of tlje Atonement* 
 
 DELIVERED AUG. 17, 1823, IN THE -CHAPEL 
 
 OF THE 
 
 AN DOVER. 
 
 BY JAMES MURDOCK, D. D. 
 
 Brown Professor of Sac. Hhet. and Eccles. Hist, in the Seminary. 
 
 PUBLISHED BY THE STUDENTS OF THE INSTITUTION. 
 
 ANDOVER : 
 
 FLAGG AND GOULD, PRINTERS. 
 
 1823. 
 
ADVERTISEMENT. 
 
 THIS discourse was delivered to an audience composed chiefly 
 of theological students, and was designed to aid them in forming their 
 opinions on the important subject discussed. For their benefit, as 
 well as at their desire and expense, it is now made public. In pre- 
 paring it for the press, the writer at first intended to have assigned 
 to the appendix a greater portion of the discussion, and to have re- 
 tained at least all the practical reflections embodied in the original 
 sermon. But he soon found that this course would swell the publi- 
 cation too much, and would cost him more time than could be spar- 
 ed from his other duties. He therefore changed his plan, omitted 
 much that was merely practical and enlarged the discussion in the 
 body of the sermon, and subjoined only a few articles by way of 
 appendix. As it has thus assumed very much the character of a 
 theological tract, some references and quotations have been annex- 
 ed, which can be of no use to the public at large ; but which, it is 
 hoped, will be of value to those for whom they were intended. 
 
SERMON. 
 
 ROM. iii. 25, 26. 
 
 " WHOM GOD HATH SET FORTH TO BE A PROPITIATION, THROUGH FAITH IN HIS 
 BLOOD, TO DECLARE HIS RIGHTEOUSNESS FOR THE REMISSION OF SINS THAT 
 ARE PAST, THROUGH THE FORBEARANCE OF GOD ; TO DECLARE, I SAY, AT 
 THIS TIME HIS RIGHTEOUSNESS : THAT HE MIGHT BE JUST, AND THE JUSTI- 
 FIER OF HIM WHICH BELIEVETH IN JESUS." 
 
 THE great question, the question of deepest inter- 
 est to us, and to all men, is, on what conditions will 
 God be propitious to us ? In other words, how may we 
 obtain forgiveness of our sins and the everlasting favour 
 of God? What will he accept as an atonement for our 
 transgressions ? What can restore that harmony be- 
 tween him and us, which has been interrupted by fhe 
 apostacy of our first parents and our own criminal 
 deeds, and which must be restored, or we must be for- 
 ever miserable ? This is a question which presses 
 heavily on the soul of every man, when he looks forward 
 with anxiety to the grave and to the world that lies be- 
 yond it. And to answer this question, is the grand pro* 
 biem in the religion of every age and country. From 
 the nature of the question, it is obvious that reason alone 
 2 
 
6 
 
 V 
 
 can never answer it. An offended God will make his 
 own terms : and who can tell what they will be, till he 
 reveals them ?* To give us information on this subject, 
 and information on which we may rely, is the chief ob- 
 ject of the Christian revelation. As it contains the most 
 satisfactory declarations, and especially as it assures us 
 that God will bestow free pardon and everlasting bliss 
 on all who repent and believe in Jesus Christ ; this rev- 
 elation is justly denominated the Gospel, the glad tidings 
 from heaven. Yet, full and explicit as the scriptures 
 are on this subject, they do not enable us to understand 
 it perfectly. Many questions may be asked which it 
 would be difficult, and some which it would be impossi- 
 ble to answer. Who, for instance, can comprehend the 
 mysterious union of natures in the person of the Media- 
 
 v tor? Who can tell all the bearings and influences of 
 his obedience and death? Who can be certain that he 
 knows all the obstacles which were to be removed, be- 
 fore a free pardon could be consistently extended to sin- 
 ful men ? Or who will presume that he understands all 
 the effects of the work of redemption, in the great 
 system of the universe ? It is easy to see, that a 
 finite human mind can but imperfectly comprehend tty 
 designs and procedure of God in the moral, as well as 
 in the natural world. Still, information sufficient to an- 
 swer all practical purposes, we may presume, is given 
 
 Vus. For the attainment of salvation, it maybe sufficient 
 
 * See BrettschneideSs Handbuch der Dogmatik. 2ter Theil. 158. 
 S. 272 ff. and M. F. G, Siiskind iiber die Moglichkeit der Strafen Auf- 
 hebung oder der Siinden Vergebung, nacb Principien der practischen 
 Vermmft, in Flatfs Magazin. Her Stuck. S. 167. Tubing. 1796, and 
 Butler's Analogy, Pt. II. chap. 3, 4, 5, particularly chap. 5, pp. 281 
 287. ed. Boston, 1809. 
 
that we know and believe firmly the simple fact, that 
 there is forgiveness with God, for the penitent believer, 
 on account of something which Christ has done or suffer- 
 ed. Not much beyond this, have the knowledge and the 
 faith of the great body of Christians, in every age, ex- 
 tended. Yet on a subject of so much interest, a 
 subject into which angels look with eager curiosity, and 
 which is to be the theme of the redeemed to eterni- 
 ty, more knowledge certainly is desirable. It may 
 contribute to the establishment of our faith, to the cor- 
 rection of our sentiments and the enlargement of our 
 knowledge, on other points in theology ; and may afford 
 us interesting subjects for devout meditation. No work 
 of God equally displays the depth of the divine wisdom 
 and goodness ; none seems more worthy to engage all 
 the powers of the human mind. On few points in the- 
 ology, has the Christian church made greater progress in 
 knowledge. From the days of the earliest fathers to Mar- 
 tin Luther, there was a gradual though not very rapid 
 advance. The reformers cast much light on the subject. 
 From that time, the adversaries of the doctrines of grace 
 have, with eagle eyes, detected errors and mistakes in 
 the writings of the reformers and their successors. With- 
 in the last fifty years, the subject has undergone a more 
 full discussion than ever; and the advance in knowl- 
 edge has, I conceive, been answerable to the efforts 
 made. One fact is noticeable, and demands our grati- 
 tude to the Author of all light c the believers in gratui- 
 tous justification, both in Europe and America, seem to 
 be gradually coming to nearly the same conclusions.* 
 
 With a view to exhibit the results, to which my own 
 mind has been led, and especially in regard to the na- 
 * See Appendix, A. 
 
a 
 
 ture and the proximate effects of the atonement, I shall 
 now direct your attention to the passage of scripture 
 prefixed to this discourse. 
 
 In this text, Paul declares, explicitly, what was the 
 immediate object of Christ's atoning sacrifice ; that is, 
 what effect it had in the economy of redemption, or how 
 it laid a proper foundation for the pardon and the sal- 
 ration of sinful men. It was the immediate object of 
 this sacrifice, to declare the righteousness of God : in 
 other words, to display and vindicate the perfect holi- 
 ness and uprightness of his character as a moral gover- 
 nor. This display being made, he can with propriety 
 forgive all that believe in Jesus. As this sentiment is 
 the foundation of my whole discourse, I shall take some 
 pains to shew that it is really contained in the text. 
 
 The Apostle is here treating, professedly, on the doc- 
 trine of justification by grace through the atonement 
 made by Jesus Christ. And he uses, in the text, no fig- 
 urative terms, and no comparisons or allusions, which 
 might mislead us. He appears to aim at stating the 
 simple truth, and in the most direct and appropriate 
 terms. The plain, direct meaning of his words, there- 
 fore, taking them throughout in their most obvious sense, 
 is their true meaning. Keeping these things in view, let 
 us now enter the sanctuary of this text, and survey the 
 objects it contains.* " God hath set forth" 
 
 * For the sake of those who may wish to see the words of the 
 original in their connexion, the whole text is here given. Verse 25. 
 c Ov nyof&fTO o ftfog IJiaoTfjQiov dia. rr)<s niOTtcog tv TO) UVTOV 
 xi, ft? ivda^tv Tfj? dixcuoovvyg CIVTOV, d(,a Tt^v TicxQfGiv TWV 
 
 tv TT ( avo^y TOV &eov verse 26. nyog ev- 
 UVTOV tv TCO vvv xatpo), us TO tivou, O.VTOV 
 , xai dwaiovvTu TOV ex TUOTfwg /?;<JOf. 
 
9 
 
 hath exposed to view, as an object which is brought 
 forth and exhibited to public inspection. " God hath 
 set forth his Son a propitiation" lAaaryptov., a propitia- 
 tory sacrifice or victim ; not a mercy-seat or covering for 
 the ark, as some have understood it.* " Through faith 
 in his blood :" that is, the benefits of which sacrifice, men 
 obtain by trusting in it. God hath done this "/o declare 
 his righteousness" This propitiatory sacrifice was in- 
 tended, fig evdfit-w, or as afterwards expressed, npog 
 wdetiVi for a display, exhibition or manifestation : and 
 the thing to be displayed or exhibited, was the righteous- 
 ness of God, TT^g dixaioovvrjg avrov, that is, the recti- 
 tude of his views and proceedings as the moral governor 
 of the universe.t 
 
 ^ Some suppose the righteousness of God to denote 
 here, not one of the divine attributes, but that righteous- 
 ness which God accepts and makes the ground of a sin- 
 ner's justification or what had just before been denom- 
 inated " the righteousness of God without the law," and 
 " the righteousness of God which is by faith in Jesus 
 Christ."J But this would be supposing the righteous- 
 ness of God to be nothing different from the propitia- 
 tion itself ; between which two things, the text makes 
 the same distinction as between the means employed, and ' 
 
 * See Wolfii Curae Philol. in loc. Magee on Aton. and Sacr. p. 130. 
 Novum Test. Gr. a Koppe; and Rosenmuller in locum. 
 
 t By the words rectitude and righteousness, here and throughout the dis- 
 course, I intend what is called general or mixed justice ; which is 
 to be carefully distinguished from particular or simple justice. See a 
 full account of the distinction, in the Appendix B. 
 
 J See Whitby, in loc. and Discourse on Imputation, in his Com. on 
 N. T. vol. II, p. 228. 
 
10 
 
 the effect produced. The propitiation was intended for an 
 exhibition, or, it was an exhibition, of the righteousness of 
 God. That which is employed solely as the means of 
 exhibiting something else which we wish to display, cannot 
 be the very thing displayed. To bear the meaning con- 
 tended for, the text should read : Whom God hath set 
 forth as a propitiation, that is, hath caused to become his 
 righteousness. 
 
 N Again ; some contend that dixaioawr) should here be 
 rendered benignity, kindness or compassion. And the 
 word dtxaiog, translated just, in the next verse, they 
 would have signify merciful, gracious, compassionate* 
 That a very few passages are to be found, in which the 
 sense would be preserved, and perhaps be expressed 
 more definitely, by rendering these Greek words in this 
 manner, I will admit. It is no uncommon thing for words 
 of a general import, as these are, to be used occasional- 
 ly instead of more limited terms. But this occasional 
 usage of words in an improper and peculiar sense, does 
 not prevent them from having what may be called their 
 ordinary and their appropriate meaning; that is, a meaning 
 which is always to be given them, when no reasons 
 appear to forbid it. Precisely such is the case before 
 v s. These Greek words, ordinarily and appropriately, 
 express the same ideas as our English words righteous- 
 ness and righteous- and no philological reason for- 
 bids their having this meaning here. Those who 
 contend for rendering them compassion and compassion- 
 ate, offer no reasons drawn from the connexion, the 
 
 * See Hammond, Rosenmiiller and Koppe, in loc. and Schlensneri Lex. 
 N. T. Evfoi&g, no. 1. and AIY.UWS, no. 4. 
 
11 
 
 course of thought, or parallel passages. They merely ad- 
 duce proof that there are a few passages, in which the 
 words seem to have these peculiar meanings ; and then 
 add, that they would give a sense more agreeable to them, 7 
 if so rendered here. Such arguments need no con- 
 futation. But I have other reasons for rejecting this 
 interpretation. Is it reasonable to suppose the Son of 
 God became incarnate, and suffered and died on the 
 cross, merely to evince that God is a being of compas- 
 sion? Was there no other way, in which our heavenly 
 father could convince us that he is kind and gracious ? 
 Besides, of what use could it be, for him to demonstrate 
 this attribute in such a way, when he was about to give 
 us proof much more unequivocal by the actual offer of 
 pardon for all our sins and everlasting blessedness ? There 
 could certainly be no atoning efficacy in the exhibition 
 of this attribute. It could remove no obstacle to mercy, 
 nor lay any proper foundation for the offer of pardon to 
 the penitent. Yet the text supposes the display of the 
 attribute intended by the Apostle, actually to remove 
 some obstacles ; and to enable God to be at the same 
 time what that attribute implies, and the justifier of be- 
 lievers. For he made a display of that attribute, (*s 
 TO eivai aviov) in order that he might be, both dtxaiog and 
 the justifier of men.* And this is implied also in the 
 
 * Overlooking" the force of fig TO tivai avrot^ and supposing 1 the text 
 not to point our attention to that in the mediation of Christ which con- 
 stitutes its value and efficiency, but merely to state the general facts, that 
 salvation is to us altogether gratuitous, and that it comes to us through 
 the atonement of Christ ; some believers in the efficiency of the atone- 
 ment, have reasoned thus : as it was the mercy of God which led him 
 to seek our salvation, and as salvation is to us a free gift, it accords 
 
12 
 
 word propitiation. God set forth his Son to be a pro- 
 pitiatory offering for the manifestation of this attribute, 
 so that he could afterwards justify believers. Now is a 
 propitiatory offering, one which is presented to God, to 
 prove him already inclined to mercy, or to make him 
 so ? Is it the token and pledge of forgiveness, or the 
 cause and ground of it ? If, with some modern writers, 
 we could believe that the atonement made by Jesus 
 Christ, is, not the meritorious ground of justification, but 
 merely a tragic scene, intended to affect us and bring us 
 to repentance, and if we could discover the necessity and 
 the propriety of so strange a procedure ; then, indeed, 
 we might suppose God to have set forth his Son as a 
 kind of propitiatory offering to men ; and for the pur- 
 pose of shewing his compassion for them. One insuper- 
 able difficulty, however, would yet remain ; which is, 
 that it was to enable God to have mercy on believers, 
 not on others, that an atonement was necessary. Bat 
 suppose all these difficulties to be surmounted, there is 
 still another objection of a more philological character, 
 arising from the copulative conjunction in the expression, 
 "just and the justifier" dutaLov xai dixaiowra. Justifica- 
 tion, it must be admitted, is of grace. Now by retain- 
 ing the common translation of dcxaios, we have this lucid 
 
 with the scope of the passage to render dMcuovvv?] benignity. 
 The answer is, that salvation by Jesus Christ does not originate from 
 simple mercy on the part of God ; but from mercy combined with a 
 proper regard to the interests of the universe. It is therefore not 
 mere mercy, but righteousness, or what is called general justice, that is 
 displayed in this scheme of salvation. And as the display of this at- 
 tribute is that which gives to the atonement its value or efficncy ; it is 
 subversive of the whole meaning of the passage to render the word 
 benignity. 
 
13 
 
 meaning of the clause, that he might be just, and at the 
 same time, be merciful. But, translate dwaiog merciful, 
 and what will be the sense ? that he might be merci- 
 ful, and at the same time be merciful ! And this sense- 
 less tautology, will be rendered still more insufferable 
 if we suppose dtxaioawij, likewise, to signify compassion. 
 Having now shewn, I would hope satisfactorily, the 
 import of the principal words of the text, I would call 
 your attention to the general scope and connexion of the 
 whole. You will recollect that this epistle was written 
 within thirty years of the crucifixion ; and that through 
 all the preceding ages, God had shewn kindness towards 
 such as trusted in his mercy. During four thousand 
 years, he had, in the face of all his intelligent creatures, 
 suspended the execution of justice. Numerous penitent 
 sinners he had received to his bosom, and elevated to 
 mansions above ; while, during this long period, no 
 atonement had been made, and no satisfactory ground 
 appeared, to justify a procedure so contrary to the prin- 
 ciples of distributive justipe and to his own solemn dec- 
 larations in the law. At length the Saviour had ap- 
 peared, the atonement was made, and light now beam- 
 ed on the hitherto mysterious conduct of the righteous 
 God. Of this Saviour the text says : Him hath God 
 set forth, as a propitiatory sacrifice, through faith in his 
 blood, for an exhibition of his own righteousness, in re- 
 gard to the remission of sins committed in the past ages, 
 through the merciful forbearance of God. This propi- 
 tiatory sacrifice was, 1 say, intended for an exhibition, in 
 this age of the world, of his own righteousness ; so that 
 he might be, and might now be seen to be, a righteous 
 3 
 
14 
 
 moral governor, and at the same time be the justifier of 
 all that believe in Jesus Christ* 
 
 \I will now turn from a discussion of the text, to a dis- 
 cussion of the subject itself. Why was an atonement 
 necessary ? What were the objects to be accomplish- 
 ed by it ? And how did the mediation of Christ effect 
 these objects ? These are the principal questions to 
 be answered. I shall, however, begin with another : 
 what are the reasons which either induce or require 
 God to inflict any punishment whatever on transgressors ? 
 To this I answer : 
 
 In the first place, there is a real difference between 
 right actions and wrong ones, between virtue and vice, 
 or sin and holiness. The former are lovely, and meri- 
 torious ; the latter are unlovely, and of ill-desert. Ev- 
 ery being who has a conscience, feels that there is this 
 difference. No man holds all actions to be equally praise- 
 worthy : and no being, whose moral sensibility is acute, 
 can fail to make a broad distinction, in point of merit, 
 between that person who performs all his duties to him- 
 self, to his fellow creatures and to his God, and the per- 
 son who is destitute of every virtue, and abandoned to 
 every species of vice and crime. Now this distinction, 
 
 * Instead of giving a list of the numerous commentators and others 
 who construe this text substantially in the manner here exhibited, I 
 will refer only to such of them as confirm or illustrate their interpre- 
 tation by important remarks. Grotius, Defensio Fidei Cath. in Opp. 
 torn. III. p. 303. G. C. Storr, Opuscula Academ. Vol. II. p. 190, and 
 Ueber den Zweck des Todes Jesu, subjoined to his Brief an die He- 
 braer, S. 553 ff. Doderlein, Instit. Theol. Christ. II. p. 448. Veysie's 
 Bampton Lectures, p. 218 f. Nares, Remarks on the Version of N.T. 
 pp. 154 162. Magce,on Aton. and Sacr. pp. 127,261263. Connect. 
 Ev. Mag. for 1805, vol. VII. p. 161 f. Rurge, Essay on Aton. pp. 29, 30. 
 
15 
 
 which even we can see and feel in some degree, the 
 holy God must be supposed to see and feel far more 
 strongly than we do. If then, we look upon some deeds 
 with abhorrence, and on the perpetrators of them with 
 indignation ; while certain other actions we admire, and 
 esteem and honour those who perform them ; much 
 more, must we suppose the infinite and holy God to 
 have such feelings. From his very nature, therefore, 
 or from his perfect purity and intelligence, we suppose 
 him inclined to make a wide difference between the vir- 
 tuous and the vicious, between those who do such things 
 as please him, and those who do such things as he ab- 
 hors. This, doubtless, is one reason why he rewards 
 the righteous and punishes the wicked. 
 
 A second reason why God should do this, is, that the 
 good order and the happiness of his kingdom require 
 it. The righteous obey, and the wicked transgress, 
 those laws which his wisdom and goodness have ordain- 
 ed. On the observance of these laws, the order and 
 the happiness of his vast kingdom, and of every part of 
 it, depend. And hence, as the moral governor of the 
 intelligent universe, as the being to whom it belongs 
 to guard the interests of this vast community, not by 
 physical force, which would destroy the freedom of ac- 
 tion, but by motives suited to affect the minds of ra- 
 tional and moral beings, he must, necessarily, make a 
 distinction between the righteous and the wicked ; that 
 is, he must reward the one and punish the other. He 
 would not otherwise do right : he would not distribute 
 justice ; nor manifest a due regard to the interests of 
 his great kingdom. He would not administer the gov- 
 ernment of it in a manner worthy of himself: his char- 
 
16 
 
 acter, as a wise and rightfeous ruler, would be impeach- 
 able. " That be far from thee," said Abraham, inter- 
 ceding for guilty Sodom, " that be far from thee, to 
 slay the righteous with the wicked ; and that the right- 
 eous should be as the wicked, that be far from thee ; 
 shall not the Judge of all 'the earth do right ?" 
 
 The only other ground of punishment, which need be 
 mentioned, is, thirdly, the personal benefit of the indi- 
 viduals who transgress. Some divine punishments, par- 
 ticularly those inflicted in this life, we may suppose to 
 be fatherly chastisements, intended to reclaim the wan- 
 dering, and thus promote their own best interests. Love 
 or kindness to the individuals themselves, is the ground 
 of these punishments.* 
 
 Such we may believe to be the principal reasons, why 
 God punishes the wicked. And which of them, ex- 
 cept perhaps the last, can any man suppose so holy 
 and unchangeable a being as God is, will ever cease to 
 regard? Will the principles of his very nature ever be 
 so changed, that he can cease to feel abhorrence of sin, 
 and esteem for virtue ? Or, will he ever become re- 
 gardless of the duties of his station, as the universal 
 governor, and cease to care for the order and happiness 
 of his kingdom ? Till he can do all this, he cannot cor- 
 dially receive impenitent transgressors to his bosom, and 
 treat them with that kindness which he shews to the 
 righteous. 
 
 Of the three grounds of punishment just enumerated, 
 the first is, in the nature of things, removeable in no oth- 
 er way than by a change of character either in God or 
 
 * See a lucid statement of the grounds of divine punishments, in 
 Brettschneider's Handbuch der Dogm. B. I. S. 354 ff. 
 
17 
 
 in the sinning creature. Nothing that a Mediator could 
 do would remove it. The holy and unchangeable God 
 can never cease to abhor sin. He must forever feel dif- 
 ferently, and be inclined to conduct differently, towards 
 the righteous and the wicked. Nothing can ever bring 
 the infinite mind, which is purity itself, into harmony 
 with the polluted souls of sinning creatures. They must 
 become holy ; this, and this only, can remove the first 
 ground of punishment. And this certainly will remove 
 it ; because when creatures cease to be sinners, they 
 must cease to be odious in the sight of God. Their new 
 and holy characters render them now lovely in his view; 
 and he can therefore feel no repugnance, so far as their 
 present characters are concerned, to embracing them as 
 his dear children. Such a change in the sinner's char- 
 acter, will likewise remove the third ground of punish- 
 ment, which was the reformation of the sinner himself. 
 Because this object is already obtained, by the change 
 supposed. 
 
 x Only the second ground of punishment then remains 
 to be removed; and to remove this, and this only, is the 
 proper business of an atonement. This is an obstacle 
 to his forgiveness, which the sinner himself can never' 
 remove. He has committed deeds which cannot be 
 recalled. He is a transgressor of the law, and must for- 
 ever stand guilty. What is done, can never be undone. 
 All he can do, will be to repent of the past, and cease 
 to do evil in future. His repentance, though certainly 
 proper, cannot change the nature of his past transgres- 
 sions, nor repair the injury they have occasioned. And 
 no future obedience can be more than his immediate 
 duty for the time being ; it can never atone or make 
 
18 
 
 amends for past disobedience. He has violated the law 
 of God ; and nothing he can do or suffer, will obliterate 
 his crime, or prevent its mischief to the kingdom of 
 God. The good of the universe requires, that the maj- 
 esty of the law be maintained inviolate ; and this is 
 impossible, let him do what he will, without the full ex- 
 ecution of the penalty of the law upon him. 
 x But, it may be said ; do not all civil governments 
 grant absolute pardons to the guilty ? Why then, may 
 not the divine government do the same ? The answer 
 is, because God's government is perfect ; but all civil 
 governments are imperfect. They are weak, and can 
 but partially obtain their end. They sometimes give 
 impunity to an accomplice in a crime, if he will bear 
 testimony against his associates ; because human gov- 
 ernments often have no other sufficient means of detect- 
 ing the guilty. They pardon a condemned criminal, be- 
 cause the judge erred in condemning him ; or because 
 the rigorous execution of the la w would, in his case, exceed 
 the demerits of his crime ; or because the loss of such a 
 citizen to the state, would be a greater evil to the com- 
 munity, than the suspension of the arm of justice. Such 
 as these are the grounds, on which pardons in civil gov- 
 ernments can be justified. They all originate from the 
 imperfection of human laws, and from the incompeten- 
 cy of human beings to execute justice. But no such 
 causes can exist in the perfect government of the omnis- 
 cient God. He therefore, never grants absolute par- 
 dons. And in human governments, they tend so much 
 to weaken the force of law and encourage transgression, 
 that every wise lawgiver endeavours to render them as 
 few and rare as possible. 
 
19 
 
 Again ; it may be said, parents and guardians, or 
 heads of families and of schools, frequently remit pun- 
 ishment, when transgressors repent and reform. Why 
 then, may not the great parent of all, do the same ? 
 The answer is, that the primary object of these family 
 governments is the personal good of the individuals ; 
 and in such little communities, established chiefly for 
 the benefit of the several members, the personal inter- 
 est or advantage of each bears a higher proportion to 
 the common good of the whole, than in a great empire. 
 Hence, in these little societies, it is comparatively of 
 less importance to support the honour and majesty of 
 law at the expense of individual good. Yet, even here, 
 some regard must be paid to the public good ; and of 
 course, to the claims of law. And in proportion to the 
 extent of a community, or the number of subjects under 
 the same government, must be the importance of fixed 
 laws, and of an undeviating adherence to them. There 
 is a difference even between a small family and a large 
 one, and between a small school and a large one. The 
 instructer of a single pupil, may pardon him, whenever 
 it will not be injurious to the pupil himself; but if he 
 has several pupils, it is far otherwise. Hence it appears, 
 that the principles and maxims of paternal govern- 
 ments are not to be transferred to the government of 
 nations, and much less to that of worlds. But, has it not 
 been already admitted, that God sometimes chastises 
 his creatures, for their good ? And does not this shew, 
 that he adopts and acts'upon, the principles of paternal 
 governments ? Doubtless; to a certain extent he does. 
 But how far ? is the question. The reasoning just ad- 
 vanced, goes to shew, not that the personal advantage 
 
20 
 
 of an individual is never regarded by the divine govern- 
 ment, but, that it bears a very small proportion to the 
 public interests of God's immense kingdom ; and there- 
 fore must often, very often, be sacrificed. It must never 
 interfere with the greater good of the whole. Accord- 
 ing to the views heretofore given, so far as God punish- 
 es his creatures merely for the purpose of reforming 
 them, he can and he does cease, to punish when they 
 are reclaimed. But so far as he punishes for the pur- 
 pose of establishing and maintaining public law and -pub- 
 lic justice, individual advantage must give place to pub- 
 lic good. Now the latter, rather than the former, must 
 from the nature of the case, or from the extent of his 
 empire and tha immense importance of stable law and 
 order in it, be the principal ground of punishment under 
 the divine government. Indeed, all those retributions, 
 which are to follow the general judgment, seem to be- 
 long to this class of punishments. At least, we have no 
 evidence, that the fatherly chastisements of God ever 
 extend beyond the state of trial, or the present life. 
 
 v Thus far we have been examining and attempting to 
 ascertain, precisely, the nature of the difficulty which 
 it was the business of the atonement to remove. The 
 difficulty, it appears, consisted wholly in the second 
 ground of punishment ; that is, in the necessity of dis- 
 tributive justice to the wellbeing of the universe. 
 
 v To remove this difficulty, or to enable God righteous- 
 ly to pardon the repenting sinner ; the atonement must 
 give the same support to law, or* must display as impres- 
 sively the perfect holiness and justice of God, as the ex- 
 ecution of the law on transgressors would. It must be 
 something different from the execution of the law itself; 
 
21 
 
 because it is to be a substitute for it, something which 
 will render it safe and proper to suspend the regular 
 course of distributive justice. If such an expedient can ' 
 be found, then, an adequate atonement is possible ; oth- 
 erwise it is not.* 
 
 Now such an expedient, the text represents the sa- 
 crifice of Christ to be. It is " a declaration of the right- 
 eousness of God ; so that he might be just," might se- 
 cure the objects of distributive justice, as it becomes a 
 righteous moral governor to do; " and yet might jus- 
 tify," or acquit arid exempt from punishment, him that 
 believeth in Jesus. It was in the nature of it, an exhi- 
 bition or proof fvdfii$ of the righteousness of God. 
 It did not consist in an execution of the law on any be- 
 ing whatever ; for it was a substitute for an execution of 
 it. It did not annihilate the guilt of transgressors, or 
 cause them to be either really or apparently innocent ; 
 for this was impossible : it rather proclaimed the atro- 
 city of their guilt. It did not fulfil the law, or satisfy its 
 demands on transgressors ; for then their acquittal would 
 have been an act of justice, not of grace ; and the atone- 
 ment would have been but another mode of executing the 
 law itself, not a substitute for it. Its immediate influence 
 was not on the characters and relations of men as trans- 
 gressors, nor on the claims of the law upon them. Its di- 
 
 * See F. G. Siiskind, iiber die Moglichkeit der Straffen-Auf he- 
 bung oder der Siinden-Vergebung, in Flatus Mag. fur christ. Dogm. 
 St. I. S. 1 68. and C. G. Brettschneider's Handbuch der Dogm. . 158. 
 Band II. S. 248278. Also Dr. J. Edwards, Three Serm. in Selectt. on 
 Atonement, pp. 330 337. Dr. Maxcy's discourse, ibid. pp. 206 208. 
 Dr. Smalky^s Sermon, ibid. pp. 112 114. Dr. Griffin, on the Extent 
 of the Atonement, pp. 22 27. Mr. Burge* Essay on the script, doctr. 
 of Atonement, pp. 39 66. 
 4 
 
22 
 
 rect operation was on the feelings and the apprehensions 
 of the beings at large, who are under the moral govern- 
 v ment of God. In two respects, it coincided precisely 
 with a public execution of the law itself: its immediate 
 influence was on the same persons ; and that influence 
 was produced in the same way, by means of a public 
 exhibition. For what is a public execution of the law 
 on culprits, but a public exhibition? and an exhibition, 
 which is intended to affect the feelings and the appre- 
 hensions of the community, to impress them all with 
 high respect and reverence for the law, that stern guar- 
 dian of the public weal ? The atonement to be a prop- 
 er substitute for the execution of the law, ought to be 
 a public exhibition ; and such an exhibition, as would 
 impress all the creatures of God with a deep and aw- 
 ful sense of the majesty and sanctity of his law, of the 
 criminality of disobedience to it, and of the holy unbend- 
 ing rectitude of God as a moral governor. 
 
 And such, according to the text, the atonement really 
 was. It was an exhibition or manifestation of the right- 
 eousness of God ; and an exhibition of such a nature, 
 as must strike every intelligent beholder with astonish- 
 ment. It was a transaction, without a parallel in the 
 history of the divine government. The son of God, the 
 Lord of glory, himself descended to this lower world. 
 He veiled his godhead in a human body, and humbled 
 himself to dwell with men. He toiled and bore reproach, 
 and suffered from pain and weariness and hunger. He 
 condescended to instruct men, to be their physician, 
 their friend, their very servant ; he washed his disci- 
 ples' feet. He was obedient to every ordinance of God 
 and man ; he fulfilled all righteousness. He suffered 
 
23 
 
 himself to be reviled and persecuted, to be arraigned, 
 condemned and crucified. He expired amidst the mock- 
 ery of Jews, and the insults of a Roman soldiery. That 
 this was an astonishing exhibition, an exhibition calculat- 
 ed to fill the mind with wonder and amazement; every 
 
 x one feels instantly. The only difficulty is to understand 
 how this exhibition was a display of the righteousness 
 of God. To solve it, some have resorted to the suppo- 
 sition that the Son of God became our sponsor, and sat- 
 isfied the demands of the law on us, by suffering in our 
 stead. But to this hypothesis there are strong objec- 7 
 tions. To suppose that Christ was really and truly our 
 sponsor, and that he suifered in this character ; would 
 involve such a transfer of legal obligations and liabilities 
 and merits, as is inadmissible : and to suppose any thing 
 short of this, will not explain the difficulty. For if, while 
 we call him a sponsor, we deny that he was legally hoi- 
 den or responsible for us, and liable in equity to suffer 
 in our stead ; we assign no intelligible reason, why his 
 sufferings should avail any thing for our benefit, or dis- 
 
 \play at all the righteousness of God. Besides, this hy- 
 pothesis, like all the others, which suppose the Son of 
 God to have first entered into a close, legal connexion 
 with sinful men, and afterwards to have redeemed them, 
 would make the atonement to be a legal satisfaction 
 for sin ; and then the acquittal of the sinner would be 
 no pardon at all, but would follow in the regular course 
 of law. We must, therefore, resort to some other solu- 
 tion. Anl what is more simple, and at the same time 
 satisfactory, than that which is suggested by the text ? 
 The atonement was an exhibition or display. That is, 
 it was a symbolical transaction. It was a transaction, in ' 
 
24 
 
 which God and his Son were the actors ; and they act- 
 ed in perfect harmony, though performing different 
 parts in the august drama. The Son in particular, 
 passed voluntarily through various scenes of humiliation 
 and sorrow and suffering ; while the Father looked on 
 with all that tenderness and deep concern, which he 
 and none but he could feel. The object of both, in 
 this affecting tragedy, was to make an impression on the 
 minds of rational beings every where, and to the end of 
 time. And the impression to be made, was, that God is 
 a holy and righteous God ; that while inclined to mer- 
 cy, he cannot forget the demands of justice, and the 
 danger to his kingdom from the pardon of the guilty ; 
 that he must shew his feelings on this subject; and 
 shew them so clearly and fully, that all his rational 
 creatures shall feel that he honours his law while sus- 
 pending its operation, as much as he would by the exe- 
 cution of it. 
 
 ^But how, it may be asked, are these things express- 
 ed or represented by this transaction. The answer is, 
 symbolically. The Son of God came down to our 
 world, to do and to suffer what he did ; not merely for 
 the sake of doing those acts and enduring those sorrows, 
 but for the sake of the impression to be made on the 
 minds of ail beholders, by his labouring and suffering in 
 this manner. In this sense, it was a symbolical trans- 
 action. And the import or meaning of it, as of every oth- 
 er symbol, is to be learned either from the circum- 
 stances and occasion of it, or from the explanation that 
 accompanies it. Hence all that either reason or reve- 
 lation teaches, respecting the object of Christ's visit to 
 our world, may properly be applied to the explanation 
 
25 
 
 of this significant transaction. Does any object, that 
 viewed in this light, it is an obscure and unnatural sym- 
 bol? I might ask the objector to shew the natural fit- 
 ness of other symbols both human and divine, to express 
 the import which is ascribed to them. Words, for in- 
 stance, are symbols of human thoughts and emotions. 
 But what is there in the nature of articulate sounds, to 
 make them significant of the thoughts and emotions of 
 the soul ? or to make each word significant of one par- 
 ticular thought, rather than another ? The only an- 
 swer here, is that men have agreed to use certain 
 
 sounds as symbols of certain thoughts ; and thence it is, 
 they have acquired a meaning. In the same way, the 
 
 v common symbolical actions acquire a definite meaning. 
 Why does inclining the body forward express respect? 
 or falling on the knees betoken supplication? These 
 actions would not have such definite meanings, if men 
 had not agreed to use them for such purposes. Yet 
 who does not now, understand and feel their import? 
 Take an example. A child commits a fault; and is re- 
 quired, in token of his repentance, to fall upon his knees 
 and ask forgiveness. He does so ; and the parent is 
 satisfied ; and all the family sympathize with the offen- 
 der, and feel that he may now properly be forgiven. 
 But these, it may be said, are well known symbols. 
 True; yet all their significancy, or at least their defi- 
 nite import, originates from the arbitrary pleasure of 
 those who introduced them and gave them currency. 
 And in the numerous symbols of divine appointment, 
 there was the same indefiniteness of meaning, the same 
 natural unfitness to convey precise notions to the mind, 
 till God by a sovereign act declared what meaning 
 
26 
 
 should be assigned them. This is true of the covenant 
 of the rainbow, of sacrifices, circumcision, baptism, the 
 Lord's supper, indeed, of nearly all religious rites un- 
 der both the old dispensation and the new. Now if 
 men regulate a great part of their intercourse, and con- 
 vey to each other most of their thoughts and feelings 
 and determinations, by arbitrary symbols ; and if God has 
 appointed various standing symbols, of the same charac- 
 ter, to denote his pleasure or purposes, and to be expres- 
 sive of the most solemn devotions of his creatures ; 
 may he not employ an extraordinary symbol, of like 
 character, for the special purpose of shewing with what 
 feelings and views he offers pardon to the penitent? 
 Suppose we could discern no natural fitness in this sym- 
 bol to convey to us any definite impressions ; is not this 
 true of most symbols ? But I venture to say, this sym- 
 bol has a natural fitness for its object. Its primary ob- 
 ject was not so much to enlighten the understanding, as 
 to impress the feelings of creatures. A mere revela- 
 tion, written or oral, might have been sufficient, if the 
 former of these had been the object. Again, the feel- 
 ings of creatures were to be impressed by an exhibi- 
 tion, not of the intellectual conceptions of the divine 
 mind, but of the determinate purposes and the holy 
 feelings of God. And, the impression to be made, was 
 to be universal, and deep and lasting as eternity. Now 
 the symbol chosen, was certainly calculated to make a 
 deep and lasting impression on the minds of creatures. 
 This all must admit. It was also of such a nature, as 
 to exhibit uncommon strength of feeling and very great 
 decision of mind, in regard to something, on the part 
 of God the Father and his Son. Never did they perform 
 
27 
 
 an act indicative of so intense desire and purpose, or one 
 that seemed to involve so much selfdenial, so much pain- 
 ful effort. This symbol then, had all that is necessary 
 in any symbol of emotion or purpose, to give it fitness 
 for its object. As soon as the import of it is made 
 known, it produces, and actually has produced, the ef- 
 fect designed. For the preaching of the cross, the mere 
 statement of what Christ has done and suffered for the 
 salvation of men, has impressed and converted all the 
 nations which have been favoured with it. And the 
 truly pious in all ages of the church, though differing 
 greatly in their conceptions of the nature and operations 
 of Christ's sacrifice, have united in admiring the wisdom 
 of this plan of redemption. They have felt that it dis- 
 played, though unable perhaps to tell how, the righ- 
 teousness as well as the goodness of God. It has actu- 
 ally led them to new and adoring views of the divine 
 Being; and has caused them to feel, that this way of 
 salvation exhibited to them the most constraining mo- 
 tives to forsake iniquity and return to the love arid ser- 
 vice of their Maker. 
 
 From this view of the natuce of the atonement, arise 
 several reflections of no small importance. 
 
 1. The efficiency, and of course the value, of the 
 atonement made by Jesus Christ, is proportionate to the 
 dignity of his character. For his toils and sufferings 
 were an exhibition, the object of which was to make a 
 deep and lasting impression on the intelligent universe. 
 They were intended to shew how solicitous God is to 
 prevent his creatures from supposing him to make light 
 of transgression, because he lets it go unpunished. Now 
 the strength of the impression made by the exhibition, 
 
28 
 
 is of vast importance ; for it is the visible measure of 
 the divine displeasure at sin. If the whole exhibition 
 makes no deep and lasting impression, if it is viewed as 
 an ordinary and trivial occurrence ; it will be inefficient 
 and useless, or perhaps worse than useless. It is only 
 by being such an exhibition as will strike every behold- 
 er with astonishment and awe, such as will make an im- 
 pression too deep ever to be forgotten, that it can an- 
 swer effectually the ends of an atonement. If now, we 
 should suppose the Mediator to have been a mere man, 
 an eminent prophet, perhaps ; and that he endured and 
 performed what the gospel relates; what was there 
 here, more than has often occurred ? Is it a strange 
 thing in our world, for good men to be persecuted and 
 put to death ? Were not many prophets and righteous 
 men so treated by the ancient Jews ? If then God has 
 selected one of these common occurrences, and appoint- 
 ed it to be the special symbol of his concern for the hon- 
 our of his law ; what is gained by the symbol, that 
 would not be gained, without it, by a mere declaration ? 
 Will this effectually secure reverence for his law, and 
 impress transgressors with an awful sense of the holiness 
 of God? Will it not rather encourage transgression, by 
 seeming to prove that sin is quite a venial thing in God's 
 account? Let us next suppose, as some have supposed, 
 that the Mediator was the highest and noblest created 
 or derived being in the universe ; but still, a creature, 
 and therefore infinitely beneath the rank of God him- 
 self. Such an exalted being, we must suppose, would 
 be very dear to God. Of course, for God to give him 
 up to be reviled and spit upon and crucified, must shew 
 that he regards the occasion which makes it necessary, 
 
29 
 
 to be a very serious and important one. Because, for 
 such a being to be given up to so great indignity and 
 suffering, would be an extraordinary thing ; and would 
 betoken something of unusual occurrence in divine prov- 
 idence. But, as the sufferings of this exalted creature 
 were temporary, and as he was raised to greater hon- 
 ours afterwards; he experienced perhaps no real loss. 
 Viewed in itself, the transaction might be regarded as 
 only one of the more uncommon of those mysterious 
 events which occur in the providence of God. And 
 when the object of it should be made known, the natu- 
 ral inference would be, that God felt it to be somewhat 
 dangerous to suspend the course of justice towards trans- 
 gressors, and was willing to take some pains to prevent 
 the consequences. But still, if the honour of his law 
 and the good order and happiness of his kingdom, when 
 weighed in his balance, are equivalent only to such suf- 
 ferings of such a creature ; they are in his account but 
 of limited value : and it is by no means certain, that he 
 may not be induced by some consideration, and that not 
 of infinite value neither, to sacrifice them altogether. 
 Thus, such an atonement would fall short of declaring 
 and evincing, fully, "the righteousness of God." It 
 would not enable him to "be just," just to himself and 
 to his kingdom, and yet to "justify the believer." Such 
 an exhibition would fall far, very far, short of making as 
 deep and lasting an impression on the inhabitants of 
 both worlds, as would be produced by the execution 
 of the sentence of the law upon transgressors. It would 
 therefore be an inadequate atonement. But, let us sup- 
 pose now, that the Mediator was in dignity and power 
 on a level with God the Father, and in an equal degree 
 
30 
 
 possessed of all divine attributes ; and that he condescend- 
 ed to unite himself with a mortal man ; and in this state 
 submitted to be reviled, and loaded with insults, and per- 
 secuted even unto death ; and we have an exhibition, 
 at which the universe may justly stand amazed. It is 
 needless to object, that it was only the human nature of 
 the complex person, which suffered pain and death. It 
 was so. But what could the infinite and impassible God 
 do more ? He became personally united to an abused, 
 suffering mortal, and thus bore a load of indignity 
 heaped upon himself. The human mind can conceive 
 of no exhibition calculated to produce a deeper impres- 
 sion. Of course, this appears to be the most efficacious 
 atonement, the best substitute for the execution of the 
 law, which it was possible for infinite wisdom to devise. 
 2. According to the view we have taken of the na- 
 ture and design of the atonement, the justification of be- 
 lievers is not a justification founded on the principles of 
 law and distributive justice. It is an absolute pardon, an 
 act of mere grace ; and of grace on the part of God the 
 Father, as well as on that of God the Son. For the 
 operation of Christ's sacrifice, it appears, was not on the 
 regular course of distributive justice in regard to indi- 
 vidual transgressors. Its influence was on the public 
 feeling respecting the character of God. And it only 
 enabled God, with honour to himself and safety to his 
 kingdom, to gratify the desires of his heart by the par- 
 don of repenting sinners. Justification, therefore, is a 
 real departure from the regular course of justice ; and 
 such a departure from it, as leaves the claims of the law 
 on the persons justified, forever unsatisfied. This is a 
 legitimate inference from the principles which have 
 
31 
 
 been advanced. And it is confirmed by the following 
 considerations. 
 
 If the atonement causes transgressors to be justified 
 on the principles of law and distributive justice, either 
 it must change the principles of the law itself, or it 
 must divest the transgressor of guilt and ill desert, or it 
 must legally and fully satisfy the demands of the violat- 
 ed law upon him. But the first is impossible. The 
 law of God is founded on the eternal and immutable 
 principles of distributive justice. It renders to every 
 man according to his deserts. Till the distinction be- 
 tween right and wrong shall cease to exist, or the Om- 
 niscient cease to discern it and regard it ; the principles 
 of the divine law must remain unaltered. The atone- 
 ment then did not change the law. Neither did it di- 
 vest the transgressor of his guilt and ill desert. It 
 could neither recall the deeds he had committed, nor 
 change their moral character, nor separate from him 
 the guilt of them. It therefore could not make the 
 transgressor to become really innocent. Nor did it 
 " cover over" his sins, or conceal them and cause them 
 to be overlooked and forgotten. For, the pardoned sin- 
 ner not only remains, in fact, the same guilty creature 
 he was before ; but he is viewed and treated by his 
 Maker, as personally guilty; and he must feel himself 
 to be so, arid ingenuously confess and mourn over his 
 transgressions, in order to obtain forgiveness ; and if re- 
 ceived to mercy, he must forever adore and praise the 
 abounding grace of God in his salvation. The atone- 
 ment then, did not divest the transgressor of his guilt or 
 ill desert. 
 
 Neither did it satisfy the demands of the violated law 
 
32 
 
 upon him. For, what were the demands of the violat- 
 ed law ? Not, that some transferable good should be 
 surrendered and paid over to God or to the law, as be- 
 ing forfeited by the transgressor. The law did not or- 
 dain, that, in case we sinned, certain privileges or valua- 
 ble possessions held by us, should be forfeited into the 
 hands of another or to the public, who might sue for 
 them and recover them. Had this been the case, the 
 Mediator might, perhaps, have been able to pay the 
 forfeiture, or something equivalent to it ; and thus have 
 virtually satisfied the law. But the law ordained no 
 such thing. When transgressed, it requires no pay- 
 ment, no transfer of any thing whatever, to another. 
 What then does it demand? That the sinner himself 
 suffer the punishment, which it denounces. The violat- 
 ed law holds him personally guilty, and it requires that 
 due punishment fall on his head, and on his only. For 
 the law of God, as already observed, is founded on 
 the principles of distributive justice, which renders to 
 every one according to his deserts. It therefore, care- 
 fully discriminates between the innocent and the guilty ; 
 and it never suffers the distinction to be overlooked or 
 forgotten. When once a creature becomes a transgres- 
 sor of its commands or prohibitions, it never is satisfied, 
 and never can be, with any thing short of the full exe- 
 cution of the threatened penalty on the transgressor 
 himself. And the same is true of criminal law in hu- 
 man governments. No judge can admit an innocent per- 
 son to suffer an infamous or capital punishment, in place 
 of the person found guilty. If a few rare instances of 
 such a procedure can be gleaned from ancient history, 
 they must be ascribed to the ignorance of the times : for 
 
33 
 
 neither distributive justice nor the sound maxims of 
 criminal law will vindicate them. Thus Zaleucus, the 
 Locrian lawgiver, is said to have made a law that eve- 
 ry adulterer should suffer the loss of both his eyes. Af- 
 terwards, his own son being found guilty, the story is, 
 that the father caused one of his own eyes to be pluck- 
 ed out, and then one of his son's eyes. This was an ex- 
 pedient, which might serve very well to shew how much 
 he revered the law, and his fear of lessening its author- 
 ity. But it was not an execution of the law. The fath- 
 er's loss of an eye was not what the law demanded, nor 
 any part of it. As a judge, Zaleucus could not legally 
 decree it; nor would distributive justice tolerate it. A 
 true description of this transaction would be, that the 
 penalty of the law was in part remitted, through the 
 clemency of the lawgiver, who voluntarily submitted 
 himself to a great calamity, with the hope that it would 
 cause the law to be respected, as much as the full exe- 
 cution of it.* And thus also the bloody sacrifice of the 
 Mediator, was not what the law of God demanded, or 
 could accept, as a legal satisfaction for our sins. AH 
 that it could do, was, to display the feelings of God in 
 regard to his law ; and to secure, by the impression it 
 made, the public objects which would be gained by an 
 execution of the law. It did not cancel any of the 
 claims of the law on us. And hence, after the atone- 
 ment was made, God was under no legal obligations to 
 exempt any man from punishment. If he had never 
 
 * See Valerius Maximus, Exemp. Mem. L. vi. c. v. p. 557. ed. Thysii, 
 1655, whose reflection is; Ita debitum supplicii modum legi reddidit, 
 aequitatis admirabili temperamento, se inter misericordem patrem et 
 justum legislatorem partituSi 
 
34 
 
 pardoned a single transgressor, neither the law nor dis- 
 tributive justice would have been contravened. And if 
 he pardons at all, it is mere grace. Or to state it oth- 
 erwise, the atonement was not of such a nature as tore- 
 quire God to pardon us, but it enables him to do it with 
 credit to himself and safety to his kingdom.* 
 
 3. From this view of the atonement, it appears that 
 there is no foundation for those controversies which 
 have been raised, respecting the extent of the atonement. 
 It has been debated whether Christ made atonement 
 for the elect only, or for all men : and, whether his sa- 
 crifice procures for believers forgiveness merely, or all 
 the other blessings likewise that are conferred upon 
 them. These controversies arise from the supposition, 
 that the atonement draws after it, by necessary conse- 
 quence, the salvation or at least the pardon of all that 
 believe. And they have given no little trouble to those 
 who hold the doctrine of vicarious satisfaction, whether 
 by the imputation of guilt or the transfer of punishment. 
 On such a supposition, these controversies are of vast 
 moment ; and cannot be avoided. For, if the Redeem- 
 er made legal and proper satisfaction for the sins of 
 any ; it is a fair inquiry, and unavoidable too, for whose 
 sins did he make satisfaction ? And the answer must 
 be, for the sins of all, or for the sins of a part only. So, 
 if the atonement was, necessarily and inseparably, con- 
 nected with the bestowment of blessings on believers ; 
 how far does this connexion extend ? Does it reach to 
 all the blessings which God now confers, or only to some 
 part of them ? But, if the views given in this discourse 
 be correct, we may say to the disputants on both sides 
 
 * See the reference and note, which form Appendix C. 
 
35 
 
 of these controversies, as the Saviour once to the Sad- 
 ducees ; ye do err, not knowing the scriptures ; for the 
 relation you both take for granted, has no existence. 
 
 ^4. The view we have taken of the nature of the 
 atonement, may assist us in judging of the various sys- 
 tems and speculations in regard to what is called the mat- 
 ter of the atonement, or the effects produced respec- 
 tively by the obedience and the sufferings of the Media- 
 tor. One tells us that the atonement consisted in suf- 
 fering ; another, that it consisted in obedience ; and a 
 third, that it consisted in both. According to some, 
 Christ's sufferings procured us pardon, and his obedience 
 procured us merit; and both together, complete salva- 
 tion. According to others, his sufferings go to shield us 
 from punishment, but all positive blessings are the free 
 gift of God. One has told us, that Christ's obedience 
 or virtue entitled him to a reward; and that, on the al- 
 lowance of his claim, he insisted on liberty to dispose of 
 us at his pleasure.* Many have supposed that his obe- 
 dience, his holy character, was necessary to render his 
 sufferings, meritorious or efficient ; but that, in itself, it 
 had no atoning influence. The general opinion has been, 
 that the sufferings of Christ constituted the atonement, 
 or at least was the sole ground of our forgiveness. 
 Without developing farther the various opinions which 
 have been entertained, or stopping to canvass particular 
 hypotheses ; I will observe, that if the view we have 
 taken in this discourse of the nature of the atonement, 
 be correct ; it will throw much light over this whole 
 subject, and shew that there is not ground for so many 
 
 * See an Essay on Redemption, by John Balguy, pp. 107, 8vo. 
 2d ed. 1785. 
 
36 
 
 nice distinctions as some have made. The atonement 
 was not a legal or a forensic transaction. It was alto- 
 gether extrajudicial, or out of the ordinary course of le- 
 gal procedure. It was an expedient for avoiding a le- 
 gal procedure in regard to believers. It was in its na- 
 ture, simply^a display or exhibition, intended to impress 
 on all creatures a deep sense of " the righteousness of 
 God" as a moral governor. Of course, any and every 
 part of the exhibition, and every circumstance attending 
 it, every thing that Christ either did or suffered, from 
 the time of his descent from heaven till his return thith- 
 er, had an atoning efficacy, so far as it contributed to 
 render the exhibition as a whole more impressive. For 
 the transaction operated as a whole, and was intended 
 to produce one general effect. It is not then to be 
 anatomized, and to have distinct offices assigned to its 
 different members. Doubtless some scenes in that august 
 tragedy, which occupied more than thirty years in the 
 performance, were more impressive, and of course con- 
 tributed more to the atonement, than others. The de- 
 scent of the Son of God and his assumption of our na- 
 tures, or the first opening scene of the tragedy, was 
 very striking. His entrance on the arduous and benev- 
 olent work of a public teacher and a public benefactor, 
 was a sublime scene. Various others, of much interest, 
 followed rapidly. The plot thickened, and the whole 
 assumed a deeper and deeper colouring, till the last aw- 
 ful scene, which displayed the Son of God nailed to a 
 cross, in agony, unpitied, and bowing his head in death. 
 This was certainly the most stupendous scene in the 
 whole exhibition. It was so viewed by the apostles as 
 well as by common Christians ; for it is most dwelt on 
 
37 
 
 by them ; and is often spoken of as if the whole atone- 
 ment was concentrated in it. " The blood of Christ 
 cleanseth : We are reconciled to God by the death of 
 his Son : He redeemed us to God by his blood : He 
 made his soul an offering for sin." Yet doubtless his 
 sufferings anterior to his crucifixion, the various " travails 
 of his soul" while on earth, come into the atonement. 
 Nor are his active labours excluded by the apostles. 
 " By the righteousness of one, the free gift came upon 
 all men unto justification : for as by one man's disobe- 
 dience many were made sinners ; so by the obedience 
 of one shall many be made righteous." 
 
 5. The views exhibited in this discourse, may suggest 
 to us some of the reasons why repentance and faith are 
 required of those to be saved by Jesus Christ. 
 
 As the atonement has no effect upon our characters 
 or deserts, but leaves us just as guilty arid obnoxious to 
 punishment as we were before ; as it leaves the law in 
 full force against us, and imposes no obligation on the 
 Lawgiver to acquit and save us ; but merely enables him 
 to do it consistently with his own honour and with the 
 public interests of his kingdom ; it is evident, that God 
 may now offer us salvation on what terms he shall think 
 proper. And, I might add, he may offer it to whom he 
 thinks proper, to a part or to all ; for the atonement 
 leaves us all equally without claims, and without hopes 
 too, except from the mere mercy of God. Now the 
 terms he is pleased to state, are repentance and faith. 
 "Except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish." " Be- 
 lieve on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be 
 saved." 
 
 Repentance or reformation is required of as, not be- 
 
38 
 
 cause it is any satisfaction for our past transgressions, or 
 by itself an adequate ground of pardon ; but because it 
 is necessarily a part of the plan of salvation by grace, 
 founded on the atonement. For, in the first place, the 
 atoneaient removes only the second ground of punish- 
 ment, which is the necessity of treating all creatures ac- 
 cording to their personal merits, in order to preserve 
 the influence of law and secure the tranquillity and hap- 
 piness of the universe. The first arid the third grounds 
 of punishment, the atonement does not remove, or even 
 touch. The settled abhorrence of all sin which the ho- 
 ly God cannot but feel, or the entire repugnance of his 
 nature to the admission of depraved sinning creatures to 
 an equal share in his affection and his favours with his 
 obedient holy creatures, which was the first ground of 
 punishment ; no atonement could possibly remove. It 
 can never be removed, but by the repentance of the 
 sinning creature, by his becoming a holy and obedient 
 child of God. So the third ground of punishment, or 
 the reformation and moral improvement of the sinning 
 creature ; must remain of course, so long as the trans- 
 gressor continues impenitent and unreformed. Now, as 
 the atonement could not remove either of these grounds 
 of punishment, or even weaken them in the slightest de- 
 gree ; repentance is just as necessary to salvation, as if 
 there had never been an atonement made. Again : 
 from the character of God, as it is displayed by the 
 atonement, it appears that it is his fixed purpose to pre- 
 serve his kingdom pure^ so far at least as it can be done 
 by moral causes. This is a prime object of all his pro- 
 ceedings. How then can he, consistently with his de- 
 signs, offer pardon to the inhabitants of a sinful world, 
 
39 
 
 without insisting on their repentance ? Evidently, fie 
 would frustrate his own purposes, if he should suffer his 
 Son to become the minister of sin. When opportunity 
 was presented him for bringing the most powerful of all 
 motives for amendment, to bear on the minds of a whole 
 race of fallen creatures, he would neglect it, and would 
 leave them wholly to their own choice whether to be 
 virtuous or vicious. And further, such a procedure 
 would greatly impair, if not entirely destroy, the effica- 
 cy of the atonement on his whole kingdom. For to of- 
 fer pardon to transgressors, without insisting on their re- 
 pentance, when it might so easily be done, and when it 
 would be so likely to produce the best effects ; would 
 indicate very great indifference to sin. It would be an 
 exhibition of character directly opposed to the exhibi- 
 tion made by the atonement; and would therefore pow- 
 erfully counteract its efficacy. Thus to preserve the 
 atonement unimpaired, to render it a safe and sufficient 
 ground of pardon; the repentance, the entire reforma- 
 tion of the pardoned sinner must be peremptorily de- 
 manded. 
 
 Faith, the other condition of salvation, is a belief of 
 the truths exhibited in the Gospel, and a reliance on 
 the mercy of God, through Jesus Christ, for justification 
 and eternal life. Wherever the Gospel is preached, 
 this is a suitable condition ; not however, because faith 
 has power to unite us to the Redeemer, in such a mys- 
 terious union as causes our guilt or punishment to be 
 transferable to him, and his merits to pass back to us or 
 to our account. For such a union is deemed impossi- 
 ble ; nor is it supposed or required by the doctrine of 
 the atonement. But faith is properly made a condition 
 
40 
 
 of salvation, because it implies a right temper and be- 
 haviour on the part of the person saved. It implies 
 that he has enlightened and correct views of God, of 
 Christ, of himself; and that he feels as one in his con- 
 dition ought. It brings him upon his knees, as a suppli- 
 ant before God. It causes him to humble himself, to 
 acknowledge his guilt and ill desert, and to ask for par- 
 don as a blessing of which he is utterly unworthy. It 
 requires him publickly to honour the atonement, and so 
 to do what he can to promote its salutary influence on 
 the universe. It is such an act of entire submission, 
 such a surrendry of himself and of all his interests into 
 the hands of God, as at once removes all distance be- 
 tween him and his Maker, and lays a foundation for that 
 cordial, affectionate intercourse in future between him, 
 and God, which it is the very object of redemption to 
 produce. 
 
APPENDIX, A. 
 
 Concise history of the doctrine of Atonement. 
 
 THE fathers did not sufficiently discriminate between the means 
 of sanctification and the grounds of justification. They considered 
 Jesus Christ as their only deliverer both from sin itself and from its 
 punishment. To obtain salvation, they supposed, much was requir- 
 ed of them. Without defining precisely what they must themselves 
 do, and what Christ had done, or would do for them; they seem to 
 have regarded salvation as a whole, and as such they frequently as- 
 cribed it to different causes. The blood of Christ, the ransom he 
 paid, and their faith in him and obedience to him, as well as bap- 
 tism, alms, fasting, penance, prayer, and martyrdom, all were spok- 
 en of in much the same terms, and not unfrequently represented as, 
 severally, the ground of their entire salvation. 
 
 * It was, however, the current opinion, from the end of the second 
 century down to the reformation, that on a person's embracing and 
 professing the Christian religion by baptism, all his past sins were 
 cancelled ; and that, for the sins he might afterwards commit, he 
 must suffer penance, give alms, fast and pray, unless he could atone 
 for them all by martyrdom. 
 
 Whether God could have saved us in any other way than that de- 
 scribed in the gospel, was a question on which the fathers were by 
 no means agreed. Basil, Ambrose, and others, (on the authority of 
 Ps. xlix. 8.) denied, while Athanasius, both the Gregories, Theodoret, 
 Augustine, &c. affirmed it. 
 
 The death of Christ, they often considered in the light of a sacri- 
 fice for sin ; and often too, in that of a ransom paid for the redemp- 
 tion of captives. They considered all men as having resigned them- 
 selves up willing slaves of the god of this world ; who therefore had 
 over them the rights of a conqueror over captives. To rescue them 
 from this captivity, Christ paid his own life a ransom. Thus Justin, 
 Irenaeus, Clemens Alex. Terlullian, Origin, Basil, &,c. who maintained 
 that the ransom was paid to the devil. Indeed this was the general 
 opinion in the earlier ages. But Gregory Naz. Augustine, Athanasius, 
 and Ambrose, held that the ransom was paid to God ; a sentiment 
 which was generally held among the schoolmen. 
 
42 
 
 From the fourth century onward, both natures of the Saviour 
 were supposed to be concerned in the atonement. 
 ^ The schoolmen were the first to give system to many doctrines of 
 the "bible. Anselm, in the llth century, is regarded as laying the 
 foundation of that scheme of the atonement which was adopted by 
 the reformers. Some traces of similar opinions are to be found at 
 an earlier period ; but his book, entitled, Gur Deus Homo? first gave 
 them form and currency. He maintained, that to sin is to rob God 
 of the honour due to him ; and that every sinner thus becomes a 
 debtor to God ; and an insolvent debtor, because, if he reforms, he 
 can never perform in any given period more than the service due 
 for that period. Hence a redeemer was necessary; who must be 
 God as well as man, that he might pay more honour to God than 
 could be demanded of him. Jesus Christ was such a saviour. Tak- 
 ing our debt on himself, he cancelled it, by suffering the penalty of 
 the law. This theory soon became popular. Thomas Aquinas 
 adopted it, and added, that the satisfaction made by Christ was super- 
 abundant, or more than was absolutely necessary ; because, he be- 
 ing God, his sacrifice had infinite value, while men being finite their 
 debt was so. The Dominicans and afterwards the Jesuits, embrac- 
 ed and defended this scheme. But Duns Scotus, Occam, the Nomin- 
 alists and Franciscans, denied that Christ actually suffered the pen- 
 alty of the law ; and maintained that he endured only what God gra- 
 ciously accepted as equivalent to it. 
 
 x Luther and the other reformers adopted this theory of Anselm, 
 which they extended so as to make the atoning death of Christ a sat- 
 isfaction to God for all sins, and not merely for sins committed be- 
 fore baptism. This modification was of vast moment, as it swept 
 away all the schemes of personal merit which had been accumulat- 
 ing on the church for ages, and sent men to Jesus Christ alone for 
 salvation. 
 
 Still the scheme had its difficulties. It exhibited God the Father, 
 as unforgiving; it supposed a real transfer of guilt and merit; and 
 it seemed to exonerate believers from all obligation to obey the law 
 of God. Among the many who endeavoured to defend or to modify 
 it, Grotius stands conspicuous. He taught that Christ made satisfac^ 
 tion, not to God, but to the law ; the honour of which must be sup- 
 ported for the sake of the public good. Our guilt also, he conceiv- 
 ed not to be transferred to Christ ; but God, as a sovereign and law- 
 
43 
 
 giver, relaxed the law, by allowing its penalty to be transferred to 
 Christ. Thus the innocent suffered for the guilty ; which, though 
 contrary to distributive justice, was not wrong, since Christ consent- 
 ed to it, and the public good required it. This scheme with some 
 modification, has extended over most protestant nations, and has 
 nearly supplanted the theory of Anselm. 
 
 In this historical sketch, no notice is taken of the schemes which 
 sink the atonement into a mere device for persuading and enabling 
 men to repent, under the expectation that God will then forgive 
 them. Some account of these schemes may be seen in Brettschnei- 
 ders* Entwickelung, 107. S. 612. and Handbuch d. Dogmatik. B. 
 II. S. 323. also in Magee, on Atonement and Sacrifice. 
 
 I will here close this article with notices of the histories of this 
 doctrine, which I have consulted, and from which the reader may- 
 obtain more full satisfaction. 
 
 1. Grotius, in his Defensio Fidei &c. in Op. torn. III. gives us ten 
 folio pages of mere quotations from the Lat. and Gr. fathers and the 
 schoolmen. 
 
 2. J. F. Cotta, Historia Doctrinae de Redemp. Eccles. in the 4th 
 vol. of J. Gerhardi Loci Theol. p. 105132. 4to. This history ex- 
 tends from the birth of Christ to the middle of the last century ; but is 
 rather superficial. 
 
 3. Joseph Priestly, D. D. History of the Corruptions of Christiani- 
 ty, vol. 1. pp. 88161. ed. Boston 1797. " This work from the name 
 of the author^ has obtained more notice than, from its superficial contents 
 and the every where visible ignorance of the sources of history, it de- 
 serves" Mwischer, Dogmengesch, Einleitung, 21. 
 
 4. W. C. L. Ziegler^ Historia Dogmatis de Redemptione, Getting. 
 1791, also in Commentt. Theol. vol. V. pp. 227 299. 8vo. good. 
 
 5. W. Munscher, Handbuch der Christ. Dogtnengeschichte, B. II. 
 S. 204262, and B. IV. S. 260319, 8vo. Marpurg, 1809- This 
 brings the history down to A. D. 600, in a very satisfactory manner. 
 
 APPENDIX B. 
 
 Much of the obscurity and difficulty attending the doctrine of the 
 atonement, arise, I conceive, from confounding the different mean- 
 ings of the word justice. It will not then be unsuitable to give a 
 distinct account of the authorized senses of this word, so far as they 
 relate to the subject before us. 
 
 holiness of God is his absolute moral perfection, or the sum 
 
44 
 
 of his moral attributes viewed merely as attributes. His righteous- 
 ness is nothing more than the display of his holiness or moral perfec- 
 tion, in his conduct towards his creatures, f See BrettschneideSs 
 Handbuch der Dogm. I. S. 347, and Ddderlein, Theol. Christ. 93. 
 \ obs. 5. vol. 1. p. 333. The word justice has several meanings. Some- 
 times it is synonymous with righteousness. In this acceptation it is 
 called general justice ; to distinguish it from the other acceptations, 
 in which it is called particular or simple justice. General justice has 
 respect to all the laws which ought to govern our conduct, and in- 
 cludes the whole list of moral virtues. Particular justice has re- 
 spect only to the claims of others upon us, and consists in giving to 
 every one his due. The distinction has been explained by a recur- 
 rence to the doctrine of perfect and imperfect rights/ A perfect 
 right is that which persons have to things property their own ; and 
 to give them possession of which is conferring on them no favour, 
 but merely discharging a debt. It is a right which a man may chal- 
 lenge, and which the law does, or should, always help him to recov- 
 er. Such are the rights of a man to his property, to protection 
 from oppression and injury, to acquittal when proved innocent, to 
 the fulfilment of all contracts and promises made to him. An im- 
 perfect right is that which a beggar has to charity, and which every 
 man has to kind offices according to his necessities ; a right howev- 
 er, which he can never challenge or enforce, and the recognition of 
 which brings him under an obligation of gratitude to a benefactor. 
 Now general justice regards all the rights of others, whether perfect 
 or imperfect. It consists in allowing due influence to all the consid- 
 erations which ought to govern our conduct. It involves the exer- 
 cise of various virtues at the same time, or in the same act ; and is 
 on that account, sometimes called mixed justice. Particular or sim- 
 ple justice consists in violating no man's perfect rights, or in satis- 
 fying all his just claims upon us ; " Justitia in suo cuique tribuendo 
 cernitur." Simple justice is commonly divided into distributive and 
 commutative justice. The former is concerned in the distribution 
 of honours and privileges or burdens and services, among the mem^ 
 bers of a society. It is peculiarly the virtue of a governour or pub- 
 lic officer. It requires him to observe equality in the distribution of 
 rewards and punishments, privileges and burdens, paying regard only 
 to the condition and the merits of each individual. The latter, com- 
 mutative justice, respects merely compacts and bargains about prop- 
 erty and services. It requires equality in the things commuted, or 
 
45 
 
 that an exact equivalent be given for what is received, without any 
 regard to persons or characters. To these three kinds of justice, 
 some add what is called regal or rectoral justice, which requires the 
 governing power or sovereign of a realm to make such enactments 
 and so to relax, modify or suspend the execution of the law, as to 
 secure the highest good of the community, in cases where the ordi- 
 nary course of distributive justice would be injurious and therefore 
 wrong. But this need not be made a distinct species of justice, since 
 it is in its nature nothing different from general justice. I mention 
 it here only because it occurs in some treatises on the atonement. 
 The threefold division of justice stated above, whether it be the 
 best that can be devised or not, has been generally received ever 
 since the days of Aristotle, and is that to which moralists and others 
 most commonly refer. See Dwighfs Theol. Serm. x. vol. I. pp. 160 
 163, and Grove's Moral Phil. vol. II. pp. 238244, 254256, and 
 the writers there referred to. 
 
 In treating of the justice of God, divines are accustomed to dis- 
 criminate only two forms of it, legislative and executive ; the former 
 concerned in the enactment of laws, and the latter in the execution 
 of them. Commutative justice can hardly be predicated of God, as 
 he is a being who gives to all but receives from none. Distributive 
 justice, it would seem, may be predicated of him, and that too of 
 the highest kind ; because all his laws are equal, and their execu- 
 tion impartial. And yet we cannot suppose a being of such consum- 
 mate perfection as he is, ever to perform any act without a due re- 
 gard to all the rights of his creatures, and allowing due influence to 
 all the considerations which ought to govern his conduct. But this 
 would bring every act of justice performed by him completely un- 
 der the definition of general justice. Shall we then say that distrib- 
 utive justice is not an attribute of God ? By no means. But we 
 must say, that distributive justice in him, is not that limited, one- 
 eyed virtue which it often is in men, and which the common defi- 
 nition makes it ; that is, it does not regard merely the claims of his 
 creature, upon him. It is in the nature of it general justice presid- 
 ing in the enactment and execution of permanent laws. In his per- 
 manent enactments, and in the ordinary execution of law, he does 
 indeed give to every one his due, though from other considerations 
 superadded to that of their deserts or claims ; but in mercifully sus- 
 pending the arm of punitive justice, in extraordinary enactments for 
 7 
 
46 
 
 the sake of greater good than could be obtained by the trtere exe- 
 cution of permanent laws, in a word, in the formation and execu- 
 tion of the whole system of grace, the justice which is diplayed is 
 not distributive justice, even that elevated kind of it which we as- 
 cribe to God ; it is unequivocally general justice. 
 
 v For these reasons, I do not hesitate to say, that dwaioGwr} in 
 Rom. iii. 24, is general, not distributive, justice. And to be consis- 
 tent, every one must admit it, who admits that the justice of God irt 
 any sense of the word, is here intended ; and at the same time ad- 
 inits that the penalty of the law was not actually and literally exe- 
 cuted on Jesus Christ substituted for us and charged with all our 
 guilt. See the younger Pres. Edwards, Three Serm. in Selections 
 on the atonement, pp. 351 358. Pres. Maxcy, Discourses, Ibid. pp. 
 205208. Burge, on Atonement, pp. 161 165. Parkhurst, Gr<- 
 Lex. dwaioGvvri) and Wares, Remarks on Version of N. T. p. 160. 
 
 APPENDIX, C. p. 19. 
 
 For arguments in support of the doctrine of legal satisfaction by vi- 
 carious punishment, see Grotius, Defensio F. C. de Satisfactione, cap. 
 IV. Op. torn. III. pp 311315. F. Turrettin,de Satisfactione Christi, 
 Disp. II. 3550. pp. 5059, and Disp. X. A. Fuller** Dialogues, 
 Pt. III. Convers. I, II, and, The Doctrine of the Aton, explained and 
 defended, by o Christian of the ancient School, in Panoplist, Vol. II. 
 pp. 453, 513, 5GO, and Vol. III. pp. 114, 155. Arguments against legal 
 satisfaction by vicarious punishment, may be seen in /. Balgmfs Es- 
 say on Redemption, pp. 1223, ed. 1785. E. D. Griffin, on the 
 Extent of the Aton. Pt. I. ch. 7. pp. 113171. C. Burge, Essay on 
 Aton. ch. 6 and 7, particularly ch. 7, pp. 195 216. 
 
 This subject has, I conceive, been embarrassed chiefly, by the 
 general prevalence of the old scholastic notions respecting the trans- 
 ferable character of guilt and punishment, and by reasoning from 
 the analogy of human governments without discriminating between 
 acts of sovereignty and the mere execution of law. From the days 
 of Anselm and Aquinas, or from the eleventh century to the eigh- 
 teenth, the great body of Western Christians believed that the Me- 
 diator so took the place of transgressors, or at least of penitent be- 
 lieving ones, that their guilt was either actually transferred or le- 
 gally imputed to him; and that he of course became legally obnox- 
 ious to punishment, and really suffered the curse of the law or 
 what was equivalent to it. The reformers generally, and most qf 
 
47 
 
 their successors till some time in the last century, held these sentir 
 v ments. After the impossibility of transferring moral character or 
 guilt and obedience, began to be seen ; the legal imputation of it, or 
 the justice of treating persons as if such a transfer had really taken 
 place, was tenaciously held by some ; while others discriminated be- 
 tween guilt and punishment, and held to the transfer of the latter 
 only. All these, more or less overlooked the nature of the penalty 
 of the divine law ; and confounded the ideas of forfeiture and of sim- 
 ple punishment. They considered the transgressor as bound to pay 
 something; and supposed that the payment of the forfeiture, wheth- ' 
 er by himself or by another, satisfied the demands of the law. And 
 when reasoning on the subject, they drew analogies from the pro- 
 ceedings in human governments, without discriminating between acts 
 of sovereignty and the mere execution of law; or if they saw and 
 admitted the distinction, as many of them did, yet they did not con- 
 form their language to it, but continued to use the terms law, satis- 
 ^faction, legal justice, &c. in the customary vague manner. From this 
 source, so much obscurity and misunderstanding have arisen, that it 
 may not be improper just to state in few words the distinction, which 
 should never have been neglected. The supreme power in a na- 
 tion, not only enacts and repeals the laws of the country, but it some- 
 times grants dispensations, or suspends and modifies the operation of 
 the existing laws ; by forbidding prosecutions, remitting penalties and 
 granting pardons, in criminal cases ; and by allowing of chancery 
 proceedings in some civil causes. From the imperfection of all hu- 
 man legislation, occasions will arise when the public good will be 
 promoted, and more perfect justice be done to individuals, by sus- 
 pending the regular course of legal justice; and the more imperfect 
 the laws, the more frequent these occasions. But it is only the sove- 
 reign of the nation, or some one possessing a portion of his power, 
 that can meet the exigences of these cases ; the judges and all the 
 ordinary ministers of justice are bound to fellow strictly the course 
 the law prescribes. They are not to be guided by their own wis- 
 dom and judgment, or by their own ideas of what is reasonable and 
 proper, except where the laws expressly give them discretionary 
 power. The law is their rule, so far as it extends ; and within those 
 limits, legal justice is the only justice they are to know. Now it is 
 with reference to the exercise of legal justice in a criminal trial, 
 that we speak of a legal justification, or a justification on the ground 
 of law and justice. In this, which is doubtless the proper sense of 
 
Y *+ 
 
 . fj >* ^* 
 
 48 
 
 the words, we affirm that the justification of believers in Jesus Christ, 
 does not proceed on the ground of law and justice ; that the divine 
 law did not allow of a transfer of our punishment to him, nor per- 
 mit his sufferings to be set to our account ; and that nothing 1 the Me- 
 diator could possibly do or suffer, would satisfy the demands of the 
 law upon us. And this we say is evident from the nature of law, in 
 all governments, human and divine. Hence we pronounce the justi- 
 fication of believers, to be an act of the sovereign mercy of God, a 
 departure from the regular course of justice, and such a departure 
 as leaves the claims of the law forever unsatisfied. We mean that 
 it is analogous to those sovereign acts of the supreme power in a na- 
 tion, by which the regular course of legal justice is arrested ; and 
 that it is such an act as the ministers of legal justice could not per- 
 form. Overlooking this distinction, or confounding all the acts of 
 human rulers, many writers on the atonement, finding that in human 
 governments much use is made of discretionary power ; and that in 
 the early ages especially, magistrates followed very much their own 
 discretion or rather caprice, in the administration of justice ; have 
 been led to consider the justification of believers in Christ as a ju- 
 dicial act or the act of a judge seated on the bench of justice. The 
 judge, say they, saw in the vicarious sufferings of the Mediator, a full 
 satisfaction of all the demands of the divine law ; and therefore he 
 pronounced us legally acquitted. These writers could find, espe- 
 cially in ancient history, some instances of human rulers allowing and 
 even requiring the innocent to suffer for the guilty : and these were 
 deemed examples in point. They found all antiquity admiring the 
 ingenuity and extolling the virtue of some such rulers: and this was 
 evidence that the common sense of mankind approved such justice. 
 They could see and feel that the occasional exercise of sovereign 
 or discretionary power, suspending or modifying the operation of 
 human laws, is really necessary ; and this satisfied their consciences, 
 their moral sense, that strict justice might require or at least admit 
 a similar power to interpose and modify the operations of the divine 
 Law : for in their zeal for a favourite opinion, they unhappily forgot 
 that the law of God as administered by him, can never fail to do per- 
 fect justice, and that any suspension of its operation would of 
 coufse be a suspension of justice.