which have been suggested throughout. What is essential Doctrine? What is essential Duty?

What is essential Doctrine? This question each class of Christians will answer, at first thought, in favor of their own doctrine. Yet they will not say, none say, that their own doctrine only has ever saved a soul. All admit the probability, if not certainty, that with other doctrines men have sometimes led the Christian life, and been saved. Therefore they abandon the assumption, that their own views are absolutely essential. They contend for their own views, and may use language and measures, which intimate the positive necessity of embracing these views, in order to be saved. Still they shrink from the implied but awful inference, that all but themselves are to be lost forever. They accuse us of misrepresentation and calumny, if we impute to them any such declaration or opinion. And thus they yield the whole, so far as it concerns the essential. This is a vast concession. It is a grave matter, not sufficiently weighed. It throws light upon our whole inquiry, and we must stop a moment to illustrate it.

The Episcopalian believes in the apostolic succession. He holds scrupulously to the divine right of Bishops, denies the validity of any other ordination, and at least doubts the efficacy of all other administrations. Yet what Episcopalian believes, that none but those whom their Bishops ordain ever preach Christ, or that all who receive ordinances and services at other hands, all other protestant sects, perish everlastingly? The Baptist believes in immersion, as the only baptism into Christ, required of all who would be Christians and be saved. Yet what Baptist would say, that all souls, whose bodies have not been under the water, are doomed to eternal destruction? Does he, who adheres most rigidly to close communion on earth, expect or desire to find a similar communion in heaven, from which all Congregationalists, Episcopalians, Methodists, Catholics, are eternally excluded? No. Then the Baptist does not believe immersion to be essential. And the Episcopalian does not believe episcopacy to be essential.

Trinitarians generally insist that a belief in the trinity is essential. But what is the trinity? Which of the fifty different definitions and different doctrines is it, that is essential? Or is it only something and anything, that takes the name of trinity? Will either of the five different trinities, which Bishop

Stillingfleet has described, be sufficient? Is the Sabellian trinity as good as the Athanasian? Does Stuart in our own day hold as sound a trinity, as Sherlock did in his? If we believe in such a view as most trinitarians now give us, when we talk with them, shall we be accepted? Will the most sincere and pious Trinitarians say, that the millions who have believed in the simple undivided unity of God, from the first century to the present, have miserably perished, and all who shall ever take the same faith will die the same eternal death? No. Then the trinity is not essential.

Protestants generally condemn Popery, as antichrist. They give it even worse names, than any which they apply to the worst forms of protestant error. But none of them would say that there never was a pious Catholic, or that out of that vast community, so much larger than all the rest of christendom, there are not multitudes who are forgiven and saved. So even reversing the position. Papists all condemn the Protestant. But when you talk with them, you do not find an intelligent member of the whole Catholic church, who will say that no Protestant ever has been or ever can be saved. Where then is the essential doctrine?

Clearly, by the confession of all, it is not any one doctrine that can be named, or any system that can be defined, which men soberly believe to be the exclusive condition and only ground of salvation. There is not one doctrine or system, which some have not held, and yet been false and lost. There is not one doctrine or system, which some have not lived without, and yet been pious and accepted. And the simple reason is, not that systems are all bad, or doctrines ever unimportant, but that systems are human, and doctrines. interpreted by fallible men. For observe, it is not the doctrine merely, which different Christians present as essential, but their interpretation of the doctrine; and this is always human and fallible. This shows the chief separation between us, as Unitarians, and most others. It is not the doctrine of Christ's divinity, that we pronounce untrue or unessential, but their interpretation of it; not regeneration, not conversion, not the atonement, that we reject, but only their view of them; a difference as palpable and wide, as that between divine truth and human error. And this men will see, this all humble believers do feel, when they come to the practical application of their essential doctrines, in view of all souls and everlasting life.

"If any man

But is there no essential doctrine? Yes. There is a foundation on which every man must build. The stone, which was set at nought by the builders, has become the head of the corner. "Neither is there salvation in any other; for there is none other name under heaven given among men whereby we must be saved." All Christians will say, CHRIST. And with our whole hearts we respond, CHRIST. And now we ask, of what are you thinking, when you repeat that name, and set it forth as the great essential? Are you thinking of a doctrine? And what doctrine?" The doctrine of the Cross," would be the general orthodox answer. And one more truly orthodox and just cannot be given, in few words. But what is the doctrine of the Cross? This; that Christ died to save us, and that if we believe and follow him, we shall be saved; not otherwise. If we believe and follow CHRIST. It must come to this. The doctrine of life is the spirit of obedience. have not the spirit of Christ, he is none of his." There is another view of essential doctrine. It is essential that we find and hold all of truth, that we possibly can. It is a small thing, to seek only so much truth as may keep us from condemnation. It is a low view of God and Christ, of duty and salvation, to ask how much we must believe, or what we must say and do, to save ourselves from hell. The great salvation is deliverance from SIN. No doctrine or life is of much worth, that does not keep us from sin. And no one can doubt, that some doctrines do deter from sin, more than others. Though it be true, that no system contains all truth, some systems contain more truth than others, and therefore will possess more moral efficacy, exert more saving power. Some doctrines, that may not lead us away from Christ, may yet fail to bring us to Christ. Some, that exalt him most in words, may create least of his spirit and life. Those are best, and may with most reason be called essential, which do most to purify the heart, to make the spirit meek, and the life useful and holy.

Let us look a moment at the doctrine of Atonement in this connection; as that, more than any other perhaps, is now deemed essential, and supposed to have the best influence of all. What is it, that is thus regarded, under this name? The name itself, the word "atonement, was never used by Christ, nor more than once is it found in the New Testament.

And then there are as many different definitions of the atonement, as of the trinity. The modern doctrine is so distinct from the ancient, that none will bear now the imputation of that which was once pronounced essential. To say then that you believe in the atonement, is to say nothing definite. We all say that. We believe in the atonement, cordially and religiously. And if any tell us, it is idle and a mockery in you to say so, for if you believe it at all, it is only in your own way,' we reply, it is only in your way that you believe in it.' We could add, as our firm belief, it is not in the scriptural way.' Trinitarians and Calvinists do not believe in the true atonement, as we read the Bible. For the doctrine there is Reconciliation, the reconciliation of man to God. But the atonement of Calvinism is one that means and requires the reconciliation of God to man. These are directly opposed, and cannot both stand. Paul says, "Christ gave himself for us, that he might redeem us from all iniquity, and purify unto himself a peculiar people, zealous of good works." Calvin and most trinitarians virtually say,Christ gave himself for us, that he might redeem us from the wrath or justice of GOD, and purify unto himself a peculiar people, suspicious of good works. The apostle writes, "God was in Christ reconciling the world unto himself." The Calvinist insists, that God was in Christ reconciling himself to the world. Can both be true? We say not; and we say also, that that which is not true cannot be salutary, and is in no sense essential. At the same time, we see that there is that in the doctrine of atonement, which is true and momentous; namely, that man must be reconciled to God; and that if the life and death of Christ do not reconcile and subdue him, he is in awful peril. This we all believe. This is essential doctrine, and there is none greater, none more solemn, than this; that "Jesus Christ came into the world to save sinners," and that if sinners are not saved, if they are not redeemed from all iniquity, they are lost. Is it essential, that we believe anything as to the mode in which this redemption is wrought? No. But it is essential that we believe in the Fact, and the Duty it involves; believe that "the blood of Christ" answers the end for which it was shed, when it "cleanses from all sin," and only then.

The Duty. We have left little space for this, but we must answer the question, what is the essential Duty? And we

must answer, in general terms, hoping to say more hereafter. Duty pertains to everything. It pertains to all work, and all thought also. It pertains not least to doctrine, for doctrine involves truth; and no man can know or do his duty, who does not know or seek the truth. No man does his duty, or can do it, until he has looked into the truths of religion, for these affect all his relations to God, man, and his own destiny;

and these are doctrines. No man does his duty, who goes not to the highest sources of truth, in prayer, in study, in independent inquiry, and impartial, humble temper. No man reaches the essential duty, who becomes passively, by mere descent, custom, or fashion, a member of any sect or communion, Catholic, Episcopal, Presbyterian, Baptist, Methodist, Quaker, or Unitarian, even if the system into which he thus inertly falls be the true and best. It is not enough to be attached to any form of truth, the most orthodox, the most saving. That truth must be voluntarily sought, prayerfully studied, thoroughly imbibed, or it will not be truth to that mind, and cannot have the power of salvation.

The essential duty then is, to seek all truth, and make it a part of the individual mind, a part and principle of all life. But do not think that duty refers only to life. We like not the talk of some of our people, about the sufficiency of living well; as if they could live well, if they do not live to God, or could live to God, if they study not or follow not his word in Christ. We like not the way of some preachers, in keeping wholly to the practical, exclusive of the doctrinal; as if the doctrinal were not to be learned and well pondered, before the practical can be wholly or rightly performed. It is a flagrant evil, that any 'people, calling themselves Christians, do not feel it an imperious duty to learn what Christianity is, in all its parts, and be able to explain and defend their view of it. To be ignorant of religion, to have no settled opinions, no established and treasured doctrines, is dishonorable and dangerous. There is a knowledge that is essential to strength of conviction and soundness of faith. There is a doctrinal duty, as well as a practical duty. Men must have, they will have, some doctrines; and woe unto them, if they be not the doctrines of truth. If religion does not lie in opinions or forms, neither does it lie in the decencies and moralities of life. Why confine it to either? How clear, that religion, obligation, duty, comprises all we can do for the good of man, for