"Pour out thy wrath upon the heathen that have not known thee, and upon the kingdoms that have not called upon thy name." More passages might be quoted, and more things said upon this head, but it is needless to enlarge. The will of God respecting the state of the heathen, seems to be clearly and fully revealed in his word. He represents them as sinful, guilty creatures, and as such declares that they shall perish. And there is nothing to be alleged against this sovereign determination of the Judge of all the earth. He has brought them into being, and made them capable of choosing good or evil; but they have chosen evil rather than good, and therefore he may give them their reward, even everlasting destruction.

IMPROVEMENT.

1. If men may be under moral obligation without law; then Adam might have sinned and fallen without eating of the forbidden fruit.

But his

Many have supposed that the law given to Adam on that point contained the whole of his duty, and that there was no other way of sinning, but by transgressing that law. moral obligation was far more extensive than the bare prohibition of eating of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. His moral obligation extended to everything right in the nature of things; and had he violated his moral obligation in a single point, he would have sinned, and deserved to perish forever. God's forbidding him to do one thing, did not give him license to do whatever else he pleased. When a parent tells a child not to go near the well, this does not give him leave to run into the fire. Though God allowed Adam to eat the fruit of every tree in the garden, and to exercise dominion over all the lower creation, yet if he had eaten of the fruit of any tree in the garden to excess, or wantonly injured or abused one of the animals committed to his care and disposal, he would have violated moral obligation, forfeited all the blessings of Paradise, and deserved that death which is the proper wages of sin. Though he was without all law but one, yet if he had violated that moral obligation which every moral agent is under, he would have been guilty of sin, and deserved to perish without law. His eating of the forbidden fruit was a violation of his moral obligation to obey his Maker. The violation of any moral obligation is a sin; and, every sin deserves endless punishment. Hence it is easy to determine with certainty what kind of death was threatened to Adam for his first transgression. It

was certainly that kind of death which is a punishment, and that punishment which every sin deserves. There is no ground to suppose that the death threatened was mere annihilation, or ceasing to exist, which is no punishment; nor that it was mere spiritual death, which is no punishment; nor mere natural death, which was not equal to his guilt or ill-desert; but it must have been eternal death, or everlasting punishment, which is the proper wages of sin, and which will be inflicted upon his finally impenitent posterity at the last day.

2. If the heathen can sin without law, then it is easy to see how all the posterity of Adam became sinners without law.

It appears from scripture, observation, and experience, that all mankind are actually sinners. There is no man that liveth and sinneth not. Both Jews and Gentiles are all under sin; and "if we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. All the children of Adam, without a single exception, are actually sinners. But how have all the posterity of Adam actually become sinners? It is certain that they have not become sinners by breaking that law which was given to their father in the state of innocence; for they were never under that law. It is equally certain that they have not become sinners by having the guilt of their father's first sin imputed to them; for it never was imputed to them, and if it had been imputed to them, it was impossible, in the nature of things, that it should have made them sinners. The truth is, that all mankind have always become sinners without law. Cain and Abel became sinners without law; for they sinned before any law was given to them, or could be binding upon them. And all mankind from Cain to Noah, from Noah to Abraham, and from Abraham to Christ, became sinners without law; for they all sinned before any law was given to them which they could understand, and which could be binding upon them. Though the apostle allows, in the fifth of Romans, that all mankind have become sinners in consequence of Adam's first transgression, yet he points out a plain distinction between his sin and theirs. "Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned; for until the law sin was in the world; but sin is not imputed when there is no law. Nevertheless, death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression." Adam began to sin under law, or by transgressing a particular law given to him, and threatening him with death in case of disobedience. But all his posterity have always begun to sin without law, or before any law of God could bind

them to obedience. They begin to sin as soon as they become moral agents, and they become moral agents in infancy, and before they know the existence of God, or any of his precepts or prohibitions in his word. They sin first without law, and not after the similitude of Adam's first transgression. He began to sin by transgressing a known law of God, but they begin to sin without knowing any law of God whatever. This distinction between the first sin of Adam and the first sin of all his posterity, it is very necessary to understand and maintain, in order to understand and maintain some important doctrines of divine revelation.

3. If all the posterity of Adam become sinners in their infancy without law; then the atonement of Christ was absolutely necessary, in order to render it consistent with the moral character of God to pardon and save any of the human race.

Some who profess to believe the gospel, deny the necessity of Christ's atonement in order that God might consistently forgive and save sinners. They suppose that if transgressors repent, they themselves make a complete atonement for their sins, upon the sole ground of which God can and does forgive and save them from all future punishment. Some, who allow that Christ did suffer and die to make a universal atonement for the sins of the whole world, yet suppose that God might, if he had pleased, have saved sinners from the wrath to come, in some other way than by the vicarious death of the Son of his love. But upon this supposition, the atonement of Christ was rather expedient, than absolutely necessary. It appears, however, from both scripture and fact, that there was no other person in the universe but Jesus Christ, who possessed every divine perfection, that could make such an atonement for the guilty world as to render it consistent with the moral character of God to pardon and save any of the sinful race of Adam. The reason why God was willing to give his Son to die, the just for the unjust, was, because he saw no other possible way of saving sinners from that everlasting ruin which they justly deserved. This was plainly Christ's meaning when he said, "God so loved the world, that he gave his only-begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life." The reason why Christ was willing to suffer and die on the cross to make atonement for sin, was, because he saw no other possible way to save sinners from future and endless destruction. It is very evident, therefore, that the atonement of Christ was not merely expedient, but absolutely necessary, in order that God might consistently save those who have sinned without law, and deserved to perish without law.

All the posterity of Adam are in this perishing condition; for they have all sinned without law in their infancy, by the violation of moral obligation, which is a sin that deserves everlasting punishment. God is under the same moral obligation to punish those who have sinned without law, as to punish those who have sinned under law. It was, therefore, absolutely necessary that Christ by his death on the cross should make a complete and universal atonement for sin, in order to render it consistent with the moral character of God to pardon and save either Jews or Gentiles, or any one of the human race. Hence says the apostle, "Without shedding of blood is no remission." And speaking of himself and other believers he says, " Being justified freely by his grace, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus; whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation, through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins--that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus." If God had given no law to Adam in Paradise, and if he had violated any moral obligation without law, he would have deserved to perish without law, and God could not consistently with his moral character have forgiven and saved him from eternal death, the proper wages of sin. The necessity of Christ's atonement was founded in the nature of sin, which deserves eternal punishment. God could not have forgiven sin, without a full expression of his perfect hatred of it, consistently with his pure holiness and inflexible justice; or he could not have been just to himself, and yet pardon and justify the penitent believer. The necessity of Christ's atonement was on God's account, and not on the account of sinners. And it was necessary on God's account, not merely to render it consistent with his veracity, but more especially with his justice, to pardon the transgressors of any law which threatened eternal death to the disobedient. Many suppose the atonement of Christ was principally, if not solely necessary, in order to render it consistent with the veracity of God to forgive sinners, after he had threatened in his law to punish them with eternal death. God never pledges his veracity to inflict the penalty of any law upon the transgressors of it. He might have forgiven Adam and all his posterity without an atonement, consistently with his veracity and the penalty of his law, but not consistently with his justice. Christ did not, therefore, suffer and die on the cross merely to honor any divine law, but to maintain the moral rectitude of God, and display his holy and inflexible justice in forgiving and saving those who sinned without law and under law, and deserved to perish without law. This is the only solid ground, upon

C

which the absolute necessity of Christ's atonement in order to the salvation of sinners, can be maintained.

4. If all mankind begin to sin without law, as we have seen; then their moral obligation to do right, and to avoid doing wrong, is primarily founded in the nature of things, and not upon any law which God has ever given them. Many imagine that all moral obligation is founded in the moral law; but the truth is, all moral law is founded in the nature of things, or in the relation which God bears to his creatures, and which they bear to him and to one another. It is true, God has given both positive and moral laws to some of mankind, and they are binding upon all those to whom they are given, because they are founded in the nature of things, and not merely because they are sanctioned by his divine authority. Mere moral obligation has no precepts nor prohibitions, and therefore is not clothed with the authority of any being in the universe; but all the positive and moral laws of God contain both precepts and prohibitions, which are sanctioned by divine authority, which creates an obligation to duty, that is distinct from the obligations founded in the nature of things. Without seeing this wide distinction between law and moral obligation, it is difficult to see the absolute necessity of a universal atonement for sin, in order to open the door for the salvation of both Jews and Gentiles, or those who have sinned in the law and those who have sinned without law. Accordingly we find that those who deny the universal atonement of Christ, equally deny that any moral obligation is founded in the nature of things, and maintain that all moral obligation is founded in the law of God. They say that whatever God commands is right merely because he commands it; and whatever he forbids is wrong merely because he has forbidden it. Now it is easy to see that on this supposition there was no necessity of Christ's dying for all mankind, but only for those who have broken some known law of God. Hence we must conclude that the atonement of Christ has been, for nearly six thousand years past, extremely limited ; for very few of mankind in this long period have broken any known law of God. But if we allow that those who maintain that all moral obligation is founded on the law of God, and that Christ died only for them who have broken his known law, are consistent with themselves; yet we cannot allow any to be consistent with themselves, who believe that a universal atonement was necessary to maintain the truth, justice, dignity and importance of the divine law. Most who have written in favor of the universal atonement of Christ, have argued the necessity of it principally, if not solely, on the ground of the divine law.