A wise man has no more anger than shows he can apprehend the first wrong; and no more revenge than just to prevent a second.

More hearts pine in secret anguish for unkindness from those, who should be their comforters, than for any other calamity in life.

It was a noble character, which Ascham gave of Frederick, duke of Saxony. 'He thinketh nothing, which he dare not speak, and speaketh nothing, which he will not do.'

Poetry.

THE FALL OF NIAGARA.

The thoughts are strange, that crowd into my brain
While I look upward to thee. It would seem
As if God pour'd thee from his hollow hand;
Had hung his bow upon thy awful front;

Had spoke in that loud voice which seem'd to him,
Who dwelt in Patmos for his Saviour's sake,
The sound of many waters; and had bade
Thy flood to chronicle the ages back,
And notch his centuries in th' eternal rocks.
Deep calleth unto deep. And what are we,
That hear the question of that voice sublime ?
O what are all the notes, that ever rung

From war's vain trumpet, by thy thund'ring side?
Yea, what is all the riot man can make,
In his short life, to thy unceasing roar?
And yet, bold babbler ! what art thou to Him
Who drown'd a world, and heap'd the waters far
Above its loftiest mountains ?-A light wave,
That breaks and whispers of its Maker's might.

Review.

ART. XII.-1. Nature of the Atonement. A Discourse delivered August 17, 1823, in the Chapel of the Theological Seminary, Andover. By JAMES MURDOCK, D. D. Brown Professor of Sacred Rhetorick and Ecclesiastical History in the Seminary. Published by the Students of the Institution. Andover. Flagg & Gould. 1823.

2. Two Discourses on the Atonement. By MosES STUART, Associate Professor of Sacred Literature in the Theological Seminary at Andover. Published by request of the Students. Andover. Flagg & Gould. 1824. 3. A Sermon on the Atonement, preached at the Annual Convention of the Congregational and Presbyterian Ministers of the State of New Hampshire, Concord, June 4, 1824. By DANIEL DANA, D. D. Minister of the Gospel in Londonderry. Concord. John W. Shepard.

1824.

THE first of these discourses has been long before the. publick, and, as our readers are well aware, has attracted unusual attention. We have, however, suffered it to pass without notice, because we thought it better to leave our orthodox brethren to settle their differences among themselves, unembarrassed by foreign interference, and find their own. way to the truth. Thus we did not engage in the elaborate discussions of Professors Miller and Stuart respecting the Eternal Generation of the Son of God. We could not indeed feel any considerable interest in the unprofitable question; and, if it engendered strife rather than godly edifying, we were very willing it should be confined to them. We supposed also that few would take more interest in the subject than ourselves, or would read what we might write. Again, when Dr Miller sent forth his volume against Unitarianism,a volume remarkable in the history of controversy for its singular disingenuousness-we suffered it to pass by unnoticed;

both because it was exceedingly difficult to speak temperately of such an outrage, and because we thought it better that the argument of his book, separate from its spirit, should be dealt with in a separate work, and after a period of cool reflection. We considered too, that the most triumphant refutation, if published as a Review, would be esteemed no answer by those who are accustomed to regard names rather than things; for we had with amazement, both seen in print, and heard in conversation, the assertion, that no reply has ever been made to Stuart's Letters on the Trinity; and hence, in a tone of boasting, it was inferred that they were acknowledged to be unanswerable-notwithstanding that a most thorough and conclusive reply had been printed in the Christian Disciple, and a very large separate edition eagerly bought up and spread through the community. But then it was in the form of a Review, and a reply to the subject and the argument, rather than a formal examination of the Letters step by step. So easily are some men satisfied with a sophistical

evasion.

We have been inclined to pursue the same course of silence in regard to the Sermon of Dr Murdock, and the discussions it has occasioned; and are led to break this silence at last by unexpectedly finding, in a contemporary journal, an attempt to prove that there is really no difference between those writers who have supposed themselves to differ widely, but that Dr Murdock's statements have been strangely misunderstood and misrepresented. This is really too much; and we propose not to enter into the controversy itself-but to state what the controversy is, and to show, that in spite of all ingenious reasoning to the contrary, there is ground for the controversy in the great and real difference of sentiment between Dr Murdock and others. We know that there are some persons, who suppose that, if two men can be brought to subscribe to the same creed, or to call themselves by the same name, they of course agree in sentiment, however differently they may interpret the creed and the name. In the Episcopal Church, for instance, rent as it is into violent and irreconcilable factions, it is yet constantly asserted by churchmen, that the creeds and articles ensure doctrinal uniformity, and that christendom never will be at peace until the liturgy

and articles are universally received. So too an obstinate union is maintained among those, who adopt the name and the general phraseology of the orthodox, though it be most notorious that they are adopted in a great variety of interpretations; and if any one be so ill advised as to bring to notice one of these differences, he is immediately put down with the assurance, that it is a matter of no moment, and that, whatever appearances may be, there is in reality no disagreement. There are volumes of instruction concerning uniformity of faith to be read in this single statement. It is confirmed by the case before us, and may lead to some not unprofitable inferences.

Dr. Murdock's discourse is designed to explain the Nature of the Atonement. This he is led to do from a consideration of the importance of the subject, and because great progress has been made in the right understanding of it within fifty years. Of this fact we have no doubt; and notwithstanding all that has been so positively written and said about the impossibility of discoveries in religion, and the impiety of expecting improvements, we entirely agree with Dr. Murdock in congratulating the church on its perceptible advance. The progress is slow and impeded; but in spite of the reluctance and opposition of traditionary systems, it is perceptible and

sure.

'Within the last fifty years,' says the preacher, 'the subject has undergone a more full discussion than ever; and the advance in knowledge has, I conceive, been answerable to the efforts made. One fact is noticeable, and demands our gratitude to the Author of all light; the believers in gratuitous justification, both in Europe and America, seem to be gradually coming to nearly the same conclusion.'

The results to which he has himself been led in this advance of knowledge,' he exhibits in this discourse; in order to inform the churches of the position at which the true doctrine has now arrived, and to which all its advocates are ' gradually coming.' Whether he supposes that any further advance is to be made, we do not know. His only object is to ascertain and set a mark at the present æra. What this is we shall now see, and then inquire how far Dr. Dana and Mr. Stuart hold the same opinion respecting the state of improvement at which the doctrine is arrived.

According to Dr. Murdock, then, the true doctrine at the present day stands thus ;-The atonement is a substitute for the execution of the divine law. The great Father desired to find some expedient by which he might be enabled to pardon his erring children, with credit to himself and safety to his kingdom. The atonement is this expedient. If indeed punishment were only necessary, because of the essential moral difference between right and wrong, then he would be able to pardon the penitent on the ground of their repentance simply, since that would, of course, remove the offensive evil. Or if the only object of punishment were the reformation of the individual, then he might remit it, and grant a pardon the moment the individual were reformed. But the good order and happiness of his vast kingdom are concerned. Free forgiveness would encourage others to sin, and endanger the general peace, and violate the majesty of the law. It is absolutely necessary, in order to avoid this, that the full penalty of the law be executed.-Here, then, is a great, and almost insuperable obstacle to the granting of pardon to men,-an obstacle, which it is the business of an atonement to remove.' Much of this language is that of our author; we give the next wholly in his own words.

To remove this difficulty, or to enable God righteously to pardon the repenting sinner; the atonement must give the same support to law, or must display as impressively the perfect holiness and justice of God, as the execution of the law on transgressors would. It must be something different from the execution of the law itself; because it is to be a substitute for it, something which will render it safe and proper to suspend the regular course of distributive justice.-If such an expedient can be found, then an adequate atonement is possible; otherwise it is not.'

This 'expedient' which should give to the infinitely benevolent Creator the power of showing mercy to offenders, was found in the sacrifice of Christ. Not indeed that there was any sacrifice at all, in any proper and literal sense; but his death was simply a 'symbol' of the divine displeasure against sin, and determination to maintain the order of his government. This is the whole of the expedient; a 'declaration,' manifestation,' 'display,' 'exhibition,' by means of a symbolical transaction,' of the righteousness of God, (or, to speak technically, his general justice,) designed to impress

6