trates the sufficiency of faith in the Messiah. By this he means a religious belief that Christ is indeed the Messiah, that is, a divinely commissioned messenger of God. The consequences of this would be a belief and practice of his instruc tions. "Consider then, the natural operation and direct tendency of this principle. One believes, sincerely and religiously, that Jesus is the Christ, the son of God. Now I ask, is it possible for him to stop here, and no consequences to follow? If he do not believe it sincerely and religiously-if he take it only as any other historical truth, but not as having more concern with himself than the fact that Alexander was a conqueror, or Xerxes a king of Persia, then undoubtedly he may stop at the barren assent. But if, as I said, he believe it sincerely and religiously, is it not impossible that he should rest here? For what is implied in such a belief? A belief in God, the Supreme Governor and Father, who had for ages spoken of that Messiah by his prophets, and whose purposes he was sent to fulfil --a belief in his character, authority, purposes, and will as the moral ruler of inen-a belief that all the instruction of Jesus rests on the authority of God, and a consequent reception of whatever he teaches, as the true doctrine of religion; a belief that the way of acceptance and life is revealed by him, and that to disregard and disobey him, is to disregard the authority of God, and to subject ourselves to his displeasure to whom we are accountable at last. The mind of him who RELIGIOUSLY believes that Jesus is the Christ, cannot escape these consequences. They are momentous, they are affecting, they are practical consequences. They touch the springs of action, they agitate him with hope and fear, they teach him that he has an infinite interest at stake, they make him anxious for his eternal destiny. He feels that here he is bound by obligations which cannot be broken; that there is but one path left him, that of implicit submission to the instructions of this heavenly messenger, and a life of devotion, repentance, and holiness. Since it were an insane inconsistency, to acknowledge this powerful truth, and yet live disregard ful of its authority and uninfluenced by its requisitions." pp. 54, 55. But it is clear that faith in the Messiah, as our author understands it, is faith in his doctrines; and it is equally plain that his declarations are not to be received because they are his, but because they are God's; that is, we do not trust in him, but in God's assertions communicated to us by him; and all the power ascribed by our author to faith in the Messiah rests solely upon this consideration; as the messenger of God, he has revealed truths which can change the soul and transform the character, and if we receive the messenger and believe his instructions, we shall become Christians, and overcome the world by faith-faith in eternal realities. Nor does he go beyond this when, in the fourth discourse, he considers his character as Mediator. The amount of what he says, is this:God in his intercourse with men, does not approach them directly, but uses intervening agents. So in communicating the Christian religion, he spake to us by Christ, who thus became a mediator, that is, a medium of communication between God and man: and in executing this office, he communicates the messages of God to man, and teaches man how to hold intercourse with God; and to pray in the name of Christ, or through Christ, is thus explained: "So also in the instance of prayer through Christ, we may understand through his religion, or doctrine; since it is entirely through the influence of his religion, its instructions, directions, encouragements, and promises, that we are enabled to worship God acceptably. It is these which prepare our minds, and lead us to the mercy seat. We approach because the instructions which Jesus has given, and on which our faith relies, guide us thither. That is to say, as before, we come as his disciples, under his authority, and by faith in him. It is this coming in the character of his disciples, which gives us hope that we shall be heard." p. 83. In the fifth discourse, entitled 'Jesus the Saviour,' we are informed, that he saves his people from ignorance, sin, and misery, by the power of the truth which he communicated. He has organized a system of moral influence which reforms, and elevates, and purifies, the character of man. In the sixth discourse, entitled, Jesus the High Priest,' the author supposes that Christ is called high priest because he exerts a moral influence on the characters of men, by his doctrines and sufferings; and that he is said strictly to put away sin, when he reforms a sinner by moral suasion, and in a more popular and figurative sense, when he indicates by the sign or emblem of his own death, that God is willing to forgive transgression. But the language of the Bible on this subject is so strong, that the author could not feel fully satisfied with this view of the subject, and is compelled to make the following remarkable concession: "That there is no other efficacy in our Lord's sufferings, except in the mode which has now been described, I do not assert. But thus much is clear -that this is the only operation which we can understand, or with which we can perceive that man has any practical concern. In the mind and counsels of God, there may be consequences which we do not discern and cannot penetrate. An importance is plainly attributed to the Messiah's death in the scriptures, which is ascribed to that of no other person. It is spoken of with peculiar emphasis and feeling, and is connected in a peculiar manner with the terms of pardon and life. We may therefore be certain that it holds a most important place in the Christian scheme, that we owe to it, perhaps, much more than we can at present know, far more than we can distinctly But what we can appreapprehend. hend, what we do understand, should The secret be enough to satisfy us. things belong unto the Lord our God;' The author does not deny that the atoning sacrifice of Christ may be a measure, tending to sustain law whilst God pardons transgression, but he is content to remain ignorant, whether this be the fact or not; nay, more, he asserts that the moral influence of the death of Christ on the character of the sin ner, is the only thing worthy of attention, and that nothing more is revealed. Of course he does limit the agency of Christ as a priest to the exertion of moral influence on the character of men, while at the same time, he acknowledges that the language of the Bible on the death of Christ is very peculiar. And The amount therefore of all his discourses thus far, is, that Christ, as temessenger of God, reveals truth, by which, and by his own example, he sanctifies men. In the seventh discourse, on the Atonement, corresponding views are exhibitedTo atone, is to reconcile. since men have alienated themselves from God, they must be reconciled and restored to holiness and obedience; and as Christ restores them by the moral influence of the truth, he is said to make atonement for them; especially has his death a powerful moral influence in producing repentance and faith, and "therefore to this portion of his ministration the work of reconciliation is frequently attributed." In the eighth discourse, he illustrates the agency of Christ as intercessor, which consists briefly in this. He remembers and loves his disciples, and prays for them as he did on earth, and as any good man prays for the Church; only as he is more intimately connected with the Church than any other man, and is more holy and more highly exalted, so we may suppose that his intercessions are peculiarly ardent, and powerful. In his discourse on the agency of Christ as Judge of the world, he alludes to the probability of his being so called because he has disclosed those principles and doctrines in accordance with which men will be judged. But he rather inclines to the opinion that Christ will act as judge by delegated authority and knowledge, and affirms that we are not competent to assert that the delegation of such authority and knowledge to a finite mind as shall qualify him to judge the world, is impossible. In his tenth discourse, on honouring the Son, he asserts that the honour due to Christ, arises from his official relation to us, and from his moral character, but not from his nature. If we dishonour him, we dishonour God's ambassador, and of course, God himself. If we receive and honour him because he is God's ambassador, if we believe and obey his communications, if we admire his holiness, are grateful for his efforts in our behalf, and imitate his example, then we honour the Son even as we honour the Father. And all curious inquiries as to his nature and essential attributes are needless and useless. Yet according to our auther, he is not to be worshipped, in the highest sense of the word; and the plain inference from this is, that he is not God, that he has not a divine nature, or at least, that the existence of such a nature has not been revealed. This, as we have before remarked, is in fact a decision of the question which he professes to avoid. The eleventh and last discourse, on the example of our Lord, is well written, and well illustrated. The author alludes to the power of example, and following the usual course, specifies the moral qualities of our Saviour; such as his love, meekness, patience, resignation, &c.; and applies them to the formation of our own moral character, and to the direction of our conduct. But he of course omits that most wonderful act of Christ, the tendency of which, St. Paul delighted to illustrate. Ye know,' says that ardent apostle, the grace our Lord Jesus Christ, how that although he was rich, yet for our sakes he became poor, that we through his poverty might become rich: and again, let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus. who being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God, yet humbled himself,' &c. of Such is an outline of Mr. W. on this subject; the tendency of his views next demands our attention. We remark in the first-place that they tend to produce erroneous views in regard to the inspiration of the scriptures. Though this may not at first be obvious, yet a little reflection will convince us that such is the fact. For according to these views, almost the entire dignity and honour of Christ arise from his being the medium of communicating divine truth to man. Yet one would naturally inquire, wherein does this distinguish him from other inspired men? Has no other man ever declared the will of God? It must be shown that Christ is the only inspired source of truth, or that the truths which he commnicated were peculiarly important and certain, or else his pre-eminence as a teacher, must be t given up: he has no superiority over other divinely authorized teachers, and all the declamation which is so frequent on this subject is groundless. There is a propensity among Unitarians to elevate the teaching of Christ and to depreciate that of the apostles and prophets. Yet what can be more inconsistent, even on their own principles, for do not they acknowledge that the teaching of Christ is valuable only because it is in fact the teaching of God by him? And cannot God, if he please, teach us by other men, and that infallibly? And if so, how shall we dare to place one part of God's communications above another? Has not God in fact taught us by other men; did not Christ declare, that he had many things to say which his disciples were not yet prepared to receive, and which the Holy Spirit should afterwards reveal to them; and did he not say that the Holy Spirit should guide them into all truth? And did not the apostles claim that they spake the words of God; and did not God by miracles sanction their claim? Especially, did not St. Paul, in repeated instances, and in the most unequivocal manner, declare that he spake under the influences of the Holy Spirit; that his doctrines were not the doctrines of men, but of God; and that he who despised him despised God? And what stronger evidence have we that Christ was inspired? His own assertions, sanctioned by miracles, rendered him worthy of Credit, and shall we doubt the full and ample inspiration of his apostles, founded on the same evidence? As to the Old Testament, we are willing to receive as the word of God which cannot be broken, that which was thus received by our Saviour and his apostles, and which is supported by the combined evidence of miracles, prophecy, and its own internal excellence. Yet we should infer from the lan guage of Mr. W. that he believed Christ to be the only inspired messenger of God whom the world has ever seen. What less is implied by such passages as these? "Jesus called himself, the Light of the world;' and he is truly the fountain and depository of whatever light we possess on the great subject of religion. There is to us, strictly and properly speaking, no other. We know nothing on the subject, clearly and certainly, but what we learn from him, or have been enabled to attain in consequence of what he has taught us. It is true that we gather something of the existence, attributes, and providence of God from the works of nature; but how little should we be able to do it, without the aid of revelation? We find the great principles of morality and accountableness in the law written on our hearts;' but it is our previous acquaintance with the Christian revelation, which enables us to see them so distinctly there, and they have been have not the benefit of this aid. We very obscurely discerned by those who might learn something also from the great human lights, which have adorned and instructed the world in all ages; but not enough, amidst their own vague and contradictory notions, to be a sure and satisfactory guide. For it is certain, that however great the wisdom of the world may have been, still the world by wisdom knew not God.' "What man might be capable of learning under any circumstances, from his own unassisted inquiry, it were unprofitable to discuss. All history declares the plain and incontrovertible fact, that by his own unassisted inquiry he has learned comparatively nothing. The certainty and definiteness of the very first principles, he owes to the instruction of Jesus; and if he have added any thing by his own efforts, it is because he has built upon this foundation, and been guided by this light. Who knows any thing of God, but the Son, and he to whom the Son has revealed him?" Who understands any thing of the purposes of the divine will, but they who have received it from Jesus? Look over the history of the world, Brethren; in former and in present times, in Christian and in pagan lands:where do you find religious knowledge, and from what fountains does it flow? Do you not trace all its streams to Nazareth? Do you not find every beam emanating from the Star of Bethlehem? And is not every region dark and unwatered, which these do not visit? Look also to your own minds, and consider whether you possess any valuable knowledge concerning God, any certain and satisfactory truth, any sustaining and peace-giving acquaintance with things invisible and future, which is not derived from the Chris tian doctrine. And will you not say, then, with earnest faith, Lord to whom should we go? Thou hast the words of eternal life."" pp. 19-21. What now shall we say of the Old Testament ;-that it is a part of the revelation made by Christ? This would be confounding language for no purpose. Or shall we say that we can learn nothing clearly and certainly from that portion of the word of God; that no ray of light flows from its pages to illuminate the darkness of man? Let us remember that the Old Testament is that volume in reference to which St. Paul has said, all scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works. Let us remember that Jesus himself constantly referred his disciples and his enemies to this volume as to the voice of God; let us remember the delight of ancient saints in meditating on its pages; let us read the glowing language of the 19th and 119th Psalms respecting the excellency and power of the scriptures, and remember that but a small part even of the Old Testament was then in existence, and we shall be convinced that they who depreciate those sacred writings, differ no less from Christ, his apostles, and ancient saints, than from reason and incontestible evidence. But perhaps our author will say that he meant only that we have no light except from revelation. If so, he is unhappy in his language; for that asserts that we know no thing on the subject clearly and certainly, but what we learn from Christ, or have been enabled to attain in consequence of what he has taught us. Now if this is so, either the Old Testament is a part of Christ's teaching, or it is of no value. But Mr. Ware intimates that the instructions of all other inspired writers are imperfect-partaking writers; or to use his own lanmore or less of the defects of the guage: "The teaching of Jesus must be regarded as the fountain of Christian truth. The instructions of others, are but streams flowing from it; some nearer the source, and some more dis tant from it; but all likely to be more or less affected by the character of the channel which conveys them, and the soil through which they pass. Even the words of the apostles are not to be taken before those of Christ. For to them the spirit was given by measure, to him without measure. The treasure in them was in ' earthen vessels,' and they knew but in part' The spirit preserved them from injurious errors in communicating and recording the truth; but still they are not to be put on a level with their infallible master, nor their epistles to be esteemed and admired beyond his discourses." p. 14. Here it is natural to ask, cannot God enable an inspired writer, even though imperfect and sinful, to speak perfect and unmixed truth? And has he not done it? If not, then all hope is at an end; for be it remembered, we have nothing on record which Jesus himself wrote. Every book in the Bible was written by sinful men. It will perhaps be said that the evangelists heard the discourses of our Lord and derived their knowledge from the fountain head. But we ask, can this be asserted of them all? And if it could, who can tell how much they misunderstood or misremembered? Were they not, as Unitarians are wont to remark, ignorant, and clouded with prejudice, and unable to comprehend all the |