Page images
PDF
EPUB

But says Paul, "justification is of faith, ly and correctly speaking, he is not that it might be by grace"-and if it is punished because he is guilty--though pardon, we see it is grace from begin- it is in consequence of guilt, for it is ning to end—and if it is grace, it can- impossible that there should be punnot be a purchase; but must be a free ishment without guilt. Nor is the reagift, and thus saith the scripture. [See son of punishing, both these considerRom. v. 15, 16: 17, 18, vi, 23. viii. 32.]ations, guilt and government united; To corroborate this, let us look at our but in consideration of government idea of punishment, its design, the rea- solely. For it is guilt that directs son for punishing. The general idea where it should be inflicted to obtain of punishment, I believe, is not that it its object. Guilt fastens it on the crimis inflicted, because a person is guilty; inal, and not on another. The law of but that some good may result, either punishment says, I punish you, because by preventing the repetition of crime, you are guilty; but I punish, that my or by preserving the honor and charac-integrity may not be tarnished, and the ter of the injured government. For as designs of my institution be frustrated. the object of government is happiness, And it is upon this idea of punishment if the execution of its laws has no ten-that the principle of commutation is dency to this grand object, to punish founded. For if a man must be puncan be nothing but to promote misery, ished, because he is guilty, there could Then if a man is punished because he be no change of persons, for change is guilty, he is not punished for any the persons, and you are punishing the other reason, and therefore it can be innocent; as that which placed the nothing but adding evil to evil. But other under obligation to punishif he is punished to prevent the repe-ment, can never become his: therefore tition of crime, or to maintain the hon- punish a substitute, and you go right or and character of government, or against the supposition, that the guilboth together, is the reason, then strict- ty is punished, because he is guiland undoubtedly with truth, that "there the authority of the divine law, and the digcan be no obligatio ad pœnam,' obligation||nity and consistency of the divine governto punishment, where there is not dignitas ment, is equivalent to the punishment of pœnæ," desert, worthiness of punishment. If sinners, according to the literal threatenthe Latins had any words to express blame, ing of the divine law."* As the Saviour desert of evil, criminality, they were digni- was a lamb without spot, knew no sin, his tas pane. But to confirm this, he says, nor ours, I humbly conclude that he was same page, "Reatus culpæ is nothing but set forth, not to undergo the punishment of dignitas pane propter culpam.” And where sin; but to be a propitiation to declare there is not this reatus culpa, there can be the righteousness of God, that he might be no pana, punishment properly so called, just, and the justifier of him that believeth So therefore, there can be no punishment in Jesus; that is, just when he pardons the nor reatus pana, the guilt of it, but where sinner, and accepts him graciously. Much there is reatus culpa, or sin considered with the Saviour did do and suffer to bring us its guilt." Therefore, as Christ had our unto God; and "much." I believe, as Dr. reatus pana, obnoxiousness to punishment Owen says, page 288, "the Saviour might according to one part of the first of these do and suffer on the occasion of sin, if guilt last extracts, he had also more, dignitus was not imputed unto him;" although there pana, our reatus culpa, criminality, (very are those that say, if Christ suffered withdifferent from innocence) which is against out having the guilt of sin upon him, there another part of that same extract. I there is not a greater act of injustice in all God's fore humbly believe that, as it was impos-universe, than God himself is guilty of, in sible for Christ to have our criminality, permitting an innocent being to suffer." dignitas pana, he did not have our obligation to punishment, obligatio ad pœnam, and

[ocr errors]

*See Selections on the Atonement, therefore he did not suffer "punishment, the three last discourses by the Rev. J. properly so called;" but he made an atone

ment-and "the very idea of an atonement Edwards, D. D.; also Fuller, his gosor satisfaction for sin, is, that it is "some-pel its own witness, Part H. and his esthing which, to the purposes of supporting says, also Wardlaw on the Socin. Con.

ty.[e] But if you punish for the good does and can forgive sin, where was of government, and wisdom and good- the necessity of an atonement? Here ness, say it is best for government to you perceive it is assumed that atonevindicate its honor, if possible, in some ment takes away sin, [guilt of sin,] other way than punishing the crimin-whereas it is made, that pardoning al, substitution is a way by which may not be sin. The answer theregovernment can preserve its integrity fore is, that atonement is made that sin and promote the best good. may be pardoned-to remove the obHere then we see, that, as punish-ligation to punish—that obligation bindment in the government of God is e- ing on the lawgiver to inflict the penalternal, and so not to prevent the repe- ty of the law-and not that obligation tition of crime, but for the honor of this which binds the offender to the endugovernment, there is an obstacle to the rance of this penalty. This one, parpardon of sin as insuperably great, as don removes; atonement, the other. this government is glorious, viz. its That atonement does not remove both, honor, and the integrity and character is evident from two facts-Ist. There of the Governor. And here we have is such a thing as pardon in the Bible; the definite object of the great propi- and 2d. There could not be such a tiatory sacrifice, the Mediation of the thing, if it did [remove both.] Son of God, viz. the preservation of the honor and integrity of God's government, when it lets the criminal go free, of the character of God when he stretches forth to the condemned sinner the sceptre of mercy.

Here we have an answer to a question that has often been made, and often perplexed the pious mind; viz. if God is a pardoning God,

2d. I infer the fallacy of that theory of redemption, which views our sins as debts, and says the Saviour pays them. This theory, reason as much as its sup porters may, excludes pardon entirely; unless that is pardon which lets the debtor go when his debt is paid-and who ever called this pardon in any such transaction of human life? If our sins are debts and the Saviour pays them, we are released of course, and [e]Let me not be understood to say, that our justification before God, will be so he who is guilty, who has become a crimi- far from being any thing like pardon nal, does not deserve punishment; but that and gracious acceptance, that we can he is not punished merely because he de- stand in his presence, and claim all the serves it. For the fact, that punishment freedom those have a right to who does not always follow the desert of it, have discharged their debts, and in this when proved, proves that desert is not the reason for punishing. Desert respects dis- case it will be nothing less than the libtributive justice; and this, while it sanc-erty of the sons of God; and all this, tions the act of treating a person according the will of the creditor notwithstanding. to his deserts, does not forbid favors to be But this is not Bible. The will of our shown to him who deserves evil. It is an- creditor (as this theory styles our God) other principle which determines this. It is another principle which directs punishis concerned. It is by his will we are ment to be inflicted, or pardon granted. sanctified. We become sons of God If the general good, public justice, de- by adoption-we are brought into this mands that punishment be inflicted, it for-liberty-we do not get it by claim.— bids the dispensation of any favours which God would prevent the good that is sought in "I will have mercy upon punishing; but if it does not require punwhom I will have mercy, and whom ishment, then the highest desert of evil will he will he hardeneth." Besides, if not prevent the dispensation of the great- our sins were like debts, where was est favors. Therefore as pardon is not the necessity of Christ's coming into granted to the criminal because it is his this world, and suffering as he did ?— just due, so neither is punishment inflicted on a criminal, because it is his just due. For who ever disputed that man had Both are dispensed on the same principle a right to burn his note, and let his public justice. debtor go free; or will it be said that

says,

God has not a right that man has ? || position under which this dilemma is Does God delight in mercy, and yet made is true, the doctrine is inevitable. must receive the full amount of his But here is the error-the supposition dues? especially when giving will not is mistaken, viz. that Christ died to impoverish him, nor withholding make cancel [g] sins. This is not Bible.rich. No, it is not so. Socinus said, Himself says his blood is shed for the our sins are debts-God is our Credi-remission of sin-not for sin itself; but tor-He has a right to give up his that it might be pardoned, and God claims, if he please-we cannot pay-still be just; that God might forgive He delights in mercy-has declared iniquity; not to take away iniquity and himself merciful and gracious-There- leave man not subject to the penalty fore he remits them-therefore no of the law; but that the claims of the need of a surety-therefore no Sav-law may be remitted; that God may iour therefore Christ is not the Son pardon the offender, accept him graof God-therefore he was a mere man ciously and love him freely. --and, being a very good man, fell a martyr to the integrity of his principles. [f]

And now will any one say this is doing little, this is ascribing little to our Saviour? Is it not ascribing all—our And Dr. Owen reasoning against salvation with all its blessings, and the Socinus, (I learn this from Dr. Fuller,) preservation of the honor and glory of distinguishes between right as it res-God and his righteousness; that glory pects government, and right as it respects debt, and says the latter may be given up without a satisfaction, but not the former; & adds, our sins are called debts, not properly but metaphorically.

2d. I infer the fallacy of that dilemma which is ascribed to Dr. Owen, viz. "that Christ died for all the sins of all men, or for some of the sins of all men, or for all the sins of some men.

of his God which is dearer to the Christian than his own existence-is this little? the full fruition and eternal participation by God's children, of the joys of beholding this glory-the glory of that God whose name Jesus's death did glorify?

Is this little ?

LETTERS.

The two first not being true, the last New-York, 12th March, 1816. is established of course---admit the To Mr. LORING D. D. DEWEYpremises--therefore the doctrine of SIR-It is matter of grief to us, that limited atonement. And if the sup-any of our pupils, whom we have been [ƒ] This, I believe, is a just representa-plan of redemption, and every other exertion of the ground on which Socinus found- cise of grace on the part of God, except the ed his heresy. He, it is known, upon the single particular of admitting a suretyprinciple that our sins are like debts, re- which, in human concerns, is not usually jects completely the satisfaction of atone-considered a very great favour granted by ment, and runs into the absurdity that sin the creditor; and gives a perfect claim to is a small evil, and that God exercises mer-eternal life, to all those for whom the Savcy without regard to the justice of his gov-iour was surety. I have given this concise, ernment. Others, taking the same principle for a basis, but denying that these debts can be given up without a satisfaction, have made the satisfaction, instead of an atonement, which is the substitute for the punishment that is due for sin, to be, as to the church, the complete and literal punishment of her sins; and a provision of superabounding righteousness, which will supply the deficiency that is incurred while the Church fails to perform perfect obediWhile Socinus makes no provision for the honor of God, when he restores the rebel, this last excludes pardon from the

ence.

and, I believe, true representation of these
two schemes, because those who condemn
me for not adhering to the latter,have charg-
ed me with holding the former, or some of
its fundamental principles. The discourse, I
trust, while it shows my agreement with
multitudes who maintain a scheme differ-
ent from each of these, will show I am no
follower of Socinus, and that, instead of
embracing an error of his heresy, I, in per-
fect agreement with the greater portion of
of the Christian Church, reject altogether
the principle of considering sins as debts.
[g] See Note b.

endeavoring to lead into the knowl-a place in point of belief, with multi

edge of truth as it is in Jesus, should tudes who have been eminent workturn away from the holy command- men in the vineyard of the Lord, and ment delivered unto him. This, mis- with many who now shine, the choice guided youth, is your own case. The lights of the Church. But while it asdoctrines which you have avowed in signs me such a station, I rejoice also your discourse submitted to us, and in that the effect of this principle is conyour conversation with us relative fined. It debars me from some valuathereto, are so deeply erroneous, so ble privileges; but at the same time it radically subversive of the whole Gos- takes away these benefits, it casts me pel scheme, and so ruinous to the souls without its further control, and affords of men, that they cannot be tolerated an opportunity to embrace other adin the Seminary under our care. Itvantages. I had come within its influshall not here be so much as question-ence, little suspecting that, at this time ed, no not for an hour, whether attacks of the world, such a principle existed upon essential parts of the Redeemer's any where, without the limits of Papal work, are to be permitted in any shape, power. You will not expect me to or upon any pretence whatever. think this act deserved, nor, I hope, We are, therefore under the afflict-think me impertinent, when I say, my ing necessity of informing you, that opinion cannot sanction it as judicious, your connexion with our Seminary considering the present state of the ceases from this day. You will con- American Church. But while I thus sider the present decision as perempto- freely and ingenuously give you my ry; and not to be altered, unless it view of it, I do not hesitate to judge shall please God to give you a sounder | favorably of the motives of this action mind, and enable you to recover your-nor doubt, that the respected officers self out of the snare of the devil. That of this Seminary "verily believe they such may be your happiness is our I believe heart's desire and prayer for you. them when they say, "It is matter of grief to us," and that the "necessity," under which they were thus to act,

are doing God's service."

J. M. MASON, Principal Th. Sem. Associate Reformed Church, N. York. "J. M. MATTHEWS, Ass't, Profes-was an "afflicting" one; for repeated sor Th. Sem. A. R. C. New-York.

New-York, March 12, 1816.

To the Principal and Assistant Professors of the Theological Seminary, A.

R. C. New-York: HONOURED SIRS,

have been the reasons offered to my mind, to believe them to be the sincere followers of the Lamb, and hearty supthey lament to be obliged to separate porters of his kingdom; and therefore from such,one who professes and hopes he belongs to that blessed company. Be pleased to accept the declaration of my Your communication of dismember- cordial respect for them as such, and ment from the Theological Seminary the grateful acknowledgment of treatof the A. R. C. in New-York, received ment, favours, and instructions, that this afternoon, I cannot say was unex-have evinced them to be such. I hope pected, when I considered the stress they will be so good as to accept this laid by this Seminary upon certain con- as a small expression of the gratitude troverted points; and neither can I say I owe them, and the assurance of my I feel much alarmed for myself, when approbation of all their treatment of me, I see the same principle that expels me this last act excepted, since I have been from your Theological Seminary, if it in this Seminary. could be carried out, would cast out of But permit me, before I leave you, the Church and Ministry, multitudes as I have no way of vindicating myself, whose labors in the love of the truth en-unless I should appeal to that public large the borders of Zion-when I find which cannot be kept unacquainted

with my expulsion, to make a few re-are ready;" and to charge the failure marks upon the charge laid against of an interest in Jesus, wholly to their me, through the belief of the correct- own foolish neglect of this invitation? ness of which you have cut off my con- And is it not ruinous to say, all things nexion with this Seminary. As the are ready, but ready only for a part? refutation of that part of it which de- Where shall the others go? They canclares my doctrines to be "erroneous," not say with Peter, "To whom shall cannot be attempted in this place, I we go?-thou hast the words of etershall pass over the assertion, as asser-nal life;" for Jesus has no eternal life tion proves no fact. But with an un- for them-no salvation for them; they qualified ipse dixit, you declare them are without the possibility of escape "subversive of the whole Gospel forever, and this too, by your scheme, scheme." As you have unhesitatingly because they are the descendants of declared your opinion of my doctrines, the unhappy father of his race, who and more, in the manner of this decla- sinned perhaps thousands of years beration pronounced your views to before they had an existence. This limright, you will permit me to state to ited view of the atonement, which you mine, in relation to some of yours. shuts out even hope from those for That my doctrines are subversive of whose debts (as your scheme calls your peculiar Gospel scheme, I know; sins) there is no satisfaction made, to and that yours is the scheme which me seems most fatally "ruinous" to subverts the Gospel in many important || man, besides disparaging to the charpoints, I believe Is not the Gospel acter of our God. To bring down this good news to man without limitation?" magnificent moral transaction to the and does not your scheme make it level of a commercial bargain," is such good news only to a part, unless the a belittleing of the ways of God to men others are so richly laden with disin-as shocks my reverence for his name ; terested benevolence, as to rejoice in and says, Thy ways are as our ways.that which, while it brings to a neigh- To quote the words of a late writerbor the highest blessings, casts them (Wardlaw on the Socinian Controverinto the deeper misery? Does it not sy,) "I know not how you may feel, come declaring, that "not as the of my brethren, but my mind I own revolts fence so also the free gift, but if through from this sort of minutely calculating the offence of one many be dead, much | process on such a subject, weighing more the grace of God and the gift by out the precise quantum of suffering grace, by one man, Jesus Christ, hath due to each sin of each individual who abounded unto many?" But no, says obtains forgiveness; and thus of course your scheme, not even so much as the limiting the sufficiency of the Surety's offence is the free gift, but for a part mediation. Such views have always”. only is this grace, according to your (since I have known there were such, scheme. "Go, preach the Gospel to and this knowledge I have gained since every ereature," said He who "willeth joining this Seminary) "appeared to that all men every where should re- me utterly inconsistent with the granpent,' ," "and he that believeth shall be deur and majesty of this wonderful saved." But, says your scheme, there part of the Divine Administration.”— are creatures for whom, even if they | But I must not enlarge. Such, I beshould believe, there is no salvation. lieve, are a few of the outlines of a The charge further asserts, without a scheme, for not conforming to which, reserve, that I hold doctrines " ruinous and supporting, as I suppose, a more to the souls of men." Is it ruinous to consistent, doctrine, I am cut off from the souls of men, to hold doctrines your Seminary. Permit me to detain which make it consistent to invite all you, honored sirs, a little further, and ginners, without limitation, to the Gos-pardon me for taking a stand upon pel feast, saying "come, for all things ground so near to an equality with

« PreviousContinue »