communication of guilt and impurity from Adam, so we have in human fociety, and indeed infeparable from it, the idea of communication by natural relation, of honour and shame, happiness and misery, as well as the clearest notion of voluntary fubftitution. We see that the worth and eminent qualities of any perfon, give luftre and dignity to his pofterity; and wickedness or bafenefs does juft the contrary. We fee that men may eafily, and do neceffarily receive much pleasure from the happiness of their relations, and misery in sympathy with their fufferings. And as to voluntary substitution, it is as familiar to us as any transaction in focial life. It is true, there are not many inftances of men's being bound in their life for one another; for which feveral good reasons may be affigned. There are not many men of fuch exalted generofity, as to be willing to forfeit life for life. It is rarely that this would be a proper or adequate fatisfaction to the law, and it would not be the intereft of human fociety commonly to receive it. Yet the thing is far from being inhuman or unpractifed. There are fome inftances in ancient times, in which men have procured liberty for their friends, by being confined in their room. And both in ancient and modern times, hoftages delivered by nations, or public focieties, are obliged to abide the punishment due to their conftituents.

3. The third question on the subject of fatisfaction is, Whether it was neceffary that the Redeemer or Mediator fhould be a divine perfon? It may be afked, whether an angel of the highest order, who was perfectly innocent, might not have made fatisVOL. VIII.

N

Lect. 16. faction for the fins of men? Perhaps this is one of the many questions in theology that are unneceffary or improper. It is fufficient to fay that it appears either to have been neceffary or beft, that one truly divine fhould make fatisfaction for fin, fince it has been ordained of God, who does nothing unneceffary.

But befides this, it seems to be confonant to other parts of revealed religion, particularly the infinite evil of fin as committed against God, for which no finite being feems fufficient to atone. To which we may add, that all finite, dependent, created beings, are under fuch obligations themselves, that it is not easy to see what they can do in obedience to the will of God, which can have any merit in it, or which they would not be obliged to do for the purpose of his glory at any time; neither does any created being feem fo much his own master, as to enter fuch undertaking.

into any

There is an objection made to this doctrine, fometimes to the following purpofe :-How could the fecond person of the ever blessed Trinity be faid to make fatisfaction? Was he not equally offended with the other? Could he make fatisfaction to himfelf? But this objection is eafily. folved; for not to mention that we cannot transfer with fafety every thing human to God, the thing in question is by no means unknown in human affairs. Though for the payment of a debt on which the creditor infifts, it would be ridiculous to fay that he might pay himfelf; yet in the character of a magiftrate fitting to judge a criminal where he represents the Public, it is no way unsuitable for him to put off the public

perfon, and fatisfy the demands of juftice, and preferve the honour of the law.

Here I would conclude by juft obferving, that there is no neceffity of a furety's doing juft the fame thing in kind that 'the guilty perfon was bound to do. The character and dignity of the furety may operate fo far as to produce the legal effect, and make the fatisfaction proper for giving its due honour to the law. Thus, in the fufferings of Chrift, the infinite value of the Sufferer's perfon makes the fufferings to be confidered as a just equivalent to the eternal fufferings of a finite creature.

L

LECTURE XVII.

ET us proceed to the conftitution of the covenant; and you may observe that there is fome difference among orthodox divines as to the way of ftating the parties, and the terms of the covenant of grace. There feems to be mention made in Scripture of a covenant or agreement between the Father and the Son. This the generality of Calvinift divines confider as a feparate or preparatory contract, and call it the covenant of redemption. Some, however, especially thofe who have been termed Antinomians, confider this as properly the covenant of grace, made with Chrift the fecond Adam, as reprefenting his fpiritual feed, and the covenant faid to be made with believers, to be only the execution administration of that covenant, and therefore called a testament, being the fruits of Chrift's death, or ratified by the death of the Teftator. According

or

to the different ways of viewing this matter, they exprefs themselves differently: the first saying that the condition of the covenant of grace is faith in Jefus Chrift; and the other faying it is the righteousness of Chrift. I do not apprehend there need be any difference between thofe now mentioned, and I obferve Mr Willifon in his Catechifm takes it both ways. I shall first very shortly fhew you from Scripture, that there is plainly mention made of a covenant, or a tranfaction between the Father and the Son, which, if diftinct from the covenant of grace, may be properly enough called the covenant of redemption.

There are many promifes made directly to the Mediator refpecting this matter: Pfal. ii. 6. "I declare the decree," &c. Ifa. v. 3. 10. "When he fhall make his foul," &c. Ifa. xlii. 1. 6, 7. "Behold my fervant whom I uphold; mine elect in whom my foul delighteth: I have put my Spirit upon him, he shall bring forth judgment to the Gentiles. I the Lord have called thee in righte oufnefs, and will hold thine hand, and will keep thee, and give thee for a covenant of the people, for a light of the Gentiles." Zech. vi. 13. "And the council of peace fhall be between them both." I only further mention Pfal. xl. 6, 7, 8. "Sacrifice and offering thou didst not defire," &c. The truth is, that not only the Socinians, who are enemies to the fatisfaction of Chrift, but even the Arminians decline the admiffion of this truth, and attempt to explain away the above texts; yet something equi valent to it is neceffarily confequent upon Chrift's undertaking. When he was conftituted Mediator

by the divine decree, he must have affented to it, and freely undertaken the important charge. It is alfo evidently the fpirit of the New Teftament difpenfation, that the hope and ftrength of believers are in Chrift. He is faid to have afcended up on high, and received gifts for men, and of his fulness we are faid by the apoftle John to receive grace for grace.

But the covenant of grace is faid to be more frequently made with men, with the houfe of Ifrael, with the chofen of God, with his people. It is a compact or agreement between God and elect finners, to give freely, and of mere mercy, Chrift to die for them, and with him a pardon of fin, and a right to everlasting life, together with the Spirit of fanctification to make them meet for it; all which the believer receives and accepts in the manner in which it is offered, and refts his eternal ftate upon it. This tranfaction has many different titles given it in Scripture. It is called the covenant of grace, which is properly the theological phrase; a covenant, because it is often called fo in the Old Teftament and in the New, and of grace, because it is so often repeated in both, that` falvation is of grace; and particularly in order to ftate the oppofition between it and the covenant of works. It is alfo called a covenant of peace, and that with a double view: to diftinguish it from the covenant of works, and from the covenant on Sinai at the giving of the law. It is called likewife an everlàfting covenant, to diftinguish it from any temporary covenant. It is alfo