“The human mind can conceive of no exhibition calculated to produce a deep er impression."

Where is the dissonance then be tween Dr. Murdock and Prof. Stuart. And since Dr. D. also agrees with Prof. S. where is the difference between him and Dr. Murdock? We remember an axiom that if two things be equal to the same thing they are equal to one another. Or, if A. agree with B. and B. agree with C. it follows that A. and C. agree. Therefore the Doctors are agreed.

But we promised to notice the complaint of Dr. D. that we had represented him as proceeding in the latter part of his discourse, on the supposition of a literal execution of the law. We would willingly waive the discussion of this matter lest we should seem either to disprove the correctness of our own position that our authors were agreed, or else find Dr. D. at variance with himself; neither of which we have any wish to do.

In the former part of his discourse Dr. D. states his own views of the doctrine in debate; in the latter part he combats what he supposes to be the views of Dr. M. Now admitting that the two gentlemen were agreed in the position that the law was not literally executed on the Saviour, it must be evident that Dr. M. could not be controverted on this point, except on the ground that the law was literally executed. Accordingly the purport of our remark was, that it was not on the ground of quotations containing the direct statement of Dr. D.'s views on the point in question, that we spoke of discord, but rather in view of conclusions near the close of his discourse; "for in this part of it he proceeded on the supposition that the law was literally executed on the Saviour." Perhaps the remark was hasty if so we have no apology but what may be found in the

tial' then as here used (not as here intended to be used) must be equivalent to literal.' But not to torture a word, since words have already occasioned so much misunderstanding-what other construction can be fairly put upon it in its connexion with the whole passage? That atonement which is in no sense "a substitute for the execution of the law," but on the contrary a substantial fulfilment of its precept and its penalty, "not a departure from the regular course of justice, but perfectly accordant with its immutable principles," does necessarily imply a literal execution of the law on the Redeemer. What language different from this would a writer use who should strenuously contend for this opinion? We do not charge Dr. D. with holding this opinion; we only charge it upon his language and surely it furnishes some apology for our asserting that in this part of his discourse he proceeded on the supposition of a literal execution of the law.

:

Butler," is a providential appointment of every day's experience."

We have italicized the word 'legal' in the above passage; also the word punishment' as implying guilt in the subject of it. We forbear further comment, for we do not wish to press the topic under consideration. For the same reason we will make no more quotations. It must, we think, be evident to Dr. D. not only that his own language implies more than he intended, but that he has great ly misapprehended the purport of Dr.Murdock's. Under an impression, however received, that Dr. M.'s discourse was full of error, it was natural that he should feel it to be his duty as a Christian minister to contend against it. But was not his impression hasty and his reprehension

too severe.

66

We have a word to say respecting our "insult on the public understanding." If the insult consisted in our having attempted to reconcile the sentiments of Dr. D. with the strange theory which he had extracted, we know not how, from Dr. M.'s sermon-a theory which "subverts the law" of God; exhibits the divine character as "inexplicable and distressing;" "virtually denies the atonement," or reduces it to a shadow or a" metaphor"; sets the bible at defiance, or tortures it into a new sense by criticism;" "and with an imposing and tremendous logic blots out every ray of human hope forever, and plunges all the millions of the fallen family in absolute despair,”— we must beg to excuse ourselves from such a charge. We made no comparison of the points of difference between this theory and the faith of Dr. D. Nor do we now affirm aught, or deny aught respecting it, save that if it can be found in Dr. Murdock's sermon on the Atonement, we have become strangers to our mother tongue, and its words, to us, have lost their English import. It was with the sentiments, which, upon a careful and candid examination, we found in Dr. M.'s

discourse, that we compared the sentiments of Dr. D. On what then rests the charge of our having insulted the public understanding? On nothing less than this, that we have presumed to acquit Dr. Murdock's sermon of the theory' which Dr. D.'s “tremendous logic" had detected in it-to the great a mazement of its author.

But lest we should seem to take the Dr. up too seriously on this point, we will only say in more sober, perhaps more becoming language, that Dr. D. probably did not reflect that the charge which he thus brings against us rests on the assumption that his own views of the sermon in question were indisputably right, and the views of those who differed from him as indisputably wrong and also that the decision of the public understanding coincided with his own. We are not wanting in respect for the public understanding, but we wish to suggest to such as wonder at the temerity of those who speak peaceably of Dr. M.'s sermon, that the public voice is by no means unanimous in condemning it. Of this we have very satisfactory evidence.

But to conclude this protracted article we hope Dr. D. will not only be satisfied with the explanations which have been given, but that he will no longer insist on being at antipodes with Dr. M. If as a prudent man aware of the jeal ousies and errors of the times, he still regrets that Dr. M. should have clothed his sentiments in a peculiar phraseology, we will not censure him in this. We have ourselves a portion of the same regret. But if Dr. M.'s theology be, and can be shown to be, in no essential point, different from that of his brethren,

Dr. D. will surely wish with us that a dissension which bad existed in appearance only, should be done away. There are those who with a zeal proportioned to their love of error, and with an assiduity stimulated by their aversion to that system of doctrines whose prevalence it is their religion to oppose, are ever ready to proclaim and magnify division whether real or apparent, among those whose strength is in unity of faith.

It was with this fact

in view that we took up the sub ject in controversy. We were aware of the delicacy of the undertaking, yet we felt it to be our duty if possible to close up a breach which we regretted to see growing wider daily, by the efforts of both friends and foes. We hope our labour, however humble, was not labour thrown away."

We sincerely join with Dr. D. in his expressions of regret that the atonement should be made the subject of so much controversy, “a subject never designed, surely to perplex our minds with the subtleties of debate, but rather to overwhelm every human heart with a tide of grateful admiration and love." We regret that perverseness and blindness of the human mind which should ever make the subtleties of debate" on such a subject necessary. But there are occasions, if we are not deceived, the present is one-when an imperious sense of duty" should constrain ns. We also join with Dr. D. in his prayer though we cannot make Dr. M. the occasion of it.-that the doctrine of the atonement may never be impaired by the speculations of a bold and unscriptural philosophy-that "this sanctuary for the guilty and wretched of our race may ever remain inviolate.”

book trade in, 95

revival of religion in, 605

God, duty of praising, 621

Greece, 56, 225, 388, 603

Greeks, collection for the, 323

Gospel, reasons why mankind reject the,

453