serve his help, but does not pretend to teach in what that desert consists, farther than in a continued effort to live in accordance with his laws.

Now what are the differences between Dr. Beecher and the Unitarian? The first is, that Dr. Beecher asserts men to be habitually unwilling to do good, the Unitarian affirms that some are willing and virtuous. But what does Dr. B. mean?that men are never willingly benevolent or just? No: or, that benevolence and justice are not virtue? Surely not: what then does he mean by the habitual unwillingness of man to do good? He means merely that no man is of himself so virtuous and pure as to deserve salvation; that though able, no man is willing to do so much good as must precede perfection, and as God requires. To all of which, so stated, the Unitarian assents. This then is one of those points on which we say our opponents exaggerate; meaning that man will not do his duty as he might; they say he does nothing good, is wholly depraved, &c. &c. &c.

Another point on which some may think Dr. B. differs from us is, that he thinks that our acts and characters have no bearing upon our salvation; but such is not the case; he does not consider all the virtues of the best man enough to save him; but he thinks they exert an influence; otherwise he would hold morality and purity of no importance, and would be an antinomian. If God regenerates the philanthropist rather than the murderer, our acts and characters have an influence on our salvation; and if He does not, it is as much out of place for Dr. Beecher to advocate temperance in the pulpit, as it would be for him to advocate the tariff.

A third point on which Dr. B. may seem to differ from us, is, that he thinks our unwillingness to do right is owing, somehow, to Adam's sin: in this, most will, however, agree with him, and those that do not, differ from him on what?-an his. torical fact, having no influence upon character.

We conclude then from this work that Dr. B is upon the influential points of Faith, viz: God's character, Christ's character, and man's ability to help himself—a Unitarian. Though he says much of man's depraved will, he means simply, that as a matter of fact, man does not will to do as he should do; and although he tells us that we are saved solely by God's regenerating power, he intends to convey the idea that without God's aid we cannot save ourselves. In the language of Gregory Nazianzen, quoted p. 127-"A right will stands in need of assistance from God. We have need, both of power over our selves and of salvation from God. It is not of him only that

willeth, nor of him only that runneth, but of God that showeth, &c. &c."

It is true that Dr. B. denies that infants are innocent, and affirms that original sin is sin, and deserves God's wrath and curse; meaning by guilty and innocent in such a connection liability to suffer or not, (pp. 154-179;) but it is also true that he does not consent to the doctrine that he is to be punished for the guilt of Adam's sin as if it were his own; (p. 182;) from all which we gather this as his real faith,-God saw fit to let men become what they really are, using as the proximate cause, Adam's sin, just as He sees fit to let many every day become peculiarly evil, using as the proximate cause an evil parent or instructor: in other words, we are sinners, and for our sins must suffer; this disposition to sin was the immediate result of Adam's sin, just as a reform is sometimes the immediate result of a thunder storm; and it is equally proper to say that we shall suffer for Adam's guilt, as to say that the reformed man will be saved for or because of the fury of the tempest; in both cases the word "for," or the phrase "because of," means to refer to the sin of Adam or the storm not as the efficient cause, but simply as the precedent event in the chain of events.

Do we then claim Dr. Beecher as a Unitarian? We should be sorry to offer him what he would think so great an insult; but to our mind, the division between our own faith and his, when fully seen, is but a shadow. Though he may believe in the Trinity, and Christ's divine nature, and instantaneous regeneration, and though these things may seem to him of vast moment, they are not the points we war against. Against that faith which makes the Deity a Giant Fiend, and man the play-thing of His malignancy, we would ever do battle; and so would the author of this work: against the faith which strips man of all self-control, we would ever cry out, and it is for crying out with us that Dr. Beecher has been tried for heresy. Against him we have but one charge to make, it is that he does not speak his faith plainly; he uses words that were once to him stumbling-blocks, (p. 182,) when he might have used those that all would understand. If he said he believed men to be habitually unwilling, though able, to do their duty, all would understand him; but when he says they are unable to do good, that they cannot help themselves, he is at once in a mist, and if he taught us that we were to suffer for our sins; and that the disposition in man to sin was first seen after the fall of Adam, and in consequence of it, his teachings would be heard as varying from those which say that we must

suffer eternal woe because of our guilt in Adam's sin: and so through the whole creed.

While therefore we rejoice that a man of so so great power and influence is battling on our side, we cannot but regret that he yet, unconsciously hides his true colors: we cannot but regret that he does not give up the language of his opponents as well as their meaning; it is melancholy to see so mighty a champion crippled and borne down by name, and custom, and prejudice.

If he would but put off these weights, and stand forth to speak his own mind in his own language, though he might then wield his bolt against us, we should fear him not, for if he annihilated the name of Unitarian; it would be by speaking wider and wider the principles of Unitarianism.

At present, he says (p. 155) his preaching, if Unitarians have claimed him, has never seemed to satisfy them. It has not, and because he has not yet spoken plain enough on the subject of his faith, we trust that his next trial may, however, open his eyes to the necessity of using modern language to modern men; for to use the words we use in other senses, that ours is worse than preaching the truth is a strange tongue; the last can but leave ignorant, the first misleads.

[The above article is on a very important topic-so important that we shall take it up again, and give it a more thorough discussion. ED.]

ART. 5.-HYMN,

By REV. J. PIERPONT.

[The following beautiful Hymn will probably be new to most of our readers. It was sung on the two hundredth anniversary of the settlement of the town of Charlestown, Mass. The allusion in the fifth verse is to the Battle of Bunker Hill.

Two hundred years! two hundred years!
How much of human power and pride,

What glorious hope, what gloomy fears
Have sunk beneath their noiseless tide!

The red man at his horrid rite,

Seen by the stars at night's cold noon,

His bark canoe, its track of light

Left on the wave beneath the moon.

ED.]

His dance, his yell,-his council fire,
The altar where his victims lay,
His death-song, and his funeral pyre,
That still strong tide has borne away.

And that pal, pilgrim band is gone,
That on this shore with trembling trod,
Ready to faint, yet bearing on

The ark of freedom and of God.

And war, that since o'er ocean came,`
And thundered loud from yonder hill,
And wrapt its foot in sheets of flame.
To blast that ark-its storm is still.

Chief-sachem-sage-bard-heroes-seers,
That live in story and in song,

Time, for the last two hundred years,
Has raised, and shown, and swept along.

"Tis like a dream when one awakes-
This vision of the scenes of old:
"Tis like the moon when morning breaks,
'Tis like a tale round watch-fires told.

Then what are we?-then what are we?
Yes, when two hundred years have rolled,
O'er our green graves, our names shall be
A morning's dream, a tale that's told.

God of our fathers-in whose sight,

The thousand years that sweep away
Man, and the traces of his might,
Are but the break and close of day.

Grant us that love of truth sublime,

'That love of goodness and of thee, That makes thy children in all time, To share thy own eternity.

ART. 6.-ELVIRA.-A SKETCH.

Elvira was of a respectable family in a village not far from one of the principle cities of our country. Her parents were uneducated, but of high moral character and respectable talents. Her mother was remarked for the benevolent virtues, her father for strict integrity. She was an only daughter, and

lost her mother at an early age. This gave a reflective turn. to her disposition, and strongly influenced her future character. Naturally social in her disposition, she yet loved to be alone, to observe nature, to read and think for herself. Her education favored these original tendencies of mind, being little assisted by friends, or the modes of school education then adopted. With strong religious tendencies by nature, she had also an enquiring mind, which inclined her to receive little without examination, and led her to doubt of all systems which are not presented to the understanding or reasoning.

Have you ever thought of religion? said a friend, who was the daughter of a clergyman, one day. I think it our duty to become religious. I cannot say that I have thought much of it, said Elvira. I think of the beauty and wonder of God's works; I am filled with admiration when I think of the magnificence of his creation, the glory of the heavens; the beauty with which he has clothed the earth, and the power of life which seems to be every where diffused; but I do not comprehend the Bible.

The conversation ended with an exhortation and a resolve to read it more diligently.

At the next meeting an enquiry arose on the part of the friend, if Elvira had read Paine's Age of Reason. No, was the reply. Then I beg you never to read it, said the friend, for I acknowledge that even my faith has been shaken by it.

Curiosity led Elvira to read what had so powerfully affected her friend. She was surprised to find no argument or reasoning in the work, but only dogmatical assertions against Christianity. The only effect was to induce her to read the Saviour's life and teachings with renewed interest. She admired-she venerated the character, but could not comprehend the scheme, nor was she convinced of its necesssity.

Years passed by, producing their changes and impressions on Elvira's character. She visited different cities and became acquainted with a variety of character. She met with persons of high talents and respectability, who were doubters on the subject of religion. Some, too, who were professors, secretly acknowledged themselves unbelievers. Thus her doubts became strengthened, and she gradually looked upon Christianity as a system of expediency, true in its morality, but not to be regarded as an authentic history. This seemed to be a rational view of it, and she believed it to be that of its rational supporters.

With this freedom of opinion, yet a desire to know the truth, she hesitated not to read and to hear the skeptical doctrines