The Necessity of Atonement, and the Consistency between That and Free Grace in Forgiveness

la whom we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of his grace. Ephes. i. 7.

THE doctrine of the forgiveness of sins is a capital doctrine of the gospel, and is much insisted on by the writers of the New Testament: 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 ac count of the price of redemption previously paid. How then can we be truly said to be forghcn: a v ord 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. This difficulty hath occasioned some 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, this has to me been one of the gorclian knots in that science. How far what shall now be o.Tered tov.ards a solution, ought to afford satisfaction, is submitted to the judgment of my candid auditors.

OiU’ text naturally suggests these three inquiries.

Are sinners forgiven through the redemption or atonement of Jesus Christ oniy? 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 P Let us consider these in their order.

L 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 iii. 24. “Being justified freely by his grace, through the redemption that is in Jes’js Christ.” Acts XX. 28.” To feed the church of God, which he hath pur-^

6 NECESSITY OF ATONExMENT.

chased with his own blood.” Hebrews ix. 12. ‘’By his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us.” 1 Peter i. 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. chap. ii. 24. “Vv’ho 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 yc were healed.” Isaiah liii. 4, 5, 6. “He hath borne our griefs, and carried our sonows — he was wounded for our transgressions, he Aas bruised for our iniquhies, 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 ail.” Ibid. V. 10, 11, 12. “Yet it pleased the Lord to bruiee him; he hath put him lo grief; when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed. He shall hear their iniquities. And he bare tl:e sins of manv.”

The scriptures also teach the absohite 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. v. 7. Eph. v. 2. Heb. ix. 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 1’estament teach the same truth still more directly, as Luke xxiv. 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 gle)ry?”

verse 46. ‘’ Thus it behoved Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead the third day.” Romans iii. 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 who belie veth in Jesus.” It seems that God could not have been just in justifying the believer, had not Christ been made a propitiation. John iii. 14, 15. “As Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, so must the Son of man be lifted up.” Heb. ix. 22. “Without shedding of blood is no remission.” 1 Cor. iii. 11. “Other foundation can no man lay, than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ.” Acts iv. 12. “Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is no 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 wase 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 chief among ten thousand and altogether lovely, if there had not been the most urgent necessity. Especially as this m.ost excellent Son so earnestly prayed to the Father, to exempt him from death. Mat. xx. 39. ‘’ O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me! Nevertheless not as I will, but as thou uilt.” The Son himself hath told us, John xi. 42. “That the Father heareth him always:”

Keep reading