"We then," whispered Teresa, will keep to the last kind of mysticism, and no other shall take you away from me.".

Theodore pressed her hand, and said, "Fear not, dearest Teresa, it is your love alone which inspires in me every thing great and noble." As warmly as he said and believed this, he yet had in his heart a certain emptiness. He felt that he had been understood by none of the company, not even by Teresa; that by what he had expressed, he had gone out of the circle of ideas and opinions which ruled among them; this became clear to him when he had reached his home, and reflected in cold blood on what had passed. In the mean time he paid no great heed to it, and only thought of following out further his new ideas.

ART. 12.-LETTERS,

On the Difficulties of Religion. BY CATHARINE E. BEECHER, Hartford-Belknap & Hammersley, 1836-pp. 350.

This book is for all those who are not evangelical Christians, whether Atheists, Deists, Universalists, Unitarians, or heretics in the abstract. It is written in a kind and Christian spirit, the only exception being in the first letter, in which Frances Wright is personally abused; this abuse is according to the preface, unwise and unchristian, and is clearly unwomanly; we hope therefore in another edition to see it wholly blotted

out.

The parts of the work in which we feel most interested are those addressed to Unitarians, and upon them we shall remark briefly, but freely. Our object will be to show from these Letters, what we tried to show from Dr. Beecher's Views in Theology, the nothingness of the dividing lines between the Unitarian and the modern evangelical Christian.

In doing this, we will first state the principles contained in the 8th and 9th Letters, every part of which we look at as true, and worthy of all praise. In these Letters it is agreed. that character will decide our fate after death, and that, of those things bearing upon character, that which we may and should influence is "the governing purpose of our lives;"-perfect elements of character we cannot have,-principles that shall never fail, we cannot have,-sure views of right and truth we cannot have, but a right and Godly purpose of life we can and must have; this purpose must be to give God the first

place in our affections, and his service the first place in our interests and efforts; this is "true piety;" this is what we must do to be saved.-(p. 330.)

Such are Miss Beecher's views of the evangelical faith, and from them we will draw but this one inference, that the importance of our views of right and truth rests upon the power of influencing the character, and of course, that such views as cannot influence the character, [are unimportant as respects salvation.

Let us now, with these things in mind, see what are the differences between the Unitarian and his opponent.

Unitarianism, it is said (p. 272) does not teach the distinctive doctrines of Christianity; and in the 19th Letter, we have at some length these "distinctive doctrines:" The great one is the Divinity of Christ, and this doctrine is important because it affects the character, and it affects the character thus,-if Christ were God, then God has made a personal sacrifice for us, and thus is a strong cause of love to God produced, which does not exist if Christ were not God; nay, if he were not, we shall give to Christ what is due to God-our supreme love. In order to make the conclusion just one other premise is to be proved, viz: that man will love more strongly a Being that left this world for his good some centuries since, than a Being that guards him daily, and daily blesses him. Unless this is clear, it is not clear that God's identity with Christ will induce us to love him any the more; if it is for Christ's character that we love him, or for his death as a proof of that character, the argument has no weight, for the purity and nobleness of the Son takes not from that of the Father; and before a faith in the Divinity of Christ can be shown to affect the character, we must show a disposition in man to love those that make sacrifices for him long since, rather than those that do him good now. Moreover, if Christ were God, where was the sacrifice, the essence of which must have been leaving this life? Again, if the argument have any force, the Trinitarian should love Christ far more than either of the other Persons in the Trinity. And yet again, if it be true, we always should in fact, love the self-sacrificing patriot more than our nearest and kindest living friend.

Miss Beecher speaks of Christ's death as a new manifestation of the character of God; very true, but it was not the manifestation of a new trait in that character. Our views of God's character as Unitarians, agree with hers in kind, and we say in degree; and if so, the Divinity of Christ is not a distinctive Gospel doctrine affecting character,

The next "distinctive doctrine" seems to be that punishment will be eternal and certain. The certainty Unitarians believe in, but respecting the perpetuity they are divided; but can any one that has read the Bible think that my faith as to when the chance to reform will end, determines my being a Christian? Is the one great purpose of Christ's mission to teach the eternity of punishment? If not, then a universal rejection of that doctrine by Unitarians, should not exclude them from the pale of Christianity, any more than a belief or disbelief in a deathbed repentance.

The only other "distinctive doctrine" mentioned by Miss Beecher, is the necessity of piety, or a supreme love of God and devotion to his will and work, and in her views as to this necessity, we believe Unitarians will in general agree, as far as she has explained them; at least Unitarianism does not reject the doctrine, nor do Unitarians profess not to know whether they need do any thing to be saved, as is insinuated on p. 331: we say "insinuated," because the assertion is only, in substance, that Unitarians are not agreed as to the duration of punishment, while the phrase seems to mean that they are not agreed that men need do any thing for their salvation; we are happy to say this is the only thing like perversion that we have met with.

From this work, then, we do not learn that the school to which Miss Beecher belongs holds any doctrine affecting character, which Unitarians reject; but does it equally agree in the faith of the old Calvinists. Look for a moment at the position of the new school; it thinks man able to help himself, and thinks God has offered him certain motives to do so; on one side stands the Unitarian, agreeing that man can help himself, but not agreed as to the motives offered; on the other is the old Calvinist, denying man's ability, and of course all motives, for it is absurd to talk of God's offering motives to one that cannot move; and yet this new school claims to be of the same sect even with the last man, and denies the very name of Christian to the first. Does not the statement prove the inconsistency.

But Miss Beecher speaks not of the Unitarians' faith alone, but also of those that claim to be Unitarians, of their coldness, worldliness, and want of Christian fervor; and in most that she says we agree. We believe our sect to be in a great measure composed of those that think less of positive religious duties, than they do of denying opposing dogmas: there is a vast deal of good in the orthodox theologies which they cast out with what they hold to be bad, and the result is a great

want of real feeling, true piety, genuine devotion, and firm faith. We wish Unitarians did feel as their faith should lead them to, the absolute necessity of that love of God which would make the great end of life his service; we wish they would read the Bible more to learn what they should do, and should believe: we are too often sceptics, too seldom believers, forced into existence on the principle of opposition and nega tion. We have as yet neglected too much all affirmation and positive teaching. But, though error must be warred with, it is a nobler and better task to teach Truth than to root out Falsehood; and never, while we feel how widely most of us stray from the true path of action, while we know how few serve God and do His will as the first of duties, need we give what little strength we have to disputes on points too knotted and twisted to serve any purpose, unless it be to kindle unholy warfare.

Let any Unitarian read Miss Beecher's work, and he will be surprised to see how reasonable a thing is modern Evangelical Christianity. We wish all of her faith would speak it as plainly as she does; we wish they would drop their misleading nomenclature; it is not fair nor honest to use debateable terms in theology, when clear ones abound. To talk of inability, when they mean unwillingness; and our sinning in Adam when they mean that we sin ourselves. Let these opponents of old Calvinism stand boldly out and denounce it, not seek to creep under its skirts and stab it there; why fight so for a name? Why turn from the open arms of Truth, to claim a place under the scant mantle of Presbyterianism? There is and can be no broader line of division between two religious parties than does and must exist between the advocates of ability and those of inability; it is no mere metaphysical question upon which they differ, but one that is ever influencing, if not the conduct, the character; what is a difference about the Trinity compared to it? And yet there are those that "wish to heal this difference;" as well might they cut off a man's head, and then wish to heal the wound.

There are some letters in Miss B's book respecting the unfairness of Unitarians in controversy and other points, all which we pass, in the hope, however, that some able hand may hereafter discuss them; and with the wish that such as can, will read these Letters, we leave them.

J. H. P.

ART. 13.-REASONS FOR LEAVING THE LAW.

Dear Sir,-In reply to your inquiry, why I leave my profession, I answer, 1st, because in a city it is too sedentary and adverse to firm health; 2d, because the drudgery of it is injurious to the intellect; 3d, because the devotion which it requires is greater than I am willing to give to any merely worldly concern, which either does not affect my higher pow ers or impairs them; and 4th, because the rules of morality by which lawyers are governed, do not, in many points, coincide with my own views, and I am not independent enough of my daily labor, to enable me to oppose the ways of the profession. Upon this last point alone sha!! I say any thing.

The common code among the lawyers with whom I have talked, is this, that they are not called on to refuse to conduct suits, the bringing or resisting of which is clearly wrong on the part of their client; and that their business is to see the law enforced, and not to attend to the equitable operation of that law in certain cases: for instance, one man rents a house of another for a month, when the month is up, the owner wishes to let it to some one else, and the tenant wishes to retain it though he has no shadow of right; this tenant goes to a lawyer and states his wish, the lawyer sees that he has no claim, but he appears for him before the justice, the justice decides against the tenant, but his proceedings have, in some point, been informal, and the lawyer takes advantage of this want of form to remove the case to a higher court, where it may remain undecided for one or two years, during which time the tenant retains possession. In this case, the lawyer, instead of refusing to assist in gaining what he knows to be an unjust claim, uses the law, which was made to prevent injustice, to work injustice; he sees the claim to be wrong in the claimant, he knows that should he assist the claimant as a friend, he would be equally in the wrong, but as a lawyer he does right: now to my mind, no man can rightfully do as a lawyer, what is wrong in him as a man; he cannot by assuming a profession put off God's moral law: and as to his duty being to see the law fulfilled, it is not so if the law is meant to work injustice; nor if, from man's imperfection, it does work injustice in particular cases; his duty is to see the purpose of the law, and not its letter, fulfilled, and that is justice.

It is said, however, that the law must be literally carried out, or it becomes uncertain, and the consequent public injury more than outweighs the private good: this principle should