must be guilty of injustice in damning him. To suppose that it would be unjust, in God, to damn the sinner, evidently implies that a just and holy God hath not displeasure enough in him, for this purpose. And therefore that such a degree of displeasure could be made visible, neither in the atonement, nor in any other way. But, that such a degree of displeasure against sinners hath, in reality, no existence in the divine mind, at once destroys all notions of gospel grace, in their salvation; and that, whether they be saved through an atonement, or without it.

If such a degree of displeasure against sinners hath a real existence in the divine mind; no external evidence of its existence can, possibly, render it unjust for God to destroy the sinner. The higher the evidence of this disposition rises, the more must it appear grace in God, to pardon and save the sinner. Yea, the whole evidence we have of its being grace must arise from the sensible demonstration of the existence of this pure and holy displeasure in the mind of God. So long as we consider the divine character as the standard of perfection, we cannot believe a creature to deserve any evil which God hath not displeasure enough to bring upon him. But, the more sensible we are of the anger of God, so long as we view it to be just and righteous; the more will it appear an act of divine grace to deliver the object of it from punishment.

THE death and sufferings of Christiare a glass in which we may behold the feelings of the divine mind toward sinners; and, read an abhorrence of their characters; a displeasure against them, which eternal destruction would no more than fully express. Had we no sensible evidence of the existence of this disposi tion, in the mind of God; we could have no evidence that the salvation of sinners is of grace. And had it not been for the coming and work of Christ, we could

not have had sensible evidence of this, otherwise than in the actual destruction of sinners. Had God saved sinners without any atonement, his government would have furnished no evidence of any such aversion of the divine mind from the character of sinners. Consequently, there could not have been evidence that the salvation of sinners is of grace.

ACCORDING to this view of the matter, the atonement is so far from being inconsistent with the doctrine of grace, in the salvation of sinners, that it exceedingly illustrates it. Atonement is so far from proving that it is not an act of grace to pardon and save sinners; that, above every other consideration whatever, it shows it to be pure grace. Yea, the atonement of Christ is so far from obscuring divine grace, in the salvation of sinners; that, without this, grace could not have appeared. Had God saved sinners without doing any thing to vindicate the honor of his law, and witness his infinite hatred of iniquity; it could not have been evident that this salvation is of grace. The atonement, therefore, is so far from obscuring the lustre of divine grace, that it greatly adds to it: Yea, it is absolutely essential to the evidence of any grace whatever, in the salvation of sinners.

GOD, himself exereiseth no grace, excepting toward sinners. They, who are no sinners, cannot be the objects of grace. The divine righteousness itself is full security, for the innocent, against every evil. Grace, in God, is the bestowment of good upon those whose character he righteously abhors. Grace, therefore, ast a quality of the divine character, can be seen no farther than his righteous abhorrence of the object of it becomes visible. The glory and greatness of divine grace, can be estimated only by the detestation in which God holds the character of the object toward whom it is exercised. Therefore, by how much the

more sensible the demonstrations of divine anger are, against the character of the sinner, by so much the more conspicuous is the grace of God, in his pardon. and salvation. The clearer views we have of the displeasure of God, on one hand; the more lively apprehension shall we have of divine grace on the other.

: VIEWING the atonement, therefore, as a glass in which the righteousness of God may be seen; instead of obscuring the lustre of divine grace, in the salvation of sinners, it greatly increases it. Yea, the atonement is the only glass in which the true beauty and glory of the free, sovereign grace of God can be seen.

OBJ. "IT is a beauty in the character of the civil magistrate to pardon; and, this without any atone"ment; which may, nevertheless, be termed grace."

ANS. COULD human laws be framed with such perfection as that their penalties should express the cispleasure of the community only in cases where the public good requires it should exist; pardon could in no case be, either consistently exercised by the supreme magistrate, or appear to be of grace. Were human laws thus perfect, it would be injurious to the public to pardon, in any case whatever; and absurd to lodge a power to exercise it, in any branch of the executive authority.. Pardon, in this case, would be so far from partaking of the real nature of grace, that it would be evident injustice. For the penalties of the law could never be incurred, excepting in cases where the common good requires that a public odium should be exercised and expressed. Therefore, from the propriety of pardons in civil government, we can infer nothing concerning the propriety and beauty of pardons, in the divine. And, should we admit as the case now actually is, that it is an act of grace, in the civil magistrate to pardon without atonement; it could L

not, however, be from thence inferred that it would be grace in God, even in any instance to forgive the sinner without an atonement.

Ir the displeasure of God exist in every case wherein the penalties of the divine law threaten it; pardon without an atonement, would be so far from being an act of grace, that it would be an injury to the public: And, for this obvious reason, that the divine displeasure exists in no instances whatever, but in those wherein the good of the universe requires it should be exercised. This may certainly be concluded from the per fect and infinite regard the divine Being has for the greatest good of the universe. But, in every case wherein the universal good requires that divine displeasure should exist and be exercised; it is exceedingly evident that the same principle requires it should also be expressed. Therefore, pardon cannot consistently be bestowed without an atonement: Nor could it, without this, be an act of grace.

THESE observations give us to see the reason why the scheme of the salvation of sinners, through the atonement of Christ, is so much celebrated, in the gospel, for its consummate and unsearchable wisdom: And why a crucified Christ is represented as the power of God and the wisdom of God.(h) No wisdom, but that which is absolutely and infinitely perfect, could ever have found a way wherein the sinner could be pardoned, and yet the public good be saved: be cause God is not offended, nor hath the least disposition to punish, except in those cases wherein the public good requires that his displeasure be expressed. Could this displeasure be made to appear, and yet the public good be secured; pardon, in that case, might be consistently bestowed; and, would appear

(h) 1 Cor. i. 24.

to be a glorious act of divine grace. Nothing but the atonement of Christ effects these ends; and, nothing like this bestows such lustre and glory on divine sovereign grace.

CHAP. IX.

Sherving in what way it may be accounted for, that the sufferings of Christ should be exceedingly great.

IN order to see a possibility that the sufferings of Christ might have been very extreme, notwithstanding the absolute perfection of his moral character, we are to observe,

1. THAT the ground of happiness and misery in creatures, doth not lie merely in the mind, independ ently of all other considerations.

CERTAIN kinds, both of happiness, and of misery, are peculiar to certain particular temperaments of mind. But, susceptibility of pleasure and pain, is common to all creatures, whether good, or bad. It is not the virtuous only, who are susceptible of happiness; or, the vicious, of misery. Had this been the case, the hap piness and misery of creatures would be the measure of their moral characters, and exactly proportionate to the degrees of their virtue, or vice. Constant experience and observation prove that, as holiness and happiness are not in the nature of things necessarily connected together; neither are sin and misery. agree that Christ endured some natural evil: And, all know that sinners enjoy much natural good. Holy creatures are therefore susceptible of sufferings; and, sinful ones, of enjoyment. And, were it otherwise, there would be, neither occasion, nor room for moral government: But, virtue would always bring its own

All