struction when religious principle is gone, namely a prudent regard for worldly interest, and a desire of maintaining a fair estimation in society. These, so strong barriers against other vices, scarce make a show of resistance to intemperance.

The method of mitigating this public evil, which admits of most immediate application, is the example of those who are able to give a tone to the sentiment of the community. In the present state of things, I consider it the duty of every man to abstain from the habitual use of ardent spirits, however temperately he may have been accustomed to make use of them, and whether he feels himself called upon to enter into a public obligation to that effect or not. Another method and one which has already had a great effect is constantly to keep before, and to urge upon the public mind, the alarming facts on this subject. A third, which goes deeper, though its operation is more protracted, is a more general diffusion of the means of thorough education; by which the mind might be more perfectly developed and men would be qualified to furnish the gratifications of intellect, imagination and taste, to that intense craving for excitement, for the satisfaction of which ardent spirits are often sought.

Finally, and above all, that which would strike at once at the root of the evil is a deeper and a stronger influence of religion. This would open to men a glorious pursuit, which would give them a disgust for all sensual excess. This would so impress them with the dignity and worth of the soul as to annihilate an inclination which tends to degrade and ruin it. This would furnish a sure support and consolation in all circumstan

ces which would forever preclude the wretched resource of drowning distress and sorrow in the intoxicating cup. Let us be admonished by the whole subject, of the necessity of watchfulness and of self-government. A great and difficult work is before us; let us not voluntarily impair our power to perform it; a glorious destiny is reserved for us; let us not suffer inferior and worthless joys to divert our attention from it. A race is before us, in which, those who run successfully shall be crowned with immortal happiness; let us not load ourselves with unnecessary impediments. Let us lay aside every weight, and the sin that doth so easily beset us, and let us run with patience the race that is set before us, looking unto Jesus, the author and finisher of our faith.

AN APOLOGY FOR UNITARIANISM.

WE quote the following paragraph from a recent and very admirable work of Sir James Mackintosh, entitled 'A general View of the Progress of Ethical Philosophy, chiefly during the 17th and 18th Centuries.' Sir James, if we mistake not, was attached to the established church. We have just received the intelligence of his death.

'The Augustinean doctrines of original sin, predestination, and grace, little known to the earlier Christian writers, who appear indeed to have adopted opposite

and milder opinions, were espoused by Augustin himself in his old age; when by a violent spring from his youthful Manicheism, which divided the sovereignty of the world between two adverse beings, he did not shrink in his pious solicitude for tracing the power of God in all events, from presenting the most mysterious parts of the moral government of the universe, in their darkest colors and their sternest shape, as articles of faith, the objects of the habitual meditation and practical assent of mankind. The principles of his rigorous system, though not with all their legitimate consequences, were taught in schools; respectfully promulgated rather than much inculcated by the western church, (for in the East these opinions seem to have been unknown ;) scarcely, perhaps distinctly assented to by the majority of the clergy; and seldom heard of by laymen till the systematic genius and fervid eloquence of Calvin rendered them a popular creed in the most devout and moral portion of the Christian world.'

The same class of doctrines is more fully stated and systematized in the Five Points of Calvin, viz:-Pre destination, particular redemption, total depravity, irresistible grace, and the certain perseverance of the saints. Now we reject these doctrines and the system which they compose. We believe that the whole has grown out of the scholastic discussion of such questions as these. Whether man is a free agent? Whether there is any merit in good actions? Whether a man can have any virtue before he is assisted by the special grace of God?-subtle questions, which, however important any one may think them, are rather philosophical than religious, and sprung rather from logic

than from the Gospel. The doctrines that grew out of them soon came to be regarded as the fundamental and essential doctrines of Christianity. But we are

constrained to say that they have nothing to do with it, were not originally founded upon it, and the question whether they are true or not ought not to be a gospel question, certainly not a vital one. They are philosophical speculations, unhappily superadded to the simple truths of Christianity.

It is true that this system is defended on scriptural grounds. And from such a book as the Bible, so ancient, so figurative in its language, written at so many different periods, and by so many different persons, and touching so many topics, there is scarcely any conceivable doctrine, (as the history of opinions shows) but may find some countenance in it, if it be read with a desire and expectation of finding it. But does this system, so artificial and elaborate, so complicated and philosophical, and in many respects so unintelligible, does it stand out on the face of the Bible? Is it the object of the Gospel to teach it? Did Christ seem to have this complex fabric in view in his teaching-teaching as simple as proverbs, as plain as axioms? These are the great questions; and it is left to our candor and discernment to answer them. And in answering them in the negative, and rejecting the doctrines referred to as not originally belonging to our religion, we are charged with giving up all, believing nothing, and being no better than infidels, having no doctrines, no system.

It is true we have no system, if that word must mean a set of doctrines so numerous, so drawn out and elaborated into a great artificial fabric of philosophical reason

ings as religious systems so called usually are. We do not want such a system. The Bible gives us none such, nor any encouragement to frame one. The Bible is a recital of facts, and a record of incidental sayings, evolving or confirining some glorious truths to be sure, but no system.

It is the rage for system-making, a bigoted love of theory, that has mingled so much error with all the sciences, natural, intellectual and moral, and still more with religion. We wish to hold the few, simple, and all-important truths of the gospel, without weaving them into a grand and finished system. We would hold them in the simplicity in which they are taught.

:

But then we are told that we believe nothing, or nothing of any importance; none of the essential doctrines of Christianity and so are cast out of the pale of christian fellowship and charity, and cannot be saved. But is our faith so barren and worthless? Do we not believe in the being, the perfections and the providence of God? Do we not all believe in ONE God, the Father? Do we not believe that Jesus Christ was sanctified and sent' of the Father, to bear witness unto the truth,' 'to save his people from their sins,' and to bring life and immortality to light?' Do we not believe that we are to live hereafter, and that we must give account, every one for himself unto God, who will bring every secret thing into judgment, whether it be good or whether it be evil, and render unto every man according to his deeds?' And is it nothing towards the christian faith that we believe all this? Do we believe in God and Christ and immortality and judgment, and do we yet lack the essentials of Christianity? Must we add to