem of mercy, which involves a suspension' of the pe
nal curse, God has required a satisfaction to the prin
ciples of general or publick justice — a satisfaction which
will effectually secure all the good to the universe which
is intended to be accomplished by the penalty of the
law- when inflicted, and, at the same time, prevent all
that practical mischief which would result from arrest
ing the hand of punitive justice without the interven
tion of an atonement. God can now be " just" — that
is, he can secure his own honour as the lawgiver, and
promote the best interests of his universal empire, and,
at the same time, stay the curse of the violated law,
and extend pardon to the chief of sinners. This was
the great desideratum in order to bring consolation to a
dying world. This could not have been done without
the atonement of Christ ; for " without shedding , of
blood- is no remission."*
* The author of these discourses is- happy to be able. to illusv
trate and establish the positions here assumed by as respetable hu
man authority as that of the late Dr. D wight :
K*

66 THE NATURE OF
A few reflections will close our discourse.
First, if the views which we have stated of the na
ture of the atonement be correct, then the demands of
the law upon the sinner, remain unimpaired and undi
minished.

This declaration is true, as it respects both the pre-
ept and the penalty. And yet there is a strong tenden
cy in almost every human heart, to fee! a kind of secu
rity from the consideration that Christ has died for sin
ners. The fact, that he expired upon the cross in order

" Christ in his sufferings and death made a complete atonement
for the sins of mankind. In other words, he rendered to the law,
character, and government, of God, such peculiar honour, as to
make it consistent with their unchangeable nature and glory, that
sinners should, on the proper conditions, be forciven. But the
atonement inferred no obligation of justice, on the part of God, to
forgive them. They were still sinners, after the atonement, in the
same sense, and in the same degree, as before. In no degree were
they less guilty, or less deserving of punishment.
" The supposition, incautiously admitted by some divines, that
Christ satisfied the demands of the law by his active and passive
obedience, in the same manner as the payment of a debt satisfies
the demands of a creditor, has, if I mistake npt, been heretofore
proved to be unfounded in the scriptures. We owed God our
obedience, and not our property ; and obedience in its own nature
is due from the subject himself, and can never be rendered by an
other. In refusing to render it we are criminal ; and for this crim
inality merit punishment. The guilt, thus incurred, is inherent
in the criminal himself, and cannot in the nature of things be trans
ferred to another. All that, in this case, can be done by a substi
tute, of whatever character, is to render it not improper for the

THE ATONEMENT. 67
to open the^door of mercy to a ruined world, ought, no
doubt, to be the cause of ardent and eternal gratitude.
But upon this fact the unbeliever has no right to build
his hope. As we are liable -to receive incorrect im
pressions of the atonement, and to derive from it a se
curity which it was never intended in itself to inspire—
let us examine, for a moment, the condition of man not
withstanding the sacrifice offered by Jesus Christ upon
Calvary ! What is there in this sacrifice which has
impaired the demands of the law upon the sinner ? —
Whether we consider the obedience of Christ to the
preceptive requirement, or his death as a substitute
for its penalty, we can find nothing wliich repeals the
original injunction, " Thou shalt love the Lord thy God
With all thy heart, and thy neighbour as thyself." Now

lawgiver to pardon the transgressor. No substitute can, by any
possible effort, make him cease to be guilty, or to deserve pun
ishment. This (and I intend to say it with becoming reverence)
is beyond the ability of Omnipotence itself. The fact, that he
is guilty, is past ; and can never be recalled.
" Thus it is evident, that the sinner, when he comes before Go^,
comes in the character of a sinner only ; and must, if strict jus
tice be done, be therefore condemned. If he escape condemna
tion, then, he can derive these blessings from mere mercy only, and
in no degree from justice. In other words, every blessing which he
receives, is a free gift. The pardon of his sins, his acquittal from
condemnation, and his admission to the enjoyments of heaven, are
all given to him freely, and graciously, because God regards him
with infinite compassion, and is therefore pleased to communicate
to bim these unspeakable favours."
See Dwighfs Works, vol. 2, Sermon 64.

&8 THE1 NATURE OF
this precept" stands, and will forever stand, just as it
would if ho atonement had ever been made.
But we are still more liable to ascribe to the atone
ment an influence over the penalty of the law which it
never possessed, and which, .in accordance with the
principles of a moral , government, it never could, pos
sess. There is a secret and perpetual, recurrence to
the idea that Christ has paid the demand, or suffered the
penalty of the law, so that its claims are now quieted
andthe sentence of condemnation repealed. But this
is. a fundamental, and may prove a fatal errour. There
is nothing in the .character of Christ's sufferings which
can affect or modify: the; penalty of the law. These
sufferings were not legal. They .constituted no part, of
that curse which was threatened against the transgress
or ; neither do they insure, in a single instance, aside
from the stipulations ofthe covenant of redemption, the
repeal of thai curse as it respects the sinnero! His mor
al character is just what it would have been, if no atone
ment had ever been made, He is just as much, the slave
of sin and the heir of death now, as he would have
been, if Christ had never expired. All that the atone
ment has effected for the sinner, is to place him within
the reach of pardon — to make it consistent with the per
fections of God to have mercy upon whom he will have
mercy. But the unbeliever, continuing such, must per
ish. Even the blood of Christ cannot save him while
under the damning sin of unbelief.
Secondly. The sentiments advanced and supported
in the preceding discourse, will- enable us to reconcile
full atonement with free grace.

THE ATONEMENT. 69
The opposers of the doctrine of the atonement, have
often objected to what they consider a palpable absur
dity in that system which teaches, that God first re
quired an ample satisfaction for sin, and then claims the
honour of bestowing a free and unmerited pardon upon
the penitent and believing transgressor. They say,
that this doctrine represents God as executing the
whole penalty of the law upon a substitute, till justice
is satisfied — till the law has no farther demand, and then
taking to himself the credit of releasing those from
punishment, on the principles of grace, whom the law
could not, in these circumstances, justly condemn.*

* On this point hear Dr. Priestly, the great champion of Socini
anism . The following is his objection to the doctrine of the atone
ment. " We read in the scriptures, that we are justified freely by the
grace of God. But what free grace, or mercy, does there appear
to have been in God, if Christ gave a full price for our justifica
tion, and bore the infinite weight of divine wrath on our account ?
We are commanded to forgive others, as we ourselves hope to be
forgiven ; and to be merciful as our Father, who is in heaven, is
merciful. But surely we are not thereby authorized to insist upon
any atonement or satisfaction, before we give up our resentments
towards an offending penitent brother. Indeed, how could it de
serve the name of forgiveness if we did ? It is impossible to re
concile the doctrine of satisfaction for sin by the death of Christ,
with the doctrine of free grace, which, according to the universal
tenour of the scriptures, is so fully displayed in 'the pardon of sin,
and the justification of sinners. It is only from the literal inter
pretation of a few figurative expressions in the scriptures, that
this doctrine of atonement, as well as that of transubstantiation,
has been derived ; and it is certainly a doctrine highly injurious to
God ; and if we who are commanded to imitate God, should act

70 THE NATURE OF
Now we cheerfully confess, that this objection would
be valid, if the atonement were to be considered as a
satisfaction to commutative justice, or in the nature ol
the payment of a debt. . In this case to cancel the de
mand, is to annihilate every thing like grace pr favour
in the discharge. The objection, that there would be

upon the maxims of it, it would be subversive of the most amiable
part of virtue in men. We should be implacable and unmerciful,
insisting upon the uttermost farthing."
Thus far the Doctor. It needs but little discernment to see,
that the objections here urged, have no application to the doctrine
of the atonement as it has been stated and defended in these Dis
courses. They fail of their mark, and utterly fall to the, ground.
They apply exclusively to that system which represents the atone
ment under the literal notion of repairing damages, or paying a
debt; and this View of the subject we utterly disclaim. If the
legal demand against the sinner was literally and fully cancelled
by Christ, then we confess, that there would be no ; grace in his
subsequent justification. Forgiveness could have no .place in the
gospel scheme.
But if we consider the atonement as required bythe moral
governour, not for the purpose of taking away the demerit of sin,
but for the purpose of rendering the pardon of sin admissible — if
we look upon this great transaction as intended, not to incline God
to the feelings or exercise of mercy, but as intended to save his
authority and government from prostration, and this compassion
from becoming a real curse to the universe — if we consider the-
blood of Christ, not as extinguishing the sinner's individual debt,
but as rendering such a satisfaction to the general or publick jus
tice of God as would make him " a terrour to evil doers" while
he forgives and saves the guilty — then the charge of Pr. Priestley,
that " it is impossible to reconcile the doctrine of satisfaction for
sin by the death of Christ, with the doctrine, of free grace," and

THE ATONEMENT. 71
no grace in the sinner's release, would be equally well
founded if the atonement had rendered full and literal
satisfaction to the claims of distributive justice. If the
penalty of the law was once inflicted, what more could
that law demand ? It has but one penalty. If Christ
suffered precisely what the law had threatened against
an mdividual sinner, then it would be wrong to inflict
the same punishment upon that sinner. And if it would
be wrong to punish him, then there must be an obliga-

his insinuation, that an atonement represents G od as " implacable
and unmerciful, insisting upon the uttermost farthing," is inadmis
sible, and totally unfounded in matter of fact ! The atonement
we hold, is in every sense, consistent with free grace.
The Doctor's parallel between our forgiveness of God, and our
duty to forgive one another, is more plausible than solid. His ar
gument, when stripped of its imposing drapery, is this, we are re
quired to forgive one another without an atonement, and there
fore God must have forgiven sinners without an atonement. This
reasoning contains, as we shall be able so show, two fundamental
errours. The first errour is this : there is no distinction here made be
tween a publick and a private character; between God as the
moral governour of the universe, and man in his individual moral
capacity. The atonement was not required in order to produce a
change in the divine feelings, but it was required in order to re
move difficulties of a publick nature which stood in the way of
the sinner's pardon. And a civil governour, or any other man
who sustains publick responsibilities, may act in the same way,
and not subject himself to the charge of being " implacable and
unmerciful, and insisting upon the uttermost farthing." A crimi
nal, for instance, may receive a real pardon, and yet this pardon
may be founded on some consideration which, in this instance, wilt

72 the Nature of
tion on the part of God to release him ; and, in this
case, there could be no grace in his discharge, or ex
emption from punishment. Pardon or forgiveness, sup
poses that the creature is guilty, and that the law might
justly punish him.
But when we consider, that the atonement includes
no such satisfaction as is here contemplated, the objec
tion Will vanish. The atonement paid no debt—it in
volved the infliction of no penalty. It was a substitute
for the curse which was due to the sinner ; it merely
prepared the way for the proclamation of mercy to

sustain the government in this act of mercy : — And, aside from this
consideration, clemency might have been a crime rather than a
duty. But the second errour is greater than tbe first. It consists in
confounding the atonement with the legal punishment which the
crime deserved. Such a satisfaction, and forgiveness could not co
exist. But this point has been thoroughly discussed already.
As to the insinuation, that the doctrine of the atonement, and of
transubstantiation rest upon the same basis, it more resembles the
sneer of the infidel, than the declaration of a candid christian. —
There is a disingenuousness in this remark, which we have rarely
witnessed in any man who was not either grossly ignorant, or es
sentially wanting in self-respect. As to transubstantiation, it is
well known to rest upon the literal construction of a single figu
rative expression ; while the atonement is a web running through
the whole of the Old and the New Testament scriptures. The
whole typical economy of Moses — and every page of the gospel,
point directly to this important doctrine. So much for the can
dour of a man who places all religion in liberality of sentiment !

THE ATONEMENT. 75
rebels, and the extension of actual pardon to every>beJ
liever in Christ Jesus. ,-.
With this idea of atonement, free grace is perfectly
consistent If the debt were paid, or the penalty of
the law exhausted, then tbe. sinner's release would: be
by law, and not by grace. But if the atonement. merely
rendered pardon compatible with- the glory of God and
the publick;goods-if-it did not require, but merely per
mitted God toj extend forgiveness to sinners— then full
atonement and free, grace may go hand in hand. And
thus.it is represented: in the scriptures. " In whom- we
have, redemption through his blood,.- the forgiveness of
sins according to the riches .of his grace;" The price'
of redemption was the blood of .Christ ;. but this mere
ly opened the channels into which are poured the. rich
and abundant and sovereign grace of God.
': i
Thirdly. . iThe view which we have now taken of the
nature of the; atonement, settles the question respectihg
its EXTENT, i
A full discussion of this topick will be reserved for a
future occasion. - At present we shall barely glance/- at
it as connected with the preceding discourse. • The
whole question respectirtg a limited or general atone
ment, is settled by. the options, which we entertain gf its
intrinsick nature.; ¦ If the atonemept consisted in Christ's..
suffering, the ex#ct amount of misery due to all thgse
who will' be saved^-if it were n transaction regulated,
by the principles of;conunercial justice, ;fhen we might
With propriety! talk of its being limited to the elect.-^-
7

74 THE NATURE OF
In this case the sufferings of the mediator must have
been measured out according to the number to be saved.
But if the atonement consist, not in cancelling the de
mand for one man or all men, but in opening the door
of hope — in rendering the pardon of sinners consistent
with the character, law and universe of God — then the
question of extent is settled at once. There can be no
limitation in the case ; for the same sufferings which
would vindicate the divine character in offering or ex
tending salvation to one, would equally vindicate the di
vine character in offering or extending salvation to ma
ny — leaving, as this system does, the disposal of pardon
and eternal life at the sovereign option of Jehovah. —
This does away the common objection against a general
provision, that there is a loss to the universe, if Christ
died for all, and a part only shall be saved. This ob
jection goes upon the supposition, that the atonement is
the payment of a debt ; and if the debt was paid for all,
and a part only shall be released — then there was a loss
of treasure or a sacrifice of funds. This representa
tion of the case we have already proved to be inadmis
sible. And thus the system of the gospel every where eith
er explicitly or virtually acknowledges the general char
acter of :the atonement. The invitations of the gospel
are to all ; the bible every where testifies, that there is
provision enough and to spare ; sinners are blamed and
upbraided for rejecting the atonement ; a more aggra
vated condemnation is represented as awaiting those who
perish under the gospel, than those who perish under
the simple operation of the law ; and unbelief, and not

THE ATONEMENT. 75
the limitation of the atonement, is every where, in the
inspired volume, declared to be the cause why sinners
die. May God grant, that none of us may be found
despisers of this great salvation. Amen.

SERMON IV.
THE EXTENT OF THE ATONEMENT.

I- John ii. 2, — "And he is the propitiation for our
sins ; and not for ours only, but also for tlie sins of
the whole world."
Having on former occasions considered the neces
sity and the nature of the atonement, we shall proceed
in the present discourse to an examination of its extent.
Two opinions have prevailed, and do still prevail, in
the christian church, in relation to this important point ;
and it shall .be our aim, in the discussion now before
us, to ascertain, if possible, the real state ofthe case as
revealed in the oracles of eternal truth. Before we
proceed to the merits of the question, it is proper to
have a clear. and distinct: apprehension of its import. —
.The point now to be settled is^ whether Christ died to
make an atonement for¥the> sins of the electr filqne, or
whether his sacrifice is general, opening the door.pf
mercy to our sinful race.
It is readily perceived, that the ideas which were
advanced, in our, last discourse,, in relation to the na
ture of this Satisfaction, must have an intimate connec-
7*

78 THJE ESTEKT ot
tion with this pomt. If the atonement is to be consid-1
ered as the literal payment of a debt, or, in other
words, if it consisted in snfJe^ngUhe exact penalty of
the law in the room of those who will be saved, it is
manifest, that it must be limited in its extent. In this
case it would be a provision which must be, regulated
according to the principles of commutative justice. If
one soul were to be sayed by the atonement, Christ
must sustain an amount of suffering equal to that in
volved in the . eternal condemnation of that one soul ;
and. if a. thousand were to be saved, Christ must suffer a
thousand times that amount, and in the same proportion
for any number who are to be rescued from perdition
and exalted to glory. To this scheme we have insur
mountable objections. Some of these have been al
ready suggested, and others will be Stated in the pro
gress Of the present discburse. Such a view of the
bufferings' of Christ, apportioning 'them exactly/and de'
finitely to the number of those Who will be saved, is' no
where eVen hinted at in the bible. Neither do we be
lieve, that Christ could have atoned for the sins of men
in this ' sense ; for notwithstanding his divinity, his hu
man nature was alone susceptible of suffering. Now as
a isingie sin deserved eternal misery, which certamly
implies infinite sufferihg^-we cannot see how every sin
of all the redeemed could have been expiated, in a few
-short hours, by the agonies^endured by the human na
ture of Christ, though this nature was united to the God
head. We say, that Christ himself could not have made
an adequate atonement— if this atonement implied, that
he must endure sufferings equal to the eternal damna-
titfn'ftf all those who will finally be saved.

THE ATOlfEMEKT. 79
OntheJol*er:h1attd^ ifotbe'atonemeiitxsensisteu, as we
have'efldeavoured to <pTOve,: tothe; infliction of such suf
ferings upon' tbe Lord 'JesuSfGhristfias (would amply vin-
dicate the 'divine character, ^anti sustain thesgovernment
of God, in the'salvationfofasimiers-^then an atonement
'SufBbleflt'fo^Ohe, would "bean atonement sufficient for
'Slli.' If, in one ! word j this) atonement merely opened the
idoOTOf mercy-iifit preparedithe way foi- the offer and
the exercise of pardon, then it most go upon the 'broad
ground, ; and hmitation is out of theiquestion.
i'ButJwe have another kind of testimony in favour of
a general atonement, which it is our object to exhibit
on' the present occasion ; testimony which the plainest
christian can comprehend, which is either drawn from
the express declarations of the scriptures, or founded up
on 'the obvious .and acknowledged principles of the gos
pel'. Thabtfae atonement made byoJesu»Christ is geh-
e ral in its -character, , appears tb us fully established by
thefoHowing considerations.
First. The invitations or offers of the gospel, are
made indiscriminately to all.
This declaration, it is presumed, will not be denied
hy-.those who are well acquainted withr their bibles. 
Such pasSagesras these speak- the largeness and- freedom
of the gospel . calh " Look unto me, and be ye- saved,
all the ends of the earth." — " Repent ye, and believe
theigospeL" — "Go ye mto all the world, and preach
the gospelr to every creature." ' The declaration, made
to those who were invited in the parable, was, "Be-

80 THE EXTENT OP
hold, I have prepared my dinner ; my oxen and my fat-
lings are killed, and all things are ready ; come unto the
marriage.", And those who are. thus invited to come
and partake of the entertainment already prepared for
(hem, are the identical persons who "made light of it,
and went their ways,!' ;and Were eventually destroyed
for their contempt and rejection of the call. This was
a practical illustration of the principle which is stated at
the close ofthe parable— -" Many are Called ¦, but few
are chosen.". That is, many are invited to the gospel
feast who never come — many enjoy the free and gracious
.offer of all those blessings which are connected with
the atonement, but continuing to reject this offer, they
give evidence that they belong pot to the number qf
God's chosen and peculiar people.
In support of the declaration, thaf the invitations of
..the gospel are made to all, we might transcribe page af
ter page of the bible* Upon this fact depends the whole
business of preaching the gospel. ?'.We pray you in
Christ's stead, be ye reconciled to God.": — " The spirit
and the bride say, come. And let him that heareth say,
come. And let him that is athirst, come : . And whoso
ever will, let him take the water of life freely."
.But it is granted by. many, that the calls ofthe gospel
are made indiscriminately to sinners, and yet it is con
tended f hat the atonement is limited to a definite number
in its extent., A few plain questions, may place this bu
siness at rest. Upon what are the calls and invitatioiis
of the gospel founded ? The answer is, upon the atone
ment—for if this, atonement had never been made by

THE ATONEMENT . 81
Jesus Christ, there could have been no offer of mercy
to apostate man. The atonement is the foundation and
the offer is the superstructure ; and we may with pro
priety ask, on what principle the latter can be greater
than the former. We propose another question. Are
sinners • under obligations to • hear and , obey the gospel
call?" We mean are all men under obligations to hear
and obey ? If not, there is no sin committed in reject
ing Christ and his salvation. But if all Who hear the
declarations of mercy as stated in the gospel, are under
obligations to look to Christ for salvation ; to repent,
and believe the gospel ; to come to the marriage feast —
then one of two things must be true. ' There must be
a general provision made for them in the atonement, or
some are under obligations to do that which would be
of no avail to them even in case of their compliance.
They are commanded, and are under obligations to look
to-Jesus Christ for salvation, and yet Jesus Christ never
lived or died to open the door' for their recovery —
they are commanded, and are under obligations to re
pent, and believe the gospel, when, at the same time,
this gospel has made up preparation for their return to
.God— they are commanded, ¦ and are Under- obligations
to come, and partake oF the marriage feast, when in all
the munificence of, this entertainment there is not one
particle of provision made for them. We hesitate not
to say, thaf, in these cases, moral obligation cannot ex
ist-; and, upon- these principles, moral obligation can
neyer be enforced. > This is rearing a structure without
a foundation, or a corner stone. But
Secondly. Sinners are expressly upbraided and cob-

82 THE EXTENT OF
demned for not complying with the gospel offer, of for
not becoming interested in the atonement made by Jesus
Christ. *'• This is the condemnation," says our Saviour, "that
light has come into the world, and men loved darkness
rather than light, because their deeds were evil." Oh
another occasion, " began he to upbraid the cities
wherein most of his mighty works were done, because
they repented not." Of the stubborn and unbelieving
Jews he complained in these terms, " Ye will not come
unto me that ye might have life." Should it be said,
in relation tb these passages, that they rather reprove
men for resisting the miracles and instructions of Christ,
than for rejecting the atonement, we reply, that the mira
cles and instructions of Christ, were the means of bene
fit and salvation to sinners only as they were connected
with the sacrifice which hie offered for their redemption ;
and the rejection of the one, implied the rejection of
Ihe Pther.
But that sinners are under obligations to embrace the
gospel, and are guilty in the sight of God for rejecting
its provisions — may be established beyond the possibili
ty of evasion, from the parable of the marriage feast. —
Certain person? were invited to this entertainment upon
the strength of the provision which was in readiness ;
and they made light of it and would notcome. For
this act they were not only blamed, but condemned and
punished. " When the king heard thereof, he was
•wroth ; and he sent forth his armies, and destroyed those
murderers and burned up their city." In' the parallel

THE ATONEMENT. 33
parable, iri another Evangelist, it is said, " None of
those men which were bidden shall taste ofmy supper."
It is a given point, that these men who refused to come
to the feast, represent those who finally perish. Now
the question is, was there, or W3s- there not an atone
ment, or provision made for these persons'*!?! the gospel
of Christ ? Those who hold to a limited atonement say
that there was not-^butto us it appears abundantly evi
dent, from the parable, that there was. It is so assert
ed in the invitation. " All things are ready ; come unto
the marriage." And again, " Come, for all things are
now ready." If it be a fact, that the atonement is limit
ed to that particular number who will come to the gos
pel feast and be saved, then this invitation was not found
ed in truth. For these persons, there was nothing ready ;
for them there was no provision made. The punish
ment too inflicted upon these persons tells us, that there
was an entertainment made for them — or in other words,
provision for their salvation. Why were they doomed
never ta taste of the supper, and why were they given
up to the devastations of fire and sword ? It was because
they refused to come and partake of a certain feast
which they were assured was provided for them. Now
if there was no such provision in this feast, then they
are condemned and punished for rejecting and despising
that which never existed in relation to themselves. —
They are condemned and punished for not partaking of
an entertainment which was made for others, and not for
them. Such a representation as this — we speak it with
reverence — is a libel upon the character of Jehovah !
The argument drawn from this parable in favour of a
general atonement, appears te us as clear as the light of

84 THE EXTENJT Pf
meridian day-r-the conclusion, is incontrovertible as ithe
positions of eternal truth.
Thirdly. Rejecters of the gospel, are represented
as more miserable 'in tthe future world, . than. those who
have sinned only against the law- .
If this declaration be true, it speaks loud in favour
ofa general atonement* Our inquiry iwill first respect
the fact, and then its application to the point in hand.
That the despisers of Jesus Christ and his salvation
will perish, with an .aggravated, destruction-;— a destruc
tion enhanced by the consideration that they: have .had
a price put into their hands to get wisdom, but have had
no heart to improve it-r-is manifest from the whole .ten-
our of the gospeL This sentiment is implied in several
of the ,- scriptures which have been quoted under the
former, heads ofthe present discourse. -It is strongly
intimated in the parable: of the supper ; and is. more
directly and distinctly taught in other parts of the bible.
Of Capernaum our Saviour declared, "I say unto you,
that it shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom,
in the day of judgment!, than for thee."— " But those
mine enemies, who would not that I should reign over
them, bring hither* and slay, them before me."—" Be
hold, ye despisers, and wonder, and perish." — "He
that despised Moses' law died without mercy,: under two
or three witnesses ; of how much sorer punishment',
suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who -hath trod
den under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the
blood of the covenant, wherewith, he was sanctified, an

THE ATONEMENT. 85
unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the spirit of
grace ?"
Now it may be asked, why the doom of Capernaum
wiU be more intolerable in the day of judgment, than
that of Sodom— unless it is,: because Capernaum was fa
voured with gospel privileges which Sodom never en
joyed — privileges which ought to have made her bet
ter—privileges which she was bound to improve to her
salvation ? But what is the gospel without the atone
ment ? If Capernaum was more guilty, and will be ul
timately more miserable, for rejecting the gospel, than
those are, or can be, who are not chargeable with tins
act — then Capernaum was under obligations to embrace
Christ, and be saved by his merits ; and if under obli
gations to embrace Christ and be saved by his merits,
then the atonement must have been offered to Caper
naum on the same terms upon which it is offered to oth
ers. To suppose that God would offer that to his crea
tures which has no existence — rand then punish them for
not embracing it — is to charge him with insincerity and
empty show- Why will the enemies of Christ be brought
• forth, in the day of judgment, and be slain before him ?
The crime alleged against them, and for which they
are especially punished, is an unwillingness to submit
to his mediatorial reign ; that is, an unwillingness to em
brace the atonement and welcome his salvation. Does
not this Imply, thatrthe atonement might have reached
their case ? Why. will it be said to some, hereafter,
"Behold, ye despisers,, ;and wonder, an.d perish" — un
less it is, that an atonement has actually been offered to
them, and that this atonement which was offered as an
6

85 VHE" EXTENT OF1
Adequate gfPund for their personal and identical salva
tion, was a reality and not a deception ? Why does a
" sorer punishment" await the despiser of the gospel,
than the transgressor of the law ? It is because he has
" trodden under foot the Son of God." He was under
obligations to receive him as the Stfenirrg victim — as the
propitiation for sin— -as the all -sufficient Saviour. For
not doing this, Tie is now condemned ; and if this sen-
tehee of condemnation is" just, then Christ Was offered
to him before he could be trodden under foot ; and' he
must have made an atonement for this -Very character
before he could be sincerely Offered. To deny these
concluSiPns, is to set scripture, and logick, and common
sense at defiance.
Fourthly. Unbelief" and not a limitation of the atone
ment, is every where ' represented as the reason why
sinners perish.
Here it may be proper to call to mind the representa
tions which we have before given of the nature of that
propitiation made by Jesus Christ. The atonement does
not of itself save a single soul. It barely opens the door
for the accomplishment of this object by free and sove
reign gt-ace. " By g^ace are ye saved through faith."
Hence the importance attached to faith rathe scheme of
salvation revealed in the gospel* It is by this exercise,
that we receive the atonement, and rest upon it for jus -
tificatioii and eternal life. " He that believeth"— *ot
he that is atoned foi*, " Shall be saved*"— and " he that
believeth not"— ftot he that has no atonement made for
him, '" shall be damned," Now* this scheme lays the

THE ATONEMENT. 87
blame of the sinner's- condemnation, where it ought to
lie, upon his unbelief, and not upon the plan of God. —
And so it is every where represented in the- gospel.
" He that believeth not is condemned already, because
he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten
Son of God." Why are sinners condemned under the
operation of the gospel of Christ ? It is because they
have "not believed in the name ofthe only begotten
Som of God." It is not, in any sense, to. be ascribed ta
a deficiency in. the atonement. But in order to agree
with the limited scheme, the declaration ought to read,
the non-elect or reprobates are "condemned already,"
and must finally perish, because they have no provision
made for them in the atonement of "the only begotten
Son of God." But we have not so learnedthe gospel
of Christ. Take one declaration more, of the same
character. " If ye believe not that I am he, ye shall
die in- your sins." Some of these Jews whom Christ
addressed, would finally perish— -not because his blood
could not avail in their behalf, but because they would
continue to reject this only way of reconciliation ap
pointed by the Father.
Andriu the day of judgment, the rejection, and not the
want of the, atonement, will he the ground upon wliich
the final and decisive sentence will be passed. At least
this will be. the case so far as men have enjoyed the
light, audi received the instmctione of the gospel. Un
der the operation of that scheme of eternal, love, .intro
duced by Jesus Christ, unbelief, and, unbelief al°ne(
closes the gates of heaven, and opens the door of the
eternal pit, and rivets the chains.. ef reprpbation fast
upon, the soul of the sinner.

8.8

THE EXTENT OF

Fifthly. The scriptures expressly declare, that the
atonement is general in its character.
Our text is directly in point. " He is the propitiation
for our sins" — that is for the sins of the children of
God, or actual believers — " and not for ours only, but
also for the sins of the whole world." We are well
aware that the phrase, " whole world," is by some lim
ited to the elect. But this appears to us a departure
from the just and obvious principles of biblical exposi
tion. " The world," or what is still more expressive,
" the whole world," is here contrasted with the church,
or the collective body of believers ; and in this connec
tion it can mean nothing else than the whole body of un
believers— without any reference to election in any pos
sible shape. We say the contrast here is between be
lievers and unbelievers, and not between believers and
the elect. The import of the declaration is this : — Jesus
Christ is the propitiation for the sins of believers ; and
not only so, but for the sins of all unbelievers too.
When John the Baptist pointed his inquiring country
men to Jesus Christ, he said, " Behold the Lamb of God,
which taketh away the sin of the world." It is easy to
say, as in the former case, that the term " world" here
means the elect ; but this is mere assertion, and is un
supported by the bible. Ft is a correct principle of ex
position, that a term should be taken in its ordinary and
most simple' acceptation, unless the context, or some un
equivocal declaration ' of the spirit of God elsewhere
recorded, may render a different construction necessary.
Had John the Baptist intended to teach the doctrine of
a limited atonement, he would probably have pointed to

THE ATONEMENT. 89
the Lamb of God which taketh away the sin of the
church or of his chosen people.
The apostle Paul, in his second Epistle to the Corin
thians, assumes the doctrine of a general atonement as a
given point ; and, from the universality of the propitia
tion, argues the universality of human depravity. " Be
cause we thus, judge, that if one died for all, then were
all dead." A remark or two will give this passage an
important bearing upon the point in hand. Let it be
asked, who are the subjects of spiritual death ? The
answer must bp, all mankind. If we push the inquiry
one step farther, and ask, for whom did Christ die ? The
answer must be, according to this passage, for all those
who are the subjects of spiritual death 5 that is for all
mankind. " If one died for all, then were all dead."
And the proposition is equally true, though stated in a
different order. If all mankind were dead in tresspasses
and sins, then Jesus Christ died for them all.
In his first Epistle to Timothy this same apostle tells
us, that Christ " gave himself a ransom for all." This
declaration, if critically examined, will furnish a con
clusive argument in favour of a general atonement. (See
1. Tim. ii. 1 — 6.) The apostle exhorts, that, supplica
tions, &c. " be made for all men : for kings, and for all
that are in authority." He urges this duty of praying
for all men upon two different grounds — the benevo
lence of God who is wilhng that all men should be saved,
and the atonement made by Christ who gave himself a
ransom for all. Now we are here directed to pray " for
all men"— -that is, for all mankind. This, we pre-
8*

90 TJIE EXTENT OF
sume, will not be denied. And is it not equally true,
that God is willing that all men who are the subjects
of these supplications, should be saved 1 Or does he
command all men to believe and be saved, and, at the
same time, is unwilling that some should obey his own
express injunction ? And if christians are to pray for all
men, and God is willing that all men should come to the
knowledge of the truth and be saved, do not these sup
plications of the christian, and this benevolent feeling of
God toward the salvation of all men, grow out, of the
ransom which Christ has offered " for all" ? If we
limit the term " all," in this last case, to the elect, then
the apostle's argument will stand thus. Christ gave
himself a ransom for all the eliect, and consequently God
is willing that all the elect should be saved ; and, there
fore, christians ought to pray for all mankind. This
reasoning does not hold together. The proper conclu
sion from these premises, thus gratuitously assumed,
would be, that we ought to pray only for the elect ; for
the same reason which would lead us to restrict the
term " all," in two instances, would lead us to restrict
it in the third. If the apostle reasons correctly in this
passage, he does insist upon the propriety of praying
for all mankind from the universal benevolence of God,
and the universahty of the ransom offered by Jesus
Christ. We are conducted to the" same" conclusion hy another
verse of this paragraph. " For' there is one God, and
one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Je
sus." The mediatorial work of Christ is here repre
sented as carried on between " God and men." These

THE ATONEMENT. 9J
ire the parties. God stands upon one side of the great
question which Christ has undertaken to bring to issue,
and " men" — that is mankind, or the human race upon
the other. In prosecuting his work as mediator, he has
given " himself a ransom" to one of these parties for
the other ; that is, a ransom to God for men — for all
men — for the offending race without exception. There
is " one mediator between God and men, the man Christ
Jesus ; who gave himself a ransom for all." The con
nection between on&owkuv, men, in the fifth verse, and
tfavlwv, all, in the sixth verse, justifies the construction*
which we have given above. The ransom was given for
that whole offending party between whom and God, the
work of mediation was conducted by Jesus Christ-
In the letter to the Hebrews, the apostle tells us, that
Jesus Christ " was made a little lower than the angels—1-
that he by the grace of God should taste death for eve
ry man." The expression "was made a little lower
than the angels" — is only a circumlocution employed to
assert the fact, that Christ became man ; and the apostle
was led to adopt this phraseology from what he had said
of the original condition of the human race, in the con
text. He became man, that he might taste death for
man — " for every man" — for mankind without distinc
tion. He became himself partaker of human nature,
" that he- by the grace of God should taste death, itig
•ravlos" — for each and every part of human nature.
The apostle Peter speaks of certain false teachers
who would " bring in damnable heresies, even denying
the Lord that bought them, and -bring upon themselves

32 THE EXTENT OF
swift destruction." Who these teachers are, it is not
necessary to our present argument to determine. It is
sufficient for our purpose to know that they perish, and
are, at the same time, persons who were bought with
the bloodof Christ. This passage furnishes perfect dem
onstration, that the atonement made by Christ and the
actual redemption of sinners are not commensurate, or
of equal extent. Some are " bought" hy the Lord him
self, who, for their adherence to sin, are overwhelmed
with " swift destruction." They were atoned for, and
yet are lost. An attempt has been made to set aside
this conclusion by denying, that there is any reference
here to the atonement which has been made for sinners.
It is asserted that the word tli*olriv, which is here trans
lated Lord, is never applied to Jesus Christ in the bible.
But this is not altogether certain. In Rev. 6. 10. the
same word is applied either to the Father or the Son ;
and Macknight is inclined to favour the opinion, that it is
applied to the latter. Be this, however, as it may, it
can have but little influence upon the present question.
The word may be employed to denote the Son with the
same propriety with which it is employed to denote the
Father ; and were the passage quoted from Peter the
only one in which it was used to designate the Lord Je
sus Christ, this fact would by no means invalidate the
argument. As it is a word applicable to the Godhead,
the context must determine which Person it is intended,
in any particular instance, to denote. Jesus Christ is
the Lord or Master to whom these " false teachers" pro
fessed subjection ; and he is that being who has " bought"
sinners with his blood. And some who were thus bought?
will inherit destruction.

THE ATONEMENT. 93-
We mention but one passage more in favour of gener
al atonement. It is the declaration of Christ himself.- —
" For God so loved the world, that he gave his only be
gotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him, should not
perish, but have everlasting life." The advocates of
hmited atonement, have had great trouble with this text.
As usual, " the world" here must signify the elect. To
say nothing of this arbitrary and unnatural construction,
this reading will not very well agree with what immedi
ately follows. " God so loved the" — elect, (that is those
who will finally believe, and who shall not perish, but
have everlasting life,) " that he gave his only begotten
Son, that whosoever," of all this number, " believeth
in him, should not perish, but have everlasting life." —
Now, this is putting absurdity into the lips of infinite wis
dom. But take the passage just as it stands, and its truth
and simplicity are apparent. " Cod so loved the world,
that he gave his only begotten Son" to die for this world,
" that whosoever" of all this world which God loved
and for which the Saviour died, " believeth in him,
should not perisbj but have everlasting life."
There are other declarations of the bible upon which
grekt stress is laid by thpse who maintain the doctrine of
a limited atonement, and which are considered by many
as settling the' question in its favour. We refer.! tp such
passages as these. " The good Shepherd giveth his life
for the sheep" — "feed the church of God Which he
hath purchased with his own blood"— "Christ alsp lov
ed the church, and gave himself for it." Upon these
scriptures we would remark, that not one of them is
contradicted by the doctrine of a general atonement,

94

THE EXTENT OF

because tbey do not assert, that the good Shepherd gave
" his life forthe sheep," and for them done ; or that. the
church was exclusively loved and purchased. This
construction would contradict other parts of the inspired
volume. If Jesus Christ tasted death " for every man,"
he did of course, lay down " his life , for the sheep" —
and if he gave himself a " ransom for aU," he certainly
did give himselfj at the same time, a. ransom for ".tiie
church." Believing that the doctrine of a general atonement is
fairly supported, we are now prepared to close our dis
course with a few inferences and reflections.
First. In connection with the foregoing remarks, we
infer, that a limited atonement would be an impeach
ment of the divine character.
Compare, for a moment, the different and various, as
pects of a limited atonement with the plain declarations!
of the bible and the acknowledged principles ofthe gos
pel, which have been stated in our present discourse. —
We have seen that'tiieicall of the gospel, which includes
an obligation> to believe- in Christ, and to rest upon him
fbr eternal ltfe, is made to all without distinction. —
What-, my brethren, can support a general; offer,! unless
it be a general provision ? Does- it . correspond- with
that truthrand Sincerity: which belong to- God, in an infi
nite degree, to proffer' to iliis creatures — nay to urge: and
press upon his'cteatureS, that which never had an ex
istence ? And yet this God is represented- as* doing, if
the call of the gospel is universal, and tbe atonement

THE ATONEMENT. 95
made by Christ, is, at the same time, partial. Yes, my
hearers, this view of the atonement does represent God
as offering more to sinners in the gospel, than was ever
provided in the gospel. But the objection goes much
farther than this. Sinners are expressly condemned for
not becoming interested in that atonement or provision
which is offered ; and yet for them, -on the limited
scheme, no such atonement or provision was ever made.
And this is not all. These rejecters of the gospel and
despisers of the atonement, must feel the effects of their
conduct to all eternity. It shall be more tolerable for
Sodom and Gomorrah than for them. But why ? What
have they done ? According to the principles of those
who limit the atonement, they have rejected a pertain
provision which was offered to them, but which was
never made ; which was restricted to others while they
Were expressly excluded ; which could not, from the
very nature of its stipulations, include them and sup
ply their necessities, though they had complied with the
invitation and obeyed the command. In addition to all
this, they are everywhere assured in the sacred vol
ume, that their ruin is altogether attributable to them
selves. UnbeUef is represented as the great damning
sin. And yet if the atonement is partial and limited,
unbelief is inevitable. It must take place by a physical
necessity, for there is no foundation for faith. Its ex
ercise, for the want of which the sinner is condemned,
would imply a natural impossibility. Indeed, for God to
require the sinner for whom no atonement has been
made, to believe in an atonement, and to rely upon this
atonement for his personal salvation, is to require him
to believe a palpable falsehood. No atonement was

96 SHE EXTENT OF
eVer made for him. To believe there was, would be
to believe a lie ; and yet for the want of this belief Or
faith, he must feel the wrath and curse of God. We
say, that here is a direct impeachment of the character
of Jehovah ; and it is high time that christians should
investigate this subject, and embrace the truth, and
roll away this reproach.
We have said nothing as yet of the express contra
diction between the scheme of a limited atonement and
the plain declarations of the bible. The restrictive sys
tem says, that Christ is " the propitiation" for the sins
ofthe elect, and for theirs alone'; the apostle John
teaches us that he is likewise the propitiation " for the
sins of the whole world." This system declares, that
Christ " gave himself " for the church alone ; the apos
tle Paul tells us, that he "gave himself a ransom for
all." The scheme which we oppose teaches, 'that
Christ died for a part only of the human race ; the bible
expressly declares, that he "died for all"— —that he
tasted " death for every man." This human theory
would have us believe, that atonement and salvation
are equally broad ; but the inspired volume affirms,- that
some deny " the Lord that bought them, and bring upon
themselves swift destruction."
Secondly. Our subject teaches us the ends to be an
swered by a general atonement.
It is sometimes said, that no great object can be ob
tained by a general atonement, if after all, but a part
of mankind participate the sating benefit. But this

THE ATONEMENT. 97
objection is founded on an imperfect and limited view of
the subject If the atonement is what we hay,e repre
sented it, a preliminary to the offer pf pardon and peace ;
if it contains such a provision for sinners in general; as
to lay tiiem under .obligations to heheve in Christ, and
turnitoiGod, and live ; if it has furnished a new .set nf
motives which ought to affect the hearts and conduct of
men, as moral beings ; if it proposes the terms of eternal
life, for the reception or rejection of which we must
render an account, and the consequences of which we
must feel to all eternity — then it is obvious, that the
most important results are connected with such a pro
vision. As it respects God, it is an exhibition of his be
nevolence, and as it respects man, it opens the door for
his return to the friendship of his Maker. At all events,
it must and will revealto the universe the moral temper
of the sinner's heart.
By the moral law the whole human race must stand
^condemned at the bar of God. Under this system there
could be no escape. Despair and death would look eve
ry sinner in the face. Instead of executing this law up
on us, God has " found a ransom." He has placed us
once more, as it were, in reach of heaven. The door
is thrown wide open before us. The terms, as founded
upon the atonement, are, " He that believeth, shall be
saved ; but he that believeth not shall be damned." —
This system will fully vindicate the divine character
from every charge of cruelty in the death of the sinner.
Not a shadow of reproach can rest upon it. Upon the
broad basis of a general provision, God may proclaim
through-heaven, and earth, and his illimitable universe,
9

98 THE EXTENT OF
'' As I live, saith the Lord God, I have no pleasure in
the death of the wicked." Do you, my dear hearer,
rejoice that such ample provision has been made for sin
ners ? Oh ! recollect that the existence of such an
atonement ought to make you solemn. The effects of it
must be felt for ever. It will prepare for each of us a
starry crown in heaven, or kindle for us a fiercer flame
below. How full of interest— how fearful is the fact,
that Christ has died for sinners ! This fact creates a
responsibility on the part of every hearer of the gospel,
from which there is no escape. Life or death is the
certain consequence,
Thirdly. This subject will enable us to understand
many passages of scripture which are sometimes adduc-
? ed in favour of universal salvation.
We must carefully and critically distinguish between
atonement and actual redemption ; between the provis
ion made on the part of Christ, and its cordial reception
on the part ofthe sinner. The atonement prepares the
way for man's return to God ; the application of this
atonement, actually brings him back, and secures to him,
in the covenant of grace, a title to the heavenly inheri
tance. The doctrine of general atonement, if properly
understood, has no connection with universal salvation.
There is no more connection between them, than there
was between the ample and extensive entertainment
mentioned in the parable, and the refreshment of those
who utterly refused to come to the feast. Of what avail
to them was the munificence of the marriage supper,
when they preferred, and continued to prefer, their own

THE ATONEMENT. 99
personal employments and pleasures ? While " they
made light" of the invitation, and went one to his farm
and another to his merchandise, that feast could do
them no good-. It could afford them neither pleasure
nor profit. Indeed it left them, in a very material point,
worse than it found them. It brought them under the
responsibilities created by a kind and gracious invita
tion — and eventually fixed upon them the guilt of its
pertinacious and wanton rejection.
And so it is with the atonement made by Christ. It
is sufficient for all ; but it will no more save those who -
refuse to embrace it, than a sumptuous feast will satisfy
the hunger of those Who refuse to partake of the prof
fered bounty. General atonement furnishes a consis- -
tent ground for the publication of the glad tidings of the
gospel. An atonement for all, will justify and sustain
the offer of salvation to all. The result will be directed
by the wise providence, and the sovereign grace of God.
TKe final consequence will be a sentence of acquittal
to the believer, and of condemnation upon the unbe
liever. Those who have contended, that the salvation of all
men, would follow as a consequence from the doctrine
of a general provision in the atonement, have uniformly
entertained incorrect notions respecting the nature of
this transaction. They have looked upon this whole af
fair as regulated by the principles of commutative jus
tice. If it were the province of the atonement to re
peal the curse, and liberate the sinner from all legal
obligation, then, it would be readily acknowledged, that

100 THE EXTENT OF
a general satisfaction' must be followed by a general
redemption. But we have seen that this system is rot
ten to its very centre. By thinking men — by logickal"
minds, it1 must and will be abandoned. An atonement
which cancels guilt, and annihilates responsibility, has
never been made. Such an atonement could not have
been devised. Of such a provision, the bible utters not
a whisper. There is an atonement which permits God,
in perfect consistency with all the perfections of his na
ture and with all the important ends of law and go
vernment, to offer salvation lo a guilty and expiring
world. This same atonement lays the sinner who hears
the gospel, under obligations to return to God ; and,
under the mediatorial system, his eternal destiny is sus
pended on his acceptance or rejection of the offered
mercy. As to the behever, his sins are freely pardon
ed through the blood of Christ — and the Almighty arms
surround, sustain and guard him. - As to the unbeliever,
continuing such, no atonement can reach his case.- The'
blood of the new covenant, he treads upon in disdafn.
He lets go of the only anchor of safety — he extinguishes
the last glimmering ray of hope. In one word, he re
jects the Son of God, and, by this act, fixes the brand
of reprobation upon his own soul. The law justly
condemns him — but a rejected gospel will compel him
to take a still lower and- a' darker place in the eternal
pit. These distinctions will enable us to comprehend and
explain those passages of scripture, connected With the
atonement, which are frequently perverted, and pressed
into1 the cause of universal salvation. We refer to such

THE ATONEMENT. 101
declarations as these — That Christ " died for all" — that
he tasted "death for every man" — that he " taketh
away the sin of the world" — and that " by the righte
ousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto
justification of life." These scriptures define the atone
ment, and not its effect. They declare the extent of
the provision, and not the extent of salvation. The
atonement made by Christ, and its acceptance on the
part of the sinner, are entirely distinct and separate
acts. Some for whom the Son of God expired, and to
whom his salvation was freely offered, will behold, and
wonder and perish. The blood of Christ, though shed
for sinners, cannot, without its application to the heart,
take away their guilt ; and this blood has not extin
guished the fires of hell. It remains an eternal truth,
that the impenitent must perish — that the unbeliever
must be damned. " He that believeth on the Son, hath
everlasting life ; and he that believeth not the Son,
shall not see life ; but the wrath of God abideth on
him."

9*

ADVERTISEMENT.
The following Sermon on the Duty of Sinners to
repent and believe the Gospel, was not included in the
proposals for publishing the Sermons on the Atone
ment. It is appended to the foregoing work at the re
quest of several members of my congregation, and some
respected brethren in the ministry who once heard it
preached at the opemng of the Presbytery of Troy.
It is thought that it will form a suitable appendage to
the preceding discussion ; and as such, it is now com
mended to the candour of the church and the blessing
of God.
THE AUTHOR.
Troy, Dec, 1824.

A SERMON.

THE DUTY OF SINNERS.

Mark i. 15. — " Repent ye, and believe the gospel."
These words contain an injunction of Jesus Christ,
and were uttered soon after he entered upon his publick
ministry. John the Baptist, in accordance with the
language of ancient prediction, had gone " before him
in the spirit and power of Elias." He was " the voice
of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of
the Lord, make his paths straight." The preaching of
this illustrious harbinger of the promised Messiah, was
attended with the special blessing of God. Multitudes
flocked to the standard which he erected in the wilder
ness, and there received those impressions which were
intended to prepare them for the more explicit declara
tions of the gospel which were about to be announced.
The great theme upon which he dwelt was repentance ;
and in the execution of this preliminary and special mis
sion, he admitted to the ordinance of baptism those who
came to him " confessing their sins."
One important point more was embraced in John's
commission ; and that was, to remind the house of Israel,,

106 THE DUTfc
that their expected King and Redeemer was at hand. —
" There cometh one mightier than I after me, the latch
et of whose shoes I am not worthy to stoop down and
unloose. I indeed have baptised you with water : but
he shall baptise you with the Holy Ghost."
About the time that this preparatory dispensation ceas
ed by the imprisonment of John — Jesus Christ, having
been consecrated to the office of High Priest by pub
lickly submitting to the ordinance of baptism — " came
into Galilee, preaching the gospel of the kingdom of
God, and saying, the time is fulfilled, and the kingdom
of God is at hand : Repent ye, and believe the gospel."
From these words it appears, that Jesus Christ preach
ed the gospel by enjoining repentance and faith upon
sinners. He came into Galilee where his parents re
sided, and where he himself had been brought up, and
there commenced preaching his own gospel by stating to
his hearers by way of information, that the time appoint
ed by the Father for the mission of his Son into our
world, was actually fulfilled — and that the predicted
reign of God was now at hand. The annunciation of
these facts imposed upon them the obligation to repent
of sin and embrace the promised Messiah. " Repent
ye, and believe the gospel."
Nor is this obligation to repent and believe the gospel,
confined to any particular period of this dispensation of
mercy. Whenever the proclamation of pardon through
Jesus Christ is announced, then it is the sinner's first
duty to repent and believe the gospel.

OF SINNERS. 107
To show that repentance for sin and faith in the Lord
Jesus Christ, are immediate duties, binding upon every
sinner who hears the gospel, is the object of our present
discourse. First. That sinners ought to repent and believe the
gospel now, will appear from an examination of the na
ture of the christian exercises.
Look for a moment at repentance. What does it im
ply ? It consists essentially in sorrow for sin founded
on its intrinsick turpitude. The true penitent looks up
on sin as it really is— -and not as it appeared to him at
the time of its commission. The original Greek word
translated repentance, literally signifies an after-thought,
or a change of mind ; and implies a new moral feeling
respecting transgression. In the act of sin, or in the
violation of God's law, we approve of moral evil. The
act is our own.. It is a free and voluntary act, and is
committed with the full consent of all the feelings of the
heart. At the time of its commission, it is viewed as a
present good. We speak here of that approbation
which belongs to the heart, and not of those weak and
ineffectual remonstrances which are made by the con
science. Now repentance supposes a change of mind, or a dif
ferent moral feeling in relation to the infractions of the
rule of moral conduct. The act of sin is reviewed —
and the real penitent condemns and hates that act which
he once loved, and which he perpetrated with all his
heart. He looks upon sin as committed against a law

' 108 THE DUTY
which is " holy, and just, and good"-— a law which em
bodies the perfections of the infinite God — and, conse
quently, as an act of hostility aimed directly at God him
self. He looks upon himself as a wretch in arms against
Jehovah — against his own happiness — and against the
order and welfare ofthe universe. He takes sides with
the law, as regards both the precept and the penalty,
against himself. He feels, -that he deserves to die ; and
he abhors and hates his sinful heart and his sinful ways,
This is repentance ; and this; feeling every moral being
who has ever sinned, ought to. exercise- without one mo
ment's delay. It was the duty of Adam when he had
committed the first .sin, to repent. Without any gospel
promise, or intimation of mercy — it, was his duty to re
pent. In a sinner, without. repentance, there can be no
correct or holy feeling. If an apostate creature, then,
is under obligations to cherish correct and holy feelings
towards God, towards the law, and towards his own
transgression— -then.it is his duty to .repent without. de
lay. Let us look for a moment at the intrinsick nature of
faith, and see whether the sinner ought immediately to
believe the gospel. Two prominent ideas, are embrac
ed in evangelical or saving faith. One is, that it implies
a reliance upon testimony. In this sense it is an intel
lectual act, and is neither holy nor unholy, except as it
may have some connection, either direct or indirect,
with the moral temper of the heart. As. a mere intel
lectual act, we believe in the facts recorded in the gos
pel in the same manner, that we give credit to any other
facts- which have not transpired under our own eye,

of siNNens. IQ9
but which-are supported by competentitestimony. gush
isirhe evidence in favour pf the inspiration of^heigos-
pel, that a candid investigation of the subject, must4spd
to a conviction ofthe truth. Infidelity — that is, a direct
and open disbelief of thehible, is probably always the
result -either of sinful ignorance or wilful -opposition! to
God. Diligence and >h0nesty would invariably lead to
a reception of the gospel, so far as faith is an act of -the
intellect. Unbelief, then, in this sense, or a speculative
rejection of the gospel, is always a crime.
But it is in the moral nature of faith, that we are to
look for its distinctive and essential character. As -a
moral or holy exercise, faith in the gospel implies a re
liance upon Jesus Christ for salvation. This is the. se
cond prominent idea which is embraced in evangelical or
saving faith. This faith supposes a just conviction of
sin, and true repentance for it, as a most malignant and
deadly evil. To believe the gospel, or to exercise faith
in Jesus Christ, in this high and important sense, is to
give up our opposition. to God, which we have prosecut
ed by trampling upon his authority — and to return to
him in the way of his appointment. If the Sinner is not
permitted to hate God — to make him a virtual liar — and
to .cherish and express his opposition and enmity against
the scheme of eternal love for his recovery, then he is
under obligations to credit what God has asserted,, and
to rely upon the provision Which he has made for the
chief of sinners. And if the sinner is under obligations
ever .to return to God by fajth in Jesus Christ-^-he is un
der obligations to return now— to believe withoutJdelay.
If unbehef, or a rejection of Christ, or enmity of heart
10

110 THE bUTV'
against the plan of God's mercy, be right for one ma-'
ment — the same unbelief, and rejection of Christ, and
enmity against God, would be right for ever.
Secondly. That sinners ought immediately to repent
and believe the gospel, appears evident from the impor
tant place which repentance and faith occupy in the
scheme of salvation.
From the important place which they occupy in the
gospel scheme — repentance and faith have been styled
the terms or conditions of salvation. The terms of the
moral law are, " The man wliich doeth those things shall
live by them." The terms of the gospel are, He that
truly repents of sin ; or he that beheves in the Lord
Jesus Christ — one of these christian graces always im
plying the other — " shall be saved."
. When we represent repentance and faith as the con
ditions of salvation, we would not be understood to af
firm that they form in any sense the meritorious ground
of the sinner's acceptance with God. The gospel is a
scheme of mercy from beginning to end. It was con
trived for the recovery of sinners who deserve to die ;
and it is the same grace which originated the plan that
carries this plan into effective operation. But our in
quiry here is — not by what power the gospel is render
ed effectual, to the salvation of the sinner— but how must
the sinner feel in order to embrace this gospel ? pr in
pther words, what constitutes an acceptance of Jesus
Christ and his salvation ? What are the essential and
peculiar exercises by which the sinner welcomes the
gospel, and becomes a christian ?

OF SINNERS. Ill
And here it will be discovered, on a moment's reflec
tion, that repentance and faith are the grand peculiarities
of the gospel scheme. They belong exclusively to the
plan of redemption. They have no connection with the
moral law. It is true, that a sinner, independent of the
gospel, ought to be sorry for. his transgressions, and to
credit what God asserts — but it is in the covenant of
grace alone, that repentance and faith are required as
the terms of acceptance with God.
When we say, that repentance and faith are required
of sinners as immediate duties, we mean that repen
tance which is unto life, and that faith which is connect
ed with salvation. . By these the gospel is accepted, and
without these, the provisions of eternal love are spurn
ed and trodden under foot. The point under examina
tion, then, resolves itself mto this question : Are sin
ners under obligations to embrace the gospel ; and does
this obligation press upon them at the present moment ?.
If so, they must be under obligations to repent of sin
and believe in the Lord Jesus Christ1 — for without re
pentance and faith, there is no way in which the gospel
can be received. While the offers of salvation have a
claim upon our affections — and while these offers cannot
be rejected without manifest and awful guilt ; while the
provisions of God's omnipotent love, and the blood of
his expiring Son, cannot be slighted with impunity— so
long will repentance for sin, and faith in the Lord Jesus
Christ, press upon the sinner's conscience as his first
and most important duties.
Thirdly. The guilt attached to impenitence and un-

rKS THE DUTY
belief, proves, that the sinner ought, to repent and be-.
lieve the gospel without delay.
Tl'Re' guilt attachfid'td impenitence and unbelief. What
we have to urge under this particular, will form, the
counterpart of those considerations which were stated un
der1 the first head of this discourse. We attempted m
that place to show, that repentance and faith are im their
very nature such exercises as are perfectly compatible
with the character of God to require, and perfectly con
sistent with the condition of man to entertain or cherish.
The conclusion was, that sinners ought immediately to
repent and believe the gospel. And we shall be con
ducted tothe same result, if we analize the nature of
impenitence and unbelief. But here let it be distinctly
noticed, that under the preaching of the gospel, every
man must be either penitent or impenitent, a behever
or an unbeliever. There is no middle course, or neu
tral ground. The heart which is not the residence of
repentance and faith, must necessarily be full of impen
itence and unbelief.
And now let us examine the moral temper of these
exercises. What is impenitence ? — its complexion, or
character ? It is that disposition of heart, or temper of
mind which justifies transgression, and determines to
persevere in rebellion against God. This is the char
acter of impenitence in those beings who are under
the Simple operation of the law, and who have never
enjoyed the proclamation of mercy through the gospel.
This is the impenitence of devils — and this was the
impenitence of Adam before the first intimation of de-

OF SINNERS. 1J3
liverance through the promised seed. But under the
gospel the character of impenitence is still more malig
nant. It loves sin, and determines to cherish its emo
tions — It hates the law which forbids, and which wall
punish transgression — and it prosecutes a deliberate war
fare against the character, the purposes, and the govern
ment of Jehovah. And all this in defiance of the thun
ders of Almighty wrath, and in contempt of the agonies
of dying love. This is impenitence — and if this can be
justified, then, no crime in Jehovah's empire can be
condemned. If a creature may rebel against Gpd, aud
may continue to repeat and to justify that rebellion, ajl
of which is involved in impenitence, then omnipotence
may break his sceptre, and abdicate his throne, for there
is no law, or transgression, or responsibility, or govern
ment left. From the guilt involved in this course, there
is no escape but by immediate repentance. Every oth
er course involves a repetition of the crime.
What, too, is unbelief 1 We mean its spirit or moral
temper ? It is not a rejection ofthe gospel for the want
of adequate testimony-— for the gospel is often admitted
in speculation* and yet excluded from the heart. The
very essence of unbelief consists in opposition to £&e
plan of salvation. It is enmity against God of the most
aggravated character. It is not merely opposition to the
perfections of God as expressed i,n the law — j&ough
this turned Satan and his angels out of heaven,, and chain
ed them in ,the pit— but it is opposition to Gpd in the
character of a Saviour. Unbelief is a sin .against a rem
edy- — and is, consequently, the sin of deep and black in
gratitude. It is a rin against redeeming grace, and dying
10*

114

THE DUTV

love — a sin against the last effort of Omnipotence for the
salvation of the soul. To say that unbelief is not crim
inal, would be to trifle with God, and to sport with his
threatened curse. And for this conduct, there is no ex
cuse. The unbeliever is every moment accumulating
guilt — sinning with a high hand — and filling up the meas
ure of his iniqmty much faster than be could have done
without the publication of the gospel. And from this
guilt there can be no escape, but by repentance for sin
and faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. Repentance and
faith, then, are immediate duties, because impenitence
and unbelief, which -must exist where these exercises
are wanting, are sins of the deepest die, and, when in
dulged and cherished, are perpetually treasuring up, for
their subjects, " wrath against the day of wrath."
Fourthly. That repentance and faith are required
of sinners without delay, • will appear from the express
injunctions of the bible.
There is probably not one requirement of the gospel
which does not expressly enjoin, or implicitly include
repentance for sin-, and faith in the Lord Jesus Christ.—
This fact has heen too much overlooked, or too super
ficially considered by the disciples of Christ, and, some
times, even by those who are set for the defence of the
gospel, 'Repentance and faith are peculiar to the gospel
scheme, and belong exclusively to the religion of sin
ners. They are so essential, that the gospel cannot be
embraced, and the soul return to God without them.— -
Hence the peculiar prominence which is given to re
pentance and faith in the instructions of Je?us Christ

OF SINNERS. 1 15
and his apostles. Indeed the harbinger of Christ, who
came to usher in the dawn of gospel day, enjoined im
mediate repentance upon the people, and directed them
to believe on that promised Messiah who " should come
after him." This was the foundation of all his preach
ing. Jesus Christ, too, commenced his own personal
ministry, as we have already seen, by preaching the
same doctrine — " Repent ye, and believe the gospel."
This injunction stood in the very front of all his direc
tions. He points out the plain and simple process by
which men must serve God and secure the salvation of
their own souls. They must feel and hate and renounce
their sins, and repose a fiducial confidence in the merits
of Jesus Christ. They must, in the peculiar and evan
gelical sense, repent, and believe the gospel. Till this
is done, nothing can be done aright. When his hearers
inquired of him, on a certain occasion, what they should
do, that they " might work the works of God ?" — he re
plied, " This is the work of God, that ye believe on him
whom he hath sent." This was a work without which
all other works would be of no avail. When the twelve
disciples went forth, in the execution of their first com
mission, they not only proclaimed, as an object of faith
to their' hearers, that the kingdom of heaven was at
hand, butthey " preached that men should repent." t
And the same doctrines were taught, with still greater
clearness, by the apostles after the ascension of JesOs
Christ. They had now received a full commission" to
evangelize the world ; and the divine Spirit was! with
them to defend them from errour, and to direct them in
the truth. To those who " were pricked in their

1 1 6 THE DOTY
heart," on the day of Pentecost, " and said unto Peter"
and to the rest of the apostles, men and brethren, what
shall we do?" — Peter replied, "Repentj-and be bap
tized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for
the remission of sins." Nothing could be more definite
and specifick, than this direction. The apostle does not
send these inquirers to a round of external duties, but
tells them to repent, and be baptized in the, name of Je
sus Christ — or, which is clearly implied in the injunc
tion, to believe in the name of Jesus Christ for the re
mission of sins. The inquiry was, " What shall we
do ?" The answer was, " Repent, and be baptized''-—
or believe " in the name of Jesus Christ for the remis
sion of sins." This was the only thing they were com
manded to do, and this they were bound to do without
delay. The same apostle, after assuring Simon Magus
that he had " neither part nor lot in this matter," and
that his heart was " not right in the sight of God" —
presses him with this injunction, " Repent, therefore,
of this thy wickedness, and pray God, if perhaps the
thought of thine heart may be forgiven thee." Simon,
by this direction, was not permitted to defer repentance
long enough to pray. He is not allowed to remain
impenitent even while he shall perform this sin
gle duty. The injunction is, repent — then pray. And
this is the preaching of an inspired apostle to a man
whom he perceived to be, at that very moment, " in the
gall of bitterness, and in the bond of iniquity." To the
coavicted Jailor who "came trembling, and fell dpwn
before Paul and Silas — and said, sirs, what must I do to
t; -paved ?" — these divinely directed teachers replied,
" ^eve on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt he

OF SINNERS. 11*7
saved." This convicted sinner was in deep distress,
and he needed immediate relief ; and he is directed to
believe in Christ without a moment's delay. If he
would obey Godj this is the first act, to be performed.—
No duty can be anterior to this. Paul in his Farewell
Address to the Elders of Ephesus,, reminds them of the
manner in which he had fulfilled his commission as a min
ister of the gospel. " I kept back nothing that was
profitable unto you, but. have showed you, and have
taught you pubhckly, and from house to house, testifying
both to the Jews, and also to the Greeks, repentance to
ward God, -and faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ."— -^
In this manner the Lord of life, and, in this manner, the
primitive disciples preached the gospel.
AH these directions which have been cited, agree in
their essential characteristicks. They all expressly, or
implicitly enjoin both repentance and faith upon sinners
as their first duties. In some instances the terms are
both mentioned — and in some, one only is named, and
the other is included by implication. There can be no
repentance unto life without faith in Jesus Christ, and
no evangelical or saving faith, without repentance or
godly sorrow for sin. And it is worthy . of notice, that
no other directions than these, are ever given to inquir
ing sinners in the bible. They are never pointed to any
other course in order to procure the divine favour and
attain the inheritance of heaven — neither are they set
about any preparatory work, that their hearts may be
inclined hereafter to repent and embrace the gospel. —
All such directions are the inventions of men, and not
the injunctions of the living God. The only instance

118 THE fctfTV
which has the least approximation to a departure from
this rule, is to be found in the reply of Jesus Christ to
the young man who inquired what good thing he should
do, that he might have eternal life. " If thou wilt en
ter into life, keep the commandments." The inquiry to
which this direction was a reply, was not the inquiry of
one convinced of sih, and anxious for deliverance from
its present dominion and its future curse. Had this been
the case, the direction would, no doubt, have been,
" Repent, and believe the gospel."- But this is the in
quiry of a self-complacent moralist who expects to be
justified and saved by tha deeds of the law. " What
good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life -?" —
As the inquiry was of a legal character, so the answer
corresponded with the import and spirit ofthe question.
Christ told him just what he must do in order to be sav
ed according to his own expectations. He must keep
the whole law. " If thou wilt enter into life," upon
these principles, "keep the commandments." The
terms of the law are, " The man which doeth these
things, shall live by them." It is evident from this
whole narrative, and particularly from its conclusion,
that the legal covenant was referred to in this case, for
the ultimate purpose of conviction — in order to exhibit
to this young man the true picture of his heart, and to
expose the sandy -basis upon which he was rearing the
.structure of his eternal hopes.
A few inferences from what has been said will close
this discourse.
First. There is nothing which prevents the sinner

of sinners. 119
from exercising repentance unto life, and faith in the
Lord Jesus Christ, that is not chargeable upon himself
as his own fault.
Repentance and faith are certainly required of the
sinner, as we have seen in the progress of this dis
course. They involve in their very nature just such
moral feelings as that creature ought to cherish who has
been guilty of rebellion against God. By these the mer
cy of the gospel is accepted ; and by their opposites,
impenitence and unbelief, its provisions are set at nought,
and the overtures of heaven are treated with contempt.
In addition to all this, they are directly enjoined upon
the sinner's conscience in the bible. They are requir
ed of every sinner by the authority of the independent
God ; they are enforced by the threatened pains of eter
nal rejection. From these considerations we infer, that
there is nothing which prevents the sinner's compliance,
but what is chargeable upon himself as his own fault. —
A just and holy God would not require of his creatures
the performance of acts which transcended their powers,
or condemn them for a failure when a compliance with
the injunction was impossible in the very nature of
things. And yet as the sinner is elsewhere represented
as dependent on the special grace of God for repentance
and faith, and salvation — this subject becomes involved
in serious difficulty. Various are the theories which
have been resorted to for the purpose of rational and
consistent explanation.
Some have supposed, that the sinner is utterly una
ble, in every respect, to love God, or comply with tbe

120 THE »«Tk'
terms of the gospel ; but vindicate the divine conduct
in requiring impossibilities, on the ground that man lost
his power by the fall. This solution does not appear to
us to reach the case. To say that I am under obliga
tions to love God, to repent of sin, and to believe in
Jesus Christ, because Adam had the power and lost it,
is to talk neither logick nor scripture. You might just
as well say, that I am under obligations to exert the cor
poreal 'strength' of oftfe'df iriy distant progenitors, who
possessed the muscular powers of a giant, "because he
brought physifcal 'imbecility 'upon himself and his pos
terity by a course of indolence and excessive indulgence.
Requirements of this nature would not comport with ;the
gPvernment of an equitable man, much less -with the gov
ernment of a perfect Gpd.
Others have attempted'to obviate the difficulties in
volved in the sinner's dependence and responsibility by
a different theory. They^uppose that man is entirely
helpless, 'in every sense, in himself— but that the obliga-
tions'to fepferit and believe the gdspel, are created hy
the fact, 'that'God communicates assistance and grace'to
him withPut Which 'these' obligations would not exist; —
This sentiment, though plausible, is unscriptural, and
defective toHhe very core. To say, 'thatf'the sinner's
Obligation originates in the divine assistance which-is Af
forded him, ail'd thiit therfe'is no obligation 'without such
-assistance, is to "say, that every thing 'WhiclrGod has
done for his redemption, is a matter of 'simple 'justice,
and not of grace. According to this sentiment, sinners
"wbiild have been tinder no Pmigationsftd love God with
out the provisions ofthe gPspel-^and smce a Saviour

OF SINNERS. Ifl
has been provided and offered to them, they are bound
to repent of sin and accept of this Saviour no farther
than the grace of God shall actually remove the obsta
cles which lie in the way of repentance for sin, mi faith
in the Lord Jesus Christ. This theory destroys the ve
ry nature of grace ; it converts grace into debt ; a debt
justly due fromtGod fc* the sinner,, and without the pay
ment of which the sinner may continue without guilt to
violate tile law, and to reject and spurn the. provisions
of the gospel. Indeed, this sentiment would, in every
instance, make the moral temper of the creature, the
measure of moral obligation ; -and we should never be
bound to do what we were not disposed, -or what -God
should not actually dispose us to perform. This would
be throwing dbe reins upon the roeoks of mea, and upon
the necks of devils ! Inclination becomes- the universal
law. But aU these fibeoriea for reconciling ihe sinner'js 'Ob
ligations' withhis dependance, are founded in a radical
errour respecting the nature of the difficulty to be are-
moved. 'There is nothing which stands ia the way of
men3s"Fetu)>H to^God>by> repentance forsia and faith in
Jesufe'Cttfis'ti but-thcwant of a disposition to return.—
The' difficulty is 'Whrjljyof a moral, and not of a physi
cal character. It lis opposition: to the tirutb, and enmity
of 'heart agates* i©od,' and nothing, else, whieh chains bim
fast mimpeniteiice and unbelief. It is a voluntary! bond-
¦•age-^a-fc^^ewhi^heeheriShesiwith^Uhishe^rtw-
¦ cherishes in^ defiance af the .worm thatj never dies and, of
theffire^that is 'never ¦queadietU-t.andvwhich is Ms?la6t,
•ti

122

THE DUTY

and black, and damning sin — cherishes in despite of the
groans and agonies and blood of Calvary !
'< . -,l
Should it be said, that sinners cannot repent and be
lieve the gospel, we answer, that there is no inability in
this case, except that which consists in the want of a dis
position, or heart, or will to repent and believe. It is
not a natural, but amoral inability. This distinction is
made in common life, and is all-important in preaching
the gospel. Whatever a man cannot do if he would, in
this, he is under a natural or physical inability ; but
when the only reason why he cannot do a thing, is, that
he does not choose to do it, the inability is of a moral
nature. In the former case there is no blame ; in the
latter, the greater the indisposition, or the inability if
you please, the greater the guilt. We hesitate not to
say, that if repentance and faith, or obedience to any
other divine injunction, required the exercise of physi
cal powers, whether mental : or corporeal, which the
sinner does not possess in his present state, he would be
under no obligation to repent, or believe, or obey any in
junction of that character. Had man been required to re
move the Alps, and to number the drops which compose
the ocean, as the conditions of salvation, he would have
-been under no obligations to Comply with these terms. —
All the authority of Omnipotence could not impose oren-
- force upon man an obligation to the .-performance of these
acts,r because a compliance with such terms or^aonditions,
would be impossible in the very nature of things, though
his heart were pure and holy as the heart of Gsbriel
himself. These are acts which the sinner could not do
if he would ; and here is natural inability ; and here a

OF SINNERS. 229
failure in obedience could be attended with no blame or
guilt. And so it is in every case of this description. —
A natural or physical impossibility annihilates obligation,
and precludes the existence of sin. . -----
But when commanded to repent of sin and believe the
gospel, we labour under no such difficulty as this, and
can avail ourselves of no such excuse. We have all the;
corporeal strength and all the intellectual comprehen
sion, necessary to comply with this injunction. In Short,
we have all the powers which constitute, a moral agent.
We are free to follow our own unrestrained and volun
tary choice ; and it is in the exercise of this agency,
that we refuse to repent and believe the gospel.
But it may still be said , that an inability, is an inabili
ty > and whether natural or moral, it must exempt the
sinner from obligation, and excuse him from blame.^-
Tfais remark contains a common, though a grand errour
in philosophy, as Well as religion. A moral inability,
which consists in the strength- of the disposition, wheth
er holy or unholy, never does, and cannot, interfere
with blame or praise. Indeed it is this very thing which
constitutes the deepest blame upon thei one hand, and
the highest praise upon itbe; other. ; -, Itas expressly said
of God, that he ,',' cannot be tempted with evil."' He -.
*' cannot." But why cannot God be tempted with evil 1
For this reason, and this alone — he is prevented, by his
own intrinsick and eternal holiness. It' is morally im
possible. But shall we, on this account, Say that God is
not immaculate, and deserves no song of praise ? That
he is so holy, that he "cannot be tempted with evil/'

IM THE DUT¥
constitutes the supreme excellence of his nature. The
angels in heaven, too, are under a moral inenefisity: to
love and obey God. It is their strong and constant dis
position — their unchanging moral temper to love what
God loves, and to do what he commands. They must
feel and act in this manner, unless these angels Were
converted into devils ! But shall they, on account of the
strength and uniformity uf their holy affections, forfeit
all idaim to divine and human approbation 1 Certainly
not. This is the very foundation of their angelick ex
cellence. It is just so with the saints in glory. They
are so swallowed up in God and celestial contemplations,
that they cannot sin. But does this detract; from their
character— because they are so holy, that they cannot
sin ? This is the very thing which renders them lovely
in the sight of God Kind ef all the blessed universe.
And now look at the other side of this moral picture.
We have seen, that m©ral*(Wiaibility to do-wrong — that m,
a strong and uniform disposition to feel and act correct
ly— -a disposition if you please, infitiiteiy strong, does not
rob holy beings of their merit, fc»ut is the very thing for
which tbey deserve the highest praise. Apply tite same
principle -to beings"© f an opposite character, it is' ad
mitted em all hands, that -the devils aregwen up to unin-
teffrupted and perpetual evil. Their enmity to God is •
so great, that thiey cannot 'Pbey him. -Sin is their- -con
tmued and eterna* element. Now, do these circumstan
ces take away their malignant amd devilish -character ?
Does the fact, that'they1 hate God supremely — and must
continue to hate him supremely, take away aM "the guilt
of their opposition and enmity against him ? This prin-

OF SINNEftS. 125
tuple would whiten hell into innocence !•» No, my breth
ren, this cherished and unyielding enmity against God —
this high-handed and unrelenting opposition to the throne
of heaven, is the very moral temper, that constitutes
them devils. And the more settled this temper, and the
stronger this dkpositon, the more malignant the charac
ter and the deeper the guilt. It is just so with wicked
men — with sinners in our world. They refuse to repent
and believe the -gospel, merely because they love sin and
hateGod. There is no barrier in the way except that
which is erected by a wicked heart. And shall the love
of' sin be made an excuse for a continuance in sin ? And
shall enmity against God, be presented as an apology for
disobedience to his commands, and rebellion against his
throne ? Why, my brethren, this is the very thing for
which God condemns the impenitent and the unbelieving.
Itis because their hearts are so fully set in them to "do -evil,
so determined in their opposition to holiness, that they
will not repent and believe,- that they are condemned in
this world, and will be condemned in the world to come-
And the greater this enmity and opposition, the greater
the sinner's guilt. Let him love sin so intensely, and
hate God with such malignity, that he will not, and, in
this sense, cannot repent and believe in Jesus Christ- —
and you add the last trait to an ungodly character, and
render the subject for ever without excuse.
Secbhdly. We see the true reason why divine influ
ence is necessary to the production of repentance and
faith. That repentance and faith are enjoined upon sinners^
11*

126 THE DCT*
has appeared sufficiently evident in the progress of the
present discussion. It is a point equally clear, that men
are brought to comply with sthis injunction- — that is, to
repent of sin and believe in the Lord Jesus Christ — by
the agency of the Spirit of God. The bible is full of
this sentiment. The consistency of these two declara
tions may be easily established. When sinners are call
ed upon to repent and believe the gospel, they are called
upon to do that which is enforced upon them by moral
propriety — to do that which they might perform if they
would — and which they would do if their hearts were
right with God. If the Spirit of God was given for the
purpose of removing some physical imbecility — to repair
our natural powers which had become deranged or shat
tered by the fall — or to impart some new faculties, then
the command to repent and believe, would be just and
reasonable no farther than it should be attended with a
divine influence which should actually remove every ob
stacle in the way of a sinner's return to God. In this
case, man would be under obligations to love and obey
God, when the divine Spirit should enable, or rather
capacitate him to do it.
But incapacity* is not the thing to be removed.- It is
a wicked heart that refuses to repent — it is enmity a-
gainst God, that will not be saved through the blood of
Jesus Christ. To conquer this heart, and to subdue this
enmity, is the great business of the Spirit, of God in
bringing the sinner to the knowledge of the truth. The
sole reason why divine influence is necessary in our re
covery from sin and our restoration to God, is the deep
¦and desperate wickedness of our hearts. The Spirit of

OF SINNERSv 127
God is sent to bow that stubborn will which ought to
yield to the, truth though no such influence were afford
ed ; to melt into contrition that heart which ought to be
agonized for sin from its own spontaneous emotions ; and
to lead to the arms of Jesus Christ those souls whicli
would gladly take refuge in his bosom, were they not un
der the dominion of that sinful and malignant spirit which
says — and continues to say, "We will not have this man
to reign over us." These considerations reconcile the
whole difficulties involved in the facts, that sinners ought
to repent, and beheve the gcspel-^-and are, at the same
time, inclined to exercise repentance unto life and faith
in the Lord Jesus Christ, under the influence ofthe Spirit
of God.
Thirdly. As repentance and faith are immediate du
ties, there can be nothmg acceptable to God while these
are neglected.
These exercises are essential to the religion of a sin-
aer. They are interwoven with the whole gospel
scheme. Without them, man is the enemy of God, and
" dead in trespasses and sins." Jn the heart of the im
penitent sinner, there is not one particle of that " holi
ness without which no man shall see the Lord" — and
"he that beheveth not is condemned already" — and
" the wrath of God abideth on him." Let the external
conduct be what it may— the impenitent and unbelieving
sinner is the enemy of God. His deportment and feel
ings may be modified, by a thousand circumstances — but
through all the changing scenes of life and death, unless
he repent and embrace the gospel, he sustains the same

l£8 THE DUTY
essential character in the sight of God. He can possess
nothing good till his heart melts into repentance', and
closes in with the offered grace. Hence the uniform di
rections of the bible to sinners — "Repeat yej and be
lieve the gospel." They are never set about any other
work. If they refuse to repent and believe, they are
not told, that they may use the means of grace as a sub
stitute, but are faithfully warned, that they must " per
ish" — that they must "be damned.*' And on this
point, the minister of the gospel has no authority to
make a compromise. He must press repentance and
faith upon the conscience, as they are pressed upon sin
ners in the gospel. Nothing can come before these as a
duty. Even the best external acts, where these are want
ing, are an abomination in the sight of God. Here he
must nail the sinner down. He must make these arrows
sharp in the hearts of God's enemies. He must give
them no quarters. If the awakened sinner resort to the
common plea, that he cannot repent and believe, he must
drive him from this refuge of lies, by faithfully testifying,
that enmity against God is the only reason why he does
not and cannot comply with these conditions. And while
this enmity is cherished,* no other directions could be of
any avail. Such a heart canhe pierced by nothing short
of repentance, and melted down by nothing but the blood
of Jesus Christ. This the minister of the gospel must
press, and this the sinner who hears the gospel, must
feel. Should he lower down the requirements of the
bible to suit the disposition, or to accommodate the taste
of the impenitent and unbelieving — he does it at his peril.
Should he direct' the awakened or convicted sinner to
the reading of the bible, to the instructions of the sane-

OF SINNERS. 129
tuary, to prayer, or to the performance of any other ex
ternal services, with the permission or implication, that
he may attend upon them with just such a heart as he
now has — that is, under the dominion of impenitence
and unbelief, with the expectation that God will bless
him in the use of means — he may, perhaps, by this
course, quiet his conscience, and flatter him into a good
opinion of himself. He may, in this manner, patch up
a righteousness with which he will invest his polluted
soul — but it will be no better than an apron of fig-leaves.
There is little prospect, that such instructions will drive
him from self-dependance, or lead him to Christ, or
guide him to heaven. This whole system of directions
is bottomed in fundamental and destructive errour. It is
true, that the sinner must read his bible — but if he would
please God, he must not read it with an impenitent heart ;
he must pray — but not with his soul chilled to the very
centre by unbelief ; he must go to the sanctuary — but
not in league with sin, and in hostility with heaven. He
must repent and believe — and thus read the bible ; he
must repent and believe — and thus pray ; he must re
pent and believe — and thus go to the sanctuary ; and he
is bound, in the spirit of penitence and faith, to attend
upon all the appointed means of grace. Till this is
done, God is not, and cannot be obeyed. He that thus
repents and believes, " shall be saved" with an ever
lasting salvation. Amen and Amen.

YALfc UNlVtHUII T Liunn

3 9002 01409 5856