vain conversation received by tradition from your fathers; but with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb, without blemish and without spot." But why did Christ purchase his people? Was it to make them his own property? They were his own property by the right of creation and preservation. Why then did he pay his precious blood as a price for them? It was, Peter tells us, to "redeem them from their vain conversation;" from a sinful nature, which leads to a sinful life; it was to bring them into a new and peculiar relation to himself; it was that he might, in a manner consistent with the claims of Divine justice, deliver them from all the miseries of their apostacy, and elevate them to the enjoyment of future and eternal happiness. If then they were purchased with the blood of Christ for this purpose, it will follow, that all the blessings conferred on them were bought with the same invaluable price. Accordingly we find in Holy Scripture, all these blessings exhibited in close connexion with the death of Christ, and represented as the fruits of his merits. Here by plain texts of Scripture, it might be shown that forgiveness, reconciliation, justification, sanctification, peace with God, adoption, and the eternal inheritance, were bought with the Saviour's blood. need not go into this detail. If the assertion in reference to the first and the last mentioned blessings be proved, it I will be sufficient. Relative to the first, Paul says, "In whom we have redemption through His BLOOD, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of his grace:' and in regard to the last; "And for this cause he is the Mediator of the new testament, that, by MEANS OF DEATH, for the redemption of transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the ETERNAL INHERITANCE." (Eph. i. 7. Heb. ix. 15.)

But we

Such, according to scriptural statements, is the true nature of Christ's atonement. In making it, inspired writers exhibit him as his people's substitute, charged with their sins, and bearing their punishment: and in this way, satisfying Divine justice, and purchasing for sinners, salvation with eternal glory.

THE EXTENT OF THE ATONEMENT.

If the view given of the nature of the Atonement be adopted, one can hardly go aside from the truth in regard to its extent: or if on this point, he were to differ from us, we should feel little disposition to dispute the matter with him. All he could say would be this: "Christ in a certain sense

died for others besides his chosen people;" which, on ex amination, would be found to be a mere verbal difference.

Not so the advocates of indefinite atonement. They affirm that Christ died for all and every man; and that he made atonement as much for Judas who perished, as for Peter who was saved. This we cannot believe. It militates with what we have seen to be the true nature of the Atonement.

That the value of our Lord's satisfaction is, in itself, considered infinite; sufficient, if applied, to save the whole of Adam's fallen race; and that had it been God's intention to save all mankind, our Saviour's obedience and sufferings would have been amply meritorious; and no addition to the depth of his humiliation, or to the purity of his life, or to the intensity of his agonies would have been required by Divine justice: all this we fully believe. In saving his chosen people, our Redeemer did and suffered all that would have been demanded, if the number given to Him to be redeemed, had been indefinitely increased. This conclusion follows from the nature of his work, from the infinite dignity of his person, and from the effect of the representative principle on which he acted.

Nor do we hesitate to admit, that all mankind, as well as those who live under the gospel's light, have been benefitted by the Redeemer's death. Blessings have flowed from this precious fountain of mercy to our sinful world, that would, if Christ had not died, have been withheld. But when the question is proposed, what is the extent of our Saviour's atonement? for whom did he satisfy Divine justice? in whose place did he lay down his precious life? we answer; for all to whom his atonement shall be applied; for all believers; for all who shall be saved; for all whom his Father gave him to redeem. Hear his own language; "I lay down my life for the sheep." "I pray for them; I pray not for the world, but for them which thou hast given me; for they are thine." (John x. 15; xvii. 9.) "All that the Father giveth to me shall come to me: and him that cometh unto me, I will in no wise cast out. For I came down from heaven, not to do my own will, but the will of him that sent me. And this is the Father's will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me, I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day. And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one that seeth the Son and believeth on him, may have everlasting life and I will raise him up at the last day." (John vii. 37 -40.) Had it been the intention of God to save all, and the

intention of Christ to satisfy for the sins of all, all would certainly be saved. But all will not be saved. Millions will perish in their guilt. But how could any perish, if Christ really died with the intention of saving ail, unless his purpose could be frustrated? His purpose can never be frustrated. He will do all his pleasure.

29 66

The texts adduced from Scripture that seem to militate against this statement, are easily explained. The universal terms found in them, are to be restrained in their meaning; as is necessary in many other portions of the Scriptures. For example, in these texts, the term all must be restricted; "Then went out to him Jerusalem, and all Judea, and all the region round about." And they came unto John, and said unto him, Rabbi, he that was with thee, beyond Jordan, to whom thou barest witness, behold, the same baptizeth, and all men come to him." "And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me.' 99 The term all in each of these passages does not denote absolute universality; it necessarily requires limitation. And why do we restrict the term? Because facts demand the restriction. And for a reason equally good, do we restrict the import of universal terms in those texts that are cited by our opponents. The true scriptural nature of the Atonement demands the restriction.

THE NECESSITY OF AN ATONEMENT.

The necessity of an Atonement has appeared already in the explanation of its nature. But let us look at this point more distinctly.

Impressions of the necessity of an Atonement have rested. on the human mind, in every age, and in every part of the world. The painful inquiry, "Wherewith shall I come before the Lord, and bow myself before the High God? Shall I come before Him with burnt-offerings, with calves of a year old? Will the Lord be pleased with thousands of rams, with ten thousands of rivers of oil? Shall I give my firstborn for my transgression, the fruit of my body for the sin of my soul?" has suited the feelings of convinced sinners, even in heathen lands. Hence the numerous altars erected, in all parts of the world; and hence the streams of blood that have flowed from those altars. Hence, in times of great distress, the immolation of children. Sacrifices originated in infinite wisdom; but the universal prevalence of them among heathen nations, who had lost the knowledge of their design,

resulted from strong impressions on the human mind, that a satisfaction for sin was necessary to propitiate Heaven.

The truth, that an Atonement was indispensably requisite, appears, with conclusive evidence, from the fact, that an Atonement full and perfect has been made by the Son of God in human nature. That this transcendently glorious person, so infinitely dear to his eternal Father, could have been subjected to such deep humiliation, such overwhelming shame, such agonizing pains, to the wrath of God, and to the curse of a violated law, when there was no real necessity for a satisfaction for sin, is incredible. The Saviour's unanswered prayer in the garden, that the cup might, if possible, pass from Him, was full proof, that the Father's will to save sinners could not be accomplished, unless their Surety drank the bitter cup of Divine wrath. "Without the shedding of the blood" of this great sacrifice there could be "no remission" of sin.

But whence, it may be inquired, did this necessity arise? It arose from the claims of Jehovah's perfections; which would have been dishonoured, if sinful man had been saved, without a satisfaction for sin.

The holiness of God could not permit man to be taken into favour and fellowship, without a full and public expression of Divine abhorrence of sin; to convince all intelligent beings, that God was not like sinners, but perfectly free from all moral defilement.

The justice of God demanded full satisfaction for the dishonour done by the transgressor to his law, to his government, and to his own infinite majesty. It could admit a substitute; but it could not dispense with punishment. Either man, or his surety, must bear the penalty of a violated law. In confirmation of this, we refer the reader to remarks previously made on two passages of Scripture.*

The truth of God demanded satisfaction for sin. He had sanctioned his law by a fearful penalty denounced against disobedience.

Thus his truth was concerned in the infliction of punishment. That a transfer of the penalty from the original offender to his surety, is consistent with Divine truth, God himself hath decided: and by the same convincing fact, the death of his own Son in man's stead, he has decided, that his truth could not allow sin to be pardoned, without the execution of his threatenings against sin. In justification

* See pages 13, 14.

the believer is pronounced righteous; but how could such a sentence be pronounced by the God of truth, if the justified sinner were not rendered righteous through the imputed righteousness of Christ? "Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth." "Even the righteousness of God, which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe." (Rom. x. 4.-iii. 22.)

OBJECTIONS.

Against the doctrine maintained, serious objections are urged.

1. It is pronounced unjust to punish the innocent for the guilty. So affirm the advocates of indefinite atonement.

That Christ suffered for sinners, is acknowledged by those whose system we reject. He suffered all that pain and shame that infinite wisdom and justice deemed proper to measure out to him, while accomplishing our redemption. All this he suffered for the guilty. The sufferings of our Saviour we denominate punishment; because inspired writers attribute to them this character. Now, it is perfectly plain, that, by thus denominating Christ's sufferings, we do not increase his humiliation, his pain, his sorrow, his shame, his anguish, in the smallest degree. We only call them what Paul and Isaiah called them. If, in the estimation of our opponents, it was not unjust for the Redeemer to endure overwhelming suffering for guilty men, what reason can they assign for affirming it to be unjust for him to endure the same overwhelming sufferings, as a punishment for guilty men? It has been shown, in explaining the nature of the Atonement, that Jesus Christ was charged with his people's sins; and that, on this account he did, and could justly, suffer punishment for them. Had he not been their substitute, had not their sins been imputed to him, he could not have suffered for them. So that objectors, by denying his substitution, and his being charged with sin, take away the very ground on which his sufferings can be vindicated. That death is the wages, the penalty, the punishment of sin, they cannot deny; nor can they deny that our Redeemer suffered death: and it is for them to show, how it was consistent with justice, to inflict death, "the wages of sin," on one who was not only perfectly free from personal, but perfectly free from imputed sin; to treat him as a sinner, and to make him a curse or accursed.

But this objection comes from another quarter. Infidels urge it against the truth of the Gospel. It is a weapon, how