tice or abuse. Nor is the magistrate under any obli gation of distributive justice, or justice to the criminal himself, to accept a substitute,

It is true, that the circumstances of the case may be such, that it may be most conducive to the public good, that the offered substitute be accepted: in this case wisdom and goodness, or public justice, will require that it be accepted, and the criminal discharged.

This leads me to observe, that it hath also been said, that when Christ offered to become a substitute, and to make atonement for sinners, God was under no obligation to accept the proposal. This, I conceive, is as wide of the truth, as that he was under the same obligation to accept the proposal, as a creditor is, to accept the proposal of a third person, to pay the debt of his friend. The truth is, The glory of God and the greatest good of the moral system, did require, that Christ should become a substitute for sinners; and that his offered substitution should be accepted by God. This was dictated and recommended by both wisdom and goodness. So far therefore as wisdom and goodness could infer an obligation on the Father, to accept the substitution of his Son, he was under obligation to accept it. But this obligation was only that of the third kind of justice before explained, a regard to the general good.

This subject further teaches us, that that constitution which requires an atonement, in order to the pardon of the sinner, is nothing arbitrary. That divine constitution which is wise and good, as being necessary to the good of the moral system, is not arbitrary. But if an atonement was necessary, in order to support the authority of the divine law, and the honour, vigour and even existence of the divine moral government, while sinners are pardoned; undoubtedly that constitution

which requires an atonement, in order to the pardon of the sinner, is the dictate of wisdom and goodness, and by no means, of an arbitrary spirit.

Hence we also learn in what sense the death of Christ renders God propitious to sinners. It does so only as it supports the authority of his law and government, and renders the pardon of sinners consistent with the good of the system, and the glory of God.

Finally This subject teaches the groundlessness of that objection to the doctrine of atonement, that it represents the Deity as inexorable. If to refuse to pardon sinners unless it be in a way which is consistent with the good of the moral system, is to be inexorable; then that God will not pardon sinners without atonement, or in a way which is consistent with the authority of his law, and with the authority and even existence of his moral government; is indeed a proof, that God is inexorable. But unless it be an instance of inexorability, that God will pardon sinners, unless it be in a way which is consistent with the good of the moral system, there is no ground to object to the doctrine of atonement, that it represents the Diety as inexorable. On the other hand; that God requires an atonement in order to pardon, is an instance and proof of truly divine goodness and if he were to pardon without an atonement, it would prove, that he is destitute of goodness, and regardless, not only of his own glory, but of the true happiness of the system of his moral creatures.

Kk

UNIVERSAL REDEMPTION.

Extracted from the Christian Observer's Review of . Simeon's Skeletons of Sermons, Vol. II. page 29.

WE were rather surprised at the apparent hesitation with which Mr. Simeon speaks of the extent of our Saviour's satisfaction (page 266); since our 31st Article and our sacramental service have decided the point in such strong and unequivocal language. We think the want of a necessary distinction upon this head has produced considerable confusion. The propitiation of Christ, in its value and in its offer, is universal and illimitable; but with respect to its ultimate effect, it is confined to a certain number.

Extracted from the Christian Observer's Review of Daubeney's Vindicia Anglicane, Vol. III. page 430.

THE strong conclusion respecting the necessary Anti-calvinism of our Church, which at page 85, and in many other parts of his work, Mr. Daubeney has drawn from the assertions in our articles and liturgy on the subject of universal redemption, will hardly be found consistent with the well known fact, that many of the most learned and pious Calvinists have been amongst the most strenuous approvers and defenders of them witness the names of Sanderson and Beveridge, the former of whom composed the preface to the liturgy as it now stands, containing an unqualified commendation of its contents. The latter has been no less explicit in a sermon on the liturgy.

For a modern instance we refer the reader to that excellent work, intitled "The History of the Church of Christ." The learned and pious author would unquestionably be called a Calvinist by Mr. Daubeney. But how does Mr. Milner express himself on the subject of particular redemption? "On occasion of the controversies, Augustine was objected to, as denying that Christ died for all. But Prosper, his admirer and follower, and as strict a predestinarian as any writer in any age, maintains that Augustine held that Christ gave himself a ransom for all.' Doubtless the natural

and obvious sense of scripture is the same,* and the notion of particular redemption was unknown to the ancients, and I wish it had remained equally unknown to the moderns." What language can be more decisive? And we may add that when Dr. Haweis expressed himself" shocked that the scriptures of truth should be treated thus slightly, alluding to the above statement, the present Dean of Carlisle defended his brother by quoting the following passage-" of God our Saviour who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth, For there is one God, and one Mediator between God and man, the man Jesus Christ, who gave himself a ransom for ALL." The Dean adds, " one would think that any plain man might be allowed to infer from this scripture of truth, that Christ died for ALL, without shocking the nicest feelings."

* See particularly, 1 Tim ii.

† Vol. ii. page 445, Boston edition.

Preface to second edition of first vol. omitted in Boston edition.

THE

PECULIARITY OF REDEMPTION,

From Fuller's Gospel, worthy of all Acceptation.

IT is proper to enquire, Wherein the peculiarity of redemption consists? If the atonement of Christ were considered as the literal payment of a debt; if the measure of his sufferings were according to the number of those for whom he died, and to the degree of their guilt, in such a manner as that if more had been saved, or if those who are saved had been more guilty, his sorrows must have been proportionably encreased, it might, for aught I know, be inconsistent with indefinite invitations. But it would be equally inconsistent with the free forgiveness of sin, and with sinners being directed to apply for mercy as supplicants, rather than as claimants. I conclude, therefore, that an hypothesis which in so many important points is manifestly inconsistent with the scriptures, cannot be true.

*

On the other hand, If the atonement of Christ proceed not on the principle of commercial, but of moral justice, or justice as it relates to crime; if its grand object were to express the divine displeasure against sin, and so to render the exercise of mercy, in all the ways wherein sovereign wisdom should determine to apply it, consistent with righteousness;† if it be in itself equal to the salvation of the whole world, were the whole world to embrace it; and if the peculiarity which attends it, consist not in its insufficiency to save more than are saved, but in the sovereignty of its application, no such inconsistency can justly be ascribed to it. † Rom. iii. 25.

Rom. viii. 3.