ject, and so has been a real gain to theology. The atonement of Chrrst is a specific work; it relates to what he did and suffered to open a way for the salvation of sinners. Redemption is a more general work, including all that Christ has ever done, or will do, in promoting and securing the salvation of his people. The atonement is universal, as to its sufficiency. Redemption, in the full sense of the term, applies only to the elect. The work of atonement was finished, when Christ bowed his head and gave up the ghost. The work of redemption is not yet finished, nor will it be, until all the elect are gathered in.

In entering upon the discussion before us, our first inquiry is as to the necessity of an atonement. There are those who doubt this necessity. The sinner ought to come to a knowledge of his sins, and when he sees them, he ought to repent of them. He is able and is justly required to repent; and when he does repent he may be forgiven and saved. There is nothing in the way of his salvation, but his impenitence, and this difficulty he is well able to overcome. Or, if he is not able of himself to come to repentance, God surely can bring him to repentance, without first resorting to the strange expedient of offering up his own Son upon the cross.

But if the death of Christ was not needed to make an atonement for sin, it is hard to see why he should have died at all. It is agreed by all, that Christ was a perfectly holy being; of course, he could not have died for his own sins. It is agreed, too, that his death took place in the providence of God. And how are we to account for such a dispensation; how vindicate the propriety or justice of it, but upon the supposition of a needed atonement? If Christ's death was necessary to make an atonement for sin, and if, in view of such necessity, he was willing to die; then there is no difficulty. The reasons of the transaction, and the justice of it, so far as the hand of God was concerned in it, are clear; but on any other supposition, we know not what to think of such an event, or how to account for it, in consistency with the rectitude of providence. That God should bring an in

nocent man to the cross, when he had done nothing to deserve such an infliction, and had not consented to it; bring him there, like any other victim, in spite of himself, and without any indispensable necessity, either on his own account, or that of others; how are we to justify such a transaction? Who can believe it? If it is hard to conceive (as some tell us) why the just should be suffered, with his own consent, to die for the unjust; is it not vastly more difficult to see why he should be made, or suffered, to die for nothing, neither for his own sins, nor for those of the world?

The necessity of an atonement by the death of Christ is plainly and abundantly taught in the Scriptures. Our Saviour himself taught this doctrine. "The Son of man must suffer many things, and be rejected of the elders, and be killed, and after three days rise again" (Mark 8: 31). "The Son of man must be delivered into the hands of sinful men, and be crucified, and the third day rise again" (Luke 24: 7). "As Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life" (John 3: 14). "Thus it is written, and thus it behooved Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead on the third day" (Luke 24: 47). Paul reasoned with the Thessalonians out of the Scriptures, "opening and alleging that Christ must needs have suffered, and risen again from the dead" (Acts 17: 3).

Perhaps it will be said, that the necessity indicated in these passages results only from the fact, that Christ's sufferings and death had been predetermined and predicted, and the prediction must be fulfilled. But this, if it be admitted, only places the argument one step further back. For if there was no inherent necessity for Christ's sufferings and death, why were they predetermined? Why predicted? Why did it enter into the eternal purpose of God, that thus it should be?

The necessity of Christ's sufferings as a satisfaction for sin is clearly indicated in what took place in the garden of Gethsemane: "O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me!" "Abba, Father, all things are possible with

thee; take away this cup from me." And why was not the cup of suffering taken away? Why was not such a thing possible? Let those who think an atonement unnecessary answer these questions, if they can.

The necessity of an atonement in order to forgiveness is further taught in the typical atonements of the Old Testament. The sacrifice of the victim, in those days, was never intended as a means of repentance, or a substitute for it. It rather implied and required repentance. The offerer must be already penitent, else his sacrifice would not be accepted. Why then, on the ground we oppose, was the sacrifice enjoined at all? The offerer is already penitent, and penitence, we are told, is enough. Why, then, must the innocent lamb be slain, and his blood be sprinkled upon the mercy seat? Is not here conclusive proof, that mere penitence is not enough; that an expiation is demanded, that something must be done to satisfy the law and the justice of God; or not even the penitent sinner can be pardoned and saved?

We have further evidence of the same truth, in that faith is made one of the indispensable conditions of salvation. Repentance is, indeed, an indispensable condition. We must repent, in order to be forgiven. Except we repent, we all perish. And if mere repentance was enough, this ought to be the only condition. But there is also the indispensable condition of faith; faith in Christ; faith in a crucified Redeemer. "As Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up, that whosoever believeth on him should not perish, but have everlasting life." Now this requisition of faith shows conclusively, that repentance alone is not a sufficient ground of pardon. The Son of man must be lifted up. He must bleed and die upon the cross. And he must be accepted, trusted in, believed in, as an atoning sacrifice, or there is no salvation for us.

Those who flatter themselves that repentance alone is sufficient to satisfy God's justice, as a moral governor, would do well to apply their theory to another kind of justice; viz., commutative or commercial justice, that which regulates the VOL. XIII. No. 49.

12

dealings of man with man. A honestly owes B a sum of money, and justice requires that it should be paid. But A is very sorry that he has got into B's debt. He humbles and blames himself, and heartily repents for so doing. But do his repentings cancel the claims of justice against him, or furnish any sufficient grounds for his being released from his obligations? That would be a summary way of clearing off old debts, for the creditor to release the debtor from his obligations, so soon as he was sorry that he had contracted them. Every one can see that such a principle could not be tolerated in application to commercial justice; and why should it operate any more favorably, when applied to governmental justice? The claims of the latter are not less stringent and inviolable, certainly, than those of the former; and if the principle would work nothing but confusion in the former case, going to dissolve all the bands of commercial intercourse, how can it be shown that it would not work as disastrously, and even more so, in the latter?

The necessity of an atonement is often felt, deeply, painfully, under human governments. It was felt by king Darius, when "he set his heart on Daniel to deliver him" from the lion's den," and labored till the going-down of the sun to deliver him," but could not. Could Darius have hit upon some expedient, by which his law and government would be as much honored in delivering Daniel, as in punishing him; in other words, could he have devised and provided a sufficient atonement for Daniel, he might safely have delivered him. But as this was found to be impossible, nought remained but that Daniel must go into the den of lions.

The same necessity was felt by the elder Brutus, when his sons had conspired against the Roman commonwealth. Could a sufficient atonement have been made for them, they might have been spared; but as none could be devised, the father was obliged to pass sentence of death upon them, and to stand by and see it executed.

The necessity of an atonement is continually and sometimes painfully felt, in smaller governments. A child in a family, or a scholar in school, transgresses some established

law, and is exposed to punishment. The father or master does not wish to punish, and he sets himself to devise some way, some expedient, by which his authority can be maintained, and the infliction be spared. If any such method can be devised, it is of the nature of an atonement. But if none is possible, the infliction must follow, or the authority of the parent or master is weakened, and may be subverted.

We have borrowed these illustrations for the purpose of showing and impressing the necessity of an atonement, if sinners are to be saved under the government of God. But perhaps the strongest argument, after all, for such necessity, grows out of the fact of an atonement, as certified to us in the Scriptures. The Bible does teach, in a great variety of forms, and in the plainest terms, that Christ's death upon the cross was of an expiatory character; that he died to make an atonement for sin. Thus he is said to have been "wounded for our transgressions," and "bruised for our iniquities." He is said to have “borne our sins;" to have "purged our sins;" to have "suffered for our sins;" to have "died for our sins;" and to have "shed his blood for the remission of sins." He is said to have "redeemed us to God by his blood;" and to have "redeemed us from the curse of the law, having been made a curse for us." He "laid down his life for us." He "gave himself for us, an offering and a sacrifice to God." He" gave his life a ransom for many." He was "delivered for our offences." "He tasted death for every man." "He is the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world." There is no end to representations such as these, taken from all parts of the Bible, and teaching as plainly as words can teach anything, that the death of Christ was an offering, an expiation, an atonement for the sins of men. They teach the fact of an atonement, and, by necessary consequence, the necessity of it; for, surely, if it had not been necessary, it never had been made. God would not have sent his Son into the world, to take upon himself our nature, and die in our stead, had there been no need of such a sacrifice. He would never