in a pecuniary point of view, when ev-is rewarded more than he deserves, ery inan receives his own property. the wicked punished less than he de If we receive the property of another, serves, he is not treated according t this kind of justice requires that we justice, in this sense of the word. Th should give him a proper equivalent, kind of justice has no relation to com something of the same value. Not to mercial transactions. It is entire do this, would be a violation of com-distinct from commutative or pec mutative justice. To take away an-niary justice. It respects the more other's property, without such an e-character only, and if men are treated quivalent, to deprive him of that which strictly according to this, that is, an is his own, by violence or by fraud, to rewarded or punished exactly withhold from him that which is justly much as they deserve, and no more due, to neglect the payment of honest this kind of justice is satisfied. debts, would be a violation of this kind of justice. This kind of justice has no respect to a man's moral character, but is confined solely to matters of property. A man's property is his, and not ours, whether he is a good man or the contrary. His being a good man gives him no right to what is not his own property, neither does his being a bad man make that which is his property any the less his own. It is true that a man may, by his crimes, forfeit his rights, and subject himself to be de prived of them as a purishment for his misconduct. He may conduct in such a manner as to render it proper that the government should take away his property, as a punishment for his wickedness. But when this is done, and is said to be consistent with justice, we have no respect to commuta-quires him to seek the greatest good of tive or pecuniary justice, but to another kind of justice, that is, to distributive justice.

But 3. There is another kind of justice, different from these two, that is, public justice, or general justice This relates entirely to the great in terests of the community, and de mands that these should be secured. When the public good is neglected and the interests of the communi ty suffer, this kind of justice is viola ted. In every community, it is the duty of all its members to seek i highest interests, and to do nothing which will interfere with them; but it is more especially incumbent on the chief magistrate or head of that com munity to see to it that its greatest good is secured. When the universe is considered as one great community, and God as placed at the head of it, as its moral governor, public` justice re

the universe, and to promote it by all the means in his power. It requires him not to suffer any thing to take 2. Distributive justice has relation place, by which that greatest good only to moral character. It requires would be hindered or prevented that every person should be treated When it is said, therefore, in our doeaccording to his moral character. It trine, that the design of the atonement requires that the good should be re- which Christ has made, is to manifest warded, and that the wicked should the justice of God, it is not meant that be punished, exactly according to its design is to manifest or illustrate their deserts. When the good man commutative or pecuniary justice, nor receives the reward he deserves, and distributive justice, but public justice; no more, and the wicked man receives that the great object of the atonement the punishment he deserves, and no is to show the regard God has to the more, this kind of justice is preserved greatest good of the universe, to mauinviolate. But if the good man is re-ifest his justice as its moral governor. fused that reward which he deserves, or if the wicked man is punished more than he deserves, this kind of justice fa violated. Indeed, if the good man || atonement.

We come now, as was proposed', II. To confirm the doctrine, and show that this is the design of the

And 1. The atonement has no rela-racter. Moral character is wholly a on to commutative or pecuniary jus-personal thing, and cannot be transice. The atonement was not a pe-||ferred from one to another. One man uniary transaction. It has no relation cannot deserve punishment for what o matters of commerce. The atone- another has done, nor can one man nent did not consist, literally, in pay-deserve a reward for what another has ng a debt. It has, indeed, often been done. It is impossible that one man considered in this light. The sinner should feel guilty for what another has as been considered as owing a debt done without his knowledge or conto God, and having nothing to pay, he sent; and it is equally impossible that s shut up in prison. Christ has been he should feel praiseworthy for what represented as coming forward in the another has done without any agency sinner's behalf, discharging his debt to of his. Distributive justice neither rethe uttermost farthing, and thus, pro-quires nor admits of a substitution. If curing his release. But this view of one person has sinned, distributive the subject has been the source of justice requires that he should suffer, many mistakes, and has involved the and it always will require it, since it whole subject of atonement in difficul- will always remain a truth that he has ties, from which it can never be extri- sinned, and consequently it will al cated. But this is not a correct view ways remain a truth that he deserves of the subject. The atonement is not punishment. If another person has paying a debt. It is not a commercial never sinned, distributive justice for transaction. It has no relation to mat- bids that he should be punished;→ ters of property,or pecuniary right. Our and it always will forbid his punishsin had not taken away any of God's ment, if he always remains without property from him, nor did the death transgressing the divine law. Distriof Christ restore any property to God.butive justice requires that Christ It is true, that the scripture sometimes should be honored, and the sinner speaks of the blood of Christ as a price punished in his own person. And paid for our redemption. But this lan- Christ's dying, while the sinner lives, guage is evidently figurative, Figures has not satisfied this kind of justice, are drawn from a variety of sources to and never can. For it is true that the illustrate the different doctrines taught|| sinner has transgressed, and the death in the scriptures, And the case of a of Christ has not made it any the less sinner, under the sentence of the di- true. And if he is a transgressor, he vine law, is not unaptly compared to deserves punishment, and will eternalthat of a man in prison for debt, wholy, since it will always remain true that is released on the payment of his debt he has broken the divine law. If the by a friend. But it needs no argu- atonement is to be considered as satisment to prove that this language isfying distributive justice, it can only figurative, and not literal. The blood be because the sins of men are so of Christ is not gold nor silver, nor any transferred to Christ, as actually to other commercial medium; nor did become his personal sins; and his his death give to God any property of righteousness is so transferred to them any kind. as actually to become their personal 2. The atonement was not intend-|| righteousness. But, if this is the case, ed to satisfy distributive justice. No- then those for whom Christ died have thing can satisfy distributive justice no longer any sins of which to repent; but each person being treated exactly they have no ill desert at all; they are according to his deserts. Distributive spotless and holy, in their own perjustice requires that the good should sons, as God himself. And if the sins be rewarded and the wicked punish- of men are transferred to Christ, then ed. It requires that every one should the Lord Jesus suffered justly, as an be treated according to his moral cha-|| actual sinner, and one who deserved

not only to die on the cross, but also || ernment...to express God's hatred d deserved to be sent to hell. But this sin, while he pardoned the sinner, wa notion of a transfer of sin and holiness its great design. And this design it must be given up, and it must be ad- completely accomplishes. Indeed, mitted that Christ never deserved to the law is honored infinitely more by suffer, and that the sinner can never the death of Christ, than it could have cease to deserve eternal suffering; and been by the death of the sinner. God's consequently, that the design of the hatred of sin appears in a light infiatonement is not to satisfy distributive nitely stronger in the cross of Christ justice. than it could in the condemnation of a world. When an ancient king sub

eyes, in order to spare one of his sons, who owed them both to the justice of his country, the law was unspeakably more honored than it could have been if it had only taken its course upon the criminal. In like manner, when the king of heaven stoops to suffer the penalty of the law instead of the criminal, how much more is the law

its course, and been executed upon a few worms of the dust. Thus, there fore, by the death of Christ, public justice is satisfied; the evils which would have followed from the pardon of the sinner without an atonement, are more than prevented-and God can be just to the universe, as its moral governor, while he pardons and saves as many as he will.

But 3. The design of the atonement is to satisfy public justice, or to mani-mitted to be deprived of one of his fest the justice of God as the moral governor of the universe. Public justice requires that whatever is most conducive to the public good should be done. The greatest good of the universe is the glory of God. This is an infinite good; but the good of a creatures taken together is but a finite good. To glorify God, is to display his perfections, to illustrate his charac-honored than if it had merely taken ter, to let the universe see what God is. That every part of the divine character might be brought into view, and seen to the best advantage, a system was necessary which should include a great variety of events. That God's mercy should appear, it was necessary that there should be sinners, and that sinners should be pardoned, and raised to a throne of glory in heaven. But for God to pardon the sinner What remains is the improvement, without an atonement, and to raise And 1. In the view of this subject, him to a throne of glory in heaven, we see how free grace is consistent would be the same as to give up his with full satisfaction. It has been law...to express an approbation of sin... thought that this was an insurmounta to patronize wickedness, and encour-ble difficulty, and that if full satisfac age rebellion. And for God to dishonor tion was made for the sinner, there his law, would be to dishonor himself, could be no grace in his pardon. And since the law is but a transcript of his this supposed inconsistency has been own character. And since sin is di- thought, by some, to be sufficient to rectly opposed in its nature to the di- overthrow the whole doctrine of atonevine character, and in its aim directly ment. Indeed, if the atonement is opposed to the great interests of the viewed as a pecuniary transaction, universe, to express an approbation of and considered literally as paying a it, would be infinitely dishonorable to || debt, as it often is, it is not easy to see God, and subversive of the great in-|| how this difficulty can be avoided. If terests of the universe. That mercy I am imprisoned for debt, and at length might be magnified in the pardon of come forward and pay my creditor his the sinner, and yet these dreadful con- full demand,there is no grace in his givsequences prevented, was the object ing up my obligation...there is no grace of the atonement. To support the in my being set at liberty. I have a law, then...to maintain the divine gov-right to demand it, and it would be

to be considered as a pecuniary transaction, as literally paying a debt, which would be inconsistent with a gracious pardon; but it is to be considered, as has been seen, as a great public transaction, intended to manifest the justice of God as the moral governor of the universe, and support the honor of the divine law, while the sinner receives a full and free pardon. And when we consider the atonement in this light, it is easy to see how free grace in pardoning the sinner, is per fectly consistent with full satisfaction having been made. Grace consists in treating the sinner better than he deserves. Grace has respect to distributive justice, and suspends its exercise. If this kind of justice is exercised towards the sinner, he is punished according to his deserts: and if he is not punished according to his deserts, lie

highly unjust and oppressive in him to cording to the riches of his grace."~ refuse. In like manner, if the atone-This is the uniform language of scripment is to be considered as a commer- ture. The atonement, therefore, is not Icial transaction, and Christ has paid the sinner's debt, there is no grace in his being set at liberty. He could not be held any longer without the greatest injustice and oppression. Some have attempted to remove this difficulty by saying, that the grace of the gospel consists in the gift of Christ to make atonement, and that it would be grace in the creditor to provide his debtor the means of discharging his debt, and thus procuring his release. It is true = that this was an act of grace. God was under no obligation to provide a Saviour, any more than the creditor is under obligation to provide his debtor the means of paying his debt. But furnishing the means of making satisfaction, and granting a discharge after satisfaction has been made, are two distinct acts. The first is an act of grace, but the second is not. And if the grace of the gospel consists entire-is treated with grace. Had the atonely in providing a Saviour, then it is granted that there is no grace in the pardon of the sinner, or rather that the sinner is not pardoned at all; for after his debt is paid, he is discharged on the ground of justice. And when the sinner goes to God in prayer, he should not sue for pardon as a suppliant, but demand it as a right. He should not ask for those blessings which he needs, as favors to the ill 2. In the view of this subject we see deserving, but he should deinand how a universal atonement is consiștthem as his just due, as those things ent with a limited redemption. It has which have been purchased in his been thought that if Christ has made name, and paid for to their full value. satisfaction for the sins of the whole But is this consistent with the feelings world, then all the world must be saand practice of the christian? Is the ved. And hence, some have held to language of his prayers the language a limited atonement, and some to uniof demand? When the humble peniversal salvation. Many of these content bows his knees before God, is it sider atonement and redemption as the to claim his rights? Was this the lan- same thing. But they are very differguage of the scripture saints? Does ent things. Atonement is satisfaction the scripture speak of the sinner's dis- for sin, redemption is deliverance from charge as an act of justice? Does not sin. Atonement is what Christ has the scripture every where speak of it done to render the salvation of the sinas a proper pardon, an act of grace?ner possible. Redemption is the ac"We are justified freely by his grace." tual deliverance of the sinner, in con"We have the forgiveness of sins, ac-sequence of what Christ has done. -

ment satisfied distributive justice, it would be equally true that there could be no grace in pardon; for if distributive justice was satisfied there could be no such thing as pardon, the sinner would deserve no punishment. But since the atonement does not satisfy any justice but public justice, whatever the sinner receives better than be deserves, is an act of pure-grace.

moved any of our ill desert. It ha occasioned no interchange of charac ter between Christ and us. Sin and holiness are wholly personal things and cannot be transferred or exchan

The

And they are not only not the same thing, but they are not equally extensive. It is true, that if the atonement were a commercial transaction, and a satisfaction to commutative justice, the redemption would be equally exten-ged away. We have broken the d sive. For if Christ has literally paid vine law, in our own persons, and we the debt of sinners, all those must be alone deserve to be punished for our discharged whose debt is paid; for wicked conduct. And we shall al otherwise justice would not be done. ways deserve to be punished, since i But if the atonement has no respect will always remain a truth that w to commutative justice, and was only have sinned. Repentance and refor inade to satisfy public justice, to show mation can never diminish our deser God's displeasure at sin, and his regard of punishment for past sins, for they for his law and the rights of the divine can never render it any the less true government, while mercy is exercised, that those sins have been committed then, it does not follow, because these Our ill desert is not lessened by what objects are effectually secured, that Christ has done, for the atonement therefore mercy will be exercised was not intended to satisfy distributive towards all. No less an atonement justice, and never could. Our i de would have been necessary to answer sert never can be lessened, but will these purposes, if mercy was to be ex- continue to increase, from day to day, ercised towards but one sinner, and as long as we continue to sin. The no greater atonement would have been greatest saint in heaven continues to necessary, if mercy was to be exerci- deserve eternal punishment, as much sed towards ten thousand worlds. The as he ever did while on earth. extent to which mercy shall be exer- apostle Paul deserved eternal punishcised is left to be determined wholly ment unspeakably more, at the time by other considerations than the suffi- when he was singing his triumphant ciency or insufficiency of the atone- song of "O death, where is thy sting?" ment. Christ has laid down his life to than he did at the time when he was honor the divine law, and manifest the breathing out threatenings and slaugh justice of God as the moral governor ter against the disciples of the Lord.of the universe, so that no injury will And the reason is plain. His repentaccrue to the universe if sinners are ance and reformation had not dimin forgiven. And now, God may forgive ished his ill desert, but his daily sins all, or any, or none, as he sees proper. had greatly increased it. And this is 3. In the view of this subject we see the reason why, though one of the that the atonement lays God under no most eminent saints, he was always obligations to us. On the ground of speaking of himself as the chief of sin pecuniary justice it does not; for we ners. And this is the reason why he have given him nothing. That he was always ascribing the blessings he might be under obligations to us, we received to grace alone. And this is must have given him something for the reason why grace will be the theme which we could demand an equiva- which will swell the songs of the relent. But we have not. Neither has deemed in heaven ages without end. Christ, acting as our surety, given God And this is the reason why all the bles any thing for which we can demand sings we receive here are of grace. On an equivalent. He has not paid any the ground of distributive justice, we debts in our behalf. The atonement deserve eternal damnation; and all we was not a pecuniary transaction. Nei-receive better than that, is of grace. It ther has the atonement laid God under was grace in God to give his Son. It is any obligations to us, on the ground grace to send his Spirit to change the of distributive justice. It has not re-heart. It is grace to forgive the return