to confess that no reason of Christ's mission and death

is assignable.

Besides, if the mission, death and resurrection of Christ, and the knowledge of them, be, by divine constitution, made necessary to the salvation of sinners; this will seem to be wholly inconsistent with the fundamental principle of the system of those who deny the atonement of Christ; I mean the principle, that it is not reconcilable with the perfections of God, to refuse a pardon to any who repent. If bare repentance and reformation be the ground of pardon, doubtless all who repent, though ever so ignorant of Christ, his death and resurrection, and of the motives to repentance therein exhibited, are entitled to pardon; and if so, in what sense will the socinians say, the mission and death of Christ are necessary to pardon? Not surely as purchasing salvation, for even those who are ignorant of them; this is abhorrent to their whole system. Not as exhibiting the strongest motives to repentance; because in the case now supposed, these motives are perfectly unknown. And they will not say, it is impossible for any to repent, who are ignorant of Christ.**

Again, how is it more consistent with the divine perfections, to confine pardon and salvation to the narrow limits of those who know and are influenced by the motives to repentance, implied in the death and resur ction of Christ; than to the limits of those who repent and depend on the atonement of Christ?

"It is certainly the doctrine of reason, as well as of the Old Testament, that God is merciful to the penitent, and nothing is requisite to make men, in all situations, the objects of his favour, but such moral conduct as he has made them capable of" Priestly's Corruptions of Christianity, page 279.

It may be further inquired of those gentlemen mestioned above, whether the pardon of the penitent, be according to the divine law, or according to the gospel. If it be a constitution of the law, that every penitent be pardoned, what then is the gospel? And wherein does the grace of the latter, exceed that of the former ? Besides, is it not strange, to suppose that bare law knows any thing of repentance and of the promise of pardon on repentance? surely such a law must be a very gracious law: and a very gracious law, and a very gracious gospel, seem to be very nearly one and the same thing. It has been commonly understood that the divine law is the rule of justice. If so, and it be a provision of the law, that every penitent be acquitted from punishment; then surely there is no grace at all in the acquittal of the penitent, as the gentlemen to whom I now refer, pretend there is none on the supposition of the satisfaction of Christ.-Again, if the law secure impunity to all penitents, then all the terror or punishment which the law threatens, is either repentance itself, or that wise and wholesome discipline which is necessary to lead to repentance; these are the true and utmost curse of the law. But neither of these is any curse at all; they are at lest among the greatest blessings which can be bestowed on those who need them. But if it be granted that the bare law of God does not secure pardon to the penitent, but admits of his punishment, it will follow that the puniment of the penitent would be nothing opposed to justice.— Surely God hath not made an unjust law. It also follows, that to punish the penitent would be not at all inconsistent with the divine perfections; unless God hath made a law, which cannot in any instance be executed consistently with his own perfections.— And if the punishment of the penitent, provided no

atonement had been made, would not be inconsistent with justice, or with the perfections of God, who will say, that the pardon of the penitent, on the sole footing of an atonement, is inconsistent with either?

If neither strict justice, nor the divine law founded on justice, nor the divine perfections, without an atonement, secure pardon to all who repent, what will become of the boasted argument of the socinians, against the atonement, that God will certainly pardon and save, and that it is absurd and impious to suppose, that he will not pardon and save, all who repent?Are the socinians themselves certain, that God will not do that which eternal justice, his own law, and his own perfections allow him to do? The dilemma is this-eternal justice either requires that every penitent be pardoned in consequence of his repentance merely, or it does not. If it do require this, it follows, that pardon is an act of justice and not of grace ; : therefore let the socinians be forever silent on this head. It also follows, that repentance answers, satisfies, fulfils, the divine law, so that, in consequence of it, the law has no farther demand on the sinner. It is therefore either the complete righteousness of the law, or the complete curse of the law: for cursed is every one that continueth not in all things written in the book of the law to do them. It also follows, that sin is no moral evil. Doubtless that which deserves no punishment, or token of the divine displeasure, is no moral evil. But the utmost that justice, on this hypothesis, requires of the sinner, is repentance, which is no token of the divine displeasure, but an inestimable blessing-It also follows, that as eternal justice is no other than the eternal law of God, grace and truth, life and immortality came and were brought to light by Moses, since the law came by him; that the law

contains exceeding great and precious promises, which promises however, exceeding great and precious as they are, are no more than assurances, that we shall not be injured.-It follows in the last place that justice and grace, law and gospel are perfectly synonymous

terms.

Or if the other part of the dilemma be taken, that eternal justice does not require, that every penitent be pardoned; who knows but that God may see fit, to suffer justice, in some instances, to take place? who will say that the other divine perfections are utterly inconsistent with justice? or that wisdom, goodness and justice cannot co-exist in the same character? or that the law of God is such that it cannot be executed in any instance, consistently with the divine character?* These would be bold assertions indeed: let him who avows them, at the same time prove them. Indeed he must either prove these assertions, or own that justice requires the pardon of every penitent, and abide the consequences; or renounce the doctrine, that the divine perfections require that every penitent be pardoned, without an atonement.†

That law in which Paul delighted after the inward man; which he declares to be holy, and just, and good; to be glorious too, nay, in the abstract, glory (Rom. vii. and 2 Cor. iii) and which David pronounces to be perfect, and more desirable than gold, yea, than much fine gold: sweeter also than honey and the honey comb. Psalm xix.

†"Arguments drawn from such considerations as those of the moral government of God, the nature of things, and the general plan of revelation, will not be put off to a future time. The whole compass and force of them is within our reach, and if the mind be unbiassed, they must, I think, determine our assent:" Corruptions of Christianity, Vol. P pape 278.

SERMON II.

EPHESIANS i. 7.

In whom we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of his grace.

HAVING, in the preceding discourse, given an

answer to the two enquiries proposed concerning the necessity, and the ground of the necessity of the atonement of Christ, I proceed to the third, which is,

III. Are we, notwithstanding the redemption of Christ, forgiven freely by grace 3-That we should be forgiven wholly through the redemption of Christ, and yet by free grace, hath, as I observed, appeared to many, a grand inconsistency, or a perplexing difficulty. In discoursing on this question, I shall,

1. Mention several modes in which attempts have been made to solve this difficulty.-2. I shall suggest some considerations which may possibly lead to the true solution.

First. I am to mention several modes, in which attempts have been made, to solve this difficulty.

1. Some allow that there is no exercise of grace in the bare pardon* or justification of the sinner: that all the grace of the gospel consists in the gift of Christ; in providing an atonement; in the undertaking of Christ to make atonement, and in the actual making

*The impropriety of expression, in speaking of pardon without grace, would need an apology, were it not common in treatises on this subject. No more is intended, than that the sinner is acquitted or released, without grace.