and pardon to sinners, and as to the extent to which such clemency is intended to apply.

.us is

To those most momentous inquiries the volume now before applied; and as its author is the President of what is usually designated one of the Calvinistic Colleges, and as those who are designated Calvinists have usually held the doctrine of a partial, or limited atonement, it would not be unreasonable to expect him to advocate the doctrine, that, the atonement is designed for only a part of the human family, and that the other part are left in a state of unchangeable hopelessness, to suffer the punishment of sin, without any means of salvation. Such, however, is not the case: Dr. Jenkyn is a most valiant and talented opposer of the doctrine of a partial atonement of that unscriptural dogma which asserts, that Christ died for only a part of mankind. With admirable ability he maintains the glorious truth, that Jesus Christ DIED FOR EVERY MAN.

In the commencement of the work the author very properly proceeds to define the sense in which he uses the word Atonement. The following is the definition given :-"An atonement is any provision introduced into the administration of a government, instead of the infliction of the punishment of an offender-any expedient that will justify a government in suspending the literal execution of the penalty threatened-any consideration that fills the place of punishment, and answers the purposes of government as effectually, as the infliction of the penalty on the offender himself would; and thus supplies to the government just, safe, and honourable grounds for offering and dispensing pardon to the offender." This description or definition Dr. Jenkyn illustrates by many examples and powerful reasonings, and he affirms that it will not "wrest one text of Scripture," or "torture one doctrine of Christian theology.”

The sufferings of Christ have frequently been spoken of as though they were literally the sufferings in kind, number, and degree as would have had to have been endured by those for whom he died, supposing that they had endured the penalty of sin in their own persons; and it has been represented as though the amount of his sufferings had been regulated by the number of persons for whom he died; so that, if the number had been greater, the sufferings would have been increased, or diminished if the number had been less. Referring to such sentiments, Dr. Jenkyn very properly says-"This invests with the meanest calculating mercenariness a moral transaction of the utmost grandeur in the universe. By supposing the literal infliction of the threatened punishment upon the substitute, it exalts the condemned suppliant into a presumptuous claimant; it excludes grace from the dispensation of pardon; and, in fact, annuls the idea of an atonement. By maintaining the certain salvation of so many persons, in consideration of so much suffering endured for them, and for them only, this hypothesis prescribes dimensions to the mercy that loved the world; it makes the salvation of some offenders utterly impossible; and it destroys the sincerity of that universal call which summons all men to receive the atonement."

"This commercial atonement accumulates the obligations of the elect to the Son, at the expense of their obligations to the Father; for on this shewing

F

he has granted no boon without being compensated for it. And it completely darkens the justice of that "sorer punishment" which shall befall the rejecters and despisers of salvation. By its absurdity, it furnishes the most plausible apology for Socinianism, and every other system of opposition to the doctrine of an atonement: and by its boldness it unbridles all the licentiousness of Antinomianism. The character and aspect of such a notion of atonement show that, it is not the atonement of the Scriptures."

On the subject of the extent of the Atonement Dr. Jenkyn is most explicit, as the following quotations will fully prove :

"The apostles declare, in language the most distinct and unequivocal, that the death of Christ was a ransom for all, and a propitiation for the sins of the whole world, that he tasted death for every man, and that God, consequently, was in him reconciling the world unto himself. Yea, they openly declared that persons, who denied or renounced the Lord who had bought them, would, notwithstanding, meet with a damnation that slumbered not. Yet this universal aspect of the atonement is never supposed to have shocked the minds, or clashed with the doctrines, of the primitive churches. In all the apostolical writings, there is no hint given that the churches had any narrow views of the design of the death of Christ; and no reply is given to any objection which might imply a misapprehension of such an unshackled, unqualified, and unlimited, testimony concerning the extent of the atone

ment.

That the apostles represented Christ to have died" for the church," "for his people," &c. does not in the least weaken this position; for what is true of the whole of mankind, must be true of a part; and such a language expresses the actual result of the atonement, and not the nature, aspect, and adaptation, and design of it.

It is, then, evident that the advocates of a limited atonement, and the inspired apostles, do not publish their message in the same style. Do the advocates of a limited atonement ever cheerfully and fearlessly declare, that "Christ died for all?" and that his death is "a propitiation for the sins of the whole world?" Do they not hesitate to use such unmeasured phraseology? Do they not call sinners to repentance, rather on the ground that perhaps they are elected, than on the firm and broad basis of a ransom for all?'

*

66

The hypothesis of a limited atonement is founded upon commercial views of the justice of God. It supposes that justice was administered to Christ, the substitute, upon commutative principles. The hypothesis stands thus: A certain number of souls was given to Christ to be saved-a certain amount of punishment was due to them for so many sins-Christ suffered that amount for them, and for them only; therefore, the benefits resulting from that suffering is limited to them, and to them only.

The supposition of God acting on the principle of commutative or commercial justice, taking and receiving a quid pro quo, completely perverts and destroys the moral dignity of the atonement, and also all its influence as a medium of saving man with honour to the divine government. It makes God to exact punctually from Christ the identical punishment threatened to the sinner, as none other could have been due, to be inflicted. It makes God to proportion the sufferings of his Son to the number of sins imputed to him, as it would have been unjust to have inflicted more or less than the proportion really due. It represents the Father of mercies as doling out favours, in proportion to the number and degree of his Son's sufferings, giving neither more nor less to any man than the purchased quantum. It represents the elect as claiming salvation as what is justly due to them from God, for value which

he has received from their substitute, because it would be unjust to exact the same debt twice. It represents the salvation of some men as utterly impossible, because their debt has never been paid. It exhibits the great and blessed God as mercenary in his gifts, unwilling to yield a single boon but for value received in the sufferings of his Son--sufferings which are represented as inducing (not to say bribing) Him to be propitious and merciful. All these limitations of the atonement are to be traced to commercial views of divine justice; and surely such troubled and unwholesome streams should make us seriously doubt the purity of their source.

I will now introduce a few citations from two of our most masterly divines, partly to supply specimens of what I mean by commercial views of the divine administrations; partly to show that such commercial views naturally produce the doctrine of limited atonement; and partly to indicate how much those commercial views have coloured a great portion of systematic theology. The number of citations of this character, either from these two authors themselves, or from other theological writers might be indefinitely increased-but these are sufficient.

The first author is DR. THOMAS GOODWIN, a great master in the Israel of his day, whose works are marked by deep research, independent thinking, and evangelical suavity. The extracts will be from his "DISCOURSE OF CHRIST THE MEDIATOR," found in the third volume of his works in folio. Ed. 1692. In b. i. chap. 5, Dr. Goodwin introduces the sinner as proposing to God for. his pardon," rivers of oil, the first-born of his body, &c." but all being too low, the Doctor remarks, "There is no proportion. God would never have turned away so fair a chapman, if his justice could afford so cheap a commutation." In b. i. chap. 7, he says of Christ, "He must pay God in the same coyn we should, and therefore, must make his soul an offering for sinand if he be made sin, he must be made a curse; and which is more than all this God himself must be the Executioner, and his own Son the person who suffers, as no creature could strike strokehard enough to make it satisfactory." In b. i. chap. 8, he says, "As his Father recommended the business to him [Christ] so also he gave special recommendation of the persons for whom he would have all this done-viz. those who were given to "Christ. Then he observes" a strange gift it was, which he must yet pay for, and must cost more than they were worth; and yet he takes them as a gift and favour from his Father." So as Mediator (and though a Mediator) he saves NOT A MAN, but whom his Father gave him, nor puts a name in more than was in his Father's BILL. You may observe how careful he was in his account, and how punctual in it. John xvii. 12. He is exact in his account as appears, in that he gives a reason for him that was lost, that he was a son of perdition, and so excuseth it." In b. i. chap. 9, he represents Isa. xlix. as "the draught of the covenant, or deed of gift between Christ and his Father for us"-and then says, "His Father offers (as it were) low at first, and mentioneth but Israel only as his portion. Then as he [Christ] is thinking them too small an inheritance, too small a purchase for such a price," "God therefore answers him again, and enlargeth and stretcheth his covenant further with him." In the next chapter he says, that "Christ laid down a price worth all the grace and glory we shall have."

The next author is DR. JOHN OWEN, the Lebanon of English theology. The great extent of his learning, his accurate sagacity in searching the workings of the heart, and the prominence which he has given to the person of Christ, have recommended his works to such acceptance and circulation, as to give their own hue and character to much of the theology of his country. But the principle of a commercial atonement, of paying quid pro quo, is interwoven with his whole system of divinity, as Phidias's name in the shield. Take a specimen, or two, from his 'Death of Death,' &c. "God spared not his own Son, but gave him up to death for us all-that he made him, to be sin

for us-that he put all the sins of all the elect into that cup which he was to drink of; that the wrath and flood which they feared did fall upon Jesus Christ" so all the wrath that should have fallen upon them, fell on Christ, &c." "He charged upon him, and imputed to him all the sins of all the elect, and proceeded against him accordingly. He stood as our surety, really charged with the whole debt, and was to pay the utmost farthing." "The Lord Christ (if I may so say) was sued by his Father's justice into an execution, in answer whereunto he underwent all that was due to sin, &c."-"Christ underwent not only that wrath (taking it passively) which the elect were [actually] under, but that also which they should have undergone, had not he borne it for them."

I have quoted enough. An atonement of such a commercial character as this appears a measure of niggard calculation, and dribbling mercenariness. It will be a glorious day for the doctrines of the gospel, and for practical godliness, when commercial views of the death of Christ shall be entirely rejected both by Christian divines and Christian churches. Thanks be to God! these views are fast disappearing; as is evident from the fact, that they are scarcely ever mentioned in the creeds of young ministers at their ordination.

The providence of God has a universal aspect. His tender mercies are over all his works. He maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust. Such is the God of providence, and such also is the God of redemption. "He has loved the world. He gave his Son to be a propitiation for the sins of the whole world. He willeth not that any should perish, but come to the knowledge of the truth, and he commands all men every where to repent." Here are words of equal dimensions. If you will apply some cramping and abridging process to the phrases about redemption, try the same experiment on providence, and the result will shew that you serve a system, and not receive the truth. On the universal aspect of providence you have no system to serve, but on redemption you have to cut and square these unmeasured expressious to ready-made creeds. Think not in your hearts that the God, who openeth his hand and satisfieth the desire of every living thing, is different from the God who spared not his own Son, but delivered him up for us all. Say not that the God who has provided so bountifully for our bodily and temporal wants, has been niggard and scanty in his supply for the soul that is to live for ever.

The measures of providence are liable to failure. A medicine may fail, notwithstanding the virtue which providence has given it. The crop of the husbandman may fail, notwithstanding the provision that seed time and harvest time shall continue. The morbid fear of acknowledging such a liableness to failure in the measure of providence, is unaccountable when God declares his own government of the Jews, under the theocracy, to have failed of its ends. "In vain have I smitten them, they have refused to receive correction," Jer. ii. 30. The word of God distinctly and expressly recognizes the same liableness to failure in the great measure of atonement. Are you sure that it is not attachment to system, rather than attachment to the truth, that makes you hesitate to avow this? The scriptures openly state that the atonement may become of none effect in some cases, as in Gal. v. 2, 5. The apostle Paul was afraid of the Galatians, lest he had bestowed upon them labour in vain, i. e. lest the ministry of the atonement should fail of its ends. The same apostle pleads with the Corinthians in earnest entreaty, that they would not receive the grace of God in vain, which he must have supposed to be a possible case. The prophet Isaiah introduces the Messiah, the Lord Mediator himself, saying, "I have laboured in vain, and spent my strength for nought." In perfect harmony with this prediction are the very words of the Redeemer himself. "How oft would I have gathered thy children, as a hen gathereth

her chickens under her wings, and ye would not? As I have here only to notice the analogy between the atonement and providence, no candid reader will suppose that this language implies an utter failure-it merely implies susceptibility of failure. The failure in either case does not dishonour God, the blame of it is entirely with the sinner-and the possibility of the case is quite consistent with the laws of trial in a free and moral govern

ment.

* * * *

The character of any measures of divine providence is to be tried by the fitness and adaptation, and design, of such measures, and not at all by their final results. It is in this manner we always judge of an evil measure in the world. We judge of a dagger, a sword, a cannon, by its fitness and design. We judge of deceit, cunning, extortion and oppression, by their tendency and aim. Thus should we judge of providence. No wise man judges of a medicine by the death of a patient, of wealth by a miser, of learning by pedantry, or of liberty by anarchy. The deluge was a fit measure to clear the earth of evil doers, but you will not judge so by the final result. The final result does not prove that the selection of the family of Abraham would preserve a people from idolatry and sin-nevertheless the measure itself was adapted and intended to do this. The miracles of Egypt and the wilderness were fitted and designed to bring the Israelites to obey God, and to trust him- but the result was otherwise. You do not judge of the ministry of Christ among the Jews, by its final result, but by its tendency and design. Why then will you judge of the atonement only by its final results? Why not judge of it by its adaptation and fitness and design? If the final result of any measure turn out to be the same with the ultimate end, for which it was instituted and adapted, then the final result is a good criterion by which to test the design and tendency of a measure. In illustration, we may say that, our present state of trial and probation is adapted, calculated, and designed to work out for us a far more exceeding and eternal weight of glory-but the final results, in countless instances, will prove otherwise. Will you say then, that this state was fitted and intended to prove thus disastrous? You are not to judge of probation by what it may be, or shall be in given instances, but by what it is now, by what it is fitted and intended to effect. Nor are you to judge of the atonement by what it may and shall be in some instances," the savour of death unto death,' but by what it is now,-and what it is calculated and designed to be, "the savour of life unto life" to all who will accept it."

The doctrine of the Atonement is inseparably connected with the the doctrine of the complex natures of Christ-his proper divinity and humanity-the former rendering him of competent dignity to interpose on behalf of offending man, and the latter giving him such an identity with the family of man, as made him a suitable victim to receive such punishment as divine justice saw fit to inflict. The holiness of Christ-his perfect obedience to the moral law, proved that he was not liable to suffer on his own account, and therefore his sufferings were vicarious-endured FOR others. If the sufferings of Christ had been arbitrarily imposed upon him, then we see not how those sufferings could be reconciled with justice; but his liability to suffer originated in himself—He emptied himself, and laid down his own life. These topics are most admirably discussed in the volume before us. We confess, however, that, either we do not fully approve, or do not exactly apprehend the meaning of the following sentence :— The great sufferings of the Son of God were not intended, nor were they calculated to affect the character of a single attribute in God; but they are intended, and eminently