gives him his commission; so that, in executing this commission, the Son may be said to speak his Father's words, and to do his Father's works. And when his life on earth was drawing to a close, with literal truth and propriety he might address his Father, and say, "I have now finished the work which thou gavest me to do."

Dr. W. considers "two important texts;" the first of which, that on which his remarks are principally founded, is the following: "The Father himself loveth you, because ye have loved me, and have believed that I came out from God." The only reason here assigned, why the Father loved the disciples, was, that they had loved Christ, and had believed that he came out from God. Consequently, as we are left to infer, the Father loves all those who love Christ, and who believe that he came out from God. Hence, he loves Unitarians; and hence all Christians ought to love them, and receive them to fellowship.

If this argument proves anything, it proves a great deal too much. If we must embrace all those as brethren, who profess to love Christ, and to believe that he came out from God; then the arms of our fellowship must be very widely extended. We must embrace as brethren, not only Unitarians and Universalists, and all the various sects in our own country, but the persecuting Catholics, the Neologists of Germany, and all the nominal corrupt churches of the East. And more than this, we must receive to fellowship all the Mohammedans: for the Mohammedans profess a great respect for Christ, regarding him as inferior only to their own prophet. They believe he was a teacher sent from God.

It was a good reason why the Father should love the disciples, that they loved Christ, and believed that he came out from God. But how did they love him? How did they regard him? With what views and feelings did they embrace and follow him? Shew us the man now, who loves Christ as they did, who regards him as they did, and who believes that he came forth from God in the same sense they did, and we will cheerfully embrace him as our brother. Yes, we will hail him, expecting assuredly to find him a most devoted and efficient helper.

The charges of "equivocation and mental reservation," which Dr. W. supposes our system fixes upon the Saviour, with the remarks in his "Conclusion," " Appendix," and "Afterthought,”all fall together to the ground, with his "doctrine of the pronouns." If the pronouns I, my, myself, &c., as we commonly use them, uniformly and necessarily included the whole person, and were never applied to either part of it, as occasion might require, and the sense determine; then his reasoning would be sound and conclusive. But we have seen that this is not the case-not by any means. These pronouns rarely include the whole person, but are applied promiscuously to either part of it, the application being determined

entirely by the sense. His reasoning proceeds, therefore, on a false principle, and is entirely destitute of force. It proves nothing, unless it be the weakness of the cause which it was intended to support.

The professed design of Dr. W. in publishing this Tract, was, to "produce more caution, more candor, more forbearance and brotherly love, among brethren of different sects;" or, in plainer terms, it was to induce Trinitarians to embrace the Unitarians as brethren, and admit them to their Christian fellowship and confidence. But this design, however we may respect the motive which originated it, we do not think the Tract very likely to accomplish. Indeed, the two religious parties remaining what they are at present, we do not think Christian fellowship between them practicable, or even desirable. We rather subscribe to the sentiment of Mr. Belsham, the leading English Unitarian of the present day. "Those who hold doctrines so diametrically opposite cannot be fellow worshippers in the same temple. It is expedient that they should separate." We hope to treat Unitarians, as we would all men, with candor, and to cultivate towards them a spirit of Christain meekness and forbearance; but, while they deny the divinity and atonement of Christ, oppose and ridicule revivals of religion, and reject nearly all that seems to us important in the Gospel to receive them to fellowship, and embrace them as brethren; is out of the question-it cannot be. We rejoice in the liberty which they possess, in cominon with ourselves, of retaining and cherishing their own views of religion, responsible only to the Judge of all. We would do nothing to infringe this liberty, or to disturb them in the exercise of any of their rights. But, so long as they adhere to their present views, of God, and the Saviour, and the truths of religion, we cannot walk with them as Christian brethren; and we see not how they can desire to walk with us. We ascribe divine honors to Christ. We have learned to sing that song, which we know is sung in heaven, "Worthy is the Lamb that was slain." "Blessing, and honor, and glory, and power, be unto Him that sitteth on the throne, and to the Lamb, forever." We cordially invite all to come and sing it with us. Unite with us, in adoring and praising the Lamb, as he is praised in heaven; and we will unite with you in every good work, to advance the glory, and hasten the triumphs, of his holy kingdom.

(To be continued.)

LETTERS OF AN ENGLISH TRAVELLER, TO HIS FRIEND IN ENGLAND, ON THE REVIVALS OF RELIGION IN AMERICA. Boston: Bowles and Dearborn. 1828. pp. 142, 18mo.

(Continued from p. 266.)

We have already spoken of the importance of the subject of revivals, of the responsibilities assumed by any one who attempts to discuss it, of the character and pretensions of the author of the work now under review, of his professed, and also of his real object. We have exhibited the opinions of the leaders of the Unitarian party, as it regards the fidelity of the author as a narrator of facts, and the general spirit which characterizes the work. We have seen that this work is important, not on account of its size, or its author, but because it has been adopted, sanctioned, and recommended in the most exalted terms, by the highest Unitarian authority. In examining this work, we are examining an approved exhibition of Unitarian reasoning, philosophy, morality, and religion. We will not, however, hold every one who is called a Unitarian responsible for all the sentiments contained in this work, or for the spirit which it indicates. We have no doubt, that the leaders, and those zealous partizans who are determined to go all lengths with them, are fully satisfied with the recommendations given of this work in, their periodical publications. But we are assu

red that all persons of cool and collected minds, and who are accustomed to think for themselves, will not scruple to give this author a fair examination; and, although they are Unitarians, will not feel themselves obliged to think just as their leaders think, or to praise, merely because they applaud.

We proceed to our third topic of inquiry.

III. What are the means used by this author, to attain his object?

His object, as we have seen, is to attack revivals of evangelical religion. How then, does he proceed in accomplishing this purpose?

1. He assumes, without proof, the truth of a position on which the decision of the whole subject depends.

2. On the strength of this assumption, he proceeds to ridicule the Orthodox, who differ from him, and to expose them as weak, or irrational, or superstitious, for acting according to their own principles.

3. He colors, or distorts, or misrepresents their sentiments, so as to prejudice an unguarded mind against them.

4. He attempts to array the bad passions of the human heart against the personal character of the Orthodox, and to make them appear deficient in certain excellences which some Unitarians are inclined to arrogate as the peculiar glory of their own system.

5. He attacks, directly or indirectly, those institutions which are of fundamental consequence in extending the influence of vital religion, and which greatly impede the progress of Unitarianism.

When a general is arranging his troops, it is interesting to look at the philosophy of his arrangements; and it may not be amiss, before we proceed to illustrate the manner in which our author has executed his plan, to "philosophize a little" as it regards the principles of the case.

It is obvious then, that the author saves himself a great amount of labor and trouble, by begging the question at the outset. He thus, by a bold stroke, anticipates the enemy, and takes possession of the whole field of battle at once, and without any fighting or danger. "Not even a gun is heard, or a funeral note." Having done this, what could be more natural, or in character, than to follow up the victory to the utmost, by attempting to carry out his own principles, so easily established, to their full extent, and to ridicule all who differ from him, merely for being consistent with their own principles; and, (lest this should not suffice to remove entirely any impressions which the objects of his attack may have made, by fair reasoning, in favor of their own sentiments,) to expose their belief, their persons, and their most important institutions to contempt, by misrepresentation, and insinuation, and innuendo?

Who could stand before such an array of moral power? Who could resist an attack carried on upon principles so truly liberal, philosophical, charitable, gentlemanly, kind, moral, and religious? Are we, then, to wonder that our author should select a plan, which enables him so fully to display all his forces in battle array, and to bear down upon the enemy in such tremendous style? Who can wonder that there should be shouting among the leaders of the Unitarian cause, on the accession to their ranks of a champion so qualified to strike terror into the enemy, and to rally and lead to battle their faint-hearted, and panic-struck followers?

But, lest we lose ourselves in wonder at the wisdom of the mere outline of the arrangement of our author's forces, let us now examine and illustrate more particularly how he has executed in detail, each part of his plan.

1. Let us attend to the manner in which our author begs the fundamental question on which the whole subject of revivals rests.

The question is, Are all mankind, antecedently to a change of heart, entirely depraved, and in danger of endless ruin? If they are, then Orthodox views disclose a remedy such as men need; if they are not, then Orthodoxy is absurd, and Unitarian views are better adapted to the condition of man.

Let us look attentively at this point. If men are entirely depraved, and in danger of endless punishment for their sins, then they need a salvation of this kind-a radical change of moral cha

racter, and pardon for their sins. This change will be a change, not from perfect sin to perfect holiness, but from entire depravity ot partial holiness at first, which will at death become perfect holiness. This is a salvation from the power of sin. In addition to this, they need pardon for past sins; for if there were no pardon for the past, it would be vain to attempt to repent, and no effort would in fact be made. Now the Orthodox do believe that all men are free agents, and are entirely depraved in their moral character; and that the Holy Spirit produces a change of heart by the truth; and that the Son of God has rendered pardon consistent with the general good, by his atoning death. And they believe that the Bible teaches that the Agents, by whom this salvation is accomplished, are divine, and, together with the Father, are united, in the Trinity, as one God. Now, if man is entirely depraved, this system meets and supplies his wants. And, moreover, if man is changed from entire depravity to any degree of true holiness, the change must be instantaneous. From the very nature of free agency, sin is voluntary, and so is holiness. And there must be a particular time when the first holy emotion or volition takes place. It is of no consequence whether the person, at the time, notices and recognizes it as such; this is not always the case. But, admitting entire depravity, it is absurd to speak of regeneration as a gradual change. Sanctification may be, and always is, gradual. Now, if a sudden conversion, is rational in one case, it is in many, and if the Holy Spirit can regenerate one, he can also regenerate many; and he can do it at different times, or in a short time. And, if it is a fact that the prevailing spirit of this world is adverse to true religion, there is a reason why the Holy Spirit should operate on many at once. It is necessary, in order to form a public sentiment against, the power of those who ridicule, or disbelieve, or oppose experimental religion, and to remove in some degree the fear of man, and to encourage those who desire to become partakers in the blessings which result from true religion. Hence revivals, on Orthodox principles, are rational, philosophical, and necessary.

Not so. on Unitarian principles. If men are not entirely depraved, to speak of a sudden change is irrational. All that can be expected is gradual improvement. And the agency of the Holy Spirit in producing regeneration and revivals of religion is unnecessary; and all the measures which are rational in the Orthodox, become irrational. Hence the plain truth is, that Orthodoxy and Unitarianism differ so fundamentally in principle, that there can be no agreement in practice. That which is rational and philosphical in practice, on Orthodox principles, is irrational and absurd on Unitarian principles; and that which would be rational and philosophical on Unitarian principles, if they were true, is irrational and absurd on Orthodox principles.