-

adapted, to affect the disposition and the character of the sinner." The former part of this statement may, we conceive, be understood as affirming that, it would not have been inconsistent with any divine attribute for Jehovah to have restored guilty man to his favour, irrespective of the sufferings endured by Christ, as a sin-offering. If it were essential to the atonement made by Christ, that he should suffer "for sins," and such we conceive to be the doctrine of Holy Scripture, then we think it would be improper, without Scripture warrant, to affirm, that "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." We regard "the greatness of the sufferings of the Son of God" as fearfully and gloriously illustrative of the attributes of God - His justice and mercy are, by the greatness of the sufferings of Christ, set forth in a most impressive point of view. We think it is too much for any creature to affirm that, consistently with the attributes of God, an atonement might have been secured, if Christ had endured a less degree of suffering. It is not intimated in the Scriptures that it would have been consistent with the attributes of God, for an atonement to have been accompanied with a less degree of suffering than that which was endured by Christ. If the sufferings of Christ were required, in order to the righteous exercise of mercy, then his sufferings did "affect" the exercise or expression of "the divine attributes," and we dare not say, that the "greatness" of his sufferings had no effect upon the divine attributes in reference to their exercise or expression towards man. Perhaps, however, the author only intends, by the 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," that the sufferings of Christ did not produce any change in the disposition of God towards man— that God was mercifully disposed towards man, irrespective of those sufferings. We allow all this, but then, the atonement was required in order to the righteous exercise of those attributes in the bestowment of pardon on the offenders; and the humiliation and sufferings of Christ were essential to the atonement; and, therefore, his sufferings did " affect this exercise of "the attributes of God," as supplying the means by which mercy and pardon could be righteously bestowed. On questions of this nature, where we have not the light of divine revelation to guide us, it behoves the wisest of men to proceed with the greatest caution.

The doctrine of an atonement is considered, by Dr. Jenkyn in the work before us, "In its several relations to the Person of the Son of God; to the Perfections of God; to the Purposes of God; to the Works of God; to Divine Moral Government; to the Providence of God; to the Whole System of Divine Truth; to Sin; to the Salvation of the Human Race; to the Work of the Holy Spirit; to the Church; to the various Dispensations of Revealed Religion; and to the Eternal State of the Universe." And the manner in which all these are shewn to be connected with the doctrine of the Atonement is most interesting and instructive.

Dr. Jenkyn points out several improper statements which have obtained very general currency in theology. Among others he notices

the statement, that MERCY is God's DARLING attribute; on which he has the following appropriate remarks:

"The design of the atonement is to bring sinners to love and esteem every thing that is in God, and to honour every divine attribute, that he may honour justice, even as he honours mercy. The theology that represents mercy as the darling attribute of God, and his justice as the sinner's foe, cannot be conducive to the formation of a full-orbed piety. Infinite holiness is opposed to man's sin, without being opposed to his wellbeing; and infinite justice treats him as a criminal, not that it might hinder his individual happiness so much, as that it might protect the wellbeing of the universe.

Theological discourses have frequently represented Mercy, as if it were the Darling Attribute of God: but God in the atonement shews that every perfection is darling to him. He has devised a way to exercise them all in the name, and for the sake of the dearest object to him in the universe, his only begotten Son. The sinner who looks to the atonement, sees and feels that there is no perfection in God opposed to his welfare. The author of sin is alone the author of misery. Even in hell, no sinner will ever feel that his misery has originated in some divine attribute having been opposed to his happiness. He will never condemn God, though he may wickedly blaspheme him. He will never suspect that he perished because that infinite love had not been sufficiently expansive,-that infinite wisdom had not contrived a plan sufficient in extent to meet his case,-that the honours of infinite justice had not been sufficiently provided for to admit of his pardon,-that infinite mercy had not been sufficiently free,--or because that the law had not been sufficiently magnified. No; he will feel that he is his own destroyer, that every attribute in God had provided for his welfare, that not a single perfection had given one smile of encouragement to his sin and rebellion, and that no divine attribute had thrown, or left, in the way, any obstacle to his reconciliation. "This is the condemnation,"-not an angry attribute, or a frowning perfection, but "that light is come into the world, and men love darkness rather than light." The whole gospel of God says, Fury is not in It is not a few attributes, but the whole Godhead, it is God, “all in all," that is in Christ reconciling the world unto himself, without imputing to them their transgressions."

me."

66

Calvinistic divines have very generally maintained that, the Divine being has absolutely determined to make a certain number of persons partakers of eternal salvation, and that all who are not included in that number are left to perish; and that the election of those who are to be saved, was indispensable to prevent the atonement from becoming a total failure; asserting that if God did not exert his power so as to infallibly save men, not only without their moral agency, but also so as to control them by irresistible force, that perhaps not one of the human family would be saved. This supposition contains an impeachment of the wisdom of God in devising the means of man's salvation. What would be thought of the wisdom of a physician who should prescribe a remedy for a disease capable of being cured, which in every case to which it was applied should fail of sucWhat would be thought of the wisdom of any scheme professing to offer incalculable benefits to all men upon the easiest possible terms which should, nevertheless, be so contradictory to the physical and moral nature of man, that no man would accept of such benefits. If the atonement, as a means of salvation, were duly adapted to the

cess.

nature of the wants of mankind, it could not possibly altogether fail of success. The supposition involves an absurdity.

Although Dr. Jenkyn maintains that the atonement is designed for, and is sufficient for all, yet he, in some parts of his volume, expresses himself in favour of the opinion that there are some specially selected persons whom God has determined infallibly to save, some to whom he communicates irresistible grace in order that the atonement may not be a failure; but in other parts of his volume he makes statements on this part of the subject connected with the atonement which appears to us to have a different import. We shall briefly notice some of the passages to which we refer.

"The atonement does not secure that all its designs shall be infallibly accomplished. Such an arrangement would have been inconsistent with the nature of moral government, which is a government of free agents, and exercised, not by force, but by the exhibition of inducements, and reasons."

"The measure of atonement, like every other measure in a moral administration, designed and adapted for the use of free agents in a state of probation, must be supposed capable of failure. The measure in Eden failed to keep our first parents in innocency. The measure on Sinai failed to preserve the Israelites from idolatry. And the atonement may fail to prevent some from neglecting so great salvation, and from denying the Lord that bought them." ****

"The whole work of the atonement, from the incarnation of Christ to his ascension, was accomplished without interfering with the free agency of any one being. Its operation in moral government, and its application to man by the Holy Spirit, are carried on without infringing at all on human liberty."

** **

"The benefits of the atonement are freely offered to the unconstrained acceptance of every one who hears the Gospel. Any acceptance of it that is not free and unconstrained, is not pleasing to God nor available to the benefit of man. In accepting it, and choosing it, as a motive to holiness, and as a medium of pardon, the believer is free and unconstrained, and in rejecting it as a means of salvation, every sinner acts according to his own free and uninfluenced choice."

"When the Holy Spirit opens the heart to attend to the claims and influence of the atonement, there is no more violence offered to the freedom of the will, than there was in Christ showing his wounds to Thomas to make him "not faithless but believing." The atonement effects no change whatever in the laws of liberty." *** *

"To quicken the seed in the earth is a work which the farmer cannot do, but to use the means of God's appointment for quickening it, is within the reach of every one. And God will not quicken the seed without the agency

of man.' *****

"Were there more obstacles in the way of those who perish, than in the case of those who are saved? Was the atonement insufficient to reach the case of those who perish? The Gospel of the truth of the case answers all these questions with a decided negative.'

"Gracious influences are also communicated in a stated course, not arbitrarily or capriciously, either as to time, manner, or degree. I would not say that God has bound and limited himself to this stated course; what I mean is, that he will NEVER fail this arrangement." ****

"These means must be used. No man will become religious as a stone gets warm in sunshine, or wet in a shower of rain. He must be an agent as well as a subject. He must use the appointed means. The connecting link between divine influences and human agency is hid in the hand of God, but

he has revealed enough to shew us that, according to his arrangement of the universe, he cannot convert a man unless that man exercise his own agency."

The quotations we have just made contain, we believe, the truth of God, declared in beautiful and forcible language, and we feel some regret that our general admiration of the volume, from which they are taken, should be diminished by a few statements which to us appears somewhat in opposition to the quotations just brought under notice.

Dr. Jenkyn justly remarks "that unless God will exercise his gracious influence on the hearts of men, not one of the human race will ever partake of the benefits of the atonement, and consequently no flesh would be saved." We fully admit the truth of this statement, but are obliged to demur to the correctness of that by which it is followed, in which Dr. Jenkyn affirms that man has power or ability to avail himself of the atonement without Divine grace. We agree with Dr. Jenkyn, that "Man ought to do his duty, to love God, believe in Christ, obey his word, whether he have grace or not," and that, not having grace is not "a good plea for not doing one's duty," but our reason for this is, not because a man HAS ability to Do his duty WITHOur grace, but because he has a measure of grace, by using which, he may have all the grace needful to enable him to do his duty; and that ability to do good is grace, and grace is ability. Dr. Jenkyn affirms that, "Divine influences are not in the list of human accountableness," and adds, "The justice of God has supplied man with grounds sufficiently firm and broad to hold him accountable without Divine grace." We know not how this can be maintained, when it is admitted, as affirmed by Dr. Jenkyn, that man's existence, subsequently to the fall, is by Divine grace. The question is this, CAN a man be saved without divine grace? If it be admitted that he CANNOT, then we ask, is a man held responsible by God, for not having that which he has never had the means of obtaining? To assert that, he is, would be to libel and defame the moral character of God! Christ said, "This is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men love darkness rather than light, because their deeds are evil." Again we ask, CAN a man love God, believe in Christ, obey his word, without grace? If he CAN, then he does not need the grace of divine illumination, he does not need the grace of the Holy Spirit. Human nature is not devoid of good when devoid of grace. Man is not altogether fallen. Pelagianism is not such an erroneous system as has been asserted. Man may be saved without the renewing of the Holy Ghost!! If, however, it is admitted that a man CANNOT love God, believe in Christ, obey his word" without Divine grace, then we challenge any divine or theologian to prove the correctness of the following statement made by Dr. Jenkyn to which we have been referring, "The justice of God has supplied man with grounds sufficiently firm and broad to hold him accountable without divine grace. Man ought to do his duty, to love God, believe in Christ, obey his word, whether he have grace or not:" that is, as we understand Dr. Jenkyn, whether grace be attainable by him or not, grace obtainable grace. Dr. Jenkyn admits that, without divine influence conversion is impossible. We again ask, can a "man love God, believe inChrist, obey his word without first becoming the subject of conversion? it is not true that, except a man be born again of the Spirit, he

is

if

so,

cannot enter into the kingdom of God. And if he CANNOT "love God, believe in Christ, obey his word' without first being converted, and if conversion is impossible, without divine influences, it must be equally impossible for man, from whom divine influences are absolutely withheld, to avail himself of the atonement, to love God, believe in Christ, obey his word:" and what is impossible, God CANNOT require of any man; it would be an awful impeachment of his goodness, truth, and justice, for Him to require an impossibility.

We have laid before our readers many passages in which Dr. Jenkyn recognises the free agency of man, and in which he maintains that man must be an agent in the work of his salvation,-that, “moral government is a government of free agents," that "the application of the atonement to man by the Spirit is without infringing at all on human liberty:" that there is not " any acceptance of it which is not free and unconstrained;" that "every sinner acts in accepting or rejecting according to his own free and uninfluenced choice." By uninfluenced" we suppose, is meant unconstrained or uncompelled choice,-uninfluenced is too comprehensive a word to suit the case; that "the lost have had no greater obstacles in the way of salvation than the saved;" that God "CANNOT convert a man unless that man exercise his own agency." After making such admissions, it is most astonishing to find Dr. Jenkyn asserting the doctrine of a divine sovereignty exercised to insure the salvation of " definite persons," by the exercise of a constraining power; that "God foresaw that after all his provision, men would be so wicked that they would not accept of this atonement, and that, therefore, he determined to exercise his influence to secure some whom he gave to his Son as persons in whom the designs of his death should be infallibly magnified and made honourable. Jesus Christ knows these, definitely and personally, and had a direct reference to them in his sufferings and death."

Much as we admire the talents of Dr. Jenkyn, and highly as we value the volume before us, we cannot help stating it as our judgment that, in reference to the subjects of human agency he flatly contradicts himself. We regret our limits will not allow us to discuss this subject as we think its importance deserves, but we remark that Dr. Jenkyn affirms that man is a FREE AGENT; that the acceptance of the atonement must be FREE and UNCONSTRAINED; by, FREE and UNINFLUENCED CHOICE; and that without this AGENCY of man God CANNOT Convert ANY man. If these statements are true, and we have Dr. Jenkyn's authority for them, then God CANNOT have determined to exercise an influence to secure infallibly, the salvation of certain, selected, definite persons; to do so, he must determine to set aside their free agency, in making their rejection of salvation impossible.

We observe, as is usually the case with those who maintain the doctrine of a special divine sovereignty, securing the salvation of certain, definite, chosen persons, rendering their salvation infallible, and therefore irresistible, that Dr. Jenkyn lays undue stress upon the corruption of the human will, and so represents the nature of the will of man, as to make him to have will only in name, reducing him from an agent to a mere subject. For example, the following statement is made by Dr. Jenkyn:-"It is in the physical and moral constitution