Bear, as was proposed in the third place, with a few concluding lessons and reflections. Let not the Unbeliever, then, take comfort or assurance from the differences which exist among Christians. Whichever of our interpretations are right, or whichever are wrong, there is no shelter for wickedness or wilful obstinacy. We all agree that God has spoken to us in these latter days by his Son; we all agree that the heaviest denunciations are pronounced against sin, and that the most alluring rewards are held out to the obedient. Even in the very difficult passage of Scripture which has exercised our attention this evening, the most jarring explications unite at least in making God as the author and basis of the Gospel, and thereby lending an infinite sanction and force to its motives and commands. Besides, what is gained by renouncing religion with all its difficulties, all its perplexities, and all its liabilities to imperfection, if we take in exchange nothing but the miserable darkness of unbelief? Give me but one particle, one little seed of faith, and it shall remove mountains of doubt from my soul, illuminate whole regions of darkness in which nature lies, almost annihilate the calamities to which life is incident, and make my bosom swell with the blessed anticipations of eternity. But take away even this grain of faith, and I am but a brother to the worm, the sport of every accident, a creeping, ignorant, forlorn wretch of a day, and worse than a poor brute in death. With this contrast before him, the Unbeliever may not plead for his excuse the unhappy differences among those who are striving for the truth.

Once more. Is it too much to hope, that our brethren of the Trinitarian faith* may have learned something from the discussions to which our text has been subjected? I do not, of course, surely, indulge the romantic and, perhaps, the undesirable expectation, that any whose faith is rooted and grounded by long habit, by strong associations, and by an extensive course of a particular kind of reading, have had their convictions overthrown in a single hour. But I do trust that such persons have at least seen, that we have something to urge in our own defence; that instead of lightly and irreverently handling the Bible, we confidently appeal to it, comparing Scripture with Scripture,

VOL. XII.

20

and vindicating its just claims against interpolations and corruptions on the one hand, and infidelity on the other. Especially, I trust, they have seen, that there is nothing in our systems of interpretation essentially injurious to religion or morals, and that we have some claims to be heard and fairly answered, before we are condemned. Besides, suppose that the denunciations and odious descriptions levelled at us, should have their desired effect, and force us over to the side of nominal Trinitarianism. There is a previous question to be settled among yourselves-Which is the true standard of orthodoxy? There is the scheme of the great Dr. Samuel Clarke,* that the second person of the Trinity derived his existence from the first; there is the indwelling scheme of Dr. Watts, that the Father dwells in the Son, in the same manner as the soul dwells in the body; there is the Sabellian scheme, that the Father, Son and Spirit, are different names only for the same being, the one living and true God; there is the Swedenborgian scheme, that there is but one God in one person; there is the tritheistical scheme, set on foot by a great philosopher of Alexandria in Egypt, that there are three equal Gods in three equal persons, but only one God; not to mention innumerable shades and modifications and combinations of all these different and clashing schemes, such as Professor Stuart's of our own country, who maintains that there was no Son of God until Jesus was born of Mary, and Dr. Miller's, who insists, that the Son of God was born from all eternity. How can you condemn the humble Christian inquirer, who, appalled at this formidable array of opposing systems, seeks refuge in the plain language of Scripture, and builds his faith on the formula of the Saviour himself, "This is life eternal, that they might know thee, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent"?

Yes, my Christian friends, who expect on the approaching Sabbath to surround the table of your Lord and Master, you will feel grateful to God that you can perform that duty without any distressing and distracting ideas. You see enough in the Saviour to command your reverence, obedience and affection. His words with you have the authority of heaven. His example is endearing, engaging and efficacious, because you believe that it is not too high for you humbly

* Belsham.

to imitate. His doctrines you receive into your souls as the dew of inspiration. His proclamations of pardon from on high excite you to repentance, because you believe him to be the delegated Messenger of God. His character you find an inexhaustible theme of profitable and delightful contemplation. His death you regard as the seal of his ministry, as a sacrifice called for on account of the sinful state of the world, and as a necessary forerunner of that glorious resurrection which demonstrated him to be the Son of God, and on which you hang treasures of living hope. All this you think sufficient to induce you to commemorate him, by obeying his last command. You have named his name. Oh, remember the privilege! You have named his name. Oh, remember the responsibility! Be willing to bear his cross through good report and evil report. He has gone to prepare many mansions in heaven. Will he deny them to those who believe in his own words, and simply for believing in his own words, My Father is greater than I? Will God deny them to those who, by patient continuance in well doing, seek for glory, honour and immortality? Let the Apostle Paul reply: "God will render to every man according to his deeds. Unto them that are contentious, and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, indignation and wrath: Tribulation and anguish upon every soul of man that doeth evil; of the Jew first, and also of the Gentile. But glory, honour, and peace, to every man that worketh good; (hear this broad, this liberal promise!) to every man that worketh good, to the Jew first, and also to the Gentile. For there is no respect of persons with God." (Rom. ch. ii.) AMEN.

[From "The Harp of Zion, a Series of Lyrics founded on the Hebrew Scriptures. By WILLIAM KNOXx, Author of the Songs of Israel.""]

THE sun is set, and yet his light
Is lingering in the crimson sky,
Like memory, beautiful and bright,
Of holy men that die.

O'er Tabor's hill, o'er Baca's dale,
The shades of evening softly creep,

Softly as mother draws the veil
To wrap her infant's sleep.

The Edinburgh Review on the Church of England. THIS most popular and influential of our periodical works has begun to speak out boldly with regard to our National Religious Establishment. An article entitled "The Church of England" in No. LXXXVIII., just published, has excited great attention. It shews what our fellow-subjects, the Presbyterians of the North, think of "our excellent church," as the phrase is at Visitation feasts. It is a review of a pamphlet ("Letters on the Church, by an Episcopalian," 8vo.) which seems from the account here given to be an able and useful performance. The scope and object of the work is stated by the Reviewer in a single sentence: "It is, to prove that all Religious Establishments, by which one particular form of worship is especially protected and favoured by the civil government, and in return is entirely subjected to its controul, are at once contrary to the interests of religion and to those of civil society; that the consequences of what is called the Alliance of Church and State are mischievous alike to both parties; that a State, as such, ought to be of no religion at all; and that therefore it ought not to identify itself with one sect, and to tolerate all others; but to protect all, and prefer, and discountenance none."

P. 491.