suffering for the sins of the world; but only, that the subject is not treated so copiously, nor placed in so clear a light, as it would have been, were it a truth so important as Christians have generally believed.

The fact is, that our Lord did teach the doctrine of his atonement; and his instructions on this subject seem liable to no charge of peculiar obscurity, as will appear from the following passages: I am the good shepherd: the good shepherd giveth his life for the sheep. And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me. This spake he, signifying what death he should die. The Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many.

We are, by no means, bound to show why our Lord did not mention the subject more frequently. It is enough if the doctrine were really taught by him. But no words can be inore clear on this subject, than those last quoted. In addition to this, let it be considered, that the apostles who received their commission immediately from Christ, were abundant in the use of similar language.

We are sometimes told, that this doctrine, if true, and so important, as many represent, would have been taught by the apostles when they introduced Christianity to the heathen, among the first principles.

I answer, that while the writings of the apostles so much abound in passages, representing Christ's blood, as the price of our redemption ;-representing him as a sin-offering ;-as taking away sins by the sacrifice of himself;—as dying the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God; it is preposterous to argue, that they did not believe both in the truth and importance of the doctrine of atonement, because in some short speeches, which they were called to make on peculiar emergencies, this doctrine is not distinctly taught.

But whether it did not occupy a place in their preaching, among the first principles of Christianity, is a matter which Paul himself has decided. Writing to the Corinthians, he

says: For I delivered unto you first of all, that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures. Now, we have no reason to doubt that St. Paul preached at Corinth in the same manner in which he preached at other places. The sufferings of Christ were no more important to the Corinthians than to the Ephesians, Philippians, or Colossians. We are to suppose, therefore, that the apostle delivered to them first of all, "how Christ died for our sins." Nor did any of the apostles know, better than Paul, what doctrines ought to be preached. There were the same reasons, why they should consider it a fundamental doctrine, as why he should so consider it. Can we doubt that it was so considered by Peter, who said: Ye are not redeemed from your vain conversation with corruptible things, such as silver and gold; but by the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot? Can we doubt that it was so considered by St. John, who exclaimed: Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us; and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins? And again: He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only; but for the sins of the whole world? The objection is not only destitute of weight; it does not possess plausibility.

I shall now say a few things as to the character of Him, by whom the atonement was made. Could it have been known to creatures whose intellectual powers are so feeble as ours, previously to the event, that atonement was about to be made for sin by the sufferings of an innocent person, they would, I apprehend, have been quite unable to determine any thing, as to the dignity of the person by whom these sufferings were to be endured. Yet, so far as we can judge, they would have thought it probable, that some illustrious being would be thus employed. Such an one would seem less inadequate than others to so great and extraordinary an undertaking. We cannot depend, however, on any reasonings a priori; but must form our conclusions, wholly from the declarations of Scripture.

This testimony is, that in Jesus Christ, "dwells the fulness of the Godhead bodily;" that Jesus Christ "is over all, God blessed forevermore." Of him it has been said: Thou, Lord, hast in the beginning laid the foundations of the earth, and the heavens are the work of thy hands. As it is not possible for Deity to suffer; and as our Saviour said many things of himself which can be predicated only of created nature, we are led to believe that eternal Deity and created nature were, in a mysterious manner, united in the character of Jesus Christ. Unless there had been some important reason for it, we cannot suppose that this union would have taken place. We must conclude, therefore, that such union was necessary to the great work which our Saviour accomplished.

I close this lecture with a very few remarks.

1. I desire you to reflect and to feel that the subject is of general interest. You are not to imagine, that disquisitions of this nature belong exclusively to instructors in theology. So far from it, they are of no consequence to them, unless they are so to you. There are many things, which are peculiar to men of particular ages and professions. But depravity, is what all men hold in common. Without mercy, therefore, we must all perish. If a Redeemer died for human offences, he died for you; and the divine law will be honored either by your suffering the penalty, or by your acceding to those terms, on which, through Christ Jesus, a free remission is offered.

2. The doctrine we have been discussing, is calculated to raise our ideas of the importance of man. The degrees of pleasure and pain, of which we are now susceptible, are not, indeed, inconsiderable. In what measure our capacities for either may hereafter be enlarged, we are unable to determine. But unless the whole sum of misery, or enjoyment, reserved for each human soul, were exceedingly great, we can hardly imagine that the Son of God would have been offered up as a propitiatory sacrifice.

3. Having already had occasion to observe how much the doctrine which we have been considering, tends to exalt our views

of the riches of divine grace, I shall only subjoin, that it tends no less to display the moral turpitude of sin. God, though almighty and omniscient, having a perfect knowledge of the universe, and having all means at his command, could devise no method less expensive, in which to exercise mercy. How malignant the nature of sin, if pardon could be offered on no easier terms; and with how much vigilance should we guard against that, which thus tends to spread dishonor, injury, confusion, and pain, through the empire of God!

LECTURE XXXVI.

REGENERATION.

AMONG those who believe Christianity, there is no inconsiderable discrepance of opinion as to the doctrine of regeneration. Perhaps, from this circumstance, you have been led to conclude, either that the passages, which are thought to support this doctrine, are unimportant, or that they have a meaning, so evanescent and subtile, as to elude investigation.

I am persuaded, however, that you cannot, on reflection, be wholly satisfied with this conclusion. There are questions without number, concerning medicine, philosophy, commerce, philology, and politics, which, after being severely examined, have by different men, been variously answered. No person hence infers, that these questions are of no moment. Nor can it be rationally supposed that our Saviour, when acknowledged by Nicodemus and applied to as a teacher sent from God, would have amused the applicant with some unimportant or subtile speculation; less still, that he would with much solemnity, have made a reply, which meant nothing.

There is another point of view, in which you will perceive strong reasons for coming to some conclusion on this subject. If it should be found, after sufficient scrutiny, that the doctrine. mentioned, has nothing in it of high import, you will be secured from that damp which the mention of it has, I doubt not, occasionally thrown upon your spirits. But if, on the contrary, it should appear that the opinion which has commonly prevailed on the subject, is substantially correct, and a radical change in VOL. I.

61