grace, will rise from the intelligence here communicated, respecting wrong translations, and various readings, and altered manuscripts, and corrupted texts, feeling that there is nothing certain respecting the Bible, and that he may as well not trouble himself further about it. This is one of those subjects which we think ought to be touched with great caution, if touched at all, in publications designed for general circulation: for it is a subject, on which it is easy to say enough to startle and perplex the unlearned reader; but on which it is not easy so to communicate the whole truth, as to remove his fears and confirm his faith.

It is comforting, however, to be told, on the authority of the American Unitarian Association, that of all the various readings which have been discovered "in examining the different manuscripts of the New Testament,' ," "not one in a hundred affects the sense, and that the number is very small indeed, of those which affect the doctrines of Christianity." It is "satisfactory to know, that the five" passages noticed in this tract" are nearly all which in their view have a bearing on important doctrines," and that "there is not one, which seriously affects the moral precepts of the Gospel." We rejoice that a limit is thus set, on high Unitarian authority, to the work of altering and amending the Bible-that it is here brought within a narrow compass-and that the Christian may still hold the sacred volume, with unwavering confidence that it is indeed the book of God.

No. 17. On Tests of true religion.

This tract was first published in the Unitarian,' at New York. It is understood to have been written in consequence of a distinguished Unitarian in Boston having renounced his sentiments, and become a convert to the faith as it is in Jesus. This gentleman, in compliance with a request from one of the Unitarian ministers of Boston, addressed to him a letter, giving an account of the change he had experienced, and the reasons by which it had been induced. Unitarians had some reason to presume that this letter would be published; and the tract before us seems to have been prepared, as a virtual answer to it, in case it was published. For no sooner did the letter make its appearance, than it was announced in the Christian Register that "a complete answer, and a satisfactory one," entitled 'Tests of true Religion,' had been published in the Unitarian, at New York.-So much for the origin of the tract. Let us next proceed to examine its contents.

The author proposes for consideration the following very important question, 'What is true religion?' And in his endeavors to solve it, he first "notices some of those popular tests, which appear to him superficial and unsatisfactory;" and, secondly, "turns to the only true standard-the Scriptures."

Under the head of " superficial and unsatisfactory" tests, he first mentions "seriousness in religion." This is no test of true religion, because the votaries of "a false religion may be serious.”— The next thing examined is, "great and unusual feeling in religion." This, it is insisted, is no test, because Pagans feel, and Mahometans feel, and as strong feeling may be excited by false systems of religion, as by the truth.-"In the third place, a zeal about the ritual observances of piety," such as " prayers, sabbaths, &c." is no test of true religion: for Pagans have been more zealous in such observances than the believers in Divine revelation; Jews have been more zealous for rites than Christians; Papists have been more zealous in this way than Protestants; and the Church of England more zealous than Presbyterians and Independents. Nobody can pretend, therefore, that a zeal for ritual observances in the professors of any religion, is a test of its truth. The writer observes again, that "extraordinary sacrifices and enterprises in religion" form no test of its truth; because, of all Christian denominations, the Jesuits have made the greatest sacrifices, and been the most enterprising. And even these have been surpassed in self-denial by Hindoo fakeers and devotees.

We wonder that our author, in his zeal for exposing "superficial and unsatisfactory" tests, should have stopped here, in the middle of his story. Why did he not proceed, as he manifestly might have done in a similar strain, almost indefinitely? He might have said, alms-giving is no test of true religion; because many of the Pharisees have given alms to be seen of men; and the apostle intimates, that a person may give all his goods to feed the poor, and yet be destitute of true religion.

Again; external social virtues are no test of true religion; since with thousands, who have practised these virtues, they have been merely exernal. This was the case with the young man who came to Christ, by whom, so far as the youth himself knew, and so far probably as men could see, all the commandments had been kept.

It is recorded of the Puritans, in the days of Queen Elizabeth, that, "while others were at plays and interludes, at revels, or walking in the fields, or at the diversions of bowling, fencing, &c. on the evening of the Sabbath, they, with their families, were employed in reading the Scriptures, singing psalms, catechising their children, repeating sermons, and prayers; that neither was this confined to the Lord's day, but they had their hours of family devotion on the week days, esteeming it their duty to take care of the souls as well as of the bodies of their servants; and that they were circumspect as to all the excesses of eating and drinking, apparel, and lawful diversions; being frugal in house-keeping, industrious in their particular callings, honest and exact in their dealings, and solicitous to give every man his own."*

* Neal's History of the Puritans, vol. i. chap. viii.

Now this external religious engagedness of the Puritans is no certain evidence of the truth of their religion; for they might have been hypocritical and Pharisaical in it; or if they were sincere, their ritual observances were far exceeded, in number and painfulness, by the self-inflictions and tortures of the Hindoo devotees.

6

The primitive Christians were directed to have their conversation honest among the Gentiles, that they, beholding their good works, might be led to glorify God in the day of their visitation.' 1 Pet. ii. 12. But why did the apostle give them such a direction, for such a purpose? An honest conversation is no test of the truth of any system of religion. Doubtless there have been externally honest men, in all religions.

Our Saviour, speaking of false teachers, says, 'By their fruits ye shall know them.' But how can false teachers be known by their fruits? How can a teacher of false and delusive doctrine be detected by his conversation and manner of life? He may be as serious, and as prayerful, and as ardent in his feelings, and as devoted and diligent in promoting his cause (if we may believe the writer of this tract) as others are in the cause of truth. Good fruit, then, is no evidence of the goodness of the tree which bears it. And the teachers of false and of true religion can no longer be distinguished by their manner of life.

Unitarians have labored to establish the truth of their religion, by its excellent practical tendency and effects. Sermon after sermon has been preached, and book after book published, within the last few years, for this very purpose. But it follows from what has been said on the subject of tests, that all such efforts have been in vain. They ought not to have been made, and ought never to be repeated. For how can the truth or falsehood of any system of religion be established by its practical effects? Seriousness is no test; deep feeling and engagedness are no test; a life of prayer and strict religious observances is no test; indeed nothing external or visible can be a test: for there is nothing external pertaining to religion, which may not be assumed by the worst of men, and for the worst of purposes.

Perhaps our author may suspect, by this time, that his argument proves rather too much for his own purpose, and that if it can be made thus to sweep all before it and around it, far and wide, he may as well abandon it, as insist upon it further.

The fallacy of his reasoning consists in his not distinguishing between what is an infallible test of true religion, and what is the natural fruit and evidence of it; and in his concluding, because, some one thing (seriousness for instance) is not an infallible test, that several things of a kindred nature, all such as would naturally spring from true religion, do not collectively constitute any satisfactory evidence in its favor. Nobody ever pretended that habitual seriousness was an infallible test of the reality or truth of a

person's religion; and yet every body knows that it is one of the natural fruits of religion; and every unprejudiced mind will conclude, that of two persons of different religious sentiments, who are in other respects equal, the religion of the one who is the most sincerely and consistently serious, will be the most likely to be the truth. And the same may be said respecting each of those other things, whose claims to be regarded as tests are examined in the tract. Neither of them, taken singly, is an infallible test, and yet each of them is a natural fruit and exhibition of piety; so that where they all meet and harmonize in the same character, and their light is not obscured by opposing traits, they afford strong and convincing evidence, that the subject of them is a believer and lover of the truth. And when a comparison is instituted between such a person, and another of different religious sentiments in whom these fruits of piety are wanting, no honest mind can help deciding, that the religion of the former is greatly to be preferred. In this way, we save the argument in favor of true religion arising from its practical tendency and effects, which the false reasoning of our author goes to destroy,-an argument insisted on by the defenders of truth in all past ages; on which they are authorized to insist by Christ and his apostles; and which, with the generality of candid minds, has probably more weight than every other.

The writer of this tract has made an implied concession, we might almost say confession, of which he probably was not aware. Why the question will force itself upon every unbiassed readerwhy does he labor so hard to make it appear, that seriousness, and prayerfulness, and engagedness in religious duties, and a strict observance of the Sabbath, and exertions and sacrifices to promote the cause of Christ, are not tests of true religion? Why not satisfied that they should be regarded as tests, by which every denomination might try the validity of its claims? Was he conscious, that brought to these tests-that weighed in this balance, his own denomination would be found miserably wanting? Was he conscious, that the testimony of the "Gentleman in Boston," in his "Letter to a Unitarian clergyman of that city," setting forth the deficiencies of Unitarians, was the truth-truth which he could not and dare not deny-and consequently that some other method, aside from a direct denial, must be devised, to escape its force? This undoubtedly is the interpretation which the religious community put upon the tract, and the writer must have been a blind man that he did not foresee it. This tract is itself a more convincing proof of the deficiencies of Unitarians, than the letter to which it was intended to be a reply; or than any direct testimony from an Orthodox believer could be. For in this attempt at evasion on the part of Unitarians, conscious deficiency is unwittingly betrayed, and the nakedness of their spiritual land is exposed. They seem to know that they cannot compare with evangelical

Christians generally, in those fruits and evidences of piety which have been mentioned, and consequently they are obliged to deny that these things are evidences of true religion at all.

Having considered "the insufficiency of some of the popular tests of true religion," our author "turns to the only true standard, the Scriptures." Here, he very properly introduces, as our pattern, the character and example of Christ. Jesus Christ, he

says, though not "cold or stern," was seldom or never excited. His mind was always "sober, reasonable, and calm." It is "impossible to conceive of a modern revival, as passing in his presence, or under his preaching." In short, he was not distinguished for any of those things, on which many have so much insisted, as tests of true religion.

We might pertinently inquire, Where did this writer learn the character and example of Jesus Christ? For it is hard to conceive that he can have learned it from the New Testament. Let us look into the New Testament, and examine the subject for ourselves. Was not the character of our Saviour serious-deeply, habitually, consistently serious? Was it not marked also by strong and ardent feeling? Was he not deeply in earnest in his work, and were not his warmest feelings enlisted for its accomplishment? Was he not eminently a person of prayer? How often did he retire, by himself, or with his disciples, and not unfrequently he spent whole nights in prayer. Can it be doubted, too, that our Saviour was a strict observer of the Sabbath, and of the various services of the Jewish ritual? His custom was to go into the synagogue every Sabbath day. And in exertions and sacrifices for the promotion of religion, who ever equalled-we might almost say imitated him? He spent his life, and poured out his blood, to advance the cause of human salvation. And when about to ascend up where he was before, he left it in solemn injunction to his followers to go forth, in face of difficulties and dangers, and fill an opposing world with his doctrine.

We see, therefore, that those traits, which the writer of the tract deprecates, as not only no tests of true religion, but "things questionable in themselves," are the very traits which shone most conspicuously in the character of the Saviour. They are, as we may say, the ground work of his character. They are that which constitute it what it is, and without which it would be radically defective.

The mind of the Saviour we know was calm; that is, it was not fretted or ruffled. It was also sober, in opposition to extravagance. But is it true that he was never the subject of strong excitement? When he looked round on the multitude" with anger, being grieved"-when he made a scourge and purged the temple-when he denounced woes upon the Scribes and Pharisees -when he wept at the tomb of Lazarus, and over Jerusalem