doctrine, have been erected. Take away, therefore, this fundamental error, and the whole edifice falls of course. Nor must any known and acknowledged error be spared, how trifling soever it may appear. Error is prolific and one produces another, till in the end a monster is brought forth which threatens to overturn Christianity itself. What error appears more innocent or trivial than that of the simple pre-existence of Christ? But if it be once admitted that our Lord is something more than man, some work must be provided for him which a mere man cannot perform. This lets in the doctrine of atonement, and that brings after it some other erroneous notion, and so on ad infinitum. But state at once that Jesus is a man in all respects like to his brethren, a mere human being selected from the rest of mankind to introduce a new dispensation, and invested with the powers necessary for that purpose, and the huge fabric of error and superstition vanishes at once like an enchanted castle touched by the magician's wand, and nothing remains but the plain, simple, uncorrupted gospel, divested of all mystery, worthy of all acceptation, which will make men wise to salvation.

I do therefore think not only that it is justifiable, but that it is wise and right, for those who entertain these just and important views of Christianity, to associate for the express purpose of prominently holding forth the unspeakably important fact of the simple humanity of Jesus Christ, and of supporting this truth by calm and candid discussion. Nor do I see any reason while they are proceeding in this course, allowing to every one his right of private judgment, and casting no reflections upon the motives of those who differ from them, why they are to be upbraided as deficient in candour, liberality and charity. And least of all do I see how they can be justified in sacrificing their main principle, the great object of their union, for the sake of admitting into their society those who, whatever other excellent qualities they may possess, and however desirable it might be to associate with them for other objects, professedly deny the very principle upon which this Society is formed. They would despise us for the concession.

What could be more motley or more ridiculous than an Unitarian society formed upon the principle of the eighth definition? No, no. The original Unitarian societies pursue a grand and definite object by definite and laudable means. And if any who do not think as they do, but who, as lovers of truth and of freedom of discussion, think fit to give us their names upon that ground only, we accept their liberality with gratitude: but if we thought that such persons entered the Society with an insidious design, and only paid us, like Judas, to betray our Master; if it was their intention to bribe us to abandon our principle, and to throw down that pillar of our faith in which we place our glory, we will reject their offer with indignation, and rather say, with the apostle, Thy money perish with thee. But we believe better things. We are sure that our friendly associates do not desire us to act so base a part. They support us as lovers of fair and free inquiry. And we will continue our course as heralds of the pure gospel of Christ, the doctrine of his simple humanity being the chief corner-stone.

5. The word "idolatrous" in our preamble is indeed a strong and an offensive expression. But must it not be true in the estimation of all Unitarians of the first class, that they who worship Jesus Christ are idolaters in the very same sense as those who worship the Virgin Mary? Do not the most zealous and learned Trinitarians themselves acknowledge that if the Unitarian doctrine is true, their worship is idolatrous? And do they not express themselves upon this subject in much stronger language than Unitarians have ever used? And is that to be regarded as an epithet of reproach which is nothing more than a solemn warning to the parties concerned to consider their conduct, and how they will answer for themselves to Him whose first command it is, Thou shalt have no other God beside me? Are we to abstain from such faithful warnings through fear of offending the delicacy of the parties concerned? At the same time it should always be understood, that there is an infinite difference between Christian idolatry and Heathen idolatry; the first having been sometimes practised from unavoidable ignorance by the most virtuous of mankind,

The plans of the Sermons are generally inartificial, even to carelessness; the reader must sometimes look back to keep the preacher's design present to his mind. Figurative language is sparingly used; and the figures adopted bespeak less imagination than feeling. The style has few faults and many excellencies; it is easy, flowing and sonorous the parts of sentences rise naturally one upon another, and the close is usually pleasing to the ear; the composition thus combining the two important qualities of strength and

sweetness.

The second Sermon in the volume appears to us entitled to the first place in point of merit. The argument is maintained in a masterly manner, and there is no falling off (which we think we perceive in some of the other discourses) in the strength and spirit with which the subject is discussed. From the animation that pervades the whole discourse, we infer that this is the preacher's favourite topic. He founds the argument, from the inequality of present good and evil to future retribution, on the parable of Dives and Lazarus, taking nearly the same view of these allegorical characters as is represented in Massillon's celebrated sermon upon the same subject. He considers the rich man as a mere voluptuary, and the beggar as a mere sufferer. The difference of moral character strengthens the argument, but is not essential to it. The Author's powers are unusually exerted to combat the two objections, that inequality of outward condition does not imply inequality of happiness, and that the most wretched have, all things considered, a preponderance of enjoyment. Upon the whole, we think he succeeds; though his pictures of human misery are traced with a bold and rapid pencil, and he makes, perhaps, too little allowance for the power of habit in accommodating the human being to his condition. With much abatement of the actual wretchedness which is here supposed, the argument is still solid and incontrovertible.

In sketching the character of the Sadducees, the Jewish Epicureans, whom our Lord intended to reprove in the parable, the Author thus exposes the want of motive to virtue, which there is in any scheme of infidelity:

"Their system was, to enjoy the passing hour by indulging freely in every luxury, bodily and mental, which their circumstances could afford, without any regard to a future account. Had their infidelity been well grounded, the wisdom of this system would have been incontrovertible. The only restraint which a man, acting upon their principle, should impose upon himself, is that of a prudent attention to health and reputation; for, to pay the least respect to moral duties, independently of immediate advantage, would be the height of inconsistency. Where pleasure is the sole end of living, (as to those who are convinced that their pleasure and their existence must end together, it ought undoubtedly to be,) morality is matter of mere convenience and duty, a word without a meaning. They may admit virtue as an auxiliary; they cannot consider it as a principal. It may be employed to promote or to secure enjoyment; but should never be suffered to interfere with it, where there is a competition. In ordinary cases, indeed, it may be advantageous, and consequently expedient, even upon this plan, the great transgresto abstain from

sion.""-Pp. 31, 32.

And again,

"It has indeed been argued by some, that the feelings of pleasure and pain, which by the constitution of our minds form of themselves a retribution, suffiare inseparable from virtue and vice, cient both for the purposes of society, and for the vindication of Providence in the unequal distribution of good and evil. It is not intended to undervalue these feelings as they are an inherent part of our moral frame. But we must insist, that their influence both in supporting and rewarding virtue, depends chiefly, if not solely, upon that reference, which nature and reason uniformly give them to a future account. Take away the belief of this, and what do you leave? You reply, The dictates of conscience. What then are these dictates, considered as a recompense to the righteous? Some undefined admiration of moral beauty, some transient feelings of self-satisfaction, than which, when unconnected with the anticipation of a future judgment, nothing can be more fallacious and nugatory!

Are

And what are they as a punishment to the wicked? Merely a few vain remonstrances, which they ought to regard no more than the croaking of a raven. such feelings an adequate encouragement to suffering virtue, or such remonstrances an adequate infliction of divine justice upon easy, voluptuous and domineering vice ?"-Pp. 58, 59.

The design of the whole of this able sermon, and the best manner of the preacher will be seen in the following passage:

"Let us put the case of a man living within the gripe of upstart power, holding his tenement and his means of support from one of those profligates, unhappily too numerous, who stick at no crime to gratify their pride and sensuality-compared with whom the rich man in the parable is an angel of light. His poor dependent fears God and hates wickedness. He will not become the instrument of oppression; he will not sacrifice his daughter to a tyrant's lust; he will not contribute by his vote to send a wretch into the council of the nation, who would sell his country, as Judas did his Master, for thirty pieces of silver; may, perhaps, he can but ill conceal his honest indignation, when he hears him praised by unprincipled selfishness. In his rectitude he finds his ruin. A debt which he cannot pay, or a vexatious suit which he cannot support, sends himself to a jail, and exposes his innocent and destitute family to hazards and sufferings, from the very contemplation of which the heart recoils.

"Here is an instance of a good man suffering, from the violence of the wicked, for the sake of righteousness. Is it only a fictitious case to uphold an inference which fact would not bear out? Or is it one of a few solitary examples which are not to be heeded in a general estimate? Read the history of the world. Mark those little tyrants, so numerous in every country, who are for ever grinding the faces of the industrious poor, by exactions and oppressions, for which the law has no remedy. See the statesman and the lawyer, too often plundering under the pretence of defending; and O! that it could not be said, Behold even the minister of religion, employing the name of God to bind slavery and degradation about the necks of his offspring. Honest simplicity and unprotected goodness become, in a thousand ways, the prey of artifice and malignity; and when we think of the numberless oppressors and deceivers of this description, in all parts of the earth, who seem to exist and to feed upon human misery, especially where despotism is established, it is impossible for a heart of sensibility to dwell, without horror, upon this single source of human wretchedness. And is it within the compass of credibility, that these evils, which have no compensation here, shall receive none hereafter? Can it be true, that for these cruelties the man of violence has nothing to fear; that for

these sufferings the man of righteousness has nothing to hope; that the oppressor and the oppressed, the tiger and his victim, are to lie down quietly together, and rise no more for ever? Then virtue is indeed a phantom, and religion a dream. Then even the monster who hates virtue upon principle, because it is the living reproach of his own character; who dreads patriotism, because it opposes a barrier to his ambition; who abhors honest piety, because it will not give its sanction to his usurpations and enormities; who organizes violence upon an extensive scale, and tramples upon the good that resist it, with the same indifference as he does upon the worm under his feet; who makes havoc his pastime, and rises to empire over the bodies of millions, and upon the awful ruins of justice and humanity-then may even this man repose upon his pillow in security and peace. He may occasionally have some fears for his personal safety, perhaps some remorse for his most flagrant atrocities. But the worst that can happen is death. And can this be the final result of a moral government, conducted by infinite wisdom and benignity? Upon such a scheme, what source of conIsolation is left to injured innocence and suffering worth? And who upon such terms would bear the proud man's scorn, with all the buffetings that patient merit of the unworthy takes, when he might either improve his state by dexterous villainy, or leave it by a voluntary death? A supposition involving such consequences must appear absurd and incredible. It were, indeed, more easy to believe that there is no God, than to believe that he governs the world upon such a plan."— Pp. 62-66.

The fourth Sermon is a re-publication. It was preached and printed death of Dr. Towers. many years ago, on occasion of the Dr. Lindsay

has consulted no less the gratification of his readers than his own reputation, by preserving it in this collection. The the text is I Cor. xv. 53-57, and in the following passage the subject is well stated and divided; we quote it the rather because it is one of the few instances in which the preacher follows the old and, in our judgment, most useful plan of announcing distinctly and numerically the division of a dis

course:

"What I propose in addressing you from these words is, to point out the ground of peculiar thankfulness to God, which both the common and enlightened Christian has above all other men in an