be a temporary or seeming union among them, neutral spectators still think or fear, that it is not because they love each other more, but Rome less. What is the object of any church, but to preserve and propagate the truth for the sake of good? And has the former Christian church done this! Conceding for the present, what some of us may actually believe, that there has been an uninterrupted succession of Bishops at Rome, from Peter to Pius IX.; -or that the line from the Apostles generally has been somewhere preserved through all vicissitudes: as it may also have been from Aaron to Caiaphas, or from Mahomet to the present Mufti at Constantinople, the requisition is not fully met. Quis custodiet custodes ipsos? Have they been faithful to their trust? Have they kept in purity what was committed to their charge? Or, while they have been careful to preserve and adorn the casket, may not its most precious jew. els have been purloined and substituted by counterfeits? The priest's lips verily should keep knowledge, and we should seek the law at his mouth.' But what, if the Oracle when consulted remains dumb, or gives forth an uncertain sound? nay forbids our hearkening to any other voice? While we acknowledge with Protestants, that the Church of Rome had become utterly corrupt in doctrine and practice before the Reformation, the radical differences among themselves show that they cannot all be right. Nor will it avail to assert that they agree in fundamentals. We know of no such accordance in any one doctrine, either as to the nature of God, the character and wants of man, the mode of divine interposition, or the Inspiration of the Scriptures. Granting that each sect has retained some truth,-and were there not a portion in the worst, we should not, as we do, see good men in every one, the true system of doctrine has been lost. The true ideal of Christian character has also been forgotten, if it was ever fully known. Things indifferent have been de::ounced as sinful. The relation of life which is the origin and support of society-instituted and blessed by God himself has been proscribed as comparatively impure and forbidden to whole classes of mankind. Under pre tence of a life of Piety and Devotion, a train of factitious virtues with Spiritual Pride in the rear, has been generated; or the claim of license therefor, served but as an entrance for Idleness and a host of consequent evils. The passive and nega. tive duties have been honored as of prime importance: while functions, necessary to the protection or prosperity of States, and their energetic pursuit, have been discountenanced as 'worldly.' Hence men of enlarged views and practical wisdom, aware of the objects of life and tenacious of their own freedom, whose estimate of Christianity was based on the report of its accredited votaries, were left to infer that this religion was incompatible with rational pleasure and manly dignity or virtue. Christianity lies in ruins, and the life of its several fragments is only that of the segments of a polypus, hopeless of reunion. And it must be owned, that, if we are to look for nothing better in the future than the past, it has proved a failure. The adulterous connexion with the state early led to its corruption, and to the reproach that Catholicism, like the Koran, if not propagated, has at least been maintained, by policy and the sword. Remonstrants were denounced under the name of heretics-their tenets and apologics suppressed with them. And where violence was no longer employed or permitted, how rarely has a fair hearing been accorded by a Creed in the ascendant to a different faith! Some of its fragments, even now, lay more stress on church government and obedience to authority, than on knowledge; and all insist more on faith than on works. Reason has been discarded as an enemy, and Mystery received into alliance. As a natural consequence, the ablest minds of the last age became infidel or indifferent to Religion as a personal affair, while too many of their successors in this, seeing that society cannot subsist without it, yield a formal and political support, while the feeble have been inflamed to fanaticism. The clergy have sometimes complained of the slight esteem in which their order is held where not patronized by the state, and of the opposition they encounter where they are. Not to mention their demeanor towards opponents and their unwavering according to its bearing on existing creeds. We need a new development of Christianity, in which all parts of knowledge shall assume their proper positions. We have no clear views of the fundamentals of all religion, as distinguished from those of the wiser Heathen and Deists. They believed in one God, the immortality of the soul, and retribution; and the prevalent systems throw us back on their insufficient ideas. Or rather, we are fain to believe that, with advancing time, we know less and less of the truth. If our present teachers know all that is necessary, free of error, why is it that the good and wise do not see it? and if either Protestant or Catholic is entitled to exclusive ascendancy, why has Providence per Again, however opposed to the received opinion, we think that scripture clearly teaches us that the earth abideth for ever." Can we suppose, then, that our benevolent Teacher will permit the exist regard to their corporate interests, we think they need look no farther than to their own dogmas, to account for the decline of reverence for their sacred function. We do not say that their lives are spent in laboriously doing nothing; for any religion which does not discourage good morals is better than none; but they do reap an immature and stinted harvest, themselves being judges. Men will not freely bestow even on spiritual rulers the fruits of their labors without an adequate return. Why is it, that, after eighteen centuries, Mahommedism is more extended than Christendom, and Heathenism more than either? Nay, why did Mahommed rise at all? and why is the conversion of his followers now so hopeless? The Cross had once well-nigh sunk before the Cres-mitted neither to attain it? cent and though the latter has in his turn grown pale, the hold of its Priesthood on the minds of the people is yet unbroken. The Koran, Brahminism, and Boodhism-the leading corrupt religions of the world-have almost everywhere losting state of doubt and distraction to be their ancient theocratic influence, yet, fallen as they are from the political heavens, or succeeded by Christian powers whose rule is less tyrannous: and though Providence seems thus to have prepared the way for a purer faith,-the lives of nominal Christians and the difficulties of his own doctrines are standing obstacles to the success of the Missionary. Why, also, has the Church become so inefficient, or so shorn of its influence, that irresponsible societies are left to discharge duties which would otherwise pertain to her? To these and other questions which might be asked, we can conceive of no sufficient answer other than this. It is, that those who had the control of religion, 'DID NOT UNDERSTAND HIS WORD.' THEY ERRED, NOT KNOWING THE SCRIPTURES, NOR THE POWER OF GOD.' But if we concede for a moment the purity of what is taught, it is inadequate to the increased demand of the general mind. Men outgrow the garments of their youth. Philosophy and religion are in unnatural conflict. And the breach is daily widening. Every fresh accession to knowledge, each new theory in science, is viewed with suspicion by the Orthodox priesthood—and is welcomed or opposed also perpetuated, and never interpose for Το • Gen. ix. 12, 16, Ecc. i. 4; Ps. lxxii. 17; xxviii. 69; lxxxix. 35-37: xevi. 10; xciii. 1; vii. 16'; Isa. ix. 7; Dan. ii. 44; vii. 14, 27; Micah civ. 5; cxxv. 1; cxix. 90; cxlviii. 6; (2 Sam. iv.5,7; Comp. Luke i. 33, and Rev. xi. 15.) Every Greek scholar knows that the phrase " end of the world," in Matt. xiii. 39; xxiv. 30; xxviii. 20; should be translated "consummation of the age." Peter, who (Acts ii. 16-20) had explained similar language of the prophet Joel as fulfilled on the day of Pentecost, in his 2d Epistle iii. 7-10, has reference to the above words of our Lord: of course to be fulfilled in a similar manner, as also wherever it is used in the that it is peculiar: that its primary sense is prophetic style. That there is such a style: not always its true sense: that it is figurative, and something more than metaphorical: that it is symbolical:-are points now generally conceded. Matt. v. 18, Luke xvi. 17, and the like, that both are equally improbable; so that the declare, by a strong Hebraism, of two events passages first cited retain their literal import. all its comprehensive depth was not of fered, nor, for sufficient reasons, were its mysteries fully explained to the primitive Christians. Said our Lord to his disciples, I have many things to say unto you, but you cannot bear them now.' ses and the prophets have been so perverted that they cannot be understood by unassisted reason, there cannot occur a more fitting occasion for divine interference than the present, when the hearts of men are failing them for fear, and when many are looking and praying forThe time will come when I will show such a blessing; though some, when it is offered, refuse it, with a strange perverseness, as inconsistent with ideas which prevail ! Once more: A Religion, some of whose principles are yet undeveloped, or a part of whose teachings is merely above the present apprehension of its professors, is one thing; A Religion which is mysterious in its own nature is another, and very different. A Religion of the latter kind, whose fundamental dogmas are unintelligible mysteries-however its existence may be protracted by the force of circumstances carries within itself the seeds of dissolution. The sage observer must see the tendency of such a faith, and if he permit himself to reason on it, may predict, as its inevitable issue, different results, akin to Popery-to Formalism-to Indifferentism, or Infidelity, or else to incurable schisms-according to the several classes of character on which it is brought to bear. For, in such a one, from the nature of the human mind, numerous questions must arise, and beget controversies. If these are ever authoritatively determined, it must be by dicta which to some minds will appear arbitrary. To such authority the timid or indifferent may submit, especially when a pretence of Infallibility has been long assumed and conceded. Others, who, if not indifferent to truth of doctrine, leave such disputes to be settled by the Clergy, and lay more stress on outward forms of government and Worship, may take refuge in a milder Communion. But many will still remain, who, in default of convincing reasons, will persist in dissenting; and yet for their own conclusions, where positive or opposite, they can often have nothing better than doubtful or probable grounds; thus are their weapons retorted and the differences perpetuated. Apart from these considerations, it might have been inferred from Sacred Scripture itself, that the True Religion in you plainly of the Father.' (John xvi. 12, 25.) In the effort to understand what was already written, doubts and questions did arise, and on this very subject. Instead of acknowledging their present ignorance, angry controversies did ensue. Too faithless to trust the promise of their Lord, or too impatient to wait until they had rendered themselves worthy of the true and only solution-decisions were made, and by Authority;-but such de cisions as darkened counsels by words without understanding! This authority, by slow gradations, grew up into a Spiritual Despotism which overshadowed all Christendom, and yet was never so firmly established but that there always had been rebels against the pretended Infallibility of Rome. That the antagonist systems of the Reformation did not give universal satisfaction, is proved, as well by the remaining strength of the Papacy, as by the growth of numerous bodies of Dissenters where freedom of religion is allowed, or by secret Infidelity where it is not. All these felt that something-that much was wrong, though none of them penetrated to the root of the evil;-and by their unskilful attempts at Reform, created fresh difficulties of their own. Without some further light, or the disturbing influence of political causes, the various classes of mind and character might have revolved forever in the old circle of controversies, without materially changing their relative positions, or satisfactorily determining one of the vexed questions of theology. Shall Christians, then, who profess to believe that the mercy of the Lord is infinite, and that neither the gates of hell, nor yet the treason or apostacy of one or more of its branches shall prevail against His Church-start back with incredulity from the bare suggestion, that, in this her day of distraction and wandering, a new guide should be raised up? Nor should her present lamentable condition occasion either surprise or des question is re-echoed through the long tract of ages. 'He is one of three divine persons, each of whom by himself, is God,' says the Athanasian. Be it so,' says the Arian, if you grant that his is a derived divinity.' He is one of three differences,' says Archbishop Tillotson. Or of three subsistences,' says Secker from the same chair. One of three distinct cogitations,' says Le Clerc. He is one of three somewhats,' says the mathematical! Dr. Wallis. Sirs, we do not understand you; nor can we accompany the logic which would put a difference between three separate divine persons, and three distinct gods! Your objection is natural,' says Priestley; he was a good man: a prophet, if you will: but still the son of Joseph and Mary, and naturally fallible and peccable as you or I.' 'I go farther,' says Mr. Belsham, pair. Himself had predicted the decline of that dispensation, and its utter overthrow from its foundations; and that he would come again. (Matt. xxiv.) And the prophet of the future fortunes of the Church saw in vision the Holy City, New Jerusalem, descending from God out of heaven, like a bride adorned for her husband;'-'the tabernacle of God with men.' (Rev. xxi. 1--5.) The kingdoms of this world become the kingdoms of our Lord.' (xi. 15.) It is for the fulfilment of this promise, that we believe all things are now ready. It is for this hope's sake, nay, confidence, that he has come-not in person, as many are even now looking for him-but in the power and glory of the spiritual meaning of his Word, which has heretofore been clouded by the literal sense, (Matt. xxiv. 30,) that we are denounced as enthusiasts or worse. Is a prophecy ever understood until accom-and assert that his too partial biograplished? When he does come, is it probable that the world in general will be aware either of the fact or mode of his appearance; or believe it, if true? (Matt. xxiv. 44; Luke xviii. 8.) In all religious inquiries, the principal object should be the knowledge of God. As, if clear ideas are wanting here, all subsequent reasoning is darkened and perplexed, if not entirely vitiated. We suppose few will be found at the present day to deny, at least in words, that God is one, and God is good; and that this is discoverable from his works. But the Christian is asked yet another question, and surely when aided by Revelation, his answer should be full and exact,- Who then was that dread, mysterious one that walked the earth more than eighteen centuries since; and whose appearance was the signal for a contest of opinions, which has widened and extended to our own day? We do not care, even if our space permitted, to rake into ecclesiastical history, among the ashes of forgotten heresies, whose authors would not have this man to reign over them. Let us descend to more recent times. The Master himself, when here, inquired of his disciples, 'What think ye of Christ?' and the phers may have suppressed certain portions of his private history, which would have proved him actually guilty of common frailties.' Sirs, your statement, though irreverent to our ears, is intelligible; but it contradicts the general tenor and many express declarations of Scripture. We would offend neither prejudice nor reason,' says the transcendental Unitarian; We believe in but one God, and neither affirm nor deny the divinity of Christ; but we do accept him as our teacher.' Very good apology for a lover of mystery, all of whose honors, however, you disclaim. We are not required to express an opinion,' says John Locke, or Alexander Campbell, and as Thomas Hobbes had said before either; 'sufficient it is, if we believe, with the primitive Christians, that Jesus is the Messiah, the Saviour of the world.' Very well, and who is the Messiah? It is plain, that, on a point of such importance, statements so various or inadequate cannot be satisfactory to all minds. And should any unsatified inquirer put the question to us, we answer, without ambiguity, equivocation, evasion or reserve, HE WAS GOD MANIFEST IN THE FLESH. We know, we conceive of, we worship no other; we pray to no other for his sake. We have an apostle's assertion that "in him dwells all the fulness of the organized forms are degradations,) but the malignant passions of Anger, Wrath, and Revenge, from which, surely, one being in the universe ought to be exempt. Godhead bodily; and his own, that | form is the original type from which all 'whosoever sees him, seeth the Father:' and that he hath all power in heaven and on earth.'* The Deist and the Pantheist believe in a God diffused through all space. This is the Christian's Godvisible in a human form: visible to his disciples after his Resurrection: and since then, to the mental eye of every Christian. The anthropomorphism that is to be shunned, is not that which ascribes body and parts to the Deity, (for the human • As this is the fundamental doctrine of the system, the reader may desire a more especial and extended reference to passages of Scripture, which are thought to prove it. We offer the following as sufficient though incomplete. 1. That God is one: Ex. xx. 3; Deut. vi. 4; Mark xii. 29; Matt. xix. 17; xxiii. 9; 1 Cor. viii. 4; Gal. iii. 20; Mark xii. 32; 2 Kings xix. 15; Deut. xxxii. 39; Isa. xlv. 5; Zech. xiv. 9. 2. Jesus is the bridegroom and husband of his Church, and the Redeemer of his people. Matt. ix. 15; xxv. 1, 5, 6; John iii. 39; Rev. xix. 7; xxi. 2, 9; 2 Cor. xi. 2;-Com. Isa. liv. 5; Jer. xxxi. 32; Hos. ii. 2, 7, 18; Luke xxiv. 21; Gal. iii. 13; 1 Pet. i. 18; Rev. v. 9; Eph. i. 7 Heb. ix. 12. 3. The Creator and Redeemer or Saviour are one and the same. Isa. xlv. 21, 32; xliv. 6; xliii. 3, 11; xlv. 15; xlix. 26; lx. 16; xli. 14; xliii. 14; xliv. 24; xlviii. 17; xlvii. 4; xlix. 7; liv. 8; lxiii. 16; Jer i. 34; Hos. xiii. 4-Com. with Matt. i. 21; Luke ii. 11; John iv. 42; Phil. iii. 20; 1 Tim. i. 15; 2 Tim. i. 10; Tit. i. 3. 4; ii 13; iii. 7; 2 Pet. i. 1, 11; ii. 20; iii. 2, 18; 1 John iv. 14; Acts iv. 12; Rev. xix. 10. 5. Jesus is Jehovah. Ex. iii. 14; Com. John viii. 58; Isa. vi.; Com. John xii. 38-41; Jer. xxxiii, 5, 6; Rev. xxii. 6 & 16. 6. Christ is God. Isa. ix. 6; John i. 1, 14: Rev. i. 8; Phil. ii. 6; 1 John v. 20: Rom. ix. 5; Col. i. 16, 17; 1 Tim. iii. 16; Tit. ii. 13: Eph. ii. 1: Com. Ps. xxiv. 10; 1 John iii. 16; Jude 25; Isa. xlviii. 12; & lii. 4; Com, Rev. i. 11, 13, 17; iv, 8; xxii. 12, 13; xvii. 14; xix. 16; i. 6; iv. 10, 11; Com. v. 8, 12, 13. 7. Jesus and the Father are one. John x. 30; xii. 45; xiv. 6, 7, 8, 9. 8. The Father dwells in the Son and the Holy Spirit proceeds from him. John xiv. 10; xv. 26; xvi. 7; xx. 22; Col. ii. 9. 9. Jesus Christ has all Goodness, Wisdom and Power, is, omnipresent. Mark x. 17; Luke i. 35; Heb. vii. 25;-Col. ii. 3; Matt. xii. 25; John ii. 24, 25; vi. 64; Matt. xi. 12; xxviii. 18-xviii. 19. 10. And is therefore God.-1 John v. 20. But farther-what was the true character of man, and the occasion of God's becoming incarnate? 'He is wholly defiled in all the faculties and parts of soul and body;' says a particular creed; utterly indisposed, disabled, and made opposite to all good, and wholly inclined to all evil.' Even if not a reflection on his Maker, does not this statement leave man irresponsible? The new-born infant,' says the Pelagian, is as pure as was the first man before the fall-the consequences of whose sin are confined to his own person.' If so, what need of a Redeemer? and why do all inevitably degenerate? To return-what did he do on our behalf while here? and what connexion is there between his obedience and sufferings and our benefit? He died that he might rise again,' and 'thus bring life rian; and so far truly. He died to and immortality to light,' says the Unitaexhibit God's hatred of sin,' says Dr. Murdock. 'He did something,' says Coleridge, we do not and cannot know what, beyond its effects; and it is not Proper that the various metaphors by which Paul would illustrate the manifold consequences of the redemptive act, should be set up as separate and substantive doctrines.' 'Some have attempted to trace the connexion, but we do not perceive that it is explained in Scripture,' says Bishop Butler, with the modesty of a great man who was not a dogmatist. How is this,' says the rigidly orthodox, 'need anything be plainer? Our salvation was bought and sold. Man having disobeyed the law, its honor required that punishment should fall somewhere, to avert the wrath of the Father, who could not else be just and merciful. The son of God undertook to mediate between us and the Father, became incarnate, obeyed, suffered penally and in our stead; and thus paid the infinite debt we had contracted to the law. It is not altogether certain whether he paid it to the Law, the Father, or the Devil; but he rose, ascended, and now intercedes |