claim for a reward, which results from his obedience. The atonement is "the ground of our reconciliation," but does not "contain the influence which secures reconciliation" (p. 74). The obedience of Christ claims a reward, and this reward consists in the salvation of the elect; this salvation, therefore, is secured by the meritorious obedience, and not by the atonement of Christ. "Thus it was not the same influence which atoned that ensured the acceptance of the atonement. That which atoned was the sufferings of the beloved Son inflicted by the Father's hand; that which ensured the acceptance was the merit of Christ, constituting a claim to a reward for general obedience and particularly for making expiation. The completion of the atonement and the security of its acceptance were two things." (p. 62.) Accordingly the sufferings of Christ are styled the lower ransom; and his active obedience is called the larger or higher ransom. The complete ransom consists, first, of the lower ransom, that is, the "part which the Father respected as the ground of release" from punishment, and this "was the blood and life laid down;" secondly, of the larger or higher ransom, that is, the "part which supported the claim of Christ to the souls of his elect as his reward, and this "was the giving or sanctifying of himself," the voluntary subjection of himself to the law, and the self-denials it required (see pp. 100, 101; also 81, 87, 95). The lower ransom, or the atonement secured for us a negative blessing, a possibility of pardon; but the higher ransom, or the obedience of Christ secured for us a positive blessing, the gift of the Spirit, and the eternal reward of faith. This distinction explains the remark so often reiterated by Dr. Griffin, that "the atonement is that which changes the relations of moral agents in reference to a release from the curse, and not that which procures the positive gift of the spirit to passive recipients" (p. 81), and that "the gift of faith to the elect was Christ's reward, conferred for the merit of his obedience unto death, that is, for making atonement" (p. 89), and that both the negative and the positive blessing, that all the blessings of the present and of fu

ture life, emanate from the whole work, including the obedience and the atonement of Christ (see pp. 13, 20, 29, 58, 59, 64, 66, 69, 79, 80, 89, 104, 192, 193). The most comprehensive view which Dr. Griffin has given of this two-fold work of the Mediator is unfolded in the following passage, and is explained by the preceding quotations :

"We have found that the atonement is the cover for sin, by which is meant that it hides, or is adapted to hide sin so from view that it will not be punished; that therefore it came in the room of punishment, and answered the same end, or was adapted to come in the room of punishment, and to answer the same end; that that end was to support the law by convincing the universe that God would punish transgression; that the means of this conviction were the sufferings of the beloved Son inflicted by the Father's hand, which therefore constituted the matter of the atonement; that when the end of punishment was thus answered, the Protector of the law was satisfied, and the legal impediments to pardon were removed; that the result of this was that the sins of believers, and of none else, were pardonable, and God could forgive them without injuring the law, but was not obliged till another influence, a promise made to the obedience of Christ, had created the bond; that atonement is distinguishable from its covenated acceptance, it being that which came from the Son and satisfied the Father, and not the security given by the Father to the Son that believers should be pardoned on that ground; that this ground on which men might be pardoned, viewed as already believing, could not be the influence which secures the gift of faith; that the atonement therefore, separate from its covenanted acceptance, was, in relation to those for whom it was made, a mere provision in the hands of the Father for moral agents, rendering it possible for him to pardon them when they should believe; and that its covenanted acceptance merely placed that provision for moral agents in the hands of Christ, by securing to him the pardon, on that ground, of all who would believe. Besides this connected chain whose links seem indissoluble, we have found that an entirely different influence, constituted not by sufferings, not by anything which answered in the room of punishment, not by anything which is the ground of pardon, but by the merit of obedience, and consisting in a claim to a reward, obtained the gift of faith for the elect. (pp. 81, 82.)

§ 12. The Atonement was designed, equally and indiscrimi

nately, for all men viewed as moral agents.

On the extent of the atonement, as on almost all the topics noticed in the preceding Sections, there are several differing theories among evangelical divines. As heretofore,

so now, we will mention only two of the conflicting views. One is, that although the atonement is sufficient for all men, it is efficient for the elect only; in no respect was it intended for the benefit of those whom God had not pre-determined to regenerate; but in all respects and exclusively was it designed for the benefit of those whom God had pre-determined to renew. According to this theory, the divine election of a certain number to be saved was antecedent, in the order of nature, to the divine purpose of making an atonement for that number, and there could have been no use, and therefore no wisdom in providing so costly a sacrifice for those who were not included in the elective plan. A second theory is, that the atonement both is, and was designed to be, a privilege for all men as moral agents; that it was intended for the benefit of the non-elect as really as of the elect; that, in the order of nature, the decree to make an atonement preceded the decree to reward a certain number of men; and thus the atonement was planned for the entire race before a part of the race were selected to become the recipients of a regenerating influence. The second of these theories was advocated by Dr. Griffin. He writes:

"What do we mean by FOR when we say that the atonement was for all? Not that it was for them considered merely as sentient; in other words, not that it was the secret purpose of God to make them all happy by the provision, through an operation on them as passive; but that it was for all as moral agents. When we say that it was for all as moral agents, we mean four things. (1.) That, in its actual influence, it changed the relations which all as moral agents sustained to the divine law. (2.) That it thus became, in relation to all who hear the Gospel, a provision for moral agents, and a real privilege. (3.) That the provision and privilege were purposely intended for all. (4.) That the atonement was expressly offered for all.” (p. 308.)

"Now a provision which thus affects all men, may be said to be for all, in the same sense as a law is for those who refuse to obey it, or as Bibles and sabbaths are for those who abuse them, or as an estate is for a prodigal son who forfeits or squanders the inheritance. It gives all a fair chance to live; a fair chance being where a blessing is so brought within the reach of an agent that he can enjoy it by doing his duty. It is to all a complete privilege ; privileges being only means of happiness which men are under obligations to improve for their good. The privilege of an atonement is as completely brought to all, as any advantage was ever brought to a man which he wick

edly threw away. It is as perfectly in their hands as any privilege was ever in the hands of a man which he failed to improve. The whole advantage of an atonement, as far as depends on God, is as much in the hands of one as another, bating the single circumstance of the gift of faith; and that has nothing to do with the subject, for we are speaking of men, not as recipients of faith, but as creatures bound to believe. It could not have been for them as moral agents in a higher sense; for if a higher sense is added, it respects them not as agents but as passive receivers, or at most as sentient." (p. 310.)

"On the question whether the atonement was equally for all, and in what sense it was not; when we speak of the secret purpose and motive of the divine mind, and speak of man as a whole, we cannot say that it was as much intended for Simon Magus as for Paul. But when we would express the proper influence and tendency of the measure itself, we must speak of men as moral agents only, and then we must pronounce it as much for one as another. Its influence upon all was equal. It removed the curse of abandonment from Simon as much as from Paul, and rendered one as pardonable on the supposition of his faith as the other. And this is all that it did for either. As a privilege it was equally designed for both by the Moral Governor, and was, in itself considered, an equal expression of benevolence to both; and when we use the popular dialect of a moral government, we must say unqualifiedly that it was designed for both alike. And certainly in the express purpose, as it appears in the public instrument, there is no discrimination, no hint of any such distinction as elect and non-elect. God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish.' This is all we mean." (p. 312.)

"That government, which he [Christ] desired and considers a reward, he exercises, not only over mere passive receivers of sanctifying impressions, (quickening whom he will,) but over a world of moral agents, offering them indiscriminately the benefits of his purchase, and commanding, inviting, promising, threatening, rewarding, and punishing, as though they were independent of the Spirit." (p. 72; see also 69, 71, 237, 238, 297, et al.)

"And now if you ask what was gained by this general provision, my answer is, it gave that glorious Sovereign who fills the public throne of the universe, not the cabinet of private decrees, who governs his subjects by motives, not by mechanical force, whose business during a state of probation is to express their duties, not their destinies, to provide privileges, not to constrain their acceptance; it gave him an opportunity to come out to this entire world with his renovated law, with new favors in his hands, with new claims to the homage and gratitude of men, with new splendors around his throne, with a sceptre dipt in blood, sure to bring more glory to himself, more confusion to his enemies, and more good to the universe. It gave him a chance to add one proof of his inflexible adherence to his law which no other circumstance could furnish, a practical declaration that transgressors should not escape though his own Son had died for them. It gave him on VOL. XV. No. 57.

14

whom devolves the task of punishing the wicked, an opportunity to prove that he does not delight in their misery, to acquit himself in a double sense of their blood, and to make this appeal through heaven, earth, and hell: 'What could have been done more to my vineyard that I have not done in it?' It gave him a chance to come into contact with subjects in a new relation, and such a relation as subjects will never again sustain to eternity,— that of creatures wading to perdition through the blood of Christ expressly shed for their redemption, and a compassionate Sovereign standing over them and urging and beseeching them to live. This exhibition of character, both human and divine, will bring an inconceivable amount of additional lustre to a throne of mercy, as well as to a tribunal of justice.” (p. 296, 297.)

§ 13. The General Atonement implies that all men as moral agents, have natural power to comply with the conditions of life.

Some believe that God has made an atonement for all men, and yet deny that all, or any men have the natural ability to accept the atonement. They admit, also, that God has pre-determined not to regenerate, and no other being has the natural power to regenerate, the non-elect. Therefore they infer and avow that in these circumstances the salvation of the non-elect is a natural impossibility. Others believe that God has made an atonement for all men, and has thus made the salvation of all men possible, but he has purposed not to regenerate the non-elect; therefore, as their salvation is not a natural impossibility, they must have the natural power to make to themselves new hearts, and thus to accept the offer of life. There are still other theories on this subject, but as our general aim has been on the topics of the preceding Sections, so it is now our aim, to mention only two of the antagonistic opinions prevalent among divines. The second of the above-named theories was adopted by President Griffin. He speaks of the atonement as 66 a grant made for the benefit of all who would believe; leaving all at liberty to share in it if they would do their duty, and becoming thus a grant for all as moral agents" (p. 70). "The merit of Christ's obedience procured eternal life and all positive good for the race at large,