self almost divine?

creator of these heavens and this earth, the governor of the moral universe, subordinate only to the Eternal, himOr does he occupy an intermediate place between these vast extremes? Did Christ, as Logos, exist "with the Father before the world was"? Was he supernaturally begotten of the Virgin Mary, or is this " a fiction of oriental mythology "?* Had Christ, in any view of his character, a proper personal pre-existence before he was born at Bethlehem? If he had, is Christ merely a man? If he had not, how was he "with the Father before the world was "? How was he "the root of David "? How "did God create the worlds by him"? What did Christ and the apostles teach as to man's native character? What is regeneration? What is the everlasting state of the finally impenitent? Or, in other words, what is the condition of those impenitent at the day of judgment? Is there an endless hell for those on the left hand, as surely, as there is an endless heaven for those on the right? Will those who go away into everlasting punishment "with the devil and his angels," return to purity and to blessedness ?-These questions, though often proposed, cannot be too often considered by those, who will ere long, and may shortly, be summoned hence to return no more, but to hear from the lips of their Judge the welcome invitation " come, ye blessed," or the irreversible doom, "depart, ye cursed."

I assume, in the following questions, as an indisputable fact, that to reason from moral effects to moral causes, is a legitimate mode of ratiocination. I know full well that it is sometimes a delicate process, and requires a skilful hand. This is not the place to enter into a consideration of the qualifications, distinctions and limitations requisite

* May we be permitted to ask the Unitarian biblical critics, what part of the introduction of Matthew and Luke's gospels they receive, and what part they reject?

to the proper understanding of this whole subject. Nor is it at all necessary. Broad, palpable, blazing distinctions often force a reluctant acknowledgment from unwilling prejudice itself. A man, having the sense of sight, with his eyes open, unbandaged, unobstructed, cannot easily mistake the brightness of uneclipsed noonday for the darkness of midnight.

I ask, then, has Unitarianism in any shape, within the last three hundred years, either broken off from the Roman Catholic church, or christianized a before unchristian people? Has not Unitarianism invariably come in after reformation-after Orthodoxy? Has it, for that period, taken the lead in any one great movement for the reformation of the world? But is it so, that real, primitive, purified Christianity, the Christianity of Paul and Peter, is so backward and diffident, that it only comes in as a sedative to prevent an over-zealous activity in the friends of man? a sort of make-weight in the moral scales? or, in other words, follows in the rear of an exclusive," hot-headed, intolerant Orthodoxy?

Are these things so? Is the religion of Christ in its purity, of secondary and subsidiary power only in revolutionising the world, and purifying, and elevating, and sanctifying it? It was not so OF OLD. Either Christianity has lost its primitive energies, or Unitarianism is not Christianity. But the salt of heaven has not lost its savour. Declensions in Orthodox Churches are no new thing, from the Seven Churches of Asia, to the Genevan and the Boston Churches. Christianity in its purity, is mighty. Weak in numbers, wealth, and intellect, upheld only by those accounted "the filth and the off-scouring of all things," it is still irresistible in power, for by prayer and faith, it takes hold on the arm of Omnipotence, and the world feels its influence. It conceives, attempts, accomplishes, great things. When did Unitarian

ism originate Bible, Tract, Education, Missionary, Sabbath school, Bethel, or Prison Discipline Societies? All these originated in England and America among "the saints," as they are deridingly called in the former country, and here too by a preacher of some note, and, what is more, they are so called in the Bible. Now if "the saints of the Most High God," might naturally be supposed to take a leading interest in building up the moral kingdom of God, it is only a question of fact, as to whom those saints are, who lead in the benevolent Christian efforts of the day? Bible societies, however they may have originated, unite now all among us who profess to believe the scriptures to be from God. But look at missionary societies. All the principal denominations, holding the head Christ Jesus, the Lord of glory, crucified for sinful man, have established and are extending their missions. Not only Orthodox Congregationalists and Presbyterians, but the Baptists, Methodists, Episcopalians, all are active to make known a Saviour's dying love, and to extend his kingdom. What have all the preaching, and writing, and discussion of Unitarians amounted to on this subject, in Boston? Is there a single Unitarian clergyman found ready to go to Calcutta, with its numerous Christian population and civilized society? Is there one that will quit his home and his fire-side, to lend a helping hand to the great oriental philosopher, Rammohun Roy, in his attempt to destroy paganism, and introduce pure Christianity? Are Unitarian ministers in such demand at home, that not one can be spared? Is there no call for Orthodox clergymen from the north and the south, from the east and the west? Are Unitarians ignorant of the first principle of Orthodox benevolence," there is that scattereth, and yet increaseth; and there is that withholdeth more than is meet, but it tendeth to poverty "? Who will go to New Holland, to Borneo, to Ava? Who will take up his shivering

abode among the Greenlanders?

Who will brave the burning sun of the tropics, and the scorching sands of Africa? Who will cast from him the recollections of civilized life, for the cabin of the Hottentot; the charms of elegant society, and the attractions of literature and cultivated taste, for the wigwam of the Osage or the Choctaw? Who will give up the security of Boston, for a dungeon in Ava or in Beyroot? If missionaries are to go to such places, thus putting in jeopardy their lives, not knowing what things shall befall them, apprehensive of bonds and imprisonment, yet not counting their lives dear to them, so that they may win Christ and be found in him, so that his name may be preached to every creature, they must be sought at Andover and not at Cambridge; among the Moravians, the Baptists, the Methodists, or Evangelical Churchmen, but never, NO, NEVER, among Unitarians. Will you explain this in connexion with the parting command of Christ? Surely the Unitarians of the United States, if not as numerous, are at least as able to support missionaries as the Moravians. What cultivated rational divine ever sold himself into slavery, that he might have the opportunity of preaching Christ to his fellow man, as some Wesleyan Methodists have done in the West Indies? These are the men 66 who count all things but loss," for the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus their Lord. Which now is the true original gospel, published by Christ and his apostles, that which originates and sustains such efforts, or that which looks coldly on, finds fault if there happen to be something either faulty or thought to be so, attempts to do something itself, but is paralysed in its first step, and, with all its boasted wealth, and numbers, and talent, and disinterested generosity, in Europe and Asia and America combined, can only support one missionary on heathen ground, and he, an indi

vidual at first sest forth by the Orthodox themselves? The first Unitarian missionary remains yet to be sent out.*

Pause now, in view of this matter-of-fact mode of inquiry as to the original, heaven-published gospel. Unitarianism, in none of its protean shapes, still less in its Socinian or Humanitarian form, ever went forth to civilize and christianize the heathen. In books and theory, they may speculate what they will about the simplicity of their faith, and the efficiency of truth in the Unitarian form, but facts, facts, are wanted to substantiate theory, and verify assertion. The Orthodox faith is here based on the surest philosophy, supported by indisputable facts, a species of irrefragable argument. Let the islands of the Pacific, as described by Cook and by intelligent impartial voyagers now, bear testimony to this. Unitarians may imagine and propose the most scientific mission, with all the apparatus of Greenwich, if they please; they may have the telescope of Herschel and a solar miscroscope ; they may add to these the alembics, deflagrators, and retorts of Davy; and what will it all amount to? The Gospel of Christ is foolishness to man, yet it is mighty through God. Here is the Unitarian error. They over, look the agent, who gives efficiency to means, and blesses, not the wisdom of words, but the words of heavenly wisdom. "Not by might, nor by power, but by my Spirit saith the Lord." Witness Brainerd, with his Bible only, preaching, through an ignorant Indian interpreter, to the savages, and say, would the National Institute, with all their philosophical apparatus, have brought these stoics of the woods to weep and cry out "what shall we do to be saved?" Those who, unlike "the English traveller," wish to philosophize deeply, as to the cause of the revi

* If, according to a recent Unitarian publication, "the apostle Paul was "a Unitarian," he remains to this day not only without an equal, but without a successor.