very element of danger, that evil passes off in the company of good; and it would be impossible to frame a set of opinions calculated to gain any followers, that had not some truth in them.

The real question therefore to be answered, is, not what contains some good, but can we find anything BETTER; and which upon the whole is the BEST?

The most deadly superstitions may contain all essential religious truth, as a poisoned loaf contains the elements of sustenance; but it is precisely the addition of evil which is dangerous; and is dangerous only because under the appearance of "something good." The sentiment therefore, is not merely useless as a rule of thought and action; but exceedingly pestiferous, as forming the basis for a logic of deception; and is the sure method of luring men into fatal errors; so that whatever good there may be in all religions, there is no good, but unmixed evil in this compendious theology; which settles all religious controversies by the mere utterance of an impertinence.

We may further examine how far this vague sentiment is true, in the sense intended, and how far liberal, in the purpose for which it is employed.

The sense intended, must imply that all religions are good upon the whole, or each one taken as a system; which is a plain pretence and naked assumption; an unsupported dogma in the creed of the unbelievers; for they have their articles of faith, as essential to communion under the priesthood of doubt.

We need not refer here, to the different sections of Protestantism, since these are not different religions, but for the most part, accidental forms of the same essential Christianity, as men of different features, belong to the one human family: but looking beyond these to the systems of Mohammedism and Paganism, we may deny that in any appropriate sense, there is something good in all these religions.

Taken as a whole, they are degrading and fatal errors. Nothing is clearly established in the estimation of those who have really compared the various religions in the world, than the conclusion, that we have to choose between Christianity and no religion at all: and this the infidel would understand and confess, if he had once tried to bring forward any system of heathenism into competition with the gospel.

Until our sceptics shall have done this, and shewn in the trial a more competent knowledge of the religions they compliment, than is too often shewn of the religion they reject, we may fairly hold to the negative of the proposition, and declare that there is not something good in all religions.

Nor shall we be able to arrive at a more favourable conclusion respecting the apparent liberality of the sceptical oracular dictum: since it is not in order to shew respect to any form of religion, that they declare there is some good in all; but only to disparage the claims of that which is presented to them: so that this Catholic sentiment-there is good in. all-is simply an insult to all religion, being an indirect way of rejecting: each, under the garb of a respect for all.

This may be illustrated by a few instances which have come under my own notice, of an attempt to disparage Christianity, seeing no good there, because there is some good everywhere.

Thus, a writer in reviewing Emerson's representative men observes, that "in his (Emerson's) reflections on Plato, he enunciates some awkward facts, which, though not unknown to the sceptical world, almost appear new when delivered in the author's peculiar style. He finds Christianity in Plato's Phoedo; and as Christianity is posterior to Plato, some three hundred years, it is by no means unnatural to come to the conclusion that Christianity was mainly, if not altogether, founded on the dogmas of Plato. Especially as we have historical evidence that Christians of the first ages were denominated Platonists."

Here we see that Christianity is robbed of its glory, by the good which Mr. Emerson is said to have found in Plato: would it not be easy for these writers to give us chapter and verse in Plato, passages from his writings in parallel columns, with verses from the New Testament?

They would then have no need to rely on historical testimony; but might compare at once the gospel of Plato, with that of Jesus: no! this plan would be too tedious, so they let Emerson find Christianity in Plato, and on this second-hand discovery-a mere wild and ridiculous pretencethey found the natural but illogical conclusion, that Christianity is founded on the dogmas of Plato: whereas it is all a dogma of Emerson. And they are especially confirmed in this conclusion by the historical fact, that Christians were called Platonists: perhaps they have forgotten an equally historical fact, that these Christians were also called Atheists, and so they may next find Christianity founded on Atheism; which is just as true, as that it is to be found in Plato's Phoedo.

It is vain, therefore to point out to such the claims of the gospel, for the defence is ready, oh, yes, there is something good in all religions, and Christianity must give place to both Grecian mythology, and Grecian philosophers.

How far this general compliment is intended for a liberal opinion, may be seen, by comparing the two following pieces of criticism occurring in the same work; speaking of Emerson's depreciation of Christianity, the writer observes, that but for this, "no doubt Emerson would have found more favour with the great of this world, but would have missed the admiration and respect of those who wish to know the truth" in other words, these men have no admiration or respect for one who does not think with them, however conscientious he may be: and their respect for an Infidel writer, is "because he panders to no interest or prejudice;" that is, because he happens to fall in with their prejudices.

But in reviewing another book, the writer consistently observes,"heartily do we commend the work to our secular friends, AS NO OPINIONS ARE OUTRAGED from the beginning to the end of these very nice works." To attack Christianity, and insult Christian readers, is a noble instance of not pandering to prejudice: but to state a different view to the one entertained by the secular friends, is to "outrage opinions!"

So very forbearing and liberal are these writers on their own side; their sacred convictions are not to be outraged, by the expression of other people's; yet they "love a man, not because he panders to interest or prejudice, but value him solely for pursuing the opposite course" towards Christians, to that which they admire towards the "secular brethren."

We find a certain class of sceptics full of liberality, not only to them

selves, and their fellow doubters, but even to superstition of the grossest kind, and second-hand truths stolen from the Bible which they repudiate. Hence the reviewer of Emerson complains, that-"to speak of Hebrew traditions as the ravings of frantic mystics, and to point out the divine truths in the oracles of Vishnu and Mahomet," would, in other times, have exposed the discoverer to the censures of the Church.

In all this, it is assumed that there are divine truths in these systems: whilst there are only raving fantasies in the Hebrew traditions, from which Mahomet obtained all that is true in his system.

We might prove Christianity from the Koran; but these logicians prove that there is nothing good in Christianity, because there is a divine truth in Mahomet's plagiarisms, from Moses and Christ.

Indeed, it is well known to the students of mythology, that even Hindooism is in many respects founded on the tradition of the flood, their avatars or incarnations, being only Noah or his sons coming to repeat the transactions of the deluge.

So that the very systems they point to as having truths, whilst the Bible has fables, are but the repetition and burlesque of Biblical facts and doctrines! And this, without those pure and holy principles, which the Bible inculcates, and by which it is distinguished from all super

stitions.

"Blessed Mahomet! divine Vishnu! holy Juggernaut! but cursed Christ, and raving Apostles!" Such is the liberal creed of our freethinkers, who see "some good in all religions," except in that from which all the good is purloined.

Reviews and Criticisms in our next.

I.

CHRIST'S RELIGION.

"PROVE ALL THINGS; HOLD FAST THAT WHICH IS GOOD." 1 Thess. v. 12.

THE BATTLE OF LIFE, AND HOW TO WIN IT;
OR THE MORAL OF OUR LORD'S TEMPTATION.

WHILST no system either of religion or philosophy more earnestly appeals to the reason or understanding of men, than Christianity; it may also be expected that in many things our reason will be taxed to the utmost:-not to arrive at the great scope and purpose, salvation by faith in Jesus Christ; for this being the most important, is consequently the plainest;-but to see into other parts, to understand their nature and purposes, and thus acquire the whole practical lesson, this must sometimes be the result of study and prayerful effort.

From what we already know of the general doctrines of the gospel,that they are according to godliness, the mysteries of godliness, in other words, practical,-God's prescriptions for making men godly, we are warranted in assuming the general rule, that whatever the gospel contains, is not a mere matter of curious, learned, or philosophical speculation, but of earnest thoughtful enquiry, for useful ends, to base duties on doctrines; and accordingly our enquiry into the temptation of our Lord is for this purpose, to see what spiritual duties and relationships arise out of these wonderful scenes. It is the moral or spiritual purpose of gospel facts, we have chiefly to do with.

This purpose, is at once their vindication and explanation. If the trial of our Lord stood alone, unrelated to human trial and a great moral system, it would simply be a wonder for the Christian to stumble at, and for the sceptic to kick at: but when we see its manifold bearings; the warning, comfort, and instruction it conveys, the great object answered, justifies the machinery employed.

The reasoning we are accustomed to apply to miracles, is applicable to the temptation, to every important circumstance of the Redeemer's life. If they stood alone, as isolated wonders, they would be without purpose and without truthfulness: but as these miracles were the heralds of greater mircles in doctrine, as much out of and superior to the common course of thought, as the physical miracles are out of the common course of nature, there is a congruity or fitness, which satisfies our reason, and excites our admiration. Feeding five thousand, with five loaves, would be a strange event, which standing without further purpose, would sink the credit of any historian: but related to a system of truth, that is to be

the life of the soul, and is appropriately symbolized by the bread which nourisheth the body; it becomes altogether another question. A single unmeaning miracle, without design or fitness, would be received only by the credulous and superstitious: but a miracle or series of them, associated with an equally miraculous advance in moral and religious truth, affecting the earthly condition and final destiny of mankind, is worthy of the Maker of mankind, and will obtain the calmest and clearest attention of the deepest philosopher. One is a portent for vulgar wonder, the other a call to logical enquiry.

These principles, apply equally to the TEMPTATION, which also is a miracle or wonderful series of events. Were this recorded of another, or even of Christ, without any relation to us, it would be either truthless or worthless but connected with the Author of salvation to mankind, it is consistent with the grand scale and importance of his earthly life and connected also with our moral trial, as a symbol of our danger, help, and possible victory; it becomes more evidently consistent and truthful. There are two main parts under which we may arrange all observations on this great subject:

I. THE TEMPTATION ITSELF:

II. ITS APPLICATION, OR THE RELATIONS OF IT TO OTHERS;—THE

PRACTICAL INSTRUCTION IT CONVEYS.

I. The Temptation itself.

There are two parties here represented as engaged; Christ and the Devil; the Saviour and the enemy of mankind. It was the old serpent, and the new Adam: the first temptation in paradise was man and Satan; this is God and Satan; and all temptation of men, all trial of their principle of men apart from the regenerating power of the gospel is a reenacting of the first scene; Satan and Adam; the enemy and man; but all temptation of sincere believers, is the contest in principle, like thisbetween Satan and God, or between Satan and the human, aided by the divine element, vouchsafed through and exhibited in Christ. It is the world, the flesh, and the Devil, striving against the spirit; or new element sent to help in our contest with the agencies and tendencies of evil. It is the struggle between the law of the spirit of life from Christ Jesus, and all opposite incitements: it is man with God's panoply, contending with man's enemy: but this view of temptation, will have to be more fully considered, under the second head; the relation or application of our Lord's trial to us. The point is simply suggested here, that we may carry through the enquiry a complete though anticipatiory view of the subject. Man was tempted in Adam; the Christian was tempted in Christ; that is, those two cases, Adam and Christ, were leading specimens of a large class: that as in Adain men die; in Christ, Christians live. But the point here especially to be noticed, is the re-appearance of the original tempter, to contend with a different subject. And this leads us to enquire into the nature of temptation, in connexion with God's providence.

Many regard it as against truth and reason, that God should have allowed a tempter to enter paradise and spoil his work; they say, no wise earthly parent would allow his children to be so exposed to danger, and therefore they do not believe, that God did allow it; in other words, they