doned; that repentance and contrition can avail nothing. If this system be correct, it is impossible to regard our world in the same light as before. Under its influence a dark shade overspreads the universe; and the broad and fair aspect of God's works, glowing with light, and beauty, and joy, we must have to consider an illusion. The earth is transformed into a prison-house, where vengeance trains its victims for immolation; and all the grander and more striking movements of the material elements become the agents of avenging justice. Storms and tempests, lightning and earthquakes, are to be regarded as scourges of God, and tokens of his indignation. Now, a sound philosophy certainly teaches no such doctrine. It sees in these terrible agencies of nature, as in the sunshine, and the shower, the operations of universal beneficence. It regards the immediate evils they produce as remedial only, and essentially conducive to ultimate good. And we certainly think that a strong presumption in favor of our views of the gospel, arises from the harmony that exists between them and these conclusions of reason these, we had almost said, instinctive apprehensions of divine goodness-these dictates of enlightened philosophy. In the system of our opponents, on the other hand, we think we discern many lingering traces of the false philosophy and gloomy superstition of heathen times, when the imagination wandered in the dark, haunted by terrors of its own creation. Be this as it may, it will hardly be denied that there is a repugnancy between these peculiar dogmas of the popular creed, and the plain suggestions of reason and common sense. Let us admit, that it does not, however, follow, that these dogmas must necessarily

be false. Let us admit that all improbable, as we conceive they are; shocking as they are to every feeling of our hearts; contradicted, as we think, by the experience. of every day in the business and intercourse of life; still they may be true; that our previous reasonings, sound as they certainly appear to us, may be set aside; our apprehensions of God's character, simple and natural as we consider them, may require to be rectified. Let us suppose we may have pushed our conclusions too far; that our inferences may have been too hasty, or too broad; that the light of our own minds, clear as it seems to us, may have misled us. But, surely, we have a right to expect that all these strong probabilities in our favor should be clearly and explicitly shown to be fallacious. We have a right to require, that the antagonist doctrines be stated, in the revelation which we admit to be from God, in plain, unequivocal terms; terms of no ambiguous import; terms which cannot possibly admit of a fair, plausible, or adequate interpretation on any other supposition than that of the truth of the doctrines in question. We aver that as long as there is room for reasonable doubt, with regard to the import of scripture on these points, they are not to be admitted. The proof must be such as to be absolutely irresistible to every unprejudiced mind. There must not be left a loop on which to hang a doubt. On these terms we are willing to join issue with our opponents. Let them show us that all, or any, of the popular dogmas, mentioned above, or any others peculiar to their system, is supported by such evidence as we have required, and which we are quite sure we have a right to demand, and we will embrace it with all its consequences.

If we

are unable, as we think we must be, to reconcile it with our general views of God, and nature, we will still believe that, though apparently, they are not in reality inconsistent; and we will endeavor humbly to wait God's own time to illuminate what is dark.

The sum of the argument is this. Nature and reason, experience and observation, we maintain, conspire in inculcating the great truth that God is good, essentially and invariably good; that goodness alone is the prime motive of all his actions, the leading and predominant quality, so to speak, in his character. So that his sovereignty and justice, in all their displays, and operations, are to be interpreted, always, in accordance with this; to be regarded as subservient to its purposes; as existing and exercised only to promote its designs. We are quite sure that, so far as the light of nature and reason goes, these are the views it presents. Now, it appears to us, that with these views the system of our opponents is altogether incompatible. That there is an apparent inconsistency, we suppose will not be disputed. But between these views and our own system of religious doctrine there is no repugnancy; they are perfectly accordant. This, then, we say, furnishes a strong presumption in favor of our system, and against theirs. This apparent inconsistency may be cleared up, and reconciled, though we see not how; but as long as it remains, the presumption we speak of, will press with all its weight on our opponents. With this presumption against them, these doctrines ought not to be admitted unless they are incontrovertibly proved to be true by the supreme authority of God's word. It will not be enough to show that certain passages of scripture seem to teach

them. It will not be enough to show that certain passages of scripture seem hardly capable of any other interpretation. It will not be enough to show that some passages, if they mean not this, must to us mean absolutely nothing. It will not be enough even to show that these doctrines are consistent with the general tenor of the gospel. Our opponents must do more than this; they must show, not that these doctrines may be true consistently with the analogy of faith, but that they absolutely must be true; not that the gospel may be interpreted consistently with their admission, but that it can be interpreted no otherwise. Let them show us all this and when we see that these doctrines make a necessary part of the christian scheme; that they are so wrought into the very texture of the gospel, that they must be received, or the gospel itself be rejected; we shall readily embrace them. In the mean time, we say, that he who embraces them, on proofs less cogent than we have stated, does it at his own peril at his own peril; for, if false, they must needs be injurious. Whether fatally so, it is not for us to determine.

Another probability in favor of our system, and against that of our opponents, arises, as we think, from the different views they present of the nature and condition This has been touched upon already, but requires to be more fully developed.

of man.

In the absence of express testimony from God, we can gather his purposes with regard to man, the end and object of his creation, only from appearances -- from an attentive consideration of his powers and capacities,

his propensities, habititudes, and affections; and the adaptation of all these to the circumstances and condition in which he is placed. Now, these appearances,

we contend, all lead to the world is a place of trial

conclusion, that the present

an initiatory state of existence

a nursery where the human being is to be reared and trained for heaven; and that such was its destination in the original purpose of the divine mind. For such a state man, as it seems to us, is adapted — wisely, exactly, beautifully adapted. There is a perfect correspondency and congruity between his nature and condition; between his faculties and the business assigned him ; between his constitution and the circumstances in which he is placed. Probation necessarily implies imperfection not superinduced, but original. It implies liability to fail; and wilful failure necessarily involves guilt. In a being, whose character is to be formed by discipline, sin may be said to be a necessary contingency. There can be no virtue without it. In this view, 'God,' in the language of Solomon, hath made man right.' He is neither more inclined to virtue, nor to vice, than he ought to be.

With these views of the nature and condition of man, Unitarianism perfectly harmonizes. We contend that such are the views directly presented, or implied, and assumed as correct, throughout the gospel. We do not, indeed, regard him as possessed of the capacity, knowledge and virtue of an angel. If he were so, he would be an anomaly among the works of God; a being wholly out of his sphere. Such endowments would unfit him for his present state; they would be inconsistent with the very purposes of his existence here. We regard