REVIEW.

THE EXTENT AND EFFICACY OF THE ATONEMENT: a Discourse delivered before the Boston Baptist Association, Sept. 19, 1832. By HOWARD MALCOM. Allen & Ticknor.

The church of our Redeemer on earth is in a militant state, and has to contend against numerous, subtle and powerful adversaries. Every movement she makes, though on the whole an advance towards her ultimate triunph, places her in a new situation of danger, and renders her liable to assaults to which she was, in her previous position, inaccessible. Her real friends, too, will often, through inadvertence or the misinterpretation of the Master's will, bring her into situations of danger, which threaten her purity, if not almost her existence. In support of the above assertions, we may look at the period of the Reformation from Popery. There was an unquestionable advance towards the triumphs destined for the church in the latter day. She assumed a new position, and her change of position exposed her to new dangers. Her friends could not see eye to eye, and contentions among them arose so sharp that they parted one from another, and were opposed to each other with scarcely less violence, than they had been unitedly opposed to the Roman Pontiff. Truth was probably elicited by their collisions; but it was, at least in considerable measure, a cause of retarding the progress of the church in the enlargement of her borders.

Since the days of the Reformation, there has, perhaps, been no period more remarkable than the few last years for the rapid increase of the church's prosperity. We might enlarge on the features of this prosperity, and on the fields of religious triumph; but our limits and our subject alike forbid. We can look, and, in this instance, need look only to our own country; and, indeed, principally, to our own section of it, New-England. How gloriously has the church in these states advanced within a few years; and especially within the three last, what clouds of converts have been added to the Lord! Every pious soul must exult in these additions; but every prudent and discerning spirit will see cause to apprehend danger from this new position of the church. More than usual attention to the subject of religion is still felt in many of our churches; and under the influence of this excitement, some portions of even the minister's duty are apt to be neglected; and this, through his intense earnestness in the discharge of others. He may be so earnest in "saving some by fear, and pulling them out of the fire," that those may be partially forgotten who are to be fed, some with milk and some with meat, but all with knowledge and understanding; that the new-born babe may grow up to the measure of the stature of a mature man in Christ. The work of exhortation may so fill the hands of the minister, as that he should fail to give due attention to indoctrination. This state of things long continued, may render some of the doctrines of religion strange to our ears, and even unpalatable; and before we are aware, we may be verging rapidly towards Arminianism.

There are times, then, and the present is such a one, when it is necessary to set up the way-marks, and call the attention of Christians to truths which are so rarely discussed as that there is danger that they will become antiquated; and it is in this view, principally, that we hail the sermon mentioned at the head of this article, as a valuable and specially seasonable production. Mr. Malcom's text is, I Tim. i, 15,-"Jesus Christ came into the world to save sinners." From these words, he proposes to consider "the design and efficacy of the atonement;" and in so doing to disprove the Arminian doctrine of Indefinite Atonement, and to show that "though in some respects general, in others limited, and in respect of sufficiency, infinite, it is in no sense indefinite; and, in respect to the final salvation of men, it is limited.

The position the preacher takes is the following one-"The great object and design of the atonement was to secure the final salvation of the elect." In proof of this position, his remarks are classed under the following heads:1. The motive of Christ in assuming the office of Mediator.

2. The vicariousness of the atonement.

3. The system of Old Testament types.

4. The terms used in the New Testament in relation to the atonement. 5. The justice of God.

6. The essential Deity of Christ, and unity of the Divine Nature.

7. The Federal Union between Christ and his people.

8. The intent of the atonement.

9. The absolute effects of the atonement; and finally, he

10. Answers some objections.

The following is an epitome of his discussion under these heads respectively. He proves his position,

1. By ascertaining that the motive of Christ in making the atonement was definite.

2. That the atonement he made was vicarious or substitutionary.

3. That the types of the atonement under the Old Testament were definite, as to the end contemplated, and the persons to be benefited.

4. That the terms employed in the New Testament to express it are definite in signification.

5. That justice to Christ requires that he should know definitely for what, and for whom he died.

6. That since the Redeemer is divine, his purpose must correspond with what will be the event; and as only some will eventually be saved, so the atonement was only designed or purposed to save some.

7. That Christ atoned for the sins of those only with whom he stands in a federal relation; and that in that relation he stands to only a definite number.

8. That the intention of the atonement is definite.

9. That, in point of fact, the salvation of all for whom the atonement was made, is secured by divine promise; and as these are a definite number, the design of the atonement was to save them only; i. e. it was definite.

10. That the objections against this doctrine are by no means serious. It will be seen by a glance at this epitome of the discussion, that they all have a bearing on the intention or design of the atonement, and on the proof that its design was the salvation of the elect. This being the case, we are constrained to regret that the preacher was drawn off from these points in the course of his discussion, to another-on the nature of the atonement; a subject, which, we think, destroys that symmetry in the discourse which would otherwise have characterized it, and which moreover is not as acutely examined as its importance demands, nor as Mr. M. could have examined it. -But of this more afterwards.

There is also another point to which, while the first division of the discourse is especially before us, we must devote a single moment. It is thisMr. M. says, the "prime motive" of Christ and of the Father was the salvation of the elect: we would rather say, that as God doubtless proposes to himself the highest end, the most worthy object in all his acts; and as there is an object above and beyond the salvation of the elect, and which must therefore be of higher importance, viz., his own glory; it appears to us this was the grand originating, impulsive consideration in the work of man's redemption. The force of his argument, however, is not impaired by this oversight; -it was not necessary in proving the design of the atonement to be definite, to prove any thing more than he has proved; viz.: that he who made it had, in making it, a definite object; and that that object was the salvation of the elect.

Impartiality compels us to say thus much in a tone of dissatisfaction; and it affords us cordial pleasure that our censures can be directed against nothing of greater magnitude in the discourse. Ten objections against the rheto

ric of a sermon, or against its logic, even, are a trifle compared to one against its doctrine; and against this we have no objection to make. We feel so strong an assurance that, notwithstanding any little want of lucidness, the author's meaning in the discussion is intelligible and scriptural, that we earnestly wish every religious family in the country were in possession of a copy, as being a scriptural compend of a doctrine dear to every believer, and one to which, in the present day, a whole sermon is very rarely devoted. We shall not attempt to follow the preacher through each of the heads of his discourse; but must satisfy ourselves with the above general expression of our approbation, and shall now confine ourselves to some remarks on particular terms and expressions in the sermon, to which we have been accustomed to attach different ideas from those which this writer attaches to them.

We have not been accustomed to employ the phrase " The atonement is definite "—and, in our view, it is objectionable; yet to the sentiment Mr. M. intends to convey by it, we have no objection; viz.: that the design of the atonement was definite. This we cordially believe; and it is surprising how any who one who believes the doctrine of election, as our churches in general hold it, can do otherwise. If among his brethren any shall be found who suppose they differ from the author of this sermon, because he employs a phrase which they deem exceptionable, let them not make him an offender for a word, but wait patiently till he tells them his meaning; and it will generally be found that the difference is more about words than things; and though they may (as we do) disapprove of particular expressions, they will accord in sentiment with him who employs them.

We have said that we disapprove the phrase "The atonement is definite; we do so for this reason, that it conveys to our mind the idea that the nature of the atonement is limited. And if this be not the author's meaning in the use of it, he has unwittingly dropped a sentence, which looks as if it were. He says, p. 32, "The intent of the atonement is definite, as well as its nature." Now to the definiteness of the nature of the atonement we do not subscribe. The nature of the atonement must correspond, or be commensurate with, that of the end which it is designed to accomplish :—if that have limits, the nature of the atonement has limits also; but not otherwise. Now what was the end designed to be accomplished by the atonement? It was the rendering propitious of a Being whose nature is infinite; and hence it was an object whose nature was not limited, and therefore could not be accomplished by any thing whose nature is limited; but this object actually was accomplished by the atonement which Christ made; therefore that atonement was, in its nature, unlimited, i. e. it was an infinite atonement.

Mr. M. admits that," in respect of sufficiency, it is infinite," p. 8; now we ask, whence arises the sufficiency of the atonement, but from its nature? To borrow an illustration from note F. of the sermon itself,-How comes it that the pearl given for the ransom of a few prisoners is sufficient for that of all in the prison? Is it not from its nature? If it were only of the value of a few dollars, would it be equally sufficient to answer the purpose? But whence arises its value? Surely from its nature; or because it is a pearl, and not a pebble; a pearl of exceeding great worth. To return to the atonement,―How can that be infinite in respect of sufficiency, which is definite or limited in value—or infinite in value, which is yet limited or definite in its nature? Has its nature no connexion with its sufficiency? Then, where was the necessity for a Divine Redeemer, so far as sufficiency in the sacrifice is concerned? Why is it not possible that the blood of bulls and goats should take away sin? If we admit the connexion between the nature of the atonement and its sufficiency, and assert that, in point of sufficiency, the atonement is infinite, we must admit also the infiniteness of its nature. Our views on this point are exactly expressed in note F., which Mr. M. has adopted as his own. We will extract from note F. the sentences to which we refer. "That which makes the atonement particular is not the nature of the transaction—it is the design and intention of him who provided it, and

him who made it ;-this designation, however, does not limit the merit, or diminish the sufficiency of the atonement, considered in its own nature." The professor here distinctly states that the sufficiency of the atonement arises from its nature; and as it is "infinite in respect of sufficiency," it must also be infinite in nature.

Our author appears to us to pass over the distinction between atonement and redemption too easily. His language is "Atonement seems to refer chiefly to guilt, and redemption to the effects of guilt. In other words, atonement respects God, as made to Him; redemption respects men, as secured to them. The difference is in precise accordance with our doctrine, because an atonement naturally implies that he to whom it is offered is satisfied, and he for whom it is made is released." p. 24.-He scarcely allows these terms to be distinguishable; and hence subsequently confounds them with each other, and asserts of atonement what is true only of redemption; viz.: that it is definite. We must take the liberty of thinking that between these two things there are plain differences; and that a perception of these differences will enable us to speak and write more lucidly on the subject, than will be otherwise possible. They differ, as we conceive, in nature, in design, in object, and as cause and effect differ.

First, They differ in nature. Atonement being made to God, and actually rendering him propitious, is infinite in its nature; because He is infinite in his nature, whom it propitiates; and because, also, He who makes it is, in his nature, infinite, and "He is the propitiation for our sins." Redemption, on the contrary, is definite in its nature; for it is a blessing, of which only a definite number will partake.

Secondly, They differ in design. The design of atonement was to render God propitious; the design of redemption was to render man everlastingly blessed.

Thirdly, They differ in object. Atonement is offered to God as its object; redemption is purchased or prepared for men as its object. Atonement is a sacrifice offered; redemption is a benefit conferred.

Fourthly, They differ as cause and effect differ. Atonement is the cause of redemption; and redemption is the effect of atonement. Atonement is the price of redemption, Zech. ix, 11, "By the blood of thy covenant, I have sent forth thy prisoners out of the pit wherein is no water." Redemption is the purchase of atonement. Rev. v, 9, "Thou hast redeemed us to God, by thy blood."

If these distinctions shall appear to Mr. M. to be well grounded, he may see cause, if his sermon shall pass to a second edition, to guard and modify such parts of it as have relation to these terms.

We have great pleasure in referring our readers to the improvement of this sermon, or its application to the hearers, as a triumphant refutation of the aspersion sometimes cast on the distinguishing doctrines of the gospel; viz: that they produce self-importance, and indolence, and licentiousness. In this part of the sermon, the doctrine discussed is shewn to be a "doctrine according to godliness ;" and Christians are made to feel that the doctrine of particular redemption, properly understood, will promote love to the Saviour, deep humilty, and zealous service of our Master. Sinners are affectionately besought to submit to God, and believe in the Redeemer, instead of cavilling against truth, and quarrelling with the doctrines of the sermon. Ministers are exhorted not to mix philosophy with lessons of scripture:-not to conceal the obnoxious features of Christianity :-to avoid unreasonable aversion to creeds and confessions of faith:-to adopt with great caution opinions purporting to be new; and finally, to addict themselves much to the devotional reading of the scriptures, as distinguished from the mere professional and critical perusal of them.

We commit the sermon and its author to the blessing of the great Head of the church, in the fervent hope that his life may be long preserved for usefulness to the church; and that his sermon may diffuse widely a savor of the truth as it is in Jesus.

MISSIONARY REGISTER.

Subscriptions and Donations to the General Convention of the Baptist Denomination, in the United States, for Foreign Missions, &c. should be transmitted to Heman Lincoln, Esq., Treasurer, at the Baptist Missionary Rooms, No. 17, Joy's Buildings, Washington Street, Boston. The communications for the Corresponding Secretary should be directed to the same place.