not be condemned for rejecting that, but for abusing or neglecting what they had actually received.

It is sometimes objected that it were unreasonable to judge the heathen on the principles of the mediation of Christ, since these principles were never known to them. This objection would suppose it unreasonable to judge them on any other principles. On what principles can they be judged? If they be judged on the principles of God's providential government over them, it will be objected that they never knew that the government under which they were, was the providence of God. If they be judged on the principles of God's right to them as their Maker and Owner, it will be objected that they did not know that God was their Maker. "He will judge them," say some, "as the God of nature;" but they do not know that he is the God of nature. The objection then, must suppose that they are excusable, that they will not be judged, and that they are not accountable to God. Against all this, examine the word of God. There you will find that the heathen are ALREADY condemned upon principles which are not known to them. The word of God now condemns their manners and actions, and we cannot doubt that this "judgment is according to the truth" of the case. Though the word of God judges them on these principles, it judges them according to what they have, and not according to what they have not. What the word of God condemns now, it will condemn in the day of judgment, and its condemnation will be pronounced by the Mediator. The Judge of the whole earth will do right, and to him, they stand or fall.

III. There cannot be a doubt that the condemnation of the rejecters of the gospel will be connected with the atonement.

That sinners will perish notwithstanding an atonement for them, is one of the most flagitious and tremendous facts in the history of evil. This fact is so awfully melancholy, and, on some theological principles, so unaccountable, that many have disputed the reality of it,

and have indeed denied that those who perish had any relation to the atonement, as their perdition would be a great dishonor to it. This strange and awful fact, then deserves an examination.

1. It is an indisputable fact that sinners perish notwithstanding an atonement made for their sin.

1. The scriptures declare plainly that Christ died for all, and yet they announce as plainly that all will not be saved. No one will dispute the melancholy fact that all will not be saved, but they dispute whether Christ has died for all. Paul, in 2 Cor. v, 14, 15, assumes the death of Christ for all as a conceded, or, indeed, as an undisputed point. It is therefore beyond a doubt, that though Christ died for all, yet all will not be saved.

2. It was foreseen and contemplated that the atonement of Christ would not have the same effects on all. It was known that Christ should be for the rising and falling of many in Israel, that he should be a stone of stumbling and a rock of offence to the world; but to the saved, the power and wisdom of God; and that the atonement would be to some the savor of life unto life, and to others the savor of death unto death. By saying that such effects were foreseen and contemplated, it is not meant that such consequences were intended and contrived, but that they were known and recognized as possible and probable. We do wrong when we deny such consequences, merely because they run athwart our theological views. These results did not thwart the theology of the inspired writers, and they ought not to thwart ours.

3. The holy scriptures avowedly suppose that there are some cases in which the death of Christ will be of no effect. In Gal. v, 2, 3, 4, Paul distinctly mentions two cases which would make the atonement of Christ unavailable and unprofitable. To any man who trusted for salvation either in outward ceremonies, or in works of law, the atonement of Christ would be of no effect; it would be to him as if Christ had never died.

Here

is no allusion that Christ had not died for such a man, but a distinct avowal that Christ had died for him in vain. Final impenitence is another case which the atonement of Christ does not reach, and, speaking with reverence, could not reach. No purposes of moral government could be secured by an atonement for final impenitence, and such an atonement would be as unreasonable and unjust as an act of pardon to persevering and persisting rebels.

4. The death of Christ for souls that perish is used as an argument against our being the occasions of their perdition. "Destroy not him with thy meat for whom Christ died." "And through thy knowledge shall thy weak brother perish, for whom Christ died?" Rom. xiv, 15. 1 Cor. viii, 11, 12. If there be meaning in "words which the Holy Ghost teacheth," these passages teach us, that souls for whom Christ died might by our wrong conduct be destroyed and perish, and that their perdition by such means is a grievous wrong, and a public injury against Christ. If it was ever the doctrine of Paul that souls for whom Christ died could never perish, these very solemn warnings and injunctions are worse than serious trifling. He speaks of "destruction" and "perishing," as results that would take place, in given cases, notwithstanding the death of Christ, and as consequences which the atonement did not, and would not prevent.

5. It is solemnly announced that all the rejecters of the atonement shall perish, notwithstanding its worth and sufficiency, Heb. ii, 2, "How shall we escape, (neglecting, or) if we neglect so great salvation?" Heb. x; 26, 27. "If we sin wilfully after that we receive the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sin," or the sacrifice for sin is no more available for us. Fallen angels cannot be charged with neglecting a salvation that was never intended for them. This great salvation, then, has some relation towards the men who perish which it never had towards fallen angels. Men perish, not by being left without a

salvation, but by neglecting the salvation provided for them in the atonement. The apostle supposes that these persons for whom the atonement was made, may reach a case in which this atonement will be no longer available to them,-they are gone beyond its reach. But were they ever within its reach? Did the atonement continue for any time available for those who have ere now perished? The apostles take this as a granted truth, and founds upon it, as on a sure foundation, a powerful and awful argument for cultivating a state of mind corresponding with the designs of the death of Christ. It is here clearly assumed that there is nothing in the provision of the great atonement to prevent the perdition of those who neglect it.

6. The fact that an atonement has been made for those who perish is employed as an argument for the infliction of sorer punishment upon those who reject it, than upon those who have not lived under its ministry, Heb. x, 29. The blood wherewith these sinners have been sanctified, that is, atoned or expiated, is the blood of Christ. Yet, notwithstanding this expiation they receive a sorer punishment for despising and rejecting it. If this blood never had expiated such sinners, to them it was an unexpiating and an unappropriated blood. If they were not atoned for by it, it is impossible to say how they can justly deserve a sorer punishment for regarding it as a blood which had done nothing for them.

On these scriptural premises it is impossible to doubt that many whom the Lord has bought will reject his redemption, and bring swift destruction upon themselves.

II. Though the perdition of the rejecters of the gospel be a grievous and a distressing fact, it reflects no dishonor on the atonement itself.

1. Such results are constantly taking place in all the other provisions of God's moral government without any dishonor on his arrangement. In providence, there are many things which appear to be, “in vain” and “of

none effect," as to a great number of mankind;-yet such failures are never regarded as a dishonor to providence; e. g providence designs health, liberty, knowledge to all mankind, yet they are "of none effect" to many. After all, the diseases, the ignorance, and the barbarousness of nations are not to be laid to the blame and dishonor of providence, for providence has made every moral arrangement to prevent them. We have already seen, in some of the previous pages, that in various constitutions and dispensations of God, there have been similar failures, as in those of Eden and Sinai. Even the economy of heaven itself failed as to some of the angels who failed to keep their first estate. It is not, therefore, unexampled or unaccountable that the dispensation of the gospel should be liable to failure; and in such failure there is no dishonor which does not belong to the whole of the divine government.

2. The word of God never ascribes the perdition of sinners to any deficiency in the provisions of the atonement. None of the hearers of the gospel perish because the atonement was not sufficient for them,―or not intended for them. Freely and sincerely and pressingly they have been besought to "receive the atonement." The grand provisions of the atonement have been clearly and distinctly exhibited to them as "the things which BELONGED to THEIR peace,” ,"—but they would not receive them.

3. The perdition of those who reject the atonement is their own personal, voluntary, and chosen act. They sin "wilfully." They voluntarily and perseveringly "reject the counsel of God against themselves." They are not influenced, constrained, or tempted by any divine attribute, by any secret decree, or by any doubtful and uncertain gospel. It is no disgrace to a Remedy that it does not cure those who persist in rejecting it. It is no dishonor to a Refuge that it does not defend those who refuse to enter it. And it is no dishonor to the atonement to be "of none effect" to those who reject its pardon, and seek to be justified by the works of the law.