one day," is of no avail. That, from these words of the apostle, "We are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus once for all," is equally unsubstantial*. The inference to be drawn from these texts is not that the sufferings of Christ, antecedent to those on the cross, are not expiatory; but only that the atonement was consummated on the cross. In consequence of this consummation all the sins of all the elect were, in one day, blotted out. The reason why the apostle, by a figure common in all languages, refers the expiation of our sins to the one offering of Christ is, that his sufferings on the cross were the last and most piercing, without which all his antecedent sufferings would have been insufficient; as the payment of the last farthing completes the liquidation of the debt, and cancels the bond. Because he was inaugurated into his mediatory office, in the thirtieth year of his age, we may not thence infer, that previously to that time, he was neither a priest nor a victim; for by the same mode of reasoning, it would follow, that before thirty years of age he was not a Mediator. That Christ was in favour with God, that he was his well-beloved Son, nay, that he was sometimes in his life glorified, does not prove that he did not then bear the divine wrath. These two are not at all incompatible with each other. Christ, viewed in himself, never ceased to be most dearly beloved of his Father, not even in his excruciating tortures on the accursed tree, though, as our surety, he bore the load of the divine wrath, and was made a curse for us. It was not necessary that the punishments which Christ underwent should be so intense, that they could admit of no alleviations by which he might be animated to encounter gloriously that dreadful conflict, which was set before him. II. We remark that in the actions and sufferings of Christ two things are to be considered-their substance and their form. They are considered, in relation to their substance, when we examine their nature and intensity. The same actions and sufferings are considered formally when they are Heb. x. 10. examined as constituting a righteousness to be sustained before the tribunal of God. In the former light the actions and sufferings are many and various. In the second view of them they are to be considered under one form only, that of producing a whole, composed of all his actions and passions-a one and perfect righteousness: Whereas one action or passion alone cannot be said to effect a full atonement, because it is necessary that a perfect obedience should be connected with it. Hence, although various degrees and acts may be remarked in the obedience of Christ, which commenced at his birth, was continued through his life, and completed at his death, yet it is unique, as to the completion of the work of salvation, and the righteousness which it accomplishes. III. We remark that there is in the obedience of Christ a twofold efficacy. The one is expiatory, that by which we are freed from those punishments, to which we were liable on account of sin. The other is a meritorious efficacy, by which through the remission of our sins, a title to eternal life and salvation, has been acquired for us. For as sin has brought upon us two evils-the loss of life, and exposure to death; so redemption must procure two benefits-liberation from death, and a title to life: or, deliverance from hell and an introduction into heaven. To this purpose various passages of scripture are pertinent; which clearly express those two benefits. "To make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in an everlasting righteousness."*"Christ hath redeemed us from the law being made a curse for us-that the blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles." "God sent forth his Son-to redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons." "We were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more being reconciled we shall be saved by his life." "That they may receive forgiveness of sins, and inheritance among them which are sanctified."|| Dan. ix. 24. § Rom. v. 10. † Gal. iii. 13, 14. + Ibid. iv. 4. These two blessings, indeed, which flow from the obedience of Christ, are indissolubly connected in the covenant of grace, so that no one who obtains the pardon of sin can fail of acquiring a right to life. These, however, must be distinguished, and not confounded as if they were one and and the same thing. It is one thing to free from death, another to introduce into life-one thing to deliver from hell, another to conduct into heaven-one thing to free from punishment, another to bestow rewards. Though it is true that no one is freed from death, who is not also made a partaker of life, yet it does not follow that a deliverance from the death which we deserve, is not to be distinguished from the acquisition of glory. There are many grades of life as well as of holiness. The possession of life does, indeed, follow liberation from death, but it is not necessary that this life should be a happy and glorious one; as liberty follows deliverance from prison, but it may be liberty without a throne and a diadem. Joseph might have been freed from prison and not set over the land of Egypt. Between death and life simply there is no medium, but between eternal death, and a life happy and glorious, there is a medium-the life of bondage in which man is now placed. The present life, in which man is bound to the performance of duty, is a state of pilgrimage, not a state of heavenly rest. While we believe it necessary to make distinctions such as these, we think it improper to enquire curiously, as some do, by what particular acts, Christ made atonement, and by what he merited life for us. Those who make these too nice distinctions, attribute the atonement to his sufferings; and the acquisition of a right to life, they attribute to his active obedience to the law. These distinctions receive no countenance from scripture, which no where distinguishes the obedience of Christ into parts, but, on the contrary, represents it as a thing unique, by which he hath done in our place every thing which the law requires of us. As Christ, by the obedience of his life, has rendered to the law what it required of us, and to which we are otherwise bound; so by this obedience he has satisfied the law, as to those de mands which it makes upon us: and hence his active obedience partakes of the nature of satisfaction. Again, as his passive obedience proceeded from unspeakable love to us, and as love is the fulfilling of the law, we cannot deny but it was meritorious, and of the nature of a price of redemption, by which a right to life has been acquired for us. Therefore, we should avoid those curious distinctions, and consider liberation from death, and our right to life as flowing from all the mediatory duties, which Christ performed during his humiliation, and all these considered as a perfect whole are called the obedience of Christ. Sin could not be expiated before the law was fulfilled, nor could a right to life be acquired, before the charges preferred against us on account of sin were blotted out. Christ merited by making atonement, and by meriting he made atonement. Unspeakable were his merits, in doing what was most difficult and arduous, for our redemption. This, his perfect obedience accomplished, and, in accomplishing it, gave the most unequivocal proof of his great love to us; by delivering himself up to his Father to die in the room of sinners: he satisfied the demands of a special law, and fulfilled the duties required by his own vocation by all the things which he performed, and which should have been of no avail to us had they not been sealed and consummated by his death. The atonement is not to be ascribed merely to the external shedding of his blood, but also, and principally, to an internal act-his spontaneous and unchangeable willingness to suffer even to the death of the cross for us. By this voluntary offering of himself, we are said to be sanctified.* It is not to be ascribed to the payment of the last farthing, but to the whole of the price of redemption, which is Christ, delivering up and subjecting himself for us. The objection which Socinus offers against this is of no force. "He says, that atonement and merit are incompatible with each other, for satisfaction or atonement is the payment of a just debt, whereas merit is effected by giving some thing not due on the score of justice." This is accu * Heb. x. 14. rate when applied to a satisfaction or payment made by a debtor in his own person, but it has no application when referred to a vicarious satisfaction, in which a surety, while making satisfaction may merit some thing, both in relation to the debtor, and the creditor:-in relation to the debtor, by paying, when under no obligation to do so, a debt for him, and thus graciously freeing him from all obligation to the creditor:-in relation to the creditor he may merit, and this especially if a covenant has been made, in which it is stipulated that upon making a specified payment, it shall be admitted not only as a satisfaction for sin, but as procuring a title to blessings not otherwise due. This is the case here, as appears from Isa. liii. 10. Heb. ix. 15. Col. i. 17, 20. and from similar passages. IV. We remark, that there are two things contained in the law. There are precepts, which prescribe duties; and sanctions, which ordain rewards to those who keep the law; and punishments to its transgressors. Man who is under the obligation of the law, may be at the same time bound both to obedience, and punishment. This, however, cannot take place in a state of primitive rectitude, but in a state of sin. Because sinful man sustains a twofold relation to God-one the relation of a creature, the other that of a sinful, and condemned creature. In regard to the former he always owes obedience to God, and can never be freed from this obligation so long as he continues a creature, no matter what situation he may be in. In respect to the latter he is obnoxious to punishment. Yet we cannot infer from this doctrine that man pays his debt twice to God. A penal debt is very different from a debt of obedience. A penal debt arises from past transgressions; a debt of obedience, from the indispensable obligation of the creature to obey the Creator, is coextensive with the whole term of its existence, and neither is, nor can be relaxed, even while the creature is suffering the punishment of its transgressions. V. We remark that there is a threefold subjection to the law-a natural, a federal and a penal subjection. The natural subjection arises from the law as a rule of holiness, and respects the creature as a creature. It is eternal and in |