We

among them pious christians and virtuous men. even find something good among them all, reprobate as well as elect, notwithstanding their faith, that the nonelect are and always must be at enmity against God, and prone to all wickedness. It is agreed, therefore, that the foregoing deductions are not entirely the lessons of experience. Let it be observed, however, that this argues nothing against their accuracy. Because the tendency of the doctrine has been resisted by higher sanctions, and holier motives, than any which this doctrine affords, it is not to be inferred, that no such tendency exists. The tendency is the point in question, and to this only have my remarks been directed.

It may again be objected, perhaps, that the process of argument has not been fairly pursued, since a single doctrine has been taken out of the system, and examined without regard to its connexion with all the other parts. To this I answer, that every doctrine in the christian scheme ought to be able to stand by its own merits. Christ has revealed no truth, nor enjoined any rule, which demands the concurrence of all the parts of his religion to support its weight, and preserve its consistency. The attributes of God are immutable; and with these attributes every truth of religion must be in accordance. No injustice, therefore, can be done to any doctrine, in regard to its individual tendency, by examining it alone; but, on the contrary, if it will not bear such an examination, either as taken separately, or as united with kindred doctrines, it leaves a plausible

ground of suspicion, to say the least, that something is defective and wrong.

And, furthermore, Calvinists must prove, that there is such a consistency in their doctrines, that one either must, or can be taken as connected with the others. To none but themselves have they ever succeeded in making such a harmony appear. That men should be totally depraved, and yet be capable of any good; that they should be deprived of power, and yet be required to act; that all their sins should be atoned for, and yet they should be responsible for their conduct; that their destiny should be fixed by an eternal decree, and yet they should be dealt with as having freedom of will, and be made accountable for their actions; these are paradoxes, which neither the great powers and ingenuity of Calvin, nor the acuteness and sophistry of Edwards, have been able to divest of their tremendous clouds of mystery and darkness, so as to be seen clearly by any other rational man than a Calvinist.

When we read in the calvinistic formulary, that "Man, by his fall into a state of sin, hath WHOLLY lost all ability of will to any spiritual good accompanying salvation; so as a natural man, being altogether averse from good, and dead in sin, is not able by his own strength to convert himself, or to prepare himself thereunto;"* when we read such language, can we suppose, that the man who assents to it will come upon us in the next words, with the assertion, that we

*Confession of Faith, Chap. ix. § 3.

66

have "ability of will," and that we are not so " averse from good," but that we may obey the commands of God, and discharge the duties of a christian? Will such a man present to us the motives, the promises, threatenings, and rewards of the Gospel? Should a man tie our hands and feet, and then promise us a reward if we would walk, and engage in active service, but threaten us with punishment if we refused, should we think him any thing short of a simpleton or a madman? How then can we discover any unity of parts in the calvinistic doctrines, so much at variance with those principles of the mind, by which alone we perceive consistency in all things else? Or where is the impropriety of discussing the tendency of any one of these doctrines, as distinct from the others, when no connexion or analogy can be traced with any others, which are not as inconsistent and indefensible, as this doctrine itself?

LETTER VIII.

On the practical Tendency of Unitarian Views of Atonement.

SIR,

HAVING Considered the influence of the calvinistic theory of atonement on piety and morals, it remains only to make a similar examination of the Unitarian views of this subject. We have seen, that, so far as the tendency of an opinion can have any bearing on temper and conduct, no doctrine can be more pernicious, than that which encourages sinners to believe themselves released from the burden of iniquity, and washed from the stains of guilt, by an infinite atonement made to appease the wrath and satisfy the justice of God. We have seen, that no doctrine can have a greater power to debase the character of the Deity, darken his bright perfections, cool the ardour of piety, weaken the inducements to a holy life, inspire a false confidence on the part of the sinner, and generally to sustain the kingdom of evil in the world.

Among all the errors, which have found their way into the christian scheme, and corrupted its original purity, it seems impossible, that any should be more dangerous, or more unworthy of a holy religion, than that which presents so easy a remedy for human guilt. The popish doctrine of indulgences, which

first roused the spirit of Luther, and opened his eyes to the enormities of the Romish Church, was truly considered a destroying principle of all virtue. But what does this doctrine of an infinite satisfaction promise? not a release from one sin, but from all sins. Tetzel could proffer no indulgence, which went beyond the power of the Pope; whereas, the preacher of this doctrine may feel himself secure in going to the full extent of the power of the Deity, for the atonement which he preaches was made by the Deity himself, and possesses an infinite efficacy. Can you imagine any evils flowing from the popish doctrine of indulgences, which would not result in a much greater degree from the notion of an infinite satisfaction for sin, if they were both equally believed and applied to practice? They both remove all personal responsibility, and leave the sinner unconcerned for the past, and regardless of the future.

All christians, as well unitarian as trinitarian, are agreed respecting the necessity of having the guilt of sin removed, before men can be happy in the rewards of future glory. They all agree, that the present condition of man is a sinful one, and that the joys of the blessed can never be known by any, who are not made perfect in holiness. They unite, also, in the belief, that this must be the work of God; for although we may avoid evil, yet no human power can take away the guilt of past sin. Such is the condition of man, and it is not important at present to inquire, how he came into this condition; whether by his own agency alone, or by the constitution of his