ing, display his inflexible disposition to punish sin: yet he was able to provide himself a lamb without spot or blemish, whose sacrifice would satisfy divine justice. This was the Son of his love, the second person in the Trinity, cqual in every divine perfection with himself. This was the only substitute to be found in the universe, equal to the great and arduous work of making full atonement for sin. Hence it was absolutely necessary that Christ should make atonement, if sinners were saved consistently with the justice of God. And he must make this atonement by enduring natural evil, or sufferings. For suffering was what God threatened to sinners, in order to display his justice upon them. Suffering, therefore, was the only thing that could display God's justice by a substitute.-But this could.-God, by inflicting the pains of death upon Christ, a being of infinite dignity, could display his infinite disposition to punish sinners, as clearly and more clearly, than by inflicting eternal misery upon them. We all know that inflicting natural evil upon one person may display displeasure against another. The punishing an ambassador of an earthly Prince displays displeasure against the Prince. The punishing even a subject of a Prince may display displeasure against the Prince. The highest displeasure may be manifested against a parent by punishing his son. Just so, God, by subjecting the Son of his love to death, in the room of sinners, could display his disposition to punish sin, in the most striking and awful manner. Accordingly, when Christ actually took the sinner's place, and died on the cross, the justice of God was displayed, in a cl arer light, to angels and men, than it ever had been, or ever wiil be again, by the punishment of the wicked themselves. The sufferings of Christ on the cross made the atonement, and completely satisfied the justice of God towards himself. In consequence of this display of divine justice God can appear with the same character, when he pardons believers as when he punishes unbelievers. He can appear to have the same hatred of sin, when he forgives it, as when he punishes it.On this account the atonement of Christ was absolutely necessary, just as necessary as that God should give a manifestation of himself to his intelligent creatures. And this was as necessary as his own glory, law and government, all which depend on his being known in his true character.

From the preceding observations respecting the necessity of the atonement, we may derive several important reflections.

1. Since the atonement was necessary entirely on God's account, to render it consistent with his justice to exercise

mercy, the atonement of Christ is sufficient for all. It may and must extend to all. If it renders it consistent for God to exereise merey in one instance, it is consistent for him to exercise it in another and in every instance. The atonement has just'as favorable an aspect upon the non-elect as upon the elect. It opens as wide a door for their salvation. And it removes all natural impediments out of their way as much as out of the way of the elect. And this it does without any inconsistency. It provides nothing that shall be lost. If the atonement did not equally extend to all, it would be just as inconsistent with the character of God to offer salvation to all, without exception, as it would have been to have offered salvation to sinners, had no atonenrent been made. And if God could have offered salvation without an atonement, he could have bestowed salvation without an atonement. It is therefore as evident that the atonement extends to all, as that any atonement has been made. If any was made, it must extend to all. If any was necessary, an atonement for all was equally necessary. Accordingly the scriptures do represent the atonement as universal.

2. If the atonement was necessary entirely on God's account, to satisfy his justice towards himself; then the atonement did not satisfy justice towards sinners. Justice, as it respects them, stands in full force against them. Nothing Christ did altered their character, or deserts, nor the law by which they were condemned. The ill-desert of sin is founded in the nature of things and cannot be removed. The justice of the moral law is founded in the nature of things, and cannot be destroyed. Christ came not to destroy the law, and indeed he could not destroy it. The atonement of Christ has left every thing respecting the personal character, illdesert and condition of sinners, as it was before. Its whole design and efficacy respect the character and government of God. His justice is satisfied. And this is what the assembly of divines mean, when they say, in answer to the question-"How does Christ execute the office of a priest?"— By his once offering up himself a sacrifice to satisfy divine justice.' But it was not in the least the design or the effect of the atonement to remove the ill-desert of sinners.

6

For

this is, in the nature of things, impossible. Sinners are now as properly the objects of the divine displeasure, and as justly subjected to the punitive justice of God, as if no atonement had been made.

3. Since the atonement of Christ was necessary entirely on God's account; he did not by his death merit any thing for sinners. He merited for himself and shall be rewarded.

But sinners do not possess any merit in any respect, on account of the atonement. It was neither necessary nor possible that Christ should merit any thing for sinners. The notion of merit originated from the supposition, that Christ died for sinners to pay their debts. But there was no need of paying what might be demanded of sinners, that they might be saved. For nothing less than the endless torments of hell could have answered this purpose. Nor was it possible that Christ should have paid for sinners what divine justice demanded. He might have answered the design of divine justice in threatening death to sinners, but he could not have suffered the endless torments of hell for sinners so as to remove all demands of divine justice against the offenders. A substitute cannot pay a debt for another. Christ could not bear the penalty of the law, so as to take it away from sinners. But he did answer the design of God in threatening death to sinners. Yet this gave no merit to sinners, but leaves them as guilty as if he had not died as a substitute.

4. Since the atonement was designed to justify the the justice of God towards himself, free pardon is consistent with full satisfaction. Many have found it difficult to see how penitent and believing sinners are freely forgiven, since an atonement has been made for the sins of the world. They have thought there could be no grace in pardoning sinners, since the Lord Jesus Christ has died in the stead of sinners. But if the design of Christ's death be correctly understood, it will be perceived that it is now an act of free grace to forgive those, who believe on his name, as much as if no atonement had been made. For the atonement has not removed, nor lessened the ill-desert of sinners. They, who are saved, are justified freely, by the grace of God through the redemption that is in Jesus Christ.

5. From what has been said we learn the absurdity of those, who deny the necessity of an atonement. This the Socinians deny; because they say God is merciful. But he is also just. And he is as much bound to regard and maintain the dignity of his justice, as to express his mercy. Indeed, the mercy of God is not such an attribute as opposes his justice. The moral character of God consists in love, or goodness. As the goodness of God is displayed towards different objects, it is called by different names. But God can no more disregard his justice in his conduct towards his creatures, than he can deny his own name, or destroy his moral perfection. If God had saved sinners from threatened and deserved punishment without an atonement, he would have sacrificed his justice, and have ruined his character and govern

ment. Accordingly, the word of God most plainly teaches the absolute and indispensable necessity of an atonement, that sinners might be saved from the eternal punishment, which God threatens to sinners in his holy law.

6. We learn the absurdity of supposing the atonement consists in obedience. The obedience of a substitute for sinners would afford no display of divine justice towards the divine character and government in his treatment of sinners. Besides the gospel most plainly and fully teaches us that the sufferings of Christ constitute the atoning sacrifice.

7. The conditions of salvation are consistent with full satisfaction to divine justice through the atonement. Faith in Christ is required of sinners that they may be saved. Their faith is not saving on account of its own virtue, or excellence; but simply because it receives the remedy God has provided for the salvation of sinners. Though his justice be fully satisfied by the atonement, still it is consistent and proper for him to require sinners to believe on Christ that they may be saved.

Finally--Acceptance of forgiveness through the atonement of Christ implies an approbation of divine justice in condemning and punishing sinners. There is no goodness, nor glory in the gospel, if the law, that condemns sinners, be not holy, just and good. The justice and the mercy of God are perfectly harmonious in the salvation of sinners through the atonement of the Lord Jesus Christ. So long as any do hate the justice of God. they do also reject the mercy of God, as it is displayed in the gospel of his grace.-Con. Evan. Magazine.

An Historical View of the first Planters of New-England. No. II.

(Continued from Page 94.)

WHILE the crown and the prelates, united their efforts in pressing conformity, it is doubtful whether their measures had the concurrence of the majority of the nation. No prince in England was ever more popular, and. probabiy, no one ever had greater influence than Queen Elizabeth. Her religious sentiments were well known, her power was almost unlimited, of course, very little opposition to these measures was to be expected from parliament. In the second year of her reign, the subject of religion was debated by the national convocation of the clergy. In the doctrines contained in the thirty nine Articles, there was a general agreement. When the rites and ceremonies of the church came under consideration, there were various motions for alterations. At length

several propositions were introduced in convocation, for alterations in the ceremonies of the church, which embraced the principal subjects of difference between the Prelates and the Puritans. After long, debate, on taking the voices, it was found that fifty-eight were in favor of the propositions, and fifty-nine were against them. So nearly were the parties balanced, notwithstanding the well known sentiments of the crown. From the great aversion to Popery, which had been imbibed by the people, on account of the cruelties of the late reign, popular sentiment seems to have been much against the controverted ceremonies, as they were generally, the relics of the Romish establishment.With the two Universities, the court of High-Commission met with no small difficulty in enforcing conformity. The University of Cambridge was a constant sanctuary of the Puritans, and produced many preachers of great eminence, who were the steady opposers of all prelatical usurpations. In the University of Oxford, there were also many persons of distinction who favored the sentiments of the Puritans. It was not without much labor and difficulty, that the Universities were reduced to tolerable conformity. Nor was the Puritan cause destitute of powerful interest at court. Several of the first characters in the administration favored those sentiments. But all this weight of influence could never move the inflexible purpose of the Queen. "There was another set of opinions adopted by these innovators, which rendered them in a peculiar manner the object of Elizabeth's aversion. The principles of civil liberty, which, during some reigns. had been little avowed in the nation, and which were totally incompatible with the present exhorbitant prerogative, had been strongly adopted by this new seet. Scarcely any sovereign before Elizabeth, and none after her, carried higher, both in speculation and practice, the authority of the crown; and the puritans (so these sectarians were called on account of their pretending to a superior purity of worship and discipline,) could not recommend themselves worse to her favor than by inculcating the doctrine of resisting and restraining princes. From all these motives, the Queen neglected no opportunity of depressing those zealous innovators; and while they were secretly countenanced by some of her most favored ministers, Cecil, Leicester, Knolles, Bedford, Walsingham, she never was to the end of her life, reconciled to their principles and practiThe Queen had the support of all the zealous advorates of prerogative, of those who secretly favored the catho lic interest, of such as would render religion a creature of the

• Hume.

R