ment, presented. Without that atonement no sinner could have been pardoned in consistency with justice. In consequence of that atonement every sinner may be, and if he believe in Jesus certainly shall be, pardoned and saved."*"The revelation of mercy made in the Gospel, refers to men as sinners, not as elect sinners."t Again, he explains John vi. 51,—“the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world"-to mean, "I am the Saviour of the world; and the manner in which I am to save the world is by devoting myself to death in their room, as the victim for their transgressions." But we must forbear any further quotations. Enough has been said to prove to any candid mind, that Dr. Brown and Dr. Chalmers believed in the universality of the Saviour's atonement. As Dr. Chalmers was the representative of the theology of the Free Church of Scotland, so Dr. Brown may be regarded as exhibiting the theology of the United Secession Presbyterian Church-one of the largest and most influential ecclesiastical bodies in Scotland. We could easily show that their and our views, both as to the nature and extent of the atonement, were the views of Calvin, Edwards, Dwight, Scott, Wardlaw, and the vast body of the Calvinistic Churches in Great Britain and this country. Our New Basis brethren are in the minority on this subject, so far as Calvinists are concerned. It does not become them, therefore, to claim to be the true representatives of the Calvinistic theology. We are persuaded that the narrow and restricted views which they and others have taken of the nature and extent of the Saviour's sacrifice have contri * Symington very properly remarks, that the turning point of the controversy on this subject is, "whether it was the secret design, intention, or determination of God that His Son should make atonement for all, or only for the select specified number who are finally saved." And then he adds, that his object is to prove, "that it was the design or intention of God that His Son should make atonement for all the sins of some men only." Atonement, p. 240, 241. The reader will perceive that Dr. Brown holds precisely the opposite view; and yet he is at present the most prominent Calvinistic theologian in Scotland. His sentiments on this subject co-incide with those of Constitutional Presbyterians in this country. Our New Basis brethren acknowledge Symington as the representative of their peculiar views of the nature and extent of the atonement. Discourses and Sayings, i. p. 34, 35. ‡ Ibid. p. 468. buted more to bring Calvinism into disrepute, than the assaults of Arminians upon the system. For this reason we protest against their assertion that their theory as to the atonement is a part of the Calvinistic theology. Nor can they adduce any proof of their peculiar sentiments from the Confession of Faith of the Presbyterian Church. As to the extent of the atonement, neither Dr. Rice nor Mr. Wood has attempted to show that the Confession teaches a limited atonement, though their argument, as to its nature, implies that they believe this to be the doctrine of the Confession. The passage relied upon to prove their position, is the following: "The Lord Jesus, by his perfect obedience and sacrifice of himself, which he through the eternal Spirit once offered up unto God, hath fully satisfied the justice of the Father; and purchased not only reconciliation, but an everlasting inheritance in the kingdom of Heaven, for all those whom the Father hath given unto him."* It is inferred from this language, that the justice of God was satisfied only for those whom the Father hath given to him. The reader, however, will observe, that the Confession says no such thing. The section contains two distinct thoughts. First:That the Lord Jesus, by his obedience and sacrifice, fully satisfied the justice of the Father. Second:-That he purchased, i. e., effected by his death, not only reconciliation between the Father and those whom He had chosen, but also an inheritance in Heaven. If the framers of the Confession designed to teach that the justice of the Father was satisfied only in behalf of the elect, why did they not say so? Why omit to specify in the first member of the sentence, the persons for whom the justice of the Father was satisfied, when they designate in the last clause, the class of persons who become reconciled to God, and obtain an inheritance in Heaven, through the atonement of Christ? This difference can be accounted for only upon the supposition, that the first part of the section was designed to teach that the justice of God, in the sense already explained, was satisfied in behalf of the whole world, and that the last clause refers to the saving effect of this satisfaction upon God's chosen people. We regard this section, therefore, as teaching, at least by im * Ch. viii. Sec. 5. plication, the general satisfaction of Christ, by which the sins of all men become pardonable, and also the special application of this satisfaction to those whom the Father, in the covenant of redemption, gave to the Son "as the reward for the travail of his soul." It has not been proved that the Confession, contains anything opposed to our opinion of the nature and extent. of the atonement, and our exscinding brethren will find it much. more difficult than they suppose, to show a sentence or paragraph that favors either their commercial idea of the nature of the atonement, or their limited and pernicious views of its extent. In a future number the doctrine of Regeneration will be the subject of our inquiries. ARTICLE VI. 1. Records and Minutes of the Presbyterian Church in the United States of America, 1704-1837. 2. The Presbyterian Magazine. Articles on the History of the Presbyterian Church in America. 3. The Case of the General Assembly, &c., before the Supreme Court of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, &c. Compiled by the REV. D. W. LATHROP. Philadelphia: A. M'Elroy, 1839, pp. 628. 4. Report of the Presbyterian Church Case, &c. LER, JR., A Member of the Philadelphia Bar. S. Martien, 1839, pp. 596. By SAMUEL MIL- "TRUTH IS THE CHILD OF TIME."-John Calvin. He SINCE our last Article was published, we have read Dr. Stearns' work on the early churches of New Jersey. is well known to be conservative in all his views, and at the farthest remove from violent partisanship in the Church. It would be scarcely possible to be more impartial; and his The sermons, which careful accuracy is unimpeachable. are the basis of his work, were first preached in 1851, but so careful has he been to verify the minutest detail by access to original sources, that they have been published but recently. There is no allusion in this volume to our Articles, nor any intended connection between them, yet a stronger case of "undesigned coincidence," we have never seen. The vindication of our views by the examinations of Dr. Stearns, carried even to microscopic minuteness, is absolutely triumphant. Henceforth the mixed and liberal basis of American Presbyterianism, at its origin, must be held to be settled. No man with any regard for his reputation for historical accuracy, will question it. We will state the matter very succinctly, and show the confirmation of our views afforded by the researches of Dr. Stearns. In general it is this: Was the Church in its origin homogeneous, composed of persons who were all rigid Presbyterians, or was it mixed, so that it took from the beginning a modified, or liberal type? As soon as this question, which is one of pure history, comes to be examined, it narrows itself substantially to the consideration of the character of the Irish Presbyterians, and of the settlers in New Jersey and Long Island, for, setting aside a small Scottish, Welsh and Dutch population, it was of these two elements the Church was at first composed. ScotchIrishmen and New Englanders came in immense numbers afterwards, but that does not immediately concern this question. In regard to most of the settlers on Long Island and in Jersey, who formed part of the early Presbyterian Church, Dr. Hodge makes sufficient acknowledgments for our purposes. Thus: "The Church at South Hampton, L. I., was originally formed at Lynn, Mass., and consisted of Rev. Abraham Pierson from Yorkshire, in England, and some other persons. They removed to Long Island and settled the town of South Hampton, in 1640. The first permanent minister was Rev. Joseph Fordham, from England. This congregation placed itself under the care of the Presbytery, 1716. The first settlement of East Hampton, L. I., was in 1649. Most of the inhabitants came from England; some were from Salem, and some from New Haven. The first minister of Southold, L. I., was Rev. John Young, from England, who was settled about 1652. Their next minister, Rev. Joshua Hobert, was also from England. Huntington, L. I., was settled by a number of people from England, and by emigrants from New England. The first minister was Rev. Eliphalet Jones, a Congregationalist, from New England. The Church of Huntington appears to have been conducted on the Congregational plan until April 8th, 1747. Jamaica, L. I., was settled about 1656, chiefly by emigrants from New England."* These churches constituted the Presbytery of Long Island or Suffolk, which "produced its Presbytery-book" in Synod as early as 1718. Surely their origin is plain enough. It will be remembered that Dr. Green says, that this Presbytery "was composed chiefly, if not wholly, of members from New England." So tenacious were they of their peculiar principles that, as we have already mentioned in another connection, as late as the time of the formation of our Constitution in 1787, they asked for a dissolution between themselves and our Church, fearing that the new Constitution would be too rigid for them; but the Synod, appointing a committee to confer with them bearing a most kind and liberal letter, they agreed, just one week before the formation of the General Assembly, to withdraw their request, being satisfied that the Church was to remain upon its old tried and liberal basis, and that no new rigidity was about to be introduced.‡ So far the Long Island element. Let us now see what Dr. Hodge says of Jersey: "Fairfield was settled about 1690, by a number of persons from the town of the same name in Connecticut. This is the same as Cohansey, embracing the country about the Cohansey creek. Cape May was also a Puritan settlement, of which their records contain indubitable evidence. The township of Woodbridge was settled from 1660 to 1665. Some of the inhabitants were emigrants from Scotland, but they were principally from New England. Their first pastor was Rev. Mr. Wade. In 1714, they invited Mr. John Pierson from Connecticut, who remained with them forty years. During Mr. Pier *Const. Hist. pp. 40, 41, notes. Records, 532, sq. Christ. Adv., xi. 499. |