that nothing is more opposite to free remission than satisfaction; so that if a creditor be satisfied either by the debtor himself, or by any other in the name of the debtor himself, he cannot be said to forgive freely.' One cannot help thinking persons' hard put to it to find an ill side to this doctrine, says Mr. Rawlin, when they make this objection against it. For what can it be but an instance of the highest and most astonishing grace, for an offended God himself to provide and appoint one to make the satisfaction, and one that was of such dignity in himself, and so dear to the Father? And in consequence of this, to subject him to sufferings and death itself, and all this for the sake of guilty sinful man, and to open out a way for his redemption and pardon consistently with the honour of God, when he might have exalted the glories of his law and justice in his everlasting destruction. The pardoning of sin in such a way, and under such circumstances, is not only an act of grace, an act of pure and unmerited grace to the sinner, but even in itself an act of higher grace than if it had been pardoned by mere and absolute sovereignty, without any satisfaction at all. As the

scripture in this places the emphasis of the love of God, 1 John iv. 10. 'Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us, and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins-For God so loved the world, that he gave his onlybegotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.' It is, indeed, the peculiar glory of this doctrine, that it unites in the fullest harmony all the honours of the highest justice, and of the richest grace; and shows God in one and the same view, the most awful and the most amiable Being; a strict Judge and a forgiving Father, a righteous Law-giver, and a merciful sovereign

in the scripture-style, a just God and a saviour.'

The apostle Paul, who, it is presumed, understood this subject quite as well as our modern theologists, saw no inconsistency between the satisfaction of Christ and the pardon of sin. Both are unequivocally asserted in that memorable passage, Eph. i. 7, In whom we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of his grace. Now

this blood was meritorious of that forgiveness, or it was not; if meritorious, forgiveness is not incompatible with redemption as a price: if not meritorious, it could be of no use in the procurement of pardon. Those therefore who think that satisfaction and pardon are irreconcileable must, if they act consistently, reject the satisfaction of Christ altogether. This is uniformly done by the Socinians, and too frequently by others who are professedly averse to Socinianism, but who are perhaps not aware that by so doing they are strengthening the hands of their opponents, and virtually destroying that which sound Protestants have ever considered as the only foundation of forgiveness.

If it be asked, says Mr. Boston, in reply to this Socinian objection, 'How then is the second covenant a covenant of grace? it may be answered; In respect of Christ, it was most properly and strictly a covenant of works, in that he made a proper, real, and full satisfaction in behalf of the elect; but in respect of them, it is purely a covenant of the richest grace, inasmuch as God accepted the satisfaction from

a Surety which he might have demanded of them; provided the Surety himself, and gives all to them freely for his sake.'

To the same purpose speaks that great man, Archbishop Usher: 'It is of grace that Christ is given to us, and also that his righteousness, apprehended by faith, is accounted ours. It is true that the justification of a sinner, considering the case as it is between the Father and Christ, no man dare call it Free; no, the price of our redemption was the deepest purchase that the world ever heard of; but whatever it cost Christ, it cost us nothing: and so to us it is freely of grace from Christ, yea and to us it is freely of grace from God the Father too; not because he acquits us without a full satisfaction to his justice, or accepts that for perfect righteousness which is not perfect righteousness; but because he receives full satisfaction from the hands of a surety, and that surety being his own Son; when as he might have challenged the uttermost farthing at our hands who were the principals; and then there had been no posi bility for us to have been delivered.'

'Almighty God, in the justification of a believing sinner is, says our popular commentator, Mr. Burkitt, not only gracious and merciful, but just and righteous in the most exalted degree. The design and end of God in exacting satisfaction from Christ, was to declare his righteousness in the remission of sin; but the apostle would have us take notice, that our justification is an act of justice as well as mercy, and that God, as he is a just God, cannot condemn the believer, since Christ has satisfied for his sins. O blessed be God! that pardon of sin is built upon that very attribute, the Justice of God, which is so affrighting and dreadful to the uffending sinner. This attribute, which seemed to be the main bar against remission, is now become the very ground and reason why God remits. Hence, saith St. John, God is faithful and just to forgive us our sins: faithful with respect to his own promise, and just with respect to his Son's satisfaction. Who then can lay any thing to the charge of God's elect, when justice itself doth justify them? Behold here the sweet harmony of the divine attributes in justifying and pardoning the believer! One attribute is not