ing off our responsibility. If all our actions, as these doctrines presuppose, are produced by the direct agency of God, they are not ours, and if they are wrong we are not guilty. The proper reverence is to ascribe to him those powers, which he has given, and left us at liberty to use them well or ill. But these doctrines did not originate in this overstrained humility. They were first suggested in the bitterness of dispute. The maxims were introduc.d and maintained one after another, till they were framed into a system, which was not very consistent, but what was of more importance to the framers, would admit of being defended.

Augustin, in the sixth century, was the first to propose this system. It seems that Pelagius, a British monk, had declared that good works only are valuable in the sight of God, and Augustin took up the controversy against him. This he maintained with great severity, advancing one proposition and article after another, till probably much to his own astonishment he found himself the author of a faith entirely new. In opposition to the principle of merit, he declared that divine grace is necessary to bend the will, and where this grace is not afforded, we have only power to do evil, but none to do good; that actions which seem to be religious, if performed without divine grace, are nothing more than splendid sins. He also maintained, that all men sinned in Adam, and should bear the everlasting punishment of his crime, but the thought of infants seemed to stagger his faith till he ingeniously discovered that though they were in hell, their punishment would not be very severe, and they would choose it in preference to annihilation. He then laid down, as a consequence of his doctrine of our want of freedom,

that God had predestinated some to eternal life, and others to destruction.

Such were his opinions, which one would suppose could not prevail by their own reasonableness and truth; but Augustin knew human nature too well to place much dependence on those recommendations. He had great influence in the Church, and Pelagius had none; he procured a sentence of council condemning the faith of his adversary, who was banished and died in obscurity; and then the opinions of Augustin prevailed almost without contradiction; for there was reward in keeping them, and there were not many so weakly honest, nor so imprudently fond of truth, as to embrace the faith of a powerless, neglected, and banished man.

[Liberal Recorder.

Remarks on the Evangelical Magazine.

OUR readers will probably recollect, that in a late number we took occasion to speak of the Evangelical Magazine, published at Richmond. We mentioned it as a work conducted with ability, and we have had no reason since to alter our opinion. In saying this, however, we did not mean to extort a compliment to our "good paper," and above all to our "handsome type,” for we do not think either of these any better or handsomer than it should be.

We are extremely glad, that our apprehensions prove not to have been well founded; but we really think the editors are too hard upon us in not allowing, that we had apparently good cause for our impressions. But this is a thing of no importance.

For several months this Magazine has been a devoted and an active champion in the ranks hostile to unitarianism. The Review of Dr. Channing's Ordination Sermon, or of Stuart's Letters, was portentous. There was nothing alarming in the omen itself, but it told of things to come. The presage has been verified. Every month has given additional testimony to the bounty of the editors in making their readers acquainted with some of the weak, or absurd, or dangerous things of unitarianism, and we are now told that a great deal is yet to come. The Presbyterians of Virginia must by this time feel very strong in the controversy, and none the less so for having seen nothing except on one side. To these labours we do not object, but rather applaud them. The christian, who is not zealous in what he believes to be truth, is but an indifferent christian. We have not been aware, however, that Virginia was in so much danger as to require these extraordinary efforts. But we confess, that they, who are on the spot, ought to be better judges than ourselves. We should be glad if some means could be devised of dealing fairly with the people, and of making them acquainted with the arguments on both sides before they judge. This we cannot expect in the present state of things; yet some good will be done. Every candid man will perceive the harsh outlines and false colouring of the picture which is sent out, and will begin to look for something truer to nature and the reality. He will inquire, and this is the first step to truth. We are willing to leave him there.

We doubt whether any valuable purpose would be answered by our undertaking a controversy with this Magazine, although the gauntlet is thrown with considerable formality. It is not probable, that either of our

books is read by more than a very small number of the subscribers to the other. And, besides, with the topics which have as yet been brought forward in the Magazine, most of our readers are familiar. We are friendly to temperate discussion, because we think it promotes truth. The editors of the Magazine have opened so large a field in their last number, and promise to take so wide a range, that it is more than probable we may occasionally cross their course. We shall never be reluctant to do so, where we think it required by justice to ourselves, or to the cause we maintain, or where any thing can be added to the interests of piety and truth.

There are yet other reasons, why we could not expect to engage, with much hope of profit, in a controversy with the writers of this Magazine. We will mention two or three only in very few words.

1. These gentlemen do not seem to have taken such enlarged views of the subject, as are requisite for conducting a controversy on equitable principles. As far as we can learn from the abundance, which they have already written, their knowledge of the present state and actual sentiments of unitarians is very limited, and confined chiefly to such quotations as have been collected by some of the more violent and hostile writers of the trinitarian party. This mass of quotations is called unitarianism. And these, for the most part, consist of the indiscreet sayings of some two or three individuals, which have not the remotest connexion with the general principles of unitarianism, and which not one unitarian in ten thousand, probably, would adopt with more readiness, than the editors themselves. And yet these are perpetually quoted and harped upon, as fundamental articles. Nor would we venture to enumerate the notes of admiration, which have been marshall

ed in double and triple array at the end of certain phrases to make the people stop, and wonder, and shudder at the appalling heresies of unitarians. Now we ask if this be argument, or candour, or seriousness, or any thing, that will be likely to do justice to an opponent, or advance a good cause? We believe not.

2. These gentlemen suffer themselves to make such insinuations, and employ such language, in regard to our opinions, as must destroy our confidence either in their good intentions, their judgment, or the accuracy of their perceptions, and without confidence in all of these we could hardly look for any good results from a controversy. They tell us, for instance, that "the leaders of the unitarian sect scruple not to attribute bad faith, as well as bad reasoning to the greatest of the apostles;" that unitarians allow themselves to say, "that the apostles reasoned inconclusively, and that the blessed Saviour himself might be mistaken." We are said “not only to affirm, that the apostles reasoned falsely, but to insinuate that they did so knowingly." These are a few specimens among many; but they are enough to convince every one acquainted with the subject, that it would be the extreme of folly to argue with men, who, either through ignorance, or the blind zeal of prejudice, or a want of proper respect for themselves, or from any other cause, could fall into such gross misrepresentations. But this is not all. These perversions are made the very elements of unitarianism, and perpetually recurred to as first principles, and enough to overthrow any argument, that can be adduced. What can be more easy, than to nullify any position a unitarian, or any other person can advance on a religious subject, by affirming, that this man believes the apostles might be guilty of "bad faith" and "bad reasoning," and "the