'-a paraclete an intercessor-one who appears for the atonement of sin "with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous." It does appear to me then, that the view of the atonement which I have presented is the correct-the Scriptural one. It is a thing going on in heaven. It is the great business which Christ went there to attend to. It consists in the official presentation of his blood, (not exactly literally, but actually-in a way corresponding with the spiriuality of the place in which it is done) before the Divinity in heaven in behalf of his people.

And if this be the correct view, then it also follows that the atonement, unlike the making of sacrifice, does not consist in one sole act performed once for all, and containing merit sufficient to reach down to the end of time without exhaustion. It is constantly going on. This is a feature of the atonement which I hold as also set forth in the Scriptures.

By turning to the seventh chapter of our epistle, it will be found that Christ's priesthood is of the order of the priesthood of Melchisedec. It will be found too that one of the most striking respects in which it is like that of the patriarch is, that it is intransmissible. Christ is "a priest forever," or a priest all the time. As Melchisedec was a priest "continually," and officiated from the commencement to the close of his own peculiar dispensation; so Christ" continueth ever" from the beginning to the end of the christian economy. Now if his atonement ended with the first instance of the presentation of his blood in heaven, then his priesthood ceased. The whole thing was then done, and the priestly office of course passed away. But such the Scriptures declare was not the fact. He entered heaven as our High Priest, he is a priest now, and he will be a priest until the end of the world. Paul says (25) "he ever liveth to make intercession"-to atone " for us." And all the passages which I have already quoted on another point also hold out the idea that it is a thing continually going on. As under the Jewish system, whenever a sinner came with his offering the atonement was repeated, just so Christ's office continues in heaven; and in each new instance that a sinner repents and pleads the sacrifice of Calvary, our great and heavenly Priest holds up his blood afresh as though it had just been shed, and shed only for that individual offender. And just so the atone

ment will go on until the number of the elect is made up, and the economy of the Gospel has reached its end.

Receiving this doctrine then, and I cannot do otherwise than receive it as the Scriptural doctrine of the atonement, there are several important uses to which I will now proceed to apply it.

If Christ's priesthood is continued in heaven, and the atonement is something continually going on there, it forever settles the question whether the Savior died for all men, or merely for the select few.

It has been the plan of some in adjusting their theological systems, to raise-discuss-and settle upon questions respecting this matter, and afterwards to mould the atonement so as to fit their preconceived theories. In the prosecution of this plan, as has been abundantly proven, a borrowed meaning has been imparted to Scriptural terms-the minds of unbiased inquirers have been confused—and wrangling, and bitter, and protracted controversy have disturbed the church throughout her whole extent. Hence also we hear of the atonement being "general in its design" and "limited in its application," as if God failed to apply what he had designed. Hence also the death of Christ, and the atonement of Christ are spoken of as the same thing. And from the same source have proceeded various other anomalies, which have encumbered the truth as it is in Jesus. But by going back to the simplicity of Bible statements, and receiving the doctrine of atonement as the text presents it, we shall find no further difficulty with the inspired declaration that "Jesus by the grace of God tasted death for every man." My faith is, that Christ died for every individual member of the human family as far back as Adam, and as far forward as the last generation of his race. And I rest it on considerations like these:

1st. All men equally need a Savior. As not one has escaped the consequences of the fall, so none can be recovered from the ruin but by the help of the Divine hand. With all the various efforts that have been put forth-individual-social-civil-ecclesiastical, none have ever been able, and none ever will be able to regain the favor of insulted heaven but through the means of a Divine Mediator. All are equally helpless; and if there be provision made for the salvation of any, there can be no satisfactory reason why provision should not be made for all.

2nd. Christ can just as easily die for all men as for the few. What is to hinder him! His sacrifice can as easily be made available for millions as for tens. What occasion is there to circumscribe what is possessed of infinite merit? To say that he is not able to die for all men, is to dishonor his absolute power of selfdisposition. To say that he will not, is to dishonor his infinite goodness. Looking then at his entire ability, and those lovely perfections which the Scriptures ascribe to him, we are compelled to believe that if he died for any of earth's guilty inhabitants it is most probable that he died for all of them.

3d. The calls and offers of the Gospel made in view of the sacrifice of the Savior have no limits, other than those assigned to the habitation of man on the one hand, and the present existence of his race on the other. The last command of the ascending Savior was-" Go ye into all the world and preach the Gospel to every creature." But wherefore preach and offer salvation to all men, if Christ did not die for all men? Can we suppose the meek and compassionate Jesus capable of such tantalism? Can you think that he would fan and aggravate the sufferings of some whilst he administers eternal redemption to others who are equally guilty? Would not a procedure like this throw the entire universe into confusion? The sudden and total repeal of the law of gravitation itself would not more effectually unhinge creation. 4th. The Scriptures explicitly declare that Christ died for all. John says that he "is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only, but for the sins of the whole world." Paul says in one place that he gave himself a ransom for all." In another"We thus judge, that if one died for all, then were all dead." But what becomes of his argument if Christ died only for the few? Again he says "he died for all that they which live should not henceforth live unto themselves, but unto him which died for them, and rose again." Nor do the terms world and all refer merely to the world of believers and all christians, but to all men ; yea, even for those also who are lost, did Christ lay down his life on Calvary. Paul in 1 Cor. speaks of some perishing for whom Christ died. (viii. 11.) In Rom. (xiv. 15,) of the destruction of others for whom Christ died. And in numerous passages we find it taught by implication and by explicit declaration, that "Jesus by the

"

grace of God tasted death for every man," including saints and sinners.

But here the inquiry is presented, "if Christ died for all men, and yet all are not saved, did he not then to some extent die in vain? and would it not be derogatory to the Divine character to suppose that he would allow his Son to die in vain ?" This is a thought very frequently presented to embarrass the view of Christ's death which I am advocating. It may be well therefore to present what may be said by way of offset.

Suppose then that in a certain sense the Savior did die in vain; i. e. that millions are never made to realize its saving virtue. Would that impeach the character of Jehovah in suffering such a thing? Do we not everywhere see Divine arrangements which to our eyes seem totally in vain? "How much rain falls on eversterile sands or on barren rocks, to our eyes in vain! What floods of light are poured each day on barren wastes, or untraversed oceans, to our eyes in vain! How many flowers shed forth their fragrance in the wilderness, and 'waste their sweetness on the desert air,' to us apparently for naught! How many pearls lie useless in the ocean; how much gold and silver in the earth; how many diamonds amidst rocks to us unknown, and apparently in vain! And how much medicinal virtue is created by God each year in the vegetable world that is unknown to man, and that decays and is lost without removing any disease, and that seems to be created in vain!" But does any body think the worse of God for this? Why then should it be thought derogatory to his character should he see fit to provide supplies of grace in Jesus which nobody chooses to secure for the perishing soul?

But, my brethren, though not one single soul of the vast population of our world which has been-is now-or ever shall be should so demean itself as to find redemption through the Savior's blood, I still contend that his death would not have been in vain, or have failed to accomplish that which God designed should be effected by it. What was the design? Was it that men should be saved, or that they might be saved? Was it to render their salvation certain, or merely to render it possible? "To the law and to the testimony;" for by their decisions alone can we safely abide in this matter. In John we read from the lips of the Savior

'Barnes' Notes on 2 Cor. v. 14.

himself, "I am come that they might have life." Paul says the plan was devised and executed "that God might be just, and the justifier of him that believeth in Jesus." Consequently the purpose of God will not be defeated though never a sinner be saved. The design was to make a full salvation possible. His goodness and merey would still be abundantly and gloriously displayed. And the moral impression produced by the death of Christ, though utterly in vain as respects the actual redemption of sinners, on other portions of the universe could not have been deepened a single shade if all the world ventured on him and were saved. How then can it derogate from the character of God that he has graciously condescended to provide salvation for all men, though some are so wicked as to reject it?

But while Christ died for all men, the view of the atonement which I have presented explains the perplexing inquiry, why all are not saved. If Christ's death was his atonement, and he died for all men, then I know no stopping point this side of downright universalism. The fact is however, that the salvation of men does not depend simply on the death of the Savior, but upon something beyond this which will presently be explained. None of us need count on being saved in consideration merely of the death of the Son of God. Something more is essential. We must individu. ally covenant with him as our great High Priest.

It is a principle very clearly made out in the history of the sacerdotal office, that a sacrifice without an atonement can be of no advantage. Of what avail would it have been to the Jew to present his goat or his bullock, and to slay it in the temple, were he to stop there and neglect to engage a priest to present the atonement for him? What promise could he plead, or what right could he claim for the Divine favor? Certainly none. How then can we hope to be saved unless we by prayer and faith employ Christ to atone for our sins? His death, though it was undergone that we might have everlasting life, will not save us unless the blood which he shed be presented at our instance before the throne of God. I say at our instance. Christ officiates for none but those who employ him, and intrust their spiritual interests entirely into his hands. The sacrifice has been made--the victim has been immolated,—Christ has ascended to his father and is ready at any moment to present his blood as an atonement rich and sufficient