present work is devoted, as they belong to Popery or Romanism, rather than to that form of Catholicism which assumes the nature sometimes of Anglicanism, and sometimes of the Church-system in this country. Confining myself within these bounds, the questions which will fall to be discussed respect the following points :-The rule of religious faith and practice; the Catholic church; the functions and claims of the clergy; the means by which men become Christians, and especially the ground of a sinner's acceptance with God; the end of the Christian life, and the means best adapted for the securing of that end. On all these vital points, errors of a most pernicious kind seem to me to be entertained by the advocates of Anglo-Catholicism, as I hope to be able to show in the course of the present inquiry," pp. 16, 17.

We cannot, from what we know of the Tractarians, go all the length of the author in his defence of them against the charge of concealed Romanism. But as we intend, in a future number, to follow Mr. A. through his able exposure of their unscriptural tenets, we think it but right that we should give to his opponents the benefit of his very charitable view of their present position. "If it be," says he, a mistake to regard the doctrines of the Oxford tractarians as novelties in the Anglican church, it is on the other hand an act of injustice to these writers to represent them as secretly favouring the system of Romanism, and earnestly labouring to bring this country once more under the yoke of Rome. Such assertions are continually made by certain of their opponents, but, as it appears to me, unfairly and without truth. That as Catholics they have more in common with the church of Rome than Protestants in general havethat they have occasionally expressed themselves with incautious reverence towards that church, and that the effect of all this on certain minds that are caught by appearances, and do not stop to reflect before they act, may have been to induce such to become proselytes to Romanism,- are facts which may be admitted, without the consequence necessarily following, that the Anglican system is only a modification of Romanism, and that the Anglican divines are only Romanists in disguise. The principle of the Romanist is implicit deference to the church's dogmas, at whatever period these may have been issued; the principle of the Anglican, is implicit deference to the doctrines of the church while she was yet one. Whether this ground be tenable or not is another question; but assuming that it is, the Anglican has sufficient reason in principle for stopping short of Romanism. In this case, all doctrines held by Romanists, for which no authority can be pleaded from

scripture, or the writings of the AnteNicene church, are mere innovations which the Anglican cannot embrace without deserting the first principles of his system. For such doctrines the Romanist may be able to argue very plausibly, and perhaps may coalesce very naturally with certain tenets of Anglicanism; still there is this against them, that they are unauthorized by the only standard to which a consistent Anglican can appeal. There is thus, as it appears to me, an inseparable barrier between the Anglican and Romanist systems, which can be overcome only by the one or the other of these parties deserting its distinctive principles. I believe Mr. Fronde wrote quite sincerely when he declared, 'I never could be a Romanist; I never could think all those things in Pope Pius's creed necessary to salvation.'"

There is an exuberant candour in all this; and the recorded sentiments of some of the earlier writers in the Tracts would doubtless sustain its substantial accuracy. But there is this flaw in it considered as an argument, that the Tractarians profess as entire a subjection to the authority of the church, as do the Ro. manists; and were a general council, consisting of those whom they now recognise to be members of the Catholic church, to stereotype their dogmas to the world, we believe the whole would be regarded by them as apostolic. The unity of the church, according to their notion, thus restored, would be a law of infallibility in reference to all her decisions. We feel, too, that the mere fact of the Tractarians condemning the additions of Rome to the Ante-Nicene creed, is full of suspicion, while we detect in their writings every essential feature of Popery; and remember that they must in some degree oppose Rome, or quit their present standing in the English church. We fear they would go much further, if the loaves and fishes were removed out of the way. But there is technical accuracy in Mr. Alexander's distinctions; we fear, alas! that the practical difference between Rome and the Tractarians is but the shadow of a shade.

(To be concluded in our next.)

festation and ultimate triumph of right principles. Nothing is so apt to rouse attention and elicit truth as discussion. In the beautiful language of Bishop Horne, "all objections, when considered and answered, turn out to the advantage of the gospel, which resembles a fine country in the spring season, when the very hedges are in bloom, and every thorn produces a flower." It must, however, be acknowledged that the meekness of wisdom, and not the wrath of man worketh the righteousness of God; and though a bitter spirit in conducting a religious controversy may be overruled, its direct tendency is to dishonour truth and to injure the cause it so unworthily advocates. The Christian disputant who maintains the Christian temper when assailed with harsh epithets in place of hard arguments, is sure to command the sympathies of his impartial readers; and if they are not convinced by his reasoning, they are conciliated by his spirit. But it may be observed, that the calmest reasoners are usually the strongest; that violence as often betrays weakness; and that those who condescend to employ the rhetoric of abuse, are for the most part very indifferent logicians.

In all the controversies in which the estimable author of the discourses before us has been engaged, his great superiority over his opponents has arisen from the calm clear daylight of his mind, associated with the gentleness of Christ; and whether victorious or not-and we know not an instance of Iris failure-he has uniformly secured to himself one triumph, the triumph of temper.

On the present discussion he was compelled to enter in self-defence. The imputation of unsoundness in the faith, and that on a cardinal article of divine truth, the doctrine of the atonement, having been indiscreetly cast upon him by brethren whom he held and still holds in high estimation, Dr. Wardlaw, not for his own sake merely, but for the sake of his ministerial usefulness, which, so far as the imputation might either be believed or suspected to be true, could not fail to be affected by it; and for the sake of the truth of God, which he considered to be impugned, if the views he entertained on the great subject in question were such as are given in the inspired standard, felt it to be his duty to take the field and contend "earnestly for the faith once delivered unto the saints."

Many of our readers are probably aware that, in connexion with the ecclesiastical controversies of Scotland, there is going on a theological discussion as spirit-stirring, though less agitating on the nature and extent of the atonement of Christ. Great good, we doubt not, will arise out of it.

The efficacy of all Christian teaching under God depends upon the light in which this fundamental article of our faith is regarded, and the manner in which it is exhibited in our public ministrations. If this be misunderstood or perverted, the whole system of divine truth suffers deterioration. Unscriptural views of the atonement must materially affect our views of the state of the unconverted, and the ministry of the gospel in reference to that state.

It appears that the notions of the atonement entertained by many of the orthodox ministers of the secession church are perfectly inconsistent with the free, full amplitude of evangelical invitation to sinners for whom Christ died, which characterized, the apostolic ministry; and yet that, in despite of these notions, these good men do nevertheless equal their more enlightened and scriptural brethren in preaching a full and free salvation to all; while, to cover their own inconsistency, they charge those brethren with unsoundness on the cardinal doctrine of the atonement, and Dr. Wardlaw especially, as a kind of origo mali in the secession church, as having contributed to shake the orthodoxy of its ministers, to introduce as a consequence, painful and schismatic controversies, and, in a word, to poison the springs of truth in that large, respectable, and eminently useful body of Christians." Hence the present volume, which comes most opportunely as a light shining in a dark place. It is the clearest statement of the nature and extent of the great doctrine of atonement that we have ever seen; and the argument, from whatever source derived, is full and complete, while the opposite systems, so long maintained as orthodox, and still pertinaciously adhered to by many, are utterly demolished. We doubt not but that our " Old Correspondent," whose "Remarks on a Letter touching the Controversy in the Secession Church of Scotland," appeared in our number for June, will be pleased to hear himself convinced, by a train of argumentation which logical minds can well understand and appreciate.

After

The work consists of seven Discourses, which were delivered to the author's own congregation. In the first, Dr. Wardlaw propounds his well-known views on the nature of the Christian atonement. some preliminary and important observations on the general subject, he inquires "What is the atonement which, according to the Christian scheme, has actually been made?" and, in answer to this inquiry, he justly says, "The whole Bible bears us out in affirming it to have been atonement by sacrificein other words, by substitution and vicarious suffering. Of this the Bible is full." Having established this at some length, the author remarks, that "in such an atonement

there are obviously pre-supposed certain attributes of the Divine character. These are especially righteousness and mercy." "The atonement is the manifestation of righteousness and mercy in union. It is the suggestion of love; the invention of wisdom; the vindication of justice; the way for the honourable exercise of pardoning grace. This is the invariable representation of the matter in the Bible. Nowhere

is the Divine Being represented there as loving men in consequence or on account of the atonement." Having cleared away the misapprehensions sometimes entertained on this point, and others of a similar nature on reconciliation, as the effect of the atonement, the writer concludes the first discourse. The important topics discussed in the second, are the proper value of the atonement, or the question, Whence arose its suffi ciency? The true sense in which Divine justice was satisfied by it; in whose behalf the satisfaction was made, or for whom Christ died, which in other words is the inquiry, Whether the atonement was limited or universal. The whole value of the atonement is derived from the PERSON who made it-who "put away sin by the sacrifice of HIMSELF." It implies the incarnation of Deity, or, as Bishop Horsley states it, "The doctrine of the incarnation in its whole amount is this:-that one of the three persons of the Godhead was united to man, i. e., to a human body and to a human soul, in the person of Jesus, in order to expiate the guilt of the whole human race, original and actual, by the merit, death, and sufferings of the man so united to the Godhead. This atonement was the end of the incarnation; and the two articles reciprocate; for an incarnation is implied and presupposed in the scripture doctrine of atonement, as the necessary means to the end." It is this which stamps upon the atonement its true value-" a value," says Dr. Wardlaw, "which is strictly and properly infinite. "The sacrifice," he adds, "was not merely of Divine appointment, but itself Divine." And it must have been so in the very nature of the thing when we consider the design of atonement in reference to God, and in its influence upon those who derive their salvation from it. Atonement is "the public vindication of the Divine righteousness, the maintenance in all their unsullied dignity of the honours of the Divine throne in extending mercy to the guilty." Now, where among all the creatures of God, could one be found able to accomplish a purpose like this? "Not only," says Dr. Wardlaw, in pursuing this argument, "does every intelligent creature lie under its own obligations, -works of supererogation involving an infinite absurdity even in creation's highest departments; but the purpose of atonement

already specified is too lofty for the loftiest of created natures. No creature could ever be invested with such a trust. The finite could never give an adequate manifestation of the glory of the Infinite. To suppose the Infinite nominating one of his own dependent creatures to the task, and to the honour of adequately compensating for the wrong done to his name and government by the rebellion of other creatures against his rightful supremacy, involves a contradiction from which our judgments indignantly revolt." Much more that is valuable follows this, which well deserves to be read with profound attention.

The influence of such a spectacle as the atonement effected by Immanuel on those who are privileged to witness its saving manifestation must be great, and is that alone which could bring pardoned rebels back to that affectionate allegiance to their almighty Creator which his glory and their happiness equally demand.

Admit," says Bishop Horsley, "that either a perfect man or an incarnate angel had been able to pay the forfeit for us; and suppose that the forfeit had been paid by a person thus distinct and separate from the Godhead; what effect would have been produced by a pardon so obtained in the mind of the pardoned offender? Joy, no doubt, for an unexpected deliverance from impending vengeance-love for the person, man or angel, who had wrought the deliverance-remorse that his crimes had involved another's innocence in misery; but certainly no attachment to the service of the Sovereign. The deliverer might have been loved; but the Being whose justice exacted the satisfaction would have remained the object of mere fear, unmixed with love, or rather of fear mixed with aversion. Pardon thus obtained never would have inflamed the repentant sinner's bosom with that love of God, which alone qualifies an intelligent creature for the enjoyment of the Creator's presence. This could only be effected by the wonderful scheme in which mercy and truth are made to kiss each other; when the same God who, in one Person, exacts the punishment; in another himself sustains it; and thus makes his own mercy pay the satisfaction to his own justice."

Under the inquiry, In what sense was the atonement a SATISFACTION to Divine justice? after some discussions of an abstract kind, the author considering justice according to the ordinary definition of it, as the attribute that gives every one his due, observes that it has been divided into various kinds, and that they have been designated, vindictive, commutative, distributive, and public. The first he sets aside, because "the epithet vindictive properly applies, not to the desert of the sufferer, or the righteous

ness of the infliction, but to the spirit and temper of the party by whom the punishment is awarded and executed." "It is the spirit of selfishness-and of selfishness of the worst description-of malignant selfish

ness.

It cannot, at all events, have any place in the government of God: and pity it is, that in any minds there should ever, from the mere want of reflection, be the most distant approximation to such an idea of justice as subsisting in the character, and exercised in the administration, of the universal Ruler." Dr. Wardlaw urges well-founded objections against the first three descriptions of justice, and adheres to the last. "It is to public justice," he tells us, "that in substitution and propitiation, the satisfaction is made." To the beautiful illustration of this which follows we can only refer. As it regards the controversy the third inquiry, namely, whether the atonement was limited or universal, is the most important, and is treated with admirable skill. The different theories which have been held by theologians, with their respective classes of adherents, on the question of the extent of the atonement, the author states to be three in numberthe first is the theory of exact equivalent; the second, the theory of infinite sufficiency, but definite intention, or limited destination; and the third, that of indefinite, or universal atonement, with gracious sovereignty in its effectual application. The last of the three is the one which Dr. Wardlaw holds to be most in harmony with Scriptural representations, and which he has maintained and defended completely to our satisfaction. The first is summarily dismissed, chiefly on the ground that it has ever appeared to the author infinitely derogatory to the majesty of the Godhead, and to the Divinity of the mediatorial substitute, bringing down the transcendent magnificence of the plan of mercy to a matter of mercantile calculation of debtor and creditor account. Under this head, Dr. Wardlaw remarks, (and the statement is sufficient to cut up by the roots the theory of exact equivalent,) "On the ground of the infinite worth of the Redeemer's sacrifice, arising from the Divinity of his person, limitation in sufficiency becomes in the nature of things an impossibility. If the atonement was in its nature Divine, then was it in its nature unlimited; and they who adopt the theory of exact equivalent, must undertake the contradictory task of limiting infinitude." The two or three pages devoted to this point might be easily expanded into a volume, and are very suggestive of irresistible arguments to minds fond of an elaborate process of reasoning. Dr. Wardlaw is indeed of opinion that he has said more than enough of this theory, more than it deserves but that he has been induced to do so, by the apprehensions

that, few as they may be, who may be said to hold it from examination and conviction, yet in the conceptions of many, as indicated by the terms in which they are wont to express themselves, there is latent a great deal too much of its pitiful pounds-shillings-andpence principle.

The second of these schemes Dr. Wardlaw views in connexion with the third. To the differences of the two theories, as stated by one of his opponents, who is regarded by him as "an excellent and able writer," he says, "I have little or no objection to offer," The difference is by this writer, Dr. Symington, thus described,-" On the extent of Christ's atonement, the two opinions that have ever divided the church are expressed in the terms definite and indefinite. The former means that Christ died, satisfied Divine justice, and made atonement only for such as are saved. The latter means that Christ died, satisfied Divine justice, or made atonement for all mankind, without exception, as well those who are not saved as those who are. The one regards the death of Christ as a legal satisfaction to the law and justice of God, on behalf of elect sinners; the other regards it as a general moral vindication of the Divine government, without respect to those to whom it may be rendered effectual, and of course equally applicable to all." As to the wording, this is not the statement which any writer holding the latter theory would make. It is the truth, but not the whole truth. It has, however, drawn forth from Dr. Wardlaw an exhibition of his views, based on Holy Scripture, in which we equally admire the comprehensiveness and the precision, the grandeur of the scheme, and the acute definiteness of the distinctions which, in its combination as a whole, reveal at once its symmetry and its strength. Various objections fatal to the definite theory Dr. Wardlaw urges against it, and then he propounds his own, which regards the atonement as a great moral vindication of the Divine character, and especially of the Divine righteousness; not binding God to pardon any, but rendering it honourable to his perfections and government, should he so will it, to pardon all; leaving no insuperable barrier in the way of the pardon of any, whether arising from limited sufficiency in the atonement itself, or from such restriction in its destination as leaves the claims of justice unsatisfied except within the limits of that destination; both of which suppositions involve natural impossibility; from the existence of no atonement beyond a certain extent; he regards it, in a word, as an all-sufficient general remedy, of which the effectual application remains in the hands of the Divine sovereignty. In this statement there is nothing inconsistent with the doctrine of per

sonal and unconditional election; on the contrary, it is the only view that can render it unconditional, and the effect of pure mercy. Dr. Wardlaw assumes the Scriptural authority for this doctrine, while he observes, "The whole controversy between the advocates of a limited, and the advocates of a universal atonement, has been summed up in the one question, Whether, in the purpose of God, according to the order of nature, election precedes atonement, or atonement precedes election?" The reasons assigned for the adoption of the latter view, namely, that atonement precedes election, are incontrovertible, especially that which connects the Mediator with election. Referring to the text, John xvii. 6, "Thine they were, and thou gavest them me," the Doctor asks, "Who speaks? the Son of God. In what capacity? Beyond a doubt, in his capacity of Mediator. How, then, could they be given him in that capacity, unless he was first regarded in that capacity? He behoved to have been contemplated as Mediator, that is, the plan of mediatorial substitution must have been before the eye of the Father, ere they could be given to him as the stipulated reward of the work which, in the fulness of the time, he was to accomplish." And again, in the next discourse, adverting to the same point, he says, "In what beautiful harmony the language of Scripture appears to be with this arrangement; the Mediator never being represented as chosen and appointed for the elect, but the elect as chosen in the Mediator, which appears evidently to involve the assumption of his pre-appointment, and of the means of their honourable deliverance having been, in the act of their election to it, present to the Divine mind."

The two grand arguments in favour of the universal extent of the atonement and its application by a gracious sovereignty, in the fulfilment of a decree inscrutable to all beings but the one in whose mind it originated, are, first, the twofold design of the scheme of atonement, corresponding to the twofold relation in which the Divine Being stands to our own race, and to the intelligent creation at large, to the universe of accountable creatures, the twofold relation of moral Governor and sovereign Benefactor; and the second is that derived from the universality of the invitations and offers of the gospel, and the ground of this universality as it appears in the scheme of definite, and in that of indefinite atonement.

In working out the first of these arguments, there is not only a great power of reasoning displayed, but it is rendered captivating by the devout eloquence with which it is brought home to the heart. After saying, "I apprehend that, in contemplating Divine transactions in regard to

6

their final causes, or the ends which they are designed to serve, we are too prone to look to these ends as they relate to the creature, and to forget that there is an end which necessarily takes precedence of everything of this kind. I refer to the manifestation of the glory of God. This must ever stand first and supreme." Having premised this, the writer goes on to exemplify it in the design of God in the creation. "His infinite mind determined to fill it with his glory; that is, to make that infinite and essential glory which belonged to his nature visibly apparent, and such manifestation bears a necessary proportion to two things, to the number of objects in which it is discernible, and the number of intelligent beings capable of discerning it. Both were therefore included in the plan of creation; and both were subservient to the great primary purpose. On a similar principle, I imagine, we should regard the purposes and plans of God towards our fallen world. Here is a revolted province of his vast moral empire. He determines to make it the theatre for another manifestation of himself; to fill it too with his glory. The display is to be one of a new and different kind. It is to manifest the attributes of his character, as they form the principles, and regulate the conduct of his moral government: so that to those Morning Stars' that had sung together'-those Sons of God' that had 'shouted for joy,' when the foundations of the earth were laid,—to those 'principalities and powers in the heavenly places,' there might be presented a view diverse from all that they had ever witnessed before, of the manifold wisdom of God,'— of that wisdom under an aspect of it altogether new, working out new ends by new and appropriate means,-ends beyond example glorious and worthy of their Divine Proposer, and means possessing, in the moral world, as perfect and beautiful an adaptation to their object, as any in the whole range of the physical universe to theirs. When their own rebellious compeers had been banished from the abodes of purity and bliss, and 'cast down to hell,' they had seen, with holy and submissive awe, the stern award of punitive justice,-Jehovah's love of righte ousness in his vengeance on those who had cast off the yoke of allegiance to Himself and to its principles. Now, they were to witness a fresh display of the same righteousness, but a display of a widely different kind; of righteousness, not alone, but in glorious combination with mercy,—of holiness and grace,-of light and love,-in a scheme, of which the unfolding and consummation should give an expansion and elevation to their conceptions of Deity, enlarged and lofty as they had been before, transcending what they had ever experienced,