bring this as an argument against the doctrine it lays down. But I do maintain, that men should believe what they say, before they condemn those who cannot say so much: that they should feel the trial of faith, before they decide on the propriety of a doubt.

I may be told that what I have been saying is not Scripture, but reasoning. I know it is reasoning. I have already shown, as I think, that the Scriptures do not warrant the doctrine that is commonly deduced from them; and to my mind, the reasoning I have used strongly enforces the rejection of it.

III. But I hasten to my final remark, which is, that the Scriptures reveal our future danger, whatever it be, for the purpose of alarming us; and therefore, that to speculate on this subject, in order to lessen our fear of sinning, involves the greatest hazard and impiety. There is a high moral use-and it is the only use for which the awful revelation of "the powers of the world to come" was intended, and most evidently and eminently fitted-and that is, to awaken fear. Whatever else the language in question means, it means this. About other topics relating to it, there may be questions; about this, none at all. And after all that has been said, I shall not hesitate to add, that we are in no danger of really believing too much, or fearing too much. And this is my answer, if any should object to the moral tendency of the views that have been offered- I maintain that a man should fear all that he can, and I do actually hold a belief, that affords the fullest scope for such a feeling. It is not of so much consequence that any one should use fearful words on this subject, and even violently contend for them, as that he should himself fear and tremble.

And I repeat, that there is reason. For if we adopt any opinion, short of the most blank and bald Universalism, it cannot fail to be serious. Will you embrace the idea of a literal destruction? Imagine, then, if possible, what it is to be no more for ever! Look down into the abyss of dark and dismal annihilation. Think with yourself, what it would be if all which you call yourself, your mind, your life, your cherished being, were to fall into the jaws of everlasting death! Oh! there is something dreadful beyond utterance in the thought of annihilation to go away from the abodes of life, to quit our hold of life and being itself; to be nothing-nothing-for ever! while the glad universe should go onward in its brightness and its glory, and myriads of beings should live and be happy; and all their dwellings, and all their worlds should be overspread with life, and beauty, and joy! Imagine it, if you can. Think, that the hour of last farewell to all this had come: think of the last moment, of the last act, of the last thought—and that thought annihilation! Oh! it would be enough to start with its energy your whole being into a new life;-methinks, you would spring with agony from the verge of the horrible abyss, and cry for life-for existence though it were woe and torment! Shall we then prefer the hope of long and remedial suffering?-Then carry forward your thoughts to that dark world, where there shall be "no more sacrifice for sin"-no more Saviour to call and win us- -no more mild and gentle methods of restoration, where sin must be purged from us, if at all, "so as by fire." Carry forward your thoughts to that dark struggle with the powers of retribution, where every malignant and hateful passion will wage the fearful war against the soul; where habit, too, will have bound

and shackled the soul with its everlasting chains of darkness; and its companions, fiends like itself, shall only urge it on to sin. When will the struggle cease? If sin cannot be resisted now, in this world of means, and motives, and mercies, how shall it be resisted then? When or how shall the miserable soul retrieve its steps? From what depth of eternity shall it trace back its way of ages? God only knows. To us it is not given. But we know that the retribution of sinful soul is what we ought, above all things, to fear. For thus are we instructed: "Fear not them that, after they have killed the body, have no more that they can do: but fear him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell; yea, I say unto you, fear him." We know not what it is; but we know that such terms and phrases as we read,-"the wrath to come; the worm that dieth not; the fire that is not quenched; the blackness of darkness; the fiery indignation," that these words not only import what is fearful, but were intended to inspire a salutary dread. We know not what it is; but we have heard of one who lifted up his eyes being in torment, and saw the regions of the blessed afar off, and cried and said, "Father Abraham, have mercy on me! for I am tormented in this flame." We know not what it is; but we know that the finger of inspiration has pointed awfully to that world of calamity. We know that inspired prophets and apostles, when the interposing veil has been, for a moment, drawn before them, have shuddered with horror at the spectacle. We know that the Almighty himself has gathered and accumulated all the images of earthly distress and ruin, not to show us what it is, but to warn us of what it may be-that he has spread over this world the deep shadows of his displeasure, leaving nothing to be seen, and everything to be dreaded! And thus has he taught us, what I would lay down, as the moral of these observations, and of all my reflections on this subject, that it is not our wisdom to speculate, but to fear!

CURSORY OBSERVATIONS.

NO. VI.

CONCLUSION.

THE MODES OF ATTACK UPON LIBERAL CHRISTIANITY, THE SAME THAT WERE USED AGAINST THE DOCTRINE OF THE APOSTLES AND REFORMERS.

Is being assailed as it is, Liberal Christianity meets but with the fate that naturally attends, and actually has attended all improvement. Whether Unitarianism be a real progress of truth or not, this general statement will not be questioned. Every great advancement in science, in the arts, in politics, has had to encounter this hostility. No cause has been, nor is, more bitterly opposed, than the cause of political liberty. So it has been with religion. Christianity had to struggle long with the hostility of the world. Its doctrines were opposed, and its friends reproached. And when it declined from its purity, when it was corrupted through its popularity, through its prevalence, through its very orthodoxy, I may say- when a revival of its true doctrines was needed, the men who stood forward in that work, the Reformers, found that innovation was still an offence, that dissent was heresy, that truth was accounted no better than ruinous and fatal error.

I say these things, in the general, and at the outset, not to prove, nor would I anywhere pretend to prove by such an argument, that Unitarianism is right, but to show that opposition to it is no evidence of its being wrong; to show that a doctrine may be, like primitive Christianity, "everywhere spoken against," and yet be a true doctrine. For there are many, who feel from the bare circumstance, that a system is so much reproached, as if it must be wrong or questionable; and there are many more, who suffer their opinions to float on the current of popular displeasure, without inquiring at all into their justice or validity. Let such remember that no new truths ever did, nor, till men are much changed, ever can enter into the world without this odium and hostility; and let them not account that, which may be the very seal of truth, to be the brand of error!

I will now proceed to notice some of the particular modes of attack to which Liberal Christianity is subject, to meet these assaults and objections, and to show that Unitarianism, in being subjected to these assaults, suffers no new or singular fate.

I. In the first place, then, it is common to charge upon new opinions all the accidents attending their progress; to blend with the main cause all the circumstances that happen to be connected with it. This is, perhaps, not unnatural, though it be unjust. Men hear that a new

system is introduced, that a new sect is rising. They know nothing thoroughly about it, but they are inquiring what it is. In this state of mind they meet, not with a Unitarian book, but more likely with a passage from a book, taken from its connexion, culled out, it is probable, on purpose to make a bad impression, and forthwith this passage is made to stand for the system. Whenever Unitarianism is mentioned, the obnoxious paragraph rises to mind, and settles all questions about it, at once. Or, perhaps, some act or behaviour of some individual in this new class of religionists is mentioned, and this is henceforth considered and quoted as a just representation, not only of the whole body, but of their principles also. Thus an impediment in Paul's speech was made an objection to Christianity-an objection, which he thought it necessary gravely to debate with the Church in Corinth.

I have introduced this sort of objection first, not only because it arises naturally out of a man's first acquaintance with Unitarianism, but because it gives me an opportunity to say, before I proceed any further, how much of what passes under this name, it is necessary, as I conceive, to defend. I I say, then, it is not necessary to defend everything that passes under this name - everything that every or any Unitarian has written, or said, or done. So obvious a disclamation might seem to be scarcely needful; but it will not seem so to any who have observed the manner in which things of this sort are charged upon us. What is it to me that such and such persons have said, or written, this or that thing? What is it to the main cause of truth, which we profess to support, or to the great questions at issue? In the circumstances of the Unitarian body, in the novelty (to a certain extent) of their opinions, in the violent opposition they meet with, I see exposures to many faults; to excesses and extravagances, to mistakes and errors. I could strike off half of the opinions and suggestions that have sprung up from this progress of inquiry, and still retain a body of unspeakably precious truth. There are several things, and some things of considerable practical moment, which I seriously doubt, whether Unitarians, as a denomination, have yet come to view rightly. The violence of opposition has, undoubtedly, in some respects, carried them to an extreme, in some points of opinion and practice. And certainly I find things in their writings, which, in my judgment, are indefensible. What less can be said, if we retain any independence, or sobriety, or discrimination about us? What less can be said of any fallible body of men?-of any body, comprising, as all denominations do, all sorts of men, all sorts of writers and thinkers? If they are not inspired, they must be sometimes wrong.

Nay, to bring this nearer home, it were folly for any one of us to contend that everything he has said or written is right, or even that it is done with a right spirit. Here is a conflict of opinions, the eagerness of dispute, the perverting influence of controversy. Here is an effervescence of the general mind. The moral elements of the world are shaken together, if not more violently, yet more intimately, perhaps, than they ever were before. If any man can, with a severe calmness, and a solemn scrutiny, sit down and meditate upon those things which agitate so many minds; if he can separate the true from the false, and say a few things, out of many, that are exactly right, and a few things more that

are helping on to a right issue, it is, perhaps, all that he ought to expect. How much dross there may be in the pure gold of the best minds, "He that sitteth as a Refiner" only can know.

This, I confess, is my view of our controversies, and of all human controversies. I have no respect in this matter for authorities, for infallible sentences, or for the reverence and weight that are given to sentences, because they are uttered by some leader in the church, or because they are written in a book. I have no respect for the spirit of quotation, that, having brought forward a grave proposition from some synod, or council, or book, or body of divinity, holds that to be enough. All men err-all synods, and councils, and consistories, and books, and bodies of divinity; which is only saying, that they all do that in the aggregate and in form, which they do individually and necessarily. And if this be true, if these views be just, how unreasonable is it to catch up sentences here and there, from any class of writings, and erect them into serious and comprehensive charges?

The real and proper question is about principles. Let these be shown to be wrong, and the denomination that abides by them must fall. On this, the only tenable ground for any reasonable man, I take my stand. I have no doubt that the leading principles of Unitarianism are true; and it would not, in the slightest degree, disturb this faith, if there could be shown me ten volumes of indefensible extracts from Unitarian writings. Whether half a volume of such, out of the hundred that have been written, can be produced, I leave not to the candour of our opponents to decide, but to their ingenuity to make out, if they are able. The constant repetition of three or four stale extracts, garbled from the writings of Priestley and Belsham, would seem to show that the stock of invidious quotations is very small. In fact, I do consider Unitarians, in comparison with any other religious body, as having written with great general propriety, soberness, and wisdom. But if they have not, or if any one thinks they have not, it will very little affect the general truth of their principles.

And how ill, let me ask, could any other body of Christians bear this sort of scrutiny? How easy would it be to select from Orthodox writings, and even from those of great general reputation, a mass of extracts that would make the whole world cry out! - one part with horror at their enormity, and another with indignation at their being presented for the purpose of showing what orthodoxy is! It would be unjust, I confess. It would disturb no independent believer in that system: and as little ought such things to disturb us.

I have now noticed the first feeling of objection which naturally arises against a new system—that which proceeds from confounding the main cause with the circumstances that attend it.

II. But another objection, and that perhaps which is first put in form, is against the alleged newness of the system. It is said that this religion is a new thing, that it is a departure from the faith of ages, that it unsettles the most established notions of things, and breaks in upon the order and peace of the churches. I state this objection strongly for the sake of our opponents, and indeed much more strongly than it deserves to be. For Unitarianism professes, so far from being a new thing, to be the old, pure, primitive Christianity. It does not profess, even in comparison with orthodoxy, to be essentially a new thing, but