than we are to imagine that God is angry just as we are, or that he repents just as we do, or that he hath an arm, and hands, and eyes like ours, because these things are ascribed to him in a figurative manner.— From the use of the words ransom, and redemption, we are no more obliged to suppose a literal purchase, or an obligatory satisfaction in what our Saviour did and suffered, than we are to suppose there was occasion for such kind of satisfaction, and for the same reasons as among men. We are selfish, and looking for gain every one from his quarter: but surely we ought not to form a like idea of the infinitely benevolent and ever blessed God. Certainly, "He who so loved the world as to give his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him might not perish, but have everlasting life," would have pardoned and saved the world without any atonement or vicarious righteousness, had nothing but want of goodness prevented. The thing was, sin could not be pardoned, and sinners saved, consistently with just law and good government; and therefore not consistently with the glory of God or the good of the universe. The removal of this just obstacle to the reign of grace, not the laying God under obligation, for value received, was what rendered the redemption of Christ necessary and the former of these, not the latter, is the end effected by his obedience and death.

It hath indeed been said, in the present dispute, that a door could not be opened for the salvation of mankind, without making it necessary in justice that they should be saved. That justice requires whatever is consistent with justice. But this is a new and strange position. The perfection of justice no more requires that every thing which is just should be done, than the perfection of truth requires that every thing which is

true should be spoken. If justice required whatever is consistent with justice, no grace could be exercisedno free favour could ever be bestowed in any instance, either by God or man: nothing more than mere justice could ever be done. That justice which excludes grace, which is the only proper notion of justice, at least the only one now under consideration, certainly, doth not require many things which might be just. Justice did not require that God should give his only begotten Son, yet this was consistent with justice. Christ was not obliged in justice to consent to become incarnate and to pour out his soul unto death, yet there was nothing inconsistent with justice in his so doing. In like manner it is now consistent with justice for God to pardon sinners through the propitiation of Christ, yet this is not what justice requires. Grace requires that the guilty should be forgiven, provided it may be done consistently with justice, and without doing hurt upon the whole; but this doth make it no more grace. Wisdom requires whatsoever things are for the best. Goodness requires whatsoever things. are for the greatest universal good. But justice, as excluding grace, requires only whatsoever things are deserved.

Still, perhaps, it will be said, Were not the sufferings of Christ really adequate to all the punishment due to us for sin? and did not his obedience actually merit eternal life by a merit of condignity? and have not be lievers, at least, a just right and title to the atonement and merit of Christ? Is not his righteousness imputed to them so as to become actually theirs? And if these things be so, where can there be any grace in their justification? In answer to all this, let me observe the following things.

1. I do not think that eternal life was merited, even by Christ, by a merit of condignity. A merit of condignity supposes something justly due for service done. But it is impossible, I apprehend, that God should receive any thing for which he is justly indebted. "For who hath first given to him, and it shall be recompens ed unto him again?" However ancient divines may have discoursed about merit of condignity and merit of congruity, the distinction, I conceive, is properly appli- . cable only to merit at the hands of beings who may receive actual services to which they have no just claim. A merit of condignity can, I am persuaded, have no place in regard to God.

That creatures can merit no good at the hand of their Creator, in this high sense of merit, every one must be convinced, on a moment's reflection. They can render nothing to God, in a way of love or service, but what is his due from them. Adam would not have deserved any reward as a just debt, had he remained innocent, and fulfilled the law of perfection. He would only have done what it was his duty to do. The highest created intelligences can do no more. As they derive their all from God, so they can render nothing to him but what is of right his.

But, it will be said, Christ was not a mere creature. He thought it not robbery to be equal with God. Consequently his merit must be of a different kind from what Adam's would have been, and from that of the angels. The labour of a servant cannot bring his master in debt, because it was that to which he had a just right; but if a neighbour, who is upon even terms with us, labour for us, we are indebted to him. He deserves wages, in the proper and strict sense of the word. And why must there not in reality be exactly this dif

L

ference between the obedience of creatures, and the obedience of Christ.

cousness.

an

To this I answer, though Christ was under no obligation to become incarnate, yet when he had assumed the form of a servant, it behoved him to fulfil all rightAll he did was obedience ;-obedience justly due, on our account at least, if not on his own. God hath not received, even in this way, that to which he had no right, and for which he is really indebted. Did the merit of Christ as properly belong to us as if it had been our personal merit, we should have no ground to challenge eternal life, nor any reward, as our just due. Indeed, in that case, we should not deserve eternal death, nor any punishment. Therefore, I must add,

2. I do not think the merit of Christ is actually transferred to believers; or, that his righteousness is so imputed to them as to become, to all intents and purposcs, their own righteousness. It is so far reckoned to them as to render it consistent and honourable for God, as above explained, to be reconciled to them, not imputing their trespasses by a rigorous, or an adequate personal punishment; but it is not so their's as to render them really deserving of good, or undeserving of evil. The apostle states a distinction between justification by works and by faith, making the former in some sense of debt, but the latter of grace entirely. Rom. iv. 2--5. “For if Abraham were justified by works he hath whereof to glory, but not before God. For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God and it was counted to him for righteousness. Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt. But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness. By this we are

That

plainly taught that justification by a righteousness reckoned to us by faith, is of grace, in a manner different from justification by our own good works. the man justified by personal righteousness would have ground for glorying as more deserving than other men, though not before God, as having really merited eternal life, or any good, at his hand. Comparatively, the justification of such an one would be of debt; it would indeed be in part of absolute justice to the exclusion of grace: that is, as far as it implies only approbation, and acquittance from the curse of the law. The righteous deserve not to be condemned; and there is no grace in not punishing them. But to him who is personally guilty, and is justified by faith, in the righteousness of another, and in him who justifieth the ungodly, the whole is of grace. The apostle's reasoning evidently supposes that the righteousness of Christ doth not become to all intents and purposes the believer's own righteousness. For if it did, there could be no difference, as to ground for glorying, between being justified by faith and by works; and one would be just as much of debt as the other: nor could it be true, in any sense, that God justified the ungodly. But that there is not a strict and proper imputation of Christ's righteousness to the believer-such an imputation as implies an actual transfer of merit, is plain from the whole tenor of the scriptures, as far as they have any relation to this subject. It is evident from all that is said of the chastisements of believers, of their confessions, and of the remission of their sins. Were they as righteous as Christ was-had they, in any way, a perfect righteousness, properly their own, they would have no sins to confess; they would deserve no punishment, and need no pardon. The truth is, our ill desert is not taken away by the atonement of Christ. That can never be taken away. Nor doth the obedi