it incur suffering, when he foresees the child's exposure to temptation, and can, with perfect ease, prevent his transgression. And is our Father in heaven less solicitous for the purity and happiness of his children, than earthly parents are for the virtue and happiness of their offspring? The system I advocate asserts "the unconquerable love" of Jehovah "the absolute and unbounded perfection of God's character," while that I oppose limits the divine goodness, and "degrades the character of the Supreme Being." My system must, therefore, promote a more fervent and enlightened piety.

'Or, to present the argument in a still more convincing light, Unitarians of the present day allege, that their system produces more honourable views of God than that of the Orthodox, because the latter hold to entire moral depravity and eternal punishment, while Unitarianism teaches, that men are only partially depraved, and if they die without repentance, will, at most, suffer only a limited punishment. The force of this reasoning I admit; and, on the same principles, I contend that my system must produce more honourable views of God than even Unitarianism; for the Unitarian maintains, that God is only so benevolent, as not to suffer men to become entirely depraved, and incur eternal misery; but I maintain, that so unlimited is the benevolence of God, that it prevents men from becoming sinful at all, and from incurring the least degree of suffering. Who does not see that my system asserts far more strongly "the unconquerable love, the absolute and unbounded perfection" of the Divine Being, and thus tends to produce far more honourable views of God. I conclude,

therefore, that not only Orthodoxy, but also Unitarianism, is false, and my system is true.'

But would it, therefore, be true? And of what avail would all this reasoning, so plausible, and, as seems to us, on Unitarian principles, so unanswerable, be, while we read in our Bibles, "All have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;" and, "Man is born unto trouble as the sparks fly upward"? So Dr. Channing may, by a course of plausible reasoning, in favor of the superior tendency of Unitarianism to promote "generous conceptions of the Divinity," furnish, what he calls, "no weak argument in support of its truth ;" and hence conclude, that the Son of God is not truly divine, that he did not, by his death, make an atoning sacrifice for sin, that unrenewed men are not entirely sinful, and that there is no eternal punishment. But, while we hear Isaiah saying, "I saw the Lord sitting upon a throne high and lifted up, and his train filled the temple; above it stood the seraphim; and one cried unto another, and said, Holy, holy, holy, is Jehovah of hosts," and find the evangelist John declaring, "These things said Esaias, when he saw his," Christ's, "glory, and spake of him ;'* while we find the sacred writers asserting, that "the Lord hath laid on him the iniquity of us all, and with his stripes we are healed,"+"he is the propitiation," or propitiatory sacrifice, "for our sins, and for the sins of the whole world," "he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself;" that by nature all are dead in trespasses and sins,

"

* Isasah, vi. 1-3. John xii. 41. The verse which John quotes from Isa. vi. is the 10th, but this is a part of the account which begins verse 1st of this remarkable vision.

+ Isa. liii. 6, 5. 1 John, ii. 2. § Heb. ix. 26.

and children of wrath ;"* that the wicked shall be "cast into hell, where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched;" and the sin against the Holy Ghost "shall not be forgiven, neither in this world neither in the world to come;" while we read these and numerous other similar passages in our Bibles, and while neither Dr. Channing nor any of his brethren, has proved that they do not teach the doctrines just named, of what avail is all his reasoning as furnishing proof of the truth of Unitarianism?

To the reasoning by which it is attempted in the discourse to show the superior tendency of Unitarianism to form an elevated religious character," we object, that it is wholly theoretical, containing not a single reference to facts in its support. This might, perhaps, have passed for sound argument before the days of Bacon. But, happily, theory unsustained by facts, will no longer satisfy any minds but those of mere partizans, who have resigned the privilege of thinking for themselves to some oracle, whose sentiments they implicitly adopt, because they are his. But, if we do not very much mistake the character of this community, they will not do this, even to the author of this discourse, much as he is respected for talents and learning and sobriety. They will think for themseives. They will ask, What are the facts, in a case so preeminently one to be settled, if satisfactorily determined, by an appeal to facts ?§ And what are the facts in the case? The answer

* Eph. ii. 1-3. Mark ix. 47, 48. Mat. xii. 32.

The question of the comparative moral efficacy of the two systems was briefly, but ably, discussed in Dr. Beecher's sermon at Worcester, and in his reply to the review of the sermon which appeared in the Christian Examiner; both of which, together with the review, ought to be read by every one who would understandingly form his opinion.

shall be given chiefly by the opposers of Orthodox opinions. In the article on Predestination, in the British Encyclopedia, written, it is said, by Robert Forsyth, Esq., a learned civilian and an infidel, after an account of the Calvinistic and Arminian systems, to the latter of which the preference is given, it is said, "There is one remark which we think ourselves in justice bound to make. It is this; that, from the earliest ages down to our own days, if we consider the character of the ancient Stoics, the Jewish Essenes, the modern Calvinists, and Jansenists, compared with that of their antagonists, the Epicurians, the Sadducees, the Arminians, and the Jesuits, we shall find that they have excelled, in no small degree, in the practice of the most rigid and respectable virtues; and have been the highest honor to their own age, and the best models for imitation to every succeeding age."

In the Edinburgh Review, whose decided partiality, for many years, to infidel opinions is well known, we find the following remarks: "What are we to think of the morality of Calvinistic nations, especially the most numerous of them; who seem, beyond all other men, to be most zealously attached to their religion, and most deeply penetrated with its spirit? Here, if any where, we have a practical and decisive test of the moral influence of a belief in necessarian opinions. In Protestant Switzerland, in Holland, in Scotland, among the English Nonconformists, and the Protestants of the north of Ireland, and in the New England states, Calvinism was long the prevalent faith, and is probably still the faith of a considerable majority. Their moral education was at

least completed, and their collective character formed, during the prevalence of Calvinistic opinions. Yet, where are communities to be found of a more pure and active virtue ?""*

Of Unitarians, compared with the Orthodox in England, Dr. Priestley, the father of modern Unitarianism, said forty years ago, "Though Unitarian dissenters are not apt to entertain any doubt of the truth of their principles, they do not lay so much stress upon them as other Christians do upon theirs. Nor, indeed, is there any reason why they should, when they do not consider the holding of them to be at all necessary to salvation, which other Christians often do with respect to theirs. They, therefore, take much less pains to make proselytes, and are less concerned to inculcate their principles upon their children, their servants, and their dependants in general. Besides, it cannot be denied, that many of those who judge so truly concerning particular tenets of religion, have attained to that cool, unbiassed temper of mind, in consequence of becoming more indifferent to religion in general, and to all the modes and doctrines of it. Though, therefore, they are in a more favorable situation for distinguishing between truth and falsehood, they are not likely to acquire a zeal for what they conceive to be the truth. Consequently, when they are satified with respect to any controverted question, concerning which they may have had the curiosity to make some inquiry, they presently dismiss the subject from their thoughts; and thus, never reading or thinking about it, except when it is casually mentioned, they are not in the way of being interested in it,

* Edinburgh Review, vol. xxxvi. p. 257.