alleled! O, we are sick to the heart of such pretersions to the exclusive possession of all the sincerity, piety, and real religion that there is in the world. It is perfectly inexplicable to us how christians, who are constantly insisting that their views are the most humbling, are as constantly throwing out charges and insinuations, and adopting a kind of reasoning, that says as plainly as words can say, 'We are sincere, and you are all hypocritical; we have a real interest in religion for its own sake, while you only pretend to it for sinister purposes.' If our Bible did not tell us, and all creation did not tell us, that orthodoxy is false, we should suspect it from this very spirit of arrogance and self-sufficiency so often to be seen. We have no wish to be brought under such influences or in any degree exposed to them. And could we ever despair of the truth, we should despair utterly of our own faith, whenever and wherever it assumed this tone or attempted to use such weapons. As to the article of which we have just spoken, we have it not at hand, and have only given its substance as we remember it. It seems to us to be thoroughly unchristian in its object, and we know it, so far as such things can be known, to be entirely unsupported by facts; this we say from some personal intimate knowledge of most of the new Unitarian societies.

In the last number of the Spirit of the Pilgrims, there is a notice of Mr. Farr's Plain Letters. Of this book, or of the Reviewer's remarks upon it, we have nothing to say. But there are some assertions in the article which we will notice. There is a reiteration of the old story about Scott and his Force of Truth.-Every one knows how much has been done, by the help of this book, to make it appear that Scott was once a

Unitarian, and that his Unitarianism was the cause of his hypocrisy and sin before his conversion. Here we have it in sufficiently plain terms. From a quarrelsome, overbearing, cold-blooded Unitarian, he became a kind, humble, affectionate, and persevering follower of the benevolent Jesus.' So says the Spirit of the Pilgrims.

We hardly know a more unworthy or unfair mode of assault than this of which Scott has been made the instrument. Here is a thorough hypocrite, according to his own deliberate confession-without principle, without conscience, without any thing that deserved the name of faith-acknowledging that he had read very little and knew very little of any religious system, but being as far as he understood the controversy, nearly a Socinian and Pelagian,' preparing for the holy office from the lowest motives and in an irreligious frame, 'in known sin and utter neglect of prayer'—his conscience such as it was, ' clamorously reproached him with base hypocrisy, not only entering but continuing in the ministry some years in the same irreligious state-at last converted, not from one faith to another, for he had no faith, but from an unprincipled and wicked, to a conscientious, good man-and then throwing all the guilt of his former life on his having been a Socinian, though he pretends not to have seen but one book of that character, and nobody knows what that was, nor what he supposed Socinian meant! This is the case. on this is built a mighty argument against Socinianism or Unitarianism, for those who do not know what either word means cannot see any difference between them. But where is the argument? Here. Scott was hypo

And

critical and irreligious before his conversion, and after that called his former doctrine Socinian : therefore-if you cannot see the connexion, reader, between the premise and the conclusion, it is your own fault, we cannot make it clearer-therefore, all who call themselves Socinians or Unitarians are hypocritical and irreligious!

We are in earnest. This does seem to us a perfectly fair statement of the facts and of the reasoning in this case. There is not to our knowledge a particle of evidence that Scott was ever a Unitarian. There is abundant and fearful evidence, out of his own mouth, that he was a hypocrite, 'with a heart full of pride and wickedness,' 'living in the practice of what he knew to be sinful, and in the entire neglect of all secret religion,' subscribing 'articles directly contrary to what he believed,' governed by motives selfish and worldly. And then to bring odium on a particular name and faith, he and his followers ascribe to it all his wickedness, when there is no proof at all that his faith, whatever it was, had any influence in forming his character; and it is clear his character changed before his faith.

But what if he were a Unitarian? Was there never a Trinitarian equally corrupt, a Trinitarian minister? Have not orthodox opinions allowed if not led men to indulge in sin and continue in it, though in high and sacred places? Yes, we have known such cases. They are now on our minds, and some of them of an aggravated nature, some too in which the individuals covered over or rather softened their unfaithfulness and sin by their peculiar doctrines of Calvinism.

There is something that looks a little like such an attempt in this very case. We have here an extract from the sermon preached at the funeral of Scott, by Rev. D. Wilson; in which he speaks of Scott's 'overcoming his constitutional failings,' such as 'roughness and severity of temper, pride of intellect,' and the like, at the time of his conversion. Now how any one, least of all a christian minister, can speak of such sins as those of Scott before his change, under the soft terms of 'constitutional failings, &c.'-we know not, unless it be through the singular influence of a system. At least such things do happen under that system, and some unpleasant instances have come under our knowledge in this country. But we scorn to make use of them to defame a sect or a doctrine. Every vice as well as every virtue is found under every kind of faith, within the closest pale of every church. It is childish, it is unchristian and self-condemning, to bring forth such things as arguments. The whole management of this story of Scott's conversion is dishonest and disreputable. The simple truth is, he was a wicked man and he became a good man; he had no faith and he embraced Calvinism; that is all. His friends may have all the credit of his goodness, which we would not in the least disparage. We believe it was real goodness, sincere and useful piety. With that let them be content, and find, if they possibly can, some better ways than this of propping up their system or weakening ours.

This same article in the Spirit of the Pilgrims

asserts that Dr Watts was never a Unitarian, a as they asserted some time since that Newton never was. Though much has been said on these points, we may take them up in another number.

A Memoir of Miss Hannah Adams, written by Herself. With Additional Notices by a Friend. Boston, Gray and Bowen. 1832. 12mo. pp. 110.

This little volume we regard as a valuable legacy to the public. It contains satisfactory, though not very copious notices of one of the few females of our land, who have made themselves extensively known by their writings; who was self-educated; who by several useful publications proved herself the friend of knowledge and of religion; who was distinguished for purity of mind, warmth of heart, singular modesty and humility, and openness and childlike simplicity of manners; whose good qualities and efforts secured a permanency of public esteem and favor; who was a rational Christian from inquiry and conviction, enlightened, sincere and fervent; and who to the close of a long life retained that quick kindling of the affections, and susceptibility to the emotions of kindness and gratitude, which are usually thought to belong rather to youth than to age. Such was Hannah Adams. Her example, while it recommends piety, love and truth and virtue, also shows the power of industry, and force of perseverance in overcoming difficulties,