mere earthly blessing. Besides, this prohibition countermands the authority of Christ. It was the dying command of the Savior, "Do this in remembrance of me." By forbidding his wife to make a public profession of religion, the husband gives a command in opposition to the Savior's authority, which cannot be morally binding. Such a command, given without right, can impart no obligation.The wife is no more obliged to obey such a command, than she would be to starve herself, or her children, were this required by her husband. The husband, whenever he forbids the wife to make a profession of religion, not only betrays a shameful want of condescension and kindness, but assumes an authority which has never been conferred upon him. He steps out of his proper sphere, and acts not the part of a husband, but of a tyrant.

But grant that the husband has no right to forbid the wife to make a profession of her faith, and that she is under no obligation to obey him if he does; yet would it not in most cases be advisable for her to yield to his command? To this it is replied, if declining to make a profession of religion were merely giving up a privilege, it might be proper in some cases to do it for the sake of peace. But it is not simply relinquishing a privilege, it is neglecting a duty-a duty which is enjoined by a high er authority than that of man.Now whether a woman can with

propriety neglect a positive command of Christ, from a regard to an unjust and abusive prohibition of man, is not a question of difficult solution. This is a mistaken policy. If the husband enforces his command, or by his own agency, either directly or indirectly exerted, renders it impossible for the wife to make a profession of religion, she is of course free from blame, and the whole responsibility of the neglect rests on him.

But in those instances in which wives, forbidden by their husband to make a profession of religion, have it in their power to go forward, it is both duty and sound policy to do it. "They ought to obey God rather than man." And it is believed, that in ninety-nine cases in a hundred, such a measure would tend more to peace than the opposite. Firmness and decision in duty, as well as meekness and gentleness of character, are necessary to excite the respect, and overcome the feelings of opposers. Many of those inconsiderate husbands, who oppose the desire of their wives to partake of the holy supper, would be brought to their senses, if their wives should, with meekness, and with all due regard to the feelings of their husbands, insist upon obeying the command of their Savior. Were they to go forward, showing that they fear God rather than man, that they love Christ more than their nearest friends, and that they are determined to follow him through

evil report and good report, they would generally meet with less opposition than they do by yielding to the unreasonable objections made to the performance of their duty. There is no man worthy of the respect and affections of a virtuous woman, who does not know that she has rights, and that he is bound to respect them. And it is believed, that there are very few who could have the hardihood to hold out in their opposition to the conscientious and pious desires of a wife to profess her faith in the Redeemer, were these uniformly accompanied with becoming decision and firmness, as well as gentleness and affection "He that walketh uprightly, walketh surely." A woman, who has evidence that she is a true friend of Christ, ought not to be deterred from making a profession of religion, by fear of giving offence to her husband. He has no right to be offended at this. As it is a duty which the word of God enjoins upon her, the performance of it renders her more worthy of his affection, respect and confidence, than the neglect of it. And if he is led seriously to reflect upon the subject, he cannot but view it in this light. And nothing can be better suited to lead him to serious reflection on this subject, than her firm and undaunted perseverance in the path of duty. There have been instances in which the conscientious regard to duty, which has led a wife to make a public profession

of religion in opposition to the wishes of her husband, has been instrumental of his seriousness and conversion. There is ground to hope, that the same means may be attended with the same effect in other cases. This should encourage females, in the circumstances here supposed, to go forward. They ought to consider, that the neglect of duty, and an attempt to please man rather than God, may be instrumental of confirming the prejudices of their husbands against religion, and of keeping them easy and contented, even while they are living" without hope and without God in the world."

The same reasons, which show that a wife ought not to be prevented from making a profession of religion, by the opposition of her husband, show with equal clearness, that one who is already a professor ought not to be kept from the tabie of her Lord by this means. The cases are exactly parallel. The husband, whose wife is a professor of religion, has no right to forbid her going to the holy Supper. A higher authority than his, has bid her go. This, and not his, she is under obligation to obey. Nor need she be alarmed at the consequences of doing her duty in this respect. He, who requires this of her, will support her in it.She has much more reason to hope for peace, and the unmolested enjoyment of all her rights, as well as for the consolation of

the divine presence, if she firmly adheres to her covenant engagements, and boldly discharges the duties which these involve than if she suffers herself to disobey the commands of her Savior, in consequence of opposition from man. Besides, there is yet in the mind of the public a sense of propriety sufficiently deep and general, to influence them to raise their voice against the man, who should deliberately manifest so much illiberality and intolerance, as to deny his wife the privilege of acting on this subject, agreeably to the dictates of her conscience.

EQUAL RIGHTS.

REVIEW.

An Essay on the Scripture doctrine of Atonement; showing its nature, its necessity, and its extent. To which is added, an Appendix, containing remarks on the

Doctrine of Universal Salvation. By Caleb Burge, A. M. Pastor of the first Church in Glastenbury, Conn. Hartford: Peter B. Gleason & Co. 1822.

We take up the volume before us, not for the purpose of a mere critical analysis of the work, nor to show what more can be said on this subject. For we are aware that it has recently excited much attention, and enlisted no small portion of the theological talent of the day in its illustration. We read the volume with much interest: we consider it an able, judicious and profitable exhibition of the doctrine of the atonement: a

work, calculated to edify christians, and to assist every class of readers in obtaining clear and correct views of the subject. We are glad to see so able, and in our view, so correct an exhibition of the atonement, brought before the public: and still more, to see it brought within such narrow and tangible limits. Without attempting or designing a comparison of it with other works on the same subject, we pronounce it valuable ; and shall attempt to make our readers, in some measure acquainted with the author's sentiments, and with the manner in which he has treated the doctrine.

Before we proceed to this, however, we state that although Mr. B. appears to be fully established in his own mind, and to speak with frankness and decision, he has treated his subject with becoming mildness. He has shown no disposition, either to depress the feelings of an opponent, or to maintain the spirit of controversy. His object is to exhibit the truth, respecting the atonement, as he finds it revealed in scripture.— And he appears fully sensible, that the doctrine before him is a doctrine purely of divine revelation.

His Essay is divided into eight sections or chapters; to which he has added, what is technically called a "Conclusion." The first of these contains an introduction or general statement of the subject. In this general statement he shews the importance of an atonement in the scheme of gospel salvation,

and the necessity of an atonement in order to render the salvation of sinners consistent with the revealed character of God. He argues this necessity from the fact of Christ's sufferings as a Mediator; from the plain declarations of scripture that he ought to suffer and must suffer; and from the important consideration, that sin is an offence against God in a public capacity, as the righteous Governor of the universe. Indeed, Mr. B. takes the ground, taken by many others, that the atonement of Christ had respect to the Divine character and government: that it was necessary, in order to vindicate the holiness of God and the righteousnes of his government, when he pardons him that believes in Christ Jesus.

Accordingly the passage of scripture, upon which he has grounded his subject, and which he has made the theme of discussion, is that of St. Paul; Rom. III. 25, 26 "Whom God hath set forth, to be a propitiation, through faith in his blood to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins which are past, through the forbearance of God. To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness, that he might be just, and the justifier of him that believeth in Jesus."Now, from the very face of this passage, it appears that Christ is set forth as a propitiation to declare the righteousness of God, in the remission of sins; even to declare his righteousness that he might be just, or that he might

appear just in pardoning them who believe in Christ. Hence, in the author's language. It appears evident, that the doctrine, which the apostle designed to teach, is this; If God had not set forth Christ to shed his blood, for the remission of sins, he could not have been just, in saving sinners; nor can he now, unless they believe in Jesus." The atonement therefore, had respect to the character and government of God. It was intended, not only to reveal, but to vindicate, the holiness of his character, and the rectitude of his government in the salvation of sinners.

With this general view of the atonement, Mr. B. proceeds, in the second chapter of his Essay, to point out its necessity: and does this, by pointing out some obstacles which opposed the pardon of sinners, without an atonement. He supposes, however, and we think justly, that the atonement was not necessary, to conciliate the Divine feelings, and render God propitious; or, in other words, to render him compassionate towards sinners. For the scriptures furnish abundant evidence of Divine compassion towards them antecedently to the work,or the design of an atonement. Indeed, the very manner of its accomplishment is such, as to show, that if God had not been thus compassionate, no atonement, like that of Christ, would ever have been made. God had not loved the world even with the tenderest compassion,

If