Nor is it a valid argument for its continuance, that it is made subservient to objects of public interest, and is thus productive of benefits which may be regarded as a setoff to the evils it occasions. Canals, bridges, or other objects for which lotteries are commonly authorized, important as they may be, are obtained too dearly, if obtained by means unfavourable to the rational pursuits of industry, and sober habits, in a considerable portion of the community.*

England long pursued the lottery system as a source of revenue, but at length discovered that it augmented her poor rates faster than it swelled her treasury. Laws successively enacted did not prevent its abuses, and in 1816 a resolution was introduced into the House of Commons with a view to abolish it entirely. The attempt failed; but it has since been renewed with success. An English writer informs us, that during the debate on the resolution referred to, "various instances were related of the mischievous effects of the Lottery,and of the infatuation which had blinded the dupes of this species of gambling. A prize was frequently the ruin of a whole town or village, by exciting among the inhabitants a propensity to engage in this losing game. Mr. Buxton related a curious instance of a village where there was a benefit society for the support of the sick and aged. In a town in the neighbourhood, there was an association of a different kind, formed for speculating in the Lottery; a prize was gained of two or three thousand pounds, which immediately

*When a government derives a profit from the licensing of lotteries or gambling houses, what does it else but offer a premium to a vice most fatal to domestic happiness and destructive to national prosperity? How disgraceful is it, to see a government, thus acting as the pander of irregular desires, and irritating the fraudulent conduct it punishes in others, by holding out to want and avarice the bait of hollow and deceitful chance."Say's Political Economy.

brought the poor benefit society into contempt, and a Lottery Club, at which both old and young subscribed, was substituted in its place. In a few years both the lottery club and the benefit society failed. Mr. Buxton, on inquiring into the cause of the bankruptcy of these establishments, was told by one of the members, that somehow they had been singularly unlucky, that they had gained but few prizes, and unaccountable as it may seem, these prizes were no better than blanks. The fall of the lottery club had dragged down with it the ruin of the benefit society."

"One ticket was held by no less than twenty-eight persons, and from an account which had been kept of their employment and circumstances, it appeared that they were all extremely poor, and of that unfortunate class most likely to be led astray by the fraudulent allurements of the Lottery. The infatuation, indeed, of having recourse to this delusive scheme of bettering their condition, extends even to the workhouse. It was proved in evidence before the House, that in the workhouse în the parish of Spitalfields, the poorest spot in London, the paupers actually subscribed together to buy a lottery ticket. The money was raised by these wretched people by instalments of from one halfpenny to sixpence each."

The system may not yet have reached the same maturity of evil in our country; yet it is not improbable that a similar discussion might develope similar facts among us. It might not actually appear that the inmates of our alms-houses had formed themselves into jointstock companies for the purchase of a ticket or a fraction of a ticket, but it would be shown that very many of the adventurers in this sort of enterprise were already fit subjects for the alms-house, and would probably, in spite of their golden expectations, soon to be actual te

nants there. My pursuits daily lead me to an office where lottery tickets are sold, and I constantly see there men whose wretched appearance proclaims the indolence or viciousness of their lives, and the forlorn condition of their families. The sum paid is the fruit, perhaps, of an irregular fit of industry, inspired by the splendid promises of the lottery dealers, and then discontinued till the result of the adventure shall add despair to habitual listlessness, or prompt to fresh attempts to bribe the goddess of Fortune.

But I have not taken up my pen with a design to expose fully the evils incident to lotteries. Their influence is essentially the same, wherever they are tolerated, and if in England it has been found necessary to prohibit them, the same reasons call for their suppression here. These reasons will not, I trust, long be disregarded by our wise legislators. In the mean time,as the removal of popular evils by legislative interference is generally preceded by an intimation of the popular sentiment, I have thrown out these hints from a desire to contribute my unit towards such an intimation. FRANKLIN.

P. S. One word on the deceptive nature of lotteries. They are proverbially illusive, but are still more so than the unthinking adventurer imagines. To the customary drawback of fifteen per cent., add twenty-five per cent.. which as I am informed usually goes to the contractors, and we have an amount of forty per cent. against the whole concern. Let us see how the remaining portion is divided into prizes. In the scheme before me there are one hundred and thirteen prizes of sixty dollars and upwards. All the remaining prizes, being of a very low denomination, ought, in fairness, to be reckoned among the blanks. Con

sidering these as blanks then, there are in this lottery more than three hundred and fifty blanks to a prize; though the scheme declares, in capitals, that there is "not one blank to a prize." The chance of a ticket-holder for obtaining a prize of not less that one hundred dollars, is as one to seven hundred and fifty-four; his chance for a thousand dollars is as one to three thousand and seventy-six; but then, finally, there is the bewildering dream of winning the highest prize, the chance being only forty thousand to one against him.

God doth the clouds his chariot make,
Christ did in clouds ascend,-
And in like manner he will come,
In judgment at the end.

Let saints adore, and trust his name,

Nor ever be afraid;

For at his coming he'll perform
Each promise he has made.

Discourses on the Offices and Character of Jesus Christ. By HENRY WARE, Jr. Minister of the Second church in Boston. Boston. 1825.

THE author's object, in these sermons, appears to be, not to discuss metaphysically or controversially the nature and attributes of Christ, but rather so to exhibit his offices and character, as to "aid believers in rightly appreciating their relation to the Saviour,and in cultivating the sentiments and habits which it requires." In this light we shall Consider them and shall endeavour to exhibit the views of the author in respect to the topics which he has selected, and to judge of their adaptation to the end proposed.

But before we proceed we must notice an important defect which presents itself at the outset. An author, we admit, may limit himself as he pleases. If Mr. W. chooses to confine himself to the discussion merely of the official character of Christ, he is at liberty to do so. But his readers may inquire, are his limitations proper, and consistent with the object proposed; does he in leaving out of view the nature and attributes of Christ adopt the best mode of aiding believers in rightly appreciating their relation to him, and in cultivating the sentiments and habits which it requires?" For can we determine that relation, or cultivate those sentiments and habits, while we are ignorant whether he is our Creator, our

Preserver, and our God, or a mere created and dependent being? Is it not evident that our most important relations cannot be known until we know the nature of Christ? Mr. W. in his sermon on honouring the Son' is of the contrary opinion. After remarking that our whole knowledge of God is comprised in a few facts, and specifying his omnipresence, omniscience, omnipotence, and eternity, he proceeds:

"These facts respecting the Deity, constitute what are called his natural attributes. They enter into the very definition of God; so that a being, who does not possess these attributes of almighty power, universal presence, infinite knowledge, and spirituality is not God.

"Now the question before us is, whether it be these attributes, which require of us the honours we pay to God? Though without these he would not be God, yet is it these, upon which are built religious homage and allegiance ? There is one simple consideration, which, I think, may satisfy us, that it is not, certainly not entirely nor chiefly; and that is, that if these natural attri

butes were united with an evil and ma

lignant character-supposing such a union possible-we could not be bound to render to that Being the same homage, which we now render to our beneficent Creator. If, for example, Satan, the personified principle of evil,selfish, perverse, and malicious-were a self-existent, all-knowing, all-powerful, omnipresent, eternal, spirit; still, we should not for a moment imagine, that Good, would of right belong to him. the honours, now paid to the infinitely

"If then, these attributes do not form the ground of the honours rendered to the Father; what are the divine per

fections to which they are rendered? Obviously, those which we call the moral perfections-his essential holiness, his perfect rectitude, unerring wisdom, unwavering truth and faithfulness, im partial justice, infinite goodness and mercy. He is clothed with righteousness, purity, and love-the kind Creator, the observing Governor, the gracious Father; earnestly desiring first the perfect virtue, and then the perfect happinsss, of every living being. For these attributes he is reverenced; for these it is that angels and archangels praise him, and hymns of adoration ascend from the lips of glorified spirits; for these it is that his people bend in awe before him, for these that his children love him, and his saints bless him. 'Who shall not fear thee, O Lord, and magnify thy name? for thou only art HOLY. Praise the Lord, for he is GOOD, for his mercy endureth for ever."" pp. 184-186.

But there is an essential defect in this argument. It does not follow that, because God's natural attributes would not alone render him worthy of divine honour, they are not an essential part of the ground of our obligation to render him such honour. It might be proved, if our author's reasoning is correct, that we do not worship God for his moral qualities; for it is self-evident that a being morally perfect but without infinite power could neither deserve nor claim supreme love and entire devotedness, since he could neither protect his friends, nor execute his benevolent purposes, but must exhibit the miserable spectacle of a good being constantly frustrated in all his undertakings by power beyond his control. Though we might be satisfied with the moral character of such a being, yet who could trust in him and commit to his care the interests of eternity? To place this subject in a stronger light, let us for a moment adopt our author's own mode of reasoning. We concede that a being without holiness, justice, goodness, and truth, is not God. But the ques

tion before us is whether it be these attributes which require of us the honours we pay to God. Though without these he would not be God, yet is it these upon which are built religious homage and allegiance ? There is one simple consideration which we think may satisfy us that it is not, certainly not entirely nor chiefly, and that is, if these moral attributes were united with a weak and limited character-supposing such a union possible-we could not be bound to render to that being the same homage which we now render to our Almighty Creator. If, for example, Christ were a created, limited, dependent, mutable, being, and yet perfectly holy, just, good, and merciful, still we should not for a moment imagine, that the honours now paid to the Almighty would of right belong to him.

If then these attributes do not form the ground of the honours rendered to the Father, what are the divine perfections to which they are rendered? Obviously those which we call the natural perfections-his infinite power and wisdom, his omniscience, omnipresence, and eternity.-For these he is reverenced and for these he is adored by the heavenly hosts saying, "we give thee thanks, O Lord God ALMIGHTY, which art and wast and art to come, because thou hast taken to thee thy great power, and hast reigned."

We think this argument equally conclusive with that of our author; but as they seem to contradict each other, we can assign no weight to either. The fact is, and we had supposed it too plain to be mistaken, that the character of God claims our homage, as a whole, and that if you take away either his natural or his moral qualities he is no longer perfect. Neither class of qualities is the exclusive ground of our obligation to worship him as our God, but the union of both.

Of course the question must again recur, does Christ unite them both? Respecting his moral character there is no dispute, but has he any natural attributes which by their union with his moral qualities will make him an object of worship? We wonder that any one can avoid seeing the question in this light. Can it be said that we have made any progress in "appreciating our relation to the Saviour, and in cultivating the sentiments and habits which it requires," so long as this point is unsettled? It is impossible, we repeat it, to know all our relations to Christ while we are ignorant of his nature. To say that the scriptures are silent on this subject, is simply to assume the point in debate; for we maintain that their testimony is full and explicit. There appears therefore to be no possible way of avoiding the discussion of the nature and attributes of Christ, if we would know fully our relations to him, and our consequent obligations. The case is so plain that we may say nothing is decided while we remain unresolved whether we are to worship Christ as our Lord and our God, or merely to regard him as a holy being who is the medium of communication between God and our

selves. And indeed, Mr. Ware, although he professes to decline the discussion of this question, is nevertheless obliged to decide it, and does in effect decide it most fully. So impossible is it to be neutral on so elementary a point of inquiry.

But we return to the exhibition which the author has made of his sentiments respecting Christ. His theory on this subject is, that he is an authorized messenger of God, but not himself divine; and that most or all of his appellations, in the scripture, have reference to this fact. In his first discourse, entitled "Christ the foundation," Mr. W. attempts to show that Christ 1826 No. 4.

26

is the foundation of the church, because "the Christian religion rests on his authority;" "because to believe in him as the predicted Messiah is the fundamental article of faith;" "because he is the source of all satisfactory religious knowledge;" because "he is the foundation of true morality; and of the believer's hope."

In his second discourse, on the character of the Messiah, he thus explains his views of that office':

"He was to make the final revela tion of God's will; to establish a church which, as a spiritual empire beneath his authority, should perpetuate the knowledge and influence of religions truth; to spread light and happiness

and peace by means of his institutions; to free men from the bondage of superstition, the degradation of vice, and the terrors of death; in a word, to set up the dominion of God's holy and parental government, and prepare men for heaven by bringing them on earth to the love and practice of those holy graces which form the bliss of the good hereafter. To this end he was born and to this end he came into the world,

that he might bear witness to the

truth; the truth which makes free' from corruption and sin, and 'sanctifies' the soul.

"It is evident from what has been said, that the character in which our Lord appears, and in which he claims to be received and honoured, is an offi cial character simply. He comes to the world invested with a certain office, whose main duties have been mentioned, and is an object of attention and reverence as holding that office. It is the dignity of the commission, which is evidently referred to in all these representations. They plainly have no allusion to the nature of his person, or the rank of his being, or his original station of existence. They suggest no subtle discussions concerning his es sence and attributes. They are satis. fied with pointing him out to us as one ordained to accomplish the most beneficent purposes of heaven, and for this reason demanding the faith and obedience of man." pp. 41, 42.

la his third discourse, he illus