the preceding list. It had previously been delivered, by the appointment of the General Association of Connecticut, before the clergy who assemble at the Commencement exercises in Yale College. Although the nature of the topic precluded any elaborate defense of the doctrine, the discourse was appropriately introduced by the following statements:

"It is well in stating the atonement to distinguish between the fact and the theory. The fact of the atonement is this: That Jesus Christ, God manifest in the flesh, by his life and his death, and especially by his death, has constituted a just ground of divine pardon for penitent and believing sinners-has done that, with which sinners, if repentant and loyal, may be justly pardoned, and without which, sinners, though repentant and loyal, cannot be justly pardoned. In this general statement of the fact of atonement, all who are properly denominated evangelical, agree. And this, it may be added, is all that is essential, as it respects the atonement, to real and trustworthy orthodoxy.

"When we come to the statement of the theory or philosophy of the atonement-of how it is that the life and death of Christ renders it just for God to forgive the penitent and believing sinner-we find light indeed in the Scriptures, but not enough to secure as yet a uniform belief among those who honestly receive the Scriptures as the Word of God. Among the diverse theories on this point, that which seems to me most accordant with the Scriptural testimony, and with those principles of ethies, government and reason, which the Scriptures imply and confirm, while most benign in its bearing on the minds and hearts of men, is that which has been substantially held in New England by our denomination for the last sixty or seventy years; viz, that the sacrifice of Christ renders God just in the pardon of the sins of the repentant, by being substituted for the remitted penalty, as an equivalent expression of the divine displeasure at sin, and thus of the divine regard for the law, which forbids sin; or, to go one step farther back, an equivalent expression of those divine attributes, particularly the divine justice, which dictated and found manifestation in the divine law and its penalty."

The correctness of the exposition, in respect to the belief of evangelical Christians, has not, so far as we are aware, been questioned, with a single exception, which should scarcely be counted. The weekly organ of the Reformed Dutch Church has given a striking instance of its own perspicacity and candor by finding fault with Mr. Dutton for teaching that the life of Christ is a part of his atoning work. The Batavianized New Englandman who conducts that journal with so much superserviceable zeal, does not seem to have become, as yet, sufficiently acquainted with the Old School Calvinism to know what it is on this point.

The larger part of the article was occupied with showing the practical and religious influence of this great doctrine, and the whole was copied, with a kind and approving notice by the editor, into the Monthly Religious Magazine, which is conducted by Professor F. D. Huntington, D. D., of Harvard College, who has recently been appointed the stated Preacher to the University. He introduced the piece with such commendations as these:

"We can do our readers no better service than to reprint entire Rev. Mr. Dutton's "Concio ad Clerum," delivered before the General Association of Connecticut last July. It must be borne in mind that it received the evident and full approbation of that rather orthodox body; though we are aware that to mention this circumstance will prejudice its reception with some persons whose liberality is rather in name than in reality. Others will not fail to be nourished by the truths it so fervently proclaims, finding something there that meets their hearts, and gratified by the encouragement it gives to the hope that clear and consistent statements shall yet be found out for vital theological doctrines in which earnest Christian believers can agree."

The February number of the Monthly Magazine contained a letter from Rev. Dr. Hall, of Providence, R. I., a distinguished divine of the Unitarian body, demanding Scriptural proof of the doctrine; upon which letter, the editor founded remarks explanatory, and defensive of the doctrine therein assailed. Rev. Mr. Dutton rejoined to Dr. Hall in the Magazine for March, with a fuller exposition of his views, and an abundant quotation of Scripture. This rejoinder was followed in April by a second letter from Dr. Hall, and also by an eminently instructive and suggestive view of the discussion, and of the spirit in which it had been received, from the pen of the editor.

Dr. Hall affirms, if we understand him correctly, that there is nothing in the Bible which indicates that God could not pardon the penitent" of his own free grace, independently of all else." We are content to leave him in the hands of his opponents, who certainly, thus far, need no foreign aid; but it may not be amiss to indicate some difficulties which the conflicting statements of this Unitarian divine involve. He intimates, or at least does not deny, that God may in the death of Christ have so vindicated his law, and maintained his righteous character, as to render pardon to the sinner on repentance a póssibility. So we are compelled to interpret the following lan

guage:

"Our faith is in God, our hope is in his mercy, and the mediation of his Son. The salvation we crave is not salvation from pain and punishment, but from sin. Sin is the enemy we fear, the obstacle to be removed. If there be any other obstacle, it is not in man, and all say it is not in God. Where is it? If God in Christ has already removed it, the way is open to the penitent and be lieving; and if aught can make us penitent and believing, it is such love as God's, such life and death as Christ's. His death stands forth as no other event does in the world's history, and exerts a power that nothing else has. That power is spiritual and for man. We say not, there can be no other power there; but if there be, it is not for us to define. We ask not what repentance would be, or could do without Christ's death and its influences. Enough to know that repentance, if genuine, will be accepted; enough that it is essential.”—Monthly Religious Magazine and Independent Journal, Vol. XV, No. 4, p. 256.

We can hardly comprehend how the writer of the above,

with Mr. Dutton's clear exhibition of the obstacle to pardon, existing in the nature of justice, and in the necessities of God's government, as expounded by the Divine Sovereign,-can ingenuously inquire, with apparent ignorance, as to the exact position of this hindrance. Wherein lies the obstacle to the making yesterday tomorrow-or causing two bodies to occupy at the same moment, the same space? Wherein lies the obstacle to pardon without penitence; to an absolute remittance of all penalty? Not in man, surely, and according to Dr. Hall's theory of the Divine Being, not in God, save as he has revealed himself. The writer does not deny that the death of Christ may have an effect beyond mere inducement to repentance; and he declares in the closing sentences, which we have italicised, that it is not for us to define its nature. So we affirm, and therefore look to the word of God for in

struction.

If, then, and this is the point on which we lay stress,God has intimated that the death of his Son may be so related to the availability of repentence as Dr. Hall suggests: does not that of itself establish the necessity of such a provision? For is it conceivable that a perfectly benevolent and infinitely wise being would permit unnecessary evil; would give his only begotten Son to ignominy without a cause; or for a reason which was not actually imperative? We have never imagined that any nominal Christians attributed to the Deity a gratuitous love of suffering. Some of us believe that the continuance of the human race, in their fallen condition, was consequent on the eternal purpose of Jehovah to provide a ransom, "a lamb slain from the foundation of the world;" that otherwise, neither sin nor repentance would have been possible to mankind, by reason of their non-existence; and that the grace, manifested in Christ, exhibits the Divine love in that we are enabled, through the experience of trial, to attain a position loftier than the angels, though that grace, if rejected, will involve a deeper perdition of him who has despised this better covenant. We are, however, content to leave the matter with those who at present have it in charge, as we suspect that Dr. Hall will find his time abundantly occupied in answering the inquiries urged by Professor Huntington, at the conclusion of his remarks in the latest number of the Magazine.

We had a different design in alluding to the discussion, one which is of far more interest and importance to the majority of our readers. We are desirous of ascertaining the position of Professor Huntington in doctrinal belief, and the treatment which he deserves from the Christian communion to which

we belong. This inquiry is the more important because it concerns the principles of catholity and of Christian recognition, applicable to the particular case; although the case itself has peculiar claims on our regard.

Professor Huntington occupies a public position, of incalculable power over the religious convictions of the American people; and we have a right, therefore, to a clear and candid avowal of his doctrinal faith, that we may judge of his qualifications for the office which he sustains. Every parent who is desirous of educating his boy, has an interest in ascertaining the nature of that religious teaching to which he will be subjected in the oldest and wealthiest University of our land. Every true patriot is concerned with the principles which the ductile mind receives during its preparation for leadership in society. We conceive that the world has a right to be informed as to the opinions and convictions of an instructor, holding so elevated and commanding a station: that, where other men, with the natural reserve of a delicate sensibility, might guard their treasured faith in the privacy of their own souls, he is obliged to utter himself boldly, and to expect that his opinions will be discussed, and weighed, as a matter belonging to the common welfare,-a public property. Never theless, under all this, there lies a broad and fundamental principle, which ought to be recognized, and which, wherever it is fairly received and permitted to exert its appropriate influence, is destined to modify and reconstruct the conditions of Christian fellowship, by developing a church unity, not of form, but of spirit, the bond of a common life, the oneness of a Christian love, "till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ."

A strange forgetfulness has crept over many Congregationalists in respect to the liberty unto which they are called, and we are glad of an occasion to remind our brethren of the catholicity of our ecclesiastical system, which is not a sect, but invites to its communion all truly Christian churches, and em braces in its brotherhood all who manifest sincere love to our Lord Jesus Christ by witnessing a good confession. We have, therefore, an interest in this particular case, through its illustration of the general rules which should govern our church fellowship.

The doctrine involved in these discussions is confessedly the central truth of the Gospel, that which gives form and importance to all other truths, and which, as accepted or rejected, decides in the estimation of evangelical minds, the Christianity

of any system, and its consequent right to Christian recognition. We are to inquire, first, what Professor Huntington believes on this most fundamental of all doctrines; and secondly, how he ought to be treated?

I. What does Professor Huntington believe in respect to the atonement made by Jesus Christ?

propose to let him speak for himself, so that our readers may judge of his sentiments; and we bespeak for him a candid hearing. He was not educated in an orthodox school of divinity, and has not been nurtured in the technical phrases and nomenclature which are the household words of our communion: but, on the other hand, he has been habituated to a distrust and misapprehension of these terms, and cannot be expected, even if his ideas coincide with ours, to use the scientific expressions which convey to us a meaning different from that which they carry to those with whom he has associated. We are not disposed to regard this as a disadvantage in an honest exposition of his faith, for we have always lamented the hieroglyphics in which theologians write, and have anticipated the restoration of the Saviour's method of communicating truth in simple language, as one blessing of that glorious era which is yet to crown history in the triumph of the gospel. Yet we must recollect that Professor H. will not be likely to take the words of our catechism, and say, "Thus I believe,"-we might distrust him if he did,-but that like a free, outspoken man, he will utter his own convictions in his own fashion, so that we can discern his real opinions, and judge him righteously. With these facts in mind, let us listen to the avowal of faith which is delivered in the confessions and discussions of this religious teacher. We commence with an article, written by the Editor in the Monthly Religious Magazine for May, 1851, on "The Divinity of Christ." This is interesting and important, as explanatory of his later statements, and, also, as indicating that his sentiments have not been hastily adopted, but are the result of protracted study, and have been elaborated by the meditation and experience of years. We have no doubt that Professor H. would now express himself even more fully, but enough is here recorded to satisfy the candid reader that the Author's opinions are not Arian.

"There are two prevalent apprehensions of the character and office of Jesus as Saviour of the world. One contemplates him as specially appointed to represent the perfection of humanity, meaning by humanity what we have hitherto known or conceived of the spiritual powers and possibilities in a human being. This view holds Jesus to have been a perfect man; the completest moral example and religious genius of our race; exhibiting in his life and death the utmost that human excellence can do or be; as showing the ul