denomination, rather in obedience to the feeling which has been just described, than as the result of careful, or even serious inquiry.

But, I ask, is it reasonable, is it justifiable, upon any principle, to yield to a prejudice of this kind? Is that which is most palatable always most salutary? Ought a wayward child to take for granted that that plan of education is the wisest and best, which is most lax and indulgent, most agreeable to his present feelings, and from which all painful restraint and discipline are excluded? Ought a sick man to conclude hastily that a certain physician is more skilful than any other, merely because he constantly deals in soothing and palliatives, and never administers the remedy, which, while it would give temporary pain, would also remove his disease? No; every one would say, that the folly, in both these cases, was extreme. Now we are all wayward children; and we cannot be reclaimed and led in the right way without painful discipline. We are all morally diseased; and remedies at present painful are necessary to our restoration. Should we not call that man infatuated, who desired to be soothed, flattered, and

made easy, for a few days, at the expense of years of extreme suffering? Surely, no less palpable is the infatuation of that man, who is most pleased with those who flatter and set him at ease in his sins; who resolves, anteriour to all examination, to throw himself into the arms of those who tell him the most gratifying story, and predict most favourably, concerning his situation and eternal prospects.

It is undoubtedly true, that the Orthodox uniformly represent man as a sinner, a fallen, lost, miserable sinner; as guilty, and standing in need of pardon; as polluted, and standing in need of regenerating and sanctifying grace; as labouring, in his whole constitution, under a deplorable disease, from which he can obtain deliverance only through the atoning blood, and purifying Spirit of an Almighty Redeemer. And it is equally true, that they always represent the course of a sinner's return to God, and of holy obedience to his commands, as a much more humiliating, spiritual, difficult, self-denying course, than Unitarians represent it. On this diversity of representation, the first question that would occur to a wise man, is, How is

this matter to be decided? Is it by the word of God, or by the assertions of fallible men? If by the word of God, what does that unerring guide say on the subject? To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.

I ask you, then, my Brethren, and I entreat you to ask yourselves in the fear of God, with which of these representations do the sacred Scriptures, both in their letter and spirit, best accord? Do they teach man that he is in a state of spiritual health; that his nature is pure; that he stands in no need of the regenerating, and sanctifying power of the Holy Spirit; that he can purchase pardon, if he should ever happen to need it, by his own works; that he has inherent strength to perform all that God requires; that he has no hell, or a very trivial one, to fear; and that final happiness will be attained by every man, however disobedient? Do the Scriptures teach thus? Do they thus throw the Saviour and the Holy Spirit into the shade, and make salvation an unmeaning term? Or do they teach directly the reverse of all this? Let not your feelings decide these questions. This

F

would be like making a culprit at the bar both juror and judge in his own case. But let enlightened, impartial conscience, with the word of God in your hands, give the answer. What will it avail you, in the great day of trial, to find that you have been flattered by blind leaders of the blind, and have set at naught the plain, repeated, solemn declarations of that word, which was given to guide you into the way of peace, and which will be the great standard of judgment in that day?

But is the system of the Unitarians really more favourable to comfort of mind than that of the Orthodox? "Is that system "gloomy" and "full of horrors," which directs the guilty and "burdened mind to a Saviour, who is described "by the inspiration of God, as ABLE TO SAVE TO “THE UTTERMOST; or that which must consign "us to all the miseries of despondency and des"pair, by representing this Saviour as a mere "man-a fallible, peccable man-a man liable to "ignorance, prejudice, and sin ?" Is not the latter, in fact, like every other deceiver, though smiling and flattering in its aspect, utterly hostile to true enjoyment? Read the XIIth of the excellent

Letters of Dr. FULLER, on the Calvinistick and Socinian Systems compared; and I have no doubt you will be fully convinced that the system of the Orthodox is, in every view, most friendly to peace of conscience, to habitual tranquility and cheerfulness of mind, and to that genuine spiritual joy, which flows from the richest consolations, and the purest and most exalted hopes. Like a faithful physician, it wounds but to heal; like a precious medicine of life, it gives temporary pain, but to produce infinitely more than a counterbalance of health and comfort in the end. It is not, indeed, and it is one of its glories that it is not, friendly to carnal and grovelling joys; to those which are connected with the theatre, the card-table, the midnight revel, or any scene of unhallowed sensuality. It boasts of no power to place men at ease in their sins, or to say, Peace, peace, when there is no peace. On the contrary, it ever tends to make wicked men deeply anxious and apprehensive, as they ought to be. It allows none to be tranquil and happy but those who have forsaken sin, and become true penitents and believers in Christ. But to the humble, the contrite, and the obedient befever, it speaks peace, and comfort and blessed