shameful irresolution, or his rebellious obstinacy, by telling him, that his Maker has formed him with a total, inherent, irremediable wickedness of nature,

which no effort of his own can remove. Why should you preach repentance and holiness to such a being, unless it were to deride his impotency, or to make still deeper the shades of despair, which you have caused to brood upon his soul? Why suspend the awful judgments of God over the impenitent sinner, and then aggravate his misery by assuring him, that he has no power to escape?

It is unnecessary to pursue the parallel farther. I am willing to let the decision rest on these short hints. With these alone let the question be submitted to the understanding and common sense of every reader, whether the doctrine of depravity, as taught by Calvinists, of Unitarians, is the most likely to strengthen the cause of morals? Whether the doctrine, which makes men radically, necessarily, and perfectly wicked, and takes away all ability of improvement, is better calculated to fix the principles of religion in the soul, and to produce the fruits of piety, righteousness, and a good life, than the one, which lays the sins of every man to his own charge, which exhorts him to throw off the shackles he has thus forged for himself, confess his follies, repent of his wicked deeds, seek God, and live?

LETTER II.

Conversion, or Divine Influence, as understood by Calvinists and Unitarians.

SIR,

THE next point of Calvinism, from the denial of which you infer the immorality of Unitarians, is that of irresistible grace, or, as it is otherwise denominatcd, special grace, effectual calling, extraordinary divine influence, regeneration, or conversion,

In the calvinistic sense, Unitarians no doubt deny, that this doctrine has any foundation in Scripture, or any other than an evil influence on the character of men; but when you assert in general language, that they teach regeneration to be unnecessary, you mistake. So far from denying the necessity of regeneration, it is a truth well known to all, who have any accurate knowledge of the subject, that among no denomination of christians is it preached more earnestly, or more constantly, than among Unitarians. They consider it a fundamental doctrine of religion, and immediately connected with the doctrine of depravity. They believe, as firmly as Calvinists, that men are sinners, and must be reformed, that they are depraved and must be renewed. This reformation, or renewal, they call regeneration, or conversion, and hold it to be absolutely essential before any one can be in

that state of holiness, and freedom from sin, which will fit him for the eternal presence of God, and the blessings of heaven, as revealed in the Gospel. Since this is the truth, it is obvious with what singular inaccuracy your assertion was made.

In attempting to defend your position, that we "look in vain for the monuments of the reforming and purifying power" of Unitarianism, instead of adducing facts and examples, which alone can have any weight in a case of this nature, you inquire whether sound conversions, or genuine revivals of religion are known among Unitarians. What is this inquiry to the purpose? Do you find good men, exemplary in their lives, constant in their devotions, manifesting practical love to their neighbour and their God? If you have found such, you have had before your eyes the monuments, which you say are wanting. The question relates simply to the character of those, who have embraced this faith, and not to the means by which this character has been formed; to the existing monuments of its power, and not to the manner in which these monuments have been reared. Why ask about conversions, if you find the fruits of conversion? To say these do not exist, is begging the question; it is the petitio principii of the dialectician; taking for granted the very thing which you were

called on to prove.

You have evaded this the most important part of the subject, and drawn the attention of your readers to the good effects, which you say have been produced in particular cases by your own sentiments. After

a vivid picture of this sort, you abruptly ask the question, whether "Unitarianisın can show such effects?" And then answer it as abruptly, "if it can, they are unknown to me." Do you think this good reasoning? Are you willing to judge of the effects of Unitarianism" all over the world," by your personal observation? As you probably have never lived a week together in a society composed of Unitarians, how is it possible, let these effects have been what they might, that they should not be unknown to you? Under such circumstances, how could you know the power of unitarian principles to subdue the stubborn will, soften the hardened heart, humble the proud, restrain the vicious, call forth the pious affections of the devout worshipper, promote christian harmony, purity, and love, and in short, to ensure the conduct of a sincere, humble, and faithful follower of Jesus? These are things, which work, or ought to work, silently in the heart, and show themselves in the temper and private character of individuals. The moment they are allowed to go abroad, and be blazoned to the world, they leave no trivial grounds for suspecting more of hypocrisy, than of humble piety, or of the movings of the holy Spirit of God. Hence your argument for the immorality of Unitarians, drawn from your ignorance of the actual effects of their principles, is as illogical as it is uncharitable. certainly extraordinary, that you should think it sufficient proof against the christian morals and piety of any sect, that such exercises as usually attend these graces were unknown to you, when your personal ob

It is

servation was so circumscribed, and your means of knowledge so limited.

It is no part of my undertaking to boast of the high religious attainments of those with whom I accord in sentiment, and unite in worship, or to hold them up as more holy than other christians, and ready to cry out on all occasions, like Jehu of old, "Come, see my zeal for the Lord." I aim at nothing more than a plain defence, a bare vindication. I shall not, therefore, impose any tax upon your patience by going into a history of their conversions, or detailing remarkable instances of their piety, self denial, humility; of their patience in tribulation, and meekness under persecution; of their forbearance when assailed by the reproaches and scorn of the world; of their perseverance through evil report and good report in accomplishing what their principles and the voice of conscience dictate, and in fine, of their joyful triumph over every calamity, even death itself, while sustained by the bright hopes, and cheering anticipations inspired by their views of the religion of the Saviour. These things I willingly leave to speak for themselves, and have much reason to hope and trust, that they will speak loudly to every honest inquirer and candid observer. Had you known more of the persons, with whose religious feelings you have dealt so harshly, I am constrained to believe you would have been less ready to ask, "who has ever heard" of these things?

What strikes one most forcibly in your view of this subject, is, that you confound distinctions, and make