SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY/" RALPH WARDLAW, D.D, v, <*- EDITED BY JAMES II CAMPBELL, M.A. VOL. IT. EDINBURGH : ADAM AND CHARLES BLACK Y MDCCCLVII. ft* KDINItURGH : PRINTED BY R. AND R. n.ARK. CONTENTS. Page I. THE TRINITY ,QHERSONS IN THE GODHEAD. Necessity for Reverential Caution .... 1 Enquiry must be kept within the limits of the Sacred Record 2 The Doctrine of the Trinity stated Swift Venn . . 3 The Thirty-nine Articles The Confession of Faith Dr. Dick Dwight ...... 6 Pictet Calvin . . 7 The Fact, not the Mode, revealed . 7 The Term " Person " ..... 8 What is above Reason cannot be proved to be contrary to Reason ....... 9 The Existence of the Fact intelligible . . . 10 " Person" different as applied to Men and to God . . 11 Hypostasis and Persona . . . . .12 Plurality and Trinity identical .... 13 Theories of the Personality of Godhead ... 15 Futile Attempts to describe it . . .17 Imperfect Analogies , .18 Kid's attempted Demonstration of the Trinity 20 II. TRINITY OF PERSONS IN THE GODHEAD. Communication of Personality involves a Contradiction . 22 Eternal Generation and Procession humanly-devised Mys- teries ....... 22 We must not make Mysteries .... 24 The Order of Nature and the Order of Time . 25. Eternal Existence and Self-existence . . . 26 Inferiority and Superiority among the Divine Persons inad- missible ....... 28 An immanent Act of Generation .... 28 Distinction between the Son in the Essence of Deity, and as a Person of the Godhead . . . .29 The Meaning of the Designation, "The Son of God" . 31 IV CONTENTS. III. THE SONSHIP OF JESUS CHRIST. Page 1. Passages on which the Doctrine of the Eternal Genera- tion of the Son rests Ps. ii. 7-12 . . .35 Prov. viii. 22-31 Of a Divine Attribute, not a Divine Person 36 Prov. xxx. 4 No reference to the Messiah . . 37 2. Passages which are thought to imply Sonship previous to Incarnation ...... 42 Use by the Sacred Writers of various Designations of Christ 44 IV. THE SONSHIP OF CHRIST, AND THE PROCESSION OF THE SPIIUT. Meaning of the Title, "Son of God" . .47 Jesus never denominated " Eternal Son," or " Eternally begotten" ...... 47 Son of God includes Supreme Divinity ... 48 The Incarnation of Jesus ..... 49 On this account called the Son of God ... 50 Also on account of His Resurrection ... 51 As an Heir His Inheritance obtained ... 52 Heb. v. 5-10 ; 1 John iv. 15 ; v. 1 The Procession of the Holy Spirit ...... 54 The amazingly slight Grounds on which this Tenet rests . 55 John xv. 26 The main support of it It declares the Spirit to be sent by the Father, as was the Son . . 56 l^sg^o/ia/ exwogivoftai ..... 57 Recapitulation .... .59 V. THE DECREES OF GOD CREATION PRIMEVAL CONDITION OF MAN. Intelligence works according to a Plan . . . 61 Divine Decrees include the entire Administration of God . 62 All is the Result of previous Purpose ... 63 Order of Nature and of Time .... 63 Divine Knowledge, Intuition .... 64 Future Discussion of the Decrees of God ... 64 Creation is beyond our Conception . . .65 In Six Days ...... 65 Geological Speculations ..... 66 Their relation to the Mosaic History ... 68 Reference to the Sabbatical Rest .... 69 Division of Time into Weeks .... 70 Man, the Last Work Man in Innocence . . . 71 The Image of God ...... 72 Man's Obedience tested . . . . .74 The Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil . . . 75 Was Man placed under a Law, or a Covenant ? . .77 The Nature of the Test of Adam's Allegiance . . 81 It was appropriate, precise, suited to his condition, etc. . 82 The Temptation and Fall ..... 83 The Serpent . 84 CONTENTS. V Page Vain Conjectures . . 86 The Nature and Subtilty of the Temptation . 87 The real Temptation was the Promised Knowlegde . 90 Adam was not deceived ..... 91 God was not the Tempter . ... 91 Immediate Effects of the Sin .... 92 VI. THE ORIGIN OF EVIL THEORY OF DR. EDWARD WILLIAMS. God records the Facts of the Entrance of Sin into our World 93 Passing reference to the Angels .... 94 Origin of Evil in the Universe .... 95 Liability to Partiality in our Speculations ... 96 Dr. Williams's Confidence in his Theory ... 97 His Pious Aim ...... 98 Quotations from his Essay .... 99 Defectibility of the Creature morally considered . . 104 Defectibility has no Moral Quality, yet it results in Moral Evil 105 The Effect contains more than the Cause . . .106 Defectibility and Necessity of Defection . . . 107 Man not Accountable ; for Continuance in Holiness im- possible ....... 109 Man the Subject of Natural Inability . . .110 The Insufficiency of this Theory . . . .111 Mr. Gilbert's Exposition and Vindication of it . . 112 impossibility of Standing or of Failure destroys the Idea of Trial ....... 113 Tendency to Defection not Sinful, yet necessarily Productive of Sin . . . . . .115 The Difficulties not Removed by this Theory . . 117 The Mystery of the Origin of Evil remains as before . 118 VII. ON ORIGINAL SIN. _ The Doctrine in Scripture The Phrase not found in Scrip- ture . . . .119 Original Guilt Original Corruption . .119 Original Corruption Rom. v. 12, 21 . . . 120 The Inheritance of a Depraved Nature from Adam . 121 Fact and Theory . . . . . .122 Identity of Religion and Morality .... 123 The Evidence from Scripture Rom. viiL 7. . . 124 A Rooted Aversion to the Character of the True God . 128 John iii. 6 . . . . . . ." 129 Spiritual Birth out of a natural (corrupt) State . . 130 Gen. v. 3 . ... 133 Gen. viii. 21 ... . 134 Passages asserting the Universality of Human Sinfulness . 135 Passages affirming the Necessity of Regeneration . 139 Passages declaring the Necessity of Justification by Faith, of Doubtful Application ... .141 VI CONTENTS. Page Proof from History . . .142 Knowledge of God originally possessed, universally lost . 143 The Jews abandoned Jehovah for Idols . . . 144 Proof from the Corruptions of Christianity . . . 145 Facts of Modern History confirm this Proof . . 146 Proof from Consciousness ..... 147 Aversion to God's Character shown in the prevailing Modifi- cations of His Attributes .... 148 Tests applied to our Consciousness . . . 151 Neglect of Intercourse with God . . . .152 Omission of Reference to God in our Estimate of Human Character ...... 153 Prevailing Favourable Regard to Ungodly Character . 155 Prevailing Sentiments respecting Happiness . . 157 Evil Effects of Prosperity . . . . .158 Indifference to the Divine Hoiour .... 159 Absence of Loyal Discourse respecting God . . 161 Indifference to the Divine Favour or Displeasure . . 163 Disregard to God's Authority . . . .164 The Reception with which the Gospel meets in the World 167 Appeal to Testimony ..... 170 The Use of this Doctrine in Preaching . . .172 VIII. ON ORIGINAL SIN. How is this Universal Sinfulness to be accounted for ? . 174 The Divine Character and Administration must not be Impeached . . . . . .175 Communication of Moral Qualities by Generation . 176 Universal Sinfulness not Accounted for from the Influence of Example ...... 177 Nor by the Simple Freedom of the Human Will . . 179 Nor by the Influence of Natural Appetites and Passions overbearing the Mind, before it is fully developed . 180 Only by a natural, inherent, universal Tendency to Evil . 181 Pictet, Edwards, Woods, Dwight, Ridgley, Stuart, Dick, Payne quoted . . . . . .182 Objection taken to Edwards's Reasoning . . . 187 In what does this Inherent Tendency consist ? . . 190 Whether this Tendency be Sin or not is a Question of Terminology ...... 191 Definitions of Sin ...... 194 The Privative Character of Original Sin Edwards's View 196 Dr. Payne of the Same Opinion .... 199 IX. ON ORIGINAL SIN. Edwards's and Payne's Theory asserts that nothing in Man's Nature is in itself Sinful . . 202 That Depravity arises from the Withdrawment of the Holy Spirit ... . 204 CONTENTS. vii Page The parental and Federal Relation of Adam . . 207 The only test of the Federal Engagement was the eating of the Fruit ....... 208 Dr. Payne alleges that Adam was supernaturally preserved from Disobedience except in this Point . . . 209 Adamic Constitution considered as a Covenant of Grace . 211 Chartered Blessings . . . . . .212 Adam before the Fall virtually in the Condition of his Posterity after the Fall . . . . .214 If capable of standing before the Fall, why not after it? . 215 Inconsistency of Dr. Payne's Representations . . 215 Difficulties attaching to his Theory . . . 216 We know little of Man's Original Righteousness and Pro- bation, and also of the transmission of Mental Qualities 223 Extremely in the dark respecting Transmission of Mental Qualities by Generation ..... 225 Great Difficulties of the entire Question . . . 225 X. ON THE CONNECTION OF ADAM'S POSTERITY WITH THE GUILT OP HIS SIN. Adam did stand for his Posterity .... 233 The Threatening and Sentence of equal Comprehensiveness 234 Argument from the Suffering and Death of Infanta . 237 Parallel between Adam and Christ .... 239 This Doctrine rests on Scripture and Fact . . . 240 The Death of Infants attests the Connection . . 241 Human Procedure affords Analogy . . . 242 Advantages to Adam's Posterity of this Federal Probation overlooked . . . . . .243 Analogy of other parts of God's Procedure . . . 244 The Propriety of enforcing Men's Personal Guiltiness . 245 XI. THE CONNECTION OF ADAM'S POSTERITY WITH THE GUILT OF HIS SIN. The Curse included Death, Temporal, Spiritual, and Eternal 247 Spiritual Death not synonymous with Sin itself . . 248 Spiritual Death virtually inflicted .... 249 Dreadful to Holy Beings ..... 250 Temporal Death the Effect of Sin . . . .251 Difficulties and Contradictions of those who hold that Temporal Death was all the Curse . . . 252 The Execution of the Penalty taken as a Measure of its Original Extent ...... 255 Sentence of Death after the Fall accompanied with Mercy 257 Redemption in Christ could not be merely Redemption from Temporal Death . . .258 Vlll CONTENTS. Page Eternal Death the chief Part of the Curse and of the Threatening ...... 260 Eternal Death susceptible of Degrees . . . 261 God's judicial Visitations extend beyond the actual Trans- gressors ....... 262 Extent to which this Principle may be applied to Adam and his Posterity ...... 263 Imaginary Cases ...... 265 Men appropriate the Original Apostacy and make it their own 266 How soon Moral Responsibility Begins . . . 267 Infants included both in the Fall-and the Eedemption . 268 Actual Sinfulness of every Man the Chief Matter of Concern 269 XII. THE CONNECTION OF ADAM'S POSTERITY WITH THE GUILT OF HIS SIN. There is a Parallel between Adam's Sin and Christ's Obedience as Public Representatives . . . 271 The parallel is not that all die, and all rise . . .272 This not a Benefit to all And not sufficient as the Result of Christ's Mediation ..... 273 The Apostle's Reasoning 1 Cor. xv. . . . 274 The Passage (Romans v.) will not admit of this Inter- pretation ...... 275 " The Many," and " All Men," how to be interpreted . 276 All Men without Distinction . . . .277 Universal Atonement Limited Efficacy . . . 280 Christ's Righteousness, Passive and Active . . 281 XIII. THE CONNECTION OF ADAM'S POSTERITY WITH THE GUILT OF HIS SIN. Contrast between Adam and Christ . . . 283 Condemnation by Justice Righteousness by Grace . 283 Superior Dignity of the Second Adam . . . 284 Superabundance of Blessing over Evil . . . 286 The Glory and Blessedness of the Life obtained above the Life that is lost . . . . . . 288 Features of its Superiority to Man's Original Life . . 289 Mercy abounding through Sin .... 291 The Reigns of Sin and Grace .... 292 Grace Reigns through Righteousness . . .293 Practical Use of this Doctrine .... 294 XIV. ON THE MEDIATORIAL OFFICES OF CHRIST. Need of Mediation ..... 296 Moses and Jesus . . . 297 Christ as a Prophet ... . 298 His Public Character and Consecration . 299 CONTENTS. IX His Anointing ...... 300 Various Titles expressing this Office . . . 301 He preached in Person ..... 302 He imparted Gifts to his Apostles .... 303 The Dispenser of Spiritual Gifts from the Beginning . 304 He dispenses the Spirit on the Ground of His Atonement . 305 XV. ON THE PRIESTLY OFFICE OF CHRIST. Sacrifice and Priesthood from the Beginning . . 307 Aaronic Priesthood ..... 308 Sacrifice, Intercession, Benediction . . . 309 Contrast and Agreement of the Type and anti-Type . 310 XVI. ON THE PRIESTHOOD OF MELCHIZEDEK. Narrative in Genesis . . . . .315 Different Hypotheses . . . . .316 Hypothesis that He is the Son of God Glas Morison . 317 Emendation proposed of the Passage Heb. vii. 3 . . 318 Objections to Melchizedek being Christ . . .321 Reasonings in support of this Hypothesis . . 322 The Key to the True Interpretation . . . 326 Official Position more than Personal . . . 327 "HeLiveth," Of whom Prophecy spoke Ps. ex. . 330 Made like unto the Son of God 331 XVII. ON ATONEMENT AND SACRIFICE. Atonement, Reconciliation ..... 332 Various Uses of the Term, and its Cognates . . 333 Propitiation Expiation ..... 334 Pervading Harmony of Scripture on the Subject . . 335 The Law and the Prophets ..... 336 John the Baptist ...... 337 Our Lord and His Apostles ..... 338 Propitiation is the Harmony of Two Dispensations . 339 Animal Sacrifices Propitiatory .... 340 Abel and Cain's Offering . . . . .341 Animal Sacrifice a Divine Institution . . . 342 Sacrifices, embodying Atonement, are the Key to the Divine Revelation ...... 343 Language of the New Testament represented as mere Figure and Accommodation .... 344 How mean Animal Sacrifices arc if appointed on their own Account ....... 345 How inexplicable the Language of Scripture on any other Idea than Atonement . 316 : CONTENTS. XVIII. ON DR. JOHN TAYLOR'S SCHEME OF ATONEMENT. Page Extracts from the Key, etc. .... 349 All Language expressive of Propitiation resolved into Figure 351 Old and New Testament throw no Light on each other . 352 Acceptance of Christ's Sacrifice, the Basis of other (Figura- tive) Sacrifices ...... 353 He turns the Work of Christ into a Figure . . 354 Goodness of Character, the Offering . . . 355 This inverts the true Order of Things . . . 356 Is virtually Socinian ..... 357 XIX. ON THE TRUE NATURE OF ATONEMENT. Substitution Enduring for Others that they may go Free 358 Confused Notions of Substitution .... 359 Substitution, the Doctrine of the Bible . . . 360 The Relation of the Parties . . . .361 God is Benevolent and Just Not all Benevolence . 362 The Primary Aim of Substitution is Justification . . 363 God's Righteous Character and Righteous Claims . . 365 Substitution is the Fruit, not the Cause of Love in God . 366 Righteousness Declared ..... 367 Different Kinds of Justice Commutative Justice . . 368 Distributive Justice ..... 370 Public Justice . ... 371 The Ends of Public Justice . . . .372 XX. ON OBJECTIONS TO THE DOCTRINE OF ATONEMENT. Objected that Atonement is a Useless Incumbrance . 372 God chooses the Best Method .... 373 Atonement is indispensable .... 376 Repentance of itself insufficient .... 378 Divine and Human Estimate of Sin . . . 381 Repentance and Remorse ..... 383 Objected that Substitution is Essential Injustice . . 386 Unsatisfactory Mode of meeting this Objection . . 387 The Innocent do suffer ... . 389 Can this be explained ..... 390 Christ's Substitution was Voluntary . . .391 Ends of Justice are answered by Substitution . . 392 The Substitute is compensated .... 395 XXI. ON OBJECTIONS TO THE DOCTRINE OF ATONEMENT. Objected that Atonement is inconsistent with Grace . 398 Apostles never felt this Inconsistency . . . 398 On the Principles of Commutative Justice the Objection might stand ... .399 CONTENTS. XI Page All is Grace to the Sinner ..... 401 Objected that Atonement represents the Divine Being as unamiable ...... 403 The Scriptures magnify this Atonement as expressing In- finite Benevolence ...... 404 God hates Men's Sins, not Men themselves . . 405 Objected that Atonement represents God as Mutable . 406 Atonement the Highest Proof of the Contrary . . 407 Reconciliation of Men and God .... 408 Is Atonement Unique and Unparalleled in the Universe . 409 XXII. ON THE CONNECTION OF THE DIVINITY OP CHRIST AND ATONEMENT. Socinians deny, Arians allow, Atonement . . . 412 Did the Atonement of Christ derive its sole Efficacy from Divine Appointment ? . . . . . 413 Butler's Opinion . . . . . .414 Whitby Macknight Magee .... 417 Summary of Objections to this Notion . . . 418 It is a serious Impeachment of God's Perfection . . 419 No Creature could make Atonement . . . 420 The Honour of the Infinite Jehovah required fit Propitiation 421 This notion lessens the Impression of the evil of Sin of the Glory of the Saviour ..... 422 Destroys the Practical Influence of the Gospel . . 423 The Divinity and Atonement of Christ correlates . . 423 XXIII. ON THE ARMINIAN ATONEMENT. CONTROL EXTENT OF THE Notice of this Controversy ..... 425 The Five Points ...... 427 Caution in discussing such Profound Questions . . 428 Connection of the Points with each other . . .429 Commence with the Second proceeding from Facts to Pur- poses ....... 430 Arminian Doctrine on the Extent of the Atonement . 431 Leaves it dependent on Man's Will whether any shall be saved 43 1 This is unworthy of the Benevolence and Wisdom of God . 432 Conversion is of God's Purpose .... 433 Is His Will subjected to that of His Creatures ? . . 433 The Self-determining Power of the Will . . .434 The freedom of a Depraved Nature will reject Salvation . 436 Gospel must humble and exclude Boasting . . 437 XXIV. ON THE CALVINISTIC VIEWS OF THE EXTENT OF THE ATONEMENT. 1 'articular Redemption Was the Atonement restricted or universal ? 438 '('XTENTS. Three Modifications of Calvinism .... 439 Hyper-Calvinism Equivalentism takes from the worth of Christ's Sacrifice ..... 440 Obscures the Glory of God in Redemption . . 441 Renders Salvation of the Non-elect a Natural Impossibility 442 Restrains universal Invitations of the Gospel . . 442 Overlooks all but the Sinner's deserving . . 443 Orthodox Calvinism a Definite Atonement . . 444 Moderate Calvinism a General Remedy with a Particular Application ...... 445 Definite Atonement involves Limited Sufficiency . 446 Dr. Symington's Representation of a Definite Atonement reviewed ....... 448 Atonement made for Sin ..... 454 Moderate Calvinistic View most free of Difficulties . 456 XXV. ON THE EXTENT OF THE ATONEMENT. Various Classes of Passages .... 459 Must not be reconciled by restrictive Interpolations . 460 This is unnatural, and makes the Inspired Writers incon- sistent with themselves ..... 461 The Twofold Character of God, as Moral Ruler and Sove- reign Benefactor ..... 465 The Rectoral Design of God Our Lord's Words to Nico- demus ....... 466 Other Principles of Reconciliation Salvation for all, without Exception and without Distinction . . . 468 Distinction between Jews and Gentiles . . . 469 Different Principles apply to different Passages . . 471 These Principles applied ..... 472 XXVI. ON THE EXTENT OF THE ATONEMENT. 1 Tim. iv. 10 God the Preserver of all Titus ii. 11, 12 Saviour of all Men without Difference 2 Peter iii. 9 God's Will as Moral Governor Passages speaking of those perishing for whom Christ died Men spoken of according to their Profession and Appearance Things spoken of according to their Tendencies Salvation dependent in part on the Use of Means Watchfulness ...... 2 Peter ii. 1 Credibility of the Original Profession Fair and Natural Interpretation of Scripture XXVII. ON ELECTION. Caution in Inquiry Rom. ix. Is the Distinction National or Personal Persona], judging from the Context Choice of Isaac before Ishmacl 476 477 478 479 479 480 481 482 483 485 486 487 488 CONTENTS. xlii Page Choice of Jacob before Esau .... 489 The; Objection Is there Unrighteousness with God? . 494 God's Treatment of Pharaoh .... 498 Pharaoh had opportunity of hardening himself . . 499 God hardens the Hard Heart .... 500 Leaves it to its own Hardness .... 500 God is represented as doing to Men what he leaves them to bring on themselves ..... 501 The Objection " Who hath resisted His will " . . 502 " Who art thou that repliest," etc., is addressed to the Objec- tor as a Man and Sinner ..... 504 The Potter and the Clay ..... 505 Vessels of Wrath ...... 508 Fitted to Destruction ..... 509 Vessels of Mercy . . . . . .511 God's Enduring with much Long-suffering . . 511 God's supposed Design toward the Two Parties . . 512 God's Equity toward them declared . . . 513 God's Mercy toward Vessels of Mercy commended . 514 XXVIII. ON ELECTION. Election Supported on more General Grounds . . 516 What is Election . . . . . .516 Sovereignty is not acting without Reason, but without Reasons given . . . . . .517 Sovereign Predestination only to Life . . . 518 Occasion given by some Calvinists for attributing to them Sovereign Predestination to Damnation . . . 520 Predestination to Damnation is solely on the Ground of Justice . . . . . . .519 Supralapsarianism and Sublapsarianism . . .521 Scripture Passages in support of Election . . . 523 God acts by Purpose and effects His Purpose . . 523 Election in Harmony with the Doctrine of Human Depravity 524 Gives Security of Saving Results from the Saviour's Work 526 XXIX. ON ELECTION. Personal, not National Election, is meant in the Scriptures quoted ....... 530 Election of Nations does not disprove Election of Individuals 531 Election of Nations is open to the Difficulties against Per- sonal Election ...... 532 Scriptures cannot be interpreted fairly as meaning National Election ....... 533 Election on the Ground of Foreseen Holiness not Election at all ... . . 534 Alleged Grounds of Election are the Results of Election the Salvation to which Men are chosen . . . 536 Implies that Salvation is on the Ground of Personal Holiness 537 XIV CONTENTS. Page Objections from the Alleged Tendency of the Doctrine of Election that it Discourages Human Effort . . 539 God's Purposes are His Rule, not ours . . . 540 The Objection would apply to every Department of Action equally with Religious ..... 541 We cannot penetrate into all the Divine Counsels in other Matters, why in this ..... 543 Preachers have nothing to do with this Doctrine in declaring the Gospel to Sinners ..... 545 Conceive the Effects of God's Secret Purposes being made known ....... 546 The Objection that this Doctrine makes some careless and others desperate ..... 548 Man's Freedom and Obligations are not interfered with . 549 XXX. ON THE PERSEVERANCE OF THE SAINTS. A Necessary Sequence from Election . . . 550 Promises assuring Grace to the end . . . 551 Expressions of Confidence as to the certainty of Final Salvation ..... 553 Direct Affirmations that the Elect shall obtain Eternal Life . 555 Passages descriptive of Professors not really Believers . 557 XXXI. ON THE PERSEVERANCE OF THE SAINTS. Passages on the other side containing Threatenings against 560 Impossibility to renew to Repentance . . . 561 The only Impossibility Exhaustion of Means . . 562 Obscurity of some of the Expressions in these Passages . 566 Profession credible for a time, then violated . . 567 Actual Instances of Apostasy .... 569 Demas and Judas ...... 570 Objection to the Doctrine that it supersedes the use of Means 571 That it encourages Presumption .... 572 Harmony of this Doctrine with the Genius of the Gospel . 575 Rule as to Preaching on these Points . . 576 John x. 27, 30 . . . . . . 577 XXXII. ON THE LOCALITY AND OCCUPATIONS OF THE SOUL OF CHRIST BETWEEN HlS DEATH AND HlS EESURRECTION. Recapitulation of previous Parts of the Course . . 579 " He Descended into Hell "History of the Clause . 580 Interpretation of the Articles . . .581 He entered the Invisible World .... 583 Bishop Horsley's Hypothesis . . . 585 Passages which he did not discuss 2 Cor. v. 6, 8 ; Phil. i. 23 ; Acts vii. 59 ; Luke xvi. 22, 23. 586 CONTENTS. XV Page XXXIII. ON THK LOCALITY AND OCCUPATIONS OF THE SOUL OF CHRIST BETWEEN HlS DEATH AND RESURRECTION. Luke xxiii. 43 Horsley's Argument from it . . 591 John xx. 17 Detain me not .... 592 The Verb has a reference to the Future . . . 593 Paradise symbolic of Heaven .... 594 Hades or Sheol ...... 595 Meaning of Hades in New Testament easily ascertainable 597 Matt. xi. 23 ; Luke x. 15 ; Luke xvi. 23 ; Matt. xvi. 18 ; Rev. i. 18; Eev. xx. 13, 14; 1 Cor. xv. 55; Rev. vi. 8 . 598 A temporary Receptacle for departed Souls Bishop Horsley ....... 600 Ps. xvi. 10 Nephesh and Psyche .... 601 1 Peter iii. 18-20 ... 602 Bishop Horsley's Theory examined .... 603 Difficulties pressing on his Interpretation . . . 606 Concluding Remarks .... 609 XXXIV. ON THE RESURRECTION OF CHRIST. The Time of the Resurrection . . . .611 Three Days and Three Nights .... 612 Predictions verified by the Time . . . .613 The Importance of the Resurrection . . . 615 The Nature of the Body in which our Lord rose . . 617 Bishop Horsley's Hypothesis untenable . . . 618 XXXV. ON THE ASCENSION, GLORY, INTERCESSION, AND REIGN OF CHRIST, ETC. Design of our Lord's Appearances after His Resurrection . 621 His Ascension ...... 622 Change on His ascending Body .... 623 Prophetic Intimation of His Ascension . . . 624 Heaven and the Right Hand of God . . . 625 The Place of highest Honour . . . 627 The Place of Rest 628 XXXVI. ON THE INTERCESSION AND REIGN OF CHRIST. Occupation of Jesus in Heaven .... 630 The Prophet and Teacher of His Church . . 631 His Priestly Office continued . . . 632 Intercession without Words .... 634 Unitarian Gloss ...... 635 Only one Intercessor The Saints have no such Function . 637 XVI CONTENTS. Page XXX\ 7 II. Ox THE REIGN OF CHRIST. Jesus a King ...... 640 The Commencement of His Reign .... 641 Millcnarian Hypothesis ..... 642 Passages determine that His Kingdom commenced with His Ascension ....... 643 Literal Interpretation The Apostles Interpreters . . 646 A Delegated Reign ...... 647 The Reward of His Atoning Work .... 648 The End of His Reign is the Salvation of the Redeemed . 649 Power for the Accomplishment of these Ends , . . 652 J XXXVIII. Ox THE REIGN OF CHRIST Progress of Christ's Kingdom gradual . . . 655 Mustard-Seed Leaven .... 656 Its Past Progress . .... 657 Its anticipated Progress ..... 660 The End of Christ's Reign His Everlasting Kingdom The Power He shall surrender .... 663 Subjection of the Mediator ..... 668 Continues to be the Head of His Church . . . 670 Judgment the Final Act of His Mediation . . .671 Securities of the Progress, and Happy Issue of His Reign . 672 Fidelity to His Promises ..... 673 God's Honour pledged to the Result . . . 674 Previous Fulfilment a Security .... 675 The Qualifications of the King . . .676 XXXIX. THE BENEFITS ARISING FROM CHRIST'S MEDIATION JUSTI- FICATION. Justification the Essence of Christian Doctrine . . 678 The Nature of Justification . . . . 679 The term Justify means to declare Righteous . . 679 Also to Forgive and Acquit .... 680 Does it include Pardon only ? . . . .681 Unnecessary Division of the Parts of our Lord's Work . 686 Does it embrace all Sins, Past, Present, and Future ? . 687 When is the Sentence of Justification passed ? . . 690 Is it when the Sinners Mind is persuaded of His Righte- ousness ....... 692 Justification is Distinct from Sanctification 693 XL. ON THE GROUND OF JUSTIFICATION. On the Ground of Grace or Works .... 695 Paul's Testimony. Rom. iii. 20 . . . 696 The Doctrine of Justification by Grace flatly contradicted . 697 Works and Grace compounded by others . . . 698 CONTENTS. XVil Romish Doctrine of Merit ..... O'j'.t Works of Supererogation ..... 700 The Works Excluded are alleged to be Ceremonial . 701 The Law is Relaxed and Modified, say others . . 704 Some allege Merit in Faith itself .... 70.'> The Work, the whole Work of Christ, is the Meritorious procuring Cause of Justification . . . 70<> Christ made Sin for us . . . . 7o7 Imputation of Righteousness .... 70S XLI. ON THE MEDIUM OF JUSTIFICATION. The Condition or Pre-requisite is Faith . . . 711 Unnecessary Discussions on this Subject . . . 712 The Simplicity of the Bible Testimony gives Offence . 713 Faith is the Belief of Testimony . . . .715 Revelation is to be understood in the Ordinary Acceptation of its Terms . . . . . .717 No difficulty felt by the Hearers of Christ and his Apostles as to Faith . . . . . .718 The Alleged Definition, Hcb. xi. 1 . . .719 The Simple Term should Explain the Figurative Term for the same Thing . . . . . .720 Is Fiducial Reliance included in Faith . . .721 Faith is the Effect of Confidence in Persons Confidence is the Effect of Faith in Testimony . . 723 Believing Believing in Believing on . . 724 Faith as a Condition Justification not Arbitrary . . 725 Harmony of Faith -with Grace .... 720 Faith the Medium of Sanctification . . . 727 XLII. ON SAVING FAITH. God's design is to exclude Presumption and Self-dependence 728 Faith cannot possess Merit ..... 729 Yet Faith is imputed for Righteousness . . . 730 God would preclude Despair on the Sinner . . . 732 Confused views of the Medium of Justification . . 7;{:; Sandeman's error of Temper in treuting snch Views . 7;J4 The Simplicity of Scripture contrasts with these confused Views ....... 73." The sentiment that Faith is Simple Belief, unwarrantably objected against ...... 7:?C, Absurdities often Propounded on such Subjects . . 737 The Allegation that what we believe becomes true by our believing it . . . . .73s To believe that we are justified is not Saving Faith . 7:;v To believe that Christ is mine is not the Belief of the Faith- ful Saying . . . . . . 74d Assurance of our Salvation docs not (.'liter essentially into Faith . 741 XVlll CONTENTS. Pa.se The Evidence of our Faith is in proportion to our Faith . 743 Faith is susceptible of degrees .... 744 Many True Believers do not seem to enjoy Assurance . 745 Belief of God's Testimony viewed as Saving Faith . . 74l! Stigmatized as Historical Faith, Faith of the Understand- ing Human Faith ... 747 XI ,111. ON SAVING FAITH. Simple Belief is said to be no more than the Faith of Devils 751 Profession of Faith Where there is none the Apostle reproves ....... 752 How far do our Affections enter into Faith . . . 753 The Faith which does not save Devils may save Men . 756 This view defended ...... 758 Speculative Faith ...... 761 The Purpose for which the Faith of Devils is introduced by the Apostle ...... 763 XLIY. ON THE CONNECTION OF JUSTIFICATION WITH KNOWLEDGE. This Connection exists ..... 766 Knowledge of the Gospel as it is . . . 767 The Natural Man receiveth not the things of the Spirit, etc. 768 Influence of the Holy Spirit necessary to produce a Spiritual Taste . . ." . . T69 Sandeman's Language too severely treated . . . 770 XLV. ON THE DUTY OF THE UNCONVERTED TO BELIEVE THE GOSPEL. Faith is a Duty It is called and has the Force of a Law . 776 Invitations of the Gospel imply this . . . 778 Faith is enjoined and is counted Obedience . . 779 Unbelief is Sin . . . . . . 779 Kesponsibility has, as its Basis, Capacity, and Opportunity of Believing, and sufficient Evidence of Truth . . 780 Inability is want of Disposition .... 781 Dispositions control the Understanding . . . 782 SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY. I. THE TRINITY OF PERSONS IN THE GODHEAD. IN all our discussions relative to the nature of the infinite God, there is special need for the exercise of reverential caution, and for the careful exclusion of the lightness, and precipitancy, and arrogance of speculation. The admonition of Jehovah to Moses must never, in our approaches to such subjects, be absent from our minds " Put off thy shoes from off thy feet, for the place whereon thou standest is holy ground ;" l and the feeling of Moses should be ours ; he was " afraid to look upon God." Whatever may be the conclusion to which we come respecting the extent to which the light of nature is sufficient to conduct us on the subject of the Divine Perfections, and more especially of the Divine Unity, it must be evident that we are quite beyond the limits of this light, when we enter on the point which comes next before us, the doctrine of the Trinity. Here we have one light, and one only the light of revelation. Our sole inquiry must be : "What saith the Scripture?" The oracle of nature is here dumb. Of that revelation I now assume the divine authority ; and the consequent duty and necessity of bowing implicitly to all its dictates. In entering on this subject, it is of first-rate consequence for us to come to some definite understanding as to what is the real nature and extent of the information conveyed to us respecting it in the inspired volume ; and then to keep ourselves 1 Exod. iii. 5. VOL. II. B 2 TUIN1TY OF PERSONS with determined resolution within the limits of the record. We may be challenged by the adversaries of the doctrine to over- step these sacred boundaries ; and we may feel ourselves strongly tempted to comply with the challenge, to come out beyond the lines of our entrenchment. But if we are wise we shall beware. Let us be firm to our purpose ; " tenaces propositi." When the adversaries of Trinitarianism insist, as they ever have done and ever will do, for explanations of what is admitted to be inexplicable, and for definitions of what the Bible has not defined ; and when more serious invitations fail, have recourse to the most trying of all provocatives, the darts of ridicule, and banter, and sarcasm, galling our tempers when they cannot shake our judgments, let us still keep our ground ; let us follow the counsel of Hezekiah to the besieged inhabitants of Jerusalem, when fretted by the irritating taunts of Rabshakeh "Answer him not." 1 If we 'venture forth, we are sure of exposing ourselves to a trouble- some and dangerous fire. This may sound like timid and cowardly counsel ; and that is the very thing they will cast in our teeth, knowing as they do the touchiness of our proud natures on all charges against our courage. But no matter. Timidity here is but another term for a wise self-distrust, in a case where everything of the nature of valorous and boastful self-sufficiency is the extreme of folly. We never can venture to explain on such subjects, further than the testimony of the Bible warrants, without the risk and the certainty of "darken- ing counsel by words without knowledge." 3 On the contrary, when, with a becomingly modest diffidence, we keep within the boundaries of the Divine Record, we at once act the part which best befits created intelligences on all such subjects, and, at the same time, a part which will ever be fretting and annoying to the adversary ; because he is not, in this way, furnished (as he always is, and cannot fail to be, when we attempt, in such a case, to carry the lamp of reason beyond the precincts of revelation) with grounds sufficiently palpable and 1 2 Kings xviii. 36. 2 Job xxxviii. 2. IN THE GODHEAD. 3 gross to enable him to shock and horrify the minds of his readers or hearers, l>y burlesque and satire, and by unqualified assevera- tions of the contradictoriness and absurdity of Trinitarianism. The doctrine of the Trinity, as far as it is possible to put it into the terms of human language, may be stated thus : That in the unity of the divine essence there subsists a threefold dis- tinction, of the nature or mode of which we are left in igno- rance, the simple fact alone being matter of revelation ; or thus : That in the Scriptures the Divine Being is expressed under three distinct names, Father, Son (or Word), and Holy Spirit ; and that there is but one God. But this union and distinction are a mystery, a secret unrevealed, and, in all pro- bability, incomprehensible to all mankind alike. From the different senses which, on this and other subjects, have been put upon the statements of Scripture, it has been found impossible to avoid the introduction'of terms such as have not the sanction of inspiration. It were absurd, however, to complain of this ; for, in truth, were the principle on which such complaint proceeds carried out to its legitimate length, it would necessarily lead to the abandonment of all human forms of speech in the expression of divine truths, and shut us up to the simple reading and quotation of the sacred volume in the languages in which it was originally written ; and even then, indeed, we should have to grapple with the question of verbal inspiration, and to ascertain whether, in using even the original, we were not using a humanly devised terminology, or whether we were really employing " words which the Holy Ghost teacheth." 1 "The word Trinity," says Dean Swift, "is indeed not in Scripture, but was a term of art invented in the earlier times to express the doctrine by a single word, for the sake of brevity and convenience. The doctrine, then, as delivered in Holy Scripture, though not exactly in the same words, is very short, and amounts only to this: That the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost are each of them God, and yet there is but one God. For as to the word person, when we say there are three 1 1 Cor. ii. 13. 4 TRINITY OF PERSONS persons, and as to those other explanations in the Athanasiau creed, this day read to you (whether composed by Athanasius or not), they were taken up three hundred years after Christ to expound this doctrine ; and I will tell you on what occasion." This he goes on to do, and then sums up the doctrine thus : " God commands us to believe there is a union and there is a distinction ;- but what that union or what that distinction is, all mankind are equally ignorant; and must continue so, at least till the day of judgment, without some new revelation. Therefore 1 shall again repeat the doctrine of the Trinity, as it is positively affirmed in Scripture : That God is there expressed in three different names, as Father, as Son, and as Holy Ghost ; that each of these is God, and that there is but one God. But this union and distinction are a mystery utterly unknown to mankind. This is enough for any good Christian to believe on this great article, without ever inquiring further. And this can be contrary to no man's reason, although the knowledge of it is holden from him." "From what has been said, it is manifest that God did never command us to believe, nor his servants to preach, any doctrine which is contrary to the reason he has been pleased to endow us with ; but, for his own wise ends, hath thought fit to conceal from us the nature of the thing he commands, thereby to try our faith and obedience, and increase our dependence on Him. It is highly probable, that if God should please to reveal unto us this great mystery of the Trinity, and other mysteries in our holy religion, we should not be able to understand them, unless he should, at the same time, see fit to bestow upon us some new powers or faculties of the mind, which we want at present, and which are reserved till the resurrection to life eternal. ' For now,' as the Apostle says, 'we see through a glass darkly, but then face to face.' " "Reason itself is true and just ; but the reason of every particular man is weak and waver- ing, perpetually swayed or turned by his interests, his passions, or his vices." 1 The late Rev. Mr. Venn, rector of Clapham, with similar 1 Swift's Sermon on the Trinity. Works, vol. vii. pp. 427, 428, 433, 434, 435. IN THE GODHEAD. 5 cautious propriety, writes " The doctrine of what is called the Trinity, concisely stated, is this : That although there is only one God, this God is revealed to man under three distinct names or persons, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, \vlio are yet, in a sense, to us mysterious and inscrutable, but one God." / " It is true, that on this subject some persons may have spoken rashly and unwarrantably, in representing the three persons to be so absolutely distinct as to be, in all respects, three different beings," etc. /" The precise nature of the \ distinction here implied is not described in Scripture ; nor, perhaps, is it conceivable by fallen man. It has, indeed, been agreed to express this distinction by the term person, and this term is perhaps as eligible as any other, whilst it is understood not to convey any real idea of the nature of this distinction, but merely to affirm that it exists, and that it is not confined to a distinction of mere titles and attributes." " It may be asked : What, then, do we in fact believe as to the divine nature ? I answer : We believe that one and the same God is three, in a sense which we are able neither to express nor comprehend." " Such, indeed, is the obscurity in which the divine nature is necessarily involved, that it matters little what terms are employed by us to describe it. Change the terms, yet the obscurity remains. They would either have no mean- ing affixed to them, or be understood in precisely the same sense with those employed for the same purpose before. Had the very terms employed by us to express the doctrine of the Trinity been employed in Scripture, the revelation of the doctrine itself would not have been more distinct or intelligible. Lan- guage could not have made that distinct which we have not the faculties to comprehend." " You are required to believe that these three terms, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, are all applied in Scripture to the one supreme God ; that all the actions, offices, attributes, which are ascribed to these names, are plainly attributed to, and do truly belong to one and the same divine nature ; that there are such frequent and evident assertions in Scripture of the unity of God, and yet such plain distinctions () TRINITY OF PERSONS ' signified by the terms Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, as imply both a perfect unity of nature, and yet a distinction in the Godhead ; and that this distinction, whatever it may be, is not the same which we conceive between the attributes of God, nor a mere distinction of name, office, or relation, but some other distinction, of which we have but a confused conception, and which we can express by no particular language. A more accurate acquaintance with spiritual beings, and especially with the nature of God, might develope the mysterious points of this doctrine. Till then we profess our faith in them only as mysteries." l The first of the Thirty-nine Articles of the Church of England, after affirming the unity and perfections of the " living and true God," thus states the doctrine of the Trinity : " Et in unitate hujus divinse nature tres sunt personse, ejusdem essentise, potential, ac eternitatis, Pater, Filius, et Spiritus Sanctus." The distinctive peculiarities of the Son and Spirit come to be specified in subsequent articles. The Scottish Confession of Faith is substantially the same :: " In the unity of the Godhead, there be three persons, of one substance, power, and eternity ; God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost." 2 The distinctive peculiarities of each, as subsisting in the one eternal Essence, follow, but these we leave for future notice. They are not properly essential to the article, but introduce explana- tions of the mode of subsistence, to which, we may then endeavour to show, that there exist objections of no light weight. Dr. Dick, after citing the entire article or section, subjoins, as his own view of it, and consequently his own statement of the doctrine : " The sum of this definition is, that while there is only one divine nature, there are three subsistences, or persons, called the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, who possess, not a similar, but the same numerical essence, and that the distinction between them is not merely nominal, but real." 3 Dr. Dwight gives no definition of the Trinity, and his notice of it is intro- 1 Venn's Posthumous Sermons, vol. i. ser. viii. 2 Chap. xi. sec. 3. 3 Lectures on Theology. IN THE GODHEAD. 7 duced when he is considering the agent in regeneration. He begins his 71st Sermon thus : " In the last discourse, I con- sidered the personality and divinity of the Spirit of God. In a series of discourses formerly delivered, I considered the divinity of Christ. If the arguments alleged in these discourses are as conclusive as they appear to me, they prove the existence of a Trinity, or three persons in one God." " Observandum," says Pictet, after illustrating the divine unity, " in scriptura trium nominatim mentionem fieri, quibus natura diviua tribuitur, Patris scilicet, Filii, et Spiritus Sancti." And afterwards " Sufficit demonstrasse liaec duoex scripturis, Deum unum esse, et naturam divinam tribus, qui distinguuntur, attribui." 1 Calvin says : " Nam ita se praedicat unicum esse, ut dis- tincte in tribus personis considerandum proponat, quas nisi tenemus, nudum et inane duntaxat Dei nomen, sine vero Deo, in cerebro volitat. Porro nequis triplicem Deum somniet, aut putet tribus personis lacerari simplicem Dei essentiam, quaerenda hie nobis erit brevis et facilis efinitio, quae nos ab omni errore expediat." 2 It had been well if there had been a stricter adherence to such general statements as these, and if all attempts at explanation had been carefully avoided. The Holy Scriptures simply certify us of the fact. Of the mode of the fact they offer no explanation ; and on such a subject it is our wisdom to be silent where the Bible is silent. The fact being that which alone is revealed, it is the fact alone that is the object of our required faith. It is not at all the manner of it. In that we can have no belief, nor is it required of us. We not only are not called to believe that which forms no part of the revelation ; but belief implies understanding ; and we can have no belief in that of which we have no conception. In such a case, we simply believe that it is ; how it is, (we are not at all ashamed to say,) we do not presume even to conjecture. On all such subjects it is confessedly a matter of superlative difficulty to select such terms as are incapable of being perverted, 1 Theologia Christiana. 2 Institutio Christiana Religionis, lib. i. c. xiii. 8. 2. 8 TRINITY OF PERSONS and made to assume the appearance of inconsistency and contra- diction. The very nature of the subject unavoidably exposes us to this difficulty. Thus it is with the terms " person " and " personality." From the very employment of these terms we may lay our account with being represented as understanding them when applied to Deity, in the very same sense, and with the very same distinct apprehension of their meaning too, as when we apply them to our fellow-creatures. And let this be disavowed as often and as explicitly as you will, it will still be insisted on. And this for a sufficiently obvious reason, that it is the only way in which the advocates of the doctrine of the Trinity can be plausibly charged with the grossness and absurdity of Tritheism. It has often and truly, I might now indeed say tritely, been remarked, that there is an essential difference between a doctrine being above reason and being contrary to reason. True as this maxim is, however, it does not seem to me to go far enough. It may, with equal truth, be added, that the very circumstance of its being above reason renders any proof of its being contrary to reason impossible. I do not say that its being above reason prevents it from being also contrary to it ; but it precludes the possibility of its being proved to be so. For unless we have some notion of what the thing is that is affirmed to be contrary to reason, on what principle can we possibly make out the contrariety ? Were we to affirm that the persons of the Godhead are three and one in the same sense, or in the same respects, we should evidently affirm what is contrary to reason ; such a proposition involving, in the very terms of it, a palpable and irreconcileable contradiction. But so long as we do not pretend to say how they are one, and how they are three, to prove that, when we affirm them to be both, we assert a proposition contrary to reason, is, from the very nature of the thing, impossible. For what is it that is to be demonstrated to be contrary to reason ? Upon the supposition made, we cannot tell. It is something .of which we have formed and can form no conception, something which we do not know, and of the nature and circumstances of which we are in total ignorance. IN THE GODHEAD. 9 Having never seen the matter placed precisely in this light, I felt some little diffidence about it when it first presented itself to my mind. I was therefore alike surprised and gratified, on afterwards finding so exact coincidence between the ground here assumed and that occupied by Dr. D wight in the following paragraph : " The futility and emptiness of this fundamental objection of the Unitarians, as applied to the doctrine of the Trinity, is susceptible of an absolute and easy demonstration, notwithstanding the objection itself claims the character of intui- tive certainty. It is intuitively certain, or, in other words, self-evident, that no proposition can be seen to be true or false, unless the mind possess the ideas out of which it is formed, so far as to discern whether they agree or disagree. The proposi- tion asserted by Trinitarians and denied by Unitarians, is, that God is tri-personal. The ideas intended by the word God, here denoting the infinite existence, and tri-personal, are not, and cannot be, possessed by any man. Neither Trinitarians, therefore, nor Unitarians can, by any possible effort of the understanding, discern whether this proposition be true or false ; or whether the ideas denoted by the words God and tri-persorial agree or disagree. Until this can be done, it is perfectly nuga- tory either to assert or deny this proposition, as .an object of intellectual discernment or philosophical inquiry. The mind has not ideas ; and when it has not ideas, it cannot compare them. Where it cannot compare them, it cannot discern their agreement or disagreement. And of course, it can form out of them no proposition, whose truth or falsehood it can at all per- ceive. Thus this boasted objection, so far from being conclusive, is wholly without force or application." 1 If we should be asked, and the question has often been put : What can be the possible use or value of a doctrine which cannot be comprehended ? The answer is ready. In the first place, when the terms of the proposition containing the doctrine of the Trinity are considered simply as expressing the fact, they are not at all unintelligible ; and this is all they are actually inten- 1 Theology, sermon xxxix. 10 TRINITY OF PERSONS ded to express. Then, secondly, Is there nothing of use or value respecting which we are acquainted with the fact alone, without understanding the manner of it ? Can we derive no benefit from the assurance that any thing is, unless we are, at the same time, able to comprehend and explain distinctly how it is? To affirm this, would be to affirm what, in instances without number, is notoriously false. I have no distinct con- ception, I may say no conception whatever, of the nature of the principle of gravitation. I know nothing whatever but the fact. Yet the principle of gravitation, both regarded on a large and on a small scale, is one which it is of no little service to know; a very important, useful, comfortable principle. And were any man to be so perverse as to refuse to believe it or to avail himself of it, unless he could be made to understand the hidden nature of the principle, how it operated, and wherein it consisted, Woe to the hapless wight ! he would not long be a tenant of earth. Let us take a more appropriate and serious example. There is not a doctrine encompassed with more embarrassing and inexplicable difficulties than that of the divine omnipresence. All that we can believe is the fact ; the how is quite beyond our comprehension. Am I, then, to banish, on the one hand, the salutary awe, and, on the other, to renounce the peace, the confidence, arid the joy, which the belief of his omnipresence is fitted to inspire ; because I am unable clearly to comprehend how it is, that the Infinite Being is present, in the full possession and exercise of all his perfections, in every part of space, in every successive moment of time ? When we use the terms, even of Scripture, and still more of human invention, we must never allow ourselves to forget the difference between the Godhead and the creature. And indeed, the difficulty is very much of the same kind with that which attends the explication of all those instances (of which the num- ber and variety are so great) in which God is spoken of after the manner of men, avdguvofAogipus. In such cases, there is a reality in the infinite Being, bearing resemblance or analogy to what is found in the creature, from whose constitution the IN THE GODHEAD. 11 terms are borrowed ; but the thing signified is not the bame as the sign. There are discrepancies abundantly obvious between the meaning of the term person when applied to men, and when applied to God. " Human persons are separate one from another. Peter, James, and John are three persons; but they are so separate from one another, as to be in no proper sense one. But the persons in the Godhead, by whatever appropriate functions distinguished, are never thus separate ; they are mysteriously included in one numerical essence. Of human persons each one might have had a being and person- ality in and of himself, independently of the existence of any of the rest, existing as it does by the will of God. But the divine persons have a necessary existence and personality, as being in all respects independent ; so that as they could not but be God, they could not but be divine persons. Human persons have only the same kind -of nature, which is usually called a common specific nature, but not the same individual nature with other persons ; so that, though every man has a nature like that of the rest of mankind, yet the human nature that is attributed to one person is not the same individual human nature that is attri- buted to another person ; for then the power and the act of reasoning, or the ideas that there are in one man, could be the same identical ideas that are in another man. But when we speak of the persons of the Godhead as having the divine nature and perfections, we say that this divine nature is the same indi- vidual nature in all of them, though the persons are distinct ; otherwise the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit could n6t be said to be truly and properly God, and to have the same understanding, will, and other perfections of the divine nature." " In the one Godhead, although subsisting in three persons, there has been from eternity infinite knowledge, and conse- quently perfect and invariable unity of mind and counsel. We are not to imagine any sort of distinction to exist, such as admits of the communication from one to another of any quality not possessed before. As to knowledge, for example, it belongs alike, in infinite perfection, to Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, as 12 TRINITY OF PERSONS one God ; and has so belonged from eternity, without the possibility of either increase or diminution. It cannot, in strict propriety, be said, that any thought or intention ever entered the divine mind ; inasmuch as entrance supposes a period pre- ceding when it was not there. Nor was any thought or inten- tion ever present to the Father, that was not also present to the Son and the Spirit. The thoughts of one are the thoughts of all, underived, uncommunicated, the thoughts and intentions of the one infinite mind of the Godhead." 1 But to pursue this train would speedily be to lead myself and you into darkness, and to violate the principle already laid down, of sacred adherence to Scripture. The records of ecclesiastical history inform us that at an early period, there was a wann controversy between the Greek and the Latin churches, respecting the use of the terms hypostasis and persona on this subject. The Latin churches conceived that as the former word denoted essence or substance, the affir- mation of three hypostases might be interpreted as an affirmation of three Gods ; while the Greek Church, considering the w T ord persona (from its origin and etymology) as not guarding suffi- ciently against the Sabellian notion of the same Being under three relations merely, was disposed to return the charge of heresy. By a conference in a synod held at Alexandria, A.D. 362, it was resolved that the debate was a logomachy, and that either of the two terms might be used indifferently. They have accordingly been so used, the three persons in the Godhead constituting the hypostatical union. While, however, we do not see any valid objection to the introduction and use of terms of human invention, yet on all such subjects, it should, at the same time, be granted, that the more closely we can keep to the phraseology of the inspired record the better. The arguments from the Scriptures are of three descriptions : 1. Those drawn from passages in which a plurality or trinity is more directly asserted or implied ; 2. Those drawn from passages which prove the divinity of Christ ; and 1 Ridgelcy's Body of Divinity, quest, ix. x. xi. IN THE GODHEAD. 13 3. Those drawn from passages which establish the divinity of the Holy Spirit. All these, you will at once be sensible, bear conclusively on the same doctrine the doctrine of the Trinity. And it appears to have been from a conviction of this that Dr. D wight gave that position in his theology to this doctrine, which we have seen he does. All who believe the doctrine of a plurality of persons to be taught in Scripture, believe that plurality to be a trinity, and to consist of Father, Son, and Spirit. None, it is presumed, have believed in more, none in fewer. In this ques- tion, therefore, plurality and trinity may be considered as con- vertible terms ; and every proof, consequently, of plurality as a proof of trinity. On this principle, since the whole of the evidence of the divinity of Christ is evidence of a plurality, and the whole of the evidence of the divinity of the Holy Spirit is evidence of a plurality, these two bodies of evidence, or collections of proofs, may be fairly considered as mutually establishing each other ; the proofs of the divinity of Christ bearing on the divinity of the Spirit, the proofs of the divinity of the Spirit bearing on the divinity of Christ : while both the one and the other bear, with full force, on the doctrine of the trinity of persons in the God- head. 1 The simple statement of the doctrine of the Trinity, as a mere fact in regard to the divine nature, independent entirely of the mode of the fact, has not, alas ! been at all sufficient to satisfy the prying curiosity of man, or his aspiring self-sufficiency. 1 I do not enter into the detail of the argument on these heads. I must refer to my " Discourses on the Socinian Controversy," and to the volume in reply to Mr. Yates, " Unitarianism incapable of Vindication;" of which some parts were, in their substance, subsequently transfused into the latter editions'of the former work. The two lines of argument, indeed, just indicated, belong more properly to other parts of the course the doctrines concerning Christ and the Spirit. In saying, " The arguments from the Scriptures," I distinguished them from another description of argument in support of the Trinity that from existing traditions, and from various, though corrupted and foolish correspondences, in the mythologies of heathenism. Into any consideration of these I do not enter. I refer for a full view of them to an " Essay on the Trinity," by the late Pro- fessor Kid, of Aberdeen, pp. 482-5GO, and to Dr. Dwight's " Theology," sermon Ixxi., entitled, " Testimonies to the Doctrine of the Trinity, from the Ancient Chris- tians, Jews, and Heathens." 14 TRINITY OF PERSONS Various have been the attempts made to explain and render intelligible to the human mind the mode in which the Three Persons subsist in the one essence ; and the explanations of manner and order have by their inventors been invested witli the authority of revelation, erected into articles of faith, and subscription required to them, as if all who denied or doubted them, rejected the doctrine itself. They have been illustrated by comparisons with objects in nature, and analogies drawn from the constitution of man ; and endless have been the hair- splittings and the sub-divisions of the splits, on the part of the angry polemics, whose inventive wits they have exhausted ; and not seldom, in proportion to their minuteness, and to the degree in which all Scripture authority was absent, has been the confi- dence and the keenness of the disputants. " Similitudes tend at best only to illustrate and not to prove a doctrine ; and we can hardly make use of this method of illustrating this doctrine, without conveying some ideas that are unbecoming, if not sub- versive thereof. And while we pretend to explain that which is in itself inexplicable, we do no service to the truth." The writer just quoted exemplifies a variety of foolish comparisons, by which men have vainly attempted to render more familiar and apprehensible what ought to be regarded as removed beyond the sphere of our knowledge ; as entirely unique, and having nothing in nature to which, with propriety, or even without an approach at least to profanity, it can be likened. In the Assembly's " Larger Catechism " we find the follow- ing question " What are the personal properties of the persons in the Godhead?" to which question the following is the answer " It is proper to the Father to beget the Son, and to the Son to be begotten of the Father, and to the Holy Ghost to proceed from the Father and the Son, from all eternity." In correspondence with this you will find, in the ordinary systems of orthodox divinity, the Father represented as unbegotten and unproceeding ; the Son as begotten, not proceeding ; and the Holy Ghost as proceeding not begotten. I should have much 1 Ridgeley's Body of Divinity, quest, ix. x. xi. IN THE GODHEAD. 15 more satisfaction in my own mind in simply laying before you, on this and on all subjects, the statements of the Word of God, without troubling either myself or you with those human explanations which go beyond and presume to improve upon those statements. But this, here, is out of the question ; and it is far from being without its use to look at those human explanations, in contrast with the simplicity and generality of the Bible statements ; inasmuch as it may serve to confirm us in our attachment to, and admiration of, the latter. I must honestly say, I more than doubt the propriety of such distinc- tions amongst the persons in the Godhead as those just cited. It has long appeared to my mind an unhappy and flagrant violation of the principles we have been laying down for the investigation and representation of all such subjects ; as going into matters that are beyond the limits of the Bible, and entirely out of the reach of our faculties : for if there be a subject which may safely be pronounced beyond those limits, assuredly it must be the mode of the divine subsistence. Sabellianism, so called from Sabellius, an African bishop or presbyter of the third century, may be considered as the opposite extreme to this. It takes away plurality of persons altogether, admitting the existence only of three relations, belonging to the Father as the one God ; as when a man may be called a father, a son, and a brother in different respects or relations, continu- ing the same single individual man. This is what has been termed a trinity of names, the names signifying simply certain relations ; and, in such a scheme, the use of the term person should, in propriety and honesty, be laid aside, rather than retained in such a sense. The Father has been designated the Fountain of Deity, and this designation has been understood in different degrees of extent. Some have affirmed that from Him the divine essence and, consequently, all divine perfections are communi- cated to the Son, and from the Father and the Son to the Holy Spirit ; while others have held that the idea of communi- cation should be restricted to personality. It is not easy to 16 TRINITY OF PERSONS say whether of the two is the more objectionable. In both there is a very palpable confusion in the very terms employed. Whenever we speak of anything as communicated to another, we necessarily have in our minds the conception of two persons existing, of whom the one is the communicator and the other the recipient of that which is communicated. When the Father, then, is spoken of as communicating the divine essence to the Son, the language implies that the Son exists to receive the communication. Yet this is not at all the idea meant to be conveyed. The Son must not be considered as existing, and receiving the communication of the divine essence from the Father. Not at all. It is an emanation of the divine essence, eternal, necessary, and ineffable, that constitutes the Son, and so, in like manner, of the Holy Spirit. He is an emanation from the Father and the Son. As to the other of the two views, the communication not of essence but only of personality, it is not difficult to imagine how it originated. It must have arisen from an apprehension, certainly sufficiently natural and reasonable, that communication on the one hand, and deriva- tion on the other, of the divine essence, and of all divine attributes, were hardly (I might use a much stronger w r ord) consistent with supreme divinity. But I must go further than even this in objecting to the scheme. It involves a palpable contradiction. It supposes personality in the Father, and this personality communicated to the Son. It thus assumes a distinction already existing previously to the communication, which yet the communication is supposed to produce. For how can personality be communicated to that which the hypothesis absurdly assumes to have existed before without personality ? Is the communication of personality an alteration in the mode of the divine existence ? Is it a division of the essence of Deity ? Analyse the idea as closely as you can. I have tried it ; and I feel myself utterly unable to imagine the communication of personality in any other sense than the communication of existence. If existence is communicated, personality is communicated ; but the communication of person- IN THE GODHEAD. 1 7 ality to that which already exists, is more than inconceivable, it is absurd and contradictory. Every idea of communication, whether of Godhead or of personality in Godhead, whether of essence or of attributes, ought, in my apprehension, to be abandoned entirely. Whatever is now the mode of the divine subsistence, has been so from eternity ; the mode of the existence being as necessary as the existence itself. And so, we shall be told, it has been ; the communication having been from eternity and necessary. We may have more to say of this by and by ; meantime we may observe, what a remarkable coincidence has arisen out of such modes of expression, between the statements of high Arians and those of orthodox divines on the subject before us. For example, Dr. Owen says " What- ever belongs to the person of the Son as the person of the Son, He receives it all from the Father by eternal generation. All the properties of the divine nature are communicated to Him, together with personality, from the Father. Thus He receives, as His personality, so all divine excellences, from the Father." 1 And Dr. Clarke says " The Son is not self-existent, but derives His being and all His attributes from the Father, as from the supreme Cause." 2 Surely this kind of coincidence, though not exact, is sufficient to awaken jealousy and to render us suspicious of the ideas usually esteemed orthodox, as appearing at least to trench on the integrity of the fundamental doctrines which it is their object, professed and sincere, to support. It is not to be wondered at that Arians have laid hold of such language on the part of the orthodox, as a giving up of their cause. Explanations have even been attempted of the manner in which the generation is effected : " God, beholding Himself, or His divine perfections, begets an image of Himself, or has an eternal idea of His own perfections in His mind, which is called His internal word, as opposed to the word spoken, which is external. By this some express the generation of the Son, for which reason He is called, Heb. i. 3, " the brightness of the 1 Works, vol. xii. Yiirlii'iuf Evangelicae, p. 186. 8 Scripture Doctrine of the Trinity. 18 TRINITY OF PERSONS Father's glory and the express image of His person" as the wax expresses the mark or character (Gr. x a S aKT ^S) of the seal that is impressed upon it. Then there is a mutual love between the Father and the Son, which brings forth a third person or sub- sistence in the Godhead, viz., the Holy Ghost. So that there is in the divine nature an infinite understanding reflecting on itself, Avhereby it begets a Son ; and an infinite will, which leads Him to reflect on Himself with love and delight as the chief good, whereby He brings forth a third person in the Godhead, the Holy Ghost. Accordingly they describe this divine person as being the result of the mutual delight and joy that there is between the Father and the Son. These explanations, " many are at a loss to understand ; and we humbly conceive it would be much better to let them alone." l Dr. Priestley and Bishop Horsley may be adduced in proof of the justice of this concluding sentence of Dr. Ridgeley. Bishop Horsley, speaking of the sentiments of Athenagoras, which he expresses thus, " the Logos hath existed from eternity in union with the Father, because God, being eternally rational, ever had the Logos in Himself," thus expresses himself: "The sense is, that the personal subsistence of the divine Logos is implied in the very idea of a God. The argument rests on a principle which was common to all the Platonic fathers, and seems to be founded in Scripture, that the existence of the Son flows neces- sarily from the divine intellect exerted upon itself; from the Father's contemplation of His own perfections. But as the Father ever was, His perfections have ever been, and His intel- lect hath ever been active. But perfections which have ever been, the ever active intellect must ever have contemplated; and the contemplation which hath ever been must ever have been accompanied with its just effect." 2 In his Fourth Disserta- tion, after a number of remarks, most pertinent and admirable, on the " extreme caution to be used to keep the doctrine itself, as it is delivered in God's Word, distinct from everything that 1 Ridgeley's Body of Divinity. Quest, ix., x., xi. 2 Controversial Tracts, p. 61. IN THE GODHEAD. 19 hath been devised by man, or that may ever occur to man's own thoughts to illustrate it or explain its difficulties," (remarks which it had been well that he himself as well as others had kq>t more steadily and practically in remembrance), he goes on to qualify the meaning of the words " which seem to be founded in Scripture" which he had used in reference to the sentiment quoted above, and which, when explained by him, appear to amount to no more than his " thinking he perceives eome allusion to it in some Scriptural phrases ;" while " as to the question whether such allusion be real or imaginary, nothing," he says, " shall move Mm from his vow of silence." He then proceeds to show that he had ground for considering it as the opinion of some of the fathers, especially the Platonizing fathers ; from his reference to whom the opinion seems to amount to this, that " there is the same analogy between the relation of the Father and the Word, as there is between any man's mind and its own thoughts." " That the human intel- lect generates good thoughts, must necessarily be confessed. If it be impious to suppose that the human intellect is unfruitful, how much more absurd to think that the Supreme Intellect should be unproductive, and to deprive it of its proper fructifi- cation." 1 How strange is it that men should have imposed upon themselves by such an analogy ! How manifest and 1 how essen- tial is the difference between mind producing thought and inind producing mind ! Could such a thing as the latter have been adduced as existing in the constitution of intellectual nature, such a thing as mind by the contemplation of itself generating mind, it might have been to the purpose. But thought is the proper product of mind, of all mind, created and uncreated. Still more truly it may be called the property of mind to think. But that one mind, by the exercise of this property, should generate another mind possessing and exercising the same pro- perty should give being to a distinct, conscious, intelligent subsistence ; this assuredly is a very different matter. And the 1 St. Cyril as quoted by Horsley. 20 TRINITY OF PERSONS very employment of such an analogy only furnishes another in addition to the many proofs of the justness of Dr. Ridgeley's remark, that all such comparisons " are better let alone." By every such attempt at explanation we carry ourselves beyond our depth ; and we expose ourselves to the unhallowed, yet in some respects fair and merited, ridicule of the adversaries of the doctrine. And accordingly, this view of Bishop Horsley gave infinite delight and triumph to Dr. Priestley and his party ; the Doctor, as the Bishop himself mentions, declaring, " that in read- ing his attempt to explain the doctrine of the Trinity, he fancies himself got back to the darkest of the dark ages, or at least that he is reading Peter Lombard, Thomas Aquinas, or Dun Scotus." Yet the late Professor Kid of Aberdeen 1 goes even further than all who had preceded him ; undertaking, amongst other things, to demonstrate, on metaphysical grounds, from considera- tions in the very nature of deity, that the Eternal Father must have begotten a Son ; that by an equal necessity the Holy Spirit must have proceeded from the Father and the Son ; and more than this, that in the nature of the thing the generation and the procession must stop there, that they could not go further. It is really melancholy to think that men, and men otherwise of eminent mental attainments, should thus presume, whether from overweening confidence in their own powers, a fondness fof trying them on subjects which other minds have felt and owned beyond their depth, or a zeal in support of the orthodoxy of an ecclesiastical dogma, to carry their dark meta- physics within the very sanctuary (veiled from all created vision) of the divine Essence and mode of being ; and to " reason high" on a subject of which in reality they possess no know- ledge whatever, and in regard to which they have absolutely no data whatever whereon to proceed ; just as if the first trans- gression had realized to fallen man all the benefit he anticipated 1 In the work entitled " An Essay on the Doctrine of the Trinity, attempting to Prove it by Keason and Demonstration, founded upon duration and Space, and upon some of the Divine Perfections, some of the powers of the Human Soul, the Lan- guage of Scripture, and the Tradition among all Nations." IN THE GODHEAD. 21 from it, exalting the transgressor, according to the terms of the tempter, to an equality with his Creator "Ye shall be as Gods." 1 How much better, in every respect, would it have been, if the advocates of the Trinity had kept themselves to the statement and proof of the fact; and even in stating and proving it had kept sacredly within the limits of the inspired record, as the sole source of either information or evidence. Everything beyond this has necessarily been a failure ; serving only to evince the same thing as discovered itself in the speculations of the ancient philosophers about the nature of God, that, on such subjects, men " professing themselves to be wise, become fools," 2 and show that "the light that is in them is darkness." 3 1 Gen. iii. 5- 2 Rom. i. 2. s Matt. vi. 23. II.-TRINITY OF PERSONS IN THE GODHEAD. IT has ever appeared to me, that the communication of the divine essence, or of any thing necessarily and peculiarly divine, is inconsistent with the idea of underived divinity ; and that derived divinity wears very much at least of the appearance of contradiction. For we never can separate from it, in our minds, the impression of inferiority. The communica- tion of personality does involve a contradiction. To a per- son already subsisting, personality can not be communi- cated. He already has it. And if the person does not already subsist, the communication of personality must be the communi- cation of existence. Deity must have existed from eternity, either with a personal distinction, or without it. If without it, the divine nature never could change its mode of subsistence ; if with it, since nothing could exist earlier than from eternity, no other state or mode of the divine subsistence could precede it. And we are unable to rid our minds of the impression that the communication of personality implies this. I firmly believe in the eternity and necessity of the distinction subsisting in the divine essence. I believe it to be essential to the very being of God. But I avow my doubts respecting some of the ordinary notions relative to the mode of this distinction, the order in which the divine persons subsist by eternal generation and eternal procession. I distinctly remember early in life, before the commencement of my studies for the ministry, when hearing, on a sacramental occasion, one of the most thoroughly systematic preachers of the body to which I then belonged, being greatly startled by the string of epithets applied by him, as they were TRINITY OF PERSONS IN THE GODHEAD. 23 generally, on the subject of the filiation of the second person of the Trinity ; that- he was the Son of God by eternal, natural, necessary, and ineffable generation. When I say I was startled, do not misapprehend me. Any doubts that were stirred in my mind did not at all respect the doctrine of the Trinity, or the doctrine of the supreme divinity of Christ ; they were about the consistency of this view of Christ's sonship with the Bible doctrine of His true and proper divinity. I felt myself unable to separate the idea of generated or derived deity from that of posteriority, or at least of inferiority and dependence. And when, long after, I came to examine the subject for myself more fully, if my examination was conducted under the influence of any prepossession at all, it was a prepossession in favour of our blessed Lord's true and proper divinity, which, I was fully satisfied, was an article of truth clearly revealed and of funda- mental importance. I did feel desirous earnestly desirous to see that doctrine cleared, as far as possible, of what appeared to me the most plausible grounds of objection to it. The result of my examination was a conviction that the common doctrines of eternal generation and eternal procession are destitute of any solid scriptural foundation ; that they are not divinely re- vealed, but have been devised by the wit of man are a humanly devised mystery. I am quite aware that some respected brethren in my own connection, and many more in others, are differently minded. I am aware too, that the denial of the eternal gener- ation of the Son has by some, thoughtlessly and in ignorance ; by some, from serious, though, as I think, mistaken conviction ; by others, from the force of early habit and the power of associ- ation ; and by others still, I do fear, from envy and strife, from a disposition to infuse, or to foster an unworthy prejudice against a sect for which they have no strong predilection, been considered or represented as a virtual denial of the true divinity of Jesus. To those who are serious in so regarding it, 1 would only say : We hold alike this essential doctrine, and our difference of sentiment proceeds from the same principle the principle of jealousy of whatever might seem to have a tendency to invali- 24 TRINITY OF PERSONS date its evidence. I give you with all cordiality the right hand of fellowship. While we hold alike the grand essential reality, why should we so quarrel as to disown one another about a name, or about a mysterious mode ? Those who are under the power of systematic associations, I invite to an immediate and candid examination of the Scriptures. And of those, if such there be, who either from reckless inconsideration, or deliberate malice, misrepresent the tendency of my views, I would humbly but firmly say : " He that judgeth me is the Lord ; " and, at the same time, that it is not a little hard to be charged with denying, or holding what amounts to a denial of, a fundamental article of truth, when it has been our very solicitude to insure from peril the integrity of that article that has given rise to the ground of charge. I am not, by any means, for relinquishing, or even mitigating and modifying, what we are accustomed to term the mysteries of our religion, in accommodation to any of the varieties whatever of the pride of human reason. But we certainly ought to be sure that the mysteries, in which we profess our faith, are Bible mysteries ; arid to be very cautious not to add any others to them of our own devising. We must necessarily be believers in mysteries, and it is perfectly reasonable we should. But it is not our province to be makers of mysteries. I would not, with a view to render Christianity palatable to the wise men of this world, abate one iota of its sacred testimony ; but neither would I unnecessarily furnish its adversaries with occasion for " contra- dicting and blaspheming," by any additions of our own. I have said that we certainly do feel, and are unable to divest ourselves of the feeling, that there is something amounting or approaching to contradiction in the phrases eternal generation and eternal procession. The late excellent and able Andrew Fuller endeavours to remove this difficulty by the following comparison : " Sonship, it is said, implies pos- teriority, or that Christ as a Son could not have existed till after the Father. To attribute no other divinity to Him, there- fore, than what is denoted by Sonship, is attributing none to IN THE GODHEAD. 25 Him, as nothing can be divine which is not eternal. But if this reasoning be just, it will prove that the divine purposes are not eternal, or that there was a point in duration, when God was without thought, purpose, or design. For it is as true, and may as well be said, that God must exist before he could purpose, as that the Father must exist before he had a Son. But if God must exist before he could purpose, there must have been a point in duration when he existed without purpose, thought, or design ; that is, in which he was not God. The truth is, the whole of this apparent difficulty arises from the want of distinguishing between the order of nature and the order of tune. In the order of nature, the sun must have existed before he could shine ; but in the order of time, the sun and its rays are coeval ; it never existed a single instant without them. In the order of nature, God must have existed before he could purpose : but in the order of time or duration, he never existed without his purposes ; for a God without thought or purpose were no God. And thus, in the order of nature, the Father must have existed before the Son ; but in that of dura- tion, He never existed without the Son. The Father and the Son, therefore, are properly eternal." This has in it, let it be granted, ingenuity and the appearance of reason. I apprehend it, however, to be more specious than solid. I would remark upon it : 1. The analogy seems to me hardly fair between the relation of thought or purpose to the mind in which it exists, and the relation of one personal subsistence to another, from which he is conceived to be generated, or to receive his essential being. Thought is something altogether incapable of personality, or of any kind of distinct or independent subsistence. It does not derive from the mind in which it is generated a being of its own. It does not proceed from it, and continue to exist, and put forth the manifestations of personal properties belonging to itself. Thought does not think. It is not itself mind. It is only an exercise or act of mind. To make the analogy complete, 1 Works, vol. v. Essays, pp. 582, 583. 26 TRINITY OF PERSONS thought should not only be generated in the mind, but generated from it, and be itself found thinking, willing, purposing, acting in its turn. 2. Make the supposition that the analogy is correct, and the inference from it legitimate ; and that the distinction between the order of nature and the order of time is fairly and strictly applicable to the case : while the co-eternal existence of the Son with the Father will, it may be admitted, be successfully shown to involve no necessary contradiction ; yet his independent existence, his self-existence, will, I fear, be hardly susceptible of vindication. Thought or purpose depends on the mind that forms it. Light depends on the luminous orb from which it emanates. And although it is true that we cannot conceive the lapse of an instant between the existence of the sun and the emission of light, yet still the light sustains the relation to the sun of effect to cause. The effect may be ever so instan- taneously produced ; still there is a priority in the cause and a dependence in the effect upon the cause. If there be any such relation as this between the Son and the Father, and I may add, between the Spirit and the Father and Son, it would appear to me as if the proper self-existence of the Son and Spirit could scarcely be maintained. Some, accordingly, while they assert the eternal and even the necessary existence of the Son, deny his proper self-existence. Thus Dr. Waterland says : " You argue, that if the Son be eternal, he is necessarily existent, which I allow ; and if necessarily existent, then self- existent, which I deny, and which you cannot prove." 1 The point of the distinction thus made by Dr. W. between necessary existence and self-existence is sufficiently discernible. He con- siders the Father as possessing a certain priority, as the Fountain of all, even of the Son himself; but at the same time the Son as existing necessarily from the Father. But surely whatever tends to deprive the second and third persons in the Godhead of the attribute of self-existence should be felt by us 1 Vindication of Christ's Divinity, being a Defence of some Queries relative to Dr. Clarke's Scheme of the Trinity." IN THE GODHEAD. 27 as somewhat startling. We may assert the eternal and supreme deity of the Son ; but it is a deity eternally derived from the Father ; a deity in one important respect at least essentially different from that of the Father, as being destitute of that pro- perty of self-existence, which we have ever been accustomed to consider as essential to Oodhead. Have we not been right in so considering it ? If the Father alone possesses this property of self-existence, is not the Father alone truly and properly JEHOVAH THE BEING the " I AM ? " Is that GOD, which is not SELF-EXISTENT ? 3. It appears to me that this is an instance in which the distinction between the order of nature and the order of time, however real, and however important in some matters, will not avail us. It is not the idea of posteriority I now speak of; it is that of derivation. From this the idea of dependence seems to me inseparable. It is true that Dr. Waterland speaks of the subor- dination of the Son as merely what he calls a subordination of order ; by which, however, it is not very easy to understand clearly what he means. For this manner of speaking seems to take away from the similitude of the Fountain all its appropri- ateness ; that similitude evidently implying that the Father is the very source whence the divinity of the Son is derived. And on the subject of derived divinity, we may put and press the question of the late Dr. Jamieson of Edinburgh : " There can be no communication of essence in any one of the adorable persons, without derivation in the other ; and how can there be deri- vation without inferiority ? That one divine person owes the divine nature to another, is language to which I can affix no scriptural idea." 1 On the objection to the doctrine of eternal generation, that it necessarily implies inferiority, Mr. Fuller says : " It is further objected, that sonship implies inferiority, and therefore cannot be attributed to the divine person of Christ. But, whatever inferiority may be attached to the idea of sonship, it 1 " A Vindication of the Doctrine of Scripture, nnd of the Primitive Faith, con- cerning the Deity of Christ." 28 TRINITY OF PERSONS is not an inferiority of nature, which is the point in question " Do not these words evidently indicate a strong impression existing in the writer's mind, that from the relation of sonship the idea of inferiority of some kind or other is inseparable ? Now, surely it is not enough to deny that there is any inferiority in nature. Among the divine persons* considered simply as the one God, the ideas of superiority and inferiority seem to me utterly inadmissible in any respect whatever. In no respect and in no degree can they be admitted. All such ideas ought to be confined to their voluntarily assumed relations in the scheme of human redemption. Thus Dr. Jamieson : " ' The Father hath given to the Son to have life in himself,' in the same respect in which he hath 'given him authority to execute judgment,' because he is the Son of Man." ; But when we speak of the persons of the Godhead, simply as such, the admission of inferiority of any kind or in any degree whatever, amounts to the denial, regarding the person to whom it is attributed, of true and proper divinity. We have seen that by Dr. Jamieson, the idea of the deri- vation of the divine nature is admitted necessarily to imply inferiority. Yet there appears an inconsistency in his own views. His explanation of the doctrine of eternal generation, seems liable to the full force of the same objection. The existence of the Son is by himself regarded as the consequence of the Father's operation. This operation he represents, not as an act eternally past, but as an immanent act ; that is, an act that never began and that is never to end. But we ask : Is riot the idea of derivation as really implied in that of con- tinued generation by an immanent act, as it is in that of generation by an act that is eternally past ? This writer denies the propriety of speaking of the essence of deity being communicated, because this is utterly irreconcilable with the idea of underived Godhead; which, consequently, he admits to belong to the Son as well as to the Father, and to be necessary to His being God at all. And 1 Works, vol. v. Essays, p. 579. " A Vindication of the Doctrine of Scripture, and of the Primitive Faith, con- cerning the Deity of Christ." IN THE GODHEAD. 29 yet, according to his own views of eternal generation, the divinity of the Son is the result of the necessary, eternal, unceasing operation of the Father. Have we not here, the idea of communication? And if of communication, then, upon the Doctor's own principles, of derivation. And if of deri- vation, of inferiority. If there be derivation, and derivation imply inferiority, it makes no difference whether the derivation be eternal or otherwise. It is simply from the derivation that the inferiority is deduced. And for the same reason, it can make no difference whether the generation be considered as an act eternally past, or as an act eternally immanent. There is still, in either case, derivation. A very singular distinction is made by Dr. Owen, between the Son in the essence of Deity and the Son as a person in the Godhead. On Colossians i. 15 and Hebrews i. 3 he thus writes : -" This image is the person of Christ. He is ' the image of the invisible God.' This respects the divine person, absolutely, as He is the essential image of the Father. With respect to the divine Essence, absolutely considered, wherein the Father is in the Son and the Son in the Father, the one cannot be said to be the image of the other ; for he and the Father are one ; and one and the same thing cannot be the image of itself in that thing wherein it is one. But the Son," adds he, " is not only said to be in the Father in the unity of the same essence, but also with the Father, or with God, in the distinction of His person. The Word was God in the unity of the divine essence ; and the Word was with God in its distinct personal subsistence ; and in this respect, He is the .essential image of his Father, as He is called in this place (Colossians i. 15) and in Hebrews i. 3 ; and that because He partakes of all divine properties with the Father." l Now, a distinction between the divine nature of Christ as subsisting in the essence of deity, and as subsisting in His mediatorial person as Immanuel, is a distinction which would be intelligible and scriptural ; but a distinction between His divine 1 Works, vol. i. Cbristologia, ch. v. p. 17. 30 TRINITY OF PERSONS nature as subsisting in the essence of deity and His divine nature as subsisting in His personality in deity, and the notion of the latter being an image of the former, is what I must confess I do not, in the remotest degree, understand. " Although the Father," continues this eminent writer, " on the other side, be partaker of all the divine properties of the Son, yet is He not said to be the image of the Son ; for this property of an image respects not the things themselves, but the manner of the participation of them. Now the Son receives all from the Father, and the Father nothing from the Son. Whatever belongs to the person of the Son as the person of the Son, He receives it all from the Father by eternal generation. For ' as the Father hath life in Himself, so hath he given to the Son to have life in Himself.' He is, therefore, the essential image of the Father, because all the properties of the divine nature are communicated to Him, together with personality, from the Father." But in all this about communication and reception, there appears still, to my mind, that kind of confusion of terms to which I formerly adverted ; communication and reception necessarily conveying to our minds the idea, either on the one hand, of the communication and reception of existence or being ; or on the other, of the existence of both the communicator and the recipient previously to the communication and reception of the properties communicated and received : both of which ideas appear to be alike inconsistent with the proper divinity of the recipient, whether of the existence or the properties. And in all such representations there is an approach, apparent at least, to the sentiment which has been held by some, of the pre-existent Logos becoming, by union with God and the assumption of a visible appearance, the image of God, prior to His incarnation. To me it appears incomparably more simple and reasonable to consider Christ as the image of the invisible God, " because in His mediatorial person as God-man, the character of deity is, as it were, embodied, and rendered visible." Still, however, the question recurs : " What saith the Scrip- 1 Works, vol, i. Christologia, c. v. p. 71. IN THE GODHEAD. 31 ture ? " There can be no doubt that there Jesus is expressly and many times designated "THE SON OF GOD." In what sense, then, are we to understand the designation? There are two general sides of the question Does the designation relate to His divine nature alone ? or does it relate to Him in His complex person as Immanuel ? And then, as to the second question, two more may be asked Is it solely official, or is it solely personal, being taken simply from the mysterious union in His one person of the two natures ? To the discussion of these questions we now proceed. III. -THE SONSHIP OF JESUS CHEIST. THERE are two branches of the inquiry : the first relates to the eternal generation 'of the Son ; the second to the eternal procession of the Holy Spirit. In discussing the former of these, which will require to be done at much more length than the other, J purpose, in the first place, to offer a few observations on those passages which are usually adduced in support of the doctrine of eternal generation ; and secondly, to show the true sense of the designation " Son of God," as used in the divine word. I. In regard to the doctrine of eternal generation in the essence of deity, we shall first offer our remarks on particular texts adduced in support of it ; and then on certahi classes of texts in which particular expressions occur from which it is inferred. A passage often referred to is Psalm ii. 7, " I will de- clare the decree; Jehovah hath said unto me, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee." On this passage observe 1. There is nothing that, to my mind, is more unnatural and arbitrary, than the interpretation put by the advocates of the doctrine on the expression " this day," as meaning from eter- nity or in eternity, considered as a stans nunc or perpetual present ; and the words " have I begotten," though in the past form, as meaning an eternal and continued act. This is a sense in which, it may safely be presumed, such a phrase nowhere will be found to occur in any writings, sacred or profane. And whatever requires a straining of the natural import of terms and phrases, it should be laid down as a settled principle of OF JESUS CHRIST. 33 exegesis, is not likely to be the true meaning. And we ought to be on our guard against all such prepossessions, of what kind soever, in favour of particular sentiments and modes of thinking, as may unfit us for impartial criticism, and make that seem to us quite simple and natural, which, in reality, is contrary to all established analogies of language. 2. The Psalm appears to speak for itself with sufficient plainness. Throughout the whole, Messiah is the subject. He is spoken of, or He speaks in His subordinate character as Messiah. He is Jehovah's Anointed, " against whom the kings of the earth set them- selves, and the rulers take counsel." He is " His king whom He 'sets on His holy hill of Zion," asking and obtaining " the heathen for His possession, and the uttermost ends of the earth for His inheritance." It is surely in His mediatorial capacity that the Father promises this to Him. The seventh and eighth verses ought to be taken in connection. The one contains the ground or reason of the other. It is in the same character that the admonition regards Him " Kiss the Son," etc., i. e. submit to Him, embrace Him, as the divinely appointed, the great and only Mediator and Lord. 3. In this view of His person, namely as mediator, the words are applied, in the New Testament, to His resurrection from the dead. 1 It will hardly be denied that the apostle seems at least to repre- sent Jesus as the Son of God on account of the Father's raising, or begetting Him from the dead. Elsewhere He is called " the first begotten of the dead." 2 To this, however, the following objections are made : First, That all that is meant by Paul's language is, that He was, by His resurrection, declared to be what He previously was. We answer in the first place, it would be a breach of candour not to admit that such may be the import of the mode of expression employed, especially when it is compared with other language of the same writer. 3 But this is all the length that candour can go. It surely is not without some little force that the words, "I have begotten thee,"are made to signify I have declared thee my son. Secondly, The terms 1 Acts xiii. 32. * Rev. i. 5. 3 Horn. i. 3. VOL. II. D 34 THE SONSHIP of Rev. i. 5, as well as of Col. i. 18, appear very decidedly to inti- mate the resurrection to be a reason for the appellation. Thirdly, Supposing the words capable of meaning, and eventually to mean, His having been " declared the Son of God," still it does not at all follow that eternal generation from the Father in the essence of deity must be intended ; inasmuch as the divinely appointed and divinely produced constitution of His person as Immanuel preceded His resurrection as really as His supposed eter- nal generation did ; and was capable, therefore, of being declared by the event as well as the other ; unless upon the principle of " this day" going back into eternity past, or, as Dr. Jamieson alleges, signifying an eternally continued immanent act. Secondly, It is objected that this view of the words of Paul as to Christ's resurrection would imply his having been more than once begotten. "But granting that the sonship of Christ in this place 1 is to be understood in the same sense in which it is commonly taken in the New Testament, still it does not follow that the miraculous conception is the origin of it. It may be a reason given why Christ is called the" Son of God, as raised from the dead, and as exalted at the right hand of God. Did He, therefore, become the Son of God by these events ? This is impossible ; for sonship is not a progressive matter. If it arose from His miraculous conception ; it could not, for that reason, arise from His resurrection or exaltation. And if, on the other hand, it arose from His resurrection and exaltation, it could not arise from His miraculous conception. But if each be understood of His being hereby proved, acknowledged, or, as the Scriptures express it, declared to be the Son of God with power, all is easy and consistent." 5 Of the passage relative to Christ's incarnation we shall speak afterwards, when we shall advert to. the distinction between the reasons for His being called the Son and the reasons for His being the Son. At present I have only to say, that I am not sensible of any contradiction, or even impropriety, at least so strongly as it is here put, in conceiving of more grounds or 1 Luke i. 35. 2 Fuller's Works, vol. v. ; Essays, p. 580. OF JESUS CHRIST. 35 reasons than one existing for the bestowment of the same appellation. Believers are children of God in two senses, on two accounts, their creation and their regeneration. 1 Can any valid reason, then, be assigned why Jesus should not be called the Son of God, both on account of the miraculous constitution of His person at His incarnation ; and on account of what may be considered as the re-constitution of His person at His resur- rection ? At least, the objection is not strong enough to counter- vail the positive evidence hereafter to be produced for the origin of the designation. 2. Prov. viii. 22, 31. This passage is very generally regarded as decisive of the point in question. And so it would be, if it could be made out that the second person in the adorable Trinity is indeed the speaker in the verses. But this has been assumed, rather than proved ; and assumed, rather from a pre^ vious impression of the doctrine in question existing in the mind, and harmonizing with this interpretation of them, than from any attentive and impartial examination of the verses .themselves. I highly venerate the piety that seeks to find Christ every- where. And I would bear much more readily with the mistake that finds Him where He is not, than with either the indifference or the learned apathy that does not find Him where He is. If it is a weakness, it is at least an amiable weakness, which is inclined to stretch the explanation of a passage a little, to bring it to bear upon Him whom all His people delight to honour. But I would have it deeply impressed on the minds of the rising- ministry, that the true way to honour the divine Author of the inspired word is, to endeavour in all cases to discover the pre- cise meaning of every portion of that word ; the lesson, and neither more nor less than the lesson, which it was the design of the Holy Spirit to convey. This ought to be our sole aim ; and an aim kept ever in view, and pursued with all possible earnestness. The sense which we affix to a particular passage may be a truth, and an important and practically valuable truth too, in perfect agreement with the whole tenor of the Bible, 1 Mai. ii. 10 ; Acts xvii. 28 ; Gal. iii. 26. ob THE SONSHIP. what is usually called the analogy of faith; 1 but it may not be the lesson intended to be taught in the passage ; and this is what we ought to search for, and, as far as the one pas- sage is concerned, this alone. Whatever, therefore, may have been the satisfaction expe- rienced by many pious minds in reading this chapter, and especially the latter part of it, as the words of their divine Lord ; and as containing evidence of His pre-existence and eternity, and of His everlasting love, and His purposes of mercy towards a fallen world : I cannot admit, according to the principle of exegesis just mentioned, the correctness of such an application of the chapter. The objections to such application of it, and the evidence of its being the utterance, not of a person, but of a personification, not of the eternal Word who was in the beginning with God, and who was God, but of a personification of the attribute of divine wisdom, are to my mind very conclusive. It should first of all be. noticed, that the passage is nowhere so appropriated in the New Testament Scriptures. Do not misunderstand me. I am far from adducing this as any direct objection to the interpretation in question. It certainly does not follow, from the fact of any passage not being actually explained of Christ in the New Testament, that it must not be so explained. I mean no more than this, that from its not being so applied in the New Testament, we are relieved from the necessity we must otherwise have felt of so applying it. Had we got a key from any New Testament writer, by the explanation of any part of this chapter as having a reference to the Messiah, we must have adopted the explanation, difficulties notwith- standing. Such necessity being precluded, we are at liberty to give such objections as the following their full weight: [1.] Wisdom here is a female personage. All along this is the case. 2 Now this is in perfect accordance with the idea of personifica- tion. But under such a view we nowhere else find the Scrip- tures, in any of then- figurative representations of the Messiah, introducing Him. On this account, even were there no other, 1 Rom. xii. 6. 2 Chap. i. 20, 21 ; chap. viii. 1-3 : clinp. ix. 1-3. OF JESUS CHUIST. 37 tlie application does appear to me very unnatural. [2.] That wisdom is not intended as a personal designation, appears from this, that it is associated with other terms of synony- mous, or at least of corresponding import. Were it personal, like the Logos or Word, 1 this would hardly have been admissible. Understanding and knowledge are associated with wisdom. 2 Are they also personal designations? [3.] That the whole is a bold prosopopoeia a personification of the attribute of wisdom, appears further from the terms of verse 12. Here wisdom is joined with prudence ; and the import of the association evidently is, that wisdom directs to the best ends, and devises the best means for their execution ; and prudence or discretion shows whatever might, in any way or in any degree, interfere with or mar the accomplishment. This is precisely what wisdom, as an attribute or quality, actually does. And it is deserving of notice, that this association of wisdom with prudence is introduced by Paul as characterizing the greatest of all divine transactions, the work of redemption by Jesus Christ ; there, was the same union in framing and executing that wonderful scheme. 3 [4.] It is very true that there are many things in the whole chapter, and especially in the latter part of it, that are, in a very striking manner, applicable to the divine Messiah. This, however, is no more than what might have been anticipated ; that things which are true of a divine attribute should be capable of explication of a divine person. It is not at all surprising. It could not well have been otherwise. And the sole question is, whether particular expressions and representations, although thus capable of such an explication, were intended to have it. They are capable of another. Which was meant ? And in settling this question, we must be determined by such considerations as those which have just been suggested, as well as by the general scope of the passage, and by the style of the book in which they occur. It must be evident that until it can be clearly established that the Messiah, the Son of God is the speaker, the part of the 1 John i. 1. 2 Ch. iii. 19, 20. 3 Epli. i. 7, 8. 38 THE SONSIIIP chapter which I have read to you cannot with propriety be quoted in evidence of the doctrine under consideration. Now this, we are satisfied, is incapable of being established. The evidence is strong against it, rendering it much more than doubtful. When a personification is introduced, and is with any degree of freedom and boldness maintained, we may always expect to find points that may seem incongruous and difficult. Yet there is not much, even in this highly bold prosopopoeia, that can occasion you any great embarrassment. The language of figure is not, of course, to be interpreted with literal strict- ness. Divine wisdom, belonging essentially to the divine nature, was from eternity. But as a pereon she here speaks of herself as "brought forth" previously to the commencement of creation and providence, with obvious reference to the application of her counsels in the purposes and plans of the Godhead. Infinite wisdom superintended both the planning and the executing of the stupendous scheme of creation, in all its amplitude of com- prehensiveness, and in all the minutest variety of its detail. Into the particulars sublimely enumerated in the verses I do not enter. In reference to the whole, Wisdom says " Then was I by him, as one brought up with Him," that is, as the constant and intimate associate of all His plans and all their execution, inseparable from Him in all He purposed and in all He did ; " and I was daily His delight." The word " daily " in such a connection, I cannot help regarding as having reference to the successive days of the world's creation. As the product and manifestation of divine power and divine wisdom in these successive days appeared, the Almighty and All- Wise delighted in the display of His own perfections. His wisdom exulted in its own wondrous results, and the personification gets still bolder " rejoicing always before Him." Wisdom by , her counsels, when carried into execution, advances the divine glory ; and in the figure she is represented as rejoicing in this, and rejoicing in His very presence ; there being, among the fruits of her counsels, nothing of which she has any reason to be ashamed. This is but an amplification -of the previous senti- OF JESUS CHKIST. 39 incut, and corresponds with the Psalmist's brief but forcible and beautiful expression " The Lord shall rejoice in his works." 1 Then, as the consummation of Wisdom's joy, it is added " rejoicing in the habitable parts of his earth, and my delights were with the children of men." The words may be regarded as having a twofold reference. They refer, in the first instance, to man's creation, that being the greatest and best of all the created wonders of the six days, the most marvellous arid attractive display of the wisdom of the divine Artificer ; that on \vhich the largest amount of the resources of skill had been expended : " In man the last, in him the hest, His Maker's image stood confess'd !" Yet when I consider how constantly, in speaking of the wisdom of God, the Bible points to another work ; not man's creation, but man's recovery when fallen ; I cannot but consider the terms of this verse as, at the same time, prospective, anti- cipating the divine procedure toward " the sons of men," in that scheme, which is so emphatically designated " the wisdom of God;" 2 and in which there was " made known to the princi- palities and powers in heavenly places the manifold wisdom of God." 3 Jehovah, as man's creator, was glorious; Jehovah, as the God of man's salvation, was to be still more glorious ; and in proportion to the manifestation of that glory was the delight of heavenly wisdom to be the more exquisite and elevated. It is in man as he was by creation, and in man as he becomes by redemption, that divine wisdom is apparent, and that the per- sonification of that wisdom delights. 3. Prov. xxx. 4. This is a passage which has also been interpreted as having reference to Christ, and as containing another proof of the doctrine we are considering. I cannot assent to any such reference or meaning, for the following reasons: [1.] The form of question here used implies the idea of great difficulty, or even impossibility, to tell either the name of Him who hath " gathered the winds in his fists, or bound up 1 PH. civ. 31. 2 1 Cor. i. 24. 3 Eph. iii. 10. 40 THE SONSHI1' the waters in a garment, or established all tlie ends of the earth," or the name of his Son. Now, considering the question as relating to the actual Creator and Governor of the physical universe and the elements and powers of lu-.ture, where could any difficulty exist to tell who it was that did the wonders specified, or to tell the name of the Almighty Maker and Super- intendent of all things? [2.] The question "What is his name, or what is his son's name?" you will observe, applies to the same person respecting whom it is also asked " Who hath ascended up into heaven, or descended?" If this latter question, then, be considered as having reference to the future Immanuel, then what are we to make of the additional question " What is his son's name?" And the latter question cannot be supposed, and is not alleged, to refer to the Father. [3]. If there be a prophetic reference to Him who came down from heaven to be our instructor and Saviour, and then ascended to heaven to be our Advocate, the questions in the passage would require to be inverted in their order ; they should have stood " Who hath descended from heaven, and ascended." As they stand they are unnatural, and the reverse of truth. If you ask me, then, what the true meaning of the passage is, I answer at once : It appears to me -to express substantially the same sentiment with that expressed in another passage, l namely, the sentiment of the incomprehensibility of the divine Being. We cannot scale the height, we cannot fathom the depth, we can- not measure or estimate the length and breadth, of the vast, the boundless subject. So here " Who hath ascended up into heaven?" that is, to see the glories of the invisible God, to " learn the secrets of the world unknown," to read the books of providence, and grace, and judgment? " Who hath descended?" that is, to bring down and to communicate the discoveries he has made. Where is the man who has mounted to the third heavens, and explored theii hidden wonders, and got it in com- mission there to carry back the revelation of what he has seen and heard to the children of men, the sons of earth and time ? 1 Job xi. 7-9, 12. OF JESUS CIIUIST. 41 If such a man there be, point him out. " What is his name, and what is his son's name, if thou canst tell?" \Ylio and when, 1 is he ? and who and where are they that have the honour and privilege of connection with him? What is his name? Is he on earth? Orj if he himself has gone the way of all living, " What is his son's name ?" Show us how we may find the descendant of the man whom God has thus supremely distinguished, and to whom his fellow mortals lie under such obligations. What, then, is this but a divine chal- lenge to find or to name one, existing either now or in all past ages, who has had an intuitive and perfect acquaintance with the mysteries of God's being and the secrets of God's mind ? And this is evidently designed as a strong admonition to humble- mindedness, a dissuasiveness from presumption, a warning to be satisfied with whatever may be the amount of divine com- munications ; so that " no man should," on subjects so awful , and so far above the reach of man, be " vainly puffed up by his fleshly mind." 1 There is something further, indeed, than even that. The language clearly and forcibly conveys the sentiment that no one else than a Being who himself possesses the perfections, exer- cises the powers, and performs the works of God, can be capable of comprehending God. This appears to be the intended import of the questions " W T ho hath gathered the winds in his fists ? Who hath bound the waters in a garment? Who hath esta- blished all the ends of the earth?" Find me out the man who has done, or who can do, all these things ; and I will show you the man who is competent to answer your questions, to pene- trate the depths of God, and give you full satisfaction. It is only he that can do the one that is competent to do the other. And one thing more than even this might still have been wanting, namely, that those to whom the communications were made should have the same powers and capacities as the extra- ordinary man by whom they were made, in order to their being able to understand them. The meaning thus amounts to just 1 i Col. ii. 18. 42 THE SONSHIP this : He who has done and continues to do these things is God Himself; and by God Himself alone can God be comprehended. Besides these there are other passages in the Old Testa- ment sometimes referred to, more in the way of hint and allu- sion than of formal adduction in evidence ; on which it would be little better than trifling to dwell. II. I have now to notice certain classes of texts, in which particular modes of expression are used, implying, as is thought, soriship previous to incarnation. Thus "the Son of God is spoken of as having been ' sent,' ' sent into the world,' ' manifested to destroy the works of the devil ;' to have ' come,' ' come into the world,' ' come down from heaven.' These and other similar things are affirmed of ' the Son of God.' 1 And the argument is this : The Son of God could not be sent or manifested, could not come, come into the world,- come down from heaven, unless He had previously been a Son. Christ is called the Son of God antecedently to His being ' manifested to destroy the works of the devil ;' but He was ' manifested to destroy the works of the devil' by taking upon Him the human nature ; consequently He was the Son of God antecedently to the human nature being assumed." 5 This sounds plausibly. It looks even decisive. But there is a fallacy in it. There were two natures in the person of Christ ; and in speaking of Him, the sacred writers are not found to discriminate between the designations given Him, so as that there shall ever be a correspondence between the designa- tion and the thing that is at the time affirmed of Him ; that is, that if the thing affirmed be something peculiar to Him as God, or to which He is competent in His divine nature alone, the designation should be one which peculiarly indicates divinity ; and if it be something pertaining to Him or done by Him as man, any function to which His human nature was competent, and which was peculiar to it, the designation should be one taken from and indicating that nature ; and if it be aught done 1 John vi 44 ; x. 36 ; 1 John iii. 8 ; Luke xix. 10 ; 1 Tim. i. 15 ; John iii. 12. 2 Fuller's Works, vol. v. Essays, 581. OF JESUS CHRIST. 43 by Him as Immanuel, in His own person of both natures, that the designation should be one of those which belong to Him in this complexity of natures. No such rule is at all observed. There is what Calvin calls the " intercommunicatio idiomatum;' 1 so that, indiscriminately, designations taken from either of the t\\o natures are understood to denote His person; and under a designation pertaining to His human nature things are said of Him which imply divinity, and, vice versa, under appellations expressive of His divinity, things are said of Him which not only imply humanity, but are true of Him only as man. Accordingly, all the things enumerated, His having been sent, His having come into the world, etc., may be found affirmed concerning him under other designations besides that of the Son of God ; and if the argument for previous sonship be a conclusive one, it must be equally conclusive as to what these other designa- tions imply. Thus, for example : Is He, under the designation of " Sou of God," said to be " sent," so is he under the desig- nation of Jesus Christ. 1 In passages innumerable Jesus speaks of " the Father that sent Him." According to the principle of the argument, therefore, He must have been Jesus Christ pre- viously to His being sent, and He must have been the person who spoke to the Jews and to His disciples, and whom they saw and heard, previously to His being sent. The truth is, the designation " sent " appears to have reference more to the idea of commission than to the event of His incarnation or to local advent. 2 "As thou hast made me thy apostle to the world, I have made them my apostles to the world." 3 The same thing is true of the phrase His being " mani- fested." 4 The words "hath he appeared" are the one word vB Col. i. 1(>, 17 ; Heb. i. 2 ; Eph. iii. 9. 6 John xvii. 5 7 1 Tim. ii. 5. 46 THK SONSIIIP OF JESUS CHRIST. that an argument to the same effect has been drawn from the form of baptism prescribed by our Lord. The ordinance of baptism is commanded to be administered in the name of the Father, arid of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. The terms Father and Holy Spirit will be allowed to denote divine persons ; and what good reason can be assigned for another idea being affixed to the term Son?" 1 The answer to this is, it is not denied that the three designations are those of the three persons in the Godhead ; but the question is Do they represent them simply according to their respective modes of subsistence in the essence of Deity, or according to the economical relations which they are represented as sustaining in the scheme of human redemption? When we recollect the immediate connection which baptism bears to the character of God as revealed in the Gospel, we may see good reason for thinking the latter the more natural and reasonable supposition. 1 Fuller's Works, vol. v. Essays, p. 581. IV.-THE SONSHIP OF CHRIST AND PROCESSION OF THE SPIRIT. I NOW come to state, with as much brevity as possible, what the Scriptures do mean by the title " The Son of God." I shall then leave the subject to your own consideration and decision ; not insisting on your adopting the view given by myself, and which I believe to have the sanction of the divine oracles ; seeing, if we hold the great essential doctrine of our blessed Lord's divinity, the dispute becomes, in a great degree, one about a name. Different minds have taken different views of the bearing of the dispute on the clearness and integrity of the great article of truth just mentioned. Observe, then 1. Jesus is called in the Scriptures, " the Son of God," " His own Son," " His beloved Son," " His only begotten Son." * But we do not find Him anywhere denominated the eternal Son, or eternally begotten. The eternity of the divine person, the second in the blessed Trinity, is decidedly affirmed ; 2 but not the eternity of His sonship. I do not mention this as at all conclusive of the question. On the principles before stated, the Word eternal might have been associated with the designation Son of God, without warranting the conclusion that the sonship itself was eternal ; but only meaning that the person to whom the designa- tion belonged was eternal. But is it not safer, on such a subject, to avoid phraseology that is not found in Scripture ; especially when that phraseology has come to be used, almost invariably with a certain meaning affixed to it by those who 1 Matt. xvii. 5 ; John i. 14, 18 ; iii. 16, 18 ; 1 John iv. 9. 'Johni 1-3. 48 THE SONSHIP OF CHRIST. use it. " The eternal Son of God" is a designation of this description. It is always (I presume I may say) employed in the sense, not merely that He who is so designated is the Son of God, and that he existed from eternity, but that He existed from eternity in the relation of a son, that is, of a son eternally begotten in the divine essence. On this account, they who do not believe in this ought to shun the use of it. 2. The designation includes supreme divinity. Into the proof that Jesus Christ is truly God, I do not at present enter, for a reason before assigned. The present question is Whether the title relates to His divine nature exclu- sively that is, without at all including his human ; or whether to His human nature exclusively, independently of His divine ; or whether (which I believe to be the true state of the case) to His one person, as embracing both His person as God-man, Irnmanuel ? The divine nature is implied in the designation. 1 You will observe that it was not and could not be the mere fact of his calling God His father on which they founded their charge of blasphemy ; for they called God theirs. But they understood Him to call God His father in a peculiar sense, in a sense that implied equality with God. 2 And had they in this misappre- hended His meaning, we cannot for one moment doubt that He would instantly, with jealousy for the divine honour, and a trembling horror at such presumptuous impiety being imputed to Him, have corrected their mistake, and set them right. 3. The angel Gabriel assigns a reason for the designation Son of God, in his address to Mary, the virgin mother of Jesus, in announcing His coming birth. 3 The terms employed are very explicit : " Here," says Dr. Pye Smith, " the miraculous production of the Messiah's human nature is manifestly given as the reason of the appellation. The words of the passage are evidently selected with a view to convey the idea of such a miraculous production. Whatever may be our opinion on the general meaning of the term Holy Spirit, it cannot be doubted 1 John v. 17. 2 v. 18. 3 Luke i. 3, 35. THE PROCESSION OF THE SPIRIT. 49 that here the design of the whole expression is to represent a peculiar exercise of almighty power for the production of an extraordinary effect. This act of the Holy Spirit is put in parallelism with the " power of the Highest." It is said to " come upon her," and to " overshadow her ; " expressions which, agreeably to the Scripture usage, mark the exercise of a peculiar, extraordinary, and divine energy. 1 Dr. Ridgely, holding substantially the same view with myself of Christ's souship, has thought it right, by rather a questionable criticism, to wrest the passage out of the hands of any Unitarians who admit its genuineness. They infer from it His being called the Son of God as a man only ; and merely on account of the miraculous conception of His human and only nature. " I humbly conceive that that Scripture is to be understood, with a small variation of the translation, in this sense ' The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee, because that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called ' as He really is ' the Son of God ; ' that is, He is, as Mediator, an extraordinary person, appointed to execute a glorious office, the Godhead and the manhood being to be united together, upon which account He is called the Son of God ; and therefore it is expedient that the formation of His human nature should be in an extraordinary way, to wit, by the power of the Holy Spirit." 2 According to this criticism, the miraculous con- ception is not assigned as a reason for the title, but the title, or the reality expressed by it, as a reason of the miraculous or divine conception. This, however, appears a forced interpre- tation of the illative particle employed, 816, which means, both by etymology, &' 8, propter quod ; and by use, wherefore, for which cause, on which account. 3 In opposition to this being regarded as the reason of the title Son of God, it may be alleged (1.) That, as His human nature alone could be conceived and born, such an application 1 Smith's Script. Testim. to the Messiah, b. iii. c. iii. p. 432. * Body of Divinity, quest, ix. x. xi. 8 Matt, xxvii. 8 ; 1 Cor. xii. 3 ; 2 Cor. vi. 17 ; Heb. xiii. 12. VOL. II. E 50 THE SONSHIP OF JESUS. of the angel's language will prove too much. It will prove that He was the Son of God in that nature alone. The answer to this is, that it was to the person, the entire person, that the designation was to belong ; and that in His human nature alone that person never subsisted. " To say," observes the acute Archibald M'Lean, " that this is only giving a reason for the sonship of His human nature, is not sense ; for sonship does not apply to a nature, genus, or kind, but to a person or indi- vidual subsistent in a nature. Christ is not a human person, that He should be called a son, as such ; for this would make Him to have two persons, a divine and a human." He is to be considered as having one person, in which the divine and the human natures are united." The question comes shortly to this : " What was this holy thing" which was born of the Virgin ? Was it simply a human nature, or was it a divine person incarnate ? The Scripture answers this directly, and tells us that the son which the Virgin conceived and brought forth is Emmanuel, i. e. God with us; 1 that the " child born," and " son given," is " the Mighty God ;" 2 even " the Saviour Christ the Lord." 3 It was in this conception or birth that "the Word was made flesh." 4 And so that holy thing born of her was no less a person than " God manifest in the flesh." 5 Now, if such was the person born, then this passage gives the reason, not merely why the human nature alone, but why His whole person, now constituted of both natures, is called the Son of God." 6 (2.) It is alleged that the reason is here assigned, not for His being the Son of God, but only for His being so called. It is not easy to understand this. Why should He, on account of His incarnation, be called the Son of God, if there was no real connection between His incarnation and His sonship ? He is surely called the Son of God because He is the Son of God; and if He is called the Son of God on this account, it must be because He is the Son of God. In not a few instances, to be called 1 Isa. vii. 14 ; Matt. i. 23. 2 Isa. ix. 6. 3 Luke ii. 11. * John i. 14. 8 1 Tim. iii. 16. fl M'Lean's Works, vol. iii. 278, 279. THE PROCESSION OF THE SPIRIT. 51 means, in the idiom of Scripture, little if anything more than to be. 1 In such cases, it is evident the reason of the appellation is the same as the reason for the thing itself. (3.) It is further objected that if His incarnation was the origin and reason of His sonship, He ought to be called the Son of the Holy Spirit. But this appears trifling with the great subject. " The Holy Ghost " and " the power of the Highest " are both mentioned as effecting the preternatural generation of the Christ in the womb of the Virgin. And so are the power of the Father and the power of the Spirit mentioned as effecting His resurrection from the dead. What does this, then, go to prove, but that in both cases it is in His mediatorial person that He is spoken of; and that it was by divine power that both His incarnation and His resurrection were accomplished. The Father is, in various instances, represented as producing effects by the agency of the Spirit, while the effects are still ascribed to the Father himself. Thus sinners are regenerated by the immediate quickening energy of the Holy Spirit ; but they are not the less on this account throughout the Scriptures denominated the children of God, that is, of the Father ; whereas, on the principle of this objection, they, too, ought to be called the children of the Holy Spirit. Just look to the verses again. 2 The designation " the Son of the Highest " is manifestly connected with the operation of " the power of the Highest ;" and the " Son of the Highest " 3 is the same as the " Son of God." 4 And nothing, it appears to me, can be more explicit than the terms in which the supernatural incarnation is assigned as the reason of the sonship : " Therefore also " on which account also, " that holy thing which shall be born of thee " thy holy offspring, " shall be called the Son of God." (4.) We have formerly seen that He is called the Son of God on account of His resurrection from the dead. 5 But we dwell not upon this, having disposed of it before. His resurrection, 1 Isa. iv. 2, 3 ; xxxv. 8 ; Matt. v. 9, 19 ; Luke i. 76. * Luke i. 31-35. 3 v. 32. 4 v. 35. 5 Pfl. ii. 7 ; Acts xiii. 32 ; Rev. i. 5. 52 THE SONSHIP OF JESUS. as we then observed, might be regarded as the re-constitution of His mediatorial person, after the separation effected by His death. (5.) Jesus is represented as an heir. 1 Now heirship is inseparable from sonship. The one arises out of the other." It is as a son that He is an heir. The very terms of the last cited passage " if children, then heirs," proceed upon this universally understood connection. But He could not be heir and appointed heir as God simply; it must have been as Mediator in His mediatorial person. And if it be as Emmanuel that He is heir, it must be as Emmanuel that He is son. If he was the Son of God from eternity in the essence of the Godhead, then must He, according to this view of His sonship, have been heir from eternity ; and that, too, simply as God ! (6.) We have a still further confirmation of the title Son belonging to Him as Mediator, as Emmanuel ; from the fact of His being represented as inheriting, "or obtaining by inheritance," this very title. 2 In what intelligible sense could He be said to have obtained this name by inheritance if His sonship was essential to His divine nature as such from eternity ? The other quotations from the Old Testament Scriptures, which are subjoined in the context, have manifest reference to Him in His mediatorial capacity. 3 The fifth verse shews clearly what was the "name" which He " obtained by inheritance;" and the eighth and ninth verses settle the point as to His mediatorial person being intended, the Son being there at once addressed as God, and as being anointed by His God ! The whole chapter relates to Him in this capacity; some things referring to His one nature, and some to the other, but all relating to Him in His one person, as uniting both. If, therefore, it be alleged that the same thing which we have been saying of the title Son of God might equally well be affirmed of the title Son of Man, we at once grant it. The one and the other are alike titles of His person. Neither does the one represent Him as only God, nor the other as only man; but both distinguishing Him as Emmanuel, " God manifest in the flesh." " The name ' Son of God ' imports 1 Heb. i. fc; Col. i. 15 ; Rom. viii. 17. 2 Heb. i. 4. v. 5-9. THE PROCESSION OF THE SPIRIT. 53 that He is really God ; and ' Son of Man ' that He is really man. But as ' Son of Man ' does not mean that He is only a man, so neither does Son of God imply that He is only God. Under the appellation Son of Man, He speaks of Himself as having come down from heaven, and being in heaven while on earth, 1 as having power to forgive sins, 2 to raise the dead, and to judge the world. 3 Therefore this name must include more than His human nature. Speaking of Himself under the appellation Son of God, he declares He can do nothing of Himself, 4 and that the Father is greater than He, 5 therefore the name Son of God must include more than His divine nature. The truth is, these names are used indifferently to denote the one person of Emmanuel, and not to give us a separate or abstract view of His natures and their peculiar actings, this being easily known from the natures of the actions themselves. In His person we find God performing the actions of man, and a man performing the actions and exercising and displaying the perfections of God ; for though He was possessed of two distinct natures, yet such is their union in Him that they make but one self; so that if we abstract or separate them, we lose the person of the Son ; it is no more Himself." 6 (7.) We may draw another argument from Heb. v. 5-10. It must be evident that here it is as a son that He is represented as a priest ; but the latter He is in His mediatorial person, so therefore is He the former. There appears to be a reference in verse 5 to the law of primogeniture, to the connection between the firstborn and the priesthood. Must He not, then, be a son by the same dispensation which constituted Him a priest ? (8.) Once more, we may appeal to the language of the apostle John. 7 That in the former of these passages this apostle considered the designation Son of God as equivalent to "God manifest in the flesh" is more than likely, on two accounts (1.) The belief that Jesus is the Son of God appears, in his 1 John iii. 13. 2 Matt. ir. " Matt. xxv. 31, 32 ; John v. 27. 4 John v. 19. s John xiv. 28. " M'Lean'a Works, vol. iii. pp. 308, 300. 7 1 John iv. 15 ; v. 1. 54 THE SONSH1P OF JESUS. reasoning, to be equivalent to the belief that Jesus is the Christ j 1 and this, beyond a doubt, is a designation inclusive of both the natures in His mediatorial person. (2.) Even in that early age, while there were some who questioned the divinity of Christ, and admitted only His humanity, there were others who questioned the reality of His human nature, affirming it to have been the mere resemblance or appearance of a man assumed for the time, while they granted His proper divinity. If, then, as is generally supposed, it was one of John's objects in this epistle to contradict this latter heresy as well as the former, does it not follow that he would hardly have used the language in question had the title Son of God been understood by him as implying no more than His simple divinity ; inasmuch as, by this means, He might have given encouragement to those who denied the real humanity of Christ to regard themselves as believers of the Gospel, and as born of God, in opposition to other explicit declarations of the same letter, and to the whole tenor of the Word of God. There are various other views of this argument, and various other objections, which I do not think it necessary to notice. I close the discussion with one essential observation, that the sense in which I have been endeavouring to shew that the title Son of God is given to Jesus, is a sense of it, in which it is as entirely as the one I have been questioning, peculiar to Himself, belonging to no other being in the universe, save to Him. The union of the two natures in His one person sets Him quite alone. It is altogether exclusive and unique. He is the only Emmanuel. I proceed to the second branch of the general subject, the procession of the Holy Spirit. This will not detain us long. It is truly astonishing on what very slight grounds this tenet has been so generally received as the doctrine of the Bible. Nothing furnishes a better exemplification of the power of mere easy credulous habit on all such subjects, and the disposition to 1 Chap. iv. 15 ; and chap. v. 1. THE PROCESSION OF THE SPIRIT. ;35 save trouble by taking for granted, not what God says, but what divines have said, or what the church has said. I freely admit that, if the Bible be the Word of God, one explicit declaration of such a book is sufficient for settling any point. It is not for us to prescribe to its divine Author either the way or the number of times that anything should be declared to warrant or oblige our reception of it. But surely, when our faith is required to rest on a single declaration, that declaration ought to be one very plain and distinct in its character ; one of no obscurity and no ambiguity. The case is then widely different from one in which the proofs are so numerous and so diversified, that we can spare any that are at all questionable, and have still more than enough remaining. Now, in the present instance, the passages are not only few in number, and capable of a different interpretation ; but with me, I must confess, the wonder is that they should ever have been understood in such a sense as the one which has been put upon them. Let us look at them ; they are to be found in our Lord's last discourse to his disciples. 1 Indeed, the one expression on which, so. far as I am aware, the doctrine in question may be considered as entirely resting, is " which proceedeth from the Father." 2 "The Spirit's coming, and being sent by our Lord from the Father, to testify of Him, are personal characters, and plainly distinguish Him from the Father and the Son ; and the title of ' the Spirit of truth,' together with his ' proceeding from the Father,' can agree to none but a divine person. For this title is too high for a creature ; and I cannot see any sufficient reason why His proceeding from the Father is mentioned in the present tense, in the midst of a sentence where ' Christ's sending Him,' and His ' testifying of Christ,' are spoken of as future, unless it be to intimate His necessary, unbeginning, and never-ending procession, as a divine person, from the Father, in such a sublime manner as lies beyond the reach of all our ideas, but is some way answerable to what is 1 John xiv. 26 ; xv. 26 ; xvi. 7. 2 Chap. xv. 26. 56 THE SONSHIP OF JESUS. called eternal generation with regard to Christ, in correspondence to His character as the Son. And yet, that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Son as well as from the Father, may be fairly argued from His being called the Spirit of Christ, and the Spirit of the Son, as well as of the Father; 1 and from His being here said to be sent by Christ from the Father, as well as from the Father in His name," etc. 2 Now, on all this it is obvious to remark (1.) Unless the expressions here used with regard to Christ's sending the Spirit be understood as having the same reference, the passage contains no evidence whatever of the doctrine of the eternal procession of the Spirit from the Son. And surely no one will venture to say that those expressions really have any such reference, when Christ is manifestly speaking about what was to be, and what He was to do, after He should leave the world and go to the Father." (2.) Even the phrase in question " which proceedeth from the Father," does appear to me, notwithstanding Dr. Guyse's difficulties, to have itself the very same reference. Redundant expressions (assuming it to be one) are by no means so uncommon in the writings of this evangelist, as to warrant their being made the sole foundation of a doctrine of so much magnitude. Jesus various times speaks of the mission of the Spirit from Himself and from the Father in this discourse ; nor does there appear to be any great difficulty in imagining that, to impress the minds of His disciples with their obligations to both, He should declare it with some little redundance in one sentence. But in truth the assumption of redundance has been made only for the sake of argument. There is no redundance. The words, " whom I will send unto you from the Father," have immediate reference to His one exclusive commission to them ; while the words " which proceedeth from the Father," are meant to express the same truth in a more general form ; representing Him as proceeding from the Father in the execution of all His saving work. In confirmation of its 1 Pet. i. 11 : Gal. iv. 6. 2 Guyse's Commentary on the passage. THE PROCESSION OF THE SPIRIT. ~n having reference to " the work given the Spirit to do," in the scheme of redemption, it may be noticed that the very same phraseology, with the difference merely of the verb e%igx,opai for sxf speaking, that they were to work for life by the covenant they were then under, which can have no foundation but on the precarious supposition, that when their state of probation, as it is called, was finished, they should have been transplanted into a higher state of dignity and happiness ; something like that which mankind have now a grant of by Jesus Christ. AVhereas, in fact, we find that the continuance of even the life they had was not put upon doing of any kind, but upon the forbearing to eat of the fruit of a certain tree." What is to be con- cluded from this? Are we to conceive that they might do anything else they pleased, without forfeiting paradise ; without incurring condemnation and death, provided they only attended to the one interdict, and forbore to eat of the one prohibited tree ? It is hardly possible that, with all the eccentric peculiarity of PRIMEVAL CONDITION OF MAX. Hi to be guarded against, the confounding of this covenant (sup- posing it, though nowhere so called, to have possessed sub- stantially the nature of one) with the Sinaitic, the covenant made with the people of Israel at Sinai ; and making the former, the Eden Covenant, instead of this, the Sinai Covenant, that which Paul, in his reasonings in the Epistles to the Galatians and Hebrews, compares and contrasts, in its character and provisions, with the evangelical covenant of grace. But the Sinai Covenant belongs to a future part of our course. I may now offer a few remarks on the nature of the test to which Adam's allegiance was put. (1.) So far as we are capable of judging, it was a thing in itself indifferent, having nothing in it of an intrinsically moral character. Now, in this view of it, it was peculiarly appropriate. It was a test of subjection to the Divine will ; a test, simply con- sidered, of obedience to God. It was a more appropriate test, then, of such subjection when there could be no other reason what- ever for that which was enjoined (namely, abstinence from the fruit of a particular tree), but its being the command of God ; God's having said : " Thou shalt not eat of it." There is an obvious difference between a simple interdict of this kind, and such moral precepts as are perceived to have in themselves a fitness, and propriety, and obligation. As a test of simple subjection to God's will, a merely positive enactment was, more than all others, eligible. (2.) It has been remarked that the circumstances in which Adam was, at his creation, were such as to remove him from all temptations to, and, in some instances, from all possibility of, committing those sins which now most frequently abound amongst his posterity ; " which is one thought of considerable the writer, he would mean so much ; and yet it seems the only legitimate inter- pretation of his words. Surely, although there was such a special test appointed, man was, at the same time, before he fell and needed salvation, placed under the terms of that law which says : " The man that dceth these things shall live by them." G 82 THE DECREES OF GOD. CREATION. importance to vindicate the divine wisdom in that constitution under which he was placed." 1 (3.) We further observe that it was specially appropriate in this, that, from the comparatively little and trivial character of the action prohibited, it taught the important lesson that the real guilt of sin lay in its principle, the principle of rebellion against God's will ; not in the extent of the mischief done, or of the consequences arising out of it. And this is a consideration that ought to rescue the transaction from that unhallowed, burlesque, and profane ridicule of which it has so often been made the subject. We are imminently in danger of estimating the evil of sin according to the amount of the physical evil that may have been included in the sinful action. But there cannot be a more false measure of moral turpitude. It has been justly remarked, that if the sin of Adam had consisted in rooting up the trees of Eden, and covering with desolation and ruin the fair face of that paradise of glory and beauty, " the garden of God," our minds would naturally and injuriously have been drawn off from the contemplation of that which constitutes the true essence of sin's demerit, by the very provocation stirred up within us, in imagining and dwelling upon the extent of the mischief done. True philosophy, then, ought not to throw ridicule upon a transaction, for the 'very ingredient in it which constitutes its peculiar suitableness and wisdom. (4.) I might notice also its precision. The language of Dr. D wight on another part of this subject may be fairly applied here. " It brought the duty which he (Adam) was called to perform up to his view in the most distinct manner possible, and rendered it too intelligible to be mistaken. No room was left for doubt or debate. The object in question was a sensible object, perfectly defined, and perfectly understood. No metaphysical or philosophical discussion was demanded or admitted. No uncertainty existed as to the degree in which his obedience was required. He was left at no loss concerning the time, the manner, or the nature of that conduct which it 1 Doddridge's Lectures, part. viii. prop. 134, schol. i. vol ii. p. 203. PRIMEVAL CONDITION OF MAN. 83 was proper for him to observe. He knew the whole extent of what was commanded, and what was forbidden ; and therefore could not but know whether he obeyed or disobeyed." Of the requisite properties of a test, precision is none of the least important and necessary. (5.) A test of this particular kind being once admitted to be suitable, the one actually selected was one which, from its obvious connection with the condition in which our first parents were placed, was, in the highest degree, natural. " Consider- ing they were placed in a garden, what so natural, what so suitable to their situation, as forbidding them to eat of the fruit of a certain tree in that garden ? The liberal grant of food was the extent of their liberty ; this single limitation the test of their obedience. " 1 (6.) It was, besides, an easy test. It was neither any mighty thing they were to do, nor any mighty indu]gence they were to deny themselves, that was made the criterion of their subjection to God. And although, in one view, some perverse spirits, who are determined to cavil, may consider the littleness of the test as the measure of the magnitude of the offence, and as rendering it proportionally diminutive and trifling ; yet in another and far juster view, this ought to stamp it with the deeper malignity and guilt f inasmuch as the strength of the evil principle manifested in the commission of any sin is shown to be great in proportion as the temptation to the commission of it is small. Such are some of the grounds on which the test, to which man's subjection to God was originally put, may be vindicated from the light and ungodly scorn of the philosophers and fools of this world. The circumstances of the temptation and fall are recorded in the third chapter of Genesis. And, first, Of the Tempter. On this point, as might have been anticipated, there have been various conjectures. There are three opinions which may be noticed : (1.) That a literal 1 Ewing's Essays to the Jews. vol. ii. p. 02. 84 THE DECREES OF GOD. CREATION. serpent was the tempter, without the devil having any hand in it at all. This opinion I might have been excused for leaving without notice. It is manifest and sheer absurdity, unless we are disposed to assign rationality and intelligence to the serpents of paradise, and the power of speech withal. Josephus, indeed, does speak of the serpent as having been originally endowed with this power, and of its having been lost on account of the temptation of man. But everything of this kind is but wild and groundless fable, unworthy of a moment's attention. (2.) That Satan, the devil, the leader of the fallen angels, was the tempter, without the instrumentality of any literal serpent at all. This, if it too be an extreme, is a greatly more reasonable one than the other. . I have said, if it be an extreme ; for in truth, were it capable of being maintained consistently with the language of the narrative, and with the references to it in other parts of Scripture, it is an interpretation which one would be very much inclined to embrace. It has been held by commentators of eminence. " The word Nahash, serpent, is ambiguous, and may denote one who uses serpentine arts to beguile and deceive. The tempter might be called a serpent, not from his assuming the form, but only imitating the subtlety of that creature." 1 From the manner in which Dr. D wight discusses the subject of the temptation, he leaves us somewhat at a loss to know whether he conceives a literal serpent to have been instrumentally employed by the prime agent or not. In those places where a notice of this might have been most naturally expected, nothing is said of it, and his subsequent allusions are such as to leave it somewhat doubtful. 2 1 Boothroyd's Bible. 2 Such language as the following seems to imply his belief that the serpent was only a designation of Satan. " The tempter is exhibited to us here by the name of the serpent, or, as in the Hebrew, that serpent. This phraseology naturally leads us to imagine that a part of this discourse, as originally written, has been lost ; altered, perhaps, by Moses, according to the commands of God, or afterward by some prophet, according to the same command : because the passage had answered the end intended by it, and was not henceforth a necessary part of the canon of Scripture. Or, perhaps, it was originally differently written, and the present lan- guage is owing to the mistake of some transcriber. Of the serpent, St. John declares that lie was Satan, the head or leader of those~angels who ' kept not their PRIMEVAL CONDITION OF MAN. 85 (3.) The ordinary belief on the subject is probably the just one ; the truth in this, as in most other matters, lying between : namely, that the evil spirit made use of the serpent in some way which is not explained, and which it is useless for us to trouble ourselves with conjecturing, as his instrument in the temptation, in carrying into effect his own hellish design. I cannot but think that the evidence in the Bible, both in the narrative of the temptation itself, and in the style of subsequent allusions to the temptation and the fall, is sufficient to bear out the vulgar belief to any mind not bent on originality and novelty, and prejudiced against whatever is old and common. That Satan made use of the serpent, and that a serpent was somehow employed, is likely : the language of Jehovah subse- quently, while it was literally true of the instrument, being, in a higher sense, true of the agent ; the one being made the emblem of the other. 1 Was the language here entirely sym- bolical and figurative, having nothing in it literal whatever? This does not seem likely. Why should such an allusion have been employed at all to describe the outcast and degraded condition of a fallen angel, had there been nothing whatever giving the serpent any connection with the temptation and the fall. Is it not more reasonable to consider both as blended, first estate,' but revolted from God, and threw off their subjection to his govern- ment." Theol. Ser. 27. I must confess myself very averse to such suppositions as these ; either the loss of part of the Revelation, or (what seems more objection- able) the alteration of what the Holy Spirit had originally dictated. What end can Dr. Dwight mean as having been answered, and rendering the permanence of this portion of the record unnecessary? Such suppositions are surely somewhat arbitrary and,- withal, unwise and hazardous. Even mistakes of transcribers ought not to be supposed without evidence, and without absolute necessity. Saurin and others think that the form which Satan assumed on the occasion was that of an angel of light, by which he might the more easily impose upon Eve ; and some have conceived this idea to receive confirmation from the language of Paul in 2 Cor. xi. 14 about " Satan transforming himself into an angel of light." "I think we read of no instance of this kind in the Bible, unless we allow of it here. And yet St. Paul seems to speak of it as of a well-known thing ; so that probably this might be the current interpretation of this difficult piece of history in St. Paul's time." Peters's Critical Dissertation on the Book of Job. 1 Gen. iii. 14. 86 THE DECREES OF GOD. CREATION. the literal and the symbolical? 1 And to passages of Scripture might be added general tradition, and the indications of the original belief in many parts of the heathen mythologies. Some of these traditions and mythological analogies are very curious. 3 In some countries, agreeably to the character and source of a large proportion of heathen superstition, terror has made the serpent an object of worship ; while in others, mytho- logy represents that reptile as trampled under the feet of a mighty deliverer. In a coin of Antoninus Pius, " Hercules is represented as plucking apples from a tree, round the trunk of which a serpent is entwined." Among the Goths, the Persians, and the Hindoos, traditions of the serpent, of various kinds, are found. Stillingfleet ingeniously observes, that from this origin has come the use of serpents to so great an extent in divination ; Satan appearing " ambitious to have the world think that the knowledge of good arid evil was to come by the serpent still." The Hebrew word for serpent signifies, at the same time, to divine, and the Greek word oiiavi?t] insufficiency? How irreconcileable with wisdom to institute a method of trial, if failure be precluded ! " But here again the per contra side of the account is for- gotten. On the principles of the hypothesis, what is probation ? It is not the trial whether a moral agent capable of standing and liable to fall will actually fall or stand, for capability of standing is out of the question; and might we not then a second time parody the words of the excellent writer, and say, " How inconsistent with wisdom to institute a method of trial, where success or standing was precluded ?" " This tendency" (the tendency to defection), he further says, " is not communicated to the creature by his Maker, nor could any act of will or power prevent its connection with any created nature, any more than such an act of will or power could change the very essence of creatureship, or cause an uncaused being. As the principle itself is not communicated or caused by the Creator, so neither are its results. They can be traced HO higher than to the being in whom they are developed. To 1 App. p. 575. \ 114 THE ORIGIN OF EVIL. himself alone must every one ascribe them ; to himself, as a creature, in relation to the principle ; but to himself, as sinful, in relation to the moral results. He trusted in himself, sought not direction from his Maker, exercised his liberty amiss, and per- petrated crime. ' In his best estate' the best of creatures, fancy- ing and relying on separate strength, ' is altogether vanity.' ' Now here there are many things to be noticed ; for, with all the appearance of metaphysical precision, there appears to me to be no little confusion of ideas. 1. The tendency or principle, it is clear from the above extract, is regarded as belonging to the nature of every creature as a creature. This indeed we have seen all along. 2. When we ascribe the results to the creature himself " as a creature, in relation to the principle," we cannot of course ascribe them under any impression of guiltiness ; for there is no moral quality in the tendency itself, nor can there ever be guilt in being a creature, or in possessing that which it is naturally impossible for any creature to be without. 3. When it is said of the results " To himself alone must every one ascribe them ; to himself as a creature in relation to the principle, but to himself as sinful in relation to the moral results ;" I would say : (1.) What is the meaning ? The results must be ascribed solely to the creature as sinful, in relation to the moral results ! The terms are somewhat obscure ; but I presume their import to be, that the creature is not sinful as to the principle, because it belongs to his nature as a creature ; but he is sinful as to the moral results, these being the acts of his own will. But then, (2.) The question is not whence the actual moral results, but whence the sinful principle from which they arose? That very sinful principle is itself one of the moral results of the necessary tendency inherent in every created nature. " He trusted in himself," says Mr. G., " he sought not direction from his Maker, exercised his liberty amiss, and per- petrated crime." But this very "trusting in himself" is itself sin; and the withdrawn! ent of the divine and gracious support 1 P. 58i. THE THEORY OF Dli. \\TLI, fAMS. llf) must have been previous to it ; not at all punitive, therefore, hut altogether sovereign. Then we ask, (and here lies the turning point of the difficulty) (3.) Was the creature, by this sovereign withdrawment, placed in circumstances which rendered his continuance in holiness impossible ? as impossible as that two and two should make five and riot four ? as impossible as that a just inference should not be deducible from its premises? as impossible as that the creature should exchange places with its Creator ? It will not do to meet these questions with any distinc- tion between " as a creature," and " as sinful." When once we have the creature sinful, we are at no loss to account for moral results that are of the same kind. The question is : Whence the sinfulness ? It is answered : From free choice. But can that be truly and properly termed " free choice," respecting which there was no possibility of the contrary, which arose from a necessity of nature from the very creatureship of the creature, so that he could no more help it, than he could help being a creature ? " He that complains," says the biographer, " of possessing this principle of evil, complains of being a creature, of not being God." Strange that it should not have occurred to the acute mind of Mr. G. that he who complains of being punished for the results of this principle, complains consequently of being a creature ! Is there, then, guilt in being a creature ? or, is there guilt in results which are as independent of the creature's will as the creature's creatureship ? " Does there, in the view of reason," he further asks, " exist in equity any ground for demand upon upholding interference ?" And in answer, he says : " To assert such a ground, is plainly equivalent to the position that a creature cannot in equity be placed under probation ; for what does trial mean if failure cannot be permitted, and what a moral governor, if obliged to prevent the infraction of his own laws?" Now may it not, as before, be asked : What does trial mean, if standing is, by a necessity of nature, precluded ? or what an accountable agent, to whom continued obedience is as impossible as his becoming God, supreme and independent ? Say what we will and what 116 THE ORIGIN OF EVIL. we can, this is a natural necessity and a natural inability. And the necessity is so peremptory as to be assumed by Dr. W. as the ground of the certain futurition of sin, and of the cer- tainty of the divine foreknowledge of it. When Mr. G. writes as follows : " With good and evil before me, liberty to act as I please, promises to encourage, and threatenings to deter, and no necessitating physical influence without or within, what can I demand more? Shall I claim to be a God ? Shall I require the essential nature of crcatureship to be abrogated ? I cannot. Shall I reject all law, all rule ? Impossible!" I say, when he writes thus he declaims. And it is really, though unperceived by himself, evasion of the point of the -argument under the guise, and, in his own mind, I do believe, the reality of humility. For what is a " liberty to do as we please," if there be no power to continue to please to do that which is right? And certainly there is no such po\ver; there is a natural inability, if, in order to our continuing right, " the essential nature of creatureship must be abrogated." This, I repeat, is making a creature responsible for being a creature, for not having the attributes of God. I have purposely confined .myself to one or two leading points in this hypothesis, because I think it a waste of labour and of time, when we can shew the fundamental principle or principles of any system to be liable to strong objections, to be troubling ourselves with wading through its minuter details. There is a variety of little points in which its metaphysics are hardly quite consistent with themselves. On these, however, I do not think it worth while to remark, especially as they are all, more or less remotely, connected with the leading principles. If, in any respect, I have done Dr. W. an injustice, it has been far from my intention. His memory ought to be revered and blessed as the memory of the just, and as the memory of one whose laudable and heartfelt desire was to elucidate divine truth, to clear the system of grace from the objections urged against it ; to vindicate the ways of God to men ; and who devoted to these objects, along with the preaching of the ever- THEORY OF DR. WILLIAMS. 117 lasting Gospel, the pastoral care of a flock, and the preparation for the ministry of those who desired to give themselves to that good work, a most temperate, studious, self-denied and laborious life. With respect to the subject, however, which we have been considering, my own opinion is, that he has left it as he found it, surrounde^ with mystery and with perplexing questions. First of all, you will have entirely misapprehended my object in these strictures, if you think that I am prepared to deny the truth of all or of any of the principles on which it is founded. It is neither my object to deny nor to affirm. I have simply endeavoured to show that, on the supposition of their truth, they are far from clearing the subject of difficulties ; that whatever embarrassing questions the hypothesis may be conceived to remove, it introduces others of its own, and these certainly not less, but in some respects even more perplexing. I refer especially to that of moral accountableness, which I con- ll-ss myself incapable of seeing to be consistent with a necessity of sinning arising from the very creatureship of any intelligent creature put upon its trial, in equity, in the exercise of its own unassisted powers and uncounteracted tendencies. If I am asked : Do you then deny that all good is from God, and all evil from the creature ? I answer : No. Do you affirm that God is bound in equity to interpose by direct interference and prevent any creature from falling ? I answer : No ; for the fact is that He has not done it, and He could do nothing inconsistent with equity. Do you believe, then, that a creature is capable of stand- ing if divine preventing influence is withdrawn ? I answer : It is precisely here that I feel myself in a strait. If I affirm it, I may seem to be ascribing to the creature a moral independ- ence of its Creator- 1 a self-sufficiency that might be a ground of undue glorying ; but if, on the other hand, I deny it, and affirm the creature, as a creature, to be as incapable of standing as he is of ceasing to be a creature and becoming the independent God, I, feel that I am destroying all equitable ground of respon- sibility, and making the creature accountable for being a creature; 118 THE ORIGIN OF SIN. or, which is the same thing, for having that which no created nature can be without. My own conviction is, that after all the expenditure of metaphysical acumen and learned time and labour that has been bestowed on this subject, we have as yet got no further than the simple statement : " Our first parents, being left to the freedom of their own will, fell from the estate wherein they were created, by sinning against God." 1 I am not sensible of being one whit the nearer a clear comprehension of this subject after all that has been said and written about it, than when a boy at the knee of my father I lisped this answer to the question, " Did our first parents continue in the estate wherein they were created ? " I am content with it. I am perfectly satisfied that the treatment of man as an accountable creature, when put upon his trial, must have been in all respects in perfect harmony with the principles of the strictest and most liberal equity, though I may not be able to reply satisfactorily to every question which the wit of a metaphysical sceptic may invent to puzzle me. Sin did not originate in our world. The entrance of sin into the earthly paradise was only its extension, its communication from one class of beings to another. As God never could make a creature with unholy principles, evil must have originated, wherever it first had place, without a tempter. And this I feel to be quite beyond iny reach, in what way the thought of evil, the first sinful desire, found its way into the bosom of a sinless creature, without foreign suggestion. I can form no conception of it. Yet so it must have been. It becomes us, on all such occasions, to be humble, and to be satisfied with facts, when we cannot fully and clearly deter- mine causes. The lesson is salutary. And it is not on this subject only that it meets us. Where indeed is the subject from which we may not, in a great or less degree, learn it ? 3 1 Assembly's Shorter Catechism, quest. 13. 2 Dr. W. was in the practice of repeating here the observations on this subject, which will be found in his lecture " On the Divine Perfections the (loodness of (i.l. vi>l. i. pp. 506, 598. [Kj>.] VII. ON ORIGINAL SIN. THE term or phrase, original sin, as contra-distinguished from actual sin, is not to be found in Scripture. The only ques- tion of any real importance is : Whether it expresses, in the sense usually affixed to it, a scriptural idea? There is weakness in objecting, or at least in being very earnest in objecting, against the use of particular forms of speech, if the doctrines meant to be expressed by them are contained in the Bible. We have had occasion to make the remark as to cer- tain other modes of expression ; and it is not less strongly applicable here. It is impossible to avoid the use of such uninspired phraseology ; especially when to the language of the inspired record on particular subjects different interpretations have been affixed. It then becomes, in a manner, necessary to distinguish by terms of our own, the meaning which we deem the right one ; " the mind of the Spirit." What, then, in the systems of what is esteemed orthodox theology, is the meaning of original sin ? The doctrine ex- pressed by it divides itself into two branches original guilt, and original corruption. The former, original guilt, arises from the imputation (as it is commonly expressed) of Adam's first sin to his posterity. The doctrine is : " That the first sin of the first man, who stood in his probation, as the representative or federal head of his posterity, involved the whole race of man- kind in his sentence of guilt and condemnation ; subjecting them, with himself, to the penal consequences of his fall." The latter, the doctrine of original corruption, or innate depravity, is : " That the whole race, descending by ordinary generation frofli the fallen first progenitors, inherit from them a morally 120 ORIGINAL SIN. tainted and vitiated nature ; a nature in which there is no incli- nation to anything truly good, but which, as soon as its dispo- sitions or tendencies begin to unfold themselves, shows itself evil in the production of evil thoughts, words, and actions." These two doctrines are included in the common phrase ori- ginal sin, although it is the latter of which it is most generally employed. And with the latter, rather than the former, I shall begin ; because by the establishment from Scripture and from fact, of the doctrine of original depravity, we shall be the better pre- pared for the discussion, in some points especially, of the other branch of the doctrine, original guilt or the imputation of Adam's first sin ; or the subjection of the race to suffering and death on account of Adam's first sin. On both the parts of this confessedly delicate and difficult subject, our first inquiry must be : " What saith the Scripture ?" And when an inspired writer has of set purpose stated, with apparent explicitness and precision, the truth of God on any subject, we surely cannot do better than take his statement for our text. 1 The two clauses, " By one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin," may be considered as expressing the two parts of the doctrine ; the former, the rendering of the race sinful or depraved, giving the taint to the fountain which passed on in the streams ; and the latter, the constituting of the race guilty, or subject to the threatened death. We begin with the former, " By one man sin entered into the world." President Edwards has very clearly shown, (and, in- deed, it did not require any great expenditure of his extraordi- nary metaphysical powers to establish the point), that the mean- ing of the words cannot be merely that the first man was the first sinner. If a man were going from his own to a foreign country (such is his illustration), and upon his arrival there were to be seized with the plague, or any other contagious disorder ; if that disorder was subsequently to become prevalent, and to attack and destroy large numbers of the inhabitants, it would 1 Rom. v. 12, 21. OltlGINAL SIN. 121 then depend upon one circumstance whether we should or should not apply to him (mutandis mutatis) the terms under considera- tion ; whether we should say " By that one man the plague entered the country." That one circumstance would he his having or not having communicated the disease to others. If he did not, if he merely happened to be the first assailed by it, and the first victim of its deadly virulence, we never should think of saying that by him the plague came into the country. Even were he under its influence before his arrival, yet were it dis- tinctly ascertained, that from him it had, in no instance, been imparted, we should feel the language to be inappropriate. We should try to find some other cause by which to account for the prevalence of the distemper. But if it Avere known, as matter of notorious fact, that he had been the source of infection, the origo mali ; that from him it had first been caught by another, and from that other had spread to more, and thence to more, and more, and more, until it filled the land, we should then, without hesitation, use the terms as the most suitable for expressing the fact. The parallelism is obvious. If Adam had merely been the first sinner, and had all who followed him become sinners simply as he did, each on his own distinct and. independent footing ; and not at all as the result of any connection with him, or any moral taint or deficiency derived from him, the apostle never could have used the language before us. Mere priority could never have warranted it. It expresses, without doubt, connection and derivation. He was not only the first that sinned, but in consequence and as the effect of his having sinned, sin or sin- fulness was, in some way or other, derived from him to the race of mankind. They received from him the infection. On this principle alone can the language be vindicated as natural and appropriate. Such, then, is the point which we are now to discuss ; the inheritance of a depraved nature by the entire family of man- kind, descending to them from their apostate progenitor, the first Adam. Of the nature of this depravity, whether positive or privative, and of the manner of its propagation, I say nothing 122 ORIGINAL SIN. now ; these being questions which belong to a subsequent branch of our inquiry. The subject naturally divides itself into two great branches FACT and THEORY. And the former of the two divides itself again into three departments the testimony of SCRIPTURE, of HISTORY, and of CONSCIOUSNESS. It is of the former alone I intend from the text to speak; and as the terms of it naturally direct me, it is my purpose to confine myself specially to one point the relation, namely, in which man stands to God. My adoption of this plan proceeds upon the assumption of the principle of the inseparableness, the real identity, of religion and morality. Religion I regard as the first and highest branch of morals ; the relation in which an intelligent creature stands to his Creator being, without question, a moral relation, and of all his moral relations the first and most sacred ; and the dispositions and affections due from such a creature to God being the most imperative of his moral prin- ciples. I further prefer this plan of discussion, because, besides thus concentrating the discussion, it serves the purpose of impressing your minds and my own the more deeply with the importance of what, the more I consider it, commends itself the more to my convictions, namely, this view of religion, as involving the primary elements of all morality. I consider a right state of heart towards God as the very first of all moral requirements; so that if the disposition be religiously wrong, it cannot, in any just sense or in any degree, be morally right. The denial of the corruption of human nature, and the affirma- tion of the preponderance in its present constitution, of good over evil, of virtue over vice, has, in many instances, I am well persuaded, originated in men's overlooking this great first truth (for such I must ever esteem and affirm it), that the elementary principle of all true virtue lies in the state of the disposition toward God. The denial or the forgetfulness of this is one grand source of the false estimates that have been formed, and are so very prevalent, on this subject. There is very much that bears amongst mankind the name and the semblance of virtue, ORIGINAL SIN. 123 such, for example, as the exercise and manifestation of the reci- procal affections of nature in the various relations of consangui- nity and friendship, together with those various principles of conventional morality accredited by the world as principles without which the very framework of society could not be held together, or the benefits of mutual intercourse be enjoyed. There is very much that passes current for goodness, even while there is an entire destitution of the great first principle which we desiderate as the primary and essential element of all that is morally good. By giving these virtues a special promi- nence, and by keeping in the shade those various principles and courses which, for the very reason that they do not directly affect the reciprocations of intercourse, are less thought of, and if condemned at all, are condemned with comparative leniency approaching to tolerance, and itself evincing the dominance of a depraved selfishness, a case may be made out, with no small amount in it of the plausible, favourable to human nature. There might, in this way, be a balancing of virtues and vices against each other; instances of high integrity and honour marshalled against cases of dishonesty and meanness ; of truth against falsehood ; of humanity against oppression and cruelty ; of parental and filial self-denial against the selfishness that is without natural affection ; of sobriety against intempe- rance ; and of many other such virtues and vices, as they are designated amongst men. And thus, arguing from history and from observation, the controversy might be kept up with much of a show of reason upon both sides; and, in different minds, the decision might very often depend on the peculiar circumstances in which they had been placed, and the spheres by their position and movement in which they have been influenced. Now, without entering into any such field, my desire is to bring the whole controversy to one point. If it can be made apparent that there is in human nature a disposition that amounts to alienation from God, or, putting it in the more nega- tive form, the destitution of all right affections toward Him, all will be proved for which 1 contend. It is in this that I 124 ORIGINAL SIN. conceive what we call the corruption of human nature mainly to consist ; and it has been from overlooking this, I am fully per- suaded, that conceptions so confused and so inadequate have by so many been entertained on this subject. If any shall be disposed to insist that there may be right moral principles with- out love to God, I avow myself entirely at issue with them. 1 feel myself bound to maintain the contrary, as a primary point in the moral science of the Bible; a point which I cannot relin- quish without betraying the whole cause of revelation, in which this sacred principle stands forth prominently and pervadingly, as the very first and most essential element of all virtue. I have no conception whatever of any such system as that which by some has been designated the system of pure ethics ; that is, of a science that treats of the obligations between man and man, independently of and distinctly from religion, as the science which treats of the relations and obligations of man to God. The obligations of virtue between man and man have necessa- rily, all of them, their origin in God ; by whom the constitution of the universe has been projected and framed, and the various connections, natural and moral, have been arranged, of creatures with fellow-creatures, and of all creatures with Himself. If the duties resulting from these connections are not done from regard to the supreme authority, and from a right state of heart to- wards Him, they are deficient in their principle, being uninflu- enced by the first and highest principle of all moral obligation. The same authority fixed the relations and settled the duties arising out of them ; and it is that authority which in the ful- filment of all these duties, requires to be regarded and obeyed. Men may, if they please, in their presumptuous speculations, throw themselves loose from Deity, and imagine themselves existing and acting in their different relations to one another independently of their common relation to Him. They may thus construct godless theories of morals ; and call them by the imposing name of pure ethics. But they are impiously and atheistically defective. In His own Word, as might be expected, God asserts His own supremacy. The moral science of revela- ORIGINAL SIN. 125 tion makes its first statement respecting the devotion of the heart to Him. So that when men speak of morality apart from this, they only delude themselves and one another, and make manifest the truth of Scripture representations respecting the deep-seated ungodliness of the human heart. Ungodliness is immorality ; the very worst species of immorality, involving the breach o'f the very highest of moral obligations and vitiating all else that, in the spirit of self-flattery or of reciprocal courtesy, or through whatever thoughtless and mistaken principle of estimate, mn have been pleased to honour with the name of virtue. Proceeding, then, on this restricted yet comprehensive prin- ciple, I begin with the department of Fact. In all discussions, this should come first. As a general maxim, nothing can be more preposterous (common as it unfortunately is, notwithstand- ing) than to set about theorizing before we have ascertained facts. The theorizing may thus turn out a mere waste of time and of brains. The mental labour and the precious hours it occupies may turn out to have been thrown away ; expended on the discussion of a nonentit} 7 ', in devising means of accounting for what, in the end, we discover to have no existence. And I may further remark, that there are not a few instances (we shall see whether the present be not one of them) in which we may have no great difficulty in ascertaining the state of the fact ; while difficulty of no ordinary amount may be found in explain- ing the theory of the fact, or ascertaining the true principle on which it is to be accounted for. 1. First, then, we treat of the fact. The question here is, What evidence have we that human nature, as. it now comes into the world, is in a state of moral depravity ; in a state of destitution of all right principle or right affection toward God? And in seeking an answer to the inquiry, we begin with (1.) The evidence from Scripture. And here I am to be understood as referring to the testimony which the Scriptures bear to the matter of fact. The authority of Scripture is, of course, assumed. And if its authority certifies the fact, even 126 ORIGINAL SIN. although it should leave it unexplained, it settles the question. The authority of Scripture might be taken up in two lights. The corruption of human nature might be regarded as a pervad- ing assumption of the entire sacred volume, by which it is charac- terised throughout ; the fall of human nature being among its first recorded facts, and its degeneracy being illustrated in all its histories, and forming the very basis of all its peculiar discoveries and doctrines. It is obvious, however, that no illustration of this view of the matter could be rendered at all definite. We must ultimately come to proof from passages, either affirming or implying the alleged fact. I shall begin with a passage which is immediately suggested by the point to which I have restricted my proofs, the natural disposition of the heart towards God. It is Rom. viii. 7. " For the carnal mind is enmity against God." I understand these words as containing an identical proposi- tion with the following : " That there is in human nature in its unrenewed state, a rooted aversion to the character of the true God." It will be necessary for me to establish the identity of the two propositions. And in order to this, it will be further necessary to consider the corresponding terms in each of them. [1.] We affirm this aversion to exist in human nature in its unrenewed state. This unrenewed human nature, then, must be the same with what the apostle denominates, " the carnal mind," or the mind of the flesh, " rb tpgovqpa r%$ ffatxos" In sup- port of this position, we affirm that by " the carnal mind," the apostle does not and cannot mean the mind merely of the sensualist, the profligate, the man who is besotted by the indulgence of his fleshly lusts. One observation alone may be sufficient to show this. In the whole of this contest, throughout this and the two preceding chapters especially, and in his Epistle to the Galatians in like manner, the apostle uses the flesh and the spirit in contrast with each other, and as equiva- lent to two other designations used by him, the old man and the new man. We understand him to mean by the old man, that old nature which believers, in common with others, pos- sessed by their birth into this world ; and by the latter, the new ORIGINAL SIN. 127 spiritual nature, produced and maintained in the soul by the quickening and renovating Spirit of God, through the truth as it is in Jesus. The one observation, which I have said is suf- ficient to settle the point, that the carnal mind or mind of the flesh does not mean the mind of the sensualist, is this, that in the preceding context, they that are " in the flesh," or " after the flesh," who " walk after the flesh," who " mind the things of the flesh," are placed in contradistinction to those who are " in the Spirit," or " after the Spirit," who " walk after tho Spirit," who " mind the things of the Spirit." It follows, then, that they who are not the latter are the former, that they who are not in the Spirit are in the flesh. Now, surely no man who knows anything of the phraseology of his Bible, will venture to say that every man is in the Spirit, and walks after the Spirit, and minds the things of the Spirit, who is not in the world's acceptation of the term, a sensualist. Mark the contrast through- out the context. 1 On the one side, we have those who are in Christ Jesus, who have the Spirit of Christ dwelling in them, who are led by the Spirit, who walk after, or according to the influence of the Spirit, etc., and all of whom these descriptive marks are not true are in the flesh, the carnally minded, still under the sway of the mind of the flesh ; and are by the words before us affirmed to be in a state of " enmity against God." Whether the truth of the statement be admitted or not, it is not easy to imagine what other meaning can be affixed to it. Refer to the context, and just notice the words " For when we were in the flesh," etc. 2 The words express a state in which they had been, and out of which they had come. They cannot mean that they had been in the body, and were now out of the body ; they cannot mean that they were men, possessors of the human nature ; for they were now as much men and possessors of the human nature as ever they had been. There is no possibility of making out any consistent sense of the words, otherwise than on the principle of the flesh signifying the state of nature as a state of moral depravity, when they were 1 Verses 1, 9, 14. * Ch. vii, 5. 128 ORIGINAL Sltf. under the dominance of the principles of corruption ; and this agrees well with the remainder of the description, " For when we were in the flesh, the motions of sins," etc. 1 [2.] The second part of our phraseology requiring identifi- cation in meaning with the words of the apostle was, " that in human nature unchanged, unrenewed, there is a rooted aversion to the character of the true God ;" " a rooted aversion." The apostle's words are not too strongly interpreted by such a phrase. His words are full of emphasis and point " the mind of the flesh is enmity against God." It is the strongest form into which the affirmation could be thrown. Carnality and corruption may display themselves in ever so many ways, but this enmity is the element or principle of evil in them all. All are capable of being resolved into this. Every thought, and feeling, and word, and action of moral pravity partakes of it ; and is morally evil exactly in proportion as it does so partake of it. Then [3.] Our proposition affirmed this aversion to be to the cha- racter of the true God, or in another form to the true character of God. It needs no argument to show that this the apostle must mean if he means anything that is evil. Were it otherwise, were it the character of any other god than the true, or were it any false view of the character of the true, against which the enmity was pointed, it would not be enmity against God at all. It would rather possess the nature of love to Him. It would be aversion to that which God is not. This is hypothetically love of that which God is ; and would only require to be cor- rected in the understanding, to convert in the heart the enmity into love. On this supposition, too, the culpability or guilt could lie only in the ignorance of the divine character. The judgment only would be wrong. The heart would be right. But simple ignorance, considered in itself as a deficiency purely intellectual, nnassociated with any moral obliquity of heart or dis- position, and uninfluenced by such a state of heart as its originat- ing and maintaining cause, can have in it no moral turpitude, or infer any guilt or obnoxiousncss to righteous retribution. 1 Ch. vii. 5. ORIGINAL SIN. 129 I shall take next in order of my Scripture proofs John iii. 6. This is an important passage ; and yet, surely, with no candid mind can it be needful to expend much argumentation upon it. In the first place, it relates to the state in which men are born, that is, in which they come into the world ; and to that state in contradistinction from another state into which, not all, but some of mankind afterwards come, and come by what our Saviour represents as a second birth. The whole of our Lord's statements and reasonings require, in order to their having in them any coherence and consistency, that the expression, " That which is born of the flesh is flesh," be understood as referring to original inherent depravity ; the state of moral destitution of good, and propensity to evil in which men are born into the world. To interpret them as meaning no more than " that which is born of man is mere man " is surely mere drivelling ; and amounts to little else, however uninten- tionally, than an insult to Him " in whom were hid all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge," and " into whose lips grace was poured." And yet, if the ordinary and manifestly necessary sense of the words be rejected, what else can they be understood to signify ? Even the most eminent and most acute of the opponents of the doctrine of original corruption are shut up to this. They can make nothing else of them. What says Dr. Taylor of Norwich ? 1 " A natural birth produceth a mere natural man ; that which is born of a woman, or by the will of the flesh, by natural descent and propagation, is a man, consisting of body and soul, or the mere constitution and powers of a man in their natural state." Now there is a phrase here which, were it used in the sense in which the Apostle Paul at times uses it, would render this a true representation. I mean the words, " A natural birth produceth a mere natural man." If by a natural man we understand the same as what Paul means when he says, ' The natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God," it would be an expression of the truth ; for, by the 1 See vol. i. p. 66, note. Jonathan Edwards's work on Original Sin was in refutation of Dr. T.'s views. [En.] K 130 ORIGINAL SIN. designation, Paul means the man who, remaining in his state of nature unregenerate, is under the influence of an inveterate and blinding predisposition against " the things of the Spirit " the truths of the Gospel of the grace of God. But the- latter part of Dr. Taylor's statement shows that this was far from being the sense in which the designation was used by him ; a " natural man," according to him, signifying simply " a man consisting of body and soul, or the mere constitution and powers of a man in their natural state." But this, as is truly remarked by Dr. Payne, is only a verbose form of expressing what he might have put in fewer words " the offspring of a human being is a human being." 1 And have I, then, employed too strong terms in characterising such a proposition introduced in such a connection ? Is it not manifest that such a proposition, while it is one which nobody would ever think it worth while to affirm as being a pitiful truism unworthy of being put into words, bears at the same time no argumentative relation whatever to the subject of which Christ is speaking. He is pointing out the indispensable necessity of regeneration ; of every man, in order to his entering into the kingdom of Heaven, being " born again." But what kind of proof of such necessity is to be found in the truism, that a man, when born into the world that a man by his natural birth, is a mere man, a human being, consisting of body and soul, and constituted with human powers ? in fact, that a man is a man ! What conception would this have given to Nicodemus of the wisdom of this " Great Teacher?" The change represented as necessary must of course bear reference to the state from which it must take place. When Jesus, then, contrasts the state into which a man passes when born of the Spirit, with the state in which he is born into the world ; when he contrasts the spiritual with the natural birth ; does he mean to say that the partaker of the latter ceased to be " a man consisting of body and soul, or the mere constitution and powers of a man in their natural state ?" that he became something else than a man ? that when " born of the Spirit," 1 Congregational Lecture, Eleventh Series. The'Moctrine of Original Sin, p. 310. ORIGINAL SIN. 131 and becoming " spirit," he so became spirit as to cease to partake of flesh in the sense of animal matter or body. " Still," says Dr. Payne, with his usual acuteness, " it may be worthy of our inquiry, whether Dr. T. has not, somewhat incautiously for himself, admitted the doctrine of native depravity, though (partly, it may be, from misunderstanding it) he strenuously opposes that of original sin. ' A natural birth,' he says, ' produceth a mere natural man.' Again : ' The natural birth produceth the mere parts and powers of a man ; the spiritual birth produceth a man sanctified into the right use and application of those powers in a life of true holiness.' A natural man, then (and the natural birth produces only such men), is one who is not sanctified into the right use and application of his powers to a life of true holiness. Now, was Adam such a man ? Were not his powers thus sanctified ? If they were, and Dr. T. will scarcely venture to deny it, he is bound to admit that men are not now born in the moral state in which Adam was created ; that is, he is bound to admit the doctrine, or at least a doctrine, of native depravity." l The observation of Dr. Woods of Andover, U. S., is deserving of attention. It is not unnatural to allege that the term " flesh," in the words of Christ, ought, in both of its occurrences, to be understood in the same sense ; that if being " born of the flesh " means simply being born by the natural or fleshly birth, the phrase, " is flesh," ought not to be taken figuratively, but interpreted according to the same literal sense. While, however, we cannot admit that in all cases the same word, occurring more than once in the same sentence, must have precisely the same interpretation, the admission being at variance in different instances with fact ; yet the remark of the excellent and amiable writer just named merits consideration : " It is sometimes thought that the word flesh in this verse is used in senses altogether different. But may not the senses in the two cases be more nearly alike than has commonly been supposed ? It is very evident that the word in the last case denotes a morally depraved nature, a sinful character, in all who are born ; and 1 Congregational Lecture, pp. 312, 313. 132 ORIGINAL SIN. may it not, in the first case, denote the same nature in those of whom they are born ? The children are like their parents. This is a general law of our nature ; and fact proves, as well as the Bible, that this is as true in a moral sense as in any other. Through all generations parents and children have had the same unholy affections, the same sinful character. The only exception to this is the case of the Saviour, whose conception was not according to the established laws of human descent. The fact has been perfectly well known from the beginning to the present day ; so that it was a very pertinent question in Job's time, and is so at all times : " Who can bring a clean thing out of an unclean ?" and, " How can he be clean that is born of a woman ?" The truth is, there is no making any consistent or intelligible sense of our Lord's words unless we understand the term " flesh " as signifying, not man merely, but man as the subject of depravity ; and this depravity, according to him, pertains to him from his natural birth. And we have seen that such is the use made of the term flesh by Paul. This passage, and those before quoted, mutually confirm each other. It is a question of no moment in the present investigation by what analogy either our Lord or his inspired servants were led to employ the term flesh to designate moral corruption. It probably might arise from the fact that those lusts or desires which have the most prevalent power in repressing and opposing every spiritual principle and feeling that might seek admission into the human breast are gratified by means of the body. I do not say they have their seat in the body or the flesh, the material part of man ; for such language, although used by some, is fitted to convey quite a false conception. All desires, of whatever kind and whatever be their objects, having necessarily the mind, and the mind alone for their seat. But whether this be the true origin of the phraseology or not, the sole inquiry is, whether the flesh is actually employed in the sense affixed to it; and of this, I repeat, no candid reader of the Bible can retain a doubt. In addition to passages already cited, see Rom. vii. 18 : " For I know that in me (that is in my flesh) dwelleth no good thing." ORIGINAL SIN. 133 " No good thing " evidently means nothing morally or spiritually good. But how could any moral quality of any kind, whether good or evil, dwell in his bodily frame, in the literal flesh ? The words are intelligible when the flesh is understood of his old or depraved nature ; what was alone before his conversion, and what remained in him since, contending against the better principles of his new nature. In Gal. v. 13, 16-24. " An occa- sion to the flesh " is not an occasion to the body, but to the remaining corrupt nature. Of that nature, hatred, variance, envy, and other mental affections are characteristic, but not surely of the body. These stand opposed to the characteristic affections of the new or spiritual nature ; and " crucifying the flesh " is dooming to destruction, and striving to effect it, " the affections and lusts of the old and corrupt nature." So too, chap. vi. 8. To " sow to the flesh " is to sow to the indul- gence of the appetites and passions of the depraved nature, which seek and find their indulgence chiefly (by no means solely) through the members of the body. Let us now glance at some passages in the Old Testament ; and, remember, 1 am now adducing such as may be considered in the light of direct testimonies. Others, proving the same thing, and not less conclusively, by implication or inferentially, may be noticed afterwards. Gen. v. 3. It is surely a melancholy instance of the degree to which a desire to support a hypothesis may divest the mind of candour, that Dr. Taylor should have endeavoured to turn aside the direct bearing of this passage, by actually insisting that the possessive pronoun "his" (for it is quite unnecessary to contend for the " own ") refers in it not to Adam but to God. It is true that the name of God occurs in the first verse of the chapter; but the event recorded in the third verse is at the distance of one hundred and thirty years from the time of Adam's creation. And to attempt finding a more remote antecedent for the pronoun than Adam, shows at once the conviction in Dr. Taylor's mind of the relevancy and conclusiveness of the passage on the side which he opposes, and the anxiety to discover a 134 ORIGINAL SIN. shift to evade its force. Dr. Taylor's exposition of the passage is: "He begat a man like himself, having the same nature which God had given him." No doubt he did, according to the established law of nature in the animal creation, that each living creature should produce its own kind. There is surely incom- parably more likelihood in the interpretation which regards the words as bearing reference to what had been recorded of Adam at his creation, that God made him " in his own image, after his likeness," and as designedly intimating the difference between the image in which Adam had been formed, and the image in which Seth was born. The latter was not in the image of God, but in the image of Adam, and of Adam after he had fallen. Nor was it the image of Adam as a regenerated and renewed sinner, for no one imagines the new spiritual nature to be here- ditary ; but of Adam as destitute now of the likeness of God, in which he had been created ; an image which he had lost by his sin, and, having lost, could not transmit to his posterity, to Seth, or to any after him. Gen. viii. 21. In this passage it may be proper to notice, although the remark has no immediate relation to our argument, that, according to our translation, " the imaginations of man's heart being evil from his youth," is, by the use of the " for," assigned as the reason why God determined, and intimated the determination, no more " to curse the ground for man's sake ; " surely a very incongruous reason for such a determination. The particle should be translated " although." When so rendered, there is consistency. But the question which affects our argu- ment relates to the import of the phrase, " from his youth." The original word for youth is one which goes farther back than the word by which we here render it. It is used of the babe Moses, when lying in the ark of bulrushes j 1 of Samson, at the promise of his coming birth; 2 of Samuel, at the time of his weaning, when his mother carried him up to Shiloh; 3 and in other passages in like manner. The description of the wicked- ness of men before the flood was in these terms : " And God 1 Exod. ii. 6. 2 Judges xiii. 5. 3 1 Sam. i. 27. ORIGINAL SIN. 135 saw that the wickedness of men was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually." : The words before us express the divine estimate of the character of man after it, and they express it by antici- pation ; and the anticipation is evidently founded on the divine knowledge of man's nature, as unfolding its evil tendencies from its very earliest stages. And although it may not be directly, and in so-many words, expressed, yet it is as strongly as possible implied, that the propensity to sin and to depart from God was seated in his very nature. There are several passages which I shall simply place to- gether without comment, as all, though under different modes, conveying the same idea. 2 All convey the idea that the progeny of the depraved must inherit the taint of depravity, and may be expected invariably to give early indication of it. And although the sayings of the three friends of Job cannot be decisively evi- dential of truth, seeing in one point God Himself has assured us they did not testify of Him the thing that was right ; yet their language gives evidence of the prevailing doctrine. 3 It is the same with that of Job, and it is in harmony with the general testimony of the Bible. There is a class of passages which affirm as a fact the universality of human sin fulness. That universality we shall by and by have occasion more particularly to notice as a matter of fact; and to deduce from it the conclusion to which it leads. Meantime, what we notice is, the testimony of Scripture simply to the fact. 4 These passages declare, as plainly as language can, the universality, admitting of not a single exception, of the prevalence of sin. With regard to one of these passages, 5 it has been alleged that the reference is to a period of prevailing wickedness among the Jewish people, and that it is only a description of them in that degenerate period. But we are surely safest, when we take as our authority in interpreting it, the commentary of the inspired apostle. Indeed, 1 Gen. vi. 5. 2 Job xiv. 4 ; xv. 14 ; xxv. 4 ; Prov. xxii. 15. 8 Job xlii. 7. 4 Ps. xiv. 1,3; liii. 1, 3 ; Koni. iii. 9, 12 ; 1 John v. 19 ; Eph. ii. 2, 3. 8 Ps. xiv. 1 , 3. 136 ORIGINAL SIN. in the Psalm itself, it is not upon the Jewish people that God is represented as looking down and instituting his judicial inspec- tion, but upon " the sons of men." In this unrestricted sense the words are quoted by the apostle, and the inference drawn from the fact they attest : " Now we know that what things the law saith, it saith to them that are under the law, that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God." 1 In this verse, " every mouth," means the mouth of Jew and Gentile alike ; and " the whole world," I need not say, includes both. 2 The last passage in the way of direct attestation of the mournful truth in question is Psalm li. 5. The subject of the Psalm is actual sin the complicated and grievous sin into which David had fallen, "in the matter of Uriah the Hittite." 3 The Psalm breathes the full spirit of lowly and broken-hearted 1 Bom. iii. 19. 2 It Las been alleged that, notwithstanding the declaration, " There is none righteous, no, not one." " The generation of the righteous," and " my people " are expressly mentioned in the subsequent parts of the Psalm, and that this is a proof that universality cannot be intended. - But to this it may be replied that this objec- tion carries the objector too far. When he alleges that " the children of men " can- not mean all the children of men, because " the righteous " are spoken of, and therefore the declaration, " there is none righteous," could not be true ; he forgets that, on the same principle, the language cannot apply to the Jewish people collec- tively, seeing that in that case, as well as in the other, there is the same distinction and the same contradiction. To what, then, are we shut up? Why, to the under- standing of "the sons of men," as meaning neither mankind universally nor the Jewish people universally, but the wicked of mankind or the wicked of the Jewish people, as distinguished from the righteous. And what have we then ? why, the infinite God looking down upon the wicked to see if there were amongst them any that were righteous, and formally pronouncing, as the result of the inspection, that amongst these wicked there was " none righteous, no, not one ;" not one wicked man righteous ! But what need for inspection, to ascertain whether there were any that did understand and seek God, among those whose very characteristic descrip- tion is, that they did not seek Him ? whether among the wicked there were any righteous ? Edwards demonstrates very minutely, but very triumphantly, how utterly futile every such view as this renders the whole reasoning of Paul in that passage of the Epistle to the Romans in which he quotes the verses ; how perfectly inconclusive and nugatory his universal conclusions are from premises thus limited and narrow. " How does such a universality as this, that all were wicked in Israel who were wicked, or that there was a particular evil party, all of which were wicked, confirm that universality which the apostle would prove, viz., that all Jews and Gentiles, and the whole world, were wicked, and every mouth stopped, and that no flesh could be justified by their own righteousness ?" On Original Sin, p. ii. sec. 2. s 1 Kings xv. 5. ORIGINAL SIN. 137 penitence. The writer is before us, prostrate on the earth, as an humble and earnest suppliant for mercy. In this verse, we regard him as tracing to its origin the sin which he thus confesses and deplores ; the bitter and polluted stream to its bitterer and more polluted fountain his native depravity. There is no other interpretation of the words that can bear com- parison with this in naturalness and simplicity. Not that the royal mourner, in looking to the depravity of his nature, looked to it as an alleviation of his guilt. The entire spirit of the Psalm may well satisfy us of the contrary. The thought of it only deepens his humiliation and self-loathing. It is, in fact, in one view of it -at least, an aggravation of guilt. The man who knows it and feels it should be set, by such knowledge and feeling, the more on his guard against the tendencies involved in it, even as a man carrying gunpowder will be careful to keep at a distance from fire, and will never be found, if he can help it, walking through the midst of sparks. That the meaning we have assigned to the words, namely, (as expressing the humbling truth that from the very uriion of soul and body, or, from his birth into the world, his nature had been tainted with moral pollution) might be made the more apparent from the extraordinary interpretations which have been put upon them by those who reject that meaning. Thus, they have been explained as a mere hyperbole ; an exaggerated form of expres- sion for the simple idea that he had not then sinned for the first time, but had been chargeable with trespass from his early years. I grant that strong emotion does not regulate its speech by weight and measure; that its natural language is that of hyperbole. But there is a limit. And if the Psalmist had no idea of there having been any moral taint in his nature originally, why should we suppose him using terms which so directly and emphati- cally convey that idea? There is great danger in allowing ourselves to make a free use of this principle of figure of speech in our exposition of God's word ; by which we may be led to dilute its salutary pungency, and to subvert its most important statements. 138 ORIGINAL SIN. The idea is still a stranger one, that David refers to the sin of his parents in the " begetting" and " conceiving" of him ! This I feel disposed to call as infamous as it is gratuitous. It is altogether gratuitous, inasmuch as there exists not the most remote ground for any such surmise of sin in the case, but the very contrary ; and therefore it is infamous, as throwing an unmerited slander upon Jesse the Bethlehemite, and, as we have every reason to believe, his one wife, the common mother of David and of all his other children. Of these children David was the youngest. Wherein, then, can the sin of either father or mother be supposed to lie ? And if the mother alone is .intended, and she is regarded, not as having sinned in the par- ticular case, but simply as " in sin," or sinful, then may we well ask for what end his poor mother's sinfulness should have been introduced here, unless as having conveyed the sinfulness to himself? Besides, what connection had the sin of his parents, supposing it to have existed, with David's own contrition ? There is something so utterly unnatural, unfilial, almost ungodly, at least very unlike the* " love that covereth all sins," in imagining David to bring forward into view but I am angry at myself for allowing myself to dwell even for a moment on a supposition so thoroughly destitute of basis, so perfectly contrary to all recorded and all probable fact. His language is, as I have said, the language of self-loathing. It is as if he had said : " I have sinned in practice, fallen by mine iniquity ; sadly, fearfully fallen ; and my actual sin is only an humbling manifestation of the fountain of native corruption that is in my heart." I have not thought it necessary to enlarge on the terms of the original Hebrew, which, by Dr. Taylor, are translated, " Be- hold I was born in iniquity, and in sin did my mother nurse me." He critically defends his versions in both parts ; arid Dr. Payne acquiesces in the one, and more than half acquiesces in the other. 1 But really the difference between our received version and Dr. Taylor's, so far as our present argument is concerned, 1 Congregational Lecture, pp. 321, 322. ORIGINAL 81N. 139 is so immaterial, that I do not think it worth while to give importance to it by saying much about it. If David describes himself as " bom in iniquity, and nursed in sin," we need not contend for any amount of difference between this and his being " shapen in iniquity and conceived in sin." Besides these, and not a feAv other passages, which directly affirm the doctrine, or, rather let me say, the fact in question, there are others which clearly involve it by implication. Such, for example, are all those which affirm the universal necessity of regeneration. This, in emphatic terms, is affirmed by Christ himself. 1 I need hardly say, it is so manifest, that " a man" here means any man, any one of the entire race. It is evidently and strictly generic, admitting of no exception. Now the new birth is a spiritual and moral change, a change of heart, a change of principle and disposition. Terms are used respecting it which convey the idea of its being a restoration to the soul of the divine image in which man was originally created. 2 The change is essentially a change from enmity to love, to holy love ; which is, in one word, the moral image of God. Now if it be so, and passages might be multiplied in proof of it, that all, without exception, stand in need of this regeneration, not of reformation only, or mending, as if they were only par- tially defective, but of entire renovation, of becoming new creatures ; "old things passing away, and all things becoming new:" then, does it not inevitably follow, that all, without exception, are naturally, radically, utterly degenerate ? I think it does. In so thinking, I concur with Edwards. Dr. Payne thinks that in this Edwards " carries his conclusion a little beyond his premises." " The doctrine of original sin," Edwards says, " in substance, at least, is clearly and directly proved by the alleged necessity of regeneration." His conclusion is, " that every man is born into the world in a state of moral pollution." " It appears to me manifest, however," says Dr. Payne, " that the only thing directly proved by the need of a spiritual purifi- cation in the case of all men, is that all men are morally depraved. ' John iii. 3. * Col. iii. 9, 10 ; Eph. iv. 22, 24. 140 ORIGINAL SIN. The necessity of regeneration does not directly show that this depravity is natural to them." But may it not be fairly replied to this, that in the very figure of regeneration, or new birth, there is an express and pointed reference to the old birth ? And does not the figure convey, and is it not intended to convey, the idea that the nature which we receive by the old birth, as to its moral character, and which we retain so long as we are not subjects of the new, requires to be essentially changed by the new ? If we thus keep in view the reference in the very term regeneration, I think we shall be satisfied that Edwards is right ; and that by this figure the Bible meant to convey the idea, not merely that men having become morally depraved without affirming how, require " spiritual purification ; " but that men, being by their first or natural birth born in sin, required a second birth to deliver them from the innate depravity of the first? And this view accords exactly with the lights of illustrative con- trast in which the two births and the natures derived from them respectively are placed. Thus, by our Lord, in the words which we have had under review, " That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. Marvel not that 1 said unto you, ye must be born again." And thus, too, Paul, in the passages cited a little ago respecting " putting off the old man and putting on the new." The old man is the man we become by our birth into the world, the depraved man ; the new man is the man we become by the second birth, when " born of the Spirit ;" the spiritual, the holy man. The same thing appears from the reference, in the phrases, " created anew," etc., to the original or first creation ; implying, as they do, that since the time when man was first created, there has been nothing in conformity to that first creation but what has been effected by the new-creative power of the life-giving Spirit; nothing naturally right in the moral constitution of man ; that divine energy requires in every case to be put forth again to effect his new creation. In this way, regeneration and the new creation may fairly be considered as implying native inherent depravity, depravity of nature. ORIGINAL SIN. 141 And the same thing might be confirmed from the manner in which the apostles distinguish between the regenerate and the unregenerate, when they distinguish the latter from the former under the designation of men, i.e., of persons remaining in their state of nature. 1 Whence the words, in the passage quoted, " walk as men " and " the lusts of men," unless in unrenewed human nature, sin and the propensity to the indul- gence of sinful lusts were prevalent among all, but those whom, by his regenerating grace, God had ".made to differ?" There is another class of passages, which have by some been introduced among the Scripture evidences of this doctrine of universal innate depravity; respecting the relevancy of which I feel very doubtful. Those affirm the universal neces- sity of justification by grace, and the impossibility of any being justified by the works of the law. My reason for omitting this description of proof is short and simple, but, as I think, conclusive. It is this, that every man who has sinned at all needs justification. The Scripture proof, therefore, that all need justification, and justification by grace, does not appear to me to amount to conclusive evidence of any more than that " all have sinned." It is no direct evidence of depravity of nature, and of consequent universal sinfulness, both in the individual and in the race. The extent to which the fact that all have sinned, or that all are sinners, bears upon the conclusion that all must be natively corrupt, will fall to be considered when we have discussed the remaining branches of the first department of our subject ; the threefold proof of the fact. To the second source of proof we now proceed, the proof from HISTORY. And in pursuing this branch of my subject, I still keep to the one point, the disposition of the human heart towards God ; the point so sententiously stated in the first of our Scripture proofs : " The carnal mind is enmity against God." : (2.) Now there can be no good reason why the inductive philosophy, which, disowning the spirit of mere theorizing, draws its conclusions from the observation of nature, and from 1 1 Cor. iii. 3 ; 1 Pet. iv. 1, 2. 2 Rom. viii. 7. 142 ORIGINAL SIN. ascertained facts, should not be employed on such a subject as that now before us. It is as legitimate in prosecuting inquiries relative to the human nature as in the investigation of external physical nature. If we are actually in possession of facts, nothing can be more inconsistent with the spirit of sound philo- sophy, than to overlook or refuse to attend to them ; and still to please and satisfy ourselves with framing theories, which, how plausible soever they may be rendered, and how palatable soever to our vanity and self-complacency, will not bear subjec- tion to the test of experiment, and the inductive evidence of existing facts. What does the pertinacious persisting in such a course demonstrate, but that we are not fond of the result to which the appeal to fact would conduct us; and, therefore, shrink from the application of the criterion. If, however, we are sincerely desirous of truth, which ought to be the sole object of all our investigations, we must not thus decline, and we never will, the introduction of the surest means of arriving at our end. It were as undutiful and criminal, as it would be weak and unmanly. The problem now before us, then, is to ascertain, if it can be done, from facts in the general history of mankind, what are the real dispositions of human nature towards the true God. Observe, then, when I speak of the evidence of history, I am not about to enter on the ordinary field, in which there has been a great deal of eloquent declama- tion, embodying a large amount of melancholy truth, but characterized sometimes by not a little partiality and one-sided colouring ; in which, indeed, according to the writer's cast of mind, and the object he has in view, a plausible representation might be made on different and opposite sides of the alternative respecting the general character of human nature. Those who are disposed to look upon it with a favourable eye give pro- minence of position, and brilliance of colouring to all, in the events of history and in the ordinary intercourse of human life, that bears the reality or the semblance of virtue ; while they place in distance and diminutiveness, and cover, and varnish, and shade away the less attractive features of their picture. ORIGINAL SIN. 143 Those who take a darker and a juster view of it, give fore- ground magnitude to whatever is most revolting ; and keeping out of sight the amiable and engaging, of which to the eye that can contemplate such scenes without missing God, there is so much that can be shown off to advantage, deepen the shades of all the vices. It is my purpose, therefore, to keep to the one point, the point which forms the true criterion of the really good or evil character of the nature of man. I begin with the original race of men. There is one thing and only one, which I must be allowed to assume as a postulate. It is that men originally were acquainted with the existence and character of the one God. This is a point which admits of no doubt to any believer in divine revelation ; and, having formerly noticed the inconsistency of the contrary supposition with every dictate of sound reason and true philosophy, I now make the assumption without further remark. What, then, are the plain and fully ascertained facts of the case ? I merely state them :* (1.) Man was originally, both at the first and at the second commencement of the race, in possession of the knowledge of the existence, the unity, and the natural and moral perfections of the true God. (2.) This original knowledge was sooner or later universally lost ; and the whole world, excepting where God was pleased to interpose by a preventing revelation, was entirely overrun with polytheistic idolatry. Originally committed to tradition, the knowledge continued pure in pro- portion as the tradition was retained ; but it was gradually and universally adulterated, mingled with falsehood and folly and impiety, and at length scarcely any trace or vestige of it left remaining. (3.) This took place not in circumstances where there was nothing but the tradition to preserve the remem- brance of the knowledge ; but while, along with the tradition, men were surrounded, in all creation, with the visible manifest- ations of the same God obtruding themselves on their senses in all the scenes and objects of nature, in heaven above, and earth beneath, and the waters under the earth " The invisible things 1 Vol. i. pp. 703, 705. 144 ORIGINAL SIN. of God, even His eternal power and Godhead, ' being clearly seen from the things that are made" 1 Though what men had to do was, not to discover but only to remember ; and helps to the memory of traditionary knowledge were thus so numerous, so various, so sufficient, and so constant ; yet, in spite of all, God was forgotten. (4.) The lost knowledge has never in any one instance been recovered, except by the aid of divine revelation, directly or indirectly communicated. Through- out the whole world where the light of revelation has not penetrated, there has prevailed, there continues to prevail, the grossest and most deplorable ignorance of the true God; of every thing that relates to Him. " The truth of God " is universally " changed into a lie." 2 Let me now mention another experiment upon human nature in regard to the point in question ; its disposition towards God. It is the case of the Jews. In the midst of the universal degeneracy, when by all the world the true God had been forsaken and forgotten ; for the purpose of not allowing the knowledge of Himself utterly to cease from amongst men, and at the same time for the purpose of preparing for the complete development of His great scheme of mercy to our apostate race, God chose the seed of Abraham from amongst the nations, favouring them with a revelation of Himself ; placing His name, and instituting the rites of His worship among them; giving them the "living oracles" 3 of sacred and divine instruction, and by miracle and prophecy manifesting their authority and establishing their truth. And what was the result? The striking confirmation of the lessons previously taught respecting the character and the tendencies of human nature. While they alone, of all peoples, possessed the know- ledge of the true ; they alone of all peoples manifested the tendency, strong and sadly prevalent to change, to abandon the true for the false, their own Jehovah for the " gods many and lords many " 4 of the idolaters by whom they were surrounded. The only people that were in the right showed i Rom. i. 20. * Rom. i. 25. 3 Acts vii. 38. 4 1 Cor. viii. 5. ORIGINAL SIN. 14/5 an incessant proneness to exchange the right for the wrong ; while, on the other hand, where was the people that ever discovered any inclination to exchange the wrong for the right ! Nothing can be more striking and more humbling than the appeal which on this very ground Jehovah addresses to His own people. 1 What a melancholy contrast is here, and how humiliating the lesson it teaches of the tendencies of our fallen nature in regard to the knowledge and the service of the true God! I might make use, for the same end, of some of the corruptions of Christianity ; inasmuch as the character of God is bound up in the revelation of Jesus Christ, and all subver- sions of the truth of God arise from, and are evidential of an opposition of character and disposition to the God of truth. But into such details I cannot enter. I satisfy myself with one other fact in proof of my general position, and merely state it, namely, that in various parts of the eastern world, where, in the early periods of its history, Christianity was published and planted, the knowledge then imparted has been lost, and the loss has been succeeded by degeneracy into a state of gross ignorance and superstition ; the inhabitants " sitting in dark- ness and the shadow of death." 2 Now, if we answer in the affirmative, as we must, the question : " Are these things so?" the question that remains to be answered is : How came they to be so ? Whence arose, for example, the loss of the original knowledge of God, both before the flood and after it ? And whence the tendency to the same loss and the same defection among the Jewish people ? And whence the loss of even the higher and purer discoveries conveyed by Christianity ? If there had been in the hearts of the children of men any love, any liking to the true character of God ; nay, if there had not been in their hearts what we have called a rooted aversion to that character ; if, in a word, the carnal mind had not been enmity against God, would these things have been so ? Would these facts have been 1 Jer. ii. 10, 13. " Ps. cvii. 10. 146 ORIGINAL SIN. possibilities ? We think not. Nor do we conceive there is any satisfactory account which can be given of such facts, but that which the apostle Paul assigns, and to which he traces all the spiritual ignorance and all the idolatry in the world : " They did not like to retain God in their knowledge." 1 Having simply set forth the principle of the argument, the ground in the facts of history, of our conclusion against human nature, I leave the expansion of it to yourselves. I might add, that the evidence is not confined to ancient times. Every modern missionary will bear testimony to the extreme difficulty of finding acceptance for the truth respecting God, in all quarters whither they are commissioned in providence to carry it, among men of every colour and clime, under every govern- ment, and in all stages of society, from the most savage barbarism to the most civilized refinement ; the attachment shown by all to their own systems notwithstanding the palpable and pre-eminent superiority of the lessons of Christianity to the folly and inconsistency, the ruthlessness, and the pollution of those systems. They can bear a united testimony to the statement, that, on such subjects, men do "love darkness rather than light," 3 and to the moral cause of this too, " because their deeds are evil." 3. I now go on to my third source of evidence, namely, CONSCIOUSNESS. In some respects this will still be an appeal to facts. When I speak to Christians, to those who have been brought to a right knowledge of God and of themselves, I know I cannot fail to find a full and self-abasing confirma- tion to the doctrine. True, we need not go further than a close and faithful inspection of our own hearts for evidence (alas ! too satisfactory) of the powerful and deep-seated tendency there is in our nature to forget and depart from the living God. But the argument may be placed in lights such as may even carry conviction to the consciences of unrenewed men. I am well aware how indignantly, when it is stated in its plain and naked abstraction, all revolt from it and disown it. " Hate 1 Rom. i. 28. * John iii. 19. ORIGINAL SIN. 147 God! Who will dare to say so? No, no; bad as we are, \ve are not so bad as that. Hate God !" The idea thus expressed is startling and revolting. The two things are in the very expression of their association God and hatred so utterly incongruous ; and even to the most unconcerned and reckless mil id there appears such enormity in the thought of absolutely hating God, that men universally spurn away from them the imputation with indignant scorn, as a gross slander on them- selves and on their nature. But it may happen, nay, not seldom it does happen, that, although men repel a charge when brought against them in its unqualified abstraction, they may, after all, be really guilty of the thing charged, although provoked by the unvarnished name of it. The ear may be shocked by the terms of the charge, when these terms express the concentrated principle of the evil, while yet, in not a few points of detail, it may be successfully brought home to their consciences. Let us try. I begin by repeating what we are charging human nature with, when, in the apostle's language, we say it is " enmity against God." 1 It is aversion and alienation from Him in his true character. There are many partial, inadequate, false views of God, under which men may profess to love Him, and be perfectly honest in the profession. They may love Him according to the conceptions w y hich their minds have formed of Him. Just imagine the heathen to love any one of their false divinities (although, indeed, it is very rarely that such a senti- ment as love enters into their worship of those divinities ; the creations, as they almost ah 1 are, of ignorance and depraved passions and guilty fears) : but just imagine it, we surely should never think of saying that they loved God; for in truth to love them would be to hate Him. It was their hatred of the true God that led to the invention and substitution of false ones. Now the very same principle is applicable to all false views of God together. It is quite possible, and far more than possible, for men to form conceptions of God, such as are far from being in 1 Rom. viii. 7. 148 ORIGINAL SIN. conformity with what He really is, and then to profess to love, and to love in sincerity, this creation of their own misguided fancies. But all the while their hearts may be in a state of enmity against the true God, the only God ; for there is but one, and His character is one. And so essential to His nature is every attribute of it, that of no one whatever can he be divested without ceasing to be God. If, therefore, He is not loved in this character, He is not loved at all. Men may have no enmity against God, as He too often appears in systems of human philosophy, and yet may be under the full sway of enmity against the God of the Bible. In systems of philosophy the Deity is introduced simply in the character of a wonderful artist, displaying, in the works of His hands throughout the whole range of explored nature, the. most consummate skill and the most unlimited power, associated with boundless benevo- lence. And the contemplation of Him under these aspects does often, I believe, produce a sentimental admiration, which, to the self-deceived individual, appears to falsify the representation of the apostle, so far as he is concerned ; and goes far to satisfy him, that, whatever may be the case with others, he is not chargeable with any such enmity. Even in systems, not of physical but of moral philosophy, and, I may add, in some schemes, too, of misnamed Christianity, there is such an attenuating and softening down of all that is awful and alarming in Deity, of His purity and righteousness, and judicial vindictiveness (not personal vindictiveness, observe, but judicial), that the mind is soothed, and flattered, and pleased, and made to feel a kind of complacency in God, and, it may be, a sentimentally sublime and apparently devout elevation of soul toward him. But alas ! in this view of the Divine Being there is implied the idea, that He will not be strict in marking iniquity, and in punishing the offences of His frail and erring creatures. All that is fearful is thus stript of its terrors ; and little is left remaining but a kind of soft, pliant, indulgent kindness, such as cannot find in its heart to be stern and inflexible in its dealings with such creatures : creatures 01UG1NAL SIN. 149 who are thus regarded and taught (a lesson which they are quite sufficiently prompt to learn and to credit) to regard them- selves more as unfortunate than as guilty, more the objects of pity than of condemnation and punishment. There are thus no terrors of the Almighty to make us afraid. God is brought down to man ; and deluded man is made to feel as if there Avere nothing to apprehend, and to forget the poet's sententious saying : a saying in full harmony with all, the Bible representa- tions of the Supreme Ruler, that " A God all mercy is a God unjust." Break in upon these soothing speculations on the divine bene- volence, so lulling to the conscience, so palatable to the self- deceiving heart, with some of the inspired declarations of the purity, and the righteousness, and the avenging jealousy of the Most High, His threatenings against sin, His curse, His wrath, His abhorrence of evil, His hatred of the workers of iniquity, His determination, as a " consuming fire," 1 " to punish with everlasting destruction them that know Him not and obey not His gospel," 2 to consign them to " unquenchable burnings," 3 to " the second death," 4 to " hell," 5 then the heart rises in proud resistance. The unbending declarations of the Bible are softened down and explained away ; gentler terms are substituted in their room ; or they are openly and indignantly contradicted and blasphemed. The love which a man professes to entertain for God may thus, in fact, be the mere love of self and of sin. Such, without question, is the professed love of that man who has fondly flattered himself, and in whose mind the self-flattery has at length settled into a persuasion, that God will not punish sin with the extreme severity threatened in His word ; that He never will be so cruel as to consign poor creatures, for the mistakes and trespasses of a short life (such are the terms of apologetic tenderness in which they are wont to speak of them- selves and their species), to such a hell as the Bible describes. Now, such a God as the human mind thus fancies to itself, 1 Mi-b. xii. 29. a 2 Thes. i. 8, 9. n Mat. iii. 12. 4 Rev. xx. 14 5 2 Tot. ii. 4. - 150 ORIGINAL SIN. owes his existence to the very same principle that is used to account for the universal substitution of idols in the room of the one true God. 1 It is a view of the Supreme Governor that applies " a flattering unction" to the soul. It does not frighten men in the commission of sin, or in the pursuit of " this present evil world." 2 It is love to God for the sake of that which God's soul hates, for the sake of sin. It is love of the divine benevolence under a partial and mistaken view of it, at the expense of the divine justice and holiness. It is a selfish abandonment of some of the essential glories of the divine nature, for the sake of present ease to the conscience. It were no difficult matter to present God before the eyes of men in such lights as to draw forth no portion of the sentiment of enmity, but rather to lull every soul in the self-complacent persuasion of its really loving him. But the exhibition would be partial and false, dishonourable to God, unfaithful and delusive to fellow-men ; and, if we credited it ourselves, ruinous to our own souls by the self-deception ; and if we did not credit it, no less ruinous by the falsehood and hypocrisy of our teaching. It is our official duty, remember, my young brethren, to hold Him forth to our fellow-sinners, not as love alone, but as light ; and to assure them, moreover, that unless they understand the latter view of His character, neither do they understand the former : the love being light, and the light love ; so that, if there be hi the heart an aversion to the light of the divine character, there can be no true complacency in its benevolence. Still further : God may not be hated, as He appears in the representations of poetry and romance, where so frequently He is either a mere part of the agency or the machinery for ripening and evolving the plot, or His name is introduced for the purpose of completing a scene of sentimental tenderness, or giving zest to the pleasure of a sentimental emotion, by enabling the mind to take credit to itself for something which it fondly believes to be piety. And yet once more : God may not be hated, when His name is celebrated in the song of sacred melody, that falls 1 Rom. 5. 28. * Gal. i. 4. OUIGINAL SIN. 151 delightfully on the ear, and draws the sensibilities of the heart to the kindling and melting eye. The charms of the music may " take the imprisoned soul, and lap it in Elysium." But all the while the rapturous and, in their own imagination, devout admirers of the Oratorio may "hate with a perfect hatred" 1 these Bible views of God, the very mention of which would at once dissolve the charm, dissipate the pleasing illusion, and change the smile of self-complacency into the frown of indignant scorn. The very tendency in the human mind to the formation and adoption of such partial views of the divine character, is itself an evidence of the enmity of the heart against Him ; for by a heart that loved Him such views could never be formed. And in these circumstances it is not to be wondered at, that men should be found under the full sway of this enmity, and yet not be conscious of it, or willing to admit its existence. It is only an -evidence of the truth of the description of the heart as " deceitful above all things," 2 and of its unlimited power in blinding and perverting the judgment. To holy creatures the entire character of God is the object of love, unqualified love ; and let it not be forgotten, that aversion to any part of the divine character is aversion to God, and makes it apparent that those parts of it must be misapprehended which we profess to love. But I must now bring this appeal to consciousness to the criterion of a few tests, by which the truth of our position may be the more strongly impressed on those who are already con- vinced of it, and may, perchance, by the blessing of God, be the means of awakening others to a due sense of its truth. These tests are not new. They are taken from what are the ordinary and universally recognised indications and evidences of real attachment, when attachment really exists, and of the absence of it where it does not; and where any false and imposing semblance passes itself off to the deceived conscience for the reality. This is obviously fair ground. That which calls itself love should bear to be tested by the ordinary criteria of love. What will not abide these cannot be real. Observe, then 1 Ps. cxxxix. 22. 2 Jer. xvii. 19. 152 ORIGINAL SIN. [1.] Affection, in proportion to the degree of its intensity, delights in the intercourse and society of its object. The parent, the child, the husband, the wife, the lover, the friend, when separated from the objects of their respective attachments, long for the time of their return. They count the hours, and each hour seems a day of protracted and impatient self-denial. The heart is ever pointing, like the magnetic needle, to the object of its love ; the thoughts are ever engrossed by it ; fancy is ever busying itself in conjecturing its present circumstances, and anticipating the natural ecstasy of the expected meeting. We all are sensible of such feelings, though the measure of sensibility may be various, in regard to fellow creatures. It is one of the sure tests of the reality of affection. Where there are no such feelings there is no love. Apply the criterion, then. Let men ask themselves whether they habitually or frequently think of God, whether their minds take pleasure in dwelling upon His character, preferring it to other subjects, fretted when other subjects obtrude upon it and divert them from it ; never willingly allowing it to be absent, or, if necessarily for a time excluded, eagerly retaining it whenever it again recurs; whether, in a word, God be the chosen inmate of their hearts, their affections turning to Him as to a centre of mighty, delightful, and endeared attraction ; whether they cultivate intercourse with God ; whether the exercises of devotion, in which the soul holds its secret communion with Him, are pleasing and familiar to them exercises in which they seek and find their richest enjoyment. As preachers, we might appeal to our hearers, to those merely who have " tasted that the Lord is gracious," * all of whom will at once be ready to acknowledge, with a broken and a contrite heart, their natural proneness to forget and depart from God, and their obligation to renewing grace alone for any degree in which they enjoy the pleasure of such communion: ever lamenting that they do not enter more frequently than they do into the feelings expressed by the Psalmist when he sings : " God, thou art my God, early will I seek Thee," etc. ; 2 and to our 1 1 Pet. ii. 3. 2 Ps. Ixiii. 1, 4. OKIGINAL SIN. 153 unbelieving hearers, and say : Do you experience anything like the same tendency of heart to God, of which you are sensible towards an earthly relative or friend whom you fondly love ? Where can be your love to Him if you have no desire of His presence, no enjoyment in the thought of Him, or wish to retain it no satisfaction or delight in fellowship and intercourse with Him ? Are not many among you sensible that, in the terms of the poet " the God who made you" is "an intruder on your joys?" that, so far from being disposed to admit, you are rather anxious to exclude or to dismiss the thought of Him from your minds ? And what kind of love is this that, instead of courting, spurns the thought and the society of its object ? If we wish to determine whether love or aversion be the characteristic; of human nature as to God, we have only to reflect on what were the tendencies of our own minds before our hearts became the subjects of renewing grace ; and to look around us on the world, and think in how few minds the thought of Him is to be found ; to how many fewer the thought is a courted and a pleasant one, and to how many fewer still (those alone, indeed, who are partakers with us in renewing grace) fellowship with Him, intercourse of soul with Him, is a pleasure. [2.] With all who truly love God, the first and most essential element in their estimate of the character of intelligent creatures must be, the state of the heart towards Him. Surely were we in a loyal world, this would infallibly be the case. I can entertain no more doubt that this stands first in the estimate of angels, than I have of the existence of these pure and blessed spirits. I cannot form to myself the conception of such creatures taking their first estimate of character from anything beneath God, from the state of the affections towards themselves, or to- wards any description of fellow-creatures. Such creatures could not fail to be unutterably shocked at the very idea of applying the epithet good to any other rational creature whose heart was alienated from God : in whose character the love and fear of God did not hold the highest place. 154 ORIGINAL SIN. Apply this test. What is the state of the fact in our world ? Is it not matter of notoriety that in thousands and tens of thousands of instances, the estimate is formed without the most distant reference in the mind to God ? nay, that in the general current language of mankind, such reference seldom or never is to be recognised, any more than if no such Being existed ? that the estimate is almost invariably formed and pronounced entirely from the relations which men sustain to one another? Here lies the radical defect in the ordinary, the almost universal, estimate of character amongst men. And while they overlook that which ought to be first in order and of essential importance in their account, we need not greatly wonder at their questioning the doctrine of original depravity. And yet, their very over- looking of this most essential element, is one of the evidences of the enmity which they deny. The common application of the designation " a good man," to those in whom there is not dis- cernible the remotest symptom of religious principle, comes amongst the many proofs that in our world God has not His own place. How comes it, we may well ask, that the second great commandment is so generally separated from the first ; taken by itself, made the all-in-all of goodness : the first hardly ever entering into men's thoughts ? Whence this divorce between religion, which is enjoined in the first, and morality (as the world term it), which is enjoined in the second? I am well persuaded that in no mind but that of a fallen creature did this separation ever take place. The sum of the entire law of God lies in the first great commandment, that of supreme love to Himself. How, then, comes the infinite God to be placed behind or thrown altogether out of sight, and out of account ? How comes a man to be accounted and called good, when all that constitutes liis goodness terminates on himself and his fellow-creatures, while " God is not in all his thoughts," 1 nor is there any fear of Him before his eyes? 2 Is it, we may ask, a loyal world, a world of lovers of God, where this to so vast an extent takes place? Is God the object of love 1 Ps. x. 4. 2 Ps. xxxvi. 1. ORIGINAL SIN. 155 amongst creatures who are thus prone to leave Him out in their estimates of their own and of one another's characters ? But [3.] In the form now discussed enmity discovers itself nega- tively ; in the negation of God, in the regard shown to characters in which God is not. We have now to ask farther, how are professions and appearances of devoted piety received in the world? What are the sentiments and feelings excited when a man becomes in earnest in religion, when he turns to God, when he is often on his knees, when there " his eye pours out tears " of penitential tenderness to the All-just and All-merciful, whom his sins have offended, but who has won back his alienated heart to Himself; when he is seen at his Bible seeking, with a throbbing heart, an answer to the question: "What must I do to be saved?" 1 and, having found it, fleeing from the paths of vice and worldliriess, and " walking in newness of life," 2 living, not only " soberly and righteously," 3 but godlily? We know the emotions with which such an event is regarded in heaven : " there is joy there, before the angels of God, over one sinner that repenteth.' H Is this the feeling on earth ? Is such a scene welcomed with the same joy there ? Surely, did men love God, were they loyal in heart to Him, every symptom of piety in a spirit that had before been alienated from Him would be hailed with the liveliest interest. Even if the returning sinner were discovering a disposition to run to an extreme, the extreme of enthusiasm and extravagance, this would be the side on which every allowance would willingly be made ; such would be the joy at the fact of the return of a rebel to his allegiance. Is it so, then ? On the contrary, how comes it to pass that so much difficulty should be felt, that so many obstacles should have to be overcome, in making an open avowal of a spiritual change, of attachment to the truth and ways of God in commencing a life of true piety ? Why does a young man, why does any man feel himself so strongly tempted to hesitate, and shrink, and turn, and conceal? Why is he afraid to be seen with his Bible before him, or on his knees ? 1 Acts. xvi. 30. 2 Kom. vi. 4. 3 Tit. ii. 12. * Luke xv. 7, 156 ORIGINAL SIN. Why, when so discovered, does he thrust the one aside, and start up from the other? Why is he ashamed of his tears of penitence and love ? Why does he turn his back to hide them and brush them away? How comes it that his making this transition costs him his strongest temptations and struggles, and his most difficult acts of self-denial ? And how comes it that, when he has given indications of the tendencies of his mind, when he has actually made the change, that his family and relations are grieved about him, lamenting over him, sus- pecting his sanity, using every means they can think of to drive those fancies from his head, and to win him back to the ways of the world ? Why is he pointed at, hooted at, forsaken ? eyed askance with the leer of derision, and loaded with scornful nicknames ? Whence comes it that a man may swear, may be loose in his moral deportment, as well as thoughtless about everything serious, and his vices be only smiled at as the frailties and errors of youth, and every palliation and excuse possible devised for them ? Why do we so often hear such language as: " He is a sad youth, to be sure, but so very good-hearted ! his faults no doubt he has ; who has not ? but he is a fine fellow, after all, and in spite of them?" But when he becomes in real earnest a religious character, when, instead of taking the name of God in vain, he begins to " call on the Lord out of a pure heart," * to relinquish the follies and vanities of the world, and to choose God as "the portion of his soul;" it is felt by his friends as a heavy distress, and by his companions regretted and laughed at as a melancholy whim and crotchet, by which they feel themselves secluded from their society ? And how comes it that the idea of weakness and mental imbecility should be so very prevailing an association with piety; that it should be held as an indication of a feeble mind, without vigour, without inde- pendence, without true spirit, without originality, without genius? How comes it that such conceptions should be associated with the first and highest, the purest and noblest of all principles, the true glory of every intelligent nature in the universe the principle of 1 2 Tim. ii. 22. ORIGINAL SIN. 157 piety, the devotion of the heart to the Infinite God ? I ask : Could any such sentiment, could any such association, possibly find place in any bosom but a bosom in a state of alienation from God ? And could such sentiments and associations possibly obtain prevalence in any world but a world of creatures thus alienated? It is a contradiction to imagine it. 1 [4.] The same conclusion may be deduced from the prevailing sentiments of mankind on the subject of happiness. Among the philosophers of ancient and modern times there have existed scores of theories about the chief good the summum bonum. Now we ask again : Could this be even a subject of question in any world but a fallen world ? It was no question in paradise. It is no question in heaven. No ; nor is it any question amongst regenerated men. The language of all such is that of the Psalmist : " There be many that say, Who will shew us any good? Lord, lift thou up the light of thy countenance upon us." 2 " Whom have I in heaven but thee ; and there is none upon earth that I desire beside thee." 3 This is not the utterance of nature. It is the dictate of renewing grace. Surely there never was an estimate formed of happiness, except in a fallen and sinful world (whether that estimate was avowed in theory, or only followed in practice), of which the first ingre- dient had not a direct relation to God, and into all the component ingredients of which God did not enter. He is the chosen portion of every holy intelligence in creation. His smile is the " one thing needful," 4 in the estimate of every such intelligence, to its felicity ; nor can it form an idea of happiness without it. He is the central sun in the whole system of the thoughts, and feelings, and enjoyments of unfallen and holy natures : the very " light of life." 5 And the love of God cannot be in the hearts of creatures who manifest so sad a propensity to leave Him out in their calculations and pursuits of enjoyment. 1 This singularly vivid representation of prevailing antipathy to vital religion is more demonstrably applicable to the spirit of other times (especially to the earlier portion of the author's life and ministry), than to the spirit of the present day ; but there is no reason to doubt that the unregenerate mind is now as much as ever opposed to scriptural godliness. [En.] 1 Ps. iv. 6, 7. 3 Ps. Ixxiii. 24. Luke x. 42. * Job. xxxiii. 30. 158 ORIGINAL SIN. [5.] There is another test to which I would bring the present question as to the natural rectitude of the disposition of the human heart toward God. I allude to the tendency which, in a degree that is proverbial, prosperity has to lead the heart away from God, and induce forgetfulness of Him. God is the providential Author of all the good which men enjoy. If this be questioned, I have no argument with those to whom it is a point of sceptical doubt. And another maxim will not by any be disputed, namely, that the sentiment of gratitude ought to bear proportion to the amount of benefits bestowed. Yet in the present case it is notoriously, and, as I have said, proverbially otherwise. That which ought to lead to God is what of all other things produces the exclusion of Him from the mind most frequently and most effectually. Every gift ought to inspire gratitude to the giver, and fix him the more firmly in the throne of the heart. What should we think and say of that man's professions of love, whom our very kindness alienated and caused to forget and disregard us ? Judge ye. Is it not an affecting evidence of the alienation of the heart from God, that there should exist in it such a ten- dency to forget our divine benefactor, in proportion as He "loads us with His benefits;" 1 to " burn the incense to our own net, and offer the sacrifice to our own drag;." 2 to " trust in uncertain riches," rather than " in the living God, who giveth us richly all things to enjoy;" 3 to give the gifts the Giver's place ? Attempts may be made to account for this on natural principles ; as, for instance, from the more powerful operation upon the mind of the present and the seen, than of the absent and the unseen, the distant and the future. But it will not do. The nature to which such principles and tendencies are natural, cannot be in a sound condition. To a truly holy nature, God, although unseen, could never be thought of otherwise than as present ; and far less could the very enjoy- ment of His goodness, in a more than ordinary amount of muni- ficence, produce high-mindedness and presumptuous independence; 1 Ps. Ixviii. 19. * Hab. i. 16. s 1 Tim. vi. 17. ORIGINAL SIN. 159 and tempt the blest and favoured subject of divine kindness to say, " Who is the Lord, that I should obey Him ?" l Ingratitude is justly stigmatized as one of the very basest of base principles, in the. relations of men to one another. When displayed toward themselves, there is almost nothing they can bear with less equanimity and tolerance ; yet how little, how very little do they think of it when its object is the divine Benefactor ! Were love to God a native inmate of the human bosom, such a phenomenon as this in the moral system could not have been found, even in the form of a solitary specimen, on the face of the earth. Yet it was on the ground of the known existence and power of the tendency of which we have been speaking, that Moses founded of old his warning to the Israelites. And it is on the same ground that we feel our fears and jealousies still awakened when, in the case of any of God's people, wealth flows in upon them, we tremble and pray for them. Why should we feel so, were there discovered the proper tendency of gifts to lead and bind the heart to the giver ; that is, in other words, were human nature, in reference to God, what it ought to be ? 2 [6.] I would ask How do men feel with regard to God's honour? This is another part of the practical exercise of affection. We show our self-love by a sensitive jealousy of our own honour. See how men in general watch over it at every point ; how they take fire at every word, or action, or look that bears the remotest aspect of an insult; and how, with the indignant emotions of wounded pride, they demand acknowledg- ment and reparation. Still more feelingly alive are they to the reputation of a parent or a friend : of their name, if they are living, of their memory, if they are dead. We can endure no insult, not even an allusion that can be construed into an insult. The tear of mingled indignation and grief starts from the swelling bosom to the kindling eye. And nothing will satisfy us till, by required explanation and apology, we have cleared away every vestige of imputation against the living character, or against the still more sacred and cherished memory. Such are, in every 1 Exod. v. 2. a Deut. viii. 10, 17. 160 ORIGINAL SIN. bosom, the feelings of nature toward a beloved object. -Apply the test again. Are these the feelings of human nature toward God? If they be the feelings of nature, they will of course be the prevailing, at least, if not the universal, feelings of mankind. Is it so ? Are men in general thus concerned about the glory of God, thus sensitively and indignantly jealous of the reputation and honour of the divine name? Hear the appeal of Jehovah to His ancient people, and it may be generalized : " A son honoureth his father, and a servant honoureth his master ; if I, then, be a Father, where is mine honour? and if I be a Master, where is my fear?" 1 God's name is every day and every hour blasphemed ; His laws are trampled upon ; His threatenings are scorned ; His invitations and His offered mercy are despised ; His word, His day, His ordinances are contemned, and burlesqued, and cursed. Are the emotions of men in general, when dishonour is thus put upon the Infinite Being, at all analogous to those experienced and expressed when dishonour has been done to a parent or a friend ? Have they at all the same jealous sensitiveness ? do they feel the same deep and heart-sinking sorrow ? On the contrary, is not all this seen and heard with little or no emotion of concern, as if it were no business of theirs ; nothing in which they had any interest, or were at all entitled to interfere ? While the utterance of a single disrespectful word against the earthly friend inflicts a deep and rankling wound upon their feelings, which blood itself seems inadequate to atone for, and all is agitation and resentment; the grossest and most frequently repeated insults and blasphemies against the blessed God are unheeded, passing through their ears, or done before their eyes, without occasioning the slightest sensation or excite- ment ; all remaining quiescent, unmoved, and regardless ! Whence comes this difference ? Is not the cause of it simply this, that they feel their connection with their earthly friend, while they do not feel their connection with God, or God's with them ? In other words, they do not love Him. If they did, 1 Mai. i. 6. ORIGINAL SIN. 161 they could not possibly be thus indifferent to the honour of His name. The indifference is a striking and conclusive proof of the truth of our charge against human nature. ! if we lived in a^world of loyalty and love, an insult offered to the universal Father, would send a pang to the hearts of the entire family, and awaken the indignant zeal of every bosom to wipe it away. Nothing can more decisively show that such is not the character of our world, than the fearful callousness that prevails in it as to all that regards the glory of the Almighty Creator and all-bountiful Parent. [7.] We are fond to speak of those we love. We introduce the subject willingly ourselves, and our eye sparkles with pleasure when we hear it introduced with commendation by others. We like the man who thus speaks of our friend, for our friend's sake. And the very strongest expression of dis- pleasure or disapprobation we can possibly use, is to say of any man, when he happens to be mentioned : " Never let that man be named in my hearing again." What, then, in this respect, is the actual fact as to God? In a world of loyal and attached subjects, a world of holy creatures, God might be expected to be much thought of and much spoken about, a frequent and a pleasant theme of converse. Can you form to yourselves the conception, that in such a world it should be an understood law of social intercourse, that God and what relates to God should never be mentioned ? How comes it to pass that in a company the name of God may be taken in vain in the lightest and profanest manner, and the matter scarcely be noticed, exciting no sensation, but all going on in sprightly vivacity and uninterrupted good humour as before ; as it' nothing had happened but what ordinary courtesy required to be allowed to pass without remark ? But if the divine name should be mentioned with seriousness, for the purpose of introducing the character, and doings, and claims of God, even for however short a time, as the topic of conversation, all start in silent surprise ; the frown of disappointment and displeasure sits on every coun- tenance ; the sidelong looks of disapprobation are interchanged ; VOL. II. M 162 ORIGINAL SIN. these are followed by the whispers of offended propriety. In short, there is a general feeling as if some trespass had been perpe- trated against the conventional rules of all good company ; of which the established maxim is, that every man should keep his religion to himself. The titter of ridicule, when looks have discovered sympathy, and sympathy has imparted boldness, begins to go round ; and the unwelcome subject is,- as summarily as possible, dismissed. Every one knows that this is no imaginary or censorious description ; and that, mutatis mutandis, it may, in the spirit of it, be applied to all grades of society. How, then, comes this? If love to God prevailed among men, could such a scene anyw r here be found ? Would the light profanation, think you, of the name of the supremely loved object be passed unheeded, and the serious and devout mention of it be resented as an offence, and interdicted as an unwelcome intrusion? Take the aggregate of human conversation. The intercourse of men with each other is incessant, in all the diver- sities of relation, private and public, occasional and stated. How little, how very little, of all that passes between them, has the remotest reference to God or divine things ! How many and how extensive are the circles in which, as far as conversation goes, days, and weeks, and months might pass away, as if the existence of such a Being were not at all recognised among them! And what a matter of difficulty it is to get such subjects intro- duced ! how much consideration, and prudence, and caution must be put in requisition in order to effect it without offence ! It must be done gently, distantly, and by insinuation and remote hint. Now, what would you think of the loyalty of men and their attachment to their sovereign, to whom it was an offence to name in their presence that sovereign's name ; or with whom all this timid and jealous care was required to introduce it without incurring displeasure ? to introduce it, I mean, in any w T ay that did not indicate indifference, disrespect, or hostility ; whilst under any of these forms it might be introduced with unchecked and mirthful freedom ? Let the intercourse of society, then, deter- mine whether this be a godly world ; whether love to God be a characteristic of its inhabitants. ORIGINAL SIN". K5M [8.] There is another light in which the absence of all such love is most affectingly manifest, the prevailing indifference about the divine favour, or the divine displeasure. It were a suffi- ciently satisfactory evidence of human degeneracy, that it is so easy a thing to engage men's attention and interest in regard to whatever relates to their temporal concerns, while it is so superla- tively difficult to procure a serious hearing as to their spiritual and eternal condition and prospects. But, without insisting on this more general theme, let me advert to the one I have just particularized, the favour and the displeasure of God. Well we know, that wherever there is love, the one is valued and anxiously desired and sought, while the other is dreaded and deprecated, and when incurred, deplored with a bitterness cor- responding to the strength of the attachment. Thus it is with an affectionate child. Thus it is with an attached and devoted friend. If there were true love in the heart to God, the very remotest apprehension or possibility of being the objects of his displeasure, of his frown, of his curse, would overwhelm our spirits with agony, would " pierce us through with many sor- rows." 1 How would it stun and appal the heart of an angel of light, were it conceivable that, with his experience and cpn- sciousness, he would give the report any credit, to be told that the blessed God was turned against him, had withdrawn from him His love, was angry with him, was become his enemy ? How, in an instant, would the light of his happiness be quenched ? Yet with what unmoved indifference are divine assurances of displeasure and denunciations of vengeance regarded generally among mankind ! They will not so much as take the trouble to inquire into the authority on which such assurances and de- nunciations rest. They are quite unconcerned and listless. They smile one to another, and keep one another in countenance in their indifference ; just as if divine favour or divine dis- pleasure bore no relation to them, either affecting their present Mate, or their future prospects. It is surely a very manifest truth, that were there anything like the prevalence of love to 1 1 Tim. vi. 3. 164 ORIGINAL SIN. God amongst men, they could not be thus easy at the thought of His displeasure. They would esteem " His favour life," 1 His " loving kindness better than life." 3 They would shudder at the very thought of His being alienated from them, of their lying under His judicial displeasure. They could not " give sleep to their eyes, or slumber to their eyelids," 3 till they had got an answer to the question : " Are these things so ?" and even were there but ground to surmise their truth, till they had secured peace with their offended Maker and Judge, their offended Benefactor, Father, and Friend. What was it in the case of the man Christ Jesus, that wrung His holy soul with anguish, in the garden and on the tree? Not the anticipation, and not the endurance of corporeal tortures. These formed but a small proportion of His mysterious sufferings, a comparatively mild ingredient in that cup of woe, of which, thrice with in- creasing earnestness, He prayed that, if it were possible, it might pass from Him. The bitterest of all its bitters was the hiding of His Father's countenance, which drew from His lips the thrilling complaint, " My God, my God, why hast thou for- saken me?" 4 It was this or the anticipation of this, that forced from His pores_ the oozing sweat of blood. And why ? because he knew the value of His heavenly Father's love, and felt the full force of holy love to Him. This leads me to notice [9.] What might perhaps with propriety have been men- tioned sooner, as an evidence of the absence of love to God ; the prevailing disregard of God's authority. This is the test by which Paul vindicates the truth of his affirmation, " The carnal mind is enmity against God, for it is not subject to the law of God." This is a test that is constantly applied amongst men, in the cases of ruler and subject, of master and servant, of parent and child. There is no love, where there is no obe- dience. " This is the love of God, that we walk after His commandments." 6 " If a man love me, he will keep my words." 7 I am now making my appeal to the general character of the 1 Ps. xxx. 5. 2 Ps. Ixiii. 3. Ps. cxxxii. 4. * Mat. xxvii. 46. 5 Rom. viii. 7. 6 2 John 6. 7 John xiv. 23. ORIGINAL SIN. 165 world, and to those particulars in that character which may be brought home on our present inquiry to human consciousness. Now, what is the general character of mankind ? Who will venture to affirm the existence of such obedience to divine authority, such desire to know and to do God's will, as is the result and evidence of love ? To render the appeal on this ground the more conclusive, there are some considerations to which it will be well to attend. [1.] There may be self-decep- tion and deception with regard to others, arising from careless, partial, superficial Views of the divine law and its various re- quirements. , These are wonderfully prevalent. And their pre- valence is itself a proof of the absence of love. Men are not solicitous to know the rule, that., they may not be over-sensible of its violations, and ^troubled with too frequent inward remon- strances and stinging reflections. They satisfy themselves with a very slight acquaintance with it, and are transgressing it every day and every hour without ever imagining that they are doing so. But if men loved God, their first and most anxious desire would be to know all His will ; and to know it, that they might do it. 'Their great fear would be, lest in any one point they should mistake its meaning, and even involuntarily trans- gress it. Is it thus with mankind ? Is not the difficulty to get men to believe that the law of God is so strict as it is ? And are not they ever finding ten thousand reasons for miti- gating that strictness, and thus keeping their consciences easy ? [2.] There are certain virtues, and classes of virtues, which are creditable in society ; necessary to a man's passing well amongst his fellow-men, and getting on in the world ; and for the simple reason that the secular interests of men in their mutual transac- tions could not prosper without them, nor could ,the very frame- work of society be held together. Here too, then, there may be deception, appearance without reality. Such virtues, it is evident, may be practised from motives that are purely selfish and secular, or at best, that terminate on the well-being of society ; without having in them one atom of love to God or regard to His authority, without the slightest operation of the 166 ORIGINAL SIN. principle of genuine loyalty and subjection. [3.] There is not a little of what the law of God requires, in so far as our out- ward conduct is concerned, which happens to accord with what our circumstances and interests recommend, and with our con- stitutional temperament and peculiarity of inclination. There may thus be an external correspondence of our actions with the law, while there is no obedience. Obedience implies that the act is done from a due sense of legitimate authority. But to do what pleases ourselves' is not obedience, even although the act be in conformity to legal prescription. In such cases, there is no test and no manifestation of the principle of subjec- tion, when that which we do is that which we would have done whether the authority of God had been interposed to enjoin it or not. We tell children'so. Their spirit of obedience is not displayed in doing that which they are bidden, when that which they are bidden is something which chances to be to their liking ; or in refraining from what is prohibited, when that hap- pens to be something to which they are either disinclined or indifferent. All such things must be deducted when we are estimating the reality or the amount of love to God in the human character. [4.] In this way it is, that amidst not a little of external conformity of much that bears the appearance of obedience, one violation of God's law persisted in becomes proof of the charge of enmity. This may be the very particular, the renunciation of which is necessary as the evidence of a due regard to the divine authority. Other things may be done ; other things may be refrained from ; but if this one evil be cherished and adhered to pertinaciously, there is in this of itself sufficient evidence that the doing and the refraining in other things is the result of other motives than regard to God, of which motives there may be not a few. Thus we always reckon in the case of the child and the parent. When a man appears very religious when everything goes well with him ; but frets, and spurns, and discovers the absence of the true principle, when- ever aught occurs that crosses and thwarts him, there is in such a case no true submission : so neither in the other is there any OUKilNAI. SIN. I(i7 true subjection. The " carnal mind's not being subject to the law of God" means, that between it and the holy principles and precepts of the law there is a contrariety, manifested in an al tiding tendency to set it aside, and to disregard and evade its obligations. But in many things this may not outwardly appear. It evinces itself, however, when the divine authority stands alone ; \vhcn there is nothing else to second and support it. That authority ought of itself to be enough. No other motive beyond its known existence should be requisite to ensure the result. But alas ! how slender is its restraining power, when it stands entirely by itself; in which circumstances alone it is that the principle of subjection is properly put to the proof. Arid one case of this description may settle the character, and prove the existence ard operation of the spirit of enmity, though there should be a hundred instances of outward correspondence ; a correspondence produced by considerations entirely different, and into which the will and the glory of God do not at all enter ; so that what seems obedience may be even the product of the very spirit of disobedience, or at least may co-exist with it ; arising from mere educational habit, from regard to health, to interest, to reputation, or other forms of self, or from mere natu- ral affection, or humanity, or the love of social order, or some other principle such as may be in operation without the slightest reference in the mind to God, or the slightest influence of any right feeling towards Him in the heart : all terminating on self or on fellow-creatures, and falling far short of what ought to be the first and highest aim of every intelligent and accountable creature in the universe. [10.] In close connection with the preceding particulars must be mentioned, as a matter-of-fact test of the disposition of the human heart towards God, the reception which the Gospel meets with in the world. When illustrating the apostle's words, " they did not like to retain God in their knowledge," 1 I had occasion to notice that the principle of them admitted of appli- cation to every discovery of the divine character; and accord- 1 Rom. i. 28. 168 ORIGINAL SIN. ingly, that onr Lord affirms in other words, the very same thing respecting the revelation of God in the Gospel, which Paul affirms respecting the lessons of nature, when he says : " And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil." 1 This is precisely the same principle. The same character is thus given of the Gospel as of God himself : " Light is come into the world" "God is light.!' The Gospel contains the most complete, glorious, and lovely view of Him who is at once light and love. If so, then hatred of the Gospel must be iden- tical with hatred of God, the rejection of it with the rejection of God. Many, I am well aware, will not admit this. But their not admitting it will not disprove it. They may rather be affording evidence, in their denying it, of the melancholy truth we are seeking to establish. The Gospel is a display of the combined attributes of God, especially of His moral perfec- tions, holiness, justice, truth, goodness, and mercy ; a display of these in harmonious union, such as is not to be seen in any other department of his administration. And that heart cannot be " right with God," 2 cannot truly love Him, that delights not in the brightest and most engaging manifestation of His divine excellencies. The Gospel is a scheme of mercy ; and a scheme of mercy such as alone it could bCj in union with the most unsullied " purity and the most unbending justice. What, then, shall we say, if we find that which constitutes its very glory, and which must be its special recommendation to the admiring complacency of all loyal and holy intelligences, to be the very thing that renders it distasteful to men, and obnoxious to their disapproval and rejec- tion ? In that case, must not the refusal of it be an evidence, and a very affecting evidence, of enmity against God? Just notice them. [1.] It is a scheme of mercy such as secures all the glory of the sinner's salvation to God, making the sinner a debtor to pure grace through a mediator, leaving him nothing in himself in which to glory or to trust. Now, can that heart be in a right position towards God that is not pleased with this? Is it not 1 John iii. 19. 2 Acts viii. 2. ORIGINAL SIN. 169 right? Is it not as it ought to be? Should not every creature that entertains any reverential affection for the divine Being, any real regard for His honour, be delighted with it? How ought the tidings of free mercy to be received ? How would they be received, were there remaining in the human bosom any proper regard for God ? Would it not be with uni- versal transport, with tears of grateful delight and humble joy ? [2.] It is a discovery of mercy such as, at the same time, shows the hatred of God to all sin, his indignation against it, his settled determination to punish it. Sinners of mankind, those to whom the mercy is revealed, dislike it for this. But dislike to this is dislike to God. It is impossible that such a feeling should exist in any heart that has in it any portion of the love of God. The heart that loves Him goes along with Him in His hatred of sin ; feels the propriety of vengeance being taken on those by whom it has been committed. The heart that loves God cannot but hate sin, as involving contrariety to His character, opposition to His authority, ingratitude for His goodness and grace, and having in it the tendency, were it allowed, to work out its native results to the uttermost, to overturn His throne, arid blot out His very name from under Heaven. [3.] It is a revelation of mercy, in which provision is at the same time made for the personal holiness of all who partake of the pardon which that mercy vouchsafes, for their renewal in the spirit of their minds, for their restoration to the divine image. This, too, the sinner cares not for. Mercy to him in his sins he would like, and gladly accept ; but mercy that offers to save him from sin he desires not, has no relish for. But who does not see that such a state of mind is one of unmingled " enmity against God." It involves feelings of the most outrageous impiety. It is indeed, in the Saviour's own words, a " loving of darkness rather than light." If the Gospel came from God, how could it possibly be without a provision for the sinner's sanctification, for changing his heart, and bringing him back to love and loyalty ? The absence of such a provision, the absence of such an element in the salvation provided by it, would have been 170 ORIGINAL SIX. the surest proof of its having another author than the God of light and love. In one word, what is there which the Gospel is, which an enlightened mind can affirm it ought not to be ? What is there in it, what element of principle, what feature of constitution, on account of which a nature that really loved God should not, instead of slighting and rejecting, delight in it, in the contemplation of its theory, and in practical conformity to its dictates ? We cannot but conclude, therefore, that the testi- mony of Christ respecting the moral cause that gives rise to the rejection of the Gospel is a melancholy truth ; not a slander upon human nature, but a faithful representation of its essential character ; that, in the terms of His inspired apostle, substan- tially the same in meaning with His own, it is " enmity against God." I have one particular more to mention on this branch of my subject. I appeal to TESTIMONY. Yes, to testimony; and enlightened and satisfactory testimony too. You will not, of course, suppose that I now refer at all to Scripture testimony. Of that we have already disposed. But many there are ; thou- sands and tens of thousands of all conceivable descriptions of previous character ; persons who once denied and spurned away from them the imputation, who have subsequently, with humilia- tion and contrition of spirit, owned its truth with tears of grateful joy. Of all who have ever believed the Gospel, there has not been one who has not made the same confession. I take an instance, by way of illustration, of what I mean. I take the case of Saul of Tarsus. 1 Saul was not a profligate character. He thought highly of himself, and was highly thought of by others. Had any one told him then that his heart was in a state of enmity against God, all the blood of the haughty Pharisee would have boiled within him, and the scholar of Gamaliel would have resented the insult with all the indig- nant and acrimonious eloquence of the awakened spirit of self- sufficiency. Whence, then, the change in his estimate of himself? He tells us, in the passages just cited. He had come to try 1 Rom. vii. 9, 14, 18 ; Phil. iii. 4, 6. ORIGINAL SIN. 171 himself by a new test, or by an old test which he had only now come to understand. He had never before known the spiritu- ality and comprehensiveness of the divine law. When that was made to flash upon his conscience, he saw his former self in an entirely new light. He had never known himself before, be- cause he had tried himself by false standards. The instant he was led to look into the right glass, his true character stood before him in all its defectiveness, sinfulness, and guilt. The language of Christians, in their confessions of sin to God, have many a time surprised the men of the world. They cannot understand it. They are ready to think and say, " If all that these folks say of themselves be true, they must be the veriest reprobates on the face of the earth;" and they turn to jeering and laughter the hypocrisy or the fanaticism by which such extravagant acknowledgments are dictated. But the cause of their marvelling is simply ignorance of the principle on which the people of God form their estimate of themselves of the test to which they now bring themselves. Accustomed to judge of themselves and others by false standards, and to measure them- selves by themselves, and compare themselves amongst them- selves, they cannot conceive how men who seem to them entitled to stand high in moral worth, can talk of themselves as they do. But the secret lies in their own ignorance ; the same ignorance which led those at whom they now wonder to think so well of themselves before. A man of the world perhaps has known a person whose life was, in his judgment, very exemplary ; unblameable in the virtues of the various relations of life. A time has. come in the course of this person's life, when he has become thoughtful, depressed, agitated, alarmed. The other thinks, of course, without cause. He has heard him whom he thought a paragon of goodness be- moaning himself in terms of the lowest self-abasement. 1 What can be the meaning of this? He imputes it to some unfortunate craze in the understanding; and, retaining his own views of God and of His law, it is not greatly to be wondered at. But the 1 Ps. cxxx. 3 ; cxliii. 2. Job xl. 4 ; xlii. 5, 6. Rom. vii. 24, 25. 172 ORIGINAL SIN. fact is, that now he has been brought to try himself by a new standard; and that were the person who wonders at the un- accountable phenomenon brought to apply to himself the same standard, his wonder would cease. The phenomenon would be no longer unaccountable. Like Saul, he would at once himself appropriate all the terms of lowly self-condemnation which be- fore excited his amazement. Now the persons to whom I allude are many ; and they all concur in the same testimony respecting their former and their present selves. They do not assent to the testimony about human nature, now under our consideration, from the mere general contemplation of human wickedness, whether recorded in history or witnessed in society around them. Their ground of conviction lies deeper. They have found it in themselves. They all avow the fact to be, that before they judged of themselves by false standards ; and that now they have weighed their characters, all their formerly boasted virtues, in the balance of the sanctuary, and found them wanting. There is no hypocrisy or self-deception. The self- deception belonged to their former estimate of themselves, not to their estimate now. And they all, with one consent, bear testimony, an honest and conscientious testimony, to the delusion under which they formerly laboured, and to the truth, as now ascertained by them, of the Bible account of their nature. I have dwelt the longer on- this view of our present sub- ject, not only on account of the conclusiveness of the matter- of-fact argument; when placed in such light, apart from mere general declamations on human profligacy, which may so often be met and resisted by appeals to the amiable and the virtu- ous in the intercourse of social life, and to the honest and honourable in the transactions of merchandise, and the largely beneficent in the practice of humanity and charity : but also because it may furnish a lesson to you in regard to your future ministry. In that ministry, one of the objects at which you will have to aim will be the convincing men of their sin- fulness and guilt, and need of salvation. In pursuing this ORIGINAL SIN. 173 end it will be very right to avail yourselves of all the variety of evils which you know to exist ; and specially of such evils as you may be aware are prevalent among the people to whom Providence calls you to minister the Word. But there are few things more important, or likely to tell with more awakening and impressing effect, as coming home to the con- sciences of all, than to press upon attention and serious con- sideration the ungodliness of human nature, the disregard of the first table of the law, and of the supreme love in which all its requirements are summed up ; to show that this is the "desperate wickedness" which the Bible ascribes to the human heart ; the great damning sin of our fallen nature. Set God first. Show that He ought to be first. Press it. Dwell and insist upon it. The glory of God requires this. And it is by this that conviction may be, most effectually and with the greatest likelihood of salutary result, impressed upon the understandings and consciences of men. VIII. ON ORIGINAL SIN. I HAVE thus, by an appeal to Scripture, to history, and to consciousness, endeavoured to establish the fact that all are sinners, that this is the generic character of the race ; so that, wherever we find a man, we find a sinner ; and that thus it has been in all past generations, and periods of human history, and places of human habitation. Ever and everywhere, so far as we can learn, it has been invariably the same. Our next inquiry comes to be : " How is this to be accounted for?" On what principle or principles are we to explain this universality of sinfulness, apparent especially in the one great point of alienation from God ? In answering this question, I shall first take it up in its negative form, showing, first, how it MUST NOT be accounted for ; and secondly, how it CANNOT be accounted for. 1. When 'I speak of showing, in the first place, how it must not be accounted for, you will readily enough perceive that I have reference to the integrity and uiiimpeachableness of the divine character and administration. Account for it how you will, it must not be on any such principles as would make God the author of sin ; the Creator of our nature the cause of its corruption. We must assume, and proceed on the assumption, that God is " righteous in all his works, and holy in all his ways." Assuming this, we must neither account for the fall of man, and the entrance of sin by the supposition of any direct infusion of evil principle into the mind of man on the part of his Maker ; nor for the continuance of his fallen and degenerate state by the continuance of any such infusion. There must be no such ORIGINAL SIX. 175 thing admitted or imagined as the creation of souls under the dominion of the directly implanted principles of moral pravity, these principles being concreated with them. The subject of generation, of the communication of qualities and especially of moral qualities by generation, is to us full of mystery. Solomon says : " Thou knowest'iiot the way of the spirit, nor how the bones do grow in the womb of her that is with child." 1 " By ' the way of the spirit,' some understand the way of the wind. ' The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh or whither it goeth.' And this being used by our Lord as an emblem of the mysterious operations of the Spirit of God upon the minds of men (' the wind bloweth,' etc., ' so is every one that is born of the spirit') ; to these operations the expression before us has by others been conceived to refer. I am more than inclined to think, however, that ' the spirit' here signifies neither the wind nor the Holy Ghost, but the human soul. Its connection with what follows in the verse, ' nor how the bones do grow in the womb of her that is with child,' gives more than probability to this interpretation. The formation and growth of the human foetus in the womb is one of those secret wonders of nature, of which there are so many, that elude our penetra- tion. Anatomical skill, indeed, may ascertain many facts respecting the successive stages of its progress, from conception to maturity, but questions might still be asked to which the most experienced anatomist could give no reply, but an acknow- ledgment of his ignorance. ' We are fearfully and wonderfully made.' 2 The structure of our frame, so ' curiously wrought,' so singularly complicated, so exquisitely adapted in all its parts to all its functions, is one of the most marvellous products of the wisdom of divine contrivance, and the power and skill of divine operation. The beautiful provision made for the susten- ance and growth of the embryo man by the system of foetal circulation ; the entrance, or apparent and sensible entrance, of the principle of animal life, indicated by its first faint fluttering 1 Eccleg. xi. .">. ' Ps. cxx:dx. 14. 176 ORIGINAL SIN. movement ; and the gradual increase of living vigour, till by the pangs of parturition it is thrown from its prison, utters its first cry, and draws for itself into its hitherto collapsed lungs the vital air of heaven, all is full of mystery and wonder. But there is another secret : When and whence cometh ' the spirit ? ' the immortal soul ? At what time does it take possession of its tenement ? Does it enter with the principle of animal life when the infant first stirs in the womb ? Or does it unite itself with the body at the time of its birth into the world ? To such inquiries we can return no certain answer. We neither ' know the way of the spirit, nor how the bones do grow in the womb of her that is with child.' The very union itself of immaterial and invisible spirit with gross corporeal substance, has been, is, and ever will be, incomprehensible by our feeble reason, and the time and the manner of their first coalition is alike a mystery." ] And yet, perhaps, what may be termed the moral mystery, in the inheritance of a nature, from generation to generation, that is the subject of moral pravity, and is prone to evil rather than to good, is one which, in some respects, surpasses, both in interest and in difficulty, the merely physical. In the physical, there is nothing that haunts the tempted mind with dubious misgivings, painfully felt at the very moment to be impious, respecting the character and the ways of God. The generation by physical means of the immaterial and deathless spirit is unimaginable, on the one hand ; and how this spirit can come into existence by the creative power of God with the taint of sin upon it, and wrought, if I may so express it, into its very texture, is not less unimaginable. It is true that the entrance of the principle of animal life is a mystery ; but there is this difference between the impartation of such life by generation, and the impartation of the soul by generation, that the life that is produced is but an attribute of the physical being. It is not, like the soul, an entity, a being something capable of a distinct subsistence, of existing, thinking, feeling, and acting per se. We can fancy carnal generation propagating a creature with animal life, but 1 Wardlaw's Lectures on Ecclesiastes, rol. ii. pp. 239, 240. ORIGINAL SIN. 177 this is widely different from the propagation of the indwelling soul, the intelligent, thinking, feeling, and consciously account- able spirit. And if we are constrained to admit that souls, whensoever they take possession of their tenements, must be the product of a direct act of divine power, then comes the pressing difficulty. All that we say about it now is, that, account for it as we may, it must not be accounted for on any principles that would implicate the character of Jehovah. It must not be surmised that He can directly create anything actually impure, polluted with sin. It were better for us to leave the matter without any attempt whatever at explanation, and simply to own our ignorance, than to account for it thus. And possibly we may, in the end, to a considerable extent, find the confession of ignorance our safest position, and that to which the strangeness of the case constrains us. 2. Having thus stated negatively how it must not be accounted for, let me proceed to notice how it cannot be accounted for. That which has to be accounted for, remember, is the universality of sin ; and therefore, under this head, I might introduce all the theories, but that which I believe to be the only one ut all satisfactory, by which attempts have been made to explain it. Thus (1.) It has by some been accounted for from the known influence of example. It is unnecessary to dwell at length on this. [1.] It is reasoning in a circle, " accounting for the thing by itself; accounting," as Edwards says, " for the corruption of the world by the corruption of the world." This is obvious to a child's capacity. " That bad examples are general all over the world, to be followed by others, and have been so from the beginning, is only an instance, or rather a description, of that very corruption of the world which is to be accounted for. If mankind are naturally no more inclined to evil than good, then how come there to be so many more bad examples than good ones in all ages ? And if there are not, how >me the bad examples to be so much more followed than the good ? If the propensity of man's nature be not to evil, VOL. II. N 178 ORIGINAL SIN. how comes the current of general example everywhere, and at all times, to be so much to evil ? and when opposition has been made by good examples, how comes it to pass that it has had so little effect to stem the stream of general wicked practice?" l There follows in Edwards a long illustration from facts, to w r hich I can only refer you. It is enough to show you, and even that might be left to your own sagacity, that the principle of the explanation is untenable. I might show you at large how far not only the facts of the Bible history are in the face of it, but how it is refuted by daily experience. Where is the parent who has not experienced in the training of his family, how much more readily evil examples are followed than good ones, and who has not felt the imperative necessity of unceasing vigilance to preserve his children from their influence ? The pliancy of the infant mind may, to a certain extent, be admitted ; who ever questioned it ? But it has been pressed to a wild extreme, when men have talked of the perfect ease with which children by suitable training may be made anything whatever it is your wish to make them. I shall enter into no refutation now of such a principle ; it were a needless waste of time and words. Even amongst pagans, the superior power of evil example to that of good, especially in its influence on childhood and youth, has been strongly stated by many of their writers. How is it that youth should answer so universally to Virgil's description " Cereus in vitium flecti, monitoribus asper." [2.] The ground is self-contradictory ; for it is well observed by Dr. D wight: " If the first men were virtuous, as the objec- tion supposes all men to be by 'nature, and as, according to the objection, these must have been, there could have been no evil examples, and, upon this plan, no sin in the world." " Vir- tuous men, that is, men wholly virtuous, cannot exhibit an evil example. If, then, the first men were virtuous, their immediate successors had no evil example to follow ; and must, therefore, have been themselves virtuous. Of course, the example which they set also was only virtuous. Hence those who followed 1 On Original Sin, p. 1, ch. i. sect. ix. ORIGINAL SIN. 179 them must have been virtuous, and in like manner all their successors. Upon this plan, sin could never have entered the world. But sin is in the world ; and is, and ever has been, the universally prevailing character of the human race. The objec- tors, therefore, are reduced by their scheme to this dilemma: Either virtuous men set sinful examples, which is a plain con- tradiction, or men became sinful without sinful examples." 1 (2.) It has by others been said : Adam was pure, and Adam fell. Why may not others be pure, and fall too ? The degeneracy may be accounted for by the simple freedom of the human will, in the exercise of which men successively choose evil. Nothing can well be more thoroughly in the teeth of every sound principle of logic than this. That which is to be accounted for is the universality of sinfulness ; and we are told that, since one holy being, placed in circumstances of pecu- liar temptation, yielded to the temptation, and fell, this is enough to prove that all the millions of his posterity, born pure as he was made, and without any tendency to evil more than to good, nay, with tendencies to good rather than to evil, may each of them individually have preferred the evil ; each of them, without a single exception, and that even from their earliest child- hood ! Each was born pure, each left to stand or fall for him- self; and of all the millions that have existed from the beginning, not one individual is found to stand. " I would ask," says Edwards, " how it comes to pass that mankind so universally agree in this evil exercise of their free will? If their wills are in the first place as free to good as evil, what is it to be ascribed to, that the world of mankind, consisting of so many millions, in so many successive generations, without consultation, all agree to exercise their freedom in favour of evil? If there be no natural tendency or preponderation in the case, then there is as good a chance for the will's being determined to good as to evil. If the cause is indifferent, why is not the effect in some measure indifferent?" 2 On such a representa- tion, Verbum sat. 1 Theology, sermon 32. - On Original Sin, p. 1, ch. i. sect. ix. 180 ORIGINAL SIN. (3.) The fact cannot be accounted for even by adding the association of the soul with bodily materialism, and the early operation of the natural appetites and passions, before the mind has obtained sufficient energy to control them. As to the former, mere connection with matter (the matter of bodily organization), it is foolish to speak of it. Matter possesses no moral character, and in itself is incapable of exerting any moral, influence. The soul of man, when in his original innocence, was in union as intimate with corporeal substance as the soul of man has ever been since. His soul was not polluted at first by being "breathed" by his Almighty Creator into the body prepared for its reception. And if the bodily organization has been in any way so affected by sin as now to exercise any deleterious influence over the indwelling spirit, let it be remem- bered that this being the fruit of sin and the consequence of the fall, it would only prove that the moral taint was communicated to man's spiritual nature, not directly but mediately. But of this there is no proof. Then, if we add to the soul's connection with the body the condition, according to the constitution of the universe, in which man is placed, as operating injuriously and fatally to his moral nature ; if, in the words of Edwards, it be alleged that the tendency to evil " may not lie in man's nature, but in the general constitution and frame of this world, into which men are born ; that, though the nature of man may be good, without any evil propensity inherent in it, yet the nature and universal state of this earthly world may be such as to be full of so many and strong temptations everywhere, and of such a powerful influence on such a creature as man, dwelling in so infirm a body, etc., that the result of the whole may be a strong and infallible tendency, in such a state of things, to the sin and eternal ruin of every one of mankind." The reply, in the words of the same writer, is triumphant : " That such an evasion will not at all avail to the purpose of those whom he opposes in this controversy. It alters not the case as to this question, whether man is not a creature that in his present state is depraved and ruined by propensities to sin. If any creature be of such a ORIGINAL SIN. 181 nature that it proves evil in its proper place, or in the situation which God has assigned it in the universe, it is of an evil nature. That part of the system is not good, which is not good in its place in the system ; and those inherent qualities of 'that part of the system which are not good but corrupt in that place, are justly looked upon as evil inherent qualities. That propensity is truly esteemed to belong to the nature of any being or to be inherent in it, that is the necessary consequence of its nature considered together with its proper situation in the universal system of existence, whether that propensity be good or bad. It is the nature of a stone to be heavy ; but yet, if it were placed, as it might be, at a distance from this world, it would have no such quality. But seeing a stone is of such a nature, that it will have this quality or tendency in its proper place, here in this world, where God has made it, it is properly looked upon as a property belonging to its nature ; and if it be a good propensity here, in its proper place, then is it a good quality of its nature ; but if it be contrariwise, it is an evil natural quality. So, if mankind are of such a nature, that they have a universal effectual tendency to sin and ruin in this world, where God has made and placed them, this is to be looked upon as a pernicious tendency belonging to their nature," etc. It must further strike you at once, that the hypothesis makes no difference whatever in any question affecting God's moral perfections in his dealings with men, " Whether God has so ordered it that the propensity to evil should be in man's nature considered alone, or with relation to its situation in the universe, and its connection with other parts of the system to which the Creator has united them, which is as much of God's ordering as man's nature itself, most simply considered." 1 (4.) The fact cannot be accounted for without the ad- mission of some natural, inherent, universal tendency or pro- pensity to evil. Whence the tendency is another question ; I speak at present simply of the fact and the explanation of it. And neither is the present question respecting the nature of sin 1 On Original Sin, p. 1, ch. i. sect. ii. 182 ORIGINAL SIN. itself, whether positive or only privative. Leaving such questions apart, all by whom the doctrine of universal depravity is held are one on this point ; that to account for it, nothing will suffice short of such an original or natural tendency. They will all be found accounting for sin's universality on this principle. Thus PICTET. " Quintum argumentum a corruptione omnium hominum universal! ducitur : Nam ista corruptio docet, ipsam naturam quam a primo parente trahimus in ipso ortu laborare ; alioquin, tanta mortalium turbfi, vel unus inventus foret, quam nascentem benigniori sinu natura accessisset, quique sanctus esset." EDWARDS. One passage has already been cited, and many might be added from various parts of his work. I satisfy myself with one or two of his illustrative comparisons. He uses that of a die cast once, and cast a million or many million times. In the former case, no conclusion could be drawn of any tendency to fall on one side more than another ; in the latter case, the conclusion that the die was loaded could not be resisted save by the most stubborn folly. " It alters not the case," says he again, " as to the evidence of tendency, whether the subject of the constant event be an individual or a nature and kind. Thus, if there be a succession of trees of the same sort, proceeding one from another from the beginning of the world, growing in all countries, soils, and climates, and otherwise in, as it were, an infinite variety of circumstances, all bearing ill fruit, it as much proves the nature and tendency of the kind, as if it were only one individual tree that had remained from the beginning of the world, had often been transplanted into different soils, etc., and had continued to bear only bad fruit. So, if there were a particular family, which, from generation to generation, and through every remove to innumerable different countries and places of abode, all died of consumption, or all ran distracted, or all murdered themselves, it would be as much an evidence of the tendency of something in the nature and constitution of that race as it would be of the tendency of something in the nature or constitution of an individual, if some one person had lived all that ORIGINAL SIN. 183 time, and some remarkable event had often appeared in him, which he had been the agent or the subject of, from year to year and from age to age continually and without fail." Again : " If there were a piece of ground which abounded with briars and thorns or some poisonous plant, and all mankind had used their endeavours for a thousand years together to suppress that evil growth, and to bring that ground, by manure and cultivation, planting and sowing, to produce better fruit, but all in vain ; it would still be overrun with the same noxious growth : it would not be a proof that such a produce was agreeable to the nature of that soil in any wise to be compared with that which is given in divine providence, that wickedness is a produce agreeable to the nature of the field of the world of mankind, which has had means used with it that have been so various, great, and wonderful, contrived by the unsearchable and boundless wisdom of God ; medicines procured with such infinite expense, exhibited with so vast an apparatus, so marvellous a succession of dispensations, introduced one after another, displaying an incom- prehensible length and breadth, depth and height, of divine wisdom, love, and power, and every perfection of the Godhead, to the eternal admiration of the principalities and powers in heavenly places." And in more general terms, affirming the principle on which such comparisons proceed ; a principle, after all, of which, to any sane mind, there ought to be no need of either illustration or proof, he says : " The way we come by the idea of any such thing as disposition or tendency is, by observing what is constant or general in event, especially under a great variety of circumstances ; and, above all, when the effect or event continues the same through great and various opposition, much and manifold force and means used to the contrary not prevailing to hinder the effect. I do not know that such a prevalence of effects is denied to be an evidence of prevailing tendency in causes and agents ; or that it is expressly denied by the opposers of the doctrine of original sin, that if, in the course of events, it universally or generally proves* that mankind are actually corrupt, this would be an evidence of -a prior corrupt 184 ORIGINAL SIN. propensity in the world of mankind ; whatever may be said by some, which, if taken with its plain consequences, may seem to imply a denial of this. But by many the fact is denied, that is, it is denied that corruption or moral evil is generally prevalent in the world. On the contrary, it is insisted on that good prepon- derates, and that virtue has the ascendant." l I have already disposed of this latter affirmation, showing what an amount of deceptive plausibility may be imparted to it by a purposely partial array of the ordinary virtues in the conventional morality of the world ; but how thoroughly it fails of even any semblance of plausibility when tested by the one primary criterion of all goodness, the state of the heart towards God. 1 do not resume that discussion, my object now being merely to show the unanimity on the one point of an existing predisposition or tendency in human nature to sin. Dr. WOODS of Andover, Mass., U. S., illustrates the idea of tendency from the designation we gave to particular cha- racters an avaricious man, an envious man, etc. We use the appellations, even although at the tune there is not apparent any actual indulgence of the avaricious or envious disposition, on the ground of its existence having been ascertained by a number and variety of its previous manifestations. 2 " What do your thoughts fix upon as a reason for applying the epithets to him? Is it not that very thing which is commonly called propensity, disposition, or state of mind? . . . This disposition or aptitude of mind is that which is commonly regarded as the substance of a man's character." " Now, there is evidently in every human being a disposition to sin, a state of mind which from the beginning of life will certainly and uniformly lead him to transgress the divine law, whatever his outward circumstances may be, and whatever causes may operate upon him, either external or internal, except the regenerating influences of the Holy Spirit. And the existence from the first 1 On Original Sin, p. 1, ch. i. sec. ii. 2 He uses also for the illustration of tendency, the similitude of " the law of gravitation," which is the same in other words with that of the weight of the stone from Edwards, the stone's weight being just the ratio of its gravitating tendency. ORIGINAL SIN. 185 of such a disposition in man has generally been thought sufficient to justify us in representing him as by nature depraved, sinful, and lost, and at the very beginning of his existence needing regeneration and all the blessings of redemption." DWIGHT. There is not much in Dwight of what can be quoted in the form of direct affirmation on this point. It pervades, however, by implication, his entire discussion of the general subject, and his extensive induction of facts is all designed to establish it. The following sentence is abundantly explicit : " Uniform sin proves uniform tendency to sin ; for nothing more is meant by tendency in any case but an aptitude in the nature of a thing to produce effects of a given kind. With this meaning only in view, we say that it is the nature or tendency of an apple tree to produce apples, and of a fig tree to produce figs. In the same manner we must, I think, say, if we would say the truth, that it is the tendency or nature of the human heart to sin." Dr. RIDGLEY defines in this way the corruption of our nature : " Man's sinfulness, as fallen, consists in the corruption of his nature, or a propensity and inclination to all evil, which, as it is observed, is commonly called original sin, i. e., original sin inherent, as distinguished from it, as imputed to us," etc. MOSES STUART of Andover, Mass., U.S., comes over his avowal of this tendency or propensity to sin in human nature, with a reiteration and jealousy of being misconceived ; which evidently arises from his apprehension lest his views about the nature of sin (of which by and by) should lead his readers to doubt his orthodoxy as to the existence of the tendency. He says, for example : " Let it be noted here, that this question is one, at least to my mind it presents itself as one, which concerns words rather than things. I have all along maintained, and do verily believe, that among good and enlightened men there is no real question, and there ought to be no dispute, whether our nature, since the fall of Adam, is degenerate and prone to sin ; nor whether all, infants and adults, those born in heathen or in Christian lands, need the regenerating and sancti- 186 ORIGINAL SIN. fying influences of the Holy Spirit. The denial of these posi- tions would, in my apprehension, be a denial of truth which is plainly taught in the Holy Scriptures, and which is fundamental in the system of Christian doctrine." Again : " The dominant susceptibilities are those which lead to sin ; so dominant, that from the moment a child becomes capable of moral action, he begins to sin ; and he will continue to do so, until he becomes regenerated or sanctified by the Spirit of God. The views of Pelagius, therefore, as to this matter" (to which, it would ap- pear, his own had been charged with bearing resemblance) ".were as far from mine, and opposite to them, as the nature of the case renders possible." In the following page, thus he speaks of the tendency or propensity to sin : " This germ in our very nature, for such I believe it to be ; " and a little after, more fully thus : " I believe that the susceptibility of impression from sinful and enticing objects, belongs to the tout-ensemble of our nature ; not to the body exclusively, nor to the soul exclusively, but, from their essential, and intimate, and wonderful connection ; to the tout-ensemble of both, that is, to man. I believe this susceptibility is innate, connate, original, natural, native, or whatever else one may please to call it by way of thus charac- terising it. I believe that it commences with our very being, in a sense like to that in which an oak tree commences with an acorn. I believe this susceptibility to be such, that just as soon as there is growth and maturity enough for development, it will develope itself in persuading or influencing men all men to sin. I believe this to be the natural state of fallen man ; while, in his original state, before the fall, the predominant tendency of his susceptibilities was just the reverse of what it now is." He proceeds to ask : " Now, what more or less than this does the sober and discreet advocate of the doctrine of original sin con- tend for ?" But to follow him further would lead me to the topic about which he and others differ, and yet agree the nature of sin. On this I forbear entering now. Dr. DICK. " We may ask, whence have men, in all ages, abused their free will ? Why, if they are masters of their own ORIGINAL SIN. 187 volitions, have they always chosen in one way? How is it, if their wills are equally free to good and evil, that they have not determined in favour of good ? If we found that, in every trial, one of the scales in a balance descended, we should conclude that it was heavier than the other ; and can we draw any other conclusion in respect to the will, on observing how regularly it decides in favour of evil? It has chosen evil among Jews, Gentiles, Mahometans, and Christians ; it chooses it in Europe, Africa, Asia, and America. This is not the work of chance. It is the result of a previous bias. The will is inclined to evil, and, therefore, human nature is depraved." He elsewhere speaks of " this tendency, this proneness to evil," as " one of the strongest proofs that our nature is tainted ; " and calls it " this proneness to evil, this inflammability of our nature, which every spark is in danger of kindling." Dr. PAYNE. I close these authorities for innate tendency to evil with the most recent, and far from the least acute and able writer on the subject : " There must be allowed to be something in man tending to corruption, or the fact that in all ages, places, and circumstances, man has been a sinner, will remain unaccounted for." Again : " The precise point to be proved, then, is as follows : that in the human mind there exists a native bias or propensity, not intending by these words to intimate that it is a thing or the lack of a thing ; a propen- sity to evil, which, unless counteracted by divine grace, invari- ably carries forward its possessor into actual sin against God. This position is to be maintained in opposition to those who affirm that the human mind, in its original state, is a tabula rasa, being not merely destitute of everything which is in itself morally evil, but of all tendency, of any and every kind, to evil ; and again, in opposition to those who maintain that it is en- dowed with a native tendency to holiness, if, indeed, any should be found capable of maintaining so preposterous a position." ' 1 Before proceeding further, allow me to notice what I cannot but think a fallacy in a part of the reasoning of Edwards in inferring native tendency from universality. I refer to his reasoning in the beginning of sect. iii. of chap. i. part 5. " The ques- tion to be considered," he says, in opening that section, " in order to determine whe- 188 ORIGINAL SIN. Having thus shown the unanimity amongst divines as to native tendency, as the only reasonable ground on which existing ther man's nature is not depraved and ruined, is not whether he is not inclined to perform as many good deeds as bad ones, but which of .these two he preponderates to, in the frame of his heart and state of his nature, a state of innocence and righteousness and favour with God, or a state of sin, guiltiness, and abhorrence in the sight of God?" And after a few sentences further to show that that nature is depraved, which has a tendency in it invariably to do what inevitably exposes it to the displeasure and curse of God and eternal perdition, no matter what amount of good may be supposed to be, or may really be in it, he goes on thus : " Let never so many thousands or millions of acts of honesty, good nature, etc., be supposed, yet, by the supposition, there is an unfailing propensity to such moral evil as in its dreadful consequences infinitely outweighs all effects and consequences of any sup- posed good. Surely that tendency, which in effect is an infallible tendency to ever- lasting destruction, is an infinitely dreadful and pernicious tendency ; and that nature and frame of mind which implies such tendency must be an infinitely dread- ful and pernicious frame of mind. It would be much more absurd to suppose that such a state of n;vture is good or not bad, under a notion of men's doing more honest and kind things than evil ones, than to say the state of that ship is good to cross the Atlantic Ocean in, that is such as cannot hold together through the voyage, but will infallibly founder and sink by the way, under a notion that it may probably go a great part of the way before it sinks, or that it will proceed and sail above water more hours than it will be in sinking ; or to pronounce that road a good road to go to such a place, the greater part of which is plain and safe, though some parts of it are dangerous, and certainly fatal to them that travel in it ; or to call that a good propensity which is an inflexible determination to travel in such a way." And the illustration is largely pui'sued. Here, I have said, I cannot but suspect a fallacy. Grant the truth of the assumption that "every sin deserves the curse of God, and has in it more demerit than all the supposed thousands of good actions can have in them of desert ; still, when the object is to prove tendency or propensity to evil, then if the actions in question were admitted to be really good, would not the existence of a much larger number of them than of such as are evil go to prove the propensity to good superior in strength and efficiency to the propensity to evil ? It does not to me seem enough to be able to make it out that in every instance there exists such a propensity as invariably issues in men's being placed in a state of guilt and con- demnation and liableness to eternal death, inasmuch as that would be the case were there but one transgression, on account of the incalculably greater amount of evil desert in that one transgression than of good desert in ten thousand acts of obedi- ence. But make the supposition (a suppositio non supponenda except for the mere sake of argument) that in any man's life there was no other sin than one to be found, and that all the actions of all the rest of his life were admitted to be really good good on the principles of divine estimate, the question, when the subject is depravity or corruption of nature, ought not to be, whether the one sin indicates a greater degree of guilt than all the other actions do of merit or good desert (that is quite another matter) ; but whether it indicates a stronger tendency to evil than all the other actions do a tendency to good. Now, for my own part, I am unable to imagine this. There seems to me a confounding of things that differ ; of the question respecting the abstract amount of desert and the actual amount of propensity. But the latter is the sole question that really bears on the point of human depravity, or the strength of the innate tendency to evil. On this point, it does not seem fair to make that the alternative, which Edwards states, when he says, " persevering sinless righteous- ORIGINAL SIN. 189 and recorded facts can be accounted for, it seems an unnecessary inquiry whence the tendency ; it would, indeed, be nothing more ness, or the guilt of sin, is the alternative, on the decision of which depends, accord- ing to the nature and truth of things as they are in themselves, and according to the rule of right and of perfect justice, man's being approved and accepted of his Maker, and eternally blessed as good, or his being rejected, thrown away, and cursed as bad." This, I say, does not seem to be the fair alternative ; because the " guilt of sin' 1 is incurred immediately by one act of disobedience. It was incurred, in all its aggravation, and with all its fearful amount of consequences, by the one sin of Adam. But surely the commission of that one sin could not be said to prove the propensity previously existing in his nature to have been stronger to evil than to good. If it did, then the nature of man was never holy. The strength of the propensity to the commission of sin, and the amount of evil incurred by the com- mission of it, are two widely distinct things. The latter does not in the least degree affect the former. That that which is done is damning, destructive of all good, and productive of all evil, can never be any proof of the tendency to the doing of it. The amount of desert can never be the measure of the amount of propensity. In one word, the proof in the section of Edwards referred to, that the guilt of one sin infinitely outweighs the merit of all virtue, is not at all a proof that the commission of one sin indicates a stronger propensity to evil, than the practice of ever so many virtues does a propensity to good. There is still another point, one of a similar character, respecting which I feel dubious of the eonclusiveness of Edwards's reasoning. If I mistake not, the conclu- sion drawn of a native and universal propensity to sin, from the fact of sin being found in every man, how little soever there may be of it, is unsound. Could it be made out that good preponderated, would not this be proof that the prevailing tendency was to good ? The prevailing tendency in the physical constitution of man is to health. Sickness is the exception ; derangement is the exception. " If it were so, that all mankind, in all ages and nations, were at least one day in their lives deprived of the use of their reason, and ran raving mad, or that all, even every individual person, once cut their own throats, or put out their own eyes, it might be an evidence of some tendency in the nature or natural state of mankind to such an event, though they might exercjs^ reason many more days than they were distracted, and were kind to and tender of themselves oftener than they mortally and cruelly wounded themselves." * Now, this is not at all a case that proves a prevailing tendency to insanity in the human constitution. It proves the reverse. It proves, of course, " some tendency," as affirmed ; but by no means the tendency of human nature. That is manifestly to the state which most prevails to soundness. The same thing may be said of the similitude of the tree, were we to suppose that of the fruit which either the individual or the kind produced, a small proportion only was regularly bad, while all the rest was good. This, how uniform soever the fact, would not be a valid proof that there was in the tree, in its nature, a tendency to produce bad fruit, or of its being naturally and in kind corrupt ; but only a proof that the tendency to the production of good fruit was not perfect. The nature of the tree would be proved good, though not uniformly and absolutely good. The natural sinful tendency could hardly, as it seems to me, be adequately established, even by its being made good that " all have sinned ;" if it could at the same time be shown that more, and much more of what is truly good was done than of evil. That would only prove that there was indeed a tendency to sin, but along with it a still stronger tendency to virtue. I have before hinted that the first sin is a proof that one sin might be * On Original Sin, p. i. cl>. i. sect. ii. 190 ORIGINAL SIN. than a repetition or prolongation of the former respecting its existence. All who admit it to have existence, admit it to have had its origin from Adam, from the fallen and sinful progenitor of the race. How far it is to be considered as forming a part of the punitive consequences of the first sin, a part of the curse or the death threatened against that sin, as the sin of a federal head, will fall to be discussed under the second branch of the general subject original guilt or the doctrine of the imputation of Adam's first sin to his posterity, and their consequent suffering on account of it. Our inquiry must now be : Wherein does it consist ? This question will doubtless sound somewhat strangely. When we speak of a tendency, a predisposition, an inclination, an aptitude, a propensity, we seem to have a tolerably distinct impression in our minds of what each of the words means. The question, however, is one of no inferior interest, especially as connected with certain real or supposed consequences depending upon the answer to it. The question is, whether the tendency, which is the essential element of man's depravity, has in it, in its original or inherent character its character, not as it appears in active development in the life, but as subsisting in the nature of the new-born child, anything positive ; or whether it be merely privative as in the physical world, darkness is simply the absence of light : whether it consists in principles and affections which in themselves are directly and absolutely evil, or whether accounted for without the existence of a previous tendency to evil ; but for the character of the original covenant-constitution of man, we could even have no great difficulty in imagining the tendency to good to have been for the time overcome by the power of a special temptation, and yet not finally ceasing, but still remaining. Is not this, indeed, to a certain extent the case with regard to the principles of holiness produced by the grace of God in good men when they yield to temptation and fall into sin. But it is idle for us to be feigning imaginary cases ; we have to do with realities. What I mean is simply this : that the tendency or propensity involved in the idea of innate corruption must be something more than such a tendency or propensity as merely evinces itself in the production of some sin, while the amount of real good might be still greater. It must be a tendency that admits not of real good at all ; all that is so called, apart from that produced by converting grace, being the semblance only of good, destitute of its only true principle ; and everything really good being the product of divine influence, correcting and counteracting the original tendency. This, as I have been endeavouring before to inculcate, is our only sound and safe ground. Where the love of God is absent, nothing truly deserving the epithet of good is to be found. ORIGINAL SIN. 191 it be no more than the privation or absence of such as are good. We have seen how uniform is the language employed, expressing the existence of such a tendency as invariably issues in actual sin. The inquiry whether this predisposition or tendency should be considered as entitled to the designation of sinful, or as being in itself sin, becomes, when the explanations of different parties are compared, more a question of terminology than of real substantial difference. I fully agree with Mr. Stuart in this view of the question, as formerly quoted : " Let it be noted here, that this question is one, at least as it presents itself to my mind it is one, which concerns words rather than things." Assuredly, if the tendency to evil is admitted to exist, it comes to be a matter of very inferior importance how it should be called. One is very apt to think that a tendency to evil should be an evil tendency ; but if there be no difference about the existence and strength and universality of the tendency, as a tendency inherent in our fallen nature, it can be little more than a question of words whether we should give it the designation of sin or evil. " They " (the two parties on this question), says Mr. Stuart, " may differ about the terms which they employ when treating of the subjects which have now been considered. They do so. But still, the very fact that original sin is distinguished from actual sin, and asserted to be a part of our nature, not a part of our voluntary exercises, is of itself evidence, conclusive evidence, that actual sin is regarded in the same light by both parties. And so far as what is named original sin is concerned, the difference is more in terminology than in substance." Mr. Stuart, though holding the impropriety of calling original depravity sin ; holding the proper meaning of sin to be, restrictively, the personal violation of the divine laws in actual thought, word, or deed, yet does not deny the depravity. In these circumstances, is he not really one in sentiment with those whom he opposes, and a dissenter only from their nomenclature? Hear him again : " It is asked, whether, with such views of the nature of sin as Vitringa has developed " (these he had just been quoting), " we can regard infants as sinners in any sense ? 192 -ORIGINAL SIN. The answer is easy : Not as sinners in the sense that they have voluntarily transgressed a known law of God, and this as rational, moral, free agents. The advocates of original sin concede this by the very definition which they give to it, for they tell us that it is a sinfulness of nature itself antecedent to all thought, voluntary affection, desire, or action. But, after all, do they really differ from the views which I have already expressed? They do not, except in the special use of some particular words, and in some deductions made from such a use. Is it things that separate us, then, or is it diction, costume, the manner of announcing and discussing our views ? The latter, in the main, beyond all question." And then he goes on to give his creed, in terms before quoted, terms which reduce any real difference to the shadow of a shade. Why, then, did Mr. S. employ terms such as could lead to the imputation of his denying or questioning the doctrine, when all that he does deny is the propriety of a particular phraseology respecting it ; thus subjecting himself to the necessity of producing a very lengthy, somewhat prosing, and withal not over lucid and definite article, to rectify the imputation ; two articles, indeed, on the question, What is sin ? of which Dr. Payne says, in as gentle terms as he could well employ, " whose views, in the opinion of others beside myself, are not expressed with his usual perspicuity." But waiving this, the difference between actual sin and original sin does not seem particularly difficult of apprehension. The one is the developed and the other the undeveloped principle of evil ; the one the principle before it operates, the other the principle in actual operation, generating evil thoughts, evil desires, evil words, evil actions; or the one is the principle or disposition, and the other the thoughts, desires, words, and actions to which it gives birth. The principle or disposition lies concealed in the nature with which children are born into the world ; the others appear when children become capable of thinking, desiring, saying, or doing what is evil or what is good. The existence, indeed, of a previous good or evil disposition appears to be indispensable to any correct conception of good or evil in action ; meaning by ORIGINAL SIN. 193 action, either inward or outward, mental or corporeal. " It is," says Edwards, in replying to Dr. John Taylor's objection to the idea of concreated virtue or holiness, that it makes virtue an act of God's absolute power without our knowledge or concurrence ; excluding thus the idea of choice or consent, which, Dr. T. argues, is essential to all that deserves the name of moral virtue or holiness, a necessary holiness being no holiness, " agreeable to the sense of the minds of men in all ages and nations, not only that the fruit or effect of a good choice is virtuous, but the good choice itself from whence that effect proceeds : yea, and not only so, but also the antecedent good disposition, temper, or affection of mind, from whence proceeds that good choice, is virtuous. This is the general notion ', not that principles derive their goodness from actions, but that actions derive .their goodness from the principles whence they proceed ; and so that the act of choosing that which is good is no further virtuous, than as it proceeds from a good principle or virtuous disposition of mind. Which supposes that a virtuous disposition of mind may be before a virtuous act of choice ; and that, therefore, it is not necessary that there should first be thought, reflection, and choice, before there can be any virtuous disposition. If the choice be first before the existence of a good disposition of heart, what is the character of that choice ? There can, according to our natural notions, be no virtue in a choice which proceeds from no virtuous principle, but from mere self-love, ambition, or some animal appetite. And, therefore, a virtuous temper of mind may be before a good action of choice, as a tree may be before the fruit, and the fountain before the stream which proceeds from it." 1 And he then proceeds to show the necessity of a concreated holy disposition in Adam to his first act of choice and its product or effect being good, or to his ever having any righteousness at all. " Adam was brought into existence capable of acting immediately, as a moral agent, and therefore he was immediately under a rule of right action. He was obliged, as soon as he existed, to act right. And if he was obliged to act right as soon as he existed, 1 Original Sin, part ii. chap. i. sect. 1. O 194 ORIGINAL SIN. he was obliged, even then, to be inclined to act right. Dr Taylor says : ' Adam could not sin without a sinful inclination.' And just for the same reason, he could not do right without an inclination to right action. And as he was obliged to act right from the first moment of his existence, and did so until he sinned in the affair of the forbidden fruit, he must have had an inclination or disposition of heart to do right the first moment of his existence, and that is the same as to be created or brought into existence with an inclination to right action, or which is the same thing, a virtuous or holy disposition of heart." 1 I need hardly say that all here alleged as to the necessity of inclination or disposition preceding choice and action, holds equally good on the contrary side with regard to evil. A vicious choice, as well as a virtuous, must be preceded by a corresponding disposition ; and if the first choice of human nature now is a choice of evil, the disposition to such choice must exist from the first, must be connate with the new-born child. Whether we trace the disposition to a privative or positive origination, the propriety of its being called by the name of sin must, of course, depend on what sin is defined to be. If the term sin is to be confined to what are strictly mental and corporeal acts, then, of course, to call this innate or connate disposition sin, will be incorrect. But there appears to be no sufficient reason for any such restriction of its meaning. I am not sure if anywhere we shall find a shorter or better description or definition of sin than this : " Sin is any want of conformity unto, or transgres- sion of, the law of God." 2 The first part of the definition is negative. It refers to the absence of what the law of God re- quires ; the second is positive, and relates to the doing of what that law forbids. Now, the law of God requires a right dispo- sition of heart, and primarily and specially a right disposition of heart towards God, in. the very first instance, as not only in itself right, but indispensable to anything else being right. The absence of that disposition, then, may fairly be pronounced sin. 1 Original Sin, part ii. chap. i. sect. 1. 2 Assembly's Catechism, qnost. 14. ORIGINAL SIN. It is " want of conformity to the law," and that in its most essential point the pervading element of the whole. And the definition in the Catechism corresponds more exactly to that given by the inspired apostle, than from our English transla- tion might at first appear: " Sin is the transgression of the law." 1 The "transgression of law" conveys more the idea of actual violation than the original word avo/t/a so rendered. That single word to which we have no single term in our language exactly corresponding (for the word lawlessness conveys too much of general character in the person or the course to which it is applied), includes both parts of the Assembly's definition the want of conformity as well as the actual trespass. Dr. Dod- dridge, in replying to the objection against original depravity drawn from certain Scripture expressions respecting the inno- cence of children, says : " But this objection can only lie against that manner of expressing and stating the doctrine which represents this corruption of nature as, properly speaking, a sin. Now, as to this part of the controversy, it is evidently to be determined by the manner in which sin is defined. If it signify (as it commonly does), ' an action contrary to the divine law,' these evil propensities are not sins, but rather the root whence sin proceeds ; i4. it be defined ' a want of conformity to God's law,' as well as a transgression of it, they must be allowed sinful ; but if sin be taken in a more indeter- minate sense, for anything which God might punish with final misery, the question must be considered in a further extent," eto. In these last words he refers to the question whether punish- ment, properly so called, can be inflicted for sin imputed, as it has been termed, as well as for sin personal and actual ; a point which belongs to the subsequent department of our subject. At present we have to do, not with original guilt, but with original depravity ; and the distinction made by Doddridge is clearly cor- ivct, and is moreover in conformity with what has already been said as to the question of terminology. We come, therefore, on these grounds, to the conclusion, that the nature which is desti- 1 1 John iii. 4. 196 ORIGINAL SIN. tute of the principles and dispositions which the law of . v. 3, 6, etc. WITH THE GUILT OF HIS SIN. 261 less considerable. This is quite inconceivable. It would be as if, amongst men, a law were passed prohibiting a crirne on pain of a trifling pecuniary fine or short imprisonment ; and when the act was committed, it should turn out that, besides this, the forfeiture of life was tacitly included by the enactors of the law, although it had not been expressed ! This would be strange procedure on the part of any earthly government ; how much more on the part of the divine ! III. Respecting eternal death, then, we may observe, that in speaking of it as the penalty of sin, we are exceedingly apt to forget one thing. I mean the variety of degrees of which it is susceptible. When we speak of the entire penalty of transgression, the phrase sounds as if, in every case of sin or trespass, there were signified by it a fixed and definite thing, the same in amount. But we know for certain, that this is not true. It is not true in regard to the guilt of different persons in the commission of actual transgression. The sacred Scriptures assure us, that various measures of punishment shall be allotted to various degrees of criminality. 1 It is the doctrine of Scripture, and the dictate of reason, that " some sins in themselves, and by reason of several aggravations, are more heinous in the sight of God than others." 3 And if not equally heinous, it follows that they cannot infer the same amount of punishment. When, therefore, it is further said, that " every sin deserves God's wrath and curse, both in this life and that which is to come," 3 we ought to bear in mind that the terms " wrath and curse" are not terms of precise and defi- nite import, but susceptible of indefinitely various measures of amount. I make this remark here because it is not only important in itself, but has a bearing on the most difficult of questions relative to our present subject, namely, the extent of the impu- tation, as it has been termed, of Adam's first sin to his posterity ; by which phrase 1 would be understood simply to mean the extent to which penal consequences should be considered as 1 Luke xii. 47, 48 ; Rom. ii. 12, 16. 2 Assembly's Shorter Catechism, quest. 83. 8 Ibid, quest. 84. 262 CONNECTION OF ADAM'S POSTERITY arising from it to the race of his children. This is a subject of much difficulty, respecting which there is but little said in the Scriptures; and respecting which it therefore becomes all to speak with humility and diffidence. To affirm that Adam did not stand and fall for his posterity at all, and that no penal consequences whatever befall them on account of the sin by which he apostatized from God, is, as we formerly saw, to resist the language of the plainest facts. Of these I mentioned two : (1.) That alt mankind do actually come into being with a nature of such a character that sin and death are the invariable results ; (2.) That infants, incapable as they are of actual personal trans- gression, are, to a most affecting amount, sufferers by disease, and casualty, and death. Now, either these are penal and judi- cial consequences of the original transgression ; or, if not, they are mere gratuitous and arbitrary appointments or inflictions, arising from no consideration of guilt at all, a supposition which augments our difficulties a thousand fold. " The fair result of the whole seems to be this. As there are only two things mentioned in the Bible which bring suffer- ing and death upon human beings, the apostacy of Adam and their own personal sin ; if we deny the native sinfulness of man, or if we deny that infants are in any sense subjected to suffering on that account, we are shut up to the conclusion that they suffer exclusively on account of Adam's sin, and so that the often repeated declaration of the Apostle, that death comes upon all by the offence of one, is to be understood in the most literal unqualified sense ; or else that infants suffer and die without any assignable reason whatever." I mentioned also that in point of fact, in the administration of divine providence, children do often suffer, and suffer severely, in consequence of the vices and crimes of their parents, sufferings which a just God could but does not prevent. I might notice, too, that in a great many cases of the recorded judicial visita- tions of God in His own word, the infliction 'is far from being confined to the individual or individuals who have transgressed. Thus in the Deluge, and in the overthrow of the cities of the WITH THE GUILT OF HIS SIN. 263 plain, infants without number perished in the common over- throw, though not partakers in the actual guilt that brought down the judgments. Thus for the sin of Ham, Canaan and all his race were doomed to degradation and servitude. And so in many other instances. And " the righteous Lord" expressly represents Himself, and that in a formal proclamation of His name, as " visiting the iniquities of the fathers upon the children," 1 etc. The Lord Jesus himself says to the Jews, " that upon you may come all the righteous blood shed upon the earth," etc. 2 It would be dangerous, then, and presumptu- ous for us to deny the principle in the face of plain facts in the divine administration. It is, however, a principle that is safe in its application in God's hands only. The application of it is prohibited to men. In the present instance, the question how far the application of the principle reaches, is one of no little difficulty; and, perhaps, it is not one which it is necessary for us definitely to determine. There are two opinions ; the first, that Adam so stood for his posterity, that his first sin affected them all exactly to the same amount in which it affected himself; just as if each had existed, and taken part in it at the time : all becoming, on account of it, liable to eternal death as well as temporal. The second, that the imputation of his sin extends no further than to temporal death, including the sufferings of this life ; while eternal death is to every man the consequence of his own actual transgressions. There is a third view, indeed, which denies that eternal death was included in the curse at all, either to Adam or his posterity ; or that it arises at all from trans- gression of the law, but is exclusively the punishment of unbe- lief, or the rejection of the Gospel. But this we have already disposed of. With regard to these two views of the matter, it is obvious that the mere circumstance of temporal death only being meant 1 Exol. xx. "). 2 Matt, xxiii. 35. Is tliere not an emphatic reference in this passage to the p'Tsonal guiit of that generation :is approving the deeds of their fathers, and thus bringing upon themselves the judgments spoken of. See pp. 267, 268. En. 264 CONNECTION OF ADAM'S POSTERITY in verse 14, 1 does not decide the point. It does not at all follow, that because temporal death only is meant in verse 14, it alone must therefore be meant throughout the passage; for when a blessing or curse is one, but consists of various parts, we may prove a person to be a subject of all, by showing, from palpable and notorious facts, that he suffers a part. Thus the apostle may be considered as selecting the proof from temporal death, as being obvious and visible, to demonstrate, from its universal reign, the principle of the universal inclusion of the race in the denun- ciation against the original transgression. On the other hand, it seems to be going too far to affirm that the distinction made by the other hypothesis (which sup- poses the original transgression to affect the posterity of Adam only in regard to temporal sufferings and death, leaving eternal death to be incurred by the actual transgressions of each) re- moves not in any degree the difficulty, because it admits the principle of one man's sin penally affecting others ; and if the principle (it is alleged) be admitted, the difficulty is unaffected by the question of the extent of its application, inasmuch as it is as impossible for God, if the thing be unrighteous in itself, to be unjust in the least as in the greatest. This, I say, is pushing a principle, in itself correct, to an extreme. We can conceive of righteous and important ends answered by God's permitting certain consequences to arise from one man's sin to another ; while we shrink from admitting this to the extent of the absolute loss of the happiness of the creature's whole being even for eter- nity, and the subjection of him, throughout that being, to irre- mediable misery. Arid yet again, on the other hand, it is alleged to amount to very much the same thing, whether the posterity of Adam be regarded as involved directly in his first sin, so that they became subject, on account of it, to all the amount of evil to which it subjected himself; or whether, in consequence of it, and that judicially and penally (for it cannot be otherwise), his posterity are placed in circumstances which invariably issue in sin, and in consequent exposure to the second 1 Rom. v. WITH THE GUILT OF HIS SIN. 265 death. The effect, it is said, is the same; only in the one case it is direct, and in the other indirect. The subject is involved in difficulties and questions of spe- culative intricacy ; and perhaps to this, as well as to some other places, the words of Peter as to the writings of Paul may be applied : " In all his (Paul's) epistles, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest .... unto their own destruction." l It appears a worse than idle and useless thing, it is pernicious and illusory, to argue on mere suppositions in their nature im- possible. Such a supposition is that of a child of Adam inhe- riting no depravity, and continuing consequently free of all actual sin, with the question founded upon it : Would that child be liable to eternal death merely in virtue of its relation to Adam, on account of his first sin? There can be nothing so foolish as this pure speculation. We must take things as they actually stand. The posterity of Adam do inherit a depraved and guilty nature ; and it is as inheriting this depraved and guilty nature that they are connected with him in the penal conse- quences; of which, indeed, this to them is one, and the intro- duction to all the rest. These things ought never to be separated in theory, as they never are in fact : " A clean thing" cannot come " out of an unclean." 5 If it were possible, we could have no hesitation in determining that the clean could not suffer on account of the unclean. But the inheritance of depravity and liability to punishment are, in point of fact, inseparable. And even on the supposition of the sin of Adam affecting the condi- tion of his posterity in the future world, as well as in the pre- sent, we should be on our guard against the illusion before referred to, of thinking and speaking of the " second death," as if it were a definite thing in the amount of suffering expressed by it. This, as was then observed, we know to be not true. It is not true in regard to the results of the actual characters of men, of their own sins ; various measures of punishment being, 1 2 Peter iii. 15, 10. 2 Job xiv. 4. 266 CONNECTION OF ADAM'S POSTERITY according to the Scriptures, appointed to various degrees of cri- minality. 1 Now, if this be the case in regard to the actual sins of men; then, when we speak of the imputation of Adam's transgression extending to the entire penalty, i.e., to the second death as well as the first ; it does not follow that the second death, when considered as the penal consequence of Adam's transgression, is at all the same in the amount of suffering in- volved in it, as when it is regarded as inflicted on account of their own actual guilt. Even in this view the imputation is susceptible of degrees ; and no man can, with any certainty, affirm (if I may so express myself) the extent of death which was connected by imputation with the fall of the federal head. Because, on the same principle on which all sins are not equally heinous, and all characters not equally sinful, and consequently not deserving the same amount of punishment, the amount of it may also be widely different, when considered as connected with the first sin of Adam, from what it is when considered as the punitive visitation of our own sins. The proper question is : Whether the first sin of the first man was regarded as involving his posterity in guilt, so as to affect their eternal as well as their temporal condition? In the order of nature, I think we ought to consider as first the inheritance of a depraved nature ; the species liable to death as fallen and corrupt creatures, like their great progenitor, when by sin he had apostatized from God. In every such crea- ture, too, it should be remembered, there is, in the very prin- ciples of its nature, and manifested as soon as these begin to unfold themselves, a consent of heart to the first sin. By every such creature, when it acts upon the principles of the original apostasy, the first transgression of that apostasy is appropriated, and made its own. The Jews did not " crucify the Lord of glory," 2 I mean the now existing race of them. But they have in spirit concurred with their fathers in the deed. So, although the posterity of Adam have not each of them eaten of the forbidden tree, they have made the act their own by fol- 1 Luke xii. 47, 48 ; Rom. ii. 12, 16. 2 1 Cor. ii. 8. WITH THE GUILT OF HIS SIN. 267 lowing out the principle of it. They may deny this ; they may abjure the deed in words. But they^abjure it merely because they suffer from it. They abjure it in a kind of unholy resent- ment for the penal consequences of it. " Their hearts fret" 1 against Adam and against God. But actions speak more deci- sively than words. Those Jews in our Lord's time, who said, " If we had lived in the days of our fathers," 2 etc., were them- selves put to the trial, and they appropriated in action the very deeds which they abjured in words, themselves doing the same things. " Wherefore, behold, I send unto you prophets," 3 etc. How far this consent of heart may be regarded as lying in the very principles of the fallen nature, and may be considered as even applying to those in whom these principles latently reside, although they have not yet begun practically to develop themselves, I cannot say. It is a matter of great difficulty for us, indeed, I might go further, and pronounce it an impossibility, to tell the precise time, in the case of each child born into the world, at which personal moral responsibility commences. Some have argued for its beginning at the very moment of birth, or as soon as any indications of feeling or passion appear, the principles of the moral nature operating as early as those of the physical and intellectual. The question is one which, being incapable of an answer from any man's own experience, must remain without a satisfactory solution. That there may be such operation inwardly, earlier than we can discern it, cannot well be denied any more than affirmed. The nature of dispo- sition, as the seat of innate depravity, we have before considered, and shown how difficult it is for us to say when disposition begins to show itself, and that it exists even previously to its manifestations. How, then, can we be sure, how far the penal sufferings of which infants are the subjects, may not have their cause in the depravity of their nature, as well as in their federal connection with Adam. " If the doctrine of imputation means that for Adam's sin alone, God inflicts the penalty of the law upon any of his posterity, they themselves being per- 1 Prov. xix. 3. * Mat. xxiii. 30. ' M.-it. xxiii. 34. 268 CONNECTION OF ADAM'S POSTERITY fectly sinless, then the doctrine in my view wants proof. There appears to be no place for such a doctrine, seeing all Adam's posterity are from the first morally depraved. And if they arc allowed to be so, I know not why any man should think that God makes no account of their depravity in the sufferings which He brings upon them." 1 I know not either. The subject is one which in various directions and bearings of it, lies very much out of our reach. I dare not question facts. By these we are, to a certain extent, constrained to admit a judicial con- nection between Adam and his posterity ; the latter involved in the consequences of the fall of the former. But the precise nature and exact extent of the connection and its results are points of much difficulty. I cannot but think, that the language of our Lord bears me out in saying, that there is such a thing in the divine procedure (I am not speaking of the procedure of ft man, or advocating any right of man ta act upon the principle, there being a wide difference between the judgment of omni- science and of ignorance), that there is such a thing as the regarding of men as partaking in the guilt of those who have preceded them in former generations ; when by their own con- duct they appropriate the principle by which their progenitors were actuated, .and vindicate thus the actions which brought upon them their guilt. How early in the case of the posterity of Adam, anything of this kind may be considered as taking place, it is not for us to affirm. Dr. Woods seems to go to the extreme, when he contends for the exercise of moral prin- ciples from the very birth, taking ground which is hardly tenable. On the other hand, Dr. Payne seems to me to go too far in questioning, as he appears to do, the rectitude of the principle altogether. 2 And indeed, when I am asked the question : How far infants are involved in the guilt of the first trespass, I feel inclined, after all the attention I have given to the subject, to answer: " God knoweth." 3 That they are involved we have seen ; painful facts daily and hourly attest it. 1 Dr. Woods of Andover, U. S. 2 Congregational Lecture, ii. pp. 88, 90. 8 2 Cor. xi. 11. WITH THE GUILT OF HIS SIN. 269 But whether they are involved in the curse beyond what these facts indicate, I cannot with confidence* affirm. This I believe, and delight in believing, that to whatever extent the curse may reach them, they are all included in the efficacy of the redemption, amongst the objects of saving mercy. Their sal- vation is entirely on the ground of Christ's mediation. And I believe that even in heathen lands, He makes His great Adver- sary outwit himself. The amount of infanticides produced by ruthless and unnatural superstition, has been fearfully great. But the Redeemer, without its in the least mitigating the atro- cious guilt of the perpetrators, has thus by means of idolatry itself, been multiplying the number of His subjects and peopling heaven. And a very large proportion, I doubt not, of the inhabitants of that happy world shall consist of " Babes thither caught from womb and breast." I would entreat all to remember, that it is but little that is said in the sacred Scripture on the present subject. This is almost the only passage that formally or even incidentally speaks of it. Throughout the Scriptures, the perdition of men is asso- ciated with their own sins, and their own rejection of the remedy. There can be no question, that, whatever amount of guilt Adam contracted by his first sin ; had he continued impeni- tent and unbelieving, all his subsequent trespasses must have added to that amount. The second death, we have seen, is nothing so fixed and defined in its nature as to be incapable of augmentation. Think, then, of your own actual sinfulness and guilt. Your own wilful trespasses are the sad indications of depravity of nature, and God assures us, that He " will bring every work into judgment," 1 etc. Whatever may be the amount of curse arising directly from your relation to the first sinner, do not allow any speculations on a subject so full of mystery, to draw away your thoughts from the consideration of your actual guilt. Do not think hardly of God on account of His dealings towards you and towards the race. Be assured 1 Eccles. xii. 11. 270 CONNECTION OF ADAM'S POSTERITY WITH HIS GUILT. He is " the Judge of all the earth," and has done and can do only that which is right. 1 While He visits transgression with punitive vengeance, think how He has visited sinners in tender mercy. " He delighteth in mercy." 3 If His dealings by the first Adam manifest His righteousness, His dealings by the second Adam reveal the everlasting riches of His love. The superabundance of the one over the other will come before us in future discussion. 1 Gen. xviii. 25. 2 Mic. vii. 18. XII. THE CONNECTION OF ADAM'S POS- TERITY WITH THE GUILT OF HIS SIN. THE next subject which the passage 1 brings before us is, the parallel and the contrast which, throughout the passage, is drawn by the apostle between the sin of the first Adam with its effects, and the obedience of the second Adam with its effects. We shall first attend to the points of parallelism, and then to those of contrast. 1. That there is a parallel between the one and the other ; such a parallel as exists between a type and its antitype. 2 Where, then, it may be asked, can be the parallelism ? What resemblance is there between sin and obedience, between misery and death the dreadful effects of the one, and blessedness and life the happy results of the other? Here, it must be granted, there is no correspondence, there is perfect opposition. It is not in these things the parallel is to be found. In what, then, does it lie ? It lies chiefly in one point ; namely, that the first and second Adam acted each a public part, standing for others and not for themselves merely; a part from which impor- tant results were to arise to those whom they are considered respectively as representing. In tracing this parallelism, the principal difficulty lies in ascertaining the import of the phrases by which the extent of the injury from the sin of the first Adam, and the extent of tin- benefit from the obedience of the second, are here expressed. These phrases are on both sides the same : " the many" and 1 Rom. v. * v. 14. 272 CONNECTION OF ADAM'S POSTERITY "all men." 1 Surely, if there can be found a principle of interpretation, according to which these phrases may be under- stood on both sides with the same extent of meaning, this would bid fair to be the true one, inasmuch as such agreement cannot in candour but be admitted to be far more simple and natural, than understanding the same phrases with a latitude of import so much greater on the one side than on the other. This much, I think, ought to be at once conceded by every ingenuous inquirer. Some, then, conceive that such a principle is to be found in what they think a right conception of the extent of the curse consequent on Adam's first sin. According to these interpreters, that curse consisted simply in temporal death, the dissolution of the soul and the body. Understand it so, they allege, and all is quite simple. All die in Adam ; all are made alive in Christ. The resurrection from the grave is to be as universal as the death that commits to it. The death came by the first Adam, the resurrection comes by the second Adam. It is the death of all ; it is the resurrection of all. This does, to be sure, sound very simple and very plausible ; plausible from its very seeming simplicity. There are objections to it, however, which appear to me quite insuperable. They are such as these : (1.) What is temporal death ? It is the dissolution of soul and body. Well, when soul and body are dissolved, what, according to this view of the curse, becomes of each? We know the effects as to the body the inanimate, unconscious mass of clay ; but what becomes of the soul ? Here lies the difficulty; here the dilemma. For if the separate soul be miserable, then the -curse, contrary 'to the hypothesis, consists in more than temporal death ; and on the other hand, if the soul be happy (and if happy, holy) to what a light matter does this reduce the curse, and to what a light matter, consequently, redemption from it. On this account (2.) It appears to indicate by far too low an estimate both of the evil of sin, considered as transgression of the law, and of 1 Vs. 15, is, 19. WITH THE GUILT OF HIS SIN. 273 the redemption effected by the wonderful scheme of Christ's mediation, to consider temporal death as the full amount of the curse on account of the former ; and deliverance from the grave consequently (for the deliverance from the curse must be com- mensurate with the extent of it) the full amount of the redemp- tion effected by the latter. I can neither imagine, on the one hand, that the curse against sin can be exhausted in mere temporal death, considering the guilt of rebellion against infinite purity, authority, and love ; nor, on the other, that a scheme so full of divine wonders as the mediation of the Son of God should have no other design and no other effect than to rescue the body from the grave. Yet this must be all, if temporal death be all the curse. (3.) Supposing the hypothesis true, that temporal death comes to all men by the first Adam, and the resurrection from that death comes equally to all by the second Adam, surely that which the Scriptures represent as coming to sinners by Jesus Christ must be a benefit. Now it is admitted that though the resurrection comes to all, it shall be to the impenitent and unbelieving not a resurrection to life, but a resurrection to damnation. But is this a benefit? It seems to me utterly vain to speak of the resurrection abstractly, or in itself con- sidered, as a benefit. The resurrection cannot be so considered. The body lay in a state of absolute unconsciousness, and desti- tute of all sensation, and of all sense of the loss it had sustained. It rises to suffering, to endless suffering. By the re-union of the body and soul, therefore, there is nothing gamed but an augmentation of suffering. I can regard it as nothing better than a mockery of the woes of the wretched victims of then- own delusions, to speak of the resurrection as in these circumstances a benefit. no ! it is no benefit. The re-uniting of the body to the soul is only, by completing the man, augmenting his capabilities" of suffering. The grave was, in regard to such, I hesitate not to say, a blessing ; and the resurrection a heavier curse than the death from which it sets free ! (4.) The resurrection of the wicked is but seldom spoken of VOL. II. T 274 CONNECTION OF ADAM'S POSTERITY in Scripture; and the simple term resurrection is most frequently used to signify resurrection to life, as if the other were not thought worthy of the name. 1 And here I may with propriety notice a passage considered by the advocates of the view on which I am now commenting, as an irrefragable proof of its correctness. 2 On this passage observe : [1.] It is very unfair to consider it as a proof of temporal death being the amount of the curse ; because, the resurrection being the apostle's subject, he, of course, like a good reasoner, does not go beyond it, but keeps to the point in hand, which was disbelieved and ridiculed by the heathen philosophers; the scepticism (probably on this very account) had now found its way into the Corinthian church. He confines himself, therefore, to the death of the body. But no inference from his doing so could be more illegitimate and unreasonable than that the death of the body was the whole of the curse. It is of the body, not of the soul, that he is speak- ing. [2.] The term all, according to a canon of interpretation simple and universally recognised, ought always to be understood as corresponding in the extent of its meaning with the subject of which the author is treating. What, then, is the subject of which the apostle treats in these verses? It seems to me to be the resurrection of the just. It is true the general resurrection is involved in the conclusion from his argument. But his grand subject throughout the chapter is the resurrection to life ; and we have here accordingly another instance in which the resurrection means the resurrection, not of all, but of the children of God. 3 [3.] In this passage it may be observed there is the same refer- ence, as in the one already under discussion, 4 to the first and second Adam. Although, therefore, it may be granted that in a certain general sense the resurrection of all the dead may be regarded as a part of the constitution of things resulting from Christ's mediation ; yet the resurrection which is by Christ, compared with the death which is by Adam, ought to be con- sidered as meaning, what alone is a blessing, and what alone is 1 Luke xx. 36 ; Phil. iii. 11. M Cor. xv. 20, 23. 8 vs. 21, 42, 49. * Rom. v. WITH THE GUILT OF HIS SIN. 275 worthy of such peculiarly emphatic mentym, the resurrection to life. [4.] The meaning in these circumstances seems to be, since the apostle is speaking of the resurrection of the just: "As in Adam they all die, even so in Christ they shall all be made alive." l This is confirmed by what immediately follows. 2 Should any not be satisfied with this explanation of this passage, the difference will not at all invalidate the other objections to the doctrine or the principle of interpretation which we are con- sidering. And respecting that principle I observe (5.) It appears to me impossible, without the most flagrant outrage on all just principles of explanation, that the phraseology of this passage, 3 in regard to the benefits resulting from the obedience of the second Adam, can be limited by the mere resurrection of the body from the grave, irrespectively of the eternal life beyond, or that it can at all be applied to all man- kind. "The free gift," "the gift by grace," "justification," and "justification of life," as opposed to "judgment" and " condemnation," " receiving abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness, and reigning in life by Jesus Christ;" these are expressions which, corresponding as they do to so many others which in other parts of Scripture are applied exclusively to the righteous, cannot at all be interpreted as fulfilled in all men, or as having their import exhausted by the resurrection of the body from the grave. And the truth of the remark is confirmed by the contrast, 4 where the death to which sin has reigned is opposed to the life to which grace reigns. And the life is life eternal ; a phrase which no one can misunderstand who carefully reads his Bible. Is the gift of God, the free gift, the gift by grace, to be restricted to the mere resurrection of the body, and considered as alike partaken by all men without exception ? No ; the next chapter tells us what the gift of God .is: " For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life." 5 Is "justification " and "justi- fication of life " no more than such a pardon as all receive ; a pardon such as releases the body from the prison of the grave, 1 v. 22. * v. 23. 8 Kom. v. 4 vs. 20, 21. 6 Rom. vi. 23. 276 CONNECTION OF ADAM'S POSTERITY and then leaves body and soul together to everlasting perdition? Ought this to have the name of a pardon at all ? It seems an abuse of terms to call it so; for if temporal death be the amount of the curse, the curse is actually endured, the punishment is actually inflicted and sustained ! What description of pardon is that to be called, according to which the whole sentence of condemnation is executed ! I have been accustomed to con- sider pardon as an exemption from the penalty. When the death is considered as including the second or eternal death, there is exemption, exemption from all in the sentence that comparatively deserves to be named; but, on the other hypo- thesis, there is no exemption, and consequently no pardon ; the penalty in all its extent is first inflicted, and then, when it is removed, it is only as introductory to something not included, but incomparably and even infinitely more fearful. Is this to be justified, justified unto life ? And how is it in any way true of all men without exception that, having received the gift of righteousness, they "reign in life by Jesus Christ?" or that to all without exception "grace reigns," etc. The question is : Are these things true of all men ? Is there any scriptural sense, or any sense at all in which they can possibly be affirmed of all men. There certainly is none. The Scriptures, while they affirm that he that believeth in the Son of God shall be saved, hath everlasting life,, is passed from death unto life, and shall not come into condemnation, testify as explicitly that he that believeth not shall be condemned, is condemned already, shall not see life, etc., that he that hath the Son hath life, etc. 1 Is there, then, any other principle of interpretation, according to which the phrases " the many " and " all men " may be understood as of the same extent of meaning on either side, and yet the truth of the parallel maintained ? I cannot help thinking that there is, and I now proceed to mention it. But before doing so, it is necessary for me to say, that I am not satisfied with the common interpretation of these universal 1 Mark xvi. 16 ; John iii. 18, 36 ; v. 20. WITH THE GUILT OF HIS SIN. 277 modes of expression, as having different Amounts of meaning corresponding to the bodies of which Adam and Christ are respectively considered as the heads or representatives ; Adam of all mankind, Christ of the elect ; Adam having stood for the whole of his offspring, Christ for the whole of the chosen children of God. I am dissatisfied with this for the reason already hinted at, that " the many," and especially the " all men " (for the word men is here in the original, which it is not in every instance in which we so translate), are phrases which it is harsh to interpret on the one side so extendedly, and on the other with so much limitation ; and which it is very desirable, if possible, to explain alike. What, then, if the phrase " all men " here means, as in some other places, not all men without exception, but all men without discrimination ? The distinction is a simple one. Let us see wh'at can be said for it, and how it suits in the present case : [1.] The phrase is frequently used in this sense, in connections, in which that which is affirmed is not true of all men without exception, but is true of all men without discrimi- nation. 1 Jesus did not draw to Him all men without exception, but all without discrimination, men of every kindred and tongue and people and nation; His Gospel being meant not for Jews only, but for mankind without difference. God will have all men to be saved, i. e., His salvation is for men indiscriminately, as is evidently the meaning from what follows, " and to come to the knowledge of the truth;" his truth is designed for universal diffusion and universal influence. The context evidently favours the explanation (as candid interpreters on all sides of theological questions have admitted) of men of all kinds, all ranks and descriptions. [2.] We have seen that the only sense hi which the phrases can be taken on both sides without exception, the sense, namely, in which the extent of the curse is restricted to temporal death, is a sense that will not bear examination. And we have seen that, in their only scriptural acceptation, the terms repre- 1 John i. 7 ; xii. 32. Acts xvii. 30, 31 ; Eph. iii. 9 ; 1 Tim. ii. 4 ; Tit. ii. 1], etc. 278 CONNECTION OF ADAM'S POSTERITY % senting the benefits of Christ's mediation are not with any truth applicable in point of fact to all men without exception. Yet I do think it evident, that we ought to consider Adam and Christ, as compared in regard to the really efficacious influence of their respective conduct, transgression on the one side, and obedience on the other. It is true that the declaration of the righteousness of Christ is made, in the preaching of the Gospel, more extensively than its saving benefit is actually imparted. But even as to the declaration of the truth, we are under the necessity of limiting; inasmuch as, even in this view, the phrase, when taken strictly, is more extensive than the truth of the case. We are obliged to consider it as made to all men, not without exception (for millions never heard of it), but without distinction. 1 If then we are, at all events, necessitated to limit, the limitation should be made in consistency with the scope and connection of the passage and the purpose of the writer. Now this leads me to notice [3.] That the view just given suits remarkably well the apostle's object. The Jews made their boast in the law. They looked on the Gentiles as sinners under God's curse, simply because they were not of the chosen people, and were without law ; without the written law in which the Jews gloried. But Paul, as we formerly noticed, shows the Jews that their origin was the same as that of the Gentiles ; that by the offence of one judgment came upon all men, upon the one as well as the other, unto condemnation ; that in this respect there was no difference. So in like manner he shows them that the righteousness of one comes upon all men, without discrimination, unto justification of life ; that in the offer, and, what he has more especially in view, in the effectual bestowment of grace, there was " no difference between the Jew and the Greek;" between "Barbarian, Scythian, bond or free." [4.] It is very true that, on the one side of the comparison, the death and the curse do, in point of fact, " come upon all men " without exception. But still this is no sufficient evidence 1 Ch. i. 1C, 17. WITH THE GUILT OF HIS SIN. 279 that it may not be in the sense of " \fithout difference or discrimination " that he means to institute the comparison ; for in this sense it is, without controversy, quite as true on both sides as it is true in the one without exception. If, when a parallel is drawn, and the same terms are used on both sides of it, there be two senses in which these terms may be understood, and the question is which of the two is the true one ; it is surely a fair principle of decision, that if, when understood in one of the senses, there is one side of the parallel to which they cannot, without unnatural straining, be applied ; while, when taken in the other, they are all, with equal truth and equal simplicity, predicable of both, and at the same time the parallelism thus expressed is equally to the purpose of the writer, the latter should be adopted as the preferable acceptation. Thus, I think, the case stands in the present instance : " All men without exception " is true on the one side of the parallel ; but it is not true on the other: "All men without difference" is equally true on both ; and the sense produced by so understanding it is remark- ably suitable to the object of the writer and the general scope of his discourse. And that it is in this view, and not in the other, that the apostle means to compare them, we have strong evidence in the preceding part of the Epistle. 1 Here 2 we have the unlimited term " all " used where it may with truth be under- stood as meaning without exception ; but that the really intended and equally true meaning is without discrimination, appears from what immediately follows ; 3 for were we to carry forward the universal term in the sense of without exception, we should have a statement contradictory to palpable fact, namely, that all who have sinned are actually made partakers of justification ; the justification which is immediately declared to be by faith in Jesus Christ, by faith in his propitiatory blood. The meaning evidently is, that all without difference who are. justified, are justified in the same way, " freely, by his grace," etc. ; that the Jew cannot be justified otherwise than the Gentile, and that by the Gospel the blessing was equally free to the Gentile as to 1 Chap. iii. 22-24. s v. 23. 3 v. 24. 280 CONNECTION OF ADAM'S POSTERITY the Jew. 1 I would have it further observed here, that the view I am now giving does not interfere with the universality of the atonement. The apostle is here speaking, not so much of the atonement as of the actual effects of the atonement. The atonement was for all. It was made for the sins of all. But the saving effects of the atonement do not, in point of fact, come upon all men without exception. The very knowledge of it does not. But they do come upon all without discrimination. And with regard to all on whom the saving effects of the atonement do actually come, I cannot but believe there must have been, in the making of the atonement, a reference of special purpose and special love. I would not use the particular phrase " double substitution;" but I conceive there is a sense in which, with the fullest propriety, Christ may be said to have been a substitute for all, for mankind, and to have stood in the room of all, and endured the penalty due to their sins ; while, at the same time, in regard to intentional efficacy, there was a restriction to a certain limited number. I very much accord with the view given by my much esteemed friend, Dr. Brown of Edin- burgh, in his " Statement " made before the United Secession Presbytery, on the 1st of April 1845, hi asking their advice. 2 This point of parallelism, as has been observed, is noticed in general terms in verse 14, and it is especially brought out hi verses 18, 19. 3 The verses were formerly explained, in speaking of the imputation of Adam's sin to his posterity, or the extent to which it brought penal- consequences upon them. The doctrine taught is, that as men were brought by the one transgression of the first man into a state of judicial condemnation, so by the one righteousness of the second Adam men are brought into a state of pardon or justification and judicial acceptance with God. It makes no very material difference whether we render " by one offence" and " by one righteousness," or, as in our translation, " by the offence" and " by the righteousness of one." It may be observed, however, that some who contend 1 vs. 28, 30. 2 The author here refers to one of the stages of the Atonement Controversy, of which mention is made, vol. i. p. 60. IED.J 3 Rom. v. WITH THE GUILT OF HIS SIN. 281 for the former rendering, conceive that, to render the parallel perfect, we should understand one act of righteousness as corresponding with one act of transgression. This, however, is a very needless refinement. They conceive the one act of obedience to be the death of Christ. And it seems to be not merely a superfluous refinement, but moreover, to proceed upon a false principle with regard to what is necessary to condemn and to justify. The law righteously threatens death for one offence ; but, on the contrary, a complete obedience, and not one act only, is necessary as the ground of acceptance and of life. And, without entering largely into the discussion about the active and passive obedience of Christ, I would say, it seems to give us a more complete and satisfactory view of the finished work of Jesus, when we consider Him as not only bearing the curse which forms the sanction of the law, but also as rendering to its requirements that sinless obedience which, according to the original engagement of God, entitles to life. That the Lord our righteousness did render such a sinless obedience to all the great spiritual principles and requirements of the law cannot be doubted. The grand original law of love to God, and the second w T hich is like unto it, love to man, were the uniform impulses of His whole course of active life and of patient suffering. 1 It is very true that the death of Jesus is most frequently spoken of as the ground of justification ; but this is accounted for from its being the grand closing scene or act of obedience. For even as to atonement, all that Jesus suffered, as well as the last agonies of Gethsemane and Calvary, must have been vicarious. He could suffer nothing on His own account, being perfectly free from sin ; so that All the griefs He felt were ours, Ours all the woes He bore : Pangs, not His own, His spotless soul With bitter anguish tore. And surely the perfect exemplification of the holiness which the law requires may be regarded as part of the means by which the glory of God was secured in the exercise of His mercy to ^sa. xlii. 21. 282 CONNECTION OF ADAM'S POSTERITY WITH HIS GUILT. sinners. Too much, I admit, has been made by some, of what they have called the double demand of the law ; the demand of satisfaction for disobedience and of perfect obedience in addition as the condition of acceptance and life. They have insisted that a sinner by being interested in the atonement has only the penalty remitted ; he wants that which can alone entitle him to life ; he is merely delivered from condemnation, standing, as it were, in a neutral state, between death and life, freed from the sentence to the one, but in want of any positive ground on which he can enjoy the other. This seems over-refining. We can form no idea of this kind of medium state ; of a sinner saved from death, and yet not entitled to life. The same atone- ment which saves him from condemnation places him without charge, in vicarious innocence, before the throne of God. Adam enjoyed his life of happiness from the first ; although at the first he was simply innocent, having wrought oift no righte- ousness of active obedience. And this apostle, we formerly saw, does not proceed on any such nice distinctions ; but con- siders the forgiveness, or non-imputation, or covering of sin as the same in eifect with the imputation of righteousness. 1 The truth is, the work of Christ is just the whole of His humiliation, with all that He did and all that He suffered in the nature which He humbled Himself to assume. 2 That on account of which God exalted and glorified Christ, is that on account of which He justifies and glorifies sinners. Let all consider this. You have been constituted sinners by the transgression of the first Adam. You have added to the guilt of the original apos- tasy a great amount of personal sin, sin of omission and com- mission, of heart and life. There ' is but one way in which you can be justified, or constituted righteous, that is, on the ground of the vicarious obedience unto death of the Son of God. If you believe not in Him, you die without a justifying righteous- ness, and must perish. refuse not the kindly offered boon. 3 The ample encouragement held out will appear when we have considered the points of contrast between Adam and Christ. 1 Rom. iv. 8, 1 0. 2 Phil. ii. 6, 1 1 . s 2 Cor. v. 18, 2 1 . XIIL THE CONNECTION OF ADAM'S POS- TERITY WITH THE GUILT OF HIS SIN. I MENTIONED formerly that the apostle in this passage both draws a parallel and institutes a contrast between Adam and Christ. The one grand point of parallelism has been illustrated. Let us now see what are the differences, the points of contrast. 1 There is one more general, and there are three more parti- cular points of contrast here. The general point is, that . whereas the condemnation and death which came by the first Adam were the due wages of sin ; the righteousness and life which came by the second are the bestowment of pure grace, of entirely unmerited favour. This, indeed, runs through the whole passage, and it forms the characteristic distinction between the law and the Gospel. "The sentence of death pronounced on Adam, and in him on his posterity, is the sentence of justice incurred by transgres- sion, deserved by guilt. The Supreme Ruler, therefore, by whom it had been pronounced, was under no obligation of righteousness to deliver from it. He was rather under the obligation of truth and justice to see it executed. A condemned malefactor, if pardoned, must be pardoned by grace ; if his condemnation be in justice, the remission of his sentence must be in clemency. Where death is due, life must be a gift. Where a curse is merited, the blessing must flow from purely spontaneous favour. This is a view which the apostle never suffers us to forget that all that sinners suffer is suffered by 1 Uoin. v. vs. la. 17. 284 CONNECTION OF ADAM'S POSTERITY them on their own account, and that all that is enjoyed by them, in possession or in hope, they enjoy on account of another. The whole passage is intended to illustrate and magnify the riches of God's grace in the salvation of sinners ; contrasting their just deserts with the free and abundant good- ness of God towards them.. This is the object of three more particular points of con- trast. * The first appears to me to relate to the superior dignity of the second Adam in whom sinners have life, above the first in whom they died. The second refers to the superabundance of pardoning grace, as extending beyond the guilt of the one offence by which sin entered, even to all the multiplied acts, and words, and thoughts of personal transgression " many offences." The third has respect to the superiority of the life to which sinners are brought by grace, to that life which they lost by Adam's sin. [1.] " The offence" is properly Adam's first sin, but from its being opposed to "the free gift," it must evidently be under- stood inclusively of its deadly effects. 2 The "free gift" is the benefit conferred by divine favour through Jesus Christ. It is the same as " the gift by grace" in the latter part of the verse, and is variously expressed, more fully or more partially, in those which follow. It is "justification;" 3 the "gift of righteousness ;" 4 " reigning in life" and "justification of life," and " life eternal." 6 Some of these express a part, and others the whole, of what is meant by the free gift. It includes them all. It seems, at first view, as if the apostle did no more than simply state his general proposition respecting the superabundance of grace ; and that in the following verses he goes on to illustrate it, showing wherein the superabundance lies. I am inclined, however, to think that there is more here implied than, on cursory reading, might seem to be expressed. I think he here assigns the cause of the stiperabounding of grace ; and that he designs to impress 1 vs. 15, 16, 17. 2 v. 15. 3 v. 16. * v. 17. 5 vs. 18, 21. WITH THE GUILT OF HIS SIN. 285 in that very cause the idea of its superabundance.' The cause is represented as lying in the infinitely superior dignity of the second Adam to that of the first. The words "which is by one man, Jesus Christ," do not, in the original, relate to " gift " as their antecedent, but to " grace." The " gift of God" is not only " by grace," but it is by the " grace which is by one man, Christ Jesus." And herein consists the grand reason of its abounding, exceeding, overflowing, beyond the ruin introduced by the first man's sin. The justice sentencing to death was by the one man Adam; the grace bestowing life is by the one man Jesus Christ ; and in proportion to the infinite superiority of the one to the other might we expect, the grace to abound beyond the effects of the sentence of justice. " If by the offence of one many died ;" if the one offence of one man, a creature lower than the angels, was in the sight of God so full of malig- nity and guilt ; if such was the amount of its evil desert, that it brought a sentence of death not only on himself but on the whole race that was to spring from him, in all its successive generations (and what an impressive and awakening view does this give us of the "exceeding sinfulness" of sin); "much more" the grace of God which is " by the one man Jesus Christ," Immanuel, God manifested in the flesh, a man in union with Deity : and the gift which is by this grace " hath abounded unto many" beyond the ruin produced by the first sin. If the sin of the first Adam was so exceeding sinful, how infinitely more meritorious the sinless obedience of the second ! If the first man's transgression was so dishonouring to God, how unspeakably glorifying to His name the atoning work of the second man, " the Lord from heaven." It is by Him that grace confers on sinners its " free gifts." Surely the grace that comes in such a channel must come abundantly. And besides, the very appointment of one of such exalted dignity to bear the relation to men of the second Adam, through whom the gifts of grace should be conferred, is itself the most marvel- lous display conceivable of superabounding grace. That the Son of God Himself should have put honour upon the human 286 CONNECTION OF ADAM'S POSTERITY nature by taking it into union with the divine, for the purpose of repairing the ruin brought upon the race of man by its first head, even by "him who is of the earth, earthy;" this is grace indeed, grace without a parallel even in all God's own doings. l [2.] The second of the three points of superiority in the constitution of things under the second Adam to that under the first represents the abounding of pardoning grace, beyond the guilt of Adam's sin, to the forgiveness of "many offences," i. e., of all actual sins committed by each sinner in his own person. 2 " Not as it was by one that sinned, so is the gift ;" that is, the gift is not of merely equal extent with the condemnation which came by the "one that sinned," namely, Adam ; for "the judg- ment or sentence was by one, i. e., by one offence" (as the clause which brings out the contrast shows) " unto condemna- tion ;" but the free gift is of many offences unto justification ; which, as the opposite of condemnation, means evidently the pardon or remission of guilt. I endeavoured formerly to show that the death consequent, penally consequent, on Adam's sin was more than temporal ; that it included also spiritual and eternal death. It was, at the same time, observed, that nothing could be more foolish than to set about speculating on impossible or merely imaginary cases ; questioning, for example, whether the first sin would entail eternal death on any one of Adam's offspring, on the supposition of personal innocence. It was further observed, that eternal death was by no means a fixed and definite amount of suffering ; the same in every case. What is the measure of this second death that is to be considered as immediately resulting from the first sin to Adam's posterity, it is not for us at all to determine. This we know, that the personal sins of men tend to aggravate beyond conception the weight of the original sentence of death; they deepen the gloom of hell, and indeed will, without question, form the chief ground of every one's condemnation. Then comes in the abundance of grace. The sins of every 1 1 John iv. 9, 10 ; Rom v. 6, 8. 2 v. 16. WITH THE GUILT OF HIS SIX. 287 individual arc much more numerous and aggravated than the mind, through the inattention and thoughtlessness and insensibility of the heart and conscience, is ready to conceive. Some have sinned longer than others ; some have gone to greater excesses of outward wickedness than others, and have filled up their time more diligently with the awful activity of sin. But of every man, while he continues in a state of alienation of heart from God, it may with truth, in a very important sense, be affirmed, that his whole life is sin. With a heart at enmity with God, we are constrained to take this view of every thought, word, and action of his life. There is sin in all ; nay, there is in all the entire absence of the first principle and most essential element of goodness. While in this condition, every day, every hour, every moment must of necessity be a continual accumulation of guilt, an adding of weight to the curse ; and even after sinners are brought under the influence of converting and sanctifying grace, still they have abundant cause to say : " In many things we all offend." If every sin deserves God's wrath and curse, 0, what a load of wrath must rest upon sinners who have for twenty, thirty, forty, fifty, seventy, or fourscore years, been " going on in then- trespasses ! " Who can calculate the amount thus accu- mulated ? But, blessed be God, " the free gift is of many offences unto justification." Many, indeed. Wherever a sinner is justified, there must be the remission of all his sins ; for one unpardoned sin would separate him for ever from God. Such is the superabundance of grace ; such its overflowing riches, that it not only remits freely the guilt arising from the " one offence" of Adam, but extends to the free and full forgiveness to many of the many offences of each. What a glorious truth for us indi- vidually ! And when we recollect that those who experience this remission of all their trespasses shah 1 constitute a " multitude which no man can number ;" amongst whom every sin of every individual merited the wrath of God, what a delightful view does this give us of the "exceeding riches of God's grace!" 1 So extensive are the declarations and promises of God's word. It 1 Eph. ii. 7. 288 CONNECTION OF ADAM'S POSTEltlTY is a free, full, and everlasting pardon of all sin, of the whole accumulated mass of personal guilt, that is offered in the grace of God to every child of Adam without difference, by the grace of the Gospel. 1 [3.] The third particular is, the superior glory and blessed- ness of the life that is obtained by the grace of God in Christ to that which was lost by Adam's sin. 2 By Adam's sin, the earthly paradise was forfeited. But the obedience of the second Adam, Christ Jesus, has been effectual to raise to a life of still higher dignity and enjoyment than even the Eden of original purity and bliss. To " reign in life " means to enjoy a life at once of con- summate blessedness and of exalted dignity. The life of the heavenly paradise shall certainly be superior to that of the earthly : " I am come that they might have life," 3 etc. In the earthly Eden the first man was put, " to dress it and to keep it." 4 In the heavenly redeemed men shall be " equal unto the angels ; " 5 and the apostle seems to intimate that, under Christ as a common Head, angels and redeemed men shall be united for ever in one glorious and holy and happy community. 6 There will be enjoyed more enlarged knowledge of God than even that which Adam possessed ; a fuller display having been given of all the divine perfections by the very work of redemption to which their heavenly glory shall be for ever ascribed ; a display that has enlarged and elevated even the knowledge of angels. 7 From the enlargement of their acquaintance with God, the joy both personal and social of redeemed sinners shall be indefinitely enhanced. And although their moral purity shall be perfect in freedom from every, the slightest, taint of corruption, yet the increase of the knowledge of the divine character cannot fail to impart, as it advances, a higher tone to all its holy principles and affections. Holy love, the fountain of celestial joy, must necessarily grow in intensity and in happy influence with the 1 Jer. xxxi. 34 ; Isa. xliii. 22, 25; Mic. vii. 18, 19. 2 v. 17. * John x. 10. * Gen. ii. 15. * Mat. xxii. 30. 8 Eph. i. 10 ; Col. i. 20. T 1 Peter i. 12 ; Eph. iii. 10. WITH THE GUILT OF HIS SIN. 289 growing knowledge of Him who is its primary and infinite object, ^nd while intellectual and spiritual enjoyment shall thus be larger and more exalted, the Scriptures tell us also of a superiority in the life of the body itself. This apostle contrasts the body which believers shall receive at the resurrection with the mortal and corruptible body which they occupied as fallen children of the first sinner. 1 It is true the corruption, dishonour, and weakness of the present body are the effects of sin ; yet, although* the first Adam had not fallen, his body would have continued (I mean as far as our information from the divine Kecord goes) " an animal body," a frame, that is, requiring the support of food, air, sleep, and the other means of sustenance to animal life. Such would have been the bodies his posterity would have derived from him. But the resurrection body is a " spiritual body ;" an epithet, it is true, of whose precise import we are unable to form anything like a correct conception : but which conveys the idea of independence of the ordinary means of sustentation necessary in this life, and of a frame refined and purified from all its earthly grossnesses ; etherealized, and freed from every tendency to corruption ; full of vital and active energy, without any liableness to weariness or decay. 2 It is by no means easy for us to trace the different views in which the heavenly life shall excel the original earthly life ; because it is difficult for sinful creatures to form any adequate conception of either the one or the other. But if we are to measure the superiority not merely by the difference between earth and heaven, the place of the abode of God in our nature, and of the full manifestation of the divine glory in Christ ; but by the difference between the first and second, the earthly and the heavenly Adam, the human and the divine, the superiority must be vast indeed. It ought also to be noticed, as constituting one important part of the superiority, that there will be no uncertainty of its continuance, no prescribed conditions depen- dent on the will of a fallible and peccable creature. The security of its everlasting permanence, will be a most material 1 1 Cor. xv. 44, 49. * Phil. in. 21. VOL. II. U 290 CONNECTION OF ADAM'S POSTERITY addition to the bliss of the paradise above. There will be no danger of forfeiture. No subtile and malignant tempter shall find admission there ; no secret surmise of the remotest possi- bility of change shall ever enter the mind, to unsettle and disturb its peace. " The Lord shall be their everlasting light, and the days of their mourning shall be ended." 1 Those who shall thus " reign in life by Jesus Christ," are here described by the first principle of their new spiritual character ; they are such as " receive the abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness. 1 ' In this instance, I think, the word rendered " receive" signifies, not merely getting, obtaining, or having bestowed upon them ; but accepting or embracing. The word has this sense. 2 This, then, marks who they are of whom the apostle speaks. Such as reject this abundant grace and the gift of righteousness can have no part in this reign of life. 3 These seem to be the points in which the apostle compares Adam and Christ in the way of contrast, showing that in all things the second Adam has the pre-eminence. He had spoken of the law, with reference to the false notions enter- tained by the Jews concerning it, and the foolish and high- minded expectations which they founded upon it. In the closing verses of the chapter, he points out the end which the law really answered ; and still with the view of magnifying by contrast with it, the riches of God's grace. 4 So far from removing guilt, the effect of the law was pre- cisely the reverse ; and therefore, while they trusted in their possession of it, they were deceiving themselves. " The law entered, that the oifence might abound." It is very true, that trespasses were multiplied by the ceremonial law ; many things being, by the command of God enjoining their observance, rendered in their omission criminal ; and many others, which would otherwise have been indifferent, rendered criminal in their performance, by the injunction to .abstain. But the senti- 1 Rev. vii. 14, 17. - John i. 11, 12 ; v^ 43 ; 1 John v. 9. 8 John Hi. 36. * vs. 20, 21. WITH THE GUILT OF HIS SIN. 291 ment chiefly intended seems rather to be that the moral law, revealing the will of God in its full extent, and in all its spirituality of requirement, served to make manifest the amount of offence against it. It showed the extent of the sinfulness of men, both in the inconceivable number, and in the fearful heinousness of transgressions. 1 The word translated " entered," signifies its being introduced by the way, or in the course of the divine procedure, to subserve the great general design of God in His scheme of redemption by answering a special purpose of its own. 2 " But where sin abounded, grace did much more abound." Grace superabounded, that is, it abounded beyond the guilt. Even when viewed in the light of the law in its full amount of intrinsic demerit and of circumstantial aggrava- tion ; still the grace which the Gospel reveals abounds beyond it, is more than sufficient to cover and cancel it all. Here is the glory of this grace. It gives the conscience satisfactory peace in the face of the law in all its convicting and alarming purity of requirement and severity of denunciation. Take it as it is, and take the amount of sin as it is, without one jot of abate- ment ; still divine grace reaches beyond all our calculations of guilt and estimates of demerit. Let transgressions be ever so great and ever so numerous, they are all, like the huge rocks and the uncounted sands in the bed of the mighty deep, over- flowed and covered by the boundless ocean of divine mercy. Let our convictions of sin, therefore, be ever so strong, our apprehensions from the law ever so alarming, there is no room, while the message of Gospel grace is in our ears, for despondency or despair. These feelings are dishonouring to the unlimited and untrammelled fulness and freeness of God's mercy in Christ. It is the delight and it is the glory of this mercy, freely, and at once and for ever, to cancel the very largest amount of guilt. The law, while it manifested the extent and the guilt of transgression, provided in itself no means of deliver- ance ; but it pointed by all its types and figures to " the grace 1 Rom. vii. 7-13. s Gal. iii. 19. 292 CONNECTION OF ADAM'S POSTERITY that was afterwards to be revealed." That discovery has now been fully and clearly made. 1 In winding up this subject, it is evident the apostle speaks of sin in all its extent of commission, and all its aggravation of guilt ; and of death in all its extent, as coming not on account of the first sin of the first man merely, but on account of all actual personal guilt; the second death in its full amount of woe. 2 " Of the things which he had spoken," we may say in his own language elsewhere, "this is the sum." 3 And a glorious and blessed summing up it is ! Sin and grace are here held up to our contemplation as two monarchs, and the genius of their respective reigns is characteristically marked. The reign of sin is dark and deadly. It is not properly, indeed, the reign of a tyrant, capricious, arbitrary, unjust. He has his power from God. He keeps his subjects in bondage, under a universal sentence of death. But the bondage and the sentence are righteous. He inflicts the sentence with unrelenting rigour on all his subjects, but not in tyrannical cruelty that delights in punishing the innocent, and makes no distinction between the harmless and the criminal. His reign is a reign of justice, but of justice without mercy. It is all dismal and gloomy, unbrightened, unrelieved by a single ray of the light of love. " Sin reigns unto death." Opposed to this is the reign of grace. As the other was a deadly, this is a life-giving reign ; it is unto life, eternal life. She sways a sceptre of peace. Her face is clothed with the smiles of love ; and her eye beams gentleness and compassion. As her very name implies, grace confers on the sinner the blessings of life as a gift without desert and without price ; confers them as the gratuitous bestowments of unmerited bounty on those who deserved the wages of sin, which is death. She dispenses those blessings with a sovereign right to confer them on whom she will, all being alike undeserving. If one had any claim for them more than another, on that individual they could not be bestowed by grace. The law, we have seen, makes no provi- 1 John i. 17. * v. 21. 3 Hek viii. 1. WITH THE GUILT OF HIS SIN. 293 sion for mercy. The reign of sin, therefore, is to the sinner justice without mercy. On the other hand, the reign of grace, as it respects the deserts of her subjects, is pure, unmingled, unqualified mercy. As to each of them, personally considered, justice would necessarily say, " Let him die the death." But we are not by any means to imagine that this reign, considered in itself, is the reign of mercy without justice. Far be such a thought. All God's ways are consistent with all God's perfec- tions. When we speak of sin by personification as condemning to death, we mean that God condemns to death for sin ; and in doing this, He acts in perfect consistency with His mercy as well as His justice. When we personify grace, and speak of grace bestowing life, we mean that God in Christ confers it in free favour ; and in doing this, He acts consistently with His justice as well as His mercy. Hence it is here added, that grace reigns " through right- eousness unto eternal life, by Jesus Christ our Lord." The righteousness here spoken of cannot be our own righteousness, for we have none ; and if we had, and life were in any measure on account of it, it could not be of grace, nor would there be any room for the question with which the next chapter opens : " What shall we say, then?" etc. The righteousness is clearly the same with that spoken of in the preceding verses. 1 It is the righteousness of the second Adam. And when grace confers life on the ground of it, all is in perfect harmony with the righteousness of the divine character, and law, and government. "Mercy and truth meet together," 2 etc. That it is the right- eousness of Christ that is meant, is clear from what follows : " Through Jesus Christ our Lord." He fulfilled all righteous- ness ; and by so doing made way for the reign of grace, as a reign in perfect concord with the claims of the most strict and unimpeachable justice. His obedience magnified the law. His death vindicated its sanction and exhausted its penalty. So that when eternal life is bestowed on account of it, it is con- ferred in full harmony with the requirements of the law, while 1 vs. 18, 19. * Pa. Ixxxv. 10. 294 CONNECTION OF ADAM*S POSTERITY yet it is a gift of grace to the sinner who receives it. Thus it is that divine forgiveness holds forth the most wonderful mani- festation at once of divine mercy and of divine righteousness. Let the children of God, in contemplating original and actual sinfulness and guilt, cherish the sentiment of contrite humility. Surely in the presence of a just and holy God, there is great occasion for all the depth of sorrowing self-abasement. But let them not look at the dark side only, so as that con- trition and lowliness should degenerate into despondency and doubt. There is abundant cause for constant peace and joy in the infinite fulness and unrestrained freeness of Gospel mercy. We dishonour God when we doubt His testimony, or hesitate and fear to rely on the faithfulness of His promises. It is especially cheering to think that mercy flows through the perfect righteousness of Immanuel, in a way which combines in lovely and indissoluble union the honour of His holy justice with that of His everlasting love. How satisfying this union to the mind ; nothing else can give it steady repose. Admiring, then, the wisdom which has placed in harmonious union things so appa- rently opposite and irreconcilable, let us, in faith and love and joy, sing : " Salvation to our God who sitteth upon the throne, and unto the Lamb." 1 The practical improvement of this doctrine, the influence of it on Christian conduct, is contained in the following chapter. 2 Exhort unbelieving sinners to lay to heart their original and actual guilt. However they may cavil at the former, they can- not deny the latter ; and the latter is more than sufficient for their condemnation. They lie under a sentence of condemna- tion, a sentence from God, a righteous sentence, a sentence from which they cannot vindicate themselves, and from the execution of which they cannot escape. Let them think of the holiness of God, of the consequent purity and spirituality of His law; think of the calm inflexibility of the principle of justice in His character and government ; think what a load of divine dis- pleasure must lie upon them for all their sins. I have nothing 1 Rev. vii. 10. 2 Ch. vi. WITH THE GUILT OF HIS SIN. 295 to do with God's secret purposes. I must do as my Bible does. There I find all men spoken of, and spoken to, as children of wrath till they turn unto God by Jesus Christ. Even those who have experienced the renewing power of grace are spoken of as having been so previously. 1 The way of escape is set before men. Ample and immediate encouragement is held out to them to come to God for pardon and full salvation, through the overflowing abundance of His grace in Christ Jesus. The righteousness of Christ is infinitely more than a counterbalance to Adam's sin and to their own. ' Grace reigns through this righteousness. It abounds beyond the largest possible amount of guilt. " Though your sins be as scarlet," 2 etc. The right- eousness which is to justify them is here. It belongs not to them to work it out. What could they do were that required ? It is here, revealed in the testimony of the Gospel as finished by another, by the second Adam, the Lord from heaven, the Divine Mediator. There is nothing remaining for them to do. It is theirs simply to "receive the abundance of grace, and of the gift of righteousness," and thus they shall " reign in life by one, Jesus Christ." This life is a life of happiness, because it is a life of holiness. It is begun in the soul here. He who receives the grace of justification, receives also the grace of the Spirit's regenerating energy, becomes a new creature, 3 and walks in newness of life. 4 And this is the life begun below, in the full enjoyment of which, in its perfection of purity and bliss, he is hereafter to reign with Christ above. 1 Eph. ii. 1, 3. a Isa. i. 18. * Gal. vi. 15. * Rom. vi. 4 XIV. ON THE MEDIATORIAL OFFICES OF CHRIST. WHAT I wish you now to observe is, that by what designation soever the relation be called in which man, when in a state of innocence, stood to God, it was one which neither required nor admitted of mediation. The intercourse was immediate between the infinitely holy God and the untainted mind of His creature. The harmony between them was perfect. There was perfect complacency on the part of the Creator in the sinless creature, and perfect delight on the part of the creature, in his pure and spotless archetype. It was when sin had entered ; when it had separated between the one and the other, bringing upon the sinner the displeasure of his God. and introducing alienation from his God into the heart of the sinner ; it was then that the occasion and the necessity arose for the intervention of a medi- ator. And it is under this charater we are now to contemplate the Lord Jesus Christ. " There is one God, and one Mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus." 1 The grand object of His mediation is, to effect a reconciliation between the parties ; to bring them into a state of mutual friendship, by the removal of the just displeasure of tne offended party, and of the deeply sinful enmity of the party offending ; and to effect this in a way consistent at once with the claims of the one and with the deserts of the other; maintaining the former in all their inviolable sacredness, and the latter in all their depth or de- merit; making no compromise of the glory of God, and no abatement of the guilt of the sinner, but in the very means of 1 1 Tim. ii. 5. THE MEDIATORIAL OFFICES OF CHRIST. 297 reconciliation exhibiting the one in its unsullied brightness, and the other in its darkest and most criminal deformity. The covenant at Sinai had its mediator. That mediator was Moses. He stood between the people and Jehovah. He brought to the former the messages of the latter; and he reported the words of the latter to the former. This mediation was occasioned chiefly by the insufferable terrors of Sinai ; by which so great an alarm was struck into the hearts of the people, that they petitioned to be removed to a distance from the trembling and burning mount, from the "blackness and darkness and tempest, the thunderings and lightnings, the sound of the trumpet and the voice of God," and to have the interven- tion of Moses between them and Jehovah. Of their feelings, their request, and the divine compliance, we have a striking descrip- tion from the lips of Moses. 1 Of the new and better covenant Jesus is the Mediator; and "in all things He has the pre-eminence," 2 being justly " esteemed worthy of more glory than Moses." 3 I might here enlarge on the singular qualifications which must be requisite in Him who sustains this official position in relation to two such parties as the infinite God and His sinful creatures, and for such purposes as those which the better covenant unfolds, qualifications both of person and of character. This should be both to repeat, and anticipate to repeat. For we have already had before us, as the first thing demanding attention, the person of the Mediator, and have proved from the Scriptures the fact of the union in His one person of the divine and human natures; and have at the same time shown, on various grounds, the propriety, and, in some points, the necessity of such a union. And I should be anticipating future discussions ; for the various qualifications as to character will come naturally to be mentioned in connection with the different official functions which are comprehended in the general relation of a mediator, together with the peculiarities of his mediatorial work. And this the more especially, because some of these qualifications pertain more directly to one, and some of them ' Deut v. 22-31. 2 Col. i. 18. 8 Heb. iii. 1-6. 298 THE MEDIATORIAL to another of these functions; some fitting Him more imme- diately for the prophetic, others for the pontifical, and others still for the kingly office. I shall, therefore, proceed immediately to the offices which have thus been named. In naming them, I follow the common enumeration. There are other denominations given in Scrip- ture to Jesus; but under one or other of these three, they may all, without any material omission, be reduced. 1. We begin, then, with His office as a PROPHET. Allow me, however, in the first instance, a remark or two respecting the time and manner of His consecration to office. And the observations may be regarded as referring to His mediatorship generally. It cannot, surely, be matter of doubt, that He sustained a public character from the first; even from the time when the announcement to Mary was fulfilled: "The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee," 1 etc. He had thus in union from His birth the divine and the human nature; and it was on this account that " the holy thing born of the Virgin " was called " the Son of God." And, in one important sense, He was consecrated from the womb to the office He was appointed to sustain ; to the work that was given Him to do. He never was on earth, for one moment, in a merely private or personal capacity. At twelve years of age, we find Him saying to His parents, in reply to the remonstrance of His mother, when, on their returning towards Nazareth from the celebration of the passover, He had tarried behind at Jerusalem, and, after having occasioned them so much anxiety, was, after three days, dis- covered seated amongst the doctors in the temple: "Wherefore was it that ye sought me ? Wist ye not that I must be about my Father's business?" 2 So our translators have rendered the words sv rue, rov vargos /iou. But the expression is equivocal. It is equally susceptible of the sense : "Wist ye not that I must be at my Father's?" or, " That I ought to be in my Father's house?" which is the same thing. And in this latter sense it is interpreted by many eminent authorities, both of ancient 1 Luke i. 35. z Luke ii. 49. OFFICES OF CHRIST. 299 and modern times. And as the answer is evidently intended to express the idea that there was no occasion for seeking Him, inasmuch as they might have known where to find Him ; it seems to me decidedly the preferable rendering. It is more explicit than the other, which conveys only the general idea, that they might have trusted to His being somehow or some- where engaged in executing His divine Father's will. 1 From the first He sustained the relations both to God and men, which continued during His whole life and ministry. But He is not to be considered as having been formally and duly installed, inaugurated, or consecrated by anointing to His sacred office, until the period of His baptism by John, and His higher baptism, at the sametime, with the unmeasured effusion of the Holy Spirit. 2 This was His official anointing. 3 His ancient pro- phetic designation was the Messiah, which signifies anointed, and corresponds to the Greek word, from which is taken the 1 See Wetstein, Campbell, Bloomfield, etc. The last of these speaks doubtfully as to which rendering should be preferred. 2 Luke iii. 21, 22. 3 Dr. Dick says : " There are two periods at which this anointing took place. The first was His conception, when He was sanctified by the Holy Ghost, endowed with all the graces which can adorn human nature, and with those faculties which, being afterwards developed, excited admiration even in His youth ; for at the age of twelve He astonished the doctors of Jerusalem by His wisdom, both in answering and asking questions." Lect. 54. That He was thus from the first endowed by the Spirit with all the qualifications required by His human nature for the fulfilment of all the departments of His official service, is at once granted. But I am not sure of the propriety of viewing Him officially, of confounding His endowment with His con- secration. He was endowed or qualified from His conception or His birth, but He was not, I should think, properly speaking, anointed to office till the time of 'life arrived which the law prescribed for such initiation ; not, indeed, it may be said, in regard to the prophetic office in particular, but into that office on which His pro- phetic and His kingly were alike founded His priestly. I say founded, because it must be obvious that, but for the scheme of priestly mediation, neither of the other offices could have had any existence. Neither am I sure of the propriety of suppos- ing a double anointing. At the same time, this is a question more of words than of things. His sanctification from the womb, by the union of the Spirit with His human soul, is not questioned. And so, too, is the question whether it was His human nature alone that was the subject of the anointing, or His person as consist- ing of both natures. If the anointing be understood of the communication of the Spirit to sanctify and qualify, then His human nature alone would possibly be the recipient of it ; whereas, if it be regarded simply as His consecration to office, then, U ii was in His entire person that He executed his commission, it must have been in His entire person that He was consecrated to it. 300 THE MEDIATORIAL English designation 'the Christ;' which, although now familiarly used as a proper name, is properly an official appellative. His anointing was not with material oil, like that of the prophets, priests, and kings of the ancient economy, but with something infinitely superior in excellence and value, of which that was the type. It was one of the earliest acts of His public ministry, when from His mysterious temptation in the wilderness, He returned to His own city Nazareth, to apply to Himself, in the public synagogue, the language of Isaiah, which was universally understood as having reference to the expected Messiah, and in which the anointing with the Spirit is so pointedly expressed. 1 It was at His baptism that He had received this anointing. And the language is in harmony with that of other prophetic intimations. 2 It is not certain that the prophets were always, or even generally, consecrated to their office by the form of anointing. The only instance of it respecting which the sacred narrative does not leave any ground for doubt is that of Elisha, 3 although no account follows of such actual anointing. 4 There can be no impropriety, however, in regarding the anointing of Jesus as in connection with His mediatorial office in all its distinct or rather combined functions. On the subject of His prophetic character, much does not, in my opinion, require to be said. The designation of prophet v means literally and simply a foreteller, one by whom future events are predicted. But in many parts of Scripture it is used more generally or comprehensively for one who uttered divine oracles, one who spoke by inspiration. And you are also aware that, under the old dispensation, the prophetical function consisted in much more than the mere foretelling of the future. The prophets were the divinely commissioned and accredited teachers of the people in regard to the mind and will of God. They received, by inspiration, the truth which God was pleased to make known to His people, and instructed them in His name and by His authority ; encouraging them by pro- 1 Isa. Ixi. 1-3 ; Luke iv. 16-21. a Ps. xlv. 6, 7. 3 1 Kings xix. 16. 4 vs. 19-21, OFFICES OF CHRIST. 301 mises, admonishing and awing them by threatenings, urging them to what was right, and dissuading them from what was wrong ; setting before them the blessings and the curses of God's covenant. The general nature of the employment of the pro- phets in this respect is strikingly stated by Jeremiah, both as to himself and those who had preceded him ; l accompanied by an exemplification of the properly prophetic character of their office in the prediction of what God was about to do to them, on account of their obstinacy in rebellion and idolatrous apostacy. 2 It is in the same general acceptation, though in many respects with incomparably more of comprehensiveness, that the designation of prophet is assigned to Him who " in all things has the pre-eminence," 3 in His priestly and kingly offices as well as His prophetic ; and of whom it is said as infi- nitely the superior of all the prophets and all the inspired teachers under either economy. 4 Regarded in His divine nature, He is, not to our world only but to the universe, thef uncreated source of all knowledge, of all light and truth. But we now speak of Him as Immanuel, and as bearing His official characters and fulfilling His official functions in reference to our own world alone. In consistency with these words, it may be observed that the most direct and proper application of the title to Him has relation to His appearance and ministry in the fulness of time. The noted prediction of Moses, to which reference is so point- edly made by the inspired writers of the New Testament, related to Him under this character. 5 And there are various titles given Him, which may be considered as having immediate relation to this part of His mediatorial function, as for example, "the messenger of the covenant." 6 A messenger, it is true, may be sent for a variety of purposes ; but it is most frequently understood in Scripture of those who bring divine communica- tions, making known the mind of God, as in a previous chapter of the same prophet. 7 He is called, and that by Himself, 1 Jer. xxv. 1, 7. vs. 8, 11, etc. 8 Col. i. 18. * Heb. i. 1-3 ; ii. 1-4. 6 Deut. xviii. 15, 19 ; Acts iii. 22, 23. 6 Mai. iv. 2. 7 Mai. ii. 7. 302 THE MEDIATORIAL Teacher, or Master. 1 The word for master is diMsxaXos in some other places ; and in others, xa^^c, 2 a leader or guide, in the sense of instruction and direction in truth and duty ; a witness ; the faithful witness ; 3 light ; the light of men ; the light of the world ; 4 the apostle of the Christian profession. 5 The terms of this verse do not refer to the personal birth of Jesus into the world, but to His official commission : " As thou hast made me thine apostle, or messenger, to the world, so have I also made them my messengers or apostles to the world." 6 As God, He knew all things ; but as Mediator, He had a commission, a certain revelation entrusted to Him to make to men ; and for this department of His work, the Spirit of God is represented as given Him. 7 Of this commission He Himself repeatedly speaks. 8 It is probably on this principle that we should interpret His words : " But of that day and that hour knoweth no man . . . neither the Son," 9 etc. The discovery of this did not come within His commission, was not communi- cated to Him amongst the truths to be revealed. I prefer this to the interpretation which takes for its principle the distinction between His divine and human nature ; partly on the ground that if man or angel had known it, it must have been by com- munication ; which makes it likely that he speaks of the ignor- ance of the Son in the same sense of its not having been com- municated to Him in His official capacity. Such is the more direct and proper view of the prophetical character of Jesus, according to the prediction of Moses and the corresponding appellations. But there is a larger sense in which He may be regarded as the great prophet of His Church. He has ever been the medium of all divine communications to men, the author of divine revelation, the dispenser of the divine Spirit. Observe (1.) In the days of His flesh, He preached in person. This 1 John xiii. 13, 14. * Mat. xxiii. 8, 10. s Isa. Iv. 4; Rev. i. 5. 4 John i. 6, 9 ; viii. 12 ; ix. 3. 5 John xvii. 18. 6 Dr. Campbell's translation ; also Ileb. iii. 1. 7 Isa. xi. 2 ; xiii. 1 ; John iii. 32, 34. 8 John vii. 16, 17 ; xii. 49, etc. 9 Mark xiii. 32. OFFICES OF CHRIST. 303 accorded with ancient prophecies. 1 I may notice here the authority with which, as the prophet of His Church, He corrected the false interpretations which had been put by the Jewish Rabbis upon various parts of the former revelation. That revelation, as will be noticed immediately, had been given by Himself ; and it belonged to Him to give it its true interpretation. We have one interesting and extended exemplification of this in the Sermon on the Mount, which will be very grievously misunder- stood if it is expounded as giving new instructions or new precepts of His own, in addition to, in improvement of, or in contradistinction from, the statutes of Moses, .the moral lessons of the former Testament. No. His authoritative " I say unto you" does not mean I in contradistinction from Moses, but I in opposition to the misinterpreters of Moses. He corrects their errors, affirming and establishing the true meaning of Moses, which, in so many instances and so shamefully, had been set aside and perverted ; by which means the people had been im- posed upon, and Moses himself had been made to " teach for doctrines the commandments of men." 2 But (2.) He also, especially after His exaltation, imparted the gifts of inspiration to His apostles and others ; thus empowering and commissioning them to impart as from Him, the mind and will of God both by word and by writing. 3 He was thus the author of the New Testament revelation, being the exalted source of apostolic inspiration. Even when the Spirit is represented as given by the Father, still it is in His name, on His account, through Him. The result of this view of His prophetical office is the instruction of His Church and of the world, till the end of time. The Son speaks, or " God speaks to us by His Son," in the entire New Testament revelation. " He (the Spirit) shall take of mine, and shall show it unto you." 4 (3.) In this extended view of the designation, the same idea has been carried back to the period preceding the fulness of the times. The second person of the ever-blessed Trinity 1 Ps. xl. 9, 10 ; Isa. Ixi. 1,2; Luke iv. 42 : Mat. iv. 17, etc. - .Mat. xv. 9. * John xvi. 7, 13 ; Eph. iv. 7, 12. * John xvi. 16. 304 THE MEDTATOKIAL has been regarded as, in prospect of the mediatorial work, the dispenser of the Spirit and of divine communications from the beginning, i.e. from the time when man fell, and a mediator became necessary. From that time all divine discoveries, like all the other blessings of salvation, were conveyed through that Mediator. The second person of the Trinity took the special charge of the whole scheme of redemption, of its gradual revela- ,tion by type, prophecy, and promise ; of the church in all its successive stages, in all its institutes, modes of worship, means of knowledge and advancement in the whole period of its non-age. This idea is countenanced by different passages and considerations. 1 I cannot now discuss this curious passage, about which so many strange things have been said, and which has been wrapt in a mysticism that does not belong to it. It seems to me sufficiently plain, on comparing it with others, that the spirit which inspired Enoch and Noah, and all the prophets, having been the Spirit of Christ, He is represented as, by Noah whom Peter in his second epistle expressly denominates " a preacher of righteousness," preaching to the spirits now in prison, but which in the days of the preparation of the ark, were the disobedient spirits that refused the warnings which would have saved them from temporal destruction and from the prison of hell. The Spirit which inspired the prophets is expressly called by the same apostle, " The Spirit of Christ." It is most unnatural and arbitrary to interpret this phrase as meaning that He was the spirit who bore testimony to Christ ; for this testimony is immediately subjoined : " The Spirit of Christ which was in them did signify, when it testified," etc. The Spirit of Christ is the same kind- of appellation as the Spirit of God ; which no one ever thinks of interpreting as if it meant the spirit that bore testimony to God or of God, but the Spirit from God. You may add also Jude's remarkable words, which disclose to us a fact of early inspiration and prophecy, of which we must otherwise have been ignorant ; and which thus suggest the possibility that others of a similar kind may, for aught we can 1 1 Peter iii. 18, 19. 2 1 Peter i. 10-12. OFFICES OF CHRIST. 305 tell, have existed. 1 It appears, therefore, that from the time of the fall, the administration of all that related to the great scheme of redeeming or mediatorial mercy, was committed into the hands of the eternal Word ; and, among other branches of it, the dispensation of the Spirit ; so that prophets as well as apostles spoke from Him, and the Old Testament Scriptures as well as the New are the word of Christ. The exercise of His prophetic office has accordingly by divines been divided into three parts or periods ; the first, from the fall till the fulness of time, the second during His personal ministry, and the third from His ascension till the consummation of all things. It seems quite superfluous to enter into any distinct consideration of these three periods. The general principles laid down- may suffice for your direction as to the conceptions which should be entertained of the prophetic office of the Mediator under each of them. Far less do I deem it necessary or right to introduce here, as some have done, a statement of the nature and amount of the com- munications actually made by Him, in virtue of His commission to mankind ; for, taking the enlarged view of that commission, I should thus be led to present a complete summary of divine truth. Neither do I deem it expedient to necessitate repetition, by entering into any discussions respecting His manner of teaching by the Spirit ; inasmuch as this belongs more appro- priately to the subject of the Spirit's work ; and could not be introduced here without anticipating the discussion of a future part of our system. The only additional observation which I think it needful to make at present, is: That the entire administration of the Spirit proceeds, and has proceeded from the beginning, on the ground of the Mediator's atonement. And in this view, the priestly office and work of Christ may be considered as, in the order of nature, occupying the first place. The whole of the other parts of His work have this for their meritorious ground. All blessings, and knowledge amongst the rest, are dispensed on account of the infinite deserts of His vicarious sacrifice of Him- i Jude 14, 15. VOL. II. X 306 THE MEDIATORIAL OFFICES OF CHRIST. self. But in the order of execution, whether in the more con- fined or the more extended view, His prophetical office stands first. Both before His appearing in our world, and when Tie did make His appearance, His work as a prophet took the lead. It is a thought, pregnant with delight to the minds of His people, that from the beginning to the end of time, the Spirit of God in all His influences miraculous and ordinary, according as they might be required, has been placed, as it were, at our divine Lord's disposal to subserve the all-important ends of His prophetical function. The communication of that Spirit in the inspiration of prophets, apostles, and others, has generally been treated as forming a part of the proper work of Christ in His capacity as a prophet. And when we take the office in its comprehensive acceptation, as including under it the entire system of divine instruction to the church and to mankind, we need not hesitate to acquiesce in the usual representation of the matter. To Christ as a prophet, we are indebted for all our spiritual knowledge. He has put it into the word; and He by the divine illumination of His Spirit, transfers it in its true spiritual import to our minds : imparting such discernment of the divine excellence and glory of the truth as enables us to see ; and gives us to experience it as the wisdom of God and the power of God unto salvation. XV. ON THE PKIESTLY OFFICE OF CHRIST. THIS is a department of the Redeemer's mediatorial work, of which the illustration involves some of the most important and essential of the divine communications to men. It is on the execution by Him of the sacerdotal functions, that the salvation of the world substantially depends. In the typical economy of ancient Israel, we find the office and duties of the priesthood occupying a very prominent and pervading place. Nothing can be clearer, from the early records of revelation, than that sacrifice, and that of different kinds, existed from the beginning, that is, from the time immediately succeeding the entrance of sin ; and there is but one origin to which, with any show of reason, it can possibly be traced. From the time that God announced Himself as the God of salvation, the way in which the salvation was ultimately to be effected began to be intimated by the symbolical institution of sacrificial victims, those especially of the herd and the flock; and of officiating priests to offer them to the offended Deity. In the early or patriarchal times, the heads of families appear to have acted the part of priests in their respective households. In different places, and on various occasions, the patriarchs appear in the sacred history rearing their altars, and presenting their slaughtered victims to Jehovah. Thus, too, Job, who probably lived between the patriarchal period and the time of the Exodus, appears, as the sacerdotal head of his family, offering sacrifice and presenting intercession in behalf of his children. 1 1 Job i. 5. 308 THE PRIESTLY OFFICE With the exception of the priesthood of Melchizedek, of which we shall treat at large by and by, we find no mention, in the early inspired narrative, of any public functionary of this description previously to the introduction of the Jewish dispensation. And of that dispensation, as has just been hinted, the priesthood forms a large and very interesting portion. The inauguration of Aaron and his sons to the office was a service of the most imposing solemnity and surpassing splendour. It was described and enjoined with the most scrupulous minuteness ; and the gorgeous ceremony in which the previous description was realized, constituted one of the chief glories of Israel. Even the external elegance and beauty of the sacerdotal vestments must have rendered the inauguration most fascinating to the senses and imagination of the people ; and when to these were added the sacred import of some parts of the costume, and the sacredness of the anointing unguent, which it was death to apply to any other purpose, or, indeed, to make any like it ; together with the typical reference of all to some- thing still better and more truly and permanently glorious in a future day : few things can be fancied, either in itself or in its associations, more full of engrossing interest than that solemnity. And, after they were thus set apart, the various departments of their official functions are detailed and commanded with a particularity and minatory imperativeness, accordant to the general style of that external and ceremonial system. Taking our ideas of the priestly office from the account of it among the Israelites, we should consider its principal functions as two in number SACRIFICE and INTERCESSION. To these, indeed, there might, perhaps, be added a third, that of benedic- tion. But this last might, without impropriety, be considered as no more than the official announcement to the people of the efficacy of the other two. When the victim had been slain at the altar, and all the parts of the ceremony attended to there in due order, according to legal prescription, the high priest, on the great day of annual atonement, carried a portion of the OF CHRIST. 309 blood within the veil into the holy of holies, and there sprinkled it on and before the mercy seat, while, from his censer, burning with fire from the sacrificial altar, the fragrance of the fuming incense ascended. And when He who dwelt between the cherubim, the God of the covenant, the God of grace, had given the customary indications of satisfaction, and of His acceptance of the propitiatory and intercessory service, then the officiating high priest, on coming forth from the holy place, pronounced the appointed blessing, " putting," as it is expressed, " Jehovah's name upon His people." 1 We should never lose sight of the connection of the blessing with the atonement, and of the amount of the blessing as lying in the divine favour. If the benedictory is to be considered as constituting a third and distinct branch of the ancient sacerdotal function, we shall not be without its appropriate correspondence in the antitype. The two first, however, we regard as having been the chief departments of the duty laid upon the priests under the law, and deserving of our more especial attention. In these, the type and antitype are in full agreement. And while there was a beautiful harmony betwixt what the departments of the service indicated, and what was gloriously effected by the " high priest of our profession ;" there was, at the same time, a perfect correspondence in the necessity and the fact of divine appointment and consecration to office. This is very expressly stated by the writer of the Epistle to the Hebrews. 2 Let me now proceed to a more enlarged notice of the points, both of agreement and of contrast, between the type and the antitype. There were both; and the contrast lay, in some instances, in the very points of agreement ; consisting in the superiority, both in kind and degree, in which the things repre- sented in the type existed in the antitype ; the latter " having in all things the pre-eminence." 3 (1.) Those priests were men, mere men, whereas He was " Immanuel," 4 " God manifest in the flesh." 5 Here, there was 1 Num. vi. 24-26. 9 Heb. v. 4-6 ; vii. 28. * Col. i. 18. 4 Matt. i. 23. 6 1 Tim. iii. 16. THE PRIESTLY OFFICE similarity and contrast ; similarity iii the common possession of humanity; contrast in Christ's exclusive possession of divinity. Glorious things are spoken in the opening of the Epistle to the Hebrews respecting " the man Christ Jesus," as the superior of prophets, of angels, of all creatures ; the God whose throne is for ever and ever ; the founder of the earth ; the framer of the heavens ; the eternal and immutable Creator : the priestly work of the Mediator, being executed by Him in His one person, uniting the divine nature in all its glory of equality with the Father, and the human in all its infirmities and sufferings, " yet without sin." 1 (2.) They, as mere men, descended, by ordinary generation, from that first man whose one offence " brought death into the world and all our woe," and transmitted to his progeny the sad inheritance of a fallen nature, were partakers of the universal sinfulness, both in nature and in practice ; whereas He, born of a virgin, by the overshadowing power of the Highest, was, as the fruit of the Holy Spirit, immaculate from the birth, the womb, and the conception ; and continued without the slightest taint of defilement during His whole earthly life. 2 (3.) Those priests were, by divine appointment, exclusively of the tribe of Levi. This was the sacerdotal tribe ; whereas our high priest belonged to the royal tribe, the tribe of Judah. 3 Thus His priesthood, though typified by the Levitical, was distinct from it. The law was exclusive. It confined the office, among the Jews, to the Levitical tribe and the Aaronic family ; and therefore Jesus could not have been a priest by the prescriptions of that law ; could not, consistently with them, have officiated as a priest on earth. 4 (4.) By those priests there was presented to Jehovah the blood of animals, of slaughtered victims of the flock and the herd, what the apostle designates " the blood of others ;" but by Him there was offered His own blood. He was at once the victim and the priest, the Lamb provided for the burnt-offering, and the sacerdotal offerer of the Lamb. He offered up Himself. 5 1 Heb. i. 2 Heb. vii. 26, 28. 3 Heb. vii. 12-14. ' Heb. viii. 4-6. s Heb. vii. 27 ; ix. 11, 12. OF CHRIST. 311 (5.) As a consequence of this, their sacrifices, whatever might he their virtue in saving, when they were duly offered, from temporal inflictions (and even that amount of efficacy we believe them to have drawn from the prospective virtue of their anti- type) ; yet could not " take away sin," could not be an adequate propitiation for human guilt, a sufficient vindication of infinite righteousness in the forgiveness of sin : whereas the one offering of Himself by the High Priest of the new covenant was a com- plete and accepted atonement for the sins of the world. The inefficiency of the former was intimated by the very fact of their frequent repetition; while the perfection and all-sufficiency of the latter was apparent in its unity, in its never requiring to be repeated, or another to follow it. 1 (6.^ Those high priests officiated in an earthly temple or tabernacle, in a " worldly sanctuary," of divine planning indeed, but of human erection, " made with. hands." This High Priest, though commencing His work on earth, in the mere slaying of the sacrifice, in correspondence with the typical institute (accord- ing to which the victim was slaughtered without, and then its shed blood carried within the veil), yet sustains His permanent priesthood in " heaven itself," the upper sanctuary ; and thus excels the typical priests " as the heaven is high above the earth," and as the purity and glory of the one surpass those of the other. 2 The most holy place with all its sacred furniture, the place of the mercy-seat, the place of divine residence and manifestation, was, we are thus taught, the type of heaven, the place also of special divine residence, where is God's throne of grace, where He reveals Himself, and where He blesses His people in the character of the God of salvation, " delighting in mercy," and exercising it, in harmony with His holy justice, through the mediation of Him whom He has set at His right hand, and who is a " priest upon His throne;" and who having, as before said, been the victim as well as the priest, still appears there in the same twofold capacity, as the interceding priest and as the Lamb that was slain. 1 Ilcb. x. 1-14 ; ix. 25-28. Heb. ix. 23, 24. 312 THE PRIESTLY OFFICE (7.) Those earthly priests were mortal, and their priesthood was therefore successive, passing from one to another, handed down from father to son ; whereas His is a perpetual priesthood, neither received from a predecessor, nor passing to a successor. 1 The word in this passage, rendered by our translators unchange- able, is anagdjBaTOf, which properly means unsuccessive, or untransmitted. Unchangeable does not convey the idea, for it leads the English reader, unless it is interpreted by the connec- tion in which it stands, rather to think of the nature and func- tions of the office as undergoing no change ; whereas this, how true soever it may be, is evidently not the truth expressed. The idea intended is, that the office does not change hands, or pass from one to another. The same is the sentiment expressed in the earlier part of the chapter. 2 The carnal commajidment means especially, though not exclusively, the law of priestly succession ; and the " power of an endless life " corresponds with the terms in the oath, " for ever," which are the emphatic words, when taken in connection with that which precedes: " Who is made, not after the law of a carnal commandment, but after the power of an endless life ; " for He saith : " Thou art a priest for ever, after the order of Melchizedek." (8.) The difference, in the respect alluded to in these verses, between the mode of consecration in the one case and in the other. Those priests were set apart according to a simple divine institution, and with divine authority ; but, in the case of Jesus evidently for the purpose of impressing the superior importance of His office to theirs, the amount of the divine interest in it, the solemnity of all its functions, the magnitude of all its results, as well as the peculiar weight of the concern which men themselves have in its provisions, and the deep guilt of treating them with lightness or neglect there is the super- added intervention of an oath, the oath of Jehovah Himself. 3 This divine oath is to be regarded, not merely as constituting a separate particular of superiority, but as an indication of uni- versal superiority in the divine estimation. And it is at the 1 Heb. vii. 23, 24. * Ch. vii. 15-17. 3 Heb. vii. 20-22. OF CHRIST. 313 same time intended to give the greater stability and assuredness to the confidence of sinners in this mediatorial priesthood, as that which is the consummation of all that Jehovah, from the beginning, had been intimating to men by the whole system of sacerdotal and sacrificial types. 1 (9.) The priesthood of Aaron, the entire Levitical system, was only introductory. It did not, nor was it designed to answer the purposes which Jehovah, in His infinite wisdom and love, had formed and revealed for the salvation of men. It left all these uncompleted ; so that had not something better suc- ceeded, the design to effect such salvation must have proved abortive, and all the hopes inspired by the promise must have teen frustrated. 2 The law " completed nothing." It left the divine scheme of mercy quite unfinished, in embryo merely. It was the shadow, not the substance ; the typical resemblance, not the reality ; the earthly introduction, not the heavenly perfec- tion. There are different ways of construing the eighteenth and nineteenth verses. 3 [1.] As our translators have done with the supplement " did," intimating that " the bringing in of a better hope" did perfect what the law left unperfected. [2.] Some prefer the supplement " was." " The law perfected nothing, but was the introduction of a better hope." [3.] I am not sure whether the following may not be preferable to either : throw the clause, " for the law made ^nothing perfect," into a paren- thesis, and translate the ds by " and" instead of " but." In this way you have the advantage of bringing out an appropriate sense without the necessity of any supplement at all. " For there is verily the disannulling of the former commandment for its weakness and unprofitableness (for the law perfected nothing), and an introduction of a better hope." This punctuation is adopted by Griesbach, Bloomfield, and probably others. All the modes of rendering, however, convey the same general senti- ment. (10.) The last point of difference I mention has been already 1 Heb. vi. 16, 18. 2 Heb. vii. 11, 18, 19. 3 A0ir>tfftS fail yu." yivirui rgoayevfftis IvroXr.s %ia. yag irtXnWiv e voftof), \xtiffu.yuyr) Si Mftfmwf iXm'Saf, 8/ { lyyi^oftit ru &t- 314 THE PRIESTLY OFFICE OF CHRIST. adverted to; but it is one which will demand a fuller illus- tration. The former priests were all after the order of Aaron ; this priest after the order of Melchizedek. This distinction pervades the whole of the sixth and seventh chapters of the Epistle to the Hebrews. The priesthood of Melchizedek is thus a subject of special interest, and as it is not without its diffi- culties, and has accordingly given rise to various views both of its general nature, of the person who held it, and of particular circumstances connected with it, we shall give to it a separate discussion. XVI. ON THE PEIESTHOOD OF MELCHIZEDEK. THE priesthood of Melchizedek occupies a large portion of the apostle's illustrations and reasonings on the sacerdotal functions of Christ ; so that it demands our especial attention. Our first inquiry, then, shall be: Who was Melchizedek? In replying to this question, we must, of course, in the first instance, look to what the inspired history records of him. 1 All that is to be found is the brief mention in the Mosaic record. There is no previous ' nor any subsequent allusion to him ; nothing whatever, till the writer to the Hebrews makes this use of the brief and mysterious though apparently simple narrative. And, as is usually the case wherever the Word of God is silent and leaves room for con- jecture, the opinions formed have been not a little various. On such points, however, conjecture is vain; for when our materials are spent, all our grounds of reasoning and supposition exhausted, we are no nearer to certainty than when we began. And possibly, in such a case, it might frustrate some purpose of the divine silence, were we to succeed in making any discovery. The silence and the mystery may be the very circumstances in the case that make it suit the ends that Jehovah had in view in introducing it. Some of the hypotheses it will be right to men- tion, but without at all dwelling upon them. There are said to have been, in ancient times, some who fancied Melchizedek to be the Holy Ghost. Among those who regarded him as a mere man, the con- jectures have been diverse, and most strangely incongruous. As, for example, he has by some, especially Jews and Samaritans, been thought to have been Shem, the son of Noah. On this hypothesis, observe 1 Gen. xiv. 18-'20. 316 THE PRIESTHOOD [1.] There would be, were we to enter into controversy about it, a disputed point in chronology to be settled; inasmuch as there are some, Bishop Horsley among the rest, who affirm Shem to have been dead 400 years earlier than the time of Melchizedek ; while others, Dr. Ridgely for example, insist on his having survived Melchizedek fifty years. Without stopping to settle this, I would only notice [2.] That it would be labour misspent, when there are other particulars which cannot be made to' agree with what is said of Melchizedek. The parentage and genealogy, the birth and death of Shem, were sufficiently well known, and are indeed on record. 1 [3.] There is not the remotest evidence of Shem's having been a priest, in any sense different from that in which his father before him had been ; and, therefore, no proof whatever of his having been without priestly, any more than without known and recorded personal, lineage or succession. [4.] Canaan was not Shem's country. Another hypothesis, strange as it may seem, is, that Mel- chizedek was Ham ! Now, this may agree better in the one point of country, but it is really too absurd in other respects to merit serious refutation. Not only, as in the case of Shem, was his genealogy known ; but how very strange the supposition, that he on whom the inspired and prophetic curse of God rested, having been pronounced upon him for his filial impiety by the lips of his father, should have been the most illustrious type on record of the promised Messiah and Saviour of the world ! Yet Jurieu was of this opinion. And, that all the sons of Noah may share hi the honour of such conjectures, we find Dr. Owen supposing Melchizedek not Japheth indeed, but a descendant of Japheth ; and he conceives the fact to have been intended to involve a pledge of Japheth's offspring forming, in future times, the principal part of the church of God. Mr. Brown of Haddington thinks it quite as likely that he might be a descendant of Ham, sprung of a cursed family, and ruling over subjects cursed in -their progenitor : "Would 1 Gen. v. 32 ; x. 21, 22 ; xi. 10, 11. OF MELCIIIZEDEK. 317 he have been," says he, " on that account, one whit more dis- similar to Jesus Christ?" in which words he appears to insinu- ate the strange and revolting analogy (for such it certainly does appear to my mind), of Christ's being accursed, and of his having subjects that were cursed in their progenitor. This appears to me a mockery and a murder of types ; such far- fetched and inconsistent analogies being fitted to expose the entire system of typical prefiguration to ridicule. Ham's pro- geny were cursed in their progenitor ; and their curse was a curse. But when the subjects of Christ are regarded as having been cursed in Him ; their being so cursed, cursed in then- surety, is the very means of changing to them the curse into a blessing. It is as cursed in Christ that they are blessed of God. To these conjectures may be added those which suppose him to have been Enoch or Job. The question which Mr. Brown adds, however, is a very proper one: "But why all this inquiry after a genealogy which God hath concealed, and, to render him a distinguished type of our Saviour, hath brought him before us as if dropt from Heaven, and after his work returning thither?" But there is an opinion respecting his person, which merits more attentive consideration, namely, that he was the Son of God Himself, or the second person of the blessed Trinity, anti- cipating His future incarnation, as on other occasions, by appearance in a human likeness. This opinion is not a common one. Many commentators do not so much as mention it; and of those who do, hardly any favour it. Calvin, Guyse, Macknight, Whitby, Doddridge, Pierce, Maclean, are all against it. It was held, however, by a man of no ordinary shrewdness, Mr. John Glas ; 2 and it is defended at large by Mr. Morison in his Bibliotheca Sacra. 3 And considering the very singular character of the expressions 1 Dictionary of the Holy Bible. 2 A clergyman of the Church of Scotland, who, after expulsion from that body, on account of his views on the covenants, &c., became the founder of a religious body in Scotland, identical in sentiment and practice with the Sandemanians of England. Ed. 3 James Moriaon of Perth, author of a Key to the First Four Books of Moses. [En.] 318 THE PRIESTHOOD used by the Apostle respecting Melchizedek, one almost wonders, untenable as we hold it to be, that more have not been found adopting it. It is certainly not less plausible than some of the other hypotheses that have been mentioned. Let us examine it a little. We may begin with observing that there is nothing in the language of the passage 1 that affirms or sustains it. I am led to make this remark by the extraordinary style in which Mr. Morison expresses himself: "There is not," he says, " the least obscurity in the passage, if people would but admit that it is true which the apostle says. If they have been dull in hearing Moses and David in that matter, why discredit the Apostle's commentary thereon ?" 2 And so he proceeds with the most comfortable dogmatism, the easiest of all styles to use, but of all the most unseemly and dangerous. The seventh chapter, he alleges, stands in connection with the end of the sixth thus : " For this is the Melchizedek who met Abraham," etc. He thus supplies a supposed ellipsis with the substantive verb l The rendering of verse seventh, according to Lowth, is : " It was exacted, and he was made answerable." Dr. Hender- son, in his translation and commentary on it, however, after referring to various ancient and modern critics of eminence, as maintaining this sense of the words, says : " It is, however, to say the least, very doubtful whether such meaning can be fairly brought out of the words. It is certain none of the ancient translators understood them so." And he closes his critical remarks with the words : " I am therefore compelled, on purely philological grounds, to reject the rendering in question, though I firmly believe the doctrine which it teaches." We may add 1 Heb. x. 4. * Isa. liii. 5, 6, 7, 8, 10-12 ; Dan. ix. 24-26. For a critical examination of this wonderful chapter, as containing the doctrines of substitution ami atonement, see No. 42 of Dr. Magee'e illustrations, vol. i. p. 395, etc. AND SACRIFICE. 337 that happily, like other essential articles of truth, it does not depend on any single text of Scripture ; nor is there the least reason or temptation that should induce us to be guilty of, what is always an evil, straining any passage to make it speak a certain lesson, or pressing into the service any one that is at all doubtful. Dr. Pye Smith goes with Lowth and the gene- rality of the critics : " It is exacted, and he answereth to it, and openeth not his mouth" ('. e., in any complaint, he entirely acquiesces in being held responsible). I may add the observa- tion appended by Dr. Smith to his translation of the chapter : " This distinguished portion of evangelical prophecy needs no laboured elucidation. If the Scriptures are of any use to man- kiod, if they convey any definite sentiments, if we can at all rely on the meaning of words, if the strength and variety of phrase here employed by the wisdom of inspiration can avail to inform and impress our minds, WE MUST believe that the Messiah would devote Himself as a voluntary SACRIFICE, a real and effectual EXPIATION, suffering the heaviest woes and all the bitterness of DEATH, in concurrence with the gracious intentions of Jehovah, and for the salvation of rebellious men. In this view of the passage, which seems an inevitable result of impartial attention to it, the idea is manifestly included, that those sacrificial rites, to which perpetual allusion is made, were representative of this great propitiation, and intended to be a symbolical prediction of it." 1 Then, after the prophets, comes the immediate fore- runner of the Messiah, John the Baptist ; and he, with a mani- fest reference to the sacrificial character of the person and work of Him whom he was commissioned to introduce, says of Him ; " Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sins of the world!" 2 The forerunner is followed by Christ Himself; and while, generally, there is rather reserve than openness on the subject of the nature and end of His death (His abode on 1 Sacrifice and Priesthood, 2 d edit., p. 27. B John i. 29. The attempt of Dr. John Taylor to divest this text of its propi- tiatory or sacrificial character, by explaining it as an allusion to the lamb dumb before its shearers, Is. liii., is ably exposed by Dr. Magee in Illustr. xxv. vol. 1. VOL. II. Z 338 ATONEMENT earth being the time rather for the doing of His work than for the full disclosure of His doctrinev*Uie latter being reserved for the Holy Spirit after His ascension, agreeably to His intima- tion and promise), 1 yet no terms can be more explicit than the few which are on record as used by Him. 2 Then, having received the promised Spirit of full illumination, the apostles come forward ; and their writings are full of the same representa- tions. 3 And, to complete the harmony of the testimony, heaven is full of the thankful celebration of atonement, of the praises of the slain Lamb and the Divine Priest by whom it was offered, the priest alike and the victim. Angels and redeemed men alike join in the celebration, though in terms correspond- ing to the difference of their circumstances. 4 In a large proportion of the passages in the New Testament, in which the death of Christ is spoken of, there is reference to the sacrificial institutions of the Old Dispensation. From the nature of these institutions, as described in the law T , they were beyond question propitiatory. They could not take away sin, indeed, so as to save from, its penal consequences in eternity ; but, when duly offered, they procured deliverance from the threatened temporal punishments of the particular omissions or trespasses for which they were commanded to be offered ; and thus they possessed the true and proper character of types, namely, that under something of minor importance they repre- sented what was of greater. They were evidently worthless in themselves. And if their typical and prefigurative design is denied, it is not possible to associate with them any conceptions sufficiently dignified to be worthy of the Being who enjoined them to be used in His worship. If they were types at all, they could be types of nothing else than a true and proper sacrifice of atonement for sin. To all believers in divine revelation, it is a powerful argu- ment in favour of the truly sacrificial and propitiatory character of the death of Christ, that the admission of it produces a beau- 1 John xvi. 12, 13. a Matt. xx. 28 ; xxvi. 28 ; John vi. 51. 8 Rom. iii. 25 ; Eph. i. 7 ; Heb. ix. 14, 26 ; vii. 27 ; 2 Cor. v. 21 ; 1 Peter ii. 24 ; iii. 18 ; 1 John i. 7 ; ii. 2, etc. * Rev. v. 8-12. AND SACRIFICE. 339 tiful harmony between the two great sections of that revela- tion ; a correspondence in their great principles of doctrine or lessons of the Divine Mind ; and a unity in the revealed pur- pose of God towards mankind from the beginning. Notwith- standing all the ingenious attempts of moral philosophers and self-designated rational divines, to account for the origin of the universally prevalent practice of animal sacrifice ; not one of them has been able to invest their theories with so much as plausibility. It is difficult to imagine any principle on which it could have " entered into the heart of man" to think of appeasing the offended Deity by killing beasts. There is no natural analogy between the two things. But if the doctrine of the redemption of man by a substitutionary atonement is once admitted, and the design of God to give a gradual and preparatory discovery of this great truth, previously to the time fixed for the execution of the purpose ; we are furnished at once with a plain and satisfactory explanation of the otherwise inex- plicable anomaly. On this admission, nothing can be simpler and more natural ; on any other hypothesis, the subject is full of difficulty and perplexity. That animal sacrifices existed from the remotest antiquity is a fact which cannot be questioned by any one who attaches credit either to revelation or profane history. We trace them through the Mosaic and patriarchal ages to the time of Noah, whom we find presenting them to Jehovah immediately on his leaving the ark. And that Noah did not, either of himself or by divine intimation, commence the practice, but only con- tinued the antediluvian custom, we are as sure as the same sacred narrative can make us. One of the first things of which we read after the record of the fall is the sacrifice by the " righteous Abel;" a sacrifice of the "firstlings of the flock." All sacrifice was not strictly expiatory, there being some offer- ings, according to the practice of different tribes, that were impetratory, or presented as means of obtaining particular favours ; others eucharistical, or expressive of thankfulness for favours received. Yet animal sacrifices in general, and some of 340 ATONEMENT them more especially than others, sustained this character; being intended to propitiate the real or imaginary divinity under a real or apprehended displeasure. This is as little capable of reasonable question as the fact of their existence. That they were so in ancient heathen nations, is established by the pre- vailing language of historians, poets, and even philosophers, regarding them ; the terms used, and forming the current vocabu- lary on such subjects, being unsusceptible of any fair explana- tion otherwise. And that they were so among the people of God, antediluvian, patriarchal, and Jewish, no candid reader of the sacred records can retain a doubt. The entire system of sacrificial language under the law proves it to have been so then ; substitutionary suffering and the consequent remission of the consequences of his trespass to the offender pervading the whole, and expressions of special and emphatic significance abounding. On this point, evidence would be endless. That this was the character of Job's sacrifices, we have proof equally clear ; and the same as to those which his three friends were by Jehovah commanded to offer for them- selves. 1 And going still further back, mark what is recorded of the sacrifice of Abel. 2 Why was Abel's offering accepted, and Cain's rejected ? No doubt there was a difference in the state of mind of the two worshippers. But one of the essential elements of this difference lay in the fact that Abel came to God with the offering prescribed as a testimony of faith in the promised atonement, and of faith in God as propitious to sinners on the ground of atonement ; whereas Cain presumed to come on the ground of what men are now accustomed to call natural religion, bringing acknowledgments to the God of Providence the meat-offering but not the sin-offering. This is considered by eminent critics as implied in the words : " If thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door." 3 Wlien any mischance happens which is imputable to a man's own conduct, as its cause, we are so accustomed to say, " that lies at his door ; " that we are apt to put this sense upon the phrase as it occurs here without feeling any 1 Job i. 5 ; xlii. 7, 9. * Gen. iv. 3, 7. 3 v. 7. AND SACRIFICE. 341 difficulty. The truth, however, seems to be, that we have taken the idiom from this very passage, as it stands in our translation. But the idiom, according to which any evil being imputable to a man is expressed by its lying at his door, is not, so far as I am aware, at all a Hebrew one, or the rendering before us justified by a single corresponding instance. 1 The verb rendered " lieth " means properly coucheth, the attitude of a beast when recum- bent ; and the word translated sin is in frequent use in the Old Testament for a sin-offering. So that the real meaning seems to be : " If thou doest not well, a sin-offering coucheth at the door," i. e., wherewith to make atonement, or rather by offering which thou mayest express the required faith in the atonement prefigured by it. This interpretation is further supported by Parkhurst. on the ground that the Hebrew participle (Rebetz) is masculine, and does not agree in gender with the word for sin. But if the word for sin means a sin-offering, this apparent ano- maly is explained on a common principle of Hebrew syntax, according to which adjectives are made to agree in gender, not with the word itself actually used, but with the thing signified by it. Thus the masculine participle will be in concord, not with sin-offering, but with the animal, the lamb, which consti- tuted the sin-offering. This is certainly a strong critical con- firmation of the rendering proposed. The reason why Cain was rejected, then, appears to have been, that he presumed to offer deistical worship, the worship of a creature to the Creator, but not the worship of a sinner to his justly offended Governor and Judge ; worship to the God of nature, but not to the God of grace, the God of salvation. In these remarks I have assumed, what to the student of the Bible hardly needs proof and what might be assumed even on the ground of reason, when the unaccountableness of the fact 1 Dr. Symington lays stress upon what he alleges to be the tautological character of the expression, if the ordinary-translation is adopted : "If thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door," would signify, he conceives, no more than : " If thou doest not well, thou art a sinner," i. e., If thou art a sinner, thou art a sinner. But this does not seem fair. " Sin lieth at the door" does not mean "thou art a sinner," hut " sin is the occasion of thy non-acceptance," etc. Symington on the Atonement and Intercession of Christ, p. 102. 342 ATONEMENT on any other ground is considered, that animal sacrifice was originally of divine institution. There is no principle in human nature to which it can be traced. It could not be a dictate of reason, for there is nothing in the destruction of animal life that reason can discover as either rendering it a thing acceptable to God, or fitted to remove the guilt of man ; and it is contrary to every principle of humanity and every motive of interest. Nor will any one venture to call it the product of superstition, who has any faith in the records of revealed truth where it appears as a divine institute ; whatever may have been the corruptions to which superstition (which is the abuse, and perversion, and degradation of true religion) might subject it subsequently. The acceptance of sacrifice on the part of God implies its being in harmony with His intimated will. Nothing but duty could make it acceptable ; and nothing but command could make it duty. I am speaking of animal sacrifices. For other descrip- tions of offering, it might not be so easy to disprove the possibility of another origin ; but for them no other seems imaginable. Apparently sensible of this, some of those who are disposed to question the divine origin of sacrifice, have thought proper to deny that Abel's offering was an animal at all. They maintain that it consisted only of the milk and the wool, a supposition which has no basis but fancy ; being contrary to the plainly recorded facts of the case, as well as to the whole sub- sequent practice of animal sacrifice. * Apart, however, from all indirect proofs, the expression of the apostle, 1 " By faith Abel offered," etc., settles the point of divine institution. It could not otherwise have been done in faith. That which was so done, must have been done in compliance with a divine command. Faith necessarily has respect to divine intimation, either of truth or of duty. The notion that sacrifices embody the grand truth on which, as a foundation, the hopes of a fallen world were to rest, gives plainness and consistency to the whole subject ; bringing all into harmony with the dignity of the Divine 1 Heb. xi. 4. ANL> SACRIFICE. 343 Being and with the highest interests of men, and with the entire tenor of both parts of divine revelation. Suppose propitiation to have been the intended means of reconciliation between man an d~ God ; and all is light, from the commencement to the close of that revelation. Deny it, and all is darkness and perplexity ; and the most unnatural straining rendered necessary to make anything consistent or intelligible of the statements and repre- sentations of revelation. 1 No sooner had Adam fallen, than was revealed, in the form of promise, the remedy for the ruin which he had brought upon himself, and entailed on his future race. By the institution of such sacrifices, the particular nature of the intended remedy was intimated ; for in this singular rite the pious worshipper was, on the one hand for his humiliation, reminded of the forfeiture of his own life, of the death which he deserved on account of sin ; and on the other for his consolation, and peace, and joy, of the promised substitution of another in his stead, to bear his sin, to atone for its guilt, and to save him from its punishment. This institution, having been continued through the antediluvian and patriarchal ages, formed afterwards, as we have seen, a very prominent part of the Mosaic ritual. Its object was still the same. The law, by its sentence of condemnation, against which it provided in itself no adequate remedy, " shut up" those who were under it "to the faith which was afterwards to be revealed;" whilst by its various rites it shadowed forth that faith to the mind of the attentive and devout inquirer : showing it obscurely, as if through a veil, discovering yet concealing the shadow of good things to come, not the very image of the things. On this hypothesis, there is a harmony between the Old Dispen- sation and the New, and a unity of design (as already said) throughout the whole history of the divine procedure towards man, which we seek for in vain on any other principle, and 1 It has been, I think justly, observed, that the representation, in Gen. iii. 21, of " thu Lord God making coats of skins " to clothe the sinful pair, contains a beau- tiful emblem, \\lieii tlu> skins air understood of the skins of animals slain in sucriGce ; intimating the efficacy of atonement in providing the covering for their sin ;ind shame. 344 ATONEMENT which forms, therefore, a strong evidence of its truth, and recom- mendation of it to acceptance. When we speak of what may justly be denominated the sacrificial language of the New Testament in reference to the death of Christ, it is not unusual for the adversaries of the doc- trine of atonement to resolve all into mere figure and illustra- tive allusion. It has even by some been conceived, that at the death of Christ there was an accommodation, or providentially adjusted arrangement of events and circumstances, of all the facts especially connected with that fearful yet blessed catas- trophe, such as to produce a purposed resemblance to the ancient institutions, and to render the allusions to them by the New Testament writers natural and appropriate. Of all fancies, this is one of the most extraordinary. We offer two replies to it : (1.) If the idea was not meant to be conveyed of some- thing in the nature and design of Christ's death, directly corres- ponding to what was understood to be the nature and design of the ancient sacrifices ; of something, that is, truly and properly expiatory, such allusions, so far from serving the purpose of illustration, could only have served the opposite purpose of " darkening counsel;" misleading into conceptions utterly erro- neous, and that on a subject of vital and essential importance. (2.) The supposition of such accommodation to ancient institu- tions in the circumstances of the death of Jesus, is an obvious inversion of the real and natural order of things. The accom- modation was in the very contrary order to that supposed. It was prospective. The sacrificial institutions, both before and under the law, were so adjusted as to be appropriate prefigurations of what was to take place at the fulness of time. To imagine the infinitely Wise to have appointed them on their own account, as an acceptable part of His worship, independently of any such reference ; that He adjusted to them the great events of Gethsemane and Calvary; and that the New Testament writers availed themselves of their existence as a source of figurative allusion and illustration, and that, too, in a way which, on this hypothesis, obscures rather AND SACRIFICE, 345 than elucidates their nature, discovers a perverseness of mind as melancholy as it is surprising. The great principle of the ancient ritual, as formerly noticed, was : " Without shedding of blood there is no remission." But what was the worth, wherein consisted the dignity, of this principle or of any lesson that would be involved in it, if the entire sacrificial establish- ment, in all its systematically diversified amount of minutely specified and imperatively enjoined rites, went no further than to the remission of the mere temporal penalty of a few particular descriptions of trespass under the existing economy ? no further than we can suppose the efficacy to reach (if, indeed, we can suppose it to have had any independent and self-included virtue at all) of the worthless blood-shedding of a bullock, a lamb, or a he-goat ! To what contemptible insignificance and littleness does such a supposition reduce the entire system ! How very different does it appear, when, assuming the apostolic principle, a principle which comes home instantly, and without a moment's misgiving, to the conviction of every sane mind : " It was not possible that the blood of bulls and goats should take away sin," we contemplate all as a system of shadows, divinely adapted to foreshow and prepare for the grand New Covenant propitiation ! This at once imparts meaning, consistency, and glory to the whole. It shows us a purpose answered by it infi- nitely worthy of the wisdom of its Author, rescuing it from every imputation of meanness and costly insignificance. The hypo- thesis, then, which resolves the sacrificial language of the New Testament into mere 'figure and allusion is doubly privative ; it deprives the language of its meaning, and the rites themselves of theirs. And in addition to this, it appears to charge the writers with a folly altogether irreconcileable with the idea of their inspiration, nay, even of their possessing ordinary judg- ment. No idea, surely, could be simpler than that of a pro- phet's dying to confirm his testimony, or rather to prove his sincerity in delivering it ; or even to afford, in his own sub- sequent rising from the grave, the evidence and the pledge of a future resurrection. Why, then, should such language be 346 ATONEMENT incessantly employed for the purpose of conveying such simple ideas, if these were indeed the ideas intended to be conveyed ? This is a question which can hardly be answered on any prin- ciple consistent with even the common sense of the writers. If the death of Christ was not an atonement for sin, the law, the prophets, John the Baptist, Christ Himself and His apostles, all spoke and wrote a language to me utterly unintelligible ; and which, I feel myself warranted in affirming, could not have more effectually deceived, had deception been the end in view in the framing of it. We have seen in what strong terms the same sentiment is expressed by Dr. Smith, in his remarks on the fifty-third chapter of Isaiah. " If, indeed, there be no such thing as a real atonement for the sin of man, we must plainly see that the Bible requires to be sent back to its Author to be dictated anew ; in its most essential parts, at least, to be re- written, that, where most of all it is needed to direct mankind, it may not delude them." 1 How utterly amazing, that with language so explicit, so frequent, so harmoniously consistent, through type, and promise, and prophecy, and the final testimony in which all are fulfilled ; with such language and such corresponding facts before him, any man could have the hardihood to say that " the doctrines of atonement, incarnation, and the Trinity, have no more founda- tion in the Scriptures than the doctrines of transubstantiation and the transmigration of souls ! " Yet so said Dr. Joseph Priestley, in his answer to Thomas Payne. The Doctor imagined that, by denying such doctrines to be in the Bible, he would remove the ob- jections of Jews, and Deists, and Mahometans. But what a miser- able mistake ! What a triumph did he not rather furnish to every enemy of revelation ! What a ground of scoffing, and sarcasm, and ridicule ! How can this be a revelation from God, which uses language so perfectly contrary to its established and natural meaning, which expresses itself in figures so marvellously fitted to confound all that seems simple, to make light darkness, and straight things crooked ; and which necessarily misleads nine 1 Gilbert on the Christian Atonement, Congreg. Lecture ii. p. 60. AND SACRIFICE. 347 hundred and ninety-nine in the thousand of all who read it, learned and illiterate alike ! Surely it is incomparably more consistent and reasonable at once to renounce the Bible because it contains these doctrines, than stoutly, and in unqualified and sweeping terms, to deny that they are there ; and by all the artifices of a disingenuous criticism to explain them away, and to seek to establish for the Bible the credit of not containing them, by affixing to it the credit of being the most unintelligible book in existence. On the other hand, however, it seems quite as well at once and roundly to deny that any such doctrines are to be found in the Bible as those of substitution and atonement, as to retain the word and deny the thing ; to set aside the plain meaning of the Bible by what Dr. Magee pointedly and happily calls " an .artificial accommodation of Scripture phrases to notions utterly repugnant to Scripture doctrine." This is manifestly the case with the reasonings and criticisms (if, indeed, they deserve to be so called) to which we have been referring, whereby all that is said in Scripture about the death of Christ as a propitiation for sin is resolved into figure and allusion. As an exemplifica- tion of the way in which the Bible doctrine on this all-important and interesting subject has been set aside by specious and plausible accommodation, we shall take a brief review of the scheme of Dr. John Taylor of Norwich, a scheme embraced by many, perhaps I might say most, of the Socinians. We shall then take the opportunity of discussing more at large the nature and ends of atonement, the objections to it, and the question whether its efficacy is to be considered as arising from its own intrinsic value, or solely from divine appointment. " After a review of this evidence (the Scripture proof and the doctrine of atonement), one might weh 1 ask, whether it be possible for a rational creature to deduce less from it, than that Jesus Christ became, in relation to the condemning sentence of law, actually our substitute, and that His death was a real atonement for our sins? What else but substitution can be meant by the innocent suffering for the guilty, and, in con- 348 ATONEMENT AND SACRIFICE. sequence, the guilty not suffering ? What, by our being recon- ciled to the Lawgiver through such a substitution, but that those sufferings were expiatory, a real atonement for our offences ? To deny that these doctrines are taught, seems to be the same as to deny that anything is taught, that language has meaning, that ideas are what they are ; the same as to avow that, what- ever may be intended, it certainly is not what is expressed. If, in affirming that the doctrine of atonement is the doctrine of the New Testament, we justly expose ourselves to the charge of rashness, why should we not, even on the most vital ques- tions, trust as well to dreams as to any investigation into the meaning of the sacred books. Admit, in statements like these, the principle, that there is some recondite allusion in every im- portant word ; that, simple as it is, its obvious meaning, accord- ing to the ordinary structure of language, is fallacious ; and who, from such a document, shall hope for safe instruction?" 1 1 Gilbert on the Christian Atonement, Congreg. Lect. ii., pp. 70, 71. XVIII. ON DR. JOHN TAYLOR'S SCHEME OF ATONEMENT. I HAVE alluded to some by whom the word atonement is retained, while the thing signified by it is denied ; by whom it is divested of all that is properly expiatory, or of the nature of sacrificial propitiation. And, as an exemplification of this process of exhaustion, so characteristic on other subjects as well as this of Socinian criticism, I referred to the scheme of Dr. John Taylor, as developed in his " Key to the Apostolic Writings," and his " Scripture Doctrine of Atonement." I shall first present you with a few brief extracts, such as may suffice for giving you a correct conception of the principles of his theory, and the grounds on which he maintains it. He thus expresses himself, in terms which might strikingly show how false might be the impression conveyed by the use of even Bible phraseo- logy on the minds of those who do not go forward to subsequent ex- planations : " Nothing is clearer, from the whole current of Scrip- ture, than that all the mercy and love of God, and all the blessings of the Gospel, from first to last, from the original purpose and grace of God, to our final salvation in the possession of eternal life, is in, by, and through Christ ; and particularly by His blood, by the ' redemption which is hi Hun,' as He is the propitiation or atonement for the sins of the whole world. This can bear no dispute among Christians. The only difference that can be must relate to the manner how these blessings are conveyed to us, by, or through Christ." * 1 Key, etc., chap. viii. sect. 145. 350 DR. JOHN TAYLOR'S This is well. But we very soon begin to discover the extent of latitude he has reserved to himself under the phraseo- logy of the last sentence. He goes on to say : " How, then, is this to be understood ? The blood of Christ is the perfect obedience or goodness of Christ. For His blood is not to be considered only with respect to the matter of it ; for so it is a mere corporeal substance, of no more value in the sight of God than any other thing of the same kind." " But His blood implies a character ; and it is His blood as He is a ' Lamb without blemish and without spot,' l that is, as He is perfectly holy, which is of so great value in the sight of God." " The end of His coming into the world was ' to do the will of God,' 2 not to offer figurative ceremonial sacrifices," but to perform solid, substantial obedience, in all acts of usefulness and beneficence to mankind, by which He became a " High Priest after the order of Melchizedek," etc. Having proceeded a little further in the same strain, he adds : " From all this it appears that the blood of Christ, or that by which He has bought us, is His love and goodness to men and His obedience to God, exercised, indeed, throughout the whole of His humiliation on earth, but most eminently exhibited in His death." " Obedience, or doing the will of God, 3 was the sacrifice of a sweet-smelling savour which He offered unto God for us. It was His righteousness or righteous, kind, and benevolent actions, His obedient death or the sacrifice of His love and obedience, which made atonement for the sins of the world ; so far, and in this sense, that God, on account of His goodness or perfect obedience so highly pleasing to Him, thought fit to grant unto mankind, whom He might, in strict justice, have destroyed for their sin and wickedness, 4 the forgiveness of sin," etc. And he speaks of this forgiveness as absolute, with regard to past offences, to all the living and to all the penitent and obedient dead ; and as given upon condition of repentance in relation to eternal life, and of a new dispensation being erected, furnished with all proper means to draw us from sin to God, and to bring us to the possession of immortality. 1 1 Peter i. 19. 2 Heb. x. 7 ; John v. 30 ; vi. 38. s Heb. x. 6-12. * John iii. 17. 5 Key, nt. svprrt. SCHEME OF ATONEMENT. 351 Sacrifice lie is pleased to define thus: "A symbolical add ivss to God, intended to express before Him our devotions and affec- lions by significant emblematical actions ; consequently, whatever is expressive of a pious or virtuous disposition may be rightly included in the notion of a sacrifice, as prayers, thanksgivings, labours," etc. By the blood of Christ, he further alleges, God delivers us from the guilt, because it is the most powerful means of freeing us from the pollution, and power, of sin ; and affirms it to be the ground of redemption, as being the means of sanctification, etc. It is unnecessary to multiply citations. The general prin- ciples of the theory are sufficiently before you. And you cannot fail to be sensible that it is a theory fitted, not for explaining, but for explaining away. It may be a key ; but it is a key for shutting rather than for opening. And while he professes to treat of the " Scripture doctrine of atonement," the very title implying that atonement is a doctrine of Scrip- ture, the object of his treatise is to show that it is no doctrine of Scripture at all ; but that, under terms expressive of atone- ment, something totally different is meant. I shall not dwell at any length on the exposure of it. The following brief obser- vations may suffice : 1. The entire scheme is one of those we before described, as resolving into symbol, and figure, and allusion, all that is contained in the New Testament Scriptures relative to the death and blood of Christ, as having been an atonement or propitiation for sin, a sacrifice of expiation. According to the theory there is nothing of the kind. There are terms, indeed, which not only seem to imply it, but in the plainest and most unequivocal manner express it. But what they express they do not mean. Under metaphorical allusion to the former dispen- sations, they convey something essentially different, having nothing in it whatever of the proper nature of atonement or substitutionary and propitiatory suffering. Our former remark, therefore, forces itself upon our notice, that surely such allusions were the most unfortunate possible ; such figures not only the 352 DR. JOHN "TAYLOR'S least of all likely to convey the true meaning, but the surest of all to convey the false. 2. It follows that this mode of explanation deprives the Old Testament of all its interest as a symbolical introduction to the New ; and the New of all its special value as an illustrative commentary on the Old. For in the New, instead of a plain, perspicuous, easily-intelligible account of the types and figures of the ancient ceremonial, we have only a new assortment of figures, much darker and more shadowy in their import than the former ; a mass of vague and indefinite allusions to the Mosaic ritual, which, by meaning something so widely different from what was contained in the rites to which the allusions are made, are calculated to render the explanation of the New Testament a problem of incomparably more perplexing difficulty than that of the Old. A third revelation would be necessary for the satisfactory explanation of both. We are happily under no obligation to accept of Dr. Taylor's key as a succedaneum for such a third revelation. Even on the supposition of the New Testament being, on the subject before us, obscure and " hard to be understood," never was there a more complete exempli- fication of explaining the obscurum by the obscurius, of throwing light upon darkness from a darkness still deeper. 3. It is granted that the spiritual worship of the . New -Covenant, and the offerings of believers undor the spirit of charity, are figuratively represented by allusion to the animal sacrifices amongst others, which were presented under the law. 1 But the liberty drawn from this to divest the death and blood of Christ of everything properly sacrificial and propitiatory, and to interpret death and blood as signifying the same thing with goodness and obedience, seems a very bold and presumptuous one. Nay more, we are, by such a principle of interpretation, deprived of the very ground on which New Testament language, respecting the spiritual worship required under the evangelical dispensation, requires to be explained. The plain matter of fact is this, that it was in consequence of the sacrifice of Christ 1 Rom. xii. 1 ; Heb. xiii. 15 ; Phil. iv. 18. SCHEME OF ATONEMENT. 353 having illustrated, fulfilled, and superseded all the typical offer- ings of previous dispensations ; of its having accomplished fully and for ever what they could only shadow without effecting ; and of its having thus set them all aside as having served their typical and preparatory purpose ; it was, I say, in consequence of this, that the particular kinds of worship, by " sacrifice and offering, and burnt-offering, and offering for sin, which were offered by the law," were terminated, and the more spiritual services and free-will offerings of the New Economy were intro- duced. To interpret the work of Christ, therefore, I mean especially His sacrificial or atoning work, on the same principle of figure on which the prayers and praises and gifts of believers are called sacrifices, is to overlook the very reason of the change in New Testament worship from Old Testament worship ; be- sides rendering necessary the extreme and most unnatural violence of criticism by which blood and death become syno- nymes for virtue ; and the satisfaction of God in the sacrificial propitiation (of which, in point of fact, the New Testament writers unquestionably speak) as nothing else than His delight in obedience or moral goodness ! 4. The manner in which this scheme explains the " doing of God's will " as the sacrifice, instead of the offering of the sacrifice as the doing of God's will ; and the spotlessness and unblemishedness of the lamb, not as the necessary qualification of the offering, but as the offering itself, is most arbitrary and strange. I refer, [1.] To what Dr. Taylor says of Christ's having "come into the world to do the will of God, i. e., not to offer figurative and ceremonial sacrifices, but to perform solid substantial obedience." Now, mark the apostle's interpretation of "doing the will of God." 1 It seems impossible for anything to be plainer than this. God prepared Him a body, and that body was prepared for Him, that He might " offer it once for all," as a sacrifice of propitiation for sin, "bearing our sins," as Peter expresses it, "in His own body on the tree;" and it was in this "offering of His body," . e., of His person, "once for 1 Heb. x. 1-14. VOL. H. 2 A 354 DR. JOHN TAYLOR'S all," that He is here represented as "doing God's will." The "doing of God's will," then, in the general sense of obedience to the law, was not the sacrifice ; but the offering of the sacrifice was itself the doing of God's will. This, according to Paul, was the end of His " coming into the world." And by this " one offering," the " sacrifice of Himself," He set aside all the Levitical offerings, as having had, in His one offering, their ful- filment their end answered. The first were taken away that the second might be established and rendered permanent. Who, on reading such a passage, can for an instant admit the suppo- sition, that the apostle means by the sacrifice of Christ, by the offering of His body, by His " one offering for sins," nothing else than a holy life? Again, we most gladly and cordially grant that Christ came not to offer " figurative ceremonial sacrifices." No. He came to offer up the true sacrifice, which all the figurative ceremonial sacrifices had typified and prepared the world to receive. It is certainly not a little remarkable, that the very theory which thus glories in the assumption, as if it were peculiar to itself, that Christ came not to offer "figura- tive ceremonial sacrifices," should be the theory that actually converts His sacrifice into one of this description. It turns all into figure. It introduces a new system of type. For, denied it cannot be, that the death of Christ is represented as a sacrifice, as an offering for sin, as a propitiation, an atonement, a ransom; and that all the sacrificial vocabulary is brought into requisition in setting forth its nature and its efficacy. But, according to the theory before us, all this means nothing that it seems to mean. It is not a real but a figurative sacrifice. It means only that Jesus by His goodness pleased God, and by His example of perfect virtue imparted such satisfaction to Deity, that God was induced, for His sake, to offer the pardon of their sins to all who should imitate the example. If, therefore, this cannot be called a ceremonial sacrifice, it was, without question, a figura- tive one. What could well be more so? I refer, [2.] To what Dr. T. says of Jesus being a lamb " without blemish and without spot;" as if the meaning of that were, that it was SCHEME OF ATONEMENT. 355 solely on account of His spotless and unblemished character that Jehovah was well-pleased, not on account of anything properly sacrificial or propitiatory in the death of the victim, the " offer- ing up of Himself." Now, this is very extraordinary. When Jesus is spoken of as a " lamb without blemish and without spot," or rather His blood as like the blood of a " lamb without blemish and without spot;" 1 the reference, it cannot be ques- tioned, is to the qualities that were required in the victims under the law, to render them suitable and acceptable sacri- fices on Jehovah's altar. This, then, was clearly a part of the type. The unblemished soundness of the victim was not the victim itself, but only one of the requisite qualifications of the victim. It was not the atonement, but qualified the chosen victim for being the atonement. The spotless victim must be slain, and its blood, being carried within the veil, must be sprinkled on and before the mercy-seat, in order to acceptable propitiation. You will at once see the bearing of these remarks. To make the atonement consist simply in the innocence, the spotless virtue of Christ, is to make it consist in the qualification of the victim, not in the offering of it. It is to find the type of the sacrifice itself in the type of one of its qualities. There would be the same reasonableness in representing the mere soundness of the selected animal from the flock or from the herd, as constituting the atonement under the law, independently of its blood being shed at the altar ; as there is in representing the innocence or perfect obedience of Christ as the atonement made by Him, independently of His blood-shedding: for His blood, according to the theory, is of no more value in God's sight, considered in itself, than any other thing of the same kind; it is of worth only as signifying, according to this most anomalous figure, the perfection of Christ's character. Sinners are not said to be redeemed by the innocence of Christ as by the soundness of an unblemished and spotless lamb, but by the precious blood of Christ as by the blood of a lamb thus without spot and blemish ; clearly implying that as 1 1 Pet. i. 18, 19. 356 DR. JOHN TAYLOR'S the one spotless victim was offered in sacrifice so was the other; and that as perfect bodily soundness fitted the type to be an acceptable offering, so did perfect mental and moral purity fit the antitype. And so accordingly the case is ever represented. 1 5. In the statements of this scheme respecting the way in which the obedience of Christ justifies, there seems to be a complete inversion of the true order of things. The amount of them seems to be, that the perfect goodness of Jesus was pleasing to God ; that by our imitation of this perfect goodness we become pleasing to God, and are accepted of Him ; that thus, in a word, we are justified by being sanctified. The blood of Christ, according to Dr. T., saves us from the guilt of sin, as being the most powerful means of saving us from its pollution and power. Now, this, appears to be the very oppo- site of the fact. According to all the representations of the divine word, sanctification is the sequence to justification, not justification to sanctification. The faith that justifies sanctifies indeed ; but it justifies first. It is the spiritual discovery to the soul of the mercy and love of God in the scheme of forgive- ness through such an atonement as the Gospel makes known ; that melts the heart to penitential abasement and sorrow for sin, and fills it with love to that God who in Christ reveals Himself as " the sinner's friend and sin's eternal foe." Such is the true order of the process. 2 The whole scheme is only a melancholy illustration of that artifice by which the terms of divine revelation are discharged of all their appropriate meaning, and are modelled so as to fall in with the theories of those who are more anxious that the Bible should speak their language than that they should speak the language of the Bible. "To what, according to this writer, does the whole scheme of atonement amount? God, being desirous to rescue man from the consequences and dominion of his sins, and yet desirous to effect this in such a way as might best conduce to 1 Hcb. ix. 14, etc. 2 Ps. cxxx. 3, 4 ; 1 Cor. vi. J9, 20 ; 1 Pet. i. 14-19 ; Luke vii. 41-43, 47, etc. SCHEME OF ATONEMENT. 357 the advancement of virtue, thought fit to make forgiveness of all sins that were past a reward of the meritorious obedience of Christ, by exhibiting that obedience as a model for universal imitation, to engage mankind to follow his example ; that, being thereby improved in their virtue, they might be rescued from the dominion of their sins, and thus, making the example of Christ a mean of sanctification, redemption from sin might thereby be effected. This, as far as I have been able to collect it, is a faithful transcript of the author's doctrine. And what there is in all this, of the nature of sacrifice or atonement (at least so far as affects those who have lived since the time of Christ), or in what material sense it differs from the Socinian notion which represents Christ merely as our instructor and example, I profess myself unable to discover." 1 1 Magee on the Atonement, dissert, xv. XIX. ON THE TRUE NATURE OF ATONEMENT. WELL might Dr. Magee ask : What was there in such a theory as that to the discussion of which our last lecture was devoted, " of the nature of sacrifice or atonement ?" The evident answer is : Nothing whatever, excepting by such arbi- trary changes in the meaning of language as would deprive it of all its value as a medium of intelligible intercommunion. We need not shrink from understanding Scripture terms in their plain and proper import, when they represent the death of Christ as atonement or propitiation. 1 In every idea which the r r V. V n<. l rh~*v/ f mind is accustomed to attach to these words^here is to be found, as the leading one, that of substitutionary sufferings, i. e., sufferings endured on the part of a substitute by whom they are not deserved; on behalf, and in order to the deliverance from them, of those by whom they are deserved. This is the invariable representation of the case in the Scriptures, with regard to the sufferings of Christ. They were all substitutionary, and all endured by Him who, being without sin, deserved them not ; in order that we, who, being sinners, did deserve them, might escape the endurance of them ; and, being saved from the death which was our own due, might on His account have life. Almost all the passages^pthat speak of the sufferings of Christ as constituting an atonement, might be quoted to this effect. 1 1 Is. liii. 5-7 ; Gal. iii. 13 ; 1 Pet. iii. 18, etc. OF ATONEMENT. 359 This is the proper idea of substitution. It is not merely that one person suffers in consequence of the sin or crime of another. That may be where there is nothing whatever per- taining to substitution. If one man commits an act, or pursues a course of action, by which he entails suffering on his family or on others otherwise connected with him, whether at the time or afterwards, while he himself does not experience the misery which others through his misconduct come to bear ; they are not on that account, in any sense that bears at all on our present subject, his substitutes. They may be said, it is true, in one sense to suffer what he deserved, to suffer in consequence of his demerit; but they do not in any way whatever suf- fer for his benefit. He might, in the mysterious arrange- ments of Providence, be exempted from the fatal effects of his own evil doings ; but such exemption was, in no intelligible sense, on account of the sufferings which those doings brought, or were to bring, upon others : so that these sufferings were not substitutionary even as a means of saving him from the temporal consequences of his own misdeeds, far less of saving him from their penal consequences, or merited recompense of woe, in the world to come. I have seen at times, and occa- sionally where I should hardly have expected it, this confusion of ideas ; the ways of God's providence in this respect, adduced hi proof that the doctrine of substitution was not peculiar to revelation, but common to it with the lessons of God's provi- 'dential administration. But the fact of one or of many suffer- ing as the result of another's wickedness, is not, I repeat, substitution ; in which there ought, invariably, to be conceived the idea of the suffering being endured on the part of one in order to the escape or impunity of another. Such facts in providence as those referred to afford a very useful illustration of the connection between Adam's sin and the consequences to his posterity, and the penal sanction attached to some of God's laws extending to the progeny of the transgressor the " visiting of the iniquity of the fathers upon the children ;" but on the doctrine of substitution they are 360 THE TRUE NATURE altogether irrelevant. When children were visited for their fathers' sins, it was only when children, imitating the example of the fathers, appropriated, and that with aggravation, their fathers' trespasses. It was not that, by. the sufferings of the children, the fathers might be freed. We need not shrink from the admission that the doctrine of substitution in its strict and proper sense is the doctrine of the Gospel ; that doctrine is, that the undeserving or innocent suffered in the room of, and in order to the deliverance of, the deserving or guilty. It was clearly in this sense, if language have any meaning, that "Christ died for the ungodly;" "suffered for sins, the just for the unjust;" 1 was "made a curse for us ! " 2 We apprehend that, all that is required to free the doctrine from such objections as have been urged against it, is its being fairly stated. It has been (intentionally or not I do not say, charity should hope the best), most flagrantly misrepre- sented and caricatured by its enemies. And it is matter of no little regret, that too often occasion has been given them for such caricature and misrepresentation by the injudicious and extravagant statements of its friends. They have set it in lights that have imparted to it, in various ways, aspects of distortion, of which occasion has been taken by those who " desired occasion," to twist the distorted features into still more grotesque and offensive unseemliness. With as little reference as possible, therefore, at the present stage of our illustration, to objections, my object is, to set the doctrine before you in a scriptural light, that you may have a correct notion of what it actually is. We shall then be the better able to see the inapplicability and inconclusiveness of those objections. The first thing, then, requiring a short notice, is the actual position of the parties between whom the atoning Mediator interposes, presenting to the one and for the other His sacrificial propitiation. God, then, is to be regarded as the moral Governor of the intelligent creation, and man as a subject, a morally accountable subject, of His government ; but a subject 1 1 Tet. iij. 18. 2 Gal. iii. 13. OF ATONEMENT. 361 who has transgressed its laws, and maintains towards his Governor the position of a rebel an apostate, sinful, guilty, condemned, alienated in heart, and doomed to death. God, the Being to whom he is amenable, whose law he has bro.ken, the yoke of whose righteous and kind administration he has broken and cast away, is to be regarded as morally and judicially offended, and as having passed against him his just sentence. Into the nature and the extent of the punishment to which that sentence consigns him, it is not .at all our present purpose to enter. The discussion belongs not to our present subject, except in so far as the character of the atonement serves to read an impressive lesson of the fearfulness of the doom. It is easy for men, and for men conscious of guilt it must be admitted to be most natural (according to the perversity of a nature that is warped from rectitude by all the power of unholy selfishness), to conceive of God, and to cherish fondly the con- ception, as a Being all benevolence, who cannot find in His heart to punish, or who, if He punishes at all, will deal very gently, in the way rather of corrective and restorative chastisement than of properly punitive infliction. But, when discoursing on the attri- bute of divine justice, we had occasion to show the distinction between that perfection of God's character and government and benevolence ; and at the same time to show the essential inherence of the principles of righteousness, as well as of love and mercy, in the one and the other. Every one understands the difference between the two ; and it requires the utmost ingenuity of a plausible and hair-dividing sophistry to make out their identity, or rather the semblance of it. The same record that assures us of His " delighting in mercy," designates Him also " the righteous Lord who lovcth righteousness, and whose countenance beholdeth the upright." 1 And what are the terms in which this righteous God is spoken of, in reference to sin and sinners? Is it always in harmony with the soft and bland and sentimentally soothing representations of those who flatter themselves and others, that 1 Ps. xi. 7. 362 THE TRUE NATURE the countenance of the Being with whom they have to do never has worn, or can wear, any other expression than that of the smile of kindness ? Very far from it ; " God is angry with the wicked every day." l " Thou art not a God that hath pleasure in wickedness ; neither shall evil dwell with thee. The foolish shall not stand in thy presence ; thou hatest all the workers of iniquity." 2 " The Lord will take vengeance on His adversaries ; and He reserveth wrath for His enemies." 3 " Who can stand before His indignation ? who can abide in the fierceness of His anger?" 4 "Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord." 6 " The wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all unrighteousness and ungodliness of men." 6 " Our God is a consuming fire." 7 Such is but a small specimen of passages and modes of expression which abound in His own word. And in conformity with these, He is represented, when He forgives iniquity, as " turning from the fierceness of His anger, and taking away all His wrath ; " 8 as " not retaining His anger for ever ; " ' as " pacified " towards the objects of His pardoning mercy " for all that they have done." 10 We are reminded, it is true, that in such expressions God is spoken of after the manner of men. And if what is meant by this be, that the infinite mind is free from all the agitation and turbulence which the passions produce in the minds of His creatures, we admit the truth. But the expressions must have some meaning. I And is it not a more than suspicious circumstance, that this qualifying consideration is applied ah 1 on one side. We hear little of it in regard to the divine exercise of benevolence ; although there is in the minds of men such a thing as the turbulence of ecstasy in the emotions of love and joy as well as in those of indignation and wrath. The truth is, that we know humblingly little of the operations of the divine mind. We speak of God as a Being, not only " without parts," but " without passions." But we hardly know what we mean when we so speak. That there is the utter and eternal absence in that mind of all the variations of *Ps. vii.lt, 8 Ps. v. 4. 3 Nah. i. 2. 4 Nah. i. 6. 8 Rom. xii. 19. Roin. i. 18. ' Hob. xii. 29. 8 Pa. Ixxxv. 3. 9 Mic. vii. 18. 10 Jer. xxxiii. 8. OF ATONEMENT. 363 painful or even of violent excitation and emotion, is clear ; but that there is nothing that bears any analogy at all to what exists in the minds of His creatures, is what we dare not affirm. At all events, granting that wrath in God is not an agitating passion, it is incomparably more dreadful when regarded as standing figuratively, by anthropomorphism, for a principle, or a settled and determinate purpose, that under His government sin shall not pass with impunity. And this it must mean, if it means anything at all. " Had it been a passion," it has been justly said, " it might have been supposed to cool, and, in process of time, to die away altogether ; but being the fixed necessary opposition of His nature to evil, it is as incapable of change as the divine character itself." 1 The guilt and the sinfulness or depravity of man are of course inseparably connected, but they are not identical ; and the two leading and essential ingredients in the salvation revealed by the Gospel correspond to them, having the same characteristical distinction ; justification relating to the removal of guilt, sanctification to that of sinfulness or depravity. Now, atonement has relation properly to the former. The immediate object of it is justification, although the ultimate object is sanc- tification, without which, justification would comparatively be little worth. Let us view atonement, then, as it relates to human guilt, and to the averting of the judicial displeasure from men on account of it. It must not be forgotten that, in all that is said about the punishment of sin, there is nothing that partakes of personal vindictiveness. Far be such a thought from our minds. It is contradicted by all that the Bible teaches us of God, and by all that God in the Bible inculcates upon us. God has nothing personally to lose, to suffer, or to resent. But His nature, His moral nature, is infinitely opposed to sin, and holds it in infinite detestation ; while in His judicial capacity, as Governor of the universe, sin requires to be punished and repressed by the weight of His avenging arm, as the malignant and sure subverter of the peace, order, and happiness of the 1 Symington on the Atonement, p. 61. 364 THE TRUE NATURE creation, by being the subverter of its moral rectitude and subordination. His face is therefore set against it. All the attributes of His character, not His holiness, and justice, and truth alone, but even His goodness (considered as embracing and providing for the general well-being of the universe), require that it should be visited with merited retribution. The averting of this judicial retribution is the object of atonement, that is, the averting of it in a way consistent with the glory of God, the security of the great principles of His government, and the maintenance, by this means, of the well-being of the intelligent Creation. I It is in this sense that atonement is designed to propitiate the offended Godhead. What, then,Js strictly meant by the phrase ? You must not be surprised, should I, on such a subject, quote at all times pretty largely from myself. " The character of God is perfect excellence, infinite goodness ; not a hemisphere of separate stars, but one glorious sun of pure and holy light. The attributes which constitute this character, although we may speak of them and reason about them distinctly, are completely inseparable in their exercise. United in the conduct of the Almighty Agent, by the same necessity which unites them in His nature. That nature being one and immutable, with no part of it can any step of His procedure ever be inconsistent; but ah 1 should be considered as the result, not of one attribute or of another, but of that glorious combination of all excellences which constitutes infinite perfection. The light of the sun we can divide by a prism into its various coloured rays ; and each of these rays we can make the object of distinct attention ; but it is the combination of all the seven that constitutes light, of which its colourless purity is the prime excellence. Thus may we make the various perfec- tions of the divine nature the subjects, one by one, of separate consideration ; but it is the union of them all, in inseparable existence and exercise, that forms the character of that infinite Being, of whom, with exquisite beauty and sublime simplicity, it is said : ' God is light ; and in Him is no darkness at all.' 1 1 Discourses on the Principal Points of the Socinian Controv., pp. 207, 208. Edit. 1st. OP ATONEMENT. 365 What, then, is the light in which the doctrine of atonement places the divine Being ? In reply to this question, I observe : that, as a righteous lawgiver and ruler, Jehovah must be considered as displeased with His guilty creatures, on account of their violation of His authority ; whilst, at the same time, from the infinite benignity of His nature, He is inclined to forgiveness. But if His government be righteous, its claims, in their full extent, must of necessity be preserved inviolate. Any change in these must be a change from right to wrong, and must affect both the immutable holiness of the divine character and the general good of the universe. The principles of the divine administration, the commands and the sanctions of God's law, if admitted to have been originally right, can never undergo alteration ; for alteration of any kind, even in the way of miti- gation or reduction, implies the acknowledgment of error in the first enactments. The great question, then, on this momentous subject, comes to be : In what manner may forgiveness be extended to the guilty, so as to satisfy the claims of infinite justice, and thus to maintain in their full dignity, free from every charge of imper- fection or mutability, the character of the Governor, the recti- tude o/ His administration, and the sanction of His law? 1 The rendering of the divine Being propitious in this view, refers, it is obvious (and the distinction is one of the highest importance on this subject) not to the production of love in His character, or in the state of His mind towards fallen men, but simply to the mode of its expression. The inquiry is : How may the blessed God express His love, so as effectually to express, at the same time, His infinite and immutable abhorrence of sin ; and thus, in making known the riches of His mercy, to display, in connection with it, the inflexibility of His justice, and the unsullied perfection of His holiness ? I am well aware how pertinaciously the adversaries of the 1 To this statement I have added, in the Discourses on Atonement, " and to provide, in the pardoned sinner, for the interests of holiness," and have assigned there my reasons for the addition, which, indeed, are sufficiently obvious. Pp. 13, 14. ; ; 36G THE TRUE NATURE doctrine of atonement persist in misrepresenting it, and it is matter of regret that any of its well-meaning friends should have used at times such unguarded modes of expression as to give their misrepresentations an apparent countenance. I have adverted to this in general terms before ; I now apply the remark to the particular topic of the consistency of the atone- ment with the unity and unchangeableness of the divine character. I have already said that there can be no change in God. The atonement must not be considered as rendering Him merciful and placable, from having been previously wrath- ful and vindictive. "He delighteth in mercy." 1 This is the character of His nature, antecedently to, and irrespectively of all atonement. He does not delight in mercy because the atone- ment has been made, but the atonement has been made because He delighteth in mercy. A being naturally implacable and merciless would never appoint an atonement in order to the exercise of mercy. The very appointment manifests a character the reverse of severe vindictiveness. It could be the dictate only of mercy, and so it is invariably represented in the Scrip- tures ; not as the parent but as the offspring of mercy ; not its producer, but its product; not its cause, but its effect and expression. 2 How, then, can that ever be regarded as pur- chasing or producing mercy which is its free and marvellous manifestation ? Let me illustrate my meaning by a very simple comparison. If a son had previously transgressed against his father's authority and incurred his merited displeasure, would it be an evidence of the want, or even of the deficiency, of natural affection in the parent's heart, if, in seeking to extend forgive- ness to his child, he should concert measures for doing this in such a way as at once to humble to proper penitential submis- sion the proud spirit of the offender, and to secure the respect due to his own authority ? His bowels may yearn over his child ; his heart may go forth towards him in the longings of agonized affection ; " his eye may pour forth tears unto God for him." But his judgment tells him that he must keep his 1 Mic. vii. 18. 3 John iii. 16 ; 1 John iv. 8-10 ; Rom. v. 7, 8. OF ATONEMENT. 367 place. He must not yield to unsubdued stubbornness ; he must not break his sceptre and resign his paternal authority and rightful supremacy. If, in these painfully trying circum- stances, the wisdom of the father should suggest to him a method by which these might be recognised and established, and, at the same time, the heart of his child melted to a return of filial tenderness, the fountain of tears opened, and the spirit of sullen ness won to penitent submission ; would it be reason- able, were such a suggestion followed out, to allege that it had produced a change in the heart of the father, that it had intro- duced parental love where it was not before ? No conclusion could be more destitute of truth. This love not only before existed, but longed intensely to give itself expression ; and the bosom of the fond father filled to overflowing with delight and joy, when the suggestion presented itself that opened a free channel for its unrestrained emotions. Thus, then, it is, with regard to the Divine Father and His guilty children. His mercy is from everlasting. But His mercy must be exercised in a way that shall glorify His righteousness; that shall "declare" and illustrate the justice of His character and government, in the exercise of His pardoning clemency and the restoration of His forfeited favour. This is what we conceive to be effected by atonement. This is evidently the view given us of the doctrine by the apostle Paul. 1 The extension of mercy in forgiveness is the end ; the securing and manifesting of the honour of righte- ousness is the thing required in order to the attainment of it, and without which it would not, with consistency and propriety, have been effected. , But on this subject it is of essential importance that we entertain correct conceptions of the sense in which the divine righteousness is " declared," or manifested, by the atonement. Ideas have many a time been entertained on that point, far from consistent either with accurate notions of justice itself, or of grace, or with enlarged and honourable views of the divine 1 Rom. Hi. 20-26. 368 THE TRUE NATURE administration. In discussions on moral and political science, justice has been distinguished into three kinds, commutative, distributive, and public. 1 Commutative justice is that which subsists between a creditor and a debtor, and has reference to pecuniary or commercial transactions. In such circumstances, if the debt be paid, no matter whether by the debtor himself or by a surety, the claim of justice is cancelled, and no room is left for the exercise of anything that bears the nature of grace. ! And here it is necessary to remark, that by some the idea of '' debt and credit has been applied with much too limited a strictness to the case now before us. It is one of those illus- trative figures which, while it suits in some points, will not bear close application in others, without misleading into false and pernicious misconceptions, confounding in the inconsiderate ; mind things that are materially and even essentially different. That sins are compared to debts is true ; and the comparison is | natural, and the principle on which it proceeds obvious. As intelligent and moral agents, we owe obedience to God, our . Maker and our Sovereign. As sinners, we have failed to I render that obedience ; and every sin, whether of omission or of commission, may be regarded as an additional accumulation of unpaid debt. But our ever discharging this debt ourselves - is a natural impossibility. In this respect, as well as in another, which we shall notice immediately, the parallelism between sins and debts necessarily fails. We never can pay up obedience which we have failed to render, as a man, by payment of principal and interest, may cancel the heaviest arrears of debt, how long soever it may have been due, to another. Every suc- cessive moment brings with it its own demand upon us of obedi- ence to our Supreme Ruler; so that the obedience of one moment can only stand for itself, and cannot cover the debt incurred by the disobedience or the defective service of another. Again, when we have offended against God, we may be said to owe 1 Iii Discourses on Atonement, I mention first of all a fourth kind, vindictive; assigning reasons, at the same time, for setting it aside, as not entitled to the desig- nation of justice at all. rages 54, 55. OF ATONEMENT. 369 satisfaction or reparation for the wrong we have done to His law, and to the honour of His name and government. Bfr- with regard to us, this satisfaction can be nothing else than punishment, punishment corresponding to the general dement of sin, and the particular degree of that demerit in our sins. As obedience is due from us to God, so, when we have disobeyed, punishment is due from God to us. Hence, appro- priately to this view of the relation, it is said : " The wages of sin is death ;" death being that which sin deserves, or which is justly and legally due to the sinner on account of it. The forgiveness of sin is simply the free remission of its punishment. It is not the doing away of its guilt, or such a cancelling of the accumulated obligation involved in it as that the sinner ceases to be guilty and to deserve punishment. This, in the nature of things, is an impossibility. Here lies the other point in which the parallel between sins and debts has been pressed too closely. A debt of property may be paid by another ; do not be startled when I say that a debt of obedience never can. It is, from its very nature, mtransferable. The sinner, in himself considered, can never, through eternity, cease to be guilty and to deserve death. His transgressions have constituted him guilty. They have been done, and they never can be undone. The lapse of everlasting ages, the interposition of Omnipotence itself, cannot effect this cannot cause that not to have been which has been cannot render a guilty creature an innocent creature. The sinner who enters heaven will enjoy it for ever as one who in himself merits nothing but exile from its blessed precincts of purity and life. No substitution, no atonement can in this respect alter the nature of things. The atonement of Christ, then, we conceive, ought not to be regarded as proceeding on the principles of commutative or commercial justice ; inasmuch as, according to it, the payment of debt, by strictly and literally cancelling all claim, leaves no room for the exercise of grace. Distributive justice has regard, not to pecuniary obligation, but to moral character, and to the desert thence arising either VOL. ir. 2 B 370 THE TRUE NATUKE of reward or of punishment. According to it, the sinner should receive in his own person the due recompense of his deeds. The strict ' principles of distributive justice do not admit of substitution, of one suffering in the room of another. The sentence of every law is against the transgressor of it ; and in this the divine law agrees with every other. It condemns the sinner personally, and makes no mention of any way in which another can bear his penalty for him. The idea of the substi- tution of another in his room, to endure the sufferings deserved by himself, is something that comes not within the limits of law. It is beyond its prescriptions, but not inconsistent with them. It is entirely above the line of strict distributive justice, that is, of justice in its ordinary acceptation in regard to rewards and punishments, according to which every man should have his own due. Substitution, therefore, is not according to the letter of the law ; nor can it be said literally to satisfy its demands. It is not the guilty, in case of substitution, that suffers, but the innocent ; not he whom the law condemns, but he whom, con- sidered in himself, the law acquits and justifies. The strict principles of distributive justice are not by substitution fulfilled; but are for a special purpose, and by an act of sovereignty, superseded. For surely it is not necessary for me to expose the absurdity of the fancy, that the innocent substitute, by the imputation to him of the sins of those for whom he suffers, actually becomes the sinner ! This is the mere fiction of a bewildered mind. Neither does the substitute become the sinner ; nor does the sinner by any kind of interest he can have in the substitute, become himself innocent or meritorious. It is by such self-contradictory drivelling as this that the doctrine of imputation has been brought into discredit. The sins of the sinner are still his sins, though the substitute suffers on account of them ; the righteousness of the' substitute is still his righteous- ness, although the sinner is pardoned and accepted on account of it. In substitution, then, neither Christ nor the sinner is dealt with according to the strict terms of law, or of distributive justice ; for the guilty, who according to these should suffer, OF ATONEMENT. 371 escapes; and the innocent, who should escape, suffers. In procedure, there is an evident suspension or setting aside of these terms \ nor can it, we think, in strict propriety of speech, be said that by atonement, justice, in its distributive sense, is satisfied ; inasmuch as its direct requisitions are not exe- cuted, but 'its principles, on the contrary, overruled. It is, however, in another sense, satisfied, in that, although by other means, all its ends are virtually and most effectually answered. I apprehend it to be to the third of the senses in which the term justice is used that the great purposes of atonement have immediate reference. Public justice includes those great general principles of equity, according to which, in union with benevolence, the Sovereign Ruler conducts the government of the intelligent universe. To preserve unsullied the glory of these, to show the impossibility of their being dispensed with, to settle, in the minds of his rational and accountable creatures, the paramount obligation and immutable permanence of their claims, to give such a manifestation of the divine regard to them and jealousy of their infringement, as the fundamental principles of his immaculate administration, as should preclude the possibility of its being said or thought that in the pardon of sinners they have been in the slightest degree left out of consideration or held in abeyance ; and thus to render it consistent with what may unpresumptuously be denominated divine propriety, or, in other words, honourable to the united perfections of the divine character, to extend pardon to the guilty and receive them back to favour, according to the provisions of the Gospel. This is the end of atonement. It is in this sense, I apprehend, that the righteousness of God is " declared " or manifested, by the propitiation offered in the blood of Christ. God's infinite and unchanging regard to the great principles of His moral administration is attested and published in such a manner as that, in justifying the sinner who believes in Jesus, His righteousness may be as conspicuous as His mercy, and, in the minds of those who are forgiven, the 372 THE TRUE NATURE impression of the claims of the one may be as deep as that of their obligations to the other. Of public justice the two great ends are: the glory of God, and, in connection with it, the general good of His creatures. It is essential to the attainment of both these ends alike, that the authority of the divine government should be maintained, in its full extent, as inviolably sacred ; that one jot or one tittle should in nowise pass from the law ; that no sin, of any kind or in any degree, should appear as venial ; that if any sinner is pardoned, it should be in such a way as, while it displays the Divine mercy, shall, at the sametime, contain, in the very act of forgiveness, a testimony to the divine abhorrence of the sins that are forgiven. It is to be considered as a settled principle of the supreme government, that sin shall not be unpunished ; so that, if the sinner is pardoned, the manner of bestowing the pardon must be such as shall mark and publish the evil of his offence, so as to leave the character and government of the Most High without suspicion ; or, in the terms of the Roman orator, whose words may be applied with an infinitely higher amount of force to the universal administration of Heaven, than to any limited earthly rule : " Ne quid Respublica detriment! eaperet;" and, what stands still prior and superior : " Ne quid Gubernatoris supremi gloria detrimenti eaperet?" This object is attained, by substitution and atonement ; and, as far as we can judge, cannot be effected in any other way. In laying the sins of transgressors on the all-sufficient and voluntary Substitute, to be expiated by His vicarious sufferings, Jehovah, while He clears the sinner, does not clear his sins ; although clothed with the thunders of vindictive justice against transgression, He wears to the transgressor the smile of reconciliation and peace ; He dispenses the amnesties and all the blessings of His mercy from the throne of His holiness ; and, while exercising grace to the guilty, appears, to the admiring universe in the character, equally lovely and venerable, of " The sinner's friend, and sin's eternal foe ! " The mediation of Christ, then, as the atoning Redeemer, OF ATONEMENT. 373 you will perceive, I am disposed to regard as a grand general manifestation of the righteousness of Jehovah, by which all the claims of justice are. in the spirit of them, fully satisfied, and the glory of this attribute maintained in its unsullied brightness in the exercise of mercy ; such a manifestation as leaves the divine Being at perfect liberty to dispense His acts of pardon and His gifts of saving grace, more largely or more limitedly, according to His sovereign pleasure ; a general provision of security for the divine honour ; and a general remedy for human guilt and misery : admitting of a more extended or a more restricted application, as may seem good in His sight, who is righteous in the exaction of every penalty, and sovereignly and divinely free in the bestowment of every favour. 1 Having laid these general views before you respecting the proper nature and end of atonement, what remains to be said on this important subject will, I think, find an appropriate and perhaps a more efficient place, in considering the objections which have been made to the doctrine. These we shall take up in next lecture. 1 The general view thus given of the nature and ends of atonement are in agree- ment with those held and published by such modern writers, of the school of ^ moderate^ Calvinism, as Dr. Pye Smith, the late Andrew Fuller, Dr. Jenkyn, Mr. Gilbert, etc.; for brief definitions of atonement from whose works, I refer to "Dis- courses on the Nature and Extent of the Atonement of Christ." Pp. 10-14. A/C- XX. ON OBJECTIONS TO THE DOCTRINE OF ATONEMENT. IN examining such objections as have been urged against the doctrine of atonement, its true nature will be the more fully apparent ; and it will be found that misconceptions on this point are the source of most of the objections. (1.) I begin, then, with what might, with about equal pro- priety, hold either the first or the last place in the enumeration. , Atonement, it has been alleged, is unnecessary, a useless incum- brance. Why ruiirlit not the Divine Ikinir, in the uncontrolled / sovereignty of His dominion, have pardoned His erring creatures on their repentance, without requiring any satisfaction such as \ the doctrine of mediation and atonement supposes ? In answer to this, we may observe, in the first place, that it savours not a little of presumption. Surely it ill becomes the " creatures of yesterday," with understanding so limited, and views of the divine administration necessarily so circum- scribed, to sit as judges upon the proceedings of the infinite Ruler, and pronounce with self-sufficient dogmatism, what plans it might be best for Him to adopt, what course to pursue ? In all such cases, there is a previous question. Have we any means of ascertaining what this infinite' Ruler actually has done. If we have in our hands a revelation from Himself, ascertained to be so by " many infallible proofs," by a variety and accumu- lation of evidence, external, internal, and experimental, such as cannot be resisted without doing violence to our reason, and unsettling all the foundations on which human belief can rest ; then, this being ascertained, our first inquiry assuredly ought to OF ATONEMENT. 375 be : What is the doctrine of this book ? There is certainly no little hardihood of vanity on the part of such a creature as man, when he presumes to think that any of the ends of the divine government might have been equally well attained by other means than those by which the all-wise Administrator of that government has actually seen meet to adopt. When our subject is any part of the procedure of that Being, it seems to me that the safest and most becoming course for us is to form our judgment, not from theoretical reasonings of our own, but from what has, in point of fact, been done. To go further than this is to go beyond our province, into regions which are perfectly before that all-surveying eye, which embraces the infinitude of space, duration, and thought ; but which it is not ours to attempt to penetrate, where the created intellect that dares the attempt must grope in obscurity, and bewilder itself in a labyrinth of fruitless conjecture. There is a sense, and a very important one, in which, from what God has done, we may always, with indubitable certainty, infer the impossibility that He should have done otherwise. On the supposition of various methods for effecting the same end presenting themselves to His infinite mind, we should always remember that, in the case of a Being whose knowledge is boundless, and whose intuition is immediate and universal, best and only are terms necessarily synonymous. It is, in the strictest acceptation of the term, impossible that such a Being should ever choose anything but what is best. In saying so, we pay the same reverential homage to the intellect of the Godhead witn that which we pay to His moral nature, when we affirm it " impos- sible for God to lie." " His whole nature," it has been truly and finely said, " is but one great impulse to what is best." Whenever, therefore, we have ascertained what the course is which such a being has actually pursued, we have ascertained also the course which alone it was possible for Him to pursue ; excepting only in such cases, if such there be, as may admit of our imagining a variety of methods of accomplishing the same end presenting themselves to the supreme mind as in all 376 OBJECTIONS TO THE DOCTRINE respects equal hi the considerations by which they are respec- tively recommended to adoption. " To enter into the councils of the Almighty, and to decide what infinite wisdom must have determined under a constitution of things different from the present, were a speculation not less absurd than it is impious." 1 Very true. And is it much less absurd, or much less impious, to admit the supposition of its having been possible for the great God to do otherwise than He has done, under the constitution of things which actually exists ? We are, by this train of observation, then, led back to the simple question : What saith the Scripture ? If the doctrine of atonement or mediatorial propitiation be there, then that doctrine is sustained in its truth by the whole amount of evidence by which the Scripture is ascertained to be of divine original, " given by inspiration of God." It may be alleged, however, that one of the branches of evidence by which the divinity of the Bible is ascertained, is, upon my own admission, internal ; lying, that is, among other things, in the actual contents of the Record. And it has accord- ingly been affirmed by some of the bolder enemies of incarnation and atonement, that the existence of such doctrines there, could it be established, would be enough to warrant the rejection of the book ; would be a sufficient counterbalance to any imaginable amount whatever of other evidence. We must observe, then Secondly : That the end of atonement, in regard to the divine Being, when considered in itself, is, instead of unnecessary, so absolutely indispensable, that any supposition to the contrary is flagrant impiety. I speak now of the end itself, remember. That end is, the maintenance of the honour, of the character, law, and government of God, and that, in connection with the general good of the universe, in forgiving the guilty. Who will question the necessity of that end? What! Not necessary that, in the extension of mercy, provision should be made for the glory of righteousness ! not necessary that the claims of the law should be maintained inviolate, and the authority of the 1 Magee on the Atonement. OF ATONEMENT. 377 divine administration be unrelaxed and undisparaged ! Not neces- sary that the subjects of moral government should be made to feel, when sinners are pardoned, that there is no connivance at sin or light estimate of its demerits ! That these ends are necessary, no one surely, whose heart is influenced by becoming reverence of the divine Majesty, will for one moment venture to question. The only question must be : Is atonement, in the mode of it which the Gospel reveals, fitted to secure these ends ? We have endeavoured to show that it is, and to explain the principles on which it is fitted to secure these ends. If, then, the ends are necessary, some means were necessary. And if we have successfully shown that these means do effect the end, and that they are the means which God Himself, in His word, informs us He has used ; then it follows that these means were necessary, and that pardon could not consistently have been administered without them. Even on the supposition of our having been left hi ignorance of the reasons of any part of the divine pro- cedure ; if we were, by His own ascertained authority, assured that He actually had followed a certain course, that assurance should have been enough not only to impose silence upon us, and prevent us from " replying against God," but to have given us the most perfect confidence that there were reasons, the wisest and the best, as God's reasons always must be, for the particular step in question : only that, in His sovereignty, He had not been pleased to reveal these reasons to us, and that even for this concealment there were in His mind sufficient grounds. But while we must bow to that sovereignty of which, in truth, the essence consists in such concealment and not in caprice ; yet still it is a pleasant and satisfactory thing when He is pleased. to throw such lights upon His footsteps as to enable us to trace them, and to mark, successively, the " wisdom and prudence " by which they are guided. The reasons for atonement in order to forgiveness are written in the inspired volume as with a pencil of light. And if the ends effected by it were necessary, then are we war- ranted to affirm that it would have been wrong, and therefore impossible, for the divine Being to have acted otherwise. 378 OBJECTIONS TO THE DOCTRINE ^p Thirdly : These ends would not have been answered by the repentance of the sinner being made the ground of his forgive- ness. Repentance is necessary to forgiveness a sine qua non a condition, though not in any respect in the sense of desert, yet in the sense of indispensable existence or of being something without which the blessing cannot be enjoyed. This is a truth, a Bible truth. But it is not the ground of pardon, or in any way its meritorious cause. That is the atonement. I And, according to the Bible, instead of repentance being the i ground of forgiveness, that which is the ground of forgiveness \ is itself the motive, or inducement, or persuasive, to repentance. J It is that consideration by which the Spirit of God in the word is ever urging sinners to repent and- turn unto God. It should not be forgotten that in salvation there is a double end to be answered as it respects the sinners for whom it is provided. They are to be pardoned, that is, saved from sin's penal con- sequences ; and they are to be restored to allegiance. Now, while provision is made by the atonement for securing the glory , of God in the former ; provision is also made by it, a provision of appropriate means, for the effectuation of the latter. And the latter is not less necessary, in any forgiveness which we can imagine God to bestow, than the former is. To suppose a sinner pardoned, independently of any means to subdue his rebel heart to God and bring him again under the influence of the I principles of allegiance, humbling him to submission and inspir- ' ing him with the loyalty of love, is beyond our power, with any right conceptions whatsoever of moral government. And it is the manifestation of holy love in indissoluble union with purity and righteousness, in the Cross as the altar on which the sacrifice of propitiation was offered, that, under the agency of the Holy Spirit, accomplishes this end this peniten- tial surrender, this restored subjection of heart to the divine rule. To deny the atonement, therefore, and assert the suffi- ciency of repentance, involves the inconsistency of admitting, and even affirming the necessity of it, and yet denying the necessity of the Bible means of its production. Moreover, that OF ATONEMENT. 379 repentance is sufficient to obtain forgiveness, there is nothing in the analogy of providence that warrants us to conclude. There is much to the contrary. Repentance and reformation do not, in point of fact, in the present experience of mankind, place transgressors, with regard to the temporal effects of their sins, in the same state as if they never had offended. The ruined health and fortune of the intemperate and profligate are not retrieved the instant they repent and reform. Nor is there anything in reason to sustain the position. It is very manifest, that present obedience can only fulfil present obligation. There is, as has often been observed, just as good ground for affirming that former obedience atones for present sins, as there is for affirming that present obedience atones for former sins. Repent- ance neither alters the nature nor obliterates the guilt of what is past ; and present duty, even were it free from all mixture and imperfection, can do no more than answer for itself. It cannot possess, for our former selves any more than for others, aught of the nature or efficacy of works of supererogation. There will be no such works known at the bar of God. Again ; in the original constitution of things, there is no provision made for repentance, nor the remotest hint given of any such stipula- tion. " In the day thou eatest thereof, thou shalt die," are the unqualified and peremptory terms of the divine denunciation. It may be said, that it would have been unseasonable and inex- pedient to hold out any such stipulation at that time ; inasmuch as it would have savoured of compromise, and tended to take off from the dread of offending, by holding out the means of sub- sequent restoration from its consequences. In this stage of God's dealings, it would have been as inappropriate to hold out the efficacy of repentance as the promise of atonement. But when man had sinned, there is no stipulation of the kind intro- duced. That which the offended God then holds out, is not the independent efficacy of repentance and amendment to the obtaining of forgiveness, but the promise of a Mediator, a Saviour ; and the nature of that Saviour's mediation, as before observed, was intimated by the early language of typical institu- 380 OBJECTIONS TO THE DOCT1UNE tions and the plain intimations of prophecy. Still further : On what account is repentance itself admitted to be necessary to the sinner's forgiveness? Is not one of the grounds on which this is maintained, that it would not be consistent with the honour of the supreme Governor that transgression should be pardoned, and the punishment due to it remitted, while the transgressor remained impenitent and unsubdued ? If so, then in this very ground there is the recognition of a principle ; the important principle that the glory of the character and govern- ment of God must be vindicated and fully secured, in the terms on which pardon is administered. If this general principle be admitted, (and by whom can it be questioned ?) then a ques- tion naturally suggests itself: Who is the most competent judge of what is requisite for such an end? for duly securing the dignity of the infinite God, the honour of His throne, the throne of the Eternal. If that Eternal Being Himself, the Uni- versal Sovereign, has devised, and revealed, and carried into execution a scheme of mediation and atonement for this end, as His own fully accredited word, understood in its plainest and most obvious sense, unequivocally and pervadingly teaches us He has ; who is the worm of the dust, who, in the plenitude of his fancied wisdom, presumes to pronounce every thing of the kind unnecessary and a useless ^incumbrance ; and, understanding bet- ter than God Himself what is most suitable to God's character and most conducive to His honour and to the maintenance of the authority of His government, pronounces the repentance of the sinner sufficient ? May not the difference between the affirmations of God's word and the sentiments of such presump- tuous speculators arise from the difference between the divine estimate and theirs of the amount of evil and of evil desert in sin ; and from a corresponding difference in the divine estimate and theirs of the importance of impressing the intelligent uni- verse with its exceeding sinfulness and with the inviolable and eternal righteousness of the administration of heaven ? " If sin were a mere insult offered to majesty it might be overlooked ; for dignity is often more consulted by passing by an offence, OF ATONEMENT. 381 than by rigorously demanding satisfaction for every slight that is offered to it. If sin were a mere debt it might have been remitted, as a creditor may, without any impropriety, suffer his debtor to go free. If sin were merely a thing to be abhorred, it might have been pardoned simply on the person showing by his repentance, a disposition to abhor it. But it is something more than all this. It is the violation of a holy, just, and good law, an infraction of a moral constitution, in the main- tenance of which the honour of God and the good of all His moral subjects are concerned. This alters the case materially, and renders it necessary that steps be taken which would -not otherwise have been required." 1 The nature of these steps we have already seen, and shown how admirably they answer the designed end, and what a manifestation they thus contain of the " manifold wisdom of God." This subject has been viewed in a different light. There can be no doubt, in my apprehension, on the part of any who believe the statements of the Bible, that in the future punishment of unrepented sin there is not a little of the nature of direct and positive infliction, the execution of the curse, the fulfilment of a judicial sentence, on the part of a just and holy sovereign. The entire tenor of Scripture language-seems to warrant this conclu- sion ; though the mode of such infliction, which is evidently expressed in various figures and emblems of the acutest misery, it is not given to us clearly and fully to understand. At the same time, there appears also to be valid ground for the sentiment, that, in the moral constitution of the universe, there exists an inseparable connection, natural and necessary, between sin and misery ; that this is a law of the moral and spiritual world, as much as the falling of a stone to the earth is the result of the law of gravitation in the physical world ; that God has connected the two as cause and effect ; that the outward prosperity of impeni- tent sinners in this world is but an apparent anomaly ; and that the fixed and inevitable tendency will ultimately be made, in every case, clearly manifest. On this ground, then, rests the 1 Symington on the Atonement, p. 50. 382 OBJECTIONS TO THE DOCTRINE new view of the argument respecting the necessity of the atone- ment, to which I have just referred. " Were we even to con- cede that the Deity could remit the positive punishment of sin, by a determination of His gracious will, yet this would not effect the salvation of the sinner. This measure of gracious will (the supposition of which, however, I by no means think tenable), would be merely the forbearing from certain positive acts of righteous power, merely waiving a right ; merely declining to effectuate that which, speaking analogically, as the Scriptures so often do, would be an insulated act in the procedure of the blessed God, alien from the ordinary tendency and character of His government, and which He would not execute without the greatest reluctance, ' His strange work.' But under a very different respect, in moral consideration, would come the arbi- trary taking away of the natural and necessary consequences of sin. These are not inflictions ; but they are events and states of things which follow of themselves, according to the general constitutions of the universe, the laws of intellectual and moral nature ; constitutions and laws which are essential to the har- mony and well-being of God's entire world. To intercept this course of things which infinite wisdom and goodness have estab- lished ; to prevent these effects from ensuing, when their proper causes have already occurred, is not a case of forbearing to act ; it is the exact reverse ; it is a case of acting. It would be an interference of the Deity to suspend the operation of His own laws, to cut off the connection between the cause and the effect, to change the course of nature ; it would be to work a miracle. 1 1 Pye Smith's Disc, on Sacr., pp. 196, 197. While, however, I grant the natural and necessary connection in the government of God, or rather in the consti- tution of the moral universe, I cannot but t think that, by some, this connection has at times been placed in a mistaken light. I am strongly inclined to think, for example, that there exists such a mistake, when the suffering arising out of sin as its cause, and as necessarily connected with it, is represented as consisting simply in remorse. On the very question before us, whether the exaction of repentance alone might not have sufficed for the divine satisfaction without an atonement, Mr. Gilbert writes thus, after stating the distinction between repentance as meaning "simply a change of mind and conduct," and repentance as " including the painful emotion of remorse :" " But no such simple repentance, unaccompanied with painful emotions of guilt, belongs to the natural constitution of man. The actual working of repentance OF ATONEMENT. 383 To conclude : the affirmation that atonement is unnecessary, clearly amounts to an affirmation that atonement has not been in the case of conscious crime, is not by the change of habit for the future only, but by bitter reflections on the past; and, when treating strictly of moral administra- tion, is itself to be regarded as the penalty. Now, the pain of this remorse is often even more than equal to intense physical suffering. Men will prefer death, a violent death, to its endurance ; as they not unfrequently prove by voluntarily rushing upon it, even in its most appalling forms. This they do, in the hope of becoming uncon- scious, by which alone they expect deliverance. So long as they continue capable of thinking, they feel assured that they shall suffer ; suffering can only cease by their ceasing to exist. Remorse, so distinct from the award of mere positive law, is the effect of the divine practical judgment expressed in the soul, a moral feeling introduced into the essential constitution of mind by the Supreme Creator Himself. Now, as in cases of crime, repentance is itself the torment, the very penalty inflicted by the supreme moral Governor, it is manifestly absurd to consider such repentance as an expiation. It supposes that a penalty is at once removed from, and yet suf- fered by, the same person. To extract the sting of remorse, therefore, is still the thing required, for which provision must be made. To see of what nature such provision must be, we have to bear in mind that guilt or the feeling of remorse, as has been previously shown, includes essentially a reference to the judgment of other minds, and pre-eminently to that of the Supreme Mind. Tt is an expression of that judgment in our spiritual nature, of which we cannot divest ourselves. Could we in thought annihilate every other mind, we should become insensible to guilt ; but since the feeling of guilt is nothing else than a consciousness of divine disappro- bation, of that disapprobation, not as arbitrary, but as founded on the necessity of upholding a practical evidence of unchanging truth ; it can only be taken from the mind by a contrary conviction, based upon some efficient alternative." "This notion of penitence, that it expiates sin, when analysed, is found to connect itself with the idea that the punishment of sin is solely some external evil brought upon us. . . . Were deliverance to consist in some such thing as escape from actually inflicted stripes, from being cast into a pit of flame, or from any positive external cause of suffering only, then, with some show of reason, we might deem that God should be induced, by tears and efforts at amendment, not to send us to that fearful prison of darkness and of torture. But when the punishment, or an emphatic part of it at least, is in the mind itself, and in the very nature of that repentance which consci- ousness of crime will generate ; when it consists in remorse, it is manifestly absurd to say that- such remorse will deliver us from it." Now, without entering at present into any discussion relative to the nature of repentance, and the difference between it and remorse ; and without inquiring into the fairness (which appears tome somewhat questionable) of considering repentance as consisting only or chiefly in remorse, when answering those who plead for the sufficiency of repentance, independently of atonement, in order to the exercise of divine forgiveness ; when by them who thus assert its sufficiency, it would doubtless be understood as inclusive of the manifestation of the sincerity of the regret by the abandonment of the evil : not to dwell on such points, what I am desirous you should observe relates to the idea of punishment consisting in remorse, and in remorse as con- sequent upon sin, according to a fixed law of our moral constitution. That such a law does exist, I have no doubt. But I feel a difficulty in regard to what constitutes the suffering which remorse occasions. Let it be remembered, that it is of unrenewed men we are speaking ; not of the state and feelings of creatures that are under the influence of holy principles and affections, but who fall into occasional sin, or are 384 OBJECTIONS TO THE DOCTRINE made. This is the intended inference. But this involves a petitio principii. We are still entitled to recur to the question, conscious of universal imperfection and failure, and to whose spirits of course the very thought of trespass against God, and the incurring of His displeasure is agony ; but of creatures whose nature is in a state of confirmed alienation from God, who love evil and hate good. Now the question is : What is the real source, in the bosoms of such creatures, of the agony sometimes so intense and intolerable, which characterises remorse ? Is there not reason to think that it arises, in a very great degree, from the associated anticipation of judgment to come and future punishment. Suppose the fear of the damnation of hell, in whatever it may consist, were taken away, would not a large proportion, if not even the whole of the anguish cease ? Would not this, to an unsanctified spirit, take the venom out of the sting? Could you, therefore, fully convince the sinner, that future punishment consists simply in remorse ; that is, in such feelings as he now experiences, would you not effectually put an end to the misery of those feelings ? Remember, that in the hearts of such creatures, the love of God, concern for the divine glory, the hatred of evil, or any other gracious principle, has no place ; that there is, therefore, no element there from which the anguish can arise but selfishness : from which it would seem to follow that if you fully satisfy him, that in the punishments of the life to come there is nothing besides the operation of conscience, nothing besides remorse ; the conviction will set his mind at rest, because you thus take away from his present remorse that dread anticipation of something else from which it is that the wretchedness involved in it arises ? In the unrenewed mind, where sin is loved and God and holiness hated, what would remorse be if all it had to dread was remorse itself? Would there, on that supposition, be remorse, or would remorse be longer the agonizing sentiment it is ? If it were, if it continued to sting and to torture when every idea and every apprehension of anything else than itself was removed ; would it not then partake of the nature of a gracious sentiment ? And would it not, then, become necessary, in order to remorse being a source of suffering, that the sufferer should have the character of his soul changed, or, in other words, that he should have the principles introduced into his nature that would fit him for heaven, in order to his being capable of enduring the torments of hell? Then, if the anguish of remorse does arise in the unregenerate soul from the dread of punishment, the " fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation;" when it comes to be known that the remorse itself is the punishment, such anticipation is done away, and the anguish ceases with its removal. With regard ) therefore, to hell, it will become a question whether, on this hypothesis, the anguish of remorse could be experienced there ; since there, if the punishment be conceived to lie in the remorse itself only, the anticipation which here on earth constitutes its agony can have no existence. It must not be -forgotten that there the nature continues unchanged, more than ever alienated from God, and utterly evil. And similar remarks appear to be applicable to other-views of the same subject. In the present world, for example, how can you awaken in an unrenewed and sinful soul any adequate sense of the evil of sin, or the slightest uneasy stirring of apprehension for the future by affirming that sin itself is misery, and that to live in sin is to live in misery. By a holy mind this will be understood and felt. But by a sinner still under the full sway of evil, it will be unheeded as the idle wind, the pleasures of sin having been his very temptations, and he himself having rolled it as a sweet morsel under his tongue. To tell him that sin itself is misery, is to contradict all his experience ; he feels that his only misery is in the apprehension of consequences. Further, how can you make the idea of banishment from God dreadful, when the OF ATONEMENT. 385 What saith the Scripture ? and to conclude that, if there the fact of a propitiation having been made as clearly and unceas- ingly affirmed, and the doctrine of forgiveness on the ground of that propitiation with no less clearness revealed, there must have existed a necessity for it in the mind of the Divine Being, even although He had not seen meet to state the reasons of this necessity to us. In concealing the reasons, He would have acted in sovereignty ; and it would have been ours with a lowly spirit on which you seek to make the impression has never had a pleasant thought of His presence, and when to that spirit the very secret of its misnamed happiness has lain in the studied exclusion of Him from its recollections ? These questions hold a similar place and must have a similar answer with the question : How can you excite horror in the sinner's bosom by telling him of the anguish of future remorse, when in that bosom there exists no such present impression of the evil of sin as to impart to him any conviction of the possibility that the suffering from such a cause should ever be so intense and excruciating? How feebly can he realise it to his mind, even were he making the attempt ! And again : How can you inspire terror by describing the unbridled sway of evil passions, where these passions have already been reigning ascendant ; and, if any of them have been repressed and subdued, as they often are, by considerations in which godliness has no concern, how can you awaken a sense of misery merely from the anticipation of their renewed action ? And how light and inefficient, too, any impression you can produce by describing the company of evil angels and of human spirits wicked like itself, when society of a similar character has been preferred on earth to that of those who, with their present principles perfected, are to form the community of heaven ! For such reasons, I cannot but think that the future punishment of sin must be, to a great extent, judicial, consisting in direct privation and direct infliction. There will be the felt loss of all the pleasures of earth ; the consciously deserved forfeiture of all the happiness of heaven ; the unceasing and insatiable conflict of desires for which there is no gratification ; a sense of remediless, irreclaimable abandonment, together with some modes of suffering, both in the separate spirit and in the reunited spirit and body, of which we can form no very clear conception; but the fearful nature and amount of which are, in God's word, represented to us under the most terrific figures. I have no hesitation in so designating them. No one doubts of the " worm that never dies" being a figure ; and neither is there any reason to doubt that the " fire that never shall be quenched " is. Were there no other proof of this than one, that one seems sufficient, namely, that it is firo " prepared for the devil and his angels." For so far as our conceptions go, we can form no idea of spiritual essences being affected by material fire. But, while we are left in a great measure in the dark as to the precise nature of the sufferings expressed by these fearful images, the reason of their being used is, in all probability, what has just been mentioned the difficulty, if not impossibility, of conveying to unrenewed and unholy minds, in any other way, a sufficiently awakening and alarming impression of the fearfulness of sin's penal consequences. The connection' of sin with suffering, then, may be considered as arising at once from two sources : the law of the moral constitution of the universe uniting 1 them by a native tendency as cause and effect ; and the absolute certainty of the infliction of the judicial sentence, the curse, the death, the fire, included in the threatening of God's wrath against the workers of iniquity. VOL. II. 2 C 386 OBJECTIONS TO THE DOCTRINE sense of our incompetency to judge in "the deep things of God," to believe in their existence and their perfect consistency with the principles of the character and government of the Most High. But He has not left us thus in the dark. He has furnished us with principles on which we feel ourselves enabled most satisfactorily, on this momentous subject, to "vindicate the ways of God to man." We have in part endeavoured to show this already ; and it will still more clearly appear in reviewing the objections that remain to be noticed. (2.) It has been objected that the doctrine of substitution, that is, of the innocent suffering in the room of the guilty, involves essential injustice, and cannot, therefore, be true or the doctrine of Scripture. That on the supposition of its involving essential in- justice, it would not be the doctrine of Scripture, will not admit of question. It may, however, on the other hand, be observed, that another course of arguing might be fairly pursued. Surely those who thus assume the injustice of the scheme should have assured themselves well that it was not to be found in the inspired records of divine truth; that these records were susceptible, on principles of fair and honest criti- cism, and simple and consistent exegesis, of being interpreted without it, ere they ventured to take up such a position; lest they should be found " charging God foolishly," l " pleading wickedly for him." 2 But let us take the allegation and the conclusion founded upon it as they stand. We observe con- cerning them [1.] That, by some, in repelling the objection, ground has been taken up which does not appear at all satisfactory, inasmuch as it is answering the argument against the doctrine by what is no more than a statement of the doctrine itself; idem per idem. When I state it thus, I cannot think I misrepresent the fol- lowing reasoning: "It is overlooked by the objectors, that, although Christ was personally innocent, He was viewed as legally guilty. In Himself He could put to the most impudent 1 Job i. 22. * Job xiii. 7. OF ATONEMENT. 387 accuser the defiance: 'Which of you convicteth me of sin?' but as the surety and substitute of elect sinners, ' the Lord laid on Him the iniquity of us all ; He made Him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; He bare the sins of many.' It was for- merly explained, and we beg now to remind our readers of the explanation, that, when Christ took the place of offending sinners, He not merely suffered their punishment, but bore their guilt, that is to say, was regarded by the holy law of God as under obligation to suffer. Apart from this obligation, as was remarked, His sufferings would have been nothing more than calamities; there would have been nothing penal in them, nothing of the nature of punishment, nothing possessing the character of a legal satisfaction. In order to this, He behoved to be brought under an obligation to suffer; and, as He had no personal guilt by which this could take place, it was effected by the imputation of the guilt of others. ' The Lord laid on Him the iniquity of us all.' This alters the case entirely. Guilt, not in the sense of blameworthiness, but of legal answerableness, was His. Innocent, indeed, He was in Himself; and had He not been so, He could not have stood as the substitute of others; He must, in this case, have had to answer for Himself; but, while free from all personal guilt, He was pleased to take upon Him the guilt of His people ; and, in the character of their surety or substitute, was it that He suffered the penalty of the law. The law held Him guilty as standing in the room of the guilty, and in this character He suffered. Such a union subsisted between Christ and His people as to lay foundation for a reci- procal proprietorship, in consequence of which, while He was 'made sin for us,' we are 'made the righteousness of God in Him.' Nor let it be said, that this supposes God to have treated Christ as something different from what He was, as guilty when He was not guilty, which would be essentially unjust. By no means. He was not personally guilty, and God did not treat him as personally guilty ; but He chose to take upon Him our guilt; and God treated Him as one, not who had made Himself guilty by personal transgression, but who was the representative 388 OBJECTIONS TO THE DOCTRINE of the guilty, standing in their place, and bearing their sins in His own body. Such was the light in which God viewed Him ; and, viewing Him in this light, to inflict on Him the sufferings due for human guilt involved no infringement of legal rectitude or justice." 1 I have done all justice to this mode of arguing, by quoting the statement of it entire. I cannot but express my surprise, however, at the adoption of it by an acute writer, in answer to the objection against atonement, drawn from the alleged injustice involved in the doctrine of substitution, of the innocent suffering in the room of the guilty. For surely every one must be sensible that the whole paragraph is no more than a state- ment of the very thing against which the objection is urged ? All that is here stated is, that Christ being personally innocent, and therefore incapable of suffering on His own account, was held and treated as legally guilty on account of the adopted and im- puted guilt of others. This seems to proceed on the assumption, that if He only suffers for guilt He suffers legally and justly, no matter whether the guilt be His own or that of others. But this is the very thing questioned, and of which the rectitude is required to be established. Nay, I must go further. This excellent writer seems to me to go far towards ceding unintentionally the point in controversy, when he says : " Nor let it be said that this supposes God to have treated Christ as something different from what He was, as guilty when He was not guilty, which would be essentially unjust." 2 The admission of " essential injustice " in the supposition of Christ's being treated " as guilty when He was not guilty," is an admission, in my apprehension, fatal to the argument ; for that Jesus was " treated as guilty when He was not guilty," I do not see that there can be a ques- tion. To say, that though not personally guilty, He was legally guilty ; though not guilty by His own act, yet guilty by impu- tation, is, I fear, but a quibble upon words when the distinction is introduced in such a connection ; for, properly speaking, there can be no guilt that is not personal. The guilt of one can ' Symington, pp. 39-41. Ibid. OF ATONEMENT. 389 never, by any constitution or process of suretiship whatever, become the guilt of another. Actual transference is the gross- est of all conceivable absurdities, involving, as it does, a palpable contradiction ; and transference by what may be termed a fiction of law, is the very thing objected against. The objection against the justice of the personally innocent suffering in the room of the personally guilty can never, with any force or fair- ness, be met by the allegation that the personally innocent was substitutionally guilty, when it is the very doctrine of substitu- tional guilt against which the* objection is taken ? The vindi- cation of justice in substitution or atonement, we apprehend, must rest on other grounds. I observe, then [2.] We have very strong ground in matter of fact. In the very terms of the objection the innocent is supposed to suffer. The objection, indeed, has no ground but on this supposition. Here, then, is a matter of fact. The innocent suffers. Is this admitted ? By some of the enemies of atonement it is not easy to say whether, in the case of Jesus, it is admitted or not. They cannot, indeed, " convict Him of sin." Yet one presumes to speak of Him as " fallible and peccable," and another goes so far as to say that we have no sufficient data on which to determine whether, during His private as well as His public life, He was free from sin or not, and that to us it is a matter of no material consequence. We have formerly shown you the testimony of the Scriptures to His sinlessness both in nature and in conduct. But it is unnecessary to repeat the proof, inasmuch as the objection itself proceeds on the assumption of it. Taking it, then, for granted, let us consider the fact as it actually stands. Here we have an innocent person suffering, and (if we are to judge by His recorded expressions of anguish) suffering both in body and in mind to a degree altogether unprecedented. This is a strange fact, an extraordinary anomaly, under the righteous and benignant government of God. The question is : How is this fact to be accounted for? Let the objector answer the question. Why does this innocent person suffer ? As all suffering arises from sin, it cannot be on account of any evil desert of His own; the 390 OBJECTIONS TO THE DOCTRINE supposition of innocence forbids this. Will the objector allege, then, that He suffers in order to confirm the truth of His testi- mony, and to set before us an example of patience and constancy in virtue ? If he assigns such a cause, and such a vindication of the fact, he must be forgetting himself. He ought to recol- lect that this is suffering for us, for our good. It lies upon him, therefore, to reply to his own objection, inasmuch as it bears, in its fullest force, against his own hypothesis. If it be just in God to allow the innocent to suffer for these ends, why may it not be consistent with His justice that the innocent should suffer for other ends. If it be just that He should suffer as an example, how can it be proved unjust that He should suffer as an atone- ment? If it be just that He should suffer for an inferior end, how should it be unjust that He should suffer for an end incom- parably superior? There is no evading, no parrying, of this. If the fact, the mysterious fact, be granted, of an innocent per- son actually and awfully suffering ; the only rational, because the only adequate solution of the difficulty involved in it, is to be found in the Gospel doctrine of substitution and atonement, that " He who knew no sin was made sin for us, that we might be made the righteousness of God in Him." So strongly does the matter appear to me in this light, that the very existence of the fact, in my apprehension, might fairly be regarded as a proof of the doctrine. It is vain to ask the question : How is it recon- cileable with justice that the innocent should suffer for the guilty ? The previous question has been disposed of: how is it recon- cileable with justice that the innocent should suffer at all and the fact being admitted, where is the ground on which it can be more satisfactorily accounted for? [3.] We shall find another strong ground of vindication in the absolute voluntariness, and the supreme right of self-disposal, of the suffering substitute. The sufferings of Jesus were all, in the very strongest and most unqualified sense of the term, voluntary. And even this, how satisfactory soever in itself, is not the whole truth. According to the view which we hold, and which we believe the Scriptures to give as clearly as it is OF ATONEMENT. 391 possible for any truth to be expressed, of the divinity of His person, they could not possibly have been otherwise. Previously to His " taking upon Him the form of a servant," * He had no superior that could lay Him under any obligation to act the part He did ; nor would any obligation, therefore, have been violated, or left unfulfilled, had He refrained from so acting. When " He was in the form of God, and thought it no robbery to be equal with God," there was no will but His own that could bind Him. He had, what no creature had, the sovereign right of self-disposal. His " becoming flesh," and " being found in fashion as a man," was not an act imposed upon Him, but of spontaneous and divine condescension ; and in all that He endured in the nature which He thus graciously assumed, He was in all respects a willing sufferer. We grant that, according to all the most palpable principles of equity, compulsory or exacted sufferings would, in such circumstances, have been unjust. But the spontaneous sufferings of such a surety stand in a very different predicament. They are endured voluntarily and deliberately on His part, and as the result of high and holy and divine principle ; and they are endured with the full sanc- tion and approving concurrence of the Sovereign Authority, whose honour and whose inviolable sacredness they were designed to shield from injury in the administration of forgive- ness. [4.] We have strong grounds of vindication in the fact, that in the scheme of substitution, or of the innocent suffering for the guilty, "the just for the unjust," 2 all the great ends of justice, in the most exalted view that can be taken of it, even as it is exercised in the divine administration, are answered fully; answered even more gloriously than they could have been by the punishment of those whom the mediatorial substitute interposes to save. Instead of injury being done to the great principles of law and government, they are more signally illustrated, and more securely and immutably esta- blished, than they could have been by any other means whatever. 1 Phil. ii. 7. a 1 Pet. iii. 18. 392 OBJECTIONS TO THE DOCTRINE This I have endeavoured formerly to show ; and instead of repeating the illustration and evidence, I shall refer you to a very finely-imagined and well-sustained parallel drawn between the case of Christ's mediation and substitution under the divine administration, and a similar supposititious case under that of a wise and good earthly prince. " Let us suppose a division of the army of one of the wisest and best of kings, through the evil counsel of a foreign enemy, to have been disaffected to his government, and that, without any provocation on his part, they traitorously conspired against his crown and life. The attempt failed, and the offenders were seized, disarmed, tried by the laws of their country, and condemned to die. A respite, however, was granted them during his majesty's pleasure. At this solemn period, while every part of the army and of the empire was in expectation of the fatal order for execution, the king was employed in meditating mercy. But how could mercy be shown ? ' To make light of a conspiracy,' said he to his friends, ' would loosen the bands of good government ; other divisions of the army might be tempted to follow their example, and the nation at large be in danger of imputing it to lameness, fear, or some unworthy motive.' Every one felt, in this case, the necessity of a mediator, and agreed as to the general line of conduct proper for him to pursue. ' He must not attempt,' say they, ' to compromise the difference by dividing the blame ; that would make things worse. He must justify the king, and condemn the outrage committed against him ; he must offer, if possible, some honourable expedient, by which means the bestowment of pardon shall not relax, but strengthen just authority; he must convince the conspirators of their crime, and introduce them in the character of supplicants, and mercy must be shown them out of respect to him, or for his sake.'" Then follows a discussion of the necessary qualifications of a mediator in such a cause, the details of which we pass, only enumerating the particulars. He must be perfectly free of any participation in the offence, said one ; he must, said another, OF ATONEMENT. 393 be one who stands high in the estimation of the king and of the public ; a person of great dignity, suggested a third ; of tender compassion, added a fourth ; and one, as a fifth conceived, sustaining some relation to both the parties. The reasons for each of these qualifications are assigned. And the entire case is detailed with minute particularity to the very close, but in every point with singular ingenuity and felicity in the accommodation of the circumstances to the higher one which it is intended to illustrate. The conversation between the king and his son will sufficiently bring out the spirit and design, so far as our present subject is concerned : " Meanwhile, the king and his son, whom he greatly loved, and whom he had appointed generalissimo of all his forces, had retired from the company, and were conversing about the matter which attracted the general attention. ' My son,' said the benevolent sovereign, ' what can be done in behalf of these unhappy men? To order them for execution violates every feeling of my heart ; yet to pardon them is dangerous. The army, and even the empire, would be under a strong temptation to think lightly of rebellion. If mercy be exercised, it must be through a mediator ; and who is qualified to mediate in such a case ? And what expedient can be devised, by means of which pardon shall not relax, but strengthen, just authority ? Speak, my son, and say what measures must be pursued.' ' My father,' said the prince, ' I feel the insult offered to your person and government, and the injury thereby aimed at the empire at large. They have transgressed without cause, and deserve to die without mercy. Yet I also feel for them. I have the heart of a soldier. I cannot endure to witness their execution. What shall I say ? On me lay their wrong. Let me suffer in their stead. Inflict on me as much as is necessary to impress the army and the nation with a just sense of the evil, and of the importance of good order and faithful allegiance. Let it be in their presence, and in the presence of all assembled. When this is done, let them be permitted to implore and receive your majesty's pardon in my name. If any man refuse BO to 394 OBJECTIONS TO THE DOCTRINE implore and so to receive it, let him die the death.' ' My son,' replied the king, ' you have expressed my heart. The same things have occupied my mind ; but it was my desire that you should be voluntary in the undertaking. I shall be as you have said. I shall be satisfied ; justice itself shall be satisfied ; and I pledge my honour that you also shall be satisfied, in seeing the happy effects of your disinterested conduct. Pro- priety requires that I stand aloof in the day of your affliction ; but I will not leave you utterly, nor suffer the beloved of my soul to remain in that condition. A temporary affliction on your part will be more than equivalent to death on theirs. The dignity of yonr person and character will render the sufferings of an hour of greater account, as to the impression of the public mind, than if all the rebellious had been executed ; and by how much I am known to have loved you, by so much will my compassion to them, and my displeasure against their wicked conduct, be made manifest. Go, my son, assume the likeness of a criminal, and suffer in their stead.' ' He then proceeds to describe the admiring acquiescence of all the loyal and devoted subjects of the king's government, or rather of the members of the royal court. And, to bring out the spirit of what is meant by satisfaction to justice, and the harmony of the proposal with the eternal principles of rectitude, he says : " The only difficulty that was started was among the judges of the realm. They at first questioned whether the proceeding were admissible. ' The law,' said they, ' makes provision for the transfer of debts, but not of crimes. Its language is : The soul that sinneth, it shall die.' But when they came to view things on a more enlarged scale, considering it as an expedient on an extraordinary occasion, and perceived that the spirit of the law would be preserved, and all the ends of good government answered,- they were satisfied. ' It is not a measure,' said they, ' for which the law provides ; yet it is not contrary to the law, but above it.' nl I decline entering into the execution of the scheme, with 1 Fuller's Gospel its own Witness. Works, vol. i. ch. iv. pp. 104-107. OF ATONEMENT. 395 all the variety of its results, in regard to the mediator, the rebels, the community, and the government ; my object being to show that there is nothing in the idea of voluntary media- torial substitution inconsistent with the spirit of law and justice and the great ends of righteous government ; but that, when conducted, in its application, by the " wisdom and prudence " of the unerring mind, it may serve effectually and eminently to promote them. Generally speaking, it requires that wisdom to apply it without risk of worse than failure. " With respect to the innocent voluntarily suffering for the guilty, in a few extraordinary cases the principle may be adopted ; but the management and application of it generally require more wisdom and more power than mortals possess. We may, by the help of a machine, collect a few sparks of the electrical fluid, and produce an effect somewhat resembling that of lightning; but we cannot cause it to blaze like the Almighty, nor can we thunder with a voice like him." 1 [5.] There is but one other consideration I think it necessary to mention to complete the vindication of justice in the scheme of substitution, namely, that the scheme admits and includes a principle and an actual provision of ample compensation to the suffering substitute. And the illustration of this interesting par- ticular, I beg leave to give you in the language of one of the most powerful thinkers and most classically elegant writers of modern times : " However much we might be convinced of the competence of vicarious sufferings to accomplish the ends of justice, and whatever the benefits we may derive from it, a benevolent mind could never be reconciled to the sight of virtue of the highest order finally opposed and consumed by its own energies ; and the more intense the admiration excited, the more eager would be the desire of some compensatory arrange- ment, some expedient by which an ample retribution might be assigned to such heroic sacrifices. If the suffering of the substitute involved his destruction ; what satisfaction could a generous and feeling mind derive from impunity procured at 1 Fuller's Gospel its own Witness. Works, vol. i. chap. iv. pp. 104-107. 396 OBJECTIONS TO THE DOCTRINE such a cost? When David, in an agony of thirst, longed for the water of Bethlehem, which some of his servants immediately procured for him with the extreme hazard of their lives, the monarch refused to taste it, exclaiming : " It is the price of blood," and " poured it out before the Lord." The felicity which flows from the irreparable misery of another, and especially of one whose disinterested benevolence alone exposed him to it, will be faintly relished by him who is not immersed in selfishness. If there be any portions of history, whose perusal affords more pure and exquisite delight than others, they are those which present the spectacle of a conflicting and self-devoted virtue, after innumerable toils and dangers undergone in the cause, enjoying a dignified repose in the bosom of the country w r hich its example has ennobled, and its valour saved. Such a spectacle gratifies the best propensities, satisfies the highest demands of our moral and social nature. It affords a delightful glimpse of the future and perfect economy of retributive justice. In the plan of human redemption, this requisition is fully satisfied. While we accompany the Saviour through the successive stages of His earthly sojourning, marked by a corresponding succession of trials, each of which was more severe than the former, till the scene darkened, and the clouds of wrath from heaven and from earth, pregnant with materials which nothing but a divine hand could have collected, discharged themselves on Him in a deluge of agony and blood, under which He expired; we perceive at once the sufficiency, I had almost said the redundancy, of His atonement. But surely deliverance even from the wrath to come would afford an imperfect enjoyment, if it were embittered with the recollection that we were indebted for it to the irreparable destruction of our compassionate Redeemer. The consolation arising from " reconciliation with God," is subject to no such deduction. While we rejoice in the cross of Christ as the source of pardon, our satisfaction is heightened by beholding it succeeded by the crown ; by seeing Him who was "for a little while made lower than the angels, for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour ; seated at the right hand of OF ATONEMENT. 397 God, thence expecting till his enemies be made his footstool." " Thus, whether we contemplate the economy of redemption as a divine expedient for reconciling the moral attributes of God with man's salvation, or, in its final result, to the Saviour Himself, it is replete with moral congruity, and satisfies every demand of the understanding and of the heart." 1 1 Hall's Sermon on Substitution of the Innocent for the Guilty, Works, vol. i. pp. 514-516. XXL ON OBJECTIONS TO THE DOCTRINE OF ATONEMENT. (3.) WE have considered the objection to atonement, that it is irreconcileable with justice ; we now come to one of a complexion apparently very different, namely, that it is incon- sistent with grace. In reply to this, observe [1.] It seems somewhat wonderful, that, if the objection had any foundation in truth, the inspired writers themselves should not at all have been sensible of the alleged inconsistency. Their language shows this. They associate propitiation and grace, even in expression, without the slightest symptom of any appre- hension of the ideas being incompatible, or even of the one in the least degree affecting the other, unless indeed in the way of enhancing, rather than neutralising it. 1 This, then, being the case, inspired writers themselves thus connecting grace with mediatorial substitution and atonement ; we are well warranted to conclude that they must be in error who represent the two as incompatible, whether the error be the result of inconsidera- tion or of presumption. We are very safe to be in a mistake with an apostle. [2.] It may be granted, that, had the atonement proceeded at all on the principles of "commutative or commercial justice, according to which (as we formerly saw) the payment of the debt, whether by the debtor himself or by his surety, cancels the obligation, and puts an end to anything of the nature of its free remission ; had the atonement proceeded on the princi- ples of justice under this aspect of it, the objection would not 1 Rom. iii. 24 ; Eph. i. 7. OF ATONEMENT. 399 have been without force. There would not have been room left for the exercise of grace, the payments of commutative justice being exclusive of everything of the kind. And I can- not but think that the same consequence follows from the view of the atonement taken by those theologians who regard and represent the sufferings of Christ in the light of an exact equi- valent for the penal sufferings of precisely the number of sinners to be actually saved; and for the deserts, consequently, of pre- cisely the number and aggravations of the sins committed by them. This view of the atonement is held by some avowedly. According to them, not only was the atonement made only for the elect, but for the elect in such a sense, that, if more in number had been to be saved, more in amount of suffering must have been endured. This is what is strictly meant in the doctrine of exact equivalent; a doctrine which, to my mind, has ever been most offensive and insufferable. I regard it as distressingly derogatory to the infinite dignity of the atoning sufferer, and to the consequent infinite value of His sacrifice. It proceeds upon the assumption that these sufferings possessed just as much virtue as is sufficient for the salvation of all who shall be saved, whose precise proportion of punishment the surety is conceived to have borne, according to the guilt even of each particular sin ! From such a minutely calculating pro- cess my mind revolts with loathing. There is so much in it of the littleness of mercantile reckoning, of the balancing of a debit and credit account, of a pounds-shillings-and-pence satis- faction, that I have never been able to contemplate it with patience. And, what is more proper to our present purpose, it does seem, to a great extent, in everything save in the fact of the appointment of the surety, destructive of the exercise of grace in subsequent forgiveness. But, according to the view we formerly gave of atonement, as proceeding, not upon the principles of commutative but of public justice, no such objec- tion can at all lie against it. On grounds stated in a former part of the course, I am a believer in the doctrine of personal election. But election, I apprehend, did not proceed on any 400 OBJECTIONS TO THE DOCTRINE such principle as that of a stipulated exact equivalent in the sufferings of the Mediator. The atonement, as I conceive, left the Divine Being, in this respect, at perfect liberty to pardon, on account of it, whomsoever he would ; the atonement having rendered the bestowment of such pardon in every respect honourable to His righteousness. Such is the view given also by the late Andrew Fuller, and for which he was, by some hyper-orthodox divines, charged with Arrmnianism. But we must not be frightened by isms. There are plenty of them, and some of them sauced very frightfully, and may be used as bugbears to intimidate free inquiry ; but if that inquiry be reverential and humble, we must prosecute it prayerfully in despite of such imputations, the ism at which we ever and exclusively aim being Scripturism, an accordance of views with the " lively oracles." " The writer has no doubt of the atone- ment of Christ being a perfect satisfaction to divine justice ; nor of His being worthy of all that was conferred upon Him, and upon us for His sake ; nor of that which to us is sovereign mercy being to him an exercise of remunerative justice ; but he wishes it to be considered, whether the moral Governor of the world was laid under such a kind of obligation to show mercy to sinners as a creditor is under to discharge a debtor, on having received full satisfaction at the hands of a surety ? If He be, the writer is unable to perceive how there can be any room for free forgiveness on the part of God, or how it can be said that justice and grace harmonize in a sinner's salvation," 1 etc. On the principles of strict commutative justice, and on the supposition of exact equivalent, I see not how room can be left for grace, inasmuch as it would be a manifest infraction of all the claims of justice that the same debt should be twice exacted or the same punishment twice in- flicted. This objection does not hold against atonement, considered as the grand general expedient for maintaining the honour of righteousness in the extension of pardon ; but it does seem to hold, when atonement is regarded as the payment, for this sinner and for that of an exact equivalent for what was 1 Fuller's Works, vol. i. p. 113, note. OF ATONEMENT. 401 due l>y him, in the way of reparation for his offences. " In the case of the debtor, satisfaction being once accepted, justice requires his complete discharge ; but in that of the criminal, where satisfaction is made to the wounded honour of the law and the authority of the lawgiver, justice, though it admits of his discharge, yet no otherwise requires it than as it may have been matter of promise to the substitute." 1 And this promise or engagement to the substitute must have been free, proceed- ing on the ground of the great general satisfaction, not on that of stipulated individual compensation ; the latter, as has been said, taking away freedom from the act of forgiveness, and leaving it solely in connection with the admission and nomina- tion and acceptance of the substitute. [3.] In whatever light we regard matters in reference to the substitute, while to Him the pardon and salvation bestowed for His sake may be due to Him on the principles of just remune- ration for His mediatorial work and sufferings ; yet this alters not the state of the case in regard to the sinner : all is still, in the fullest sense, grace to him. The atonement had its origin in grace. The idea of divine favour being purchased by the atonement is not only inconsistent with right conceptions of the divine character, but is self-contradictory. Grace or favour cannot be purchased. Purchased favour is justice. A price having been paid for it, it has become due. The atonement does not purchase grace, but grace provides the atonement. And, be it observed, in providing the atonement, it does not provide that which is to cancel and put an end to its exercise in all the subsequent steps of salvation. It provides it for the purpose of rendering the further exercise of the same grace in receiving, pardoning, sanctifying, and eternally blessing sinners, consistent with the honour of the divine name, with the glory of Jehovah's character and government. This being its design, grace continues to characterise all its results. For- giveness, though on account of the atonement, is still by grace. " Fancy to yourselves a band of traitors, apprehended, Convicted, 1 Fuller's Conversations on Substitution, etc. Works, vol. ii. p, 515. VOL. II. 2 D 402 OBJECTIONS TO THE DOCTRINE lying in irons, under the sentence which their crimes have deserved. Suppose their prince, naturally benignant, desirous to extend mercy to them ; but at the same time, because wise and righteous and mindful of the interests of the community as well as benignant, solicitous to effect this in such a way as may at once secure the dignity and authority of his government, attach the hearts of the criminals to its administration and to himself, and impress all the subjects of his government with the conviction that the remission of the penalty in the particular case implies no relaxation of the rigour of the law, and the stability of its sanctions. Suppose that, in such circumstances, he should contrive some method by which these ends might be effectually answered ; and that, having completed his scheme, .and publicly announced its purpose, he should give the clemency of his heart its desired indulgence, would the pardon now be less a matter of free favour or grace to the delinquents ? Clearly not. The scheme does not render them one grain more deserving of it. It does not diminish their guilt ; it rather shows its magnitude, by declaring it such as could not be passed by without some precautionary means for securing the honour of the prince, and the respect due to his government. Nay, it aggravates instead of extenuating, by showing the character of the prince and government against which the rebels had risen up not a ruthless tyrant and an oppressive despotism, but a paternal ruler and an administration of equity and love. To them, therefore, the pardon is quite as much an act of mercy as ever ; and the character of the prince stands forth to more prominent view, and to more rapturous admiration, as adorned with the twofold excellence of a gracious solicitude to show mercy, and at the same time a decided attachment to righteous- ness, and a determination for the good of his subjects, that its claims shall not be trifled with, but shall be maintained invio- late. In like manner, the divine Ruler's adopting a plan for maintaining the honour of His character and government in the dispensation of forgiveness, does not in the least degree render that forgiveness le^ss a matter of pure grace to those who OF ATONEMENT. 403 receive it. And while it is pure grace, unblended with the very slightest obligation in equity, the dictate of sovereign and eternal benevolence ; it is also rich grace. Rich, indeed, that provided such an atonement ! and that, on the ground of the atonement so provided, blots out, to every sinner who partakes it, such an amount of guilt, and yet embraces among its favoured objects a multitude which no man can number, out of all kin- dreds and peoples, and.nations and tongues ! ' 51 Thus, all throughout is grace. There is grace in the origin, and grace in the execution of the plan of substitutionary atonement ; and when the atonement has been made, there is grace in the bestowment, on account of it, of all the blessings, commencing with pardon, of everlasting salvation. Beginning, middle, and end, from eternity to eternity, all is grace. Christ Himself is God's unspeakable gift, and eternal life is the gift of God through Jesus Christ our Lord. Grace provides the atonement, and grace, as free as ever, bestows its results ! (4.) It has been objected to the doctrine of the atonement, that it gives us unworthy and false views of the divine character. I confine myself to two points, and shall not require to dwell long upon either. It is alleged to represent the Divine Being first, as unamiable; and secondly, as mutable. [1.] With regard to the former, it cannot but seem strange that that should be represented as exhibiting God in an unami- able and repulsive light, which, in His own Word, is the theme on which, of all others, the inspired penmen delight to dwell, when they are desirous to magnify the infinite benevolence of His nature. The gift of His Son, as " the Lamb of God, to take away the sins of the world," 2 is "His unspeakable gift." 3 Their language is: " God commendeth His love to us, in that, while we were yet without strength, Christ died for us." 4 " Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that He loved us, and sent His Son to be a propitiation for us." 5 And this is in accordance with the language of the Redeemer Himself: "God 1 Wardlaw's Essays on Assurance and Pardon, pp. 199, 200. 2 John i. 29. 8 2 Cor. ix. 15. 4 Rom. v. 8. 5 1 John iv. 10. 404 OBJECTIONS TO THE DOCTRINE so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son," etc. 1 We often find a very great inconsistency among the philosophers of this world. They are eloquent in their ascriptions of infinite benevolence to Deity, and yet they cannot believe the possibility that for so trivial a portion of His dominions the scheme of incarnation and atonement, alleged to be revealed in the Scrip- tures, should ever have been thought of, far less carried into execution. Thus they contradict themselves ; alleging the bene- volence to be infinite, and denying the grand proof of its in- finitude ; rejecting it as an impossibility, as utterly beyond belief, as too great and too good even for a principle which they admit to be infinite ! pronouncing the benevolence to be without bounds, and then proceeding to set bounds to its exercise. An infinite gift is the most direct and satisfactory proof of infinite love. All else that God bestows is created; this is divine. And with regard to this objection, we have formerly sufficiently met and repelled it, when showing you that atonement bore no reference to the production of love, but simply to the mode of its expression. The objection, therefore, is founded in an utterly false apprehension of the end or purpose of atonement ; and has in it no shadow of truth, unless it is to be regarded as an unamiable and revolting view of God to represent His whole nature as delighting in mercy, yet, at the same time, considerate of the claims of righteousness, and not sacri- ficing one attribute of His character to another. If men will revolt from the Bible representations of God's holy justice, his wrath against sin, His jealousy of His glory, His avowed determi- nation not to clear the guilty ; if they cannot regard Him as amiable, unless He appears as a God all mercy,- who is to blame ? Is it unamiable in God to be holy, because a fallen and corrupt creature loves not His holiness? Is righteousness unlovely, because it cannot have fellowship with unrighteousness? Does the eye of the infinitely Good beam the less with compas- sion, that it is an eye which "cannot look upon sin?" When hatred is ascribed to God, it is not hatred of His creatures as 1 John iii. 16. OF ATONEMENT. 405 creatures ; the terms are, that He " hateth all the workers of iniquity." The hatred regards them solely as such. It is the character he hates, not the person. His love to the persons of sinners is manifested in the same event that most awfully displays His abhorrence of their characters. And the Mediator is appointed to atone for the sins, that the sinner, the perpetrator of them, may be saved from their penal deserts without any compromise of the rectitude of the divine administration, or the truth of divine denunciations. Is this unamiable ? Let it not be forgotten, that it is in His capacity of a righteous gover- nor that He pronounces sentence against transgression and carries the sentence into execution. There is nothing either in the sentence or in its execution, of personal vindictiveness. Were there any thing of this kind, it would not admit of atone- ment or commutation. It would require, in every case, to wreak itself on the offender's self. The vengeance denounced against transgression is not personal, but judicial ; and the provision of mediation and atonement, for the purpose of pre- serving inviolate the sacred rights of government a government in whose maintenance, in all its untainted purity of principle, the universe is interested, can never appear unamiable ; except to a creature whose judgment is biassed, and blinded by corrup- tion, and who is thence misled into mistaken and unfounded conceptions. [2.] The imputation of mutability to God, too, is, founded in entire misapprehension. I have already shown you, that there is, and can be, no change in God, who is, from eternity to eternity, " without variableness or shadow of turning." l A change of character would be a cessation of divinity. But this is quite consistent with changes in the relations in which His moral and accountable creatures stand to Him, and in the consequent state of His mind towards them. Surely no one will imagine, that when man, from being a holy creature, became a sinner ; from being loyal became rebellious ; from being actuated by love, became " enmity against Him ; " 1 James i. 17. 406 OBJECTIONS TO THE DOCTRINE the relation between him and God continued the same as before ; or that the state of the divine mind remained unchanged towards him ; that he either received him with the same com- placency, or continued in the same judicial position towards him as his moral Governor. It is evident, that complacency must have come to an end, when man lost that image of his Creator in which, as reflected from the creature, that Creator delighted : and, as a Governor, He who had said : " In the day thou eatest thereof thou shalt die," 1 could not retain the same relative position to mah in his guilt that He had sustained to man in innocence ; to man under sentence of death, as to man in the possession of the life which was the implicitly promised reward of innocence. But a change in the relations between the creature and the Creator is not, properly speaking, a change in the Creator Himself. Indeed, the very change in the judicial relation arises from the unchangeableness of the one party and the mutability of the other. The change came upon man. God remained the same. And it was His remaining the same in character that gave rise to the change of His position in regard to His fallen creature. It was because He retained all the unsullied purity of His holiness, that He could no longer regard him with complacency ; and it was because He retained all His truth and righteousness, as the principles of His moral administration, that He could no longer " hold him guiltless," but pronounced upon him the previously threatened sentence of condemnation. If, therefore, when man fell, there was a change in the relations between the parties, without any change in God Himself; there may be a change in the same relations again, without any change in God Himself. God may use means for restoring the guilty to favour and the sinful to holiness ; and when these means are effectual, there is a counterchange, the inverse of the former : God cancelling the sentence of death, and regarding them as pardoned and accepted, and subduing the power of ungodliness the enmity of the carnal mind, and bringing the heart under the influence of new principles and 1 Gen. ii. 17. OF ATONEMENT. 407 affections, such as those in'which He formed inau originally, and which have His sanction and approbation ; and, in as far as these are developed in their holy influence, beholding anew, with restored complacency, His restored image. Still, as before, the change is not in God, but in the relations subsisting between Him and His creatures. The change is in the latter. And surely it is no imputation of mutability to God, to say that He cannot regard sin and holiness, or a sinful and a holy creature, with the same sentiments, or consider them as in the same position arid status in relation to His moral government. If change is ascribed to God, when He is represented as " pacified towardg sinners for all that they have done," 1 as " turning from the fierceness of His anger and taking away all His wrath ; " let it be remembered that it is a kind of change which His own word imputes to Him, just as it does also, when it speaks of Hun as " repenting Him of the evil which He had threatened to do," 2 and as yielding up His announced purposes to the influence of believing and importunate prayer. He is only, in such cases, spoken of after the manner of men, acting as men do when they change their minds and when they give way to per- suasion. The declarations are to be understood as in full harmony with the divine declarations : " I am the Lord, I change not ;" 3 " My counsel shall stand, and I will do ah 1 my pleasure." 4 But in support of the objection it is alleged, that when reconciliation is spoken of in Scripture, it is the reconciliation of man to God, not of God to man. To this it may be replied [1.] That a dispute about the use of a particular word is of comparatively trivial moment, if the thing signified by it is found expressed in other words or phrases of kindred import. If God is not spoken of expressly as reconciled, yet we have, now and formerly, quoted terms from His own inspired records, so manifestly amounting in their import to the same thing, that it seems like trifling to debate about a mere word. The use of the word pacified is quite equivalent ; as are also the phrases turning from His anger, etc. I have, in these remarks, admitted 1 Ezek. xvi. 63. * Exod. xxxii. 14. * Mai. Hi. 6. * la. xlvi. 10. 408 OBJECTIONS TO THE DOCTIUNE the fact alleged, that reconciliation is a term used with relation to man rather than to God. 1 But then, let it be carefully observed That in Scripture the verb to reconcile is used, when the person said to be reconciled is not the offended but the offending party ; in which cases it clearly signifies, not the removal of the enmity from the heart of him who is said to be reconciled, but the averting of displeasure, and the obtaining of favour, in the bosom of him to whom he is reconciled. 2 In the one instance, the person addressed is not supposed to have any- thing against his brother, but to recollect that his brother has something against him. His brother is the party aggrieved, and therefore, properly, to be reconciled. Yet it is not aid : " Reconcile thy brother to thee," but " Be reconciled to thy brother." The former, however, is evidently what is meant. Gain thy brother ; make peace with him ; by becoming sub- mission and acknowledgments re-obtain his favour, and restore the exercise of mutual affection and friendly confidence. In the latter instance, Saul, David's master, was the offended party ; so that David's " reconciling himself to his master," properly means reconciling his master to him ; ingratiating himself into his favour ; in a word, propitiating him. The same thing is clear from the very passages quoted in support of the objection. 3 In the former passage " God's reconciling the world unto Him- self" is evidently explained by His "not imputing their trespasses unto them," and means, therefore, in conformity w r ith the use of the same phraseology, as we have seen elsewhere, bringing sinners, by forgiveness, into a state of favour, accep- tance, and friendship with Himself. And as to the latter passage, its connection with the preceding verse is sufficient to show that the meaning of being reconciled is there the same. If " reconciliation to God by the death of His Son" is not here inclusive of, if not identical with, being "justified by His blood," there is neither continuity nor conclnsiveuess in the apostle's reasoning. 1 1 Cor. v. 18-21 ; Rom. v. 10. 2 Matt. v. 23, 24; 1 Sam. xxix. 4. 3 2 Cor. v. 19; Rom. v. 6, 10. OF ATONEMENT. 409 In answering these various objections, I have taken no notice of one topic that has at times been a good deal insisted on by vindicators of the atonement ; I mean the extraordinary and unique character of the transaction. I have avoided this, because our chief business is with its principle ; for if, on correct grounds, we can show that in the principle of mediatorial substitution there is nothing but what is reconcilable with the great claims of public justice; in making that one point good we have done enough. When we anxiously insist on the extreme caution and rarity with which the principle ought to be brought into application, and on the danger of frequent recurrence to it, we are apt to induce a surmise of our not, after all, being quite sure about it in itself; of our still having, when we have said all we can say in its vindication, our lingering doubts and mis- givings. It may, however, be admitted to be at least a probable truth, if not an absolutely certain one, that the media- torial substitution of Christ, the Son of God, in the room of our guilty race, is unique in the divine administration. Of the only two descriptions of fallen creatures of which we have any knowledge, the introduction of the principle of redemption, by a mediatorial substitution, has had place in r.egard to one of them only. And, although in our extreme ignorance of the infinite essence of the Godhead, and of the mode of its union with the human nature in the person of Immanuel, it would be going presumptuously far for us to affirm the impossibility of any similar union in any other case ; especially when we take into account the parallel difficulty in the nature of the connection between the' omnipresent Deity and every point of space : yet that union gives strong probability to the supposition of its standing alone. At the same time, there has often, in my apprehension, been evinced too strong a propensity to this kind pf assumption, the assumption of our world being the only theatre of any such marvellous manifestations of divine benevo- lence in union with divine righteousness, as that which the mediatorial scheme of the Gospel presents; to claim for ourselves a kind of monopoly of the most stupendous wonders of God's 410 OBJECTIONS TO THE UOCTIUNE moral administration. But are we sure that we are right in this? " The overwhelming magnitude of God's dealings with our world may not, by any means, be valid ground for the conclusion that they must necessarily stand alone, and bear a transcendent superiority to any of the measures of His govern- ment in other worlds. It is true, indeed, that we cannot imagine them surpassed. But are we sure that we are doing justice to Deity in this conception of their solitary grandeur, of their incomparable superiority to the average scale of His moral administration? Is the principle of such a conception legiti- mate ? Is it in harmony with our inferential conclusions in other departments of the divine doings? Amazed as we are by the displays of power and wisdom and goodness in the productions of nature, animate and inanimate, within the bounds of our own world ; does it ever enter into our minds to regard them as so far surpassing those which, had we access to other worlds, we should discover there, that by the enlargement of our range of observation our conceptions of these divine attributes might possibly be depressed rather than elevated, contracted rather than amplified? Do not we, on the contrary, assure ourselves, that, were that range extended, we should find, in every department of its widening amplitude, all in harmony with what meets our view within our limited field of vision : the manifestations of power, wisdom, and goodness, if not surpassing, at least not sinking beneath those which are now submitted to our investigation? Why, then, should we reason otherwise, with regard to the moral administration of Deity? Why should we not, in this case as well as in the other, make what we do know the standard of our estimate of what we do not know ? Why should we not consider the conduct of the Godhead towards our world as a specimen of the general style of gran- deur in which the divine government is administered throughout the whole extent of His universal empire? There may be nothing the same in kind ; but surely it does not follow, that there can be nothing resembling it in characteristic greatness. In an extensive human empire, subdivided into various provinces, OF ATONEMENT. 411 the transactions in no two of these provinces may be, in every n-spect, the same. They may, and, under a wise administration they undoubtedly will, be of a nature appropriate to the circum- stances of each. But they will all bear the impress, and indicate the character of the presiding mind ; and thus, corresponding with the mental and moral character of the ruler, they will, in their general complexion, harmonize with each other. So may it be in the empire of the Supreme Governor, the universe of unnumbered worlds. Make the supposition, if you will, that among them all there is not another standing in the same circumstances with our own, and requiring the same or similar measures for its deliverance ; yet there appears to be no presumption in conceiving, that throughout His boundless dominions, the infinite God may be carrying on His adminis- tration on a scale of moral magnificence, of which the dealings of His righteousness and mercy towards ourselves, in the mediation of His Son, are no more than a fair exemplification ! And if the criterion be an admissible one, how stupendous the conception given by it to our minds of the government of the Eternal. And certainly it is not the less likely to >be true, that it is stupendous. What conception can be too lofty of the administration of Him who saith: " Heaven is my throne, and the earth is my footstool ; " "Of whom, and through whom, and to whom are all things." XXIL ON THE CONNECTION OF THE DIVI- NITY OF CHRIST AND ATONEMENT. IN all our discussions respecting the doctrine of atonement, the collateral doctrine of the divinity of Christ has been assumed, on the ground of previous evidence adduced in its support. Yet you cannot have failed to perceive the connection between the one doctrine and the other. They are doctrines that must stand or fall together. I am aware that, while 110 mere humanitarian that I know of acknowledges the doctrine of atonement by Christ's death, there are Arian writers who in words do acknowledge it ; holding the pre-existence of Christ, ere He appeared in our world, they regard Him as the first and highest of creatures. Some even use terms which imply a kind of communicated or inferior godhead. I presume, however, it will be found consistent with fact, that just in proportion as their notions of Him rise, and approximate towards divinity (if approximation ought to be spoken of, when the distance, how high soever you ascend in the scale of created greatness, must still be infinite), will they be found holding something analogous to the Scripture tenets of mediatorial propitiation or atonement. This seems to show that the connection I have mentioned is natural ; the Socinian uniformly denying, and the high Arian granting an atonement. And yet, as it is but a kind of divinity (most anomalous and self-contradictory) that is admitted ; so is it but a kind of atonement, one of which they speak in terms of very vague and undefined generality. The true atonement stands in Scripture in inseparable association with the Deity of the Mediator, and the consequent infinite worth of His propitiation. This is finely brought out in a passage before DIVINITY OF CHRIST AND ATONEMENT. 413 referred to. 1 BY HIMSELF He expiated our sins. No terms could more explicitly or emphatically convey the connection of the divine dignity of the priest as entering essentially into the value of His sacrifice when He "offered up Himself;" when He " put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself." There are some divines, however, and Christian philoso- phers, who agree with us in holding both doctrines, but who seem to question the necessity of the one to the other ; who are by no means satisfied that the real efficacy of atonement arose from the intrinsic or divine worth of the offering, but who attribute its efficaciousness to divine appointment alone. These writers cany their caution, as it seems to me, in speaking of the principle of atonement, or the ground on which it proceeds and the manner in which its object is by means of it effected, even beyond the limit of Scripture. Caution on all subjects connected with a theme so high above the level of our faculties, and embracing a range so far beyond their utmost extension, is always becoming and commendable. But it ought not to preclude our taking all the light the Bible gives us, and going as far as we can have that light with us. It does seem to me, and I trust the previous illustrations of the subject have shown it, that, under this light, the nature of atonement, the principle of it, the mode of its operation, or what may bQ called the rationale of it, is not entirely one of those " secret things that belong unto the Lord " 2 one of those mysteries that are still hid in the Divine Mind, and which it is not within our province at all to explore ; but that there are statements and representations of the case in God's word such as warrant our speaking about it, even with some measure of explicit under- standing : in what way it is that, by the substitutionary suffer- ings of such a Mediator, Jehovah so manifests His righteous- ness for the remission of sins, as that He may justify the ungodly, in full consistency with the maintenance of its claims, and even to the augmentation of its honour; and on what ground, consequently, it is that such atonement was necessary. 1 Heb. i. 3. s Deut. xxix. 29. 414 CONNECTION OF THE DIVINITY Among the writers to whom I refer,^ I think we must reckon one who holds a deservedly eminent place- among meta- physical divines, Bishop Butler. He does not, indeed, in so many words, deny the necessity of our Lord's divinity to the efficacy of His atonement, and affirm that efficacy to have been owing exclusively to divine appointment ; but his language on the subject is exceedingly vague, his " trumpet" gives an " uncertain sound ;' 51 and he seems of opinion that we have no principle made known to us in the divine word by which we can at all comprehend how the atonement produced for men even that kind and amount of benefit which, according to his theory, it actually availed to obtain. " Christ oifered Himself a propitiatory sacrifice, and made atonement for the sins of the world. Sacrifices of expiation were commanded the Jews, and obtained amongst most other nations from tradition, whose original, probably, was revelation ; and they were continually repeated, both occasionally and on the return of stated seasons, and made up great part of the external religion of mankind." ' Now once in the end of the world hath He appeared, to put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself.' And this sacrifice was, in the highest degree and with the most extensive influence, of that efficiency for obtaining the pardon of sin, which the heathen may be supposed to have thought their sacrifices to have been, and which the Jewish sacrifices really were, in some degree and with regard to some persons. How, and in what particular way, His sacrifice had this efficacy" (the efficacy of obtaining the pardon of sin), "there are not wanting persons who have endeavoured to explain ; but I do not find that the Scriptures have explained.it. We seem to be very much in the dark concerning the manner in ' which the ancients under- stood atonement to be made, i. e., pardon to be obtained, by their sacrifices. And if the Scripture has, as surely it has, left this matter of the satisfaction of Christ mysterious, left some- what in it unrevealed ; all conjectures about it must be, if not evidently absurd, yet at least uncertain. Nor has any one 1 1 Cor. xiv. 8. OF CIIHIST AND ATONEMENT. 415 reason to complain of the want of further information, unless he can show his claim to it. Some have endeavoured to explain the efficacy of what Christ hath done and suffered for us, beyond what the Scripture has authorized. Others, pro- bably because they could not explain it, have been for taking it away, and confining His office, as Redeemer of the world, to His instruction, example, and government of the church. Whereas the doctrine of the Gospel seems to be, not only that Christ taught the efficacy of repentance, but rendered it of the efficacy which it is by what He did and suffered for us ; that He obtained for us the benefit of having our repentance accepted unto eternal life ; that He put sinners into a capacity of salvation by what He did and suffered for them. And it is our wisdom thankfully to accept the benefit, by performing the conditions on which it is offered on our part, without disputing how it was procured on His." " Certain questions have been brought into the subject before us, and, I fear, rashly determined. For instance, whether God could have saved the world by other means than the death of Christ, consistently with the general laws of His government ; and what would have been the condition of the better sort of men, if Christ had not died. The meaning of the first of these questions is greatly ambiguous ; and perhaps the very inquiry, ' What would have followed if God had not done as he has done ?' may have in it some very great impropriety." 1 With all becoming deference to a writer of so well-earned reputation for acuteness, I must express a doubt, whether the circumstance of his taking such a view as is here given of the object of atonement may not have been in part the cause of his speaking so very much in terms of obscurity and indecision respecting the nature or principle of it. Instead of being re- garded (as we think the Scriptures with all simplicity teach us to regard it) as the divine method of so declaring, manifesting, or vindicating the righteousness of God in the bestowment of free forgiveness ; a scheme above the letter of the law but in har- 1 Butler's Analogy, etc., part ii. chap. v. 416 CONNECTION OF THE DIVINITY moriy with its spirit, for securing its sacred authority and the inviolability of its sanction in the very remission, by sovereign mercy, of its merited penalty : the atonement is considered as putting sinners into a capacity of salvation, by imparting an available virtue or efficacy to their repentance for this end. Thus, instead of directly saving them, so far as the ground of their acceptance with God is concerned, it only puts them into a capacity of saving themselves. Instead of its having in itself the virtue that merits their salvation, it only gives a meritorious virtue to something in themselves, namely, their repentance. We can hardly wonder at the embarrassment in the attempt to conceive the manner in which the one stands connected with the other. It seems as if repentance, after all, were considered as the natural ground, that which reason suggests and approves, on which pardon should be administered ; but that God, for some reasons known to Himself but unrevealed to us, has seen meet to interpose, between this and the immediate attainment of for- giveness, the sacrifice of His Son's atonement ; the nature of whose influence in the matter is an entire secret, respecting which we are to exercise faith in the wisdom of God, believing in its hidden suitableness, though without the least understand- ing of it ! It is repentance that has the efficacy to pardon and salvation; only, in some mysterious incomprehensible way, this efficacy is derived from Christ's sacrifice. But a difficulty which arises from an unscriptural view of the proper object of atone- ment does not of course apply to the right view, respecting which the Scriptures do appear to be by no means unexplicit or dark. There are principles laid down with sufficient precision, on which, with all humility, yet not without a considerable measure of pleasing and satisfactory confidence, we can discern the place which substitutionary propitiation holds, and the rationale of its efficiency. Whitby indicates the same hesitancy in regard to the neces- sity of the atonement in order to forgiveness. On the text, 11 For it became him," 1 etc., he writes : " The apostle doth not 1 Heb. ii. 10. OF CHRIST AND ATONEMENT. 417 say Christ's sufferings were absolutely necessary to satisfy divine justice, that infinite mercy could not pardon sin without a satisfaction to justice, and that infinite wisdom could contrive no other way for the atonement of our sins ; but that divine wisdom saw it fit that Christ should suffer for the ends afore- mentioned." It would seem to follow, that if God might have pardoned sin without a satisfaction at all, that He might have pardoned it without such a satisfaction as the one actually made, i. e., that atonement itself not being necessary, the divinity of Christ could not be necessary to the atonement made. And yet it may be remarked in passing, that the very terms of the text which gives occasion to these remarks, although not directly expressive of necessity, do necessarily imply necessity. Can there be any necessity more absolute than that a Being, infinite in rectitude and infinite in knowledge, should do that which " became Him," (Zirgeirs yu.% avrGi} ? There was surely a moral necessity for His doing " what befitted His nature " and the principles of divine propriety. It was not only necessary, in a vague and general sense, that He should do what became Him and what most became Him ; but it was impossible that He should do any thing but what perfectly became Him, what was in every, even the minutest, point in congruity with every attri- bute of His character. To allege that God might, had He so pleased, have done otherwise than He has done ; while it bears the semblance of unpresuming humility on our part, and of a compliment to the inexhaustible resources of His wisdom, is, after all, no such compliment. The supposition which is truly honourable to God is, that, being absolutely and infinitely per- fect, He can never in any case act otherwise than in one way, that way being the best. You will find similar sentiments to those of Whitby in Mac- knight's Commentary on the same passage, and in other places. And the same, too, were the sentiments of the late Arch- bishop of Dublin, Magee. He even entitles one of his disserta- tions : " The Doctrine of Atonement Falsely Charged with Pronouncing on the Necessity of Christ's Death." VOL. n. 2 E 418 CONNECTION OF THE DIVINITY There are shades of difference in the opinions of the class of writers of whom these are a favourable specimen ; but they agree in such points as the following : That the death of Christ was not, or at least that we have no certain evidence that it was, necessary to the salvation of men ; that God, had it so pleased Him, might have saved them without the mediation of His Son, and even without a satisfaction to justice at all ; at any rate, that it is unwarrantable to affirm that He could not ; that other ways of salvation, for aught we know, were possible ; and that there is no necessary or exclusively appropriate connection between the death of Christ and the pardon of sin, but only that which results from God's willing it ; and, consequently, that the efficacy of the atonement does not at all arise from the dignity of the sufferer, but simply from the divine determination and appointment ; whence it follows, that there is no essential con- nection between the divinity of Christ and the efficacious value of His offering. Assuming, therefore, the fact of Christ's divinity, and the fact that His death in the human nature was an atonement for sin, the inquiry comes to be : Whether, since there could not be a higher, any inferior atonement could have answered the same ends with that which was actually offered ? Which is identical with the question : Whether the atonement actually made owes its virtue, in any respect, to its own intrinsic excellence and worth, or exclusively to its being that which God I saw fit to adopt ? For a pretty full discussion of this very interesting question a question very far from being one of mere speculative abstrac- tion, one that is pregnant with the richest practical utility, I must refer you to the NINTH of the Discourses on the Socinian Controversy, which is exclusively -devoted to the consideration of it. I shall only at present enumerate the particulars, and add a remark or two confirmatory of our conclusions from them. (1.) There is no small presumption, though under the semblance of a compliment to the inexhaustible resources of divine wisdom, in the very supposition that the end might have been effected by other means than those which that wisdom has OF CHRIST AND ATONEMENT. 419 actually employed. I illustrated this position, by endeavouring to show that, under the administration of infinite perfection perfection in knowledge, in wisdom, and in rectitude of principle, best and only are synonymous terms. (2.) In the case before us, every supposition is, by the very nature of the thing, precluded, of a number of methods appear- ing to the mind of this infinitely perfect Being equal in their eligibility, that is, precisely alike in their propriety and fitness. The plan actually adopted is one so necessarily unique, it stands so much alone, there are in it features which place it so entirely and transcendently per se, that it is impossible for an instant to imagine any other plans coming into competition, or even into comparison with it. We can admit the idea of a choice between creatures ; but a choice in the selection of an instru- ment between creature and Creator ! we revolt from the very thought. It could not be. The disparity becomes so vast as to invest the very imagination of such choice with blasphemy. If a divine atonement was in any sense necessary, a created atonement must have been infinitely inadequate ; and if a created was sufficient, a divine could never have been made. (3.) The hypothesis that nothing more than divine appoint- ment was requisite to render any atonement adequate, involves a serious impeachment of more than one of the divine per- fections. [1.] Of the wisdom of God, as having adopted means the most stupendous for effecting an object which might have been effected by such as were, even by infinite degrees, inferior. [2.] Of His goodness ; for the hypothesis supposes Him to have done what no idea we can form to ourselves of a good being will for one moment allow us to fancy He could do to have inflicted needless suffering, and that even to a degree by us incomprehensible. The hypothesis thus precludes the possibility of reconciling the fearful scenes of Gethsemane and Calvary with divine benevolence. The prayer of the suffering Son of God, the beloved of His Father : " If it be possible, let this cup pass from me," 1 settles the question. It must haw 1 Mat. xxvi. 39. 420 CONNECTION OF THE DIVINITY passed from Him had it been possible. [3.] Of His justice ; all infliction of unnecessary suffering, suffering without an adequate end, (i. e., an end that could not be effected without it,) necessa- rily involving a reflection on the righteousness as well as on the goodness of Him by whom it is inflicted ; and, above all, such infliction upon a guiltless person upon perfect innocence. We have seen on what sound principles the justice of God can be vindicated in the transaction ; but if the end could effectually have been answered without the sufferings, the vindication of justice in their infliction will be a very different task. (4.) To do justice to the hypothesis, it may be alleged, we should not confine ourselves to the blood of bulls and goats, but take the case of the highest of created intelligences. The impos- sibility which the apostle predicates of the former might not be justly predicable of the latter. We answer: [1.] The same objection as before clearly holds in its full force, derived from the wisdom, goodness, and justice of God, especially from the first of the three ; inasmuch as, however high you mount upwards in the scale of created existences, the distance, when you have reached the loftiest imaginable point, is still infinite between that and Deity : the difference between a beast of the field and an archangel being nothing to that between the arch- angel and God. [2.] In the nature of the thing, the substitu- tion of creature for creature is out of the question ; every creature owing to its Maker, on its own account, all the obedience and service of which it is capable, so that there can in no case be any foreign stock of merit transferable from one to another. [3.] The supposition of the appointment of any creature to the work of mediation and atonement, could it be made, necessarily infers the consequence of that creature coming under an obligation to perform the service that is assigned to it by Him who has the sovereign right to command, and who could never command anything but what is right ; and hence arises the obvious and beautiful propriety in the appointed Mediator, being one who had an entire and absolute right of self-disposal. In the former case, not to fulfil the appointment OF CHRIST AND ATONEMENT. 421 would be rebellion against supreme authority, and never could we have felt towards such a mediator (had such been possible), as we do towards one entirely, divinely free. And [4.] Hud it been possible for us to owe our salvation to the mediation of a fellow-creature, we should have been in danger, involving a temptation almost insuperable, of holding that creature in an idolatrous gratitude, of dividing our hearts between him and God ! Among other grounds on which I rest my admiration of the manifold wisdom of God in the scheme of redemption, this is one : that He has so ordered it as to admit of our giving full and unrestrained scope to the exercise and utterance of our gratitude, without the remotest hazard of an idolatrous senti- ment, of the withdrawment from the Godhead of a single feeling of which He ought to be the object. We need lay it under no restraint. Let it flow forth in all its exuberance. It never can exceed, for the object of it is : " Over all, God blessed for ever!" 1 (5.) In all our estimates on this subject, we should not forget to take into account the infinite dignity of one of the parties between whom the Mediator interposes, and between whom, by His instrumentality, the reconciliation is to be effected. The infinite Jehovah was one of them ; and to assert, and vindicate, and effectually secure the honour of the eternal throne, as was included, and chiefly included, in the purposes of atonement, was a task too high in glory for any creature, or for all the creatures of God together. The Mediator whom the Gospel makes known is well designated " the Wonderful ;" 2 being, by His complex person, a partaker of the nature of both the parties between whom He mediates, capable at once of sympathizing with the infirmities of the people whom He saves, and competent in dignity to sustain the claims and the glory of the " High and Lofty One who inhabiteth eternity," from whose righteous sentence of condemnation He saves them. (6.) The hypothesis in question, by affirming that, had God so willed it, a sacrifice of infinitely inferior value, even the 1 Rom. ix. 5. 2 Isa. ix. 6. 422 CONNECTION OF THE DIVINITY very " blood of bulls and goats," might have sufficed to take away sin, serves to lessen, in a most injurious manner, the impression on the minds of creatures of sin's exceeding sinfulness. 1 This is clear; for, in that case, the testimony of the evil of sin given to mankind by the atonement, actually made in the tears, and agonies, and blood, and death of the Son of God, is utterly extravagant, a complete illusion ; we are entirely misled by it. (7.) On similar grounds, it must at once be obvious how the hypothesis serves to lower the Saviour in the grateful estimation of sinners of mankind, and in the ardent and delighted admiration of other creatures. How repressing to all such sentiments and feelings, if, instead of His standing alone in the universe of being as the only competent Mediator between the offended God and His offending creatures, the " daysman " who alone could " lay His hand upon both," 2 whose blood alone could suffice to expiate guilt, and whose intercession alone could prevail at the divine throne for an indemnity to the rebels on whose behalf He pleads ; if, instead of this, it needed but divine appointment to have qualified a fellow-creature to have done it all for us, and even to have given to the blood of a lamb from the flock sufficient value to effect what has been accomplished by the blood of the divine and spotless " Lamb of God !" And what would angels think of Him, were they to be assured that any one of themselves, had God seen meet so to ordain it, might have effected all that He has done ? that they might thus have achieved for themselves the honour which, in prostrate, and unanimous, and rapturous adoration, they ascribe to Him ? (8.) The hypothesis has thus, on the various grounds that have been mentioned, an evident 'tendency to dimmish and destroy the practical influence of the Gospel. By lessening our impressions of the evil of sin, and of our obligations to the Saviour, it has, and cannot fail to have, this injurious tendency in regard to humility, to reverence of God or godly fear, to hatred and dread of sin, and to thaf^ principle which is one of the 1 Rom. vii. 13. 2 Job ix. 33. OF CHRIST AND ATONEMENT. 423 main springs of all Christian obedience and active service, the principle of gratitude. Again, therefore, I have in conclusion to say, the divinity and the atonement of Christ are correlate doctrines, which must stand or fall together. There is a beautiful and divinely adjusted harmony, indeed, in the whole scheme of divine truth. A link cannot be struck out of the chain without breaking its continuity, and maning or even destroying its adaptation to its ends. My conviction has long been, that almost all (perhaps I might go further, and make the statement without exception, that all) the misconceptions and errors relative to the Gospel, and especially those essential elements of it of which we have just been speak- ing, have their origin in inadequate conceptions and impressions of the true nature and turpitude of sin. These arise out of, and are necessarily associated with, a comparatively low estimate of the holy righteousness of the divine character. This attribute of His nature and His government seems, in the minds of the theologians referred to, and in their daring speculations, to be swallowed up in the lauded infinitude of His benevolence, sunk in that ocean and forgotten. This leads, as a matter of course, to light impressions of the results to which sin exposes, and of the danger of incurring those results ; and consequently of the need- le ssuess of any atonement, and far more of such an atonement as the orthodox affirm to have been required and made : there being nothing to hinder an infinitely kind and merciful Being from pardoning all His erring creatures, on their simple acknow- ledgment of their fault and penitent application for forgiveness. These are views of God, and sin, and the ease of obtaining for- giveness, very palatable to the corrupt heart and the thoughtless mind of a fallen creature. But a juster view of God and a" juster view of sin will lead to a juster view of what is requisite for vindicating the glory of the one in the remission of the other. Let there be once a right conception of sin, as com- mitted against an Infinite Being, and consequently containing in it an amount of moral turpitude and penal desert of which 424 CONNECTION OF THE DIVINITY OF CHRIST. that Infinite Being Himself is the only competent judge ; as embodying contrariety to His character, opposition to His authority, ingratitude for His goodness, and as tending to the overthrow of His throne, and to the desolation and wretchedness of an abandoned universe : and a divine Saviour and a divine atonement will be felt as alone adequate to the exigency, and be embraced with humility, thankfulness, and joy. XXIIL ON THE ARMINIAN CONTROVERSY. EXTENT OF THE ATONEMENT. THE subject that comes next under our review is one which, while, in some of its aspects, it may wear the appearance of doctrinal speculation, and possibly be now and then found, like many other topics of theological discussion, to present exemplifi- cations of distinction where there is no great amount of differ- ence, yet, in others, is really one of great practical importance ; especially when viewed in its relation to the universality of the calls and invitations of the Gospel, and the duty consequently incumbent upon its preachers. But this subject cannot, in such a course, be with any pro- priety taken up separately. It stands connected with a class of collateral topics embraced in what now passes under the designation of the Arminian Controversy ; a designation, derived from the name of a theologian of the early part of the seven- teenth century. James Arminius was professor of divinity in the university of Leyden. He was strenuously opposed by his colleague Gomar, and by most of the other professors of the Dutch universities ; and his tenets, after protracted and fierce and sometimes tumultuary discussions, were ultimately referred, by the authority of Maurice, Prince of Orange, in 1618, to the decision of a general synod, which, from the place of its meet- ing, is well-known as the Synod of Dort, composed of depu- ties from the Helvetian and other churches, and among the rest those of England and Scotland; and they were there condemned as a corruption of the Christian doctrine. I enter into no his- torical details of the rise and progress of Arniinianism, nor into 426 THE ARM1NIAN CONTROVERSY. any account of the discussions of that famous assembly, whether between the Arminians and Calvinists, of whom the former were called Remonstrants (from their having presented a petition, under the title of their remonstrances, to the States of Holland, in 1610), and the latter (from their having presented an address in opposition to it under the designation of their counter remon- strances), by the corresponding appellation of Counter-remon- strants : or between the two classes of the latter, the higher and the more moderate disciples of the Genevan school, the Supra- lapsarians and Sublapsarians ; of whom the latter, principally through the influence of the British members of the synod, carried the day. The designations will hereafter come to be explained. The tenets, however, though they got their name of distinc- tion at that time from Arminius, were far from new ; being, to a great extent, a revival of those introduced by Pelagius and Caelestius in the early part of the fifth century. They were sub- sequently modified from Pelagianism into Semipelagianism by Cassian and others, who were desirous of striking out a medium between the doctrines of Pelagius and those of his chief and celebrated opponent Augustine. If we take the account of their tenets as given by the historians, they seem to have succeeded only in rendering the system, previously at variance with Scrip- ture, inconsistent with itself; which has not seldom been the result with unskilful attempts at modification. 1 The doctrines 1 Few things, as it appears to me, can be more egregiously self-inconsistent than the tenets of the Semipelagians on the subject of saving grace, as given in the fol- lowing terms by Mosheim : " Their doctrine, as it has been generally explained by the learned, amounted to this ' That inward preventing grace was not necessary to form in the soul the first beginnings of true repentance and amendment ; that every one was capable of producing these by the mere power of their natural facul- ties, as also of exercising faith in Christ, and forming the purposes of a holy and sincere obedience.' But they acknowledged at the same time, that none could per- severe or advance in that holy and virtuous course, which they had the power of beginning, without the perpetual support, and the powerful assistance of divine grace." This is surely very preposterous. One should have thought the converse of the process, though not more true, yet less strange. To ascribe to man the power of beginning the spiritual life in his soul, and deny him the power of main- taining it, appears the most absurd of all things, as if the power to sustain and cherish life to its maturity, were greater than the power necessary to impart the lile itself; the power to keep in being than the power to create. EXTENT OF THE ATONEMENT. 427 respecting divine grace and man's ability, which were contested between Pelagius and Augustine, formed the subject also of interminable disputation between the Jesuits and the Janseuists in the Romish church ; as well as between the Lutherans and Arminians on the one side, and the Calvinists on the other, among the Protestants. The controversy has been reduced to five points. These are : 1. Absolute personal election to everlasting h'fe. 2. Particular redemption ; or, in other terms, restricted or definite atonement. 3. Special or preventing grace in conversion. 4. The determination of the will by grace ; and, 5. The perse- verance of the saints. Calvinists are understood to hold the affirmative on these points, Arminians the negative. The topics are such as afford room for, and have actually exhausted, all the subtle powers of theological metaphysicians. Much "learned dust" has many a time "involved the com- batants." They have misunderstood each other, and sometimes, as may readily on such subjects be imagined, have hardly understood themselves. The topics involve, to a great extent, the " deep things of God." l And on both sides there have been a haste and a confidence very unbefitting such themes ; a dogma- tism of assurance very unseemly in speaking of the results from the application of the line of human intellect to the profound abyss of the divine counsels. The lines of our immortal bard, representing spirits of a higher order of intellect, though, like ourselves, fallen, as confounded and baffled in such debate, are meant to read a lesson of reproof and caution to inferior dis- putants : " In discourse more sweet, Others apart sat on a hill retired, In thoughts more elevate ; and reason'd high Of providence, foreknowledge, will, and fate, Fix'd fate, free will, foreknowledge absolute ; And found no end, in wandering mazes lost." . We had better, then, keep out of these "wandering mazes," ' 1 Cor. ii. 10. 428 THE ARMINIAN CONTROVERSY. for nothing is easier, on subjects such as these, than to lose ourselves. And when once giving ourselves up to the full license of presumptuous arid independent speculation, we have lost ourselves, have got bewildered in doubts, and weary of conjectures, trying successive paths, and every path leading us into more embarrassing and distracting perplexity, till we have got to " our wits' end," and come to a stand, with the deep- drawn sigh of utter hopelessness ; then the " revocare gradum," " hie labor, hoc opus est." It is often, indeed, no easy task to get back to the right way, and by our self-sufficient rashness we may both have lost time, and injured principle ; and, like Christian and Hopeful, may be made to feel the scourge of the divine Monitor chasten- ing our aberrations, though graciously restoring our souls. Let us enter on all such subjects, then, with the humble self-diffidence which ever becomes us ; in the full spirit of obedience to the divine admonition, addressed on various occasions to the servants of Jehovah : " Put off thy shoes from off thy feet, for the place whereon thou standest is holy ground." 1 In this spirit, and looking for divine direction, I would call your attention, first of all, for a few moments, to the close connection between the five topics which have been enumerated. Without entering now into the- difference between the more rigid and the more moderate Calvinists in regard to some of them, especially the very topic that comes next before us, the extent of the atonement, which will be developed in the future discussion of the topics themselves : but taking them in their general import, it is evident that they are links in a chain, each connected indissolubly with all the rest, so that one of them cannot be held without the others, nor denied and rejected without the others. The denial of the necessity of special grace in conversion, and of divine influence to change the disposition and determine the will, must necessarily proceed on the assumption that human nature is not entirely corrupt. But if we assume (what 1 Exod. iii. 5. EXTENT OF THE ATONEMENT. 429 in a former part of the course we endeavoured to make good from Scripture and from fact) the universal and entire depravity of man in his fallen state, his destitution of everything in his nature truly and spiritually good, or, in the single emphatic expression of the apostle, his "being enmity against God;" 1 this evidently lays a foundation for the necessity of special, preventing, efficacious grace in regeneration. Thus again : On the self-evident principle that whatever God does He must have previously intended or purposed to do, the imparting of special grace implies the existence of an intention or purpose to confer, or put forth the exercise of, this grace ; which intention or pur- pose, carried back into eternity, as every intention or purpose of the divine mind must necessarily be, constitutes election. Then this election amounts in effect (as will very soon be shown) to the same thing with a purposed limitation in the application or actual efficacy of the atonement, which is what we conceive to be the proper meaning (how unadvisedly soever hyper-calvinists may have spoken or written on the subject) of particular redemption, or definite atonement. Then, again, the perseverance of the saints follows inevitably from the very first link in the series ; inasmuch as election meaning personal election to eternal life, the perseverance of the saints is nothing else than the certainty of the ultimate accomplishment of the purpose of electing grace : the saints and the elect being identically the same persons. The doctrine of election is placed first in the enumeration, evidently because from the assumption of it, all the others naturally follow. It may, therefore, seem rather a preposterous arrangement, to commence with the second in order. But, besides the circum- stance of its having come directly and naturally in our way, the arrangement may be capable of vindication on another ground. The second in the series has a more immediate reference to the actual procedure of God, to the facts of the case. The atonement is actually limited in its saving results ; all are not saved by it. And it has ever appeared to me, on such subjects, the most natural and becoming course for us to 1 Rom. viii. 7. 430 THE ARMINIAN CONTROVERSY. begin with the fact, and go back from it to the purpose of which it is the indication and fulfilment ; not to commence with a proof of the purpose, and then go forward to the facts in which it is fulfilled. It is safer surely to take facts, and gather purposes from them, than to take purposes first and follow them out to facts. In the order of existence,, it is true, the purpose is before the fact, the intention before the action, but that is in % the divine mind ; and that mind we cannot, going back into eternity, read in its own light. It is only from divine acts that we can have any knowledge of divine intentions. It is only in facts that we can read purposes. The points, then, of this controversy being so very much blended and interwoven with one another, it is difficult, if not impossible, to discuss them all in succession with sufficient distinctiveness. Every proof of one becomes, from their mutual connection and dependence, a proof, virtually and by implication, of another, and indeed of the whole. I shall not be very particular in my endeavour to keep them thoroughly distinct in my reasonings upon them. The Arminian doctrine on the second point in order, particular redemption, is in intimate connection with those \vhich immediately follow, namely, special grace and the influential determination of the will. That doctrine may be stated thus : That Christ by His death made atonement alike for all men in general, and for every individual in particular, in the same sense, and without any special purpose in behalf of one more than of another ; " That he died EQUALLY for all ; because He offered the same sacrifice, suffered the same death, shed the same blood, for all for whom He died ; " " that He died for all conditionally, i.e., if they believe, repent, and obey, but for none absolutely." 1 According to this system, sinners are thus, by Christ's death, brought into a capacity of salvation ; salvation is put into the power of all ; for this purpose, grace is alike imparted to all. Of this common grace the right or saving improvement depends entirely on the will and free choice of 1 Whitby on the Five Points. EXTENT OF THE ATONEMENT. 431 men, without any further special influence on the part of God : it being equally, and in the same sense and degree, His will that one man should be saved as another ; those who do not, as well as those who do, become actually partakers of the salvation. Before entering into more particular consideration of the question respecting the extent of the atonement, as that question is agitated between the more rigid and more moderate Calviriists, I would offer very briefly, as some of the topics will come under more extended notice again, the following observations relative to the Arminian view, as now stated: 1. This scheme, it will be observed, leaves it dependent entirely on the will of man, whether, in virtue of the atonement, any shall be saved at all. Putting the statement in the most moderate light possible, it is left a contingency, whether the Redeemer's mediatorial work of humiliation, obedience, and suffering, shall have any result whatever, even to the extent of the actual salvation of one soul. There is no security for even this most limited possible effect of " the work given Him to do," and finished by Him on Calvary, in tears, in agonies, and blood. Now, we cannot but regard this as a reflection on the wisdom of the infinitely Wise. Are we to suppose a scheme so prodigious, so full of inexhaustible wonders, devised in the counsels of eternity, and introduced, prepared for, and consummated so carefully and so gloriously in time; and yet all left a peradven- ture whether it should succeed, whether it should be productive of the smallest effect ; whether, in consequence of it, heaven should have even one solitary occupant? Are we to suppose Jehovah working, and working for an avowed end, and leaving it problematical whether, after all, His expenditure of means, and of such means, the end should at all be answered ? Would not this be to impute to God what is counted an evidence of indiscretion and folly in men; who, if possessed of ordinary under- standing and prudence, when they enter on any great r.nd costly work, look before them, and take every precaution in their power to ensure a happy issue ? l We shall afterwards find 1 See Explanations and Defences on this point in the Preface to Second Edition of Discourses on the Atonement, pp. 51, 52. 432 THE AKMIN1AN CONTROVERSY. this observation of use, in its full force, on the doctrine of election. 2. The Arminian scheme may, on the first aspect of it, appear more honourable to the divine love, from its seeming comprehensiveness and impartiality. But, when looked at more closely, the superiority in this respect will be found more seeming than real. The question may fairly be put, and a decision demanded with some confidence, whether love is not more signally manifested in securing the salvation of a " multitude which no man can number," 1 than in simp]y making provisio for the salvation of all, and leaving it an uncertainty whethc any shall be saved. Is there less love, it may be asked, h determining and effecting the happiness of millions, than in merely offering happiness to all, without insuring it to any ? 3. It wears very much the look of a contradiction to say that it is the will of God that all should be saved, meaning equally and in the same sense every individual ; whilst, after all, the will of God has determined nothing about the matter, inasmuch as it depends entirely on the will of man whether any shall enjoy the saving benefit of His atonement. As if the Supreme Ruler should say, it is my will that all of you collec- tively, and each of you individually, should be saved ; but it depends upon you whether in any one instance that will shall be fulfilled and gratified ! Is it consistent with any right con- ceptions of Him who says, " My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure," 2 thus to suppose Him leaving the fulfilment of His will precariously dependent on the will of His creatures ? Precarious and contingent it must be, there being nothing in the nature of the case, as we may hereafter see, that can be a ground of certain futurition ; inasmuch as the moment you begin to speak of the foreseen operation of circumstances and events in providence, operating on the mind in producing conversion, you surrender the cause. For surely these circumstances and events are not themselves fortuitous, because, if fortuitous, they could not be certainly foreseen ; and if not, by whom are they 1 Rev. vii. 9. 2 Isa. xlvi. 10. EXTENT OF THE ATONEMENT. 433 regulated and brought about? Is it not by God? And if they are ordered by God, and ordered so as to bring about a certain result, must not that result have been purposed ? And is not that purpose election ? It matters not by what means conversion may be supposed to be effected, whether by the direct physical operation of the Holy Spirit upon the soul, or by the influence of the same Spirit operating by means of the word and of providential circumstances, or by the word and such circumstances working the change independently of any liivct divine influence accompanying them at all. If, in the last upposed case, the circumstances are admitted to have been mlered of God (and the denial of this would be atheism) it amounts, in the present argument, to the same thing. God orders all for a purpose, that is, knowing and intending the result ; that knowledge and intention are limited to the -cases in which the result is effected ; and thus you would have, only by the operation of different means, election and effectual calling a purposed limitation, as to numbers, of the blessings of sal- vation. 4. On the hypothesis before us, the will of God must, in an indefinite multitude of cases, be frustrated and made void. He wills what never takes place. His will is subjected to the will of His creatures. God wills that this man and that man should be saved ; but this man and that man will the contrary, and their will prevails. It is very difficult, indeed, to attach any- thing like an explicit meaning to the word will, when in this sense it is affirmed of God that He wills the salvation of each individual of the human race. For what does He will ? The salvation of all, the salvation of each. Yet each and all are not saved. And let it not be forgotten that He does not will the salvation of such as actually are saved in any more special sense than He willed that of those who actually perish ! It is not, therefore, you must perceive, at all the consequence of the will of God that any are saved ; it is solely in consequence of the will of man ; for here is the will of God existing, and existing alike, without any differential peculiarity, in both cases. If VOL. II. 2 F 434 THE ARMENIAN CONTROVERSY. some, therefore, are saved, and some perish, the difference between the two cannot be the result of what is common to both, but of what is distinctive of the one from the other ; that is, not of the will of God, but of the will of man. I would, at the same time, have it borne in mind here, that there is a sense in which God may properly be said, for He actually is said and that by Himself, to will the salvation of all. There is a distinc- tion to be maintained between the general, moral, rectoral will of God and His special determining will or purpose. Thus it was in creation. The general will of God was the happiness of the created universe ; yet facts have shown that it was not the absolute and determining will of God, or His purpose, that this happiness should be universal. And there seems a fair analogy between this case and that of His other great work, the work of redemption. But the Arminian notion of which I now speak, is that which denies all special determining will in the case, that there is any specific purpose or volition of the divine mind respecting the salvation of any one man more than of any other man. 5. The whole scheme proceeds on the assumption of the self-determining power of the will, as if this formed a necessary part of its liberty. This, however (without entering now into the thorny discussion of the questions connected with liberty and necessity), we cannot but regard as demonstrably false. The freedom of the will is something rather of a negative than of a positive character. It consists in the absence of all extraneous coercion restraint on the one hand and constraint on the other. It is more a liberty of action than of volition, a freedom to do what we will, rather than to will what we will. The will itself, in all its volitions, is determined by motive, the strongest motive at the time invariably prevailing ; and the quality and the power of motives depend on the predominant disposition ; whence it is that the nature of a man's volitions, and of the words and actions consequent upon them, become indicative of his moral character, that is, of the state of his dispositions. That the will is determined in all its volitions by EXTENT OF THE ATONEMENT. 485 the strongest motive, i.e., not by the motive that has really most strength in itself, but by the motive that has most strength at the time in the particular mind, ought, in my apprehension, to be ranked among first truths. A man tells me that he can will, if he pleases, to thrust his finger into the fire. I grant it. But I remind him that he is prevented from so willing, and made to will the contrary, by his love of ease and aversion from pain ; that this is the motive that prevents him. If, for the sake of demonstrating that he has the power of acting in opposition to motive, he should actually thrust his finger into the fire, would he, by so doing, have established his point? Certainly not at all. He has only shown that the vehemence of his eagerness to confute me has become the stronger motive, so strong as to overcome for the time his natural aversion from bodily pain. He has merely shown that he would rather endure bodily torture than defeat in argument and the mortification of his pride ; and thus, as has many a time been the case with controversialists, the very anxiety to produce a demonstration of his own theory has given birth to an effectual refutation of it, and a proof of mine. I have said that the will is influenced by the disposition. This is evident. If the disposition be predominantly evil, the w r ill accordingly will be inclined to choose evil; following, in its determinations and elections, the prevailing bias of the disposi- tion. Not that it will choose evil as evil, but evil, under various illusory and false aspects, presenting itself as good, through the blinding and perverting influence of the prevailing disposition ; by which the dictates of the better judgment, that ought to govern the will, are for the time overcome. And nothing is there that more aflectingly evinces the power of the perverse disposition in man's fallen nature than the influence which evil, and earthly, and temporary things exert in determining his volitions towards them, as his present good, in spite of all the exhibitions set before him of higher, and better, and more enduring blessings the spiritual, heavenly, and eternal blessings presented for his acceptance by the Gospel. If it be said, then, that the sinner's conversion arises from the exercise of his 436 THE ARMINIAN CONTROVERSY. natural powers, we ask : Whence the right exercise of those powers ? If it be answered : It is the result of will; our second question is : Whence this good election of the will ? If the reply be : From a change of disposition ; then our third inquiry is : Whence this change of disposition ? This is the precise turning point of the controversy. If man's disposition is naturally evil, " enmity against God;" 1 then a self-converting power, the power of willing to change this disposition to. good, is a palpable con- tradiction in terms. Enmity determining to change itself into love is a principle operating in direct opposition to its own nature. This is to reverse the proper order of things, making the will operate upon the disposition, not the disposition upon the will. The change which requires the interference of an extraneous influence of special grace, is the change of the disposition or state of the heart ; by which the will thencefor- ward comes to be determined to the choice of good and the resistance of evil. How this change is effected is a distinct question, which will come under consideration hereafter. 6. We must go further than under our first observation. If the disposition and will of man be naturally averse to good and inclined to evil, it will not be a mere peradventure whether the atonement shall have any saving result ; it will be a certainty on the negative side of the alternative. This is evident if the principles laid down in the immediately preceding particular be correct. And by this I am led to repeat an observation, formerly in substance made when on the subject of original depravity, that the views we entertain of that doctrine must of necessity influence, to a very material extent, our ideas of the entire system of Gospel truth. If there be a doctrine in the Bible that is entitled to the epithet Of fundamental, this is one. It is evident to common sense, that according to the sentiments we entertain of the state and character of the creature to be saved, must be our conceptions at once of the salvation which he needs, and of the means and the power by which it requires to be effected. If man be what we endeavoured before to show the Scriptures represent him, utterly alienated in spirit 1 Rom. viii. 7. EXTENT OF THE ATONEMENT. 437 from God and goodness ; and if the preceding particulars are legitimate deductions from his innate depravity ; then the con- clusion, " if such a creature be left to himself, none can ever be saved," appears to be quite unavoidable, a plain though a melancholy sequence. 7. The scheme is inconsistent with the humbling design of the Gospel. To every attentive student of the divine plan of salvation, this feature of it must appear in prominent relief, that it is throughout constructed upon the principle of " hiding pride from man," of showing him that, pride being the very principle of his rebellion, it cannot be gratified, but must be mortified and abased, brought down and slain, by the means of his restoration ; that " the lofty looks of man must be humbled, and the haughtiness of man be brought low, and the Lord alone be exalted." 1 "Not of works, lest any man should boast." 2 "Where is boasting then? it is excluded." 3 " That, accord- ing as it is written, He that glorieth let him glory in the Lord !" 4 Now, in order to this end being effectually answered, it does not seem enough that the sinner should not have in himself the ground of his acceptance ; it is necessary, too, that he should not have in himself the source and cause of differ- ence between him and others. On the Arminian scheme, it is not the grace of God that produces this difference ; it is the free will of the sinner, influenced by some better disposi- tion in him than in others rightly to improve that grace ; and this better disposition not the effect of any gracious, special, preventing influence from above. Does this exclude boasting ? I trow not. He who has in himself the reason of the difference between him and sinners that perish, "has whereof to glory," 5 as really as he who has in himself the ground of his acceptance. And if it does not exclude boasting, it cannot be the Gospel. At the same time, from the metaphysical difficulties with which the whole subject is environed, I am satisfied there are many truly good men who are not sensible of the inconsistency. They humbly own themselves debtors to grace, and are, in this respect, better than their system. 1 Isa. ii. 11. * Eph. ii. 9. 3 Horn. iii. 27. 1 Cor. i. 31. J Rom. iv. 2. XXIV. ON THE CALVINISTIC VIEWS OF THE EXTENT OF THE ATONEMENT. THE present discussion is to be occupied with the sentiments of Calvinists on the subject of the extent of the atonement the second of the five points of the Arminian Controversy, viz., particular redemption. It ought here to be borne in mind that when, in this con- troversy, the phrases particular and universal redemption are used, they are not at all to be understood in the same sense as particular or universal salvation. The doctrine of the Univer- salists is quite a different thing from the doctrine of those who maintain universal redemption. The former falls properly to be considered when we come to discuss the final states of men. Arminians, though maintaining general or universal redemption, are not Universalists, but agree with Calvinists as to the matter of fact, that all are not ultimately saved. They differ from the Calvinists respecting the cause of that limitation, denying it to arise at all from any sovereign or special purpose of God. Per- haps the word redemption is not the most happily chosen in the statement of this doctrine, inasmuch as, generally speaking, it is understood of the effects or results to men from the work of Christ, or the ransom paid by Him in His death, rather than of that ransom itself. Yet, being used in both senses, it might be vindicated. It expresses the result to us. * But we have an instance, I rather think the only one, of its meaning the ransom by which the redemption is effected. 2 And in this acceptation it is that the word is now used, when 1 Epb. i. 7 ; Rom. viii. 23 ; Heb. ix. 12, etc. 2 Rom. iii. 24. THE EXTENT OF THE ATONEMENT. 439 the dispute is, whether the redemption was particular or general. It is the same as the question : Whether the atonement was restricted or universal, for some or for all. We shall consider the Calvinistic views under three modifi- cations : 1. Hyper-calvinism ; 2. Calvinism as more generally held by the orthodox ; and, 3. Moderate, or what may be desig- nated modern Calvinism, as held and ably elucidated by the late Andrew Fuller, Dr. Edward Williams, and others, and now embraced by a growing proportion of Calvinistic ministers and professing Christians. 1. Of the hyper-calvinistic views on the present subject I have already indicated my opinion. They are the views of the exact equivalentists, of those who hold a limited atonement in the sense of its being sufficient only, in the way of legal com- pensation, for the salvation of the elect ; so that, if more in number had been to be saved, more suffering must have been endured ; that Christ, standing in the room of the elect, and appearing as their substitute and representative, bore their sins exclusively, making an atonement adequate for their remission and for no more ; paying precisely (to use the ordinary but much abused phraseology) their amount of debt. This view of the atonement has been held by not a few, and has been advanced anew, and maintained as the only just and scriptural view, by some modern writers. I have before expressed my unqualified reprobation of this doctrine, as having in it a littleness, a meanness, and an utter incongruity with the divine dignity of the Mediator, utterly revolting to both my judgment and feelings. My objections to the doctrine are these : (1.) That it is altogether irreconcileable with the infinite worth of the Saviour's sacrifice as arising from the infinite dignity of His person. The union of the divine and human natures im- parted to it this infinitude of value. It was infinite, because it was divine. But every system which proceeds upon the suppo- sition of its rising or falling in its amount of value, according as the substitute suffers for a greater or a smaller number, for a 440 CALVINISTIC VIEWS OF larger or a less amount or aggregate of guilt, is entirely at vari- ance with this. That cannot be unlimited in intrinsic value, that is susceptible of increase and diminution. It may possibly be objected to this, that in that case any measure of suffering, howsoever small, might have sufficed. And perhaps we might be warranted in saying that whatever was done or suffered by a person sustaining the dignity of Godhead must in itself have possessed infinite value. But in the proper idea of atonement there is included, we ought not to forget, not the mere payment of a debt or settlement of an account, which equally cancels all claim, whatever may be the degree of either privacy or publicity with which the settlement is made ; but a visible and impressive manifestation of the evil of sin, and an open and public vindica- tion of the righteousness of God in its forgiveness. Now, in order to this, it would seem, the substitute must not only suffer, but appear to suffer, and to suffer deeply and shamefully, and in a way with which the idea of curse was implicated. This was necessary to effect what the apostle calls " declaring God's righteousness for the remission of sins;" 1 making such a public manifestation of it as should fully maintain and even augment its credit in the eyes of the intelligent creation ; making it con- spicuous, and deepening the conviction and impression of it. God Himself knew best the degree of visible and apparent suf- fering requisite for securing this end. That which makes the atonement of Jesus sufficient is not the fact that sufferings were endured in His human nature (which alone could suffer) equal in degree to the concentrated sufferings of the multitude of the finally saved. Were that the case, then it would not be from the association of divinity with humanity that the real value of His sacrifice arose ; but the sole use of that association must have been merely to enable the human nature to bear this re- quired equivalent of suffering. If it be granted, as it generally is, by the advocates of atonement, that it was from the divinity of Jesus that His sacrifice derived its value; I might, I appre- hend, go a step further, and affirm the idea of an exact equiva- 1 Kom. iii. 25. THE EXTENT OF THE ATONEMENT. 441 lent for the deserts of the elect alone an impossibility in the very nature of things. The infinite dignity of His mediatorial person put it necessarily and for ever out of the question that the value of His propitiatory sufferings should be measured and bounded by the amount of penalty due to finite creatures. His substitution and obedience unto death must, of necessity, have infinitely exceeded an equivalent for the penal sufferings of any conceivable number of the race of men. (2.) If this pitiful process of commercial reckoning, this weight-and-measure system of atonement, be admitted, it will follow that the eternal perdition of all mankind would have been a greater manifestation of the divine righteousness and detesta- tion of sin than the sufferings of the Son of God. For it is evident, more would have been endured ; and if the satisfaction and manifestation of justice are to be calculated upon this prin- ciple, to be estimated by the quantum of suffering actually borne, I see not how the inference can be evaded. To remind me that Jesus was a divine person, will not repel or elude it. It is a truth, indeed, an all-important truth. But it is, at the same time, a truth, that, if this consideration be taken into the account, it makes the value of His sacrifice unlimited, and there- fore proves too much for the exact equivalent hypothesis, of which the principle is, a limited amount of suffering for a limited amount of sin. There is, indeed, one way in which the cases might be reduced to an equality. On the supposition of exact equivalent, the proportion of suffering endured in the person of the surety for the sins of the saved, is the same with the pro- portion endured in their own persons for the sins of the lost. But still it holds good, that the penal sufferings of all mankind, taken collectively, must have contained a greater manifestation of the evil of sin and the righteousness of God, than the suffer- ings of the Son of God, taken by themselves. But I shrink from saying more on a subject that sickens my very soul. (3.) That the exact equivalent hypothesis renders the salva- tion of an}' besides the elect a natural impossibility. We are accustomed to say, and we say truly and scripturally, to sinners 442 CALVINISTIC VIEWS OF of mankind without exception, that if they are not saved, the fault is entirely their own, lying solely in their own unwilling- ness to accept the salvation offered to them, or to have it on the terms on which it is presented. But on the supposition of limitation in the sufficiency of the atonement, this is not true. Indisposition, indeed, on their part there is, and it is their sin. But if the atonement be in its intrinsic amount limited, it becomes, in the nature of the thing, absurd and contradictory so much as to imagine any beyond the number, to the desert of whose sins it has been restricted, deriving any benefit from it. All others are necessarily excluded by the limitation of the remedy. For them to seek salvation would be to seek an impossibility. A payment has been made, but it is only to a certain amount; and it is no more possible that they should have the charges against them cancelled on the ground of such payment, than it is possible, by the advance of one thousand pounds, the exact amount of the debts one has contracted, to provide a fund from which the twenty thousand of the debts or as many others may be discharged on their applying for their remission. On the principle of this equivalent system, were other sinners ever so desirous to obtain salvation, they could not; inasmuch as the impossibility would arise, not from anything in themselves, but in the very nature and constitution of the plan of redemption. If the atonement be necessary to forgive- ness, and if at the same time it has been so constituted as to be equivalent only for a certain amount of sin; then it is clear, that beyond that limited amount no sin can be forgiven. Ere it can, a new atonement must be offered for it. (4.) This being the case, it will be more than difficult, on this hypothesis, to vindicate the sincerity of those addresses in which sinners universally are invited to believe and be saved. If in the propitiation made, there do not exist what has, with sufficient appropriateness, been termed objective sufficiency for all, there really exists no ground on which such universal invi- tations can consistently be founded, no foundation on which sinners generally can be called to trust. Such invitation THE EXTENT OF THE ATONEMENT. 443 amounts to no more than a tantalising of poor perishing crea- tures with the offer of what has no existence. There is no fund from which their debts can be paid ; no provision for them at the feast to which they are invited ; no water for them in the wells of salvation. The phrase, an all-sufficient Saviour, becomes, in addressing sinners indiscriminately, a designation destitute of truth, a mere " swelling word of vanity." 1 (5.) It is necessary to repeat that, in the view which this hypothesis takes of the substitution and atonement of Christ, nothing is taken into account but the desert of the sinner. It balances a certain proportion of deserved punishment on the part of the transgressor, by a corresponding proportion of vica- rious suffering on the part of the atoning substitute. But it appears to be entirely forgotten that there is another party, a party whose claims are infinitely superior in importance to any interests of the sinning creature ; that the glory of God, vio- lated by transgression, requires to be secured, and vindicated, and displayed, irrespectively of the mere numerical amount of sinners and of sins ; that, in truth, this was the grand end of atonement ; that the question is not one of commutative or com- mercial justice, what measure of suffering must be endured, to be a precise equipollent for the measure of sin to be forgiven ; how many drops of expiatory blood for so many trespasses to be remitted ? that it has no such principle in it of wretched day-book and ledger calculation, but that the principal and most essential part of its object (as already more than enough insisted upon), was to give such a manifestation of the united glories of the truth and love, the righteousness and mercy of Jehovah, as would fully secure the honour of His character and government in forgiving sin and saving sinners ; and that the true question was: What was requisite for this end? I might have added to these considerations, that if the atonement were to be regarded as proceeding on the principle of commutative or commercial justice, or of the strict and pro- per payment of debt, the only room for grace must have been 1 2 Pet. ii. 18. 444 CALV1N1ST1C VIEWS OF in the appointment of the surety to take upon Him the payment of it ; there could be none for the subsequent exercise of it, in pardoning sin for the sake of the atonement, any more than there is grace in not exacting a debt that has been actually paid. II. But there is a second class of Calvinists, by whom an atonement of limited sufficiency is strongly disapproved and disowned, and the very arguments pleaded against it which have now been mentioned, who yet hold the doctrine of what they denominate a definite atonement. They are not satisfied with the view we have before given of the restriction in the actual efficacy of the atonement arising from the sovereign pleasure of God in its purposed and actual application. They contend for restriction in the atonement as arising from what they denominate its destination ; that is, its being, in itself, in the intention of God, only a certain number, in whose room Christ was appointed and voluntarily undertook to stand, and for whom, and for whom alone, He made propitiation. As an appropriate and most respectable specimen of this numerous class, comprehending the large majority of the Presbyterian dissenters in Scotland, and of the evangelical party in the Establishment, I may select Dr. Symington, formerly of Stran- raer, now of Glasgow. In his work on Atonement and Inter- cession, he sets forth and argues this representation of the case at great length, not only against the general redemptionists, but against the abettors of the view which places the restric- tion in the sovereign application of the remedy. By no one can the infinite value and unlimited sufficiency of the atonement be more distinctly and amply admitted and pleaded for than they are by this writer. " The ' inherent worth of Christ's atonement arises, not from the nature, continuance, and inten- sity of His sufferings, but from His personal dignity and other concurrent circumstances, which stamp a character of infinite value on all that He endured. On this ground we hold, that the sacrifice of our Lord Jesus Christ possessed an intrinsic value sufficient for the salvation of the whole world. In this THE EXTENT OF THE ATONEMENT. 445 sense it was adequate to the redemption of every human being, able to procure the expiation of every man's sins that ever lived, or ever shall exist till the end of time. Here we feel no hesitation, nor can we qualify these assertions in the slightest degree. We shall yield to none in our estimate of the intrinsic worth of Christ's atonement. That worth we hold to be, in the strictest sense of the term, INFINITE, ABSOLUTE, ALL-SUFFI- CIENT." ] And in similar terms of warm repudiation of the opposite sentiment, he proceeds, adopting as his own some of the strongest terms of others. Yet, in opposition to those who hold the restriction of the atonement as to actual efficiency to arise from the sovereignty of its application, he contends for the idea of a definite atonement in the sense we have just explained. Now, I conceive the difference between this view and the third, or that of the moderate or modern Calvinists, on this subject, to be so exceedingly slight, while the latter appears to me decidedly the more consistent of the two with itself, that I think it better to notice the third before proceeding to discuss the second, and to compare and argue the merits of the two respectively. III. The third view, then, as has been already observed, holds the atonement to have been a general remedy, with a particular application ; a vindication or display of the righteousness of God, such as to render forgiveness honour- able to that perfection of the divine character ; leaving the supreme Governor and Judge, in the free exercise of the mercy in which He delights, to dispense it according to His sovereign pleasure, more or less extensively. Dr. Symington states the difference between the two theories thus ; and, with very slight exception, we should not object to the statement : " On the extent of Christ's atonement, the two opinions that have long divided the church are expressed by the terms definite and indefinite. The former means that Christ died, satisfied divine justice, and made atonement, only for such as are saved. 1 Symington, p. 238. 44G CALVINISTIC VIEWS OF The latter means that Christ died, satisfied divine justice, or made atonement for all mankind without exception, as well those who are not saved as those who are. The one regards the death of Christ as a legal satisfaction to the law and justice of God, on behalf of elect sinners ; the other regards it as a general moral vindication of the divine government, without respect to those to whom it may be rendered effectual, and of course equally applicable to all." l The extent of such exception to the view given in this statement may appear in discussing the respective claims to preference of the two theories, which, while they differ in expression, come as near to one in reality as can well be. Let it be' observed, then, that by denying the restriction of the atonement's efficiency to be in its application alone, lie must be considered as affirming the definiteness to be, in some sense, in the atonement itself. Now, I must at once acknow- ledge myself at a loss to conceive how an atonement admitted to be infinite, can with any consistency be, at the same time, affirmed to be a definite atonement ; how the atonement can be held to have been made " only for such as are saved ; " " as a legal satisfaction to the law and justice of God on behalf of elect sinners ;" while yet, in the atonement made, a value is admitted to have been contained, infinitely beyond the actual amount of salvation that shall arise from it. The explanation given is, that it is definite in its destination. But does not this come as near as possible to a purpesed restriction in its application ? The difference appears to me very slender; and, so far as there is a difference, the latter view seems to be the more self-con- sistent of the two. For observe the sense in which the restriction is in the atonement. It is not in its value, but in its destination, that is, in the circumstance of God's having meant it as an atonement for a certain number only, and of its having been made for them alone. But, with all deference, this is a very different thing from definiteness in the atone- ment itself. With what propriety can the epithet definite be 1 Symington, p. 237. THE EXTENT OF THE ATONEMENT. 447 applied to that of which the author writes in the following terms : " For these reasons " (reasons urged against the exact equivalent scheme), " we reject the theory of atonement against which the objection is pointed, and hold by the view already explained, namely, that the sufferings of Christ are to be regarded in the light of a moral satisfaction to the law and justice of God, which would have been requisite had there been but one sinner to be saved, and had that sinner had but one sin ; and which would have been adequate had the number to be saved been to any conceivable extent greater than it is." 1 Is there any propriety in calling this a definite atonement, which must have been the same for one sin as for the sins not only of the actually saved, but of any indefinite number more ? Does it not follow, that the definiteness must lie in the purposed application, seeing in itself it was so indefinite as to be necessary for one and enough for millions ? Is the difference at all material, or deserving of the eagerness and the copiousness with which it is insisted upon, between the purposed application of the atonement and its divine destination ? It seems to me a hardly divisible hair's breadth, and to approach as near as may be to a logomachy. This may the more appear to you, when you hear a few sentences more : " It " (the exact equivalent scheme) "is at variance with what we have before established, namely, the infinite intrinsic value of the atonement of Christ. It overlooks the grand design of the atonement, which was, not simply to secure a mere commutative satisfaction to the justice of God, but to glorify all the divine perfections, and to make an illustrious manifestation of the principles of His government before the whole universe of moral creatures. It leaves no room for such an unlimited offer of Christ in the Gospel, as to render without excuse those who reject Him ; for if the atone- ment of Christ bore an exact proportion, in point of worth, to the sins of those who are actually saved by it ; then the salvation of any others was a natural impossibility, and no blame could attach to such for neglecting to embrace the proffered boon: 1 Symington, p. 269. 448 CALVINISTIC VIEWS OF indeed there would be no ground on which such an offer could be made." l This is surely as near as it is possible to come to the hypothesis of a general remedy with a limited application, or, as he defines an indefinite atonement, a "general moral vindication of the divine government," such a vindication as leaves the Divine Governor free to extend the benefits of it to whom He will. When the definiteness is made to lie in the atonement itself, and in answer to the question, " What is the atonement of Christ?" the following answer is given: "It has been 'already defended and explained as that perfect satisfaction to the law and justice of God, on account of which sinners are delivered from condemnation. Or, in other words, it is that which removes the offence subsisting between God and men, and procures a reconciliation. It supposes a compensation to be made to the lawgiver, in consideration of which certain specific blessings flow out to men. From its very nature, then, all for whom the atonement is made must reap its fruits. It is no atonement without this." When the admissions made are remembered, namely, of the infinite value of the atonement, and of its grand design as being "to glorify all the divine perfections, and to make an illustrious manifestation of the principles of His government before the whole universe of moral creatures," what more can this mean, consistently with itself, than that all those whom it was the sovereign purpose of God to save on the ground of the atonement, must be saved. If it does go further, if it means that there was any thing in the atone- ment itself by which this limitation was necessitated, no matter by what designation it be called, then does it come under the objection formerly shown to hold against the commutative justice, the personal compensation, the debt and credit system ; the same objection which contributes to the explosion of -the scheme of exact equivalent. And, accordingly, as might also have been anticipated, the idea of destination in the atonement, or of its being an atonement exclusively for the elect considered indi- vidually, comes to be so associated, I might say identified, with 1 Symington, pp. 268, 269. THE EXTENT OF THE ATONEMENT. 449 that of personal compensation, as naturally to lead to the placing of the actual virtue of the atonement in procuring the pardon and salvation of those whom the destination included, and for whom alone it was intended, on the ground of commutative justice. The following passage will show this. The object of it is to show that the distinctive and limited destination of the atonement is required by the rectitude of the divine character. " Shall not the Judge of all the earth do right? A God of truth and without iniquity ; just and right is He. Reason, conscience, revelation, providence, all concur in attesting the perfection of His nature. The Supreme Being gives to every one his due. This principle cannot be violated in a single instance. He cannot, according to this, either remit sin without satisfaction, or punish sin where satisfaction for it has been received. The one is as inconsistent with perfect equity as the other. If the punishment for sin has been borne, the remission of the offence follows of course. The principles of rectitude require this, nay, peremptorily demand it. Justice could not be satisfied without it. Agreeably to this reasoning, it follows that the death of Christ being a legal satisfaction for sin, all for whom He died must enjoy the remission of their offences. It is as much at variance with strict justice or equity that any for whom Christ has given satisfaction should continue under condemnation, as that they should have been delivered from guilt without a satisfaction at all. But it is admitted that all are not delivered from the punishment of , sin, that there are many who perish in final condemnation. We are, therefore, compelled to infer that for them no satisfaction has been given to the claims of divine justice, no atonement has been made. If this is denied, the monstrous impossibility must be maintained, that the infallible Judge refuses to remit the punishment of some for whose offences he has received a full compensation; that He finally condemns some, the price of whose deliverance has been paid to Him; that, with regard to the sins of some of mankind, He seeks satisfaction in their personal punishment, after having obtained satisfaction for them in the sufferings of Christ ; that VOL. n. 2 G 450 CALVINISTIC VIEWS OF is to say, that an infinitely righteous God takes double payment for the same debt, double satisfaction for the same offence, first from the surety and then from those for whom the surety stood bound." 1 On this statement I offer the following strictures: (1.) It must not be forgotten, that, on the hypothesis now under review, there is the admission of atonement infinite in value; more, therefore, even by infinitude, than a compensation for the sins of the actually saved. There exists, then, this infinite atonement. The question is : Whence the limitation in its actual efficiency, or saving results? This hypothesis answers: It arises from the divine destination of the atonement. The third hypothesis, that of modern Calvinism, regards the atone- ment as indefinite, a transcendently glorious manifestation of the-united perfections of the Godhead, more especially of His pure and holy righteousness, such as to render the exercise of mercy (still free, or only bound by engagement to the substitute) honourable to all God's other attributes, and consistent with the full maintenance of the rightful and necessary authority of His moral government and His eternal and immutable law; and affirm- ing the restriction in its final results to spring entirely from the divine will in its application. Here you see at once the full amount of the difference between the two. It lies simply in this, namely, in the difference between a divine purpose in the making of the atonement, and a divine purpose respecting the application of the atonement when made. And let it be remembered, that when we speak of a purpose respecting the application of the 'atonement when made, the words have a prospective as well as a retrospective import; including the application of it before the fulness of time as well as after it, and indeed the designed application of it from eternity. Thus narrow is the difference. The question, then, comes to be : Whether of the two is the more consistent with itself and with admitted general principles, leaving Scripture passages to be afterwards examined in the light of both, or rather both in the light of them. (2.) The limited destination scheme, as stated in the pre- ceding quotation, is identical, to a great extent, with the 1 Symington, pp. 244, 245. THE EXTENT OF THE ATONEMENT. 451 personal compensation scheme ; and as far as it is so, it is exclusive of all grace from the application of the atonement, and confines it entirely to its appointment. There is grace in the fact of an atonement being appointed at all, when all were guilty and deserving death ; but the atonement having been made, made in destination for a certain number only, and made in the way of " legal compensation " for their offences, grace ceases. There is no grace in the bestowment of pardon, or of any of the blessings of salvation, on those for whom the com- pensation has been made. The whole tenor of the passage, both in the spirit and the letter of it, maintains this ; that God is bound in justice to pardon those sinners, " the price of whose deliverance has been paid to Him ;" and it is reprobated as a " monstrous impossibility " that the Just One should be guilty of the injustice of exacting twice the payment of the same debt, of inflicting twice the punishment of the same offences. It is surely very clear, then, that there can be no grace in bestowing what it would be an act of injustice to withhold. I confess myself, with Andrew Fuller, more than disposed to doubt whether we should consider " the Moral Governor of the w r orld as laid under such a kind of obligation to show mercy to sinners as a creditor is under to discharge a debtor, on having received full satisfaction at the hands of a surety." The terms in which justification is spoken of by the inspired writers harmonize better with the scheme which regards the atonement as leaving the Sovereign Ruler free hi the exercise of His mercy to whom He will, on the ground of it, as the grand manifestation of His righteousness in the remission of sins. 1 Grace is represented, not merely as appointing the atonement, but as exercising itself in the justification of sinners on account of it, " through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus." But, according to the present hypothesis, the grace must have lain exclusively in the sovereign determination of God that the redemption price or ransom should be paid. When it had been paid, God could not, consistently with this hypothesis, be said to " justify freely by 1 Rom. iii. 24. 452 CALVINISTIC VIEWS OF His grace" those for whom it had been paid, but was laid, by the payment of it, under an obligation of justice to pardon and save them. There might be grace in admitting the proposal of a surety to pay the debt ; but there was no grace, when the debt had been paid, in absolving the debtor. There might be grace in allowing a voluntary substitute to bear the merited penalty ; but there could be none, when the substitute had borne the penalty, in remitting it to the transgressor. But (3.) The vindicator of the hypothesis under review admits the exact equivalent scheme to be inconsistent with the universality of Gospel invitations, and to leave no consistent ground on which they can be addressed to sinners of mankind at large. Now, it appears to me more than questionable whether his own hypo- thesis be not encumbered with a similar difficulty. Observe how the case stands. According to the hypothesis, the Divine Being, acting 011 the principles of justice, " cannot either remit sin without satisfaction, or punish sin where satisfaction for it has been received." On the ground that satisfaction has been received for the sins of the elect, he concludes, as we have seen, that it would be a violation of justice to punish them in their persons. And on the principle just stated, he consistently infers from the fact " that all are not delivered from the punish- ment of sin, that there are many who perish in final condemna- tion," that " for such no satisfaction has been given to the claims of infinite justice, no atonement has been made." But, if so, and if God " cannot," consistently with justice, remit sin without a satisfaction ; then it follows that the pardon or salvation of a single individual beyond the number of the elect was prevented, not merely by a sovereign limitation in the divine purpose, but by a barrier of a different kind ; that it is rendered impossible by the principles and claims of justice. God could not, on this hypothesis, save an individual of those who shall actually perish, on the ground of the atonement actually made, without a violation of these principles and claims ; no satisfaction having been given, no atonement having been made for them. But, if so, if the restriction of the atone- THE EXTENT OF THE ATONEMENT. 453 ment by destination has been such as to render the salvation of more than those for whom it was destined impossible in justice ; as impossible, that is, as that the Just One should act unjustly ; do not we feel ourselves as much tied up in making the universal offer of pardon, as we did on the scheme of exact equivalent or limited sufficiency. If in such a sense no atone- ment has been made for mankind, so that it would be actually unjust in God to save one of them, how can we feel at liberty, in proclaiming the grace of the Gospel as free to all ? If, no atonement having been made for them, they cannot be saved without an infraction of divine justice, is not the natural impossibility as real and as great as on the principle of exact equivalent and limited sufficiency ? If no atonement has been made for them, is not the exclusion from the possibility of salvation as complete, as on the supposition of an insufficient atonement having been made for them ? Do we not, on either supposition, invite them to what has no existence? tantalize them with the offer of what the very justice of God interdicts their obtaining ? An atonement, it is true, has been made, and an atonement infinite in the amount of its value ; but it has been made for a certain definite number only; and although there is an infinite superfluity of merit in it, there stands between them and an interest in that superfluity the insuperable barrier of the justice of heaven, which would be violated were they to obtain it. In these circumstances, do we not feel as if the word stuck in our throat when we say : " Whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely?" On such grounds it appears to me much more consistent and satisfactory to regard the atonement as a great moral vindi- cation of the divine character, and especially of the divine righteousness, not binding God to forgive any, but rendering it honourable to His perfections and government, should He so will it, to forgive all ; leaving no insuperable barrier in the way of the forgiveness of any, whether arising from limited sufficiency in the atonement itself, or from such restriction in its destination as to leave the claims of justice unsatisfied beyond the extent 454 UALV1N1STIC VIEWS OF of the destination ; both suppositions equally involving natural impossibility in the existence of no atonement beyond a certain limit. Dr. S. startles greatly at the idea, as if it were almost or even altogether an anti-scriptural heresy, that the atonement was made for sin rather than for sinners an idea which he conceives to be implied in atonement that is indefinite. Yet I am incap- able of discerning any heresy in such an idea. 1 fully concur with Dr. Payne when he says : " Strictly speaking, the atonement was not made for one man, or for all men ; it was made to God for sin, i. e., on account of sin. It was designed to remove those obstacles which sin had set up to any gracious communi- cations from God to man. There was doubtless a speciality of intention in reference to the individuals to whom the highest species of such communications should be made ; but the break- ing down of the barrier permitted the free access of mercy to every individual of the human family." 1 I am far from saying that by this view of the matter all difficulties are removed, all metaphysical puzzles solved. But I cannot but regard it as by much the most simple and self-consistent hypothesis, and the one that is embarrassed with the fewest and the smallest of the " things hard to be understood." If we take along with us the idea of this " speciality of intention," the idea, that is, of elec- tion or sovereign restriction in the application of the general or indefinite atonement, the following language of Dr. Dwight is quite in harmony with that of Dr. Payne : " If the atonement of Christ consisted in making such amends for the disobedience of man, as should place the law, government, and character of God in such a light that He could forgive sinners of the human race without any inconsistency ; then these amends, or this atonement, were all absolutely necessary, in order to render such forgiveness proper or consistent with the law and character of God : in a single instance the forgiveness of one sinner without these amends would be just as much a contradiction of the declarations of law as the forgiveness of a million. If, then, the 1 On Divine Sovereignty, etc., pp. 213, 214. THE EXTENT OF THE ATONEMENT. 455 amends actually made were such that God could consistently forgive one sinner, He might, with equal consistency and pro- priety, forgive any number, unless prevented by any other reason. The atonement, in other words, which was necessary for a world, was equally necessary, and in just the same manner and degree for an individual sinner." 1 If this be the true statement of the doctrine, I am at a loss to imagine the atone- ment definite in any other sense than as it precisely corresponded to what the infinitely wise God saAv to be necessary for the maintenance of the claims of His law in the remission of its penalty. If, in the accurate language of Dr. Payne, " to make satisfaction for sin is to do that which shall preserve to the moral government of God that powerful control over its subjects which the entrance of sin endangered, and which its uncondi- tional forgiveness would have entirely destroyed;" then this end is answered by an atonement which, in itself considered, is altogether independent of the numbers to be actually benefited by it. It is the necessary preparation or clearing of the way, to the exercise of forgiveness at all, on the part of the righteous Lawgiver, Ruler, and Judge ; whether that forgiveness shall be extended to one individual, or to a " multitude which no man can number." 2 " He that is unjust in the least, is unjust also in much." 3 In either, principle is violated; and with God the least is as impossible as the greatest. The atonement is made " that He might be just, and the justifier of him who believeth in Jesus." 4 Not that He might be just in justifying a'certain number, but that He might be just in justifying any, in justify- ing " whom He will." In order to this, the supposition of special and limited destination in the atonement itself, restricting it as an atonement for a specific number, so as to render their justification consistent with justice, (their merited penalty having been borne for them, but their justification alone), so that justice would be violated were the pardon to extend even to one indi- vidual more, (that individual's penalty not having been borne for him) ; the supposition, I say, of such destination is altogether 1 Theology, Serm. xxx. 8 Rev. vii. 9. 3 Luke xvi. 10. * Rom. iii. 26. 456 CALVINISTIC VIEWS OF unnecessary. It is enough that, by an indefinite atonement, an atonement for sin, that is, such an atonement as to render the pardon of sin consistent with divine justice, and so an atonement for sinners such an atonement as to render the pardon of sinners (of any or of all) consistent with divine justice, the way has been opened for the free and honourable exercise of that mercy in which Jehovah delights ; and then, Jehovah being left to the exercise of His sovereignty, after having pro- vided for the security of His righteousness, the limitation arises from this source alone He " has mercy on whom He will have mercy, and compassion on whom He will have compassion." 1 The view which I have thus given does appear to my mind much more self-consistent and free from embarrassing difficulties than either the exact equivalent scheme or the special destina- tion scheme. Its great advantage is, that it leaves all open ; and thus, by introducing no previous restrictions having refer- ence to the atonement itself, it preserves, free of all encroach- ment, a basis for the universal obligation of sinners of mankind to accept the offered mercy, and for the sincerity of the universal offer of it, in order to such acceptance. On neither of the other schemes do we feel our way clear ; the restriction, whether in the way of limited sufficiency or of limited destination in the propitiation itself. The following statements of the late Dr. Williams appear to me substantially correct, and, in a great degree, applicable to the principles of both the schemes we have been reviewing : " Every one to whom the Gospel is addressed is under obligation to seek the blessings it proposes, as well as to obey the precepts it contains ; such as remission of sin by repentance, acceptance into divine favour by faith, gracious assistance by prayer, holy conformity to Jesus Christ by the use of all appointed means, and everlasting life by walking in the ways of wisdom and universal obedience. These blessings flow through ' Jesus Christ and Him crucified.' And were there no sense in which Jesus Christ ' gave Himself a ransom ' for all those who are morally obliged to seek these blessings for His 1 Rom. ix. 15. THE EXTENT OF THE ATONEMENT. 457 sake, I acknowledge that there would not be an adequate basis for their obligation to do so. If Jesus Christ in no sense lived and died for their sake, how can they be obliged to seek these blessings for His mediation's sake ? Without adequate means, or objective sufficiency of merit ready to be laid to their account on compliance, how could they be consistently exhorted to seek them ; since it is unworthy of God to propose to them, on any terms, what was in no sense intended for them ? It is idle to say that they are obliged to obey the command of God, until it can be shown that He requires men to believe a falsehood. I know it has been observed, that God requires no man to believe that Christ died for him in particular, but for sinners. But if He died for sinners indefinitely, is not each individual included in that indefinite number ? And if by ' sinners ' be meant a definite number, how can every sinner to whom the Gospel comes be laid under an indefinite obligation to seek those blessings for the sake of what Christ has done and suffered ? " These considerations, among many others, constrain me to regard the blessed Saviour, in the whole of His mediatorial undertaking, as the great ordinance of God, proposed to man- kind without limitation, for the sake of whom they are encou- raged to seek all the blessings which they require. If they need an atoning sacrifice, a justifying righteousness, in short, a perfect meritorious character as their substitute, these blessings are pro- posed to the destitute sinners indefinitely, and consequently to them. If it be said that the proposal is made to those who feel their need, and on this condition ; if they experience their case to be miserable, and sincerely desire to obtain the blessing ; it is granted that there are special encouragements to such characters, as in our Lord's sermon on the mount. But how can others be threatened for rejecting what was never in any sense intended for them ? If it be again urged that no sinner knows but that Christ died for him, or does not know but that he is included in the atonement made, I reply : Does God require the ignorance of His creatures as the basis of His government, or is it worthy of His character to make it the ground of human obligation ? 458 GALVINISTIC VIEWS OF THE EXTENT OF THE ATONEMENT. " The question is not, whether special promises are made to persons under certain gracious exercises of mind, but whether any impenitent and unbelieving persons are condemned, finally condemned, for not accepting what God graciously offers, or for not seeking to obtain Gospel blessings through the mediation and meritorious sufferings of Christ? If none were in any sense designed for those who eventually perish, how can they be said to reject them ? or how can they be condemned for not seeking an impossibility, and an impossibility, too, founded in the appointment of God, and not merely in their own impotence?" We may seem now to be speculating without a sufficiently direct appeal to our only light ; following our own course of thought, without our guide. Where has been the question all this while : " What saith the Scripture ? " " What is written in the law; How readest thou?" But we have not for- gotten these primary and most essential questions. Our general answer to them is : That in the word of God there are two classes of texts which seem as if they spoke opposite language ; some employing terms of universality, others the terms of limi- tation. XXV. ON THE EXTENT OF THE ATONEMENT. WE are to bring under our review those passages of Scripture which relate to the controversy respecting the extent of the atonement ; and to see whether, when they are arrayed on either side, we can discover any principle or principles of harmony between them. I am the more solicitous to enter into the consideration of such passages, because there have been undue stretching and straining, to a greater or less extent, on both sides. I begin by mentioning such passages as are usually adduced in support of the doctrine of particular redemption, or restricted and definite atonement. They are numerous and familiar, and in the terms of them, it cannot be denied, do sound restrictively. 1 There is also a considerably numerous class of texts, in which the pronouns we and us occur, in connections which show that the reference is not to mankind generally, but specially to believers. 2 The passages on the other side are many. They may be divided into three classes : 1. Those in which the universal terms occur, all, all men, every man. 3 2. Those in which other terms, not less comprehensive, the world, the whole world, are used. 4 1 Acts xi. 28 ; John x. 11 ; Eph. v. 25-27 ; Isa. liii. 8, 11 ; Mat. xx. 28 ; xxvi. 28. 2 Tit. ii. 14 ; Rom. v. 8 ; viii. 32 ; 1 John iv. 7-10. s Rom. v. 18 ; 1 Cor. xv. 22 ; 2 Cor. v. 14, 15 ; 1 Tim. ii. 4 ; ii. 6 ; iv. 10 ; Tit. ii. 11, 12 ; Heh. ii. 9; 2 Pet. iii. 9. * John i. 29 ; iii. 16 ; iv. 42 ; vi. 51 ; 2 Cor. v. 19 ; 1 John ii, 2. 460 EXTENT OF THE ATONEMENT. 3. Those in which it seems to be intimated, that Christ died for some who yet may perish. 1 It is at the very first glance obvious that these texts seem as if they spoke a different language. Are they, then, on any fair principles of interpretation, capable of reconciliation ? One reply must, in the first instance, be made by every believer in the divine inspiration of the Bible ; namely, that there must be such a principle, since by so " many infallible proofs " this inspiration has been ascertained. The inspired volume cannot contradict itself. The writers cannot speak what is inconsistent with the testimony of each other ; far less can any of them contradict themselves. The " far less," indeed, might have been spared ; for, if the Bible be inspired, it is, throughout, the testimony of but one witness, conveyed through different organs ; namely, of the Spirit of that God with whom it is " impossible to lie," 2 who " abideth faithful, and cannot deny himself ?" 3 Observe then 1. There is one way of producing harmony resorted to by the advocates of restricted atonement, which is, indeed, effectual, but which, to no candid mind, can ever be satisfactory. I refer to the supplementing of those verses and phrases that represent the end of the death of Christ in universal terms, with restric- tive epithets. The usual supplement is the word " elect." " The world," is, in those texts which have been cited as containing it, conveniently limited by the insertion of this epithet ; and the elect world, an elect world, the w r hole world of God's elect, are, in old divines, amongst the voces signatae of a thorough-paced orthodoxy ; and have been by many employed with as much matter-of-course freedom and confidence as if they really were to be found in the sacred word. But they are not there. They belong to human systems merely ; and they who use them should at once be sensible that in so doing they expose their systems to just suspicion. The supplement is by much too arbitrary to be at all tolerated. On two grounds I object to it in terms of indignant reprobation. It is forced and unnatural ; and it in- 1 Horn. xiv. 15, 20 ; 1 Cor. viii. 12 ; 2 Pet. ii. 1. 2 Heb vi. 18. 2 Tim. ii. 13. EXTENT OF THE ATONEMENT. 461 trodtices into some statements of the sacred penmen inconsis- tency and absurdity. [1.] It is unnatural and forced. It is, a priori, most unlikely that the term ' world ' should ever, by the inspired writers, be used to designate the elect. The word has different meanings. Sometimes it signifies the habitable globe, the common residence of the human race ; sometimes the race itself, mankind, the inhabitants of the globe. As to these meanings there is no difficulty and no dispute. There is a third meaning, which is peculiar to Scripture phraseology, but so frequent and so marked there as to be, equally with the two preceding, out of the range of debate. No one can question its signifying the great mass of mankind in contradistinction to the people of God, the redeemed from amongst men. 1 The use of the word in this sense, when it is recollected how large a majority, when com- pared with believers, the ungodly portion of mankind has all along constituted, will at once and easily be accounted for. It is quite natural. But on this very account it seems in the very highest degree unnatural, and unlikely that the case should be reversed ; that the same general designation, which is used to distinguish mankind at large from believers, should, in the same book, by the same writers, and even in the same context, be used to distinguish believers from mankind at large ; that the same word which designates the majority in distinction from the minority should be employed to designate the minority in distinction from the majority ! We are ready to say, if this be the case, how is anything definite or intelligible to be made of the Bible ? They who have recourse to principles of inter- pretation so loose are not aware of the mischief they are doing. They may, by such means, succeed in solving, or rather in forcing out of the way, a difficulty which embarrassed and per- plexed them ; in cutting a knot which they found it hard to loose : but they make other difficulties, and still greater. And by subverting the principles of sound and candid criticism, and exposing those which they adopt to the smile and sneer of the 1 John vii. 7 ; xv. 19 ; 1 John v. 18, 19. 462 EXTENT OF THE ATONEMENT. sceptic, they contribute to harden his scepticism into infidelity. Few things can have more of this tendency than the introduc- tion of principles in the interpretation of language, such as make it manifest that the object is, by whatever monstrous deviations from simple and established rules, to bring the required meaning out of the phraseology ; " playing fast and loose" with the same terms, so as to make them, on all occasions, speak what we like, what we have previously fixed to be right. [2.] Inconsistency and absurdity are introduced into the statements of the sacred writers by the very means intended to explain and harmonize them. The proposed supplement, in some cases, produces neither more nor less than sheer nonsense. And yet I have heard such texts cited with the supplement, with all the tones of devout orthodoxy, without the least appa- rent consciousness of the insult thus put upon the Spirit of truth. To give you an example or two. I have heard the words quoted: "God so loved an elect world," etc. 1 Now surely by no one possessing even ordinary understanding will it be questioned that in the sentence the word "whosoever " (TT&S 6, every one who) has less extent of meaning than the more com- prehensive word "the world" which precedes it. It restricts and limits the comprehensive term, signifying evidently " who- soever of the world." Suppose, then, the supplement admitted, and the world to mean the world of the elect, or, more briefly and simply, " the elect," see what kind of statement we have 1 John iii. 16. Happening to turn up Cruden for texts in which the word ' world ' is used for the mass of mankind, in distinction from the people of God, I found the fol- lowing : After citing John xv. 18 correctly, as an instance in which the word is used for " the wicked in the world, unregenerated, unrenewed persons," we have two pas- sages cited in proof of its being also used for " God's chosen people, whether Jews orGentiles." Of these, the second is this very text : "Godso loved the world that He gave His ouly-begotton Son to die in their stead, and give satisfaction for their sins. Believers are called the world, both because they are taken from among Jews and Gentiles, and do participate in the corruption of the world." Strange ! As if the army should be called the nation, because the soldiers have been taken from among the nation ; or the general's body guard the army, because chosen from the ranks. Nay, still more incongruous, as if those who " come out from the world and are sepa- rate," and by their very separation have a distinctive character, " not touching the unclean thing," should be called the world still, as a designation of distinction from the world ! EXTENT OF THE ATONEMENT. 463 got : " God so loved the elect, that He gave His only-begotten Son, that whosoever" (of the elect) " believeth on Him," etc. This is absurdity. The same may be said of another passage t 1 " I pray not for the world," etc. ; yet, in the latter, Arminians allege He does pray for the world : "That they all may be one," etc.; "that the world may believe that thou hast sent me." Now, without taking up at present the object of the Arminians in this, I wish it to be considered what some Calvinists have said in reply. They have actually understood " the world," in this last occurrence of it, as meaning the elect, God's chosen people of all nations ; and the petition as a prayer that they might all of them, in successive generations, be brought to the knowledge and faith of His name ! In this way, it is alleged, the two verses are at once reconciled. And so, it must be admitted, they are. But the reconciliation is effected even still more than in the preceding case, at the expense of all fair and sound criticism, by making the same term express first one thing, repeatedly and in direct and specific distinction from another ; and then, all at once, and without warning, to mean the very thing from which it had been distinguished, and that not only in remote parts of the prayer, but in the very same sentence ! " The world" is used in express discrimination from the people of God ; 2 and in the very verse in question the distinction is marked : " That they also may be one in us, that the world may believe," etc. And that " they all" does not mean the proportion of the elect then, or at any tune, existing, as the means, by their union, of bringing the remainder in succession to the belief of the truth, is evident from the preceding verse, where the Redeemer expresses the comprehen- siveness of His petition as including all His people prospectively to the end of time : " Neither pray I for these alone," etc. Thus the world is clearly distinguished from them all. So that this extraordinary principle of interpretation makes those whose union was to be the means of conviction, and the world who were to be convinced by it, one and the same. 1 John xvit. 9, 21. * John xvii. 9, 14, 16, 18, 21, 23, 25. 464 EXTENT OF THE ATONEMENT. But there is not the least occasion for having recourse to a process so anomalous. The principle of interpretation is simple. In the explanation just given, and others of a similar character, it is assumed that the phrase, " that the world may believe," can have no other sense than that every individual in the world should be brought, in actual result, to true and saving faith. But the meaning seems sufficiently simple. The prayer is for the unity of His disciples. Things are spoken of according to their proper tendencies. And this unity is sought, as an evi- dence to the world of His divine mission. That is all. The tendency of all evidence is to produce conviction. And in all cases, the general design of every person by whom evidence is presented, must be the same ; corresponding with the tendency. It must be to convince. Such is the tendency, and such we are warranted to consider as the design, of all the evidence of the Gospel, or of the divine mission of Jesus and the truth of His doctrines. The petition under consideration is framed, in the expression of it, upon this simple principle ; signifying no more than that in the union and mutual love of His disci- ples, the world might have evidence of the truth, such as, whether the effect actually resulted or not, should tend to the production of faith, that is, to the conviction of His having come from God. And there are other cases in which the appli- cation of the same simple principle is necessary, as the key of interpretation. 1 No one ever imagines that in these words an absolute purpose is expressed, that by what He was then saying all who heard Him should be brought to actual salvation. He only expresses the proper tendency, and the general design of the various descriptions of evidence, to which, in the context, He makes His appeal. 2 The same principle must be applied to John i. 7. The words express the tendejicy and design of the Bap- tist's commission and testimony. Who ever fancied that " all," or " all men," here means the elect? 2. I venture to propose, then, as the most satisfactory prin- ciple of reconciliation and harmony between these" classes of 1 John v. 34. 2 vs. 31-37. EXTENT OF THE ATONEMENT. 465 passages, the twofold capacity under which Jehovah is, in the atonement, to be considered as acting, and the twofold design corresponding to the twofold capacity. There was a double object. There was an object pertaining to the general admini- stration of His government as the Moral Ruler of the universe ; and there was an object of a more special kind belonging to the dispensation of His favours as a Sovereign Benefactor. And in correspondence with this twofold purpose, there is a more gene- ral and a more peculiar love. I have endeavoured to show that when our Saviour says : " God so loved the world," 1 etc., " the world " cannot be understood in any restricted sense, but evf- dently signifies the world of mankind, the race at large. We have, in the words, a declaration from the lips of the Saviour Himself, that His own mediation is to be regarded as a manifesta- tion, on the part of the Godhead, of love to man ; a display of benevolence and grace towards this revolted province of His empire, this community of apostate creatures. In the same interesting light is it represented by Paul, when he applies to it the single but emphatically appropriate word, piXavdgavria: "After that the kindness and love of God our Saviour towards man appeared," etc. 2 The divine word informs us of another order of fallen creatures besides man, for whom the divine benevolence (for reasons unrevealed, and about which, therefore, conjecture is presumptuous and idle) has not been pleased to provide any means of deliverance. It is on man that He has set His love. He has made our world the theatre for the glorious manifesta- tion of His infinite benevolence ; and has expended here the munificence of His boundless grace. It is not the angelic nature, but the human, that He has honoured and blessed by the assumption of it into union with the divine. And His assuming it has been to work salvation, not for angels but for men. The angelic song that announced the arrival of a Saviour was sung on earth, not in hell. The peace is " on earth," the good-will "towards men." 3 The Redeemer by whom "glory is brought to God in the highest " is " the Son of Man ; " and 1 John iii. 16. * Tit. iii. 4. 3 Luke ii. 14. VOL. II. 2 H 466 EXTENT OF THE ATONEMENT. they are the children of men whom " He is not ashamed to call His brethren." * It is iri this sense, then, that " God so loved the world." The grand manifestation of His delight in mercy has had our world for its theatre, and men for its objects. The scheme in which He has embarked the glory of His name, has been a scheme of grace to the fallen family of Adam. I cannot but think the interpretation of our Lord's language to Nicodemus to be incomparably more natural on this principle, as having reference to the great general rectoral design of God as the Supreme Ruler, than when His words are restricted to the elect, and are taken in their strict acceptation as referring to the actual and final salvation of each individual in the world that is spoken of; as in the following passage : " The latter expression in it " 2 (namely, " that the world through Him might be saved ") " explains what is meant by the world. We have only to ask whether every individual in the world is actually saved by God's only begotten Son, to ascertain the extent of that world which is the object of God's redeeming love ; for it must be blasphemy to suppose, that the design for which God sent His Son into the world could, even in the slightest degree, be thwarted." 3 But neither the preceding nor subsequent context, any more than the words themselves, will admit of any such restriction. The whole passage proceeds upon the assumption, that, by the mediation of 'Jesus, salvation is provided for the world, while the general provision becomes actually available to them that believe. This distinction pervades the whole. 4 To show how inconclusive the reference to verse seventeenth is, in proof of the elect alone being intended by the world, I would further refer to the words : " I came not to judge the world, but to save the world." 5 It would surely be a very strange principle of criticism, that would insist on taking the word world in this declaration of our Saviour, in two senses, a wider and a more restricted. No one, it may be presumed, will think of alleging that, in the first of its occurrences, it means the elect; and if 1 Heb. ii. 11. 2 John iii. 16, 17. s Symington, pp. 284, 285. 4 vs. 14-19. 5 John xii. 47. EXTENT OF THE ATONEMENT. 467 not in the first, neither can it in the second. \Ye have, therefore, in these words, a clear instance of the generic use of the word ; and the representation of the design of Christ's work is not in regard to any secret purpose of personal salvation, but in regard to the provision of the means of salvation for mankind, for the fallen race. In regard, then, to the rectoral design of God, His purpose in the atonement as Moral Governor, the propitiation was general a propitiation for sin ; and for the public declaration of the divine righteousness in the bestowment of pardon. It was a part of His intention, that the offer of salvation should be freely made to mankind universally on the ground of it. In order to this, it was indispensable that it should have in it a sufficiency for all, and that it should be free of all restriction. In this sense, it is to be regarded as for all, for all men, for the world, the whole world. But we mentioned that there is, at the same time, a collateral and more special design of God, in His capacity of Sovereign Benefactor the design, namely, of giving actually saving efficacy to the great general scheme in the case of a certain number, the objects of His sovereign electing love. And those passages in which the object of the atonement is stated with a seeming limitation appear to be capable of a sufficiently simple and consistent interpretation on this principle. The death of Christ is for the church, for the sheep, and "to save His people from their sins ; " inasmuch as, according to the sovereign purpose of God's grace, its saving virtue is to be effectually theirs. This distinction between the rectoral design of Jehovah as universal Moral Governor, and the secret and definite purpose of Jehovah as a Sovereign Benefactor, is sufficiently intelligible ; and we cannot but regard it as of special importance. But to enter largely into the discussion of it would anticipate the illustration of the doctrine of election. I must remark further, however 3. That in insisting upon this distinction, I would not be understood to represent it as the only principle to be taken into account in the interpretation of the universal phraseology so frequent with the sacred writers, when speaking of the design 468 EXTENT OF THE ATONEMENT. of the death of Christ. There are others which require to be mentioned, and to be kept in remembrance ; inasmuch as, in the exposition of different passages, different principles may he required ; by which I do not mean, that we frame principles of interpretation according to the exigency of each case ; but only that, the different principles being all natural and reasonable in themselves, one of them may be more suitable for the explana- tion of one passage, and another for that of another : each passage in general suggesting the most natural principle of its own explanation. Of these other principles I may mention three : [1.] The difference between mankind individually and without exception, and mankind collectively and without difference. The distinction is simple, and of frequent applica- bility. 1 The words of Jesus, in reply to the communicated request of certain Greeks, who had come up to worship at one of the Jewish feasts, for an introduction to Him, are : "I . . . will draw all men unto me." And if any key were necessary to their interpretation, this very circumstance might furnish it. The words were not true of all men without exception ; but they were true of all men without difference. Jesus has not drawn all men to Him without exception ; but He has drawn all men without difference or discrimination, men of " every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation." So as to the other passage, He who wills that all men should be " saved," wills also that all men should " come to the knowledge of the truth." The meaning can be nothing more than that His salvation is designed for all men indiscriminately, and His truth for universal diffusion and universal influence. The context, indeed, evidently favours the interpretation of all men as meaning men of all sorts, without difference of rank or condition. 2 [2.] The distinction between the Jews, the peculiar people of God under the former dispensation, and mankind inclusive of Jews and Gentiles alike, according to the more comprehensive character of the New Testament economy. This is a distinc- 1 John xii. 32 ; 1 Tim. ii. 4. z vs . 1.4 EXTENT OF THE ATONEMENT. 469 tion which, from the circumstances of the case, we should naturally expect to find influencing to no small extent the phraseology of the inspired penmen of the latter. Formerly, the knowledge of the true God and of His salvation was, in a great degree, confined exclusively to the one chosen people ; latterly, there was to be a general extension of that knowledge to the whole Gentile world. This was to be one of the distinguishing features of the new era ; one of the most remarkable differences between it and the one which had preceded it. No reader of the Acts of the Apostles or of their Epistles can fail to remark the frequency with which this change is directly spoken of, or indirectly alluded to. Nothing, therefore, can be more natural, than that, when the designs of God by the Gospel are the sub- ject, such phrases as " all men," and " the world," and the " whole world," should be used to signify men of all nations, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles. 1 Nothing is more common than the use of a general designation in circum- stances when that which is affirmed is not true respecting each individual included in the designation ; but when the truth of it respecting even a comparatively small number ascertains or illustrates a general principle. 2 " The Gentiles," is a designa- tion of comprehensive import, including the whole of the nations of the world, except the Jews. I need not say, that God had riot, in this extensive sense, granted saving repentance to the Gentiles ; but the house of Cornelius were Gentiles, and in their case a principle was ascertained. The mind of God was, in that example, made apparent, that thenceforward, under the economy of Messiah's reign, there were to be no exclusive distinctions ; that the messengers of the Cross, the preachers of the Gospel, were to "know no man after the flesh." 8 " Repentance and remission of sins " were now to be preached, in. the name of Jesus, to all nations, " beginning at Jerusalem."* On the same principle on which, in this case, the Gentiles do not signify every individual in the Gentile nations, but the rest of mankind generally, as distinguished from the Jews, 1 Col. iii. 11 ; Rom. x. 12, 13, etc. * Acts xi. 18. 2 Cor. v. 10. * Luke xxiv. 47. 470 EXTENT OF THE ATONEMENT. the phrases the world and all men may be interpreted as mean- ing, not all men, all Adam's descendants, considered individually; but the race generally, as composed of Jews and Gentiles. [3.] The simple and universally recognized canon of interpre- tation, that a general or universal term ought to be understood as corresponding, in the extent of its import, with the subject of which the author at the time is treating. Throughout the fifteenth chapter of the first Epistle to the Corinthians, the apostle's sub- ject is, not the general resurrection but the resurrection of the just ; and the" all" should probably be taken thus restrictedly : " As in Adam they all die, so in Christ they shall all be made alive." 1 If any should be of opinion, that the terms in this verse must be understood unrestrictedly of mankind, then we know assuredly that they cannot, with regard to all, mean resurrection to life, the only resurrection that can possibly be regarded as a benefit or a blessing. 2 On this supposition (and it is the common one), the meaning can be no more than that the general resurrection forms a part of the great scheme connected with the mediatorial work of Christ : arising from it and necessary to the full accom- plishment of the divine ends in it. In any other sense, it would be a flat contradiction to other parts of the word of God. And the general sentiment there seems no reason to deny. But whether this particular application of the canon be admitted or not, there can be no doubt about the legitimacy of the canon itself. It might fairly be ranked among points whose authority is self-evident, points of which no proofs could well be clearer than themselves. It is quite unnecessary to press the application of any one of these principles in all cases. One of them may suit one passage or one class of passages, and another another. I formerly considered the proper import of the phrases, 'the world' and the ' whole world,' on this subject ; and showed the arbitra- riness of introducing into those phrases limiting epithets, the elect world, the whole world of the elect, etc. And I shewed you that there is no necessity whatever for interpreting them as 1 1 Cor. xv. 22. 2 John v. 28, 29. EXTENT OF THE ATONEMENT. 471 meaning the elect, considered as consisting of all nations, an aggregate from the world at large, not from the Jews alone. I shall now offer a few remarks on one very important and prominent passage in this controversy, and then briefly notice the different ways in which the different principles that have been mentioned are applicable to others. The passage is one to which I called your attention formerly, when on the subject of the imputation of Adam's first sin to his posterity, or the extent to which the race was involved in its penal consequences. I now confine my remarks to the meaning of the universal terms which are used in it on both sides, both as to the sin of Adam and the obedience of Christ. 1 The apostle runs a parallel between Adam and Christ in some points, and a con- trast in others. The principal point of parallelism consists in the public capacity sustained by both respectively, and in the resulting of consequences to others corresponding to the part acted by each in that capacity : consequences from the trans- gression of the first Adam and from the obedience of the second. In tracing this parallelism, the principal difficulty lies in ascertaining the import of those phrases by which the extent of the injury from the former and of the benefit from the latter is here expressed. The fact is undeniable that they are both expressed by the very same terms. " Therefore, as by the offence of one, judgment came upon all men (vavrag avSguvous) to condemnation, even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men (ir&vras avfyuvovs) unto justification of life. For as by one man's disobedience many (o/ croXXo/, the many) were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many (the many, o/ -roXXo/) be made righteous." Now, surely, if there can be found a principle of interpretation which admits of these phrases being understood on both sides in the same extent of meaning, such principle should bid fair to be the true one ; inasmuch as it cannot, with any candour, be denied that such agreement is greatly more simple and natural than explaining the same phrases with a latitude of import so much larger on the one 1 Horn. v. 12-21. 472 EXTENT OF THE ATONEMENT. side than on the other, as the ordinary Calvinistic exposition requires. I do not mean to deny or question the substantial truth yielded by that exposition ; but to me it is far from appearing sufficiently easy and natural to consider " all men " and " the many " as directly signifying, on the one side, all Adam's natural seed, and, on the other, all Christ's spiritual seed ; that is, the two seeds or bodies of which they are respectively understood to have been the representatives. Even if two modes of interpretation bring out ultimately the same, or nearly the same truth, yet that is to be preferred which brings it out with the least degree of force upon the apparently plain meaning of the terms ; and which assigns to these their most natural meaning. There is a class of modern commentators, the advocates of universal pardon, who find no difficulty. They explain the curse as involving no more than the dissolution of soul and body, or natural death ; and the curse, consequently, according to them, is removed by the resurrection. And as the resurrection is common to all, the difficulty vanishes. All is simple. All die in Adam ; all are made alive in Christ. The death came by the first Adam ; the resurrection comes by the second. It is the death of all ; it is the resurrection of all. There is one insuperable objection to such a view, fatal to it, were there no other, namely, that it represents the resurrection of the wicked as a benefit, as a deliverance from the curse. I cannot now enter into the enlarged exposure of this monstrous dogma, which separates the mere resurrection from its conse- quences, and regards that as a blessing which is only the necessary prelude to the completion of eternal misery ! But, apart from this, I would observe that, without the most flagrant outrage on all just principles of exegesis, the phraseology of the passage itself, especially when compared with that of Scripture generally in regard to the benefits resulting from the obedience of the second Adam, cannot possibly be understood as limited to the mere resurrection of the body, irrespectively of the eternal life of happiness succeeding it ; nor can the various expressions used be, with any consistency or truth, applied to EXTENT OF THE ATONEMENT. 473 all mankind, considered individually and without exception. "The free gift," "the gift by grace," "justification," and "justification of life," and these as opposed to "judgment " and "condemnation," "receiving the abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness," "and reigning in life by one, Jesus Christ," are expressions which are evidently employed with the same extent of application as to the recipients of the blessings signified by them. " The grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ," is said 1 to have " abounded unto many (unto the many) ;" and as this corresponds to the other phrases, 2 " the abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness," it follows that ah 1 who are meant by " the many " shall " reign in life by one, Jesus Christ." But nothing can be more fatuous than to interpret all these expressions, the strongest that can be used respecting the results of the work of Christ to believers, as having been fulfilled to all men, indivi dually and without exception, in the mere fact of their common resurrection from the grave. There is evidently no Scriptural sense, I might go further and say there is really no sense at all, in which the expressions in the passage can be considered as verified in all men, the wicked and righteous indiscriminately. The two classes are invariably distinguished from each other in reference to the very particulars. How can "justification" and "justifi- cation " of " life " be alike the portion of the two descriptions of persons spoken of? 3 We apply to this passage, then, as the most simple principle of interpretation, the distinction between all men without excep- tion and all men without difference. We have already given exemplifications of the distinction. And in vindication of the introduction of it here, I would observe, that this view of the passage accords well with the apostle's object. The Jews "made their boast in the law." They looked on " sinners of the Gentiles" as lying under God's curse, simply because they were not of God's chosen people, and were "without law." But the 1 v. 15. a v. 17. John iii. 18, 19, 36. 474 EXTENT OF THE ATONEMENT. apostle shows his deluded and high-minded countrymen, that there was a lineage more remote than that of Abraham, a lineage common to them with the Gentiles, Gentile and Jew alike having descended from the same common progenitor; that there must have been a law antecedent to the Mosaic, by the transgression of which the common doom of death had been incurred, death, although the penalty of guilt, having "reigned" before as well as after the time of Moses : that the connection of all, Jews as well as Gentiles, with the first man was the same ; and that all, the one as well as the other, were involved in the consequences of his fall. He shows them, then, on the one hand, that " by the offence of one judgment came upon all men," that is, not upon the Gentile only, but upon the Jew equally with the Gentile, "unto condemnation;" that, in this respect, there is " no difference." And in like manner, on the other hand, he shews them that " by the righteousness of one the free gift comes upon all men," that is, as before, upon Jew and Gentile alike, " without difference," " unto justification of life." In a word, he shows them, that in the offer and in the actual bestowment of divine grace, in all its eternal fruits by the Gospel, " there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek," the " same Lord over all being rich unto all that call upon him." Should it be objected to such an interpretation, that, in point of fact, the death and the curse do come upon all men without exception ; and, therefore, if this is not the case on the other side of the alternative, the analogy, or comparison, is not fair; my answer- is this : That it does not follow from the fact being so on the one side that it must necessarily be in this sense that the comparison is instituted. When a parallel case is drawn, and the same terms are used on both sides of it, if there be two senses in which these terms may be understood, and the question is, which is the true one ; it is surely a fair principle of decision, that if, when understood in one of the senses, there is one side of the parallel to which they cannot, without, unnatural straining, be applied while, when taken in EXTENT OF THE ATONEMENT. 475 the other, they are, with equal truth and equal simplicity, predicable of both, and, at the same time, the parallelism brought out is equally suitable to the purpose of the writer, the latter should be adopted as the preferable explanation. Thus the present case stands. All men without exception is true on the one side of the parallel, but it is not true on the other. All men without difference is equally true on both. And the sense produced by so understanding it is remarkably appropriate to the writer's purpose and the general scope of his discourse. Ought it not, then, on this simple principle, to have the preference? And that this is the point of parallelism which the apostle intends, we have strong evidence in a previous portion of the same epistle. 1 In one verse, 2 we have the unlimited term " all " in a connection where it may with truth be understood as meaning without exception: "All have sinned." Yet that the really intended and equally true import is, all without difference, is clear from what immediately follows: " Being justified freely," etc. 3 For you will at once perceive, that, were we to carry forward the universal term all, in the sense of all without exception, we should have a statement contrary to palpable fact, namely, that all who have sinned are actually made partakers of justifying grace ; and this too, although, in the very sentence, the justification is affirmed to be through faith in the propitiatory blood of Christ. To show this, it is only necessary to run the verses together. The meaning evidently is, that all, without difference, who are justified are justified in the same way, that is, "freely, by His grace," etc ; that the Jew cannot be justified otherwise than the Gentile ; and that the blessing was equally free to the Gentile as to the Jew. And in confirmation of this as the true meaning, we need only to look forward to the remaining verses of the chapter, where the writer, in the clearest manner, presents us with his own exegesis : 4 the obvious meaning being, that God justifies Jew and Gentile without difference, in the same way. 1 Rom. iii. 22-24. 2 v. 23. * v. 24. vs. 27-30. XXVL ON THE EXTENT OF THE ATONEMENT. ENOUGH, I think, has been said on the different principles of interpretation applicable to passages in which universal or restric- tive terms occur on the subject of the extent of the atonement, to enable you to make the application intelligently in each par- ticular case ; especially as to those in which the world and the whole world are the expressions used. There are still two or three in which the terms all and all men occur, on which a remark or two may be offered on account of their special character. 1 Tim. iv. 10. Thig is a peculiar instance. The explana- tion of it does not turn upon the sense of the universal term, but on the true meaning of that translated " Saviour." It ought, I presume, to be understood here in the more general sense of preserver. The connection evidently favours this view ; relating as it does to the difficulties and trials of their official life, in the midst of which they committed themselves, in fiducial reliance, to the preserving care of " the living God." That this is the true principle of interpretation is further evident from the consideration that, in regard to salvation, the word " specially " has no consistent application. It is very clear that when God is called the Saviour of " them that believe," actual salvation must be meant. But in the sense in which He is the Saviour of them that believe, He is not the Saviour of any others. He saves none but them that believe. He does not save them especially and others partially or conditionally ; He saves them exclusively. In a sense that pervades the EXTENT OF THE ATONEMENT. 477 Bible, there is a speciality of providential care extended by the Universal Preserver over His own people, the fearers of His name, the lovers of His Son, the righteous. Titus ii. 11, 12. There are two ways of translating these words, liuth strictly in accordance with the syntactical practice of the original language. I am inclined, with Bloomfield and others, to think the construction of ecuT^iog with vaaiv ai/dgutvois on the whole preferable, partly on account of the occurrence of the same verb iTpdv7> in the subsequent chapter, in the same absolute form ; * and partly because it does not appear so natural to speak of the grace that bringeth salvation having appeared unto all men, teaching us, etc. What we wish observed, how- ever, is, that in whichsoever way we construe the words, they will not be true if understood of all men without exception. It was far from true then, and it is far from true even still, that the Gospel had appeared or had been made known, even in the proclamation of its tidings, to ah 1 men in this sense. But both its appearing and its bringing salvation were strictly true as to all men without difference ; while in regard to the actually effi- cacious results of the death of Christ, the very context suggests the limitation ; and suggests it in terms which, at the same time, seem to indicate the speciality of purpose. 2 2 Pet. iii. 9. There are two w-ays in which these words may be explained. [1.] The apostle may be considered as speaking of the elect, of those -whom it is God's purpose to bring to salvation, and of them as constituting a community of which he w r as himself a member, " long-suffering to ns-ward," in the same way in which Paul uses the expression : " We who are alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord." 2 This com- munity is composed of many who are yet to live in the successive generations of mankind. God is " not willing that any " of these, the objects of His gracious purpose of salvation, " should perish," etc. : the very purpose for which the world is spared being that they may all be brought in due time, and put in possession of the covenant blessings. [2.] Much depends on the sense affixed 1 Ch. iii. 4. * v. 14. 1 Thess. iv. 15, etc. 478 EXTENT OF THE ATONEMENT. to the term willing, " not willing that any should perish," etc. Hence a most general and comprehensive interpretation of the words may be fairly maintained. We have already viewed God as a Sovereign Benefactor, and as a righteous Governor. Under the former character He wills, that is, He absolutely determines, the salvation of a certain member, and secures the accomplish- ment of His gracious purpose. But it does not follow that in the latter character He wills the perdition of any. I mean, that as a Governor, in awarding punishments, He does not at all act in sovereignty. Sovereignty relates to the bestowment of good, not to the infliction of evil. A sovereign purpose to save we can understand ; but a sovereign purpose to destroy is revolting and contradictory. It is not in consequence of any absolute sovereign act of His will that any sinner perishes. In no such sense does He will the death of the sinner. In the rectoral administration of God, salvation is set before all without difference, and is put within their reach, and pressed upon their acceptance. If any perish in these circumstances, they owe their perdition to the free, unconstrained, and uninfluenced choice of their own will rejecting the offer. God is under no obliga- tion to save them ; and they wilfully destroy themselves. Again : Repentance is obviously in itself right and good. It must be in accordance with the rectoral will of God as the moral Governor of His creatures. All are by the Gospel called to repentance. There must, therefore, be a sense in which He is willing that all should come to repentance. This is His general will, His moral will, His rectoral will. And in this light, it is equally true of all His fallen creatures. It is true of devils as well as of men. If it was wrong for the angels to sin, it must be right for them to repent of their sin. It is impossible that God can ever will any thing else than what is in its own nature right and good ; and repentance cannot in any case, where sin has been committed, be denied to be self-evidently right, and in this sense the holy God must will it. He " com- mandeth all men, everywhere, to repent." 1 And if He wills 1 Acts xvii. 30. EXTENT OF THE ATONEMENT. 479 repentance, He cannot will perdition, excepting as the merited consequence of impenitence and perseverance in sin. Having already said as much as seems necessary on other universal terms, I may now offer a few observations on the third class of passages, Ifcose, namely, in which the possibility is supposed of persons perishing for whom Christ died. 1 In explanation of such passages, let the following observations be attended to : (1.) Men are frequently spoken of in Scripture, not accord- ing to any secret purpose of God concerning them, but according to their profession and appearance. Every one was esteemed and spoken of as " a brother for whom Christ died," 2 who professed the faith, and did not by his conduct manifestly contradict the profession. That such should be the style of expression was indispensably necessary. It never would have done to have spoken of individuals, not according to the appear- ance they presented to men, but according to the absolute divine knowledge - of them, or the divine purpose concerning them ; to have spoken of them as elect or non-elect ; to have thus disclosed the secrets of the divine Mind ; to have let the light of Heaven fall upon the true character and final destinies of individual professors ; this would have superseded judgment to come. To professors it w r ould have rendered useless all the admonitions to vigilance, and diligence, and self-examination, and prayer, and perseverance. It \vould have put an end to the exercise of the judgment of Christian charity in the recep- tion into the fellowship of the church of those who professed the faith; and it would have been a style of discrimination, which, unless the miraculous gifts had been continued in the church, would never have been maintained. The apostles themselves were sometimes mistaken as to the real characters of men. They judged of professions from the indications of their state, as apparent from the manner of their profession and in the conduct which accompanied it: concluding favourably or unfa- vourably, or standing in doubt, according to the circumstances 1 Rom. xiv. 15, 20 ; 1 Cor. viii. 12 ; 2 Pet. ii. 1. Rom. xiv. 15. 480 EXTENT OF THE ATONEMENT. of each. l Even when Paul says of certain brethren : " Whose names are in the book of life," 2 he is not, I should apprehend, to be understood as delivering any divine intimation ; but as speaking of them according to the conviction of his own mind, arising from all the evidence of their character and state which he had had the opportunity to know. 3 (2.) Things are spoken of, not always according to their actual effects, but according to their tendencies. Whatever has in it a tendency to prejudice the spiritual interests of ourselves and others, and so to prevent final salvation, is represented as having in it the same criminality, on our part, as if such were its actual ultimate result; although by the grace of God the result should be counteracted. This, too, is a general, and an obviously righteous and essential rule of judgment. It is the rule of divine judgment as to the actions of men in general. To judge them according to the results actually arising in God's providence from their actions, and not according to the principle and motive of them in the heart of the agent, and according to their own proper tendency, would convert the most nefarious crimes into the most laudable virtues. The highest of all possible results, both as to God and man, arose from the death of Christ ; that is, taking a single step back to its proximate cause, from the unhallowed passions by which His murderers were driven on to imbrue their hands in " the innocent blood." But the passions were not on that account the less unhallowed, nor was it the less " by wicked hands" that He was " crucified and slain." The principle of the deed was the very essential element of all evil ; and its immediate tendency was to accom- plish, not the will of God, but the malignant wishes of the wicked one. The conduct reprehended in Rom. xiv. and 1 Cor. viii. stands in the same category with % the temptations of Satan. The rule by which we must judge of both is the same. The principle of his temptations is the most inveterate opposition to the glory of God and the present and eternal well-being 1 Acts viii. 18-33 ; Gal. iv. 11 ; xix. 20. 2 Phil. iv. 3. 3 Thess. i. 2-6. EXTENT OF TIIK ATONEMENT. 481 of men ; and their tendency is to ruin souls and rob the Redeemer of His honour in saving them. Their guilt, surely, is not the less, that the souls which he tempts and seeks to ruin are rescued from that ruin by interposing grace. In like manner, the reprehended conduct includes in it a temptation to evil. The principle of it is utterly at variance with Christian love ; and its tendency is to the destruction of those who are tempted by it. If God by His interposing grace prevents the injury, no thanks to those who by their conduct expose to it. (3.) Perseverance is always associated with the use of the appropriate and appointed means of establishment and growth in grace, and with the avoidance of whatever has an opposite tendenchr ; and, this being the case, there is no difficulty, in regard t the passages quoted, either different in kind or greater in degree, than there is in those which warn us of our own danger. \As these are admonitions to shun the temptations our- selves, so are they, necessarily, to avoid presenting temptations to others ; they, our brethren, being in the same danger. All the arguments, therefore, on the subject of the " perseverance of the saints," connected with such warnings, might, with equal propriety and force of application, be introduced here. It follows : (4.) That all that is meant in such passages is, that we should scrupulously beware of being a stumbling-block and temptation to our brethren, to those who give the evidence which should satisfy Christian charity of their being the objects of Christ's redeeming grace and sovereign purpose of mercy; that we should; as we value either their salvation or our own, sacredly avoid whatever might tend to lead them into sin, with its ruinous consequences. (5.) With regard to 2 Pet. ii. 1, I shall not enter into any discussion about the application of the designation translated " Lord" to Christ or to the Father. It is not the ordinary word so rendered, not xvgiog but dsavorr^. The only other occurrences of it in the New Testament are where it is used of the Father, 1 and where it may be either the Father or Christ, 1 Acts iv. 24. VOL. II. 2 I N / 482 EXTENT OF THE ATONEMENT. though the probability is in favour of the latter; 1 and another, 2 where our translators make it refer to the Father, " the only Lord God," in distinction from " our Lord Jesus Christ," but which, on certain ascertained principles regarding the use of the Greek article, Mr. Granville Sharpe renders thus : " Denying our only Master, God, and Lord, Jesus Christ ; " and Bishop Middleton and Dr. Bloomfield, on the supposition that fabv belongs to the original text, both concur in the reference of the whole to one person. Had it been otherwise, the rbv would have been repeated before xvgiov, etc.; and Middleton refers to the Syriac and the Coptic versions as so understanding it. In the passage under consideration no doubt the words might be interpreted of God as the providential deliverer of Israel ; 3 natural enough when the "false prophets" had been spoken of, who, in common with the Jews generally, boasted of Jehovah in this character. And in support of this it has been urged, that in the passage no mention is made of the blood or death of Christ, as is usually done when redemption by Christ is meant. But, supposing it to be meant, the words may be easily explained on the principle of the first in this series of observations that men are spoken of according to professions and appearances, and according to the credibility of the profession, in the estimate of Christian charity, when originally made. We may, in confirmation of this, com- pare the passage with two others of the same writer, which show the style in which he was wont on such subjects to express himself. 4 The former passage clearly refers to profession, to what the person had professed of his faith in the atonement, and of his sense and confidence of pardon ; and the latter passage is the more likely to be of parallel import to the text under com- ment, from its relating to the same description of persons. Allow me to say, in concluding this subject, that, in all our interpretations of Scripture, it is, in every view, of the very highest consequence that we assign to words and phrases, as far as possible, their most natural and obvious meaning ; avoiding whatever is arbitrary, and wears the appearance of our feeling 1 Rev. vi. 10, 10, 17. 2 Jude 4. 3 Deut. xxxii. 2. 4 2 Pet. i. 9 ; ii. 20. EXTENT OF THE ATONEMENT. 483 that we cannot hold our ground without force and straining, an appearance which is always very detrimental. It is true it is in human nature, and consequently accords with every man's experience, that habitual attachment to a particular system will, to a mind under its influence, make many things seem natural enough, which, to one holding opposite views, appear utterly perverse and inadmissible. I have ever thought that Calvinists in general, in supporting the doctrine of particular redemption, have laid themselves greatly open to animadversion for the unnatural interpretations which they have put upon some parts of Scripture phraseology, to some of which we have had occasion to make pointed reference. That principle of interpre- tation should certainly be adopted as the right one, which, with the least appearance or reality of forced and unnatural explana- tion of words and phrases, harmonizes the various and, at first view, seemingly conflicting passages of the divine word. I have already so much at length set before you the principle which, on the present all-interesting subject, best answers this end, that I feel ashamed to repeat it. It is to view the atonement of Christ as a grand general remedy, glorifying all the divine per- fections in the forgiveness and salvation of the guilty on account of it ; possessing sufficiency of value for the salvation of ah 1 , and, on this ground, proclaiming and offering salvation alike to all ; but limited as to its actually saving efficacy by the sovereign purpose of God in the election of grace : in the former view, answering the rectoral design of God, as moral governor of the world ; and in the latter, the sovereign purpose of God in the free and unfettered exercise of His everlasting mercy. Other principles of interpretation I have mentioned in connection with this, as suiting the explanation of different texts. But the one just repeated is the most general and important. Having been necessarily led, in considering the questions relative to the extent of the atonement, to refer repeatedly to this distinction between the general design of God in reference to the race of mankind at large, and the more special purpose of His grace in regard to those who are actually saved, I 484 EXTENT OF THE ATONEMENT. conceive the present to be quite as natural a place as any other for introducing the doctrine of election. In one sense, it might be ranked among the blessings arising from the mediation of Christ the election being in Him and might, therefore, have found its place at a future period of our course. Yet, with greater propriety, the blessings may be considered as the benefits, present and eternal, to which the elect are chosen ; and come naturally to be considered after we have finished what we have to say of the work of the Redeemer, their procuring cause. At the same time, however, the doctrine of perseverance, although enumerated by the Assembly of Divines at Westminister as the last among the " blessings which in this life do either accompany or flow from justification, adoption, and sanctification," * is so inseparably connected with that of election, so interwoven with it, so almost, in some points, identical with it, forming in its essential principles an integrant part at least of it ; that any observations I have to make on that doctrine may most naturally, and with most effect, be introduced in connection with it. This will, it is true, draw us longer away than may seem reasonable or desirable from what remains respecting the work of Christ, His resurrection, ascen- sion, intercession, and reign. But the intimacy of the associations of the subject with what has come in our way must plead my apology for this. We shall now take up and discuss the doctrine of election, the lessons which the Bible teaches us on the subject, and the objections by which those lessons have been assailed. 1 Assembly's Catechism, Quest. 36. XXVII. ON ELECTION. IN the ninth chapter of the Epistle to the Romans, we have an inspired discussion on the subject of election ; and being in possession of such a discussion from the pen of one of those " holy men of God who spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost," it may be better for us to follow its guidance than to treat the subject in a more general form. In course of our exami- nation of this passage, the grand fundamental principles of the doctrine will evolve themselves, and be made the topics of more extended consideration. I doubt not that to the contents of this chapter, amongst other parts of Paul's writings, the apostle Peter had reference when he spoke of things hard to be understood. 1 When, there- fore, we approach such a subject, we may truly say that deep reverence for God and a humble consciousness of our own inferiority in intellectual comprehension, as well as of our utter unworthiness as sinners, and the biassing power of our principles of depravity, are the only sentiments and dispositions of mind with which we can safely " draw nigh hither." We must " put off our shoes from off our feet," for it is " holy ground." This may not be the temper which a false and high-minded philosophy likes, a philosophy that spurns at all restraint, and smiles in scorn at the timid shrinkings of piety; but it is the only rational temperament on such subjects, the only state of mind suited to the investigations of divine science. Far from us be that unhallowed and infatuated presumption which advances with the same fearlessness into the deepest mysteries of the 1 2 IYt. iii. 15, 16. 486 ELECTION. divine procedure, as that with which it investigates a principle of abstract geometry, or a fact in natural history ! Let us examine, but let it be " with reverence and godly fear." We may regard the part of the chapter on which we now enter as a continued illustration of the sentiment in the conclu- sion of the preceding chapter. 1 The principal point of controversy respecting this chapter is, whether the election of which the apostle treats in it, be a personal or a national election ; and this necessarily includes another point of dispute, namely, whether it be election to the final enjoyment of everlasting life, or only election to the pos- session of the outward privileges and means of salvation. This 'other topic, I say, is included in the former ; for if the election be national, it can only of course be to means and privileges ; there being evidently no such thing as national salvation. Our first observation, then, is, and we beg special attention to it because of its immediate bearing at the outset on the settle- ment of this question ; that the distinction with which the apostle opens his discussion is not a national but a personal one. It is not a distinction between Jews and Gentiles, between the nation of Israel and the other nations of the earth ; but between Jews and Jews, between one part of the people of Israel and another. That we may clearly see this, let us mark the connection of the passage with what precedes, and the general principle of the reasoning. In the preceding verses he expresses his " heaviness and sorrow of heart for his brethren, his kinsmen according to the flesh." The cause of his sorrow was the unbelief of so large a portion of his countrymen, and the consequence about to result from it their judicial rejection by the God of their fathers, the God whose Son they had " despised and rejected." They had " cast Him out of the vineyard,- and slain Him, that the inheritance might be theirs;" 2 but instead of securing their object, this crowning act of rebellion forfeited it, with all its attendant blessings. They who had cast out the Son were for this to be cast out themselves. 1 Chap. viii. 28-30. 2 Luke xx. 14. ELECTION. 487 The question then comes to be : How is such rejection and disinheritance of the great body of the Jewish people to be recon- ciled with the promises of Jehovah to the seed of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob ? How can this rejection take place, and God be faithful ? The question had been alluded to in an early part of the epistle. 1 The answer to the objection there is general, resting on a principle ever to be assumed with unhesitating certainty, that, whatever difficulties men may find, God must be true. If this is not a principle to be assumed, there can be nothing whatever certain. He does not there unfold the further principle on which the faithfulness of God is vindicated from all imputation. Formerly he had only said, in effect, that what- ever might be the principle of solution for the difficulty started in the objection, we must, on no account, let our minds be shaken as to the veracity and faithfulness of God. But here we have the principle of solution. 2 We must understand these verses in a sense that meets and answers the objection they are intended to repel ; and indeed there seems to be but one sense in which they can be understood. " The word of God " 3 is the word of divine promise to Abraham and his seed. Two things are here assumed concerning it : first, that every word of God must take effect ; and, secondly, that this word must have had a fulfilment to the full amount of its original import. Whatever was designed to be included in the promise, it must, in that sense, and in all its extent, be verified. The apostle does not invent an hypothesis to get rid of a difficulty. If the whole of the seed of Abraham by natural descent was meant by the phrase, " thy seed," in the promise ; then to the whole it must have been fulfilled. It could be no vindication of the faithfulness of God that a promise made to the whole was verified to a part. The principle of vindication is, that the promise of the covenant with Abraham was not made to the natural descendants of the patriarch simply as such. If, indeed, it had been so, the faithfulness of God could not have been vindicated with regard 1 Chap. iii. 3, 4. 2 vs. 6-8. * v. 6. 488 ELECTION. either to the temporal or the spiritual promise; inasmuch asneither the blessings of the one nor of the other have been possessed by the whole of the fleshly seed. When it is said : " They are not all Israel who are of Israel," the connection clearly requires the meaning to be, that all who are sprung from Abraham by natural descent are not, in virtue of that connection merely, the Israel to whom the promises were made. And so of the following phrase : " Neither because they are the seed of Abraham are they all children," i.e., such children as were meant in the promises. They were children in one sense, but not in that sense. " But in Isaac shall thy seed be called." And He subjoins His interpretation of the words : " That is, they who are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God," etc. This is one of not a few passages, in which the word only or merely is necessary as a supplement. The obvious meaning is, that mere natural descent did not constitute a title to the promises, not being the ground on which they were made. Ishmael was the seed of Abraham, after the flesh, as well as Isaac ; and so were Abraham's offspring by Keturah. But Isaac was preferred by God to Ishmael. both personally, and as the progenitor of Him who was, by way of eminence, the seed of Abraham ; and as being the first in the line of descent in which the promises were primarily to be fulfilled. This preference of Isaac to Ishmael was according to the free purpose of God ; and it was an illustration of the distinction between the true children of God, who " walk in the steps of Abraham's faith," and others who should be His children merely after the flesh, and have no spiritual relation to the father of the faithful, but should be in reality " of their father the devil." 1 The distinction is strongly marked, in various parts of God's word. 2 In this last passage, the expression is worthy of particular notice : " We, as Isaac was, are children of the promise." 3 It clearly shows what is meant by " children of promise ;" and in what sense Isaac was such being the first of Abraham's spiritual seed. Those are the " children of the promise," i.e., the seed promised, and 1 John viii. 44. 2 John viii. 37-39, 44 ; Gal. iv. 21-23, 28-31. * v. 28. ELECTION. 489 the seed to whom the other promises of the covenant were made ; and to these, and to all these, the promises are fulfilled. Now it is clear that here we have a personal distinction. It is not a distinction merely between the nation of the Jews as descended from Isaac, and the tribes of the Arabians as descended from Ishmael. You will at once perceive that this could not serve the purpose of the apostle's argument. It is of the rejection of a part of the former that he is speaking ; and his object is to show the faithfulness of God to His promise, and the full effect of His word, notwithstanding such rejection. But this lie would never make good, if the declaration, " In Isaac shall thy seed be called," expressed no more than a distinction between the natural seed of Isaac and the natural seed of Ishmael. He must mean more than this if he means anything to his purpose, namely, a distinction amongst the natural posterity of Isaac themselves : the declaration implying that in the line of descent from Isaac should come the seed to whom the promises of the covenant were made, namely, the spiritual seed, and that great Deliverer in whom the spiritual seed should sustain their relation to God. Ishmael was for a time the apparent heir ; and in him it seems as if Abraham had for a time, with an incredulity hardly worthy of his character, expected the promise to be fulfilled. This much seems implied in his petition : " that Ishmael might live before thee ; " 1 for God immediately answers that petition by words intended to suppress every rising doubt : " Sarah thy wife shall bare thee a son indeed." 2 But verse ninth. This was to be the child of promise, 3 the son of the free woman. He was to supplant Ishmael, and in his line the seed was to be born " in whom all the nations of the earth were to be blessed." A further illustration of the same thing is drawn from Isaac's immediate progeny. 4 " Not only this." The dis- tinction did not end here; that between Isaac and Ishmael was followed by that between Jacob and Esau. And the instance is, if possible, still more in point. It might be 1 Gen. xvii. 18. 2 Il'id. v. 19. 3 Ibid. v. 0. 4 Koni. is. 10-13. 490 ELECTION. alleged that, in the former instance, the difference was made on account of the inequality of the parties. Ishmael being the son of an Egyptian slave, while Isaac was the child of the honoured wife of the patriarch, who had from God Him- self the name of nobility; and the promissory declaration was made, too, subsequently to the birth of the former, and even when he had arrived at an age when symptoms of his profane- ness might have begun to discover themselves. But the next presents parties in all respects equal. They were children of one father, by one mother, at one birth. The declaration of the difference between them was made previously to their birth; and could not, therefore, be influenced by any indica- tions of character in either of the parties, as might appear to have occurred in the former instance. And this was so ordered, that the election might be shown to be independent of character or of works, and to arise entirely from the sovereign good plea- sure of God. 1 In these circumstances " it was said unto her, the elder shall serve the younger." This was literally true of the posterity of Jacob and Esau. The latter became tributary, at various times, to the former. 2 But more is evidently meant by the expression than this. It intimated that Esau, though the older, was to become the inferior, i. e., that the natural and instituted order was to be reversed ; that Esau was to lose his birthright, and, in losing it,* to make a forfeiture of the blessings of God's covenant connected with it, the spiritual as well as the tem- poral : so that God, as the God of the covenant, should not be called "the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Esau," but of "Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob." This was the sovereign ap- pointment of Jehovah, the result of His electing grace in favour of Jacob. The apostle further confirms this from the language of prophecy. 3 It has been thought that, from God's being spoken of here as " giving the heritage of Esau to the dragons," etc., all that is meant by His loving the one of the brothers and 'Rom. ix. 11. 2 2 Sam. viii. 14 ; 2 Kings ix. 20. 8 Mai. i. 2, 3. ELECTION. 491 hating the other, is that he conferred temporal blessings on the posterity of the one and withheld them from that of the other. It seems manifest, however, that Jacob and Esau are here spoken of, in the first instance, personally; and that the posses- sion of the temporal inheritance by the posterity of the one, in preference to that of the other, was the result, and but a small part of the result, of the sovereign preference of the one brother himself. He was made heir of the blessings of the covenant ; and the inheritance, which thus fell to him by the sovereign appointment of God, was the type of the heavenly, the promises of which (the principal promises of the covenant) were couched under those of the earthly Canaan ; and the earthly became the pledge as well as type of the heavenly. The loss of Canaan, as inclusive of both, was the consequence of Esau's personal rejec- tion as heir of the covenant. We shall see afterwards, that while sovereign election to life is a scriptural and important idea, there is no such thing as sovereign reprobation or appointment to death. This is not the effect of sovereignty, but of equity ; and is the consequence invariably of the individual's own guilt. Although it was the previous and sovereign purpose of God that Jacob should be the heir of the promise, that Canaan and the blessings of the covenant in general should be his and not Esau's; yet Esau's forfeiture was the righteous effect of his own " profanity," as the apostle expresses it, in despising his birth- right, and selling it for a "morsel of meat." In this act, he set at nought the covenant of God ; and being "left to the freedom of his own will," and to the influence of his own corrupt, and worldly, and sensual desires, he wilfully renounced, as of little worth, the promises connected with the birthright, and incurred the divine displeasure. For the hatred of God is never to be considered as regarding its objects simply as creatures. It is always connected with sin. Love is sovereign in choosing its objects. But it is the "workers of iniquity" whom God " hateth." It was as such that Esau Avas hated. The hatred is not to be considered, nor is it here represented, as independent of evil in the object of it. On the contrary, his "not inheriting 492 ELECTION. the blessing" was the consequence of his profanity in selling liis birthright. 1 In mentioning Esau and Jacob, the apostle introduces an important general principle on the subject of election. The declaration of Jacob's superiority, as by the sovereign will of God to be the heir of the covenant blessings, was declared before the birth of the twins, and before, consequently, any difference had appeared between them ; " that the purpose of God, according to election, might stand not of works but of Him that calleth." Now, first of all, it is very plain that the election could not be on the ground of works performed ; for none, from the nature of the case, had been or could have been performed. Was it, then, on the ground of works foreseen ? It is forgotten, when men allege this, that, in regard to prin- ciple, it is the very same thing. Every one must perceive that, if the divine determination were fixed on the ground of works performed, there could be no such thing at all as previous purpose. If there be such a thing as previous purpose, then is it manifest that, were that purpose " of works," it must of necessity be of works " as" foreseen ;" none, from the circum- stances of the case, having been performed. When, therefore, on such a subject we find it affirmed, in unqualified terms, that " it is not of works," it must mean that it is not of works as foreseen ; because, from the very nature of previous purpose, it could not, when the purpose was formed, be of works in any other way, none having been done, the parties being " not yet born." A previous purpose must either be on the ground of works foreseen, or not on the ground of works at all ; so that, when it is affirmed not to be of works, it can mean nothing else than that it is not of works foreseen. " The purpose of God according to election " is that pur- pose by which He determines the salvation of those who are the objects of His electing love. " Whom He fore- knew He also did predestinate." We are here, therefore, explicitly taught that " the purpose of God according to elec- 1 Heb, xii. 16, 17. ELECTION. 493 tion " did not proceed on the ground of foreseen differences of character, that very difference being included in the purpose ; but that it is of grace, of the free favour of " Him that calleth," i.e., that effectually calleth, calleth " out of darkness into His own marvellous light." He calls " according to His purpose." 1 God's choosing some, then, to life, and not choosing others, is not, according to the apostle, on account of good in the one or of greater evil in the other. All are sinners, all foreseen of God as such ; so that, if evil in one prevented election, evil in all would, on the same principle, prevent the election of any. And therefore, although the condemnation of every one that is condemned shall be on account of his sins (in which there is no exercise of sovereignty, but of simple justice), yet his not being chosen must not be considered as arising from this cause ; because, if sin were sufficient to prevent the election of any, it must have prevented the election of all. The distinction, therefore, of sinners, arising from the election of some and the non-election of others, must be viewed as resulting from what, we call the sovereign good pleasure of God, of which, however, it is of moment that we should beware of forming unworthy conceptions, as if it were at all akin to caprice in the creature. We mean by it, as will appear more fully afterwards, not that this part of the divine conduct, more than any other, is deter- mined by no reasons. We mean that it is determined by an unrevealed, and therefore to us unknown, reason, concealed in His own infinite mind, and in the concealment of which consists His sovereignty ; a reason or reasons, we may rest assured, though to us -they are not made known, consistent in all respects with His infinite wisdom, justice, and goodness. All that we know is, that the reason, be it what it may, is not any good desert in the creature. This general principle will come more fully out, when we consider the spirit of the objection which the apostle supposes to be started. 2 It is a principle of considerable importance in its interpretation, and in exposition generally, whether of the 1 Ch. viii. 28. * Rom. ix. 14. 494 ELECTION. Scriptures or of any other writings ; namely, that the import of what the apostle writes, the real nature of the doctrine he teaches, is often to be learned very distinctly from the nature of the objections which he supposes opponents may offer against it. You must at once be sensible, that for the objection here anticipated there could have existed not only no valid ground (that there is not, as we shall see, according to what we deem the true interpretation), but no conceivable colour, no pretext possessing even the slightest portion of plausibility it never could have entered into any man's mind, if the election spoken of had been on account of good works foreseen in the objects of choice as opposed to evil in those rejected. And surely that view which leaves no possible room, no shadow of plausibility, for the objection, cannot be the view against which the objec- tion is supposed to be made. The charge, hypothetically brought against God in the objection, the apostle first rejects indignantly as an impossible thing, a thing which it was impious even to suppose ; and then he proceeds argumentatively to set it aside as quite irrelevant to the particular case. The manner in which he meets even the remotest insinuation of such a charge should teach us an important lesson, already indeed hinted at, namely, the spirit in which we should approach all such subjects of discussion. " Is there unrighteousness with God ? God forbid !" Far be it ! Away with such a thought ! Whatever be made of this or of any difficulty, let it be firmly settled in our minds as a principle which must on no account be questioned, that there is, and can be, no unrighteousness with God. " He is a God of truth, and without iniquity ; just and right is He." 1 With- out this how should God judge the world? The supposition involves the overthrow of all moral government on God's part and responsibility on man's. The apostle, however, does not rest satisfied with this. He pro- ceeds with his argument to show the objector, on principles such as every duly humble and candid mind should admit, that, in the in- stance of which he treats, there is no room for the imputation. 1 Deut. xxxii. 4. ELECTION. 495 Let us look at the apostle's reply to the question: " Is there unrighteousness with God?" 1 The whole context shows, that the apostle had chiefly in view the refutation of Jewish objectors, and the satisfaction and conviction of his countrymen. He therefore makes refer- ence to their own Scriptures, to prove the consistency of his doctrine with the statements contained in them, and with the recorded conduct of Jehovah. 2 Was it a national distinction which God meant when He made this declaration of His sove- reignty? a declaration of His being perfectly at liberty to bestow upon the Tsraelitish people the peculiar privileges which they enjoyed, and to withhold them from others? Not at all. This was true ; but not the truth then declared, nor a truth bearing any relation to the immediate circumstances of the case. The grace and the mercy have immediate reference to the need and to the exercise of pardon. And this, again, has reference to the condition of Israel at the time they had transgressed, or, as Moses himself expresses it, " had sinned a great sin, and made themselves gods of gold." And in this language to Moses God asserts His sovereignty in the exercise of His forgiveness. Israel having sinned, having committed the enormous and heavily aggravated trespass of idolatry in the making and worshipping of the golden calf, they lay at God's mercy. To cast them off would have been their desert. It would have been an act of equity of retributive justice ; but He had a sovereign right to show them mercy if He would. But even this is not all. Among the guilty Israelites He had the same sovereign right to select the objects of His pardoning clemency on the one hand, and of His righteous judicial infliction on the other. He could in justice punish all who had transgressed ; He could in sove- reign mercy pardon all who had transgressed ; or He could in mercy pardon some, while in justice He punished others. The forgiveness of one did not render another less guilty, or his punishment the less deserved and righteous. What Jehovah, then, in these words, declares, is His high prerogative of show- ing undeserved mercy according to His pleasure. 1 Rom. ix. 15, 16. * Exod. xxxiii. 19. 496 ELECTION. Let it, then, be particularly observed that this free exercise of mercy proceeds upon the ground that all are guilty, all alike undeserving of favour. This is the foundation-stone of the doctrine. All being regarded as guilty, justice might take its course against all. If this be once assumed it will instantly and inevitably follow that His showing mercy to any can arise from nothing else than His own sovereign pleasure ; that is, in as far as desert on the part of the culprit is concerned. We can trace the exercise of His clemency towards one rather than another only to His own will " I will have mercy," etc.. i. e., I will pardon what sinners I please. We can assign no other reason why He has not mercy on all equally, or why He has mercy on this sinner rather than on that. Secret reasons of His own He has by which His will is determined. But all that we know, and all that it concerns us to know is, that the reason is not any worthiness on the part of those chosen ; and we are certain, on the most obvious principles of reason, that, where all are guilty, mercy must of necessity be free. In this, then, it appears that there is " no unrighteousness with God." Those to whom mercy is shown, since they owe it in no respect whatever to themselves, have nothing wherein to glory ; and those to whom it is not shown, since their deserts remain the same, and they receive only their due, can have nothing whereof to complain. I know it is difficult to fix this as a full conviction in men's minds. They still retain a feeling as if the showing of mercy to others did make some difference to them, and left room for secret reflection upon the hardship to them. But this is more a matter of feeling than of judg- ment. I am guilty. If the God whom I have offended should punish me as my sins deserve, would He not be perfectly just in doing so ? Assuredly. Well ; does His showing mercy to another render my sins less numerous or less heinous than they were ? does it in any respect alter them, or in any degree on any principle do away my obnoxiousness to His displeasure ? Does it become unjust in Him to punish me ? Is not the guilt of each individual his own ? And if my perdition would have ELECTION. 497 been righteous on the supposition of all perishing along with me, does it become unrighteous on the supposition of some only perishing along with me ? Were I to be subjected to suffering for any or all of the sins of the pardoned, I might, indeed, have good cause to complain ; but if I suffer solely on account of my own sins, I suffer righteously, even if none should suffer but myself. There is mercy to others ; but there is still nothing but righteousness to me. Have I any claims on God for this mercy ? Can I establish any title to it ? A claim ! a title ! such a thing would, of course, destroy the very nature of mercy. There can be no mercy where there is title or claim. And if I have no claim, no title, is there unrighteousness with God if He does not bestow upon me that to which I have no right? Nay, I not only do not deserve it, but the very opposite. The grand error of men lies in supposing distinctions among sinners, and secretly founding presumptuous and irrational notions of desert, on the ground of mere inferiority in the amount of actual guiltiness ; a principle most false and senseless, and which, even were it true and reasonable, men are incapable of applying as the gauge of human desert. No proposition ought to be more self- evident than that, where God is under no obligation from any principle of abstract rectitude, or from any voluntarily imposed engagement to be gracious to any, His actually being so can be owing to no cause but that He " will be gracious." " So then," he infers, " it is not of him that willeth," etc. 1 There is an allusion in the words to the facts respecting Jacob and Esau. 2 There was willing and running on both sides. Rebekah and Jacob desired the blessing; so did Esau. Esau "ran" to hunt the venison that he might please his father, and obtain it; Jacob, too, hastened, that he might accomplish the device of his mother ere his brother's return. There was on both sides desire and exertion; and the exertion on Jacob's part was of a kind most unjustifiable. But we have seen 3 that the purpose of God was previous to and independent of the willingand the running of either. In like manner, as to the salvation of sinners, whether Jew 1 Rom. ix. 16. * Gen. xxvii. * Rom. ix. 11, 12. VOL. II. 2 K 498 ELECTION. or Gentile, God is not to be considered as purposing to save such as He foresees will be willing of themselves (from better dispositions than belong to others) to accept His salvation. But He "purposes" to save; and a part of the fulfilment or follow- ing out of His purpose is the bringing of the sinner to a willingness to be saved in God's own way. If there be no unrighteousness with God in bestowing free favour upon the undeserving, there is and can be none in His withholding that favour. This is a necessary consequence. The two propositions, indeed, are identically the same. All are, by the hypothesis, undeserving. In withholding, therefore, what is undeserved there can be " no unrighteousness." Is there, then, unrighte- ousness in bestowing it? If not, (and who can allege there is?) then is there no right whatever violated, nothing of which any one can have the most distant legitimate ground to complain. God treats no party unjustly. He gives and He withholds, in equal consistency with the claims of righteousness. The same general principle is illustrated from the history of Pharaoh. 1 "I have raised thee up," does not refer to His creating or bringing him into existence ; but to His exalting him to his eminent station, and upholding him in it till that particular crisis. The avowed end is : " that I might show," etc. The subsequent fact corresponded with the avowed end. God did show His power in a very remarkable manner, and His name was in consequence magnified far and wide. The fame of it spread to distant countries. It preceded the Israelites to Canaan, and to the nations that lay in their way thither; and contributed to their successful entrance into the promised land. 2 Was there in this "unrighteousness with God?" God did not infuse into the heart of the Egyptian monarch any evil dispositions. He only " raised him up," assigned him his royal station ; in which the free and unconstrained exercise of the naturally and sinfully acquired propensities of his character gave occasion for the interference and manifestation of the power of God. But His power, as it always does, interposed in righteous- l Rom.ix.!7, 18; Exod.Jx. 16. ~ Exod.vii.5; xiv.4; xv. 14-16; Josh. ii. 9, 10, etc. ELECTION. 499 ness. The judgments executed by it were all merited on Pharaoh's own part by his pride and wickedness. The principle of the " wrath of men " being made " to praise God," etc., 1 was verified. Now this, we are necessitated to believe, God does every day and every hour and every moment, in the regular course of His providential administration. He accom- plishes, we mean to say, His own ends, by placing men in circumstances in which He perfectly and infallibly knows the operation of their evil dispositions will work in a certain way, and produce certain results. To deny that the Supreme God does this, is to deny the plainest statements and historical illustrations of His own Word, and indeed to deny that He governs the world. For without this, its government would be impracticable even for an hour. But God not only showed His power in Pharaoh by the judgments which He executed ; He showed also His right and prerogative to " have mercy on whom He would," by His leaving the proud, rebellious, and stubborn monarch to himself, and not showing him mercy. I am well aware how hardly these words sound, how stumbling and revolting they are to many minds. They cannot fail to be so to all, till they are properly considered and understood. But both the nature of things and the context and tenor of the writer's argument must be considered, and consi- dered closely and dispassionately. Observe, then, [1.] The apostle is answering the question : " Is there unrighteousness with God?" We may therefore be perfectly assured that " hardening," whatever it mean, cannot mean the direct infusion of evil principles and dispositions, by any positive influence upon the mind and heart. That were to bring a charge against Him of fearful unrighteousness indeed. It were to make Him the author or producer of sin. The direct infusion or implantation of an evil principle would constitute Him who infused or implanted it the greatest of all sinners, inasmuch as it would render Him answerable for all the actual evil resulting from the principle, and for the act of producing it besides. He 1 Ps. Ixxvi. 10. 500 ELECTION. who plants the seed of the poison tree is chargeable with the effects of the poison. Let us tremble at the thought of thus impeaching infinite purity and justice. Men's hardness of heart is their own. It is their disinclination to that which is good, their aversion from holiness, their enmity against God, their love of sin and obstinate determination to persist in it, their growing insensibility and stubbornness. And all this is their sin, else there is no such thing as sin in existence. [2.] It is worthy of special remark that, when God is spoken of as hardening any heart, the heart that He hardens is always a heart that is already hard, God is never represented as hardening a heart that was previously soft, as rendering callous the heart that is tender and susceptible. No ; when the blessed God is described as effecting any change upon the heart, it is a change precisely the reverse of this ; it is a change from hard to soft ; not from flesh to stone, but from stone to flesh. 1 This is the proper work of God ; and a blessed and glorious work it is, equally worthy of His holiness and His love, infinitely worthy of both. It follows [3.] When God is said to harden any heart, it means no more than that He leaves that heart to its native or contracted hardness ; or, further, that by the circumstances in which His providence places the sinner, He gives room for the manifestation of his obstinacy in sin, and his resolute perverseness, which, by a strong natural tendency the tendency of all principles and dispositions, whether good or bad, to derive strength from exercise, contributes to its own increase. This was precisely the case with Pharaoh ; and we could not have a better illus- tration of our position, a better illustrative example of what the apostle means by hardening. The heart of Pharaoh was already hard. He was in spirit proud and tyrannical. He was " stout- hearted and far from righteousness." 2 This being the previous character of his heart when Moses was sent to him, all that is, all that can be meant by God's hardening his heart, is that He did not soften it ; but that, by the circumstances in which He 1 Ezek. xxxvi. 25-27. 8 Isa. ilvi. 12. ELECTION. 501 placed him (all of which, however, it ought to be observed, and some of them especially, were, when rightly viewed, fitted to break down, to soften, and to humble), gave scope for the display, and for the confirmation by exercise, of a stubborn, pertinacious pride of spirit. It was, accordingly, a hardening such as was quite consistent with Pharaoh's hardening his own heart, hardening himself, and being guilty of sin in so doing.! Mark what is here said : " Pharaoh hardened his heart," etc., " as the Lord had spoken." Now, what had the Lord spoken ? 2 This is remarkable. God had said : " I will harden Pharaoh's heart ;" and this saying of God was verified when Pharaoh hardened his own heart. The two expressions are therefore to be regarded as of the same amount. [4.] God ie, on various occasions, spoken of as doing to men that which He simply leaves men to bring upon themselves. 3 If anything were necessary to show that no more is meant by God's deceiving the prophet than His leaving him to the deceitful imaginations and self-interested purposes of his own heart, that he might thus be an instrument of punishing Israel for their criminal unbelief of the true prophets ; if anything more were necessary to show this than the simple impossibility that the God of truth should directly deceive any one, and become the patron of falsehood and error, we find it in the latter part of the verse, where the prophet is threatened with the punitive vengeance of the God that makes the previous declaration. I dare not follow out, even in fancy, the impu- tation which would thus be -thrown upon the infinitely Just One. Apply the same principle to other passages. 4 The ' statutes' and 'judgments,' which were 'not good' Jehovah is represented as giving to punish them when they persisted in refusing and disobeying His own, which were good and life-giving. He left them to follow evil counsels and statutes, in judicial retribution for their neglect and abuse of the good. It is on this principle that He is frequently spoken of as judicially giving men up to 1 Exod. viii. 15 ; ix. 34, 35. J Ch. iv. 21 ; vii. 3. 8 Ezek. xiv. 9. 4 2 Sam. xxiv. 1 ; 1 Chron. xxi. 1 ; Ezek. xx. 25. 502 ELECTION. follow their own devices, 1 as doing, in the phraseology of Scripture, what in His providence He allows to be done, how wicked soever the deed ; 3 and sinners are as often described as hardening themselves. 3 This other illustration brought forward by the apostle may serve to confirm our position, that it is of a personal and not a national distinction the whole passage reasons. Pharaoh was an individual case ; and when, from his case, the general maxim is deduced : " Therefore hath He mercy," etc. ; nothing can be clearer, than that the reference is to individuals, and to individuals not merely in respect to the possession of external privileges, but in respect to spiritual character and condition. This will still more fully appear hereafter. The present conclusion is, that there is no unrighteousness with God, when He exercises His favour with sovereign freeness in the bestowment of His blessings; and that He is equally free of any such charge when He leaves sinners, who persist in wilful rebellion, to the righteous and merited consequences of their sins. There is no unrighteousness in freely pardoning; no un- righteousness in justly punishing. The apostle takes up another objection. 4 The principle of interpretation formerly noticed applies here in its full force. Had the doctrine taught in the passage been, that those who are saved, owe their salvation, or in other words, owe the difference between them and others to their own good disposi- tions, inclining them to the better improvement of the grace which they are supposed to have in common with all, there would not exist a hair's breadth of ground on which the question here proposed could rest : " Who had resisted His will ?" or on which the inference could be drawn : " Why doth He yet find fault?" On such a supposition, these are grounds which no man in his senses could think of taking, questions which could never be asked. For in that case, the will of God is, with regard to all, the very same. There exists, on the sup- 1 Ps. Ixxi. 11, 12 ; Rom. i. 26, 28. 2 2 Sam. xii. 11, 12. 2 Chron. xxxvi. 13 ; Neh. ix. 16, 17 ; Jer. vii. 25, 26. * Rom. ix. 19-24. ELECTION. 503 position, no absolute purpose as to any, but only one and the same conditional purpose as to all ; for the fulfilment of which grace is alike imparted to all. Now in that case, it must be self-evident even to the weakest, that to nothing else whatever than the resisting of His will is it imaginable that the condem- nation of any should be imputed. How could it ever enter into any man's mind to ask: "Who hath resisted His will?" if the apostle's doctrine had been that the reason of a sinner's condemnation had no connection whatsoever with any free purpose of God, but lay solely in his not improving the grace which was conferred on him as well as on others, and conferred on him for the very same end ; putting it in his power, by the right improvement of that grace to save himself, in the very same way with those who actually do improve it to their salvation. The question, on such a supposition, would have been so palpably and grossly irrelevant and preposterous, that the apostle could never have supposed it to be asked. The .true spirit of the objection seems to be this, and I am desirous to give it in its full force : " If it be indeed so, that God hath mercy on whom He will have mercy, and whom He will He hardeneth;" if it does not depend on us, " not being of Him that willeth," etc. ; then this will, this purpose of God, must stand, it cannot be counter- acted : and seeing His will is in every instance fulfilled, and He Himself is by this means glorified : " Why doth He yet find fault ?" "Why does He complain of His creatures, and condemn and punish them for not being what He has Himself purposed they are not to be, and what, therefore, they allege, they cannot be?" It is to this objection that the apostle replies : " Nay but, man, who art thou that repliest against God?" " Against God," that is, I need hardly say, against the purposes of His mind, the declarations of His word, the appointments of His providence. The full spirit of this question may be brought out by considering it as addressed to the objector in two capacities, as a man, and as a sinner, the latter chiefly. (1.) Considering the question in the former light, it teaches us very strongly a lesson more than once already hinted at 504 ELECTION. (and since the apostle thus repeats it, we cannot be the worse for marking the repetition), namely, to beware of arraigning, with irreverent self-sufficiency and rashness, the procedure of the Divine Being, as it is represented to us by Himself. Nothing can be more unbecoming and foolish, surely, than such conduct in such a creature, or indeed in any creature. Nothing can more strikingly display the sad predominance in the human heart of that impiously aspiring pride which was originally infused by the tempting assurance: "Ye shall be as God," etc. We have repeatedly noticed the reasonableness, on the part of creatures, of expecting to find many things in the counsels of an infinite mind beyond their comprehension ; and indeed the folly of refusing to admit whatever does not, can be equalled only by its impiety. There may be, I had almost said there must be, parts of the divine procedure that are far beyond the depth of the most powerful of angelic intellects before the throne. It is a maxim of high importance on this as well as on some other subjects, never to allow our confidence in what we do know to be shaken by that which we do not know. We have the fullest and clearest assurance of the perfect, unim- peachable righteousness of the Divine Ruler. His righteous- ness must be as certain as His existence. We should not, therefore, allow our minds to be startled, or to be stumbled into scepticism and infidelity, because we find one and another parti- cular in His revealed procedure which we are unable fully to penetrate; of which we cannot unravel the intricacy or totally dispel the darkness. Arguments against predestination to life (I say to life, because I believe there is no other, predestina- tion to death having in it nothing of sovereignty : being no more than an improper way of expressing God's righteous and declared determination to punish men for their sins) hold equally against the certainty of divine foreknowledge of future events. Shall we, then, on the one hand, deny the prescience of God, because we may be at a loss to discern clearly in some points its consistency with the perfect freedom and accountableness of men ? Or, on the other hand, shall we loose men from their ELECTION. 505 responsibility as moral agents, because we may not fully discern the principle of its harmony with the divine foreknowledge ? " Nay, man," etc. (2.) But the question is chiefly to be understood as addressed to man in his capacity as a sinner. This is clear from its connection with the preceding context : " Who art thou ?" not only a creature, ignorant and short-sighted, and of limited and partial apprehensions, but a sinful, guilty, unworthy, justly condemned creature, that " repliest against God ?" How unspeakably presumptuous is the language when understood in this sense ! Fully to explain the question in this view, it will be neces- sary to attend to the following inquiries, which are evidently designed by the apostle to illustrate its folly and profaneness: " Shall the thing formed," etc. " Hath not the potter," etc. These questions have been by many greatly misunderstood, and made to support positions such as they were so far from being intended to maintain, that the apostle would have shrunk from the conclusions with indignant abhorrence. They have puzzled many a serious mind ; and they have afforded a merry jest to many a profane and thoughtless spirit. " 0," they say, " God, it seems, makes some men that He may damn them, and some that He may save them ; so there it must lie. We can no more help it than one piece of clay can help being made after one fashion, and another after another." Let it, then, be carefully observed what is the subject of which the apostle is here treat- ing. He is not speaking at all of the creation of men ; he is speaking of God's purposes and dealings with them as they now exist, in their fallen and sinful state. He is speaking of them, not as creatures, but as sinners. He does not speak of a purpose to make men sinners ; no. But, all being already sinners, he speaks of a divine purpose to grant free mercy to some sinners, and to punish others who are also sinners. It is of essential importance that this be kept in view, as the point which the illustration is intended to explain and to establish. The principle of the explanation lies in the phrase: " of the 506 ELECTION. same lump." This does not at all refer to the original fact of man's being made from the dust of the earth ; and does not ex- press the sentiment that God is at liberty to make one creature to sin and misery, and another to purity and happiness, as seems good to Him. There is no reference to creation, or bringing into being at all. The different vessels are made " of the same lump;" and on this one circumstance depends the aptness of the comparison, and the conclusiveness of the entire reasoning. All are to be considered as of one lump, all as belonging to the same common mass of sinfulness and corruption, there being " no difference, all having sinned," etc. Abraham, the chosen father of the faithful and friend of God, belonged to the same lump with his kindred beyond the flood. Isaac was of the same lump with Ishmael, Jacob with Esau, Moses with Pharaoh; Peter, and Paul, .and John, with Judas, the traitor and son of perdi- tion; all that shall be saved with all that shall be lost. This universality of corruption and guiltiness is the essential principle of the whole argument, the basis on which it rests, the hinge on Avhich it turns. The God of holiness, and justice, and good- ness, can neither make a creature with evil principles, nor infuse evil principles into any creature already existing. The illustra- tive comparison has no reference whatever either to creating evil creatures, or to rendering creatures evil. Both are alike inadmissible. It relates to the conduct of God towards creatures already evil, in a state of universal guilt, and of consequent universal unworthiness. This is the case to which the figure of the potter and the clay is intended to apply. Of a mass of clay of the same quality the potter has power, that is, he has not only ability, but right, according to the import of the original term (not &VVO.IMV but J^omr/av), to make one vessel for a more honourable and another for a meaner use. And nothing can possibly be more absurd than the idea of the thing formed say- ing to him who formed it: " Why hast thou made me thus?" as if the piece of clay which was made " a vessel unto dishonour" had any previous title 'to be made a vessel for a higher purpose ! This is the point. It is just a further illustration of the truth ELECTION. 507 before insisted upon, that amongst those who are sinners, and, as such, all alike undeserving and destitute of claim, the blessed God, being a debtor to none, has a sovereign and undisputable right to confer His favours according to His pleasure, to " have mercy on whom He will have mercy, and compassion," etc. Those to whom mercy is shown have nothing to glory of; for they de- served to suffer ; and those who suffer have nothing to complain of, for they suffer for their sins, they " receive no more than the due reward " of their " deeds." l In another place it is said, " The wages of sin is death," etc. 2 Now surely the bestowment of the free gift upon some does not render the punishment of others one whit less than it was before the due wages of their own sin. How shocking, then, in this view, is the question: " Why doth he yet find fault? for who?" etc. How fearful to think of a poor guilty creature, whose rightful wages is the second death, presuming to vindicate himself to his Maker on the ground that he has not resisted His will ; that he should suffer for his sins; that his sins have only led to the fulfilment of the divine purposes, and the advancement of the divine glory. First of all, this is in no instance true. There is no such sinner that does not in heart resist this part of the divine will. There is a secret, if not an awfully avowed, rebellion of the heart against it. The very questions here supposed, though conceived in the terms of seeming submission, are the very utterance of this spirit. They are the murmurings of indignant dissatisfaction, throwing the blame of their perdition on their Maker. And further, was it ever the purpose of any sinner to provide for the advancement of God's glory ? Did ever sinner transgress, in order that God might be glorified in his destruction? The truth is, sinners do resist the divine will, both in the intimations of it contained in the requirements of His law which they dislike and wilfully disregard and oppose, and also in the threatenings by which the precepts of His law are enforced. They hate both its law and its sanction. They resist and throw off from them the restraints of the one, treating them with 1 Luke xxiii. 41. * Rom. vi. 23. 508 ELECTION. wilful disregard and unsubmissive contumacy; and they at the same time spurn, with open reviling or with sullen discontent, at the announcements of the other. Yet these are the views of the divine will with which we have properly to do. His secret purposes, as we shall have occasion to notice more fully afterwards, are known only to Himself, " secret things which belong to the Lord our God ;" they are the rule of His own conduct ; but they are not, and from the nature of the thing cannot be the rule of ours. We have nothing to do, as moral agents, nothing to do whatever with that part of the divine will. Our business is with the other, with the law and with the Gospel, with the will of God for our duty as His creatures, with the will of God for our salvation as sinners. It were well if men would attend to these, and let the unrevealed purposes of the divine mind alone, as matters at once too high for them and altogether unconnected with their moral responsibility. The observations which have been made, if kept in view, will serve to explain the remarkable language which follows : For the sake of distinctness in the elucidation of these verses, we may consider three things, the parties spoken of, God's conduct towards them, and the supposed design of that conduct, in the way of vindication of it. 1. The parties : Vessels of wrath fitted for destruction, and vessels of mercy prepared unto glory. Who are they respectively? Vessels of wrath, etc. In this designation there is an evident allusion to the figure used in the pre- ceding verses. The "vessels of wrath" are the same as in the figure the " vessels to dishonour." .But as to the designation " vessels of wrath" let the following things be noted : First, The wrath of God is invariably directed against sin. 2 It is the wrath of justice, righteous indignation. Sove- reign wrath is a perfect contradiction. Sovereign mercy is not. It conveys to the mind, not only a consistent idea, but a truth the most delightful. It expresses the unquestionable and inalienable right of God to show favour freely to the undeserving. 1 Rom. ix. 22, 23. * Horn. i. 18 ; Eph. ii. 2, 3. ELECTION. 509 The very word mercy implies the desert of evil on the part of those who are the objects of it. But we shrink, with shudder- ing aversion, from the ascription to God of a sovereign right to inflict suffering on the undeserving. All suffering, all penal infliction presupposes desert. The bestowment of good does not. If it did, there could be no good in this or in any sinful world. The latter, then, belongs to sovereignty ; the former to equity. And the distinction is one of the first importance. It clears away much embarrassment and difficulty. If to any mind it does not at once commend itself, it must be owing to some misconception in that mind of the proper meaning of sovereignty. I cannot make the distinction plainer. Be it understood, then, as a settled point, that the wrath of God is uniformly against sin. Then, secondly, The sins of men are freely committed. They are the natural effects and indications of evil dispositions of heart ; and are done with the free consent and choice of their wills. No sin could expose to wrath otherwise ; nay, there could otherwise be no such thing as sin ; all sin implying in the very idea of it, consent of will. Make what you will of God's secret purposes, it is a point of fact that they do in no way interfere with the conscious liberty of the agent. Every sinner is sensible that he acts from choice ; that he is neither con- strained to evil nor restrained from good ; but that he likes the one and dislikes the other, and so in practice chooses the one and rejects the other. These are plain and simple truths, and they serve to explain the expression which follows when these vessels of wrath are said to be " fitted for destruction." What means this? It is obvious that the phrase signifies something more than mere destination or appointment, on whatever ground. It includes particularly the idea of congruity, what may be called a connection of propriety and fitness between the cha- racter and the destruction ; something about the parties spoken of which rendered their connection fit, and, on the principles of judicial rectitude, inevitable. The question, therefore, is how are they thus fitted ? Is it by God ? or is it by themselves 510 ELECTION. and their sins ? If we say it is by God, then it should be well considered, in what sense alone it can be so. It cannot, as we have before seen, be by the infusion of evil. God cannot make man wicked. The language of Scripture on this point is as peremptory as we could invent. 1 God's hardening men's hearts means his leaving the heart, already hard, to its own native and acquired obduracy, and to that perversion and abuse of provi- dential dealings by which the obduracy is confirmed arid augmented. If " fitted for destruction " means fitted by God, all that is or can be signified is, that God leaves sinners to fit themselves or to become fit by their sins. But I wish the difference to be specially marked between the mode of expres- sion on this side of the alternative and that on the other. Here it is simply said of the vessels of wrath, " fitted for destruc- tion," without saying how or by whom. But of the " vessels of mercy," it is said explicitly, " which He hath before prepared unto glory." In this case, God is distinctly the agent in pre- paring them. But the vessels of wrath are merely " fitted for destruction;" and the meaning is, that they are self-fitted, or fitted by their sins ; which, as their sins are all their own, is of the same amount. It was thus that the inhabitants of Jerusalem became by their sins fitted as fuel for the fire. 3 Jehovah did not fit them ; but, when by themselves fitted, He destined them to what was their desert. And as God cannot make men wicked or sinful by the infusion of evil principles, so neither, I apprehend, are we to consider Him as appointing men to sin, unless in the simple sense of leaving them, in judicial punishment, to harden them- selves in the perpetration of it. It is said : " For there are certain men ordained to this condemnation," 3 etc. To what were these men ordained ? " To the condemnation." And for what ? On the ground certainly of their character as described, embracing so much of unprincipled atrocity. " There were who, being dis- obedient, stumbled at the word, to which also they were appoint- ed." 4 Their stumbling at or against the word includes the effects 1 James i. 13-16. 2 Ezek. xv. 6-8. s Jude 4. 4 1 Peter ii. 8. ELECTION. 511 represented in the prophecy referred to as following. 1 What they are appointed to is their injuring themselves by stumbling at the word. They " stumble, and are broken by their kicking against it, and snared and taken." To this they are judicially appointed, as the merited consequence of the spirit and practice of disobedience. They are not appointed to the disobedience, but to its righteous judicial consequences. To the " vessels of wrath " stand opposed the " vessels of mercy;" respecting which we observe The very idea of mercy excludes, as repeatedly noticed, all desert on their part, and all obligation on the part of God. This being the case, their previous " preparation to glory," which we consider as including the eternal purpose of God respecting them, and the following up of that purpose in time by the effectual operation of His free spirit changing their hearts and making them meet, etc., is an act of pure sovereignty. Here is the proper province of sovereignty. It makes the difference between sinners, who are all alike undeserving of favour. " One is taken, and another left." 2 He who is left is left only to the equitable consequences of his own sins. He who is taken is taken in sovereignty to the unmerited enjoyment of " glory and honour and immortality," " the gift of God through Jesus Christ, our Lord." 3 2. We notice the conduct of God, etc. It is necessary to observe that this conduct toward both is the same, while the design as to each is different ; different, and yet in one respect the same too. The conduct towards both is " enduring with much long-suffering." This is represented as His procedure both to the " vessels of wrath " and the " vessels of mercy." The patience and forbearance of God with men is one of the most wonderful facts in the history of this apostate world. It was manifested in His dealings with the antediluvian world, in His dealings with the Jews, in His dealings with the whole race, and in His dealings with individuals. The idea of long- suffering implies a tendency, arising from the nature of the being 1 Isa. viii. 14, 15. Matt. xxiv. 30. * Rom. ii. 7 ; Eph. ii. 1-10. 512 ELECTION. by whom it is exercised, to the contrary. The holiness of God is infinitely opposed to sin. He hates it. He is "of purer eyes," etc. l The justice of God calls for its exemplary punish- ment. In proportion to the strength of these principles .of character is the display of long-suffering in bearing with the workers of iniquity. Now, by this long-suffering, some are only hardened in their unbelief and ungodly courses. 2 They thus abuse divine goodness, and by the abuse " fit themselves for destruction." 3 Others are, at times, and after much and even long-continued and obstinate resistance, subdued to repentance. Their hearts relent, they believe, and are saved. To both there has been displayed " much long-suffering." 3. What is the design here supposed by the apostle to be in the divine view in this His procedure toward each of the two classes. We must notice yet again, the connection with what goes before. The potter shows his power over the clay, making as he pleases of the same lump, one vessel to honour and another to dishonour. Suppose, then, God acts as the potter does; showing His sovereign right to dispose of the common mass of human corruption as He pleases, in the way that shah 1 most contribute, in every view, to the glory of His own name. Suppose this: "What if" this were so? Where will be the ground of complaint ? Who, with any just cause, could say a word against the procedure? This still proceeds upon the assumption, that men are not here spoken of as creatures, but as sinners, all sinners, and all without claim. The general principle is, that 'God so orders His procedure towards sinful men, as that, without doing wrong to any, He may secure and illustrate in the end the glory of His own perfections and government; that He may bring out, in conspicuous manifestation, as the object of admiration to the assembled myriads of angels and of men, the rectitude of His final awards to the impenitent, and the free and rich grace of His people's salvation. 1 Hab. i. 13. * Eccles. viii. 11. 3 Rom. ii. 4, 5. ELECTION. 513 Look at the two sides. His lengthening their period of trial. His long-suffering towards those who ultimately perish. His placing them in various circumstances, applying every mode of treatment in itself, as a moral means, fitted to bring them to repentance, gives a clear and satisfactory display of His righteousness in their condemnation; none having it to say that they perished unwarned, untried, unin- vited, unfairly, summarily, or harshly treated. In the for- bearance of God they have found opportunity, and have guiltily improved it, for showing the evil principles by which they are actuated, and which are the grounds of their final condemnation. As an exemplification of our meaning, take the flood. By that fearful catastrophe God " showed His wrath, and made His power known" against the ungodly race of men. But He pre- viously ordered matters so as to make it manifest what good grounds He had for the awful vengeance. His " long-suffering waited in the days of Noah." He gave them warning. He sent to them this inspired "preacher of righteousness " l to call them to repentance. He set before them, in the building of the ark, the evidence of His being in earnest, and of the strength of His believing servant's faith. He thus cleared the way for "showing His wrath, and making His power known" in their overthrow ; and, in the previous manifestation of the desert of the sufferers, prepared a full vindication of the righteousness of His procedure. He afforded them space for repentance, but they only " fitted themselves ". in it " for destruction." 3 1 1 Pet. ii. 5. 2 1 Pet. iii. 19, 20; 2 Pet. iii. 9. The tendency and design in the moral government of God, of the "waiting" of God's "long-suffering," in Noah's time, and of the preaching of the patriarch, was to awaken to timely consideration and bring to repentance ; and such is the tendency and design of His long-suffering towards all. When it is abused, the blame lies not with God but with themselves. The difficulty in regard to God's actually using those means, etc., is the same on every theory. God, in using them, knows they are to fail, yet He docs use them. To say He does all that He can to effect the conversion and salvation of every man is not true ; for there can be no truth more certain than that there is no heart which it is beyond His power to change. In this department, as in others, " with God all things are possible. And to say that He does all that He can, " consistently with His own honour and the interests of the universe," is to say nothing to the purpose, nothing that removes or even mitigates any difficulty ; for who, on any VOL. II. 2 L 514 ELECTION. So was the case in all His judgments on His ancient people. All was not only deserved, but, by the previous dealings of God, shown to be deserved, ere it was inflicted ; so that Jehovah could make His appeal to themselves for the justice, the unim- peachable rectitude of His dealings with them. 1 So will it be at last. God the Judge has determined that He will not only be just in His sentences of condemnation, but show Himself just, ordering His previous procedure in such a way as to bring out the demonstration of His perfect righteous- ness. He cannot " show His wrath and power" unrighteously; and His providence so orders the circumstances of those who are finally condemned as to make it apparent that they are exerted in equity. Of the other side of the alternative the import is obvious : " And that He might make known the riches of His mercy," etc. The riches of His mercy are made known by salvation in general, and by every instance of salvation. The display of the riches and freeness of His mercy is one of the principles and designs in the very constitution of the Gospel, and in its actual application to the conversion and salvation of sinners. But the riches of mercy are more visibly and signally displayed in some cases than in others; and God, the God of grace, so arranges matters in His providence in bringing sinners to Himself and to life, in framing vessels of mercy from the corrupt mass of fallen humanity, as to bring out, in individual cases and upon the whole, the most complete and glorious display of free, rich, theory, questions this ? He can, but does not. And He does not, because there are reasons in His infinite mind sufficient, in the eye of His infinite wisdom, to prevent Him. He could save all, but He does not. And yet, beyond a question, He places men in circumstances and under influences fitted for their conversion, with the previous knowledge that their conversion will not be the result. This is undeniable matter of fact, which ought to be borne distinctfy in mind.* 1 Isa. v. 3-7. * In this note, and throughout this lecture and the others which treat of the Anninian contro- versy, Dr. W. makes repeated reference to those views which, about 1844-5, caused division and sepa- ration among the Congregational Churches in Scotland, and seriously agitated other religious bodies. The sentiments in quotation marks are from certain small books, published by the innovators, abounding in rash and reckless crudities, which, under the pressure of the time, received and perhaps demanded more attention than their intrinsic merits entitled them to. The popular name for this class of doctrinal sentiments was, " New Views," or Morrisonianism. [En.] ELECTION. 515 sovereign, everlasting mercy. By His forbearance and long- suffering He prepares wonderful exemplifications of abundant and untrammelled grace. Let this apostle tell us of himself. 1 We could not have a better illustrative example of the meaning of this part of our present subject. The import of the question: " What if God?" etc., appears then to be: Suppose these, or such as these, to have been the ends of God in His procedure towards sinners, who shall say any thing against it ? Is it not right that, both in the exejcise of punitive and of saving power, He should so punish and so save as most effectually to show forth the glory of His name, and secure His moral government from all injurious reflection? " Who," in that case, " shall say unto Him, What doest thou ?" " Is there unrighteousness with God ? God forbid." I must close for the present by simply observing, that the whole of this discussion most clearly relates not to nations but to persons ; and if more explicit evidence of this be required than is furnished by the general scope and tenor of the whole passage, we have it in verse twenty-fourth. It is not the Jews nationally, nor the Gentiles nationally, but those who are " called of the Jews and of the Gentiles." This is the same personal distinc- tion as that with which he began ; so that, when we have a personal distinction in the beginning, and a personal distinction at the end of the whole discussion, we are warranted to con- clude that the whole is to be interpreted on the same principle. 1 1 Tim. i. 12-16. XXVITL-ON ELECTION. HAVING given what appears to me the true sense of this im- portant passage, I shall now proceed to take up the subject of election on more general grounds, which will evince the perfect harmony of the doctrine taught here by Paul with the principles and statements of the Scriptures at large, as well as with the very reason of things, on the supposition of the truth of the Gospel. (1.) Our first question, then (and perhaps it should have been asked and answered sooner), is : What is election? That it is a Scripture term every one must admit ; and that as a Scripture term it must express a Scripture doctrine. What, then, is it ? It is the choice by the blessed God from eternity of a certain number of the human race to everlasting life, " through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus." Or, in other words, it is the doctrine which teaches that all who shall finally be saved are saved in consequence of a purpose of God concern- ing them individually a purpose which secures the end as to each of them, and by consequence determines the intermediate efficacy of the means. These two, the end and the means, go necessarily together. 1 All the intermediate steps are included in the original purpose of final glorification. (2.) When we speak of the divine sovereignty in election, or indeed in any thing whatever, we must be on our guard against indulging any false and injurious conceptions of it, to which we are exceedingly prone ; as if it bore any resemblance to the caprice of creatures, who determine and act without adequate reasons, and sometimes without any apparent reason at 1 Rom. viii. 28-30. ELECTION. 517 all. All that we mean by sovereignty is, that God does not see meet to reveal His reasons to us. Reasons He has for this step, as well as for every other of His procedure. To imagine the contrary is to bring an impeachment against the divine wisdom; but in sovereignty He keeps the reasons secret, letting us know only this, that they do not arise from any thing in those that are the objects of His electing grace which gives them a claim above others. The statement given by Dr. Whitby, an avowed enemy of the doctrine, is, on this point, with the semblance of fairness, exceedingly faulty. " This election or predestination considers all men in the same condition, alike miserable and damnable, alike impotent and wanting effectual grace ; so that, as in two apples of equal goodness no reason can be given why I should choose one rather than the other, so neither can any reason be assigned why all or any of these persons are elected to salvation, rather than all or any of those who are not elected." This is not a fair representation. It overlooks the essential difference between human knowledge and divine. It is true that we are unable to assign any reasons for the choice of one rather than of another, because matter of fact makes it clearly, and in some instances strikingly evident, that the election is not regulated by any regard to character or worthiness on the part of the chosen, but frequently seems to go in opposition to all the pre- conceived opinions and expectations of our narrow and conceited minds. But it is far from following that the infinitely wise God Himself can assign none. That is a very different proposition. " Were it possible for us to view God's reasons of choosing, as they stand in His all-comprehensive mind, there is no doubt that they would produce a conviction of their pro- priety, in proportion as our minds were virtuously disposed and assimilated to God." 1 (3.) We must repeat it, amongst our important general principles, necessary to the full clearing of our way, that predes- tination ought, in strict propriety, to be regarded as relating to 1 Dr. Williams's Ess&y on Equity and Sovereignty, 1st Ed. p. 198. 518 ELECTION. one side only of the alternative of life or death. The sovereign right of God to bestow His favours on whom He will among the universally undeserving, we have seen to be unequivocally affirmed in the portion of God's word already considered. 1 Predestination to life is an act of sovereignty infinitely honourable to every attribute of the divine character and every principle of the divine government. But predestination to death, if the phrase be admissible at all (and I own my dislike to it), can mean no more than the published determination of the Supreme and Righteous Governor to punish transgressors for their sins. Now sovereignty has nothing to do with this. It comes under the category of equity. It has no freedom of selection. It proceeds in every case on the principle of desert, and bears to the desert a scrupulously just proportion. Sovereignty is the supreme right to do whatever is not inconsistent with equity. It has, therefore, and can have, no application to punishment. " The punishment of the guilty is not an object of divine sovereignty. To punish the guilty is the office of equity, which gives to all their due. For mercy to punish, or justice to confer undeserved favour, is discordant in thought and language ; but riot more so than sovereign punishment, without assuming another meaning of the term, or disputing about words. In brief, as equity never disapproves of any creature, especially a moral agent, where there is nothing wrong or no desert, so divine sovereignty is in no case displayed but for the welfare of its objects. In proportion as any creature has no equitable claim upon God, all he is and possesses, that may be denomi- nated good, must be the effect of sovereignty." 2 The Bishop of Lincoln (Tomlin) lays down the following extraordinary position : " It is not denied that God had a right, founded on the incontrovertible will of the Creator over His creatures, to consign the far greater part of men to eternal misery, and to bestow eternal happiness on a select few, although there was in themselves no ground whatever for such distinction. But the question is, whether such conduct would have been consistent 1 Eom. ix. * Dr. Williams's Essay, etc., 2d Ed. pp. 126, 127. ELECTION. 519 with the principles of infinite justice and of infinite mercy." l I have called this an extraordinary position ; and from such a quarter most extraordinary it is ; the abhorrer and refuter of Calvinism asserting what Dr. Williams justly denominates " the most exceptionable part of hyper-Calvinism." " That must be a very anomalous and strange kind of right," observes Dr. Williams, " which is not consistent with infinite justice. If men were consigned to eternal misery without desert, and this founded in right, what is it but saying that the Creator had a right to be unjust ? But if men so consigned deserved it by previous delinquency, how could it be inconsistent with justice ? Is it not of the essence of justice to give every one his due ? To ascribe to the Creator, Preserver, and Benefactor of His creatures a right, an arbitrary right of conferring benefits upon them beyond their due, is infinitely worthy of Him ; but to ascribe to Him the same right to render the undeserving miserable is to offer Him 'a compliment which He must needs reject with infinite disdain ; a right to be unjust, were He not infinitely just, wise, and merciful!" 2 It is manifest that right without justice cannot possess even an abstract existence, an existence in imagination itself; for it is a flat and irreconcilable contradiction in terms. It is a right to do wrong. Power without right, experience, alas ! teaches us, is sadly capable of much more than an imaginary existence amongst men ; but it cannot, any more than the other, have any place in the Infinite Jehovah. The following paragraph gives a fair and succinct view of the nature of the doctrine : " What we maintain is, that all mankind are in a state of guilt and sinful imbecility ; that God foresaw this from eternity ; that He therefore predestinated an adequate remedy in the sacrifice of Christ ; that this should be announced to men as commensurate to the evil. We further maintain that there was not in the present state of man any ground of certainty that any one, without preventing gracious influence, 1 Refut. of Calvinism, pp. 258, 259, quoted by Williams, 2d Ed. pp. 200, 201. * Defence of Mod. Calv. pp. 201, 202. 520 ELECTION. would avail himself of the proposed remedy ; and, therefore, that God predestinated, under the direction of infinite wisdom, to influence the hearts of some, i.e., those who are finally glorified, to repent, believe, obey, and persevere in a holy course, as the way to everlasting happiness. Heaven is the end, but holy obedience is the way to it. We hold no predestination that separates the end and the means. We do not presume to con- jecture a priori who are predestinated to eternal life, but rather infer, from the imbecility of man, that if any one is penitent, faithful, diligent, persevering, and finally glorified, these great events are from the special and distinguishing energy of God ; and that whatever He does in time He purposed to do from eternity." " This is our predestination." 1 I am anxious, in the outset, to remove out of the way of our argument the impression that predestination to life neces- sarily involves, as its counterpart, predestination to death, that I may not be obliged to recur to this point again, as forming the first and leading objection to our doctrine. The two have been regarded as inseparable ; and objectors, in directing their arguments against the latter, have considered themselves as effectually overthrowing the former. Thus : " There is no possibility of asserting the one of these decrees without owning the other also ; and so, whatever arguments hold good against an absolute decree of reprobation must certainly destroy the opposite decree of absolute election." 2 Thus : " If reprobation be unfounded, which some modern Calviuists allow, it follows, upon their own principles, that election also is unfounded ; since the latter cannot exist without the former." 3 There has been too much ground given by Calvin himself, and by Calvinists generally, for this representation. Their modes of expression have at times been inconsiderate and revolt- ing. Now it is evident that non-election is something merely negative, not properly the subject of positive decree. The choice is to life. They who are not chosen are merely left to the power and to the punishment of their sins. And in this 1 Dr. Williams, ut supra. Whitby. 3 Tomlin's Refut. of Calv. 255, 256. ELECTION. 521 sense after all, however improper their expressions may occa- sionally have been, do most Calvinists, when they oppose a decree of reprobation or preterition to a decree of election, seem, when they explain themselves, to understand their own words. While they consider the decree as consisting of two branches, election and reprobation, they describe the latter of the two in such terms as these : " That, according to His sovereign power, and the unsearchable counsel of His will, He hath passed by and foreordained the rest" (i.e., the non-elect) "to dishonour and wrath, to be for their sin inflicted, to the praise of the glory of His justice." What, then, is this reprobation more than the righteous and declared determination of God to punish unre- pented and unforsaken sin? Might He not have acted on this principle as to all ? Assuredly He might. When He chooses some, then, to life, this sovereign purpose of grace makes no alteration with regard to the rest. There is no more of positive decree respecting them than if none had been chosen, than if others as well as they had been left to perish. This is the proper place for a very brief notice of the differ- ence between what has, in systematic theology, been termed supralapsarianism and sublapsarianism. The designations con- vey the distinction clearly enough when the subject on which they are used is understood. The supralapsarian holding, if he properly understands his designation, that God, in His decrees, regarded men as creatures antecedently to their fall; the sublap- sarian that He regarded them as sinners subsequently to their fall. The former consider God as having, previously to crea- tion, determined to glorify His infinite perfections, that is, to give a display of them in their infinite extent and variety ; and as having, in order to this, purposed to create man, purposed his fall, purposed the recovery of some, and the damnation of others the former simply for the sake of manifesting His mercy, and the latter of making known His justice. In short, that the whole scheme, in all its parts, both of blessing and of curse, was a sovereign determination of God to glorify Himself in these 1 Bidgely's Body of Divinity, vol. i. p. 387. 522 ELECTION. different ways in the creatures, whom He is conceived to have purposed to make for these respective ends, and to glorify Him- self especially in the manifestation of His absolute and uncon- trollable dominion, as having a supreme right to do what He will with the work of His hands. The supralapsarian, therefore, would, if consistent, apply the apostle's illustration from the potter and the clay to the sovereign right of God to make crea- tures for whatever ends He pleases ; His system including a decree of reprobation regarding men as creatures rather than as sinners : only that it is through the intermediate step of a purposed fall. It seems to assume a kind of sovereign love and sovereign hatred of creatures as such a distinction made in the sovereignty of God between them in this capacity alone. The sublapsarian, again, conceives of God in His purposes relative to the salvation of men as regarding them in their fallen state, as designing to glorify His mercy in the recovery of those of the fallen race who have been chosen by Him to life, and His justice in the con- demnation and punishment of the rest ; and, at the same time, His sovereignty in saving any when He might have left all to perish. The terms of the supralapsarian hypothesis are exceed- ingly revolting, and express ideas relative to divine sovereignty which would effectually rob our minds of every feeling of satis- faction or complacency in the divine procedure. Each party, however, has refused the legitimacy of consequences deduced from their respective schemes ; and in the refusal of them, and in their mutual qualifications, explanations, and concessions, have come much nearer to each other in reality than they are in words (a case far from uncommon in the melancholy history of the heresies and controversies of the church). Most heartily do we concur with Dr. Ridgely when he says, speaking of the supralapsarians : " I cannot approve of any thing advanced by them which seems to represent God as purposing to create man, and then to suffer him to fall, as a means by which He designed to demonstrate the glory of His vindictive justice ; which hath given occasion to many to entertain rooted prejudices against the doctrine of predestination, as though it necessarily ELECTION. 523 involved in it this supposition, that God made man to damn him." Setting aside, then, all idea of a decree of reprobation, of predestination to death, if the phrase is meant to express anything beyond what every reasonable man will surely admit, the declared determination of God to punish impenitent sinners, let us now, before proceeding further, adduce a few passages of Scripture additional to those already discussed. 1 Such pas- sages appear sufficiently plain and decisive of the ques- tion. In addition to what has been advanced in illustrating the apostle's reasoning, 2 we argue the doctrine of election on such simple general principles as the following ; and the simpler and more divested of metaphysical abstraction our statements on such subjects can be rendered, always so much the better : 1. First, then, we argue election on the ground of matter of fact, taken in connection with certain divine perfections. The fact we now assume is one which will not be questioned by any reasonable interpreter of the Scriptures. It is, that many are not saved. Assuming this fact, all right views of the divine attributes require and oblige us to believe these two things : First, That nothing can take place, on the one hand, which He did not intend ; and second, That nothing can fail of taking place which He did intend. The former supposition militates against His wisdom ; the latter militates equally against His power. The former supposes His original plan to have been incomplete and His foresight defective ; the latter admits, indeed, the com- pleteness of the plan, but supposes its Divine Author incapable of fulfilling it to the extent of His original design. Each of the two suppositions is alike blasphemous and impossible. These are simple principles. Whatever inferences may be supposed deducible from them, the principles themselves seem too simple to admit of controversy, unless on grounds that would go to impugn 1 K]>h. i. 3-7, 11 ; Rom. xi. 5, G ; John x. 16 ; 1 Thcss. i. 4 ; 2 Thess. ii. 13 ; 2 Tim. i. 9; Matt. xxv. 34; Titus i. 1, 2; Rev. xvii. 8; xiii. 8; John vi. 39; xvii. 2 ; vi. 37. 2 Rom. ix. 524 ELECTION. the omniscience and omnipotence, the infinite wisdom and infinite power of God. 2. We argue election on the ground of matter of fact, also, taken in Connection with the Scripture account of human depravity. The point of fact which we here assume is the converse of the former. It is, that many are saved. No one will deny this. But what is the representation given in the Scriptures of human nature ? The sum of it is given. l We assume this to be a true statement. Now, no absurdity or contradiction can be greater than that which is involved in the supposition of an independent power of self-change in this enmity, as if of itself it could choose to love. For if this enmity be any- thing that is evil at all, it is enmity against the true character of God. And if so, it can never be the fact, as some have fancied and said, that no more is necessary to ensure God's being loved than the presentation of His true character to the mind. Were this the case, then, the enmity of which the apostle speaks would be enmity, not against what God is, but against what God is not. That is, it would be enmity not against God at all ; for enmity against what God is not is hypothetical love to what God is. The enmity, to be enmity against God, must be enmity against His true character ; and in that case, so far from the presentation of His true character to the mind producing love, it could only, when unaccompanied by any divine influence imparting an approving perception of its excellence, serve no other end than exciting and giving virulence to the enmity. If, then, it be a contradiction to suppose that which is evil choosing to become good, enmity choosing to love that which it hates, then the change from the one state of heart to the other must be the effect of divine operation, in every case of con- version to God. And on this one point the whole argument on the subject of election may be fairly considered as turning. It resolves itself into a question of fact as to this point, the simple question whether the first 1 returning affection of the heart to God be or be not the effect of divine influence. If any sinner 1 Rom. viii. 7. ELECTION. 525 is ready to affirm the negative, and to say that he began with God and not God with him, he may consistently deny the doctrine of election. But no one can consistently deny it who grants that sinners, and himself amongst the rest, owe the change, in its most incipient dawnings as well as in its maturer light and warmth, to divine influence. This is clear as day, upon the simplest of all possible principles, the principle that whatever God does He intended to do. This surely no one will venture to dispute. And if not, election is settled, and, it is needless to say, eternal election. For every divine intention, or purpose, or decree (for all the words express substantially the same thing), must of necessity be from eternity. If we admit an intention the moment before putting forth the quickening energy ; where, in tracing it back, are you to stop short, where to fix its commencement, its first entrance into the divine mind ? To suppose an intention to enter the infinite mind that was not there before is to suppose God to change ; and as He always has reasons for His purposes, it is to suppose Him to come to the knowledge of something of which He had not been before aware, or had not contemplated in the same light. All such suppositions are incompatible with any right conceptions of the divine omniscience and immutability. If there be any fallacy in this view of the matter, I do not perceive it. To my mind it is conclusive. It is in this light that Mr. Newton places the subject, in the following passage from one of his letters : " Admitting, what I am sure you will admit, the total depravity of human nature, how can we account for the conversion of a soul to God, unless we likewise admit an election of grace ? The work must begin somewhere. Either the sinner first seeks the Lord, or the Lord first seeks the sinner. The former is impossible, if by nature we are ' dead in trespasses and sins,' if the god of this world has blinded our eyes and maintains possession of our hearts, and if our carnal minds, so far from being disposed to seek God, are ' enmity against Him.' Let me appeal to yourself. I think you know yourself too well to say that you either sought or 526 ELECTION. loved the Lord first. Perhaps you are conscious that, for a season and as far as in you lay, you resisted His will, and must have perished if He had not ' made you willing in the day of His power,' and saved you in defiance of yourself. In your own case, you acknowledge that He began with you ; and it must be the case universally with all that are called, if the whole race of mankind are enemies of God. Then, further, there must be an election unless all are called. But we are assured that the broad road, which is thronged with company, leads to destruction. Were not you and I in this way? Were we better than those who continue in it still ? What has made us to differ from our former selves ? Grace. What has made us to differ from those who are now as we once were ? Grace. Then the grace, by the very terms, must be differencing or distinguishing grace, that is, in other words, electing grace. And to suppose that God should make this election or choice only at the time of our calling is not only unscriptural, but contrary to the dictates of reason and the ideas we have of the divine perfections, particularly those of omniscience and immu- tability. They who believe that there is any power in man by nature whereby he can turn to God may contend for a conditional election upon the foresight of faith and obedience ; but, while others dispute, let you and me adore ; for we know that the Lord foresaw us, as we were, in a state utterly incapable either of believing or obeying, unless He were pleased to ' work in us to will and to do of His good pleasure.' " I need not surely say that, when this pious writer speaks of want of power, he means want of moral power, which is the same thing with want of disposition. The same want of power is described in the words: "Neither indeed can be," 1 the inability of enmity to do the part of love. 3. One other ground on which we argue election is, that it is the only ground of security for any saving results from the Redeemer's work. We argue from this consideration taken in connection again with the wisdom of God. This argument 1 Rom. viii. 7. ELECTION. , r )!>7 appears to my mind equally simple and conclusive. It must be evident, taking the argument in its very lowest degree of force, that to suppose no election to certain salvation involves the further supposition of the possibility that none might be saved, that none might avail themselves of the provided remedy. And what is the consequence ? That the infinitely wise God devised from eternity, and by a complicated train of prophecy, and type, and providential arrangement, prepared for execution, and in the fulness of time, at an expense which fills heaven with amaze- ment, carried into full effect the mighty scheme of human redemption ; an incarnation of Deity appearing amongst men, dwelling for a series of years on the earth, and passing through scenes of inexplicably mysterious humiliation and suffering, putting forth divine power in numberless miracles, and signs, and wonders, rising from the dead and ascending to heaven, and having a mediatorial government put into His hands ; while, after all this succession of stupendous wonders was wrought, it remained a problematical thing whether any actually saving result was to arise from it, while there was a possibility, at least, that the whole of the prodigious plan might prove in this respect entirely abortive, and leave heaven without a single inhabitant I Is it at all consistent with any just or honourable views of Deity to allow ourselves for a moment to entertain such a supposition ? to suppose Hun thus, in the most magni- ficent of all His works, acting on a mere peradventure, without insuring to Himself any successful results ? Would not this be to suppose divine wisdom less than human ? " To suppose the formation of a plan in His infinite counsels, on which the everlasting salvation of millions of the human race should depend, and the development of which should involve in it the whole scheme of providence, in all its vast and mysterious dispensations ; and to imagine that any part of that plan should be indeterminate, and abandoned to the accidents of time or to the capricious uncertainties of the human will, is to conceive a monstrous and incomprehensible contradiction." 1 1 Fletcher's Sermon on Predestination. 528 ELECTION. It is weak and futile to meet this by saying, God foresaw that many would avail themselves of the remedy, and so knew that what He did should not be done in vain ! In order to the certainty of divine foreknowledge, there must exist some certain ground of the futurition of what is foreknown. Now, in the present instance, there could, from the nature of the thing, be no such ground unless there were a determinate divine pur- pose. Nay, this is not all. We have been putting the argu- ment in its weakest form. Were there no personal or absolute purpose of God for the salvation of any, it would be no mere peradventure whether the death of the Son of God should have any result, for if the Scripture statement of human depravity be true, 1 there would be a certainty, an awful certainty, of none. If God were not to put forth His converting power to subdue this native enmity all would infallibly remain under it, there would be a ground of certain futurition and of sure foreknow- ledge ; but, alas ! what would be the sure event ? it would be the impenitence and perdition of all. Christ must have died in vain. He could have seen no " travail of His soul," no satis- faction. His mysterious " cross and passion " must have been barren of all saving results. But it is enough for our present purpose to take the ground that God could never leave the case even to a peradventure. We reckon it a mark of human wisdom that a man does not lay out in any scheme an immense expenditure of pains without endeavouring previously, as far as lies within the compass of his penetration and influence, to secure the production of some effect. It is the province of a fool to devote his substance, and his time, and his energies of mind and body, in constructing some extensive apparatus of means, and to take no precautions for ensuring the end and preventing disappointment. The more securely a man can ascertain this, the greater credit he justly gets for discretion. And how could it ever be said that, in the exercise of His grace, God had " abounded towards sinners in all wisdom and prudence," if He had left the stupendous plans 1 Rom. viii. 7. ELECTION. 52 of His mercy insecure of any efficiency means so vast and full of wonder, uncertain of accomplishing any end ? We know He could make the end sure. We infer, therefore, that He could not but make it sure, and we can form no conception of any way in which this could have been effected other than that which we believe His word to have revealed, a sovereign purpose to give it efficacy an election of grace. VOL. n. 2 M XXIX. ON ELECTION. IN proceeding to notice some of the principal grounds of objec- tion to the view we have thus given of the doctrine of election (amongst which we include the different explanations that have been advanced on other principles), I shall of course say no more on the subject of predestination to death being the necessary counterpart of predestination to life. We have already said on that point all that we reckon necessary. There is a topic to which reference has repeatedly been made, which requires a more full consideration, as being the ground which the opponents of personal election most gene- rally take. It is affirmed that the election spoken of in the Scriptures (for that it is spoken of and declared a doctrine of divine truth no one can question) is not personal but national, and consequently, not to salvation absolutely, but to the posses- sion of the outward privileges and means of which the due improvement leads to salvation. Thus Whitby: 1 " In opposi- tion to this doctrine" (the doctrine of personal election to sal- vation), " I assert, first, that the election mentioned in the Holy Scriptures is not that of particular persons, but only that of churches or nations ; secondly, that this election doth import rather their being chosen to the enjoyment of the means of grace, than to a certainty of being saved by these means ; that it is only that which puts them in a capacity of having all the privi- leges and blessings, which God hath promised to His church and people, rather than under any absolute assurance of their salva- tion, or of any such grace as shall infallibly, and without any possibility of frustration, procure their salvation." 1 On the Five Points. ELECTION. 531 Passing by the strange anomaly of representing churches as objects of this election to the enjoyment of means; when churches in the New Testament, and in the only proper sense of the term, are societies composed of those to whom those means have already proved efficacious, societies which consequently arise out of the previous possession of the means, we shall consider the Doctor's language as simply meaning communities. Now, on this view of election, observe : [1.] We have already seen that the apostle speaks of a per- sonal and not a national distinction. 1 The vessels of mercy are not communities ; nor are the vessels of wrath ; not Jewish and Gentile nations, but those of the Jews and of the Gentiles who are called. The intermediate exemplifications show the same thing Jacob and Esau, Pharaoh, etc. The distinction is not national, but personal ; between members of the same community, possessing as Jews the same ancient privileges, 2 and at the tune possessing also the same New Testament means of salvation. When it is said " I have much people in this city," 3 it was not meant merely those who enjoyed the outward means. The whole inhabitants alike enjoyed this privilege. They were such as it was the Saviour's purpose, by the outward means, to bring to Himself. The fulfilment of this purpose is clearly assigned as the reason of the injunction laid on the apostle to labour with diligent perseverance. [2.] To prove the reality of national election, or the choice of communities to the possession and enjoyment of means, does not in the least degree disprove personal election. That there is such a thing as national election is not disputed. How can it ? Passages establishing it prove nothing to the purpose, unless it be at the same time proved that there is no other then national elec- tion, i. e. unless the passages that appear to speak of personal elec- tion can be naturally explained on the principle of national election of election to means, and not to salvation. The case, as one of critical argument, is parallel to one in the Socinian con- troversy. Socinians waste much of their labour in proving the 1 Rom. ix. 6, 7, 23, 24. * Rom. ix. 4, 5. * Acts xviii. 9, 10. 532 ELKCTION. Saviour's humanity, as if to prove His humanity were to disprove His divinity. But the argument is fallacious. And so is a great deal in the way of proof of national election to means. Who denies it ? Such texts prove what no one questions. The fact in such cases establishes the purpose. God does actually dis- tinguish particular countries and peoples, by granting to them special privileges above others. Of this, as a matter of fact, there can be no doubt. 1 And what God thus in His providence actually does, we learn, from the fact, that He proposed to do. But, it does not show that this was the full amount of His purpose that He proposed nothing beyond this, nothing personal. [3.] They who object to personal election, on the ground of its alleged partiality, while they admit and contend for national election, are very inconsistent with themselves. The latter doctrine stands evidently, (in the principle of it, although it may not be to the same degree), in the same circumstances, and liable to the same objection. The means that are enjoyed are, from their very designation, intended to effect an end. There can be no means but for an end. The end in the present case is salvation. It is to means of salvation that communities are supposed to be chosen. Where, then, in point of principle, is the mighty difference between the partiality (if we must call it by so improper and unseemly a term) which bestows the means of salvation upon some, while it withholds them from others, and that which bestows salvation itself upon some, and withholds it from others ? in other words, which determines as to some the efficiency of the means. I take up such objec- tions on their own principle, disavowing the term partiality, and holding also that every one who perishes, perishes by his own wilful perseverance in evil, and is his own destroyer. " The principles on which the conduct of divine providence is vindicated by all who acknowledge the moral government of God are substantially the same with those which support the sovereignty of grace in its personal operations. The objections and difficulties are the same ; and in both cases, the same reasonings 1 Deut. iv. 37, etc. ELECTION. 533 confirmed by various important analogies, and by the direct testi- monies of Scripture, may be applied with equal force and success." l Nothing indeed can well be more clear than the question : Why does Britain, in the providence of God, enjoy the means of sal- vation, while any portion of the Heathen world is destitute of them, is a question which in principle involves the same per- plexing difficulty with the question : Why to one individual in Britain the saving influences of the Spirit are imparted, while they are not to another ? What can we say in either case, but "Even so, Father; for so it seemed good in thy sight." [4.] There are some things affirmed in connection with election which most assuredly go much further than the posses- sion of external means by communities which indeed cannot by any possibility be predicated of communities as such. Are nations or communities, as such, chosen in Christ to holiness and unblameableness before God ? predestinated to the adoption of children, accepted in the Beloved ? Have nations the for- giveness of sins according to the riches of God's grace ? Are they foreordained to the heavenly inheritance, and do they obtain it? etc. Can it be said of communities of a national kind, that they love God and are the called, etc. ; that they are predestinated to be conformed to the image of His Son ; that the*y are called, and justified, and glorified? 2 In these and many other passages, the language and the ideas expressed by it are quite inapplicable to nations, without a straining and tor- turing that is altogether inadmissible. [5.] What is the purpose of national election to means? What can it be, but that by means of the privileges thus bestowed, individuals may be saved? Nations are not saved collectively, as nations. The means are not bestowed for their salvation as such. Are the purposes and views of the infinite God, then, vague, and general, and indeterminate ? It is evi- dent that the election of communities to the enjoyment of privi- leges determines nothing as to any final saving result. It leaves 1 Dr. Joseph Fletcher's Discourse on Personal Election and Divine Sovereignty, p. 9, Eph. i. 3-6, 11 ; Horn. viii. 2830; 2 Thess. ii. 13. 534 ELECTION. this all to a peradventure. We know, in point of fact, that multitudes in communities where the privileges are enjoyed do make no saving improvement of them. What security is there, when they are sent to a community, that any will? Such vagueness of purpose and procedure is not consistent with any becoming conceptions of His administration who " knoweth the end from the beginning," and who " worketh all things after the counsel of his own will." This national election to means is thus, it will be perceived, liable to the full force of the objection formerly urged, namely, that of leaving all indeterminate, the entire and magnificent scheme of salvation altogether uncertain of any result. If, then, as we have just said, the salvation of individuals be the end in view in the appointment of communities to the enjoyment of means and privilege, then what does this appointment amount to ? National election becomes neither more nor less than the purposing of the means of individual salvation. And the ques- tion recurs : Are the means purposed without any certainty of the end being to any extent whatever effected? Let me now proceed to another view of election, that, namely, which asserts it to be conditional, or on the ground of foreseen holiness and good works. " The election to salvation, mentioned in the Holy Scriptures, is only through faith joined with holiness, according to those words of St. Paul : ' God hath elected you (Thessalonians) to salvation, by the sanctification (iv ayiaepp) of the Spirit, and the belief of the truth.' Thus it is only a conditional election upon our perseverance in a life of holiness, and is to be made sure unto us by good works." 1 On this view of the subject I observe : First, This is no election at all. It determines nothing, absolutely nothing. A determination -to save them that believe is a determination of nothing, because, upon the hypothesis, their faith as the means is not at all included in the purpose or deter- mination. It depends entirely on the sinner, without any pre- venting grace or influence on the part of God, whether he shall 1 Williams'B Essay, let Ed. 199. ELECTION. 535 repent and believe, and do works meet for repentance. If this can be called a purpose or determination at all ; then it is, at all events, a purpose or determination that is liable to entire frus- tration, because the conditions of it may in no one case ever be fulfilled. If the salvation of any be at all secured, then must their faith and repentance be also secured, without which there is no salvation. He who determines the end must of necessity determine also the means. It is in vain to allege that God certainly foreknew that some would repent and believe, and on this ground predestinated them to salvation. For, since to Deity there can be nothing contingent (contingency being a term which should not be con- sidered as expressing any thing absolute, but as relative to the amount of knowledge possessed by the percipient being, so that what is contingent to one may not be contingent to another, and to the Being whose knowledge is infinite there can be no such thing), there must at the same time be grounds or prin- ciples on which the certainty of His prescience proceeds, grounds of the certain futurition of every event. In the present case the question comes to be : What is the ground of the certain futurition of the faith and repentance of any sinner ? We affirm that it is, and must be, some purpose of God concerning them, that they should be brought (by whatever means that does not affect the question) to "repentance toward God, and faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ." We find in the creature abundant reasons, on principles formerly illustrated, for conclud- ing the certainty of his continuing in impenitence and unbe- lief, of his remaining unchanged in heart if left to himself. And we can find no sufficient ground, except in the purpose of God, for the certainty of such change taking place. I have said that the nature of the means does not alter the collusiveness of the argument. I shall, for the sake of argument, make the supposition, that the conversion of the sinner is effected, without any direct divine influence on the mind and heart, by a combination of circumstances and moral means fitted to awaken his conscience, to impress his mind, to 536 ELECTION. subdue his will, to convert his soul to God. Make the suppo- sition. The question, it is obvious, still recurs : " By whom are these circumstances and combinations of means ordered ? By whom is the sinner brought under their influence ? Are these things all fortuitous ? or are they the results of divine arrange- ment? To suppose the former is atheism. And yet, if the latter be the truth, then the next question is : Were not these arrangements the result of a previous intention ? of a pre-ordi- nation and sovereign purpose in order to the end that is answered by them ? Even on this supposition, therefore, we still have a purpose, a purpose regarding individuals, a purpose that is only followed out in the arrangements made for its attain- ment; and, in running back this purpose, as a purpose of the divine mind, where are you to stop short of eternity? The conclusion is the same, whether the effect in conversion be regarded as accomplished by divine agency on the mind and heart, or simply by an adjustment of moral means. The truth is, that it is accomplished by both the one and the other. By neither is the other superseded. Secondly, In the Scriptures, those very things which by Dr. Whitby and others are represented as the conditional grounds of salvation, evidently appear as in reality parts of the salvation itself to which sinners are chosen. 1 Conformity to the image of God's Son is conformity, not in suffering merely, nor even chiefly, if indeed at all; but in holiness and harmlessness and separation from sinners, 2 in love to God and to man with all its lovely effects. They are chosen, then, not on account of their being holy, but in order to their being holy. They are predesti- nated, not because of, but unto conformity to the image of God's Son. This is a part of the salvation to which they are elected. We have seen how directly the hypothesis in question stands opposed to the statement of the apostle, 3 that the arrangement was made for the very purpose of showing that the election is " not of works, but of Him that calleth." It is abundantly manifest, surely, that that cannot be one of the grounds of 1 Eph. i. 4 ; Rom. viii. 29. 8 2 Cor. iii. 18 ; 1 John iii. 2. * Rom. ix. 11. ELECTION. 537 election, which is one of the blessings to which sinners are chosen. Thirdly, To speak of election being on the conditions of re- pentance, and faith and holiness, and perseverance in good works, is the very same thing as to represent salvation as being on these conditions. Tf sinners are chosen to salvation on these conditions, then are they saved on these conditions. Eternity and time make no difference when we speak of that which is of God. I am not forgetting that there is a sense in which the particulars enumerated are conditions of salvation. But when 1 grant this, it is understanding both the terms salvation and condition in a limited and improper acceptation. If salvation be understood as meaning simply the ultimate possession of heaven, and condition as meaning no more than a sine qua non, something that does not at all form the procuring cause or meritorious ground of admission there, but yet is indispensable to our final entrance, and inseparably connected with it ; then to admit the correctness of the statement would be admitting no more than what the apostle explicitly declares. 1 But it is much more accordant with Scripture representations to consider holiness as included in salvation, as constituting indeed its most excellent and most essential ingredient ; and consequently elec- tion to salvation as meaning election to holiness as well as to final happiness and glory : the latter, indeed, having no subsist- ence independently of the former ; there being no final glory and happiness but glory and happiness of which holiness is the very essence. Were the terms, condition and salvation, used in such a sense as has thus been explained, I should not object to the statement. But how very different the understanding of them actually is by those who hold the doctrine of conditional election will be manifest to all from the following words of Dr. Whitby : " Consider whether he conceives more honourably of God who thinks He chooses His favourites without reason, and rewards them without any qualifications but those He irre- sistibly works in them ; or he who looks upon Him as one who 1 Heb. xii. 14. 538 ELECTION. dealeth with all men, not according to His, but to their own works, as they are willing and obedient, as they render them- selves fit objects of His love ; and rewards them as they use duly, or receive His grace in vain, as they improve the talents He hath given them or hide them in a napkin." ] There are numberless questions to which such a statement gives rise ; but we confine ourselves to the one point before us. The statement is professedly intended to give honour to God. Whether it be not more calculated to give honour to the sinner judge ye. Apart from the contradictory absurdity involved in the supposition of a sinful and guilty creature " rendering himself a fit object of the love of God," consider what, on this hypo- thesis, is to become of the humbling questions : " Who maketh thee to differ ?" and " Where is boasting ?" Surely it is not excluded. If ever sinner can have whereof to glory, must it not be in " rendering himself a fit object of the love of God ?" We cannot here enter into this subject without trespassing upon that of regeneration and the operation of grace in effecting it. But any one surely may at once perceive how diametrically opposed all such views are to the representation of the love of God in Scripture. 3 Where is the previous fitness, self- produced fitness, for being the objects of divine love in those who are thus treated on the part of God. Is it to be found in the description of their state and character ? 3 If God had waited till from this state they had of themselves become, by their holiness, fit objects of divine love, alas for them ! We might well exclaim in despair " Who then can be saved ?" Election, then, on the ground of works foreseen, is, in the principle of it, undistinguishable from salvation on the ground of works performed, than which there is nothing imaginable in more perfect contradiction of the entire spirit and constitution of the Gospel, more thoroughly subversive of its whole frame and structure ; the Gospel being a scheme of grace throughout, of justification by free mercy, of acceptance in the Beloved. Surely we may adopt the language of Dr. Williams on this passage of 1 Quoted by Williams, p. 199. a Eph. ii. 4-10. 8 Eph. ii. 1-3. ELECTION. 539 Whitby : " I find it not very easy to guard my pen from affixing some bad name to the sentence here expressed ; and were I to seek for an epithet expressive of its desert, it would be difficult to procure one. We cannot be chosen, it seems, in order to be made good and happy by divine grace, but must make ourselves so in order to be chosen." " For a sinner to ' render himself a fit object of divine love/ in the sense here intended, excites an idea so monstrous that I am persuaded no virtuous mind can think of it seriously and without violent prejudice, but with horror, detestation, and grief." There is a class of objections that have a more immediate reference to the practical tendencies of the doctrine, of which we must now take some brief notice. To enter largely into them all in this place is impossible, as some of them are more closely connected with other kindred doctrines, especially that of perseverance, which is so inseparably connected with election as to be, in a manner, involved in its very essence. But these, together with such as are drawn from the doctrine of the uni- versality of the atonement and the unrestrictedness of the Gospel invitations, etc., may be glanced at, though not illustrated. It is objected that this doctrine teaches, or is apt to impress on the mind, the absolute inutility and fruitlessness of using any means of salvation, inducing men to say : " God's purposes must stand ; they cannot be changed ; if they are in our favour, all is well, we shall of course be saved ; if not, no efforts of ours can answer any good end, we may sit still till grace reaches us !" Now, that the doctrine has been thus abused is not denied. What is there, in a world of creatures whose powers are not only limited but influenced by depravity, that is not liable to be perverted and made the ground of inferences out of all har- mony with the mind of God? All the doctrines of grace together have been thus perverted by the forwardness and cor- ruption of the human heart. I grant that the objection has much in it of seeming plausibility ; and further, that the discus- sion leads to questions of embarrassing and perplexing difficulty, for the solution of which our finite capacities are hardly compe- tent. Let me observe 540 ELECTION. [1.] The secret purposes of God are the rule of His own conduct ; but they are not, and cannot be, the rule of conduct for His creatures. We have absolutely, in this respect, nothing to do with them. They are unknown, and unknown they must remain, for "who hath known the mind of the Lord?" 1 Whether we can comprehend it or not, His secret purposes have no influence whatever on the freedom of human actions, or con- sequently of man's accountableness. Every man's consciousness sufficiently assures him of this. Indeed, so far as we can see, a purpose utterly secret can have no more influence on the free- ness of our thoughts, resolutions, words, and actions, than a purpose having no existence. Our surmises and conjectures respecting its existence may affect our minds and our conduct. So may any surmises on any topic which we may choose to make the subject of our conjectures. But these are not the thing itself. The old Latin adage says : " De non existentibus et non apparentibus eadem est ratio." Indeed we can form no conception of the human mind being in any way or in any degree influenced by what is altogether unknown to it, what remains uncommunicated in the mind of Deity. [2.] We believe the Scriptures to be the word of God. They are ascertained to be so by many infallible proofs. Well. In these Scriptures we find God declaring that in this (as reason indeed tells us He must do in everything) He acts according to secret counsels or purposes of His own mind. Yet in the same Scriptures the same God affirms human responsibility, and ex- pressly enjoins that a suitable concern about salvation should be felt, and that means connected with its attainment should be used. These things are both to be found in the same inspired volume. They must therefore be mutually consistent. It is not indispensably necessary, in order 'to our believing them to be consistent, that we should be able fully to comprehend the principle of their consistency. We may reasonably believe it on the divine testimony, being satisfied with the assurance that there is such a principle, and that the mind of God clearly discerns it, even although ours may not. There is nothing in 1 1 Cor. ii. 16. ELECTION. 541 our consciousness that contradicts it ; quite the contrary ; it agrees fully with that consciousness. Shall we then distrust both God's revealed testimony on the subject, and the corres- ponding testimony of the consciousness of our own minds, because in some one point the metaphysics of the question may be beyond our depth ? Would this be reasonable ? But [3.] The objection, if well founded on the present subject, may be safely generalized in its application. If the application of it be correct in spiritual concerns, it must be susceptible of an equally fair application to temporal concerns. The principle of the objection is, that because we are ignorant of God's pur- poses, it is vain and useless for us to employ means ; because His purposes cannot be frustrated and cannot be changed. This is the principle. But it is quite obvious that the application of this principle, if it be a legitimate one at all, cannot be confined to the interests of the soul and of salvation ; it ought to be carried out by all who believe in a superintending Providence to all things whatever. Does a man believe that when a fellow- creature dies he dies by divine appointment ? that the time was determined by the will of God ? If he does not, he is an atheist, a believer in fate and chance. But if he does, then there was a previous intention in the mind of God that that creature should die, at that time and by the particular disease or other means that has occasioned his death; which is the same thing as saying that his death was in conformity to a purpose of God, a previous secret purpose. The man who adopts in spiritual things the principle of the present objection ought not, if he act consistently with himself, to use any means for keeping his fellow-creature in life ; because, as the purpose of God exists and cannot be altered, all means are of course vain. If God had purposed his death, what means could keep him alive ? And if God had purposed his living, he should survive in spite of the want of them ! The principle is perfectly the same. All depends on the question whether in the one case as well as in the other there exists a purpose. Apply it again to the case of agriculture. Does there or does 542 ELECTION. there not exist a purpose of the God of Providence respecting the harvest ? Does he not know and determine whether the harvest is to be good, or whether it is to be scanty and such as will be a losing concern to the husbandman, or whether it is to turn out a famine, " a heap in the day of desperate sorrow ?" On the principle of the objection, then, does it not become indispensable for the farmer to ascertain what the designs of the divine mind are before he begin to turn up a turf of his field ? Why should he use means ? Why expend his toil, and time, and money, till he can ascertain whether it be the purpose of the God of seasons that he shall obtain a profitable return ? Apply it, again, to cases of imminent danger. A vessel is wrecked on the neigh- bouring coast, within a short distance of the land. The crowd rushes to the shore. They see the mariners and passengers clinging in agony to the shattered wreck, which is every instant in danger of going to pieces, the beat of every successive surge causing the shriek of terror to rise on the blast more loud and piercing, going to the very hearts of the agitated spectators, whose every eye is strained, and every bosom wrung with the most intense solicitude. The life-boat is manned, and the humane and intrepid crew are just about to dash out through the foaming breakers ; or the gun is loaded, and the rope is attached to the shot, and everything in readiness for throwing to the distressed and parting vessel the only means of safety. Forward comes one of your fatalists, and coolly remonstrates : " What is all this you are about ?" Do not you see that you are putting yourselves to a vain trouble and a fruitless danger? If these men and women and children are destined to survive, do you fancy your efforts are necessary to help the Almighty to save them? And if, on the contrary, they are doomed to a watery grave, what puny exertions of yours can ever effect their rescue? Think you that you can either assist or counteract a purpose of God ?" I can see no difference in the principle of these various cases. Consistency requires that it be applied in them all. ELECTION. 543 He, therefore, who objects, and acts upon the objection, in the case of his spiritual interests, but never thinks of acting upon it in matters of a temporal nature what does that man show ? He shows neither more nor less than the difference in the state of his mind in regard to the two great classes or descriptions of objects set before him. He desires life ; he desires recovery ; he desires a good harvest ; he desires deliverance from danger. These are things of which he feels the value, he sees clearly the connection of means and end ; he understands how He who appoints the one appoints also the other; and, although he is ignorant of the purpose of God till it comes to be ascertained by the result, he uses the means with assiduity, and care, and perseverance, in order to the desired end. Why does he not do the same in the other? For this reason alone, that his mind is not under the influence of the same desires in the one case as in the other ; he does not feel his true spiritual condi- tion, and character, and prospects ; he loves the world, and seeking after the interests of his soul would interfere with his pursuit of it and his enjoyment of its vain and sinful pleasures : he is an ungodly scoffer, it may be ; or he is careless and indif- ferent. There is nothing that keeps any sinner from salvation but his own aversion of heart to that which is good, to God, and to what is spiritual and heavenly. But let me suppose an objector in earnest, and the diffi- culty, as it has done with many, pressing heavily upon his mind, I would say to such a man at once, if the only solution of the difficulty that will satisfy you must be my opening for you the Book of the divine decrees, and letting you into the secrets of the Eternal Mind, 1 cannot pretend to remove it. No ; nor can any man, or any creature. But let me say to you, you begin, on this subject, at the wrong end. The true and proper course for us creatures, the only course that is consistent with the modesty and self-diffidence of created natures in investi- gating the things of God is, not to begin with the purpose and reason forward to the event ; but to begin with the event and reason backward to the purpose. If nothing will please the 544 ELECTION. objector but going back into eternity and reading the divine mind in its own light, I cannot encourage, I cannot help him. He may make the attempt to see directly into the divine mind and read its hidden counsels ; but I know not how, and can give him no directions. He may " take the high priori road, and reason downward till he doubt of God." But in pursuing such a course, he forgets that he is a creature, he forgets that he is a sinner. He forgets that the only possible way in which it can ever be ascertained respecting any individual that he belongs to the number of God's chosen, is his now listening to and complying with the inviting voice of God, and receiving in earnest the offers of His grace. Is it not a strange thing, that the only' case in which men are disposed to apply the principle of the objection as to the inutility of means on the supposition of everything being deter- mined by the sovereign counsel of God, should be that one case in which alone assurance of success is given. The promise here given is : " Ask and ye shall receive : for every one that asketh receiveth," etc. 1 " The same Lord over all," etc. 2 " Let the wicked forsake his way," etc. 8 There is no infallible cer- tainty of connection, resting on any divine assurance, betwixt the taking of food and the nourishment and vigour of the body ; betwixt medicine and a cure ; betwixt sowing and a crop. They may all fail. But betwixt receiving the bread that came down from heaven and living for ever ; betwixt the application of the Gospel remedy and the spiritual healing and salvation of the soul ; betwixt sowing to the Spirit and reaping life ever- lasting, the connection is as certain as the word and oath of God can make it. The only case, then, in which men decline in- quiring into the prescribed means and availing themselves of them, is the very case in which God assures them of success in having recourse to them in earnest. Surely this shows very affectingly, that it is the absence of relish and desire for the blessings them- selves, along with aversion, too, to the means of obtaining them, that ever leads men to plead the unknown purposes of God as an apology for their negligence. 1 Matt. -vii. 7, 8. ' Rom. x. 12. 8 Isa. Iv. 7. ELECTION. 545 With the secret purposes of God we have nothing to do. Ministers are, in the declaration of their testimony, entirely unfettered by them. They are called to preach as if there were no such thing. And in the apostolic preaching, accord- ingly, we find little said of such subjects. The apostles preached the Gospel, praying men to be reconciled to God, as freely as if no purposes of the kind at all existed. The method of the apostles was to declare the truth and urge its acceptance unto salvation ; and, when sinners had believed and professed it, then to remind them to whom they owed the difference between themselves and others, and to teach them the lesson of gratitude to God for His free purpose of mercy, followed up by His con- verting grace for their possession of an interest in Christ and the blessings of salvation. This is what Paul does ; l and the other apostles deliver the same lesson, though not so fully or in so systematic a form. I am not aware of any instance in which the doctrine of election is brought forward in stating the truth to unbelievers, unless it be by the blessed Jesus Himself, in speak- ing to the Jews. 2 Even in that instance He was speaking to the professed people of God. I am satisfied that it is a subject of which ministers are not called to speak in general at all, in addressing the Gospel to sinners. But when they come to portions of the word of God that clearly teach it, they are of course bound to give fully and clearly the mind of the Spirit ; showing believers their obligations ; and, at the same time, as such subjects have been a cause of perplexity and distress to many minds, and have been grievously abused and perverted by others; it becomes a duty to satisfy the doubts and remove, as far as possible, the difficulties of the one, and with tenderness and faithfulness to expose the impiety, inconsistency, and folly of the other. I have said that the secrets of God's mind are no rule for our conduct, that we have nothing to do with them. Permit me, for a moment, to make a supposition. It will serve to illustrate what the effects would be were these purposes, instead 1 Epistle to the Romans, etc. s John vi. 37, 43-45, G5. VOL. II. 2 N 546 ELECTION. of being secret, made known ; and it may thus prepare a principle for answering another objection. Suppose there were a universal disclosure made, and divinely authenticated, of every individual's future destiny, what would be the consequence ? I must lay it down as a matter of theoretical certainty, that if a sinner, unre- newed in the spirit of his mind, persists in worldliness and hardens himself in sin because he does not know whether he be of the number of the elect of God, he would go on in the same course with the greater unconcern and hardihood if he did know. And he would do so, on which side soever of the alter- native his knowledge as to himself might be. Suppose that, by a new and special revelation, confirmed by miracles, and signs, and wonders, the omniscient God were to impart to every individual an absolute certainty whether or not he belonged to the number of those who shall finally be saved, and should do this as a simple communication of future fact, without any change whatever at the time in the heart and character of those to whom the communication was made ; leaving them under the full power of all the naturally evil propensities of their fallen state. Let us look at both sides of the alternative. The elect in purpose are, on the supposition, not actually renewed by the information, but remain under the dominant love of sin ; the enmity of their hearts against God continues as it was. In these circumstances it is matter of moral certainty that they would give indulgence to that enmity, in all its variety of evil desires, in the very assurance of their doing so with final impunity of then* not perishing. Yes; and they would even cherish the wish that the time might be distant at which their present pleasures, the pleasures of sin in which their unrenewed nature delights, should be brought to a termination by that unknown and unwished for change that is necessary to prepare them for happiness of some different kind in the other world. To be safe from hell is all that an unrenewed man cares for ; and when assured of this, his enmity would know no restraint to its most licentious indulgence. He will take the pleasures his present nature relishes, and if a new nature must be pos- ELECTION. 547 sessed in order to his enjoying pleasures of a different kind in the future state of his being, he has the assurance that it is to be given him. He knows it not, nor has any desire after it, but he is sure he is to have it. He minds nothing, therefore, about it, but the one selfish and to him satisfactory point, that he is not to be damned ; and his unregenerate spirit grasps with pre- sent avidity the plenary indulgence which this assurance gives him to every sinful gratification. And as to the other side of the alternative, as to the miserable creatures to whom has been communicated the certainty of their final perdition, the moment of the communication would of course fix them in irretrievable hopelessness ; and in this state, feeling their case desperate, they too would devote themselves to the gratification of all the sen- sual appetites and hellish passions of their nature with unbridled license, because " they know that they have but a short tune." They will riot in sin so long as they can practise it in any of those forms that yield a present though temporary pleasure. Are these consequences too frightful to be contemplated ? That is not the question. The question is : Are they legitimate ? To me they seem morally demonstrable. Let us, then, be thankful that there is no such revelation, and admire the wisdom and the goodness of God in keeping all that is to be in the final destinies of sinners among the secrets of His own mind. He tells us principles, He delivers warnings, He holds out invi- tations, He deals with us as free to choose and free to reject. It is ours to attend to these things as if secret purposes had no existence ; believing God to be in earnest in what He says. I have said that the supposition just illustrated may anti- cipate another objection, kindred to that which has last been considered, the objection, namely, that it serves to 'make those who imagine themselves elected careless, and others desperate. The answer is, that doctrines ought to be taken in their con- nection. The former part of the objection is evidently founded on the entire forge tfulness that election is to holiness, and that the evidence of any man's election is precisely the measure of 548 ELECTION. his advancement and steadfastness in holy obedience. 1 No delusion, therefore, can be greater than for a man to imagine himself among God's chosen, while he is destitute of all to which they are chosen. Sinners are chosen that they should be holy ; they are predestinated to be conformed to the image of God's Son. If it be so, then there is no existing evidence of any man's election further than there is in that man's progressive holiness and conformity in character to Christ. Thus it was that Paul knew the election of the Thessalonian believers. 2 The objection, therefore, in this part of it, arises from disjoining what the word of God inseparably unites. If they are so con- nected, the doctrine of election can never be any encouragement to licentiousness, or even to carelessness. The man who uses it for such a purpose flies in the face of all the statements and admonitions of the Bible ; for there it is employed as an argu- ment and a motive to diligence. As to the latter part of the objection, that which is entirely unknown can never be any reasonable ground of despair to a single soul. Nothing can be such a ground to any one, short of an absolute revelation of his purposed and deter- mined exclusion. That would be sufficient, as we have seen. But we have also seen that there is no such thing. If any sinner shall fancy himself, whether from the settled gloom of a disordered mind, as in the sad history of that most amiable of Christian men, the poet Cowper, or from any other cause whatever, excluded; the word of God can never be to blame for the imaginations of human mind, when these have no foundation in the dictates of that word. The fact that there is an election of grace does not in the least degree interfere with the free and unrestricted invitations of the Gospel, nor at all affect man's- obligation to repent and turn to God, and do works meet for repentance. Nor does it throw a single obstacle in the way of the salvation of any human being. I am as far as possible from pretending to say that it is a subject unattended with any difficulties. Every 1 2 Pet. i. 5-11. 1 These, i. 2-5. ELECTION. 549 subject that has any reference to the absolute foreknowledge of God arid the freedom and accountableness of men has in it difficulties which human wit has been, and it is probable will continue to be, incapable of fully solving. But there are certain truths which we must believe, whether we can perceive clearly the principle of harmony between them or not. And in this what do we more than the man of science does, when in course of his experimental investigations he has ascertained two facts or discovered two principles which he is yet unable to harmonize by any existing theory? He believes that there is a principle of harmony between ' them, and he waits till he may come to discover it admitting both the facts, both the principles, because he had evidence of both ; and practically proceeds upon each, although he does not understand how it is that they should both be true. Thus it is in the metaphysical topic before us. But it is an awful thing for a man to risk his immortal soul upon a point of abstract metaphysics. The man is not in earnest who does so. There are no metaphysics in the Bible. It reveals, or rather, I should say, it assumes the fact of human sinfulness and guilt. It makes known an all-sufficient atonement and a God delighting in mercy. It addresses to all, without exception, its unfettered and merciful invitation. There is nothing between any sinner and the full possession of the bless- ings of God's salvation but want of will, indisposition arising from pride and from the love of sin and of the world. The invitation is : " Ho ! every one that thirsteth," etc. 1 The complaint is : " Ye will not come unto me that ye might have life." 2 1 Isa. lv. 1-3. 2 John v. 40. XXX. ON THE PERSEVEEANCE OF THE SAINTS. THE doctrine of the perseverance of the saints is simply this: That no sinner on whom the true grace of God has been bestowed, who has, indeed and in truth, been born again of His Spirit, shall ever fall totally or finally from that state, but shall be "kept by the power of God, through faith unto salvation." Respecting this doctrine we may observe in general, that it follows as a necessary sequence from the doctrine of personal election which we have just been endeavouring to illustrate in its scriptural meaning, and to establish on the basis of scrip- tural authority. Election is election to salvation ; not to privilege merely, or the enjoyment of the means of salvation, but, through these means, to salvation itself. If this be the Bible doctrine, then it follows inevitably, that all who are elected to salvation shall obtain salvation. To hold the former, and question the latter, would be self-contradictory. Perseverance is a consequence of election, and involved in it. There can properly be no personal election to salvation without it. The one doctrine is necessary to the integrity of the other. Instead of being distinct doctrines, they are integrant parts of the same doctrine. To suppose any who are of the elect to fail of final salvation, is to render election altogether nugatory. The arguments, therefore, on these two of the five points are clearly reciprocal ; that is, every proof of election is a proof of perseverance, and every proof of perseverance a proof of election. PERSEVERANCE OF THE SAINTS. 551 As respects this doctrine, the sum of the difference between the Arminian and the Calvinist may be stated thus : The Arminian holds, that a man may be a true believer, a subject of regenerating grace, a true cliild of God, and yet may totally and finally fall from that state, and perish ; the Calvinist holds, that such as are in Scripture represented as apostatizing or falling away, never were true believers, subjects of the true quickening influence of God's Spirit, but professors only ; having the name and appearance, but not the reality. If there be truth in the former, there is no election ; and, on the other hand, if there be, in the sense we have illustrated, an election of grace, then must the latter be the truth. In other words, if there is election, there must be perseverance ; if there is no perseverance, there cannot be election. I might, therefore, leave you to take the doctrine of perse- verance simply as a necessary corollary from the doctrine of elec- tion, as obviously included in it. But, as it is of no little consequence for a minister of the word to have scriptural and well-defined views on such points ; and, as there are some texts, and indeed some forms of reasoning which are introduced on the doctrine of perseverance, which did not find a place on that of election, I deem it incumbent to attempt a little more ; and I shall consider I. Those passages that directly support the doc- trine ; II. Those which are pleaded in opposition to it ; III. Objections to it founded on general principles. I. The passages in support of the doctrine may be divided into different classes. 1. Promises and declarations ensuring or implying the com- munication of grace to the end. 1 The first of these passages, so full of beauty, seems strongly to express the permanence of the gift, and of the happiness arising from it, wherever it is really bestowed. As to the second, we may remark, it ought to be connected in order to bring out its full force with the previous context. 2 Nothing can well be more obvious than that their being given to Christ does not, and cannot, signify 1 John iv. 14 ; vi. 39 ; x. 28. 2 v. 37. 552 PERSEVERANCE their actual conversion, which would make it identical with their coming to Him ; but something previous, of which their coming is the result and fulfilment. And as their coming is one conse- quence of their having been given, their not being lost is another. Both are equally connected with the giving, as being alike the following up of the purpose involved in the gift. They are given, they come, they are kept from perishing, they are " raised up at the last day." As to the third of the passages, it has been, by some Armi- nians at least, and by leading men among them, set aside by a very strange, puerile, and unworthy evasion. They shall not be " plucked," it has been said, that is, wrested by violence, out of Christ's or His Father's hands; but this does not ensure their not being seduced by temptation, and falling by declension and apostasy from the hands in which they are kept ! I have called this evasion puerile and unworthy. I think the epithets quite sufficiently gentle. 0, my young friends, if you cannot master a difficulty without thus " handling the word of God deceitfully," seek not to master it at all. Bow before it, and acknowledge it insuperable. Do these interpreters, or misinterpreters, of our Saviour's own words forget that, in the very clause imme- diately preceding that which is the subject of their pitiful com- ment, He says expressly : " They shall never perish?" Why do they take the one clause in separation from the other? Do not the sheep "perish" in the one case as really as in the other? When they fall away by declension as when they are wrested by violence? Is not this, then, to make void the words of the Faithful Witness, to deprive them of at least half their import ? nay, I might go further, and say with truth of the whole. For, what is meant by their being wrested out of His hands by violence ? This is not at all Satan's way. The phrase is not in harmony with the established tactics of the enemy of souls. He is the tempter, and it is not in the way of open force that he confronts the " Good Shepherd," and attempts to take His property from him by sheer force. No. The "devices" of Satan, the " wiles" of the devil, are much more appropriate OF THE SAINTS. 553 phrases to express the methods of his malignant policy. And what are we to think of interpreters who, with the words " they shall never perish" full before them, in immediate juxtaposition with those on which they are commenting, can put us off with an explanation which not only admits the possibility of their perishing ; but by restricting the impossibility to the rare case of attempted force, and extending the possibility to the common, we may almost say the uniform, one of seduction, makes the field of possibility incomparably more extensive than its opposite ; and thus, in a great degree, annihilates the force of the lesson which the Redeemer meant to teach. I cannot tell you how I pity the weakness, as well as condemn the presumption, of the man who can treat in such a manner, converting them into absolute inanity, the words of Him who " spake as never man spake." " They shall never perish," says the Saviour. They may perish, says the Arminian. " No one shall pluck them out of my hands," rejoins the Saviour. True, says the Arminian ; but though they cannot be forced from thy hands by violence, they may slip out of them by accident or stealth, or be lured from them by artful enticements. I repeat, Do they not then perish ? Yet I have not a doubt that many weak minds have been thus imposed upon, carried away by the apparent force of the mere antithesis, without ever looking even at the adjoining clause of the sentence. The promise is : " They shall never perish." 2. A second class of texts consists of strong expressions of confidence by the inspired servants of the Lord as to the cer- tainty of final salvation. 1 These would be the utterance of presumption and a fool-hardy assurance were the Arminian doc- trine true, that a man may be a true child of God to day and as true a child of the devil to-morrow, may pass alternately from Christ to Satan, and from Satan to Christ, and may come even to the very verge of eternity, to the immediate confines of heaven, in a real state of grace, and may apostatize with the very drawing of his latest breath, fall from the good Shepherd's 1 Rom. viii. 35-39 ; 2 Tim. iv. 8, etc. 554 PERSEVERANCE hands at the very door of the fold above, perish even when his foot has been lifted from the verge of Jordan ere it has been planted on the shore of the heavenly Canaan! To explain such language as meaning no more than that none of these things shall injure us if we adhere to Christ, is not to explain them, but to explain them away ; it is, as in the former case, rendering them perfectly nugatory, no expression of security at all. For what confidence can there be as to the end if there be none as to the means ? And, moreover, the inter- pretation is quite inconsistent with the plain and obvious import of the entire passage. These things will not injure us if we adhere to Christ ! Why, in what other way was it possible for the things enumerated to operate in separating them from the love of Christ than simply as temptations to non-adherence to Him ? It is clear that the operation of these evils toward such a result could be only by their influence on believers themselves as temptations to apostasy. It was quite impossible, you at once perceive, that they should operate by any influence on Christ or on God ! Their only conceivable mode of perilous operation was upon themselves, as inducements to renounce what exposed them to so many sufferings ; and therefore the strong expression of confidence in such circumstances could be nothing else than an expression of assured faith that grace would, to the end, continue to be imparted, so as to keep them from being overcome. The passages just noticed relate to the persons themselves by whom they are used. They express their own assurance of their own salvation. Others are more general, relating to believers in Christ at large. 1 In the former passage, the work of conversion and sanctification, in its commencement and in its progress, is affirmed to be of God. The confidence expressed in it, therefore, is confidence in God. The words, at the same time, do not imply that every individual member of the Phillip- pian Church was assuredly a believer, a genuine child of God. The apostle addresses that and other churches as composed of 1 PbU. i. 6 ; 1 Pet. i. 4, 5. OF THE SAINTS. 555 true believers, because so they ought, even without exception, to have been ; and it is under this view and impression of them that he expresses the confidence contained in the words. Of the second passage, the words must mean more than that those whom Peter addressed had been kept hitherto. The expression is, "kept unto salvation," i.e., the final salvation of the soul, as explained in verse ninth. A salvation to be perfected " at the appearing of Jesus Christ." l And to this salvation they are kept " through faith." Does not this imply that the power by which they were kept was a power that should sustain their faith, so that it should not "fail?" And there is a double security. They are " kept by the power of God " to the enjoyment of the final inheritance ; and that inheritance is " reserved in heaven for them," where no enemy can invade or despoil it. 3. There are texts which contain affirmations still more direct, that the elect shall finally obtain eternal life ; texts which thus connect election with perseverance, and so contain a testi- mony to both. 2 On this explicit passage, observe : There is a series of successive links in a chain, each connected with what precedes, and the last, therefore, through the intermediate ones, connected with the first. If " whom He did foreknow He did predestinate, and whom He did predestinate He called, and whom He called He justified, and whom He justified He glorified;" then the two extremes come together, so that it may be affirmed with truth : " Whom He did foreknow he glorified." We for- merly showed you how utterly incapable the passage is of being explained as relating to nations ; even here, however, Dr. Whitby understands the word " called " as meaning called to the profession of Christianity, and the word "glorified " as signify- ing their receiving the gifts of the Spirit ; and this on the sole ground of the phraseology of a passage in one of Peter's epistles. 3 But surely nothing can be more strangely perverse. Upon the same principle of interpretation, " glorified" might be inter- preted of the fact of Paul having suffered for them. 4 " Called," moreover, in the apostolic epistles, invariably means what we 1 v. 0. * Rom. viii. 28-30. 3 1 Pet. iv. 14. 4 Eph. Hi. 13. 556 , PERSEVERANCE are accustomed to denominate effectual calling, or actual conver- sion. And, last of all, the called are here described as " those who love God," a description which clearly distinguishes them from mere professors, and they are "the called according to God's purpose," implying a purpose of which the calling was the fulfilment; and if this were understood of mere calling to privilege or means, the statement in verse twenty-eight would be extended far beyond the apostle's obvious design. It seems to me, that attempts such as these to explain away plain declarations by affixing unwonted and far-fetched mean- ings to the terms employed in them, only serves the more indubitably to determine their true meaning. John iii. 3. Does not the negative here imply the positive ? that every man who is "born again" enters into "the king- dom." Surely our Lord can never be understood as saying that even although a man were really bom again, he might not enter, any more than one on whom the spiritual change thus expressed has not passed. Compare this, too, with another passage. 1 You observe the life that springs from the incor- ruptible seed of the word is itself an incorruptible life, a life that never dies. And this again receives confirmation from another, 8 in which our Lord assumes a twofold designation of Himself ; and with each branch of it is connected a correspond- ing benefit to those who believe in Him. " I am the resurrection ; he that believeth in m'e, though he were dead, yet shall he live." " I am the life ; he that liveth and believeth in me shall never die." Through Him, as the Resurrection, they shall rise from the grave to immortal life ; and through Him as the Life, they are in possession of a life which knows no death, which the death that parts soul and body only contributes to raise to its sinless and sorrowless perfection ! 'Now, the assurance here is express to every believer, that he has a life which shall not die, and that the life which shall die shall be restored to him again. Still further, compare another. 3 In all that are truly and spiritually born of God, the seed of regenerating grace, 1 1 Pet. i. 23. 2 John xi. 25. 8 1 John iii. 9. OF THE SAINTS. 557 the incorruptible seed of the word, is permanent. 1 Where there is a new creation, surely the new creature is not one that is to be destroyed, to return to spiritual death and non-exist- ence. 2 If genuine faith may be finally lost, then it is possible for a sinner truly to believe Christ's words, and yet not " have everlasting life." Ts it conceivable that Christ when He says, " is passed from death to life," leaves it to be understood that he who is so passed from death to life may pass back again from life to death ? in which case he who " shall never come into condemnation," must come into condemnation ? The possession of everlasting life is by our Lord spoken of, not as future merely, but as present. And so it is by John Baptist. 3 4. We have passages which affirm those who fall away to have been professors only, and not true partakers of the precious faith of the Gospel. Of these I take the strongest and most decisive first.* Observe [1.] This passage shows clearly that in the ground we take up, we are not making a convenient prin- ciple for ourselves, to help us out of an embarrassing difficulty ; for here is the very principle, assumed by an inspired apostle. It has, therefore, the plain sanction of Scripture. [2.] You must perceive, that in the words, " they went out from us," there is a certain kind of connection affirmed ; on the contrary, in the words " they were not of us," there is a certain kind of connection denied. The connections cannot be the same ; for that would make the words express a flat contradiction. The persons spoken of, then, in reference to the company of believers, were of them in one sense, and not of them in another. This is precisely what we say. Is there any principle on which the sentence can consistently be explained but one, the principle which affirms a distinction between professional and spiritual connection the connection of external fellowship and the union of inward grace ? They could not " go out from them," without having sustained the former of these connections, as no man could be said to go out from a body to which he in no sense belonged. But they might be with them outwardly and by 1 2 Cor. v. 17. 2 John v. 25. * John iii. 36. * 1 John ii. 19. 558 PERSEVERANCE OF THE SAINTS. profession, without being of them in " spirit and in truth." I cannot imagine any statement plainer or more pointed than this. And it is remarkable how the apostle John, as if he were determined he should not be misunderstood, represents the fact of the secession of the persons referred to as the manifestation of their having had profession only without principle, the form without the power, the semblance without the reality of spiritual union. " They went out," he says most explicitly, " that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us." This has always appeared to me a decisive passage. There are others, however. 1 Mark what Jesus here represents Himself as saying : " I never knew you." He does not say : I knew and acknowledged you once ; I owned you at one time as mine, but I cannot own you now. No ; but " I never knew you." They never, then, with all their professions and appearances, such as might well impose upon fellow-men, were truly and spiritually His. I might adduce, too, the parable of the sower, with its various descriptions of hearers of the word. 2 1 Matt. vii. 21-23. * Matt. xiii. XXXL-ON THE PERSEVERANCE OF THE SAINTS. II. Before entering on the consideration of those texts which have been advanced on the other side of this question, it may be worth our while to notice certain general principles, which may be of use in helping us to the right explanation, both of them and of the objections under our third head. (1.) Persons are, in the Scriptures, both spoken of and spoken to according to what they are by profession and external indications. On the ground of such profession and indications, they are presumed to be what they appear to be, that is, on the present subject, to be believers, until they show themselves, by apostasy from the faith of Christian truth or from the practice of Christian virtue, to be otherwise. (2.) To us, who are necessarily ignorant of the secrets of the heart, which it is God's exclusive prerogative to know, it must ever be difficult, nay impossible, to determine how far, in exter- nal profession and corresponding appearances, a person may go, and yet, after all, be destitute of " the root of the matter," 1 of " the true grace of God," 2 of the principle of spiritual, vital godliness, of union of heart with Christ. At some cases which present themselves even to our own observation, we may greatly wonder. We may be perplexed and confounded by them ; all to our eyes having seemed so fair and satisfactory. But we must not forget that the Bible has pronounced the heart not only " deceitful," but deceitful "above all things;" and that therefore it would be very foolish and presumptuous for us to 1 Job six. 28. * 1 Pet. v. 12. 5GO PERSEVERANCE form any decided judgment on our necessarily shortsighted and partial acquaintance with it. (3.) Men are represented in the Scriptures as dealt with on the part of God as rational beings, on rational principles. Be- lievers are kept from falling away, not by a direct and inde- pendent influence, but by the agency of means ; by appeals made to various principles and passions, to conscience, to hope, to fear, to gratitude, etc., by expostulation, admonition, persua- sion, entreaty, threatening, and promise. The means by which the end is attained are appointed along with, and in order to the end itself. (4.) When we find, on this or on any other subjects, texts which appear as if they spoke inconsistent sentiments, the one class seeming to teach one doctrine and the other a different one, then our legitimate inquiry is : Which is the simplest prin- ciple of harmony ? which side of the controversy most naturally brings the apparently jarring texts to reconciliation, and shows their consistency with each other, without inadmissible straining and torturing on the one side or on the other. Keeping these preliminary remarks in mind, let us come to the examination of texts adduced in opposition to the doctrine of final perseverance. There are two classes of them : 1. Passages which contain threatenings against apostasy, which, of course it is alleged, and very naturally, must proceed upon the assumption of its possibility. The chief of these are to be found in the epistle to the Hebrews ; those at least which involve most difficulty ; so that, if they admit of a satisfactory explanation, consistently with the general principles laid down, there are no others which the same principles may not easily explain. We begin with the most difficult of all. 1 And, that we may not seem to rest upon an "if," or to make the passage less difficult than it is, we throw away the "if" of our translators: "if they shall fall away," and give the original words their full 1 Heb. vi. 3-6. OF THE SAINTS. />01 amount of force " For those who were once enlightened," etc., " and have fallen away, it is impossible to renew again unto repentance," etc. There can be no question, with any reasonable mind, that the case here supposed is one, not of mere partial backsliding or occasional sin howsoever flagrant, but of deliberate and entire apostasy. Assuming this, there are respecting it two questions which both belong to the subject before us, although the second of the two the most immediately. [1.] What is the nature, and what the ground of the impossibility here affirmed ? And [2.] Is the apostasy from real grace, from a state, of true regeneration or spiritual conversion to God ; or are the terms used in the description susceptible, without straining, of an inferior sense a sense consistent with the absence of such grace, or of the genuine principles of a regenerated man ? [1.] With regard to the nature of the impossibility affirmed, one principal dispute has been, whether the word is to be understood in a qualified- or an unqualified and absolute sense ; some conceiving it to be only a strong term for a great degree of difficulty. It is, however, a hazardous thing to introduce such a principle by which the terms used by the Holy Spirit as the best on the occasion, and as conveying no more than truth, are subjected to a process of reduction and modification. We know not how far this license might in some instances carry us. Let us admit at once that the word is intended to express the idea of hopelessness ; that in the nature of things it could not be ; that there was in the way of the restoration of such persons an obstacle by which all hope of it was precluded. I take this to be the amount of meaning in the phrase : " It is impos- sible." Let the following remarks be weighed : First, It cannot be meant that " to renew them again to repentance," was impossible with man. This the apostle could never mean ; for this would have seemed to imply that in other cases of less difficulty it was possible with man. But we know the contrary. To renew any sinner, in any circumstances, whether for the first or the second time, is beyond all human power. VOL. II. 2 562 PERSEVERANCE Secondly, Neither can the words mean that it is impossible with God ; for, seeing there is nothing impossible with God but what involves a contradiction (such as making a thing to be and not to be at the same time, or a part to be greater than the whole) ; and as there is nothing of this kind in the present case, such renovation must be possible with Him, who has the hearts of all men in His hands, and who, if He wills it, can certainly exert a power of change over them in any conceivable circumstances. " With God all things are possible." Thirdly, Nor is the meaning that there is not a sufficiency of atoning virtue in the blood of the cross, the blood of Christ's propitiatory sacrifice, to suffice for the guilt of " crucifying the Son of God afresh, and putting him to an open shame." No, verily. The atoning value of that blood is without limitation. It sufficed for those who said : " His blood be on us and on our children," and who " by wicked hands crucified and slew Him ;" J and it is quite sufficient, too, even for the guilt, deep and damning as it is, of wilful apostasy, of putting upon Him the dreadful affront of abandonment after trial, and of thus pro- nouncing, in the face of the world, a sentence of incompetency against His cross and against His ability to save. There must be no limit set to the declaration : " The blood of Jesus Christ, God's Son, cleanseth us from ALL sin." ' Suppose the guilt of apostasy to contain in it the concentrated essence of all guilt besides, the cause of the impossibility of the apostate's restoration must not be allowed to lie in any deficiency in the value of the divine propitiation. There is enough to cancel it all. Fourthly, What, then, is the ground on which the impos- sibility, the hopelessness, is affirmed ? I answer at once : THE EXHAUSTION OF MEANS. (1.) What are the motives by which sinners are moved to repentance ? They are all contained in the Cross, in the doctrine of Christ crucified. It was this that produced the "broken and contrite spirit" 3 in the thousands of Pentecost. It is this that has been the instrument of working the same 1 Matt, xxvii. 25. 1 John i. 7. * Ps. li. 17. OF THE SAINTS. 563 effect ever since. But by the persons in question this has been already known, professedly tried and cast away. What else, then, can now be preached to them, to bring them to repentance ? We can tell them nothing but what they know already. We have no new manifestation of the holiness and the mercy of God, greater and mightier in its alarming or its melting power than ( that which they have abandoned. What is there that can now tell upon their consciences or their hearts ? The " sword of the Spirit " * has failed ; what other can we draw ? The all- subduing " truth as it is in Jesus " 2 has been renounced. We are dumb. Our means are exhausted. This I take to be the chief thing meant when their renewed repentance is pronounced impossible. But this must be strengthened by observing (2.) The hopelessness of the persons described is confirmed by their having, in the face of its clearest evidence, thrown away the Gospel from them ; so that it becomes impossible to ply them with any new proofs of the divinity of the testimony they have rejected : even the evidence which they have had in their own persons having been disowned. But this remark it is impossible to illustrate without antici- pating my second question, to the subject of which it immediately refers. That second question was : Are the terms used in the description of the previous character and state of these apostates such as necessarily to imply genuine change of heart and newness of life, or are they susceptible of equally natural explanation on the supposition of profession only ? Before remarking on each of them, it may be observed, that, both in this passage and in some others, there are expressions used which I have no doubt would be quite clearly and easily intelligible by the parties to whom the letters containing them were addressed, from their full acquaintance with the peculiar circumstances and privileges of the church in those times, and their familiarity with the prevalent language in reference to them ; although, from altered circumstances, they may have become of somewhat obscure and uncertain import to us. Such, 1 Epb. vi. 17. >Eph. iv. 21. 564 PERSEVERANCE for instance, is the case with a passage relative to a very different subject from the one before us, 1 where helps and governments, though well enough understood then, are now interpreted in half a dozen different ways. And thus it is here. The different modes of speech have been variously understood ; and we are, therefore entitled, on every sound principle of Biblical criticism and exegesis, to adopt the meaning that is most in harmony with the general tenor of Scripture. The first part of the description is: " Once enlightened." I would set aside, as altogether untenable, the attempt to show this word to have been identical in meaning with baptized. In whatever way the term came to be used in times subsequent to the apostolic, there is not the remotest appearance of its ever being used in this book with any such import, or rather with any such vagueness, or any such superstitious implication of efficacy in the opus operatum of baptism. But it does not neces- sarily signify spiritual discernment or saving illumination. It may be best interpreted by comparison. 2 The expressions in the passages quoted are in similar connection, and seem of the same meaning. But all that these passages express is, that the Gospel may be known, may be professed, may exert for a time a certain influence in restraining the power of evil the influence of sin and the world, without the heart being truly and thoroughly turned unto God. There is a difference between receiving the knowledge of the truth and " receiving the love of the truth." 3 " And have tasted of the heavenly gift." As might have been anticipated, this phrase, being general and indefinite (inas- much as there are many things that might be so called, although one thing was undoubtedly meant by it when used), has had a variety of interpretations. Some say faith, 4 some, Christ, 5 some, the Holy Spirit, 6 others still, the remission of sins, 7 and some even explain it of the Lord's supper. The probability is, that the gift of the Holy Spirit is meant, and that of this clause the one 1 1 Cor. xii. 28. Heb. x. 26 ; 2 Pet. ii. 20, 21. * 2 Thess. ii. 10. 4 Eph. ii. 8. 5 John iii. 16 ; 2 Cor. ix. 15; John vi. * Acts ii. 32 ; viii. 20 ; x. 45 ; xi. 17. r Acts v. 31. OF THE SAINTS. 565 that follows is exegetical ; but still, where such diversity of inter- pretation exists, we cannot decide with certainty. " And have been partakers of the Holy Ghost." This may refer either to the saving or to the miraculous communications of the Spirit, His extraordinary supernatural gifts. They had witnessed the latter in others, they had even possessed them themselves. But any or all of these might be possessed with- out the possessor being a true child of God, born of the Spirit. 1 " And have tasted the good word of God." All God's word is good, but the Gospel seems to be specially meant. 2 "Tasted" may mean not only having had some perception of its excellence, but even some experience of a certain influence from that perception, imparting a partial and temporary pleasure and joy. The case will thus correspond with that of the stony ground hearers in the parable. 3 These hearers perceive at once an appropriateness between the idea of guilt of which they are conscious and that of a Saviour ; and without examining very particularly into the character of that Saviour and the nature of His salvation, they catch hastily at the general idea, are pleased with it, and, adopting it with superficial understanding, and with no anticipation of consequences, rejoice in it for a time, and seem to be to a certain extent under its influence. But trial detects the flimsiness of their views, and impressions, and joy ; so that all proves " as the morning cloud and the early dew." 4 " And the powers of the world to come." Doddridge con- ceives that this may mean the impressions made by the doctrine of a future state ; and he assigns as a reason for preferring some such interpretation that it gives greater variety to the enumeration of particulars. But this is not sufficient to warrant a change in the sense of the terms as evidently used by the apostle in the former part of the epistle. 5 " The world or age to come " was among the Jews, to whom the apostle is writing, a designation of the period of the Messiah's reign. And the 1 Matt. vii. 22, 23 ; 1 Cor. xiii. 1-3. * Is. Hi. 7. 3 Matt. xiii. 20, 21. 4 Hos. vi. 4. 5 Cb. ii. 5. 566 PERSEVERANCE " powers of the world to come " seem naturally to signify those wonder-working powers by which that age was distinguished, miraculous powers. The same word is used for miracles in the phrase, " the working of miracles." 1 I have no idea, according to a surmise which I have heard thrown out, that there was on the part of the apostle any intentional or purposed obscurity ; for the sake of putting pro- fessors the more on their guard by not allowing it to be clearly manifest to what extent a man might go in profession and appearance, without being a thoroughly right-hearted believer. I have already said that I am satisfied the passage would be plain enough to the Hebrew believers of that time. But the admitted difficulty now of affixing precise and definite ideas to the different parts of the descriptions should make all parties diffident and modest. For my own part, I am satisfied that none of the expressions do necessarily imply the possession of regenerating and sanctifying grace. At the same time, it would be uncandid to deny that the expressions themselves are strong, and that the conviction I have just expressed arises in part from the belief that the analogy or harmony of the word of God does not admit of their being understood in any higher sense. And even this sentiment must be understood with some qualification. Suppose them taken in their highest acceptation, as implying ah 1 that the Arminian contends for, the first of our general observations might be introduced as the principle of interpretation for this passage, that men are spoken of according to their profession and appearance. 2 The reference is to the man's profession as made at his baptism ; unless we are prepared to say that the sins of apostates committed previ- ously to their profession of the faith are, in deed and in truth, " purged away " in such a sense as- that they can never suffer for them, or that they have been actually delivered from the power of former principles of evil. Similar principles of explanation apply to another text. 3 Here a good deal depends on the reference of the pronoun 1 1 Cor. xii. 10 ; Mat. vii. 22. 2 2 Pet i. 9. 3 Heb. x. 29. OF THE SAINTS. 567 " he," in the phrase, " wherewith he was sanctified." Some understand this of Christ. l Much might be said for this. But suppose we admit that the words relate to the apostate, then are they capable of explanation on the same principle which we have been applying to the passage just commented on. They are quite parallel. The man has professed faith, has borne the appearance of one who has been "sanctified" or who has set himself apart to God, of one who has experienced deliverance from the fear of the wrath to come, has joy in the truth, and has undergone partial reformation of life. He has seemed a true believer. And this has been a heavy aggravation of his guilt. It is expressed accordingly in terms of fearful strength: "Who hath trodden underfoot the Son of God," etc. He has put an open and atrocious insult on the Son of God, whose name he has borne, whose truth he has professed, and by whose blood he had declared himself separated from the w r orld unto God ; and on the Holy Spirit, whose miraculous gifts he possessed, and by whose sacred influence he gave out that he had been renewed. " Of how much sorer punishment must" such a one be "worthy " than the violator of the law of Moses ! Look at another passage. 2 Here again, and even more than before, our translators have allowed their love of orthodoxy to overcome their faithfulness to the original. The words " any man" are supplementary, and, as a supplement, are not to be justified. The verse should be rendered : " Now the just shall live by faith ; but if he draw back," etc. The passage comes under the same principle of interpretation with others just men- tioned. Those are called " the just," who, by profession, and as far as man can judge, belong to the number of true believers. Such are continually kept in mind, that the only satisfactory evi- dence they can ever have of the reality of their personal election is their actually persevering in the ways of God in faith, and love, and holiness, and patient endurance. And their being constantly reminded of tin's, was one of the very means by which their vigilance and self-jealousy were kept awake. And that this l Ch. xiii. 20 ; ii. 1U ; ix. 12. * Heb. x. 38, 39. 568 PERSEVERANCE is the true principle on which to rest the explanation of such texts, we have, in the one now under notice, the clearest proof. 1 Now, observe (1.) What is the distinction here made ? It is between the persons who " draw back unto perdition," and those who " believe to the saving of the soul," %. e. evidently to final salvation. Does it not follow, then, that the former have not the faith that is " to the saving of the soul ? " that is, have not saving faith ; and surely this is the only genuine faith, the only faith produced by the Spirit of God. Then (2.) Should it be said, in reply, that those who " believe unto the saving of the soul," are those who actually hold fast the faith unto the end ; we answer, this is quite inconsistent with the hypothesis we are opposing: for, were that hypothesis true, there is no ground whatever on which such a thing can possibly be affirmed of any. It can be predicated of no individual, till he has actually finished his course, and has given proof of his having held fast the faith to the latest breath. To affirm of any one, with whatever truth, that he is now in possession of genuine faith and is a real spiritual child of God, would not, on this hypothesis, amount to an affirmation that he is " not of them who draw back unto per- dition ;" inasmuch as the reality of his faith, and of his filial rela- tion to God, is no security for its permanence, and he may " draw back unto perdition" with his last breath. Thus there is no ground on which the assertion of the apostle could be affirmed of any on this side eternity. If the truly "just," the regene- rated sinner, " born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God," 2 may fall away and perish, may " draw back unto perdition," and that at the very close of his life, then what, I repeat, is the distinction which the apostle in this passage means to express ? II. The second class of passages are those which bring before us actual instances of apostasy, or at least alleged to be such. It should here be remembered that the present question relates to final and entire apostasy. It is not questioned that partakers of the grace of God may fall, and, in some instances, 1 Hcb. x. 39. 2 John i. 13. OF THE SAINTS. 569 continue for a considerable period under the terrible power of temptation and of evil. On this account, therefore, I pass by the instances of David and of Peter ; these being instances full of melancholy but impressive instruction, as to the necessity of constant self- vigilance and earnest prayer for " grace to help in time of need." ] But they are clearly not instances in point. I may say the same of Solomon. This instance, indeed, has by some been regarded as more dubious. Yet if it be admitted that the book of Ecclesiastes was written subsequently to that period of his life, which he designates " the days of his vanity," can his restoration be consistently denied ? It is the faithful and penitent record of his bitter experience, for the warning and benefit of others. The language, too, of the divine record 2 appears decidedly favourable to the idea of his restoration to the right way. The instance of Demas is one of an opposite kind. There is no proof whatever of his having been an apostate. He has been treated by John Bunyan and others with an excess of severity. I am far from palliating his sin. He was greatly in the wrong, and actuated by unworthy principles. But of his being an apostate from the faith there is no evidence. The very terms of the context in which he is mentioned contain evidence of the contrary. 3 The purpose of his " going to Thessalonica," it. appears plain, was the same with that which took " Titus to Dalmatia, and Crescens to Galatia." His " love of this world," tempted him to leave Paul for an easier sphere of service, in the spirit of self-indulgence. But though he forsook Paul, there is no evidence of his having forsaken Christ. His conduct was similar (though more flagrant) to that of John Mark. 4 But that evangelist was subsequently restored to confidence. 5 As to other instances 6 it may be enough to remark, that there is no evidence of the persons referred to in them having been genuine believers. There remains the case of Judas. Respecting it, observe : 1 Heb. iv. 10. 2 2 Chivn. xi. 17. 3 2 Tim. iv. 10. * Acts xv. 37, 38. 8 2 Tim. iv. 11. 1 Tim. i_. 19^, 2 Pet. ii. 18. 570 PERSEVERANCE (1.) There is no evidence of anything like true grace in Judas, but evidence to the contrary. 1 The only thing that can be advanced against this is the passage in which he seems to be spoken of as one of those given unto Christ. 2 This leads me to observe (2.) That in the context of these words, Jesus says things regarding " those given to Him," which could not pos- sibly be true of Judas. 3 Surely, if Judas had been " kept" as the rest were, he could not have been the " son of perdition." Tt follows that he was not among the 'given.' and the 'kept.' (3). In this passage, it is true, the phrase is used which usually denotes exception : " None of them is lost, but," etc. (el /*}'.) It may be remarked, however, that there are instances in which si pri is used, not exceptively, but adversatively, in the same sense as dxxa. 4 ' This explanation may be confirmed by the con- sideration that to interpret otherwise is to make the Saviour contradict Himself. 5 If Judas was of those given to Him and perished, what Jesus says would not be true. (4.) It is true that Judas is spoken of as chosen. 6 It is obvious, however, that this choice relates exclusively to office. The very terms of the verses quoted may suffice to show this. As to the reason for which Jesus did choose such a character to be one of the Twelve, that is a totally distinct question, having nothing to do with our present inquiry. We have further proof that the choice was not personal but official. 7 From these verses it appears that Judas was not one of His chosen ; and had not, like them, the cleansing of His Spirit. When we distinguish between the two meanings of ' chosen,' all is plain. (5.) On the principle so repeatedly adverted to, of persons being spoken of according to profession, appearance, and association, Judas appeared amongst the Twelve as one of them ; and might be included under the same general designations with then}, though not spiritually, or in strict propriety of speech, belonging to those given Him of the Father. 8 In the former passage, the branches that bear no 1 John vi. 64. 2 John xvii. 12. 3 John xvii. 2, 6, 9, 11, 12. 4 Gal. i. 7 ; Rev. ix. 4 ; xxi. 27. 6 John vi. 39. 6 John vi. 70, 71. 7 John xiii. 10, 11, 16. 8 John xv. 2 ; Mat. xv. 13. OF THE SAINTS. 571 fruit could not be truly and vitally united to the vine ; the latter passage implies that no plant which His Father had planted should be rooted out. III. We now come to consider such objections to the doctrine as are founded on general principles. (1.) It has been alleged that the doctrine of perseverance supersedes the use of means, and renders the many motives, exhortations, and admonitions addressed to believers in the word of God, nugatory. 1 The answer to this is simple. The objection proceeds on the supposed separation of what, in the divine purpose, are ever inseparably associated the end and the means. I refer to the narrative of Paul's voyage to Rome. 2 In the twenty-fourth verse, the divine determination is announced as an express communication from heaven ; it was therefore sure. But look forward to verse thirty-first. The end was sure ; but we are thus taught that it was in connection with the means. It was as sure that the seamen were to be prevented from effecting their escape and leaving the ship at the mercy of the waves, without the boat, and without their aid in effecting the rescue of the soldiery and the passengers, as it was that there was to be " no loss of any man's life." It is thus, then, that God ordains His end, but ordains it in connection with the natural and necessary means. Again : The evidence of a man's belonging to the elect of God according to the one system, is the very same with the evidence of present state according to the other. No man has any more evidence of his being in a safe state for futurity, then he has of his now being a child of God, a true believer. The only way in which any one can " make his calling and election sure " is the same with the way in which present spiritual life is made sure, namely, by the practical attention which he is at the time showing to the divine admonitions and injunctions. 3 He who is not acting thus, has no more ground to believe his election and 1 Luke xii. 5 ; Rom. xi. 20 ; 1 Cor. ix. 24, 27 ; Heb. iii. 12 ; iv. 1 ; Rev. ii. 10 ; iii. 11 ; 2 Tim. ii. 12. 2 Acts xxvii. 3 2 Pet. i. 5-11 ; 2 Cor. xiii. 5 ; Phil. ii. 12, 13 ; 2 Cor. v. 9 ; 2 Pet. iii. 14. 572 PERSEVERANCE his safety for eternity, than he has to believe the reality of his present spiritual life. Closely allied to this is another objection : (2.) The doctrine is charged with holding out encourage- ment to presumption. This is almost the former objection in different words. In answer, observe First, We at once and frankly admit that it is capable of being so abused, and that it actually has been so abused. But then, what is there that may not? All the doctrines of grace have been subjected to the same abuse. Men have actually proceeded upon the principle : " Let us continue in sin, that grace may abound." ] The question ought to be : Is the principle, on which the doctrine in question is made an encouragement to presumptuous confidence, a reason- able one ? that is, Is it at all consistent with the views given of the doctrine in the inspired word, in its true relations to others ? which is the same as, according to its proper nature. Secondly, Were it revealed respecting individuals, that they were divinely predestinated to eternal life, and were thus actually in a state of grace, of incapability of finally falling, and were secure of everlasting salvation, then would the ground of objection be valid, and, indeed, insurmountable. But this, as the objectors know, is far from being true. It is only of characters of a certain description that this is affirmed ; and then the question, as to each individual, comes to be, whether or not he answers to the description. And this, be it remembered, is always a matter, not of past but of present inquiry ; present fruitfulness being the only evidence of present life. In these circumstances, it would be very unfair to hold the doctrine liable for the pre- sumption of such as pervert and prostitute it. No man has the slightest ground for flattering himself with security because of the doctrine of perseverance, unless he is at the time in the actual course of persevering. That person is guilty of the most unscriptural and senseless presumption, who indulges the hope of safety on the ground of past experience, or of what he may conceive to have been symptoms of a gracious state at a former 1 Eom. vi. 1. OF THE SAINTS. 573 period of his life. Tins is a wretched delusion. Instead of former experience proving present state, the case should be re- versed; present fruitlessness, or a course of present worldliness and sin, goes to disprove the genuineness of former experience ; and, if persisted in, will disprove it entirely. The Lord keeps His people, by preserving them from sin and temptation, or recover- ing them from their falls. 1 The self-examination enjoined on professed believers relates not to the question whether they have been, but whether they be in the faith. Thirdly, In addition to these observations, let it not be forgotten that a large amount of damage may accrue from sin, even although he who falls into it should be restored damage to himself in grief and shame, in the stings of com- punction, in loss of time, in the retardation and abstraction of spiritual advancement. The sin of David, though the Lord ultimately remitted it in mercy, cost the royal penitent many a pang of agony, many a secret groan, many a bitter tear. He regained " the joy of God's salvation," but it was through a season of darkness, desertion, and distress. How full of keen emotion and heaviness of spirit he is. 2 Thus, too, it was with the lamentable fall of Peter. And so is it, and so must it be, with every child of God who falls into sin. He must be made to suffer for it. 3 And along with damage to ourselves there comes damage, too, to the name and religion of Jesus, and damage to the souls of men, by the evil example, stunning and stumbling, or grieving and discouraging believers, and confirm- ing in their infidelity, ungodliness, wickedness, and scorn, the children of this world. Fourthly, Supposing it were true (which, however, on the grounds just specified we are far from admitting) that the doc- trine in question deducted from the strength of one motive the motive from fear ; does it not, we might ask, add largely to the force of another the motive from love and gratitude, to vigilance, steadfastness, and assiduity in the ways of the Lord ? And does it not impart elasticity and energy to the spring of cheerful- 1 John xviii. 8, 9 ; Luke xxii. 31, 32. a Ps. xxxii. and li. 3 Jer. ii. 19. 574 PERSEVERANCE ness and joy, augmenting mightily the efficiency of its impulse ? Surely there can be nothing more disheartening than the opposite hypothesis, more repressing to all the buoyancy of generous and confiding love, more deadening to all the lively motives of filial duty. It may keep in exercise the fear which hath torment; it has nothing of the love that casts it out. That we may be in Christ this hour, and out of Christ the next, in a state of pardon and acceptance now, and anon in a state of abandonment and condemnation, on the way to heaven to-day and on the way to hell to-morrow : all the reality of grace in the present moment affording no security for the supply of the next, but leaving us to incessant alternation between God and the devil ! this is so appalling, so heartless, so fitted to distract the spirit with uncertainty, and fill it with anxious and trembling apprehension and disquietude, that it cannot but be very unfavourable to the regular and vigorous discharge of duty. " The joy of the Lord" is His people's " strength." 1 But such a feeling of entire inse- curity is hardly, if at all, consistent with the possession of this filial joy. It " gendereth to bondage." ' Or rather perhaps, I should say, the system is fitted to subject those by whom it is thoroughly embraced to alternations, in the frames of their minds, of elevation and depression, of ecstatic raptures and low and moody despondency ; an effect not less injurious to the con- sistent and orderly fulfilment of the various functions of life, both secular and spiritual. And, generally speaking, this I apprehend will be found to a great extent in harmony with experience ; those by whom the opposite hypothesis is held being the subjects of a course incomparably more irregular and fitful than that of others. From the close connection already noticed between the doctrines of election and final perseverance, the objections on general principles to the latter are necessarily very similar to those urged against the former; in some points, indeed, identi- cally the same. I cannot, therefore, pursue this course further without repetition of what has been said before. 1 Neh. viii. 10. 2 Gal. iv. 24. OF TIIE SAINTS. 575 Neither can I, without similar repetition, illustrate anew the harmony of these associated doctrines with the genius and design of the Gospel, and with its entire and pervading spirit, as purposely adapted to exclude all boasting, to hide pride from man, to show the sinner his dependence and helplessness, to " lay him low, and keep him there." Nor, for the same reason, shall I touch again on the rarity with which these doctrines are introduced in Scripture, and on the remarkable fact that, with one single exception (to the best of my remembrance), their introduction is never in addresses to sinners, to unconverted men ; but always to believers, to the people of God, and that very exception was hardly one, for it was in a discourse of our Lord to those who in name and profession were God's people, and believers of His word. 1 The practice of the apostles was, with all freedom and without any reference to such doctrines and distinctions, to preach the Gospel ; and when that Gospel proved itself " the power of God unto salvation," and sinners were turned by it unto God, they then taught the believers to whom they owed the difference between themselves and others ; taught them that God alone had made them to differ ; that the grace put forth in bringing them to Himself was the fulfilment of a previous purpose of mercy ; and that to the continued supplies of the same grace they must owe their preservation to the end. Thus " boasting was excluded." 2 And what was the practice of the apostles should be ours. We may have occasion to advert more at large to this subject in a future part of our course, on the subject of Antinomianism. Meantime, however, while our duty is clear to " preach the truth" without difference to all whom we can get to hear it, it may at times be our duty to state and illustrate such doctrines as those we have been considering of Election and Final Perseverance. They may come in our way in the regular ex- position of the divine word ; and we must not then shrink from declaring " all His counsel." And in such a country as ours, where the Scriptures are known, and where objectors to 1 John vi. 44, 45, 65. Z Rom. iii. 27. 576 PERSEVERANCE their contents abound, it may become our incumbent duty on occasions to "set forth in order" 1 the leading articles of the Christian faith, or even to select for public discussion any that we may have found to present difficulties that are stumbling to weak and partially informed minds. We may feel it imperative to preach upon election. Should this at any time be the case with you, my young brethren, let me pray you with all earnest- ness, to enter on and to prosecute such discussion in the lowly spirit of " reverence and godly fear" 2 the spirit of self-diffi- dence and prayer, springing from a deep sense of the sacredness and the difficulty of the subject. These are among the " things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and un- stable wrest to their own destruction." 3 On no subject should you be more solicitous to avoid every approach to the lightness, the petulance, the dogmatism, or the eager vehemence of polemical argumentation ; for on no subjects can such tempers of mind be more thoroughly out of place and unseemly. Your aim on all such occasions should be, not to show off your own metaphysical acumen, or powers of hair-splitting intellectual anatomy, but by the simplest lights in which you can place the subjects before your auditory, to impress their minds with the propriety of the sinner's being abased and God glorified in every step of his salvation, from the first to the last ; to assert the universal and total unworthiness of men, and the independent and unfettered sovereignty of God a sovereignty, however, which, it is indispensable to remember and to maintain, violates in no one step of its procedure any rule of right, any claim of equity ; which is determined, in every step, not by anything bearing the remotest resemblance to human caprice, but by reasons infinitely wise and good, and worthy of the mind they influence, and which, in truth, essentially consists in His hiding, as He has a supreme title to do, these reasons from us. ! there is nothing so indecorous and offensive as the display of lightness and self- sufficiency, and the flippancy of pedantic self-conceit, in handling the " deep things of God." 4 Be humble yourselves, and by 1 Luke i. 1. * Heb. xii. 28. 8 2 Pet. iii. 16. 4 1 Cor. ii. 10. OF THE SAINTS. 577 your whole manner and example strive to inspire others with a kindred lowliness. I referred, in a former lecture, to a passage in the Gospel by John, from the lips into which " grace was poured." * There is in that passage so beautiful a consistency of statement on the subject that has been before us, at once stating the doctrines of election and of final perseverance, and guarding these doctrines from practical and antinomian abuse, that I would, in conclusion, advert to the words for a few moments again. 2 [1.] The sheep of Christ are known by Him. This cannot mean anything less than that He knows those who are really His, in distinction not only from men of the world, but from false professors who may pass among men for His, but are not. 3 He here gives us a test by which to discriminate ; but He Himself knows them directly and infallibly. 4 Accordingly, He represents them as His and as known to Hun previously to the time of their being brought into His fold. 6 This is election. Then [2.] Of those sheep He says : " They shall never perish." His own power and His Divine Father's are evidently pledged for their preservation to the end. Nothing but a power superior to His own and His Father's can accomplish their destruction ; and I need not say no such power exists. He gives them eternal life by imparting to them the saving knowledge of the truth. 6 He keeps them, and His Father keeps them to the full enjoyment of life everlasting in the fold above. It strikes me that we are warranted by Himself, in the verses just cited, to interpret the words, " I give unto them eternal life," as referring to its commencement. 7 In this way, the continuity is beautiful. He gives them, in this knowledge, the germ or principle of eternal life ; and He keeps them to its full enjoyment, so that they " never perish." He effects this by His unwearied care and almighty defence. 8 This is final perseverance. Then observe 1 Ps. xlv. 2. * John x. 27-30. 8 Mat. vii. 15, 16. * 2 Tim. ii. 19. * John x. 16. 8 John xvii. 1-3. 7 John xvii. 2, 3. * Is. xl. 11 ; PB. xxiii. 1-4. VOL. II. 2 P 578 PERSEVERANCE OF THE SAINTS. [3.] The character given by Him of all who are His sheep : " My sheep hear my voice," and He means His voice alone, not in preference merely, but alone, 1 " and they follow me." They avow themselves mine, they obey my will, they imitate my example, they look to me for all they need. We have no evidence, and this is what, as public teachers, you must unceas- ingly and earnestly inculcate, of our being His sheep those to whom He gives eternal life, and who shall never perish, further than we are thus hearing His voice and following Him. We are thus taught not to deceive ourselves by any unscriptural and unwarranted confidence. We must bear in mind the two inscriptions on the divine foundation, and be influenced by both. 2 And all who profess themselves the sheep of the Good Shepherd must humbly and earnestly, constantly and perseveringly, look for His power and the power of His Father to bear them on through all trials, privations, difficulties, and dangers, till they find their place by the still waters and among the green pastures of the better country, even the heavenly. This is the practical test of election and of safety. 1 John 4, 5. s 2 Tim. ii. 19. XXXII. ON THE LOCALITY AND OCCUPATIONS OF THE SOUL OF CHRIST BETWEEN HIS DEATH AND HIS RESURRECTION. IN considering the fact and accompanying circumstances of the Redeemer's death, we connected His death with the public cha- racter He sustained in dying, and the purpose for which He died ; in other words, we were led to discuss fully the doctrine of atonement, the essential and vital element of the Christian system. In discussing this doctrine the question that has divided believers relative to its extent, naturally came in our way. This question embraced two views, the one respecting its extent in value or sufficiency ; the other respecting its extent in purposed efficacy : the former having relation to God in His capacity of a righteous moral ruler in the impartial administra- tion of His government ; the latter contemplating Him in His capacity of sovereign benefactor, dispensing, amongst creatures who are all guilty and undeserving, the blessings of His grace " to every man severally as He will." We were thus led naturally, I might say unavoidably* to the doctrine of election. And then with this doctrine that of the final perseverance of the saints stood so immediately in connection, forming, indeed, almost a branch of the doctrine of election itself, that, in order to avoid going back upon the premises at a future part of our course, we were induced to give it its place in this connection. Having disposed of those subjects which were thus associated with Christ's death, we return now to the point from which we diverged, and take up the consideration of His mediatorial work subsequently to the moment of His expiring on the cross. 580 THE SOUL OF CHRIST Death is the separation, by whatever means effected, between the soul and the body. We formerly saw that the human nature of Jesus consisted, and in order to its being human nature at all must have consisted, of " a true body and a reasonable soul." * The record of the death of our Lord is in these simple terms : " He cried with a loud voice, Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit ; and when He had said this He gave up the ghost." Strictly and literally he expired, t^ewveuas? A question suggests itself here : What was the state of our blessed Lord's human soul during the short time between His death and His resurrection ? You are aware that one of the articles in what is usually called the apostles' creed says : " He descended into hell." And in the third of the Thirty-nine Articles of the Church of England the same thing is affirmed : " As Christ died for us, and was buried, so also is it to be believed, that He went down into hell," " descendit ad inferos" When these Articles were first concocted in the reign of Edward VI., the statement of this particular, Bumet informs us, was considerably fuller : " The body of Christ lay in the grave, but His spirit which He gave up was with the spirits which were detained in prison, or in hell, and preached to them, as the place in St. Peter testifieth." These words were then a part of the article to which belief and subscription were required. It seems to be on all hands admitted that the doctrine in the creed respecting the descent into hell is not mentioned by any writer during the first four centuries, by any of the fathers of these early ages in the abstracts given by them of the Chris- tian faith, nor has it a place in any other of the various creeds then framed. "In all that great variety of creeds," says Burnet, " that were proposed by the many councils that met in the fourth century this is not in any one of them, except in that which was agreed to at Ariminum (Rimini), and was pretended, though falsely, to have been made at Sirmium. In that, it is set down in a Greek word that does exactly answer Ruffin's Inferna, 1 Assembly's Shorter Catechism, Ques. 22. 8 Luke xxiii. 46. BETWEEN HIS DEATH AND HESUKUECT10N. 581 xara^dovia, and it stood there instead of buried." Ruffin was a writer in the beginning of the fifth century, who, says Burnet, " does indeed speak of it, but he tells us that it was neither in the symbol of the Roman nor of the Oriental churches, and that he found it in the symbol of his own church at Aquileia. But as there was no other article in that symbol that related to Christ's burial, so the words which he gives us, descendit ad inferna, He descended to the lower parts, do very naturally signify burial, according to these words of St. Paul : ' He ascended, what is it but that he also descended first into the lower parts of the earth ?' And Ruffin himself understood these words in that sense." " When it was put in the creed that bears Athanasius's name, though made in the sixth or seventh century, the word was changed to Hades, or hell. But yet it seems to have been understood to signify Christ's burial, there being no other word put forth in that creed." The article, then, has no valid claim to antiquity, nor even when it had been introduced did it by any means become universal, although it found its way into a number of creeds, confessions, and articles of faith. " Many of the fathers thought that Christ's soul went locally into hell, and preached to some of the spirits there in prison ; that then He triumphed over Satan, and spoiled him, and carried some souls with Him to glory." " Another conceit had a great course among some of the latest fathers and the schoolmen. They have fancied that there was a place, to which they have given a peculiar name, Limbus patrum, a sort of partition in hell, where all the good men of the old dispen- sation that had died before Christ were detained ; and they hold that our Saviour went thither and emptied that place, carrying all the souls that were in it with Him to heaven." These are well named by the bishop ' conceits ;' and I should deem it a waste of time to detain you by any formal refutation of them. The words in the Articles of the English Church are suscep- tible of great latitude of interpretation ; and have in various 582 THE SOUL OF CHRIST senses been understood by the members and dignitaries of that communion. Bishop Burnet seems to think this just as it ought to be ; leaving to the understanding and conscience of every man the sense in which he subscribes to it. He does, indeed, hold that the subscription should be considered as a declaration of bond fide belief, that in every case it should be ex animo, and not as a mere form or condition of peace. But the subscriber, at the same tune, may put his own sense upon the words. It is far from likely that, either on this subject or on any others, the original framers of the articles had this latitude of meaning in their purpose; difficult as it may be to determine with certainty the precise sense in which they actually meant the terms used by them to be understood. After the fire of controversy broke out in consequence of the discussions and divisions in the Synod of Dort on subjects of a different kind, a " royal declaration was put forth" by the British Solomon James I. Defender of the Faith, and head of the English Church, by which it was ordained, inter alia " That no man thereafter should put his own sense or comment to be the meaning of the article, but should take it in the literal and grammatical sense." But in the doctrine now before us, even this has not been deci- sive. And I quote the following paragraph from Burnet for two reasons : first, because it brings before you the different senses in which, even literally and grammatically, this article may be interpreted ; and, secondly, because it exemplifies the inutility and folly of introducing an article which fixes nothing, and which may be taken, not only in different, but even in opposite senses, with the same conscientiousness, and the same adherence to the proper meaning of words: 1 "The third article, con- cerning Christ's descent into hell, is capable of three different senses ; and all the three are both literal and grammatical. The first is, that Christ descended locally into hell, and preached to the 1 The recent legal discussions, and final decision, in the " Gorham case," ou the sense of the terms employed in the articles and offices of the English Church, furnish another most extraordinary exemplification of the same remark. January 1851. BETWEEN HIS DEATH AND INSURRECTION. 583 spirits there in prison ; and this has one great advantage on its side, that those who first prepared the Articles in King Edward's time were of this opinion ; for they made it a part of it by adding in the article those words of St. Peter as the proof or explanation of it. Now, though that explanation clause was left out in Queen Elizabeth's time, yet no declaration was made against it ; so that this sense was once in possession, and was never expressly rejected. Besides that, it has great support from the authority of many fathers, who understood the descent into hell according to this explanation. A second sense is, that by hell is meant the grave, according to the signification of the original word in the Hebrew ; and this is supported by the words of Christ's descending into the lower parts of the earth, as also by this, that several creeds that have this article have not that of Christ's being buried, and some that mention His burial have not His descent into hell. A third is, that by hell, according to the signification of the Greek word, is to be meant the place or region of spirits separated from their bodies ; so that, by Christ's descent into hell is only to be meant, that His soul was really and entirely disunited from His body ; not lying dead in it as in an apoplectical fit, not hovering about it, but that it was translated into the seats of separate souls. All these three senses differ very much from one another ; and yet they are all senses that are literal and grammatical ; so that, in whichsoever of these a man conceives the article, he may sub- scribe it, and he does in no way prevaricate in so doing. If men would therefore understand all the other articles in the same largeness and with the same equity, there would not be that occasion given for unjust censure that there has been." The sum of this extraordinary statement is, that articles, in order to admit of all subscribing them, should be so constructed as to be capable of being understood, literally and grammatically, as every man likes ; which, you will have little difficulty in per- ceiving, amounts to the same thing with having no articles at all. But the question of confessions and the merit of articles is not our present subject. 584 THE SOUL OF CHKIST I presume the sense in which the article was understood by the original framers, (I mean according to Burnet, for I cannot say that the quotation from Peter, or reference rather to the passage about the " spirits in prison," afterwards to be considered, is quite satisfactory evidence of their having so understood it) is now almost universally exploded ; and that the members of the Anglican church now take the article in very much the same acceptation with ourselves : that is, understanding the word Hades as meaning the invisible world, they consider it as meaning no more than that the soul of the Saviour, during the time between his dying and rising, was in the place of departed spirits. At the sametime, some hold this to be heaven, and others some place of intermediate residence, where the souls of the just remain in safe keeping, in a state of freedom from sin and suffering, but not in the fulness of their bliss till the resurrection. There is a view of this subject which has been advanced and maintained by the late Bishop Horsley, to which I am desirous to call your attention more largely, as it will bring some important collateral topics of enquiry before us, involving also the explanation of various interesting portions of the divine word. His general idea is this, that Christ's descent into hell means His visiting the mansion of the departed spirits of the just (which, of course, he does not believe to be heaven, but a place of temporary intermediate residence) ; arid that for the purpose of showing Himself among them, giving them assurance that the work of salvation on which they had rested was now done, and thus cheering and animating them with renewed confidence and assured certainty of their future blessed- ness and glory. His words are : " He descended into hell to the invisible mansion of departed spirits, and to that part of it where the souls of the faithful, when they are delivered from the burden of the flesh, are in joy and felicity. And again, if He went to proclaim to them the glad tidings that He had actually offered the sacrifice of their redemption, and was about to appear before the Father as their intercessor in the merit of BETWEEN HIS DEATH AND RESURRECTION. 585 His own blood ; this was a preaching fit to be addressed to departed souls, and would give new animation and assurance to their hope of the consummation, in due season, of their bliss ; and this, it may be presumed, was the end of His preach- "i ing. I shall not follow him in the exact order of his reasonings, but shall take up some of the points on which the argument chiefly turns. " That Christ should go to this place, was a necessary branch of the general scheme and project of redemption, which required that the divine word should take our nature upon him and fulfil the entire condition of humanity in every period and stage of man's existence, from the commencement of life in the mother's womb to the extinction and renovation of it. The same wonderful scheme of humiliation, which required that the son should be conceived, born, and put to death, made it equally necessary that his soul, in its intermediate state, should be gathered to the souls of departed saints." Suppose we grant the general principle on which this assumption proceeds, although we are by no means prepared to admit its being a self-evident one, the question still presents itself: Be it so that, according to the plan of mediatorial redemption, it was necessary for the Mediator to go through all the phases of being belonging to those whom he represented; and, consequently, for the soul of Jesus, " in its intermediate state, to be gathered to the souls of departed saints," where are the 1 Sermons, vol. ii. ser. 20. I take the more particular notice of this curious hypothesis, because it presents us with a remarkable instance of the bishop's fond- ness for something original, of his delight in starting novel and paradoxical opinions, and taxing his ingenuity and his consummate learning for their support ; ingenuity and learning which are many times exercised to admirable purpose, while at other times they do appear associated with no little partiality and even fL'msiness of reasoning, and always with quite a sufficient share of characteristic dogmatism. Where partiality and flimsiness discover themselves, they are to be attributed not to any defect of power in himself, for his might, both in mental stores and in capacity to use them, was that of a Gabriel, but to the real penury of evidence in his cause ; a penury of which he makes the most. And as to the dogmatism, if vigour of intellect and comprehensive accumulation of varied learning would vindicate it in anv, in him it had been no fault. 586 THE SOUL OF CHRIST souls of departed saints ? What is their place, and what their condition ? This, accordingly, forms one of the subjects of his inquiry. Now, surely, in endeavouring to find a scriptural answer to this inquiry, it would be reasonable to expect that those passages of the divine word should not be overlooked which appear, of all that are to be found, the most plain and conclusive. But (to use the terms of a Scottish indictment,) " true it is and of verity," that in the Bishop's discussion of this question, not one of these is ever so much as mentioned ! This is not a legitimate effect of learning. If it were, it would form one of the strongest pleas against it which its enemies in the Christian ministry could produce. It is said of truth, indeed, that it lies at the bottom of a well ; a proverb of which the design is to intimate the pains we should be at to reach it. But it is not always at the bottom. And when the man of profound learning gets all his tackling in order, and plies it w r ith all his might and all his skill to reach the bottom and bring up the object of his search, when, after all, it lies on the surface where he had disdained to look for it : he perverts and prostitutes learning, and, as the result of all his toil, finds himself much as when he began. Or, possibly unwilling to believe that he has laboured in vain, he prefers error at the bottom to truth at the top. To convince you that this is not a hasty and unfounded charge against this Goliath in literary stature, I shall mention and comment on some of the texts which he has entirely omitted to mention. 2 Cor. v. 6-8. I cannot imagine anything plainer or more decisive than this. It sets forth clearly two things : [1.] The separate existence of the soul after death. [2.] That, when in its state of separation, it is with the Lord. This is singularly express : " knowing -that, svd^o^vTss sv r$ au/^an, aab rou xvgiov," we are confident and willing rather, ffat sx, rov (S&paroc, xct! svb^n^sai ir^ac, TOV xvgiov. Our language has not terms exactly, to express the original, in which there is an allusion to sojourning in a country at a distance from home and friends, and quitting that country to settle at home ; and the BETWEEN HIS DEATH AND RESURRECTION. 587 terms seem to me to convey as strongly as it is possible for terms to do the idea of immediate transition, migrating from the body, and settling with the Lord. The only question is : Where is the Lord ? And when we recollect that the question relates to Him subsequently to his resurrection, there can be but one answer to it : " He is gone into heaven, and is on the right hand of God." l To allege that Christ, being divine, is every- where alike, is to allege what is not true, and what, if true, would be nothing to the purpose. It is not true. In saying so, I am not denying the divinity of Christ, or the omnipre- sence of His godhead, but I am denying that the divine nature of Christ is Christ. Christ, or the Lord, is the union of the divine and the human. Where that union is, Christ is, the Lord is, and to be " with the Lord" is to be there. But, if true, it would be nothing to the purpose ; because, Christ being in His divine nature everywhere, there was no such thing as dwelling away from Him, and no necessity for removal from the body in order to be with Him. We are, in this sense, as to local presence with Him here as really as there. Phil. i. 23. This is not less conclusive than the former. It cannot be called a passage from which the truth may be inferred. It is a statement of the truth. Paul's expectation was, riot only that his soul should live, retaining consciousness and enjoying happiness, but that it should be with Christ, and he expected this on his " departing." " To depart, and to be with Christ." The same remarks apply here as in the former instance respecting the locality of Christ's person as God-man ; and respecting the needlessness, if the divine nature of Christ were meant, of his departing in order to be with Him, he was with Him already. And taking the whole tenor of the apostle's customary phraseology as settling his meaning, who can allow himself for one moment to imagine that, after the lapse of so many centuries, the desire thus vehemently breathed is not yet gratified ; and that he by whom it was uttered is no nearer to its fulfilment than we ourselves are ? Acts vii. 59, taken in connection with the previous 1 1 Pet. iii. 22. 588 THE SOUL OF CHRIST vision, verses 55-56. Nothing can be more evident than that the proto-martyr not only expected to be in a separate state of conscious and happy existence ; but to enjoy that existence in the presence of his exalted Lord, where He was, where in vision he had just seen Him. Can you at all imagine that with this vision, (not in distant and indistinct remembrance, but, in a manner, still before his eyes, so vivid must have been its impression, when he prayed : " Lord Jesus, receive my spirit,") he meant anything else than that He should receive it to Himself where He was ? Can you imagine that, after seeing this vision on " looking up stedfastly into heaven," his expectation was, instead of his spirit going up where he liad seen his Lord, that it should go down to some place of safe custody below the surface of the earth ; where he was to exist for some thousands of years ere he should be admitted to that region of glory and joy, where Jesus had appeared standing up to receive him ? Luke xvi. 22, 23. On this passage observe [1.] It is on all hands agreed that we have here a description, not of the state of the dead after the resurrection, but of the state of their separate or departed spirits. 1 And the entire strain of the parable implies the idea of immediate transition to their respective places and conditions at death. [2.] If the bishop's view be well founded, of some subter- ranean region in which all departed souls reside till the resurrec- tion ; a region, at the same time, divided into two compart- ments between which the " great gulf is fixed," the souls of the wicked inhabiting the one, and the souls of the righteous the other ; it will still, we presume, be admitted that the in- cidents described in the parable are not to be understood as taking place literally, as if the spirits, in their separate com- partments, divided by the impassable gulf, could actually see and converse with one another ! And if, therefore, the account of such intercourse must be understood, not literally but paraboli- cally ; then no sufficient reason can be assigned why it should not be interpreted as descriptive of the feelings respectively of separate spirits in heaven and in hell. Since there must be figure, 1 vs. 27-30. BETWEEN HIS DEATH AND RESURRECTION. 589 there is no more difficulty in the one view than in the other. [3.] That it ought to be understood in the latter of the two senses is strongly supported by the consideration, that the place where the rich man is represented as being, is not only, from the language used respecting it, a place of torment, but the place of torment. The very same representation is given of it as of Gehenna or hell, in the sense usually now attached to the word. 1 And the expostulation and entreaty of the wretched suf- ferer respecting his brethren harmonises with this. 2 Does it not follow, as a fair and natural sequence, that if the rich man's place was the place of torment, the poor man's place was the place of blessedness ? that if the one was hell, the other was heaven ? [4.] This receives still further confirmation from the designa- tion given to it in the parable. Where did the rich man see Lazarus ? " In Abraham's bosom." I need not say that the allusion in the expression is to the mode of reclining at feasts. And it can hardly, on any natural principle, be interpreted of a mere place of temporary safe-keeping ; where they do not properly enjoy the feast, but are only waiting in expectation of it, as it were, in the ante-room to the banqueting hall. The feast is the feast of heaven. 3 Luke xxiii. 43. This is a passage which the bishop intro- duces for his own purpose, and we must therefore reserve it that we may deliberately consider his reasonings respecting it. We shall take it up, then, along with his other proofs. Mean- time, is it not strange that, on such a subject, not one of the four passages that have now been mentioned is so much as alluded to by him ? He could not be ignorant of their exist- ence, nor of their being adduced and urged by those who advocate an immediate transition of departing souls to heaven and to hell. We are therefore led to surmise that he felt such passages hard of solution on his hypothesis, and purposely shunned them. 1 Mat. xxv. 41 ; Mark ix. 43-48 ; Rev. xx. 14, 15. 2 Luke xvi. 27, 28. 3 Mat. viii. 11 ; Luke xiii. 29. XXXIIL ON THE LOCALITY AND OCCUPATIONS OF THE SOUL OF CHRIST BETWEEN HIS DEATH AND RESURRECTION. WE were discussing Bishop Horsley's hypothesis regarding the " descent into hell." We had commented on four passages, which appear very plain and decisive in favour of the ordinary doctrine of the immediate transition of departed human souls to the place of blessedness and the place of woe. 1 I had just mentioned a fifth, 2 where Jesus says to the thief on the cross : " Verily I say unto thee, To-day shalt thou be with me in para- dise." This passage is one of the foundations of Bishop Horsley's hypothesis, and we must therefore attend to his reasonings upon it. " That the invisible place of their residence" (the residence of departed souls) " is the hell to which our Lord descended, is evident from the terms of His own promise to the repentant thief upon the cross: 'Verily, I say unto thee,'" etc. Paradise was certainly some place where our Lord was to be on the very day on which He suffered, and where the companion of His sufferings was to be with Him. It was not heaven ; for to heaven our Lord, after His death, ascended not, till after His resurrection, as appears from His own words to Mary Magdalene. He was not, therefore, in heaven on the day of His crucifixion ; and where He was not, the thief could not be with Him. It was no place of torment ; for to any such place, the name of paradise never was applied. It would be no other than that region of repose and rest, where the souls of the righteous abide in joyful hope of the consummation of their bh'ss. And upon this single text 1 2 Cor. v. 6-8 ; Phil. i. 23 ; Luke xvi. 22, 23 ; Acts vii. 55, 59. 2 Luke xxiii. 43. LOCALITY OF THE SOUL OF CH1UST. 591 we might safely rest the proof of this article of our creed in the sense in which we explain it ; a sense so plain and prominent, in the bare words, to every one who is not misled by the popular acceptation of the term " hell," that it never could have been set aside to make room for expositions of more refinement ; much less would the authenticity of the article ever have been called in question but for the countenance which it was supposed to give to the doctrine of purgatory as taught in the Church of Rome, with which, however, it has not even a remote connection." 1 Now with what is contained in the first two sentences of this extract we agree. But mark the words that follow : " It was not heaven." This assertion, made so peremptorily, ought to be accompanied with very clear evidence. And the evidence with which it is accompanied he appears to think quite of this description. To me it seems exceedingly slender : " It could not be heaven, for to heaven our Lord after his death ascended not till after His resurrection, as appears from His own words to Mary Magdalene." 2 Respecting this argument consider: [1.] Supposing Jesus to assign as a reason of His prohibit- ing Mary to touch Him that He had not yet ascended to His Father, is it not manifest that in the words He refers to His body, and means that in it, since His resurrection, He had not ascended ? But if so, the words have nothing whatever to do with the question regarding the previous condition or locality of His separate soul. If His not having ascended was a reason why His body should not be handled ; it is the ascent of His body, or of His person including His body, that is alone meant. [2.] Continuing the same supposition, that His not having yet ascended is really given as the reason for His not being touched, are we to understand that He was to ascend bodily to heaven, and to return ? And to this we reply : First, That there is nothing else whatever in the Scriptures to countenance any such idea ; nothing to show that He ascended in body to heaven till after His forty days stay on earth subsequently to His resur- 1 Sermons, vol. ii. pp. 150, 151. 8 John xx. 17. 592 rection. The history decidedly favours the contrary supposi- tion. 1 Secondly, If His not having yet ascended was a good reason for Mary's not touching Him, was it not an equally good reason for others not touching Him? 2 The comparison of the evan- gelical narrative constrains one of two inferences, either that He had, in the interval between the one of these appearances and the other, gone in His body to heaven and returned ; or that His not having yet ascended was not the reason really intended to be given for the prohibition in the former of the two to touch Him. Thirdly, Retaining our translation, which does countenance this idea, we cannot but be sensible of something strangely mysterious and incomprehensible in our Lord's words, something very unlike the simple, natural, anti-superstitious style of the entire narrative otherwise. We cannot but feel a rising senti- ment of superstition, which we can neither define nor account for, inasmuch as we are apt to conceive that there would have been a better reason why His sacred person should shun the contact of human hands after its having ascended to heaven and appeared in the holiest of all, by the throne of divine light and purity, than previously to such ascension. But the words are here. How can they otherwise be satisfactorily explained ? The question is a fan- one. I believe the sentiment intended to be conveyed by them to Mary to be simply this : " Touch me not, for I am not yet ascended to my Father ; i. e., spend not time in embracing me now, I am not yet ascended, I do not yet ascend to my Father. But without such delay, go, tell my disciples," etc. This is natural, simple, reasonable, and consistent. But are the terms in the original susceptible of such a meaning ? I do not say that there is no difficulty, but only that there is none incapable of satisfactory solution, and none comparable in magnitude to those connected with the hypothesis under review. It is true, then, that the verb in the Greek is in the perfect tense, aca/31/Sjjxa. Whitby speaks of it as an aorist, but Pearce, more correctly, as a perfect. The inquiry, then, is, whether in any case the 1 Acts i. 1-3, 9. 2 Mark xvi. 9 ; John xx. 17 ; Mat. xxviii. 9. BETWEEN HIS DEATH AND RESURRECTION. 593 perfect can be understood in the sense, or rather, I should say, with the effect of the present. Now, the verb is in what Dr. Clarke, in a long note on a similar word in the Iliad, desig- nates the present perfect, as distinguished from the past perfect. l The distinction is exemplified from our own language : He is gone away, he went away. /3g/3>jxa, he says, is used exclusively for the first of these, differing in this from such words as abiit in Latin, which answers to both of our English forms, and may be rendered either he is gone, or he went. According to Dr. Clarke, the second of these would be properly expressed in Greek by fiepfasi, a/3j, etc. 2 The verb, then, in the passage before us is properly translated: I am not yet ascended. Now the remaining question is : Whether this phrase in English be not of the sense : I do not yet ascend ? There can be no doubt about this. We are quite familiar with the idiom. When we say: " Time enough, I am not gone yet," we are imme- diately understood to mean : " It will be a little yet ere I go, I do not go just yet. 3 The sense we are putting upon our Lord's words is confirmed by another consideration. He had told His disciples that when He was taken from them He should " see them again, because He was to go to the Father." Of this the evident meaning was, that He was to rise again, and that before He returned to the Father He should see them again. 4 The message, therefore, sent by Him through Mary Magdalene certainly implied, when taken in connection with what He had thus previously said, that He should see them before He ascended to His Father. 5 1 Book i. line 37. 8 See the whole Note. 3 You will find instances given of the preterite for the present in Vigerus de Idiotismis Graecis. But with regard to these, I am not sure that any of them are quite analogous to the case now before us ; most of them, as it seems to me, pro- ceeding on the principle of past time continuing to the present. To take one instance : ajxaSo^jJa-a/ rovs #(>oyi>iav; r.fiu* TO. S;x