Chapter XIX: Part 19

Again, we read, in John iii. 26. that John’s disciples came to him, complaining, that _Jesus baptized, and all men came unto him_; by which nothing more is to be understood, but that many, among the Jews attended on his ministry, which were, by far, the smaller part of that nation. By these, and many other scriptures, that might be brought to the same purpose, it appears, that the word _All_ sometimes denotes not every individual, but a part of mankind.

(2.) Let us now consider the sense in which we are to understand _the world_, or _all the world_; from whence it will appear, that only a small part of the world is intended thereby in many scriptures: thus the Pharisees said, upon the occasion of a number of the Jews following our Saviour, in John xi. 19. _The world is gone after him_. How small a part of the world was the Jewish nation? and how small a part of the Jewish nation attended on our Saviour’s ministry? yet this is called _the world_.

Again, it is said, in Luke ii. 1. _There went out a decree from Augustus, that all the world should be taxed_; by which nothing more is intended than those countries that were subject to the Roman empire; and, in Acts xvii. 26. it is said, that _these that have turned the world upside down, are come hither also_; which cannot be meant in any other sense, but those parts of the world where the apostles had exercised their ministry. And when the apostle tells the church, in Rom. i. 8. that _their faith was spoken of throughout the whole world_, he only means those other churches that were planted in several parts of the world. And, in Acts xi. 28. it is said, that _Agabus signified, by the Spirit, that there should be a great dearth, throughout all the world_; by which nothing is meant but all adjacent countries, which is to be taken in the same sense, as when it is said, in Gen. xli. 51. that _all countries came into Egypt to buy corn, because the famine was so sore in all lands_, that is, in the parts adjacent to Egypt: thus we have sufficient ground to conclude, that _all men_, _the world_, and _all the world_, is often taken for a small part of mankind.

But, that we may be a little more particular in considering the various limitations these words are subject to in scripture, as well as in our common modes of speaking, let it be observed,

_1st_, That sometimes nothing is intended by all _men_, but all sorts of men, without distinction of sex, nation, estate, quality, and condition, of men in the world: thus the apostle says, in 1 Cor. ix. 19. _I made myself servant to all, that I might gain the more_; this he explains in the following verses, as including men of all ranks and characters: _To the Jews, I became a Jew; to them that were under the law, as under the law; to them that were without the law, as without law; to the weak, I became weak: I became all things to all men, that by any means I might gain some_.

_2dly_, Sometimes the word All, or _the world_, is taken for the Gentiles, in opposition to the Jews; thus the apostle saith, in Rom. xi. 12. _Now if the fall of them_, viz. the Jews, _be the riches of the world_, that is, of the Gentiles, as he explains it in the following words; _And the diminishing of them the riches of the Gentiles, how much more their fulness?_ and in ver. 32. he saith, _God hath concluded all in unbelief, that he might have mercy upon all_.[183]

_3dly_, _The world_ is sometimes taken for those who do not believe, in opposition to the _church_: thus it is said, in Rev. xiii. 3, 4. _All the world wondered after the beast and they worshipped the dragon_; which is farther explained, in ver. 8. where it is said, that _all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life_; and in 1 John v. 19. it is said, _We know that we are of God, and the whole world lieth in wickedness_, or, as some render it,[184] _in the wicked one_, as being subject to Satan; but the church is exempted from that charge, notwithstanding the universality of this expression.

_4thly_, Sometimes the word All is limited by the nature of the thing spoken of, which is very easy to be understood, though not expressed: thus the apostle in Tit. ii. 9. exhorts _servants to be obedient unto their own masters, and to please them well in all things_; which must be certainly understood as intending all things just, and not contrary to the laws of God, or the civil laws of the land, in which they live.

_5thly_, The word All is often used, not only in scripture, but in our common modes of speaking, to signify only those, who are the objects of that thing, which is done for them, and then the emphasis is laid on the action, or the person that performs it; as when we say, all malefactors under a sentence of death, are to be pardoned by the king; we mean nothing else by it, but that all, who are pardoned, do receive their pardon from him; or when we say, that virtue renders all men happy, and vice miserable; we mean, that all who are virtuous are happy, and all who are vicious miserable; not that virtue, abstracted from the exercise thereof, makes any happy, or vice miserable; in which case, the word all is not taken for every individual person, but only for those who are either good or bad: and this is agreeable to the scripture-mode of speaking; as when it is said, in Prov. xxiii. 21. _Drowsiness shall clothe a man_, or every man, _with rags_; or sloth reduces all to poverty; not all mankind, but all who are addicted to this vice.

Moreover, it is said, in Psal. cxlv. 14. _The Lord upholdeth all that fall, and raiseth up all those that be bowed down_; which is not to be understood, as though God keeps all mankind from falling, or raises every individual person, that is bowed down, so as not to suffer him to sink under his burden; but that all who are upheld, or raised up, when bowed down, are made partakers of this privilege by the Lord alone.

Having shewn in what sense the word _All_, or _all the world_, is frequently used in scripture, when not applied to the doctrine of redemption; we shall now consider the application thereof unto it, whereby it may appear, that those scriptures, which are generally brought in defence of the doctrine of universal redemption, do not tend to support it, or overthrow the contrary doctrine that we are maintaining.

1. The first scripture, that is often referred to for that purpose, is 1 John ii. 2. in which it is said, concerning our Saviour, that _he is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world_. For the understanding of which, we must consider, that it is more than probable that the apostle writes this epistle to the converted Jews, scattered through various countries in Asia, as Peter is said to do, 1 Pet. i. 1. and James, James i. 1. for which reason they are called general epistles; as likewise this of John is, inasmuch as they are not addressed to particular churches among the Gentiles, converted to the faith, as most of the apostle Paul’s are. Now, it is plain, that, in the scripture but now mentioned, when these believing Jews are given to understand, that Christ is _a propitiation for their sins, and not for their’s only, but for the sins of the whole world_; the meaning is, not for their sins only, who were Jews, but for the sins of the believing Gentiles, or those who were converted by the ministry of the apostle Paul, who is called _the apostle of the Gentiles_. This has been before considered to be the meaning of the word _world_ in many scriptures; and so the sense is, that the saving effects of Christ’s death redound to all who believe, throughout the world, whether Jews or Gentiles.

2. Another scripture generally brought to prove universal redemption, is, that in Heb. ii. 9. _That he_, to wit, Christ, _by the grace of God, should taste death for every man_. For the understanding of which, we must have recourse to the words immediately following, which are plainly an illustration thereof; accordingly they, for whom Christ tasted death, are styled _many sons_, who are to be _brought to glory_; and, in order thereunto, _Christ, the Captain of their salvation, was made perfect through sufferings_, which is an explication of his being _crowned with glory and honour, for the suffering of death_; and it plainly proves, that it was for these only that he tasted death, and that by _every man_, for whom he tasted it, is meant every one of his sons, or of those who are described, in ver. 11. as _sanctified_, and _whom he is not ashamed to call brethren_; and they are further styled, in ver. 13. _The children whom God hath given him_; so that this sense of the words being so agreeable to the context, which asserts the doctrine of particular redemption, it cannot reasonably be supposed that they are to be taken in a sense which has a tendency to overthrow it, or prove that Christ died equally and alike for all men.

3. Another scripture, brought for the same purpose, is 1 Cor. xv. 22. _As in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive_. But let it be considered, that the apostle is not speaking directly concerning redemption in this text, but concerning the resurrection of the dead; and, if it be understood of a glorious resurrection unto eternal life, no one can suppose that every individual of mankind shall be made partaker of this blessing, which is also obvious, from what is said in the verse immediately following, where they who are said to be made alive in Christ, are described as such, whom he has a special propriety in, _Christ the first fruits, afterward they that are Christ’s at his coming_; and therefore the meaning is only this, that all of them, who shall be raised up in glory, shall obtain this privilege by Christ, whose resurrection was the first-fruits thereof.

I am sensible that the reason of the application of this scripture to prove universal redemption, is principally taken from the opposition that there seems to be between the death of all mankind in Adam, and the life which is obtained by Christ; and therefore they suppose, that the happiness, which we enjoy by him, is of equal extent with the misery we sustained by the fall of Adam: but, if this were the sense of the text, it must prove an universal salvation, and not barely the possibility thereof; since the apostle is speaking of a privilege that should be conferred in the end of time, and not of that which we enjoy under the gospel-dispensation; accordingly it does not, in the least, answer the end for which it is brought.

4. The next scripture, by which it is supposed that universal redemption may be defended, is that in Rom. v. 18. _As by the offence of one, judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one, the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life_. For the understanding of which scripture, let it be considered, that the blessing, which is said to extend to all, is no less than justification of life, and not merely a possibility of attaining salvation; and, in the foregoing verse, they, who are interested in this privilege, are said to _receive abundance of grace, and of the gift of righteousness_, and _to reign in life by Jesus Christ_. Now certainly this privilege is too great to be applied to the whole world; and, indeed, that which the apostle, in this verse, considers, as being _upon all men unto justification of life_, he explains, when he says, _Many shall be made righteous_; therefore _this free gift, which came upon all men unto justification_, intends nothing else, but that a select number, who are said to be many, or the whole multitude of those who do, or shall believe, shall be made righteous.

_Object._ If it be objected to this sense of the text, that there is an opposition between that judgment which came by the offence of one, to wit, Adam, upon all men, unto condemnation, and that righteousness, which came upon all men, unto justification; and therefore all men must be taken in the same sense in both parts of the verse, and consequently must be extended to all the world.

_Answ._ To this it may be replied, that it is not necessary, nor reasonable, to suppose, that these terms of opposition have any respect to the universal extent of condemnation and justification; for the apostle’s design is not to compare the number of those who shall be justified, with that of those who were condemned by the fall of Adam; but to compare the two heads together, Adam and Christ, and to shew, that as we are liable to condemnation by the one, so we obtain the gift of righteousness by the other; which is plainly the apostle’s method of reasoning, agreeable to the whole scope of the chapter, as may easily be observed, by those who compare these words with several foregoing verses.

5. There is another scripture brought to prove universal redemption, in 2 Cor. v. 14, 15. _The love of Christ constraineth us; because we thus judge, that if one died for all, then were all dead_; by which it is supposed, that the apostle is here proving that all mankind are dead in sin, and that the medium by which he proves it, is Christ’s dying for all men; so that the remedy is as extensive as the disease, and therefore that this is an undeniable proof of universal redemption.

But this is not a true representation of the apostle’s method of reasoning; for he designs not to prove that all were dead in sin, but to it. That this may appear, let us consider the connexion of this text with what goes before. The apostle speaks of them, in the foregoing verses, as having assurance of their future salvation, and as _groaning to be clothed upon with their house, which is from heaven_; and as having the _first fruits of the Spirit_, and says that the apostles were made manifest in their consciences, that is, they had something in their own consciences that evinced the success of their ministry to them, upon which account they had occasion to glory on their behalf; all which expressions denote them to have been in a converted state. And the apostle adds, in ver. 13. _Whether we be beside ourselves, or whether we be sober_, that is, whether we have a greater or less degree of fervency in preaching the gospel, it is for God, that is for his glory, and for your sakes; for the love of Christ, that is, either his love to us, or our love to him, constraineth us hereunto; because we thus judge, that if one, namely, Christ, died for all, that is, for you all, then were all dead, or you all are dead, that is, not dead in sin, but you are made partakers of that communion which believers have with Christ in his death, whereby they are said to be dead unto sin, and unto the world; and the result hereof is, that they are obliged to live not to themselves but to Christ. This seems more agreeable to the design of the apostle, than to suppose that he intends only to prove the fall of man, from his being recovered by Christ, since there is no appearance of any argument to the like purpose, in any other part of the apostle’s writings; whereas our being dead to sin, as the consequence of Christ’s death, is what he often mentions, and, indeed, it seems to be one of his peculiar phrases: thus he speaks of believers, as _being dead to sin_, Rom. vi. 2. and _dead with Christ_, ver. 8. and elsewhere he says, _You are dead_, Col. iii. 3. that is, you have communion with Christ, in his death, or are dead unto sin; and the apostle speaks of _their being dead with Christ from the rudiments of the world_, chap. ii. 20. that is, if you have communion with Christ, in his death, you are obliged not to observe the ceremonial law, which is called the rudiments of the world; and, in several other places, he speaks of believers being crucified, dead, buried, and risen, from the dead, as having communion with Christ therein, or being made partakers of those benefits which he procured thereby. If, therefore, this be the apostle’s frequent method of speaking, why may not we suppose, that in this verse, under our present consideration, he argues, that because _Christ died for them all_, therefore _they were_, or _they are all dead_;[185] And, being thus dead, they are obliged, as he observes in the following verse, _not to live to themselves, but to Christ that died for them_, and thereby procured this privilege, which they are made partakers of. If this sense of the text be but allowed to be equally probable with the other, it will so far weaken the force thereof, as that it will not appear, from this scripture, that Christ died for all men.

6. Universal redemption is attempted to be proved, from John iii. 16. _God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life_: But, if we understand _the world_, as taken for the Gentiles, as it is oftentimes in scripture, then the sense of the text seems to be this, which is not inconsistent with special redemption, namely, that the love of God, which was expressed in sending his Son to die for those whom he designed hereby to redeem, is of a much larger extent, as to the objects thereof, than it was in former ages; for it includes in it not only those who believe among the Jews, but whosoever believes in him, throughout the world; not that their believing in him is the foundation, or cause, but the effect of his love, and is to be considered as the character of the persons, who are the objects thereof. In this sense, we are also to understand another scripture, in John i. 29. _Behold the Lamb of God which taketh away the sin of the world_, that is, of all those whose sins are expiated hereby, throughout the whole world.

7. The doctrine of universal redemption is farther maintained, from our Saviour’s words, in John vi. 33. _The bread of God is he that cometh down from heaven, and giveth life unto the world_; which is explained in ver. 51. _I am the living bread, which came down from heaven; if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever; and the bread that I will give, is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world_: But it does not appear, that Christ hereby intends that his death was a price of redemption paid for all mankind; for he speaks of the application of redemption, which is expressed by his giving life, and not barely of his procuring a possibility of its being attained; and they, to whom he gives this privilege, are described as applying it to themselves, by faith, which is doubtless, the meaning of that metaphorical expression, whereby persons are said to _eat of this bread_, or _his flesh_; so that the meaning of this scripture is, that the death of Christ is appointed, as the great means whereby all men, throughout the whole world, who apply it by faith, should attain eternal life: But this cannot be said of all, without exemption; and therefore it does not from hence appear, that Christ’s death was designed to procure life for the world.

8. There is another scripture, brought to the same purpose, in Matt. xviii. 11. _The Son of man is come to save that which is lost_, that is, as they suppose, all that were lost; and consequently, since the whole world was brought into a lost state by the fall, Christ came to save them. The whole stress of this argument is laid on the sense that they give of the Greek word[186], which we render, _that which was lost_, whereby they understand every one that was lost; whereas it only denotes, that salvation supposes them, that have an interest in it, to have been in a lost state. And, indeed, the text does not seem immediately to respect the purchase of redemption, or salvation, by Christ’s shedding his blood, as a Priest, but the application thereof, in effectually calling, and thereby saving lost sinners. This is illustrated by the parable of _the lost sheep_, (in the following words,) which the shepherd brings back to the fold, upon which occasion he says, that _it is not the will of your Father which is in heaven, that one of these little ones should perish_. And this farther appears, from our Saviour’s using the same mode of speaking, with this addition, that _he came to seek_, as well as to _save_, Luke xix. 9, 10. them, upon the occasion of his converting Zaccheus, and telling him, that _salvation was come to his house_. And this agrees well with that prediction relating to Christ’s executing his Prophetical office, in the salvation of his people, as being their Shepherd; in which he is represented, as saying, _I will seek that which was lost, and bring again that which was driven away, and will bind up that which was broken, and will strengthen that which was sick_, Ezek. xxxiv. 16. Moreover, the parable of the _lost sheep_, which Christ recovered, appears by its connexion with the foregoing verses, to have a particular respect to those _little_, or humble _ones_, that believe in him, who went astray, by reason of some offences that were cast in their way; and therefore, when he had denounced a threatening against those who should offend any of them, and cautioned the world that they should not do this, by despising them, Matt, xviii. 6, 10. he supposes this treatment would cause some of them to go astray; upon which he says, that one of his ends of coming into the world, was to seek, to save, and to recover them.

9. Universal redemption is farther argued, from the universality of divine grace; and accordingly that text is often referred to, in Tit. ii. 11. _The grace of God that bringeth salvation, hath appeared to all men_: But this seems very remote from the sense of the Holy Ghost, in these words; for by _the grace of God_ is meant the gospel, that brings the glad tidings of salvation; and its _appearing to all men_, signifies being preached to the Gentiles: or suppose, by _the grace of God_, we understand the display of his grace in the work of redemption, it is not said, that it was designed for, or applied to all men, but only that the publication thereof is more general than it had formerly been. And when the apostle, in ver. 14. speaks more particularly concerning redemption, he alters his mode of expression, and considers it, with its just limitation, with respect to the objects thereof, _viz._ that _he gave himself for us, that he might redeem us from all iniquity, and purify unto himself a peculiar people, zealous of good works_. We shall add but one scripture more, which is brought in defence of universal redemption, _viz._

10. That in which the apostle speaks of God, in 1 Tim. iv. 10. as _the Saviour of all men, especially of those that believe_; wherein universal redemption is not asserted in the same sense in which they maintain it, _viz._ that God hath brought all men into a salvable state, so that they may be saved if they will: But the meaning of this scripture is, that _God is the Saviour of all men_, that is, his common bounty extends itself to all, as the Psalmist observes, _The Lord is good to all, and his tender mercies are over all his works_, Psal. cxlv. 9. but he is _more especially the Saviour of them that believe_, inasmuch as they are interested in the special benefits purchased by his redemption, who are said to be _saved in the Lord with an everlasting salvation_, Isa. xlv. 17.

There are several other scriptures brought to prove universal redemption, as when it is said, that _God will have all men to be saved, and come to the knowledge of the truth_, 1 Tim. ii. 4. and, _The Lord is not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance_, 2 Pet. iii. 9. which have been before considered[187]; and therefore we pass them over at present, and some other scriptures, from whence it is argued, that Christ died for all, because he died for some that shall perish, as when the apostle speaks of some _false teachers, who deny the Lord that bought them_, 2 Pet. ii. 1. and another, _Destroy not him with thy meat, for whom Christ died_, Rom. xiv. 15. and that in which the apostle speaks of a person _who counted the blood of the covenant wherewith he was sanctified an unholy thing_, Heb. x. 29. and some other scriptures to the like purpose, the consideration whereof I shall refer to a following answer[188], in which the doctrine of the saints’ perseverance is defended.[189]

Thus concerning the first branch of Christ’s Priestly office, consisting in his offering himself a sacrifice, without spot, to God, and the persons for whom this was done. We should now proceed to consider the second branch thereof, consisting in his making continual intercession for them, for whom he offered up himself: But, this being particularly insisted on in a following answer[190], we shall pass it over at present, and proceed to consider the execution of his Kingly office.

Footnote 143:

_Vid. Ephiph. Hær. Page 67. § 7._

Footnote 144:

_Among the latter, is the learned Dr. Lightfoot. See his Works, Vol.
I. Page 12. and Vol. II. Page 327._

Footnote 145:

_We have no account of the year when this battle was fought; but it is
evident that it was before Isaac was born, and consequently before
Abraham had lived 25 years in the land of Canaan. And that Shem was
then living, appears from hence, that from the flood to Abraham’s
coming into the land of Canaan, was 427 years, as appears by
considering the sum total of the years of the lives of the patriarchs,
mentioned in_ Gen. xi. 10. _& seq. and also that Terah was 130 years
old when Abraham was born, as appears, by comparing_ Gen. xi. 32.
_with_ Acts vii. 4. _and_ Gen. xii. 4. _and by considering Abraham as
75 years old, as it is there said he was, when he left Haran. Now Shem
was born 98 or 100 years before the flood, as appears by comparing_
Gen. v. 32. _with_ chap. xi. 10. _and_ vii. 11. _Therefore, when
Abraham went out of his country into the land of Canaan, Shem was 525
or 527 years old; and, when Shem died, he was 600 years old_, Gen. xi.
10, 11. _therefore Shem lived more than half a hundred years after
this battle was fought_.

Footnote 146:

_See Jurieu’s critical history_, vol. I. chap. 11.

Footnote 147:

As yet there was no church.

Footnote 148:

_See critical history_, vol. I. page 110.

Footnote 149:

_This opinion is maintained by Cunæus, [Vid. ejusd. Repub. Hebr. Lib.
III. cap. 3.] and some others after him._

Footnote 150:

“Some insist that he is none other than the _Son of God_ himself, who,
assuming the _appearance_, or _reality_, of humanity, exhibited to
Abraham an early picture of his future priesthood.

“This is all over contemptible.—1. Because every high priest is taken
from among men; the _appearance_ of humanity is not enough.—2. Because
if he was at that time a priest, and discharged the duties of his
office, he must have ‘suffered often,’ (twice) ‘from the beginning of
the world;’ and not ‘by the once offering up of himself have for ever
perfected them who are sanctified:’ then, moreover, Abraham would have
received the promised blessing, contrary to the scriptures: and, in
fine, the appearance of the Son of God, as the Son of Mary, was
superfluous. If, to avoid those absurdities, it be alleged that though
he appeared as a priest, he did not discharge the duties of his
office: then, in the first place, he is degraded into a mere pageant,
an officer without functions: and, in the second place, he is stripped
of all typical character: for the priest who neither _sacrifices_, nor
_intercedes_, can never be a type of one who does _both_.—3. Because,
if Melchisedec was the Son of God, whether in real humanity, or only
in its appearance, _he_ must have been a type of _himself_; the ideas
of _identity_ and _similarity_ are confounded; and Paul instead of
saying, αφωμοιωμενος τω υιω του Θεου, that he was ‘made like to the
Son of God,’ should have said, ων ο υιος του Θεου, that he was the Son
of God.—4. Because it would be unworthy the manly sense of Paul, to
say nothing of _inspiration_, to labour through a long dissertation to
prove a mere truism, which it would disgrace an ideot to utter, and
insult a child to offer for information; namely, that Messiah’s
priesthood was very like itself.—5. Because it would be extremely
irreverent to suppose, that the adorable God lifted up his hand and
swore, that his Son’s priesthood, should be like his Son’s priesthood.
An identical proposition does not require such a solemn confirmation.”

GRAY ON PRIESTHOOD.

Footnote 151:

_He liveth_ for any thing to the contrary shewn in his history.

Footnote 152:

“That _death_ is a punishment for sin, and that all mankind are by
death offered as a _sacrifice_ for sin, is not only a doctrine of
revealed Religion, but the plain dictate of Reason. For, though it is
Revelation alone that can teach us, how God threatened death as the
punishment of a particular sin, yet Reason must be obliged to
acknowledge, that men die, because they are sinners. But if men die,
because they are sinners, and Reason itself must receive this, as the
most justifiable cause of Death; then Reason must allow, that the
death of all mankind is appointed by the true God, as a _sacrifice_
for sin. But, if Reason must acknowledge the death of all mankind as a
sacrifice for sin, then it can have no just objection against the
sacrifice of Christ, _because_ it was _human_.

“Revelation, therefore, teaches nothing more hard to be believed on
this point, than Reason teaches. For, if it be just and fit in God, to
_appoint_ and _devote_ all men to death, as the proper _punishment_ of
their sins; how can it be proved to be unjust and unfit in God, to
receive the death of Jesus Christ, for the same ends?”

HUMAN REASON.

Footnote 153:

All the reasons upon which pardons are granted in human governments
fail in the Divine.

Footnote 154:

“The scripture insists on full atonement, and yet every where holds up
the deliverance of sinners as an act of pure grace. This is a gordian
knot in divinity. Let us not by violence cut it asunder, but attempt
fairly to untie it.

Before we proceed, it may not be improper to observe, that the
greatest difficulty with which this part of the subject is
embarrassed, appears to have originated in the want of an accurate
definition of justice and grace. Theologians have said much about
these, yet few have defined them with sufficient accuracy to render
them intelligible, or make them appear consistent. I shall therefore,

_First_, explain the meaning of the word grace.

_Secondly_, the meaning of the word justice.

_Thirdly_, apply these explanations to this part of the subject, with
a view to solve the difficulty with which it is embarrassed.

_First._ What are we to understand by the word grace?

We are to understand by it the exercise of favour, and consequently
the bestowment of good where evil is deserved, and may in justice be
inflicted. Where there is no exposure to evil, there is no room for
the exercise of grace. He who is not guilty is not a subject of
pardon. He who does not deserve punishment cannot be said to be freed
from it by an act of favour. Grace therefore always implies, that the
subject of it is unworthy, and would have no reason to complain, if
all the evil to which he is exposed were inflicted on him. Grace will
appear great according to the view which the sinner has of his own ill
desert, and the consciousness he possesses of the punishment or evil
from which he is delivered. Grace and justice are opposite in their
nature. Grace gives; justice demands. Their provinces are entirely
separate. Though they are united, yet they are not blended in man’s
salvation. Hence that remarkable passage in Rom. xi. 6: ‘If by grace,
then it is no more of works, otherwise grace is no more grace. But if
it be of works, then it is no more grace, otherwise work is no more
work.’

_Secondly._ What are we to understand by the word justice? It assumes
three denominations—commutative, distributive, and public.

1. Commutative justice respects property only.[155] ‘It consists in an
equal exchange of benefits,’ or in restoring to every man his own.

2. Distributive justice respects the moral character of men. It
respects them as accountable creatures, obedient or disobedient. It
consists in ascertaining their virtue and sin, and in bestowing just
rewards, or inflicting just punishments.

3. Public or general justice, respects what is fit or right, as to the
character of God, and the good of the universe. In this sense, justice
comprises all moral goodness, and properly means the righteousness or
rectitude of God, by which all his actions are guided, with a supreme
regard to the greatest good. Justice, considered in this view, forbids
that any thing should take place in the great plan of God, which would
tarnish his glory, or subvert the authority of his law.

_Thirdly._ Let us now apply these explanations to the solution of the
difficulty under consideration.

1. Did Christ satisfy commutative justice? Certainly not. Commutative
justice had no concern in his sufferings. Men had taken no property
from God, and consequently were under no obligation to restore any.
But do not the scriptures represent Christ as giving himself a ransom,
and as buying his people with a price? They do. They also represent
men, while under the influence of sin, as prisoners, slaves, captives.
These expressions are all figurative, borrowed from sensible to
express moral or spiritual things, and therefore are not to be
explained as if literally true. If we say that Christ hath redeemed
us, that he has bought us, that he has paid the debt and discharged
us—if we have any consistent meaning, it must be this: That in
consequence of what Christ has done, we are delivered from sin, in as
great a consistency with justice, as a debtor is delivered from his
obligation, or the demands of law, when his debt is paid. That is, God
extends pardon in such a way, through Christ, that he does not injure
the authority of his law, but supports it as effectually as if he
inflicted punishment.

2. Did Christ satisfy distributive justice? Certainly not.
Distributive justice respects personal character only. It condemns men
because they are sinners, and rewards them because they are righteous.
Their good or ill desert are the only ground on which distributive or
moral justice respects them. But good and ill desert are personal.
They imply consciousness of praise or blame, and cannot be transferred
or altered so as to render the subjects of them more or less worthy.
What Christ did, therefore, did not take ill desert from men, nor did
it place them in such a situation that God would act unjustly to
punish them according to their deeds. If a man has sinned, it will
always remain a truth that he has sinned, and that according to
distributive justice he deserves punishment. In this sense justice
admits the condemnation of Paul as much as it does of Judas. The
salvation of the former is secured, and his condemnation rendered
impossible by another consideration.

3: Did Christ satisfy public justice? Undoubtedly he did. This is
evident from what has already been advanced respecting the necessity
of atonement, in order to a consistent exercise of mercy. Christ’s
sufferings rendered it right and fit, with respect to God’s character
and the good of the universe, to forgive sin. The atonement made by
Christ presented the law, the nature of sin, and the displeasure of
God against it, in such a light, that no injury would accrue to the
moral system, no imputation would be against the righteousness of the
great Legislator, though he should forgive the sinner, and instate him
in eternal felicity. Perfect justice therefore is done to the
universe, though all transgressors be not punished according to their
personal demerit. The death of Christ therefore is to be considered as
a great, important, and public transaction, respecting God and the
whole system of rational beings. Public justice requires, that neither
any of these be injured, nor the character and government of the great
Legislator disrespected, by the pardon of any. In these respects
public justice is perfectly satisfied by the death of Christ. This is
evident from the following passages of scripture. Rom. iii. 21; ‘But
now the righteousness (rectitude or justice) of God is manifested
without the law, being witnessed by the law.’ Before the introduction
of these words, the apostle had demonstrated, that the whole world,
Jews and Gentiles, were all under sin and condemnation. ‘Now,’ says
he, ‘we know that whatsoever things the law saith, it saith to them
that are under the law, that every mouth may be stopped, and the whole
world become guilty before God.’ All, if treated according to
distributive justice, must be found guilty and condemned. ‘Therefore,’
says Paul, ‘by the deeds of the law shall no flesh be justified.’ How,
then, it might be inquired, can any be justified, and yet God not give
up his law, but appear perfectly righteous and just? The answer
follows. ‘By the righteousness of God, which is manifested without the
law, being witnessed by the law.’ Rom. iii. 21. That is, the
righteousness or justice of God, with respect to himself and the
universe, is clearly manifested, though he do not execute the law, as
to distributive justice, on transgressors, but pardon and save them.
This is so far from being contrary to the law, that it is witnessed by
the law. For the sufferings of Christ demonstrate, that God no more
gives up the penalty of the law, than if he should inflict it on the
original transgressor. The righteousness or justice manifested in this
way is through Christ; ‘whom,’ says Paul, ‘God hath set forth to be a
propitiation, through faith in his blood.’ For what end? ‘To declare
his righteousness for the remission of sins.’ ‘To declare at this time
his righteousness (for this purpose) that he might be just, and the
justifier of him that believeth in Jesus,’ Rom. iii. 25, 26. Hence it
is said, ‘Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one
that believeth,’ Rom. x. 4. That is, the end of the law is as fully
answered in the salvation of men by Christ, as it would have been if
they had never transgressed, but had obtained life by perfect
obedience. It is said, ‘If we confess our sins, he is just to forgive
us our sins,’ 1 John i. 9. He is just to himself, to his law, to the
universe. God styles himself ‘a just God, and a Saviour.’ Is. xlv. 21.
Hence justice and mercy harmonize in man’s salvation.

From the preceding statement of the nature of grace and justice, it
appears,

_First_, That atonement, and consequently the pardon of sin, have no
respect to commutative justice.

_Secondly_, That the sufferings of Christ did not satisfy distributive
justice, since that respects personal character only; and therefore,
with respect to distributive justice, salvation is an act of perfect
grace.

_Thirdly_, That Christ’s sufferings satisfied public justice; and
therefore, with respect to public justice, salvation is an act of
perfect justice.

Thus the seeming inconsistency between full atonement for sin, and
pure grace in salvation, vanishes and disappears. The system of
redemption rises into view like a magnificent edifice, displaying the
greatest order, proportion and beauty.”

DR. MAXCY.

“To reconcile grace with justice in the salvation of the sinner, is
the Gordian knot, which divines generally have been unable to untie.
Upon the principle of an indefinite atonement, the difficulty
vanishes. If all the sins of a certain individual have been atoned for
by the Redeemer, free grace will not appear in his pardon; because
justice would, in that case, require his salvation. But justice is
threefold, _commutative_, _distributive_, and _public_. Commutative
justice has no concern in this case. Public justice is satisfied by
the atonement, because the governor of the universe displays his
displeasure at _sin in general_ in the sufferings of Christ. The
exercise of distributive justice is entirely set aside, and herein is
grace exhibited, the sinner is pardoned at the expence of distributive
justice.”

“Although we have stated this argument with all the precision of which
we are capable, we must observe, that notwithstanding the show of
minute discussion which it makes, its whole force consists in its
obscurity, and the confusion of ideas which it produces. The
indistinctness of vision which it causes, is the only reason for any
man’s offering his hand to those who, by proposing it, promise to be
his guide to the temple of truth.

We object to this division of a divine attribute—we object to the use
which is made of it—we object to the argument, because it multiplies,
instead of solving difficulties—and it takes for granted, what does
not exist, a difficulty in reconciling justice with grace.

We object to this division of a divine attribute. It is not correct,
even as it applies to man. We are perfectly aware that the
_Schoolmen_, following the steps of heathen philosophers, adopted this
division. Suarez builds upon it the doctrine of merit, in order to
supply the traffic of indulgences with works of supererogation.[156]
But, however variously divine justice may be exercised about its
several objects, we have no reason to believe, that there are three
different attributes of justice, or even that the principle in man,
which induces him to act honestly in commercial transactions, and to
give to every man his due, is any way different from the principle
which influences a good magistrate to conduct with equity his public
administration. It is one principle exercised upon various objects.
The Scriptures, which uniformly ascribe righteousness to Jehovah, and
afford instances of its exercise in _thrice three_ various ways, never
intimate that there are _three distinct_ attributes of divine
justice.[157]

We object to the use that is made of this division. There is no reason
for excluding _commutative_ justice any more than distributive, as
distinct from _public_ justice, from having any reference to the case
of the sinner’s pardon. We can readily conceive of a civil ruler,
having, independently of his official duties, certain private and
personal duties to discharge towards those, who, in such case, are
upon terms of equality with himself. But no equality exists between
the creature and Creator. The pardon of sin most assuredly approaches
as near to the forgiveness of a _debt_ as the remission of a _personal
offence_, which has no reference to the divine authority. _Sin is a
want of conformity unto, or a transgression of_ THE LAW.[158] Besides,
the Scriptures frequently represent Jehovah condescending to act
towards men upon the footing of a previously existing contract or
covenant, but never upon the footing of private relation, setting
aside his authority. He hath taught us to pray, “Forgive us our
debts;” but never to say, “pardon private offences which are no
transgression of thy law.” We cannot even conceive of the exercise of
distributive justice by the Lord, separate from his authority as our
king, our lawgiver, and our judge. We cannot conceive, that it is
matter of indifference whether God does or does not exercise
distributive justice towards his creatures; and much less can we admit
that even, for the sake of mercy, he is ever guilty of one act of
distributive injustice. We, therefore, object to the use which is made
of this threefold division of the attribute of justice. And we also,

Object to the whole argument which it involves, because it multiplies
instead of solving difficulties around the doctrine of the sinner’s
justification.

It requires us to believe that God has violated, or set aside the
demands of distributive justice in the salvation of his chosen—that
the sufferings of our Redeemer were the punishment, not of
transgressions which are, in fact, committed, but of sin in the
abstract—and that public justice requires only an exhibition of the
divine displeasure at sin.

Sin, in the abstract, is only a word. Like an algebraical character,
it represents all the transgressions of individual persons. These
particular sins are realities; but sin _in general_, or in the
abstract, is only the _sign_, the word, which we employ in
reasoning.[159] It is not for the _sign_, but the thing that Jesus
suffered.

The _word_ sin, too, represents the transgressions of angels. If the
Redeemer suffered for sin in general, he made atonement for devils,
although he took not on him the nature of angels. And if public
justice demanded no more than the display of Jehovah’s hatred of sin,
then Christ is dead in vain, for such display is made in the
everlasting punishments of Hell. But justice demanded more. It
demanded the punishment of the sinner; and could not be satisfied with
any thing short of this, unless Messiah should so unite himself to
sinners, not only by assuming their nature, but by becoming in law
their representative, as to bear all the sins of all the persons for
whom his sufferings were intended to atone. We object also to this
argument in defence of indefinite atonement,

Because it takes for granted, what does not exist, that if all the
demands of divine justice are satisfied to the full by the atonement,
then grace is excluded from our pardon. This is not the case. Justice
is indeed satisfied. It does not oppose, but demand the salvation of
all for whom Christ died. Here is no difficulty—no Gordian knot. Grace
reigns through righteousness. We refer our readers to what is said on
this subject, page 377, and conclude our examination of this argument
in the words of the Assembly of Divines at Westminster. “Although
Christ, by his obedience and death, did make a proper, real, and full
satisfaction to God’s justice in the behalf of them that are
justified; yet, inasmuch as God accepteth the satisfaction from a
surety, which he might have demanded of them, and did provide this
surety, his own only son, imputing his righteousness to them, and
requiring nothing of them for their justification, but faith, which
also is his gift, their justification is to them of free grace.”

CHRISTIAN’S MAGAZINE, VOL. III.

Atonement imports reconciliation, a being _at one_. The Hebrew
signifies to _cover_. The Greek word denotes a _commutation_, as of
enmity for friendship. But we use atonement for _ransom_, or _price_,
and we never pray for it. Redemption imports a deliverance. To say
that the ransom was paid _indefinitely_, that is, not more for one
than another, is plainly contrary to his views, who spoke of those who
were _given to him_, and of his _laying down his life for his sheep_.
His sacrifice was real, and its object could not be _sin in general_,
a mere abstract term; a sacrifice of which Satan might avail himself,
as well as man. If the atonement, and redemption be indefinite, so
were the decrees or purposes, the suretyship of Christ, the
foreknowledge of God, and the promotion of the glory of God in the
work.

On the other hand, to represent these transactions, so strictly as
matters of debt, and credit, as that the quantum of price was exactly
commensurate to the guilt of the saved, and neither more nor less, is
not warranted by the word of God. This is to impute the cause of
damnation to Christ’s not having died for those who perish; and not to
their guilt. Both these conclusions are erroneous. Christ died for
_all men_, and _every man_, not in the sense of the universalists, not
in the same sense as he died for his sheep; but that his sacrifice is
sufficient for all; and God the Father, whose mercy can reach no
fallen creature, but in Christ, has authorized the offer of covenant
mercy to all; and desires the destruction of none. Thus men perish
only by their sins. The Sacrifice of Christ is of infinite value, for
he is a Divine person; and the sins of all men can be no more than
infinite.

The truth seems to be, that the sacrifice is infinite; that the offer
is to be general; that man perishes by his own fault only; and all
this is according to the eternal purposes of God. Nevertheless the
salvation of the saints was certain; the price particularly paid with
a view to them; who are eventually effectually called, justified,
sanctified, and brought to glory.

Footnote 155:

See Doddridge’s Lectures, p. 190; and also Dr. Edwards’ third sermon,
preached it New Haven, 1735.

Footnote 156:

See Owen on Jus. chap. ii.

Footnote 157:

“Were this the proper place, it would be easy to show, by a criticism
on the best writers upon this subject, that their definitions of
commutative, distributive, and public justice, interfere, and are
otherwise essentially incorrect.”

Footnote 158:

Shorter Catechism.

Footnote 159:

“Did we deem it eligible to introduce metaphysics into this
discussion, we could more effectually expose the idea of punishing a
_nonentity_—‘sin in the abstract.’ We are no conceptualists; and the
controversy between the Nominalists and Realists is now at an end. It
prevailed long enough. It agitated the European universities,
interested thrones, and shed much precious blood. No philosopher will
now defend the opinions of the Realists. Abstract terms have no
counterpart in nature. Stew. Phil. Mind. ch. iv. § 2, & 3.”

Footnote 160:

_See Quest. XXXVIII._

Footnote 161:

_These, which are styled_, Passiones trihoriæ, ultimæ, _are generally
called_, Pænæ satisfactoriæ; _and all his sufferings before them_,
Pænæ convincentes.

Footnote 162:

_It is an abominable strain of blasphemy, which some Popish writers
make use of, when they say that not only the cross was the altar, but
that it was sacred, and had a virtue to sanctify the gift offered
thereon, which is the foundation of that idolatrous adoration which
they give to it._

Footnote 163:

Λυτρωτην.

Footnote 164: