grace, and that this conviction and this prayer will obtain the blessing-you give up the argument. Nay, more-if you admit that a natural man can feel and confess his unwillingness and inability to pray, that he can pray to God to conquer his aversion to pray, that he can so much as wish to be willing to see his unwillingness to repent and believe and be drawn of the Father'-and if you admit that this feeling or the conviction of a want of feeling will make him any more likely to be a subject of divine grace-then you yield all that is worth contending for in the mere question of man's ability.

Yes, this is in substance all that Unitarians believe or ask for in regard to this perplexed question. They say that men can do all that is required of them, by a natural use of means. Whatever the want or difficulty is, they can remove it, or cause it to be removed, in some way. And in this you must agree with them, unless you go the whole length of saying that men can do absolutely nothing; and that if they do nothing, and ask for nothing to be done, they will be just as likely to be arrested, renewed and saved, as those who ask and do most. We have no fear that this will be said by any sane man, in New England at least, at the present day. And if he stop short of this, if he admit that by any possibility a sinner can put himself in the way of repentance and salvation, the question is at an end. All the rest, and most of Dr. Woods' labors upon this point, seem to me to perplex that which is perfectly plain, and darken a truth which God has made as clear and bright as his own unclouded sun. It is rank injustice, too, to condemn those who assert,

as Dr. Woods says Pelagius, and Socinus, and their followers' did,' that the sinner is fully able to believe and obey;-to condemn them as if they thus denied the doctrine of divine influence, or man's need of that influence. Their language means no such thing. It means no more, than that a liar can tell the truth, an intemperate man can become temperate, and a refractory child submit to its parents. It means no more,

than that God has given, or has promised to give, if asked, all the power necessary for the work he requires. It means no more, than Dr. Woods means every time he asks a sinner to do any thing for his own soul. And it is poor sophistry to imply that he preaches the Gospel when he urges sinners to repent and obey' in whatever way he may explain it-and that we violate the Gospel when we tell men they can repent and obey. There has hardly been an attempted distinction in theology more shadowy or unworthy. Dr Woods. believes as firmly as Socinus did, that every man can do something towards his own salvation. And the only question should be, what that something is, not whether it be something or nothing.

So far I have looked at this subject as reason and common sense would view it. I admit there is a more important view to be taken, that which scripture presents. On this Dr. Woods mainly relies, as every Christian must. It may be made the subject of another article.

Ho

THE TESTIMONY OF THE APOSTLES CONCERNING OUR LORD.

If the doctrine of the Supreme Deity of Jesus Christ be true, is it not a singular and unaccountable fact that it should be mainly a doctrine of inference, nowhere distinctly and incontrovertibly asserted in the New Testament? If the apostles and evangelists had been aware that he whom they had followed and preached was the Supreme God, might we not reasonably expect to find, in their preaching and writings, the most explicit and unequivocal testimony to this great truth? Should we not expect it to stand forth very prominently in almost every page of the New Testament? Should we not especially look for it in that summary of Christian doctrine and duty, the sermon on the mount? This doctrine is deemed fundamental by those who hold it; now should we not regard that revelation as essentially imperfect whose fundamental doctrines are so obscurely set forth, that many sincere and learned inquirers are unable to discover them? or rather, should we not conclude, either that the supposed revelation was not really such, or that the doctrines in question were not fundamental? I think we should. And if, on examining the New Testament with reference to the doctrine of the Deity of Christ, we find ourselves disappointed in our expectations, that circumstance, it seems to me,, will furnish a strong argument or presumption, to say the least, against the truth of the doctrine in question. Let us consider this point a moment, and compare the conduct of the apostles towards our Lord, their mode

of addressing him, and their manner of speaking of him, with what we should expect they would be if they believed this doctrine to be true.

And first, I will ask, Could the disciples have felt and manifested such a degree of familiarity and confidence in their intercourse with Jesus, had they believed him to be the Supreme God? Would not an involuntary awe have checked their freedom? Instead of asking him questions, would they not have waited reverently for his communications to them? Would Peter, with this knowledge, have dared to rebuke his master and maker? Could he, on another occasion, have been so weak, should I not rather say so bold and wicked as to deny him? Could Judas with this knowledge, have ever designed much more, could he have hoped to be successful in his treachery? Had Thomas known that Jesus was the most High God, would he have been so incredulous as even to doubt the evidence of his senses as to the fact of his resurrection? When Jesus asked them the question, "Who say ye that I am?' Would they have been satisfied with answering as they did, "Thou art the Christ, the son of the Living God?' Would they not rather have exclaimed with one voice, "Thou art the Infinite and Eternal One? Did their demeanor, in any degree, correspond with what we should have expected of them, had they known the true nature and dignity of him who had chosen them to be his followers? Were he again to appear on earth, I call upon any believer in this doctrine to say, whether he could feel as free and unconstrained in his presence, and could live on such terms of familiarity and intimate friendship with him, as did the chosen

twelve? Every reasonable person must answer in the negative. Could any do so, they must be more than men. How then can we believe, even if Christ were the Supreme Being, that this fact was known to the disciples while attending on his ministry? And yet they heard him utter much of the language which is now quoted as triumphant evidence that he is God. They heard the declaration, 'I and my Father are one.' They heard him say, 'Before Abraham was, I am.' They received from him the command, to go and teach all nations, baptizing them into the name of the Father and of the son and of the holy ghost.' How could the meaning of these and similar passages be hidden from these inspired men, when they are so plain and clear to uninspired Trinitarians of the present day?

But let it be supposed-for so much at least, must, I think, be conceded-that the truth of the Deity of Christ was not revealed to them till after our Lord's ascension. Let it be supposed that this is one of those truths to which our Savior alluded when he said, 'I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now. Howbeit, when the spirit of truth is come, he will guide you into all truth.' Yet it must be remembered that no part of the New Testament was written till many years after the Savior ascended, and the spirit had been shed down on his followers. It cannot be doubted that, before the gospel histories were written, they had been fully instructed in all the doctrines they were to believe and teach. Yet we do not find, as we should naturally expect, any expressions of wonder and awe at the thought of the Great Being with