glad to find our brethren boldly advancing with the panoply of truth to demolish their strong holds; undaunted by the hostile array of literary " of a pretenders, and undiverted by "the smooth complexioned flattery false and spurious charity, Mr. Stovel's little book is admirably adapted to expose the fallacy of those arguments so often used to support infant baptism, by which the vital interests of christianity are endangered.

We venture to say, without pledging ourselves to the accuracy of every statement, that its perusal will afford pleasure and profit to our readers in general.

But we cannot dismiss this production without expressing our apprehension, that at least one of the arguments Mr. Stovel presses upon the consideration of the Pædobaptist body, will be regarded by them as pointless and ineffective. We allude to what he says of "the union of christians as such" being "affected by this hereditary claim," a union he observes, "which is sought after but by few, and retarded by obstacles, which are little less than insurmountable." We presume, reference is here made to the desirableness of "the union of christians as such," at the Lord's table, or what is termed "free communion," for which Mr. Stovel is known to be a strenuous and unflinching advocate. We ask, therefore, how does this principle of "hereditary claims " practically affect the union of all christians at the Lord's table, seeing that practice is actually tolerated, and zealously contended for on the ground that nothing is an indispensable requisite for the Lord's table, but a credible profession of faith in Christ? It is plain, that the avowal of that principle by the Pædobaptists is not considered a barrier to their communion with some baptist churches, because they are the very persons whose admission constitutes mixed-communion, and whose exclusion subjects the strict Baptists to the charge of violating the rules of christian charity.

However justly, therefore, Mr. Stovel may complain of the arguments used to support infant baptism on other grounds, it is clear that the question of "hereditary claims," cannot possibly affect the union of christians, as such, in the view taken of that subject by our mixed-communion brethren.

Moreover, we wish to ask,--seeing such a mode of defending infant baptism, actually implicates the Pædobaptists in the "evils" that flow from the pernicious heresy of baptismal regeneration-and Mr. Stovel really believes such to be the case-on what scriptural grounds can he and his mixed-communion brethren so far encourage, and connive at those evils, as to admit the abettors of them to the table of the Lord? We are aware how Mr. S. would answer this question on his own principles; but his grave and just expostulations with the Pædobaptists would leave us to suppose, that he really considered the "evils" in which they implicate themselves, by their defence of infant baptism, to be of too serious a nature, to be connived at, or indirectly sanctioned, by the admission of the abettors of them to the Lord's table.

Must not Mr. Stovel be convinced that the practice of "free-communion" encourages the error of those who prefer "An hereditary claim to the covenant of mercy," and that thereby he himself falls under the charge of impeding the work of salvation by grace alone?

We leave Mr. Stovel to reflect on this view of the subject, by just submitting to the fraternal consideration of himself and his brethren, the two following questions:

1. Ought not something more decisive to be done in exposing the nature, and checking the progress of this Pædobaptistical error of "an hereditary claim to the covenant of mercy?"

2. Ought not you and your brethren, in some more obvious and conclusive way, to clear yourselves and your practice of mixed-communion, from your implication in the evils which flow from this dangerous and pernicious error?

We

We hope these queries will be thought neither impertinent nor disingenu ous, as we are assured by Mr. Stovel himself, that his "view of fraternal christian fellowship, includes something more of freedom and faithfulness," than some others are disposed to admit.

THE EXTENT OF THE ATONEMENT IN ITS RELATION TO GOD AND THE UNIVERSE.-By T. W. Jenkyn, D. D.

Having introduced this book and its subject to the notice of the reader in a former paper, we now proceed to consider it a little in detail. Our remarks at present will be confined to the second chapter, "On the Atonement in its relation to the person of the Son of God." This chapter Dr. Jenkyn has divided into six sections; two of them on The personal dignity, and on The personal voluntariness of Christ, need not any comment; but four others on The personal relationship of Christ to mankind-The personal character of Christ, or what is called his active righteousness - The personal substitution of Christ, and The personal sufferings of Christ, contain sentiments which ought not to pass uncontradicted. The reader must be forewarned that these chapters cannot be answered in order. So far from finding in them any truly logical arrangement of subjects, they are full of tautology, and the same favourite idea of the substitution of sufferings in the room of the identical penalty, is introduced under every head of discourse. A section is prefixed to this chapter very much in the American style of Jacob Abbott, on the Theory of Atonement. That it must originate with the government-that the mediator must be somehow or other related to the offenders-as for instance, The Sheriff of a county! that he should be a man of acknowledged character-that his intercession should be voluntary- that his humiliation, suppose it was laying his head on the block and taking it up again, should be something that maintained the integrity of government!!! though the identical penalty were not endured with much more carnal reasoning of the same character, utterly incapable of representing the situation of incarnate God, engaged to bring many sons to glory, bearing their sins in his own body on the tree, that they being dead to sin, should live unto God.

Here let it be observed: 1st. That according to Dr. Jenkyn, the relationship of Christ to mankind is not one of grace, but of nature. It does not consist in their being elect according to the fore-knowledge of God the Father, predestinated to the adoption of children by Jesus Christ unto himself; but in his participation of their common nature; so that he is become the Saviour of the species-the common Saviour of the race.

"He is related to men by office, having 'power over all flesh,' by kindred, being made of a woman' and by neighbourhood, having tabernacled among them, full of grace and truth.'"-page 26.

In short, the writer wishes us to believe that he is related in any way, and every way, so that it is not an interest of sovereign grace. If it be but a relationship which will apply to Cain as well as Abel-to Saul as well as David-to Judas as well as Paul- there is no objection to it whatever, But let it discriminate the sheep from the goats-the election from the rest→→→→ the finally saved from the fiually lost, and he will condemn it as that commercial atonement, which degrades the gospel, fetters its ministers, which

sums up the worth of a stupendous moral transaction by arithmetic, and with its span limits what is infinite!

All this would be reasonable enough, and plausible enough, were there any scripture to sanction it. It is true, there is something anomalous in the fact, that the knowledge of the Saviour of the species, should for 4,000 years be confined nearly to a single family, and that he has never yet been known to more than an eighth part of the human race. The bible speaks of the husband and the wife-the shepherd and the sheep-the father and the children and always supposes the relationship to be one of sovereign grace, and not of nature, And when the Shepherd speaks of sheep committed to his care-for whom he received a commandment to die-whom he came to seek and save-and of whom he will lose nothing, but will raise it up again at the last day, it is perversity of the plainest language upon earth to say, as Dr. Jenkyn does, that such expressions refer to the effects of the death of Christ, and not the intention of it. The relationship of Christ to his church, as it existed in the purpose of God, and is developed in the existence of every believer, is plain and easy to be understood; but his relationship to the species-his mediation for the race, for many of whom he does not pray, and to whom he will profess I never knew you, is one unknown to the bible.

2. The personal substitution of Christ, seems to be a perfect delusion, a name and not a thing. What do we mean by a substitute? if a man be drawn for the militia, and provides a substitute, he is altogether excused from service, and that man serves in his room and stead. A vicar was one sent by monkish improprietors, to supply their place in a living, and to officiate in their room and stead. And however strange it may sound in Dr. Jenkyn's ears, it is not antinomianism, but scripture truth to say, that Christ obeyed the law for us in such a way, as to relieve us from all such service; and that he was so substituted for us when the penalty was inflicted, that we shall escape it for ever. It is never the duty of any christian to obey the law for his own justification, however bound he may be to it, by being married to him who rose from the dead. This is the substitution of the bible, as it is the substitution of common sense. "He died the just for the unjust, to bring them to God." "He gave himself for our sins, to deliver us from this present evil world." "He gave himself for the church, to sanctify and cleanse it." The substitution of Dr. Jenkyn, is spoken of a whole, not made up of individuals. If Christ died as a personal substitute for the whole human race, he was a personal substitute for every individual of the human race. If I buy a flock, I buy every individual sheep of it; and an atonement made for the species, is nothing more nor less than an atonement made for every soul of man; and by parity of reasoning, for all the sins of every man. The identity of this opinion with plain Arminianism, is confessed by Robt. Hall, I think, in his funeral sermon for Mr. Teller.

It would be much better for our author, and writers of a similar character, to reject such words as vicarious and substitution, when it is clear they attach nothing like the ordinary and common meaning to them. A conditional atonement is a fable in common life; a substitute that does not relieve his principal, and a vicar whose services have respect to no individual, are dreams wholly and solely confined to modern theology.

3. When Dr. Jenkyn speaks of "The personal character of Christ, or what is called his active righteousness," the unsuspecting reader is not to imagine that any such doctrine is intended as a righteousness wrought out and imputed for a sinner's justification; all that the author means, is - that developement of our Lord's character, during the period of his life and

ministry, which demonstrated him to be a righteous person; so that it should be known he died the just for the unjust, to bring us to God.

"The atonement did not consist in the death of Christ, simply as death, or as the death of a person so related to the offenders; but it consisted in being such a death of such a person. The Lord Christ would not have been such a person in his sufferings and death, had not the obedience of his life preceded his agonies. The obedience of his life, gave him a mediatorial character in the estimation of the divine government; so that it is an honour to the moral law to honour him!"--page 31.

This is not the place to enter upon a defence of the doctrine of a sinner's justification through the righteousness of Christ. These observations are merely introduced to apprise our readers, especially the youthful portion of them, of the loose and inaccurate sense in which such expressions as parti cular redemption, vicarious sufferings, personal substitution, and active righte ousness are used by modern divines. When we speak of the active righteousness of Christ, we speak of one, who, in his own proper person, was himself the God, the Law-giver, the Judge, and so not under the law, voluntarily submitting to be made under it; under the dominion of its commandment, as well as under the curse of its violated covenant; that by his perfect obedience to its precept, and his death under its penalty, he might both make an end of sin, and bring in everlasting righteousness. A doctrine by no means consistent with the grand moral expedient! and which it is quite clear Dr. Jenkyn cannot receive. Then let the reader be well aware that the active righteousness of Christ, is not his one obedience to the law, by which many are made righteous, but that holiness and righteousness of his life which shews him not to have deserved death for himself. "That he did not suffer death as the inflicted penalty of the law, because, for a person of his character, the law had no penalty! but he voluntarily suffered death as an agreed arrangement, and received commandment from his Father. The obedience of Christ, was worthy of honour from the law; because that he himself was not worthy of death." The sum and substance of which, is, that the obedient life of the Son of God gave him his character, and the death of such a character was a sufficient reason why God should suspend the execution of his threatenings, to any extent he pleases. Whether this be any thing like " Making him to be SIN for us, who knew no sin, that we might be made THE RIGHTEOUSNESS of GOD in him," let the reader judge.

4. The personal sufferings of Christ. It is almost impossible to comment upon this chapter with propriety. Instead of speaking of the sufferings of Christ, the argument altogether turns on the extent of the atonement. The author shews that all the true elements of an atonement, are incapable of increase or diminution; that the nature and degree of sufferings, is not such a necessary element; and, of course, that the nature and extent of the atonement cannot be affected by it.

As we shall have occasion to speak on the sufferings of Christ, and the extent of the atonement itself, in another place, we will confine our remarks to other topics noticed in this chapter.

Dignity of person-relationship to the offender-worth of charactervoluntary substitution-and appointment by the government—are said to be the essential elements of an atonement to a government. Does Dr. Jenkyn mean, that they are essential elements of any atonement, or of the atonement of the bible? If the former, we may boldly deny it. An atonement may be made to a government for an offender, where the proposition did not originate with the government-where the mediator is in no way

related to the offender-where there is no moral dignity in his character, beyond that of his ability to compensate. How absurd is it at any time, from general principles of human reason and government, to argue to the proof of a doctrine of revelation. How infinitely more absurd, to form and fashion those general principles ourselves, so as to make them speak exactly what we want them to speak. We admit that these are essential elements of the atonement of Christ; not because they are essential to an atonement; but because we are sure they are the truths of God, respecting that of the scriptures. These elements, says Dr. Jenkyn, are incapable of increase or diminution. "Could the Son of God have had more or less dignity of person, than he actually had? Could he have been more or less related to the offender, that is, more or less incarnate than he really was? Could his moral worth, and active obedience to the law, have been less perfect than it was? Could the voluntariness of his substitution have been increased or diminished? Could his mediation have been instituted with more authority and approbation than it was ?"—page 49.

These questions may all be answered as the author wishes, excepting one. Could he have been more nearly related? Assuredly he could. He could be a bondsman, (as he is) expressly pledged to deliver them, and preserve them to his heavenly kingdom. He could be a Father to them, (as he is) and present them to himself at last, without one omission or imperfection. But Dr. Jenkyn says, that is to say, could he be more or less incarnate? This videlicet speaks volumes. It tells us that this lucid reasoner could discern no other relationship between Christ and any sinners, than that which is natural; his partaking of their common nature; that there was no way in which he could be more nearly related, than by his being more incarnate! and that because he is a man, and all sinners are men, therefore he bears exactly the same relation to all sinners!! Dr. Jenkyn must be told, that on this one question depends the truth or falsehood of his whole system. It is too momentous to be settled with a "that is to say." Was there no relationship in the plan and purpose of God, and in the covenant of life and peace between Christ and sinners, which was the moving cause of his incarnation? Were there no children and brethren whom it behoved him in all things to resemble, and which perfect resemblance, could only be obtained by his incarnation? And those children and brethren, (who are also the seed of Abraham) are they the whole species? And is this relationship which caused him to become incarnate, the result of his incarnation, and so the effect creating the cause, and the river giving birth to its own spring head. Let this teacher in Israel explain how these things can be.

We have now accomplished our object in this paper, which was to advise the reader, that the personal substitution of Christ, is, in Dr. Jenkyn's view, no actual, personal, real substitution at all-that his personal, or active righteousness, is simply the character he obtained amongst men, and in the sight of God, by his holy, obedient life-that his personal sufferings, are not sufferings inflicted by God, as a punishmeut for imputed sins; but simply sufferings unrighteously inflicted by sinful men, upon an innocent character! that the government may be respected in forgiving offences, and that others may be deterred thereby from committing crime! more the reader examine the subject, the more profoundly astonished will he be, that so many of the very elect should be deceived by it. Surely the multitude of christian observers; Patriots and Reviewers are fearfully responsible, in lending themselves to puffing off such quackeries, as wholesome food and medicine for God's children.

The