death; Rom. i. 32. But if punishment be not necessarily connected with transgression, how could the dread of suffering and a conviction of the righteousness of God in taking vengeance, be so deeply engraven on the hearts of those, who did not know the will and determination of God, but as inferred from the natural obligation his creatures are under to glorify him as their Creator? No creature can possibly know what originates in, or is dependant upon the sovereign will of God without a divine revelation; but as the punishment of sin is knowable where a revelation is not, therefore the punishment of sin ariseth not from divine sovereignty, but from the essential purity, dignity, and rectitude of Jehovah's nature; there was a necessity for Christ as the surety to endure the penalty, in order to his people's enjoying a pardon; for sin is so abominable in God's sight, so contrary to his pure nature, that punishment for it cannot be dispensed with, a sinner as such cannot be safe. Hence there was a necessity for Jesus the Saviour to put away sin, by the sacrifice of himself, to endure the curse that his people might be exempted from sin's demerit, enjoy heavenly blessings, and wear the celestial

crown.

2. Through the sufferings of Christ the essential righteousness of God is discovered, and his equity in acquitting the believer is thereby evi

from thence conclude, it was impossible for the connection between sin and suffering to be broken? Who can attend to the tremendous language of a sin-avenging God, saying, Awake, O sword, against the man that is my fellow, smite him; or seriously reflect on the doleful groans and bloody sufferings of the Son of God, in the garden, and on the cross, and calmly conclude there was no necessity for any thing of that nature?

5. Those who are redeemed from sin, and reign with God in heavenly pomp and holy splendour, ascribe their deliverance and advancement to the kindness of Christ, and the efficacy of his sufferings; for with triumphant pleasure and gratitude they sing unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood, and hath made us kings and priests unto God and his Father, to him be glory and dominion for ever and ever, Amen; Rev. i. 5, 6. But how does the propriety of such acknowledgments appear, if what Jesus did was not at all necessary to their deliverance from sin, and advancement to dignity and delight? From the above considerations it appears, there was a necessity for Jesus to die, the just for the unjust, that he might bring them to God.

Some again admit the death of Christ was necessary, in order to the forgiveness of sins, yet deny him the honour of properly meriting for his people an exemption from punishment, and assert, that

the efficacy of his sufferings as a sacrifice arose entirely from the will and appointment of God. That he became a mediator, surety, and sacrifice on behalf of his people, in consequence of divine appointment, is undoubtedly evident; but that his value and worth, efficacy and merit, arose from thence can never be proved. God graciously provided and found the ransom, on which account pardon, justification, and the whole of salvation is all of grace, free exuberant grace, and rich mercy; that a person of such infinite worth and dignity as Immanuel, God's own, and only begotten Son, should die for sinners, is an unparalleled instance of favour and love. It is the wonder of angels, the terror of devils, and the joy and triumph of saints. But it is absurd to suppose his personal dignity arose from his debasement, that he became strong because help was laid upon him, or that his real worth arose from his appointment to ransom miserable captives, and discharge the debt of prodigal transgressors. Christ was appointed, and agreed in covenant to do, and suffer, what he was under no natural obligation to perform or endure; and, from his native dignity, worth, and ability, arose his merit and efficacy. To suppose God appointed his death to be efficacious without real efficacy, or meritorious without personal merit, is a contradiction in terms, an awful reflection on the divine understanding, and

an affront to common sense. Again, if God accepted of the death of Jesus as meritorious, though it was not so in its own nature; then might he have pardoned sins by a simple act of sovereign clemency without the death of his Son, for it would surely have been equally just to have pardoned sin without a sacrifice, as to remit sin in consequence of that which is in its nature destitute of merit and efficacy. Once more, if merit and real efficacy arise only from the divine appointment, it would have been possible for the blood of bulls and of goats to have taken away sin, or any other animal would have been sufficient for the removal of guilt and saving lost sinners, if God had but pleased to have appointed such an end to have been answered by their death. But the direct contrary to the above is asserted by one who well understood, and delighted in the doctrine of reconciliation. His words are, For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins; Heb. x. 4, which sacrifices can never take away sins; verse 11. It was necessary that the patterns of things in the heavens should be purified with these, but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these. But now once in the end of the world hath he (Christ) appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself; chap. ix. 23, 26. He hath made peace by the blood of his cross; Heb. ix. 12,

having obtained eternal redemption for us, made an end of sin, made reconciliation for iniquity, and brought in an everlasting righteousness, with which the Lord is well pleased; Isaiah xlii. 21. Therefore to every believer Jehovah says, Fury, is not in me; Isaiah xxvii. 4.

it is hoped the above remarks may help the entangled Christian over the objections made against the necessity, merit, and efficacy of the Saviour's death, as an atoning sacrifice for sin, and tend to increase his knowledge of, faith in, and love to the blessed Jesus, as able to save to the uttermost all that come unto God by him. I should therefore add no more on the subject, were it not for another stumbling-block lately thrown in the way of believers, equally if not more formidable in appearance than the above. Which is, if Christ was a divine person he could not atone for sin, because Deity could not die.

This artful objection seems intended to draw the unwary Christian into a dreadful dilemma, either to give up the soul-supporting doctrine of the atonement, or to deny the divinity of the Son of God. The objection is the more dangerous as it seems to look on the doctrine of atonement with a smiling approving countenance. But in fact, the design of it is to undermine the real personal merit of Christ, and place the efficacy of