and sinners in the sight of God-not by the will and appointment of their Creator, but by their own choice, their neglect of duty, and their obstinate disobedience.

There is no theme, in fact, on which unitarian preachers dwell more, than on the moral depravity of man. This is the moral disease, which they believe the religion of Jesus was intended to heal. As a free agent, man has contracted this disease, and as a free agent he has the power of applying an effectual remedy, by using the means granted in the religion of Christ. They describe the wretched state of the sinner, as the result of his own follies, his abuse of his better faculties, his disregard of the counsel and chiding of conscience, and of the obligations of the divine laws. They call on him to awake from his slumbers, to seek light rather than darkness, to renew his depraved heart, to lay hold on the promises of Christ, and to establish the hope of their fulfilment, by studying the will of God as revealed in the Gospel, by giving strict heed to the perfect law of faith, love, and righteousness, which this Gospel contains, by walking resolutely and undeviatingly in the footsteps of Christ, and by making his precepts, and these alone, the rule of their lives. They urge these duties by all the motives set forth in the Gospel, by the perfections of God, the dependence of man, the promise and prospects of joy to the righteous, the threatenings of despair and suffering to the wicked. They afford not a single palliative to the sinner's conscience, not a single excuse for his

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 grace, or, as it is otherwise denominated, 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. It is 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