phlet is patched together, there are single expressions, which if taken alone will give an entirely different sense from the one that the compiler has contrived to put upon the whole. It is dirty work, we must say. The introduction tells us, 'the public may be assured that the quotations are made fairly and truly, and with a design to express the real sentiment of the writer.' We are sorry to think it, but cannot resist the belief, that the man who wrote this assertion, was compelled to make some compromise with conscience, some mental reservation, before he sent the declaration and the book out into the world.

6

We will give some of our reasons for this opinion by producing from this Tract one or two instances in which writers are so quoted as to be made to speak what they never intended, and what the compiler, if he looked beyond the very words here given, must have known was not the real sentiment of the writer.' To show that Unitarians rely on nothing but their own works and virtues for salvation, he gives us this passage from one of our Tracts. We depend on nothing for acceptance with God, but our own character, and the mercy of our heavenly Father, as made known to us by his blessed Son.' The words our own character this compiler italicises himself for the purpose of throwing the whole emphasis of the passage on that part, and sliding over the all-important clause that follows; a clause that may mean all that the most orthodox believe, if italicised and set off by itself. Again, he quotes from the Christian Examiner, as follows: We think a great from the free use

deal of practical evil has resulted of such phrases as trusting in Christ for salvation,

embracing Christ, receiving him, surrendering ourselves to him, without proper explanation.' I give the passage as it is quoted. It will be seen, that such words are italicised as make it appear to assert that Unitarians do not trust in Christ for salvation, or embrace him, or receive him. And then to strengthen this impression and make a beautiful case of it, passages are quoted from Scripture'; as, ' In him shall the Gentiles trust."

'He that receiveth me, receiveth him that sent me.' As if these declarations were contradicted by the extract from the Examiner; when in fact all that the extract says, is, that evil has resulted from using certain language without proper explanation; for we will take the liberty to emphasize a little ourselves now.

Among the proofs that Unitarians are Universalists, we find the following passage from Dr. Channing.-'We believe that he (Christ) was sent by the Father to effect a moral, spiritual deliverance of MANKIND; that is, to rescue men from sin and its consequences, and to bring them to a state of everlasting purity.' Is this compiler unacquainted with the common use of words, or does he mean to take advantage of the ignorance and prejudice of some of his people, and by a free use of italics and capitals extort Universalism from a passage that has not the most remote connexion with the subject, but expresses only the general purpose of Christ's mission; the salvation of men. Another proof of Universalism he draws from the assertion that God is 'the UNIVERSAL and supreme saviour'-found in one of Mr Whitman's tracts. Still worse, he gives us in this form a quotation from the Examiner: We look upon it (the doctrine of eternal punishment) as ‘beyond

all question the most horrible dogma ever conceived or uttered by man.' Let it be observed, the explanation

thrown into the parenthesis, on which the whole sense turns, is from the compiler, not from the Examiner. The writer in the Examiner is speaking expressly of 'the Calvinistic doctrine of hell torments,' which is by no means necessarily synonymous with the doctrine of eternal punishment.' The Calvinistic doctrine has been well expressed in another quotation, to which we give our entire assent. The horrible thought of a large proportion* of our fellow creatures being cast by an angry God into tortures unutterable by human tongue, and sentenced to spend eternity in shrieks of agony, which will never reach the ear or touch the heart of their Creator-this forms no part of our conception of the purposes and government of the God and Father of Jesus Christ.'

6

Look at another proof of our reliance on good works and our own merits for salvation. To build the hope of pardon on the independent and infinite sufficiency of Jesus Christ, is to build on AN UNSCRIPTURAL AND FALSE FOUNDATION.' And then comes the text, 'other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ. The extract is from Dr. Channing's Objections, &c. and is opposed, as every man with his eyes and heart open must see, not to the sufficiency of Jesus as a Saviour, but to his independent and infinite sufficiency. If a few other lines had been quoted in connexion with the passage, its true meaning would

* A late Boston clergyman fixed the number of eternally damned at seven tenths of the whole of mankind. Seven tenths of God's creatures taken forever out of his hands and given over to the dominion of his great adversary, and this by an irreversible decree !

have been seen.

'God's essential and unchangeable

mercy, not Christ's infinity, is the scriptural foundation of a sinner's hope.' Christ's sufficiency is expressly admitted in this very passage. That Jesus is perfectly adequate to the work of our salvation, is to be believed, not because he is himself the supreme God, but because the supreme and unerring God selected, commissioned and empowered him for this office.' Does this or the next sentence imply a reliance on ourselves only and a rejection of Christ as a Saviour? We indeed lean on Christ, but it is because he is a cornerstone, chosen by God, and laid by God in Zion."

Indeed we find, in almost every instance in which we have looked into the sources of these extracts, something that directly contradicts the sense which this compiler has been pleased to put upon them. Without leaving the pages that he has quoted from, we could bring positive proof of Unitarians' holding entirely different opinions from some which he compels his readers to suppose they hold. We have gone far enough in this poor business for the present. If our readers do not loathe it, we may give some further and brighter specimens hereafter, of the fair and sound argument by which our system is here overthrown. We will give one or two instances more, to show the kind of reasoning employed. The quotations and the refutations stand thus.

DR BANCROFT. In the revelation of the New Testament, no duty to the Holy Ghost is enjoined which men are to perform.'

' Grieve not the Holy Spirit of God.' Eph. iv. 30. Quench not the Spirit.' 1 Thess. v. 19.

CHRISTIAN EXAMINER. "The change of heart, from the very nature of the case, is a thing that cannot take place in a day.'

• The same day, there were added unto them about three thousand souls.' Acts ii. 41.

DR CHANNING. We maintain that man is not created in a condition which makes an infinite atonement necessary.'

'Then Christ is dead in vain.' Gal. ii. 21.

Which are we to pity most, the man whose conscience will let him use such arguments, or the people whose ignorance or bondage to a system permits them to be so imposed upon? A few weeks ago, in conversation with an orthodox clergyman, we took the liberty to express to him our surprise that any intelligent and honest man could circulate such a pamphlet, having understood that it had been circulated in his parish. Since reading it, for we had then only heard of it, our surprise is greatly increased. And we take the liberty still further now to commend all who engage in such work to the attentive study of the christian law, especially to some excellent rules in the seventh chapter of Matthew,

H.

REPENTANCE AND CONVERSION.

Repentance and Conversion are frequently alluded to in Scripture. They are the same thing; and they are an important thing. All who are guilty-all who are thoughtless-all who are indifferent to religion, must re