that wine, though altogether destitute of intelligence, will sometimes give wit. But when, or in what instance, was it ever known to give either wit or understanding to one, who, by nature, was deficient in both?

QUESTIONS TO DEISTS.

1. Would it not be too much to affirm, that the almost universal expectation of a future life among mankind, is wholly destitute of foundation?

2. If the Creator intended human beings for a future state, is it unreasonable to conclude that he would by some means or other make it known to them?

3. If the Supreme Being intended to make such a communication to mankind, is it conceivable how it could be done by any other means than that of a miraculous interposition?

4. If there be any consistent account of such an interposition having taken place, is it reasonable to reject that account, because the interposition did not take place precisely at the time, and in the manner which we might previously have expected? We would, however, refer it to the consideration of the attentive reader of Bishop Law's Theory of Religion, Discourse 2d; Dr. Robertson's Sermon on the State of the World at the time of Christ's appearance; and Mr. Buckminster's Sermon on the same subject, whether any period, before or since, could have been so proper in every respect for the Christian religion to have been communicated, as that in which we are informed the communication was actually made.

5. It has been sometimes alleged, that miracles are inconsistent with the character of the Almighty, considered as an omniscient and unchangeable Being. But why might not miracles, or deviations from what appear to be the established and uniform laws of nature, have entered into and constituted a part of the plan of the Divine Being, before even the commencement of creation? Where is the absurdity of concluding that the Almighty might foresee that beings, constituted as we are, would at some period or age of the world, stand in need of other more direct means to bring us to the knowledge of himself, and especially of his intentions respecting our future destiny, than any regular and uniform operations of nature, however wisely ordained? And if so, how could the employment of such means be inconsistent with his wisdom or immutability?

6. If it be objected that we must now rely entirely on human testimony (which has often proved erroneous), for the truth of such an account-and, therefore, it must necessarily be attended with a considerable degree of uncertainty-we would ask, Whether human testimony be not, in many cases, all the evidence that we can obtain? and whether, in many cases, it be not perfectly satisfactory? and, likewise, when that testimony is not satisfactory, it must not be, either because the witnesses were liable to be imposed upon themselves, or because, being actuated by sinister motives, it might be their intention to impose upon others; and which of these suppositions can be shown to be probable with respect to the first teachers of Christianity?

7. Because there have been martyrs to inconsistent and contradictory tenets, which, of course, could not be all true, by what sort of argumentation can we be led to infer, that those persons might likewise be mistaken, who persevered in bearing their uniform testimony to what they had seen and heard, which they had sufficient opportunities of examining, and of which they were competent judges?

8. How could those persons be mistaken, who affirmed that they saw a dead man raised to life again, by the mere speaking of a word, after his corpse bad begun to putrify in the grave?-John xi.

9. Was not the miracle of giving sight to a man who had been born blind, fairly investigated, immediately after it was performed? Was not the man himself examined and re-examined? Were not his parents questioned as to the facts of his having been born blind, and his identity? What more could have been done to detect the imposition if there had been any? and what motive could either the man or his parents have to assert such falsehoods?—John ix.

10. How could that disciple be mistaken with respect to the person of his Master, who saw in his hands, after his resurrection, the print of the nails by which he had been fixed to the cross, and thrust his hand into the side which had been pierced by the spear of the Roman soldier? and who affirmed, that he should not be satisfied with any other evidence?-John xx.

11, Could all the first followers of Christ labour under the same mental delusion, in thinking that they saw and conversed with their Master repeatedly after his resurrection, and imagine that they received particular instructions

from him relative to the propagation of his religion throughout the world, when nothing of the kind had ever happened in reality? Can any similar instance of ocular and auricular deception be referred to in the history of mankind? Had such a circumstance occurred, would it not have been quite as great a miracle as any of those which are related in the New Testament, and a miracle, too, performed, so far as we can perceive, for the sole purpose of deception? (To be concluded in our next.)

The English Unitarians and the Marriage Question; a Conversation.-No. 1.

"I HAVE brought with me," said L. to P. "The World newspaper, of the 17th June." "Well," replied P. "and what is there particularly interesting in The World?" "A great deal," rejoined L.; "but principally, in importance to Unitarians, a report of the late Annual Meeting of the British & Foreign Unitarian Association." "And what," inquired P. "does the report contain?" Among other things," answered L. "the following:-Mr. Smith said, that with respect to the Marriage Bill, he sincerely trusted, that measure would be carried unanimously during the next Session of Parliament. From the Prime Minister, an assurance had been given, that whatever interval was allowed him before the next Session, should be employed in removing those scruples that remained in the minds of others, so that there might be removed from Unitarians, the last badge of degradation under which they lived.' There is, therefore, a probability, that the hope which you some time ago expressed on this subject, will be realized ere long." "It is well," replied P. " that Mr. Smith talks of the badge of degradation;' but this is submitted to by Unitarians, though, in such submission, they violate their consciences. The Roman Catholics acted a more consistent and upright part; and the past, in this respect at least, presents to them much cause for pleasing reflection. However, I should not be very sanguine, to build on Mr. Smith's declaration. For the hope here held out, rests on the casualty of the Prime Minister's having an interval allowed him to consider the subject before the next Session. This interval may come, or it may not; and thus, the measure may be put off from

6

Session to Session, and may run a somewhat similar course to the Test and Corporation Acts, and the Catholic Question. I do not like the Duke's expression. It shows that he considers the measure as one of very minor importance, which may be taken up if leisure will permit, but which must not be suffered to interfere with the regular business of Parliament. And then there is Mr. Smith's 'might,' which is of very dubious import, there might be removed from Unitarians, the last badge of degradation under which they lived.' There is little ground for confidence here." "Your inference," rejoined L. "is not, I think, fairly deducible. On the contrary, I am of opinion, that sufficient ground is here afforded for a reasonable hope, that the Marriage Bill will be passed at an early opportunity, probably early next Session. In the mean time, Unitarians would do well, not to agitate the question, but to suffer it to rest." "That is," added P. "as I understand you, to bury it in oblivion.' To bury discussion in oblivion, when truth and justice are concerned, is, of all interments, the most melancholy. For it is not interring the dead, but the living; and not merely the living, but the means of life: all go together into one common grave. It is hostile, decidedly hostile to free inquiry, and all the benefits and advantages resulting from it. And how unwise is it, on the part of those who wish to pursue an upright course, and who wish to be justified in the sight of men, as well as in the sight of God. Here Unitarians have suffered. Their silence has led to evil surmises. It has been said, Relief from scruples of conscience is the alleged reason,' &c. 'Not scruples of conscience, but some other motive must have induced Unitarians,' &c. 'Conscience affords the plea, but ambition inspires the zeal.' Letters to the Marquis of Lansdowne, and the Earl of Liverpool, &c. It is best, then, to speak out, and with a decision and firmness, which conscience always inspires. For the cause of justice never loses any thing by open discussion, and truth never fares the worse for coming to the light. If the conduct of Unitarians be right in this particular instance, it can be justified by reason and argument. If it be wrong, it is of importance that they should be sensible of it; and it becomes a very serious thing in any individual, or any set of individuals, to suppress inquiry on the subject. Those who would do so, seem to entertain a suspicion that their cause will not

bear the test of examination, and the light of truth. Why, then, maintain it? Sure I am, that a cause which requires such support, deserves not the regard of upright men. And I doubt very much, whether it ever can prosper under the government of the Righteous Ruler of the universe. Far better and wiser is it, to follow purely and simply conviction, and leave worldly policy to worldlyminded men. Be the relief near or distant, discussion, I maintain, must be of service. It must awaken, and keep alive, attention to the subject. It must set the justice of our cause in a clearer light. It must make its necessity appear more manifest and imperative. It must banish the delusion which exists in the minds of many Unitarians, as to its true character. And it must excite the Unitarian Association to more prompt, decisive, and vigorous measures, for the attainment of the object, than it has hitherto pursued. Whoever would impose silence on the subject, would say, in effect, to the Unitarian body, 'Continue to violate your consciences, until it shall please the Legisla ture, in its gracious goodness, to permit you to keep them without offence.' Would this be honourable to Dissenters? Would it be pleasing in the sight of God?" "This," replied L. "is going sadly too far. It is taking too serious a view of the case. It is, in fact, making much-a-do about nothing." "About nothing! did you say?" rejoined

P.

"Then is it nothing to sacrifice principle, at the foot of the altar? Is it nothing to bow down to the Trinity, when you utterly disbelieve it? Nay, when you are firmly persuaded, that it is a gross corruption of Christianity, and recognises objects of worship that have no warrant in the Scriptures?"

K.

Letters addressed to a small Unitarian Congregation, by their former Minister.

LETTER III.

"In the morning, prayer the key that opens the treasury of God's mercies; in the evening, it is the key that shuts us up under his protection and safeguard."-Bishop Hopkins.

MY CHRISTIAN FRIENDS,

In my last, I dwelt with some length on the important advantages of public worship; advantages to which I hope that you are not wholly strangers. In the