never be healed until the fuller manifestation of the New Jerusalem, when the Divine Truth, like the sun rising in his strength, shall dispel this amongst other unwholesome exhalations, produced by the fire of the selfhood of man, operating upon the contents of the Bible, tainting them with its own unhealthy and unclean character, and converting truth into a lie by the process of falsification.

Formerly, religious disputants spoke out, without that temporising qualification miscalled liberality. Hence we have the two sects called Particular Baptists, and General Baptists; the former, as Particular Redemptionists, affirming that only a particular portion of mankind, called the elect, were redeemed or atoned for; the latter, as General Redemptionists, affirming that mankind were redeemed generally, by a universal atonement, and that the elect are those who avail themselves, as free agents, of the benefits of the gospel. Particular Redemption was then held also by the Independents, now Congregationalists, but these professors have become "moderate Calvinists," and what do our readers suppose is one of the marks of this professed moderation? It is this. They now believe that all mankind were redeemed or atoned for, according to God's public or rectorial purpose, but that, according to God's secret, or sovereign purpose, only the elect were intended to receive any benefit thereby. We scarcely dare make such a statement to our readers on unsupported authority. It must necessarily appear to them almost incredible. They might even think that we were not serious. We avail ourselves, therefore, of an opportunity of giving proof of the accuracy of our statement, by citing some extracts from the remarks of the Congregational reviewer, in last month's (October) Magazine, when advocating a universal, against a limited atonement.

"Would a man who believed that the atonement had nothing to do with the nonelect, have used such expressions as are perpetually employed about it in the New Testament? Terms of the plainest universality are there used withont the least qualification or restriction. [The following passages are then quoted :]- We thus judge, that if one died for all, then were all dead; and that he died for all, that they who live should not henceforth live unto themselves, but unto him who died for them, and rose again.'—' I exhort that supplications be made for all men, for this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour; who WILL HAVE all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth. For there is one God, and one Mediator between God and man, the man Christ Jesus, who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time.'-' God so loved the world, that he gave his Only Begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. For God sent not his Son into the world, to condemn the world; but that the world, through him, might be saved.'-The apostles evidently acted upon the faith that Christ died for the world. They gave the most unmeasured invitations. They preached as if they had good news for all people.

*

But then, again, it is impossible to read the Bible without seeing that there was a special reference in the atonement to the elect, the Church. "Feed the Church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.'-' The good Shepherd giveth his life for the sheep.'-' Christ loved the Church, and gave himself for it.' In innumerable ways it is stated, that Christ had a particular and limited design in dying—to save his people."

Now, to a member of the New Church, these two classes of passages appear so obviously in harmony, that he is amazed that any discord between them can be detected or supposed by others. The connecting and harmonizing link between the two classes, is-a just idea of man's free agency. All mankind were redeemed, or put in possession of the power to work out their own salvation. Being free agents, they could either use or neglect this power; using it, they would become portions of God's people-his Church-for the sake of which, the Redeemer suffered and did those things which are recorded of him. It was that he might make man holy and blessed in himself, that he effected his redemption, and, as all such holy and happy persons are only found amongst his people, being those who, recognizing his purchase, have given themselves up to him, and constitute his Church; therefore the Church is sometimes spoken of as if alone redeemed, because alone realizing the results of redemption. The truth is, that all were actually redeemed, and thereby all were potentially saved, but only those become actually saved, who freely and actually accept and work out their own salvation. God purposed that all should actually be saved on conditions, but the Calvinist, unfortunately for himself, cannot believe this; he cannot reconcile the two classes of passages naturally and fairly, for this can only be done by the belief of free-will; he rejects this doctrine; he believes in election, arbitrary and unconditional; and thus he throws away the natural harmonizing principle; but as the passages must be harmonized somehow, he is obliged to try his hand at something purely artificial.-We resume the Congregational reviewer's remarks from where we left off:

"What is wanted, then? A principle which shall explain, or admit of the explanation of both the facts (or classes of passages) we have referred to. We cannot give our own views better than in the language of Dr. Wardlaw.--' The principle of harmony lies in the distinction between the PUBLIC RECTORIAL DESIGN of God in the atonement - which is universal; and the SECRET SOVEREIGN DESIGN of God, (who is entitled to have mercy upon whom he will have mercy') which is limited. THIS CONVERTS THE DISCORD INTO HARMONY' (!!!)."

We will not affront the understandings of our readers, by presenting them with the miserable, and really unintelligible remarks of Dr.

Wardlaw, in support of this artificial method of harmonizing; but concerning which the reviewer complacently observes, — “This is sufficiently plain. It represents the faith of the Congregational body, north and south. We cannot see anything very awful or dangerous in it; it seems to us reasonable and just (!), harmonious in itself (!) and with Scripture (!), removing many difficulties otherwise insuperable, and creating none itself (!), affording an easy interpretation to many passages otherwise not soon reconciled."-Certainly, there is great difficulty in reconciling the two classes of passages, when free-will, the natural reconciler, is put to flight, and an eternal discordance introduced instead, by the substitution of the horrible doctrine of an arbitrary election. But although Dr. Wardlaw's artificial mode of harmonizing is pronounced so excellent by the reviewer, he has the painful task of being obliged to follow up his eulogium with saying, "But Dr. Marshall (the advocate of a limited atonement) says it is not truth !” And thus the house of the friends of election and predestination is divided against itself! The reviewer, however, strives to comfort himself and his party with the conclusion, "that the whole controversy is very much a matter of mere words." Very likely, and it may well be questioned whether "mere words" were ever strung together in a worse cause. Although Dr. Marshall affirms that he believes in a limited atonement, the reviewer declares that he does no such thing, and, as we shall see presently, actually proves that he does not from his own language! Indeed, the reviewer declares that

“The fact is, that no one believes in a limited atonement, properly so called. Many may say they do, but if their sentiments be analysed, it will be found, that it is not a limited atonement. The only consistent advocates of a limited atonement, are those who maintain the notion of commercial justice; who assert that Christ's atonement was exactly the bearing of the same sufferings, in kind and in intensity, that those whom he redeemed (the elect) would else have had to bear. This sentiment is absurd. Would, then, the elect have been damned to crucifixion, had Christ not died for them? And if this notion of mercantile atonement be renounced, what is there left that can, with any propriety, be termed a limited atonement ? Christ's death satisfied public, not commercial justice; the merit of it is not to be measured by the exact extent of his sufferings, but arose from the dignity and glory of his personal nature. How, then, can there be any limitation ?"

We have not quoted the above on account of the clearness of the argument, but on account of the curious terms employed in it. If the advocates of substitutional sufferings affirm that no proportion was necessary between the sufferings of the Lamb, and the sufferings said to be due to man, we cannot avoid asking, whether the indignity of

spitting upon such a person as God manifest in the flesh, might not have fully answered the purpose? and whether the additional suffering of the cross, was not an unnecessary infliction, and even, according to their theory, a wanton torture of " the personal nature" of the Son of God, inasmuch as it answered no good purpose whatever, because no proportion was necessary between his vicarious sufferings and the sufferings due to mankind? But our reviewer, who is so opposed to a limited atonement, cannot deny, that he believes that, according to God's purpose and design, it was regarded by him, as limited in its application, limited to a particular number of persons, called the elect, and intended for no others. He remarks thus:

"To say that it is God's purpose to limit its effects, is beside the question. That is only an assertion of a limited purpose respecting the atonement, but the question relates not to God's purpose, which is one thing, but to Christ's atonement, which is another."

Very good indeed! A certain rich man gave out, that on a certain day, he would prepare for the benefit of the whole town in which he lived, a feast; and he invited all to partake of it; but he purposed (which, however, is not to be regarded as any limitation of his liberality) that every one should be excluded from the feast, that was not named in his own secret list, which contained only a favoured portion of the inhabitants. Who dares to call this feast a limited feast! What could be more universal? Even if the list had contained but ONE name, evidently the feast would have been a feast for the whole of the inhabitants of the much-loved town! Alas! that Christians should argue solemnly in a style which a simple comparison proves to be the acme of puerility and absurdity! The reviewer talks of "a universal atonement considered apart from the purpose of God;" and also of "all parties believing in a limited election, and [amazing addition!] a universal atonement." Really it appears as if Calvinism deprived its friends of the privilege of exercising common prudence in the affair of religion ! They would account a person a madman, if he chose a friend by judging of his actions apart from his purposes, but the acts of God are to be considered apart from HIS purposes; and HIS acts are to be considered as infinitely bountiful, while his purposes therein are believed and declared-to be-limited! But we must allow the reviewer to convict his fellow believer, with whom he says he differs only in "mere words," of inconsistency.

“Dr. Marshall says, 'the Saviour died in a special sense for the elect, but in some sense for all. No one can refuse to admit that he was made sin for all, some way;-so made sin for all, as to satisfy justice for all; to fulfil the law for all;

rendering it consistent with the character of the Most High, to urge and entreat all to look to him and be saved. In some sense, it was an atonement for all: in some sense the Saviour stood in the room of all; satisfying public justice; bearing the legal answerableness,— -NOT the blameworthiness,—for all, and not for a select portion only. What opened the door of mercy for any one, opened it for every one. The atonement, while limited in its design, was general in its nature. (!) Although the Saviour had not the same love to all (!), nor the same purpose to save all, it may yet be affirmed with truth, that he made the same satisfaction for all.'” (!) "These extracts from Dr. Marshall's work (says the reviewer) prove, that if words have any meaning, he is precisely where his opponents are.”

The reviewer then quotes some counter-statements, and demands a reconciliation of the two, justly observing, that "it is no presumptuous or impertinent request, that a writer should reveal the harmony of his own views." (We cannot but fear, however, that the reviewer himself, upon being closely pressed to do the same thing, by a sound New Church reasoner, would, like all the rest of our opponents, be very liable to seek refuge in angry charges of presumption and impertinence.) The reviewer says of his Calvinistic brother, Dr. Marshall,—

"The simple truth is, that he continually confounds two most distinct things. (?) He argues the limitation of the atonement FROM the limitation of God's design to save-through it,-[the limitation] of election to life. He says of his opponents,— 'They admit that at the last day, a distinction shall be made between those who serve God, and those who serve him not. Now, what unavoidably follows from this admission? Either that Christ did not die for all, or that his intention in dying, shall be frustrated. That his intention should be frustrated, is, however, impossible, because he is Divine; of course the other alternative is undeniable, he did not die to redeem ALL men. Was it possible that, knowing as he did, that all men should not be saved, he could lay down his life to save all men ?"

Certainly the charge of contradiction is fully established against Dr. Marshall, who, by the way, very innocently, but very truly observes, that "the doctrine of election is a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offence to the advocates of universal atonement;" and who are those advocates? why, all parties had agreed that amongst them are to be found-the sacred writers themselves! Undoubtedly this odious doctrine is an obstacle to all sound conclusions from Scripture, concerning the true the unbounded character of the Divine Love, in creating, redeeming, and saving mankind.-But as for the doctrine of election and predestination, its days are numbered! If there were no paid advocates for it, it would soon pass away like an uneasy dream, scared by the morning ray which now shines in the rising spirit of the age!

And now let us ask, did the reader never enjoy the sweets and comforts of a good home the more keenly, from having suffered the temporary privation of them while buffeting the snow storm, over the