an atoning sacrifice, and as the highest act of obedience. And yet the merit of that obedience, as constituting a claim to a reward, is confounded by the writers on the other side with the atonement. And then they raise the question, whether the death of Christ obtained the gift of faith for the elect, and thus accomplished actual reconciliation. We fully acknowledge that it did, and thus the dispute ends. But when we say this, we do not make the same acknowledgment respecting the atonement. The merit of Christ's obedience "unto death" certainly obtained the gift of faith, and in union with his expiation, accom plished reconciliation for the elect; but merit made no part of the atonement."pp. 95, 96.

"We can now understand what is meant by the larger ransom. By giving himself, devoting himself to die, and actively laying down his blood, Christ obtained as firm a claim to the redemption of his elect from the bondage of sin, (and so from that of death through his expiation,) as a man could have to the release of captives, who had paid by contract a mighty ransom for their redemption; while the blood laid down, was that out of respect to which, as the honour of the law was concerned, the Father consented to their release. These two parts were sufficient to constitute a complete AUTO. A ransom has two influences; it supports the claim of the redeemer, and it is that out of respect to which the holder of the captives lets them go. Let the ransom of Christ possess this double influence, and it comprehends in its matter all that was active and passive in his voluntary death, and in its power, not only the whole efficiency of the atonement, but his entire claim to that reward which consisted in the release of the captives from both parts of their bondage, or his perfect right to sanctify and lead them forth from punishment. The part of the ransom which supported his claim, was the giving or sanctifying of himself, as it is expressed four times in the above quotations; but the part which the Father respected as the ground of the release, was the blood and life laid down. Thus he actively gare bimself for us that he might redeem us from all iniquity,' but 'redeemed us from the curse of the law [by] being made, [passively,] a curse for us.

"The lower ransom was the blood of Christ laid down for a moral agent, to deliver him from death if he on his part would accept the offer. I exhort--thatsupplications-be made for all men ;-for this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour, who will have all men to be saved and to come unto the knowledge of the truth for there is one God, and one Mediator between God and men, *Gal. 3, 13. Tit. 2, 14.

:

the man Christ Jesus, who gave himself a ransom, (avikupov,) for all ;t' 'Even denying the Lord that bought, (agopasana,) them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction. The latter word is the same that expresses the purchase of believers in the following passages:- Ye are bought with a price. Thou wast slain and bast redeemed us to God with thy blood.' The hundred and forty and four thousand which were redeemed from the earth.' The higher ransom then is that which ef fects deliverance from sin and death; the lower ransom is the means of deliverance, dependant for its effect on the conduct of men. The higher ransom comprehends both expiation and merit; the lower ran som is nothing but the atonement. In this lower sense redemption was as general as the means, and might be accepted or refused.§"-pp. 100, 101.

We are not satisfied that we fully understand our author in these remarks. So far as we suppose ourselves to have comprehended his meaning, there are some things, the consistency of which with other parts of his theory, we cannot discover. While he has admitted the necessity of Christ's obedience as a testimony to the excellence of the law, "to render positive good communicable in a way honorable to the law," p. 38; and while he maintains that obedience, as a testimony, did not enter into the matter of the atonement, we should have expected to find obedience as a testimony at least in the higher ransom, in the complete avrov. But we here find only expiation and merit. How then it is consistent with the honour of the law to impart positive good to sinners,through a auroy, which does not include Christ's obedience as a testimony honouring the law, is to us inexplicable. Indeed, we cannot discover any thing in what Dr. G. calls the higher ransom, to make the communication of positive good consistent with the honour of the law. If there be any thing to answer this purpose in the higher ransom, it is the merit of obedience. But merit, says Dr. G. is "obedience claiming a recompense;" and again, "ne

† 1 Tim. 2, 1-6. 12 Pet. 2, 1. § Heb. 11, 35.

claim could be created on the Father, but by a promise from him." There could therefore be no merit in Christ's obedience, nothing claiming a recompense, independently of the promise of the Father. There would indeed be that moral excellence in his obedience to which the promise was made. But then it is not the moral excellence of obedience, but the testimony of obedience, that makes it consistent with the honour of the law to confer positive good. If, therefore, the testimony of obedience, as honouring the law, does not enter into the higher ransom, we can see nothing in it, i. e. nothing in a complete vrpov according to Dr. G.'s view of it, that renders it consistent with the honour of the law to confer positive good on the transgressor of the law.

On the import of the term ransom, and kindred terms, the advocates for a limited atonement place great reliance. It is maintained that these terms are used to describe actual deliverance from sin and death, and hence, because the ransom of Christ is the means of such deliverance, it is inferred, that ransom, meaning by ransom, atonement, has an inherent and essential influence to secure actual deliverance from sin to all for whom it is paid. The premises of this argument Dr. G. seems to admit, and the conclusion also, as it respects at least the occasional import of some of the terms in question. He suppoes, however, that the inspired writers often include in their idea of a ransom more than atonement, and therefore he ascribes to it an influence to deliver from sin not as an atonement, but as including the merit of obedience. In other words, he ascribes to the Aurpov as including what he calls the higher ransom a reconciling influence.

On this part of the subject, it will be obvious to our readers from the remarks we have already made, that we differ from the author, and from those with whom he contends. The precise point is, why does the Father promise to sanctify or reconcile the

elect? Our answer is, not because the Son obtained either by his obedience or atonement per se, and independently of the promise of the Father, a right or claim to this reward; but because by his atonement he removed every obstacle created by law and justice to the sanctification and salvation of men, and because God as a benevolent Sovereign, who in view of an atonement might promise to reward the Surety or not as he pleased, was pleased from a regard to the benevolent work of Christ and to the general good of his own kingdom to make the promise.

Does our Lord then, or do his apostles use the terms Aurpov and uri

Toy to signify any thing more than that on account of which law and justice consent to the deliverance of sinners from sin and death? Does the thing denoted by these terms include an influence to secure actual deliverance? So far from it, that the only instances in which the terms are used, absolutely decide that the ransom is for all men, and of course that it includes no influence in itself to secure actual deliverance from sin.

It is not uncommon to extend the import of figurative language beyond the design of the writers; and in the present case it appears to be important to ascertain the literal meaning of the term Tpov. What then is the precise end of the payment of a literal ransom? We reply, to induce the holder of the captives to consent to their release. He is determined to retain them in captivity; and this determination is the only obstacle to their release. What purpose or end then, can a ransom answer, but to change his purpose, and thus to remove the only obstacle to their liberty? When, therefore, the holder of the captives, by actual stipulation, does consent to let them go, for the price paid, that price is a ransom. The ransom is paid and accepted be fore the offer of release is or can bemade to the captives, and of course there is a complete ransom, whether they accept or reject the offer. Be

sides, in all cases of a literal ransom, it is assumed that captives will accept of offered liberty, that they are already willing to accept it, and therefore in the nature of the case, no provision to secure their acceptance, can enter into the idea of ransom. None will affirm that the holder of the captives is obliged by accepting the ransom to confer on them the richest gifts in his possession to induce them to leave their prison. Nothing would be thought of but to obtain his consent to their emancipation. Further, should the captives be actually unwilling to come out, beyond the reach of motives, and intreaties, and persuasions, then neither men nor angels can make them willing. And surely, reasonable men in their covenants and contracts do not bind themselves to do what Omnipotence only can accomplish. Let the word then when applied to the work of Christ, be restricted by its true and literal import, and the whole effect of the Arpov which he offered was to procure the consent of the Father, that sinners may come out of their bondage if they will.

If this view of a ransom be correct, the higher meaning ascribed to it by our author and that ascribed to it by his brethren with whom he contends are plainly erroneous. At the same time, we are not disposed to deny that ransom has a more extended meaning than atonement; atonement rendering it consistent with the justice of God to deliver sinners from the curse of the law; and the ransom imply ing the acceptance of the atonement, with the consent or promise of the Father, that all who believe shall be actually delivered. But in this there is nothing to secure the gift of faith. But it is said that the kindred words λυτρού, λυτρωτές, απολυτρωσις, include actual deliverance from sin and death, by the intervention (auTp8) of a ransom. This may be admitted; and the question will still remain whether (Aour paris) an actual deliverance is the necessary and inseparable consequence of the pay

ment of a (avtpov) ransom, or whether it is simply a deliverance by means of a ransom.

We are confident that the correspondence of the terms, requires us to attach no other meaning to the terms Auris and aλups than a deliverance by means of a λurpov.Of course the fact that there is an actual amourporis in some cases and not in all, is no proof that there is not an actual (Ava poy) ransom for all; nor that a (Avrov) ransom, necessarily implies the (auTpaTs) deliverance of all for whom it is paid.

"The corresponding verb," says Dr. G. " carries the idea to a redemption from the power of sin.”— He cites, Tit. ii, 14, and 1 Pet. i, 18-21. The remarks which we have already made, apply to the verb Aurpoa (to redeem or ransom) no less than to the substantives. Állowing therefore what Dr. G. asserts, it is still not decided whether the persons spoken of were redeemed from all iniquity, and from their vain conversation as the necessary consequence of the

pov, or only by means of, or through the aupov. The fact that the Father actually sanctifies and thus through the Aurpov, actually delivers his people from the bondage of sin, a blessing which could be given only through the ransom of Christ is no proof that the (AvTpov) ransom itself has a sanctifying influence or that it secures the sanctifying act. We cannot enter into a particular investigation of the several passages which the author has cited to show that the ransom of Christ is often spoken of as having a reconciling influence.We do not so understand them; and among other reasons which we have for this opinion, we shall mention but two. One is founded in the distinction between the meaning of a word in itself, and the meaning of phrases in which it is used. Thus to redeem from all iniquity, conveys a very different idea from the simple word, to redeem. To be bought from among men, to be bought from the earth, have a very different import

from that of the term bought in itself. In these phrases there is no proof that the term bought in itself has any other meaning than in the phrase "denying the Lord that bought them." Another reason is, and one which we consider as decisive, that we know of no instance in which the terms, necessarily comprise the idea of a reconciling influence, while in others, the idea is most unquestionably excluded.

On the question before us, as it lies between Dr. G. and his brethren, we think the plausibility of argument from the scriptures is wholly with them. Admitting, (what we cannot admit) that the work of Christ has the influence ascribed to it to secure reconciliation, it is obvious that the influence does not pertain to his obedience. In whatever sense redemption is in Christ it is most undeniably "through his blood." Nor is it at all to the author's purpose to change the negative to a positive form of expression nor to tell us that the Apostles do not "preserve all the nice classifications of systematic writers, and "often throw the subject upon the imagination and heart in rich and affecting confusion;" still the Apostles adopt no form of expression which involves the sacrifice of truth. And while we express our surprise that he should ascribe a reconciling influence to the obedience of Christ, we are more astonished that in proof of it, he should rely on those declarations in which the saints, are said to have "redemption through his blood" "to be redeemed from 'their vain conversation'-with the precious blood of Christ as of a lamb without blemish and without spot." We hope the author will not think we need his forgiveness, or that at least he will readily grant it, if we gently remind him of the influence which the love of hypothesis is apt to possess on the mind even of good

men.

In the sixth chapter, the author's object is to ascertain the meaning of righteousness as connected with

the justification of believers. By numerous quotations of scriptural passages in which the term is used he fully supports the following conclusion.

Thus it would seem that as under the tion of justification were a literal rightfirst covenant both the ground and condieousness, so under the second covenant the ground and condition of justification are figuratively called by the same name; not because they are the same thing, (for then justification would be of debt and not of grace,) but because they fill the same place in the matter of justification. righteousness means neither more nor less On the whole it seems undeniable that than that which gives a complete title to justification by grace." Of course to make one righteous through Christ, or to impute to him the righteousness of Christ, is to invest him, not with a personal claim on justice, but with a title to a free, gracious, unmerited justification through the righteousness of his Redeemer. It is to secure to him the privilege, not of being considered literally rgihteous, (for he is not, and God views things as they are,) but of being treated as righteous."-p. 110.

The object of the author in the seventh chapter is to shew that certain figurative expressions have been introduced into discussions on this subject with a literal meaning and as premises from which literal conclusions are drawn; and that this has been one of the most prolific sources of mistake.

"The expressions are such as these; that Christ purchased the Church, that he that their sins were imputed to him, that paid their debt, that he is one with them, he bore the curse of the law in their stead, that he satisfied divine justice for them, that his righteousness is imputed to them, and that they are considered righteous."-pp. 113, 114.

After justifying his charge by extracts which we think are rather unnecessarily multiplied, he proceeds in a course of decisive and powerful argumentation to redeem the pledge he had given in his introduction respecting this part of the subject. Except the inadvertence at least in some in

stances of phraseology to which we have alluded, this part of the discussion and its conclusions seem to rest