in the writings of his holy apostles. A day of judgement, if it have any meaning at all, supposes that the final destiny of those who are to be judged, tried, or reckoned with, will be decided according to their personal conduct and behaviour, and will really depend upon it. Any other notion of a day of judgement, or final reckoning, would be treated with ridicule and contempt by the veriest savage in the wilderness. The atonement was not intended to supersede obedience to the will of God, but to make way for it to furnish the opportunity and means,

It will be urged, as an objection to the doctrine of this section, that if the atonement made by the redeemer, has opened the way only, to pardon and eternal life, without absolutely securing those blessings to any of our race, then it is possible that all might have rejected this way of salvation; and, consequently, the sufferings and death of the Saviour have been altogether defeated. In answer to this popular objection, we observe,

1. That it might have been urged with as much propriety against the creation of Adam, as it can be against his redemption. Had not redemption taken place, it is certain that our first parents must have been for ever lost; and it might have been objected, that as their creator did not absolutely secure their perseverance in well doing to the end of their day of trial, they had been created in vain, and the design of their creator absolutely

frustrated. This objection, we cannot help thinking, would have been, in every respect, of as much weight as the other. All such objections, however, are founded on a gross misconception of the nature of moral government, and of human freedom and responsibility. To suppose that God may absolutely secure the salvation of an agent, of whom it is admitted, that he may be either saved or lost, involves a palpable contradiction; for the moment we conceive his salvation to be absolutely secured, through a foreign influence, no matter by what means, in that very moment, it ceases to be possible that he may be either lost or saved: this is no longer true. To deny that he may be either lost or saved, is, at once, to deny his freedom and responsibility; and, of course, to declare that he is not a subject of moral government! It would be preposterous to talk of his being under a moral government, whilst his course is determined in one particular direction. The truth is, if scripture and facts are to be our guide, that neither from creation nor redemption, have we any proof of God's designing that men should certainly be saved; but only that they should be placed under a course of moral training, or discipline, which, if rightly improved, would ensure salvation and felicity; but if not improved, degradation and misery. We may safely conclude, therefore, that if the failing of our first parents to obtain eternal life, under the original dispensation, implied no reflection on the wisdom and goodness of the creator, nor furnished any proof of imperfection or defect in his glorious works: no objection

can be reasanably brought against the plan of redemption, on the supposition that all had failed of salvation under it.

2. If it would form an objection to our views, that all might have so despised the "goodness of God which leadeth to repentance," as to have been lost for ever, it is quite obvious, that the very same objection may be raised against the opposite views, on the ground that some despise the way of salvation and are lost. For, if the loss of all would argue a defective plan of salvation, certainly the loss of some would conduct us to the same conclusion. And, if the loss of all would prove thé Almighty to have been wanting in goodness, wisdom, or power, surely the loss of some will prove, as clearly, his want of one or all of those perfections. But in proportion to the absurdity of this conclusion, must be our conviction of the invalidity of the objection before us.

3. The objection seems to take it for granted, that the atonement could be of no value, unless it absolutely secured the salvation of those in whose behalf it was made. If this be true, it will follow, that no being can confer a favour upon another, unless he, at the same time, dispose or compel the object of such favour to receive and make a right use of it! According to this logic, a father confers no favour upon his child, when he puts him to school with a view to make him a scholar, unless, by some contrivance or other, he takes care that

214

THE DESIGN OF THE ATONEMER 2

the lad shall love his books, and make a right use of his

education all the days of his life!! Nor is it any favour, that our heavenly Father has thrown open to his creatures, the gate of mercy, and supplied them with every thing necessary to salvation, unless he also cause them to receive and make a right use of what he has set before them!!!

It will be unnecessary to pursue this objection any farther, as the reader will be satisfied already, that it does not affect the proposition which we have here undertaken to defend; nor do we believe that any other can be brought against it, but what may be shown to be equally futile and unfounded. Our blessed Lord and

Saviour undertook to open, or consecrate for us, a new and living way to the kingdom of heaven.

This he ac

We have

complished, and the way is now free. boldness to enter into the holiest by the blood [that is the sufferings and death] of Jesus.* To ensure final salvation, was what he neither did, nor ever could undertake to do, without altering, or destroying, the present constitution of man, and ceasing to exercise a moral government over him.

* Hebrews x. 19, 20.

SECTION II.

The Atonement which the Redeemer made for human transgression, was not only DESIGNED to benefit the whole human family, but does really confer upon them the benefit designed.

THE question regarding the extent of Christ's atonement, has given rise to endless controversy. A controversy which has been characterised by much learned criticism and christian moderation. And, in too many instances, much of what we will forbear to name has disgraced and tended to render contemptible the sacred cause which it was professedly intended to serve. So far as we understand the subject, the entire controversy has had its origin, with respect to both parties, in one common error. The point at which they both commence, leads each of them astray, though in different directions. is a first principle, a self-evident and unquestionable truth, with each party, that Christ made an atonement for all sin. By this, they mean, that he made a perfect satisfaction to divine justice; or, suffered the full penalty of the law, for every sin which should ever be committed by those for whom he suffered and died upon the cross. This ground is common to both-ground most tenaciously defended by each. But, from the fact that all

It