justice applies, with all the force it has, to the position just stated, whether Christ's sufferings be called penal or not.

"With regard to the objection itself, the following are the chief considerations to be attended to, by the exposition and application of which it is fully disposed of: First, that, as we have already had occasion to state and explain in a different connection, the sufferings and death of an innocent person in this matter are realities which all admit, and which all equally are bound to explain. Christ's sufferings were as great upon the Socinian as upon the orthodox theory with regard to their cause and object; while our doctrine of his being subjected to suffering because of the sin of others being imputed to him, or laid upon him, brings the facts of the case into accordance with some generally recognised principles of God's moral government, which, upon the Socinian scheme, is impossible. The injustice, of course, is not alleged to be in the fact that Christ, an innocent person, was subjected to so much suffering, for there remains the same fact upon any hypothesis,—but in his suffering in the room and stead of sinners, with the view, and to the effect, of their escaping punishment.

"Now, we observe, secondly, that this additional circumstance of his suffering being vicarious and expiatory,--which may be said to constitute our theory as to the grounds, causes, or objects of his suffering,—in place of introducing an additional difficulty into the matter, is the only thing which contributes in any measure to explain it. And it does contribute in some measure to explain it, because it can be shown to accord with the ordinary principles of enlightened reason to maintain-first, that it is not of the essence of the idea of punishment, that it must necessarily, and in every instance, be inflicted upon the very person who has committed the sin that calls for it; or, as it is expressed by Grotius, who has applied the recognised principles of jurisprudence and law to this subject with great ability: "Notandum est, esse quidem essentiale poenæ, ut infligatur ob peccatum, sed non item essentiale ei esse ut infligatur ipsi qui peccavit :-and secondly, that substitution and satisfaction, in the matter of inflicting punishment, are to some extent recognised in the principles of human jurisprudence, and in the arrangements of human governments; while there is much also in the analogies of God's providential government of the world, to sanction them, or to afford answers to the allegations of their injustice.

"Thirdly, the transference of penal suffering, or suffering judicially inflicted in accordance with the provisions of law, from one party to another, cannot be proved to be universally and in all cases unjust. No doubt, an act of so peculiar a kind,-involving, as it certainly does, a plain deviation from the ordinary regular course of procedure, requires, in each case, a distinct and specific ground or cause to warrant it. But there are, at least, two cases in which this transference of penal suffering on account of sin from one party to another is generally recognised as just, and in which, at least, it can be easily proved, that all ground is removed for charging it with

injustice. These are, first, when the party who is appointed to suffer on account of the sin of another, has himself become legally liable to a charge of guilt, adequate to account for all the suffering inflicted; and secondly, when he voluntarily consents to occupy the place of the offender, and to bear, in his room, the punishment which he had merited. In these cases, there is manifestly no injustice in the transference of penal suffering, so far as the parties more immediately affected are concerned; and if the general and public ends of punishment are at the same time fully provided for by the transference, or notwithstanding the transference, then there is, in these cases, no injustice of any kind committed.

"The second of these cases is that which applies to the sufferings and death of Christ. He willingly agreed to stand in the room and stead of sinners, and to bear the punishment which they bad merited. And if there be no injustice generally in Christthough perfectly innocent-suffering so much as he endured, and no injustice in this suffering being penally inflicted upon him on account of the sins of others, his own free consent to occupy their place, and to bear the punishment due to their sins being interposed, there can be no injustice in the only other additional idea involved in our doctrine,-namely, that this suffering inflicted upon him is appointed and proclaimed as the ground or means of exempting the offenders from the punishment they had deserved; or, as it is put by Grotius, Cum per hos modos' (the cases previously mentioned, the consent of the substitute being one of them), 'actus factus est licitus, quo minus deinde ordinetur ad pœnam peccati alieni, nihil intercedit, modo inter eum qui peccavit et puniendum aliqua sit conjunctio.' The only parties who would be injured or treated unjustly by this last feature in the case are the lawgiver and the community (to apply the principle to the case of human jurisprudence); and if the honour and authority of the law, and the general interests of the community, are fully provided for by means of, or notwithstanding, the transference of the penal infliction,-a —as we undertake to prove is the case with respect to the vicarious and expiatory suffering of Christ,-then the whole ground for the charge of injustice is taken away.

"The second objection is, that the doctrine of atonement or satisfaction is inconsistent with the scriptural representations of the gratuitousness of forgiveness,-of the freeness of the grace of God in pardoning sinners. It is said that God exercises no grace or free favour in pardoning sin, if he has received full satisfaction for the offences of those whom he pardons. This objection is not confined to Socinians. They adduce it against the doctrine of atonement or satisfaction altogether; while Arminians, and others who hold the doctrine of universal or indefinite atonement, adduce it against those higher, stricter, and more accurate views of substitution and satisfaction with which the doctrine of a definite or limited atonement stands necessarily connected. When they are called to deal with this Socinian objection, they usually admit that the objection is unanswerable, as adduced against the stricter views of substitu

tion and satisfaction held by most Calvinists; while they contend that it is of no force in opposition to their modified and more rational views upon this subject, an admission by which, as it seems to me, they virtually, in effect though not in intention, betray the whole cause of the atonement into the hands of the Socinians. As this objection has been stated and answered in our Confession of Faith, we shall follow its guidance in making a few observations upon it.

"It is there said, 'Christ, by his obedience and death, did fully discharge the debt of all those that are thus justified, and did make a proper, real, and full satisfaction to his Father's justice in their behalf.' Here the doctrine of substitution and satisfaction is fully and explicitly declared in its highest and strictest sense. But the authors of the Confession were not afraid of being able to defend, in perfect consistency with this, the free grace, the gratuitous mercy of God, in justifying, that is, in pardoning and accepting sinners. And, accordingly, they go on to say, 'Yet, inasmuch as he was given by the Father for them, and his obedience and satisfaction accepted in their stead, and both freely, not for anything in them, their justification is only of free grace, that both the exact justice and rich grace of God might be glorified in the justification of sinners.' Now, the grounds here laid for maintaining the free grace of God in the forgiveness of sinners, notwithstanding that a full atonement or satisfaction was made for their transgressions, are two first, that Christ, the atoner or satisfier, was given by the Father for them, that is, that the Father himself devised and provided the atonement or satisfaction,-provided it, so to speak, at his own cost, by not sparing his own Son, but delivering him up for us all. If this be true, if men had no right whatever to such a provision,-if they had done, and could do, nothing whatever to merit or procure it, then this consideration must necessarily render the whole of the subsequent process based upon it, in its bearing upon men, purely gratuitous,-altogether of free grace,unless, indeed, at some subsequent stage, men should be able to do something meritorious and efficacious for themselves in the matter. But then, secondly, God not only freely provided the satisfaction, he likewise, when it was rendered by Christ, accepted it in the room of all those who are pardoned, and this, too, freely, or without anything in them,- that is, without their having done, or being able to do, anything to merit or procure it, or anything which it involves. Pardon, therefore, and acceptance are freely or gratuitously given to men, though they were purchased by Christ, who paid the price of his precious blood."

M.

XI.-FOREIGN THEOLOGICAL REVIEWS.

1862.

1. Theologische Studien und Kritiken, Heft 4.

In this number we have the following articles-1. HUNDESHAGEN on Zuingle and his work of Reformation compared with Luther. It is a lively and interesting sketch; and though we may not agree with the writer in every point, highly suggestive. 2. KLEINERT writes on, Who is the subject of the Prophecy in Is. lii. liii. 12, devoting particular attention to the article on the same subject from Bleek's Literary Remains, published some time ago in the same Review. In the next division, there is an interesting discussion on Creation Groaning, Rom. viii. 18-28; then analecta from Clemens Romanus's First Epistle; then Sengler on the Trinity. Under the heading "Reviews," we have a notice of Buttmann's New Testament; and Witte on the Gospel in Italy.

II. Zeitschrift für die Historische Theologie, Heft 4.

The first article in this number is by Dr Rippold, on Henry Niclaes and the Family of Love, an essay serving as a monography on the history of the sects of the Reformation period. It is constructed so as to give a history of the anabaptist, antitrinitarian, and antinomian doctrines. The next article, by Dr Ebrard, on the Church of the Culdees of the Sixth, Seventh, and Eighth Centuries, is an elaborate essay, but almost exclusively occupied with a statement of their mode of calculating Easter. The last article contains the documents connected with the case of Baumgarten of Rostock. III. Zeitschrift für die gesammte Lutherische Theologie, 3 and 4 Quartal heft. The announcement is made by Dr Guericke, that the place of joint editor will henceforth be occupied by Professor Delitzsch, who has consented to fill the position of the late Dr Rudelbach, which will make this periodical even more interesting. The Third Number contains-1. Another section of Rudelbach's Confessions or Autobiography. 2. Ströbel on the Revision of the Lutheran Bible; and 3. L. de Marées on the Nature and Significance of the Preaching of Scripture, particularly of the Old Testament. The Fourth Number contains the following articles-1. LINDNER: Explanation and Elucidation of some difficult Passages of the Old and New Testaments; 2. LAURENT on Queen Candace; 3. The Witnesses of the Reformation in Bavarian Swabid.

IV. Jahrbucher für Deutsche Theologie, Heft 3.

As this periodical comes into the reader's hands later than any of the others, the articles cannot be given to the end of the year. They are as a whole more valuable than are to be found in any other German Theological Review. Here we have-1. BURK on the notions "wisdom" and "knowledge" in the Scriptures; 2. EHRENFEUCHTER on the grades of ecclesiastical instruction; 3. HASSE on the Pathology of Christian Hope; 4. SCHULTZ on the Doctrine of the Righteousness of Faith in the Old and New Testament. Appended to the Review is a new feature: an analysis of the best theological publications of Germany.

V. Theologische Zeitschrift, by Dieckhoff and Kliefoth.

This periodical has contained during the year a thorough discussion, by Kliefoth, of the symbolism of numbers in the Scriptures. We cannot say much in commendation of the three articles. But the refutation of Dr Kahnis's Dogmatik by Dieckhoff is very valuable and sound. Huther gives contributions to the exposition of Philippians.

VOL. XII.-NO. XLIII,

1863.

Theologische Studien und Kritiken, Heft 1.

The first number of this Review for 1863, which has already come to hand, contains the following articles-1. PLITT on the Significance of the Heidelberg Catechism in the Reformed Church; 2. EGGEL-Sketch of Schelling's Philosophy of Revelation in its ground features. In the division of the Review set apart for thoughts and remarks, we have-1. Some elucidatory remarks on the 28th chapter of Job by one who is acquainted with mining operations; 2. BAUMLEIN on Papias' statement respecting the gospel of Mark; 3. PARET, one word more on James iv. 5. Next, in the division which bears the heading "Reviews," there is a review of Gess's work on Prayer in the name of Jesus, and the last article which Kling wrote before his death on Philosophy and Theology. The Number is closed by a short paper in memoriam of the latter by Ullmann.

Zeitschrift für die Historische Theologie, by Dr Niedner, Heft 1.

This entire number is occupied by a monography of a historieal character, from the pen of Dr Rippold, on the history, doctrines, and sect of David Joris of Delft. It is the first article on this subject, and intended to be a second contribution on the History of the anabaptist, antitrinitarian, and antinomian movements.

FRENCH THEOLOGICAL REVIEWS.

Revue Chrétienne.

The Quarterly Theological Supplement for November is filled with a long dissertation on the subject of Inspiration by Pressensé, on the lax side of the question. We much lament to see such a tendency represented by this otherwise able Review.

Le Chrétien Evangélique.

This excellent periodical pursues its way, scattering sound doctrine and evangelical sentiment with a full hand. We have been interested with Professor Pronier's account of his visit to this country.

AMERICAN THEOLOGICAL REVIEWS for 1862.

I. The Princeton Review for July and October.

The chief Theological Reviews of America are still occupied with warm discussions on the merits of Dr Hickok's Philosophy. The Princeton Review for July contains an estimate of that philosophy by one of its decided advocates, the paper being inserted for the express purpose of being subjected, along with other vindications, to an unsparing criticism. We shall endeavour to make room for some one of these articles in an early number, that our readers may be abreast of the discussion. There is besides an interesting article on Augustine, and another on the Diversity of Species in the Human Race. The October Number contains-1. The Matter of Prophecy, which we have extracted; 2. The Presbyterian Historical Society; 3. The Church and the Poor; 4. Plea for High Education and Presbyterian Colleges; 5. Christian Enterprise; 6. African Colonization.

II. American Theological Review for July and October.

This able Review, which defends Dr Hickok's philosophy, contains these Articles-1. On Psychology and Scepticism, by Dr Hickok; 2. On Comparative Grammar; 3. On the Origin of Idolatry-a criticism of Rawlinson and others; 4. The Temptation of Christ; 5. British Sympathy with America, written in a querulous tone, but saying many just things against our press. The October Number contains the following articles :-1. The Council