these things the philosophy of Plato and the dark ages, or are we infidels? We think the truths we have mentioned are the only ones that can strictly be called re→ ligious doctrines. They are the only ones that the religious principle within us needs, or can be affected by. They are enough for piety, enough for the conscience, enough for hope and fear, encouragement and warning: -all that can concern us as moral and accountable beings, here or hereafter. We may believe in a great many facts, and hold a great many philosophical opinions on subjects relating to religion, but they cannot be properly called religious doctrines, without which a man may be said to have no christian faith.

more sure,

They do not furnish any new motives to piety and virtue. They do not make goodness more lovely nor sin more dreadful. They do not make immortality nor eternity more solemn, nor Christ more a friend and Saviour, nor God more near, more gracious or just. Why then, because we tear away this immense scaffolding that has been built around the temple of truth, adding nothing to the strength or beauty of the edifice, why are we held to be the enemies of the Gospel and the truth?

1

It is often said that it is better to believe too much than too little, and that he is safest who believes most. But where shall we stop if we proceed upon this principle? If our safety is proportioned to our credulity, we must go on and embrace all the doctrines that have ever been held in Christendom. We must hold to transubstantiation, purgatory, penance, the infallibility of the Pope, and all the seven sacraments of the holy catholic church, and all the decrees of the Council of

No.

Trent. We must not stop at the tenets of Calvin or Hopkins, for their systems are the veriest heresy, simplicity itself, compared with those which have been held in one age or another of the church. We must seek the truth, follow where it leads, and stop where it stops, embrace, obey, and live by it, and we are safe, if there is safety in the promise of Christ or the power of the Almighty.

Again, it is maintained that the system which we reject has made the greatest number of pious Christians. And this is probably true; for it has been, till lately, the only prevalent system in the community. No other views have had a sufficient experiment under the same circumstances, to allow them to be compared with it as to actual influence. But we may judge of the comparative tendency of the different tenets. And it And it may be safely averred that the abstract tendency of the system in question, is to diminish the feeling of personal responsibility. What is the tendency of the popular doctrine of the Atonement, but to cast the punishment due to ourselves upon another as a substitute? What is the doctrine of the Trinity but one essential to this view? What is the tendency of the doctrines of original sin and total depravity, but to make us feel that we are not guilty of our own sins, but inherit them from Adam, or receive them from God? What is the tendency of the doctrines of predestination and election, but to take the responsibility of the work of salvation from ourselves, and make us wait idly to know the unchangeable decree of God? We do not say that these tendencies always take effect; we hope they do not generally, still we see not how it can be denied that they

are such as we have described them. It might appear, upon a close scrutiny, that the universal desire to escape personal responsibility, helped considerably to introduce these several doctrines at first, with however different feelings they may now be held by those who sincerely embrace them.

We are certainly desirous that those doctrines which we regard as errors should not be always connected with Christianity. Not that they are inconsistent with the religious character. By no means. For they are held by many of the most pious Christians and excellent men, all whose religious affections, principles and trust are bound up with them. But still, the principle that all truth is desirable, and all error is hurtful in general, forbids us to be indifferent to what we hold to be the truth as it is in Jesus. It cannot be, and we derive our confidence from the eternal laws of God, it cannot be, but that all error will, on the whole impede the propagation and lessen the sanctifying power of religion in the world, and in the individual heart.

EXTRAVAGANT DOCTRINES.

THE lovers of extravagant doctrines, objecting to our simpler views in religion, are well compared to Micah, exclaiming, Ye have taken away my gods which I made, and what have I more?' They feel as if nothing was left in religion, when a few startling mysteries are taken away. But what essential ele

Micah's

ment of religion is lost by losing these? complaint, that the eternal Deity, the great universal Spirit that filleth heaven and earth, could be taken from him, was as reasonable. The only 'gods' that were or could be taken from him were,-not the Infinite Being who made him—but gods he had made; a few little idols; a graven image and a molten image,' which must even have been very small in size, since they seem to have been composed of only as much silver as is contained in one hundred dollars. These were his representations of the great Jehovah, whom the heaven of heavens cannot contain.

Like these, are those idols of the imagination, those fanciful figments, which take the place of religion in so many minds, and become so dear, that they can see no religion without them. Nothing, nothing seems left after a few idolized dogmas are gone. All the unspeakably blessed truths and emotions of a simpler creed are nothing in comparison. Such is the power of association and prejudice. I say prejudice, not imputing blame, but in explanation of a phenomenon we so often lament and wonder at. We wonder to hear good people say of moderate sentiments in religion, 'We could see no value in such sentiments if they were true; they could excite no interest; they could give us no comfort: I would as soon have no religion at all, as a religion so tame and insipid as Unitarianism: it is not worth giving up the pleasures of sin for. Take away the stupendous mysteries of my faith, take away its startling extravagances and seeming contradictions, its rousing rhetorical figures, and harrowing denunciations, and you take away all which can move

me in the gospel. What is left for the stupid human heart, but sleepy unanimating lessons in morality?'

Thus they can see no religion at all in our views, simply because it is not extravagant there. They have looked at the fire so long, that they can see nothing which is less bright than the fire. What we value most in our religion, they despise as milk and water insipidity—that is, reasonableness; its quietness, its gentleness; like the noiseless meekness of him who would not strive nor clamor; whose voice no one heard in the streets, and who would not break a bruised reed.'

It is often remarked that the deepest and most enduring feeling is silent. It is momentary and superficial emotion that bursts out in noise. Is there then, little in our gospel, because we say little? nothing deeply but mutely thrilling in its glad tidings of great joy? nothing there for lack of the thorny theories of the schools? nothing in God, the Infinite Father, with his arms stretched out with a father's love to all his children? nothing in the moving loveliness of Jesus, the celestial. model of all human excellence, with his winning message of grace made more winning by the gracious lips that spake it? nothing in heaven and everlasting life, and the love and peace and joy that shall encircle its courts forever, and bind together the good of every tongue and kindred and people and nation? if there is nothing in all that we believe, to move the heart, that heart must be of the nether millstone, and heaven itself would afford it insipid entertainment.

But it is asked, if there is not really more excitement in some other creeds. Undeniably; being more extravagant and unreasonable, they startle the mind