his having a seed to serve him, that he should make his soul an offering for sin; that he should bear their iniquities; that he should pour out his soul unto death. In reference to this, the blood of the ancient sacrifices was called _the blood of the covenant_, while of his own, the Saviour testifies, this cup is the new testament in my blood. The blood of Christ was not shed by accident, it was not poured out at random or on a venture. No: he laid down his life by covenant. The terms of the covenant must, therefore, define the designed extent of the objects of his death. If all mankind are included in the covenant,--if the Surety of the covenant represented, in this eternal transaction, the whole human race, then the atonement of Christ must have been indefinite. But if the children of the covenant, as is admitted, are only a given specified number of the human family, then must the atonement of the Mediator be restricted to _them_. There seems no evading this inference. To give the designed objects of the Saviour's atonement a greater extension than the covenant of grace, is to nullify its character as the stipulated condition of the covenant, and to render nugatory and unavailing the consolatory address by which the heart of many an awakened sinner has been soothed. 'Behold the blood of the covenant.'"[427] Secondly, and lastly. In the Everlasting Covenant, provision was made for Covenanting under the last or present dispensation. This was practically acknowledged by believers in the apostolic age. The common fund that was raised from the contributions of the Church assembled and addressed by Peter on the day of Pentecost, was devoted by solemn vows. From what was said by that Apostle to Ananias and Sapphira his wife, this appears. "Ananias, why hath Satan filled thine heart to lie to the Holy Ghost, and to keep back part of the price of the land? While it remained, was it not thine own? and after it was sold, was it not in thine own power? Why hast thou conceived this thing in thine heart? thou hast not lied unto men, but unto God." "How is it that ye have agreed together to tempt the Spirit of the Lord?"[428] If a promise or vow to God to give up their substance had not been made, the language of reproof addressed to them would have been inapplicable. It is true, that when one lies to men, he disobeys God. But the language, "thou hast not lied unto men, but unto God," must intimate that the possession of the two individuals had been, either publicly before their brethren, or secretly, or in both ways, vowed to God. The conclusion is corroborated by the obvious consideration, that the practice of acting in this manner, although not to such an extent, was quite in accordance with that of vowing things to God under the dispensation that had then been brought to a close; and especially by the very language of Peter, "Whilst it remained, was it not thine own? and after it was sold, was it