THREE SERMONS

ON THE

NECESSITY OF THE ATONEMENT,

AND ITS CONSISTENCY WITH

FREE GRACE IN FORGIVENESS.*

SERMON I.

EPHESIANS 1:7.—In whom we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of his grace.

THE doctrine of the forgiveness of sins is a capital doctrine of the gospel. As it is much insisted on by the other writers of the New Testament; so it is above all, by the author of this epistle. In our text, he asserts that we are forgiven according to the riches of grace; not merely in the exercise of grace, as the very term forgiveness implies, but in the exercise of the riches of grace; importing that forgiveness is an act of the most free and abundant grace. Yet he also asserts that this gratuitous forgiveness is in consequence of a redemption by the blood of Christ. But how are these two parts of the proposition consistent? If we be in the literal sense forgiven in consequence of a redemption, we are forgiven on account of the price of redemption previously paid. How then can we be truly said to be forgiven; a word which implies the exercise of grace? and especially how can we be said to be forgiven according to the riches of grace? This is at least a seeming inconsistence. If our forgiveness be purchased, and the price of it be already paid, it seems to be a matter of debt, and not of grace. By this difficul

Preached before His Excellency the Governor, and a large number of both Houses of the Legislature of the State of Connecticut, during their sessions at New Haven, in October, 1785, and published by request.

ty some have been induced to reject the doctrine of Christ's redemption, satisfaction, or atonement. Others, who have not been driven to that extremity by this difficulty, yet have been exceedingly perplexed and embarrassed. Of these last, I freely confess myself to have been one. Having from my youth devoted myself to the study of theoretic and practical theology, I have regarded this as one of the GORDIAN KNOTS in that science. How far what shall now be offered towards a solution, ought to afford satisfaction, is submitted to the judgment of my candid auditors. Our text naturally suggests these three inquiries:

Are sinners forgiven through the redemption or atonement of Jesus Christ only ?-What is the reason or ground of this mode of forgiveness?—Is this mode of forgiveness consistent with grace, or according to the riches of grace? Let us consider these in their order.

I. Are we forgiven through the redemption or atonement of Jesus Christ only?

I say redemption or atonement, because, in my view, they mutually imply each other. That we are forgiven through the atonement of Christ-and can be forgiven in no other way, the scriptures very clearly teach. For evidence as to the first of these particulars, I appeal to the following passages of scripture, which are indeed but a few of the many which exhibit the same truth. First, our text itself: "In whom we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of his grace." Romans 3: 24," Being justified freely by his grace, through the redemption that is in Jesus Christ." Acts 20: 28, "To feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood." Hebrews 9: 12, " By his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us." 1 Peter 1: 18, "Forasmuch as ye know, that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold, but with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot." Ibid. 2: 24, "Who his ownself bare our sins, in his own body on the tree, that we being dead to sin, should live unto righteousness: by whose stripes ye were healed." Isa. 53: 4, 5, 6, "He hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows-He was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities, the chastisement of our peace was upon him, and with his stripes we are healed. The Lord hath laid on him the iniquity of us all." Ibid. v. 10, 11, 12, "Yet it pleased the Lord to bruise him; he hath put him to grief;-when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed He shall bear their iniquities.-And he bare the sins of many."

The scriptures also teach the absolute necessity of the atonement of Christ, and that we can obtain forgiveness and salvation through that only. The sacrifices appointed to be made by the ancient Israelites, seem evidently to point to Christ; and to show the necessity of the vicarious sacrifice of him, who is therefore said to be "our passover sacrificed for us ;" and to have "given himself for us, an offering and a sacrifice to God, for a sweet smelling savor;" and "now once in the end of the world, to have appeared, to put away sin, by the sacrifice of himself." 1 Cor. 5: 7. Eph. 5: 2. Heb. 9: 26. As the ancient Israelites could obtain pardon in no other way than by those sacrifices; this teaches us that we can obtain it only by the sacrifice of Christ.

The positive declarations of the New Testament teach the same truth still more directly-as Luke 24: 25, 26, "O fools, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken! Ought not Christ to have suffered these things, and to enter into his glory?" Verse 46, "Thus it behoved Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead the third day." Rom. 3: 25, 26, “Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness-that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus." It seems that God could not have been just in justifying the believer, had not Christ been made a propitiation. John 3: 14, 15, "As Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, so must the son of man be lifted up." Heb. 9: 22," Without shedding of blood is no remission." 1 Cor. 3: 11, "Other foundation can no man lay, than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ." Acts 4: 12, "Neither is there salvation in any other for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved."

The necessity of the death and atonement of Christ sufficiently appears by the bare event of his death. If his death were not necessary, he died in vain. But we cannot suppose that either he or his father would have consented to his death, had it not been absolutely necessary. Even a man of common wisdom and goodness, would not consent either to his own death or that of his son, but in a case of necessity, and in order to some important and valuable end. Much less can we suppose, that either Christ Jesus the Son would have consented to his own death, or that the infinitely wise and good father would have consented to the death of his only begotten and dearly beloved son, in whom his soul was well pleased, and who was full of grace and truth, the brightness of his own glory and the express image of his person, the chiefest among ten thousand and altogether lovely, if there had not been the most urgent necessity. Especially as this most ex

cellent son so earnestly prayed to the father, to exempt him from death; Matt. 20: 39, "O my father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me! Nevertheless not as I will, but as thou wilt." The son himself hath told us, John 11: 42, "That the father heareth him always;" and therefore we may be sure, that if the condition of his pathetic petition had taken place; if it had been possible, that the designs of God in the salvation of sinners should be accomplished, without the death of Christ, his prayer, in this instance, would have been answered, and he would have been exempted from death. And since he was not exempted, we have clear evidence, that his death was a matter of absolute necessity.

The necessity of the atonement of Christ, is clearly taught also by the apostle, Gal. 2: 21, "If righteousness come by law, then Christ is dead in vain." It is to no purpose to pretend that the law, in this passage, means the ceremonial law; because he tells us, chap. 3: 21, "That if there had been a law given, which could have given life, verily righteousness should have been by the law." But the moral law was a law which had been given, and since no law which had been given could give life, it follows, that forgiveness and life could not be by the moral law, any more than by the ceremonial, and that if they could, Christ is dead in vain.

II. Our next inquiry is, what is the reason or ground of this mode of forgiveness? or why is an atonement necessary in order to the pardon of the sinner?

I answer, it is necessary on the same ground and for the same reasons, as punishment would have been necessary, if there had been no atonement made. The ground of both is the same. The question then comes to this: why would it have been necessary, if no atonement had been made, that punishment should be inflicted on the transgressors of the divine law? This, I suppose, would have been necessary, to maintain the authority of the divine law. If that be not maintained, but the law fall into contempt, the contempt will fall equally on the legislator himself; his authority will be despised, and his government weakened. And as the contempt shall increase, which may be expected to increase, in proportion to the neglect of executing the law; the divine government will approach nearer and nearer to a dissolution, till at length it will be totally annihilated.

But when moral creatures are brought into existence, there must be a moral government. It cannot be reconciled with the wisdom and goodness of God to make intelligent creatures and leave them at random, without moral law and government. That there must be a moral government, is the dictate of reason from the nature of things. Besides the nature of things, we have in

the present instance fact, to assist our reasoning. God hath in fact given a moral law and established a moral government over his intelligent creatures. So that we have clear proof, that infinite wisdom and goodness judged it to be necessary, to put intelligent creatures under moral law and government. But in order to a moral law, there must be a penalty; otherwise it would be mere advice, but no law. In order to support the authority and vigor of this law, the penalty must be inflicted on transgressors. If a penalty be denounced indeed, but never inflicted; the law becomes no law, as really as if no penalty had been annexed to it. As well might no law have been made or published, as a law have been published, with the most awful penalties, and these never be inflicted. Nay, in some respects it would be much better and more reconcilable with the divine perfections. It would be more consistent, and show that the legislator was not ignorant, either of his own want of power to carry a law into effect, or of the rights of his subjects, or of the boundaries between right and wrong. But to enact a law and not execute it, implies a weakness of some kind or other; either an error of judgment, or a consciousness of a depraved design in making the law, or a want of power to carry it into effect, or some other defect. Therefore such a proceeding as this is dishonorable and contemptible; and by it, both the law and legislator not only appear in a contemptible light, but really are contemptible.

Hence, to execute the threatening of the divine law, is necessary to preserve the dignity and authority of the law, and of the author of it, and to the very existence of the divine moral government. It is no impeachment of the divine power and wisdom, to say, that it is impossible for God himself to uphold his moral government, over intelligent creatures, when once his law hath fallen into contempt. He may indeed govern them by irresistible force, as he governs the material world; but he cannot govern them by law, by rewards and punishments.

If God maintain the authority of his law, by the infliction of the penalty, it will appear, that he acts consistently in the legislative and executive parts of his government. But if he were not to inflict the penalty, he would act and appear to act, an inconsistent part, or to be inconsistent with himself. If the authority of the divine law be supported by the punishment of transgressors, it will most powerfully tend to restrain all intelligent creatures from sin. But if the authority of the law be not supported, it will rather encourage and invite to sin, than restrain from it.

For these reasons, which are indeed all implied in supporting