The introduction of sin into the world created the necessity of punishment. But if God had not decreed the salvation of sinners, there would have been no necessity for an atonement. The election of grace, therefore, rendered it necessary that an adequate atonement should be made for our sins; and provided the Saviour, who alone was competent to accomplish the awful and glorious undertaking.

The salvation of fallen angels was not decreed. There is, therefore, no sacrifice offered for them. Jesus took not on him the nature of angels. The glory of God is maintained sufficiently in their condemnation to endless punishment.

Justice requires no more than the infinite punishment of that class of fallen men who have no interest in the redemption purchased by Christ. And if there was no intention on the part of God to save any of the human family,' there would have been no necessity whatever for any other display of the glory of his justice than what appears in the flames of hell.

Other ends, besides the salvation of the elect, are indeed answered by the atonement.. That these ends, however, did not render the sufferings of Christ necessary, appears abundantly from the consideration, that they all depend upon the salvation of believers. God is glorified in the redemption of Jesus Christ; but this end of the atonement is inseparably connected with the salvation of his people. It is their salvation in this method that displays the glory of Jehovah. Sinners are left without excuse by the atonement of Christ. But were it not for the salvation of believers this end could not have been answered by it. They are left without excuse, because the most conclusive evidence is presented to all the intelligent creatures in the universe, that every sin deserves infinite punishment, seeing God himself could not confer salvation even upon those whom VOL. III.-No. VI. 2 D

he loved from eternity, without punishing all their sins in the sufferings of his own Son. Sinners are left without excuse, because all who shall be saved ascribe their happiness entirely to the riches of divine grace, and disclaim the most remote idea of personal merit. They acknowledge that they, even they, did themselves deserve condemnation. The voice of reproach cannot, therefore, assail the ear of Jehovah from the regions of misery. Sinners are left without excuse, because a great portion of the damned are Gospel despisers.-Men who hear the doctrine of the atonement taught, but do not believe it-who have the Bible, and do not love it-who are required to ask salvation of God through a Redeemer, but do not comply with the commandment-Men, to whom the blessings of the Gospel, eternal life in Christ Jesus, have been affectionately offered, and yet make light of it. Every mouth must therefore be stopped. Nor shall any be found, at the last day, either in hell or in heaven, to deny the necessity of the atonement.

FOR THE CHRISTIAN'S MAGAZINE.

Explication and vindication of MATT. xix. 16-22.

Some of the following observations we take from the United States Christian Magazine.

"And, behold, one came and said unto him, Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life? And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God; but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments. He saith unto him, Which? Jesus said, Thou shalt do no murder, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Honour thy father and thy mother; and, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. The young man saith unto him, All these things have I kept from my youth up: what lack I yet? Jesus said unto him, If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven; and come and follow me. But when the young man heard that saying, he went away sorrowful: for he had great possessions."

THIS passage, with its parallels in Mark x. 17— 22, and Luke xviii. 18-23, has sometimes perplexed the serious Christian. His perplexity has been increased by those false glosses by which the text has been abused for the support of errour. He need hardly be informed that the opposers of our Saviour's divinity, triumph in it as one of their strong holds; while those who teach, that we are justified in the sight of God, by our own personal obedience, produce a part of it, as unanswerable proof of their peculiar doctrine. At present, we will examine the in

terpretation of Socinus and his followers, and hope to show, not only that their reasoning is incorrect; but that they have unhappily stumbled on a passage which makes directly against them.

They tell us, that Christ, in the forcible question "Why callest thou ME good? There is none good but ONE, that is, GOD;" reproved the ruler for applying to him a title which he could not claim; marked the epithet good, as the peculiar attribute of his father; and therefore peremptorily rejected the honours of divinity. But two or three observations will show, that this argument, plausible as it appears, is very far from establishing the conclusion which is so confidently drawn from it.

1. To rest the proof of an essential article of belief upon a term of general and indefinite signification, is at all times dangerous, and affords just ground of suspicion, that more unequivocal evidence is wanting. Good is such a term. The nature and extent of its meaning vary with its connexion and its subject. It is from a proper consideration of these that we are to determine, with precision, its particular sense. We grant, however, that in the present case it does designate the infinite excellence of the living God. This is evident from the subject to which the assertion relates-from the occasion, on which it was uttered-and from the absolute, and unqualified manner in which the ascription of goodness is made. Yet all this will not justify an inference against the proper divinity of our Lord Jesus. For, in another part of scripture we find the epithet GOOD, applied, in all its latitude, to the Spirit of God.

Thy SPIRIT," saith David, "is GOOD*." Now, if the absolute and unqualified ascription of goodness demonstrates the true and proper Deity of the Father, to the exclusion of the Son and of the Spirit; an

Psalm cxliii. 10.

ascription of goodness, no less unqualified and absolute, equally demonstrates the true and proper Deity of the Spirit, to the exclusion of the Father and of the Son. This conclusion, which, on the principles of the opinion we are combating, there is no possibility of avoiding, is not more absurd in itself, than destructive of the Socinian scheme.

2. The argument under consideration takes for granted, that the Lord Jesus in the text, does really restrict the ascription of goodness to his Father. But this is not clear.

He does not say, as Socinians make him say, there is none good but one, that is, MY FATHER. He restricts his assertion to the DIVINE NATURE. Had he limited it to the PERSON of the Father, he would have contradicted the Psalmist, who affirms, "thy SPIRIT is good." Nor will it be an easy matter for a Socinian interpreter to maintain his argument, and conciliate Christ with David*.

* The critical reader may perhaps expect to see another objection noticed. The word is, (one,) we are told, being in the masculine gender, necessarily denotes but one person; and therefore, that Jesus Christ teaches in the text, that there is but one person in the divine essence; renouncing, both for himself and for the Holy Ghost, every pretension to Deity. We are told further, that in order to admit a plurality of persons in the Godhead, the word should have been not is, but i, (one being,) in the neuter gender.

It is sufficient to reply, that, (God,) is the name of the divine nature, and that being in the masculine gender, it requires its adjective to be masculine also. But had the word been, instead of is, the Arian or Socinian critic would have contrived some expedient to get rid of an argument on which he now affects to lay so much stress. He would probably have said, as he says at present, that it is absurd to admit the existence of more than one person in one essence. For could such an expression as he contends for, have satisfied him, he would have been abundantly satisfied with John x. 30. I and my Father are ONE, (EN oper.) But howsoever important the genders of words are, when they promise him any