generate their depraved hearts, and convert them to holiness of life and temper.

Such is the view of many christians concerning the mode of salvation through Christ. And now it may be permitted to inquire, what its natural tendency ought to be on practical morals and religion? Does it encourage men to harbour a single evil thought, purpose, or desire; to neglect a single duty of piety or charity? Does it hold out any substitute for personal holiness, or any incitements to the vicious propensities? Does it conceal the odiousness of sin and its dreadful consequences, or relax the obligations of moral duty, or weaken the sense of accountableness to God for every thought and action? Does it degrade the majesty of the law, or enfeeble the authority of the divine commands, or lessen the certainty of a future judgment and righteous retribution?

Not one of these questions can be answered in the affirmative. The view above described has not even this negative tendency; and in truth, it is remarkable for nothing more, than its positive moral and religious bearing; that is, if you will allow morals and religion to consist in good practice. It finds no efficacy in any scheme of redemption, nor any hope for the sinner, without repentance and obedience, devout submission to the will of God, and profound reverence of his holy character. Nor does it take repentance for an empty name, nor look for its value alone in emotions of sorrow, and remorse of conscience for past guilt. To repent is to reform, to

forsake sin, to do good where evil has been done before. It is to make our faith a purifying principle, to amend the heart, subdue the passions, banish evil desires, to love where we have hated, and to return kindness for injury. To repent is to examine and watch our own hearts, love God supremely, and our neighbour as ourselves. Whoever sincerely obeys, will sincerely repent. Obedience ensures repentance. The latter is turning from evil, the former is doing good; the one inspires respect for the divine laws, the other applies them to practice. Both are absolutely essential to salvation through Christ.

Can that opinion, which regards a good life as the foundation and means of final acceptance with God, and of eternal felicity, can such an opinion be charged with having an unfavourable influence on morals? The charge is equally absurd and ill founded and demands no refutation. It is enough to have stated facts; the conclusion is self evident.

Nor is it a just inference, which some have drawn, that this view unduly exalts human merit. The truth is, that in relation to God, no merit on the part of man is supposed. The whole is of divine mercy, it is the exclusive work of God, the merit is his, and to him belongs all the praise. By his compassion alone he was inclined to save and bless his creatures; he sent his Son to redeem them from their sins by publishing the conditions of pardon, and performing works to aid their restoration to holiness, which could not have been performed without light, guidance, and support from heaven. The actions of men have

no merit, except as the testimony of obedience. They are of no value as a price of salvation. God saves freely. Every act of obedience is an act of duty, and is so far meritorious, as to deserve the promised reward, because God has promised it, and not because any benefit is conferred on him. As far as

there is any merit in complying with the conditions of divine forgiveness, so far is human merit exalted by the above views of the manner of salvation, and no farther.

Finally, the comparative moral tendency of the Calvinistic and Unitarian schemes of atonement, may be expressed in a few words. Calvinists ascribe salvation to a cause, which puts all human agency out of the question, renders personal holiness unnecessary, and personal responsibility impossible. Unitarians, on the contrary, refer the original cause of salvation to the mercy of God, and dare not indulge any hope of immortal glory, which does not rest on a faithful obedience of the divine laws, as revealed and confirmed by Jesus Christ. Calvinists inculcate morals, it is true, but they have found out a way of salvation, which does not require good morals, or rather in which they can be of no service. The principles of Unitarians, more rigid and consistent, demand perfect obedience, without any such discouragement to virtuous and holy living. Calvinists, to be religious, must believe one thing and practise another; with Unitarians, faith and practical religion are in harmony.

PART IV.

COMPARATIVE MORAL TENDENCY OF

THE LEADING DOCTRINES OF CALVI NISM AND THE SENTIMENTS OF UNITARIANS.

LETTER I.

Calvinistic and Unitarian Views of the Depravity of Man.

SIR,

WE come now to a consideration of the more peculiar doctrines of Calvinism; or those doctrines which owe their origin to the metaphysics of Austin, their growth and strength to the genius of Calvin, and their maturity to the deliberations at the Synod of Dort. They may be arranged in the following order, namely, total depravity, irresistible grace, divine decrees, particular redemption, and final perseverance. These are the five links in the Calvinistic chain, and so closely depending on each other, that, should one be broken, all the rest must fall. According to Calvinists, this chain constitutes the entire system of Christianity; it comprises faith, charity