NOTE. Mr Tait has sent us the following letter, with the request that it may be inserted. We must, however, remind our readers, and the authors of the works reviewed, that is impossible for us to do this in general, however willing we may be to give them an opportunity of defending themselves. It does not accord with the plan of our Review. To the Editor of the Presbyterian Review. number, youhat I seer REV. SIR,In the review of my work on the Hebrews, contained in your last your fear that my views on the subject of atonement "are somewhat loose" seem to hold "the atonement to be a work which has made salvation possible to all, but sure to none." Now, as s' this statement may very probably convey a false idea to your readers of the doctrine which I have endeavoured to set forth, I trust that you will kindly allow me a few words in explanation. For the sake of bringing out my meaning with greater clearness, I will refer briefly to three other views of this cardinal doctrine of our holy religion. 1. Christ died for his people; his sacrifice on their behalf has put away their guilt, and rendered their condemnation for ever impossible, consistently with the righte ousness of God. But it has no bearing whatever on the rest of mankind, save to procure for them a respite from wrath in this world, and the enjoyment of providential mercies. This view, I need not say, makes salvation absolutely certain to God's people, and as absolutely impossible to the rest. Heb. ix. 22. 2. Christ died for all mankind; his sacrifice on their behalf has rendered it possible for God, consistently with performed to the end of us to forgive their sins, on their sin cere faith and repentance. must be performed on our part, and an interest in God's mercy; for as long as we abide in this world, we are in a state of probation. This view, I need not say, renders salvation possible indeed to all, but certain to none. 3. Christ died for his people; and by his atonement their salvation is infallibly secured. But that atonement has also most important bearing on the world, for it has opened the way to God for all without distinction. to the people of God, it is, at the same time, within the men. Whilst salvation is thus secured I have thus stated very briefly, but, I believe reach of perfect truth, the different classes of theologians, on this all-important question. It appears to me, that each of them contains some truth, and also some error. The first, I am persuaded, can never be treconciled by any human ingenuity to such texts as Romans ii. 3–5. 1 Tim. ii. 3-6. 2 Peter iii. 9; the second makes the work of the Saviour a mere rope of sand, giving he poor sinner nothing to lay hold upon, and throwing his confidence on his own faith and repentance; whilst the third amuses men with words, telling liberty to draw near to God, and yet refusing to say that a sacrifice has been offered for their sins. This is mere "yea and nay," if men really possess this blessed liberty, the holiest is open, and sacrificial blood shed on their behalf, has opened it. And if this blood has not been shed on their behalf, the liberty spoken of has no existence. But each of these views appears to me to contain much truth also; and in the view of atonement presented in my work, I have endeavoured to avail myself of that truth, rejecting the accompanying inconsistency or error. I have taken the truth of the second, that Christ died for all, combined with the truth of the third, that salvation is thus possible to all, and combined also with the truth of the first, that it is infallibly secured to God's people. We have the express testimony of the Holy Ghost, that "the man Christ Jesus gave himself a ransom for all;" and as he, in dying, exclaimed, "It is finished," "the vail of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom." The bosom of God is thus thrown open, and it is no figure of speech, but a most sacred verity, that every human creature may draw near unto God as a Father. And, when we are led by the blessed Spirit to make this mercy of God our confidence when we are drawn by Him within the holiest, our souls are safe for ever. Safe, because God cannot deny himself. We cannot possibly believe in this proclaimed pardon, and find that proclamation a lie. Safe, because, when we are once within these sacred precincts, the everlasting arms are around us— "those arms," blessed be God, "which ne'er shall lose their hold." This is the view of atonement, Rev. Sir, which in my work I have endeavoured to exhibit. It does not make salvation, as you seem to apprehend, a thing possible to all, but sure to none. It represents it as possible to all, and sure, absolutely sure, to the man who believeth in Jesus. Permit me another word. 66 say, to the man who believeth in Jesus," for Scripture nowhere represents the salvation of any man as sure, till that man is found in Christ. It speaks of all others without exception and without distinction, as "children of wrath" and under condemnation. It is very true that the purpose of God to bring them to Christ, makes the salvation of the elect a sure thing, even before they believe, but it is sure to God only. And for us to reason on such security, and what constitutes such security, is, I am persuaded, to travel out of the region of the creature into those secret things which belong to the Divine Being. It may be abstract theological truth to say that the salvation of Saul of Tarsus, while he was the murderer of God's saints, was as sure a thing as that of Paul the Apostle, but it is not godly language, nor has it the sanction of the Holy Ghost.—I remain, reverend Sir, yours very truly, WILLIAM TAIT. WAKEFIELD, March 1846. RELIGIOUS INTELLIGENCE. THE EVANGELICAL ALLIANCE.-Our readers are no doubt glad to learn that the Commission in March came to a unanimous deliverance upon this subject. We rejoice that a healing and uniting decision has been found. We record it here, along with a part of Dr Candlish's able and most Christian exposition of it, in his speech on that occasion. "The object of the resolution is twofold. In the first place, it refers to the past; and in the second, to the present. As to the past, it is the object of the resolution to propose that you accept the explanation that has now been given by the General Assembly's committee on union. You declare, in terms thereof, on the part of this Church, that she was no way mixed up with the Liverpool meetings, or with the subsequent proceedings. It is admitted on all hands that this Church was involved at the outset of these proceedings. There was, indeed, when we began our conference, a misunderstanding about a matter of fact here, but that has now been cleared up; and it is admitted on all hands that the Free Church was involved at the outset of these proceedings, inasmuch as the very first meeting that was held with brethren of other denominations was, in point of form, a meeting of the Assembly's committee on union, formally called as such, in the ordinary way, by a newspaper advertisement. This is clearly admitted on all hands; and it goes very far to explain the feelings which were entertained by many of our brethren who looked with suspicion on the Liverpool meeting-it explains how they felt so keenly that the Free Church of Scotland was committed in the matter. (Hear, hear.) But the report which has just been given in, sets forth clearly that this was the sum and substance of the committee's connection, as such, with it-that this was the whole of what would seem to involve the Church in the responsibility of the movement; for it appears that whenever that meeting was convened, the official character of the committee was dropped, and that the members of the committee from that moment forward acted simply as individuals. (Hear, hear.) At the very meeting to which the members of the committee were summoned officially at the meeting between them and the members of the various denominations at that miscellaneous mixed meeting, which originated the calling of the Liverpool Conferenceat that mixed meeting, any representative capacity which the members of the com mittee of Assembly might hold was altogether lost; and from that time forward the committee, as a committee, had no concern whatever either with the calling of the Liverpool meeting-including the sending of circulars to ministers of the Establishment, or with what took place in Liverpool, or with any subsequent proceedings. Now, the first part of the proposal which I have to make is, that the Commission simply accept the explanation which has now been given by the committee-the declaration that, with the single exception to which I have referred, of the way in which the members were at first convened, which appears to me to be altogether immaterial-that, with this single exception, the Church was not in any way mixed up with the proceedings of the Liverpool Conference, or with the manner in which that Conference was called, or with the steps that have been since taken. The second part of the deliverance which I have to propose is in reference to the present. It is, in the first place, an indication of the mind of the Commission-if that should be its mind-that, as to the past, enough has been said and done to remove all apprehen sion; and therefore that the committee of the Assembly need not, in the meantime, take any further steps in this particular matter-I mean the matter embraced in the committee's report. The deliverance which I take the liberty of proposing has also a reference to our present position. It has no reference to the merits of the Alliance no reference to the propriety of ministers and members of the Free Church continuing to be connected with it. It is simply, in point of fact, a deliverance which allows or implies that matters in this respect remain, as it were, in statu quo-that is to say, it is a deliverance which waives any judgment as to the propriety of any of us continuing to be members of the Alliance, giving no sort of sanction to our continuing to be members of the Alliance, if we see fit on our own responsibility to continue to be members, and placing no obstacles in our way if we see fit to join it. The Commission are not asked to pronounce any opinion on the principle of the Alliance, or on the propriety of our continuing members of it. It is a deliverance by which we are left to act on our own individual-our own personal responsibility. It is a deliverance which is not intended, and I think is not fitted, to imply any sanction to our continuing members of the Alliance, if we see fit to do so; while, on the other hand, it imposes no obstacle in the way of our private judgment in the matter. (Hear, hear.) And, finally, it is a deliverance which simply indicates that this Com mission has confidence, that should any ministers or members of the Free Church see it to be their duty to continue in the Alliance, they continue in it with a regard to the testimony which this Church maintains, and with a regard also to the risk and danger of a doctrinal basis of union being adopted, it being the mind of the Commission, as I trust it will be, that there is risk and danger if any doctrinal basis of union be adopted, inasmuch as it may be defective in various particulars, and that there may be the omission of, or detraction from, important truths of God's word. (Hear, hear.) Should any of the fathers and brethren who are already concerned in the Alliance see it to be their duty, after this deliverance has been agreed to-should any of us, I say, see it to be our duty to resume our connection with the Alliance, to resume our place on the committee that meets in Scotland, and to go to Birmingham on the 31st instant, to attend the aggregate committee there-should any of us feel that to be our duty, as I frankly avow I shall feel it to be my duty to do, and, as I am persuaded, others will see it to be their duty to do (applause)-we will go forward, after this deliverance has been agreed to, with greatly relieved minds, and with greatly lightened hearts; for we will go forward, not as the objects of suspicion and dread to any whose confidence we value, but with a good understanding among us all; and moreover we will go forward, I think, with great advantage in having, as it were, an indication of the right jealousy, the scriptural and lawful jealousy, which the Church entertains upon the subject of her own testimony, and upon every iota of the truths contained in God's holy word. (Applause,) I think it unnecessary to detain the Commission longer, after having made this explanation, and accordingly I will read the deliverance which I beg to propose: "The Commission having heard this report, find that, excepting the original calling together of the members of the Assembly's committee, this Church is not, as a Church, responsible either for the initial steps connected with the calling of the Liver pool Conference, and the invitations forwarded to the different bodies of professing Christians on that occasion, or for the actings of the Liverpool Conference itself; and has not been, in its corporate capacity, or by representation or delegation, involved in any of the proceedings which are reported to have taken place. The Commission are also satisfied that the committee of Assembly did not act as a committee in this matter, although certain members of the committee acted as individuals; and while it may be matter of regret that this was not made more clear from the beginning, the Commission accept the explanation offered; and considering the well-known fact that the Liverpool Conference itself refused to recognise any parties present as representatives of their respective Churches, placing the proposed Alliance on the footing of an alliance of individuals merely, the Commission think that enough has now been said and done to remove all misapprehension on this point. "Farther, the Commission, while continuing to cherish an ardent desire for the healing of the breaches of Christ's church on earth, and the promotion of Christian union and brotherhood, and regarding every effort made in that direction with deep interest, in so far as the object in view is concerned, as well as with anxiety on ac count of the manifold difficulties with which the prosecution of it is intended, deem it unnecessary, in all the circumstances, for the committee named by the Assembly to do anything more at present in this matter. And without expressing any opinion respecting the Alliance, or the propriety of members of this Church joining it, the Commission confidently trust that such fathers and brethren as may, on their own private and personal responsibility, take part in the proceedings referred to, will be careful to advert on all occasions to the importance of maintaining this Church's tes timony uncompromised, and will be on their guard against the risk of doctrinal terms of union, which may seem to omit or detract from important truths of God's word, being made the basis of such an Alliance, even although it professes to disclaim any ecclesiastical character or authority, and to be nothing more than the meeting together of Christian brethren for the cultivation of brotherhood, and other similar purposes of Christian love." THE CONTINENT.-It is difficult to give a full narrative of all that is doing in the Continent, and, therefore, instead of attempting this, we prefer to give the following letter of Czerski in full, with a small part of Mr Lorimer's excellent speech in the Commission as a préface. He (Mr Lorimer) rejoiced to state, that they had also evidence that this disruption in the Canton de Vaud was telling on the continent, but particularly on France. From Belgium he had received a letter the other day, which stated that there would soon be a Free Church there, which would unite all the French-speaking population. It was expected that France would soon also have her fruits, as a spirit was rising in the minds of the people which nothing would be able to stop. The writer of this letter stated, that the Evangelical societies of Paris and Geneva were no doubt the direct instruments of it; but he was well informed, that what had given them the noble example was the Free Church of Scotland. Passing from Switzerland into Germany, he would now lay before the Commission the two letters from Czerski and Mohler, to which he had alluded. He would take the Rationalist, or unsound letter first, as it had been received the earliest. Mr Lorimer then read the letter of M. Mohler. It breathed a very friendly tone, and was bold and explicit in its enunciation of the opinions of the Rationalists. Its leading points were as to the rule of Scripture faith, and the doctrine of justification by faith, in regard to which it was decidedly erroneous. In speaking of his translation of the New Testament, M. Mohler expressed himself ready to forego, in a great measure, any advantage from the work, if the Free Church intended to distribute it in Germany. After reading the letter, Mr Lorimer proceeded to say that he might mention, in regard to the translation of the New Testament by Mohler, that a member of the Committee, acquainted with the German and Greek languages, had carefully gone over the whole of it, and had pronounced it to be a clear and correct translation, without any bias, and free from Socinian errors. He might mention, that not only the sanction of Mohler and Ronge, but also of Czerski, appeared on the cover of the book. He had no doubt that the members of the Commission would be pleased with the frank, candid spirit of the letter; and, notwithstanding the imperfections of the translation, he thought they would at once be able to discern the serious errors which lurked beneath. As an able leader,-- which he was,-Mohler had put his cause before them as well as any person in the circumstances could do. What the Committee proposed to do was, to write as full an answer, not in the way of controversy, but in the way of pointing out, as clearly as they could, the misapprehension which existed both in regard to the standard of faith and the doctrine of justification. By thus pointing out the errors contained in the letters, they were in hopes of being useful, if not to the leaders in this great movement, at least to the members of the three hundred congregations, who, in the course of a single year, had come out of the Church of Rome. As Roman Catholics, ill acquainted with Divine truth, they might, by God's blessing, be led to believe the Committee's interpretation of it as readily as that of their leaders in the present movement. The answer would, therefore, not be in the way of controversy, but in the way of expiscating the simple truth of God. The letter of Czerski was very short, and he was sure the Commission would be highly gratified to hear it. He then read the following letter from M. Czerski, the leader of the Evangelical portion of the German Catholic Church, and which was listened to with marked interest by all present: " A BRIEF REPLY TO A LETTER FROM THE FREE CHURCH, ADDRESSED TO ME, “ BELOVED BRETHREN,―The disapproving sentiments, which you have expressed in your honoured letter of 9th October 1845, addressed to all those communities that separated from the Roman Catholic Church, as if their tendency were not quite Scriptural, cannot by any means apply to all, and particularly not to the congregation of Schneidemühl, nor to any of those who follow the same course with us. We have separated from the Roman Church, because doctrines of men there are higher esteemed than the laws of God, and because, consequently, in that church God is worshipped in vain,-doctrines being taught there which are none but the commandments of men, according to Christ's words in Mark vii. 7. We have separated from a body that, in the spirit of the Pharisees, boasts of holiness, and in self-righteousness looks down with contempt upon those who cannot approve of these ways. We have forsaken the earthly god, but not in order to wander without a guide, but rather to cling more closely to our God in heaven, to take hold of his fatherly hand, and not to let it go through our whole life, and to be guided by his laws. We have abandoned the pretended viceroy of Christ, not in order to separate from Christ, but rather to get nearer to him, and to acknowledge him as the only head of his church, and to be consecrated by the Holy Ghost whom he has left to the world that eternal One whom he has left on the earth in his place. How could we separate from Christ, since we know and confess with Peter that he has the words of eternal life,since we know that he is a liar that denies that Jesus is the Christ, that he is antichrist who denies the Father and Son,-since we know that he who denies the Son has not the Father? I must, however, with grief confess, that the reform which was begun by me has not everywhere been followed out in the spirit of true Christianity, but, that many false prophets have arisen, who endeavour to exchange some doctrines of men for other doctrines of men, who, trusting in their weak understanding, endeavour to establish doctrines which do not agree with the truth revealed by our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of the living God. Neither is it possible that they could agree, for the flesh is ever opposed to the Spirit, and the human understanding, darkened by the atmosphere of the earth, is always opposed to the wisdom of God. However, I have at once separated from these nominal Christians, and have openly expressed my disapprobation of their unchristian doctrines. I have separated from Ronge's party, from Ronge himself, who himself strives to be God, and endeavours to deprive the Lord Jesus of his glory. I know that the disciple is not above his master, neither is the servant above his lord. I know that these infatuated men, like unto the fallen angels, shall be thrown down from the height of their pride. Many other congregations have with me separated from the so-called Leipsic Concilium, and we adopt, as the rule of our faith, the holy Scripture in all its bearing, and the doctrine |