Full text of "Letters to Unitarians occasioned by the sermon of the Reverend William E. Channing, at the ordination of the Rev. J. Sparks"

See other formats

kU-

-t:

• »

*%4

V V

Ekvv

tt-r-

ALUMNI LIBRARY,
THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY,

PRINCETON, N. J.

Case, Divl£l"
Shelf, Sectio
I) Book, n«,

■ a<^,cag=^ac,g=>.c11.-,^=^e^,^iJ.:.c^^5i! £:

/355

• • v

UNITARIANS

OCCASIONED BY THE SERMON

OF THE REVEREND WILLIAM E. CHANNING

AT THE ORDINATION OF THE

REV. J. SPARKS.

BY LEONARD WOODS, D.D.

ABBOT PROFESSOR OF CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY IN THE THEOL
SEMINARY, ANDOYER.

ANDOVER :

PUBLISHED BY FLAGG AND GOULD.

1320.

DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS, TO WIT :

District Clerk's Office.

Be «t remembered, that on the twenty eighth day of March, a.d. 1820, and ia
the forty fourth year of the independence of the United States of America, Flagg
& Gould of the said district, have deposited in this office the title of a book,
the right whereof they claim as proprietors, in the words following, viz " Let-
ters to Unitarians occasioned by the Sermon of the Rev. William E. Channing
at the ordination of the Rev. J. Sparks. By Leonard Woods, d.d. Abbot Pro-
fessor of Christian Theology in the Theol. Sem. Andover. — In conformity to the
act of the congress of the United States of America, entitled " An Act for the
encouragement of learning, by securing the copies of maps, charts and books,
to the authors and proprietors of such copie3 during the times therein mention-
ed :" and also to an Act entitled, " An act supplementary to an Act, entitled,
An Act for the encouragement of learning, by securing the copies of maps, charts
and books, to the authors and proprietors of such copies during the times there-
in mentioned ; and extending the benefits thereof to the arts of designing, en-
graving and etching historical, and other prints."

Jjro. W. Davis, \ Clerrk frthe *?islrict
' ( of Massachusetts.

CONTENTS.

LETTER I.

fAGB.

Introductory remarks ....... 3 — 7

LETTER II.

The propriety of a creed. — The right of declaring our
own opinions. — This right infringed. — Opinions rep-
resented as peculiar to Unitarians, which belong to the
Orthodox ; — particularly as to God's unity, and moral
perfection . . . . . . i . 8 — 17

LETTER III.

Views of the Orthodox respecting the character and gov-
ernment of God. — His paternal character illustrated 18 — 24

LETTER IV.

The proof that the Orthodox deny the moral perfection
of God, considered. — Native character of man. — Pro-
per mode of reasoning on this subject . « • 2-1 — 30

LETTER V.

The doctrine of man's depravity stated, and proved. — Ar-
gument from the Old Testament ; — confirmed by Paul's
reasoning, Rom. iii. — The principle involved in the
reasoning 31 — 41

LETTER VI.

Another argument from the Old Testament, Jer. xvi. 9, in
prr>of of man's depravity. — Arguments from the Neir

Testament, John in. 1 — 7. Rom. v. 12. — Imputation
considered. Ephes. ii. 3. — Argument from the call to
repent. — Moral character of God and human depravity
not inconsistent 41 — 52

LETTER VII.

The doctrine of Election. — Preliminary remarks. — Proof
of the doctrine, from John xvii, Ephes. i. 3 — 1 1, Rom.
ix. 11— 24, &c 52—62

LETTER VIII.

Misrepresentations of the doctrine of Election, and the

common objections against it, considered . . 63 — 83

LETTER IX.

Atonement. Misrepresentations. Metaphorical lan-
guage employed by the Orthodox, and by the Scrip-
tures.— Cautions to be observed respecting the use
of metaphorical language. — Two classes of texts re-
specting forgiveness. — The nature and design of the
atonement. — Objection as to the value of Christ's
sufferings, considered 83 — 106

LETTER X.

The doctrine of divine influence illustrated, and guard-
ed against misstatements and objections . , 106 — 120

LETTER XI.

Additional remarks on representations in the Sermon. —
Object of Christ's mission. — Nature of holiness. —
Principle of moral government .... 120 — 132

LETTER XII.

Practical influence of the two systems, generally, and
particularly. — Love to God. — Gratitude to God.— r

Love to Christ. — Faith in Christ. — Dread of sin, and
care to obey the divine precepts. — Reverence for
the Bible. — Benevolent action, particularly the
spread of the Gospel. — Closing remarks . . 132 — 160

ERRATA.

Page 12, line 2 from bottom, read conduct.
15, 1 , Mathers.

25, 13, could, for would,

36, 1 5, whatsoever.

106, read, Letter X. P. 120, Letter XI

132. Letter XII

LETTER I,

My respected friends.

It has been the general sentiment of those, who are
denominated Unitarians in this country, that religious
controversy is undesirable, and of dangerous tendency ;
and that it is the duty of Christians of different parties
to look with candor on each other's opinions, and not
to magnify, beyond necessity, the points of difference.
To this sentiment of yours respecting the danger of con-
troversy, and the importance of candor and forbearance.
I cordially agree. I regard it, as one of the great ends,
which remains to be achieved by the influence of the
christian religion, that all bitterness and strife should
be banished from the world, and the spirit of love and
peace universally prevail. With a view to this momen-
tous end, I have made it my care, to guard, as far as
possible, against introducing any thing disputatious into
the pulpit, — especially on an occasion of so much inter-
est, and so much tender emotion, as that of ordaining a
Christian Minister. By these views I have actually
governed myself for many years. I admit, indeed, the
lawfulness, and, in some cases, the expedience and ne-
cessity of religious controversy; audi have endeavor-
ed to form some definite views of the principles, on
which it ought to be conducted. But I will frankly e»
press my apprehension, that it may require more cau-
tion, meekne??. and self control. <h;in 1 possess, to secure

an exact observance of those rules of controversy, which
I should prescribe for others. At the present time, and
in my present undertaking, I cannot be insensible of spe-
cial danger, as the controversy between the two parties
has, for several years, been carried on in various forms,
and with no inconsiderable warmth, and there are, I am
sorry to say, on both sides, and even among the more
moderate, too many symptoms of strong excitement.
But whatever may be the circumstances of the present
time, or the nature of the business I have undertaken,
I wish here to declare my utter abhorrence of the prac-
tice, which has been too common, of applying reproach-
ful epithets to an opponent, and of misrepresenting his
real opinions, or endeavoring, by painting them in the
most glaring colors, to expose them to contempt ; — espe-
cially, of any disposition to sully his reputation, to inflict
a wound on his feelings, or to triumph at the discovery
of his imperfections. Such things are totally repugnant
to the legitimate ends of controversy, and ought to be
reprobated by all Christians, just as we reprobate the
ferocities and cruelties of savage war.

The sermon, which occasions these Letters to you,
is entitled to particular attention, on account of the tal-
ents and public character of the author, and, most of all,
because he feels himself authorised to speak in your
name. The sermon comes forth, as the voice of your
denomination, and is extensively circulated, as an instru-
ment of promoting your cause. On such an occasion, it
is unquestionably proper, that our attention should be
turned afresh to the question, whether the cause, which
this sermon advocates, is indeed the cause of God.

To men, who are friends to unfettered inquiry, I
shall think it unnecessary to offer any apology for the
freedom of my remarks on the various subjects, which

will be brought into view in these Letters. And I hope
you will not deem it improper, that my remarks should
be addressed to yon, — inasmuch as the subjects of the
discussion, on which I am entering, have been introduced
by one, who appears before the public, as your repre-
sentative ; — especially, as the manner, in which he treats
these subjects is, in most respects, not unlike the man-
ner, in which they have generally been treated by those.
who have embraced the Arian or Socinian faith. This
sermon is a fair specimen of the mode, in which we have
been accustomed to see our religious opinions opposed
in the writings of Unitarians. Now it must be allowed
to be a sufficient justification of this attempt of mine, if
I am fully convinced, that my opinions, and those of the
Orthodox generally, are misunderstood, and essentially
misrepresented by Unitarians, and particularly by the
author of this sermon. I am convinced of this. And I
think too, that the mistaken views, exhibited in the ser-
mon, are exhibited in a manner, which, after cool and
sober examination, neither the writer, nor his readers,
will be much disposed to justify.

It seems there has, for some time, been a general
expectation in this vicinity of some publication from mo
relative to the sermon which has occasioned these Let-
ters ; and inquiries have not unfrequently been made, as
to the reasons of such a delay. Those reasons I will
now frankly suggest. First. The regular duties of my
office are sufficient to occupy my whole time ; and I
found it would require some effort in me, to be able to
devote only a few hours in a week to such an employ-
ment as this. Another reason was, that I wished not
to interrupt the attention, which the public were inclin-
ed to give to what had already been written, on one ot
the principal subjects of discussion between the two par-

ties. Besides ; I hoped that by taking a longer time, I
should keep myself at a greater distance from the agi-
tation and heat of controversy, and more perfectly avoid
every appearance of wishing to make a personal attack
upon any man; and that I should be better able to fix
your attention, as well as my own, upon the subjects
themselves, which were to be investigated, without re-
gard to any considerations whatever, not conducive to
a fair and thorough investigation.

The favor which I now ask of you is, not that you
Avould treat my opinions and arguments with lenity and
forbearance, but that you would give me a patient and
candid hearing, while I attempt, on several important
points, to explain and defend the religious sentiments of
the Orthodox in New-England; and while I attempt to
show, in what respects the writings of Unitarians essen-
tially misrepresent our faith, and go into a manner of
reasoning which is liable to just exceptions. I wish, par-
ticularly, to state the objections I feel, to several repre-
sentations and modes of argumentation, contained in this
Sermon, and to suggest some reasons, why the Author
himself, and those who have implicitly relied upon the
correctness of his positions, should allow themselves
time for a serious review of the ground of this contro-
versy. I wish, in short, as far as the limits which I must
prescribe for myself will allow, to embraee the present
opportunity, to do justice to myself and my brethren, and
to satisfy those, who differ from us, as to the character
and the evidence of that system of religion, which we
believe.

The subjects, which have been discussed by my belov-
ed Colleague, the Rev. Moses Stuart, will here be omit-
ted. I regret, with many others, that his health and
professional labors did not permit him to employ his tal<

ents and erudition on all the remaining topics of the Ser-
mon. It is at his suggestion, and by his request, that I
have turned aside from my common labors, and, let me
say too, from my prevailing determination, so much as to
take a part publicly in the controversy, which unhappi-
ly divides this region of our country. But, though I am
urged to this undertaking by the request of those, in
whom I am accustomed to repose entire confidence, and
though I am fully persuaded that the opinions of the Or-
thodox have been treated unjustly ; I am almost ready
to withdraw my hand from this work, from a painful ap-
prehension, that my efforts may serve but to increase or
perpetuate the spirit of prejudice and animosity, which
has shown itself among us in so many forms, and which,
so far as it prevails, does really cut off all prospect of
attaining the ends of free investigation. But I indulge
the hope, that a different spirit is gaining ground. And
I could wish, that the Reverend Author, who has under-
taken to speak in your behalf, might have enjoyed the
happiness of a more unru filed mind, and the honor of do-
ing something more for that cause, which he is so well
able to promote, — the cause of love, candor, and gentleness.
I think that he, and many others will acknowledge the
benefit they have, in this respect, derived from the ex-
ample of my worthy Colleague. It is from the hope,
that I may be guided by the same motive with him, and
that, whatever else I may fail of accomplishing, I may
help, in some measure, to diffuse a spirit of unprejudiced
inquiry and christian kindness, that I am encouraged to
proceed.

LETTER II.

Mv RESPECTED FRIENDS,

The Author, who speaks in your name, has at length,
it seems, obtained satisfaction, as to the propriety of hav-
ing a creed, or confession of faith. In his sermon, he has
expressly given to the public the opinions which Unita-
rians embrace, in distinction from the opinions, common-
ly called Orthodox. The design is just and honorable.
I am utterly unable to conceive, what valid objection
there can be against the attempt of any denomination of
Christians, to make the public acquainted with their views
on religious subjects ; or, in other words, to exhibit the
articles of their faith. The thing is evidently proper in
itself, and often necessary, though liable to abuse. With
so respectable an example before you, I trust you will
be free from any further difficulties on this subject, and
will proceed, as occasion may require, to correct any
mistaken apprehensions which the public may entertain,
as to your opinions, and to give them a just view of what
you believe to be the Christian religion. You owe this
to the community. You owe it to yourselves. And it
is obvious, that justice, in this respect, can be rendered
to you by none, but yourselves. Other men, especially
those who differ from you, cannot be competent to make
known your faith, any farther than they are instructed
and authorized by you. Doubtless you have felt that
you have had reason to complain of the incorrectness of
some Orthodox writers, who have undertaken to make
a statement of your views. It is with manifest proprie-
ty, that you have now claimed the right, and through
him, who acts as your organ of communication, have ex-

ercised the right, of declaring jour own opinions. If you
are just to yourselves, you will not stop here. Whenev-
er others impute to you opinions, which you do not
entertain, or deny to you those, which you do entertain;
and whenever they are doubtful as to your faith, or in
any way misrepresent it ; you will feel that, of right, it
belongs to you to interpose, and to do yourselves jus-
tice. And you would think it a gross violation of the
rules of christian candor, for any man to declare your
opinions to be different from your own serious declara-
tion.— Grant me, and those with whom I have the hap-
piness to be united in opinion, the same right, which you
so justly claim for yourselves, — the right of forming and
declaring our own opinions, and of being believed, when we
declare them. We have a just claim to the last, as well
as to the first, unless there are substantial reasons to
question our veracity.

By the diligent application of our rational powers to
the study of the Scriptures, with the best helps which
have been afforded us, we have arrived at some sober,
settled views on the subjects of religion. These views
we wish, for various reasons, to declare. And if we
would declare them justly, we must declare them in our
own language, and do what is in our power to make that
language intelligible to all. Where the meaning of the
terms employed is doubtful, or obscure ; it belongs to us
to give the necessary explanations. Where the terms
are liable to be understood with greater latitude, than
comports with our views ; it belongs to us to give the
necessary limitations. And where our positions, in any
respect whatever, need modifying; it belongs to us to
modify them. — Further. It is certainly reasonable to
expect, when dealing with men of candid, liberal minds,
that the language which, in any case, we use to express

our faith, will be understood, not in the sense which, tit-
ken by itself, it would possibly bear, nor in the sense
which others might be inclined, for party purposes, to
put upon it, — but precisely according to our explanations.
These explanations, you will understand, do as really
make a part of the proper enunciation of our faith, as
the words which form the general proposition. Nothing
can be more obviously just than all this, especially *n
relation to a subject, which is of a complex nature, or
of difficult illustration.

With respect to this point of equity and honor, 1 have
a few remarks to make on the Sermon now under con-
sideration. The Author informs the public, what opinions
he, and those who agree with him, embrace, and what
they reject. This he has a right to do. Considering
the circumstances of the case, he ought to do it. Nor
can any one doubt that he is qualified to do it in the best
manner. But he goes farther. He undertakes to give an
account of my creed, and the creed of others with whom
I agree. This is a more delicate task. In this he is
evidently liable to mistake ; and after all he may say
on the subject, we may find it necessary to speak for
ourselves. If the account he gives of our faith is not
given in our language, and with our explanations and
modifications, — certainly if not given in a manner which
corresponds with our real opinions ; we must notice the
incorrectness. Most of all shall we have reason for some
animadversion upon him, if he adopts, in any measure,
that mode of representation, which men usually adopt,
who wish to make the opinions of their opponents ap-
pear as exceptionable and absurd as possible.

So far as this sermon shall come under review, my
remarks will relate chiefly to two points. The first is.
its affirming that certain opinions belong peculiarly and ex-

dusiveiy to Unitarians, when in fact they are held by the
Orthodox. The second is, the misrepresentations it makes
of' the opinions which the Orthodox entertain, and of the rea-
soning commonly used to support them. These two points
cannot be kept perfectly distinct in every part of the
discussion ; but it will be sufficiently evident to which ray
observations relate. For the present I shall beg your
attention to the first.

Heretofore, it has been common for Unitarians in
this country, and, if I mistake not, for this Author him-
self, to assert that, in respect of religious opinions, there
is no essential difference between them and the Orthodox.
For the sake of preventing disunion and strife, they
have seemed to think it desirable, that the difference
should be made to appear as small as possible. Buf
from the tenor of this discourse, one would be apt to
suppose that this Author's judgment or feelings had
changed, and that he thought some important end was to
be answered, by making the difference between the two
parties as wide as possible. If this is a matter of fact, it
is easy to see how it may have occasioned some of the
mistakes, into which he has been led.

In the Sermon, p. 3, he declares what regard he and
his particular friends feel for the Bible, and the princi-
ples of interpretation, by which they govern themselves
in determining what doctrines it contains. — " We regard
the Scriptures," he says," as the record of God's succes-
sive revelation to mankind, and particularly of the last
and most perfect revelation of his will by Jesus Christ,
Whatever doctrines seem to us to be clearly taught in
the Scriptures we receive without reserve or exception."
— It is implied in what he says, that this sentiment of
reverence for the Scriptures is peculiar to Unitarians.
For he first expresses his design to lav before his hear-

ers, " some of the distinguishing opinions of that class of
Christians," in whose name he speaks, and then at the
close says, that he has given their '•' distinguishing views ;5't
that is, their views in distinction from those of the Or-
thodox.— I ask then, is it so ? Is this high veneration
for the Scriptures peculiar to Unitarians ? — Do not the
Orthodox uniformly declare their reverence for the Bi-
ble, and their readiness to submit to all its instructions ?
Do they not embrace that system of doctrines, which is
peculiar to them, purely because they are convinced it
is contained in the word of God, and because with this
conviction, they cannot reject it, without disrespect to
that word ? — Read their confessions of faith, their sys-
tems of Divinity, their Commentaries, Sermons, cate-
chisms, and books of devotion, and then say, whether
they do not manifest as high a regard for the sacred
volume, as this Author expresses? — Why then should it
be signified, that this veneration for the Bible is among
those things, which distinguish Unitarians from the Or-
thodox ? — -Such a representation must certainly appear
somewhat unaccountable to one, who knows what opin-
ions have generally been avowed and defended by
these two parties, respecting the regard which is due to
the Holy Scriptures.

As to these principles of interpretation, there is no
need of adding any thing to what has been written by
my Reverend Colleague. You perceive that these prin-
ciples are not peculiar to Unitarians. They are substan-
tially the principles of the Orthodox; so that, if you
adopt them, the question between us is not, as would
appear from the Sermon, whether the principles are to
be admitted ; but to what conclusions will they coduct us,
when fairly applied to the interpretation of Scripture.

In relation to this point, the Author does indeed
seem to make a concession in favor of others. — " Wc
do not announce these principles," he says, " as original
or peculiar to ourselves." — But immediately he takes
occasion to follow his opponents with a train of reproach-
ful insinuations, signifying, that although they occasional-
ly adopt these principles, they vehemently decry them,
when their cause requires; that they willingly avail them-
selves of reason, when it can be pressed into the service
of their own party, and only complain of it, when its
weapons wound themselves ; that they violate the fun-
damental rules of reasoning, sacrifice the plain to the
obscure, &c.

Under the same head I might place the following
remarks of this Author. — "God's wisdom is a pledge,
that whatever is necessary for us, and necessary for sal-
vation, is revealed too plainly to be mistaken, and too
consistently to be questioned by a sound and upright
mind. It is not a mark of wisdom, to use an unintelligi-
ble phraseology, and to confuse and unsettle the intel-
lect by appearances of contradiction." — Here also he
evidently means to express sentiments, which belong pe-
culiarly to his own party. — I cannot but think it strange,
that it did not occur to his recollection, that the plainness
and intelligibleness of the Scriptures on all essential points
is a principle, tor which the Orthodox in New England
have uniformly contended with great zeal, even in their
controversy with Unitarians.

Under the second head of his discourse, the Author
undertakes " to state some of the views which Unitari-
ans derive from the sacred book, particularly those
which distinguish them from other Christians." — It will
be to my purpose just to notice the first doctrine he
states, though it has been remarked upon so satjsfac-

torily in the publication above named. This is the
unity of God ; which the Author represents as a doc-
trine peculiar to his party. After reading his remarks,
and the remarks of other Unitarians on this subject, who
would expect to find, that all respectable writers on the
side of Orthodoxy have strenuously asserted the unity of
God, as a fundamental doctrine of revelation, and have
declared, times without number, that they could admit
no views of the divine character inconsistent with this ?
Who would expect to find that, in all Confessions of faith
written by Trinitarians, the unity of God is one of the first
doctrines which is asserted, and in all their systems of
Divinity, one of the first, which is distinctly and largely
defended ? — Truly, my respected friends, this doctrine
is as important in our view, as it can be in yours. And
we could not in reality have more reason to charge
Unitarian Authors with injustice, should they represent
us as denying the existence of God, than we have, when
they represent us as denying his unity.

But we proceed to another point, on which this Au-
thor lays still greater stress. — " We believe," he says,
" in the moral perfection of God. — We value our views of
Christianity chiefly, as they assert his amiable and ven-
erable attributes." — From the professed object of the
discourse, and the language here employed, it appears,
that the Author makes it the grand characteristic of
Unitarianism in distinction from Orthodoxy, that it as-
serts the moral perfection of God. — But is this represen-
tation, as to the grand distinction between the parties,
according to truth? Is it a representation, which he is
authorized to make ? — When the most eminent Divines
and most enlightened Christians, who have at any time
embraced the common doctrines of Orthodoxy, — Luther,
Calvin, Boyle, Hale, Baxter, Doddridge, Watts, the Ed-

wardses, tiie Matthers, the Coopers, and multitudes, not
to be numbered, of the same general faith, unite in de-
claring expressly, and constantly, that they believe in the
moral perfection of God, that they ascribe to him infinite
justice, goodness, and holiness, and continually adore his
amiable and venerable attributes ; — who is it that thinks
himself entitled to look down upon this host of worthies,
and reply, — " it is very possible to speak of God mag-
nificently, and to think of him meanly ; to apply to his
person high sounding epithets, and to his government,
principles which make him odious. The heathens cal-
led Jupiter the greatest and the best ; but his history
was black with cruelty and lust." — I make use of no
high coloring. This is the reply, which the Author of
the sermon makes, actually, and in so many words, to
the most serious professions of the Orthodox, whoever
they may be, as to their belief in the moral perfection of
God. If he does not mean to apply what I have quot-
ed, to the Orthodox, he has lost sight of the object of
his discourse, and his subsequent reasoning, as you will
see in a moment, is wholly impertinent.

In another form, he afterwards repeats insinuations
of the same sort. " We believe," he says, — " We" em-
phatically, and by way of distinction from the Orthodox,
— " We believe that in no being is the sense of right so
strong, so omnipotent, as in God. We believe that his
almighty power is entirely submitted to his perception
of rectitude. — It is not because he is our Creator mere-
ly, but because he created us for good and holy purpos-
es ; it is not because his will is irresistible, but because
his will is the perfection of virtue, that we pay him al-
legiance. We cannot bow before a being, however great
and powerful, who governs tyrannically. We respect
nothing but excellence, whether on earth or in heaven."

— Now the whole body of enlightened Christians, who
embrace the common orthodox faith, give their united
testimony to the same truths, and declare their venera-
tion and love for a God of the same amiable character.
In their creeds, systems, sermons, psalmody, and pray-
ers, they abundantly assert these views respecting the
moral perfection of God. They have asserted them con-
tinually, and publicly. They have taught them to their
children. They have repeated them in a thousand
forms. — And yet this author, speaking in your name
too, feels himself entitled to say to them all in reply; —
" It is very possible to speak of God magnificently, and
to think of him meanly. — Your system takes from us our
Father in heaven, and substitutes for him a being, whom
we cannot love if we would, and whom we ought not to
love if we could." — Candor and liberality of mind are vir-
tues which Unitarians have considered peculiarly honora-
ble, and which they have appeared ambitious to advance
to the highest degree of influence. I would just inquire,
whether these virtues are likely to be improved, or to ac-
quire greater influence, either among Unitarians, or the
Orthodox, by such language as this Author uses respect-
ing his opponents, — language apparently expressive of
real conviction, and characterized bv strength and ele-
gance, but unfortunately wanting in justice and truth. —
We claim the right of thinking for ourselves, and of de-
claring what we think. But according to the principle
which seems to govern this writer's pen, there would be
no possibility of cur ever making a declaration of our
opinions, which would be entitled to credit. For sup-
pose wc should profess our full assent to the strongest
propositions of this author respecting the moral perfec-
tion of God ; suppose we should say the very things
which he says, in the same forms, and in different forms,

and should enlarge upon them, and carry them into their
practical uses, and should show by our conduct, that
such are our sober views of the divine character; he
could still meet all this with the reply ; — " It is possible
to apply to God's person high sounding epithets, and to
his government, principles which make him odious. The
heathens called Jupiter the greatest and the best; but
his history was black with cruelty and lust." — If the
picture, which this Author has drawn of our opinions on
this subject were chargeable with only a little misrepre-
sentation ; — or if it were ever so great a misrepresenta-
tion on a subject of no considerable importance ; it would
be worthy of little notice. But it is, if I mistake not, a
great and total misrepresentation, on a subject of vital
consequence to religion, both theoretic and practical.
And every man, and every child, who has received his
impression from this sermon, as to the views of the Or-
thodox on the subject now under consideration, has been
led into a palpable and total mistake as to a matter of
fact, — a matter of fact, concerning which the Orthodox
must be considered the best, and the only competent
judges. To them therefore I appeal. And I am sure
they will be sensible of the truth of what I say, and will
be compelled, from a sense of justice to themselves, to
declare, that, however free from blame the motives of
this Author may have been, the representation he has
here made of their views, is totally incorrect, — that it is
false throughout, and in the highest degree.

LETTER II f.

My respected friends,

I wish you not to infer from any thing contained
in the foregoing letter, nor from the general aspect
of it, that I am desirous of avoiding that kind of investi-
gation, which the Author of the sermon has represented.
as necessary in this case. — " We cannot," he remarks,
"judge of men's real ideas of God from their general
language. — We must inquire into their particular views
of his purposes, of the principles of his administration,
and of his disposition towards his creatures." — To this
mode of proceeding I cheerfully accede. Accordingly,
I will not ask you to rest ultimately on my bare assertion,
that Unitarians give an incorrect account of our opinions,
nor upon my general declaration, that we believe in the
moral perfection of God. — That you may be under the
best advantages to judge, whether we do in fact, believe
in the moral perfection of God, it appears indispensable
that I should state, summarily, what particular views we
entertain of God's character, — " of the principles of his
administration, and of his disposition towards his crea-
tures."— For the correctness of the statement I shall now
make, I must refer you to the writings of those Orthodox
Divines, who are the most judicious, and the most gen-
erally approved.

Views of the Orthodox respecting the moral character
and government of God.

The sentiment, which forms the basis of our system,
is, that God is love. This declaration of Scripture we
understand in its plain and obvious sense, and believe if
happily expresses the whole moral character of God.—

He is a Being of infinite and perfect benevolence ; — benevr
olence without mixture, and without variation. This is the
disposition of God toward his creatures; the disposition
which prompted him to create, and which prompts him
to govern. The object of benevolence, or goodness, is,
to do good, to promote real happiness. The object of
infinite benevolence must be to promote the highest de-
gree of happiness. — As to the ways, in which God will
secure the greatest amount of happiness to his intelli-
gent creation, we can know nothing, except what God is
pleased to reveal. So far as our duty or comfort is con-
cerned, he has given us instruction. According to the
Scriptures, the grand means, by which God will promote
the happiness of his kingdom, is the administration of a
moral government. Such a government, implies a law, en-
forced by proper sanctions ; that is, by the promise of
good to the obedient, and the threat of evil to the dis-
obedient. These promises and threats, being necessary
parts of a benevolent moral government, are expressions
of the divine aoodncss. So is the execution of them.
Thus, the proper punishment of the disobedient, as it is
essential to the administration of a perfect moral gov-
ernment, is, in reality, an act of goodness, — an expression
of God's benevolent regard to his kingdom. When
there is occasion for it, a good father will punish. He
may punish not only consistently with his being good, but
because he is good. God is a father to his kingdom ; and
will, therefore, show his displeasure against that which
tends to injure that kingdom. — As to the degree and du-
ration of the punishment, which will be inflicted on
transgressors, we are, of ourselves, wholly incompetent
to judge ; for the obvious reason, that we arc not capa-
ble of knowing what the present and future interests of
a kingdom, so extensive, will require. We believe thnf.

according to the Scriptures, God will inflict on the
wicked a great and everlasting punishment. But, so
far as reasoning is concerned, we believe this, as a
consequence of believing, that God will feel and manifest
displeasure against sin in proportion to the strength of
the love, which he feels for his kingdom. In other
words, we believe he will inflict on the disobedient that
very punishment, which they deserve, and which, He be-
ing judge, the welfare of his kingdom renders necessary.
We consider the demerit of sin to be great, in proportion
to the moral excellence of God, against whom it is com-
mitted, and to the value of those interests, which it aims
to destroy. Here you see why we view punitive justice.
as a branch of benevolence, an exercise of goodness. As
God is a moral Governor, and the Guardian of the inter-
ests of the creation, the want of justice in punishing of-
fences would betray the want of goodness. Thus we be-
lieve, as this Author informs us Unitarians believe, — that
the justice of God " is the justice of a good being, dwel-
ling in the same mind, and acting in harmony with per-
fect benevolence." He represents the belief, " that jus-
tice and mercy are intimate friends, breathing the same
spirit, and seeking the same end," as peculiar to Unita-
rians ; though it is in truth the general belief of the Or-
thodox.— But in case of transgression, justice and mercy
must seek the same end in different ways. In the exer-
cise of justice, God seeks the happiness of his kingdom
by punishing an offence ; — in the exercise of mercy, or
grace, by forgiving an offence. This Author says, " God's
mercy, as we understand it, desires strongly the happi-
ness of the guilty." We believe the same. But he
adds a condition. " God's mercy desires strongly the
happiness of the guilty, but only through their penitence"
— We go farther. We believe, indeed, that repentance

is essential to the happiness of the guilty; but we be-
lieve also, because we are so taught in the Scriptures,
that repentance itself, without the death of a Mediator,
could be of no avail. To forgive sin in any other way,
than through the shedding of blood, would not consist
with a due regard to " the interests of virtue," and so.
to use this Author's language, " would be incompatible
with justice, and also with enlightened benevolence/'
On the other hand, we think it equally clear, that the
happiness of the impenitent would be not only inconsist-
ent with the divine perfections, but in the nature of
things impossible.

We believe, as sincerely as Unitarians do, in the pa-
ternal character of God. You " ascribe to him,*' as this
Author informs us, " not only the name, but the disposi-
tions, and principles of a father.''1 With the qualifica-
tions which the divine perfection renders necessary, we
do the same. — The language refers to the dispositions
of a human father. These dispositions belong to God,
-90 Jar as is consistent with his infinite perfection. It is
plain, that the dispositions of God, and the conduct flow-
ing from them cannot, in all respects, resemble the dis-
positions and conduct of a human father. The nature
of a human father, and the relation he sustains to his
children, have but an imperfect analogy to the nature of
God, and the relation he sustains to his creatures. From
this we conclude, that his treatment of his creatures can-
not be fully represented by the treatment, which a hu-
man father gives his children. Permit me to illustrate
this by a few examples. — What human father, possessing
even a common degree of paternal kindness and compas-
sion, would ever treat his children, as God treated his
rational offspring, when he destroyed the world by a del-
uge, or Sodom by fire, or when he caused the earth to

open and swallow up the company of Korah? Would
a compassionate father drown his children, or consume
them by fire, or bury them alive in the earth ? — God
suffers his rational creatures, even harmless children, to
die of hunger, or of sickness, or to be destroyed by some
act of cruelty. Could a human father stand and see his
children die thus, when it was in the power of his hand
to afford relief? — I mention these among a thousand in-
stances, as proof, that the analogy between God and a
human father, though a very striking and delightful one,
is not perfect, and may be carried too far. Most certain-
ly it is carried too far by those, who undertake to prove
what God will do or will not do, as to the punishment of
the wicked in the future world, by the consideration, that
he is metaphorically called a father. The analogy implied
in this metaphor must be guarded, and kept within due
limits, as carefully as the analogy implied in the meta-
phors, by which God is called a fire, a man of war, &c.
It is not necessary here particularly to exhibit the prin-
ciples, Avhich we apply in the interpretation of meta-
phorical language. I will only say, in short, that we can
be in no danger of mistake, when we fix upon the analo-
£T, which is suggested by the metaphor itself, and by
the manifest design of the writer, and limit the analogy,
as we do in common cases, by the knowledge we have ob-
tained of the subject from other sources. On these

principles, the soundness of which will not be called in
question, we look to God as a father ; we love him as
a father ; we trust in him as a father. We believe he
lias a paternal affection for his rational offspring, and
takes delight, as a father does, in promoting their wel-
fare. Nay more ; we believe that the love of God is
not only sincere and durable, like that of a father, but is
free from all human imperfection, and distinguished by a

purity, elevation, and activity, infinitely superior to what
belongs to the love of the best father on earth.

I cannot do justice to Orthodox ministers without ad-
ding, that their belief in the moral excellence of God is
not a matter of mere speculation. It is in the highest
degree practical. They make the infinite and immuta-
ble goodness of God the grand motive to religious wor-
ship. They inculcate it, as the spring of all pious affec-
tions. They present it to the view of Christians to pro-
duce higher love, gratitude, and joy. They present it
to the view of sinners, to show them the inexcusable
guilt and baseness of their disaffection to their Maker,
and to induce them to return to him by repentance.
They dwell upon the unchangeable love of God, which
has a length, and breadth, and depth, and height, passing-
all understanding, as the source of joy in prosperity, of
comfort in affliction, and triumph in death. And they
lead Christians to expect, that their highest enjoyments
in heaven will arise from the more glorious display, which
God will there make, of his infinite benignity and grace.

It would be great injustice to Orthodox ministers
and Christians, both in Europe and America, to pass over
the influence, which their belief in the divine goodness
has, to excite benevolent exertion. It is because they be-
lieve that God is Iovp, and that he is ready to pardon and
save all who repent, that they are engaged in such plans
of benevolence, and are striving, in various ways, to en-
lighten and convert the world. In all these benevolent
efforts, they are aiming at a humble imitation of Him,
who is the supreme object of their veneration and love.

Now when I consider what stress the Orthodox lay
upon the moral perfection of God, the variety of way-,
in which they acknowledge and affirm it, and the para-
mount influence which it has upon thru- conduct; lam

not a little surprised that any man should charge them
with denying it. It is, in reality, the very last thing they
would deny. I appeal to millions of witnesses, who will
tell you, that they are as far from denying the moral
perfection of God, as they are from denying that he exists;
and that his existence would not only cease to afford
them satisfaction, but would fill them with anxiety and
dread, had they not a certain belief, that he is possessed
of perfect rectitude, of unbounded and unchangeable
goodness. And after the statement I have now made,
and similar statements made by others, of the sentiments
of the Orthodox on this subject ; I leave it to you can-
didly to judge, what occasion the Author of this sermon
could have for saying what he does, in the following pa-
thetic passage; — "We ask our opponents to leave us a
God, worthy of our love and trust, in whom our moral
sentiments may delight, in whom our weaknesses and
sorrows may find refuge."

LETTER IV.

My respected friends,

I would now ask your attention more particularly to
the manner, in which the Author of this sermon attempts
to make it appear, that we deny the moral perfection of
God. If I understand him right, as I think I do, he in-
fers ouiv denial of God's moral perfection from our " par-
ticular views of his purposes, of the principles of his ad-
ministration, and of his disposition towards his crea-
tures."

Now if we admit, for the present, the most that any
one could desire,— -that our views on these subjects are.

in reality, inconsistent with the moral perfection of God ,
still the allegation here brought against us, is not well
supported. — I may really believe a certain important doc-
trine, though I believe other things inconsistent with it.
The consistency of my belief is one thing ; the reality of
it, another. I may entertain various opinions, which, if
examined thoroughly, would appear inconsistent with my
belief of some primary truth ; — yet the inconsistency may
not be apparent to me ; and I may as really believe
that primary truth, and act as much under its influence,
as though I did not entertain those other opinions. In
such a case, though an opponent might attack me on
the ground of my consistency, he would not, with any
justice, represent me as denying that primary truth. Ac-
cordingly, the most which this Author could properly
say, even on the admission above supposed, would be
that we do not believe the moral perfection of God con-
sistently, though we may believe it really.

But can the Orthodox be justly charged with en-
tertaining opinions, which are, in fact, inconsistent with
their belief in the moral perfection of God ? this is the
question now to be argued. The Author of the sermon
seems to rest the charge chiefly on two points ; first, the
doctrine we hold as to the natural character of man ;
second, the doctrine we hold, as to the manner in which
God designates the heirs of salvation. — I shall begin with
the first.

Here allow me to remark, with freedom, on the
, mode of reasoning which in my apprehension, ought to
be pursued on such a subject as this. — I am happy to
find the following principle suggested by the Author of
the sermon. — " Whatever doctrines seem to us to be
clearly taught in the Scriptures, we receive without re-
serve or exception." Right. But in relation to this

2(3

subject, lifts lie adhered to his own principle ? With re-
spect to the common doctrine of man's depravity, the
grand inquiry which ought to have engaged his attention,
was this ; — Do the scriptures, understood according to just
rules of interpretation, teach the doctrine ? And does the
doctrine agree with facts, made known by experience and 06-
servation ? — All reasoning a priori, in this case especial-
ly, is to be rejected. And so is every hypothesis, unless
it is evidently founded on Scripture and observation.
Independently of revelation, and well known facts, we
are actually incapable of judging, what the goodness of God
will require, as to the condition of man ; or what maris
character and state must be, under the government of a be-
ing infinitely wise and benevolent. Our inability to judge
on the subject might be made evident, from the utter
impossibility of our having any adequate knowledge re-
specting either the infinite perfection of God, or the vast
and endless scheme of his operations. But without any
labored argument to prove, what must be so plain to
every intelligent man, it will be sufficient for my pres-
ent purpose, merely to refer to a iew other facts, which
arc admitted on all hands, but which are quite as differ-
ent from what we should have previously thought agree-
able to the infinite perfections of God, as the moral de-
pravity of man. — Who would have supposed that a God
of tender compassion and unbounded goodness would send
plagues, hurricanes, and earthquakes, and involve mul-
titudes of affectionate parents, and multitudes of lovely,
helpless children in a sudden and dreadful destruction?
— Who would have thought that the Lord of the uni-
verse, who has an absolute control over all creatures
and all events, would suffer the cruelties and horrors of
the Slave-trade to exist for so long a time ? — These are
great difficulties. But there is one still greater ; name-

ly; that the God of love, who delights in mercy, and ivouhl
have all men to be saved, and who has given his Son to die
for the redemption of the world, should, after all, sitffer the
greater part of the world to live and die without any knowl-
edge of the Savior. — These facts, which are known to all,
are as far from being agreeable to what we should nat-
urally imagine the infinite goodness of God would dictate.,
as the fact, that men are subjects of moral depravity.
But our being unable, by the mere exercise of reason, to
discover the consistency between these facts and the infin-
ite goodness of God, is no proof that the facts do not ex-
ist, and no proof that they are in reality inconsistent with
divine goodness. — With regard to all subjects like these,
the only mode of reasoning, which can be relied upon to
lead us to right conclusions, is that which is pursued in
the science of Physics. Regulating ourselves by the
maxims of Bacon and Newton, we inquire, not what we
should expect the properties and laws of the physical
•world would be, nor whether this or that thing can
be reconciled with the infinite wisdom and goodness of
God, — but simply, what is fact? What do we find from
observation and experience, that the properties and laws of
nature really are? This inquiry, to be philosophical, must
be perfectly unembarrassed by any other inquiry ? The
moment we undertake to shape the conclusions we adopt,
or the facts we discover, so as to make them conform to
any preconceived opinion ; we depart from the legitimate
rule of philosophical research, and expose ourselves to
endless perplexity and error. I might, if necessary, fill
a volume with examples of the vagaries of human rea-
son, flowing from the neglect of this grand principle ol
philosophical research. The importance of this princi-
ple, and the hurtful consequences of disregarding it, are
now admitted by all enlightened philosophers. \nd if

is to the strict observance of it, that we owe our present
advancement in the science of Physics.

Now this principle is as applicable to the science of
Theology, as to the science of Physics. Indeed, it will be
found that in Theology it is still more necessary, and that
any departure from it, is attended with still greater dan-
ger, than in Physics. Theology, as well as Philosophy, is
founded on facts. The first thing to be done in either
case, is to determine, by the proper method of inquiry,
what are the facts, on which the science is founded. In
Philosophy, we learn facts merely by observation and
experience. In Theology, we have additional aid. Rev-
elation, as well as observation and experience, makes
known facts, which form the basis of Theological reason-
ing. But in both cases, the chief object of inquiry, and
the rule of reasoning are the same. We first inquire for
the knowledge of facts; and by reasoning from facts,
we arrive at general truths. If in either case we neg-
lect this grand principle of reasoning, we are involved
in uncertainty, confusion, and error. Suppose a man at-
tempts to prove, from what he thinks divine wisdom or
benevolence must dictate, or from what he knows of some
other subject, that all parts of the earth must enjoy equal
illumination and warmth from the influence of the sun,
and must afford equal advantages and comforts to the in-
habitants. But what becomes of his arguments, when
he looks abroad, and compares the rocks, and ice, and
gloomy nights of Greenland, or the sands of Arabia, with
the pleasantness and fertility of some other parts of the
earth ? Or suppose, in any case, he assumes what must
be the nature of some particular thing, but afterwards
finds, that the phenomena, which that thing exhibits, do
not correspond with his assumption. Shall he deny or
disregard those phenomena ? Or shall he not rather

dismiss his assumption ? — Now it is not a whit less un-
philosophical, to admit any presumptive or hypotheti-
cal reasoning in Ethics, or Theology, than in the science
of Physics. — Suppose we think it inconsistent with the in-
finite goodness of God, that he should create an order of
rational beings, and place them in such circumstances of
temptation, as he certainly knew would be followed by
their transgression and ruin ; or that a God of infinite
power, who has all hearts and all events in his hand,
should suffer mankind, through a hundred generations, to
be in a state of ignorance, rebellion, and wretchedness,
when it is so easy for him to prevent it. But suppose
on further inquiry, we find in both cases the existence of
facts, which we denied. Shall we deny them still ? — It
is true we may not be able to reconcile them with the
perfections of God. What then? Are we omniscient?
Is our understanding above the possibility of mistake ?

These remarks are intended to simplify the object of
inquiry, with regard to the native character of man.
They are intended to show that, according to the just
principles of reasoning in such a case, we have nothing
to do Avith the inquiry, whether the common doctrine of
depravity can consist with the moral perfection of God,
or with any difficulty whatever in the attempt to recon-
cile them. If I say, this doctrine cannot be true, because
I cannot reconcile it with the goodness of God ; it is the
same as saying, / am an infallible judge, and my opinion
must stand, though opposed by the declarations of Scrip-
ture, and the evidence of facts. To take such a position
of mind would be an effectual bar to conviction, and
render all reasoning absolutely useless. If we would reg-
ulate our investigations on this subject by correct princi-
ples ; we must reject totally every prepossession against
the doctrine of depravity, arising from a consideration ol

the divine perfections, or from any thing else, and must
restrict ourselves to this single inquiry, what is true in
fact^ If the subject is one, on which the Scripture un-
dertakes to decide ; the question is, what saith the Scrip-
ture ? If experience and observation cast any light on
the subject; the question is, what do they teach? If
when we pursue our inquiry, we find, that the Scripture,
interpreted without the influence of any prepossession,
and according to just rules, teaches, that man is by na-
ture unholy ; this must, unhesitatingly, be admitted as a
certain truth. That God declares it, is proof enough.
His testimony is an infinitely better foundation for our
faith, than all our reasonings. If observation and expe-
rience teach the same truth ; we are to admit it as doub-
ly confirmed. As to the goodness of God, we know it
from other evidence. The truth under consideration
must, then, according to the supposition, be admitted to
be in reality consistent with the goodness of God, how-
ever hard it may be for those, who are of yesterday and
know nothing, to elucidate that consistency.

The subject under consideration is one, on which we
are peculiarly liable to judge erroneously, for the obvi-
ous reason, that we have a deep personal concern in it.
We are among those, whom the commonly received doc-
trine arraigns, as polluted and guilty. The doctrine
touches our character, and our honor. It aims a blow
at our selfesteem. It disturbs our quiet. The consid-
eration of this circumstance should excite us to guard
most vigilantly against that prejudice, discoloring of evi-
dence, and partial judgment, to which we know every
man, in such a case, is exposed.

LETTER V.

My RESPECTED FRIENDS,

The doctrine, which the Orthodox in New England
hold on the subject, introduced in the last Letter, is
briefly this ; that men are by nature destitute of holiness ;
or that they are subjects of an innate moral depravity ;
or, in other words, that they are from the first inclined to
evil, and that, while unrenewed, their moral affections
and actions are wholly wrong. The doctrine, you per-
ceive, is merely the assertion of a general fact. I shall
at present consider this fact by itself, entirely unencum-
bered with any question about the occasion or the mode
of it.

It is far from my design to exhibit, in detail, the ar-
guments, by which this doctrine is proved. I shall at-
tain my principal object, if 1 succeed in attempting to
expose a wrong method of reasoning, and contribute any
thing towards producing in those, who may honor me
with their attention, a steady desire to know the truth,
and a disposition to investigate the subject of man's nat-
ural character, on right principles, and without being-
shackled by unreasonable prepossessions. But the case
seems to require, that I should lay before you, if not all
the particular proofs, at least the general topics of ar-
gument, on which I ground my humbling conclusion. —
Here then, I contend, and hold myself ready to demon-
strate, that there is no principle in the science of Phys-
ics, which is established by evidence more uniform, and
more conclusive, than the moral depravity of man. )
speak now of the evidence which is furnished merely by
experience and observation, without looking to the Bi-

ble. The appearances of human nature, from infancy to
old age, and from the fall of Adam to the present time,
prove a deeprooted and universal disease. The exist-
ence of this moral disease is practically acknowledged
by all, who have any concern in the education of chil-
dren and youth, or who endeavor, in any form, to bring
the actions of men to conform to the rule of duty. The
strength of this disease is made evident by all the re-
straints, which parents are obliged to put upon their chil-
dren, rulers upon their subjects, and all men, who aim at
being virtuous, upon themselves. This disorder of our
nature is indicated by as clear, as various, and as uniform
symptoms, as ever indicated the existence of a fever, or
a consumption, in an individual. — The evidence of hu-
man depravity from this source alone, is so great, that,
should I reject it as insufficient, I should manifest a
strength of prejudice, which, I soberly think, no increase
of evidence could overcome. And I would propose it
as a serious question, whether, if any of us should stand
by, as impartial spectators, and see, in another order of
beings, the same indications of character, which we see
in the human species, we should hesitate a moment to
pronounce them, depraved.

But as our views of this subject must depend chiefly
on revelation, I shall proceed to exhibit, though in a very
summary way, the principal scripture arguments, on which
the doctrine of man's universal depravity rests. I shall
first illustrate the argument, or rather the principle of
reasoning, from the Old Testament. For this purpose I
shall take a single passage, which may stand for a multi-
tude of the same nature. Gen. vi. 5. " And God saw
that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that
every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil
continually"

It is objected to the argument commonly drawn
from this text, that it related to mankind in a season
of uncommon corruption, and not to mankind at large,
and that it is altogether improper to infer the charac-
ter of the whole human race from the shocking; barbar-
ity and wickedness, which have been perpetrated in any
particular age or country. The same objection is thought
to lie against our reasoning from any of the numerous
passages in the Old Testament, in which human wicked-
ness is declared ; namely, that they relate exclusively
to those who lived at particular times, when iniquity
prevailed to an uncommon degree, and cannot be appli"
ed to mankind generally.

We are now to inquire, whether this objection is
valid.

The text quoted from Gen. vi. 5, did indeed relate
to the corruption of men, who lived before the general
deluge. But we find substantially the same testimony
given of the human character, soon after the deluge.
Gen. viii. 21, " The imagination of man's heart is evil
from his youth." There are two reasons for consider-
ing this as relating to mankind universally, or to human
nature. The first is, that the language is general. " The
imagination of marts heart is evil;" not Noah's heart,
nor the heart of either of his sons particularly ; but man's
heart, — the heart of the human kind. Thus we are led
to consider it, as the testimony of God respecting the
character of our apostate race. The second reason for
this construction is, that the curse spoken of in the same
verse related to mankind in all future ages. " I will not
again curse the ground any more for man's sake ;" that is, I
will not at any future time. Immediately after the testi-
mony above quoted, God said, " neither will I again
smite any more every living thing, as 1 have done," It

was said in relation to all future time. The description
given of man's character must be understood as equally
extensive ; "for" or as it ought, according to the best
authorities, and according to the obvious sense of the
passage, to be rendered, " though the imagination of
man's heart is evil from his youth." The meaning of
the whole taken together is plainly this ; that God
would not destroy the world again by a deluge, as he had
done, though the character of mankind generally would
be, as it had been. — History shows that it has been so
in fact.

Further to illustrate the force of the argument, from
the Old Testament, and the weakness of the objection
against it, I refer my readers to a well known principle of
science, namely, that all,ivho belong to the same species, have
the same nature. We always consider the actions of any
part, certainly of any considerable part of a species, as
indicating the character or nature of the whole. And
why should we doubt the truth of this principle in
relation to man's moral character, any more than in re-
lation to his physical properties, or to the properties of
any other order of creatures ? In all our treatment of
mankind, and in all our maxims of practical wisdom, we
admit the principle, that human nature, as to its grand
moral features, is at all times, and in all circumstances,
the same. This is implied also in the fact, that the same
precepts, motives, and restraints, — in a word, the same
moral discipline has been found suitable and necessary
in all ages.

But I do not stop here, but proceed to inquire, wheth-
er the New Testament, besides furnishing a new argument
jtself, does not give testimony to the soundness of the
argument from the Old. The Psalmist, in Psalm xiv. liii.
v. cxl. x. xxxvi. and Isaiah, ch. lis. describe the wicked-

tiess which prevailed in their day. — " They are corrupt ;
they have done abominable works ; there is none
that doeth good. They are all gone aside, they are
together become filthy ; there is none that doeth good,
no, not one. Their throat is an open sepulchre. Their feet
run to evil. Their thoughts are thoughts of iniquity ;The
way of peace they know not;"&c. The objector says, these
passages described the corruption of the Jews in times of
great degeneracy, and cannot be considered as a just de-
scription of mankind generally. But how does the Apostle
Paul treat the subject ? He takes these same passages, a
thousand years afterwards, and applies them, as de-
scriptive of the character of Jews and Gentiles.
Rom. iii. 9, he says, referring to ch. i. and ii., " We
have before proved both Jews and Gentiles, that they
are all under sin ; as it is written" — immediately intro-
ducing from the Old Testament the texts above quoted,
as a true account of the character of mankind without,
exception ; then stating the end he had aimed at in mak-
ing such a disclosure of the human character ; namely,
" that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world be-
come guilty before God ;" and then directly bringing us
to his final conclusion, that " by the deeds of the law
shall no flesh be justified in his sight." It is a connected
discourse, — an unbroken chain of reasoning. And unless
the texts, which the Apostle here cites from the Old Tes-
tament, are justly applicable to the whole race of man,
" both Jews and Gentiles," and, in connexion with the
preceding part of his Epistle, are actually meant by
him, to be a description of " all the world" " no flesh" be-
ing excepted ; — the whole reasoning of the Apostle is
without force ; his conclusion is broader than his prem-
ises ; and the quotations he makes from the Scriptures
are not only no proofs of what he wishes to establish, but

have no kind of relation to it. The point he labors to
establish is, that " both Jews and Gentiles" — that " all the
world " have such a character, that they cannot be jus-
tified by law. But what is their character ? — It is that
which is first described in the preceding part of the
Epistle, and then in the passages cited from the Old
Testament. " We have before proved both Jews and
Gentiles, that they are all under sin, as it is written ',
There is none that doeth good, no, not one. They are
all gone out of the way ; they are together become un-
profitable, Src." The Apostle manifestly cites these texts,
for the very purpose of describing, still more particularly
than he had done, the character of" all the world." — It
might indeed be thought from the first part of verse 19,
"whatsover the law saith, it saith to them who are un-
der the law," that the Apostle meant to apply what he
had just before said, to Jews only. But this would hard-
ly agree with the scope of the passage, which was to
establish a general truth respecting " all the ivorld."
Besides, the first part of v. 19 will easily admit a construc-
tion perfectly corresponding with the scope of the whole
passage. The Apostle would prove that all men are
under sin. The Jews would naturally make an exception
in their own favor. He tells them that there can be no
exception ; that what he has quoted from the law, that is,
from their own Scriptures, must certainly relate to Jews,
as well as to Gentiles. — The quotations cannot relate to
Jews exclusively of Gentiles, because that would not agree
with the manner, already noticed, in which the quotations
are introduced ; — " We have proved both Jews and Gen-
tiles, that they are all under sin ; as it is written &c."
Nor does it so obviously agree with the conclusion v. 19,
which relates to " all the ivorld." Besides, it is difficult
not to believe that the writer of some of the Psalms

quoted, particularly of the xiv, extended his views beyond
his own nation, though he undoubtedly referred to that
primarily, and in a special sense. When he introduces
that description of wickedness, which is quoted by the
Apostle, his language is general. " The Lord looked
down from heaven, upon the children of men, to see if
there were any that did understand." The Psalmist
then proceeds to give a description, not, one would think,
of the posterity of Abraham solely, but of the children of
men, the human race, and says, they are all gone aside. —
But we shall come ultimately to the same conclusion, if
we admit that the passages were originally intended by
the Psalmist to relate merely to his own nation. For if
such a character belonged to that highly favored nation,
it must of course have belonged to the rest of the world.
So the Apostle decides when, many ages after, he
attributes that description of character to all the
world. On the same principle the passages quoted
by him are applicable to us, as well as to those who liv-
ed in the time of Paul, or of David ; as applicable to us,
as what the Apostle says respecting justification, salva-
tion, duty, or any thing else.

This manner of quoting texts from the Old Testa-
ment is not peculiar to Paul. We find frequent exam-
ples of it in the instructions of Christ himself. The
Prophet Isaiah, chap. xxix. 13, had given the following
description of the hypocrisy of the people, who were con-
temporary with him ; viz. " that they drew near to God
with their mouth, and honored him with their lips, but
had removed their hearts far from him." Jesus quoted
this passage as applicable to the Jews in his day. " Well
did Esaias prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written,
&c." In the same manner Christ repeatedly quoted Isa.

vi. 9, 10, as a true description of the obstinate impiety
of those, who rejected his gospel.

Now this manner of quoting and reasoning from Scrip-
ture, so often employed both by Christ and his apostles,
clearly involves the principle, which I stated in answer to
the objection ; viz. that human nature, in all ages and cir-
cumstances, is, as to its grand moral features, the same,
and that the dispositions and actions, which mankind at
any time exhibit, are real indications of what belongs to
the nature of man universally. Unless this principle is
admitted, how can the Apostle be justified in making such
a use as he does, of his citations from the Old Testa-
ment ? — And to bring the subject nearer home, how can
we make use of any thing which was said of the charac-
ter of man, either in the Old Testament or the New, as
appertaining to those who live at the present day ? In-
deed, how can any of the declarations of the Bible, all
of which were made so many ages ago, be of any use
to us, except to gratify curiosity ? Whether, therefore,
we consider the nature of the case, or the reasoning of
the Apostle in Rom. iii. ; are we not warranted to re-
ceive, whatever the Bible in any part affirms respecting
the dispositions or conduct of men, as applicable, sub-
stantially, to men in all ages ? If Ave are not, what can
we say to vindicate the Apostle? If we are, then
the text I first quoted from Genesis, and those texts
which are quoted from the Psalms in Rom. iii, and oth-
er similar texts in the Old Testament, do all illustrate
the character, which now belongs to man. And when
we read in the Bible, or elsewhere, the highest descrip-
tion of human wickedness in the old world, in Sodom, in
Canaan, in Jerusalem, in Greece, Rome, or India, or of
the wickedness of individuals, as Pharaoh, Saul, Jerobo-
am, Judas, or the Caasars ; it is perfectly just and natu-

ral for us to reflect, such is human nature ; — such is man-
So that Orthodox writers, though they may not, in all in-
stances, have attended sufficiently to the groundwork of
their argument, do in fact reason in an unexceptionable
manner, when they undertake to show what human na-
ture is, from the description which is given of the wick-
edness of man in the Old Testament ; and the objection
to this reasoning, which I stated above, and which is,
briefly, the objection of Dr. Turnbull and Dr. John Tay-
lor, cannot be considered as valid.

Let me detain your attention a few moments, while
I hint at the confirmation, which may be given to the
general principle, asserted above, by an appeal to the
sober convictions of men. They who are in the habit of
comparing their moral affections and conduct with the
perfect law of God, will have no difficulty in acknowl-
edging, that they find, in the various representations of
human depravity, contained in the Old Testament, a true
picture of themselves. I say not that they are conscious
of having committed sinful actions in the same form, or
indulged sinful passions in the same degree, with all those,
whose crimes are recorded in the Bible. This is not
the case. But they arc conscious of having in their
hearts a wrong bias, a want of what the divine law re-
quires, of the same nature, with that moral depravation,
which has been exhibited by the greatest sinners. The
sacred writers impute to various societies and individu-
als, pride, selfishness, idolatry, covetousness, impurity,
revenge, falsehood, blasphemy. Have we not discover-
ed in ourselves the root of all these vices ? Should we
not be liable to actual excess in every one of them, if we
should be freed from restraints, and should follow, with-
out any counteracting influence, the desires which natu-
rally spring up in our heart s ? And have not the greafe

est proficients in self-government and holiness always
been the most ready to make this humiliating confession ?
Even some of the heathen, who made serious attempts to
improve their own character, were forced to acknowl-
edge that the disorder of their nature was too stubborn
to be subdued by them, without help from above.

It is certainly nothing conclusive against the princi-
ple contended for, that some men can be found, who are
not sensible of its truth in relation to themselves. This
may easily be accounted for, without in the least inval-
idating the principle. For they may be altogether in-
attentive to what passes in their own minds, and so may
be ignorant of themselves; or if they are in some mea-
sure attentive to the operations of their own minds, they
may fix their eye upon some of the wrong standards of
duty which are set up, in the world, and so may judge
incorrectly. It is surely no uncommon thing for men to
be insensible of the faults of their character, especially
of the hidden affections of their hearts. This insensibil-
ity, so frequently described in the Scriptures, is a mat-
ter of common observation, an(J has always been regard-
ed, as one of the greatest hindrances to the salutary in-
fluence of divine truth.

The argument from the Old Testament might be
extended to great length, comprising all the positive de-
clarations there made, and all the examples there exhib-
ited, of human wickedness ; all the confessions both of
saints and sinners ; all the means employed to subdue the
moral corruption of men and hold them back from sin,
and every thing else, which showed formerly, and which,
consequently, always shows, what is in man. They who
read the Old Testament with such views as the Apos-
tles entertained respecting it, will be constantly improv-
ing their acquaintance with themselves, — their knowl-

edge of their own moral degradation, and their desire
after that gracious influence of the Holy Spirit, which
renews and exalts the soul.

LETTER VI.

My respected friends,

In the last Letter, I confined myself almost entirely
to the establishment of a general principle, and to the
proof which, according to that principle, may be drawn
from the Old Testament, in support of the doctrine of
man's moral depravity. I might also refer to declara-
tions which are general or universal, as Jeremiah xvii. 9,
" The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperate-
ly wicked ; who can know it ?" " The heart" not of any
man, or any society of men in particular ; but of man
universally. The next verse confirms this sense. " I the
Lord search the heart ;" — the same heart, as the one
spoken of in v. 9 ; so that if, when the Prophet says, the
Lord searches the heart, we are to understand him as
meaning, that the Lord searches the heart universally, or
the heart of every hitman being ; then also, when in the clos-
est connexion with this, he says, the heart is deceitful and
wicked, we must understand him as meaning that the
heart universally, or the heart of every human being is de-
ceitful and wicked. — This is the only sense which any
man can give the text, v. 9, who attends to its connex-
ion with the following verse, or considers what language
we commonly use to express a general or universal pro-
position. Another passage containing a universal propo-
sition of like character, is found in Eccles. ix. 3. " The
heart of the sons of men is full of evil."

But in the New Testament every thing is invested
with clearer light. Here we find evidence, exhibited
in many different forms, that man, as a species, that the
human kind, is sunk in sin, and while unrenewed, entire-
ly destitute of holiness, and unfit for heaven. This evi-
dence I shall now lay before you, though it must be with
great brevity, and in reference only to a (ew passages.

The first passage, to which I would call your atten-
tion, is found in the discourse of Jesus with Nicodemus,
John iii. 1 — 7. This conversation took place near the
beginning of Christ's ministry. About four thousand
years had passed away, from the fall of man. Those
four thousand years had furnished no small evidence of
the human character. The corruption and violence of
the old world had been seen. And notwithstanding the
tremendous purgation, which the world underwent by
the general deluge, it had been seen, that the new race,
descending from righteous Noah, pursued the same
downward course with the generations before the flood.
The same had been the case with the posterity of Abra-
ham. Although various and powerful means had been
used to restrain men from wickedness and induce them
to serve God, they had in every nation, and in every age,
shown themselves prone to evil. Jesus knew what dis-
play had been made of the human character in every
period of the world. He knew what was in man. The
grand result of what his all searching eye had seen, and
then saw, of the affections and conduct of the human race,
he expressed to Nicodemus; " Except a man be born
again, he cannot see the kingdom of God." The moral
renovation here spoken of, is represented as necessary
for all men. Eow (iyi tig yevv^dy} avodev. It is said of
any one. The sense is, that no man, no human being, who
is not the subject of this renovation, can be a partaker of

the benefits of Christ's kingdom. The necessity of this
renovation, as appears afterwards, arises from the char-
acter which man possesses, in consequence of his natural
birth. Of course, it is necessary for every child of Ad-
am. " That which is born of the flesh, is flesh." " By
flesh" says Rosenmullcr, with evident propriety, and in
agreement with commentators generally, " is meant the
nature of man, — man with all his moral imperfection,
subject to the dominion of his bodily appetites. And
he who is born of parents, who have this moral imper-
fection, is like his parents." All the children of men are
here represented as having, by their very birth, a moral
nature, which renders them incapable of enjoying the
blessings of the Messiah's kingdom, unless they are bom
again. This interpretation is confirmed by all those
texts, in which the word crapif, or Gapxixog, flesh, or flesh-
ly, is used to express the opposite of that which is spiritu-
al or holy. The metaphorical expression, being born again,
must denote a moral change, because it is a change that
fits men for a moral or spiritual kingdom. If we view
this passage in connexion with those, which represent
repentance and conversion, as necessary to prepare men
for Christ's kingdom, we shall see that being bom again
denotes a change of the same general character with
repentance and conversion. It is then clear, that this
passage of Scripture, interpreted according to just rules,
contains the following sentiment ; — that all men, without
exception, are by nature, or in consequence of their natural
birth, in such a state of moral impurity, as disqualifies
them for the enjoyments of heaven, unless they are re-
newed by the Holy Spirit.

Rom. v. 12. " Wherefore as by one man sin entered
into the world, and death by sin, and so death passed
upon all men. for that all have sinned." Although this

text must be allowed to be, in some respects, very
obscure ; two things are perfectly clear. 1. That the
Apostle considered sin, as the cause of death, or the rea-
son why God sent into the world the evils involved in
the word death. 2. That as sin is the cause of death, the
extent of the one may be measured by the extent of the
other. Determine how far death extends, and you de-
termine how far sin extends. If a part of the human
species die, a part are sinners. If all die, all are sinners.
" Death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned."
E<£> w, according to the judgment of the most eminent
critics, and the use of the phrase elsewhere in the New
Testament, means the same as Sioti, eo quod, quia, — for
that, or because. The Vulgate renders it, in quo, in
whom ; from which some have thought the Apostle
meant to assert, that it is in Adam, that all men have
sinned, so that his transgression becomes theirs by im-
putation. But 1 see nothing in the passage, or in the
nature of the subject, which can justify such an inter-
pretation.

On this particular point, our opinions have been of-
ten misrepresented. We are said to hold, that God
dooms a whole race of innocent creatures to destruction, or
considers them all as deserving destruction,Jbr the sin of one
man. Now when I examine the respectable writings of
the earlier Calvinists generally, on the subject of origi-
nal sin, I find nothing which resembles such a statement
as this. It is true, exceptionable language has in some
instances been used, and opinions, which I should think
erroneous, have sometimes been entertained on this sub-
ject. But the Orthodox in New England, at the pres-
ent day, are not chargeable with the same fault. The
imputation of Adam's sin to his posterity, in any sense,
which those words naturally and properly convey, is a

doctrine which we do not believe. It' any shall say, as
Stapfer does, who refers to Vitringa and other reformed
divines, as agreeing with him, — that " for God to give
Adam a posterity like himself, and to impute his sin to
them, is one and the same thing ;" I should not object
to such an imputation. For I see not how any man, who
has a serious regard to scripture, or to fact, or considers
what are the laws of our nature, can hesitate to admit,
that God has given Adam a posterity like himself.

But the word imputation has, in my view, been im-
properly used in relation to this subject, and has occa-
sioned unnecessary perplexity. In scripture, the word,
impute, signifies uniformly, if I mistake not, charging or
reckoning to a man that which is his own attribute or
act. Every attempt, which has been made, to prove
that God ever imputes to man any sinful disposition or
act, which is not strictly his own, has, in my judgment,
failed of success. And as it is one object of these Let-
ters, to make you acquainted with the real opinions of
the Orthodox in New England ; I would here say, with
the utmost frankness, that we are not perfectly satisfied
with the language used on this subject, in the Assem-
bly's Catechism. Though we hold that Catechism, tak-
en as a whole, in the highest estimation ; we could not,
with a good conscience, subscribe to every expression it
contains in relation to the doctrine of original sin. Hence
it is common for us, when we declare our assent to the
Catechism, to do it with an express or implied restric-
tion. We receive the Catechism generally, as containing
a summary of the principles of Christianity. But that
the sinfulness of our natural, fallen state consists, in any
measure, " in the guilt of Adam's first sin," is what we
cannot admit, without more convincing evidence. But
we think we have the best reason for believing that, in

respect of character, there is a connexion between Adam
and the whole human race. Nor do we, as the Author
of this Sermon seems to think, rest this opinion on " a
few slight hints about the fall of our first parents," but
upon the plain, and reiterated declaration of the Apostle
Paul, Rom. v. Notwithstanding all the difficulty with
which this passage is attended, one point is plain. The
writer makes it known, in different forms of expression,
and with the greatest perspicuity, that a connexion re-
ally exists between the father of the human race, and
all his children. Unless Adam's transgression had, in
the plan of the divine administration, such a relation to
his posterity, that in consequence of it, they were con-
stituted sinners, and subjected to death and all other
sufferings, as penal evils ; the Apostle reasons inconclu-
sively, and entirely misses the end he aims at, in his com-
parison of Adam and Christ. Nothing can be more ob-
vious, according to the common rules of interpretation,
than that he meant to assert this connexion ; so that, if
no such connexion exists, he had the misfortune to pub-
lish a mistake.

Though it would not be consistent with the plan of
these Letters to collect the various passages of the
New Testament, which prove what man's native charac-
ter is; I cannot willingly leave the subject without ad-
verting again to the manner, in which the Apostle Paul
was accustomed to treat it. From a great multitude of
pertinent texts, I take one. Eph. ii. 3. " Among whom
also we all had our conversation, &c. and were by nature
children of wrath, even as others." He says this of believ-
ing Jews, as is evident from the beginning and the close
of the verse, in connexion with the context. To be chil-
dren of wrath, according to Schleusner, Rosenmuller,
Koppe, and others, is to be worthy of punishment, poenis

divinis digni. To be children of wrath, QvGei, by nature,
is to be born so, or to be so in consequence of our birth,
or in consequence of our natural dispositiou. " Ob natura-
lem nostram indolem." See Schleusner's Lex. on this text.
Compare Gal. ii. 15, " We who are Jews by nature" i. e.
born Jews, or Jews by birth. Schleusner says that, accord-
ing to the whole scope of the discourse,Ep.ii. fyvoig, nature,
signifies the state of those who had not been instructed and
reformed by the christian religion. True. But why was
that state called fyvOLg, nature ? — a word which points us
to our origin, nativity, birth. — We shall see the reason
of this, if we compare this text with the passage, quoted
above, from John iii. " That which is born of the flesh, is
flesh ;" a declaration fairly capable of no meaning but
this, that man possesses by his natural birth a depraved
disposition, corrupt desires, as the word flesh signifies in
the text now under consideration, Eph. ii. 3, and in every
other place, where it relates to the moral character or
conduct of men. That which is born of the flesh, or
that which man has by nature, is such a temper or
character, that according to the Apostle, he is a child of
wrath ; — such, according to the representation of Christ,
that he must be the subject of a new birth by the spirit,
or he cannot see the kingdom of God. — This must be
the meaning of these two passages taken together, un-
less we are driven by our dislike of the doctrine con-
tained in them, to violate the plainest rules of interpre-
tation. If similar phraseology should be found on any
other subject ; if, for example, it should be said, that
which is born of human parents is human, or that which
is born of man is frail and liable to decay, — and that eve-
ry man is by nature the subject of various appetites and
passions ; who would not understand these phrases, as
denoting what man is, or what he has, bit his birth, oi

what is inbred, or native ? Or if language should be us-
ed by an inspired writer expressing in the same way,
that which is opposite to what we understand by this
text ; that is, if it should be said, that the children of men
are by nature pure, — or that what is born of human par-
ents is virtuous and holy; would not our opposers think
such a passage a proof sufficiently clear, of the native pu-
rity, the original, inbred virtue of man% And would they
not be greatly " amazed " at the attempt of any man to
put a different sense upon it ?

That the human species is universally, while unre-
newed, in a state of entire moral corruption, is implied
in the invariable practice of the Apostles, wherever
they went, to call upon men, according to their divine
commission,—" upon all men every where to repents The
duty, and necessity of repentance, which denotes a radical
moral change, was inculcated on all, to whom the Gos-
pel was proclaimed. If, in any part of the world, an
Apostle found human beings, he instantly took it for
granted, that they were children of disobedience, and
children of wrath, and treated them accordingly, — just
as he took it for granted that they were mortal. — All
the provisions of the Gospel are adapted to those, who
are polluted and guilty. If any can be found, whether old
or young, who are not the subjects of moral depravity
and ruin, they are evidently excluded from any concern
with those provisions. — When we pursue the history of
the christian religion through the days of the Apostles,
we find wherever it produced its genuine effects, it pro-
duced repentance and fruits meet for repentance ; — it form-
ed men, whoever they were, to a new character ; so
that it became universally true, that if any man was a
Christian, he was a new creature, or in the language of
of Christ, was born again. We find no instance of the

contrary. The character, which St. Paul gives of the
followers of Christ, implies that they had, without excep-
tion, been renewed. He often turns their thoughts to
their former state of degradation and ruin. He paints
that state in the strongest colors. He illustrates it by
the most striking metaphors. He reminds believers,
that before their regeneration, they were servants of sin,
dead in trespasses and sins, enemies to God, impure,
earthly. He speaks of this moral corruption, not as a
fact, which was local, or of limited extent, but univer-
sal. And accordingly, he makes it a part of the general
system of Christian doctrine.

There is a difficulty, I well know, in applying the
description, given by the Apostle, of the character, which
the first converts to Christianity originally possessed,
to men of the present day, whose exterior character
has been formed under the influence of a Christian educa-
tion. But this difficulty disappears, when we attend to
the principle, which the Apostle recognises in his rea-
soning, Rom. iii, and which I have already endeavored
to illustrate ; namely ; that, whatever difference may
exist, as to outward character, all men have the same
natural disposition, the same original ingredients of moral
character. In conformity to this principle, we pass by
what is merely regular and amiable in the eye of the
world ; we pass by all the diversities of exterior charac-
ter, and look to the grand moral affections of the heart,
in which all are alike. Agreeably to this view, and
agreeably to what our Savior says as to sin in the heart,
Matt. v. 21, 22, 28, it would appear that, although men
have not openly, or by formal acts, made themselves
idolaters, thieves, adulterers, and murderers ; they do,
in a greater or less degree, possess those very passions,
or desires, which, if indulged and acted out, would make
them so. And thus we shall have, the happiness o^

agreeing with the Author of the sermon now before us,
who in another ordination sermon, gives the following
just description of the character of the human species. —
" To whom is the minister of the gospel sent to preach ?
To men of upright minds, disposed to receive and obey
the truth, which guides to heaven? Ah no! He is cal-
led to guide a wandering flock ; — he is sent to a world of
sinners, in whose hearts lurk idolatry, sensuality, pride,
and every corruption"*

Men, who assert the native purity of human beings,
insist much upon the harmlessness and tender sensibilities
of little children, before they are corrupted by example,
and also upon the existence of what are called the natu-
ral affections in mankind generally. But how can those
things, which man possesses in common with irrational
animals, or those, which necessarily appertain to his pres-
ent mode of existence, and which remain the same,
whatever character he sustains, be considered as evi-
dence of the purity of his moral nature ?

The attempt, often made, to account for the univer-
sal prevalence of sin, by the influence of example, with-
out supposing any native bias to evil, cannot afford satis-
faction. For we are still pressed with the difficulty of
accounting for it, that children, whose nature is untaint-
ed with moral evil, should be disposed to imitate bad
examples, rather than good ones, — to neglect their duty,
rather than perform it ; and that all discreet parents and
instructers, who have any familiar acquaintance with the
youthful mind, should be led to frame their whole sys-
tem of instruction and discipline, upon the principle, that
children are prone to evil, inclined to go astray. Any
plan of education, whether domestic or public, which
should overlook this principle, and involve the oppo-
site one of man's native purity, would be regarded by
* Serm. at the Ordination of the Rev. J. Codman.

all men of sober experience and sober judgment, as ro-
mantic and dangerous.

But I must bring my remarks on this subject to a
close. My object was to show that we receive the doc-
trine of man's native corruption upon its own proper ev-
idence, as we receive any other truth ; and that it is to-
tally unphilosophical and unscriptural, to suffer this evi-
dence to be obscured or perplexed by the inquiry, how
the doctrine can be reconciled with the moral perfec-
tion of God. Both the moral perfection of God, and
the doctrine of human depravity, rest upon evidence,
which is, in our view, perfectly conclusive. We believe
them both, and believe them entirely consistent with
each other. Indeed, we see no peculiar difficulty at-
tending their consistency. If any one asserts, that our
doctrine of man's depravity and the moral perfection of
God are inconsistent with each other ; it will behoove
him to show, in what respects, and for what reasons,
they are inconsistent. He ought to show too, how it is
any more inconsistent with the goodness of God, for men
to be corrupt in the earliest period of their existence, than
in any subsequent period ; or for all men to be corrupt,
than for any part of them ; or for men to be corrupt
in a higher degree, than in a lower degree. If, from a
consideration of the divine goodness, or for other reasons,
any should persist in denying the doctrine of man's wo-
tive depravity ; they will easily see what a task they
take upon themselves. They must first make it appear,
by a thorough investigation, conducted in conformity to
just and allowed principles, that none of the texts of
Scripture, which I have cited, and no others of a similar
character, contain the doctrine. In addition to this, thev
must satisfactorily account for all the corruption and
wickedness, which man has exhibited, from ch'Mhood to

old age, in all nations and circumstances, and in opposi-
tion to all the means which have been used to restrain
him, without admitting that his nature is prone to evil ; —
a task, I should think, of the same kind, with that of ac-
counting for all the phenomena of the natural world, by
which the Newtonian philosophy proves the law of
gravitation, without admitting that law.

LETTER VII.

My respected friends,

Unitarian writers generally, as well as the Author of
the Sermon before us, have appeared to think, that the
commonly received doctrine of Election is totally incom-
patible with the goodness of God, and that our believ-
ing that doctrine is proof sufficient, that we do not be-
lieve in the divine goodness.

To this subject, though not a very popular one, I
hope you will attend with that candor and unprejudic-
ed judgment, without which, as you must have often
seen in others, all inquiry after the truth is in vain.
Against the doctrine of the Reformed Churches, now
to be considered, there are strong prepossessions. And
I am (ree to acknowledge, that Orthodox writers and
preachers of high repute, but deficient in judgment,
have, in some instances, exhibited the doctrine in a
manner, which has given too much occasion for these
prepossessions ; — and too much occasion for this Au-
thor, and many others, to think that the doctrine is in-
consistent with the moral perfection of God. 1 wish
you, therefore, distinctly to understand, that it is not the
doctrine of Election, as stated by some of its injudicious

advocates, or as understood by its opposers, that I would
now defend.

This subject, as it respects a principle of the divine
administration, is not only a very important one, but one
which obviously involves questions of difficult and pro-
found investigation. It respects the administration of a
Being, possessed of infinite understanding, and infinite
holiness, — a Being, to whom we have no right to dic-
tate, and of whom we have no cause to complain, — a
Being, before whose supreme majesty, we are nothing,
and less than nothing. Though I have a heart as lofty,
and vain, and presumptuous as others ; yet when I bring
this subject before me, and consider that I have under-
taken to inquire respecting the administration of the
eternal, incomprehensible God, my Sovereign, and my
Judge, — I stand in awe ; I check my presumption ; and
resolve to hold my mind in a humble, docile frame, lest
I should incur that appalling rebuke of the Apostle, —
" Who art thou, O man, that repliest against God ?" I
bid myself remember, that neither my opinions, nor
those of any mortal, are entitled to regard, any farther
than they agree with the truths of revelation, and that,
whatever my opinions or wishes may be, those truths
will remain the same. I would devoutly cherish the im-
pression that no opinions can be right, which would make
any part of Scripture unwelcome to me ; and that the
greatest dislike of men, which may be incurred by de-
fending the doctrines of revelation, is not worthy to be
named, in comparison with the frown of my final Judge,
for rejecting those doctrines.

It is generally acknowledged by Christians, that no
opinion or reasoning respecting the divine character, or
administration, can be relied upon, except that which
rests on the declarations of Scripture, On this subject

especially, not the least respect is due to any argument,
however plausible, which, on careful inquiry, is found
contrary to what God has taught us in his word, or to
what takes place in his providence. The object of our
present inquiry is then very simple. If it were put to
my natural reason to judge, by its own light, respecting
what is called the doctrine of Election ; my judgment
might agree with the judgment of those, who reject the
doctrine. If the question were, what difficulties attend
the doctrine ; I might perhaps bring forward as many
as others. And if the question were, whether the doc-
trine, as generally represented by its opposers, and even
by the Author of this Sermon, is according to the word
of God ; I should answer, as they do, in the negative.
But the proper question is, what saith the Scripture1?
What does God teach us, as to the manner in which he
designates those, who are to be heirs of salvation ?

I shall not go largely into a consideration of the evi-
dence from Scripture, in support of the doctrine now un-
der consideration ; but shall merely proceed far enough
to show, that we do not believe the doctrine without
evidence, and that our believing it is not a proof of our
denying the moral perfection of God, but a consequence
of our reverence for his word.

Proof of the doctrine of Election.

I find that Jesus Christ often speaks of a part of man-
kind, as being given him of the Father. This he does
several times in John xvii. As an example of the whole,
verse 2 may be taken. " As thou hast given him pow-
er over all flesh, that he should give eternal life to as
many as thou hast given him." The sense is, that the
Father has given to Christ a part of the human race, and
that those, who have thus been given to Christ, are the per-
sons who shall have eternal life. As to the meaning of the

passage, the only question that deserves a moment's
consideration, is, whether it relates to all who shall
finally be saved, or merely to those who were disciples
of Christ at that time. — In favor of the larger sense,
there are several arguments.

1. Christ is here speaking of his general commission
and work, as a Savior. He tells us, that the Father
has given him power over alljlesh, without the least in-
timation of any limits. And for what purpose was he
endued with this extensive power ? " That he might
give eternal life to as many as the Father had given him."
His work, as a Savior, and the power committed to
him did in fact extend, not merely to those who were
then his disciples, but to the whole number of the re-
deemed. But why should he speak of his poiver in this
extensive sense, if he meant that the end to be accom-
plished by it should be understood in so limited a sense ?
No limits are suggested. Why then should we not
understand the phrase, " as many as thou hast given
him," to denote all, to whom Christ will actually give
eternal life ?

2. The context shows, that Christ, in the prayer
here recited, had his eye upon all, who should be saved
in future ages. v. 20. " Neither pray I for these alone,
but for them also, who shall believe on me through their
word." There can be no reason to doubt, that he had
as large an extent of views in the second verse, as in the
twentieth.

3. This interpretation receives additional confirma-
tion from a similar passage in John vi. 37, 39. " All that
the Father giveth me, shall come to me ; and him that
cometh to me, I will in no wise cast out. — And this is
the Father's will who sent me, that of all which he
hath given me 1 should lose nothing, but should raise it

up again at the last day." Those who are given to
Christ, and those who shall come to Christ, are here
identified. Indeed, the passage plainly signifies, that, in
every case, a person's being given to Christ secures his
coming to Christ ; a circumstance which fixes one point ;
namely ; that those, who will finally be saved, are giv-
en to Christ before they come to him. — From v. 39, we
have additional proof that, when Christ speaks of those,
who were given him of the Father, he includes the
whole number that shall be saved. " This is the Fa-
ther's will, — that of all which he hath given me, I should
lose nothing, but should raise it up at the last day."
The work of Christ, as a Savior, doubtless extends
alike to all, who shall be raised to eternal life at the
last day. But this work of his is here represented as
relating to those, whom the Father had given him.
From the whole it seems evident, that when Christ
speaks so familiarly, in John xvii, of those who were giv-
en him, he refers to all who shall be saved.

But even on supposition, that the language related
to those only, who were then his disciples ; the argu-
ment would still be the same, because the principle
would be the same. There could be no reason, why
the Father should give Christ those, who were sav-
ed by him during his life, and not those who should be
saved afterwards ; and no reason, why being given to
Christ should stand in certain connexion with salvation
in one case, and not in the other.

If we should examine other texts of similar import,
we should find still more abundant proof of what is so
evident from the two passages above cited ; namely ;
that the Father has given a portion of mankind to Christ,
in a peculiar sense, and in distinction from others, and that
Christ will actually bestow eternal life on all who have been
thus given him. I see not how any man can give a dif-

i'erent sense to the texts alluded to, without being con*
scious that he is drivren to it, by his prepossession against
this doctrine.

Pursuing the single inquiry, what the scriptures teach,
we find several passages, which speak, with a re-
markable emphasis, of a purpose and choice of God re-
specting those, who will be saved. My limits will allow
me to consider only two.

The apostle says to the Ephesians, ch. i. 3 — 11,
" Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus
Christ, who hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings
in heavenly things in Christ ; according as he hath chosen
us in him before the foundation of the world, that ive should
be holy, &fc. ; having predestinated us unto the adoption of
children by Jesus Christ to himself according to the good
pleasure of his will, to the praise of the glory of his grace,
— in whom also we have obtained an inheritance, being
predestinated according to the purpose of him, who worketh
all things after the counsel of his own wilV Here we are
taught, that God has a purpose, choice, will, and good
pleasure, respecting those who are saved. It is such a
purpose, that when men are saved, they are saved ac-
cording to it. It is a purpose or choice, which was in the
mind of God, before they were saved, and before they ex-
isted. They were " chosen in Christ before the founda-
tion of the world." And it is a purpose, which does not
rest upon any personal merit in those, who are its ob-
jects. The purpose or choice is here repeatedly repre-
sented as a matter of grace, as according to the riches of
grace; — exactly in agreement with other passages, which
exclude all works of righteousness from having any concern
in this subject.

The other passage I shall particularly notice, is
Rom. ix, 1 1 — 24. In verses 1 1, 12. 13. it is said : « For

the children," that is, Jacob and Esau, " being not yet
born, neither having done any good or evil, that the pur-
pose of God according to election might stand, not of
works, but of him that calleth, it was said unto her, the
elder shall serve the younger. As it is written, Jacob
have I loved, but Esau have I hated." It is beyond all
doubt in my mind, that this interesting passage was
meant to be understood in a national sense ; that is, that
they respected Jacob and Esau, not personally, but as
the heads of two tribes or nations ; or, in other words,
that they respected those two nations. It is apparent
too, that what is quoted from Moses, v. 15 ; "I will
have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have
compassion on whom I will have compassion," was said
originally respecting a part of the Israelitish nation in
the wilderness. But it is equally clear, that the apos-
tle makes use of the divine conduct respecting the pos-
terity of Jacob and Esau, mentioned in v. 11, 12, 13, and
the declaration of God, quoted in v. 15, as illustrative of
a general principle in the divine administration. This
principle is brought into view, v. 16, as an inference from
what preceded. " So then it is not of him that willeth,
nor of him that runneth, but of God that showeth
mercy." It is deduced, as a general principle, from
what God said respecting the offending Israelites in a
particular case. This mode of reasoning is repeated
immediately after. First, a passage is quoted from the
Old Testament ; v. 17 ; " For the scripture saith unto
Pharaoh, even for this same cause have I raised thee up,
that I might show my power in thee, and that my name
might be declared throughout all the earth." From
this declaration of God respecting a single individual,
a general conclusion is drawn, v. 18. " Therefore hath
he mercy on whom he will have mercy? and whom he

will he hardeneth." This is laid down by the apostle,
as a general principle of the divine administration. And
it is this general principle, that is asserted in the ortho-
dox doctrine of Election, or sovereign grace.

Now take a brief view of this remarkable passage.
What is it that the apostle takes so much pains to es-
tablish ? Evidently this, that God makes distinctions
among men, or bestows peculiar favors on some, and not
on others, pro libitu, pro arbitrio, according to his own
will, or pleasure* How does he prove this ? From
particular instances of the divine conduct, as made known
by the Scriptures. It is for this purpose he quotes what
God said respecting his treatment of Jacob and Esau,
and of Pharaoh. Taken in any other view, the quota-
tions have no relation to the subject, and the reasoning
of the apostle from them is nugatory.

But how can the apostle infer a general truth
from particular facts ? How can he infer what
the divine purpose and conduct will generally be, re-
specting the higher distinctions to be made among men
in the concerns of religion, from what they were towards
a few individuals in regard to other distinctions? — Plain-
ly, because, as he evidently understands it, the same
principle is involved in both. The truth asserted in v.
16, is gen eral. "It is not of him that Avilleth, nor of
him that runneth, but of God that showeth mercy."
The sense is, that, in relation to the subject under con-
sideration, "nothing is effected by the efforts of man, but
that every thing depends on the mercy of God.f This
general truth is inferred from what God said respecting
his conduct in a particular case, because that case im-

* See Schleusner, Roseiamuller, and other Commentators, on the
place.

t Roscnmuller.

plied the same principle. What objection can lie against
this argument ? If God proceeded in the manner de-
scribed, in his treatment of two nations, that is, made a
distinction between them by his own sovereign purpose
and act ; he may surely proceed in the same manner
towards individuals. And if he has actually proceeded
in this manner and on this principle, in his treatment of
particular individuals ; why may he not proceed in the
same manner in his treatment of others generally? That
the Apostle reasons thus, is undeniable.

It may be made still more certain, that we under-
stand this passage correctly, by looking at the objection,
which the Apostle supposed would be made. " Thou
wilt say then unto me, why doth he yet find fault ? for
who hath resisted his will ?" v. 19. The nature of the
objection, proves, that it related to that very doctrine of
God's sovereign purpose and agency, which makes a
a part of our faith. It is the very objection, which is
still made against that doctrine. The nature of the ob-
jection shows the nature of the doctrine, against which
it was urged. And the nature of the answer, v. 20 — 24,
shows, still more plainly, what was the nature of the ob-
jection, and the nature of the doctrine objected to. It is ex-
actly the answTer, which it is suitable to give to one, who
urges just such an objection as this, against the Orthodox
doctrine of God's sovereign purpose and agency. Such a
striking correspondence would, in any other case, and
must in this, be considered, as affording very satisfactory
evidence of the scope and meaning of the discourse.

There is one more important inquiry respecting this
passage ; and that is, whether that general principle of
the divine administration, which the Apostle establishes,
relates to the eternal interests of men, or to something
of less moment. Now I think nothing can be plainer,

than the correctness of the common construction of the
passage, viz. ; that it relates to the difference which ex-
ists among men with regard to their spiritual and eter-
nal state. This appears from the commencement of this
particular part of the discourse, v. 6, 7, 8, in which the
Apostle brings into view the essential difference between
real Israelites, and those who are of Israel, that is,descend-
ed from him ; — between the children of the flesh, and
the children of God. The Apostle labors throughout the
discourse, to illustrate the manner, in which this differ-
ence is made, drawing his illustrations, as was natural,
when reasoning with Jews, from the Jewish Scriptures.
That he refers to the difference which is made among
men in relation to their religious character and salvation,
is evident also from v. 22,23 &c, where, in pursuance of the
selfsame subject, which was treated v. 6 — 18, he speaks
of the vessels of mercy, prepared for glory, in contra-
distinction to the vessels of wrath ; of those who were call-
ed, both Jews and Gentiles, of God's people, &c.

If still further confirmation of the correctness of the
reasoning above exhibited were necessary, J could, as I
think, make it appear, that the doctrine of God's sove-
reign Election is the only doctrine, which accounts satis-
factorily for the actual difference, which exists between
true believers, and the rest of the world.

But if, after all, any should be disposed to urge the
common objections against this doctrine, that it makes
God unrighteous, and that, if it is true, we cannot be
blamed for our sins ; I would, for the present, refer them
to this chapter, to learn how the Apostle Paul would
answer their objections.

The doctrine, we are now considering, is in my ap-
prehension, clearly implied in the general doctrine of
the divine purpose. That God has a. wise and holy plnn,

and that all events take place in conformity to it, is not
only taught, expressly and abundantly, in the Scriptures,
but results from the absolute perfection of God, and from
the necessary dependence of all created things on him,
as clearly, as any mathematical truth results from its
premises. But if God has a general plan or design re-
specting the events which take place, he must surely
have one respecting so important an event, as the sal-
vation of his people.

But I can proceed no further with the proof. This
subject has been argued by the ablest writers, that have
appeared since the christian era. The controversy has
been wrought up to such a degree of warmth, and the
doctrine is associated in the minds of not a few, with so
many strange and absurd notions, that it has become a
matter of difficulty and hazard for a man to offer any
proof in its favor, or even to profess that he believes it.
Indeed, a man in some instances, can hardly find himself
at liberty simply to repeat the texts of Scripture, which
support the doctrine, without being attacked with a score
of common place reflections, intended to put down the
doctrine at once, without discussion. I trust my readers
will be sensible, that the state of mind, which is exhibit-
ed in such cases, is altogether at variance with Chris-
tian candor, and in a high degree unpropitious to the
cause of truth.

LETTER VIII.

My respected friends,

Though I have detained you longer than I intended;
on the doctrine of Election ; I must beg your indulgence,
while I express my thoughts without reserve, on various
incorrect views and representations of the doctrine, and
on some of the difficulties attending it.

Orthodox writers have not unfrequently made use
of expressions which, at first view, may seem to furnish
occasion for some of the heavy charges, brought against
us by our opposers. But let it be remembered, that, for
the rash, unqualified expressions of men, who have be-
come hot and violent by controversy, we are not to be held
responsible. We here enter our solemn protest against
the language which has sometimes been employed, and
the conceptions which have sometimes been entertained
on this subject, or rather, perhaps, against the appen-
dages which have been attached to it, by men, who
have been denominated Calvinists. Though we em-
brace the doctrine, as one which is taught in Scripture,
and which corresponds with enlightened reason and
Christian piety ; we do not embrace it in the form, and
with the appendages, to which I allude. — But my pre-
sent concern is chiefly with the representations of our
opposers*

First. It is often represented, that we believe in
an arbitrary, unconditional, absolute decree of election.
These words are used abundantly by opposers of the
doctrine, and are made the means of exciting many pre-
judices against it. This representation of the doctrine
mn^t receive particular attention.

The word arbitrary has acquired a bad sense ; and
is now understood to express the character of a master
or ruler, who is tyrannical, or oppressive ; who acts with-
out regard to reason or justice, and is governed by his
own capricious will. God's purpose respecting the sal-
vation of men is, in our view, at the greatest distance
from any thing like this. We consider the purpose of
God to be altogether as just and reasonable, as his ad-
ministration. If, in the actual salvation of the penitent
and holy, God is wise and good ; he is equally wise and
good, in his purpose to save them, — his conduct being an
exact accomplishment of his purpose. No objection,
therefore, can lie against the previous purpose of his
will, which does not lie equally against the acts of his
government. The inquiry, then, respects a matter of
fact. Does God act wisely and benevolently in saving
sinners ? Or does he act from a capricious, tyrannical
will ? If the actions of his government are capricious
and tyrannical, so is his purpose. If his actions are wise
and good, his purpose is so likewise. Now although, in
various respects, God's proceedings in saving sinners are
inscrutable to us, and we are unable to see by what rea-
sons he is influenced ; we believe he has reasons, which are
perfectly satisfactory to himself, and which, were they
made known, would be satisfactory to us. It is utterly
impossible, that a Being of infinite perfection should act
under the influence of a capricious or despotic will.
Though his administration may often be contrary to our
judgment and our expectations ; w7e confide implicitly in
his wisdom and goodness. Nothing can be more suita-
ble for us, than such confidence in our all perfect
Creator.

I say then, we do not hold the doctrine of Election
in any such sense, as implies, that the purpose of God i«

despotic or capricious. It is indeed often represented in
Scripture to be the purpose of his will, and to be accord-
ing to his good pleasure. But what can be more wise
and reasonable, than the will or good pleasure of God?
When the inspired writers declare the purpose of God
to be according to his own will, they do, it is granted,
signify to us, that it varies from the will of man ; but
they do this, to show its superior wisdom and goodness.
If it were according to the will of man, it would be
marked only with human wisdom. But as it is accord-
ing to the will of God, it is marked with divine wisdom.
We inquire next, whether the purpose of God re-
specting the salvation of men is unconditional and abso-
lute. I know that, in consequence of particular errors
which have prevailed, it has been so represented by
many of its advocates. But the language is certainly li-
able to be misunderstood, and ought not to be used with-
out special care. Why should we employ words, which
will not convey, truly and exactly, to the minds of oth-
ers, the views which we ourselves entertain ? Here, as
before, I look at the divine conduct in saving sinners,
considering that, as exactly corresponding with the pre-
vious divine purpose. And my inquiry is, — does God
actually save sinners unconditionally ? The first answer
I give to this is, that God would never have saved them,
had not Christ interposed, and made an atonement.
This, then, is a condition of human salvation ; it is the
grand event, on account of which God forgives. But I
inquire farther; does God actually save sinners, that is,
forgive them, and receive them into his kingdom, with-
out any condition on their part? The Bible furnishes
the answer. " Repent and be converted, that your sins
may be blotted out." He that believeth shall be saved.'"
This is the uniform representation of the Bible. The
9

(56

condition of eternal life to be performed by men, is repent-
ance, faith, obedience. They can no more be saved
without these, than without the death of Christ. These
conditions, it is true, are of a different nature from the
atonement; but they are equally necessary. From this
view of the subject, I come to a satisfactory conclusion.
If God does not actually save sinners without conditions;
he did not purpose to save them without conditions, — his
purpose and conduct always agreeing exactly with each
other. In his eternal purpose, he regarded the same condi-
tions, and regarded them in the same manner, as he does
now, when he saves. Clearly, then, the purpose of God to
save men cannot, in this respect, be considered as uncon-
ditional. And as the word is apt to be understood as
excluding all regard to these conditions, and being so un-
derstood, involves a palpable and dangerous error ; the
use of it ought, I think, to be avoided ; except when the
particular error to be confuted, or some other circum-
stances, will show plainly, that it is used in a sense agree-
able to the truth.

But the principal object of Orthodox writers in using
the word unconditional in this case, has been the denial
of a particular error. Some men have asserted, that the
divine purpose respecting the salvation of sinners, which
is so often spoken of in Scripture, is grounded altogeth-
er on the foreknowledge of the good works of those,
who are destined to salvation ; and have, in this view,
called the purpose of God conditional. Orthodox wri-
ters have denied such a conditionality as this, and have
justified themselves by appealing to such texts, as the
following ; 2. Tim. i. 9, " God hath saved us and called
us with an holy calling, not according to our works, but
according to his own purpose and grace, which was giv-
en us in Christ before the world began." Tit. iii. 5.

••Not by works of righteousness which we have done,
but according to his mercy he saved us." God's saving
us according to his purpose and grace is here contradis-
tinguished to his saving us according to our works ; and
the defenders of Orthodoxy have justly considered all
such representations of Scripture, as opposed to the
opinion, that the divine purpose is conditional in the
sense above mentioned.

To remove all appearances of inconsistency between
the two different views above taken, of the meaning and
propriety of the word unconditional, in relation to this
subject, it is only necessary to make two obvious re-
marks. 1. Those things, which are spoken of as condi-
tions on the part of man, are not so, in any degree, in
the sense of merit, and therefore take nothing from the
freeness or riches of divine grace. 2. That which is re-
ferred to in the passages above cited, where all condi-
tionality is excluded, appears evidently to be the act of
God in the first renewal of the sinner, or in first saving
him from sin. " Who hath saved us, and called us with
an holy calling, not according to our works," &c. It was
the commencement of the work of God in salvation. So
in the parallel text, in Titus. " Not by works of right-
eousness which we have done, but according to his
mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration and
renewing of the Holy Ghost." The salvation here spok-
en of, as excluding all consideration of works, was the
act of God in regeneration, — the renewing of the Holy
Ghost. This point is made still clearer by Ephes. ii,'4
— 10. Accordingly, we hold it as a fact, universally,
that impenitent, unrenewed sinners do no good work,
which God regards as a condition of their being renew-
ed, or on account of which he has promised them re-
generation : — that, in all cases, he calls and renews them,

according to his own purpose and grace. Now if his
merciful act in their renewal to holiness is, in this sense,
unconditional ; so is his previous purpose. That the one
is so, is as certain and unexceptionable, as that the other
is.

Such are my views, and, if 1 mistake not, of my
brethren generally, respecting this part of the subject.
But whenever we speak of the forgiveness of sin, the
comforts of religion, or any other blessings, which God
has promised to bestow, as tokens of his favor to his
children, whether here or hereafter ; we are led, by
the tenor of Scripture, to understand them as promised,
not only on the ground of the perfect atonement made
by the Savior of sinners, but also in view of conditions
to be performed by them.

After the foregoing explanations, and similar ones
from others, I hope the doctrine we hold respecting the
purpose of God in the election of his people, or his agen-
cy in their salvation, will no longer be represented as
implying, that God, in this respect, bears any resem-
blance to a capricious, arbitrary, or despotic ruler. Al-
though some Orthodox writers may have inadvertently
used language, which might lead to such a view of the
character of God ; yet that view is totally repugnant to
our feelings, and to every thing which our doctrine is
intended to contain. God does, indeed, plainly possess
the uncontrollable power of an absolute monarch ; but his
uncontrollable power is always directed by infinite wis-
dom and goodness. Like a despotic sovereign, he does
indeed act according to his own will; but his will, be it
remembered, is the will of a wise and benevolent ruler,
a friend to his subjects ; and his acting in all things ac-
cording to his own will, instead of being a cause of dis-
satisfaction and alarm, is the greatest possible security

to the interests of the universe. Like an absolute mon-
arch, God may also frequently act, without any appar-
ent reasons. But in reality there is no part of his ad-
ministration, for which the highest and best reasons do
not exist in his own mind.

Now the danger of representing the character and ad-
ministration of God by the language, which is common-
ly applied to the character and administration of an
absolute earthly sovereign, is, that the similitude,
which is intended, and which really exists, will be carri-
ed too far ; that instead of being restricted to those
points in which a similitude would be honourable to God,
it will be understood as reaching those, in which a si-
militude would be a stain to his perfect character. The
words despot, monarch, absolute, and arbitrary were not
originally and necessarily expressive of any bad qualities.
Despot signifies a master, a prince who rules with unlim-
ited power ; monarch, one who exercises power or au-
thority alone ; absolute, complete, unlimited ; arbitrary,
according to one's own will. They all admit of a good
sense ; and, in truth, they would never be understood
by us in a bad sense, had they not become associated in
our minds with the bad qualities of those earthly masters
or rulers, to whom they have been applied. But incon-
sequence of this association, we cannot safely apply them,
or others like them, to God, without special care to lim-
it the points of analogy, which are intended. And in
most cases of the kind, even this precaution would not
preclude all exposure to error ; because the words hav-
ing acquired a bad sense, cannot be applied to any one,
not even to God, whatever care may be used, without
danger of conveying more or less of that bad sense to
our minds. I should therefore, think it unadvised, in
any common case, to make use of such terms, as those

abovementioned, in describing the character, or admin-
istration of God.

It is said by our opposers, that the doctrine we main-
tain on this subject, makes God unjust.

As to this charge of injustice, which is always meant
to relate to those, who are not chosen to salvation, the
views which we entertain, and which appear to me very
satisfactory, are briefly these. The Scriptures teach,
that all men are sinners, and, as such, children of wrath;
that if God should be strict to mark iniquity, no man
could stand before him ; that salvation, in all instances,
is of grace. Now suppose salvation is not granted to
all. Suppose it not granted to any. Is God unjust f — -
unjust in not vouchsafing to men that, to which they have
no claim ? unjust in inflicting the evil, which they de-
serve ? The divine law then is unjust. For how can
the law be just in threatening an evil, which may not be
justly inflicted ? Further. If we should say, God can-
not justly withhold the blessings of salvation in the in-
stances here intended ; this would be the same as say-
ing, that justice requires God to save all. But the Scrip-
tures represent it not only as an unmerited favor, that
God saves any, but as a matter of fact, that he will not
save all. Is God then chargeable with actual injustice ?
But if God is just in annexing such a penalty to his law,
and just in executing it ; it must be obvious that he is
equally just in his determination to do so. For no prin-
ciple of common sense can be more plain and certain,
than that it is just for the omniscient God to deter^
mine beforehand to do that, which it is just for him ac-
tually to do. No imputation of injustice, therefore, can
lie against the previous purpose of God respecting those
who are not saved, which does not lie equally against his
law, and his administration;

Here we find one of the principal sources of diffi-
culty respecting this subject. It is not well considered,
that the divine purpose is grounded on the same reasons,
and conformed to the same views, with the divine con-
duct. When God punishes transgressors, he does it for
sufficient reasons. When he previously determines to
punish them, it is for the same reasons. When the
Judge shall say to the wicked, " depart from me, ye that
work iniquity ;" the reason of the sentence is obvious,
namely, that they had worked iniquity. With a per-
fect foreknowledge of that fact, and altogether on that
account, he determines beforehand to pronounce that
sentence against them. Thus the purpose of God per-
fectly corresponds with the acts of his government.
Accordingly, his purpose to punish is no more absolute
and unconditional, than his act in punishing. And the
act of God in punishing those, who transgress his law,
is no more absolute and unconditional, than the act of a
magistrate in punishing transgressors of civil law. A
good ruler punishes only for offences against the law ;
punishes only according to law ; or, which is the same
thing, according to the ill desert of offenders. And no
good ruler can ever design or decree punishment on any
other principles. I object as strongly, as any opposer
of the doctrine of the divine purpose, against repre-
senting God as intending or appointing the destruction
of sinners absolutely and unconditionally, without regard
to justice, and goodness, and from a delight in seeing the
misery of his creatures. Such a representation is infi-
nitely distant from the truth. And whatever unguarded
expressions Othodox writers may have sometimes us-
ed ; I am persuaded they have really meant nothing-
contrary to the sentiments, which I have exhibited.

From the free remarks which I have made on this

subject, you will see what my views and those of my
Orthodox brethren are, respecting what is called the
divine purpose or decree of reprobation. It is, as we un-
derstand the subject, the determination of God, the
righteous Governor of the world, to punish disobedient
subjectsybr their sins, and according to their deserts. In
one respect, therefore, there is an obvious difference
between the purpose of God to save, and his purpose to
destroy ; a difference exactly agreeing with that which
exists between the act of God in saving, and his act in
destroying. He saves men as an act of grace, not out
of respect to any thing in them, which renders them de-
serving of salvation. But he punishes the wicked pure-
ly out of respect to their sins, which render them de-
serving of punishment. He executes upon them sim-
ply an act of justice. That is, in a word ; they, who
are saved, receive a good which they do not deserve ;
but they who are destroyed, receive just that evil which
they deserve. Accordingly, the purpose of God, in the
former case, is a purpose to bestow upon men blessings,
not deserved ; but, in the latter case, it is a purpose to
inflict upon men the very evil, as to kind and degree,
which they deserve.

It has often been alleged, as an objection against the
doctrine of Election, that it makes God a respecter of
persons ; or represents him, as influenced by partiality.

In order to determine, whether this objection is well
founded, we must inquire what respect of persons is.
The word, I think, has the same sense in Scripture, and
in common discourse. Let us then see what its signifi-
cation is. — Levit. xix. 15; " Thou shalt do no unright-
eousness in judgment ; thou shalt not respect the person
of the poor, nor know the person of the mighty ; but in
righteousness shalt thou judge thy neighbor ;" that is

thou shalt not be influenced in judgment by any consid-
eration of the poverty or riches, the weakness or pow-
er of those, who are to be judged, but by a single re-
gard to justice and truth. In 2 Chron. xix. 5 — 7, Jc-
hoshaphat inculcated strict justice and fidelity upon
Judges from the consideration, that with God, whose
servants they were, there was no iniquity, nor respect of
persons, nor taking of gifts ; that is, that he was never
biassed in judgment by any corrupt passions, personal
attachments, or bribes, but acted purely out of regard
to justice. See also Deut. x. 17, 18, where the people
were cautioned, by similar language, against supposing
that God would feel any partial respect to the persons
of men, or that he would not exercise a just and equal
regard to the fatherless, the widow, and the stranger.
Acts x. 34. Peter learnt from his vision at Joppa, and
from subsequent events, that God was not a respecter of
persons ; that, in dispensing his blessings, he had not
that partial and exclusive regard to the Jews, which had
been attributed to him, but that, in every nation, he
that feared God, and worked righteousness, was accept-
ed. It referred to the special favor shown to Cornelius,
a sincere worshipper of God among the Gentiles. So
Rom. ii. 11, the same declaration is made, to show that,
in his final judgment, God would treat all men on the
same principle of impartial justice, without the least re-
gard to any national distinction. See also James ii. 1 — 4,
where respect of persons is explained to be a partial re-
gard to the rich and splendid, and contempt of the
poor.

Now if respect of persons is really what I have rep-
resented it to be ; the doctrine of Election, which we
hold, does not imply, that God is chargeable with it in

anv degree. It implies the contrary. For the doctrine
10

asserts, that he is not influenced to make choice of
those who are to be saved, by any respect to their per-
sons, more than to the persons of others, nor by a re-
gard to any thing in them, or in their circumstances,,
which renders them more pleasing to him, or more wor-
thy of his favor, than others. We believe, that those,
who are chosen of God to salvation, are not chosen be-
cause they were, in themselves, more worthy of this
blessing, than others ; that God looked upon their mor-
al feelings and conduct with the same disapprobation,
and had the same view of their ill desert, and that he
chose them, as we may say, for reasons of state, — for
general reasons in his government, which he has not re-
vealed. He did it, as it is expressed by the inspired
writers, " according to the counsel of his own will," —
" according to his gocd pleasure," — or " because it seem-
ed good in his sight." These phrases plainly denote
that the purpose and administration of God are, in this
respect, different from what our wisdom would dictate,
or our affection choose ; that they cannot be accounted
for by any principles known to us, but result from the
infinite perfection of God, and are conformed to reasons,
which he has concealed in his own mind. These are our
views. Accordingly, when, from the deep veneration we
feel for the unsearchable wisdom of God, and an honest
regard to what we conceive to be the obvious sense of
various passages in his word, we assert the doctrine of
Election ; we are at the greatest possible distance from
imputing to him any thing like partiality, or respect of
persons. We believe he acts, and determines to act,
altogether from different and higher reasons. And we
are satisfied, that those reasons are perfectly wise and
benevolent, not because we distinctly know what they
are, but because we believe in the moral perfection of

God, and in cases the most profoundly mysterious, are
sure, that his designs and actions are right.

Will any one still assert, that, if God chooses men to
salvation, as the doctrine of Election implies, it must
necessarily be from partiality, or respect of persons ?
Then it behooves him to prove, that God cannot
choose them from any other motive ; — that it is impossi-
ble there should be any other reason for making the
difference. Unless this is made to appear by strong
and conclusive arguments ; we may still believe, that
God does thus choose men to salvation, and, at the same
time, believe that he is no respecter of persons, but
that in this case, as in all others, he is influenced by
reasons, which are perfectly consentaneous to his own
eternal wisdom and benevolence, and which, if known to
us, would appear in the highest degree honorable to
his character.

Another objection, often urged against the doctrine
of Election, is, that it destroys free agency, and makes
men mere machines.

I reply ; that, so far as our honest convictions are
concerned, this objection is groundless ; because we en-
tertain no views of the doctrine, which seem to us in-
consistent, in the smallest degree, with the most perfect
free agency.

But it may be said that, whether we are aware of
it or not, the opinion, which we entertain respecting
the divine purpose, is really inconsistent with free moral
agency.

In reply to this, I have time only to state, in few
words, the reflections, which have been most satisfacto-
ry to my own mind.

The purpose of God, determining the salvation of his
people, needs not to be supposed inconsistent with their

moral agency, unless the purpose of God respecting the
conduct or condition of men is so in every case. I make
it then a general inquiry. Is it in all cases, repugnant to
the notion of the free moral agency of men, that God
should have any previous purpose or design respecting
their actions ? If any man, accustomed to thorough in-
vestigation, should assert this broad principle ; I should
be much inclined to ask for his reasons. — Are the acts
of the understanding, the affection, or the will of man
deprived of their own proper nature, because they are
conformed to a divine purpose ? Is any one thing, great
or small, which goes to constitute moral agency, taken
away or in any degree altered, by the simple fact, that
it exists according to God's eternal plan ? It would
seem to me reasonable to suppose, that God's purpose,
or will, if it has any influence, must make things what
they are, instead of depriving them of their proper na-
ture.-— I first look at things, both in the natural and
moral world, as they exist. I try to discover what they
are. Then, as they are of necessity dependant on God,
I conclude they must exist according to his purpose. I
find myself a moral being ; that is, I am conscious of
those powers, and those actions, which give me the
clearest notion of a moral agent, and which, to my per-
fect satisfaction, render me accountable to a moral law
and government. I then conclude, as I am a creature
of God, that I exist as I am, namely, a moral agent, ac-
cording to his purpose. And if God's purpose, deter-
mining my existence as a moral agent, is consistent with
my actually existing as such ; why may not his purpose,
determining the exercises of my moral agency, be con-
3istent with the existence of such moral exercises? The
following ppsitions, which I think conformable to sound
reason and philosophy, express my views in brief. God

first determines, that man shall be a moral agent, and that
in all the circumstances of his existence, he shall possess
and exercise all his moral powers. And then God deter-
mines, that, in the perfect exercise of all his moral powers,
he shall act in a certain manner, and form a certain char-
acter. The determination of God. thus understood,
instead of being inconsistent with free moral agency, does
in fact secure moral agency. In regard to this subject,
it aims at nothing, and tends to produce nothing, but
the uninterrupted exercise of all our moral powers.

But I drop all reasoning of this sort, and appeal to
facts. There are numerous instances mentioned in Scrip-
ture, in which God is expressly declared to have predeter-
mined the actions of men ; and yet they had as much
moral freedom, and felt themselves as worthy of praise
or blame in those actions, as in any other. The exam-
ples of this, which every where occur in the sacred vol-
ume, prove incontrovertibly, that the purpose of God is
consistent with moral agency. For in those cases, in
which we certainly know that a divine purpose has ex-
isted, because it has been expressly declared, there has
been, in every respect, as much evidence of moral agency,
as in any case whatever, and as much, as we can conceive
possible. Not the least thing, which can belong to the
powers of a moral agent, or to the manner of exercising
them, has been taken away, or obstructed, by the divine
purpose. Nay, I should rather say, that those very
powers of a moral agent, and the proper manner
of exercising them, have been the true result of that
purpose.

Now admitting in the cases referred to, even if
they were much fewer than they are, that the purpose
of God has consisted with the unimpared moral agen-

cy of man ; I find no difficulty in admitting, that it
may in any other case. And if so, the objection we
have been considering, that the doctrine of Election de-
stroys moral agency, and makes men mere machines, los-
es all its force.

I shall notice one more objection against the doctrine
of Election, namely, that it is inconsistent with the sinceri-
ty of God in the declarations of his word.

The answer to this objection, which appears to me
the most satisfactory, consists in assigning to the doctrine
its proper form and relations. When I undertake to
explain the purpose of God respecting those who are to
be saved, I consider it essential to say, that it is to be so
understood, as not to contradict his truth and sincerity
in any of the declarations of his word. If, in connex-
ion with God's purpose respecting the salvation of
his people, the Bible teaches, that he commands men
universally to repent, and invites them to accept eternal
life, and that he is perfectly ready to grant them the
blessings of salvation, on the most reasonable and gra-
cious terms ; our faith must receive the doctrine, as hav-
ing this form, and standing in this relation. It is thus the
doctrine is actually received by Orthodox ministers gen-
erally. While they believe the doctrine of Election,
they do undoubtingly believe and expressly teach, the
perfect sincerity of God in all his addresses to men,
whether chosen to salvation, or not ; and they pre-
sent the invitations, of God's word to sinners, with-
out any reference to that distinction, and with as much
earnestness, and as much belief of the divine sincer-
ity, as if they had no conception of any divine pur-
pose. And my apprehension is, that all this is per-
fectly just; and that if we had a thorough acquaint-
ance with the subject, we should see, that the pur-

pose of God, and his corresponding agency are of such
a character, that they occasion no difficulty at all re-
specting his sincerity. These two points of divine truth
are entirely distinct. They relate to the character of
God, and to the state of man, in different ways. And
when they are proved, each one by its own proper evi-
dence, we receive them both, exactly as we receive dif-
ferent truths, made known to us in different ways,
in any of the sciences. As to the fact of their consisten-
cy, it is sufficient to satisfy us, to find, that they are both
supported by conclusive evidence, and that neither of
them palpably contradicts the other. If any man asserts
that there is an inconsistency between these two doc-
trines, he must prove it. And in proving it, he must re-
member, that it will be difficult to satisfy thinking men,
unless he can make it appear, that the evidence which
supports one or the other of them is defective, or that
the main proposition, contained in one of them, is, in the
same sense in which it is there affirmed, contradicted or
denied in the other.

In closing my remarks on this part of the subject, I
am willing to concede, that those views of the doctrine
of Election, against which Whitby, and many other re-
spectable writers direct their principal arguments, are
justly liable to objection. And if, in stating the doctrine,
we should copy the example of some of its advocates,
and call the purpose of God an absolute, irresistible un-
conditional, unfrustrable decree, using those epithets abund-
antly, and without qualification, and in such a manner, as
would imply, that the divine purpose is unreasonable, or
oppressive, or the divine agency in executing it, compul-
sory ; we should really give the doctrine such a charac-
ter, that it could never be received by men of rational
*nd candid minds. This is the apology, which I have

been accustomed to make for some Christians who exhib-
it marks of sincere piety to God, and heartfelt rever-
ence for his word, who yet hesitate to admit, in so many
words, the doctrine of Election. What they disbelieve
is not the simple doctrine, as we understand it, but some-
thing which has been artfully, or injudiciously appended
to it. Cases of this kind have led me to reflect on the
importance of special caution, as to the manner of ex-
plaining and defending this profound and holy doctrine.
I have now done, as concisely as possible, what I
thought necessary to explain the proper form and rela-
tions of this doctrine, and to guard it against misappre-
hension. I make these explanations a part of the state-
ment of the doctrine. And it must, I think, occur to my
readers, that, when I use such care to shape and limit
the doctrine, and to guard it against misapprehension, I do
but imitate what the Apostle Paul did in other cases.
His opposers were inclined to put a wrong construction
upon his doctrines, and to make wrong inferences from
them. " If our unrighteousness commend the righteous-
ness of God, what shall we say ? Is God unrighteous
who taketh vengeance ? God forbid." — Again, he taught,
in respect of penitent sinners, that " where sin abound-
ed, grace did much more abound." He then reasons
with objectors. " What shall we say then? shall we
sin, that grace mav abound ? God forbid." We make
use of the same caution on the present subject. The
Scriptures teach that God has given to Christ a portion
of the human race ; that all, who have been thus given
to him, shall come to him, and be saved, without any ex-
ception ; and that they arc saved according to God's
eternal purpose. This is what we mean by the doc-
trine of Election. But is this purpose of God absolute
und arbitrary, in the sense in which these terms are

commonly applied to man ? God forbid. — Is this pur-
pose of God, in all respects, unconditional ? By no
means. For without the shedding of blood there can be
no remission ; nor can any be received into Christ's
kingdom without repentance and faith. — But if God de-
termines to save only a part of mankind, is he not un-
just ? God forbid. There is certainly no injustice to
those who are saved ; nor can there be any to those,
who are not saved, if their sufferings are only what they
deserve. But is not the purpose of God in this respect
chargeable with partiality, or respect of persons ? We
say, God forbid. He makes the difference on princi-
ples, or for reasons perfectly agreeable to infinite wis-
dom and goodness. — But does not God's purpose to save
liis people, or his agency in executing that purpose, de-
stroy their free agency, and make them machines ? By
no means. They are as free in this case as in any oth-
er; as free as they could be, were there no divine pur-
pose. Finally ; is not this immutable purpose of God
inconsistent with the truth and sincerity of his propo-
sals of mercy to sinners ? We say here also, God for-
bid. His purpose no more interferes with his sincerity,
than it does with any other divine attribute, or with
any other truth. In his offer of salvation, he treats men
as moral agents ; and he always has bestowed salvation
upon those, who have accepted his offer in the mariner
proposed; and he would have bestowed it upon those
who perish, if they had in the same manner, complied
with the conditions. Who then can impeach his sin-
cerity ?

You now see what we mean by the doctrine of
Election, and in what manner we believe it. As the
result of his own unsearchable wisdom and grace, and
for reasons which relate to the great ends of his admin-

istration, God eternally purposed to save a great num-
ber of our race, and purposed to save them precisely in
the manner, in which he does actually save them. Now
every man, who duly weighs the subject, must perceive,
that, according to this statement, the notion of a pre-
vious divine purpose is attended with no peculiar difficul-
ty. If the divine purpose exactly corresponds with the
divine conduct, our whole inquiry may properly relate
to that conduct. For if the divine conduct in saving
men is unobjectionable ; the divine purpose, of which
that conduct is the accomplishment, must be equally un-
objectionable. Whatever it is proper for God to do, it
is proper for him to determine to do. And whether
that determination precede the action by a longer or
shorter space, its character is the same.

After coming to this article of divine truth, concern-
ing which so many mistakes have been entertained, and
against which so many objections have been arrayed, 1
felt a desire to disclose to my readers, with the utmost
frankness, my inmost thoughts upon the subject ; being
fully persuaded, that the doctrine, properly stated, is
honorable to God ; that it is abundantly confirmed by
the scriptures, and has strong claims upon our faith.
Indeed we should find it difficult to see, how any objec-
tion could ever be urged against it, were it not for the
natural repugnance, which according to the word of God,
exists in the heart of man, against the doctrines of divine
truth, and which, to our great discomfort, and with a full
conviction of its unreasonableness and criminality, we have
felt in ourselves. — Were it not for this repugnance, which
plainly shows the moral disorder of the human mind, no
man, we think, could be found, who would not regard
the doctrine with the most cordial acquiescence. For,
my respected readers, the precious blessings of salvation

must be ultimately, either in the hands of God, or of
man. The extent, to which they shall be received, must
be determined by God, or by man. The Scriptures
teach, and facts teach, that God has reserved this great
concern in his own hands ; that he " saves men accord-
ing to his own purpose and grace ;" or which is the same
thing, that he hath mercy on whom he will have mercy."
I make the appeal to your impartial judgment, whether
this momentous concern could be in better hands ;
whether we have not reason for unbounded confidence
in the purpose and administration of a Being, who is in-
finitely wise and good ; and whether any sentiment re-
specting this whole subject can be more reasonable in
itself, or more suitable for us, than that, which was utter-
ed with so much joy by the blessed Jesus, respecting
this very doctrine ; Even so, Father, for so it seemeth
good in thy sight.

LETTER IX.

My respected friends,

If there is any one doctrine of revelation, which the
Orthodox distinguish, in point of importance, from all oth-
ers, it is the doctrine of the Atonement. My design in
this Letter is, not to write a treatise on this subject, but
to expose certain erroneous methods of reasoning re-
specting it, to clear away some of the objections
and difficulties, which have been supposed to attend
it, and so to prepare the way for a fair considera-
tion of its truth and importance. This is all which the
nature of my undertaking requires.

Here, as in other cases, a regard to truth obliges me

to say, that Unitarians have greatly misrepresented our
opinions. The Author of the Sermon before us gives it
as a part of the Orthodox system, that "God took upon
him human nature, that he might pay to his own justice
the debt of punishment incurred by men, and might en-
able himself to exercise mercy." He undertakes in an-
other place to express our opinion in still stronger terms ;
" that God took human nature, that he might appease
his own anger towards men, or make an infinite satisfac-
tion to his own justice ;" and after giving our opinion
this shape, he asks very earnestly, for one text where it
is taught. We reply, that an opinion, thus shaped and
colored, is taught nowhere in the Bible, and believed
by no respectable Trinitarians. It is an essential part
of our faith, that there is a real distinction between the
Father and the Son, and that the distinction is of such a
nature, that they are two, and are in Scripture repre-
sented to be two, as really, as Moses and Aaron, though
not in the same sense, nor in any sense inconsistent with
their being one. In consequence of this distinction, we
consider it perfectly proper to say, that the Father sends
the Son to die for sinners, and accepts the sacrifice he
makes ; that the Son obeys the Father, seeks his glory,
&c. We find that the Scripture does thus represent
them ; and though in our view they both possess the
same divine perfection, we believe that, in consequence
of the distinction between them, this representation of
Scripture is just. We pretend not, with minds so limit-
ed as ours, to be able to know the intrinsic nature, or
the ground of this distinction ; but its results we know,
because the Bible reveals them ; and we believe the
distinction to be correspondent with what is thus reveal-
ed. So that it is something quite diverse from the
form of sound words, which we adopt, and quite diverse

from our belief, to say, that " God sent himself," — " that
God took human nature, that he might appease his own
anger, and enable himself to exercise mercy." And if
any writer should still say that, if the Son shares
divine perfection with the Father, it is impossible there
should be any such distinction, as the Scripture makes
between them ; he would indeed repeat that which has
been said by a succession of writers from the Fratres
Poloni down to the present day, but which, so far as I
know, has had little better proof, than strong affir-
mation.

But it is not to my purpose to go into any argument
in proof of the personal distinction in the Godhead ; but
merely to say, that the passages, above quoted from the
Sermon, and a multitude of other passages, which might
be quoted from Unitarian writers, are far from being a
true and impartial representation of our faith. They
are indeed calculated to slur the Orthodox doctrine of
the Atonement. But with every sober, honest man, the
question will be, are they just ? — It is as plain to us, as
to this writer, that God, as God, cannot be a sufferer,
or bear a penalty. And hence we infer the necessity
of the incarnation. "The Word," the divine Redeem-
er, " was made flesh," and thus was put into a capacity
to suffer and die.

The Author of this Sermon, and other Unitarian
writers seem to think, that the idea, which is conveyed
to common minds by the Orthodox system, is " that
Christ's death has an influence in making God placable
or merciful, in quenching his wrath, and awakening his
kindness towards men." This representation demands
particular attention.

I observe, then, that it is uniformly the sentiment of
the Orthodox, that the origin, the grand moving cause of

the whole work of redemption, was the infinite love, benigni-
ty, or mercy of God ; and that it is purely in consequence
of this love, that he appointed a Mediator, and adopted
every measure, which he saw to be necessary for the
salvation of man. The goodness, mercy, or placability
of God, considered as an attribute of his character,
could then be neither produced nor increased by the
atonement of Christ ; as the atonement itself owed its
existence wholly to that eternal, immutable goodness.
This view of the subject, which we derive from John
iii. 16, and many other texts of similar import, we incul-
cate with more than ordinary frequency and earnestness.
We believe that it is essential to the honor of the di-
vine character, and to the sincerity and comfort of chris-
tian devotion. If we have ever made use of language,
or indulged opinions, in the smallest degree unfavorable
to this sentiment, we deplore the error we have com-
mitted. And whenever we find a fellow creature, who
has entertained a different sentiment, we will vie with
the Author of this Sermon, in our efforts to correct a
mistake, which we regard with so much horror.

But how happens it, that Unitarians have so often,
and so materially misapprehended our opinions on this
momentous subject ? The only occasion we have given
for their misapprehension has been, the use of strong
metaphorical language. It has been common for Ortho-
dox writers and preachers, especially when they have
aimed to move the affections of men, or to impress the
truth upon them deeply, to represent Christ, as rescu-
ing sinners from the vengeance of God, or shielding
them from the arrows of his vengeance ; as appeasing,
or turning away his anger, staying his fury, quenching
his wrath or vengeance, divesting his throne of its ter«

rors, satisfying his justice, delivering men from the de-
mands of his dreadful law, &c.

Now I pretend not that this language is exactly like
the language of the Scriptures. But the resemblance
is so great, that no objection can possibly lie against the
one, which does not he equally against the other. To
make this perfectly clear, I shall give a few examples
of the manner, in which both the Old Testament and
the New frequently speak of God. Psalm xc. 7. " We
are consumed by thine anger." Isa. v. 25. " His anger
is not turned away ;" — xxx. 30. " The Lord shall show
the indignation of his anger ;" — xl. 25. " He poured on
him the fury of his anger;" — lxvi. 15. "The Lord will
come to render his anger with fury." Hosea xi. 9. ** I
will execute the fierceness of mine anger." Deut. xxix.
30. "The anger of the Lord and his jealousy shall
smoke against that man." In other places the anger of
the Lord is said to be kindled. It is said, that he is angry
with the wicked every day ; that he hath whet his
sword ; that he hath bent his bow, and made it ready ;
that he revengeth and is furious; and that he will meet
his enemies, as a bear bereaved of her whelps. The writ-
ers of the New Testament sometimes use similar phrase-
ology. They speak of the indignation and wrath of God,
and represent vengeance as his prerogative. — The Scrip-
tures also represent God as turning or being turned from
his anger, from the fierceness of his anger, and from his
hot displeasure. This was the familiar language of his-
tory and devotion under the former dispensation. And
we well know that the God, whom Moses, David, and
the prophets worshipped, was the God and Father of
our Lord Jesus Christ.

It will be said, that the language above cited is met-
aphorical. Undoubtedly it is. And so is the language.

88 f

which is used by Orthodox writers on the subject of the
atonement. The Scripture metaphors, which I have
brought into view, are drawn from the same sources, and
are of the same nature with those, which are objected
to in the writings of the Orthodox. And I am sure that
no advocate for Orthodoxy, how great soever the warmth
of his natural temperament, and how glowing soever his
imagination and his style, has ever, even in poetry, used
bolder metaphors respecting God, than are found in the
sacred writers. Where shall we find imagery more ter-
rific, than in those passages of Scripture, in which God
is represented as full of anger and vengeance, even the
fierceness and heat of anger, so that his wrath smokes
and burns against the wicked ; — in which his fury is rep-
resented to be like the fury of a bear bereaved of her
whelps ; — in which too he is set forth, as a terrible ex-
ecutioner, or warrior, with his sharp sword, or with his
bow and arrows, ready for the work of destruction ?
And what advocates for the Atonement have employed
language more highly figurative, than we find in those
passages, in which God is said to cause his anger to cease,
or to be turned, by prayer, from the fierceness of his
wrath ? Even if we should familiarly speak of the Atone-
ment in the language, which the Author of the sermon
thinks so exceptionable, and should represent it as de-
signed to " render God merciful, to quench his wrath,
and awaken his kindness towards men ;" we might very
safely rest our justification for the use of such meta-
phorical language, on the example of men, who spake
as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

Will it be said, that the bold metaphors, above cit-
ed from the Scriptures, were peculiar to the idiom of the
Eastern language, especially the language of the ancient
Hebrews, and that they are inadmissible under the dis-

pensation oi' the Gospel ? 1 grant that they beloliged to
the idiom of the Eastern nations, especially of the an-
cient Hebrew writers. But it must be remembered,
that Christ, in the most unqualified terms, recommend-
ed the Scriptures of the Old Testament to his disci-
pies ; and also that the writers of the New Testament
thought it proper to quote, without palliation or explan-
ation, some of the metaphorical passages referred to,
and sometimes, with similar metaphors, to enliven their
own style. And surely it cannot be thought strange,
that a Christian minister, who is accustomed to enter-
tain so high a reverence for the Holy Scriptures, and
to look to them, as containing every thing pure and ex-
cellent, both in matter and form, should infuse into his
preaching or writing the same kind of metaphor, as that
which abounds in them. It has generally been consid-
ered best by Unitarians, if I mistake not, as well as by
others, to keep as near, as may be, to the peculiar phraseol-
ogy of the Scriptures. Why, then, are we blamed for
doing it here ? It is not very easy to account for the
manner in which Unitarian writers have treated this
thing. If they acknowledge that the language of Scrip*
ture, above cited, is to be understood as highly metaphor'
ical ; why should they suppose that similar language in
our sermons and books of divinity is meant to be under-
stood literally ? The moment they interpret our lan-
guage, as they interpret the figurative language of the
Bible, the difficulty vanishes.

But what is the meaning of the metaphorical language
now under consideration? To satisfy ourselves on this
subject, it is only necessary to consider the nature and de-
sign of metaphors, and the manner in which we learn their
signification. In metaphorical language, words are taken
out of their proper, literal sense. and for the sake ofillustra-
12

tion or impression, are used to denote other things, which
are conceived to have some resemblance to what is de-
noted by the literal sense. It is essential to a metaphor,
that there should be, in some respect, a real or appar-
ent resemblance between the proper sense of the word,
and the metaphorical. How, then, are we to interpret
the metaphorical language of Scripture, above cited ?
Does it imply that God himself is really like an angry,
fierce, revengeful man, who is impelled by his outrage-
ous passions to inflict pain, and commit acts of violence ?
Infinitely otherwise. What the Bible makes known re-
specting God, and all our best conceptions of his charac-
ter forbid it. Every divine perfection forbids it. And
common sense forbids it. Nor is it the least objection to
the use of this species of metaphor, that the literal sense
would be contrary to truth, and would violate the plain-
est principles of religion. This is the case with respect
to some of those metaphors, which are considered most
unexceptionable ; as when God is called a rock, and
when he is said to walk, or ride, or sit. In all such in-
stances, common sense, properly enlightened respecting
the nature of the subject, is competent at once to deter-
mine the import of the metaphorical language. If a
metaphor is taken from an object familiarly known, and
is used with any degree of judgment, or taste ; we per-
ceive instantly the point of similitude which is intended,
and the meaning of the metaphor is perfectly obvious.
We say, then, that the texts above quoted, do not
imply, that the character of God is in any degree like
the character of a man, who is impelled by his angry,
malignant passions, to acts of violence. They do not im-
ply that any thing like the feeling of revenge in a
man, can ever belong to the God of love. The analogy
intended is between the effects of anger and revenge in

man, and the effects of what is called anger and revenge
in God. But even here, careful restriction is still neces-
sary. For the evils, which God inflicts upon sinners,
spring from motives totally different from human anger
and revenge. Nor do the effects of the divine displeas-
ure resemhle the effects of human anger, as to the man*
tier in which they take place. But as to the certainty
and dreadfulness of the effects, there is an obvious re-
semblance. In order to set forth how fearful and how
inevitable is the punishment of the wicked, it is the cus-
tom of the inspired writers to resort to the most terrific
objects in nature. To illustrate the dreadfulness of the
displeasure of God against sinners, they point us to a
man, whose anger is fierce, and consumes all before it ;
and, to make the illustration still more impressive, they
point us to a raging bear bereaved of her whelps. So
terrible are the effects of the divine displeasure.

If we have taken a correct view of the metaphors
above cited, we are prepared to understand the repre-
sentations of Scripture on the other part of the subject.
When God is spoken of as turning or being turned from
the fierceness of his anger, or causing his anger to cease ;
the sense must obviously be, that the dreadful effects
of his righteous displeasure are prevented, or removed.
A man whose anger abates, and whose mind becomes
tranquil, ceases to inflict evil. It is with a view to this,
that, when the effects of God's holy displeasure are
prevented, or removed, he is said to turn or be turn-
ed from his anger ; and, if those effects were very
dreadful, from the fierceness of his anger. And on the
same ground, if any being in heaven or earth, should
do any thing, which, according to the principles of
the divine government, would have an influence to pre-
vent or remove the evils, that would otherwise result

from the displeasure of God ; that being might be said
to turn God from his anger, or render him merciful ; and
if the evils, thus prevented or removed, were great and
dreadful, he might, by a still bolder figure, be said to
" quench the wrath of God, and awaken his kindness to-
wards men."

Now as this kind of metaphor is so abundantly used
in the Scripture, why may it not be used by those, who
make the Scripture their pattern and guide ? And wrhen,
in conformity to their perfect pattern, they do use it,
why should they not be understood, as using it in the
same manner with those inspired writers, from whom
they borrow it ? Why should not the same principles
of common sense, and candor, and good taste be applied
to the interpretation of it in the one case, as in the other?
If this were done, no objection could remain in the minds
of Unitarians, certainly not in the mind of the Author of
this Sermon, against the language of Orthodox writers,
respecting the influence of the Atonement. For he
says, that many Unitarians, clearly meaning to include
himself, "think that the Scriptures ascribe the remission
of sins to Christ's death, with an emphasis so peculiar,
that we ought to consider this event as having a special
influence in removing punishment, as a condition or meth-
od of pardon, without which, repentance would not avail
us, at least to that extent which is now promised by the
gospel." I am glad to find this development of scriptu-
ral views ; although there is a sinking phrase at the close
of the sentence, which the Apostle Paul would never
have written. It is then admitted as a fact, and certain-
ly it must be regarded as a fact of vast moment, " that
the death of Christ has a special influence in removing
punishment;" that it is an indispensable condition of par-
don, and the only consistent method, in which salvation can

be granted. This important fact is described by Orthodox
writers in various ways. It is the representation of some,
particularly of those, whose ardent temperament, or vivid
fancy, makes them fond of glowing imagery, that the
death of Christ quenched his Father's wrath, caused him
to lay aside his thunder, and to look upon sinners with a
smiling face ; that it turned a throne of fiery vengeance
into a throne of mercy, &c. In such metaphorical lan-
guage as this, the just punishment of sin is likened to
the effect of human wrath, of thunder, and of irresisti-
ble power in a king, who rises, in frowning majesty, to
inflict condign punishment upon rebels; and the lan-
guage teaches, that the punishment of sin, illustrated by
such images, is prevented or removed by the mediation
of Christ. The language, taken literally, would impute
a character to God, which would excite universal hor-
ror. But if understood according to the legitimate prin-
ciples of interpreting metaphors, it teaches the simple,
but allimportant truth, that the death of Christ was the
means of procuring pardon, or the medium, through
which salvation is granted.

Another representation which is frequently made,
and which is borrowed from Scripture, is, that Christ
bought us, or redeemed us from destruction by the price
of his own blood. This figure is drawn from the prac-
tice of redeeming captives from bondage, by paying a
price. The similitude, when exactly expressed, is this ;
as captives or slaves are released from bondage and re-
stored to liberty, by the payment of a satisfactory price ;
so sinners are delivered from just punishment, and made
heirs of heaven, by the atonement of Christ. Some-
times this same thing is spoken of by Orthodox writers,
as the payment of a debt. This figure is also derived
from Scripture, which represents us, as God's' debtors.

Matt, vi. 12. " Forgive us our debts.'* Spiritual con-
cerns are familiarly represented in the parables of Christ,
by what takes place between debtors and creditors. As
sinners Ave deserve punishment ; that is, we owe it to
the righteous Governor of the world, to suffer evil in
proportion to our sins. When Christ is said to pay our
debt, it is signified simply, that by means of his suffer-
ings, he delivers us from punishment. This similitude
does not relate particularly to the mode of deliverance,
nor to the nature of the evil which is escaped, nor to
the nature of the good secured ; but merely to the fact of
his procuring deliverance by means of his death. As the
debtor, who has nothing to pay, and is confined to prison,
is freed from imprisonment by the generosity of a friend,
who steps forward in his name, and pays his debt ; so
sinners are freed from punishment by the kindness of the
Savior, who interposed and shed his blood for them.

It is said, that Christ redeemed us from the curse of
the law, by being made a curse for us. The law denounc-
ed a punishment. This was its curse. Christ delivers us
from that punishment, by being made a curse ; that is,
by suffering an evil, which, so far as the ends of the di-
vine government are concerned, was equivalent to the
execution of the curse of the law upon transgressors.

When Christ is said to have satisfied divine justice, or
the demands of justice, the sense is the same. In civil
governments, if justice is satisfied ; in other words, if
that is done which perfectly answers the ends of justice;
there is no further necessity of punishment. So, when
Christ has done and suffered that which answers the
ends of justice in the divine government, the necessity of
punishment, so far as those ends are concerned, is su»
perseded. And if any of us should say, that our sin was
imputed to Christ, our meaning must be, that Christ su£

lered on account of our sin, — suffered, in some sense, as
he would have suffered, if our sin had been imputed to
him ; though a real imputation of our sin to Christ, in a
literal sense, would have been a palpable inconsistency
in a government founded in justice and truth.

I might mention other forms of figurative language,
which have been employed by respectable divines, to set
forth the design and influence of Christ's death; and might
say respecting them all, that if they were interpreted
according to the same principles, which govern us in the
interpretation of the metaphorical language of Scripture,
a very satisfactory sense might be given to them, so that
no difficulty would remain. I would therefore appeal to
all (hose, who have duly considered the nature and just
interpretation of metaphors, whether it is a mark of judg-
ment, or good taste, to overlook the metaphorical sense
of the phraseology now under consideration, and to per-
sist in treating it, as though it could have no other than
a literal sense. Against the literal sense, there are in-
deed many objections. And there are as many against
the literal sense of the texts of Scripture, above recited.
But against that metaphorical sense, which I have sug-
gested, there are no objections in either case.

But respecting these metaphors, I have two additional
remarks. The first is, that some men, who profess to
hold the general principles of Orthodoxy, have evidently
been led into error bv mixing a degree of the literal sense
with the metaphorical.* Though they seem to interpret
the phrases referred to, as figurative; it is soon made ap-
parent by their reasoning, that they still retain some im-
pression of the literal sense. To this I think we can
trace the notion, that, if Christ has made a perfect atone-
ment, and satisfied divine justice, those, for whom he
has done this, are no longer under the same obligation

to obey the law, and punishing them for their sins would
no longer be just. This would indeed follow from
understanding some of the representations of Scripture,
and of Orthodox writers, in a literal sense. For if Christ
paid our debt, or the price of our redemption literally,
i. e. just as a friend discharges the obligation of an insol-
vent debtor, or purchases the freedom of a slave by the
payment of money ; it would certainly be an unrighteous
thing for us to be held to pay our own debt, or to suffer
the evils of servitude.

To the same cause I am disposed to ascribe it, that so
many men have thought the doctrine of the atonement,
or of salvation through the blood of Christ, unfavorable
to the cause of morality. If the atonement be literally
and exactly like the payment of what is due from an in-
solvent debtor; if it have such an effect, as to release
the sinner from his obligation to render obedience to the
law, — such an effect as to take away or diminish his ill-
desert, or to make it less just in God to punish ; the doc-
trine would indeed be unfavorable to morality. But we
deny that the atonement has any such analogy, as is here
implied, to pecuniary transactions ; and we deny that the
metaphorical language, which is taken from those trans-
actions to illustrate the subject, indicates any such anal-
ogy. The atonement, as a means, and we believe the
only consistent means, does indeed deliver sinners from
punishment. But its influence is such, and operates in
such a way, that the righteous authority of the law is
confirmed, and that the undiminished obligations of sin-
ners to obedience, their ill-desert, and the justice of
their punishment are all set in the clearest light.

Another hurtful notion, which seems to spring
from the same source, that is, from attaching some-
thing of a literal sense to figurative language, is, that

God's requiring perfect satisfaction to his justice in order
to the forgiveness of sin, or his determination not to save
sinners, unless their debt is fully discharged by another,
shows less benevolence, than if he should forgive and
save by his own unpurchased goodness, without any sat-
isfaction rendered by another. This notion often lurks
in the minds of those who believe the doctrine of atone-
ment, but whose faith is mixed with obscurity of knowl-
edge, and easily perplexed with difficulties. By those
who reject the doctrine of atonement, the same thing is
urged, as an objection against it. They contend, that
the doctrine represents God to be mercenary, selfish, in-
exorable ; and so makes his character much less amiable,
than if he should forgive his disobedient but penitent chil-
dren, by free mercy,without requiring any satisfaction from
another. " How plain is it, according to this doctrine,"
says the Author of the Sermon before us, " that God,
instead of being plenteous in forgiveness, never for-
gives ; for it is absurd to speak of men as forgiven, when
their whole punishment is borne by a substitute." Uni-
tarians have often made the same allegation against our
doctrine. Now this would be a real difficulty, and
might be urged conclusively against the doctrine, if
the language, employed in describing the atonement,
were to be taken literally. For surely a rich credi-
tor, who imprisons a poor insolvent debtor, and refus-
es to release him, till every farthing is paid by him or
by his surety, shows much less kindness and generos-
ity, than if he should give up the debt and release the
poor debtor freely. And a father, who deals out to an
offending child the full measure of justice, and withholds
every token of paternal kindness, till he receives the most
perfect satisfaction, exhibits a much less amiable charac-
ter, than if, from the ardent love of his heart, he should

be inclined to hail the first opportunity of showing favor
to his child; to meet him, while yet a great way off, and,
on seeing marks of penitence, to embrace him, to cover
his faults, and load him with kindness. But here the
analogy fails. For God's refusing to forgive without sat-
isfaction, is an exercise of his infinite goodness, as the
guardian of his kingdom. His requiring full satisfaction to
his justice, or a full atonement for sin, and his appointing
that such an atonement should be made, resulted whol-
ly from benevolence. " God so loved the world, that he
gave his only begotten Son." It shows higher love for
God to save in this way, than if he should save without
an atonement, by an act of unpurchased mercy *, which
is only saying, that it shows greater benevolence in God,
as moral governor, to save sinners in a way, which will
vindicate the honors of his violated law, and secure from
injury the interests of his kingdom, than in a way,
which would expose his law to contempt, and the inter-
ests of his kingdom to injury. And this view of the
subject, I think, must be obvious to every enlightened
christian, who is disentangled from the literal sense of
metaphorical language, and who attends to the whole ac-
count, which the Bible gives, of the love which God has
exercised, and the measures he has pursued, in the sal-
vation of men.

It would lead me beyond my intention, to point out
all those errors, which may be traced to the habit of
giving something of a literal sense to the metaphorical
language of the Holy Scriptures, and of other writings,
on the subject of the atonement. Having suggested in-
stances of this, sufficient to excite proper attention to the
subject, I shall proceed to my second remark; namely;
when there is an evident tendency in the minds of men to
understand any part of the metaphorical language, which

has commonly been used respecting ike atonement, in a tite*
ral sense, and when ice perceive that this occasions hurt-
ful misapprehensions ; it is the dictate of christian wisdom,
to be sparing in the use of such language, and, ivhen used,
to guard it with some special care against its liability t.o be
understood literally. This caution I think should be ap-
plied to the language, which illustrates the atonement
by pecuniary transactions, as the payment of a debt,
which a poor man owes ; cancelling his obligations ; or
purchasing his release from imprisonment. Nor should
I think it the part of wisdom, at this day, and on this
subject, to make a very copious use even of those Scrip-
ture metaphors, which represent God as having the pas-
sion of anger, or wrath, and the atonement as the means of
quenching it, or turning him from it. An abundance of
this species of metaphor is not expedient, because it is not
so consentaneous to the genius of our language, as to that of
the Hebrew ; and especially, because the endless contro-
versies, and extravagant fancies, which have prevailed in
the world, have perplexed the minds of men, and ex-
posed them to erroneous impressions on this subject.
The object of language is to communicate useful truths
to others. If it comes to be the case with any particu-
lar words or phrases, that they do not in fact communi-
cate such truths, though the words or phrases may be
proper in themselves, and even though they may be au-
thorised by Scripture ; it becomes expedient to explain
them clearly, or to adopt new ones.

Socmian writers seem to suppose, that we overlook
those numerous texts, which, without any reference to
the death of Christ, declare the free mercy of God to-
wards penitent sinners, Here I think it easy, by a few
connected remarks, to remove all misapprehension, and
to present the subject in a light which cannot fail to be
satisfactory.

100

The doctrine now before us, divides itself into two
parts ; first,, the simple fact, that God is merciful, and
will forgive penitent sinners ; second, the particular way
or method of forgiveness. These two things are per-
fectly distinct in their nature, and may, if God pleases,
be subjects of distinct revelations. He may, if he sees
it to be best, reveal to mankind, at one period of time,
or in one part of his word, the simple fact of his mercy,
or his readiness to forgive the penitent, without giving
at that time, or in that part of Scripture, the least inti-
mation of any medium, through which his mercy flows.
And it is clear, that the knowledge of this simple J act,
without any other information, would be of vast impor-
tance. Now this simple fact, so important to guiltv men,
is made known in a great multitude of texts, both in the
Old Testament and the New, where nothing is said of
the method, in which mercy is exercised. If this had
been the case universally, and God had nowhere reveal-
ed any thing, but simply that he would forgive the pen-
ftent ; our faith must have been confined to that simple
truth. As to the way, or method, in which the divine
forgiveness would be exercised, we should know nothing,
except that it must be a way consistent with the per-
fections of God, and the safety of his moral government.
I grant, that our faith, even if thus limited, might be
a powerful principle of action, and an inexhaustible source
of comfort. And in such a case, it would certainly be
our duty to check the impatience of a prying curiosity,
and to wait quietly, till God should see fit to give more
light. But he has given more light. He has taught us,
by a revelation, additional to what I have just supposed,
that his mercy, which is so often declared in the Scrip-
tures, is exercised towards penitent sinners, through the
blood of Christ ; that forgiveness comes in this way, and

101

in no other. Thus our faith is extended, just in pro-
portion to the greater extent of the revelation.

With regard to this last point, it is the opinion of
some writers, who admit the doctrine of the Atonement,
that nothing is revealed, but the single truth, that for-
giveness comes through the mediation of Christ ; and
that we are wholly incapable of knowing what particu-
lar bearing the death of Christ has upon the moral gov-
ernment of God, or how it secures mercy to penitent sin-
ners. But careful attention to a few texts of Scripture
must, I think, lead to a different conclusion. I shall
name only two. Gal. iii. 13. " Christ hath redeemed
us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for
us." The text, and what immediately precedes it, clear-
ly teach, that men, as transgressors, are under the
curse of the law, which they have transgressed ; that
Christ delivered them from that curse, that is, from the
evil, which the law denounced against them for sin ; and
that he did it, by being made a curse for them. A literal
and exact substitution was impossible. But the Apostle's
language must signify, that the curse, which Christ was
made, or the evil he endured, had respect to the same law,
from whose curse sinners were redeemed. It had re-
spect to the same law ; not that it was literally and ex-
actly the penalty of the law, or the punishment which the
law threatened against sinners ; but it had such a re-
lation to the law, and such an influence upon it, that sin-
ners, on account of it, might be consistently released from
its curse ; whereas, had not Christ been made a curse for
them, that is, suffered and died for them, they them-
selves must have endured the curse. Thus, although
the curse of the law, falling on Christ, is, in various re-
spects, different from what it would be, if it should fall
upon sinners ; yet, in relation to the ends of the law, or

102

of the divine administration, it is substantially the same-
Arid as those benevolent ends are secured, by the curse
falling upon Christ ; it becomes consistent with the or-
der of God's kingdom, for penitent sinners to be deliver-
ed from the curse.

The other passage I shall quote is Rom. iii. 24, 25,
26. " Being justified freely by his grace, through the re-
demption that is in Jesus Christ : Whom God hath set
forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to
declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that
are past, through the forbearance of God; To declare,
/ say, at this time his righteousness ; that he might be
just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus."
Here the immediate object of Christ's being set forth
is represented to be, to declare, or make known the right-
eousness of God. Notwithstanding the authority of
Schleusner and Rosenmuller, I am clearly of opinion,
with most Commentators and Divines, that SixcuoGvvyj,
in this place, has its primary and common sense, and sig-
nifies that attribute of God, which leads him, as moral
Governor of the world, to render to every man accord-
ing to his deeds, and of course to inflict the curse of the
law on sinners. The object of the death of Christ is
then, to declare, or manifest, that God is righteous, and
that in the salvation of sinners he will support the hon-
ors of his law, and " the interests of virtue."

In contemplating this subject^ I ask myself, what
hinderance there is in the way of God's showing the same
favor to transgressors, as to the obedient. The answer
is obvious. His law, and his character, as Lawgiver, for-
bid it, and the interests of his moral kingdom forbid it.
If, in the common course of his administration, he should
show the same favor to transgressors, as to the obedient,
he would set aside the authority of his law, and leave no

103

visible distinction between virtue and vice. Any ruler,
who should proceed in this way, would soon bring to an
end the order and happiness of his subjects. The ex-
pedient, which the wisdom of God has adopted, prevents
this consequence of extending favor to transgressors.
The cross of Christ makes known the righteousness or
justice of God, as moral Governor. It shows that he
does make, and will forever make a distinction between
holiness and sin. It has such an influence upon his mor-
al administration, that he can be just, and the justifier
of him that believeth ; that is, can forgive sin without
degrading the majesty, or surrendering the claims of jus-
tice. To express the same in other words ; the influ-
ence of the atonement is such, that it has become con-
sistent with justice to do, what would otherwise have been
totally inconsistent. It is in this way I come to a simi-
lar conclusion with the author of the Sermon ; namely ;
that Christ's death, " has an inseparable connexion with
forgiveness, that it has a special influence in removing
punishment, as a condition or method of pardon, with-
out which repentance would not avail us."

Correspondent with this is the practical view which
devout Christians generally take of this subject. When
they behold Jesus, who was holy, harmless, and undelil-
ed, suffering and dying for sinners, they see the honors
of God's righteousness vindicated, and the principles of
his moral government established. They consider what
ends are accomplished in the divine administration by
the just punishment of transgressors. All these ends
they see accomplished, in the highest degree, by the
death of Christ. And thus it becomes clear, that God
can forbear to punish penitent transgressors, on account
of Christ's death, without any injury to his moral gov-
ernment, or any sacrifice of the interests of virtue.

104

Against our scheme, Unitarians urge one particular
objection, which may deserve a few moments' special no-
tice. The objection in short is, that the Trinitarian
scheme lowers down the value of Christ's sacrifice, and
" robs his death of interest." The alleged ground of
this objection is, that we believe Christ to be God and
man, united in one person, and that, as divinity could not
be the subject of pain, the sufferer must have been mere-
ly a man.

This objection entirely overlooks an important ar-
ticle in our system. We believe, that all the divine and
human perfections, which the Scriptures ascribe to
Christ, constitute but one person ; and consequently that
all his actions and sufferings belong to him, as one per-
son; much as all the actions and sufferings of any man,
whether mental or corporeal, belong to him, as one man.
It results from this view of the subject, that the value
or significancy of any action or suffering in Chr:st must
be according to the dignity or excellence of his whole
character. Whether the action or suffering takes place
particularly in one part or another of his complex per-
son, it is attributable to his whole person ; and it derives
its peculiar character from the character of his whole per-
son, constituted as it is. The suffering of Christ was there-
fore of as high importance or value, in making an atone-
ment, as if it could have been, and in reality had been, in the
most proper sense, the suffering of the Divinity. So that
whatever may be the conceptions of Arians or Socini-
ans, as we view the subject, the fact that Christ endured
suffering in his human nature, and not directly in his di-
vine, occasions no difficulty as to the preciousness, which
we ascribe to his atonement. And I think the views of
the Orthodox in this case are capable of being defended
m the most satisfactory manner.

105

The rejection of the doctrine of the Atonement, with
which some, who call themselves Christians, are charge-
ahle, is not to be regarded merely as a speculative error.
It plainly indicates the disposition of the heart. For,
after God has sent his Son to be a propitiation, and has
told us, that we must rely upon his atoning blood, as the
sole ground of forgiveness ; if we disregard that provis-
ion, and hope for heaven on the footing of our own vir-
tue or good works, we give proof of a temper of mind,
which is in total contrariety to the humble spirit of
christian faith. We signify that we think ourselves en-
titled to future happiness, on our own account, and that
we have no need of the merit or intercession of another
to recommend us to the favor of God. Some Socinians
boldly use language like this. They have the audacity
to bring forward a personal claim upon the favor of God.
The same spirit appears in all, who rest their hopes of
heaven on their own goodness. Although God has provided
a perfect righteousness, as the foundation of their hope;
and has taught them, that the salvation of sinners depends
wholly on Christ crucified, and that no works of right-
eousness, which they have done, and no accomplishments
or dispositions, which they possess, must ever be named
in his presence ; they still persist in spurning this pro-
vision of infinite mercy ; in counting as foolishness, the
grand plea, with which a Savior's death has furnished
them, and in obtruding their own virtue upon his notice,
as a better reason for their acceptance, than all the
worthiness and all the grace of Christ crucified.

Thus far 1 have thought it necessary to proceed in
order to remove misapprehensions, and to give a just,
though brief view of the real sentiments wre entertain
on this momentous subject. It has, I trust, been made
evident that our scheme of faith is far from sullying the
14

106

glory of GocFs moral perfections, or impugning the princi-
ples of either justice or benevolence. On the contrary, it
has for its foundation the immutable perfection of God's
moral character, and the inviolable principles of his
righteous government. And it is, if we know our own
hearts, the strong attachment we feel to his glorLous
character and government, and our earnest desire, that
they may have the honor of a perfect and eternal vin-
dication, which creates in us such an interest in the doc-
trine of the atonement.

LETTER IX.

My respected friends,

The design I wish to execute in these letters, re-
quires me particularly to bring into view one more doc-
trine of the Orthodox, namely, the doctrine of divine in-
fluence. To those, who entertain the same views with
us of the character of man, and the nature and necessity
of holiness, this doctrine must appear of the highest
worth. But here, as in former cases, instead of giving
a regular treatise on the subject, it is my intention to
correct mistakes, to expose the weakness of objections.
to solve difficulties, and to do all I can to induce those,
who have rejected, or half believed this doctrine, to in-
quire with a candid, unprejudiced mind, into its truth and
importance.

It has been the general representation of Unitarians,
that we believe there is an invincible, overpowering, ir-
resistible influence of the divine spirit on the minds of
men, which is totally repugnant to their moral agency

107

^rid accountability, and which makes them entirely pas-
sive,— mere machines.

In order that jou may be under advantages to judge,
whether this representation is just ; I shall here offer
you a brief statement of our doctrine, with the leading-
topics of argument, which we urge in its support, and
the explanations we are accustomed to give it in relation
to other obvious truths.

Our doctrine of divine influence results, as Ave con-
ceive, from the nature and condition of created beings,
who are and must be dependent on their Creator and
Preserver. This necessary dependence of an intelligent
creature, relates to the acts of the mind, as well as to
outward circumstances. But we infer the doctrine more
directly from the fact, that men are universally sinners ;
that their moral nature is the subject of a most woful
disorder. We think it the dictate of sound experience,
that men will not in fact cast off the dominion of their
corrupt affections, and render to God the homage of a
sincere obedience, without special divine aid.

But the argument, on which we rest without any wa-
vering, is the testimony of the sure word of God. I need
not give the proof in detail. They who attentively pe-
ruse the Scriptures, will not fail to perceive, that this
doctrine is there taught with great clearness, and in a
great variety of forms. If God, by his spirit, produces
no good affections in our hearts ; if he vouchsafes no
spiritual illumination ; if he does nothing to cleanse us
from sin, and form us to holiness ; what can be the im-
port of those texts, which teach, that God works in his
people both to will and to do; that he creates in them a
new heart & a new spirit ; that he opens their eyes, draws
them, turns, renews, strengthens them, and helps their h>
firmities ? And what can be the meaning of the Ian-

103

guage, which christians universally use in prayer, when
they ask God to subdue their sins, to purify their hearts,
and to work in them all the good pleasure of his good-
ness; and when they ascribe to God all the good they
possess ? We understand the language of Scripture on
this subject in its most obvious sense ; and on this obvi-
ous sense we found our belief, that all virtue or holiness
in man is to be ascribed to the influence of the divine
spirit, and that without the effectual agency of the Spir-
it, man would have no holy affections, and perform no
acts of holy obedience. This is a general statement of
the orthodox doctrine.

But we do not stop here. The doctrine has rela-
tions to other subjects, — relations which are of great
moment. We are sensible we cannot do justice to the
doctrine, without attending to those relations, and giving
the consideration of them a proper influence in regulat-
ing our conceptions of the doctrine.

This doctrine has a relation, first, to the attributes
of God. In view of this relation, we say, the influence,
which God exerts in or upon his creatures, is such as
agrees with his infinite perfections, — such as results from
them, and is suited to make a just exhibition of them.
It is prompted by divine benevolence, as the influence is
to accomplish a good end. It is regulated by divine
wisdom, which renders it perfectly suited to accomplish
that end. Secondly, the doctrine of divine influence has
an immediate relation to the human mind. In view of
this relation, we say, that the divine influence is adapted
to the nature of the mind ; that the Holy Spirit operates
in such a manner, as to offer no violence to any of the
principles of an intelligent and moral nature ; that it al-
ways produces its effects in the understanding, according
to the essential properties and laws, which belong to

109

the understanding, and in the will and affections, with-
out interfering with any of the properties and laws,
which belong to them. We consider this peculiar agen-
cy of the divine Spirit in producing and continuing ho-
liness in men to be just as consistent with every thing,
which belongs to an intelligent and moral nature, as the
general agency of God in preserving and governing his
rational creatures. Nor do we apprehend, that there is
any thing more incompatible with the nature, and prop-
erties of the mind, in the influence, which God exerts
upon it, than in the influence which we exert upon it.
It is a matter of fact, that we have an influence, often a
controlling influence, over the understanding and will of
our fellow creatures. The influence which others have
upon us, be it ever so great and effectual, may operate,
as we certainly know, in a way perfectly correspondent
with our moral nature. We are so constituted, that we
may be influenced by others to do good, in consistency
with our own freedom, and virtue, and praiseworthiness ;
that is, we are none the less voluntary in doing good,
and none the less deserving of approbation, because we
are induced to do it by the rational, moral influence,
which others exert upon our minds. I pretend not that
the two cases are exactly parallel. But it is natural to
suppose, that the divine influence is, at least, as consist-
ent with our free agency and accountableness, as any
human influence can be. For surely God, who made us,
can have access to our understanding and heart, and
produce any effects there, which he pleases ; and sure-
ly he must know how to do this, without infringing any
of the principles of our intelligent or moral nature. This,
in our view, cannot be denied, without implicitly denying
the dependence of moral beings on God, and taking away
bis power to control their actions, and to execute the plan

110

of his own government. For if any man maintains that
the special operation of the Holy Spirit, is incom-
patible with the moral freedom of man ; how can he
consistently maintain that agency of God in his provi-
dence, which is denied by none, but Atheists ? And who
that admits the Bible to contain truth unmixed with er-
ror, can doubt the constant agency of God in every part
of the creation, and especially in the souls of his redeem-
ed people ?

It is in the manner above mentioned, that we explain
the doctrine of divine influence. It has been explained sub-
stantially in this manner, from time immemorial. These
relations of the subject to the moral government of God,
and to the moral agency of man, and the qualifications
which necessarily arise from them, have been insisted
upon with no ordinary zeal, by the Orthodox Divines in
New England. We assert neither the special agency
of God in the kingdom of his grace, nor the common
agency of God in his providence, without asserting or
implying that the agency is such, as secures to man the
unimpaired exercise of all his rational and moral powers,
— such as preserves his moral freedom entire. We treat
the whole subject in such a way, as evinces to every man
of reflection, that we understand it with these qualifica-
tions. We speak of man, as being in the highest sense
active in repenting, believing, and obeying. We repre-
sent repentance, and obedience, as his duty, and labor to
persuade him to perform them. We urge motives to
influence him, as a moral agent ; we present to him the
rewards of obedience, and the punishment of disobedi-
ence; we exhort and reprove him, and in all respects
treat him in such a manner, as shows, that we believe
the doctrine of man's moral agency, as firmly, as we be-
lieve that of the divine influence.

Ill

It* our opponents can prove, that our views of the di-
vine influence certainly lead to the denial of man's free-
dom and accountableness, as a moral agent, they may
justly charge us with holding principles, from which such
consequences do in fact follow ; though they cannot
charge us with holding those consequences. — But why
should our views be considered as involving such conse-
quences ? Is it because we assert the divine influence
to he powerful and effectual} But how does it appear,
that an influence upon the mind, which is perfectly suit-
ed to its nature, and its faculties, has any more tenden-
cy to make man a machine, or to destroy his agency,
when it is powerful enough effectually to accomplish its
design, than when it fails of accomplishing it ? Is it so
with us? When we exert a powerful and effectual in-
fluence over a person, persuading him to relinquish some
sinful indulgence, to which he was addicted, or to per-
form some virtuous action, to which he had a strong re-
luctance ; do we, on that account, look upon him, as any
the less a free moral agent ? Do we regard that deter-
ruination of his mind, and that conduct, to which we per-
suaded bim, as having no virtue, because he was led to
it by our persuasive influence ? Even if he should tell
us, what is often a matter of fact, that the influence of
our arguments was overpowering, and irresistible ; we
should consider this as a proof, not of the loss of his free
agency, but of the strength of our arguments ; and we
should regard his ready submission to such arguments,
as evidence of a sound understanding, and of a commen-
dable disposition.

The mode, in which we exert our influence, is indeed
widely different from that, in which the divine in-
fluence is exerted. But the consideration of this dif-
ference will furnish a new argument in favor of our doc-

il2

trine. For surely he who made intelligent creatures,
and who unerringly knows the powers and properties of
the mind he gave them, and all its laws of action, must
be able to adapt his influence to the nature of their mind
more perfectly, than we can. These brief remarks are
sufficient to show, how utterly they misconceive the
subject, who think, as many seem to do, that the agency
of God can extend only so far, can rise only to such a de-
gree of efficacy, without interfering with the agency of
man. The fact is, that the highest point of energy, to
which the divine agency, thus exerted, can rise, interferes
not in the least with the proper exercise of our rational
and moral powers. The whole design and tendency of
the influence, which the Holy Spirit, exerts over us, is to
unshackle the mind from corrupt passion and prejudice,
and, instead of encumbering and destroying moral agency,
to conform its free exercises to the rules of virtue, and
so to improve and elevate all the moral faculties.

1 ask again ; is it supposed that the divine influence,
which we assert, is incompatible with moral agency, be-
cause God exerts it upon us in a way so different from
that, in which we exert our influence ; that is, without
the use of language, or any outward signs ; or because
we do not perceive its operation upon us, as distinct from
the acts of our own minds? To this I would reply;
that the invisibleness of the divine influence no more
proves that it is not real and efficacious, than the invis-
ibleness of the Creator, or the act of creative power,
proves that the Creator does not exist, or that his crea-
tive power was never exerted. Could we stand, as spec-
tators, to witness the creation of a world ; we should on-
ly see the effect 'produced. The cause would be invisible.
But would this occasion any doubt, as to the reality of
that cause ? — As to the use of language and other out-

113

ward signs ; it shows our imperfection, that we can have
access to the mind in no other way. The direct access,
which our Creator has to the mind, is, in all respects su-
perior to what we are capable of, and of course his in-
fluence, whatever might be said of ours, can never be
supposed in the smallest degree to infringe moral agency.

But though we allow ourselves in the unfettered use
of reason on this momentous subject, our ultimate reliance
is on the oracles of truth. The inspired writers speak
of the influence of the Spirit, as being in the highest
degree powerful and efficacious, without the least appear-
ance of apprehending that it is incompatible with human
activity, or that there is any occasion to defend the doc-
trine against the objection above stated. Indeed they view
the doctrine in a very different light, and make use of it, as
a motive to activity. " Work out your own salvation with
fear and trembling; for it is God who worketh in you,
both to will and to do." In this practical use of the
doctrine, there is the most evident propriety. For what
can be a more animating encouragement to a man, who
is struggling against the power of moral corruption, and
is ready to sink under a sense of his weakness, than the
assurance of that divine Spirit, which will help his infir-
mities, and render his efforts successful? As the end of
the Spirit's influence is to subdue sinful affection, and ex-
cite that which is holy ; the more powerful and effica-
cious that influence is understood to be, the more en-
couragement to diligence does the christian derive from it.

The grand difficulty, which attends this subject, seems
to arise from the supposition of some analogy between
the power of God upon the human heart, and that ex-
ercise of power among men, which overcomes or super-
sedes vomntary agency ; in other words, that which
shows itself in cases of coercion or force.
15

Ill

If they who object to our doctrine, as incompatible
with man's free agency, will examine their own thoughts
carefully, they will find, I think, that their objection
arises chiefly from the supposition of this analogy ; — that
it arises from the habit of comparing the effectual ope-
ration of the divine power on the mind and heart, with
instances, in which men are constrained by superior
jbrce, to do or suffer that, which is against their choice.
Such analogy we deny altogether ; and we deny every
conclusion drawn from it.

I cannot leave this part of the subject, without re-
marking on the unfairness of our opponents, in going to
such an extreme, as they generally do, in giving a con-
struction to the words, irresistible, overpowering, invinci-
ble, &c. when applied to the divine influence. Although
I am by no means fond of a very copious use of such
terms ; yet I owe it to those who employ them more
freely, to say, that these words are in good use, in relation
to this general subject, and, all prejudice aside, will bear
a sense perfectly unexceptionable. This I say, first,
from a consideration of the nature of the case. Whenev-
er these words are used, they are to be understood re-
latively ; and the subject generally shows, to what they
relate. If I speak of an irresistible or overpowering ar-
gument, I speak of it with reference to that, which might
be supposed to make resistance, or to that which is to
be overcome ; i.e. I speak of it with reference to some rea-
son or objection.which has been urged against the point to
be proved, but w7hich is now made to appear without
force, or yields to an argument of superior force. Or the
terms may relate to some opposing prejudice or passion,
which is now weakened and subdued by the strength of
the reasoning, or the persuasiveness of the eloquence, di-
rected against it. In a manner like this, we are always

115

understood, when we speak of an irresistible or over'
powering argument. The terms, in such a case, are nev-
er supposed to imply, that the understanding, or the
conscience is the thing that is overcome, or subdu-
ed ; and for the plain reason, that the force of an argu-
ment, however great, cannot produce such an effect. In
many cases, the direct tendency of the irresistible argu-
ment is to illuminate and strengthen the moral faculties
of the mind, or to subdue that by which they were blind-
ed and weakened. Now who was ever so weak as to
imagine, that an irresistible, overpowering argument had
any tendency to break the mental faculties or to
prevent the freedom of their operation in any move-
ment of moral agency ? We are accustomed to use
these terms freely, and without fear of being misunder-
stood, in relation to any influence, which a man exercis-
es over the minds and moral actions of others, either by
his eloquence, his generosity, or his superior Avisdom and
piety.

I would have it remembered, that, by this illustra-
tion, I mean only to evince, that the words irresistible,
unconquerable, &c. when applied by Calvinistic writers
to the influence of the Holy Spirit in the hearts of men,
are not justly liable to the objection commonly urged
against them ; because the nature of the case shows, to
what they must relate. When we represent the influ-
ence of the Holy Spirit in sanctifying the hearts of men,
as irresistible, or overpowering, we speak solely with re-
ference to that, which is supposed to make resistance,
or is to be overcome. Now in the divine work of sancti-
fying the hearts of men, or causing them to love God,
is it possible to suppose, that moral agency is to be over-
come ? If their moral agency should in fact be overcome,
would that help to make them holy? And can any

116

think that we mean to assert this ? The thing to be
overcome by the divine influence, is sinful inclination,
corrupt affection. Men naturally love the creature
more than the Creator. They are earthly in their de-
sires, and have a disrelish for divine things. This is their
disorder, — the disease of their souls. The influence of the
Spirit bears upon this moral disease. When we say, that
influence is irresistible, and overpowering, our meaning is,
that this disease of the soul, though very powerful and
stubborn, is made to yield to the merciful agency of the
, divine Physician ; — that the remedy becomes effectual.
The question really is, whether the successful operation
of the divine Spirit, — in other words, whether the effi-
caciousness of the remedy, applied to the spiritual disor-
der of man, is destructive of his moral agency ? There
is, in my view, just as much reason to ask, whether the
efficaciousness of the remedy, which is applied for the
cure of a fever, is destructive of moral agency. I take
it as an admission of all, who call themselves Christians,
that the moral disease of man is capable of a cure, and
that it is most desirable, that it should be cured. If it
is cured, it must be by a remedy suited to the nature
of the disorder. What the nature of the disorder is,
God perfectly knows ; and is perfectly able to apply a
suitable and efficacious remedy. Now when this almigh-
ty Physician kindly undertakes the cure of our souls, the
obstinacy of the disorder yields; its resistance is taken
away; that is to say, the heart is effectually cleansed
from its pollution; love of sin, enmity to God, pride, in-
gratitude, and selfish, earthly desires are subdued, and
man is induced to love God, and obey his commands.
In other words, the sinner is so influenced by the Spirit
of God, that he freely forsakes his sins, and, with all
readiness of mind, devotes himself to the service of

117

Christ. And this is the same as saying, that, instead of
exercising his moral agency wrong, he now exercises it
right. The nature of the case shows, that this is and
must be the meaning of the words under consideration,
when applied by intelligent Christians to. the influence of
the Holy Spirit. I say therefore, that they will bear a
sense perfectly unexceptionable ; and that this is the
sense, which naturally occurs, and which, for this very
reason, every man is obliged, by the rules of candor and
sound criticism, to put upon them.

I have a second reason for thinking that those, who use
the terms under consideration, mean to use them in a
sense, which does not infringe moral agency; and. that
is, that they uniformly speak of man, even when he is
supposed to be the subject of that very irresistible in-
fluence, as exercising an unimpaired freedom, and agency;
as choosing holiness, refusing sin, loving God, obeying the
gospel. These are certainly acts of a free, moral, ac-
countable creature, and, as clearly as any thing, can show
the properties of a moral agent. The plain meaning of
those, who speak of the influence of the Spirit, as irre-
sistible, or overpowering, must therefore be, that the di-
vine influence not only is consistent with moral agency,
but actually produces, as its proper effect, the free ex-
ercise of moral agency, in all those modes of it, which
are required by the commands of God.

Now considering that the terms, which have been thus
freely examined, are commonly used in cases somewhat
similar to that of the divine influence, without ever be-
ing supposed to imply any thing repugnant to the most
perfect moral agency ; considering also, that, when they
are used in reference to that influence, the nature of the
subject shows to what they must relate, and in what
sense thev must be taken; and considering, finallv, that

118

those, who use them, make it perfectly manifest by oth-
er language respecting the same subject, that they mean
nothing, which can interfere with any of the principles of
moral action ; I appeal to you, my respected readers,
whether the outcry, which has been made against what
is called the resistless, overpowering influence of the Holy
Ghost in the conversion of sinners, is consistent with
candor, or with justice ? I have long been convinced,
that there is a palpable unfairness and violence in the
treatment, which the Orthodox have received on this
subject. If, in describing the gracious influence of the
Holy Spirit, any of us use language, that is strong and
impressive, — language which points to the power and ob-
stinacy of the evil to be overcome, and to the certain ef-
ficaciousness of the remedy applied ; our opposers labor
to put upon that language the most unfavorable construc-
tion possible. Instead of kindly and fairly inquiring
whether our words will admit of an unexceptionable
meaning, and whether that unexceptionable meaning is
the one which we aim to express ; do they not, in many
instances, make it their object to find out, if possible,
some meaning, which shall be marked with absurdity,
and which shall, at any rate, expose to contempt the
sentiment they wish to confute ? This is a heavier alle-
gation than I am fond of bringing against any respectable
men. But I cheerfully leave it to others to decide,
whether the attempts which have frequently been made
to decry this most precious doctrine of the effectual
operation of the Holy Spirit in renewing and sanctifying
the hearts of sinners, together with the want of candor,
the heat of feeling, and the vehemence of expression,
which have been exhibited by at least some of our op-
posers, do, or do not prove the allegation just.

I cannot close this letter without expressing my as-

119

tonishment, that any who profess to be Christians,
should set themselves against the doctrine of the di-
vine influence. For if we see a moral disorder in
ourselves, which we wish to be subdued ; it would
be reasonable to suppose, that we should set a high
price upon any thing, which would assist us in sub-
duing it. And if the word of God reveals a divine agent,
whose almighty energy effectually subdues the power of
sin; those who have any right feelings, must prize this,
as a most precious discovery. They must seek this
heavenly influence, as the most important blessing, earn-
estly desiring, that it may be exerted upon their hearts.
The greater its energy, the more highly do they value
it. Instead of feeling any objection against the notion
of its being irresistible and overpowering, they most sin-
cerely pray that it may be so. They know it is direct-
ed to the one grand work of subduing sin, of purifying
the heart, and guiding into the truth. They wish this
work to be done effectually. Every thing in them,
which makes resistance, they wish may be overcome.
Their prayer is, " let the influence of the Holy Spirit
be too powerful to be resisted. Our own efforts must
be unavailing, unless aided from above. May God work
effectually in us both to will and to do. We crave the
operation of that efficacious, invincible power, which
will subdue every corrupt affection, and sanctify us
throughout in body, soul and spirit." — Such must be the
cordial prayer of every one, who knows himself, and has
a desire to be like the blessed Jesus. And I am con-
strained again to express my astonishment, that any can
be found, who calumniate or despise that doctrine of di-
vine influence, which is one of the most distinguishing
and most attractive features of the Christian religion.

LETTER X.

My respected friends,

In the foregoing letters, I have encfeavored to ar-
range my remarks on the principal doctrines embraced
by the Orthodox, with as much regard to order and con-
nexion, as possible. In consequence of this, I find I
have omitted several passages in the Sermon before me,
to which particular attention seemed to be due. It has
not been my object to animadvert on every sentence,
which I might deem exceptionable. But there are in
the Sermon a few passages of a general character, which
I have not yet brought into view, but which cannot just-
ly be suffered to pass unnoticed. To these I would now
for a short time invite your attention.

I have already remarked on what I consider a
palpable instance of injustice in many Unitarian writers ;
namely ; that they represent certain opinions to be pe-
culiarly and exclusively theirs, when in reality they are
embraced and inculcated by the Orthodox. The Ser-
mon furnishes some examples of this, in respect to the
mediation of Christ, besides what I have before notic-
ed. The author, in pursuance of his general design,
gives a summary account of the views, which he and his
brethren entertain on this subject, and which, according
to his representation, distinguish Unitarians from the
Orthodox. But with respect to these views substantial-
ly,— I must say, they form no such distinction. If Uni-
tarians hold them, there is, thus far, no controversy be-
tween them and us. And the agreement of the two
parties in these views, should have been asserted ; just

121

as we assert that they are agreed in believing the exis-
tence of a God, and the doctrine of a resurrection. So that
if, by professing these views, the Author gets any cred-
it to himself and his brethren, exclusively of the Ortho-
dox, he gets it unfairly.

The principal of these views respecting the media-
tion of Christ, I shall now quote from the Sermon ; and
as I wish to make all convenient despatch, I shall take
the liberty at the same time to repeat them, as. belong-
ing to myself and my brethren.

M We believe, that Christ was sent by the Father to effect a moral,
or spiritual deliverance of mankind ; that is, to rescue men from sin
and its consequences, and to bring them to a state of everlasting pu-
rity and happiness. We believe, too, that he accomplishes this sub-
lime purpose by a variety of methods; by his instructions respecting
God's unity, parental character, and moral government, which are
admirably htted to reclaim the world from idolatry, and impiety, to
the knowledge, love, and obedience of the Creator; by his promises
of pardon to the penitent, and of divine assistance to those, who la-
bour for progress in moral excellence : by the light which he has
thrown on the path of duty ; by his own spotless example, in which
the loveliness and sublimity of virtue shine forth to warm and quick-
en, as well as guide us to perfection ; by his threatenings against in-
corrigible guilt ; by his glorious discoveries of immortality ; by his
sufferings and death ; by that signal event, the resurrection, which
powerfully bore witness to his divine mission, and brought down to
men's senses a future life ; by his continual intercession, which ob-
tains for us spiritual aid and blessings ; and by the power with which
he is invested of raising the dead, judging the world, and conferring
the everlasting rewards, promised to the faithful." " We be-
lieve, that Jesus, instead of making the Father merciful, is sent
by the Father's mercy te be our Saviour ; that he is nothing
to the human race, but what he is by God's appointment ; that he
communicates nothing but what God empowers him to bestow ; that
eur father in heaven is originally, essentially and eternally placable,
and disposed to forgive ; and that his unborrowed, underived, and un-
changeable love, is the only fountain of what flows to us through his
Son. We conceive, that Jesus is dishonoured, not srlorified, by as-
16

122

cribing to him an influence, which clouds the splendour of divine be-
nevolence." " Whilst we gratefully acknowledge, that he came

to rescue us from punishment, we believe, that he was sent on a
still nobler errand, namely, to deliver us from sin itself, and to form
us to a sublime and heavenly virtue. We regard him as a Saviour,
chiefly as he is the light, physician, and guide of the dark, diseased,
and wandering mind. No influence in the universe seems to us so
glorious, as that over the character ; and no redemption so worthy
of thankfulness, as the restoration of the soul to purity. Without
this, pardon, were it possible, would be of little value. Why pluck
the sinner from hell, if a hell be left to burn in his own breast ? Why
raise him to heaven, if he remain a stranger to its sanctity and love?"
" We believe, that faith in this religion, is of no worth, and con-
tributes nothing to salvation, any farther than as it uses these doc-
trines, precepts, promises, and the whole life, character, sufferings,
and triumphs of Jesus, as the means of purifying the mind, and of
changing it into the likeness of his celestial excellence."

These views are all ours ; and we are happy to ex-
press them in the simple, elegant, and forcible language
of this Sermon. And we would indulge the hope, that
the injustice of representing them as peculiar to Unitari-
ans, in distinction from the Orthodox, will not soon be
repeated. — We have, indeed, other and higher views,
as you may have already perceived, respecting the me-
diation of Christ ; but none incompatible with these.
And let me say, it is very evident to us, that those oth-
er and higher views, which are peculiar to the Ortho-
dox, respecting the atonement and mediation of Christ,
invest all the practical views, above exhibited, with
new beauty and force, and render them, in a higher de-
gree, effectual m promoting a devout and holy life.

I now proceed, with increasing surprise, to notice
the same species of injustice, respecting the nature of
christian virtue, or holiness. The injustice, which I now
charge against this Sermon, lies in this ; — that Orthodox
ministers and Christians, especially those in New Eng-

A23

land, are held up to public view, as rejecting the senti-
ments here referred to, respecting the nature of holi-
ness, when, in fact, all that is particularly valuable in
these sentiments, is insisted upon, and abundantly illus-
trated by various Orthodox writers, whom we hold in
the highest estimation. Those, who are acquainted with
the writings of the most respectable Divines in New
England, and those who have statedly heard the preach-
ing of Orthodox ministers of the present age, and who
know the general sentiments of Orthodox Christians, will
have no difficulty in determining, whether impartial justice
is here rendered us. I speak in the name of my brethren
generally. Do not we believe, as well as Unitarians, " that
the moral faculties of man are the grounds of responsibili-
ty, and the highest distinctions of our nature, and that no
act is praiseworthy, any farther than it springs from
their exertion ?" When we speak of the influence of
God's Spirit on the mind of man, do not we, as well as
Unitarians, " mean a moral, illuminating, and persuasive
influence, not physical, not compulsory ?" Do not we,
as well as they, " give the first place among the virtues,
to the love of God P* Do not we believe, " that this prin-
ciple is the true end and happiness of our being ; that
we were made for union with our Creator ; that his in-
finite perfection is the only sufficient object and true
resting place for the insatiable desires and unlimited ca-
pacities of the human mind ; — that the love of God is
not only essential to happiness, but to the strength and per-
fection of all the virtues ; that conscience, without the
sanction of God's authority and retributive justice, would
be a weak director; that benevolence, unless nourished

by communion with his goodness, could not thrive

amidst the selfishness and thanklcssness of the world-;

124

and that God — is the life, motive and sustainer of

virtue in the human soul ?"

Do not we believe, as well as this Author and his breth-
ren, " that great care is necessary to distinguish the love
of God from its counterfeits ?" Do not we " think that
much, which is called piety, is worthless ?" Should not
we be as ready, as they are, to say, that, " if religion be
the shipwreck of the understanding, we cannot keep too
far from it ;" — and " to maintain that fanaticism, partial
insanity, — and ungovernable transports, are any thing
rather than piety ?" Is it not as favorite an opinion
with us, as with them, " that the true love of God is a
moral sentiment, founded on a clear perception, and con-
sisting in a high esteem and veneration of his moral per-
fections ?" — This Author says in the name of his breth-
ren ; " We esteem him, and him only, a pious man, who
practically conforms to God's moral perfection and gov-
ernment; who shows his delight in God's benevolence
by loving and serving his neighbor ; his delight in God's
justice by being resolutely upright ; his sense of God's
purity, by regulating his thoughts, imagination, and de-
sires; and whose business, conversation and life are
swayed by a regard to God's presence and authority.
In all things else, men may deceive themselves. Dis-
ordered nerves may give them strange sights, and sounds,
and impressions. Texts of Scripture may come to them,
as from heaven. Their souls may be moved, and their
confidence in God's favour be undoubting. But in all
this there is no religion. The question is, do they love
God's commands, — and give up to these their habits and
passions ? Without this, ecstacy is a mockery. One sur-
render of desire to God's will is worth a thousand trans-
ports. We do not judge of the bent of men's minds by
their raptures, any more than we judge of the direction

125

of a tree during a storm. We rather suspect loud pro-
fession ; for we have observed, that deep feeling is gen-
erally noiseless, and least seeks display."

To all these views we most cordially subscribe. A
man, who should undertake to exhibit elegantly, and in
a few words, what Edwards wrote on Religious Affec-
tions, could not do it better, than in the language of this
Author. Edwards, and Bellamy, and many other
authors, most beloved, and most frequently perused,
among the Orthodox in New England, have labored
with great assiduity and success, to distinguish true
religion from its various counterfeits, to put down all
the excitements and transports which spring from hu-
man imagination or passion, and to recommend that re-
ligion, which consists in conformity to God's moral char-
acter, and obedience to his law. And if the Author of
this Sermon should call to mind all the theological works,
with which he was once conversant, he would not improb-
ably find, that in regard to these very sentiments, which
he represents as peculiar to Unitarians, he is under no
small obligation to Orthodox writers. No writers have
ever shown better than those above mentioned, " that
religious warmth is only to be valued, when it springs
naturally from an improved character ; when it comes
unforced ; — when it is the warmth of a mind, which un-
derstands God by being like him ; and when instead of
disordering, it exalts the understanding, invigorates con-
science, gives a pleasure to common duties, and is seen
to exist in connexion with cheerfulness, judiciousness, and
a reasonable frame of mind." — This Sermon simply as-
serts these just and important sentiments ; but the wri-
ters above named, have largely illustrated and confirmed
them. And with Orthodox ministers in New England,

126

this distinction between true piety and its counterfeits
is, more than almost any thing else, the subject of preach-
ing and conversation. Probably however, we still fall
short of our duty. And we ought to deem it a favor, if
any one shall come forward to chastise our negligence,
and to excite us to greater seriousness and fidelity in this
momentous concern, even though we may be conscious
that he does it, by denying us the credit of sentiments,
which we hold precious as our life.

This Author proceeds. " Another important branch
of religion, we believe to be love to Christ. The great-
ness of the work of Jesus, the spirit with which he exe-
cuted it, and the sufferings which he bore for our salva-
tion, we feel to be strong claims on our gratitude and
veneration. We see in nature no beauty to be compar-
ed with the loveliness of his character ; nor do we find
on earth a benefactor, to whom we owe an equal debt."
— Does all the honor and happiness of entertaining such
views as these, belong exclusively to Unitarians ? Do
these sentiments respecting Christ distinguish them from
the Orthodox ? — I would ask the same questions respect-
ing most of the observations, which this Author makes
on the benevolent virtues ? Is it a peculiar, distinguishing
mark of Unitarians, to attach great importance to these
virtues? Let any man read the books, or hear the
preaching, which we most admire, and then say.

Without proceeding any farther, it could not but be evi-
dent to my readers, that they cannot unhesitatingly, and
without examination, repose full confidence in the rep-
resentations, which are found in this Sermon, respecting
the sentiments of the Orthodox. — On such a subject as
this, and with respect to such a writer, I should have
preferred silence, had not justice required me to speak.

127

But I knew it could not be made consistent with truth and
propriety, that those ministers and Christians, who are
denominated Orthodox, should lie under the reproach of
rejecting a great number of the most obvious principles of
religion; — principles, which they believe to be of vital
importance to the system of Christianity, and which they
maintain with a seriousness and ardor, which bear ample
testimony to the sincerity of their faith.

On this particular subject,as well as on every other,which
is introduced into these Letters, I feel happy, in address-
ing myself to those, who have chosen candor and liberali-
ty, as the honorable badge of their party. Let me ask
you, then, my respected friends, whether it can detract
any thing from the value of those truths, which you be-
lieve, that they are believed also by the Orthodox ; and
whether the honor of believing such truths would be any
the less to you, if it should be shared equally by us ? —
What end, then, can this Author seek to accomplish, by
making a selection of some of the most unexceptionable,
most amiable, most attractive truths of religion, and rep-
resenting them as belonging peculiarly to Unitarians, and
as distinguishing them from us, — when m fact we believe
them, to say the least, as sincerely as they do ? Possi-
bly credit and influence may, by such means, be secur-
ed to Unitarians. But there are men, who will in-
quire, whether they are secured justly? Possibly re-
proach or disgrace may, by the same means, be cast up-
on us. But is it deserved ? And pray tell me, what
good end can be answered by possessing credit, which
is unjustly acquired, or by indicting disgrace, which is
not merited ? — This Author advances much, to which we
most cheerfully subscribe, in praise of candor and chari-
table judgment toward those, who differ from us in re-
ligious opinion. Referring to this, he says ; "There i^-

128

one branch of benevolence, which I ought not to pass
over in silence, because we think that we conceive of it
more highly and more justly, than many of our breth-
ren." And he shows how strongly he reprobates the
conduct of a Christian, who is " covered with badges of
party, who shuts his eyes on the virtues, and his ears
on the arguments of his opponents, arrogating all ex-
cellence to his own sect, &c." I wish there were less ap-
pearance of inconsistency between these charming pas-
sages in the Sermon, and those others, on which I have
thought it necessary to animadvert.

Though I intend not by any means, to enumerate
all the instances of misrepresentation, which occur in
this Sermon ; there is one passage, respecting moral
government, upon which I would detain you a few mo-
ments. " If there be any principle of morality," says
this Author, " it is this, that we are accountable beings,
only because we have consciences, a power of knowing
and performing our duty ; and that in as far as we want
this power, we are incapable of sin, guilt, or blame. We
should call a parent a monster, who should judge and
treat his children in opposition to this principle ; and
yet this enormous immorality is charged on our Father
in heaven." — The author would evidently impute this
gross impiety to the Orthodox. And yet I must say, in
their behalf, that the principle for which he contends,
is ours, as well as his. We believe that this principle
is inwrought into our moral nature ; that every man
feels its truth ; that every judgment he passes upon his
own actions, and every conviction of duty, implies a
practical acknowledgment of it ; in a word, that it is one
of those principles, which need no arguments to prove
them, because they are themselves plainer, than any
thing which can be adduced as proof

129

The views, which we entertain of the moral corrupt
tion of man, whether original or superinduced, and in
whatever degree it may exist, are perfectly consistent
with the principle, " that we are accountable beings,
only because we have consciences, and a power of know-
ing and performing our duty." Indeed, such are our
notions of the nature of an intelligent, moral being,
that we conceive it to be utterly impossible, that
any degree of depravity should take away his con-
science, or his power of knowing and doing his duty.
These, as we think, are inseparable properties of an ac-
countable creature, in all stages of his existence, and
whatever may be his circumstances, or his character.
He cannot be subject to law, or accountable for his ac-
tions, without these properties, any more than he can,
without a soul. — It is with these views, we hold the
doctrine of man's depravity. We believe it, not in
such an unrestricted, absolute sense, as is sometimes sup-
posed, but with all the limitations, which result from its
connexion with other acknowledged truths. Explana-
tions, like those above suggested, ought always to be
considered, as making a part of the declaration of our
faith; and, in this case they are peculiarly necessary, on
account of the facility, with which the doctrine comes
into alliance with various hurtful errors.- — Let it there-
fore be remembered, that if any one represents us as
believing, that men are depraved in such a sense, that
their conscience, or their power of knowing and doing
their duty is taken away, or any principle of free moral
agency infringed ; — in other words, if any one represents
us as believing the doctrine of depravity, whether innate
or acquired, in such a sense, as makes it any less fit and
proper, that God should place men under a moral gov-
ernment, and address to them commands, promises, and
17

130

threats, than if they were perfectly tree from corrup-
tion ; they give a representation of our views, as really
incorrect, as if they should accuse us of holding, that, in
consequence of men's depravity, they have no eyes to
see the light of the sun, and no ears to hear the noise
of thunder.

If there is any principle respecting the moral gov-
ernment of God, which the Orthodox clergy in New
England earnestly labor to inculcate, it is this ; that, a3
accountable beings, we have a conscience, and a power of
knowing and performing our duty. Our zeal in defence
of this principle has been such, as to occasion no small
umbrage to some, who are attached to every feature
and every phraseology of Calvinism. On this subject,
there is, in fact, a well known difference between our
views, and those of some modern, as well as more an-
cient Divines, who rank high on the side of Orthodoxy.
I urge it, therefore, as a matter of justice, that how
earnestly soever the Author of this Sermon might have
been disposed to censure the opinions of others, he ought
to have made an express exception in our favor. And
considering what advantages he has had of being ac-
quainted with the modes of thinking and preaching,
which generally prevail among the Orthodox ministers
of New England, I hardly know how christian candor
ought to shape its apology for this oversight.

It is readily admitted, that some men may be found
among us, whom we venerate and honor, as advocates
for true religion, who yet have preached or written ob-
scurely, or confusedly, on the subject of depravity, free
agency, and a moral government. But surely, we are
not, as a body, to be charged with entertaining all the
opinions, and with justifying all the expressions of every
man, who believes generally the principles of Ortho-

131

doxy. I atn confident, that you would strongly condemn
us, if Ave should treat you in such a manner as this.
Should I, in these Letters, impute to you, as a Society
of Unitarians, all the extravagancies of opinion, which
some German, English, or American Unitarians have
held, and all the rashness and violence of language,
which they have employed ; you would doubtless
think me guilty of acting contrary to fairness and
equity. I have endeavored to avoid the most distant
approach to this species of unfairness ; and therefore
have purposely refrained from associating passages in
this Sermon with passages from those Unitarian writers,
against whom the greatest public odium has been ex-
cited.— Now on the other hand ; suppose you find in
an author, or hear from a preacher, reputed Orthodox,
an unguarded expression on the subject of depravity, or
moral agency, or on any other subject, — an expression lia-
ble, at least, to misconstruction, and suited to excite pre-
judice against Orthodoxy ; will you impute that expres-
sion, or the opinion conveyed by it, to the Orthodox
generally ? We may perhaps consider the expression,
and the opinion, as exceptionable, as you do ; and it may
be as really contrary to truth, for you to impute them
to us, as for us to impute them to you. — The question
is, have we authorised that writer, or that preacher, to
speak in our name, and publicly to make known our
faith ? Or have we ever, in any form, declared our un-
qualified assent to his opinions, or professed those
which are like them? If not, why should every spec-
ulation and every expression of his be charged to
our account ? Infidels may just as well charge up-
on the whole community of Cnristians, the irregularities
and vices of every individual, who is regarded as belong-
ing to that community There have been, within a few

132

years, some instances of this kind of unfairness towards
the Orthodox generally, and particularly towards some of
the subdivisions among them, which cannot but be rep-
robated by all men, who possess common justice, or com-
mon sense.

LETTER XL

My respected friends,

I have reserved, as the last subject of discussion in
these Letters, the practical influence, or tendency of the
system, embraced by the Orthodox.

To my mind, it is exceedingly obvious, that repre-
sentations are often made on this subject, which are
radically erroneous, and that, by these means, an im-
pression is produced on the feelings of many, hostile at
once to their personal welfare, and to the interests of
religion. Such representations ought to be correct-
ed, and the subject, which must, by both parties, be
considered as highly important, to be set in a true light.
The salutary influence of the Orthodox system has been
often illustrated, and has appeared to me so perfectly
clear, that it has been a matter of astonishment, that
any intelligent man should entertain a doubt respecting
it. The most candid construction, which I have been
able to put upon the opinions and representations of
our opponents, as to the practical tendency of Ortho-
doxy, is, that they take an erroneous view of the system
itself. They behold it in a false light. They overlook
its genuine features, and see, or think they see deformi-
ties, from which it is wholly free. Now admitting that

133

the system does appear thus in their view, I can easily
account for it, that they should believe its moral tenden-
cy to be so mischievous. It" the system of the Ortho-
dox were, in truth, what Priestley, and Fellowes, and Bel-
sham, and even the Author of this Sermon have repre-
sented it to be ; its consequences would indeed be per-
nicious. So I might say, if Christianity were, in truth,
that monstrous thing, which infidel philosophers have
represented it to be ; the opposition and hatred, which
have risen up against it, would have been just. But it
is not so. And the Advocates for Christianity have a
right to say, and are bound to say, and to prove, that
it is a system of consummate excellence ; that the enmi-
ty of its opposers against it, has been altogether unjust
and criminal ; that it merits the highest attachment, and
that, to all its friends, it is fraught with inestimable bles-
sings. I would not make a reproachful comparison.
But we know, that the Orthodox system is not what
Unitarians have declared it to be. Its genuine features
are not seen at all in the picture, which they have drawn
of it. Now the question to be discussed in this Letter,
is, not whether such a system of doctrines, as Unitarians
impute to the Orthodox, is mischievous in its tendency ;
but what is the influence of that system, which we really
believe, and teach ?

The Author of this Sermon thinks, that it is " unfa-
vorable to devotion ;" — " that it takes from the Father
the Supreme affection which is his due, and transfers it
to the Son;" — " that it awakens human transport, rath-
er than that deep veneration of the moral perfections
of God, which is the essence of piety ;" — " that it robs
Christ's death of interest, — weakens our sympathy with
his sufferings, and is, of all others, most unfavorable to
a love of Christ, founded on a sense of his sacrifices for

134

mankind ;" — '• that it discourages the timid, gives excuses
to the bad, feeds the vanity of the fanatical, and offers
shelter to the feelings of the malignant ;" — " that it tends
strongly to pervert the moral faculty, to form a gloomy,
forbidding, and servile religion, and to lead men to sub-
stitute censoriousness, bitterness, and persecution, for a
tender and impartial charity ;',* — that it is a " system,
which begins with degrading human nature, and may be
expected to end in pride." — Priestley, Belsham, and oth-
ers, in perfect accordance with this Author, have re-
presented the system of Orthodoxy to be rigorous, gloomy,
and horrible, — the extravagance of error, — a mischievous
compound of impiety and idolatry.

It would be a sad case, if the Unitarians above nam-
ed, had no better proof to offer of a candid, liberal spirit,
than what they have given in these heavy, but unsup-
ported charges, — these harsh and causeless censures. I
might very safely leave such censures as these, without
any remark, — trusting that their extreme violence would
be sufficiently visible to counteract any unfavorable ef-
fect, which they might be likely to produce. — But I have
another object in view, which requires me not to pass
over this subject lightly. I wish, in as comprehensive
a manner as possible, to give a direct elucidation of the
salutary influence of the system, which the Orthodox be-
lieve. The confutation of particular charges, as far as
necessary, may be found in this general elucidation.

I shall first inquire, whether the grand and obvious
properties of that system of religion, which we believe,
are not adapted to produce a good influence in a general
view, on those who embrace it. After this, I shall advert
to some particular parts of Christian virtue and duty, and
inquire in what way they are likely to be affected by the
Orthodox system.

135

What then are the grand, obvious properties, which
a system of religion must have, in order to produce a
good influence on the character and practice of those
who embrace it ?

First. It must exhibit a Being of infinite perfection,
as the object of worship. If there is any thing faulty in
the character of him, whom we worship, it will, accord-
ing to a well known principle, have a bad effect upon
our character. But the God whom we love and adore,
must not be described by our opposers. Or if they do
describe him, their description must not be received, in-
stead of ours. The Orthodox have described the char-
acter of God, as infinite and immutable in every di-
vine perfection, both natural and moral ; as ami-
able and glorious in the highest possible degree. Is
not such a God worthy of supreme love and ado-
ration ? And can the sincere worship of such a Be-
ing fail to promote moral purity in us ? Can it be oth-
erwise, than that the habit of affectionately and devoutly
contemplating the perfect justice and benevolence, which
we ascribe to God, must have a powerful tendency to
make us just and benevolent ? I know we are accused
of worshipping a Being, who is unjust, partial, and malig-
nant. And it is a matter of course that we should be
accused of imitating that injustice, partiality and malig-
nity, which are thought to belong to the character of
him, whom we worship. But it remains to be proved,
that such attributes do in fact belong to the character,
which is the object of our adoration. It has often been
affirmed by our opponents ; but the unsupported affir-
mation, that we worship an unjust, malignant Being, can-
not surely be admitted as proof, in opposition to the
most sober declaration on our part, that we ascribe to
God infinite justice and benevolence. But there can be no

136

occasion to enlarge on this topic, after what I have writ-
ten, in Letter III. To that I refer you. And if you have
carefully attended to the views there expressed, of the
character of Jehovah, and can have confidence enough
in me to believe, that they are indeed the views, which
I and my brethren entertain ; I will add nothing, but an
appeal to your judgment, whether the worship of such
a God can be otherwise than salutary to the cause of
virtue ?

Secondly. A scheme of religion, in order to have a
good moral influence, must exhibit, a moral government,
marked with holiness and righteousness throughout. There
must be a holy and benevolent Sovereign, who, by a
system of wise and good laws, requires of his subjects
that conduct, which is necessary to the order and
happiness of his kingdom. In his administration, he
must show a constant regard to the principles of his gov-
ernment, and an invariable determination to give them
support and efficiency. The authority of the law, and
the character of holiness and justice in the Lawgiver must
be sustained, by the influence of a penalty; — a penalty,
the execution of which shall spread an impression of awe
through the universe, at the sight of God's high displeas-
ure against sin. Now does not the system of religion,
which the Orthodox maintain, exhibit a moral govern-
ment possessing all these properties ? Does it not con-
stantly hold up to view, a Supreme Ruler, perfectly ho-
ly and benevolent ? Does it not inculcate upon all men,
a wise and holy law, in all its extent, as of immutable ob-
ligation ? Does it not constantly teach, that the Governor
of the world loves holiness, and abhors sin, and that he
manifests an invariable determination to support the prin-
ciples of a righteous moral government ? Does it
not exhibit with tremendous force, the sanctions of the

137

law, — that is, the everlasting happiness of the obedient,
and the everlasting punishment of transgressors ? Is not
the penalty of the law, as we represent it, awful in the
highest degree, and so fitted, as far as any thing of the
nature of penalty can be, to prevent transgression? So far
as men are to be influenced by fear, will they not be
prompted to a Careful obedience, according to their im-
pression of the certainty and the greatness of the e\il,
which will be consequent upon sin? In this respect, has not
the Orthodox system most obviously the advantage over
its opposite ? Have we not always been reproached by
those, who would gladly lower down or disannul the sanc-
tions of the law, for displaying in too strong colors the cer-
tainty and the dreadfulness of future punishment ? And
is it not true, that those, who soberly admit the views,
which we give, of the displeasure of God against sin,
and the punishment with which he will recompense it,
find it more difficult, than others, to keep their minds in a
state of inconsideration, and sinful repose? — I am wil-
ling to make the appeal to all attentive observers, whe-
ther there is not, in fact, the greatest and most sensible
repugnancy between a life of ungodliness, and the rep-
resentation we make of the divine government ? And,
in truth, does not this fact account for much of the op-
position, which our views of religion ha\e always had
to encounter among men, who are too proud to bear re-
proof, too fond of quiet, to submit willingly to what
would disturb and alarm them, and too earthly, to yield
to the attractions of a devout and spiritual life?

That the interests of virtue may be secure, the ex-
ercise of mercy towards offenders, whenever it takes place,
must be so regulated, that the divine law shall be mag-
nified, and its sanctions exercise all their power over the
18

138

consciences and hearts of men. This is one of the grand
points in the Orthodox system. I shall not now enter
on the particulars, which make up the system in this re-
spect, but shall merely state, what we conceive to be
fairly its practical result, and on account of which, more
than for any other reason, we feel so much interest in
its support.

According to our views of the intervention of Christ,
the salvation of sinners reflects no dishonor upon the
character of God, as a moral Governor. He appears to
his subjects, as just and true, and awakens as deep an
awe in their minds, when he forgives, as when he
■punishes. In consequence of this, God's rational crea-
tures find in his administration as powerful motives to
deter them from transgression, and induce them to obe-
dience, as if they saw in fact, that the penalty of the
law was, in all its dreadfulness, inflicted upon every
transgressor. So that, while rebels against God are
pardoned, his law loses none of its authority or influence ;
the interests of virtue are not sacrificed ; and the glory
of justice and truth is in no degree tarnished. Nay,
all the attributes of God acquire the lustre of a higher
display, and all the principles of his benevolent and
righteous government, a more powerful ascendency.
Accordingly, those who are placed under this dispen-
sation of mercy, are moved to repentance and obedi-
ence by the high authority of a perfect moral govern-
ment, and by all the attractions of infinite compassion
and grace. Thus our system of religion, in regard to
the work of redemption, is calculated, in our view, to
promote the cause of holiness in the highest degree. It
is stamped with perfect holiness throughout. It exhib-
its a holy God, who is constantly engaged in administer-
ing a holy government. It proclaims a pure and holy

139

law, and enforces it with the most weighty sanctions.
It brings to our view a holy Redeemer, who gave a per-
fect vindication and support to that law. It presents a
holy salvation, to be obtained through the. influence of a
holy Intercessor, and by the persevering efforts of a holy
faith. Every thing, with which we have to do in this
great concern, bears the stamp of holiness, and tends
to promote holiness in us.

Now tell me candidly, my respected friends, wheth-
er the system of Orthodoxy, some features of which
have now been portrayed, is not of as holy a nature, and
of as purifying a tendency, as the system which Unitari-
ans adopt ? Do we not exhibit as holy a God, as right-
eous a law, and as high sanctions to enforce it, as they
do ? Is not the tribunal to which we point men, as just,
and the sentence, of which we forewarn them, as mo-
mentous and decisive, as that which Unitarians teach us
to expect ? Do we not hold forth a blessedness of as
great worth, and a punishment as dreadful, as they ?

In regard to the work of redemption ; does not our
sscheme present as complete a vindication of the violated
law and government of God, as theirs ? Does it not show
as much regard to the interests of virtue ? Does it not
demand holiness with as commanding an authority, and
allure men to it by as melting a display of kindness ?
Does it not present as many and as bright examples of
moral excellence, divine and human? What then is
wanting to give the religious system, which we embrace,
the most salutary influence upon the character and con-
duct of men ?

As to practical influence, any religious system is, in
reality, what it is to those who cordially embrace it,
not what it is, or what it appears to be, to those who re-
ject it. I doubt not, that a trial of the Orthodox system by

140

this rule, would end in its favor. Enlightened Christians,
who seriously believe this system, do, if I mistake not.
find in it motives, in great variety, and of powerful effi-
cacy, to universal holiness. — I should however feel a
strong reluctance, in reasoning on this subject, to do what
some writers have done ; that is, to institute a compari-
son between the Orthodox and Unitarians, in respect of
character. For although Orthodox believers have, in
different periods, especially in these last days, achieved
much for the welfare of man, and have, in many instan-
ces, exhibited an elevation of christian virtue, which has
been an honor to the grace of God ; instances enough of
a contrary character occur, to make us blush ; and even
those, who have reached the highest point of goodness,
have fallen far short of the attainments they ought to
have made, under the influence of such powerful motives.
Instead, therefore, of making any boasting comparisons, I
would join with those who are humble and contrite in
heart, in the deepest lamentations over that astonishing
perverseness, which counteracts the influence of the most
holy motives, — over that obstinate disease of our nature,
which renders the best means of cure in so great a meas-
ure ineffectual.

But the fact, that the remedies, which physicians
apply to the sick, are not always, and in the highest de-
gree, efficacious, does not prove, that their tendency is not
salutary, or that there is anv thing more salutary.

In the case now under consideration, notwithstand-
ing all the instances, in which the system of the Ortho-
dox has failed of producing a salutary effect, we are still
carefully to inquire into the practical tendency of the sys-
tem, or the moral influence which it is suited to have, and
in this respect, to compare it with the opposite sys-
tem,

141

1 shall proceed therefore, to the second thing pro-
posed,—viz., to advert to particular parts of Christian
virtue, and duty, and to inquire what influence the Or-
thodox system is likely to have upon them.

1. Love to God. The more exalted our conceptions
of his natural and moral attributes, the more likely are
we, other things being equal, to abound in love. Cer-
tainly, clear and elevated apprehensions of his glorious
character have a stronger tendency to excite love, than
those which are low and obscure. Now it is as evident
to me, as the light of noon, that the system of Ortho-
doxy clearly exhibits the perfections of God, and invests
them with the highest glory. It teaches us to acknowl-
edge his infallible wisdom, and his unlimited benevolence
in all his works. In view of all the evils, which fall to
our lot, or to the lot of others, it teaches us not only to
submit to his sovereign power, but to admire his pater-
nal goodness. Those very measures of government,
which our opponents think irreconcileable with his mo-
ral perfection, appear to us bright illustrations of it. In
every point of view, the faith we embrace, is suited to
excite love to God, and to give to that love the charac-
ter of constancy and ardor.

2. Gratitude to God. In proportion to the impres-
sion we have of his kindness to us, will this affection be
excited. If we believe that God, from the impulse of
his own compassion, has bestowed upon us a favor of in-
finite value, and wholly undeserved ; we shall feel a
stronger motive to gratitude, than if we consider the fa-
vor bestowed, of inferior value, or suppose that Ave have
any personal claim to it. According to this principle,
those views of redemption, which we have been taught
to consider, as the dictates of Scripture, are fitted to

142

raise gratitude to the highest pitch. We look upon our-
selves to be in such a state, in consequence of our apos-
tacy from God, that it is the greatest achievement of
infinite benevolence, to save us. We see from what an
abyss of guilt and wretchedness God delivers, and what
an exceeding great and eternal weight of glory he be-
stows. And we see that this deliverance from guilt and
wretchedness, and this eternal glory were purchased by
the precious blood of Christ. With these views, we are
constrained to anticipate that song, which is prompted
by the gratitude of saints in heaven; " Unto him that
loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood,
— to him be glory and dominion forever and ever."
With respect to gratitude, it is perfectly easy to
make a comparison between the influence of our system.
and that of our opponents. Unitarians may gratefully
acknowledge the goodness of their Creator in forming
and upholding them, and in the common bounties, with
which his providence blesses them. They may admire
his benevolence too, in providing, as they conceive he
has done, for their happiness in a future state. And
they may set a high price upon the various means of
moral improvement, which they enjoy. But their sys-
tem does not tend like ours, to excite those high and
tender emotions of gratitude, which spring from a con-
sciousness of deep criminality and un worthiness. It is easy
to compare the sensations of a man, who has been res-
cued from the danger of perishing in the ocean, by some
heroic effort of benevolence,with the sensations,which are
produced by the common acts of kindness. It is easy to
conceive too, how those sensations of the drowning man
would be heightened, if his deliverance was effected by
the disinterested kindness of one, whom he had often

143

wounded by injuries, and especially, if the danger, from
which he was rescued, was the immediate consequence
of an act of unprovoked hostility. Such a generous ef-
fort of compassion, heightened too by circumstances like
these, would do all that an act of human kindness could
do, to turn a heart of stone into a heart of flesh, to call
forth all the tenderness of gratitude, and to fix a sense
of obligation, never to be obliterated.

The principle of this comparison, with respect to the
excitement of gratitude, is inseparable from our nature ;
and the result of the comparison will show, that the re-
ligious sentiments, which we entertain, are adapted not
only to produce gratitude, but to give it the greatest de-
gree of strength and tenderness, of which the human
mind is capable. According to our scheme of faith, we
are sinners without excuse. We have lifted up our hand
against our Maker, and in instances too many to be num-
bered, proved ourselves his enemies. In consequence
of this, we have brought ourselves upon the brink of
hopeless destruction. Our Father in heaven has inter-
posed, and by an act of love, unparalleled in strength and
purity, and at an expense, which the creation could not
pay, has delivered us from that hopeless destruction, and
given us an inheritance in the heavens. Compared with
this act of divine love, the noblest exploits of benevo*
lence, ever performed by man, lose all their splendor,
and all their power to move the heart. The kindness
and grace of God, exercised towards us in this glorious
work, will create a holy gratitude, which will swell the
hearts of the redeemed forever, and transfuse a celestial
ardor, inexpressibly delightful and pure, into their ever-
lasting songs. Nor are those, who cordially yield them-
selves up to the influence of these views, strangers to

144

this holy affection, even now. It often glows in the
heart of the young disciple of Christ. It often cheers
the spirits of Christians, in every stage of their progress
towards heaven, and prompts them to bless God
for his goodness, even in affliction. It kindles a celes-
tial light in their souls on the bed of languishing ; and in
the hour of death, it awakens in them sensibilities, which,
amid the weakness and agonies of dissolving nature, strug-
gle to utter themselves in, " thanks to God for his un-
speakable gift."

3. Love to Christ. The bare mention of this virtue
will lead at once to the obvious result of the comparison,
which I have instituted between the two systems. For
surely that system must be admitted to have the strong-
est tendency to excite love to Christ, which ascribes to
him the highest excellence of character. The different
systems of Unitarians ascribe to him various degrees of
created and limited excellence. The Orthodox system
clothes him with eternal and infinite excellence. Those
who embrace this system, feel it to be their duty and
privilege, to love Christ with the most exalted affection,
— an affection without any limits, except those which
arise from the finiteness of their capacities. But Unita-
rianism, in every form, forbids this high and unlimited
affection to Christ. It tells us we are in danger of
overrating his character. It begets a fear of regarding
him with too high a veneration. When we have hearts,
which wish to express their sacred ardor in the adoring
language of Thomas, " my Lord and my God ;" it thrusts
itself before us, and tells us to forbear. Whereas the
system of Orthodoxy calls us to raise our love to Christ
to a higher and higher degree. It tells us he has an
excellence and glory, which our affection can never reach.
It makes our blessedness in a future world to consist

145

very much in clearer discoveries of his divine perfections,
and in exercising towards him a more exalted, more un-
interrupted love.

4. Faith in Christ. The same general remarks ap-
ply to this point, as to the last. Believing or trusting in
the Savior is represented, as one of the grand, compre-
hensive duties of the Christian religion. But surely that
faith or trust in Christ, which results from the princi-
ples of our opponents, must be a very different thing,
from that which our system inculcates. Under the in-
fluence of the doctrines which we believe, we repose a
confidence in his atoning blood, which relieves us from
the agitations of guilt, and inspires us with humble, joy-
ful hope ; a confidence in his power, and wisdom, and
goodness, which puts our hearts at rest respecting the
most important concerns of the creation. Our own in-
terests, temporal and eternal, we commit, cheerfully and
entirely, to his care. We trust in him for all that is
necessary to purify our hearts, to guide and protect us
during our pilgrimage, to comfort us in affliction, and to
give us peace and triumph in the prospect of death.
And when the time of our departure draws near, we
hope to look up to our merciful, condescending Redeem-
er, and, with that confidence in his infinite grace, which
quells every fear, to say, " Lord Jesus, receive my Spirit."
— Does the Unitarian system teach any thing like this ?
Does such a faith spring from the principles, which it
inculcates?

5. Dread of sin, and watchful care to obey the divine
precepts.

The importance of the doctrine of rewards and pun-
ishments is insisted on by Unitarians, as well as by the
Orthodox. The question is, does their scheme, or ours,
exhibit the doctrine in the form best adapted to impress
19

146

men with a dread of sin, and excite them to obey the
divine precepts ? Now I think it must be obvious to
those, who are acquainted with the most respectable au-
thors on both sides, that the heaven which we are taught
by our system to contemplate, is a state of higher per-
fection, and of purer and more elevated enjoyment, than
that, which our opponents describe. Unitarian authors
represent the future condition of Christians, as being much
less removed from their present condition, than what we
suppose to be fact. Accordingly they look upon us, in
relation to this subject, as overstepping the bounds of
sober truth, and attempting to set off the joys of heaven
with too high colors. Read what they have written on
this subject, and you will be satisfied, that the views
they exhibit of the heavenly felicity, are less adapted to
excite a deep interest in the mind of man, and less adapt-
ed to sway his active powers, than those which are ex-
hibited by the best writers on the other side. If this
is in fact so, then, whatever may be said as to reason
and argument in the case, the Orthodox system has cer-
tainly the advantage, as to moral influence. For the con-
templation of a future reward, to be obtained by virtu-
ous efforts, must evidently tend to excite those efforts,
very much in proportion to the greatness and excel-
lence of that reward.

If any hesitate to admit what I have advanced on
this part of the subject, I will not stop to contest the
point, but pass to the consideration of future punishment*
on which our reasoning can be attended with no difficulty.
Here my first inquiry is, — does the threat of punishment
tend to deter men from sin ? Is the penalty of any law, di-
vine or human, fitted to have an influence to prevent
transgression? If so, it must be by moving the passion of
fear. The evil threatened is addressed to this passion.

147

and can produce an effect upon no other principle of
action. The next question is, whether the prospect of
an evil, that is great and insupportable, has a tendency
to excite a stronger sensation of fear, than the prospect
of an evil, comparatively small and easily endured? I
appeal to common sense. I appeal to common practice.
When legislators find, that the penalty of any law does
not work upon the fears of men powerfully enough
to prevent the commission of crimes, they increase
its severity. And this they do upon the general
principle, that the penalty of a law will be likely to
awaken the fears of men, and influence their conduct,
other things being equal, very much in proportion to the
greatness of the evil, involved in that penalty. Upon
this obvious principle, I wish you to examine the practi-
cal tendency of our doctrine respecting future pun-
ishment. We believe that the future punishment of the
wicked will be inexpressibly great, and will endure forever.
We bring that great and endless punishment into view,
in order to illustrate the evil of sin, and the displeasure
of God against it. We believe that such a punishment
is just; that it is no more than commensurate with the
illdesert of sin ; and that it shows no more, displeasure
against sin, than is necessarily prompted by the perfect
love which the King Eternal feels for the welfare of his
kingdom. Now will not any man be powerfully held
back from the commission of sin, by the serious appre-
hension, that it is a great evil, that God is greatly dis-
pleased with it, that it tends to produce extensive injury
to the creation, and that it will be followed with inexpres-
sible and hopeless misery ? If you would weaken the
power, which hinders a man from sin, weaken his appre-
hension of the greatness of the evil of it ; weaken his ap-
prehension of the displeasure of God against it, and of

148

the dreadfulness and the duration of the misery to which
it will lead. Now is not this what the system of Unita-
rians actually does, so far as it opposes the views of the
Orthodox respecting future punishment ? I have noth-
ing to say here, as to the arguments used on one side or
the other. I speak simply, as to practical tendency.
And I am not anxious what conclusions any man will
adopt, who will allow himself, on rational principles, so-
berly to investigate the two systems under consideration.

I might say, were it necessary, that the powerful in-
fluence of the doctrine of future punishment, as we hold
it, is illustrated by numberless facts. Men strongly in-
clined or tempted to sin, have been deterred from the
commission of it, by the fear of endless punishment. By
the same fear, many have been roused from spiritual
lethargy, and excited to make that most important in-
quiry, " what shall we do to be saved ?" How many
have been excited by this doctrine, to such reflections
as these ; — " is that sin, which I indulge in my heart, so
great an evil in the sight of a just and benevolent God,
that he has threatened everlasting punishment, as its re-
compense ? Ami, while impenitent, exposed to that
recompense ? And shall I, by the momentary pleasures of
sin, bring hopeless ruin upon my immortal soul ?" — Such
reflections as these, naturally occasioned by the doctrine
of endless punishment, have, in instances too many to be
enumerated, led, through the mercy of God, to a tho-
rough reformation of character.

6. Reverence for the word of God. The grand maxim
of the Polish Socinians was, that reason is our ultimate
rule and standard, and that whatever in religion is not
conformed to this, is to be rejected. This maxim, as
they understood it, gave them perfect liberty to alter
or set aside the obvious sense of the Bible, whenever it

149

did not agree with the deductions of reason. Unitarians
in general have, with more or less decision, adopted the
same maxim. I do not say, that all, who are called Uni-
tarians in New England, treat the word of God with
the same irreverent license, which some English and
German Unitarians have shown. But I think no candid
and competent judge can doubt, that the general aspect
of Unitarianism does less honor to revelation, than the
contrary system. Unitarianism bows with less veneration
to the word of God, and receives its instructions with a
less implicit confidence. It has lower views of the na-
ture and degree of that inspiration, which the writers
of Scripture enjoyed, and is proportionally less inclined
to receive their word, as infallibe. In forming our opin-
ions, we inquire simply, ichat saith the Scripture ; and
what was the sense, which the inspired writers meant to con-
vey? When we learn this, we are satisfied. Our rea-
son receives its doctrines from the word of God. It sees
the objects of religion, not in its own light, but in a light
borrowed from revelation. As soon as our reason dis-
covers what God teaches, we suffer it to go no farther.
The Bible, we believe, contains a harmonious system of
truth, eternal truth, unmixed with error. If our reason
seems to see inconsistencies, we charge not the appear-
ance of those inconsistencies to any fault in the Scrip-
tures, but to the weakness and obscurity of reason, and
we have no doubt it will entirely vanish, when our reason
acquires a higher degree of improvement. I must re-
fer it to the christian public to determine, whether Uni-
tarianism teaches its disciples to treat the word of God
with this kind of reverence and submission.

Our system gives us liberty to pass over no part of
Scripture, as unworthy of regard. What is said on one
part of a subject, we charge ourselves to receive with as

150

much confidence, as what is said on another part ; and
what is opposed to our prepossessions, as readily, as what
is agreeable to them. I might show this to be our prac-
tice, with regard to the doctrine of the Trinity, the mo-
ral corruption of man, the divine purposes, and the di-
vine agency. But, in my apprehension, the Unitarian
theory is so constructed, as to set aside one part of Scrip-
ture entirely. That is to say, the faith of Unitarians,
certainly of that class of them, who believe in the sim-
ple humanity of Christ, is the same, as it would be, if
those texts, which ascribe the highest perfections to
Christ, were expunged from the Bible. There are texts,
which assert that the Word was God, — that all things
were made by him and for him, — that he is over all,
God blessed forever. But these texts, and others of
similar import, make no alteration in the faith of So-
cinians. Their opinions are founded on other represen-
tations of the Scriptures exclusively. These texts have
no influence at all upon them. The Orthodox have a
belief in the inspiration and authority of the Bible, which
prevents them from treating any part of it in this man-
ner. If the Bible teaches, that Christ is a man, they
believe he is a man. If the Bible teaches, that he is di-
vine, they believe he is divine. If it teaches, that he
created all things, they believe it. If it teaches, that he
prayed to the Father, that he suffered, and died, and
rose from the dead, they receive all this as a matter of
fact. So of the rest. Whatever the Bible declares re-
specting Christ, they regard as infallible truth. They
extend the limits of their faith far enough to comprise
all parts of the testimony of God. They do not come
to the Bible with such a bias of mind, that, if they be-
lieve Christ to be man, they will believe this only, and
whatever the Bible may say, will not believe that he k

151

also God; or that, if they believe the divine unity,
they will believe this only, and whatever the Bible
may say, will not believe a divine Trinity. They
have such liberality of faith, that, on the simple au-
thority of God's word, they will believe both. I
mention this merely to show, that their system, or
their habit of thinking, leads them to entertain so pro-
found a reverence for the Bible, that, as soon as they
know what it declares, they are satisfied. They suffer
not their reason to set itself up, and claim authority, as
a teacher, or guide ; but require it to submit to the au-
thority of Revelation, and to exercise itself only to re-
ceive instruction from God, with the humble docility of
a child. Now even admitting, that the system of the
Orthodox contains a mixture of error, it is very appar-
ent, that they have made it what it is, from sincere rev-
erence for the word of God. The high authority and in-
fallible truth of the Scriptures, is the principle, which
controls their reasoning: and their faith.

I could extend these remarks, and show, that on the
subject of man's moral depravity, the atonement, regen-
eration, and other controverted points, the reasoning of
Unitarians manifests less reverence for the word of God,
than that of their opponents. I could illustrate this, as
before, by the simple fact, that there are many passa-
ges of the Bible, which the writers seem to have thought
very important, which yet are of no account with Unitari-
ans, and have no influence whatever upon their faith.
It would be easy for Unitarians themselves, by a little
inquiry, to perceive, that their faith would be just what
it now is, were the texts referred to, erased from the
sacred pages. All the effect, produced upon their minds
by any one of those texts, is, to occasion them perplexi-
ty and trouble, and to put them to the wearisome labor of

152

explaining away its obvious sense, and making it appear
consistent with their views.

I might cite many observations of English and Ger-
man Unitarians, expressive of their low ideas of inspira-
tion, and their want of reverence for the word of God.
But I intended merely to direct the eye of the reader to
what seems to me exceedingly obvious, and lead him to
inquire, whether the general aspect of the system em-
braced by Unitarians, and the general style of their rea-
soning on religious subjects, is not indicative of less rev-
erence for the sacred oracles, than what is manifested
by the Orthodox. But whether the result of a compar-
ison be or be not the same in their minds, as it is in
mine ; the uniform declarations and conduct of the Or-
thodox, and the general character of their writings, will,
I hope, leave no man in doubt, as to the reverence
which they entertain for the word of God, or as to the
tendency of their system of religion to promote such
reverence.

7. Let us finally consider the subject, in relation to
benevolent action, particularly that highest kind of it,
which is directed to the spread of the gospel, and the sal-
vation of men.

The views, which our religious system exhibits of
the eternal love of God, and especially of the condescen-
sion and grace of Jesus Christ, have a manifest ten-
dency to beget the sincerest and most active kindness
towards mankind. Under the influence of such exam-
ples of goodness, as we are taught to contemplate in the
providence of God, and in the life of Jesus, we cannot
be indifferent to the wants, or the sufferings of our fel-
low creatures.

But the grand influence of Orthodoxy relates direct-
ly to the spiritual and eternal condition of men. We

153

believe, — and it is a distinguishing mark of our religion, —
that the world lieth in wickedness ; that all men are the
subjects of a total alienation of heart from God, and just-
ly exposed to everlasting punishment. This view of
mankind, especially when we look upon ourselves as part-
ners with them in the same guilt and ruin, must produce
the tenderest emotions of sympathy. And when with a
temper of mind, which is in any measure what it ought
to be, we consider their moral degradation and misery
in connexion with that grace of God, which has provid-
ed salvation ; how deeply must we be affected; and
how powerfully must we be stirred up to benevolent ex-
ertion in their behalf. Look abroad into various quar-
ters of the world, where mankind are in a state of the
profoundest ignorance and wretchedness, and see the
efforts which are made for their reformation, and their
happiness. Then look into Christian nations, and see,
who are the most active in promoting these benevolent
efforts. See what is the spring of all these remarkable
movements, which really present the only prospect we
have, of the salvation of the world. What is it that
rouses the exertions of those, who are giving their
substance or offering their prayers, or of those, who
are exposing themselves to hardships, and suffering
and death, in the cause of human happiness ? 'Tis sim-
ply this. They see that the children of men have de-
stroyed themselves ; that their immortal souls are ready
to perish. This touches the pity of their hearts, and
kindles all the fervor of benevolent desire. They see
that a Savior is provided, and that self-ruined sinners may
obtain eternal life. This awakens their hope, their zeal,
and their efforts. The reason they have to expect, that
the grace of God will abound in the salvation of sinners,
gives them alacrity and patience in their labor?. Ff souls,
20

154

precious as their own, and equally the objects of the
mercy which the gospel proffers, may obtain the salva-
tion, which is in Christ Jesus, with eternal glory ; they
have a reward like that, which Jesus himself enjoys,
when he sees the travail of his soul, and is satisfied. I
say then, that the doctrine of the utter ruin of man, and
of the grace of God which bringeth salvation, is the spring
of those animated exertions for the good of the world,
which mark the present era.

To try the natural tendency of the doctrine of man's
depravity, and his redemption by Christ, as we hold it,
I will suppose the following case. — There is a certain
Unitarian, who, though a very benevolent man, yet, with
his present views of religion, makes no particular exer-
tions, by the contribution of money, or by personal labors,
for the conversion of sinners, either at home, or abroad.
He is content that men' in Christian and in heathen lands
should remain as they are, except what may be done
for them by the gradual progress of knowledge, and the
arts of civilized life. But this same Unitarian alters his
religious opinions, and becomes well satisfied, that man-
kind are, every where, in that very state of moral cor-
ruption and ruin, which the Orthodox system asserts,
and that just such a salvation is provided, and may be
obtained in just such a way, as that system teaches. Of
this he becomes deeply convinced. What will be the
consequence ? Will not his heart be touched with com-
passion for sinners ? Will he not long to see the grace
of God displayed in their conversion? Will he not join
himself to the company of those, who are laboring and
praying and giving of their substance, for the salvation of
those, who are perishing? Is not this the natural con-
sequence of such a change in his religious views? Do
not facts, as well as the nature of the case, show it to be
so ?

155

Now invert the supposition. — A man, who feelingly
embraces the common Orthodox system, and who is led,
by his views of the ruined, miserable condition of the
human race, to unite with those, who show the highest
degree of zeal in promoting the conversion of sinners at
home, and in sending the gospel to the heathen ; — such
a man changes his faith, and comes to entertain the
views of Unitarians, respecting the state and the pros-
pects of human beings. Is not his zeal for the conver-
sion of sinners, and for evangelizing the heathen, extin-
guished ? And does he not forsake the society of those,
who are active in promoting the benevolent enterprises
of this auspicious day ? Do not facts, as well as the na-
ture of the case, show this to be the natural consequence
of such a change in his opinions?— Unitarians, as it seems
to me, act with perfect self-consistency on this subject.
Their opinions and their practice correspond; and with
the sentiments they now indulge respecting the nature
of the gospel, and the character and condition of man,
what powerful motives can they have to labor, or make
sacrifices for the conversion of sinners ? Have we any
reason to expect, that Unitarians will so far imitate the ho-
ly Apostles, as to become preachers of the gospel among
the heathen, and to be willing to spend and be spent, to suf-
fer persecution, and to die, in the cause of human salva-
tion ? Possibly they may be accessible to the influence
of motives, which we have not duly considered. If we
are chargeable with a mistake, or with ignorance, on
this subject, or if we indulge views, which can be con»
sidered, as in any measure unjust or injurious, we must
refer to the writings and the conduct of Unitarians, as
our apology. What exertions have they made to pro-
mote the spread of the gospel in pagan lands ? What
heathen tribes or nations are now receiving the words of
eternal life from their missionaries, or experiencing, in

156

other ways, the salutary effects of their religious chari-
ties, and their prayers ? — For myself, I know not how
it is, that any, who have a heart to feel for the woes, or
to desire the eternal happiness of man, can be indiffer-
ent to the benevolent operations of this day, in behalf of
those who are destitute of the gospel. But are not Uni-
tarians, generally, chargeable with this indifference ? Are
they not chargeable with more than indifference ? Instead
of uniting with the multitude of good men, who devote
themselves to works of Christian benevolence ; do they
not look with pity or contempt, upon the most fervent
prayers, and the most earnest, faithful, and successful
labors of the church of Christ, in the cause of human
salvation ? And is not all this a dark and forbidding
characteristic of their system ?

The views I have expressed, as to the practical ten-
dency of Orthodoxy and of Unitarianism, are such, I ap-
prehend, as must result from a due consideration of the
character of these two systems. — I am aware it may be
difficult for those, whose minds have strong preposses-
sions against Orthodoxy, to conceive that it should pro-
duce such effects, as I have ascribed to it. But certain-
ly such effects do naturally result from it, as if is under-
stood and embraced by the Orthodox. Such must be
my apprehension, till some one shall take the doctrines
of Orthodoxy, just as we hold them, not as represented
by our opponents, and make out, by fair reasoning, that
they have an opposite tendency.

I intended to proceed farther under this general
head, and to consider the tendency of our religious sys-
tem, compared with the opposite one, to promote a spir-
it of humility, and of prayer. But it will be perfectly
easy for the reader to apply to each of these subjects
the principles, which have been applied to the other
subjects, treated in this Letter.

197

I shall now finish what I have to say on the impor-
tant subject of practical influence, by one remark; name-
ly ; that the advantage, which the Author of the Ser-
mon has, in setting forth the practical influence of Uni-
tarianism, is derived, almost entirely, from those views
of religion, which really belong to the Orthodox. These,
generally, are the views, which he makes prominent in
his Discourse, and by which he gives plausibility to his
system. I leave the propriety of this mode of treating
the subject, to the consideration of others. — To those
of my readers, who understand thoroughly what the
Unitarian scheme is, I must also refer the decision of
another question; that is; whether this Author has not,
in some instances, been silent respecting certain opinions,
which are common among Unitarians, when the impor-
tance of those opinions, as well as the express design of
his Sermon, required him to speak of them without re-
serve. If, on every important topic, he has been per-
fectly explicit in giving kis own views ; it must be that
he differs very widely in opinion from the generality of
Unitarians. And if so, then I should doubt, whether
some man, who was of the same mind with them,
might not have been more properly employed, as their
agent and representative before the public. Though
he may have given a true and unreserved account of his
own religious faith, I cannot think he has given a just
account of the general faith of those, for whom he un-
dertakes to speak. Thus in my apprehension, he fails
essentially as to both systems. As to Orthodoxy, he
does not show a feature of it in its true light. What he
has written would enable no man on earth correctly to
understand any one article of our faith. As to Unitari-
anism, — I think he has as really failed of giving a just
and complete account of it, though not in the same way,
nor in an equal degree.

158

Although I have, in these Letters, spoken frequently
ef the injustice, which the Orthodox have been accus-
tomed to suffer from their opposers, I would not have
you imagine that I have meant to complain of any per-
sonal injuries, or wished to excite feelings of commisera-
tion towards the Orthodox. I have complained of injus-
tice in the treatment, which our religious faith has re-
ceived from our opponents, because it tends to bar their
minds and the minds of others, against the most salutary
truths, and to perpetuate the evils of controversy.

I am conscious of no disposition and of no tempta-
tion, to reproach or injure those, whom I have here ad-
dressed. On the contrary, I have strong inducements to
respect and honor them, — especially those of them, who
were among my beloved Instructors and fellow students
at the University, and many others, to whom I have par-
ticular personal attachments. But I have wished to
cherish the influence of still higher motives, toward
those, from whose religious opinions I dissent. I would
regard them, as fellow creatures, whom God requires
me to love, as I love myself, — who are destined to the
same immortal existence, and capable of the same im-
mortal joys with myself, — who are to appear, a few days
hence, before the same high and holy tribunal, and whose
final sentence is to come from the lips of the same infal-
lible Judge. Under the influence of these considerations,
suffer me to say, I have found it easy, not only to guard
my mind against every feeling of animosity, but to exer-
cise love and tenderness. In executing the business,
which I am now closing, I have charged myself, first, to do
as much as possible, to promote the cause of Christ ; and
then, as little as possible, to inflict a wound upon the
feelings of my opponents. Indeed I have written with
the desire and the hope of contributing, through di-
vine mercy, to their eternal welfare. — I have also endeav-

159

ored to keep in mind, that the feelings, which are apt
to agitate the minds of contending parties, will shortly
vanish, and that the controversy, which has made its
way into New England, and the conduct of all those,
who take a part in it, must be subjected to review, be-
fore Him, who cannot err.

And now, my respected friends, I desire freely and
affectionately to inquire, what Unitarians expect to gain,
by the efforts they are making in their pamphlets, peri-
odical publications, and sermons, to disseminate the pe-
culiarities of their religious system ? Do they expect
that Unitarianism will have a more powerful influence
to promote good morals in society, or that it will produce
better men, or better civil and literary institutions, than
that religion, which brought our forefathers to New Eng-
land, and which has given to all our institutions, to our
ministers and churches, to our rulers, and to our com-
munity at large, a character of preeminence, which has
been universally seen and acknowledged among us ? As
to this subject of practical influence, our system most
evidently possesses every thing which is valuable in that
of Unitarians. Whatever motives to goodness can be
drawn from the " paternal character of God," or from
any of his moral attributes, from the " loveliness and
sublimity of virtue," from the example of Christ, from the
precepts of the Gospel, or from the doctrine of a resur-
rection, and a future state of retribution ; our system
inculcates them at least as forcibly, and turns them to
as good account, as that of our opponents. And our
system has much in addition, which we consider of infi-
nite worth, but of which theirs is wholly destitute. I
ask then, what they expect to gain by the efforts they
are making, — which are, in reality, efforts to diffuse among
men, lower conceptions of the glory of Christ, and of the
honor due to him from his people, — lower conceptions

160

of the disorder of the human mind, and of the evil of
sin, — lower conceptions of the value of Christ's atone-
ment, and of the necessity and worth of divine influence
to renew men to holiness, — lower conceptions of the
recompense, which sinners deserve, and of the obligations
of those who are pardoned, to the grace of God ? Let
the thing be varnished over ever so artfully, this is the
real tendency of their efforts. And what good to them-
selves or to others do they expect from such efforts?
Why should they wish to promote a system, which
lets down the standard of Christianity, so that it meets,
half way at least, the wishes of the irreligious ; — a sys-
tem, which does, in fact, find a place in the hearts of
those, who are living to the present world, without giv-
ing them any disquietude, and which is likely to be em-
braced by thousands, in preference to the opposite, for
the very reason, that it relieves them from being dis-
turbed by the warnings of conscience, and allows them
to live in the neglect of those things which are unseen
and eternal; — a system, which never can coalesce with
the feelings of those, whose hearts are warm with be-
nevolence to the souls of men, and with zeal for their
conversion ; — a system, which, if it should prevail, would
prevent forever the pious efforts, which our blessed
Lord and Redeemer requires his followers to make, to
convey the gospel of peace to the ends of the world ?
This general aspect of Unitarianism appears very por-
tentous. It excites my fears. And it is sufficient, by it-
self, to produce in my mind an honest and serious ap-
prehension, that whatever plausible arguments may be
used to give the system support and currency, — it is
indeed another gospel.

BVV9UB8

ADDRESSED TO

TRINITARIANS AND CALVINISTS,

OCCASIONED BV

DR. WOODS' LETTERS

TO UNITARIANS.

BY HENRY WARE, D. D.

Hollis Professor of Divinity in the Unirersity at Cambridge.

SECOND EDITION'.

CAMBRIDGE :

PUBLISHED BY HILLIAB.D AND METCALF.

Sold also by Cuinmings & Hilliard, Boston.

J 8-20.

DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS, TO WIT :

District Clerk's Office.

BE it remembered, that on the twenty-eighth day of August, A. D. 1820, and in the
forty-fifth year of the Independence of the United States of America, Hilliard & Metealf
of the said district have deposited in this office the title of a book, the right whereof they
claim as proprietors, in the words following, viz.

'■ Letters addressed to Trinitarians and CaWinists, occasioned by Dr. Woods' Letters to
Unitarians. By Henry Ware, D. D. Hollis Professor of Divinity in the University at Cam-
bridge."

In conformity to the Act of the Congress of the United States, entitled, "An Act for the
encouragement of learning, by securing the copies of maps, charts, and books, to the authors
and proprietors of such copies, during the times therein mentioned ;" and a. so to an Act,
entitled, " An Act supplementary to an Act," entitled, "An Act for the encouragement of
learning, by securing the copies of maps, charts, and books, to the authors and proprietors of
such copies during- the times therein mentioned ; and extending the benefits thereof to the
nrts of designing, engraving and etching historical and other prints."

J. W. DAVIS.
Clerk of the District of Massachusetts,,

CONTENTS.

LETTER I. p. 4—9.

Occasion of the following letters. — Controversy useful. — Im-
portance of the points at issue.

LETTER II. 9—17.

Propriety of a creed. — Charges of misrepresentation consider-
ed, as to the unity of God, — as to his moral perfection.

LETTER III. 17—53.

Natural character of man. — Doctrine of the Orthodox changed.
— Imputation. — Total depravity. — The writer's view on the
subject. — Defence of it — from observation and experience,
— character of children, — scripture. — General views from
scripture. — Particular texts from the Old and New Testa-
ment considered. — Depravity not a humbling doctrine.

LETTER IV. 53—80.

Election. — Alleged misrepresentation considered. — Westmin-
ster Confession. — Dr. Woods' explanations, — inconsistent
with the moral character of God, — with scripture. — General
scope, — particular texts considered. — Reprobation.

LETTER V. 80—109.

Atonement.— Alleged misrepresentations. — Language of the Or-
thodox not to be understood literally. — Redemption. — Sac-
rifice.— Atonement. — Two natures and one person in Christ.
— Ground of forgiveness. — Value of good works. — Salva-
tion of grace.

LETTER VI. 110—124.

Divine influence. — That which is peculiar to Calvinism to be
distinguished. — General doctrine. — Indirect influence by
instruments and means. — Irresistible grace. — Objections. —
Unitarian views.

LETTER VII. 125—150.

Tendency and moral influence of Unitarian and of Trinitarian
views, — generally, — as respects piety to God, — regard for
Jesus Christ, — reverence for the Scriptures, — benevolent
exertions, — spread of the Gospel. — Motives to activity. —
Conclusion.

LETTERS

ADDRESSED

TO TRINITARIANS AND CALVINISTS.

LETTER I.

CHRISTIAN BRETHREN,

The Letters of the Rev. Dr. Woods to Unita-
rians, which have now been for some time before
the public, suggest to me the propriety of address-
ing the few following pages on the same subjects, to
Trinitarians and Calvinists. I feel the greater
readiness to do it, and enter upon the task the more
cheerfully, as the discussion of the interesting sub-
jects, about which they are concerned, seems to be
taking a character of moderation, temperance, and
urbanity, which promises a favourable result. It
assures us, that the great end, which, on each side,
we propose to ourselves, will not be lost sight of
in the ardour of debate, and the desire to maintain
subordinate opinions, in which we differ from each
other ; and that we are not going to sacrifice the
spirit of religion to any of its forms, or its dogmas.
I am far from thinking religious controversy to
be universally an evil. It becomes so, only when it
is improperly conducted. It is bad, and produces
bad effects, only when the discussion of interesting
questions of faith or duty is carried on with an in-
temperate spirit, or with sophistrv : and when the
1

disputants, ranged on each side, manifest more of a
spirit of party, than of the love of truth. So far
indeed is the public discussion of those questions,
about which Christians hold different opinions, from
being a thing, that should be discouraged as hurt-
ful ; that we ought rather to rejoice in it, as an
evidence of a prevailing interest in the subject of
religion in general, as a symptom of religious life in
the community, and as a means of preserving that
life, of awakening a deeper interest, of turning the
public attention still more to the subject, and thus
furnishing opportunities for impressing upon the
minds of men a sense, which they might otherwise
not have, of its high value and importance. These
desirable effects it may produce m a considerable
degree, however imperfectly and defectively the
controversy may be conducted, and although great
faults of manner, and even of temper, may mingle
themselves in the debate. But if there be a rea
sonable degree of exemption from bad passions,
party views, the arts of controversy, and offensive
personality ; the effect of bringing the subject into
view, in the various lights in which it may be pre-
sented, can hardly fail to be highly favourable to the
cause of Christian truth.

The book, which has given occasion to the present
pamphlet, and upon which some remarks will be
made in the course of the discussions which follow,
is entitled to more than common attention on sev-
eral accounts. The subjects of which it treats art
in themselves highly important ; and being those,,
about which the Christian community is at the pres-

ent time much divided, they have excited a pecu-
liar interest of late by being brought more frequently
than common before the public mind. It comes
from a gentleman of acknowledged talents and
learning, and of high standing among his brethren
as a scholar and a theologian. It professes to
speak with authority, as it speaks in the name of
that part of the Christian community, for whom it
claims the very honourable distinction of " the
Orthodox of New England," and is designed to
explain and defend the opinions, by which they are
distinguished, for the purpose of guarding them
against misapprehension, and in order to do away
the effects of misrepresentation.

The writer of the following sheets hopes to per-
form the duty he has assigned himself, whatever
may be its defects in other respects, in a spirit,
which shall not be liable to exception. It is his
design to make such remarks, as occur to him, on
the opinions and reasonings of the pamphlet before
him, and to give a free exposition of his own views
upon the several subjects treated of by Dr. Woods,
together with the reasoning, by which he has been
led into those views. But he wishes it to be un-
derstood, that they are his own views only. He is
not authorized, nor does he profess, to speak in the
name of any party or body of Christians. How
far his opinions on the subjects in controversy, and
his manner of explaining and defending them, may
agree with those of his friends, he knows not. He
is willing to avail himself of this opportunity of ap-
pearing before the public on these subjects, believ-

ing that the cause of Christian truth cannot fail of
being promoted by unreserved freedom in the
discussion of controverted doctrines ; and by indi-
viduals communicating the result of their study and
thought, without any reference to the opinions of
the party or sect, to which they may be considered
in general as belonging.

With respect to the points at issue between those,
who are called Unitarians on the one hand, and
Trinitarians and Calvinists on the other, it is of
some importance that you should know in what
light they are viewed, and what degree of impor-
tance is attached to them by Unitarians. Upon
this subject, there is probably with us, as with you,
some diversity of opinion ; though I am persuaded
that no intelligent Unitarian can think them unim-
portant, and practically a matter of indifference.
It cannot be imagined, that the constitution of
things is such, as to render truth and error on any
subject perfectly indifferent, and equally salutary.
And it is believed, as I shall have occasion to show
in the sequel, that the doctrines for which we con-
tend, and which are the subject of controversy
between us, are calculated, as far as their effects
are not prevented, nor counteracted by other causes,
to have a better moral influence in forming the
character, than the opposite doctrines ; and that
their reception and prevalence cannot fail to have
great influence on the reception and spread of
Christianity in the world. At the same time, it is
not maintained, that any one of the doctrines, about
which we differ, is fundamental in such a sense,

that the opposite is incompatible with the Christian
character, and forfeits the Christian name for him
who maintains it. It is not doubted, that all the
best influences of Christian faith may be felt, and
the Christian life acted out, and the consolations
and hopes of the Gospel enjoyed by those, whose
speculative opinions, upon each of the several points
of controversy, which lie between us, are in opposi-
tion to each other.

LETTER II.

I shall confine myself to a few passing remarks
on what is contained in some of the first letters of
Dr. Woods, wishing to draw your attention chiefly
to the important articles of doctrine, which are
discussed in the remaining ones ; since, with the
exception of the doctrine of the divine Unity, they
involve the most interesting questions, that lie be-
tween us and you.

With respect to what is implied in no equivocal
manner in the beginning of the second letter, I would
only observe, that as to the propriety of having a
creed, no doubt, I believe, has ever been enter-
tained. Unitarians have always claimed the right
of every individual to have his own particular creed.
What they have sometimes had occasion to object
to is, not that each of the several sects and denom-
inations of Christians should have its own creed,
nor, that any individual should have one ; but that

any, whether an individual or a body of Christians,
should insist upon their creed being the creed of
others ; either as a title to the Christian name, or
as a condition of their being admitted to the parti-
cipation of any Christian privileges.

In the concluding part of the same letter, and in
the two following, Dr. Woods proceeds to charge
Mr. Channing with a gross misrepresentation of
the opinions of the Orthodox upon two points, the
Unity of God, and his moral perfection; and of
injustice in claiming these as distinguishing articles
of the Unitarian Faith. Now, in respect to the
first of these, the Unity of God, it is to be recol-
lected, that the question is not, whether the Unity
of God be asserted by Trinitarians. This is not
denied them ; but the true question is, whether
opinions are or are not held by them in relation to
this subject, which cannot be reconciled with .the
divine Unity. It is with this, and not with the
other, that they are charged by Unitarians. Full
credit is given to their word, when they declare
their belief in the Unity of God, and when they tell
us " it is asserted in all their systems of Divinity,
and all their Confessions of Faith." Nor is there
any thing that I can perceive in Mr. Channing's
Sermon, that contradicts this. But until more
than this is done, and until something more satis-
factory, than has yet been said, can be alleged by
them to show, that the commonly received doctrine
of the Trinity is reconcileable with the proper Unity
of God, we must be allowed to consider the charge
as still lying in its full force. Of this the most

respectable Trinitarian writers seem not to be
insensible. How much they are pressed with this
difficulty, and how impossible they find it to extri-
cate themselves from it, appears in the variety of
explanations which have been successively resorted
to, and the dissatisfaction expressed with every
attempt that has been made for the purpose. The
last expedient, indeed, that of rejecting the use of
the phrase "three persons," as applied to the
Deity, and substituting for it that of " three dis-
tinctions," if by distinctions be meant any thing
short of separate persons or agents, may be consid-
ered as restoring the divine Unity. But it reduces
the Trinity to a mere unmeaning name, and were
it not an abuse of language of mischievous tendency,
would leave nothing on the subject, that need be
thought worth contending about.

Professor Stuart (p. 23) expresses regret that
the term person had ever come into the symbols of
the churches, sensible, as it appears, that it cannot
be used in any intelligible meaning, without infring
ing on the Unity, and running into palpable Trithe-
ism ; and the late President Dwight, though he
contends for the propriety of the term, (vol. ii.
p. 137,) as a convenient one for expressing the
things intended by the doctrine, yet confesses, that
if he is asked what it means, he must answer, I
know not. But what is the particular convenience
of the use of a term, which expresses no meaning,
not even in the mind of him that uses it, we are left
to conjecture.

Upon the other charge, which relates to the
moral perfections of God, the course which Dr.
Woods has pursued seems to me liable to objection.
In his fourth Letter, in stating what was necessary
on his part, and the mode of reasoning proper to be
pursued, in order to relieve the system he has un-
dertaken to defend, from the charge of inconsistency
with the moral perfections of God, he says, "we have
nothing to do with the inquiry, whether the common
doctrine of depravity can consist with the moral
perfection of God, nor with any difficulty whatever
in the attempt to reconcile them.7' This is cer-
tainly a very extraordinary thought, that in de-
fending his system against an objection to which it
is thought liable, he should have nothing to do
with the very objection itself, nor with the difficulty
it involves. Did the question relate to the simple
fact, whether the doctrine of depravity, as main-
tained by the Orthodox, were a doctrine of scripture
or not, its consistency or inconsistency with the
moral perfections of God would indeed make no
part of the ground, on which the argument should
proceed. But the question he had to consider was
a different one from this. The doctrine of deprav-
ity, together with the associated doctrines, has a
place in the system of Orthodox faith. It is upon
the ground of these doctrines, as Dr. Woods ex-
pressly admits, (p. 25,) that Mr. Channing has
used the language, which he understands as imply-
ing the charge under consideration, viz. "that the
Orthodox deny the moral perfection of God.7' Now
it certainly does belong to him, who would relieve

the system from that imputation, to show, not oni)
that the doctrine of depravity, hut that all the other
doctrines connected with it in the Calvinistic sys-
tem, are consistent with the moral perfection of
God. This is the very point at issue, and the only
point, so far as relates to this charge, with which
he had any concern ; and all that he has said to
show, that he maintains many views respecting the
divine government and purposes in common with
Unitarians, and which are consistent with the moral
perfections of God, will do nothing toward proving
that he does not maintain other opinions, which are
not reconcileable with it. He was required, there-
fore, in undertaking to repel this charge, not only
to prove, which I shall afterward show he has not
done, that the scheme of doctrine, which he defends,
is taught in the scriptures, but also to prove that it is
in itself consistent with the moral perfection ol God.
But this he has not attempted to do. He has, on
the contrary, said that, which implies, that what-
ever the fact may be, the consistency demanded
cannot be seen to exist. Now if he, who believes
the doctrines in question to be taught in the scrip-
tures, is yet unable to perceive how they are
reconcileable with the moral perfection of God ;
ought he to be greatly surprised, or much disturbed,
that another, who cannot find them taught in the
bible, and who sees them therefore only as human
opinions, without authority, should represent them
as irreconcileable with that moral perfection, which
he does find there clearly and constantly taught ?

There is another consideration also, not to be
overlooked, to show that he had something to do
with this inquiry. If the doctrine of depravity, as
it is maintained by the Orthodox, cannot be per-
ceived by ns to be consistent with the moral perfec-
tion of God, the presumption is very strong, that it
is not true ; since, if it actually be inconsistent, it
certainly cannot be true. In proportion then to the
difficulty of reconciling it, the proof of it from scrip-
ture and our experience ought to be clear, and not
liable to objection. The neglect, therefore, to re-
move this fundamental objection to the whole sys-
tem, you perceive, must have its influence upon all
the reasoning employed in the direct proof of its
several parts. Nothing but the most clear and sat-
isfactory proof will be sufficient for the support of a
doctrine, which labours under the weight of so much
intrinsic incredibility, confessedly incapable of being
removed.

I have one other remark to make in this place.
Dr. Woods has stated correctly, (p. 26) " That in-
dependently of revelation, and well known facts, we
are incapable of judging, what the goodness of God
will require, as to the condition of man : or what
man's character and state must be under the gov-
ernment of a being infinitely wise and benevolent."
But the inference he would draw from this, I think
you will perceive, is not warranted by the premi-
ses. For although it be conceded, that from the
limitation of our faculties, we are incapable of say-
ing what the goodness or justice of God would re-
quire : we have faculties capable of deciding with

certainty, what they will not admit. We can pro-
nounce without hesitation with respect to some
things, that they are absolutely irreconcileable with
those attributes. To say that we have not faculties
for this, is to say, not that our knowledge is limited
and imperfect, but that it is actually nothing.
There may be a thousand cases, like those stated
by Dr. Woods, which, previous to experience, we
could not have foreseen, nor should have expected,
which when first proposed present difficulties, but
which are yet capable of being accounted for in a
satisfactory manner, and reconciled with that justice
and goodness, with which they seem at first to be
at variance. But other cases, it is evident, may
be supposed, which would admit of no such expla-
nation. And what I contend is, that the orthodox
doctrine, as to the natural •• character of man, and
the manner in which God designates the heirs of
salvation," (p. 25) is of this kind ; and that Dr.
Woods' assertion, (p. 27) "that the facts he has
there stated, and which are known to all, are as far
from being agreable to what we should naturally
imagine the infinite goodness of God would dictate,
as the fact that men are subjects of moral deprav-
ity," cannot be supported. There is no such
analogy between the cases, as to warrant the
conclusion. For we can see, with respect to the
former, how they may be consistent with the moral
perfections of God ; but we can make no supposi-
tion, upon which we shall be able to perceive, that
the latter can be so. The reason is, that, with
respect to all the former cases, such as the promis-

cuous suffering and ruin brought upon men by
plagues, hurricanes, and earthquakes, — the cruelties
and horrors of the slave-trade, — and the darkness
and ignorance to which so large a portion of the
human race are by the inevitable circumstances of
their condition subjected, — the evil is not final and
remediless, but is partial or temporary, and may be
considered as inflicted for the purpose of discipline;
and the single consideration, that it makes a part
of human probation, and that the subject of it may
yet, by the manner in which he conducts under it,
be an infinite gainer in the whole of his existence,
relieves it from all objection arising from any sup-
posed inconsistency with the justice or goodness of
God. But the doctrine of the native depravity of
man, taken in its connexion with the whole scheme
of which it is a part ; personal unconditional
election, a complete atonement made for those, who
are thus ordained to eternal life, and their regen-
eration by a special irresistible influence of the
spirit of God ; and what is the necessary and
infallible consequence of all this, the equal uncondi-
tional reprobation and final and everlasting ruin of
all the rest of the human race, certainly admits of
no such reconciliation with any notion we can have
of the moral perfection of the Author of our being.
As Dr. Woods, however, makes no attempt to
show how they are capable of being reconciled ; as
he has virtually admitted that they are incapable
of being perceived by us to be consistent with each
other; and has contented himself with endeavouring
to prove the several doctrines as matters of fact,

upon the principle, that if he can clearly prove
them to be doctrines of scripture, he is not bound
to show how they can be consistent with the divine
perfections, it is unnecessary to say any thing more
to show, that the imputation of which he complains
is not removed. I shall therefore proceed directly
to the consideration of the evidence upon which
the several doctrines in question rest as matters of
fact.

LETTER III.

The discussion introduced by Dr. Woods in his
fourth Letter, and pursued through the fifth and
sixth, relates to "the natural character of man.7'
As the question, "what is the natural character of
man," lies at the very foundation of the controversy
between Unitarians on the one hand, and Trinita-
rians and Calvinists on the other, it will prepare
us for a fair discussion of it, to examine in the first
place what is the precise difference of opinion
between them on the subject.

Heretofore, those who claimed the title of Ortho-
dox, and professed to follow the doctrine of Calvin,
were satisfied with the language used by the
Westminster Divines in the Catechism and Confes-
sion of Faith, in which the doctrines of that reformer
are expressed with remarkable precision and
distinctness. Tn them the dor trine, which respects

the natural state of man since the fall, and in conse-
quence of that event, has two parts. They repre-
sent the first sin of our first parent, as imputed to
all his posterity, who are said to have sinned in him,
mid to have fallen -with him ; and they teach the
entire corruption of man's nature, that he is utterly
indisposed, disabled, and made opposite to all that is
spiritually good, and wholly inclined to all evil, —
under the displeasure and curse of God, and liable to
all punishments in this world and that which is to
come.

It seems that the first part of this account,
though it was formerly reckoned one of the principal
tests of Orthodoxy, more zealously maintained than
any other, is now given up. It is wholly omitted
in the Creed adopted by the Theological Institution
in Andover. It is expressly given up by Dr.
Woods. "The Orthodox in New England at the
present day," he tells us, p. 44, " are not charge-
able with the erroneous opinions held by their
predecessors. The imputation of Adam's sin to
his posterity, in any sense, which those words
naturally and properly convey, is a doctrine which
we do not believe." This change in the opinions
of the Orthodox, and advance toward what we
believe to be right views, we are glad to witness ;
and have no doubt that the same correct mode of
thinking and reasoning, which has led to it, will
lead also to the rejection of the other part of the
doctrine, which has heretofore been considered as
inseparably connected with it. We think that
further reflection will convince them, that they are

inseparably connected — that if the imputation of
Adam's guilt is a solecism, and inconsistent with
the moral character of God, it is equally so, that,
in consequence of it, all his posterity should come
into being with a nature so totally corrupt and in-
clined to sin, as to be incapable of any good.

I could have wished that Dr. Woods had given
a more distinct and compact definition of the doc-
trine he meant to defend on this point, that there
might be no mistake of the question between us.
From scattered expressions, however, and from his
having made no exception with respect to this part
of the doctrine, I think we are to conclude, though
he chooses to express it in somewhat softened and
qualified language, that he holds it in its full extent.
By such expressions as the following, (p. 31) " by-
nature men are subjects of an innate moral depravi-
ty ;" " while unrenewed, their moral affections

and actions are wholly wrong.'7 (p. 43) 6f All,
without exception by nature, or in consequence of
their natural birth, are in such a state of moral
impurity, as disqualifies them for the enjoyments of
heaven, unless they are renewed by the Holy Spirit."
And (p. 46) " Adam's transgression had such a re-
lation to his posterity, that in consequence of it, they
were constituted sinners, and subjected to death, and
all other sufferings, as penal evils ;" he means all
that is meant by the following expressions in the
Assembly's Catechism and Confession of Faith.
•'•' The corruption of his nature, by which he is utter-
ly indisposed, disabled, and made opposite to all
that is spiritually good, and wholly inclined to all

evil, and that continually — and that men are thus
by nature, as they are born, under the displeasure
and curse of God ; justly liable to all punishments
in this world and that which is to come.7'

I am fortified in this by recurring to the Creed
of the Institution with which he is connected, in
which I find the following passage. " That in con-
sequence of his [Adam's] disobedience, all his
descendants were constituted sinners : that by nature
every man is personally depraved, destitute of holi-
ness, unlike and opposed to God, and that previously
to the renewing agency of the Divine Spirit, all his
moral actions are adverse to the character and glory
of God ; that being morally incapable of recovering
the image of his Creator, which was lost in Adam,
every man is justly exposed to eternal damnation."

The doctrine respecting the natural condition of
man, which I shall now state, and endeavour to
maintain in opposition to this, may be expressed in
the following manner.

Man is by nature, by which is to be understood,
as he is born into the world, as he comes from the
hands of the Creator, innocent and pure ; free from
all moral corruption, as well as destitute of all posi-
tive holiness ; and, until he has, by the exercise of
his faculties, actually formed a character either good
or bad, an object of the divine complacency and
favour. The complacency and favour of the Creator
are expressed in all the kind provisions that are
made by the constitution of things for his improve-
ment and happiness. He is by nature no more
inclined or disposed to vice than to virtue, and is

equally capable, in the ordinary use of his faculties,
and with the common assistance afforded him, of
either. He derives from his ancestors a frail and
mortal nature ; is made with appetites, which fit
him for the condition of being in which God has
placed him ; but in order for them to answer all the
purposes intended, they are so strong, as to be very
liable to abuse by excess. He has passions implant-
ed in him, which are of great importance in the
conduct of life, but which are equally capable of
impelling him into a wrong or a right course. He
has natural affections, all of them originally good,
but liable by a wrong direction to be the occasion
of error and sin. He has reason and conscience to
direct the conduct of life, and enable him to choose
aright ; which reason may yet be neglected, or per-
verted, and conscience misguided. The whole of
these together make up what constitutes his trial
and probation. They make him an accountable
being, a proper subject to be treated according as
he shall make a right or wrong choice, being equally
capable of either, and as free to the one as to the
other.

That this, and not the scheme of innate moral
depravity, is the truth, I shall endeavour now to
show by arguments drawn

1. From observation and experience, and

2. From the Scriptures.

It is to my purpose, previous to entering on this
discussion, to observe, what the Orthodox will not
hesitate to admit, that judging beforehand, the
scheme of total moral depravity, or of any original

bias to evil rather than good, is something different
from what we should expect, and involves great
difficulty in reconciling it with the moral perfections
of God. This, as I have before observed, is implied
(p. 29) by Dr. Woods himself. I admit, with him,
that this is not a sufficient reason for rejecting it in
opposition to the evidence of fact, and of scripture,
and for the reason which he gives, viz. that we are
finite, and cannot so comprehend the purposes and
conduct of an infinite being, as to be certain, that
what seems to us inconsistent with his moral charac-
ter, is so in reality. But it is a good reason for
yielding our assent with caution, not till we have
examined with care, and not without very satisfac-
tory evidence. It is a reason for suspending our
assent, and reexamining, so as to be entirely satisfi-
ed as to the fact. I have another remark also to
make. The doctrine, it is confessed, is repulsive.
The mind naturally revolts at it. It seems at first,
to all men, universally, to be inconsistent with the
divine perfection. But the first impression is made
upon us by the nature which God has given us ; and
I think we should be slow to believe that a nature,
thus given to all, is intended to mislead and actually
does mislead all, on so important a question. It is
certainly an extraordinary fact, if a fact it is, that
God should first give to man a corrupt nature, wholly
averse to good and inclined to evil, and at the same
time endow him with a moral discernment and feel-
ings, which lead him instinctively to deny that God
can so have made him, because inconsistent with
justice and goodness ; that is, that he has given him

a natural sense of right and wrong, which leads him
to arraign the conduct of the Being who made him.
I proceed now to the inquiry, what observation
and experience teach us, as to the fact of human
depravity. And here we must not forget, that the
question is, not whether there is a great deal of
wickedness in the world, but what is the source of
that wickedness ; not whether mankind are very
corrupt, but how they became so ; whether it is a
character born with them, or acquired ; whether it
is what God made them, or what they have made
themselves. All that is said of the prevalence of
wickedness in the world may be true, and yet none
of it the effect of an original taint, which men
brought into the world with them ; none of it making
a part of their original nature. I may acquiesce in
the mournful and humbling representations given of
the violence of human passions, the brutal excesses
that follow the unrestrained indulgence of the appe-
tites ; the intemperance and self-indulgence of in-
dividuals ; the wrongs, violation of the rights, and
neglect of the duties of domestic life ; the injustice,
and fraud, and violence, prevalent in every form in
all the transactions of social life ; the pride, and
selfishness, aud regardlessness of the rights and
feelings of others, appearing in a thousand forms ;
the wars which desolate the earth, the abuses of
government, and the oppression and tyranny, that
are exercised by some over the rest of their fellow-
beings. All these representations may be true, and
no more than a just account of what actually takes
place, and yet the whole be fairly accounted for.

without any original and natural bias to sin. All
may be but the effect of neglect to restrain appe-
tites, in themselves useful and good, to control and
give a proper direction to passions designed to be
useful and capable of the very best effects, and in
general a failure to exercise properly, in tempta-
tions and trials, the powers of direction and resist-
ance, which were in themselves sufficient.

But, although this reply may be made, were the
representation usually given of the human charac-
ter, and of the prevalence of wickedness, correct in
its fullest extent ; I am satisfied that I am not called
upon by truth to make that concession. I insist,
that the account usually given of human wickedness
is exaggerated. It is a partial account, and such
as gives a very wrong impression. Men are not
the mere brutes and fiends, which it would make
them. There is much of good as well as of evil in,
the human character, and in the conduct of man.
Indeed, I hesitate not to say, that as much as there
is of wickedness and vice, there is far more of virtue
and goodness; as much as there is of ill-will, un-
kindness, injustice, and inhumanity, there is incom-
parable more of kindness, good disposition, pity,
and charity. I insist, that if we take a fair and full
viewT, we shall find that wickedness, far from being
the prevailing part of the human character, makes
but an inconsiderable part of it. That in by far
the largest part of human beings, the just, and
kind, and benevolent dispositions prevail beyond
measure over the opposite ; and that even in the
worst men, good feelings and principles are predom-

inant, and they probably perform in the course of
their lives many more good than bad actions ; as
the greatest liar does, by the constitution of his
nature, doubtless speak many truths to every lie he
utters. One great source of misapprehension is, that
virtues and good qualities are silent, secret, noise-
less ; vices are bold, public, noisy, seen by all, felt
by all, noted by all.

But whether this be so or not, the ground for
rejecting the doctrine of innate original moral de-
pravity will not be materially affected. It is not
supported by observation and experience, as we
have a right to demand of a doctrine so apparently
inconsistent with the moral attributes of the Deity.

What I assert upon this point, and think to be
very obvious and capable of being made out to entire
satisfaction, is, that observation and experience are
altogether favourable to the view I have stated of
the human character and condition, and that without
revelation there is nothing that would lead a reflect-
ing man to the thought of an innate moral deprav-
ity.

It is easy to bring together into one picture, and
place in a strong light, with exaggerated features,
all the bad passions in their uncontrolled and un-
qualified state, all the atrocious crimes that have
been committed, all the bad dispositions that have
been indulged ; but the picture, though it contain
nothing, but what is found in men, will be far, very
far, from being a just picture of human nature. Let
all that is virtuous, and kind, and amiable, and
good, be brought into the picture, and presented in

their full proportions, and the former will be found
to constitute a far less part of it, than we were ready
to imagine.

Our most correct ideas of human nature will be
drawn from the characteristics of infancy, and the
earliest indications of disposition, tendency, and
character in the infant mind ; and if the nature of
man be corrupt, inclined to evil, and evil only, it
will appear there with its unequivocal marks. But
do we find it there, and is it the common, untaught
sentiment of mankind, that it exists there ? Far from
it. Innocence, and simplicity, and purity are the
characteristics of early life. Truth is natural ;
falsehood is artificial. Veracity, kindness, good-
will flow from the natural feelings. Duplicity, and
all the cold, and selfish, and calculating manners of
society are the fruit of education, and intercourse
with the world. We have marks enough of a feeble,
helpless nature, calling for sympathy, assistance,
support, kindness ; but we see no proofs of depravi-
ty, of malignity, of inclination to evil in preference
to good. How early does the infant discover affec-
tion, attachment, gratitude to those from whom it
receives kindness ! How universally is it an object
of interest to those about it ! Would it be so, if it
manifested such tokens, as the orthodox doctrine of
depravity supposes, of an inclination, disposition,
and tendency, wholly directed to evil, and if it ap-
peared to possess nothing good, and no tendency to
good ? Instead of this, must it not naturally be the
object of aversion and disgust, and especially so to
pious and virtuous persons, who can only love and

approve those, whom God loves and approves ; and
who therefore can see in little children, only objects
of the divine displeasure and wrath, beings wholly
averse to God and all that is good, and who deserve,
not sympathy and affection, but all punishments of
this world and the world to come ?

It is often said, that children are naturally in-
clined to falsehood and deception, and that they
early lie and deceive, rather than speak the truth.
But this charge needs proof; and I apprehend it
will be found that evidence is abundantly against it,
and in favour of the natural veracity of children.
It will rarely be found, that children disregard the
truth, till by example, or bad education, or peculiar
circumstances of temptation, they have learned to
overcome and counteract the tendency of nature.
That they are so proverbially simple, unsuspicious,
and easily imposed upon, arises from their judging
others by themselves. It is because they themselves
are conscious of no thought of deceiving, that they
never suspect others. Great differences of character
in this, as in other respects, appear at an early age ;
but what I have stated, I am persuaded is the gen-
eral character, until the disposition and tendency of
nature has been changed by education, example,
and circumstances.

It is alleged, also, that children are naturally
cruel ; and in proof of it, the pleasure they seem to
take in torturing insects and small animals is some-
times mentioned. But the pleasure, which the
convulsions and throes of a tortured insect or animal
give to a child, arises from another source than

cruelty, or the desire of giving pain. It is wholly
to be attributed to the love of excitement, and the
pleasure it takes in rapid and violent motion ; and
is wholly unconnected with the idea of suffering in
the creature, with whose convulsions it is delighted.
The same pleasure would be derived from the power
of producing the same convulsive motions, and the
same appearance in any inanimate substance. In
proof of this, let a clear idea of the suffering of the
insect be communicated to the child, and it will no
longer take pleasure in its convulsions. A sentiment
of compassion will be raised. It will be as eager to
rescue it from its suffering, as before it was to inflict
that suffering. This I am persuaded will usually,
if not always, be the case. But if it were from native
cruelty, the love of inflicting pain, or from any de-
pravity of nature ; instead of ceasing from it the
moment it was made acquainted with the suffering
of the animal, that knowledge would be a new motive
to proceed ; as it would give it the satisfaction of
knowing, that its malignant purpose was effected, its
cruel design accomplished. The same account is
to be given of what is often called a mischievous
disposition in children. It is not the love of mischief,
but an exuberant love of activity. The mischief or
inconvenience which they occasion to others is no
part of the motive, but simply the love of action and
strong excitement ; and it may be accompanied with
the kindest feelings, the most sincere desire of giv-
ing pleasure to others, and as sincere an unwilling-
ness to give pain or to cause uneasiness or dis-
pleasure.

Indeed I know not a single mark of early de-
pravity, common to children in general, which may
not, as these are, he fairly traced to causes, which
imply no degree of depravity, and no fault of char-
acter, or of disposition. Individuals there may be,
who give very early tokens of great perversity of
mind, and corruption of heart. But these are ex-
ceptions from the general character of human na-
ture, and, as such, have no place in the present
argument ; and if they had any, would be decisive,
not in favour of the orthodox doctrine, but against
it ; as the exception, in its nature, proves the oppo-
site ride. If great depravity is the exception, ex-
emption from depravity must be the rule.

No man, I am persuaded, was ever led by per-
sonal observation and experience to the thought of
an original depravity of human nature, according to
which, by the bias of nature, all, without exception,
who come into the world, are from their birth
inclined wholly to evil, and averse to good.

And as little, I am persuaded, would any one be
led to such an opinion by the general current of
scripture. I am led to think so by a general view
of the commands, precepts, exhortations, promises,
and threatcnings of religion, and by the whole his-
tory of the divine dispensations to men ; and also
by attending to a great number of particulars, each
of which, separately, seems to me to imply, that
mankind come into the world innocent and pure, the
objects of the complacency of the Creator, and no
more inclined, by the nature God has given them, to
sin, than to virtue : no more disposed to hate and
4

disobey, than to love and obey their Maker. I shall
instance only in one, but that alone, in my opinion,
is decisive of the question. I refer to the manner
in which little children are, on two occasions, spoken
of by our Saviour, and on one by the Apostle Paul.
(Matt. xix. 14) u Suffer little children to come unto
me — for of such is the kingdom of heaven." These
appear to have been infants, or at least very small
children, for he took them into his arms and blessed
them. There is no intimation of any thing peculiar
in them ; no evidence that they were a few, selected
from among many ; nothing to suggest that they
were different from other children ; but rather, that
they were like other children. There is not the
slightest intimation that these particular children
had become the subjects of any great moral change.
But if they were depraved, destitute of holiness,
averse from all good, inclined to all evil, enemies of
God, subjects of his wrath, justly liable to all pun-
ishments, could our Saviour declare, respecting
them, " of such is the kingdom of God ?" And could
he, on another occasion, say, (Matt, xviii. 3) " Un-
less ye be converted, and become as little children,
ye cannot enter into the kingdom of God ?" And
again, (Mark x. 14. Luke xviii. 16) " Whosoever
shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little
child, he shall not enter therein ?"

Could the Apostle Paul recommend to the Co-
rinthians, (1 Cor. xiv. 20) " Be not children in
understanding, but in malice be ye children, but in
understanding be men ;" that is, in understanding,
in the power of distinguishing right and wrong, and

perceiving the truth, show yourselves to be men ;
but in your dispositions, in your moral characters,
manifest the gentleness, and mildness, and purity of
children ? I know not how these passages are to be
explained, so as to consist with the doctrine of innate
depravity, rendering those who are the subjects of
it enemies to God, &c. until renewed by the special
influence of the spirit of God. I have never seen
them satisfactorily explained upon that supposition,
nor do I believe that they admit of such explanation.
They most clearly imply, until turned from their
obvious meaning, that young children are objects of
the Saviour's complacency and affection ; that their
innocency, gentleness, and good disposition are the
proper objects of imitation ; that they are, what men
are to become by conversion or regeneration.

But there are, as I have said, a few texts, from
which the doctrine I am considering is inferred ; and
these have been brought forward, and placed in all
the strength of which they are capable, by those
who believe and defend the doctrine, and particu-
larly by the able advocate it has found in the author
of the pamphlet before me.

It is not pretended, I believe, by any of the
defenders of the native, hereditary' depravity of the
human race, that the doctrine is, any where in
scripture, expressly asserted. It is not a matter of
direct assertion, but of inference. It is considered
as implied in several passages. Now I admit that
a doctrine, no where expressly taught, may yet be
so clearly and constantly implied, may so enter into
the whole texture of the sacred writings, and appear

in every part, as to be as reasonable an object of
our faith, as those doctrines, which are the most
distinctly and formally enunciated. But examples of
this kind are usually (I will not affirm always, but
usually) such as are presented, not a few times only,
and then in a doubtful form, but such as appear
constantly, and enter as it were into the very sub-
stance of the whole. Such, for instance, is the being
of God, no where asserted, but every where implied.
Such is the moral freedom of man, upon which
rests his accountability as a moral being ; and such,
in my apprehension, is the doctrine, that men be-
come sinners, guilty before God, and objects of his
displeasure only by their personal acts, and not by
the nature with which they came into being.

The first text adduced, as implying innate total
depravity, is Gen. vi. 5. A few remarks will show
how little it is to the purpose, and how far from
supporting what is made to rest upon it. For, in
the first place, it relates not to mankind universally,
but to the degenerate race of men of that age, so
remarkably and universally corrupt, beyond all that
had gone before, or have followed since, as to call
for the most signal tokens of the vengeance of
heaven. In the second place, were it said of all
men in every age, instead of being confined, as it is,
to the inhabitants of the earth at that particular
time, it would still be nothing to the purpose, for
which it is brought. There is no assertion of native
derived depravity, none of a corrupt nature, no
intimation of hereditary guilt, no reference to innate
aversion to good and inclination to evil. It is the

mere assertion of a state of great corruption and
wickedness, which no one denies ; and not only of
external actions, such as " the world being full of
violence,"' but of purposes and dispositions of the
heart, implying deep-rooted and radical wickedness,
expressed by " the imaginations of the heart." But
this is all perfectly consistent with their coming into
being, innocent and pure. It is not what they are
by nature, but by habit ; not what they were as they
came from the hands of the Creator, but what they
have become in the use or rather abuse of his gifts,
and of the condition in which he placed them.

It is said that the language here is universal, as
also when it is used again in the viii. chapter ; and
that its application to man universally in all ages
and nations, is confirmed by the passages quoted
by Paul, in the iii. chapter of Romans from Psalms
xiv. liii. v. cxl. x. xxxvi. and Isaiah lix. where he
describes Jews and Gentiles of that age, in passages
borrowed from the Old Testament, and applies
them as descriptive of the character of mankind
without exception. But in each case the argument
wholly fails of proving what it is brought to prove ;
because it depends for its force on an interpretation
of language, which cannot be adopted without lead-
ing to consequences, which the advocates of univer-
sal original depravity would be as slow to admit, as
its opposers.

It goes on the supposition that the sacred writers
used words, as no other writers ever did use them,
with perfect philosophical exactness, instead of the
popular sense ; and that their writings were to be.

interpreted by rules, to which no other writings
will bear to be subjected.

Universal expressions, like those in the texts in
question, are so far from being always used in their
strict literal sense, that they are usually relative, to
be understood and interpreted in relation to the
subject and occasion. Thus when it is said, (1 Tim.
ii. 4) " God will have all men to be saved and come
to the knowledge of the truth," it relates to the
question, whether any class or nation of men are
excluded from the favour and good -will of God, and
therefore ought to be excluded from a share in the
benevolent regards and prayers of Christians ; so
that all men means, not every individual, but all
ranks, descriptions, and conditions of men. In the
unlimited sense of the words it is not true. It is not
true that God wills every individual to come to the
knowledge of truth, i. e. of the Gospel ; for thou-
sands are precluded from the possibility of it by
the circumstances of their being. Nor is it true,
that he wills all men to be finally saved ; but only
all of every rank, and every nation, who are
penitent, obedient, and faithful. He wills none
to be excluded from having the truth proposed,
and salvation offered to them. And that all,
who receive and obey it, shall actually obtain
the salvation offered. So also (Tit. ii. 11) when
it is said, " the grace of God bringing salvation
hath appeared to all men," the meaning cannot be,
every individual, for it never has been published to
all in that sense. But, as in the other case, to
men of every nation, age, rank, condition, and in the

same sense in which Paul (Col. i. 23) spoke of the
Gospel, as " preached to every creature under
heaven."

It is in a similar, popular, qualified sense, a
sense never leading men into mistakes upon other
subjects and common occasions, that Moses, speak-
ing of the general wickedness and corruption of
manners, which were the occasion of the flood, uses
language, which in its strictly literal import might
be understood to mean, that there was no virtue
remaining on the earth ; though he immediately
tells us, that Noah was an exception to the prevail-
ing wickedness, that " he found favour in the eyes
of the Lord, (ch. vi. 8, 9) being a just man, perfect
in his generations, and one who walked with God."

The same remark occurs with equal force in
respect to the passage so much relied on in the xiv.
Psalm. Not only is there no intimation as to the
origin and source of the evil, no intimation of an
inbred, innate, hereditary depravity, but only of
great and general corruption of manners ; but,
though a verbal universality is expressed, the very
Psalm itself takes care to teach us with what quali-
fications it is to be understood. For while it asserts,
in the strong language of emotion and eastern hy-
perbole, " that all were gone aside, all together
become filthy, none that did good, no, not one,'' the
writer seems wholly unconscious of a design to have
his language understood according to its literal
import ; for he immediately goes on with expressions
absolutely incompatible with such a meaning. He
goes on to speak of a " people of God, a generation

of the righteous, whose refuge was God." The same
is the case with each of the other Psalms, quoted by
Paul in his Epistle to the Romans.

But it is of little comparative importance,
whether the authors of the Psalms, or the Apostle in
quoting them, meant to be understood as expressing
a general truth in popular language, or as expressing
themselves with literal philosophical exactness.
Understand them in the most unlimited, unqualified
sense, of which their words are capable, they ex-
press only what no one will deny, that all men are
sinners. The question will still be open, as before,
how this universality of sin and great corruption of
manners are to be accounted for. Whether, as the
advocates of Orthodoxy contend, men come into the
world with a corrupt nature, prone only to wicked-
ness, and utterly incapable of any good thought or
action, till renewed by an influence of the holy spirit,
which they can do nothing to procure ; or as Unita-
rians believe, this corrupt nature is not what they
received from God, but what they have made for
themselves. That they were not made sinners, but
became so by yielding to temptations, which it was
in their power to resist ; by obeying the impulse of
the passions, and the calls of appetite, in opposition
to the direction of reason and the notices of con-
science ; by subjecting themselves to the dominion
of the inferior part of their nature, instead of put-
ting themselves under the guidance of their superior
faculties.

Questions may be asked upon this statement,
which cannot be answered, because we have not

faculties which enable us in any cases to trace things
up to the first cause and spring of action. But no
difficulty so great and insurmountable meets us, as,
on the opposite theory, is the moral difficulty in
which it involves the character of the Author of our
being. When we have traced back the wickedness
of men, as it actually exists, to the voluntary neg-
Ject, and perversion, and abuse of the nature God
has given them, we can go no farther.

It is asserted, (pp. 38, 39) u. that when we read
in the Bible the highest descriptions of human wick-
edness in the old world, in Sodom, in Canaan, in
Jerusalem ; or of the wickedness of individuals, as
Pharaoh, Saul, Jeroboam, and Judas ; it is perfectly
just and natural for us to reflect, such is human na-
ture, such is man ; and orthodox writers reason in
an unexceptionable manner, when they undertake
to show, what human nature is, from the description
which is given of the wickedness of man in the Old
Testament."

The writer, I think, must perceive that he has
expressed himself rashly or carelessly, when he
considers clearly the force and bearing of what he
has said in the above paragraph. Are we to con-
sider those places, which, singled out and distin-
guished from all others, are expressly declared to
have been destroyed for their enormous and incor-
rigible wickedness, as fair representatives of the
usual state and character of the human race ? Peo-
ple, who were ordered to be wholly extirpated for
the very purpose of stopping the contagion of their
vices, preventing the spread of the infection, and

serving as a warning to other nations to prevent
their becoming like them ? Are Pharaoh, Jeroboam,
and Judas, fair examples and representatives of
human nature ? Men, singled out in a history of
two thousand years, as instances of uncommon
wickedness, visited with as uncommon tokens of
retributory justice ? Let it be asked, why the
cruelty and obstinacy of Pharaoh, rather than the
humanity, and piety, and meekness of Moses ; why
the idolatry, and unprincipled ambition, and selfish-
ness of Jeroboam, rather than the piety, tenderness
of conscience, and public spirit of Josiah ; why the
single wretch, who was so base and sordid as to sell
and betray his Master, rather than the eleven, who
were true and faithful to him, should be selected as
specimens of the race to which they belong, and the
great community of which they make a part ?

Would you select the period of seven years'
famine, as an example of the usual fertility of
Egypt? The desolating pestilence in the days of
David, as a fair specimen of the salubrity of the
climate of Israel ? Would you go to a lazar-house
or hospital, rather than to the fields, the wharves,
and the factories, to know what is the usual state of
human health and activity ? Is an ideot or a mad-
man a just specimen of the human intellect? Or
are we to find in our prisons, and at the gallows,
in highwaymen, pirates, and murderers, a true
index to point out the general morals of the com-
munity?

It is unnecessary to multiply remarks on the
next text brought to prove human depravity. (Jer.

xvii. 9) (i The heart is deceitful above all things,
and desperately wicked." Admit that it relates to
a prevailing trait in the human character ; do we
not well know, that, in the common use of language,
such general expressions are seldom to be under-
stood as universal in their application ? They are
to be understood in a limited and popular sense.
What is more than this, though the text were intend-
ed to express a trait of character absolutely uni-
versal, it has no more relation to the question res-
pecting the source of human wickedness, whether it
be natural or acquired, than any other descriptions
of prevalent wickedness in the world. But the total
irrelevancy of the text to the purpose, for which
it is brought, appears best by considering the sub-
ject matter, about which it is introduced. The
prophet is stating the safety of trusting in God, and
the insecurity of trusting in man. The reason is,
that men are deceitful, and not to be depended on.
Now this reason would be good, and support the
prophet's conclusion, though deceit and treachery
were not the universal, though they were not even
the general character of men. Were there many
to be found, who would deceive and betray, it
would be sufficient to justify the prophet, in with-
drawing men from their confidence in man, and
teaching them to place it in him, who can never
fail, and will never deceive. And it would suf-
ficiently account for his adding in the next verse,
" I the Lord search the heart." However deceitful
men may be, and able to impose on men, there is

one, who is able to detect, and will not fail to pun-
ish.

From the New Testament, the first passage se-
lected, as implying the doctrine under consideration,
is the answer of Christ to Nicodemus, (John iii. 3)
H Except a man be born again, he cannot see the
kingdom of God." It is contended, (pp. 42, 43)
that the universal necessity of regeneration, expres-
sed in this text, implies universal depravity. " That
this necessity of a moral renovation arises from the
character man possesses in consequence of his nat-
ural birth ; that all must be born again, because,
and only because, all without exception are, by
nature, or in consequence of their natural birth, in
such a state of moral impurity, as disqualifies them
for the enjoyments of heaven, unless they are re-
newed by the holy spirit."

A single consideration convinces me, that the
inference is without foundation, and that the uni-
versal necessity of regeneration may consist with
original innocency, and exemption from any pre-
vailing tendency, as we are born into the world, to
vice rather than virtue. By their natural birth
men only become human, reasonable, accountable
beings. (i What is born of the flesh is flesh." They
receive by their natural birth only the human
nature. They receive no moral character, but only
the faculties and powers, in the exercise of which a
moral character is to be formed. 'The formation of
this character introduces them into a new state of
being, and by whatever means, and at whatever time
it takes place, it may be called, by no very remote

or unusual figure, a new birth ; and those, who have
thus acquired a moral character, and received the
principles of a spiritual life, in addition to the
natural human life, may be said to be born again.
Now if this was what Jesus meant in what he said
to Nicodemus, it will no more imply original sin,
than original holiness. It will only imply the ab-
sence or want of that, which was necessary to be-
coming a subject of the kingdom of God. The terms
new birth, born again, born of the spirit, renexved,
become a new man, are applied with as much pro-
priety to those, who receive the influences of the
Gospel, and acquire the character, which it is in-
tended to form, on the supposition of original inno-
cence and purity, as upon that of native depravity
and original sinfulness. In each case alike, it ex-
presses a great moral change, and implies the
formation of a new character, not possessed before.
On the supposition, therefore, that this passage
refers, as is generally supposed by interpreters, to
that great moral change, which the religion of the
Gospel is to produce on those who embrace it, in
order to their being fit members of the kingdom of
heaven on earth and in glory ; it will be seen to be
nothing to the purpose of those, who attempt to build
upon it the doctrine of a moral depravity, with
which all men are born into the world. It will only
imply, that they do not possess by birth that char-
acter of personal holjness and positive virtue, which
is necessary to their being Christians, fit subjects of
the present and future kingdom of God.

The passage, (Rom. v. 12) u Wherefore, as by
one man sin entered into the world, and death by
sin, and so death passed upon all men, for that all
have sinned," is of another kind, and to be shown
to have no relation to the subject by other consid-
erations. The whole force of this passage, (if it
have any, as relates to this subject,) lies in the last
clause, " For that all have sinned." Now if this
clause be understood in a sense, which shall prove
any thing to the purpose, it will prove the genuine
old Calvinistic doctrine, the imputation of Adam's
sin. It leads back to the notion of a federal head,
of Adam's acting not only on his own responsibility,
but for all his posterity ; acting in their stead, so
that his action was theirs, and they " sinned in him
and fell with him in his first transgression." They
are all sinners by the sin of him, their representa-
tive, federal head. The myriads who die in earliest
infancy, before it is possible for them to perform
any act, or to have any volition, either sinful or
virtuous, yet die because they are sinners. They
are sinners then by the sin of another, by the im-
putation of sin to them ; and this is the true doctrine
of Calvinism ; and this, it seems to me, is also the
doctrine of Dr. Woods, notwithstanding his explicit
rejection of it, as stated in words. For, besides
that he acquiesces in the qualified statement of
Stapfer, (p. 45) (which, after all, must mean the
doctrine of imputation in its full extent, if it have
any intelligible meaning ; since God's giving Adam
a posterity like himself, if it mean any thing to the

purpose, must mean sinners like himself;) besides
this, he asserts, that the Apostle's reasoning goes
on the ground, that (p. 46) " Adam's transgression
had, in the plan of the divine administration, such a
relation to his posterity, that in consequence of it,
they were constituted sinners, and subjected to
death and all other sufferings, as penal evils." Now
if the posterity of Adam being constituted sinners,
and subjected to all sufferings, as penal evils, that
is, as punishments, in consequence of his transgres-
sion, mean any thing to the purpose for which it
is introduced, and yet short of the common Calvin-
istic notion of imputation, I am unable to perceive
what it is, and it needs explanation, and a more
definite statement, than I have seen.

But I am persuaded the passage has no such
meaning. It is a single phrase taken away from its
connexion, and what is more, out of the middle of
an argument. Did it therefore, as it does not, ex-
press distinctly our original native depravity, it
would give very little satisfaction alone ; for there
is no sentiment so absurd, that it may not be sup-
ported by single sentences, thus detached from the
connexion in which they are used. But I have
observed that in its most obvious sense it expresses
no such native corruption. Understood literally,
the only assertion it contains with certainty is that
of a fact, which none will deny, the universality of
sin, that all have sinned. Now the nature of the
universality intended to be asserted, in this, as in
every case, is to be learned from the circumstances
of the case. All who are capable of sinning, all as

soon as they are capable of it, all as soon as they
are moral agents. Such limitations of the sense of
universal expressions in other cases are constantly
occurring. Were all the inhabitants of a country
required to take an oath of allegiance to the govern-
ment ; the requisition would be considered as com-
plied with, though no infants and small children had
taken the oath, and all would be considered as in-
cluded under its obligation. But there is another
consideration, which ought to prevent this text
from being considered of any weight on the subject.
The whole passage in which it stands is one of the
most intricate and difficult in the New Testament.
The phrase,* on which so much is made to depend,
admits equally well of several different translations,
each of which will give it a different meaning ; and
its connexion with the passage in which it stands is
not such, as to help us, to any degree of certainty,
in determining by which version its true sense is
expressed. Dr. Woods himself, u allows it to be
in some respects very obscure." He will doubtless
admit then, that the support derived to a doctrine,

* '££>' », in our translation, "for that," has been rendered
by the several phrases, because, inasmuch as, as far as, in
whom, unto ivhich, after whom, on account of whom. When
meanings so various are assigned to this text by Schleusner,
Eisner, Taylor, Doddridge, Whitby, and Macknight, I am
justified in attributing to it a degree of obscurity and uncer-
tainty, which should prevent it from being alleged with much
confidence in proof of any doctrine, which it may be supposed
to express.

depending on any particular translation of this
text, or any particular meaning assigned to it, will
be of very little value ; of none indeed any farther,
than it receives support itself from other plainer
passages.

Ephesians ii. 3, u And were by nature children
of wrath, even as others." The connexion and
circumstances of the case show the meaning of this
verse, and that it furnishes no proof of inbred moral
corruption, but only of corrupt and wicked habits.
It refers to the former state of Jews as well as
heathen, before their conversion to Christianity.
In that state, they were all alike children of wrath,
deserving of wrath, not as they came into the world,
not as they came from their Maker's hand, but as
they became by the habits, and customs, and prac-
tices of that state into which they were born ; which
was a state of nature, as compared with the state of
grace, into which they were introduced by Chris-
tianity. What they were before they became
Christians, they were by nature ; what they became
afterward, was by the grace of God, which appear-
ed bringing salvation. The state of nature was
that, into which they came by their birth ; as dis-
tinguished from the state of grace into which they
came, when they embraced Christianity. When
they received Christianity, they were born again,
born of water by their baptism, born of the spirit
by receiving the spirit of Christianity, by being
renewed in the temper of their mind. Then they
were no longer children of wrath, when the new
6

birth was completed, and their religion had pro-
duced all its moral effects.

According to this view of the subject, the state
of nature has no reference to what a man brings into
the world with him, but it stands opposed to a state
of grace. It is that state in which all are, Jews as
well as Gentiles, before they become Christians.
This language of the Apostle, like much of that in
the Epistles, referring to the same subject, relates
to men, as bodies of men, not as individuals. It
compares them together as bodies, not as individuals.
It speaks of them generally, as in their heathen and
Jewish state, and then in their Christian state. In
the former " dead in sin," in the latter " quickened,
and raised up," and (v. 5, 6) " made to sit together
in heavenly places."

The former, (12, 13) "Strangers, aliens, without
God, without hope, afar off;" the latter, "made
nigh by the blood of Christ."

The former, (19) i( Strangers and foreigners;"
the latter, " fellow-citizens with the saints, and of
the household of God."

The former, (3, 1) "children of wrath, having
their conversation in the lusts of the flesh, dead in
trespasses and sins ;" the latter, (4, 5, 10) " by the
rich mercy of God, quickened, saved by grace,
created by Christ Jesus unto good works."

The whole of this refers to the same thing ; not
to the personal condition of individuals as such, but
to that of the whole body of Christians, as quicken-
ed and raised from the moral and spiritual death of

their original Jewish and heathen state ; as deliver-
ed from the state of wrath, in which they had lived
from their birth ; and, by the rich mercy of God
and the faith of the Gospel, made to sit together in
heavenly places, that is, to enjoy all the privileges
and hopes of Christians.

It has no reference therefore to the state in
which persons are born into the world in all ages.
Those now born into the world, in Christian lands,
are not in the same sense that these Ephesians
were, children of wrath by nature, but as these
same Ephesians were, after their conversion to
Christianity, saved by the grace of God, quickened,
raised from the dead, made nigh by the blood of
Christ, fellow-citizens with the saints, of the house-
hold of God.

All this language was applied to the Ephesians
universally after their conversion, and all of it is as
applicable universally now to those, who are Chris-
tians by birth, as distinguished from those, who are
heathen by birth.

The phrase we are considering then must be
seen to be wholly inapplicable to the purpose for
which it is alleged.

We are called upon by the advocates for the
doctrine of depravity to show, that it is inconsistent
with the moral perfection of God ; that it is not
taught in the scriptures ; and that all the wickedness
in the world may be accounted for without admitting
the doctrine.

With respect to the first, I might satisfy myself
with saying, that it belongs to those, who maintain

the doctrine, to prove its consistency with the moral
perfection of God. But I have no wish to avail
myself of the right, which every one has, who is
called upon to prove a negative, of throwing back
the burden of proof. It is one of the cases in which
the negative is susceptible of satisfactory proof.

When we charge the common doctrine of de-
pravity with being inconsistent with the moral
character of God, it is, as taken in connexion with
the rest of the system, of which it makes a part. It
is the whole system together, that we maintain is
incapable of being defended in consistency with
the moral attributes of the Author of our being.
Whatever the nature of man be, it is such as he
received at the hand of his Maker. Whatever
tendency and proneness to evil there may be in him,
as he is born into the world, it is no greater than
his Maker gave him. We assert then that no guilt,
no fault can be attributed to him by his Maker for
such proneness. If God be a just being, he cannot
be displeased with him for being what he made him.
If he be a good being, he cannot punish him for it.
To subject him to penal evils for a propensity to sin,
born with him in consequence of his descent from a
sinful ancestor, is not the less cruel and unjust for
his being voluntary in following that propensity,
unless he had also the natural or communicated
power to resist it. If he have that power, then he
becomes guilty and deserving of punishment, so soon
as in the indulgence of the propensity he actually
becomes a sinner, but no sooner. Till then, even
on tjie supposition above, no guilt is incurred. The

propensity itself is no sin, and implies no guilt.
And afterward the justice of his subjection to penal
evils depends on his power of being and acting
otherwise than he does. Had he no power to be,
to feel, and to act otherwise than he does, he could
not be guilty and deserving of punishment for con-
tinuing in his present state. But according to the
scheme, which assumes to be that of Orthodoxy,
those who are the subjects of this innate moral
depravity, inclination to evil, and wholly ii wrong
state of the moral affections and actions," (p. 31)
are utterly incapable of doing any thing toward
producing in themselves a moral change, or which
shall be a reason with God for granting to them that
grace, which is necessary to their regeneration
and sanctification. It is only the irresistible influ-
ence of the spirit of God, which can renew and
change their nature. Now we assert, that until
this grace has been imparted and resisted, there
can be no blame-worthiness. Beings so situated
may be the objects of pity to the Author of their
being, and his pity may be manifested in bringing
suffering upon them in the way of discipline, for
the purpose of promoting their renovation, and
bringing them to a state of holiness : but it cannot be
inflicted by a just being as punishment. Now, if I
rightly understand the scheme of Calvinism, divine
punishments are not, according to that scheme,
disciplinary, but vindictive. God punishes his
offending creatures, not to reform them, but to
vindicate his authority. The sufferings of the
wicked have no tendencv to reform, but rather to

harden and confirm them in their opposition to God
and their duty.

Now, however consistent with justice may be
the infliction of vindictive punishment, where it is
in the power of the subject of it to be different from
what he is, and to act otherwise than he does ; it is
contended that it cannot be so, where the guilt to
be punished is inbred, a part of man's original na-
ture, such as he came from the Creator's hands ;
where, in fact, the sinner is as his Maker sent him
into the world, not as he has made himself by his
own act, by the abuse, or neglect, or perversion of
his power, and his faculties and affections.

That the doctrine is not contained in the scrip-
tures I have endeavoured to show, by showing the
insufficiency of the several texts from the Old and
New Testament, on which Dr. Woods relies for its
support ; and that they admit of a satisfactory in-
terpretation, which gives no countenance to it. I
know very well, that these are not the only texts
which are supposed to relate to the subject ; but I
do not know that any others are thought to have
more weight, or to present greater difficulties. I
have limited myself to these, solely from a wish not
to extend the discussion beyond what was rendered
necessary, by the course pursued by Dr. Woods ;
and presuming that the texts, which he has selected,
were those on which he would place his chief reli-
ance.

When the extent and prevalence of wickedness
in the world are urged as indicating an original in-
herent corruption, and we are called upon to ac-

count for it in a satisfactory manner, without ad-
mitting the orthodox doctrine of depravity, I shall
think it sufficient to refer you to the account which
I have given of our moral constitution, and the
state of trial in which we are placed. Being, by
the whole of our nature and condition, equally
capable of virtue and of vice, of a right and of a
wrong course ; it is no more difficult to account for
the actual existence of the highest, than of the lowest
degree of either. But I have also another consid-
eration to suggest. It will not, I suppose, be pre-
tended, that our first parents were, previous to
their fall, subjects of the same moral depravity,
which is attributed to their descendants. It will
be admitted that they were created innocent and
pure, " in the image of God in righteousness and
holiness ; yet they became sinners. Now it belongs
to him, who urges the wickedness of mankind as a
proof of innate original depravity, to account for
the sin of our first parents, who are admitted to
have been created, not only in a state of innocence,
but of positive holiness.

I have one only remark more, which I wish to
make in conclusion upon this subject. The doctrine,
which I have been considering in this letter, Dr.
Woods styles, (p. 31) his " humbling conclusion."
In this he intimates, what is often more distinctly
expressed by orthodox writers, that the doctrine is
of a more humbling nature, more expressive of self-
abasement, and of a sense of human demerit and
unworthiness, than that which declares our nature
to be originally pure, innocent, free from enmity to

God, and I'roin an inclination only to evil. Bui
with how little justice this is claimed, I am persuad-
ed you will be convinced, by a moment's reflection.
Can that be thought a more humbling doctrine,
which traces all our wicked actions up to an original
constitution, given us at first by our Maker, and a
depravity of nature which he gave us when he gave
us being ; than that which attributes all our sins to
our own neglect, and abuse, and perversion of the
gifts of God ? We have certainly no cause to feel
ourselves humbled under a sense of any thing that
we are by nature. We have occasion to be ashamed
only of what we have become by practice. For the
nature God has given us no sentiment but that of
gratitude is due. Humility and self-condemnation
should spring only from the consciousness of a
course of life not answering to the powers, and fac-
ulties, and privileges of our nature. What God
has made us, we should think of with unmingkd
satisfaction ; what we have made ourselves, we
cannot think of with too deep regret, and sorrow,
and shame.

Otj

LETTER IV.

In the system of Orthodoxy defended by Dr.
Woods, the doctrine of Election stands in immediate
and close connexion with that of the total depravity
of human nature, and is brought forward by him
the next in order. He seems to enter upon the
discussion of this subject with the impression, that
he has strong prepossessions to encounter, and that
these prepossessions are not without foundation.
" I acknowledge," he says (p. 52) " that orthodox
writers and preachers of high repute, but deficient
in judgment, have, in some instances, exhibited the
doctrine in a manner, which has given too much
occasion for these prepossessions ; and too much
occasion for this author [Mr. Channing] to think,
that the doctrine is inconsistent with the moral
perfection of God." Again, (p. 63) " orthodox
writers have not unfrequently made use of expres-
sions, which, at first view, may seem to furnish
occasion for some of the heavy charges brought
against us by our opposers. But for the rash,
unqualified expressions of men, who have become
hot and violent by controversy, we are not to be
held responsible. We here enter our solemn pro-
test against the language, which has sometimes been
employed, and the conceptions which have some-
times been entertained on this subject by men, who
have been denominated Calvinists." Again, (p. 79)
" I am willing to concede, that those views of the

doctrine of Election, against which Whitby and
7

many other respectable writers direct their princi-
pal arguments, are justly liable to objection." From
these passages one might be led to suppose, that
those, whose opinions Dr. Woods professes to rep-
resent, maintain the doctrine of Election in some
qualified sense, and not as it is to be found in the
popular writers, and confessions. And in this he
would be confirmed by the statement at the close of
the discussion, (p. 81) " You now see what we mean
by the doctrine of Election, and in what manner we
believe it. As the result of his own unsearchable
wisdom and grace, and for reasons which relate to the
great ends of his administration, God eternally pur-
posed to save a great number of our race, and pur-
posed to save them precisely in the manner in which
he actually does save them." From this form of the
doctrine, I presume no Unitarian would dissent ;
and were there nothing in the Letters of Dr. Woods
to show that the orthodox faith is something more
than is here expressed, one would have supposed
he might have been spared the labour of any formal
defence of it against objection, and all that solicitude
which he seems to have felt, " in disclosing to his
readers with the utmost frankness his inmost
thoughts upon the subject." (p. 82.)

If this is a complete statement of the doctrine of
Election, as it is understood by the Orthodox, and
if Dr. WToods and those whom he represents, and
for whom he professes to speak, do not maintain the
opinions against which the Sermon of Mr. Chan-
ning is directed, there seems to have been no good
reason, why he should feel himself concerned at all

in the charge. Calvinists only, vyho do maintain
them, can fairly consider their opinions as attacked,
and themselves called upon to defend them.

But Dr. Woods has no where informed us, who
those " orthodox writers of high repute" are, who
have exposed the doctrine to objection by their
injudicious exhibitions of it ; nor has he told us in
what respects they have given a false representa-
tion of it. It is to be regretted that he did not think
it necessary to do this, as he must perceive how
much it is calculated to perplex, and how much it
may mislead, his readers. For, as a simple state-
ment drawn from the several parts of his letters will
show, it cannot have been his design to express his
dissent from the doctrine of Election as expressed
in the strongest language of orthodox writers ; but
only to guard against the impression, which he
supposes the strong and naked statement of it may
be likely to make.

The following is the statement of this doctrine
by the Westminster Divines, as it stands in their
Confession of Faith, and more briefly in the As-
sembly's Catechism.

" God did from all eternity freely and un-
changeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass."

" By the decree of God some men and angels
arc predestinated unto everlasting life, and others
fore-ordained to everlasting death."

" These angels and men, thus predestinated and
fore-ordained, are particularly and unchangeably
designed, and their number so certain and definite,
that it cannot be either increased or diminished.''"

"Those of mankind that are predestinated unto
life, God, before the foundation of the world was
laid, according to his eternal and immutable pur-
pose, and the secret counsel and good pleasure of
his will, hath chosen in Christ unto everlasting
glory, out of his mere free grace and love, without
any foresight of faith or good works, or persever-
ance in either of them, or any other thing, in the
creature, as conditions or causes, moving him there-
unto."

u As God hath appointed the elect unto glory,
so hath he, by the eternal and most free purpose
of his will, fore-ordained all the means thereunto.
Wherefore, they who are elected, being fallen in
Adam, are redeemed by Christ, are eifectually
called unto faith in Christ, &c. Neither are any
other redeemed by Christ, eifectually called, &c.
but the elect only."

" The rest of mankind God was pleased, ac-
cording to the unsearchable counsel of his own will,
whereby he extendeth or withholdeth mercy, as he
pleaseth, to pass by, and to ordain them to dishonour
and wrath for their sin."

I will now place before you, in the best manner
I am able, such a view of Dr. Woods' opinions upon
the subject, as is to be found in scattered passages
through his seventh and eighth letters.

" The Father has given to Christ a part of the
human race, and those, who have thus been given
to Christ, are the persons, who shall have eternal
life ;" (p. 54) and this, he goes on to prove at large,
"denotes all -who shall finally lesavedP (p. 55.)

** In every case, a person's being given to
Christ secures his coming to Christ ; and, when
Christ speaks of those, who were given him of the
Father, he includes the whole number that shall be
saved." (p. 56.)

(i God has a purpose, choice, will, and good
pleasure, respecting those who are saved ; & purpose
or choice, which was in the mind of God before they
existed ; a purpose, which does not rest upon any
personal merit in those, who are its objects ; of
grace, excluding all works of righteousness from
having any concern in this subject." (p. 57.)

u Nothing is effected by the efforts of man, but
every thing depends on the mercy of God." (p. 59.)

" The sovereign purpose of God relates to
man's eternal interests, to their religious character

and salvation." " I could, as I think, make it

appear, that the doctrine of God's sovereign Election
is the only doctrine, which accounts satisfactorily for
the actual difference, which exists between true
believers, and the rest of the world." (pp. 61, 62.)

" We hold it as a fact, universally, that impeni-
tent, unrenewed sinners do no good work, which
God regards as a condition of their being renewed,
or on account of which he has promised them re-
generation : that, in all cases, he calls and renews
them according to his own purpose and grace."
(pp. 67, 68.) '

" We believe that those, who are chosen of God
to salvation, are not chosen because they were, in
themselves, more worthy of this blessing than

ethers, that God looked upon their moral feelings
and conduct with the same disapprobation, and had
the same view of their ill desert, and that he chose
them, as we may say, for reasons of state ; for gen-
eral reasons in his government, which he has not
revealed."...." The purpose and administration of
God are, in this respect, different from what our
wisdom would dictate, or our affections choose ;
they cannot be accounted for by any principles
known to us, but result from the infinite perfection
of God, and are conformed to reasons, which he has
concealed in his own mind.77 (p. 74.)

If you will compare these passages with those
before quoted from the Westminster Confession,
you will find that they differ from each other only in
the degree of clearness and explicitness, with which
the same doctrine is expressed.

I shall now endeavour to show, that the "method
of designating the heirs of salvation," which this
doctrine implies, can neither be reconciled with our
natural notions of the moral character of God, de-
rived from the use of the faculties he has given us,
and our observation of his conduct in the govern-
ment of the world ; nor with what he has made
known to us of his character, and purposes, and
government in the christian revelation.

How repugnant this doctrine is to our natural
reason, Dr. Woods himself seems to be fully sensi-
ble. " If it were put to my natural reason," he
says, (p. 54) " to judge by its own light respecting
what is called the doctrine of Election., my judgment

might agree with the judgment of those, who reject
the doctrine. If the question were, what difficulties
attend the doctrine, I might perhaps bring forward
as many as others."

Now, as God is the Author of our being, and as
that portion of reason, which we have, was given us
by him for our guide, it is certainly very remarka-
ble, and what we should not expect, that instead of
indicating to us truly his character, and dispositions,
and purposes, so far as it gives us any information,
it should universally mislead us respecting them.
Following the light of our reason, and the natural
impulse of our feelings, we find it impossible to
imagine, that the Author of our being, the common
Parent of all, can regard and treat his offspring in
the manner, which the doctrine in question attrib-
utes to him. That, without any foreseen difference
of character and desert in men, before he had
brought them into being, he should regard some
with complacency and love, and the rest with dis-
approbation, and hatred, and wrath ; and, without
any reference to the future use or abuse of their
nature, should appoint some to everlasting happi-
ness, and the rest to everlasting misery ; and that
this appointment, entirely arbitrary, for which no
reason is to be assigned, but his sovereign will,
should be the cause and not the' consequence of the
holiness of the one, and of the defect of holiness of
the other. A man, who should do what this doctrine
attributes to God, I will not say toward his own off-
spring, but toward any beings that were dependent

on him, and whose destiny was at his disposal,
would be regarded as • a monster of malevolence,
and cruelty, and caprice. It is incredible that the
Author of our being should thus have formed us
with an understanding and moral feelings to lead us
without fail to condemn the measures and the prin-
ciples of the government of him, who so made us.
Will it be said that this repugnance which we
feel to the doctrine in question is one of the proofs
of the corruption of our nature ? Yet whatever that
nature may be, it is such as he gave us. And how-
ever imperfect our reason, it is what he gave to be
our guide. It is the only immediate guide he has
given us ; and it is that, which must be the ultimate
judge of the evidence, and of the nature and value,
of any notices which he may give of his will and
purposes, by his providence or his word. Can it
have been the design of the Apostle to put down
our reason, our moral feelings, and natural con-
science, as seems to be intimated in the pamphlet,
" by the appalling rebuke, Who art thou that re-
pliest against God ?" But who is the man, that in
the truest sense is chargeable with replying against
God ? Is it not he, who would set aside, as false
and dangerous, the guide he has given to all for
the direction of life ? Is it not he, who refuses to
listen to the voice, by which he speaks to all ?
Who calls in question the notices he gives of him-
self and of the principles of his government, in the
only universal revelation that he has made of him-
self? He, it seems to me, replies against God, who

rejects or undervalues the notices, which he has
in any way given us, of himself or of the principles
of his government. Not less he, who refuses to
follow reason and natural conscience, than he, who
will not submit to the demands of a written revela-
tion. Not less he, who turns his back upon the
works of God, than he, who closes his eyes against
his written word.

But my objection to the orthodox doctrine of
Election is grounded not solely on its being irrecon-
cileable with our reason and moral feelings ; I find
it not more easy to reconcile it with the instructions
of the holy scriptures. I look to the general scope
of the sacred writings, as regards the disposition of
the Author of nature toward his creatures, and the
principles of his government ; and I find nothing to
support this doctrine, but much with which it seems
to be wholly incompatible. I ask how this sovereign
appointment of the everlasting condition of men,
6i excluding all works of righteousness, as having
any concern in it," and with reference to which.
" nothing is effected by the efforts of men," can be
shown to consist with all that we find in the scrip-
tures so clearly implying, that something is depend-
ing on the exertions men will make, and the part
they will act ; for, according to this doctrine, what
they are to be and how they are to act is determin-
ed beforehand, without any reference to such ex-
ertions ; with all that implies the influence of
motives, since it is no such influence of motive, but
" God's sovereign election, that is to account for the

actual difference between true believers, and the

rest of the world ;" with all that implies guilt, ill
desert, blame-worthiness in the unholy, disobedient,
and impenitent ; for how can men be guilty of being
what they were made to be ? How are they de-
serving of blame for remaining in that moral state,
in which it was determined by the sovereign ap-
pointment of God, that they should remain ? With
all those promises, threatenings, warnings, admoni-
tions, exhortations, and entreaties, which imply in
those, to whom they are addressed, a power of being
influenced ; with all that implies, that men are
capable of duty and obligation, and are the proper
subjects of praise and blame, and of reward and
punishment ?

This charge of inconsistency with the general
scope of the scriptures, and the doctrine every
where taught or implied in the sacred writings, has
never been removed ; nor can it be, I am persuaded,
but by violating the plainest principles in the inter-
pretation of language.

There is another view, in which this doctrine is
at variance with what the scriptures every where
present to us. I mean the righteous and benevolent
character of the Author of our being. It represents
him to us as a cruel and unjust being, exacting
endless punishment for sins committed in following
the nature he had given, and acting in pursuance of
his decree. It represents him, as arbitrary and
partial in his distributions ; making a distinction
the most momentous that can be imagined in his
treatment of those, between whom there was no dif-
ference of character or of desert as the ground of the

distinction ; from his mere sovereign will and good
pleasure, ordaining these to eternal blessedness and
glory, and appointing those to endless and hopeless
misery. That it is the righteous only, who will thus
be raised to glory, and the wicked only, who will be
the subjects of condemnation, will make no difference
in the case ; since, according to the doctrine we are
considering, it is not merely an absolute appointment
to salvation on the one hand, and to condemnation
on the other ; but also to the different dispositions,
character, and course of life, which are to have
these opposite results. Those, and those only, who
are ordained to eternal life, are also ordained to be
effectually called, to be regenerated by irresistible
grace, and thus to be brought, not by any thing
they do, or can do themselves, but solely by the
immediate power of God, out of that state of sin, in
which they are by nature, to that holiness, which is
to qualify them for salvation. The rest of mankind,
" passed by, and ordained to dishonour and wrath
for their sins," have that effectual and irresistible
grace withheld from them, which was necessary to
their regeneration, and without which it was impos-
sible for them to attain to holiness and salvation.
To say, that those who are appointed to salva-
tion, are chosen from among mankind u for reasons
of state," (p. 74) is to say nothing that is intelligi-
ble. But to say, that they are chosen (ib.) "for
reasons, which God has not revealed ; — reasons,
which he has concealed in his own mind ; such as
cannot be accounted for by any principle known to
us." is something more.

It is a position, I think, unsupported by proof,
and confuted distinctly by what we constantly meet
with in the New Testament. In the appointment
to privileges, means, and external condition, God
has indeed given no account of his motives ; nor
assigned his reasons for the infinite variety that
appears. He has exercised an absolute sovereignty,
of which no account is given, and the reasons of
which we are not competent to understand. But it
is clearly otherwise as to the final condition of men.
So far is that from being determined by reasons of
state, which he has not revealed, that the reasons,
upon which the final salvation or condemnation of
every man is to take place, are distinctly assigned
by our Saviour and his Apostles ; not once only, but
as often as they have occasion to speak of the final
distinctions that are to be made between men.
Those distinctions, we are again and again told, are
to be wholly according to the difference of moral
character. It is that these are righteous, and those
wicked ; these have done well, and those have done
ill ; these have been faithful, and those unfaithful.
So far are the reasons of the final distinction to be
made between those who are saved, and those who
perish, from being concealed in the divine mind,
that nothing is more distinctly made known. The
New Testament is full of it.

Nor is it with any better reason said, that, " in
this respect, the purpose and administration of God
are different from what our wisdom would dictate,
or our affections choose."'' They are precisely what
the wisdom and the affections of everv man in theii

uncorrupted, unperverted state, would approve and
concur in. And they are accounted for by principles
well known to us ; principles of eternal and immuta-
ble justice. Not reasons which he has concealed
in his own mind, but such as he has made us per-
fectly capable of understanding ; and such as he has
clearly revealed to us in his word.

But, though the general tenor of scripture seems
so foreign from the doctrine we are considering, and.
not easily reconciled with it, there are particular
texts in which it is thought to be expressly taught,
or so clearly implied, that their force cannot be
evaded.

The first text alleged by Professor Woods, in the
pamphlet before me, is (John xvii. 2) " That he
should give eternal life to as many as thou hast
given him," and (John vi. 37, 39) " All that the
Father giveth me shall come to me, and him that
cometh to me I will in no wise cast out. And this
is the Father's will, who sent me, that of all which
he hath given me, I should lose nothing, but should
raise it up at the last day."

With respect to the first of these, it cannot have
been our Saviour's intention to declare, that a cer-
tain, definite number of mankind were appointed by
the Father to receive the benefit of his mediation
and sacrifice, and obtain salvation, exclusive of all
others ; and without any thing in them, as the
ground of this preference and choice, for the reasons
that follow.

In the discourse with his disciples, (eh. xv.)
which stands in immediate connexion with the

prayer, of which this text is a part, he addresses
the same persons, of whom he here speaks as
" given him of the Father," in language implying,
that they might " abide in him, and bring forth
much fruit," or, failing to abide in him, might be
" taken away, cast forth, cast into the fire and
burned." As those who, though chosen and or-
dained, might or might not keep the commands,
and abide in the love of him, who had thus chosen
and ordained them. But, according to the doctrine
in question, there could be no such contingency in
the case. All who are thus given, chosen, ordained,
and those only, are to bring forth fruit, to keep his
commands, to abide in his love, to have eternal life.
In this same discourse, again, (ch. xvi. 27) we
meet with the following sentence. " For the Father
himself loveth you, because ye have loved me, and
have believed that I came out from God." Here
the love of God is represented, not as the cause, but
the consequence, of the faith and love of the disci-
ples, and the plain and obvious meaning of the
texts in question, in their connexion with this is,
that they were given to Christ, not by an arbitrary
selection of them from the mass of Jews, without
any thing in their character and disposition leading
to the choice ; but, because they were seen to be
fit subjects for the kingdom of God, ready to receive
the faith of the Gospel when offered to them, hav-
ing already something of the christian disposition
and character, already manifesting an obedient
temper, as expressed (ch. xvii. 6,) they were already
children of God, and were given to Christ, and

came to him, because they were God's in a sense,
in which the rest of the world were not ; and were
then chosen, and ordained to partake in the final
benefits of the Gospel, because of their faith and
fidelity. This interpretation renders the whole
discourse, and the following prayer, consistent
throughout in the several parts, and consistent with
the moral character of God, and the moral state of
man, as a free and accountable being. With the
other interpretation, I do not perceive how the text*
that have been mentioned can be fairly reconciled.
If, by those given to Christ, we are to understand,
as Dr. Woods asserts, (p. 54) u a certain part of
the human race, who are to have eternal life, and
those, denoting all, to whom Christ will actually
give eternal life," and as his argument requires,
and as he elsewhere states with sufficient distinct-
ness, this choice and appointment to Christian faith,
obedience, and eternal life, is wholly independent
of any thing in them as the ground of this distinc-
tion from the rest of the world, it is impossible to
see with what propriety it could be said, that
" God loved them, because of their faith and love
to Christ," for his distinguishing love was, by that
supposition, the cause of their faith, &c.; or how
any intimations could be given, that something was
yet depending upon themselves ; that it yet de-
pended on themselves, whether they should abide
in Christ, keep his commandments, continue in his
love, and share in the great salvation ; for the ap-
pointment to all this was absolute, and without any
condition on their part, as the ground of it. Besides,

I observe that other language of our Saviour in the
discourses recorded by this same Evangelist, is
equally favourable to the supposition, " that coming
to Christ, believing on him, and having eternal
life, are events, not flowing from a sovereign uncon-
ditional appointment, but the result of a faithful
use of means, in the exercise of a right disposition ;
and that the difference of character thus appearing
between them, and others who neglect to come, who
refuse to believe and obey, and fail of eternal life,
is the ground and not the consequence of their
being chosen, given to Christ, and ordained to
eternal life. Thus, (John iii. 19) the ground of
men's condemnation is, not an irrespective decree
of God, " but their hating the light, loving the
darkness, because their deeds are evil." It is their
being in character and disposition opposite to those,
who escape the condemnation, because they do the
truth, and willingly come to the light.

Thus it is, that the reason assigned, and, as is
clearly implied, the criminal reason why the unbe-
lieving Jews rejected the Gospel (John v. 40) was,
not that they were ordained to this condemnation
without any thing in them, by which they were dis-
tinguished from those, who accepted the invitation ;
but because they wilfully rejected the Gospel, and
refused the eternal life it offered. ei Ye will not
come unto me, that ye might have life.77 Again,
the same great moral ground of distinction ap-
pears in the declaration, (John vii. 17) " If any
man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine,
whether it be of God." Those, who are given to

Christ, chosen, ordained, who are to know of his
doctrine, to believe in him, and thus to obtain
eternal life, are those, who are well disposed to it,
who have an obedient temper, who are willing to
do his will.

The observations which have been applied to
this text are equally applicable to the other text
under consideration. (John vi. 27) (i All that the
Father giveth me shall come to me ;" that is, those
only are given to him of the Father, those only are
to receive the final blessings of the Gospel, who
come to Christ. It was so when the Gospel was
first promulgated. The humble, the pious, the
teachable received the Gospel ; all those who were
of God. The proud, the irreligious rejected it ;
those who were not of God, but of the world. It
has been so in every subsequent age.

And none of those who thus come, bringing with
them the spirit of the Gospel, abiding in it, and
bringing forth the fruits of righteousness, none of
these will he cast off. Of all those, thus given to
him, thus coming to him, thus abiding in him, thus
bringing forth fruit, it is the Father's will that he
should lose nothing.

From this expression in the text, however, as
well as the other, an unwarrantable inference is
probably drawn ; that of the absolute certainty of
the final salvation of all those persons, concerning
whom it is spoken. But this form of words was
evidently intended to express, not the particular
decree, but the general purpose of heaven ; not the
specific effect, which is without fail to be produced,
9

but the object and design of the divine dispensa-
tion ; to be understood with similar limitations with
those, which we apply to the expression, (1 Tim. ii.
4) " who will have all men to be saved." Not that
every human being will be actually saved, in the
sense in which saved is here used, but that the sal-
vation of all was the object and design ; that the
offer of it was made to all, an offer which yet might
be rejected. Again, (Col. i. 23) " the gospel,
which was preached to every creature which is un-
der heaven." Here the literal meaning of the sen-
tence is not the true meaning. The Gospel had not
been preached to every living creature. But the
direction of the Saviour to his disciples was to preach
it to every creature, that is, to all men. It was intend-
ed in general for all. None were excepted in the
commission ; none were passed by in the execution.
As far as the design of the commission had been
accomplished, it had been done agreeably to the
direction of the Saviour. To these instances many
others might be added to show, that expressions of
universal import are often, as in the text in question,
to be interpreted only in a general sense ; and that
they are frequently used to express, not an absolute
decree, but a purpose or design depending on con-
tingences, and which may in fact be either univer-
sal or only general. And that the example we are
considering is clearly of this kind, and that it does
not warrant the use, that has been made of it, we
have the farther positive proof in this circumstance ;
that notwithstanding this unqualified expression, one
of the persons given to Christ had been lost. " Those

that thou gavest me I have kept, and none of them
is lost, but the son of perdition." The son of per-
dition, it is here elearly implied, had been given to
Christ in the sense of the passage, and yet had been
lost. The declaration then, " It is the Father's
will that he should lose nothing," is manifestly de-
signed to express, not a specific personal decree,
but the general purpose and design.

The next passage quoted by Dr. Woods to prove
an absolute personal election to salvation is Ephe-
sians i. 3 — 11. " Blessed be the God and Father,"
&c. To all the observations made by Dr. Woods
on this passage, I give my entire concurrence ; yet
have no hesitation in asserting, what I hope satis-
factorily to prove, that it has no relation to the doc-
trine, which he has brought it to support.

It refers not to individuals as such, but to the
Christian community. Not to final salvation, but
to Christian privileges. In the first place, the
Epistle is addressed to the whole Christian commu-
nity at Ephesus, without any intimation, that any
expressions in it are applicable to some and not to
others. The terms mints and faithful in Christ
Jesus, (ver. 1) are applied alike to all, and are evi-
dently to be understood as terms which designate
the whole company of believers, and external pro-
fessors, without any reference to the personal char-
acter of any, as individuals. It is again, in the
name of the whole Christian community, Jews and
Gentiles, that the Apostle speaks, when he says,
that " God hath blessed us with all spiritual bless-
ings, chosen us in him [that is, Christ] before the

foundation of the world, predestinated us to the
adoption of children, predestinated us according to
the purpose of him, who worketh all things after
the counsel of his own will." (ver. 3, 4, 5, 11)
That this choice or predestination was not that of
individuals to eternal life> but of all, who received
the christian faith, to the profession and privileges
of the Gospel, (besides its being thus generally ad-
dressed, and in the name of Christians at large and
universally) appears still further from other ex-
pressions, addressed in the same manner. It is for
these same persons, saints, faithful, chosen, predes-
tinated, that the Apostle thought it needful very
devoutly and earnestly to pray to God, " that they
might be strengthened with might by his spirit in
the inner man, that Christ might dwell in their
hearts by faith, that they might be rooted and
grounded in love ;" very suitable to be addressed
to professed believers as a promiscuous body : but
such as we should hardly expect, if the persons de-
signated were by the very designation understood
to consist only of persons certainly chosen to eter-
nal life, and were already certainly grounded in
love, were already strengthened in the inner man,
had already Christ dwelling in their hearts by love.
Further, these same persons, he thinks it proper
to exhort, (ch. iv. 1) "to walk worthy of the voca-
tion with which they were called," "to walk hence-
forth, not as other Gentiles walk," (ver. 17) "but to
put off, concerning the former conversation, the old
man, which is corrupt according to the deceitful
lusts, and to be renewed in the spirit of their mind,

and to put on the new man, which after God is creat-
ed in righteousness and true holiness/' and " not to
grieve the holy spirit of God." (ver. 22, 23, 24,
30.) Implying that they are liable to retain still
their heathen character, notwithstanding their
Christian profession ; that they may still pursue
the former conversation, which, by their pro-
fession, they have renounced ; that they are in
danger of failing to put off the old man, and to be,
as their Christian profession requires, " renewed in
righteousness and true holiness ;" that they finally
may, instead of following the guidance of the spirit
of God, grieve it. Very suitable, therefore, to be
addressed to the promiscuous body of professing
Christians ; very suitable if by saints, chosen, pre-
destinated, this only were meant ; but certainly not
so, if by these terms were designated persons chosen
from eternity to final salvation, and already saints
and faithful in the highest and literal sense of the
words. Such, as distinguished from the rest of the
world, are not the proper subjects of exhortation to
walk worthy of their Christian vocation ; for the very
terms applied to them imply that they cannot fail
to do so ; being certainly predestinated to life, they
are as certainly predestinated to that character and
state, to which life is promised. They cannot be
exhorted to be renewed and to put on the new
man ; — for by the supposition against which I am
contending, their renewal is already certain. It is
what they have no power, either to prevent, or to
bring about, or even to accelerate. Their renewal
has indeed already taken place ; for they are ad-

dressed, not only as chosen and predestinated, but
as saints and Christians, which, according to the
scheme under consideration, they were not, till they
were renewed. And with what propriety can such
be exhorted a not to grieve the holy spirit of
God?"

The next, and only other passage, to which Dr.
Woods has referred for the direct proof of the doc-
trine of sovereign personal election to eternal life,
is that contained in Romans ix. 11 — 24. A similar
method of investigation to that, which was applied
to the passage in Ephesians, will convince you, I
think, that this is as little to the purpose as the oth-
er ; and that it has no relation to an election to
eternal life, but only to the privileges of the Gospel.

This will appear to you in the first place by an
attention to the general scope and design of the
Epistle, the subject of which was suggested by the
great controversy of that age, respecting the exten-
sion of Christianity to the Gentiles, and their ad-
mission to its privileges and hopes, without being
subjected to the observance of the Mosaic ritual.
The Apostle combats the exclusive spirit of his
Jewish brethren, by showing them, that those dis-
tinctions, on which they so valued themselves, as
the chosen people of God, were done away ; that
Gentiles were admitted to the same rights, and to
the opportunity of securing the final favour of
Heaven on the same terms with them.

The Jews, as descendants of Abraham, disciples
of Moses, children of the covenant and of the prom-
ises, enjoyed a high distinction and valuable privi-

leges. But these privileges were no security oi
their final acceptance with God. They were disci-
plinary and conditional. The knowledge of the
law would be of no avail to those, who did not
faithfully observe it. The sign of the covenant
would not save those, who should violate it. The
oracles of God, which were committed to them,
would but enhance the guilt and the condemnation
of those, who, with all their superior light and mo-
tives, lived no better than ignorant heathen.

On the other hand, the Gentiles, without the
light of the written law, and without the sign of the
covenant, the external mark of being the people of
God ; if, guided by the light they had, (Rom. ii.
26, 27, 29) they fulfilled the law by a virtuous life,,
thus showing practically " the work of the law
written in the heart," (ver. 15) would secure that
acceptance of God, of Him, " with whom is no
respect of persons," (ver. 11) and "who will
render to every man according to his deeds," (ver.
6) which the Jew must lose, who being " a Jew out-
wardly" only, (ver. 28) and relying on the letter and
circumcision, was emboldened to neglect its moral
design, and to live as a heathen. The final condi-
tion of every individual, whether Jew or Gentile,
was to depend on individual personal character,
(ver. 5 — 10) " Indignation and wrath to every soul
of man that doth evil : glory, honour, and peace to
every man that worketh good, to the Jew, and also
to the Gentile."

Now with this general scope and design of the
first part of the Epistle, that interpretation of the

ix. ch. which refers " the purpose of God, according
to election/' (ver. 11 et seq.) to an unconditional
election of individuals to eternal life, seems to be
wholly irreconcileable : whereas, that, which refers
it to an appointment, free and unconditional, to the
participation of privileges, not only comports well
with the general design of the Epistle, but makes
the latter part of it a continuation of the former,
and a completion of the design, that prevails in the
whole preceding part.

This appears again not less clearly, when we
come to a separate examination of the passage itself.

The first instance mentioned of the accomplish-
ment of u the purpose of God according to election,"
is that of the appointment of Isaac, and pretermis-
sion of Ishmael and the other children of Abraham.
But what purpose of God was accomplished by this?
Not the salvation of Isaac, but the fulfilment of the
promise to Abraham in the whole series of dispensa-
tions for promoting the knowledge of God and true
religion in the world ; and especially in raising up
one from among his descendants, in whom " all the
families of the earth were to be blessed."

The next instance is the choice of Jacob in
preference to Esau, a choice which preceded their
birth, and could therefore have no respect to their
good or ill desert. And this, the whole reasoning
of the Apostle assures us, is applied, not to Jacob
personally, but to the race descending from him ;
and not to them in their personal character, but
solely to their designation, as a people, to a certain
part in accomplishing the great purposes of heaven.

/ /

In this appointment, the same free, sovereign, un-
controlled will was exercised, which is seen in the
appointment of all the other circumstances, which
make up the state of trial of every human being.
It is " the power of the potter over the clay, of the
same lump to make one vessel to honour, and
another to dishonour." Upon this interpretation
there is room for the appeal, (ver. 20) " shall the
thing formed say to him that formed it, why hast
thou made me thus ?" Upon that interpretation,
which supposes a reference to the final lot of indi-
viduals as determined by a decree that has no respect
to different desert, the appeal could not be sustained.

In each of these cases we perceive a peculiar
propriety in the expressions, which the Apostle
applies by way of reflection, (ver. 16) " So then it
is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth,
but of God that sheweth mercy." It was the wish
of Abraham, that the blessing might be given to his
eldest son Ishmael. It was the desire of Isaac, that
it should descend with his eldest son Esau. But
the will of neither of them was permitted to prevail ;
nor yet the prompt obedience of Esau, by which he
hoped to secure it to himself.

I am ready to admit, with Dr. Woods, that this
reflection of the Apostle implies a general principle ;
but it is a principle to be applied to similar cases
only, not those that are dissimilar. Now similar
cases are those, and those only, which relate to
privileges, opportunities, blessings, which are dis-
ciplinary in their design, temporal in their duration,

and make a part of human probation. That which
10

relates directly to final salvation is dissimilar, and
the same principle is not to be applied.

The case of Pharaoh is as little to the purpose
as either of the others. For when it is said, (ver*
17) " For this same purpose I have raised thee up,
that I might shew my power in thee, and that my
name might be declared throughout all the earth ;"
whether by the phrase, raised thee ap, be meant, as
some suppose, his recovery from the effects of the
preceding plague, which had been inflicted on his
person and his people ; or as others understand it,
his being exalted to high power, and placed in a
situation to act so important a part ; in either case,
there will be no reference to his final personal desti-
ny. For how did God actually show his power in
him, and make him the instrument of his glory ? It
was by giving him the opportunity to act out his
character, by allowing full scope for displaying the
incorrigible obstinacy of his disposition, and by then
inflicting upon him exemplary punishment, for the
instruction and warning of mankind ; thus making
him the instrument of promoting some of the best
purposes of heaven, in the free and voluntary
exercise of his power.

I should have passed by what is said (p. 72) on
the doctrine of Reprobation, as expressing no other
sentiment than what all Unitarians, as I believe, hold
on the subject, but that I think it calculated (unin-
tentionally I am persuaded, as respects the writer)
to mislead the reader, as to the opinions of the
Orthodox on that point. Dr. Woods has in fact
given us, not as he professes to do, the doctrine of

the Orthodox, as to the decree of Reprobation ; but
only his opinion of the character of the doctrine. He
says, " it is the determination of God to punish
disobedient subjects for their sins, and according to
their deserts." Now this, I observe, is not a state-
ment of the orthodox doctrine, but his opinion of
the character of that doctrine. What it belongs to
him to state and defend is, not an opinion upon the
subject, which he holds in common with all Chris-
tians, but that, by which the system he defends is
distinguished from others. That opinion I will now
state in the language of one of the most approved
symbols of Calvinistic faith ; and it is such as fol-
lows very clearly from his own statement of the
counterpart of the doctrine. u The rest of man-
kind," i. e. all but the elect, " God was pleased,
according to the unsearchable counsel of his own
will, whereby he extendeth or withholdeth mercy
as he pleaseth, for the glory of his sovereign power
over his creatures, to pass by, and to ordain them
to dishonour and wrath for their sin, to the praise
of his glorious justice." Again, " Others, not
elected, though they may be called by the ministers
of the word, and may have some common operations
of the spirit, yet they never truly come to Christ,
and therefore cannot be saved ; much less can men,
not professing the christian religion, be saved in
any other way whatsoever, be they never so diligent
to frame their lives according to the light of nature,
and the law of that religion, which they do profess :
and to assert and maintain that they may, is very

pernicious, and to be detested.'' (Westminster
Confession. )

I am very willing to believe that the doctrine, as
thus stated in the orthodox confessions, does not
make a part of Dr. Woods' faith ; though I am
unable to perceive with what consistency he can
reject it, while he retains the other parts of the
system that are connected with it.

If the doctrines of original hereditary depravity,
absolute personal election, effectual calling, and
special irresistible grace be true, that of reprobation,
as stated above, follows of course, and must be true
also. Whether it be that Dr. Woods, with a fair
and inquiring mind, actually shrinks from this
doctrine, because he finds it cannot be defended
consistently with the moral character of God : or
only thinks it desirable to keep out of view a fea-
ture of Calvinism, which shocks our moral feelings
more than any other ; in either case, I deem it an
auspicious circumstance, a favourable omen. Men
will not long continue to hold an opinion, after it
has got to cause a painful struggle with their moral
feelings, such as to dispose them to endeavour to
keep it out of sight. They will not suffer themselves
to be long encumbered with that, which they are
unable to defend or unwilling to avow. Besides
this, it cannot fail to open the eyes of men to the
difficulties of the other parts of the system, which
are intimately connected with this, which necessarily
flow from it, and are in fact no better supported by
scripture nor by reason than this*

LETTER V.

Following the arrangement adopted by Dr.
Woods, the next subject to which I am to call your
attention is that oi* the Atonement. It is a doctrine
on which great stress is laid by orthodox writers
generally. The author of the Letters addressed to
Unitarians says, " If there is any one doctrine of
Revelation which the Orthodox distinguish in point
of importance from all others, it is the doctrine of
Atonement." It must accordingly be thought, that
the importance of having clear conceptions and just
views on the subject will bear some proportion to
the importance of the subject itself. After such an
introduction, therefore, to a letter devoted expressly
to the discussion of that subject, it was certainly
reasonable to expect a distinct statement of the
orthodox explanation of the texts of scripture, in
which it is supposed to be taught, and a defence of
the interpretation by which those texts are under-
stood to express the meaning that is assigned to
them. More especially was this to be expected of
one, who complains that the opinions of the Ortho-
dox are misrepresented, and who, in their name,
disclaims the opinions, which are attributed to them.
But in this expectation I am disappointed. There
is much complaint of misrepresentation, but I find
no distinct statement in what the alleged misrepre-
sentation consists, nor what are the precise opinions
maintained by the Orthodox on this subject. I am
able to collect but a very imperfect and indistinct

idea, what the scheme, which claims to be Orthodox
on this subject, is. It is asserted, that the language
used by orthodox writers on this subject, like that
used by the sacred writers, is highly figurative,
(p. 86, &e.) that it is not to be understood literally,
that it does not mean, what it seems to express. It
would have greatly assisted us, and possibly put a
period to all controversy on the subject, had the
writer seen fit to explain the figures, and give the
true interpretation of the metaphors, which it is
complained have been so misunderstood, and have
thus laid the foundation for misrepresentation.

The first charge of misrepresentation is, that
the author of the Sermon makes it a part of the
orthodox system, " that God took upon him human
nature, that he might pay to his own justice the
debt of punishment incurred by men, and might
enable himself to exercise mercy" — " that he might
appease his own anger toward men, or make an
infinite satisfaction to his own justice." The un-
fairness alleged in this representation is, that it does
not recognize the distinction of persons in the Deity,
which is maintained by the Orthodox, and it is
implied, that if no such distinction do exist, the
representation would not be liable to objection, for
no objection is made to it it on any other ground.
It was incumbent then on Dr. Woods, not merely to
assert this distinction as an article of the orthodox
faith, but to explain what it is, and to show its
foundation in the language of scripture. The former
he has declined, as not being within the scope of

our limited minds (p. 84), the latter, as not falling
within his purpose (p. 85), in the discussion of the
subject. But until both are done, I can see no
ground for complaining of the absurdity charged
upon the doctrine. It is a legitimate and necessary
consequence of the orthodox faith, that Jesus Christ,
whom the Father sent into the world, is the same
being with the Father who sent him ; that Christ,
who interposed and made an atonement for sinners,
is the same being with that God, who, it is alleged,
(p. 65) "would never have saved them without such
an interposition." It was the same God, the same
being, who sent, and was sent, who made the atone-
ment, and whose anger was appeased by the atone-
ment, who made satisfaction to offended justice, and
whose justice was satisfied. It is not enough to assert,
(p. 64) that u the Father and the Son are two as
really as Moses and Aaron, though not in the same
sense, nor in any sense inconsistent with their being
one." It belongs to him, who asserts this, to state
intelligibly, what is the nature and import of the
distinction here intended ; to explain in what sense
two, and in what sense one. No man knows better
than Dr. Woods, that until he has done this, he has
done nothing to the purpose. He uses words with-
out meaning, and merely casts a mist, where he is
bound to shed light.

The next imputation on the orthodox faith,
which Dr. Woods endeavours to remove is, that il
conveys to common minds the idea, that " Christ's
death has an influence in making God placable, or

merciful, in quenching his wrath, and awakening
his kindness towards men." Now to vindicate the
system, and those who support it, from this charge,
it was necessary to show, that the language, in
which the doctrine is expressed and enforced by
the Orthodox, is not calculated to produce this
impression. But has this been done ? By no means.
The contrary is frankly admitted. It is conceded
that the literal sense of the orthodox writings
amounts to this. It is asserted, indeed, that the
doctrine of the Orthodox is the very reverse of this,
" that the mercy of God, not the interposition of
Christ, was the origin and moving cause of the work
of redemption ;" (p. 68) u that the mercy or placa-
bility of God could neither be produced nor increas-
ed by the atonement of Christ.7' These are noble,
correct, scriptural views. We are delighted to find
on this point an opinion so highly important, in
exact coincidence with that of Unitarians, and one
to which they attach a very high degree of impor-
tance. We are glad too to find a strong sensibility
expressed to the honour of the divine character,
and horror at the thought of an opinion, so deroga-
tory to it, as that which is attributed to the influ-
ence of the language they use on the subject. But
why then does he go on to defend the use of that
language, instead of correcting it ? Since it is
admitted not to be the language of scripture, and
that understood literally it does convey the ideas
objected to ; that it does make the impression at
which so much horror is expressed, does express a

doctrine acknowledged to be false and unfounded ;
why is it not given up ? Especially as it would, on
this point, put an end to all controversy. And why
complain that the opinions of the Orthodox are
misrepresented, when it is acknowledged that the
opinions attributed to them are the literal and
obvious meaning of the language they employ ?

It is to little purpose to say, that the figurative
language used on this subject, though not the same,
resembles that employed by the sacred writers in
reference to the same subject. Dr. Woods admits
that the language of the sacred writers is highly fig-
urative. He admits too that such boldness of meta-
phor is peculiar to the Eastern, and particularly to
the Hebrew idiom ; (p. 88) and that it is not so con-
sentaneous to our language, (p. 99) Why, then,
will orthodox writers use it without explanation,
when it serves to mislead readers and hearers who
are not aware of this character of the Eastern
languages ; and lead them into so great an error ?
And if orthodox writers, instead of explaining the
metaphors, so that their true meaning may be un-
derstood, "for the purpose of strong impression,"
use them as if they were to be understood literally :
and not only so, but further sanction that interpre-
tation by the use of other similar language of the
same literal import ; especially if they charge Uni-
tarians with denying or explaining away the doc-
trine for the very reason, that they explain the lan-
guage in question as figurative ; can he be surprized
that the Orthodox should be supposed to hold the
11

opinions, which the language literally expresses ?
Could it be imagined by a plain, honest man, un-
der these circumstances, that while this strong im-
pressive language is constantly used and insisted on,
something very different is all the time meant from
that which strikes the ear ? And, let me ask, does
it enter into the minds of common hearers of such
language, that, correctly interpreted, it expresses
no ideas, which would be " objected to by Unitari
ans ?" (p. 92) It is to be hoped that in future the
opinions of Unitarians on this part of the subject
will be viewed with less aversion, when we are told
from so high authority, that " the language used by
orthodox writers is to be understood as highly fig-
urative ; that, taken literally, it would impute a
character to God, which would excite universal hor-
ror ; but understood according to the legitimate
principles of interpreting metaphors, it teaches the
simple truth, that the death of Christ was the
means of procuring pardon, or the medium, through
which salvation is granted." (p. 93) Dr. Woods is
right in supposing, " that no objection will lie in
the minds of Unitarians," against the doctrine
thus expressed. It is the very manner of expressing
the influence of the Atonement ; which has been
adopted by unitarian writers.

Dr. Woods proceeds to the notice of several
other modes of expression, the use of which by the
Orthodox he supposes to have been misunderstood,
in a similar manner, and from the same cause, the
misinterpretation of figurative language. When

it is said that Christ bought us, redeemed us by his
blood ; when he is said to have paid our debt, to
have satisfied divine justice, to have redeemed us
from the curse of the law, being made a curse for
us, and that our sin was imputed to him ; when
these and other figurative forms of expression are
employed to set forth the design and influence of
Christ's death, we are told " they are to be in-
terpreted as metaphorical language, according to
the nature of the metaphors used, and that against
the literal sense, there are many objections,
(p. 95) So far there will be no controversy on the
part of Unitarians, and it gives us no small satis-
faction, that we have here a ground upon which we
can stand together. And we are not without hope,
that agreeing in this principle on which to proceed,
we shall gradually approach nearer together in the
result, till there shall no difference remain worth
contending about.

But when Dr. Woods proceeds to explain the
figures, he seems to have fallen into the same
error u of mixing a degree of the literal sense with
the metaphorical," which he afterwards mentions,
and to which he traces some important mistakes,
into which other writers have been led. To per-
ceive this, you have only to compare together the
passage (p. 94), in which he professes to explain
what is meant by our being bought, redeemed,
our debt paid, and divine justice satisfied ; with
that (p. 96), in which " the notion, that if Christ
has made a perfect atonement and satisfied divine

justice, those for whom he has done this are no
longer under the same obligations to obey the law,
and punishing them for their sins would no longer
be just, is attributed to something of a literal sense
being applied to the figurative language of Scrip-
ture and of orthodox writers. And it is admitted,
that " if Christ paid our debt, or the price of our
redemption literally, as a friend discharges an insol-
vent debtor, or purchases the freedom of a slave
by the payment of money ; it would certainly be
an unrighteous thing for us to be held to pay our
own debt, or to suffer the evils of servitude." For in
the passage referred to, this is the very represen-
tation that is made. u As the debtor is freed from
imprisonment by the friend who steps forward
and pays his debt, so are sinners freed from pun-
ishment by the Saviour who shed his blood for
them." The payment is as literal in the one
case as in the other ; and I see not how the con-
sequence, consistently with what is admitted above,
is to be avoided. The same may be said with
respect to the other terms. The consequence is
not to be evaded, if our redemption by Christ
means, as is there stated, " his delivering us from
the punishment of the law by suffering an evil
which, so far as the ends of divine government
are concerned, was equivalent to the execution of
the curse of the law upon transgressors." (p. 94)
The ends of the divine government are answered,
the demands of the law are fulfilled. It has no far-
ther demands. When Christ has done and suffered

that which answers the ends of justice in the di-
vine government, the necessity of punishment, so
far as those ends are concerned, is superseded.
The sinner then is free ; exempt alike from obli-
gation, and from danger of punishment. The
debt is paid; justice is satisfied; the ends of gov-
ernment are answered by the voluntary substitute.
These consequences certainly follow from the
manner which Dr. Woods has adopted of ex-
plaining the figurative language of the sacred
writers.

But the language in question certainly does
admit of a fair and unstrained interpretation, which
leads to no such consequences. We are declared
to have " redemption, the forgiveness of sins, by
the blood of Christ.7' It will help us to the true
interpretation of this language to attend to the
use of the word redemption by the sacred writers
in other analogous cases. Literally to redeem is
to relieve from forfeiture, or captivity, or slavery,
or to rescue from punishment by the payment of
a price, and the price thus paid is the ransom.
When, by a price paid by some friend, a captive
is restored to liberty, or the punishment of a crim-
inal is remitted, whose life was forfeited to the law ;
in each of these cases there is a redemption in the
original meaning and literal sense of the word. In
the same manner also, if " Christ delivers us from
punishment by suffering an evil, which was equiv-
alent, so far as the ends of the divine government
are concerned, to the execution of the curse of

the law upon transgressors," (p. 94) that is a literal
redemption, and that and the other correspondent
terms, such as bought and ransomed, are applied,
and are to be understood, not in a metaphorical
but a literal sense. And here I cannot but observe,
that the error complained of, that of mixing a
literal with the metaphorical sense of such phrases,
consists, not as intimated, (p. 95) " in the manner
of reasoning upon them," but in the interpretation
of the language itself.

Now it is not difficult in this case to trace the
passage of the term in question from its original
literal meaning to its metaphorical use. For as the
deliverance from captivity or punishment was the
principal thing, and the price paid as a ransom only
a secondary consideration in making up the complex
idea of redemption, it is easy to see how the term
came to be used to denote the principal thing alone,
where this accessory circumstance was wanting ;
and thus any kind of deliverance, by a very common
change in the use of language, was called a re-
demption. Examples occur in the sacred writings
as well as in our constant use. The deliverance of
the Israelites from Egyptian bondage is called a
redemption, and God is said on this account to
be their redeemer, to have redeemed them from the
house of bondage, and out of the hand of Pharaoh
the king of Egypt.

But how was this redemption effected ? Was
a ransom paid as the price of their deliverance, as
an equivalent for their services, as a consideration,

for which their oppressors were to let them go r
Let the sacred historians and prophets answer this
question. (Exod. vi. 6) " I will redeem you with a
stretched out arm, and with great judgments. "
(Deut. ix. 26) " Destroy not thy people, which
thou hast redeemed through thy greatness, which
thou hast brought forth out of Egypt with a mighty
hand." (Neh. i. 10) "Now these are thy servants
and thy people, whom thou hast redeemed by thy
great power and thy strong hand." The nation of
Israel then was redeemed, not by a ransom paid to
their former oppressors, as the price of their eman-
cipation, but by the mighty power and strong hand
of Jehovah, stretched forth in those signs and won-
ders in Egypt, in the Red Sea, and in the wilderness,
by which the Egyptian monarch was compelled to
suffer their departure, by which they were protect
ed and avenged, when pursued by their oppressors,
and were conducted in safety to the promised land.

The term is applied also in a similar manner to
the deliverance of that nation from the Babylonian
captivity. (Micah iv. 10) "Thou shalt go even to
Babylon ; there shalt thou be delivered ; there the
Lord shall redeem thee from the hand of thine
enemies." It is applied in many instances also to
the deliverance of individuals from danger, captiv-
ity, slavery, or any great calamity ; and the pro-
priety of the term is sufficiently maintained, where
something important is done, though nothing is
literally paid, to procure the deliverance.

These examples of the use of this term may lead
us to some just notions of its meaning, as applied to

express the benefit we receive, when it is said we
have redemption by the blood of Christ. It is not,
that his death was a price literally paid, either to
God, to satisfy the demands of vindictive justice, or
to the enemy of God and man, as the purchase of
our release from his power. He was our redeemer
in the same sense, in which God was the redeemer
of the children of Israel ; and he redeemed us by
his blood, as they were redeemed by the mighty
power, and the strong arm of the God of Israel.
As God was the redeemer of Israel by the miracles
of Egypt, so Christ was our redeemer by those
miracles which proved him to be a messenger and
teacher from God ; by those instructions and that
example, which were to remove our ignorance, and
deliver us from the slavery of sin, and bondage of
corruption ; by those high motives to repentance
and holiness, which are found in the revelation of a
future life and righteous retribution ; and especially
by the confirmation his doctrine and promises
received, and the persuasive efficacy given to his
example, by his sufferings, his voluntary death,
and his resurrection. He was our redeemer by
doing and suffering all, that was necessary to effect
our deliverance from the power of sin, to bring us
to repentance and holiness, and thus make us the
fit objects of forgiveness and the favour of heaven.
This view of the subject will enable us to correct
an error, into which we are liable to be led by lan-
guage, which we frequently meet with ; as when it is
said in the Letters to Unitarians, that "when Christ
is said to pay our debt, it is simply signified, that

J*-*.

by means of his sufferings, he delivers us from
punishment." (p. 94) Christ delivers us from pun-
ishment not direct/// hy his sufferings. It is not
that his sufferings are in any sense a substitute for
ours. It is not that satisfaction is made by his
sufferings to divine justice, so that the sinner es-
capes, because "there is no further need of punish-
ment." It is not that our sin was so imputed to
Christ, that he u suffered, in some sense, as he
would have suffered if our sin had been really
imputed to him," and that we are directly in con-
sequence of this vicarious suffering exempted from
the punishment. But his sufferings are the means
of delivering us from punishment, only as they are
instrumental in delivering us from the dominion of
sin. They are the grounds of our forgiveness, only
as they are the means of bringing us to repentance,
only as they operate to bring us to that state of
holiness, and conformity to the will of God, which
has the promise of forgiveness, and qualifies us
for it.

There is another term also used by the sacred
writers to express the efficacy of Christ's death,
which admits of a satisfactory explanation somewhat
similar to that which has been given of redemption*
and is to be understood as having passed to a
similar metaphorical sense. The whole of that, by
which the benefits of redemption are procured for
us, whether it be the active obedience, or the suf-
ferings and death of Christ, or both together, is
spoken of as a sacrifice. (Heb. ix. 26) "He ap-
peared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself.'*

The meaning of this is rendered perfectly intelli-
gible, and is freed from the insuperable difficulties
that attend any explanation, in which is contained
"a mixture of the literal with the metaphorical
sense," by attending to a change from a literal to
a metaphorical sense of the term sacrifice, similar
to that, which has been noticed in the terms redeem
and redemption.

A sacrifice, in its primitive meaning, is an of-
fering made to God, as an acknowledgment of
dependence, as an expression of gratitude, or for
the expiation of sin. It is thus applied to the
various offerings appointed in the Jewish ritual.
But as the effect to be produced is the principal
thing, and it is of little comparative importance
in what manner it is produced, and by what cir-
cumstance or act it is brought about ; any other
act, by which a similar effect is produced, though
no proper sacrifice be offered, is familiarly called
by the sacred writers a sacrifice. We find the
term thus applied to prayer and thanksgiving.
(Psalm cxli. 2) " Let my prayer be set before
thee as incense, and the lifting up of my hands as
the evening sacrifice.*' (Psalm cxvi. 17) i( I will
offer to thee the sacrifice of thanksgiving.*' (Heb.
xiii. 15) " By him let us offer the sacrifice of praise,
that is, the fruit of our lips." It is applied to a
holy life. (Rom. xii. 1) " That ye present your
bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable to God.**
It is finally applied to an act of kindness and
relief. (Phil. iv. 18) " I have received the things
which ye sent, a sacrifice acceptable, well pleasing

to God." It is by a use of the term similar to
what we find in these examples, that sacrifice is
applied to whatever was done by Jesus Christ for
our benefit, especially to the labours and mortifica-
tions of his life, and the sufferings that attended his
death ; and that he is said to have " put away sin
by the sacrifice of himself."

It may further help us to correct notions on
this subject, to be reminded of what a change the
word Atonement itself has undergone. This term
is now more used than any other to express the
popular doctrine of an expiation for sin procured
by the death of Christ, a satisfaction made to
divine justice, the Deity thus rendered propitious,
his anger appeased, his mercy conciliated, and
forgiveness obtained for those, for whom this atone-
ment was made.

But it is evident, I think, that this was not
the original meaning of the word. It occurs but
once only in the New Testament, (Rom. v. 11)
" By whom we have now received the atonement.7'
And in that case it is translated from a word,
xuTuXXety/i, which in every other instance is ren-
dered reconciliation. The same is undoubtedly
the meaning of *he word also in this place. And
we have reason to think, that it was understood to
be its meaning by the translators, and that they
meant to use the word atonement in that sense only.
This is rendered probable by the formation of the
word itself. It is a compound word, and in some
early English writers the composition of the word
is indicated, and thus its meaning pointed out in

the manner of writing it, at-one-ment, at-one*
Atonement then expressed the condition of being
at one, in a state of agreement, reconciliation ;
and to atone was to produce reconciliation, to
bring parties to agreement, so that they shall be
at-one.

Dr. Johnson has mentioned two instances of
this use of the word in a writer of the next age
preceding that, in which our translation of the
Bible was made.

" He and Aufidus can no more atone,

Than violentest contrariety." — Shakspeare's Coriolanus.

That is, can no more agree, be reconciled, be at
one. Again,

" He seeks to make atonement

Between the Duke of Gloster and your brothers."

That is, to produce a reconciliation between them,
to bring them to agreement.

Now, when we thus consider the change of
meaning, which this word has undergone, from
expressing simply the state of agreement, the fact
of a reconciliation, to express that, by which the
agreement is produced, the reconciliation is effect-
ed ; we find in the use of the word -itself no support
of the doctrine it is usually understood to express.
The term has evidently a different meaning as
used by St. Paul, and probably as understood by
his translator, from what it has in modern books of
controversial theology.

According to the explanations which have now
been given, of the language of the New Testament

on this subject, it will be seen, that those Unitarians
who reject the popular doctrine of the Atonement,
yet attribute an important efficacy to the sufferings
and death, as well as the instructions and exam-
ple of Jesus Christ, in procuring pardon and sal-
vation. But this efficacy consists, not in their
appeasing the anger of God, and disposing him
to be merciful, but in their moral influence on
men, in bringing them to repentance, holiness,
and an obedient life, and thus rendering them
fit subjects of forgiveness and the divine favour.
The sufferings and death of Christ are thus rep-
resented as being not in our stead, but for our
benefit; and intended to render the forgiveness of
sin consistent with ii the honours of the divine law,
the character of the lawgiver, and the interests of
his moral kingdom/' (p. 102) — not by satisfying jus-
tice, but by subduing the spirit of rebellion, restor-
ing the authority and power of the law, and making
men obedient subjects.

And these explanations meet in a satisfactory
manner the true meaning of the two texts, which
Dr. Woods has introduced for the purpose of illus-
trating (p. 101) the "bearing which the death of
Christ has on the moral government of God, and
how it secures mercy to penitent sinners.7' Accord-
ing to this view of the subject, " Christ was made a
curse for us," not in our stead and as our substitute,
but for our benefit. And his being made a curse
for us redeemed us from the curse of the law, from
the punishment due to us as transgressors of the law,
by its influence in bringing us bark to repentance

and subjection to the law. And when this was done,
the sinner reconciled to God, brought to repentance,
subjection to the law, and a life of holiness, the
purposes of God's moral government are answered,
its authority is supported, h^s law is vindicated,
" God is justified, is seen to be just, is perceived to
have a regard to justice, in justifying him, who
believes in Jesus." It is seen that in extending
pardon to the penitent believer, he has not yielded
up the authority of his law, nor subjected his gov-
ernment to contempt.

The question which Dr. Woods here asks him-
self, (p. 102) " what hindrance there is in the way
of God's showing the same favour to transgressors
as to the obedient," is incorrectly stated, so as to
give a deceptive view. The question is not, whether
God can consistently with his character of moral
governor, and the honour and safety of his govern-
ment, show favour to transgressors, but whether he
can extend forgiveness to the penitent, to those who
have ceased to be transgressors, and have returned
to their allegiance. The answer to this question
would be very different from what the other re-
quires. None of the consequences, which it is
readily admitted must follow on that supposition,
would have any place on this. God's readiness to
show favour to those who repent and return to
virtue, does not show, u that the authority of
the law is set aside, and that no distinction is
made between virtue and vice." Nothing indeed
can show in a stronger light than this, God's love
of virtue, and desire to encourage it by encouraging

the first return to it. No other expedient, whicli
the wisdom of God could devise, certainly not that
which consists in an atonement by the substitution,
either literal or figurative, of the sufferings of an
innocent person in the place of the guilty, will show
better than the necessity of repentance and holiness
and their efficacy in order to forgiveness and the
divine favour, " that God does and for ever will
make a distinction between holiness and sin."

I have next to make some remarks on the de-
fence of the orthodox faith against the objection,
that it " lowers the value of Christ's sacrifice, and
robs his death of interest ;" because consisting,
according to this scheme, of a divine and human
nature united together, the human nature only
could suffer and die. So that, instead of the infinite
atonement made by the sufferings and death of an
infinite being, it is in fact only the sufferings and
death of a man. The defence is made on the common
ground of the " human and divine nature in Christ
constituting but one person, so that all his actions
and sufferings belong to him as one person." As
this is the only defence that is, and the only one
that can be, set up, let us examine a little its value
and force. It is admitted, that if the premises are
true, the conclusion does follow; if Jesus Christ is
both perfect God and perfect man in one individual
person, the defence is complete.

But in the first place I remark, that the possi-
bility of two distinct intelligent natures makirg but
one person, has never been shown to the smallest
degree of satisfaction ; especially of two natures so

100

distinct and distant as the divine and human, a finite
and an infinite mind. No Trinitarian can deny,
that in Jesus Christ are two perfectly distinct minds,
two perfectly distinct, intelligent natures, as distinct
as any two intelligent beings can be. But two
distinct minds, two distinct intelligent beings, with
each its separate consciousness, knowledge, capaci-
ty, will, and action, cannot be other than two distinct
persons. But all these the trinitarian doctrine
attributes to Jesus Christ. Separate consciousness,
for the divine nature by the supposition was not
conscious of any of that suffering, by which the
atonement was made ; — separate knowledge, for it
is alleged, that the divine person knew that, of
which the human person was ignorant ; — separate
capacity, for the human nature of Christ could in-
crease in wisdom and knowledge, while the divine
nature, being omniscient, was incapable of increase ;
■ — separate will, for the human person most earnestly
prayed for that to take place, which it could cer-
tainly be no wish of the omniscient mind should
take place ;— separate action, for while the human
nature of Christ was limited to the labours only of
a man, and confined to a narrow space, the divine
nature was extending its influence to all beings and
events, and producing its effects over worlds and
systems throughout the universe. It is impossible
for any reasoning to show more clearly, than this
simple statement, the absolute incredibility of this.
But this is not all. The identity of person is not
■only shown to be impossible, upon the trinita-
rian hypothesis. The only ground upon which

101

some of the strongest objections to the trinitarian
doctrine, that part of it, which consists in the
supreme Deity of Jesus Christ, can be evaded
is, by the assumption of two distinct persons in
Jesus Christ : by assuming that he sp^ke, and
acted, and suffered, and was spoken of in two
different characters. And this assumption has
been made, as far as I have seen, universally by
trinitarian writers, not in words indeed, but in
fact. "Here, it is asserted, no argument lies against
his divinity, for he is speaking not as God, but aa
man. Of this indeed he was ignorant as man, but
he knew it as God, and this he might truly say he
was unable to do as man, though as God he could
do all things." This, I observe, is the answer on
which Trinitarians have rested, and it is the only
one they have offered to all those texts, and they are
very numerous, in which inferiority to the Father,
limited knowledge, and limited power are expressed
or implied. And this goes on the supposition of
two distinct persons, and is utterly absurd on any
other supposition. It is indeed a palpable contra-
diction to say, that the same person knows and does
not know the same thing at the same time ; can do
and cannot do the same thing at the same time.
And this contradiction, and worse than trilling, is
attributed to the Saviour in some of his most solemn
declarations, by the supposition in question. With
these brief hints I am willing to leave the reader to
make up his judgment, "how far the views of the
Orthodox in this case are capable of being defended

in a satisfactory manner."
13

102

I would gladly have passed unnoticed what I
find on the last page of the Letter respecting the
Atonement, as it is unpleasant to be obliged to
express the censure, to which I think a charge of
so serious a kind, as is there brought against those,
who reject the doctrine of the Atonement, is entitled
to. This subject, it seems, is one, which it is dan-
gerous to discuss, and on which it is not safe even
to inquire. For certainly, if the rejection of the
doctrine is in itself u a plain indication of the dis-
position of the heart, and a proof of a temper of
mind, which is in total contrariety to the humble
spirit of Christian faith," it is not a subject on
which it is safe to trust ourselves in speculating.
The only safety is in believing without inquiry,
receiving implicitly without examining. For if we
allow ourselves to inquire, the result may be, that
we shall reject, and rejection will indicate " a dis-
position of heart, inconsistent with the humble
spirit of Christian faith."

But this, I am persuaded, cannot have been the
intention of the author of the Letters. The expres-
sions must have been used in haste, without well
considering their import and bearing. It cannot
have been his design, to deter those whom he ad-
dresses from examining the evidences of a doctrine,
respecting which Christians have been so little
agreed, and which has been so variously understood
and explained, by those who receive it.

A doctrine which we cannot deny, without in-
curring the charge of wanting the humble spirit of
Christian faith, and about which it is therefore

103

unsafe to allow ourselves to inquire, we have cer-
tainly a right to demand to find either distinctly
and intelligibly expressed in the scriptures, or
clearly stated and explained in the writings of those,
who propose them as essential parts of the Christian
doctrine. But where, I ask, are we to look for a
clear and distinct statement of the orthodox doc-
trine of Atonement? The genuine doctrine of
Calvinism is indeed stated by the early writers of
that school in a manner sufficiently clear and intel-
ligible. But every feature of that is denied as a
misrepresentation of the orthodox faith. We are
told that the language of the orthodox, like that of
the scriptures, is metaphorical, not to be understood
literally ; and I in vain seek for such an explana-
tion of the metaphors, as to enable me to understand
what is the distinct doctrine, which is intended to
be maintained. A fleeting and shadowy image is
presented to the view, which eludes every attempt
to fix its shape, and dimensions, and features. And
can it be, that my inability to receive a doctrine,
expressed in words, of which I am only told what
they do not mean, and not what they do, is to be
regarded as " an indication of a disposition of heart
and temper of mind, which is in total contrariety to
the humble spirit of Christian faith."

There are some other sentiments in this para-
graph also, which must not be passed without
notice. It is asserted, " that God, having sent his
Son to be a propitiation, has told us, that we must
rely upon his atoning blood, as the sole ground of
forgiveness" I would ask where God has told us.

104

that "the atoning blood of Christ is the sole ground
of forgiveness."

I find the prophet Isaiah, without any reference
to any kind of atonement, referring the forgiveness
of sin solely to the mercy of God, by which he is
ready to accept reformation and a return to virtue.
(Is. lv. 7) "Let the wicked forsake his way, and
the unrighteous man his thoughts, and let him
return unto the Lord, and he will have mercy upon
him, and to our God, for he will abundantly par-
don." I find David, in the depth of his sorrow
and distress in the consciousness of deep and aggra-
vated guilt, by which he had incurred severe tokens
of the divine displeasure ; in pouring forth his
humble supplications for pardon, placing his hope,
in no sacrifice, or atonement, but solely in the
mercy of God, and the evidence he should give of
true repentance. (Psalm li. 1, 16, 17) " Have
mercy upon me, O God, according to thy loving
kindness, according to the multitude of thy tender
mercies, blpt out my transgressions."...." Thou
desirest not sacrifice, else would I give it. The
sacrifices of God are a broken spirit ; a broken
and contrite heart, O God, thou wilt not despise."
I find John the baptist announcing the approach of
the kingdom of heaven, with the call to repentance,
and intimating nothing else as requisite, preparatory
to being the fit subjects of it, but that men should
" repent" and "bring forth fruits meet for repen-
tance." (Matt, iii. 2, 8) I find Jesus Christ himself
declaring, (Matt. vi. 14) ''If ye forgive men their
trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive

105

you." And I find it the object of one of his most
beautiful and touching parables (Luke xv.) to teach
his followers, not that God demands with unrelent-
ing severity full satisfaction "in the atoning blood
and perfect righteousness" of another, as the found-
ation of hope, and ground of forgiveness ; but pro-
claiming the essential mercy and placability of our
heavenly Father, and his readiness, not only to
receive and restore his penitent children, but to
meet with joy the first workings of ingenuous
sorrow and a sense of guilt, and the first symptoms
of a disposition and wish to return to duty. "When
he was yet a great way off, the father had compas-
sion on him, and ran to meet him." To this com-
passion and reconciliation he was solely moved, as
far as we are informed, by the return of the
penitent to a sense of his guilt and his duty ; "Fa-
ther, I have sinned against heaven and in thy
sight, and am no more worthy to be called thy
son."...." This, my son, was dead, and is alive
again, he was lost and is found." I find it was the
prayers and alms of Cornelius that "came up into
remembrance with God," and that " in every nation
he that feareth God, and worketh righteousness,
is declared to be accepted with him." (Acts
x. 4, 35.)

These declarations, and numerous others of the
same import, must surely have been out of the mind
of the writer, when he asserted, in the words I have
before quoted, " that God has told us, that we must
rely on the atoning blood of his son, as the sole
ground of forgiveness.

106

I must take leave also to correct some other
expressions, standing in close connexion with this.
It is implied in a manner not to be misunderstood,
in the paragraph in question, that Unitarians, or
those who reject the doctrine of the atonement,
"hope for heaven on the footing of their own virtue
or good works/7 (p. 105) that they "think them-
selves entitled to future happiness on their own
account, and rest their hopes of heaven on their
own goodness.*7 But is there no alternative between
" relying on the atoning blood of the son of God,
as the sole ground of forgiveness,*' and relying on
our own merit, as the sole ground of acceptance ?
Unitarians, as far as I know, and as far as I can
learn from their writings, are equally distant from
each of these extremes. Their dependence is wholly
on the mercy of God, for they believe that all men,
on account of their actual sin, stand in need of
mercy, and are wholly incapable of meriting salva-
tion, and claiming it as a matter of right ; that
mercy, they believe, is promised to all who repent :
yet that the salvation of the best cf men is of grace,
and not of debt, what they cannot demand as a
right, yet may claim on the ground of the divine
promise. A promise, too, not in consideration of
satisfaction having been* made by the vicarious
suffering of a substitute, but originating in free
sovereign mercy, and contemplating the change of
character implied in repentance, as alone a sufficient
reason for this exercise of it.

But though Unitarians, in rejecting the ortho-
dox doctrine of atonement, do not maintain the

107

opinion attributed to them of the worth and suffi-
ciency of human merit ; yet they will certainly not
acquiesce in the opinion, so strongly expressed by
the author of the Letters, of the entire worthless-
ness of all the works of righteousness and good
dispositions of men. They think such expressions
equally inconsistent with truth, and of pernicious
tendency. For if human virtue be thought of no
value, and of no estimation in the sight of God, the
motive for its practice is weakened, if not destroyed.
We shall feel little interest in seeking high attain-
ments in that, which is of so little consideration, or is
so offensive, that it must not be named in the presence
of God. But let me ask, where we are to find the
inhibition so confidently asserted. Where "has
God taught us, (p. 105) that no works of righteous-
ness which we have done, and no accomplishments
or dispositions which we possess, must ever be
named in his presence ?" I find instances innumer-
able, in which the reverse of this is expressed in a
very clear and unequivocal manner. It is expres-
sed by Paul, when he said, (Rom. ii. 6, 10) " God
will render to every man according to his deeds,"
and has prepared " glory, and honour, and peace,
for every man that worketh good." And as he
thus believed that the good deeds of good men were
regarded with approbation and complacency by
their Maker ; so he was certainly not aware that it
was either criminal or improper to name them in his
presence, when he so exultingly appealed to the
course of his past life, and expressed his so strong
assurance of the future rewards of virtue : (2 Tim.

108

iv. 7) "I have fought a good fight, I have finished
my course, I have kept the faith ; henceforth there
is laid up for me a crown of righteousness, which the
Lord, the righteous Judge, shall give me at that
day."

Such a thought must have been far from the
mind of our Saviour, when he directed his disciples
to plead their good deeds in their supplications to
God for his mercy ; (Matt. vi. 12) "Forgive us our
debts, as we forgive our debtors," with the express
assurance, that this plea will not be disregarded,
" for if ye forgive men their trespasses, your heav-
enly Father will also forgive you." Such a thought
seems wholly inconsistent with the declaration,
"That the son of man will come in the glory of his
Father, and will then reward every man according
to his works ;" (Matt. xvi. 27) for such a declaration
implies, that the works of men are of some account
in the mind of Him, who will be their judge, are to
be brought into solemn account, and to furnish the
grounds of the decisions of the great day.

I would request you also to compare with the
assertion under consideration, " that God has
taught us that no works of righteousness which
we have done, and no accomplishments or dispo-
sitions, which we possess, must ever be named in
his presence ;" the parable of the talents in the
xxv. chap, of Matthew, and the representation of
the final judgment in a more direct form, which
immediately follows it. To whom and upon what
ground, in the former case, was the eulogy pro-
nounced, and the reward assigned; "Well done

109

good and faithful servant, thou hast been faithful
over a few things, I will make thee ruler over
many things ?" And in the latter, to whom was
addressed the welcome, £< Come, ye blessed of my
Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you
from the foundation of the world ??> It was in each
-case the faithful, the humane, and the obedient ;
and in each case it was the good deeds they had
done, " the good dispositions they had manifested,
the fidelity with which they had used the talents
entrusted to them, the kindness with which they
had conducted in the relations in which they were
placed, that recommended them to the approbation
of the judge, and procured for them the rewards
he had to distribute. No allusion is made to a
u perfect righteousness, which God has provided
for them" to supersede their own personal right-
eousness, or to render it valueless. Indeed noth-
ing can be more clear, than that if it be of no
value, of no account, and not to be named in the
presence of God, it is not worth our pursuit, and
those are the truly wise, who place their whole
dependence on the worthiness of Him, who was
righteous for them, and trouble not themselves
about the attainment of personal righteousness,
which being of no account, can be of no use.

I know that this consequence will be rejected
with abhorrence by every serious believer in the
doctrine ; but I know, too, that it does not follow
with the less certainty from it.
14

110

LETTER VI.

The subject to which I would next call your
attention is that of divine influence ; the discussion
of which occupies the tenth letter of Dr. Woods.
Upon this subject we must keep carefully in mind
the distinction between the general doctrine, and
that which is peculiar to Calvinism. It is with the
latter only that we are concerned as a subject of
controversy. To the indistinctness and obscurity,
which arises from confounding them together, we
owe much of the difficulty, in which this subject is
usually involved.

As to the general doctrine of divine influence, I
observe, there is no controversy. It is implied in
the government of providence, in the acknowledg-
ment of dependence on God, and in every prayer.
We may suppose it to be direct and immediate, or
only such as reaches us through the instrumental-
ity of those means, by which common effects are
usually produced, and thus not distinguishable from
the common course of nature. None, I suppose,
will deny the possibility of a direct access to the
human mind by him, who gave being and all its
powers to that mind; and the reality of it will
always be a fact, depending like every other fact
upon evidence ; to be received or rejected as the
evidence is perceived to be satisfactory or not.

It will not, I presume, be pretended, that the
direct influence of the spirit of God upon the mind is
of such a nature, that men can be conscious of it at the

Ill

time, so as to distinguish it with certainty from the
natural operations of the mind under the influence of
external circumstances, and the variety of motives,
which are presented to it. There can then be no
evidence of it in any particular instance. Our proof
of the doctrine must be drawn, not from experience
or observation, but solely from those texts of scrip-
ture, which are supposed to assert it ; and those
are to be subjected to just rules of interpretation,
in order to ascertain, whether that, and that only,
can have been the meaning of the spirit that dic-
tated them.

But without any immediate and direct influence
upon the mind, the most important effects may be
produced, and changes brought about within us, by
a variety of instruments and means, in a manner
analogous to that, in which all the great purposes
of God are accomplished in the natural and moral
world. God is to be acknowledged, his hand is to
he seen, the operations of his spirit appear in all
the events that take place. Yet not a direct and
immediate agency is to be perceived. Instruments
and means are employed, but the hand that employs
them is unseen. Not seldom a long and circuitous
train of them, the connexions and combinations of
which it is not in our power to trace, conceals from
our view the spirit that guides, and the power that
effects the whole.

Nor is it only great events, and the accomplish-
ment of great purposes, that we are to trace to the
agency of the spirit of God. It extends not less to
the common provisions and constant occurrences of

112

life ; to the food by which our life is supported, and
every provision by which it is made comfortable.
These are the gift of God ; not directly, not inde-
pendently of our exertions, nor without the exer-
tions of others, but by employing them both. God
is also the preserver of our lives, and is to be so
acknowledged in all the common, as well as the
uncommon exigences of our being. Not, however,
by immediate acts of power, and a direct agency,
is this done, but by the instrumentality of an infin-
ite variety and complicated system of means. Of
these means, our own exertions, and the assistance
of others, constitute an essential, and a principal
part. If they are neglected or withheld, the pro-
tecting care of heaven is withheld. We perish. A
miracle is not wrought to save him, who takes no
care to save himself.

It is in a similar manner, by instruments and
means, not by a direct action upon the mind, that
the spirit of God produces its great effects in
bringing men to repentance, holiness, and virtue.
Among these, the most important are the instruc-
tions of the holy scriptures. " The word of God
(1 Pet. i. £3) is the incorruptible seed, by which
men are born again." Whatever good influences
are produced by it, are influences of the spirit of
God. The same may be said of Christian institu-
tions, religious assemblies, public worship. The
usual course of providence, but especially deviations
from it in remarkable events and uncommon phe-
nomena, are means for accomplishing the same
purposes. The same also is to be said of the priest-

113

hood; religious rites, and prophetic office under the
former dispensation, and the Christian ministry,
and the whole system of written and oral instruc-
tion under the present. And those who are thus
employed in u converting sinners from the error of
their ways, and turning many to righteousness,"
are represented as " ambassadors of Christ." They
are his agents, act in his stead, and, whatever effects
are produced, they are the proper fruits of the
spirit, and may be considered as the work of that
spirit, which projected the great scheme, and which
provides for and directs its execution.

NowT, were there nothing more direct and imme-
diate, than those influences, which have now been
mentioned, there would he enough to answer to
most of the language of the Bible on the subject ;
enough to give a fair and important meaning to all
the texts alluded to by Dr. Woods, (p. 107) Those
are the instruments and means by which God
is constantly " working in men both to will and
to do ; creating in them a new heart and a new
spirit ; opening their eyes, drawing, turning, re-
newing, strengthening them, helping their infirmi-
ties."

All that is said to show, that a divine influence
upon the mind may he consistent with human liberty
and proper activity, is to no purpose ; for neither
the reality of a divine influence, nor its consistency
with human liberty and activity is denied. That
is not the question in dispute between Unitarians
and Calvinists. The question is, whether the
doctrine of divine influence, in the peculiar sense in

114

which it is held by Calvinists, is consistent with
human liberty and activity. Nor is it whether
they affirm it to be so, but whether it can be shown
to be so in reality.

It is in vain that Dr. Woods has blended to-
gether and confounded the general doctrine of divine
influence, which is held by Christians in common,
with the peculiar doctrine of Calvinism respecting
special irresistible grace. In vain has he softened
down the offensive features of the system, and
explained away, or endeavoured to give an unex-
ceptionable meaning to the terms irresistible, over-
powering, invincible, used by the Orthodox in rela-
tion to the subject. The import of these terms is
to be found in the known and avowed doctrines of
Calvinism, as they are stated by the most approved
writers, and in the Confessions of Faith deliberately
drawn up by Councils, and received by churches,
which profess to make the Calvinistic faith their
standard.

Now, according to these, " all those, whom God
hath predestinated to life, and those only, he is
pleased in his appointed time, effectually to call by
his word and spirit, out of that state of sin and death
in which they are by nature, to grace and salvation
by Jesus Christ." — " This effectual call is of God's
free and special grace alone ; not from any thing at
all foreseen in man, who is altogether passive
therein, until, being quickened and renewed by the
holy spirit, he is thereby enabled to answer this
call." — " Elect infants, dying in infancy, are re-
generated and saved by Christ, so also are all other

115

elect persons, who are incapable of being outwardly
called by the ministry of the word." — " Others not
elected, although they may be called by the ministry
of the word, and may have some common operations
of the spirit, yet they never truly come to Christ,
and therefore cannot be saved. Much less can men,
not professing the Christian religion, be saved in
any other way whatever, be they never so diligent
to frame their lives according to the light of nature,
and the law of that religion they do profess."
( Westminster Confession. J

In the above extracts from an instrument of high
authority, we have a clear and distinct statement of
the orthodox doctrine respecting that influence of
the spirit, by which regeneration is effected ; and
by which alone men can be brought out of that state
of sin and death in which they are by nature, and
brought into a state of salvation. It is an influence
confined to the elect ; granted exclusively to those,
who are predestinated to eternal life ; granted to
them also in a perfectly arbitrary manner; not
being on account of any thing foreseen in them, still
less on account of any thing already in them : since,
until it takes place, they are, according to this
scheme, in a state of sin and death, wholly inclined
to evil, and indisposed to all good. In those, upon
whom this influence is exerted, its effects take place
without any agency or cooperation of theirs, for
they are wholly passive in it. It is the irresistible
and unaided work of the spirit of God, which man
can do nothing either to assist or to prevent. In all
those, who are the subject of it, it is effectual, and

116

their regeneration and final salvation are sure.
Those to whom this influence is denied, or from
whom it is withheld, are not elected ; and they can
never be regenerated, and consequently their salva-
tion is impossible.

It will be objected, perhaps, that the Orthodox,
though they receive in general and substantially
the doctrines contained in the Westminster Con-
fession of Faith and Catechism, yet they are not
satisfied with them in all respects, and do not
subscribe to all their language.

To this objection they have an undoubted right,
and Dr. Woods, as their representative, has a right
to be judged upon a fair construction of the language,
which is used in the Creed of the Theological Insti-
tution with which he is connected ; and that which
he has himself used, as far as he has proceeded in
giving a statement and explanation of the doctrine.

But little, I think, will be gained by this toward
relieving the doctrine, which he means to maintain,
from the charges which are brought against the
orthodox system on this point.

In the following extracts from the Creed of the
Theological Institution at Andover, I think you will
find every important idea expressed or implied, that
is to be found in the passages before given from the
Westminster Confession. " By nature every man
is personally depraved, destitute of holiness, unlike
and opposed to God, and previously to the renewing
agency of the divine spirit, all his moral actions are
adverse to the character and glory of God ; being
morally incapable of recovering the image of his

117

Creator, which was lost in Adam, every man is justly
exposed to eternal damnation ; so that except a man
be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God ;
....God, of his mere good pleasure, from all eternity
elected some to everlasting life. ...no means whatever
can change the heart of a sinner, and make it holy
....regeneration and sanctification are effects of the
creating and renewing agency of the holy spirit."
A cursory reading of Dr. Woods' Letter on this
subject might lead to an impression of something-
short of the doctrine expressed in these extracts ;
but the following sentence, taken in the connexion
in which it is used, and in connexion with the other
doctrines defended in his Letters, will be found, I
think, to express or imply all that is contained in
the fuller and more naked and undisguised state-
ment of the Westminster Divines. He is speaking
of the meaning of the words irresistible, overpower-
ing, as used by orthodox writers, in reference to the
divine influence upon the minds of men, when he
says (p. 116,) " What the nature of the disorder is,
God knows, and is perfectly able to apply a suitable
and efficacious remedy. Now, when this almighty
Physician kindly undertakes the cure of our souls,
the obstinacy of the disorder yields ; its resistance
is taken away : that is to say, the heart is effectually
cleansed from its pollution ; love of sin, enmity to
God, pride, ingratitude, and selfish, earthly desires
are subdued, and man is induced to love God, and
obey his commands. v He had before explained the
orthodox faith in general by saying (p. 108,) "We

believe, that all virtue or holiness in man is to be
15

118

ascribed to the influence of the divine spirit, and
that without the effectual agency of the spirit, man
would have no holy affections, and perform no acts
of holy obedience."

Now what is the disorder, to which the effica-
cious remedy is to be applied ; and for which, as
we shall see, there is no other cure ? If we look
back to the fifth and sixth letters of Dr. Woods, we
shall find it described. It is a state of entire moral
corruption, in which every man is born into the
world, and in which every man continues until he
is renewed by the holy spirit. It is, that men are
by nature, that is, as they came first from the hand
of the Creator, destitute of holiness ; not only so,
but subjects of an innate moral depravity, from the
first inclined to evil, and while unrenewed, their
affections and actions wholly wrong. This is the
disease, as to its nature and extent.

Passing to the next letters, seventh and eighth,
we are told to whom, and on what ground, a cure is
applied. Those, who are to be delivered from
this moral bondage, this original state of depravity,
to be regenerated, renewed, and saved, are selected
from the mass of mankind by a sovereign act of the
divine will, without any thing in them, as the reason
why they were chosen, rather than the others, who
are passed by, left to remain in sin, and to perish
for ever.

Being thus elected, thus predestinated to eternal
life, they become the subjects of the efficacious,
renovating influence, under consideration. And
when this i( almighty Physician undertakes the cure,

119

the disorder yields." He cannot be defeated. He
cannot be resisted. The fact then is, that all,
whom God undertakes to renew, all to whom he
applies that effectual influence, which is to subdue
the obstinacy of the disorder, are in fact renewed.
The love of sin and enmity to God are subdued,
and they are brought to the love of God and obe-
dience. And this effect is produced, because he
who knows the disorder has known how to apply a
remedy ; and has applied one, which must produce
a cure.

It follows, then, that this remedy has been
applied to no others. Those who are not renewed
have none of this influence employed upon them ;
for if they had, they also would have been renewed,
since this influence is efficacious, cannot be resisted,
cannot be defeated. Their failure then is for the
want of that, which is granted to the others, and
without which it was impossible for them to be
renewed and saved. " All virtue, all holiness in
man is to be ascribed to this efficacious influence ;
without it man would have no holy affections, and
would perform no acts of holy obedience." (p. 108)
Those, then, who have holiness and virtue, have it
solely in consequence of their having this influence,
which makes them, and cannot fail to make them
holy ; and those who have none, but remain unholy,
sinful, enemies to God, are destitute of it solely
because they have not that influence, which, if they
had, could not fail to produce the same effect in
them, which it has produced in others. This is but
a fair and full, unexaggerated development of the

120

doctrine, according to Dr. Woods' own statement
of it. And whether it be not in every point the
same as that which is more clearly stated in the
Westminster Confession, every one can judge.

From the doctrine, thus stated, Unitarians, I
believe, generally dissent, and maintain a very
different opinion on the subject. They dissent,
because they think it inconsistent with all the rep-
resentations we have in the scriptures of the moral
character of God, and with the condition of man,
as a free and accountable being ; — inconsistent with
all those texts, which complain of the sins of men ;
because, by the supposition, they act only accord-
ing to the nature given them, and could not act
otherwise without assistance and influence, which
are not given to them ; — inconsistent with all the
commands of the Gospel to believe, repent, be re-
newed, and to love God with the whole heart ; since
they have no ability to do any part of this, till
almighty power is exerted to make them willing ;
and it is equally impossible for them not to do it,
when this power is exerted ; — inconsistent with the
sincerity of all exhortations, encouragements, and
promises to the exertions of men, since it supposes
them incapable of willing to perform either of these
acts ; that it is not of themselves to will any thing
good, but they depend for it on an influence, over
which they have no control, and which they can do
nothing to procure.

Taking this doctrine of an efficacious influence,
without which there can be no holy affection, and
no act of holy obedience, in connexion with the

121

whole scheme of doctrine, of which it makes an
essential part ; we are unable to reconcile it with
the paternal character of God, or a righteous gov-
ernment, or to perceive how it can consist with a
moral accountability. We are unable to see how
the character of God can be vindicated, in creating
beings with a nature totally depraved, inclined only
to evil, demanding of them holiness, which they
are utterly unable to exercise, without an irresistible
influence in renewing their hearts, and giving them
right dispositions and desires ; which influence he
grants to some, and denies to others, without any
difference in them as the ground or reason of the
distinction ; and punishing those for not exercising
this holiness, to whom he had never granted the
assistance, without which it was never possible to
them. And we are equally unable to see how those
could be accountable for their actions, and the
subjects of reasonable blame for their unholy and
wicked lives, who were brought into being with
hearts totally corrupt, inclined to evil, and evil
only, and from whom that efficacious renovating
influence has been withheld, without which it was
never possible for them to be renewed, to "have
any holy affections, or to perform any acts of holy
obedience.7' The sinner seems upon this scheme
to have a perfect apology to offer for his continuing
in sin ; a complete and satisfactory excuse for every
defect and for every crime, however numerous, and
however great.

It may be useful to give you a distinct statement
of the several points, in which our views upon this

122

subject are at variance with those, which we find
advocated by Dr. Woods. In the first place, a
different account of the moral nature of man, and
his character and disposition, as he comes from
the hand of the Creator, leads to a different opinion
correspondent to it, of what is necessary, in order
to his becoming holy, and a fit subject of the appro-
bation and favour of the Author of his being. Not
seeing in him a nature wholly corrupt, inclined
only to evil, and an enemy of God, we perceive no
necessity for an almighty, irresistible influence to
be employed for the purpose of producing an entire
change of nature, opposite inclinations, dispositions,
and course of action from those, to which he was
directed by his natural constitution. Believing
him to possess faculties and affections, equally
capable of a right and a wrong direction, neither
morally good nor bad by nature, but equally capable
of becoming either, we see a moral discipline under
which he is placed, adapted to such a nature, such
capacities, and such dispositions. The influence
and agency of the spirit of God is to be acknowl-
edged in the whole of that discipline which is in-
tended to improve, exalt, and perfect our nature,
or to correct any wrong tendencies it may have
acquired, and restore it to a right direction, and its
previous purity.

In this light are to be viewed all the means and
the motives of religion, the institutions of society,
the course of providence, events calculated to lead
to reflection, to produce seriousness, to give us
just views of our nature, condition, duty, prospects,

123

and hopes ; what we are, and what we ought to be,
or are designed to be. Whatever is adapted to
subdue the power of sin, to control the bad passions,
and to bring us to the love of holiness, and the
practice of every virtue. In all this the agency of
God is to be acknowledged, as the purposes of God
are to be perceived. Not a direct and immediate
agency, but such as we see exercised in every thing
else through the universe ; God bringing about his
ends by a variety of means, and employing in them
the subordinate agency and instrumentality of his
creatures.

It is by such means, that the spirit of God pro-
duces its great moral effects, operates on the minds
and hearts of men, reconciles them to God, works
in them to will and to do his good pleasure. These
influences are distributed to men in very unequal
measure, and with infinite variety, as to kind and
degree. The impartiality of the common parent is
manifested, not in employing the same means with
all, and exerting upon all the same influence, but
by rendering to all according to the manner in
which they act under the influence that is employed
upon them, whatever that may be, as to kind and
degree ; not in giving to all the same number of
talents, and of the same value,for use; but render-
ing to all according to the use they make of their
talents, whether few or many. And here they find
room for the particular and perhaps direct and
immediate influence of the spirit upon those, who
have made a good use of common privileges, upon
the principle, that "to him that hath, more shall be

124

given." More shall be given to him, who has made
a good use of that which he has, whether much or
little.

Accordingly, Unitarians generally do not reject
the notion of a direct and immediate influence of
the spirit of God on the human mind. They believe
that there may be circumstances of great trial,
strong temptation and peculiar difficulty, that call
for extraordinary assistance, and that those who
have manifested a disposition to make a good use
of the ordinary means afforded, will have further
aid suited to their exigences, and sufficient by a
proper use to answer to *beitf necessities. They
suppose also that any extraordinary assistance will
be granted only to those, who ask it ; that it will
be granted to previous good disposition, and a sense
of need and dependance. That God will give the
holy spirit to them who ask, to them who have
already right feelings, are sensible of their weakness
and wants, and ask the mercy of God to supply
them.

125

LETTER VII.

I now follow Dr. Woods in calling your attention
to a few remarks on the influence and moral tendency
of the Unitarian compared with the Trinitarian
and Calvinistic scheme ; premising however the
caution, that we must not confound, in our exam-
ination, as is too apt to be done, the moral tendency
with the effects actually produced ; and that even
when this error is not committed, too much weight
is not to be given to any argument drawn from such
a comparison on either side. The reason is, that
mankind are less influenced in their conduct by
their speculative opinions, and the character of
their faith, than we are ready to imagine. Were
we purely intellectual beings, governed wholly by
reason, there would be no such uncertainty or falla-
cy in our deductions. We could calculate with
certainty how men would act, by knowing what they
believed ; and on the other hand, what was the
character of their faith, by their course of life.
But men have also passions and affections, on the
one hand ; and these not only serve to corrupt
and pervert the understanding, but where they fail
to do thi s, they yet are able to overpower the will,
so as t(j lead them to act in opposition to reason
and frith ; — and on the other hand they have con-
scien ce and a moral sense, which, however the
understanding may have been blinded, or misled,
or perverted, will sometimes preserve them in a
right course of conduct; in defiance of an absurd or
16

126

a corrupting faith. Still there is a general influence
of right views and a pure faith, which is not incon-
siderable, nor uncertain.

But when we come to speak of the practical
influence of different forms of christian faith, we are
to take into our consideration, that there are cer-
tain great principles, and those the most fundamen-
tal, and influential upon the conduct of life, which
the several sects of Christians hold in common. So
that great as the difference is between the Unitarian
and the Trinitarian faith ; on account of the funda-
mental principles held in common, the difference
of their practical tendency is less, probably, than
ardent and zealous partizans on either side are
ready to imagine. Still, however, it is believed
that the difference in several respects cannot be
very small.

I am ready to accede to the statement implied
in what is said by Dr. Woods, pp. 135 — 141 ; that
the practical influence of a scheme of faith will bear
some proportion to the exhibition it gives, "of a
being of infinite perfection as the object of worship;
a moral government marked with holiness and
righteousness throughout ; and the manner in which
mercy is exercised toward offenders under this
government.7'

These are the great points, upon whieh the
Unitarian and Calvinistic doctrine are at variance,
and with this difference in view, Dr. Woods en-
deavours to show the favourable influence of thf*
latter above the former in several respects.

In the first place, with respect to love to GocL

127

Now it will be sufficient to remark on this point,
that the practical influence of a doctrine will de-
pend, not on the words in which it is expressed,
but on the images, which are presented to the mind.
However we may speak in words of the perfect
justice, benevolence, and mercy of God ; our feel-
ings and affections will wholly follow the images in
which he is presented to us in the dispositions
towards his creatures, and the actions respecting
them, which are attributed to him. If those are
such, as in any other being would be thought arbi-
trary, or unjust, or cruel ; it will be in vain for us
to speak of them in words, that express all the
kindness and benignity of the paternal character.
The question then will be, not what are the epithets
which the two systems apply to God, for they both
apply the same ; but what are the actions they
attribute to him, what the images, under which
they present him, what the principles and measures
of his government ? In these respects enough has
before been said to show how the comparison will
stand.

Love to Christ, and the value at which we esti-
mate the benefits we receive through him, will
depend on our view of the nature and value of those
benefits, and not at all on the rank he holds in the
scale of being. Unitarian views indeed ascribing
to him only what he claimed himself, derived excel-
lences, and a subordinate agency, will not allow us
to give him the supremacy of affection, any more
than the glory, which was due to God only. It
teaches us to love him, to be grateful to him, and

128

trust in him, as him who was appointed by the
Father to execute his purposes of benevolence;
and who voluntarily did and suffered all that was
necessary to procure for us the forgiveness of sin,
reconciliation with God, and eternal life. These are
benefits, with which nothing that is done by any
other finite being can bear any comparison ; they
are such as entitle him to affection, and gratitude,
and trust ; such as we owe, and can owe to no
other being, but to " his Father and our Father, his
God and our God."

Unitarians are unable indeed to express these
sentiments in the language applied by Dr. Woods,
p. 145. Such expressions* of confidence and trust
they can apply to God only. They have but one
object of supreme trust and dependence. Were
they to make Jesus Christ that object, they would
fear to incur the rebuke, which the prophet received
from the angel before whom he fell down to worship,
^See thou do it not, I am thy fellow- servant, wor-
ship God." I am ready therefore to answer to the
questions, with which Dr. Woods closes the para-
graph which relates to faith in Christ, (p. 155)
" Does the Unitarian system teach any thing like
this ? Does such a faith spring from the principles
which it inculcates ?" to say no ! Most of what is
there said, Unitarians would apply to God, but not
to Christ. We find nothing in the Bible to justify
us in transferring our supreme confidence and trust
from God to Christ. It is accordingly the power
and wisdom and goodness of God, which inspire
us with humble and joyful hope ; and which put

129

our hearts at rest respecting the important" con-
cerns of the creation. It is to his care, that we
cheerfully and entirely commit our interests, tem-
poral and eternal. It is in him that we trust for all
that is necessary to purify our hearts, to guide and
protect us during our pilgrimage, to comfort us in
aflliction, and to give us peace and triumph in the
prospect of death. In these great interests and
concerns, we cannot consent, and we do not find
ourselves taught, to leave our heavenly Father
wholly out of the account.

The tendency of any scheme of doctrine to pro-
duce the dread of sin, and a watchful care to obey
the divine precepts, will depend essentially on the
view it presents of the rewards and punishments
prepared for men in another life, the heaven it pro-
vides, and the hell it reveals. Now it is not a little
remarkable, that Dr. Woods should claim an advan-
tage, in point of moral influence to the orthodox
faith, on the ground that a it contemplates a state
of higher perfection and purer and more elevated
enjoyment, than the Unitarian describes." (p. 146)
And " that the contemplation of a future reward, to
be obtained by virtuous efforts, must evidently tend
to excite those efforts, very much in proportion to
the greatness *and excellency of that reward."

For, besides that the claim of higher perfection
and greater purity is without any foundation to
justify it ; upon what ground can he speak of a
future reward to be obtained " by virtuous efforts?"
The reader has not forgotten, that the sinner has
no encouragement to virtuous efforts : " That no

130

works of righteousness, and no accomplishments or
disposition must ever be named in the presence of
God.. ..that the only righteousness, which is to be
the foundation of hope to men, is a perfect right-
eousness which God has provided. ...that we must
rely on the atoning blood of Christ as the sole
ground of forgiveness."

Unitarians may be allowed to speak of the mo-
tives to virtuous efforts arising from the future
rewards to be obtained by them ; but with what
propriety can the Calvinist do this, who believes,
that the future condition of men is determined from
eternity by an irreversible decree ; that by nature
they are totally depraved and inclined only to evil ;
that they remain so till brought out of that state by
regeneration, and that regeneration is effected only
by the special irresistible influence of the spirit of
God, granted only to the elect, and to them, not on
account of any disposition or efforts of theirs, which
have any tendency to produce or to procure it ?

And as to the influence of the different views of
future punishment ; — it might at first be thought,
that the advantage were on the side of those of
Calvinism ; but there are two considerations that
convince me to the contrary. For, in the first
place, the punishments, as well as the rewards
provided by that scheme, are administered on the
principles of a sovereign, unconditional election ;
the desert of punishment, and consequently the
punishment itself, not being subject to any human
efforts, but following necessarily the divine decree.
Bad men may be expected to avail themselves of

131

the plea of a moral inability, which, to all practical
purposes, is in fact the same as a natural inability,
or physical coercion. They may be expected to go
on quietly in the course of vice in the persuasion,
that if they are not predestinated to holiness and
eternal life, no efforts of theirs can avail them ; and
if they are, God will, in his own time, draw them to
him by his effectual, irresistible grace ; that nothing,
which they can do, till thus regenerated, will have
any tendency to bring about this effect, or prepare
them for it ; on the contrary, that they are as
likely, I believe they are sometimes told more likely?
to be thus arrested by sovereign grace in the full
career of wickedness, than when using endeavours
to recover themselves out of the hands of Satan by
their own strength. This reasoning, and I cannot
see that it does not proceed fairly on the acknowl-
edged principles of Calvinism, must check, instead
of encouraging the efforts of wicked men to disen-
tangle themselves from the snare of the devil.

In the second place, we are to look for the
efficacy of punishment and its moral influence in
preventing sin, or reclaiming men from it, not to the
degree of its severity and duration only, but to its
certainty, and the evidence brought home distinctly
to the minds of men of its certainty- Now, if you
endeavour to enhance the fear of punishment, by
representations of its severity, or of its duration far
disproportioned to what can be the apprehension
of the demerit, to which it is to be applied ; if you
carry it beyond the bounds of probability, that the
threat will be executed; if it be. such, that to a

132

reflecting mind it is impossible it should be executed
by a just, and good, and merciful being, the Parent
of the creation ; you weaken its effects as a motive,
you lose in probability, and the firmness of faith,
more than you gain in the force of fear. You excite
a vague and indistinct terror and dread ; but so
mingled with incredulity, arising from a natural and
unconquerable sense of the essential kindness and
benignity of the Author of nature, as to impair, if
not destroy its practical effects.

The surest and highest, the purest and most
permanent influence will be that, which arises from
such views of the future punishment awaiting the
wicked, as are consistent with the character of a
Sovereign of the world, who has nothing vindictive
in his nature, who adjusts punishment to the degree
of demerit, who inflicts it solely for the purpose of
promoting holiness, and accomplishing the purposes
of his moral government, and only to the degree
which these purposes require, and so long as they
require it.

From these considerations, I am persuaded that
the moral influence of the views of future reward
and punishment, maintained generally by Unitarians,
is far more certain, and powerful, and salutary, and
purifying, than that which is the result of the
orthodox views on this subject. And I am persuaded
of this by another consideration still. It is this : —
the virtue that is produced by cheerful views, and
by the contemplation of kindness, benevolence, and
mercy in God, is of a more pure, generous, and
elevated kind, than that which arises from cold..

133

austere, and gloomy views, and the contemplation
of severe, unrelenting, vindictive justice, find the
execution of eternal wrath.

Unitarians believe that the representations in
scripture of the future punishment of the impeni-
tent wicked are, for the purpose of impression,
highly figurative ; but they believe that the figures,
like all others used by the sacred writers, are in-
tended to mean something, something of vast mo-
ment ; that in degree and duration it will be such,
as is calculated to produce the highest practical
influence. In either respect we can have clear and
distinct conceptions only to a certain degree. All
beyond that, therefore, can add nothing to the
effect.

Dr. Woods proceeds to a comparison of the
different influences of the systems in question, as
respects reverence for the word of God. To show
that Unitarians have little reverence for the scrip-
tures, and treat the sacred writings with little
respect, he asserts (p. 148,) that, " the grand
maxim of the Polish Socinians was, that reason is
our ultimate rule and standard, and that whatever
in religion is not conformed to this, is to be rejected.
This maxim, as they understood it, gave them per-
fect liberty to alter or set aside the obvious sense
of the bible, whenever it did not agree with the
deductions of reason. Unitarians, in general, have,
with more or less decision, adopted the same
maxim." The impression intended here to be
made on the reader must be, that " Unitarians,
generally, think themselves at perfect liberty to
17

134

alter or set aside the obvious sense of the bible, when-
ever it does not agree with the deductions of rea-
son. " Dr. Woods has not seen fit to refer us to his
authority for the assertion, as respects the Polish
Socinians. This it was his duty to do, in laying
against them a charge of so serious a nature, that
the reader might be able to judge of its justice.
What authority he may be able to produce, I know
not. But I presume it must have been derived
from a passage, which I shall subjoin, which is
found in the Racovian Catechism, which contains a
summary of the Socinian doctrines, as drawn up by
the celebrated Polish Divines. But if this passage
be the only authority to which he will appeal, the
charge is made with less care, than were to have
been expected of one, so frequent and loud, as he is,
in his complaints of the misrepresentations and
unfairness of adversaries. The passage is this —

6i By what means may the more obscure passa-
ges of scripture be understood ?

u By carefully ascertaining in the first instance
the scope, and other circumstances, of those passa-
ges, in the way which ought to be pursued in the
interpretation of the language of all other written
compositions. Secondly, by an attentive comparison
of them with similar phrases and sentences of less
ambiguous meaning. Thirdly, by submitting our
interpretation of the more obscure passages to the
test of doctrines, which are most clearly inculcated
in the scriptures, as to certain first principles ; and
admitting nothing that disagrees with these. And,
lastly, by rejecting every interpretation, which is

135

repugnant to right reason, or involves a contradic-
tion."

The reader is now requested to compare this
with the assertion of Dr. Woods, and to judge of
the fairness of the representation. The principles
of interpretation, as here stated, are such, as no
Divine of any school will at the present day call in
question. They are such as Dr. Woods himself,
I will venture to affirm, continually applies in
practice. The difference between him and the
Polish Divines is only as to the cases, to which the
principle is to be applied, and not as to the princi-
ple itself. A thousand instances may be brought,
in which Dr. Woods will apply the principle with-
out hesitation. No one will reject with more
decision than Dr. Woods the obvious meaning of all
those passages, numerous and frequent as they are,
in which bodily organs and human passions are
ascribed to God. He will exercise his reason in
the interpretation of all those passages, which will
teach him to set aside, as inadmissible, the plain,
obvious, and literal meaning of the words that are
used.

Luke xiv. 26. Our Saviour says, " If any man
hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and
children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his
own life also, he cannot be my disciple. " Dr.
Woods, I trust, will be slow to insist on the plain
and obvious sense of this text, as the true meaning
of it. He will doubtless make reason his guide, in
its interpretation ; and applying his knowledge of
oriental idioms, will set aside, as utterly inadmissi-

136

Lie, the literal and obvious meaning of the words ;
not suspecting that he is thus exposing himself to
the harsh censure from some less enlightened and
liberal interpreter of scripture, of taking the liberty
to alter or " set aside the obvious sense of the
Bible."

Matt. xxvi. 26, 28. Our Saviour says, " This is
my body, — this is my blood ;w and John vi. 53.
t( Verily, verily I say unto you, except ye eat the
flesh of the son of man, and drink his blood, ye
have no life in you." Dr. Woods, I suppose, will
be as much shocked as any Polish Divine of the
whole Socinian school, or any English or German
Unitarian, at the idea of adopting the obvious sense
of these expressions, as the real meaning of him
who uttered them. Nor will he much regard the
honest Catholic, who, pressing him with the literal
meaning of the words, charges him with perverting
the scriptures, and destroying their authority by
thus subjecting them to reason in their interpreta-
tion. But why thus shocked, and why not adhere
to the literal sense with the Catholic, unless the
principle be admitted, that reason is to be employed
in the interpretation of scripture ? Unless calling
to its aid all the resources of learning, experience,
and common sense, it may authorize us to set aside
the obvious sense by supplying us with proof, that,
in any given case, the obvious sense cannot be the
true sense ? This is quite a different thing from
such an arbitrary alteration of the word of God,
or setting aside its true meaning, as is implied in
what Dr. Woods has laid to the charge of the Polish
Socinians and modern Unitarians.

137

But who, let me ask, is the man that manifests
the truest reverence for the word of God ? Is it he,
who indolently and carelessly takes the meaning
that first presents itself, however absurd, or con-
tradictory, or even impossible that may be ; or he,
who, when the meaning that first presents itself is
attended with difficulty or doubt, sets himself with
patient and laborious study to ascertain, whether it
be the meaning intended by the writer ; a meaning,
which, if it be the word of God, will certainly con-
tain neither an impossibility, a contradiction, nor
an absurdity ? Is it he, who, without suffering his
reason to judge in the case, accepts the meaning,
which has been assigned to it in an age of ignorance
and superstition, and which ecclesiastical authority
has sanctioned, enforced, and perpetuated ; or he,
who, using his own reason, instead -of trusting that
of another, applies all the helps that time, and
industry, and learning, have furnished, to the dis-
covery of its true meaning?

We not only avow the principle, that reason is
to be our guide in the interpretation of scripture,
but we declare that we know not a higher act of
disrespect and irreverence to the word of God, than
he is guilty of, who, rejecting the free use of rea-
son in its interpretation, exposes it to contempt by
attributing to it communications, which could not
have been made by the same God, who is the Au-
thor of our reason. We profess none of that loyalty
of faith, which consists in implicit subjection to the
creed of a master, which is expressed by degrading
and undervaluing our reason, or refusing its use,

138

and thus becoming prepared to receive absurdities,
contradictions, and impossibilities for divine instruc-
tions. We think it to be doing no honour to our
sacred books to be ready to believe both sides of a
direct contradiction, because we think that we find
them there. We are satisfied, from the very cir-
cumstance that it is a contradiction, or an absurdity,
that we must have misunderstood what we there
read. We suspend our faith, and apply ourselves
with all the aids that reason, learning, industry
supply to ascertain the source of our error, and to
discover the truth. We believe that Unitarians, by
doing this, have done much toward relieving our re-
ligion from articles of faith, and the scriptures from
opinions attributed to them, which they never taught,
which have been a reproach to our religion, and the
occasion of its being rejected by many ; who would
gladly have received all that it has taught, had it
been presented to them unmixed with the absurdi-
ties and impossibilities, with which they have seen
it associated in popular creeds.

In order to estimate the relative tendency of the
two systems, as respects benevolent action, whether
m relation to the common interests of life, or that
highest kind of it, which is directed to the spread of
the Gospel, and the salvation of men, we have only
to compare together the views which have been
given of the leading doctrines of the two systems ;
particularly as they relate to the character and
dispositions of the Author of nature, his moral
government, and the moral nature of man, and his
condition, as a state of trial and probation for an

139

endless being. — To this comparison I confidently
invite you, in the assurance that no further illus-
tration is necessary ; and that you cannot fail to be
convinced, that no opinions on these subjects can
be better calculated, than those which we maintain,
to purify and exalt our best affections, and to
strengthen the motive to every kind of benevolent
exertion.

I am persuaded too, that upon a fair comparison
Unitarians will not be found in fact to be behind
other Christians in their benevolent exertions.
Neither in Europe nor America are they liable to
any peculiar reproach for the want of activity and
engagedness in promoting humane and benevolent
designs. In accomplishing all the great purposes
of christian charity, as relates both to this and
another life, it is believed they have taken their full
share of interest, and have contributed their full
share of exertion with their persons and their
property.

In proportion to their numbers, no denomination
of Christians has furnished more distinguished ex-
amples of ardent and disinterested zeal, personal
sacrifices, and active exertion in the cause of truth,
for the advancement of pure religion, and to pro-
mote humane and benevolent objects. None have
contributed more largely to some of the most valua-
ble institutions, by which the present period is dis-
tinguished. They have taken an active and leading
part in promoting the great ends of the Bible
Society, and the Peace Society. In each of these
they have united together with Christians of all

140

other denominations. Their exertions and their
contributions to the purposes of christian charity
have been less the subject of public notice, than
equal and similar exertions of others, for reasons
which are obvious. They have not been exclusive.
They have not been made separately. They have
usually been thrown into a common stock. They
have had no desire to be distinguished from other
Christians, — have been willing to act with them,
and wherever the object proposed, and the means
for attaining it were such, as they could approve,
to unite with others in promoting it. They have
done what every one, who regards the great inter-
ests of religion more than personal reputation, or
the advancement of a party, ought to do. They
have exercised their judgment in selecting the
objects to which they should lend their aid ; not
always choosing those, which would excite the
admiration of the world, or contribute most to
give consideration or power to a sect, or serve
to distinguish them from others. They have
accordingly been less engaged than some other
denominations of Christians, in projecting and sup-
porting foreign missions, which, though the most
splendid and imposing, they have thought to be one
of the least useful of the achievements of christian
charity. For this apparent backwardness and
lukewarmness, with which they are sometimes
reproached, reasons may be assigned, which are not
inconsistent with their taking as deep an interest
in the cause of Christianity, and the salvation of
their fellow-men, as others ; and being ready to

141

contribute as much, and as cheerfully to extend the
knowledge, the influences, and the blessings of our
holy faith to all lands and to every people.

The imaginary cases, which Dr. Woods has
allowed himself to state, (pp. 154, 155) are wholly
gratuitous. He would have spared himself and the
reader, had he reflected for a moment, that a Uni-
tarian might invert the picture he has drawn, and it
would be entitled to the same consideration as that,
which he has presented ; that is, to none at all.
Were it even in his power, instead of a mere suppo-
sition, to produce an example, he must perceive,
that it would prove nothing to the purpose, for
which it was alleged ; since that would not be in-
consistent with an opposite example at the same
time. Were it a fact, instead of a mere imagination,
that an individual Unitarian by becoming orthodox
had become more zealous and engaged, both in per-
sonal religion and in benevolent exertions ; and
that an individual Calvinist, on the other hand, had
lost much of his piety and zeal in becoming a Unita-
rian ; it would not prove that others might not
experience an equally salutary change of character
in passing from the orthodox to the unitarian faith,
— or one equally unfavourable by passing from the
unitarian to the orthodox. I may have as good
reason for believing that the one event would take
place, as Dr. Woods has for the probability of
the other. And our opinions are each alike of no
value.

I have observed that satisfactory reasons could

be assigned, why Unitarians are not seen, as distin-
18

142

guished from others in those u remarkable move-
ments," which in Dr. Woods' opinion " present the
only prospect we have of the salvation of the world."
(p. 153.) Some have had the opinion, in common
with intelligent and pious Christians of other de-
nominations, that little hope was to be entertained,
of any important benefit from missionary exertions
in heathen countries. So little success has attended
all endeavours in modern times to extend the bounds
of Christendom by missions for the conversion of
barbarous pagan nations, that some have been
ready to think, that no hope was to be entertained
from human exertion, until it should be accompa-
nied, as it was in the apostolic age, with some visible
supernatural aid ; until those, who are sent forth to
carry the Gospel to the heathen, should have the
power given them to propose its doctrines with
the same authority, and accompanied with the same
miraculous evidence, as it was when presented by
its primitive teachers. Nor has this opinion been
confined to Unitarians.

Others again, who have had more confidence in
the efficacy of human exertions, and who believe
that Christianity will finally triumph universally
through the instrumentality of ordinary means ;
have yet not been satisfied with the means they
have seen employed. They have believed that
direct endeavours for the conversion of the heathen
to Christianity have been premature; and have
been wasted by being ill-timed and misapplied.
They have thought that no permanent or extensive
good was to be expected, except where the arts and

143

some of the habits of civilized life, and some of the
human literature of Christendom have been first
carried, to prepare the way for its reception. They
have thought that those, to whom the Gospel is sent,
must be prepared to understand it and to feel its
value by some previous education ; and some have
been disgusted, no doubt unjustly, by thinking that
they saw, in the remarkable movements alluded to
above, too much of ostentation and worldly motive ;
too much that seemed like a call upon an admiring
world, " Come and see my zeal for the Lord."

By some it has been thought, that to bring men
from the grossness and absurdities of paganism to
pure Christianity, the progress must be gradual.
The transition is too great, and would give too
violent a shock, to take place at once. They must
pass to it through several intermediate steps. Light
must be thrown in gradually, as they are able to
bear it. Christianity is more likely to be received,
if it be first introduced in forms mingled with con-
siderable degrees of superstition ; with pomp, and
form, and ceremony, and even with corruptions of
doctrine, which bring it nearer to the faith to which
they have been accustomed. Polytheists, for exam-
ple, it has been supposed, may be more easily
reconciled to Christianity, and more ready to em-
brace it in that form, which leaves them a threefold
God, or three Gods, (for they will be able to under-
stand none of those nice distinctions, which exercise
the wits of learned theologians and acute meta-
physical divines on this subject,) than that, which
reduces the object of human worship to a perfect
unity.

144

With such views and such impressions, they
have seen their duty? so far as respects exertions in
the Christian cause? lying in a different course ; not
in sending Unitarian missionaries into barbarous
nations, but in studies, and labours at home to
purify the Christian doctrine, and restore it to its
primitive state. They have believed, if the Unita-
rian doctrine is to be sent any where abroad, it is
to the Jews, and the followers of Mahomet, among
whom all attempts to introduce Christianity have
been defeated by the corruptions, with which it
has been accompanied ; and where better success
may be reasonably expected, when it shall appear
stripped of those appendages, which constitute their
objection to it.

Other reasons also are to be assigned for that
appearance of apathy, want of interest and want of
exertion, with which Unitarians are sometimes
charged. As has been said before, they have never
been forward to distinguish themselves as a sect
from the rest of their fellow Christians. They have
never united their exertions together for the pur-
pose of establishing a separate interest. They
have felt no separate interest. They have been
willing to remain, as long as they were allowed to
remain, mingled together with their fellow Chris-
tians, undistinguished from the general mass,
throwing in their contributions both of money and
of personal exertion with theirs. They have thus
contributed to swell the amount of charities and
exertions, for which they have had no share of
the credit.

145

To this course of conduct they have been
induced in part by the love of peace, a desire to
escape odium, and to avoid disturbing the public
tranquillity and order. But neither the purity of
their motives, nor the peaceful and silent course
they have pursued, was sufficient to shield them
from reproach. This very quiet and silence were
brought against them, as an evidence of lukewarm-
ness, and heartlessness, and indifference to the
cause of religion ; and their alleged inactivity
was attributed to an opinion, that Christianity
was of little value, and that men might do well
without it.

They have accordingly found, that the reasons
for their former course no longer continued ; and
they have changed that course. They have been
convinced, that the state of things called upon them
to use those exertions in the maintenance, defence,
explanation and propagation of their opinions, from
which only a regard for peace had hitherto res-
trained them ; since the same peaceful and silent
course could no longer shield them from reproach,
nor prevent the mischiefs that they wished to avert.
And now what is the consequence of this change of
measures ? They are reproached with that very
activity and zeal, with those very exertions, which
but a short time since, it was their reproach not to
make.

These exertions are accompanied with the hap-
piest effects. They have awakened a spirit of
inquiry, which will go on and increase. They
appear not yet, and it may be long before it will

146

be proper that they should appear, in some of those
particular things, in which they are reproached
with being deficient. They have much to do at
home, before it will be in their power advanta-
geously to the Christian cause to extend their ex-
ertions abroad. They have to awaken a livelier
interest in the cause of Christianity and the pro-
gress of rational and just views of its doctrines in
their own body ; to excite a deeper tone of religious
feeling in that part of the Christian community, to
which they have access, whether from the press or
the pulpit ; to engage the wealthy to cooperate with
them, by bringing home to their feelings, the great
good they have it in their power to do, and to their
consciences the solemn responsibility connected
with every talent, and every opportunity and pow-
er of doing good. They have to excite literary
men to give more of their studies and labours, and
more of their zeal to the promotion of so great and
desirable a purpose. They have to induce enlighten-
ed and liberal men, who by their professions or public
stations have an opportunity of exciting a salutary
influence in the community, to a more open and
manly avowal of their opinions, and to unite with
them in all fair, and moderate, and temperate
measures, with the Christian spirit, yet with ardour
and lively interest, to promote and extend them.
It is not doubted that throughout our country,
a very large proportion of those men, who for their
talents, and learning, and virtues have the most
influence in the community, and have it in their
power to do the most toward giving a right direction

147

to the public feeling or public sentiment, are dis-
satisfied with the Calvinistic and Trinitarian form,
in which they have had religion presented to them ;
and if they have been led by circumstances to free
inquiry on the subject, are Unitarians. But vari-
ous causes prevent them from making a public avow-
al of their opinions. Among these, not the least
is, usually, an unwillingness to encounter opposition
and obloquy, and the loss of confidence, and of the
power of being useful. It is among the encourag-
ing prospects of the present time, that the reasons
for reserve are ceasing to operate with all the force
they have done in times past, and that the reluc-
tance to an undisguised avowal of Unitarian senti-
ments is in a great degree overcome.

It is asked, by what motives Unitarians are
influenced in their endeavours to disseminate their
peculiar opinions. The answer is easy, and I think
such as to justify at least all the zeal and earnest-
ness they have yet discovered in the defence or the
publication of their views of Christianity. They
are earnest and active then, because they have a
firm faith in the truth and the importance of their
opinions, and that it is their duty to bear their tes-
timony to the truth, and to leave no proper means
untried, to cause it to be attended to, and under-
stood, and respected. And they are fully persuad-
ed, that the course they are pursuing in this respect
is in fact attended with very salutary effects. One.
to which they attach no small importance, is the
well known fact, that, wherever the unitarian doc-
trine prevails, and the rational views with which it

148

is accompanied, a very important portion of society,
the most elevated, intelligent, and enlightened be-
come serious and practical Christians, who, in
catholic countries, or where Calvinism prevails, are
oftener unbelievers and sceptics, and treat Chris-
tianity with neglect at least, if not with disrespect.
The reason of this is obvious. Men of cultivat-
ed minds and enlarged views are often so engaged
in the business, and engrossed by the interests and
cares of the world, as to depend for their views of
Christianity wholly on what they hear from the
pulpit, and what they find in the popular creeds
and catechisms, which, they take for granted, ex-
hibit fairly to them the Christian doctrine. Find-
ing the system, as it is thus presented to them, such
as their understanding and moral feelings will not
admit of their receiving, they reject Christianity
without further examination ; not thinking them-
selves bound to inquire into the evidence of a system
of faith, which carries in itself, in their view,
intrinsic marks of incredibility. When to persons
of this character and in such circumstances unitarian
views of the christian doctrine are afterward pre-
sented, their attention is arrested by their reasona-
bleness, and their consistency with what the light of
nature teaches of the character and government of
God. They are induced to examine the claims of a
religion to their faith, which is presented to them in a
form, so agreeable to the reason God has given them,
and to the natural notions that arise from what they
see of his character and dispositions in the government
of the world ; and the effect of examination is a firm

149

conviction, that the new views, in which Christianity
has been presented to them, are the result of a fair
and just interpretation of the scriptures in which it
is contained ; and that the religion itself is as well
supported by evidence, as it is worthy of the faith,
and approbation, and affection of a wise and en-
lightened mind.

The time has been, within the memory of men
now living, when in that class of society now alluded
to, the most elevated, enlightened, and influential
in giving the tone to the public sentiment, and the
direction to the manners and practice of society,
infidelity and contempt for religion were far more
prevalent in this vicinity, than they are at the
present day ; and at that time the religion which
issued from the pulpit, and which was the only
faith that reached them, was Trinitarian and Calvin-
istic. I hazard nothing in asserting, that in pro-
portion as those views of religion, which are gener-
ally adopted by Unitarians, have become prevalent,
infidelity and contempt of religion have become less
and less frequent ; and our most enlightened men,
with scarcely any exception, are among its most
efficient friends and serious and practical professors.

I have now said all that I meant to say upon the
doctrine of Christianity, as held by Unitarians, its
comparison with the Trinitarian and Calvinistic
faith, and its tendency and moral influence. I have
endeavoured to express myself with the most perfect
freedom and plainness ; yet with the decorum and
respect due to the solemn and interesting subjects
which have come before me, to the author of the
19

150

book which I have had so much occasion to notice,
and to those fellow- christians, who may dissent from
the opinions and views which I have expressed.

For the declaration made with emphasis by Dr.
Woods at the close of his book, " that in his honest
and serious apprehension, the Unitarian system is
indeed another Gospel" I was not wholly prepared ;
though it is one which we have before been accus-
tomed to hear in different forms from other sources,
for which we have less reason to feel respect. We
are consoled, however, with the thought, that an
excommunication, though pronounced ex cathedra,
carries not with it now the terror, which it once did.
Christians will venture to judge between the rival
systems, and will take the liberty to decide, each
one for himself, whether the gospel, as it is held by
Unitarians, or as it is held by Trinitarians and
Calvinists, be the Gospel of Christ.

ERRATUM.

P. 47, 1. 3, for " by Christ," read in Christ.

BR WARE'S LETTERS

TRINITARIANS AND CALVINISTS

BY LEONARD WOODS, D. D.

ABBOT PROF. OF CHRISTIAN THEOLOGV IN THEOI.. SEM., ANDOVER.

ANDOVER

PUBLISHED IiY FLAGG AND GOULD.

1821.

CONTENTS.

INTRODUCTION, p. 4 — 9.

CHAPTER I. 9—41.

Dr. Ware's opinions and reasoning with respect to the human charac-
ter, examined.— Man's character judged by a wrong standard, 12.
— Basis of Dr. Ware's reasoning, 13. — His first argument, from the
characteristics of early life, examined, 18. — Second, from the in-
terest taken in children, 26. — Third, from the repulsiveness of the
doctrine of depravity, 27. — Fourth, from the commands, precepts,
&c. 29. — Fifth, from representations of Scripture, 34.

CHAPTER II. 41—47.
Result of observation and experience, as to original depravity.

CHAPTER III. 47—61.

Human depravity native. — Examples of the proper use of words and
phrases employed in stating this doctrine, 48. — Whether the words
natural, native, &c. are applicable to human depravity, 51. — De-
pravity found in all men of every generation, 52. — Appears early,
52. — Cannot be traced to any change, subsequently to man's birth,
53. — Operates spontaneously, 57. — Hard to be eradicated, 58. —
An infant will certainly be a sinner, 58. — Argument from Scrip-
ture referred to, GO. — Summary, 61.

CHAPTER IV. 62—35.

Objections to depravity, 62. Unitarian mode of reasoning un-

philosophical, 62 — Proper mode of reasoning, 65. — Moral de-
pravity not inconsistent with the divine perfections, 78 — 85.

CHAPTER V. 85—113.

Native depravity not inconsistent with moral agency. — What con-
stitutes moral agency, 86. — Men sinners as soon as moral agents,
87. — Difficulties attending Dr. Ware's theory, 90. — No more in-
consistent to suppose man inclined to sin at first, than afterwards,

17 CONTENTS.

100. — Man culpable for defects of character, however acquired,
100. — Difficulties attend both theories. — Influence of bad example
108. — How far the circumstances of Adam's sin invalidates the ar-
gument of the Orthodox, 110.

CHAPTER VI. 113—128.
Manner in which Dr. Ware confutes scripture arguments. — Argument
from Gen. vi. p. 113. — Principle involved in Dr. Ware's reasoning,
and its consequences, 116. — The Bible accounts for it, that some
are holy, while the generality are sinful, 126. — The worst men
selected as specimens of human nature, 127.

CHAPTER VII. 128—140.
Dr. Ware's reply to the argument from John iii. 3 ; Rom. v. 12 ;
and Ephes. ii. 3.

CHAPTER VIII. 140—149.
The doctrine of man's native depravity of great practical importance.

CHAPTER IX. 149—198.
On the doctrine of election. — Uncandid representation of the doctrine,
150. — Proper view of it, I51.-The controversy respects the divine
administration, 155 — Mistakes corrected, 156. — Objections consid-
ered, 158. — No injustice in distinguishing grace, 159. — Dr. Ware's
theory attended with as great difficulties as the Orthodox, 164. —
Fact confirms the doctrine, 169. — The divine purpose ensures the

influence of motives, 171. Makes men moral agents, 173.

Extracts from Wesley, 1 74. — Difficulties attending the denial of
the doctrine, 175. — Argument from John xvii. p. 176. — Ephes. i.
3 — 11. p. 182. — The supposition that communities only are elected,
183.— Rom. ix. p. 193.

CHAPTER X. 198—216.
Atonement. — Doctrine of redemption, as held by Dr. Ware, 198. —
Five objections to his scheme, 199 — 208. — Remarks on figurative
language,_&c. 209.

CHAPTER XI. 216—228.

Dr. Ware's objections to Divine influence, considered, 216 — 220. —
Moral influence of the two systems compared, 220.

INTRODUCTION.

When I wrote the Letters to Unitarians, I meant
to treat the subjects of the present controversy so ex-
plicitly, and to extend my remarks to such a length, that
I might, in any case, have a full apology for declining
a rejoinder. I then had, and have still many and
weighty reasons against being a party in any religious
controversy. In the first place, it is not the way in
which 1 have generally supposed I could best labour for
the promotion of the cause of Christ. The duties im-
posed upon me by my office are sufficiently extensive
and important, to occupy all my time and my powers of
action ; sufficiently diversified, abundantly to satisfy my
love of variety ; and so congenial to my inclinations, as to
afford all the enjoyment which can be expected by any
man, oppressed with the cares of public life and the
imperfections of human nature. But for my reluc-
tance to engage in controversy, I have had another rea-
son. In the regular course of my official duty, though I
have much to do with all the controverted subjects of
religion, and though I never impose any restraints upon
the freedom of discussion, but those of decency ; it has
still cost me no effort, to keep my mind free from agita-
tion. But as to public religious controversy, I have ob-
served its unhappy influence upon so many men of dis-
tinguished excellence ; I have seen that it has so often
marred the best natural temper; that it has so often oc-
casioned the offensive boast of victory, or that which is
no less offensive, the sullen mortification of defeat ; that
2

it has so ot'ten injured the beauty of men's characters,
cooled the ardour of their piety, and detracted much
from their comfort, or at least from the comfort of their
friends, that I have earnestly wished to avoid the dan-
ger. I have wished also, if possible, to avoid the sulfer-
ings of controversy ; the unhappiness of being exposed
to the charge of bigotry or party spirit, of ambition or
meanness, of arrogance or imbecility ; the unhappiness
of being reproached or despised by my opposers, or the
greater unhappiness of feeling any disposition to re-
proach or despise them. Besides, I have thought, that,
at least so far as I was concerned, truth and piety might
be more successfully promoted by more silent, gentle
means. I have feared that an attempt even to advance
the cause of pure religion, in a controversial way, would
kindle a fire which would endanger the most precious
interests of the church, and which Christians, possessing
the strongest attachment to Christ, and blessed with the
largest portion of his spirit, might in vain try to ex-
tinguish.

These and other like considerations may seem tri-
lling to men on both sides, who cherish a disputa-
tious spirit, who pant, for the noise and strife of contro-
versy, and who have never soberly considered the evils
likely to result from it. But in my mind, such consid-
erations, as I have suggested, are of no ordinary impor-
tance ; and for a long time they produced in me a reso-
lution against controversy, which, till of late, I thought
could never be overcome. But as it is, I must now go
forward, hoping to derive benefit to myself from
the kind and amiable temper of my opponent, and no
less benefit to my cause, from the frankness with which
he declares his opinions, and the zeal with which he
attacks mine.

I do not come to this task with an expectation of
producing, generally, any material change in the views
of confirmed Unitarians. I should be a poor proficient
in the science of the human mind, could 1 not foresee,
that my arguments will be likely to appear as inconclu-
sive to them, as theirs do to me. My age and experi-
ence have somewhat cooled the ardour of feeling, which
might once have led me to indulge different expectations,
and to think that ray opponents and all others might easily
be convinced of the truth of my opinions. I have lived
long enough to learn, that arguments have a different
weight in the judgment of different men, and that some-
thing besides argument is concerned in controversy. In
the present case, the facts, which are the principles of
reasoning, are different ; just as might be the case with
two philosophers, who, making use of instruments not
agreeing together, or using the same instruments in very
different ways, might come to a different judgment re-
specting the phenomena of light, or any other material
substance ; in consequence of which, both of them might
reason correctly on the ground of what they had discov-
ered to be the properties of that substance, and yet be
conducted to different and opposite conclusions. In the
controversy respecting depravity, the facts, which are
admitted by the two parties, as the foundations of their
respective systems, are not the same; nor is the method
of ascertaining what facts really exist, the same. " Now
it is very natural for us to suppose, that the habits of
thinking, and feeling, and judging, which have led men to
embrace the Unitarian creed in regard to this subject,
will give them but a poor opinion of our arguments. If
we were exactly in their case, we presume our judg-
ment would be like theirs. Did not our own experi-
ence,— did not a faithful comparison of our heart and

life with the rule of duty, fully convince us of the fact,
that our own nature is the subject of an original, deep-
rooted corruption ; no external evidence could easily in-
duce us to believe the fact in relation to others.

It may be asked then, what good I hope to accom-
plish by pursuing this controversy ? One good purpose,
perhaps the principal. one, which I hope to effect, is, to
satisfy the serious friends of orthodoxy, that, after all
the attacks which have been made upon their reli-
gion, it rests on an immoveable basis ; that it has as
much solid argument to support it, as they have ever
supposed. I hope also to convince those who, not being
yet settled in their belief, are candidly inquiring, what is
truth, that the system of orthodoxy, at least in its prin-
cipal features, so far corresponds with the word of God,
and with sound experience, and that its moral tendency
is in so high a degree salutary, that they ought to make
many a serious pause, before they reject it. And finally,
I should be glad to do something towards convincing can-
did Unitarians of that, which has indeed always been suf-
ficiently proved, that those who embrace the scheme of
orthodoxy, do not necessarily resign all claims to manly
strength of understanding, nor show themselves enemies
to freedom and fairness of investigation.

There are many passages, of a taking plausibility, in
Dr. Ware's Letters, against which a charge of incor-
rectness might easily be sustained, but which, as they
relate to matters of small consequence in the controver-
sy, I shall pass over with little or no attention. I say
this to guard my readers against supposing, that my si-
lence on any part of the Letters is to be interpreted as
a sign of approbation. My purpose is to fix on the main
points of the controversy, and to dwell upon those argu-
ments, on which all who will bring themselves to patient

and thorough inquiry, must lay the greatest stress. It
we can defend the general principles which have gov-
erned our reasoning ; if we can, by legitimate arguments,
support the chief doctrines of our system, and vindicate
them from the chief objections of opposers, the work is
done. Let the strength of the foundation be made to
appear, and we shall not doubt the building will stand.
And as to the scheme which we feel it to be our duty
to oppose, — if we can succeed in taking away its foun-
dation, we shall deem it sufficient, without either mak-
ing a violent attack upon the superstructure to hasten
its fall, or standing by to exult in its ruins.

CHAPTER I.

To prepare the way for an useful investigation of
the subject of human depravity, I shall present in one
connected view the opinions which Dr. Ware has ad-
vanced in different parts of his third Letter.

" I insist," he says, " that the account usually given
of human wickedness is exaggerated/' — " Men are not
the mere brutes and fiends it would make them. There
is much good as well as evil in the human character;"
(meaning the natural character.) " As much as there
is of wickedness and vice, there is far more of virtue and
goodness." — "If we take a fair and full view, we shall find
that in by far the greatest part of human beings, the
just, and kind, and benevolent dispositions prevail beyond
measure over the opposite ; and that even in the worst
men, good feelings and principles are predominant, and
they probably perform in the course of their lives many
more good than bad actions ; as the greatest liar docs,
by the constitution of his nature, doubtless speak many

truths to every lie he utters." — " Man is by nature — or as
he is born into the world, innocent and pure ; free from
all moral corruption, as well as destitute of all positive
holiness ; and until he has formed a character either
good or bad, an object of the divine complacency and fa-
vour."— " He is by nature no more inclined to vice than
to virtue." — " In early life, we see no proofs of deprav-
ity, of malignity, of inclination to evil irK preference to
good." — " What I have stated I am persuaded is the gen-
eral character, until the disposition and tendency of na-
ture has been changed by education, example, and cir-
cumstances."— " I know not a single mark of early de-
pravity common to children in general, which n\ay not
be fairly traced to causes which imply no degree of de-
pravity, and no fault of character or disposition." — " No
man, I am persuaded, was ever led by personal observa-
tion and experience to the thought of an original deprav-
ity of human nature." — "Young children," (he means in
their natural state,) " are what men are to become by
regeneration." — " Those now born into the world in
christian lands, are, as the Ephesians were after their
conversion to Christianity, saved by the grace of God,
quickened, raised from the dead, made nigh by the blood of
Christ, fellow citizens with the saints, of the household of
God" — "All this language was applied to the Ephesians
universally after their conversion, and all of it is as ap-
plicable universally now to those who are Christians by
birth, as distinguished from those who are heathen by
birth."

The scheme more briefly is this. Man is born into
the world free from corruption of nature, or pro-
pensity to evil. We see no proofs of depravity in
childhood, no proofs of inclination to evil rather than
good. All who are now born into the world in Christian

lands are saints, saved by grace, as the converted Ephe-
sians were. Every mark of depravity common to child-
ren may be traced to causes which imply no depravity
at all. Even in the worst of men good feelings and
principles are predominant.

It may be useless for me to stop here to express the
astonishment that good men must generally feel, at such
a description of the human character. For myself, while
I have the Bible, and my own heart, and the world be-
fore my eyes, it is as impossible for me to admit the
truth of the system above stated, as the truth of a
system of philosophy which denies the principle of
gravitation ; and for the same reason.

Dr. Ware says he is persuaded, that " no man was ever
led by personal observation or experience to the thought
of an original depravity of human nature." I have no
doubt he has such a persuasion ; but it is a little
remarkable that he should have it, when by conversing
either with authors, or with living Christians, he might
so easily have discovered its contrariety to fact. Thou-
sands and millions of enlightened Christians have declar-
ed, and multitudes of them in writing, that personal ob-
servation and experience have led them to believe in
the moral depravation of man, or in his native propen-
sity to evil. They have said it when they have had no
motive to say it, but the strength of their own conviction.
They have said it in their most solemn devotions ; and
they have said it most frequently, and felt it most deep-
ly, when the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in
the face of Jesus Christ has shone in their hearts with the
greatest clearness. And I will add what has been re-
marked by many writers, that those who have most
carefully studied human nature, even among pagans, have
acknowledged, and that in very strong terms, an inward

depravation and corruption of man, rendering the mind
averse to good and inclining it to evil.

In reflecting on this subject, I am led to inquire how
it can be accounted for, that any man of sober judgment
should entertain such views respecting the human char-
acter. Now so far as reasoning is concerned, I am sat-
isfied, that the principal errour in the scheme of Unita-
rians and Pelagians generally, lies in this, that they judge
of man's character by a wrong standard. This contro-
versy respects man, not as an animal or intellectual be-
ing, nor as a member of domestic or civil society, but as
a subject of God's moral government. Viewed in this
light, he is required to conform to the moral law. This
is the only rule of duty, the only standard of right feel-
ing and right action. If we would know whether any
subject of God's moral government is holy or sinful, or
in what degree he is so, we must compare his moral
character with the divine law. So far as he is conform-
ed to that law, he is holy. So far as he is not conform-
ed, he is sinful. And as we are taught, that love to God
and love to man is the sum of what the law requires ;
it is perfectly safe, and often very convenient in our rea-
soning, to make use of this summary of the law, as stand-
ing for the whole. This then being our rule of judg-
ment, what will be our conclusion respecting the moral
character exhibited by human beings in early life ? Let
the inquiry relate to the first character they exhibit, as
moral agents ; so that we may not unnecessarily perplex
the subject, at the outset, by looking after the moral af-
fections or actions of men, either before they are moral
agents, or before the divine commands can be applied
to them. Is it the general character of men, that,
as soon as the divine law is declared to them, they are
disposed cordially to obey it ? We will not so shape

the inquiry, that it shall relate merely to exemption from
sin. The real question is, whether holy love to God
and man is the first moral affection which human be-
ings generally exercise, after they become moral agents
and are expressly informed what God requires of them.
Keeping this point distinctly in view, let us now proceed
to examine

The reasoning by which Dr. Ware supports his opin-
ion respecting the human character.

The reasoning of Dr. Ware on this subject is indeed
plausible, being founded upon those natural qualities of
the youthful mind, which are honoured with the names
of virtue, and universally regarded as amiable and use-
ful. He says, "innocence, simplicity, and purity are the
characteristics of early life." — " Veracity, kindness, good-
will, flow from the natural feelings." — "How early does
the infant discover affection, attachment, gratitude to
those from whom it receives kindness." These are
charming names, and I am very sensible that charming
qualities of human nature are denoted by them. And
charming too are the complexion and features of a
beautiful child, the sprightliness of its temper, and the
activity of its limbs. But do any or all of these consti-
tute conformity to the moral law ? Do they render a
child holy?

But Dr. Ware, with a view to consistency, will pro-
bably say, he does not mention the lovely qualities which
are characteristic of early life, as a proof of moral virtue,
or holiness, because the infant child has not yet actually
formed a character, either good or bad, and so is nei-
ther holy nor unholy. But although this would have an
appearance of consistency in one respect, it would, in
another respect, involve the writer in a great inconsis-
tency. For if this is his meaning how is it possible to
3

make his remarks, p. 26, apposite to his subject ? His
subject is man's moral character. He had just be-
fore been charging the Orthodox with giving an exagge-
rated description of human nature, inasmuch as they do
not take proper notice of what is " virtuous, and kind, and
amiable, and good ;" — words all denoting moral quali-
ties. After thus distinctly bringing forward his subject,
that is, human nature in respect to its moral qualities, he
says,"our most correct ideas of human nature will be drawn
from the characteristics of infancy, and the earliest indi-
cations of disposition, tendency, and character in the in-
fant mind." Forgetting what he ventures to say in
other places, that men by their natural birth receive no
moral character, and have none, before they are born
again, he here speaks of the indications of character in
the infant mind.

Let us give this language a fair examination, and see
whether any sense whatever that can be put upon it,
will make the writer who uses it consistent with him-
self.— -When he speaks of the indications of character in
the infant mind, I ask what character is meant ? Is it
the character which belongs to man, as a moral agent,
or in relation to a moral law ? Then it would seem the
infant mind has such a character, and that character
must be either good or bad, holy or unholy ; which
would be contrary to Dr. Ware's statements, p. 20, 41,
and elsewhere. But if he does not mean the moral
character of man, or his character as a moral agent ;
then his observations, p. 26, do not relate at all to the
subject of controversy. For the only point at issue is,
what is man's nature or character, as a moral agent,
and in relation to a moral law ? I ask then again, has
the infant really a character in this respect ? If so,
that character must be either holy or unholy ; and then

what becomes of Dr. Ware's favourite position, that in-
fants are both free from moral corruption and destitute
of holiness, and that they have no moral character,
either good or bad, before they are born again? On
the other hand, if it is a fact, as he maintains, that in-
fants have no moral character ; then the characteris-
tics of infancy which he enumerates, p. 26, can nowise re-
late to moral character, i. e. they can nowise relate to
the subject under consideration ; and so far as this sub-
ject is concerned, he might just as well ment:on a fair
complexion or beautiful countenance, as " innocence,
simplicity, and purity."

It may, however, be said, that " the characteristics
of infancy, and the earliest indications of disposition, ten-
dency, and character in the infant mind," though the in-
fant mind does not yet possess a moral character, may
still help us in some other way, to " correct ideas of hu-
man nature." Dr. Ware will not say that these charac-
teristics of infancy prove the nature of man to be holy by
proving that holiness really belongs to the infant's mind ;
for, as remarked before, this would be contrary to one
of his main points. How then does his reasoning stand ?
Does he mean to say, that those things, which are char-
acteristics of human nature at a period when moral
character does not exist, that is, that those properties of
infancy which cannot be indications of any moral charac-
ter at the time, are true indications of that moral charac-
ter which subsequently exists ? But this again would
involve his reasoning in difficulty, because, according to
his views, mankind after becoming moral agents, arc not
thus innocent, and pure, and free from inclination to sin.

But as I wish to do full justice to my opponent, and
as far possible to give to his words the very sense which
he meant to express, I must say, that his language and

his reasoning plainly imply, that human beings, at that
period of infancy to which he refers, do really possess a
moral character. What he has written in different pla-
ces, taken together, evidently show that this is his opin-
ion. He says, p. 26, " we draw our most correct ideas
of human nature from the characteristics of infancy, and
from the earliest indications of disposition, tendency, and
character in the infant mind." Among these character-
istics of infancy, he mentions " innocence, simplicity, and
purity ;" which he doubtless means we should under-
stand to be moral qualities. And a little below, after
speaking of an infant as an object of interest to those
about it, he asks, " Would it be so if it appeared to pos-
sess nothing good, and no tendency to good?" evident-
ly implying that it does possess something good. In an-
other place, he represents men as becoming " reasona-
ble, accountable beings, by their natural birth." If they
are accountable beings, they are moral agents, and must
have moral dispositions. He says too, still more plainly,
p. 31, that young children have a " good disposition;"
" that they are what men become by regeneration ;"
that they " are objects of the Saviour's complacency,"
and " proper objects of imitation." From these very
plain, unequivocal declarations of Dr. Ware I cannot
but infer what his real opinion is, namely, that by their
natural birth men become moral, accountable beings,
and have a moral disposition or character which is
good ; good or holy in such a sense, as to entitle them
to the Saviour's complacency, and make them heirs
of his kingdom. I am compelled to think this is the
position he would maintain, though in several places he
seems to slide away to another side of his system, and
asserts that men by nature have no moral character,
and are equally distant from holiness and from sin, and

equally without any natural tendency to one or the
other.

Before proceeding to a direct examination of Dr.
Ware's arguments in support of his opinion respecting
human nature, I will make one remark. If my position,
that men are by their birth morally corrupt is thought
to be absurd, on account of their being incapable, at
first, of possessing any character, good or bad ; the posi-
tion of Dr. Ware is in this respect equally absurd. For
if men, as they come into the world, — if infants, are ca-
pable of being "^mre," they are capable of being impure.
If they are capable of having a good disposition, or
i; tendency to good," they are capable of a bad disposi-
tion, or a tendency to evil. If they are capable of such
a character as will render them "objects of divine com-
placency," they are equally capable of such a charac-
ter as will render them objects of divine displeasure.
It is Dr. Ware's opinion, p. 21, that man is by nature as
capable of vice as of virtue. I should hope therefore
that neither he, nor any one who embraces his .opinions,
will ever again allege the incapacity of infants to be the
subjects of moral corruption, as an objection against the
doctrine of native depravity.

When I say that many plain and unequivocal decla-
rations of Dr. Ware and the general current of his rea-
soning prove that he believes man by nature the sub-
ject of real virtue or holiness, I would not willingly
oblige myself to show, that he has nowhere written any
thing contrary to this. For in commenting on John iii.
3, 6, he does indeed represent that " men receive by their
natural birth only human nature ; that they receive no
moral character, but only the faculties and powers in
the exercise of which a moral character is to be form-
ed ; and that the formation of a moral character, (he

does not say whether good or bad,) introduces them in-
to a new state of being, and may be called a new birth ;
and in p. 42, he seems to think the implication of the
passage is, " that men do not possess by birth that char-
acter of personal holiness, which is necessary to their
being Christians." It may be easier for Dr. Ware, than
for me, to reconcile these representations with the pas-
sages to which I have before referred.

Let us now see, by what particular arguments he
supports the opinion, that men are by nature not only
free from moral corruption, but inclined to virtue.

He first argues from the innocence, simplicity, and pu-
rity of early life, and from the veracity, kindness, good-will,
attachment and gratitude, which flow from the natural feel-
ings of children.

To guard against being imposed upon by names, let
us here inquire what is that innocence, simplicity, purity,
&c. which are in reality characteristic of the infant mind?

The word innocence, when applied to men in regard
to moral character, signifies freedom from moral defile-
ment, or guilt. But when applied to other things, it
commonly denotes that they are harmless, or free from
a tendency to do hurt. In this sense a dove and a lamb
are said to be innocent. If I mistake not, this is gener-
ally the meaning of the word, when applied to infant
children. It is in regard to this kind of innocence, that
they are so often compared to lambs and doves.

Simplicity, when applied to rational beings, properly
signifies artlessness, freedom from cunning or deceit.
Infants and young children may have simplicity in this
sense, merely because they are incapable of subtilty or
cunning, or because they have had no temptation to
learn any deceitful arts.

In what sense Dr. Ware uses the word purity it is

not easy for me to determine. If he uses it in that high
moral sense, in which our Saviour uses it when he says,
" blessed are the pure in heart," and so means to assert
as a general truth, that moral purity or holiness is a
characteristic of early life ; I would not repeat in my
reply what has already been suggested, as to the con-
trariety of this to other representations in his Letters ;
but would direct the reader's attention a moment to
the shape which his reasoning assumes.

He undertakes to prove the truth of a disputed doc-
trine respecting human nature ; i. e. that man is not the
subject of innate corruption ; and as a proof of this, he
urges the purity which characterizes early life. Now
if he uses the word purity as synonymous with holiness,
he is chargeable with begging the question. But if he
uses the word in an inferior sense, not including moral
purity or holiness ; then how can it prove that man is
not morally depraved ? But it may be he uses the word
merely to denote freedom from particular forms of vice
which show themselves in the world; or he may use it
comparatively, and mean only that children are not yet
tainted with those gross iniquities to which they are af-
terwards exposed. To either of these views of the sub-
ject we should fully agree.

And what are we to suppose Dr. Ware means by
the attachment, the kindness, the gratitude, which show
themselves in little children? Does he mean any thing
which has the nature of moral virtue or holiness? If so,
his reasoning is faulty in the same way as before. But
if he does not consider the attachment and gratitude,
which are characteristics of infancy, and which, accord-
ing to several passages in his Letters, precede the form-
ation of any moral character, as having a moral nature ;
then I think he must regard them much in the same

light, as he would those natural instincts, appetites and
passions, the existence and exercise of which are not at
all connected with moral character, and imply neither
holiness nor sin.

We see now how the argument stands, and are pre-
pared to examine how forcible and conclusive it is.
The abovementioned characteristics of the infant
mind are insisted upon, as a proof, and a most im-
portant proof, that man is by nature free from moral
depravity. I maintain, that they do not prove it.

I say, first, what several passages in Dr. Ware's Let-
ters will bear me out in saying, that none of " the char-
acteristics of infancy," none of those things which " flow
from the natural feelings," can, in reality, be of the na-
ture of moral virtue, and so none of them can make
known the moral disposition or character of the mind,
as the fruit makes known the tree. Take the inno-
cence, the attachment, the gratitude, and other obvious
characteristics of little children, just as they are. What
do they prove, as to moral character ? Nothing. They
neither prove the existence of holiness, nor freedom from
sin. If you would have conclusive evidence of this, look
at the numberless instances, in which characteristics of
the same nature, and often higher in degree, are found
actually to exist in those, who live in the violation of
the first and great command. Do we not often find
youth, especially in well educated families, possessed of
all those amiable qualities, which Dr. Ware mentions as
proofs of freedom from moral evil ? Do we not see a
sweetness and tenderness of disposition, which keep them
at the greatest distance from doing any thing to injure
a fellow creature ? And do we not see too either a
power of conscience, or a delicate sense of what is de-
cent and honourable, which leads them to abhor every

open vice ? This is called innocence. But is not inno-
cence of this sort often associated with forgetfulness of
God, and the neglect of all the peculiar duties of reli-
gion ? Let multitudes, blooming in all the attractive
loveliness of youthful innocence, measure their moral af-
fections and character by that holy law, in which God
asserts his rightful claims, requiring them to love him
with all the heart, and to worship him in spirit and in
truth ; and will they not find themselves guilty before
God, and be compelled to say, as the Apostle did, " I
was alive without the law once ; but when the com-
mandment came, sin revived, and I died ?" In the la-
mentable instances of this kind, which constantly occur,
we see that what is called youthful innocence actually
consists with that alienation of heart from God, which
is treated in the Scriptures, as the greatest of sins, and
indeed as the foundation and sum of all moral evil. How
then can Dr. Ware make it an evidence of freedom from
moral evil ? If it may consist with moral evil in youth, why
not in childhood ? But the argument is stronger than this.
If what is called innocence actually consists with a high
degree of moral evil in youth ; much more may it con-
sist with a smaller degree of the same in early child-
hood.

I reason in the same way respecting the other
characteristics of early life, mentioned by Dr. Ware.
How does the "simplicity" or artlessncss of children
prove, that they are not morally corrupt ? They may
be simple, unsuspicious, and artless, because they have
had no opportunities or temptations to become other-
wise. They may have what is sometimes denominated
purity ; that is, they may be free from the contamination
of those vices, which are stamped with a visible and dis-
graceful grossness, because they have not been expos-
4

ed to that contamination, or because a regard to
reputation, or the power of conscience has been a
salutary restraint; and yet divine truth may decide, that
*' they have not the love of God in their hearts." Nor
is that disposition to speak the truth, which appears in
children, any proof that they are free from depravity.
They may speak the truth, because it is the way to ob-
tain the gratification of their desires. When they are
hungry, they may speak the truth, and say, we are hun-
gry, because it is the way to get food. Whatever may
be their wants, they may speak the truth, and tell their
iriends what their wants are, because this is the way to
get a supply. We well know that honesty is the best
policy ; and children may begin to learn this, while very
young. But does speaking the truth from any such
principle prove that they are not depraved ? Dr. Ware
supplies us with a very satisfactory answer. " The great-
est liar," he says, "does by the constitution of his nature,
doubtless speak many truths to every lie he utters."
He is the greatest liar; and this surely is saying that he
is the subject of no ordinary degree of depravity. But
in perfect consistency with all this depravity, he finds
motives to speak many truths to one lie. Since then
there are so many motives to speak the truth in those
who are morally depraved, and since a prevailing habit
of speaking the truth does, in the case mentioned by
Dr. Ware, consist with that shocking degree of deprav-
ity which is found in the greatest liar; it is perfectly
plain, that merely speaking the truth can never prove
either men or children to be free from depravity.

" How early," says Dr. Ware, " does the infant dis-
cover affection, attachment, and gratitude to those from
Avhom it receives kindness!" If, as he thinks, this is an
evidence of freedom from sin in children, why not in

men ? But on this point, he who knew what was in man,
guards us against mistake. "If ye love them who love
you, what reward have ye ? Do not even the publicans
the same ?"

The amiable characteristics of early life are made
so important a topic of argument by Dr. Ware, that it
may be proper to follow him a little farther. What he
says p. 28, as to the original freedom of children from
cruelty, their tenderness, compassion &c. is, I doubt not,
generally correct. I allow, that children do not natural-
ly take pleasure in giving pain to insects, or any other
sensitive beings, and that, when they do mischief, it is
not generally from the love of mischief, as the real mo-
tive, but from the love of action and strong excitement,
or some other similar cause. But what does this prove,
as to the existence of depravity ? Men, as well as chil-
dren, and men who live without God, who disregard the
obligations of his law, and exhibit a character at the ut-
most distance from holiness, may still have no disposition
to cruelty, but may be tender, sympathetic, pitiful. But
can this prove that they are free from moral depravity?
No more than speaking the truth can prove " the greatest
liar" free from depravity.

In regard to all the particulars above noticed, the
plain truth is, that, in order to qualify human beings for
the state in which they are destined to live, and for the
relations they are to sustain, God has given them a va-
riety of natural appetites and natural affections, which,
though capable of being made auxiliaries to virtue, and
conducive to the ends of benevolence, have not, in them-
selves, any thing of the nature of holiness, but are per-
fectly distinct from it, and may be cultivated to a high
degree in those, in whom moral principle is prostrated.
The infidel may have them all ; and so may the man

who idolizes the world ; and so may the profane swear-
er, the duellist, and the ambitious conqueror. This is
the case with all the lovely characteristics of early life,
which Dr. Ware makes so prominent in his delineation
of human nature. Be it so that his delineation is
just, — that human beings in early life, and in many instan-
ces afterwards, do possess all the sweetness of the nat-
ural affections. It does not follow from this, that either
children or men are free from moral depravity. The
natural affections, which in a considerable degree show
themselves even in irrational animals, are indeed not on-
ly blameless, but amiable and useful ; and forever to be
admired is the wisdom and the goodness of that Being,
who has endued us with them. And any one who should
assert these natural affections to be any part of human
depravity, or any indication of a depraved nature, would
mistake as grossly, as if he should assert a man's senses
or limbs to be a part of depravity. But no less obvious
is the mistake of the man, who considers them as a proof
of freedom from depravity. They prove neither the
one nor the other. Their existence and operation, sim-
ply considered, are never made the subject of divine
legislation ; though the divine law directs how they are
to be used, and to what ends they are to be made sub-
servient. It is only in this last view, that they assume a
moral aspect.

The conclusion, to which I wish to conduct my rea-
ders on this subject, results directly, it will be observed,
from a matter of fact, with which we are familiarly ac-
quainted. We know by experience and observation,
that the natural affections, sympathies and instincts of
man really exist and are active in those who are morally
depraved. And although Scripture and observation
unite in teaching, that there are some forms or degrees

of moral evil, which generally destroy natural affection ;
it is obvious that other forms and degrees of it do not.
From the actual appearances of human nature, no one
could ever suppose, that the amiable qualities which
have been mentioned as belonging to men, whether old
or young, have any necessary connexion with moral
character. And certainly no one can suppose this, who
makes the divine law the standard of moral character.
What is called natural affection neither constitutes that
which the law requires, nor shows the absence of that
which it forbids.

I have dwelt so long upon this particular point, be-
cause it is in reality of great consequence, and because
it is one which has occasioned, and is still likely to occa-
sion a variety of mistakes, both theoretic and practi-
cal.

Dr. Ware remarks, p. 27, that children are general-
ly simple and unsuspicious, " until the disposition and
tendency of nature has been changed by education, ex-
ample, and circumstances." Now I very much doubt
whether the possession of a character opposite to the
simplicity and unsuspiciousness of children, implies any
essential " change in the disposition or tendency of na-
ture." Because it is easy enough to account for it, that
a child or youth, who is now simple and unsuspicious,
because he has not been versed in the subtle and impos-
ing arts of life, and has never been in circumstances which
have tempted him to learn those arts, and so has never
had the latent properties of his own nature brought in-
to action, or been exposed to suffering from the deceit
and wickedness of others, should afterwards become
artful and false in his practices, and suspicious in his
temper, without any radical change. The natural fac-
ulties and dispositions of the mind admit of an endless

variety of modifications. Difference of animal tempera-
ment and of external circumstances may originate innu-
merable differences in men's visible conduct, and in the
aspect of their character, while their intellectual facul-
ties and moral dispositions are substantially alike.

Secondly. Dr. Ware attempts to prove his doctrine
respecting human nature by the following argument ; p.
26. " How universally is the infant an object of inter-
est to those about it ! Would it be so, if it manifested
such tokens, as the Orthodox doctrine of depravity sup-
poses, of a disposition and tendency wholly directed to
evil, and appeared to possess nothing good, and no ten-
dencv to good?"

In replying to this reasoning, I would refer to the
representations, which Dr. Ware has repeatedly made,
of the state of infancy. He says, that men at first are
not the subjects of either moral good or evil, and have
no disposition to the one more than the other. And he
puts the same thing in a different form, when he says,
p. 41, " that men by their natural birth receive no mor-
al character, and have none before they are born
again." Now take children in the state in which Dr.
Ware here represents them to be; i. e. before they
have any moral character or any inclination to good or
evil. According to this representation, they really " ap-
pear to possess nothing good, and no tendency to good ;"
of course, if Dr. Ware reasons correctly, they cannot be
" the objects of interest to those about them."

But although this conclusion seems to follow from
our Author's remarks, taken together ; I am by no
means convinced of its correctness. Is there nothing in
children, viewed as subjects of depravity, which can ren-
der them objects of interest to those about them ? Does
it excite no interest in us, to look upon those who are

possessed of so many faculties, and so many engaging
characteristics, which may render them amiable and
usefel in human society ? But there is a subject of
higher interest still, which Dr. Ware, at the time of
writing p. 26, seems wholly to have overlooked. Little
children, though morally corrupt, have immortal souls,
and are capable of endless happiness, or misery. And
beside this, they are placed under a dispensation of
mercy, and may become children of God, and heirs of
his kingdom, " to the praise of the glory of his grace."
Are not these faculties, these circumstances, and these
prospects sufficient to render children interesting ob-
jects ? Nay, does not the very fact, that they are sub-
jects of moral corruption, and exposed to a state of irre-
coverable ruin, render them objects of a still deeper in-
terest ? Were not the unbelieving Jews, and the cor-
rupt, idolatrous gentiles interesting objects to an apos-
tle ? Is it not the very corruption, guilt, and wretched-
ness of unconverted sinners, that excites such compassion
towards them in the hearts of Christians ? And how
was it with our blessed Saviour ? Did not he feel a
most sincere, lively interest in those who were lost, and
because they were lost ? And have not men, dead in
trespasses and sins, been objects of the highest inter-
est to their merciful Creator ?

Thirdly. Another argument of Dr. Ware in sup-
port of his theory is thus stated. "The doctrine of de-
pravity is repulsive. The mind naturally revolts at it.
it seems at first, to all men universally, to be inconsistent
with the divine perfection. But the first impression is
made upon us by the nature which God has given us ;
and I think we should be slow to believe that a nature,
thus given to all, is intended to mislead, and actually
does mislead all, on so important a subject." p. 22.

Here let it be remembered, that the question in con-
troversy between the two parties, is, whether the first
moral feelings of man are right. The argument of Dr.
Ware, just stated, assumes that they are right, and so is
another instance of taking for granted the point in de-
bate. Admit the doctrine of depravity to be true, and
the fact of its being repulsive to the natural feelings of
men is easily accounted for, from the depravity itself. It
is surely no uncommon thing for the feelings of wicked
men to revolt at a faithful representation of the vileness
of their character, and the greatness of their ill-desert,
especially if that representation comes clothed with au-
thority. Those feelings, which render the doctrine of
man's sinfulness repulsive, are, in our apprehension, a
part of his sinfulness. If he has a spirit of pride and
self-complacency ; a doctrine, which tends to humble
pride, and to oppose the spirit of self-complacency, will
of course be repulsive. But this is not a solitary case.
The feelings of man revolt at the strict and holy de-
mands of the law. They equally revolt at the high re-
quisitions of the gospel. The feelings of a very amia-
ble youth revolted at the command of Christ, to " sell
all that he had and give to the poor." Was the fault in
the command, or in his feelings ? Does not the New Tes-
tament account for that disgust and enmity of man which
the Christian religion has to encounter, by the fact that
he is sinful ? And does not the self-righteous, self-ex-
alting spirit, which lurks in man's heart, manifestly tend
to give a repulsiveness to any doctrine, or any religion,
which shows his character despoiled of its moral beauty,
degraded and disgraced, and the object of God's disap-
probation ? How can we for a moment think, that
man's natural feelings are a proper test of what is true,
and of what is consistent with the perfections of God.

when the Bible constantly directs us to a test, so ex-
ceedingly different ? Let man be just what he is in his
natural, unrenewed state, and it becomes an insepara-
ble attribute of the religion of the cross, that it is of-
fensive,.

The circumstance that " the scheme of total moral
depravity, or of any original bias to evil rather than
good, is something different from what we should ex-
pect, and involves difficulty," is indeed, as Dr. Ware
says, " a reason for yielding our assent with caution, and
not without very satisfactory evidence." In this light
we have viewed it ; and, according to this maxim, we
have regulated our belief. The repulsivcness of the
doctrine of depravity, and the natural reluctance to re-
ceive it, which Dr. Ware justly states to be universal,
and which the Orthodox have probably felt as strongly
as others, would not surely have been overcome, as it
has been, by evidence of ordinary clearness.

Fourthly. Another argument, which Dr. Ware uses
in support of his scheme, is derived from " a general
view of the commands, precepts, exhortations, promises
and threatenings of religion, and from the whole history
of the divine dispensations to men." p. 29.

We begin with the three first. What then do the
divine commands, precepts, and exhortations show ?
They show what mankind ought to be, not what they are.
Can Dr. Ware really think, what his argument seems to
imply, that God's requiring men to be holy, proves that
they already are holy ? His commands undoubtedly
presuppose that those, to whom they are given, are
moral agents; of course, that they possess all the prop-
erties, which are necessary to constitute them proper
subjects of law. But is freedom from moral corruption
essential to moral agency ? If so, then as soon as men
5

become sinners, they cease to be moral agents. And if
they cease to be moral agents, they can be under no
moral obligation. How then can God with propriety
require them to repent, or in any respect to obey his
law ? And what shall we say to those commands and
exhortations of the Bible, which require men to be con-
verted, to repent, to wash themselves from sin? As it
is evident from the nature of these commands and ex-
hortations, that they cannot be enjoined upon any but
sinners ; and as Dr. Ware's argument implies that
sinners cannot properly receive them ; it would
seem, they ought to be blotted out. But if freedom
from sin is not essential to moral ajjencv ; in other
words, if every thing essential to moral agency is found
in those who are depraved ; and if nothing but what
is essential to moral agency is required, in order that
divine commands may be given to men ; then God's
giving such commands proves nothing one way or the
other, as to the existence of moral corruption. This, I
think, is a sufficient answer to the argument of Dr. Ware,
now under consideration, and to much of the reasoning
of Whitby and Taylor on the same subject.

Should any one here introduce the distinction which
Dr. Ware makes in another place, between men's be-
ing sinners, and their making themselves sinners ; between
the character born with them, and that which is acquir-
ed; I should endeavour to make it appear, that the dis-
tinction has no concern with this subject. Sin is always
of the same nature ; and at whatever time, and in what-
ever instances it exists, it neither destroys nor weakens
the obligation of the divine commands. And this is the
same as saying, that divine commands may be given to
man, and may be obligatory upon him, notwithstanding
his native depravity. And if so, then their being actu-

ally given cannot afford any argument against native de-
pravity. If sin exists in any moral agent, it must have
had a beginning. But whether it began at one time or
another, is not a circumstance which affects its nature.
Suppose it began to exist at a period after the com-
mencement of moral agency ; it must have consisted
radically in a wrong disposition or affection of heart. If
an outward act is sinful, it is sinful because it is the expres-
sion or effect of that wrong disposition. Suppose now that
moral evil began to exist at the very commencement of
moral agency ; still it must have consisted precisely in
the same thing, that is, in a sinful affection or disposition.
In this respect there is no difference. Do you say that,
in the last case, the supposed disposition or affection
could not have been really sinful, because there was no
preceding exercise of moral agency which could be its
cause? I answer, the same is true, in case moral evil is
supposed to begin at any subsequent period. It is per-
fectly clear, that the first sinful affection or disposition
cannot be consequent upon any preceding act of moral
agency, as its proper cause, unless a right act can be the
cause of a wrong one ; or unless there can be a sinful
act before the first sinful act, and that sinful act, which is
before the first, can be the cause of the first. But it
surely needs no proof, that all the exercises of moral
agency, which precede the first existence of moral evil,
must be right. Whether therefore the beginning of sin-
ful affection is coeval with the beginning of moral agencv,
or not, it cannot be derived from any faulty exercise of
moral agency, which preceded. But if by men's making
themselves sinners, Dr. Ware means that they first be-
come sinners by an act or exercise of theirs which pre-
cedes their being sinful, and which of course cannot
be sinful itself; this is the same as holding, that the first

existence of sin in man is derived from a sinless exercise,
as its cause. But who ever entertained so absurd an
opinion as this ?

But if by men's making themselves sinners, or be-
coming sinners, Dr. Ware only means that, when they
begin to sin, they exercise their intellectual and moral
powers, free from coercion ; or that the particular sins
they commit are voluntary, and that their sinful affec-
tions are, in the most proper and perfect sense, their own ;
then I say, this is all true of those who begin to be sin-
ners, when they first begin to be moral agents. The
supposition then of sin's commencing so early, is no more
inconsistent with the commands of God, than the suppo-
sition of its commencing subsequently.

Let me say also; that the distinction, above referred
to, between what is native or original in moral agents,
and what is acquired, is one with which an unbiassed
conscience is not likely to give itself any concern. Sure
I am, that the divine law has nothing to do with it. The
law requires moral agents to love God and man, that
is, to be holy. If they are destitute of the holy affec-
tion required, whether at the commencement of their
moral agency, or afterwards, the law regards them as
transgressors. Conscience regards them in the same
light. If I look into my heart, and find that I have
had a disposition or affection contrary to what the
law requires, my conscience condemns me for it. If
I have had that sinful disposition for a long time,
I feel myself to be so much the more criminal. And
if I began to exercise that disposition as soon as I
began to be a moral agent, and have exercised it ever
since, I must be regarded by myself, and by others,
as criminal in a very high degree. Present before a
court of justice, and before the world, a man, who has

always shown a lying, malicious, thievish disposition, from
the time when he was first capable of showing any dis-
position ; would he not be regarded with deep abhor-
rence, and sentenced with unsparing severity ? It is evi-
dent then, that common sense, not trammelled by false
reasoning, unites with the word of God in condemning
sinful affection, whatever may be the date of its origin.
Whether it is the first affection of moral agents, or has
its commencement afterwards, it is equally their own.
In either case, they are free and unconstrained in exer-
cising it, and possess every thing necessary to render
them proper subjects of law, and capable of obedience.

This is a subject on which most writers of the Ar-
minian school have, in my apprehension, fallen into a
variety of palpable mistakes. And their mistakes, so far
as I am able to judge, have arisen from a wrong notion
of moral agency ; and their wrong notion of moral agen-
cy, from their not attending, with sufficient care, to the
properties which the mind actually exhibits, and the
laws according to which its operations are, and always
must be regulated.

Dr. Ware argues against the doctrine of native de-
pravity, from "the promises and threatenings of religion."
But what do these prove ? If God promises eternal life
to those who obey the law, or to those who repent, and
believe the gospel, and threatens destruction to those
who do not ; does this prove that men are by nature
free from moral depravity ? Are not such promises and
threats just and proper in relation to those who are nat-
urally depraved? If not, it must be because natural de-
pravity destroys moral agency. But we have seen
above, that if depravity, beginning at any time, is con-
sistent with moral agency ; it is so, if it begins when
moral agency begins. And if depravity, beginning so

early, may be consistent with moral agency ; why may
it not be consistent with " the promises and threatening^
of religion ?"

The last particular to be noticed under this head is,
" the whole history of divine dispensations to men."
This, our Author thinks, is an argument against the Or-
thodox doctrine of depravity. I presume he means the
history of God's goodness. The argument then would
be, that God could not be supposed to show such kind-
ness to men, if they were naturally depraved. But this ar-
gument is at once confuted by the representations of Scrip-
ture. " God maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on
the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the un-
just." Christ represents this as a prominent feature of
the divine administration. God is a kind Father, a be-
ing of infinite grace, and bestows favours which are
wholly undeserved. Plainly then the divine dispensa-
tions in the present state, how kind and beneficial soev-
er they may be, cannot be urged as a proof, that men are
" naturally innocent and pure."

Fifthly. Dr. Ware alludes " to a great number of par-
ticulars," mentioned in the Scriptures, " each of which
separately," as he thinks, "seems to imply that mankind
come into the world innocent and pure, the objects of
the complacency of their Creator." p. 29, 30. He in-
stances only in one, but that alone is, in his opinion, deci-
sive of the question. He refers to the manner in which
little children are spoken of by our Saviour, and by the
Apostle. Matt. xix. 11. " Suffer little children to come
unto me — for of such is the kingdom of heaven."
"These," he says, "seem to have been infants, or at
least very small children." And he adds ; " There is not
the slightest intimation, that these children had become
the subjects of any great moral change." Then comes

his conclusion. " But if they were depraved, destitute
of holiness, &c. could our Saviour declare respecting
them, " of such is the kingdom of God?"

It will doubtless occur to Dr. Ware, on a review of
his Letters, that there is an appearance of a small in-
consistency between this passage and some others. He
tells us here, that infants, or very small children, belong
to the kingdom of God, without "becoming the subjects
of any great moral change;" and just below it is impli-
ed in his reasoning, that they arc not " destitute of holi-
ness." But in p. 20, he describes man in infancy as
" destitute of all positive holiness." And p. 41, 42,
he represents men by nature as "wanting that per-
sonal holiness which is necessary to their becoming
members of the kingdom of God," and as need-
ing " a great moral change — in order to their being fit
members of that, kingdom." Here, infants are destitute
of personal holiness, and cannot belong to the kingdom
of God without a great moral change ; but there, they
belong to the kingdom of God as they come into the
world, without that moral change.

Let us now return to the reasoning of Dr. Ware from
Matt. xix. 14. The question, which contains the point
of his argument, is this : " If the children who were
brought to our Saviour, were depraved, how could he
declare respecting them, of such is the kingdom of
God?" I answer, the kingdom of God consists, and will
forever consist of those, who have been sinners. All
the members of that kingdom will unite in the song ;
" Unto him who loved us and washed us from our sins
in his own blood — be glory and dominion forever." So
that their belonging, and being destined to belong to
Christ's kingdom, proves nothing as to their native char-
acter, except that it was such as to need spiritual wash-

ing, or a " great moral change." It is a complaint of the
Pharisees, that Christ receives sinners ; and he declares
it to be the great purpose of his coming into the world
to seek and to save that which was lost ; to call sinners
to repentance, and gather them into his kingdom. He is
a Saviour from sin. We have no intimation of his beins:
a Saviour of any except sinners. His whole office, as a
Saviour, relates to sinners, — to sinners exclusively. How
then does the fact, that any persons, whether old or
young, belong to his kingdom, prove that they are not
by nature depraved, or that they are without sin ?
Christ gave it as a reason, why little children should
come, or be brought to him, that they belonged, or
would belong to his kingdom. Now this reason was cer-
tainly as strong, if they were depraved and sinful, as if
they were innocent and pure. Their being sinful placed
them upon the same general footing with all others, who
are invited to coma to Christ as a Saviour. If, because
they belonged to the kingdom of God, we conclude their
nature was free from the pollution of sin, we must make
the same conclusion respecting the nature of others who
belong to that kingdom. And this perhaps we might do,
had not the Bible informed us of whom the kingdom
will consist.

Thus far I have admitted the passage to signify, that
the children themselves belonged to the kingdom of God;
But Rosenmuller, and many others, understand it as teach-
ing, that the members of Christ's kingdom must be like
little children, and so put it in the same class with the
other texts, quoted by Dr. Ware ; Mark x. 14. 1 Cor.
xiv. 29. " Unless ye be converted and become as little
children, ye cannot enter into the kingdom of God." —
" In malice be ye children."

We well know it to have been the practice of the

Prophets and Apostles, and especially of Christ, to make
use of those objects, with which they were familiar, and
often those which were present, to illustrate the divine
perfections, the character and duty of men, and the gen-
eral truths of religion ; which is only saying, that in their
religious instructions they used familiar metaphors, simi-
les, and comparisons. And it is an acknowledged prin-
ciple of figurative language, that the object, from which
a metaphor or simile is drawn, may not, in its own na-
ture, or principal attributes, truly and exactly resemble
that which is meant to be illustrated by it. The resem-
blance may respect any one of the properties or circum-
stances of that object, without the least reference to
others. In the texts above quoted, Christians are lik-
ened to little children. But can we infer from this,
that children possess any moral excellence or goodness,
like that excellence or goodness of Christians, which
is meant to be set forth by the comparison? Chris-
tians are also likened to sheep, lambs, doves. But do
sheep, lambs, and doves possess moral excellence ? Sup-
pose I should say, that the texts, which represent
Christians as being like sheep, lambs, and doves, "most
clearly imply, until turned from their obvious meaning,"
that those animals " are objects of the Saviour's com-
placency and affection," and are " what men become by
regeneration." Would not this argument be as conclu-
sive, as Dr. Ware's ? If he can infer the moral purity of
little children, from the circumstance, that Christians are
compared to them ; I can infer the moral purity of lambs
and doves from the same circumstance. To make this
subject still clearer, look at the texts which represent the
disciples of Christ as salt, light, and the branches of a
vine. Do these texts imply that salt, light, or the branch-
' - of a vine, have any moral qualities like those, which
6

these metaphors represent as belonging to Christ's dis-
ciples ? Look at another case. Christ directs his Apos-
tles to be not only as harmless as doves, but wise as ser-
pents. Does the direction imply that serpents have any
moral or intellectual qualities, like what he would see in
his disciples ? Even the wisdom of the serpent, — what
is it but a mischievous subtilty, which we regard with
abhorrence and dread, and which, in its nature and ef-
fects, is most unlike the wisdom from above ? But there
is a stronger case. Christ described to his disciples the
conduct of an unjust steward, who, from regard to his
own interest, altered his master's accounts, and wickedly
released his debtors from part of their obligations. This
conduct of the steward Christ held up, as a proper ob-
ject of imitation ; that is, he represented the conduct
which his disciples ought to pursue, as being like the con-
duct of a steward, chargeable with unjust and fraudulent
practices. If it were necessary to go any farther, I would
recite the passage, in which God is likened to an unjust
judge, who, though destitute of humanity, was influenc-
ed by the wearisome importunity of a poor widow, to
grant her the assistance she craved.

Now what is the natural conclusion from these, and
other instances of metaphors, similes, and comparisons,
but this ; that, in illustrating the truths of religion, the
inspired writers lay hold on any object in the physical,
animal, civil, or intellectual world, or any thing else, which
is suited to the purpose of illustration ; that the partic-
ular object from which a metaphor is taken, may not,
in its nature or principal attributes, resemble that
which is to be illustrated by it ; and that it is sufficient,
if there is any one apparent attribute, relation, or cir-
cumstance, which may serve as a foundation for the met-
aphor, though all the other attributes of the object are

such, that they must be set aside, as utterly incompati-
ble with the design of the metaphor. The properties
or circumstances of any natural object may be made use
of to illustrate things of a moral nature. For example ;
wicked men are represented in Scripture as being like
barren trees, dogs, swine, and serpents. Now from the
nature of the discourse, common sense always determines
what is the particular property, relation, or circumstance,
which is the ground of the comparison ; as in the instan-
ces just mentioned; we easily perceive what it is in bar-
ren trees, in dogs, swine, and serpents, which is suited to
illustrate the character of wicked men. Who ever sup-
posed that, because these figures imply a likeness of
some sort between the wicked men and the things by
which they are represented, therefore, those things
have a moral nature like the moral nature of Christians ?
There is indeed something in barren trees, dogs, swine,
and serpents, which aptly sets forth the character of the
wicked ; and this is all that is meant by the figures. So
in the case above mentioned, in which Christians are
likened to sheep and doves. The mildness and harm-
lessness of those animals aptly illustrate those proper-
ties in Christians, which are expressed by the same names;
though the former are merely natural or animal prop-
erties ; the latter, moral, or spiritual. The same re-
marks apply to those texts which represent Christians
under the similitude of salt, light, and the branches ol a
vine. There is something in the useful qualities of salt
and light, to which the useful character or influence of
Christians may fitly be compared ; and there is sonic-
thing in the dependence of the branches upon the vine,
which fitly represents the dependence of Christians upon
their Saviour. Nor is the illustration in these cases any
the less striking or just, because salt, light, and the branch-

es of a vine, have only a physical nature, while the char-
acter of Christians, which is likened to them, is moral or
spiritual. Once more. Christians are represented as
pilgrims, soldiers, and conquerors. But did anv man ev-
er interpret these figures as implying, that pilgrims, sol-
diers, and conquerors are free from moral evil, and re-
semble Christians in moral purity ? These last instan-
ces show that there may be something even in depraved
human beings, on account of which Christians may be
likened to them.

Now if such is the principle, which must govern
us in the interpretation of all figurative language ; how
utterly void of force is the favourite argument of Dr.
Ware from the texts above recited ? Because it is
said that, in order to be Christians and enter into the
kingdom of heaven, we must become as little children,
he argues that children have a moral virtue or good-
ness of the same nature with the holiness of Chris-
tians. Suppose now that our Saviour had taken a
lamb, instead of a child, and had set the harmless,
lovely creature in the midst of his disciples, and told
them, they must become like that lamb; would it
have implied that the lamb had moral goodness, and
was " what men become by regeneration ?" The plain
truth is, that the amiable natural qualities, which dis-
tinguish little children, and which, as we have seen,
are perfectly consistent with the existence of depravi-
ty, are made use of to illustrate the amiable moral
qualities which ought to belong to Christians. "The
text 1 Cor. xiv. 20, is to receive the same construction.
Christians are exhorted to show in their conduct a
harmlessness and kindness like that, which is charac-
teristic of children. The natural qualities of children
are made to represent the moral virtues of Chris-

tians ; precisely on the same principle, that the kind
and tender care, which the hen extends towards her
young, is made to illustrate the tender mercy of Christ
towards sinners.

We have now attended to the chief arguments
which Dr. Ware has offered, as the support of his
theory of human nature. The reader, after a thorough
examination, will judge whether they are conclusive,
and to what they really amount.

CHAPTER II.

In the foregoing chapter, I have made it appear,
as I think, that those amiable qualities, which are,
really characteristic of early life, and which Dr. Ware
has mentioned as indications of moral purity, are in
fact of such a nature, that they may consist, and in
subsequent life often do consist with depravity, and
so cannot afford any argument at all against the com-
mon Orthodox doctrine.

But why does Dr. Ware, in his attempt to show
what human nature is, confine his attention to a part
of those things which are characteristics of early life ?
How can he think it just, to dwell upon those things
only, which are amiable and attractive, while he gives
no weight to those of a contrary character ? Why es-
pecially, docs he make such an effort to explain all
the appearances of folly and corruption in the youthful
mind in such a manner, as to give no support to the
common doctrine of the Christian church ? Does he
find in this no evidence of being warped by a favourite
theory ? He is " persuaded," as has been noticed be-

fore, " that no man was ever led by personal observa-
tion and experience to the thought of an original corrup-
tion of human nature." But how happens it that he
has this persuasion, when the well known fact is, that
sober, thinking men through the Christian world have
generally been led by observation and experience, not
only to think of an original depravity, but to believe it?
I shall here give the testimony of a man, who had no
tinge of melancholy or superstition, and who was as lit-
tle inclined to judge severely or uncandidly on this sub-
ject, as any man living. " I have been employed," he
says, " in the education of children and youth more than
thirty years, and have watched their conduct with no
small attention and anxiety. Yet among the thousands
of children, committed to my care, 1 cannot say with
truth, that I have seen one, whose native character I
had any reason to believe to be virtuous ; or whom I
could conscientiously pronounce to be free from the evil
attributes mentioned above ;" that is, disobedience, re-
venge, selfishness, &c* But I do not give this as the
opinion of a single man. I hesitate not to say, that it
has been the opinion of a great majority of enlightened
Christians in all ages and countries. And mi^ht not Dr.
Ware have found various passages of Scripture which
announce the very truth I contend for? Might he
not have found a man of no less observation and
judgment, than Solomon, declaring it as a general truth,
that, " foolishness is bound in the heart of a child ?"
Might he not have found that David's experience
led him to the thought of an original, native de-
pravity, when he made it a part of his humble. confes-
sion before God ; " Behold I was shapen in iniquity, and
in sin did my mother conceive me ?" Might he not

* Dr. Dwight's Theology, Vol. 2, p. 28.

have found that Job's observation or experience led him
to the thought of original depravity, when he said,
" Who can bring a clean thing out of an unclean?" and,
" How can he be clean that is born of a woman ?" And
might he not have found God himself declaring, direct-
ly, in his own name, that " the imagination of man's
heart is evil from his youth ?"

I have the unhappiness to differ entirely from Dr.
Ware on this point, and am persuaded that no man, who
is careful to make the law of God his rule of judgment,
can avoid the conclusion above expressed. For just
consider what are the real characteristics of childhood
and youth, in relation to that law. I ask not now what
are those amiable affections or instincts, which belong
to domestic and social relations ; but what are the mor-
al characteristics of children ; — not what we should sup-
pose they must be, from the views we have entertained
of God; but what they are in fact. What are the
real feelings and actions of children in regard to God's
holy law ? Begin the examination of childhood at an
early period. Begin at the period when moral agency
begins ; and suppose moral agency begins earlier or lat-
er, as you please ; and inquire for the disposition which
children manifest, in respect to the divine commands.
Do they show a heart to love God, supremely,
when they are two or three years old ? Is it said,
they are not generally capable, at that age, of having
any correct knowledge of God, or of their duty, and
so are not capable of loving him ? Take then a
later period. Follow them to the age of four, or five
years, to six, or ten, till they have been instructed in re-
ligion, and are capable of loving and worshipping God.
Do they generally show a disposition to love and wor-
ship God then? When they first begin, by visible con-

duct, to exhibit the temper of their minds, as subjects
of the divine law ; do they show signs of cheerful, holy
obedience ? Does the observation of Christian parents
and ministers teach them any thing like this ? Does not
their observation rather confirm the truth of what the
scriptures declare, as quoted above? Was there ever
a man, who laboured in earnest to teach children the
things of religion, and to induce them to keep the divine
commands, who did not find their inclinations mighty ob-
stacles to his success? If children were uncorrupt and
pure, they would, as soon as capable, show the proper
signs of holiness. Children who are renewed early in
life, manifest a desire after God, hatred and dread of
sin, and delight in duty. But do not children in general
show, at every period of childhood, that they have not
the love of God in them ; that they dislike the duties of
religion, and choose the ways of sin ? You may set be-
fore them the most serious and tender considerations,
and may succeed so far, as in some measure to gain their
attention, and rouse their conscience. But you will find
that their heart has a bias towards the pleasures of sin,
which no consideration of duty or of happiness can over-
come. With those who judge themselves by the law
of God, is not this a matter of fact, a truth written as
with a sun-beam ? The earliest period of childhood, to
which their memory can extend, furnishes to their own
minds abundant evidence of a disinclination to the du-
ties and pleasures of religion, and a relish for the pleas-
ures of sin. What is moral depravity, if this is not? I
do not say that depravity, at first, exists in the high-
est degree, and that children are at once ripe for the
most atrocious deeds. I do not say that children are
inclined to lie merely for the sake of lying, without any
temptation. They may speak many truths to one false-

hood, as " the greatest liars" may. But we expect
great liars will speak falsehood, when they have occa-
sion to do it. Their telling lies now and then, when
they have some bad ends to answer, may, as appears
from the case which Dr. Ware mentions, render them
highly criminal. So with children. They may
generally be disposed, in the simplicity of their
hearts, to speak the truth. But has not every one
who has had the care of little children, found them
inclined to lie when tempted to it ? Does it not
require unremitting care and every possible effort, to
guard them against the practice of lying, whenever they
think it the way to exculpate themselves, or to secure
any favourite gratification ? And when a habit of lying
is once formed in children, is it not found to be extreme-
ly difficult to correct it ? The same might be said as
to other tendencies of the youthful mind. When every
thing goes smoothly with children, and all their wishes
are gratified, they may exhibit a disposition quite pleas-
ant and friendly. So may persons arrived at manhood,
though really possessed of a contrary disposition. But
how is it with little children, when their wishes are
crossed, and when they are subjected to suffering ? How
is it, when they are flattered, and when they are slight-
ed? Do they not very early show signs of the same
temper of mind, which we see exhibited in active life by
the proud, the envious, the selfish, the wrathful, and the
revengeful ? In short, if we find any thing in mankind
at large, which furnishes proof of depravity ; we find it
in little children; not indeed in the same form, or degree j
for they are not capable of this. But we find what
is of the same nature. And even as to form or degree;
do not the pride, the selfishness, the illwill, the revenge,

exhibited by little children, resemble the same evil pas-
sions in a man, as much as their bodies or their minds
resemble his? They have the understanding, the
bodily strength, the features, and all the attributes
of a man, though in miniature. And who that watches
the character of children, with the eye of a Christian
or a philosopher, can have the least doubt, that they
possess, in a correspondent degree, all the moral attri-
butes, and especially the moral corruptions, which ap-
pear a mong men ? As soon as they are capable, they show
these corruptions by intelligible outward signs. And they
show them in a manner perfectly agreeable to the state
and circumstances of childhood. True, they do not show
them as soon as they are born. Nor do they show a ra-
tional mind, as soon as they are born. And yet who
ever doubted that children naturally possess a rational
mind? Dr. Ware says that, "by their birth men
become reasonable, accountable beings." But does
a child actually show reason, as soon as he is born ? And
would Dr. Ware consider a child really accountable, as
soon as he is born ? But reason and accountableness
universally belong to mankind ; and children begin early
to show signs of being reasonable and accountable beings,
and exhibit more and more evidence of it, till they come
to the understanding of a man. Now I refer it to im-
partial observers, to judge, whether children do not ex-
hibit as clear signs of moral evil, as they do of reason ;
and whether they do not begin to exhibit these signs as
early as could be expected, allowing moral evil to be a
native property of their minds? Although they are by
nature depraved ; still, in order that their depravity
may be visibly acted out, they must not only be capable
of showing it by pufward signs, but must have occasion
thus to show it. Now as soon as children have ability and

occasion to show their dispositions, they generally exhib-
it as clear evidence of initial depravity, as of intelligence.
The occasion may not be constant, nor very frequent ;
any more than the occasion tor actual falsehood among
"the greatest liars." But this circumstance does not in
either case affect the clearness of the evidence.

CHAPTER III.

Whether human depravity can in any proper sense
be called native, innate, natural, or hereditary, is a ques-
tion, which seems to call for more particular discussion.
There are many pretences against the common doctrine,
which ought to be exposed, and some difficulties attend-
ing it which ought, if possible, to be cleared away. Dr.
Ware allows that " all men are sinners," but says, they
are so by habit, not by nature. All the wickedness of
man is, in his view, perfectly consistent with his coming
into being, innocent and pure. With a view to what he
and others have advanced in opposition to the doctrine
of native depravity, and to present the doctrine to oth-
ers precisely in the light in which it has presented itself
to my own mind, I shall allow myself in the free discus,
sion which follows.

My first inquiry respects the proper meaning and
use of the words and phrases commonly employed in
stating the doctrine ; such as native, innate, natural, born
with a depraved nature, &c. To satisfy myself on this
subject, I take a number of examples, in which the
words and phrases are employed with undoubted pro-
priety.

First example. Man has a natural disposition to so-
ciety : or he has by nature a propensity to social life ; or
he naturally possesses a social principle, or is naturally
formed for society. Such phrases are frequent ; nor
did I ever hear any objection against them. But what
is the fact which these phrases denote ? Do children
actually show a social principle, as soon as they are
born? Do they immediately give visible signs of social
affection, or of that propensity which is the foundation
of domestic and civil society? Is it not a long time, be-
fore they become capable of expressing or exercising the
social principle? What then do we mean by its being
natural to man, or his having it by nature, but that man
is born with such a constitution, or in such a state, that if
he is not turned aside from the real bent of his nature?
he certainly will be a social being, or will be actually in-
clined to live in society ; in other words, that his being
deposed to choose society, rather than solitude, results
directly from the original constitution or tendency of his
mind? If he choose a hermitage, he does violence to his
nature ; he shows that there has been some jar in his
constitution, some unnatural shock to his temper.

Second example. Man is naturally pitiful. He is born
with a principle of sympathy, or compassion ; or pity is
one of the natural, original principles of the human
heart. These expressions, which are in common use, do
not mean that pity begins to show itself, or even to be
distinctly exercised, as soon as man is born ; but that it
uniformly results from his original constitution ; that it is
the certain consequence of the state in which he is born,
or the temper of mind which he possesses by his birth ;
and that, in every case, it will in due time show itself,
unless his nature is perverted.

As a third example, I would mention what is com-

inonly called natural affection ; by which is intended par
ticularly the affection of parents for their offspring.
Man is born with such a nature, or has such a tendency
in his constitution, that, as soon as the relation exists, he
feels the affection. However distant from his birth the
time when it is first distinctly felt and acted out ; it is
called natural, because with such a nature or constitu-
tion as his, unbroken and unperverted, he will certain-
ly feel the affection, whenever he comes into the rela-
tion. The affection implies no refinement upon his na-
ture. It rises naturally or spontaneously, like the affec-
tion which irrational animals show for their young.

Fourth example. We speak of a man as having an
original strength of mind, or liveliness of imagination,
supcriour to what others possess. This might not
appear for many years. But it is at length evident,
that the difference cannot be accounted for by difference
of culture, and so must arise from difference of original
constitution. On this account we call it native superiority.
We say, a man was born a king, or was born a command-
er ; because uniformly, from early life, he showed marks
of an elevated character, or qualities which fitted him to
command. We consider those qualities natural, because
it is plain, that they are no more owing to his educa-
tion, than the features of his countenance ; which may
perhaps indicate, as clearly as the qualities of his mind,
his high destination. Of another we say, that he was
born an idiot; that he had an original want of under-
standing, or a natural defect in the structure of his mind ;
because his idiotism cannot be traced to any calamity
which has befallen him since his birth, but is manifestly
owing to the constitution of mind, with which he was
born. In this case, we say his mental imbecility was

natural to him ; though there might have been a con-
siderable time after his birth, before it appeared.

Thus too we say of Handel, that he had a native or
inborn taste for music, or that he was born a musician ;
because he showed that taste very early, and no influ-
ence of education or example could account for the dif-
ference, which existed between him and other men, in
this respect. Milton, we say, had a native sublimity of
mind and fruitfulness of invention, which qualified him to
be a distinguished poet.

Fifth example. We sometimes say of a bodily dis-
ease, that it is native, or that it was born with a man ; be-
cause it appears manifestly to result from the original con-
stitution of his body, though the disease did not show itself
for many years. It is often said, a man was born with a
consumptive constitution, or with a state of body which
tended to a consumption; and it is deemed a matter of
great importance in the medical art, to discover when
this is the case.

If another example were necessary, I might notice
the manner in which we apply the words and phrases,
now under consideration, to irrational animals ; as when
we say, it is natural for serpents to bite ; it is the nature
of birds, to fly; of lions, to be carniverous ; of fishes, to
swim. But the illustration has been pursued far enough
to answer the purpose intended.

I would not however proceed, without inquiring a
little into the use of the word hereditary, in relation to
these subjects. It is obviously suitable to speak of par-
ticular properties of mind and of body as hereditary, when
they can most satisfactorily be accounted for on the com-
mon principle of a likeness between parents and children;
There is a general resemblance which a child bears to
his parents, as belonging to the same species 5 and a par-

ticular resemblance which he bears to them, as individu-
als. Observation shows that, in regard to the faculties
and dispositions of the mind, as well as the structure
of the body, parents universally transmit to their offspring
a general resemblance, and frequently, a particular, indi-
vidual resemblance. With respect to each of these, what
is more common than to say, that children inherit it, or
derive it from their parents ? Diseases are said to be
hereditary in certain families, where they are observed
to descend from generation to generation, and where, at
the same time, they evidently result from something
originally belonging to the constitution. There is, for
example, an hereditary blindness and deafness ; an he-
reditary firmness or weakness of bodily constitution ; an
hereditary strength or imbecility of mind. A man in-
herits a slowness or quickness of imagination, a quietness
or irritability of temper, &c. Wherever there is an ob-
vious resemblance between children and their parents
with respect to any properties of body or mind, espe-
cially if that resemblance has been the same for many
generations, and is most easily accounted for on the com-
mon principle, that children bear the likeness of their
parents ; we hesitate not to say, those properties are
hereditary. And some respectable writers have been
led by the particular opinions they have held on the
subject, to speak of piety in the same manner. Southey
says, "Talents of no ordinary kind, as well as a devotion-
al temper, were hereditary in the family of the Wesleys."
I mention it merely to show in what sense the word is
used.

Let us now bring this train of remarks to bear di-
rectly upon the subject of investigation. Here we are
to inquire, whether the circumstances, which lead us to
apply the words natural, native, innate, and hereditary, to

such bodily and mental properties, as those above men-
tioned, do in fact belong to the moral depravity or sin-
fulness of man. We should pursue this inquiry with
special care, because the result must be of great conse-
quence in settling the present controversy.

I say then, that moral depravity is a thing which has
been found in the human species from generation to gen-
eration. There never has been a single exception in
any age. Dr. Ware mentions it as a truth which no one
will deny, that all men are sinners. This is not a general,
but an universal truth. Every child of Adam has sin-
ned. Moral depravity is as universal as reason, or mem-
ory, or social affection, or pity, or any of the bodily ap-
petites. We can as easily find a man without any of
these, as without sin. So far then as the universality or
constant occurrence of the fact is concerned, there is as
much propriety in saying, that moral depravity is natur-
al to man, as that the faculty of reason, or any bodily ap-
petite is.

Another circumstance, which justifies us in applying
the epithets innate, natural &c. to human depravity, is,
that it shows itself very early. We are indeed incapable
of looking into the mind of an infant, and seeing the first
emotions of moral evil. It is impossible that our mem-
ory should go back to what took place in our own mindsf
during our infancy. Nor can we have any definite
knowledge of what takes place in the minds of others in
infancy ; because they are unable to exhibit those intel-
ligible signs, which are to us the only medium of access
to the mind. But among the earliest things, which our
memory can recal in ourselves, or which we are able to
observe in others, are the indications and incipient exer-
cises of sinful affection. Now if, as far back as our re-
collection can go in regard to ourselves, or our observa-

lion in regard to others, we uniformly find marks of mor-
al evil ; is it not reasonable to think it may exist be-
fore ? and that we should he perfectly satisfied of its
earlier existence, if we could, in any way, trace back to
an earlier period, the operations of our own minds, or if
children at an earlier period could, by any intelligible
signs, indicate to us the moral state of their minds ? In
order that any affection may show itself by outward signs,
and especially that its actings may be distinctly recollect-
ed, it must have acquired a certain degree of strength.
But is it not according to the law of our nature, that the
affection should exist in a lower degree, before that time ?
We are, indeed, unable to determine how early deprav-
ed affection may begin to operate. But considering how
early it rises to such strength, as to make itself visible ;
and considering too the gradual growth of every thing
in the mind ; can we avoid the conclusion, that it prob-
ably exists, though in a feebler state, much sooner than
it becomes visible ? May it not be with our moral na-
ture in this respect, as it is with the peculiar properties
of an eagle, a serpent, or a lion, which have always been
considered as existing radically in the original constitution
of the animal, though they begin to show themselves a
considerable time after? Be this, however, as it may;
the actual appearance of moral evil in man is, in com-
mon cases, very early ; so that as far as the period of
its first occurrence is concerned, there is a plain reason
for calling it natural, or innate.

Another circumstance, distinguishing those things
which are properly called natural or innate, or which we
say belong to man from the first, is, that they cannot be
traced to any change in the constitution of his nature,
subsequent to his birth, and do not presuppose such a
change. If idiotism is occasioned by a fracture of the

skull, or by the influence of disease, it is not called nat-
ural. But if no such calamity has befallen a man, who
shows himself to be without understanding, and his want
of mind results, as a direct consequence, from his origin-
al constitution ; in other words, if he never had any mind;
and if, with such an original structure, it would be im-
possible that he ever should have any ; then his idiotism
is called natural, or he is said to be born an idiot.

Now is the moral depravity of man to be traced
lo any calamity which has befallen him, or to any
change which has taken place in his Bioral consti-
tution, subsequently to his birth ? Does it presuppose
that there has been such a change ? If a change takes
place adequate to account for moral depravity ; it
must be an universal change, because it must account for
the fact, that all are sinners. The position then would
be, that, although men are universally born without any
disposition or tendency in their nature, which can account
for the depravity they afterwards exhibit; a change uni-
formly takes place, which is the spring of all the moral
evil actually found in man. And this change must take
place very early, because by the supposition, it must pre-
cede the first appearance of moral evil. We have then
before us a most important event ; an universal change
in the moral constitution of man ; a change which al-
ways takes place very early in childhood, and which sat-
isfactorily accounts for all the sins which mankind com-
mit. Here it becomes a matter of deep interest to
inquire, what is the cause of a change, so momentous in
its nature, and in its results ? Is that cause extraneous to
the human mind, or within the mind ? If any oppo-
nent should say, the cause is extraneous to the mind ;
then I should wish him to solve the difficulty of suppos-
ing, that our moral nature, without any faulty conduct of

ours, is subjected to the calamitous influence of such a
cause. Call that which is the cause of the change, " ed-
ucation, example, and circumstances," as Dr. Ware does,
p. 27. It is a cause, which is extraneous to the mind, and
over which, especially at so early a period, we can have
little or no control. I should wish Dr. Ware to show, upon
his own principles, how we can be accountable for the
consequences of a change, produced in such a manner.
And before leaving the subject, I should be gratified to
know, how he would make it appear consistent, that a
God of infinite goodness should expose his feeble, help-
less creatures, in the very first stage of their existence,
to the operation of a cause so dreadful.

But if the cause of the supposed change is within the
mind, it must consist in something which belongs to the
original constitution of the mind, or in something which
is superinduced upon the mind, after its first existence.
If it consists in something which belongs to the original
constitution of the mind ; then we are thrown back upon
the very difficulty which Dr. Ware and others think it
so important to shun. But if the cause of the supposed
change consists in something which is.superinduced upon
the mind, after its first existence ; it is certainly proper
that we should inquire, what that thing is ; what has oc-
casioned it, or by what means it has been superinduced
upon the mind. And the answer, if there could be an
answer to this inquiry, would only make way for another
of the same kind, and that for another, and so on indefi-
nitely.

These are some of the difficulties which attend the
supposition, that the depravity, which man actually ex-
hibits, is owing to any calamity which befals him, or to
any change which takes place in his moral constitution,
subsequentlv to his birth : while on the other hand, the

supposition, if admitted, has no advantage whatever
over the common supposition, that our actual wickedness
is to be traced back to what is original or native in our
moral constitution. It ^ives no convenience or clearness
to any philosophical reasoning, which we may think it
proper to pursue in relation to this subject ; as it only
presents other causes, of the existence of which we have
no evidence, and which, if they were real, must after
all be traced back to the original constitution of our
nature. The supposition has no advantage in regard to
our views of the divine character, it being every way as
easy to reconcile it with the goodness of God, that he
should give us originally a constitution, which uniformly
results in actual transgression, as that he should expose
us to the operation of causes, such as Dr. Ware names,
p. 27, which uniformly produce a change in our nature
afterwards, from purity to pollution.

Against the supposition of such a change in our na-
ture, there are strong objections. In the first place;
so far as our observation goes, all the causes which op-
erate upon the human mind, are suited only to excite to
action, in various ways, the powers and dispositions actu-
ally belonging to our nature, but not to change that nature.
Secondly; the supposition of such a change in our nature
is wholly wiphilosophical, because wholly unnecessary. It
is as unphilosophical, as to suppose a change of nature in
order to account for the serpent's venomous bite, the
lion's fierceness, or that intelligence, gratitude, sympathy,
and kindness of man Dr. Ware considers as natural.
Thirdly. The uniformity of the fact that men be-
come sinners, denotes that it results from the settled con-
stitution of our nature, and not from any occasional or
accidental cause. We reason thus respecting things
which uniformly take place in the physical world ; and

why not in the moral world ? If our becoming sinners were
not owing to a steady law or principle of our nature, but
to some accidental cause ; we should, in all reason, ex-
pect to find some exceptions. The uniform motions of
the planets denote a uniform cause, a settled constitution
of nature ; while the occasional appearance of transient
meteors denotes occasional, transient causes. If there
Avere no settled constitution or law of nature respecting
the motion of the planets, who would expect to find
their motions constant and invariable ?

Now just as far as there is evidence, that man's
actual sinfulness is owing to the original constitution of
his moral nature, and not to any change in his nature
experienced after his birth ; just so far we have reason
to consider his depravity natural.

I have yet another reason for considering man's de-
pravity natural. I look at other principles in man, which
arc generally considered natural, such as the animal ap-
petites, the love of parents for their offspring, and also
that gratitude, compassion, and kindness, which Dr.
Ware notices, " as original attributes of human nature."
I find these natural principles operate freely and sponta-
neously. It requires no laborious discipline to produce
them, no urgency of motives to excite them to action.
When the proper occasion occurs, they arise unsolicited.
This is a genera) mark of those active principles, which
are allowed to be native properties of man. The same
mark distinguishes man's moral depravity. Take chil-
dren, as soon as they are capable of manifesting what
they are ; and let the occasion for exercising a corrupt,
affection occur. How soon is it excited ? How spon-
taneously does the feeling of pride, ill will, and revenue
show itself in their looks and actions ? It gets posses-
sion of them before they are aware. It arises of its own

accord, before they have considered whether it is good
or bad. They first learn its turpitude from having felt
its spontaneous operation in their own minds. And it is
the case not only in childhood, but in every period of
life, that sinful affections arise readily, as soon as the oc-
casion occurs. So far then as this circumstance has in-
fluence, it is a justification of the doctrine of native de-
pravity.

But moral evil in man has still another mark of be-
ing natural or innate ; and that is, that it is hard to be
eradicated, and resists powerful means of overcoming it.
From this we are led to think, that it has taken deep
root in man's nature, and is not an accidental or super-
ficial thing. The christian, who makes the greatest ef-
forts to eradicate his depraved affections, has, from his
own experience, the clearest evidence that they adhere
to the very constitution of his moral nature ; that they
make a part of himself; and that getting rid of them is
like cutting off a hand, or plucking out an eye. He has
evidence too, that while the heart is unrenewed, or while
man continues in his natural state, no dictate of con-
science, no motive or influence which can be brought to
bear upon his mind, can subdue his selfishness and pride,
or induce him to love God and be humble. This fact is
as well supported by experience, as any fact whatever
in the history of the mind. And as there is no other
way, but experience, to prove it, on supposition of its real
existence ; my last appeal for the truth of the Orthodox
doctrine of depravity would be to the experience of
Christians.

There is one circumstance of human depravity,
which justice requires me distinctly to notice, as
it seems utterly incapable of being reconciled to any
scheme but the Orthodox. When we look upon a new

born child, we predict, that he will certainly be a sinner.
It is not a conjecture, nor a probability, but a certainty.
It is a thing which no precautions, no circumstances
whatever can prevent. Let the child be, from the first,
in the hands of parents, nurses, and tutors, as holv as
angels, so that he shall never hear any thing but words
of truth and love, and never see any thing but examples
of excellence ; still we predict with certainty, that he
will not escape the pollution of sin; that he will be a
transgressor of the divine law. Now such a prediction
as this must rest on some fixed principle, some certain,
uniform cause ; just like our prediction respecting the
future developement which the child will make of any
bodily or mental power. We know beforehand, that if
the child is free from special defects, he will speak, and
walk, and love, and desire, and remember. This fore-
knowledge in us rests upon the full evidence we have,
that such is the settled law or constitution of human nature.
It is precisely on the same ground, that we predict the
future transgression of the new-born infant. The pre-
diction does not imply any particular knowledge of this
individual child, in distinction from other children; for,
in the case which I suppose, we only know that he is
human. We found our prediction solely upon the fact,
that the child has human nature. We know that it is
the invariable law of his nature, that he will be a trans-
gressor. If there is no such steady cause, no such inva-
riable law, how can we certainly conclude that this par-
ticular child, born of pious, faithful, exemplary parents,
will be a sinner ? May not this child, if such as Dr.
Ware supposes every infant to be, — " innocent, pure,
free from all disposition or tendency to sin," and under
the salutary influence of the best of parents ; — may not
such a child be secured against moral evil ? Or if this

child should not escape those powerful, calamitous caus-
es, which are supposed to turn our nature from innocence
to guilt ; how do we know that some other child of Ad-
am may not ? If there is no steady, no uniformly oper-
ating cause, or law of nature, leading to moral evil ; or
as Dr. Ware expresses it, "if man is by nature no more
inclined or disposed to vice than to virtue ;" may we not
suppose that one of a thousand, or at least one of eight
hundred millions, will retain his original purity, and go
through this short life without becoming a sinner? But
we are forbidden to suppose this by that sober observa-
tion, which teaches us the truth of our Saviours maxim,
that " no man can gather grapes of thorns, or figs of
thistles." The cause in the former case is indeed moral;
in the latter, physical. But in both cases the cause
which operates is constant ; and it is the constancy or
uniformity of the cause, which enables us, in either case,
to form a certain judgment respecting the constancy of
the effect. Now in any such case, where do we look
for the cause of a constant, uniform effect, but in the na-
ture or constitution of the thing ? If this reasoning is sub-
stantially correct, what can be more proper than to call
the sinfulness of man natural, original, innate ?

It might here be expected, that I should argue par-
ticulary from those texts, which teach directly that
our sinfulness results from the original constitution
of our nature ; from various maxims and rules of Scrip-
ture, implying a bias in human nature, which it is the
object of Christian instruction and discipline to correct ;
and particularly from the representations of the New
Testament, that man has, by his natural birth, that carnal
mind which is opposite to holiness, and on account of
which he needs to be born again. But the arguments
derived from these sources were distinctly brought to

<51

view in my Letters to Unitarians; and I cheerfully
leave it to the judgment of my readers, whether any
thine lias been offered to diminish their force.

I have now stated the leading considerations, which
prove the depravity of man to be native, natural, innate.
First. Moral depravity is as universal among men, as
reason, memory, or the bodily senses, which are allow-
ed by all to be natural. Second. Depravity shows it-
self very early ; as early as could be expected, on the
supposition that it is native ; that is, at the earliest pe-
riod of childhood to which our memory can reach in re-
gard to ourselves, or in which children are able, by in-
telligible signs, to manifest their feelings to others.
Third. The depravity of man cannot be traced to any
calamity which befals him, or to any change which takes
place in his moral constitution, subsequently to his birth.
Fourth. Moral depravity, like other native affec-
tions or principles of the mind, is spontaneous in
its operations, and hard to be eradicated. Fifth.
We can predict concerning any human being, as soon
as born, that if he live long enough to exhibit the
character of a moral agent, he will certainly be a sinner;
and this power of prediction must depend on a settled,
uniform cause, a law of our nature.

These, with the Scripture arguments alluded to, are,
to say the least, as good reasons why we should believe
moral depravity to be a native, original attribute of man,
as any which Dr. Ware can have for believing " kindness?
gratitude, and love of truth" to be so. I admit that
these and other things of like kind, if taken with proper
explanations, are as Dr. Ware represents them, natural
properties of man. But let him tell us why they are to
be considered as natural ; and then we may see whether
the reasons, which prove them to be natural, are stron-
ger (han those which prove human depravity to be so.

CHAPTER IV.

The principal objections urged against the doctrine,
which I attempted to defend in the preceding chapter,
and the principal difficulties in which it is entangled, will
now be made the subject of particular consideration.

Notwithstanding the universal prevalence of moral
evil, and all the arguments which have been adduced to
prove that it is natural to man, like those other appetites
and affections which are, on both sides, regarded in this
light ; there are, it is said, special reasons against con-
sidering moral evil to be a natural property of man ;
reasons strong enough to countervail all the arguments
in favour of the Orthodox doctrine. These reasons are, in
brief, that the doctrine of native depravity, is inconsistent
with the moral attributes of God, and inconsistent with
moral agency in man. Objections like these are ar-
rayed against the common dontrine of native depravi-
ty by Dr. Taylor, and many other writers, and are sug-
gested by Dr. Ware in several passages in his Letters.

Here I must take the liberty to remark, as I remark-
ed in my Letters to Unitarians, that the mode of reason-
ing, introduced by those who urge objections in this
manner, is altogether unphilosophical, and can never be
relied upon either in physics, ethics, or theology. The
particular fault to which I refer in their mode of reason-
ing, is, that they consider a difficulty which they are not
able to solve, as sufficient to disprove a doctrine,
supported by clear and conclusive evidence. In the sci-
ence of the mind, as well as in natural philosophy, the
legitimate object of research is, as the most approved
writers have abundantly shown, to discover what isfact;

not to determine what is possible or consistent. What
would be thought of me, should I regulate my inquiries
in natural philosophy by the principle involved in the
mode of reasoning referred to? I start with a full belief
of the common doctrine of philosophy, that all material
substances have the power of attraction constantly oper-
ating with regard to each other; and I am resolved to
admit nothing, which seems to me incapable of being re-
conciled with this. If in the progress of my inquiries I
should find any thing, which seems to me inconsistent
with the grand principle of attraction, I am predeter-
mined not receive it into my creed. By and by facts oc-
cur, which indicate that, in certain cases, material substan-
ces have the power of repulsion. But as I am unable to
see how this power can consist with the other, I will not
believe its existence. Or if I admit the existence of re-
pulsion, I will no longer admit attraction. Am I now a
disciple of Newton ? Or has my understanding gone
back to the thraldom of the school-men ? Govern-
ing myself by the same maxim, I attempt to learn
the properties of the magnet. I am not satisfied with
the simple inquiry, what properties do in fact belong
to it? What do experience and observation show?
With this I must join another inquiry; — how can such
properties be compatible with each other? And how
can I admit two different things, when I am not able to
see their consistency ? Such philosophizing as this
would lead to results, for which few men would be wil-
l:ng to be responsible.

But the falsity of the mode of reasoning, above de-
scribed, is no less obvious, in relation to the doctrine of
depravity. The proper inquiry is, what is taught by
the word of God, and by the facts which fall under our
observation ? I ought to come to this inquiry with a

mind as free from prepossesion, as that with which a
physician inquires, whether his patient exhibits the signs
of a consumption. And if I find such proof that deprav-
ity naturally belongs to man, as satisfies me that any
other properties of man are natural; I have come to the
end of my inquiry. So far as my belief of the
fact is concerned, I have nothing to do with the
question, how this fact is consistent with the per-
fections of God, or with the moral agency of man,
or with any thing else. I say not this, however, because
I have the least reluctance to consider the question of
consistency, in its proper place ; but to show that, in
our reasoning, the consideration of this is to be made entire-
ly distinct from the consideration of the evidence, which
proves the fact. If I would be either a philosopher or
a Christian, I must believe what is clearly proved to be
fact, whether I am able to reconcile the fact with other
things I believe, or not. Nor must I in any case suffer
my views of the clearness and competency of the proof,
or my mode of coming to the discovery of it, to be in-
fluenced by any difficulty I may feel, as to the consisten-
cy of the fact to be proved with other facts. But I
wish it to be remembered that I say all this, not because
I suppose that two facts or truths, which are to be be-
lieved, may be really inconsistent with each other ; but
because, admitting that they are consistent, we may not
in every case be under advantages to discover how they
are consistent.

To come at a still clearer view of the error involv-
ed in that principle of reasoning, against which my ob-
jections have been aimed ; suppose some philosopher
should rise up and say, that my believing the power of
repulsion to exist in matter is inconsistent with my be-
lieving the power of attraction; or should charge me
with denying attraction, because I believe repulsion-

And suppose this pretended inconsistency of repulsion
with attraction should be perpetually mentioned, or
hinted at, as an argument proving conclusively, that mat-
ter can have no such property, as the power of repul-
sion. In reply to such sophistry I should say, first, that
there is, in my view, no inconsistency at all between these
two powers, and that, if any man affirms there is an inconsist-
ency, the burden of proof certainly lies upon him. Sec-
ondly. A man's being unable to see the consistency of the
two powers can be taken as no part of the proof of a
real inconsistency. Thirdly. The question, whether
there is such a thing as repulsion in matter, must de-
pend entirely on its proper philosophical evidence, and
must be discussed without any regard to the alleged in-
consistency of repulsion with attraction. If repulsion is
proved to exist by clear, conclusive evidence ; I should
be a child, and not a philosopher, to refuse it a place in
my belief, because it is difficult to reconcile it with
something else.

I entertain the same views of the proper mode of
reasoning on the subject of man's natural depravity ; and
these views I exhibited in my fourth Letter, to which I
beg leave particularly to refer the reader. After sev-
eral remarks^ intended to simplify the object of inquiry,
I said ; " These remarks are intended to show that ac-
cording to the just principles of reasoning in such a case,
we have nothing to do with the inquiry, whether the
common doctrine of depravity can consist with the moral
perfection of God, &c. If I say, this doctrine cannot be
true, because I cannot reconcile it with the goodness of
God ; it is the same as saying, I am an infallible judge 5
and my opinion must stand, though opposed by the de-
clarations of Scripture and the evidence of facts. To
take such a position would be an effectual bar to convic-

tion, and render all reasoning useless. If we would reg-
ulate our investigations on this subject by correct princi-
ples, we must reject totally every prepossession against
the doctrine of depravity, arising from the consideration
of the divine perfections, or from any thing else, and must
restrict ourselves to this single inquiry, what is true in
fact ? If the subject is one on which the Scripture un-
dertakes to decide ; the question is, what saith the Scrip-
ture?— If when we pursue our inquiry, we find that the
Scripture, interpreted without the influence of any pre-
possession, and according to just rules, teaches that man
is by nature unholy ; this must unhesitatingly be admit-
ted, as a certain truth. That God declares it, is proof
enough. — If observation and experience teach the same
truth; we are to admit it as doubly confirmed. As to
the goodness of God, we know it from other evidence."

Dr. Ware thinks the course I pursued in regard to
this subject liable to objection. " This is certainly a
very extraordinary thought," he says, " that in defending
his system against an objection to which it is thought
liable, he should have nothing to do with the very ob-
jection itself, nor with the difficulty it involves. Did the
question relate to the simple fact, whether the doctrine
of depravity, as maintained by the Orthodox, were a doc-
trine of Scripture or not, its consistency or inconsistency
with the moral perfections of God would indeed make
no part of the ground on which the argument should
proceed." p. 12.

My reply to this, and to what stands connected with
it, is a very easy one. The grand point at issue was
and is, whether the Orthodox doctrine of depravity is
true. I was aware that Mr. Channing and others had
not made this the grand point at issue, and with a view
to expose what I considered a mistake in them, and to

simplify the object of inquiry, I made the remarks in my
fourth Letter. I represented that the great inquiry in
relation to this subject ought to be ; " Do the Scriptures,
understood according to just rules of interpretation, teach
the doctrine of native depravity ?" Now if this were
really to be made the chief topic of inquiry, Dr. Ware
himself allows, that " the consistency or inconsisten-
cy of the doctrine with the moral perfections of God
would indeed make no part of the ground, on which the
argument should proceed." The fact was, that it had
often been mentioned, as a decisive reason against believ-
ing the doctrine of depravity, that it is inconsistent with
the moral perfection of God, If an appearance of such
inconsistency had been mentioned merely as a difficulty
attending an important Scripture doctrine ; the case
would have been different. But its absolute inconsisten-
cy with the divine perfections had been urged, as con-
clusively disproving the truth of the doctrine. I under-
took to show that such a mode of reasoning is altoo-eth-
er unphilosophical, and that it would be seen to be so in
other like cases. And I now say again, that what I
have represented to be the grand inquiry is not to be
shackled with any other matters. If indeed, after we
have proved from legitimate sources of evidence, that
man is by nature depraved, any one choose to bring into
view the difficulty of reconciling the doctrine with the
divine perfections; I will be so far from attempting to
evade the difficulty, that I will apply myself with all
possible diligence and care, to solve it. And this I shall
actually do, in some measure, before leaving the subject.
But after all, be it remembered, that, whether 1 succeed
in solving the difficulty or not, the ground of my faith in
the doctrine is the same. I believe it, because it is
taught in the Scriptures ; just as the philosopher be-

6li

lievcs what thorough investigation shows to be be tact,
whether he finds himself able to reconcile it with other
facts, or not.

But Dr. Ware insists, p. 12, 13, that it certainly
does belong to him, who would relieve the Orthodox
system from the imputation of being inconsistent with
the divine perfections, to prove that it is consistent.
For the sake of elucidating more fully the principle of
reasoning under consideration, I will allow, for the pres-
ent, that it does belong to me to prove this consistency.
And I will give in few words, the nature of the
proof which I now have to offer. Let then the alleged
inconsistency appear ever so great, even as great, and as
hard to be removed, as Unitarians suppose • 1 shall con-
sider it as valid evidence of a real consistency, if I show
by proper arguments, first, that God possesses moral per-
fection; and secondly, that man is by nature depraved. I
am speaking now of the kind of proof that is to be reli-
ed upon, not attempting to exhibit the proof at full length.
Suppose each of the two positions, just stated, to be sup-
ported by suitable evidence. I adduce the simple fact,
that both positions are shown to be true, as satisfactory
proof of their real consistency with each other. In many
cases, this may be the only possible method of proof ; be-
cause we may not be able to bring the two things to-
gether by a direct comparison, and in that way to show-
that they are consistent with each other. This princi-
ple is much used in Geometry. In some cases where
we cannot compare two things together so as to prove
their agreement with each other directly, we com-
pare them both with a third, and by making out
their agreement with that, we prove their agreement
with each other. Their agreement with the third
is the medium of proof. So in the case under consider-

ation. Even if \vc could do nothing, by a direct compar-
ison of the two positions, towards proving a mutual con-
sistency ; the fact that each of them is shown by prop-
er evidence to be true, must be taken as evidence that
they are consistent. This is the only way in which a
thousand things in physics, and in the philosophy of
the mind, can ever be proved to be consistent with each
other; and it is the only way in which men, who are
completely disentangled from the hypothetical philoso-
phy, deem it necessary to attempt a proof.

But Dr. Ware shows at the end of Letter II, that he
is of a very different opinion, as to this principle of rea-
soning. He says, that 1 have contented myself with endeav-
ouring to prove the doctrines of Orthodoxy, as matters of
fact, upon the principle, that if 1 could clearly prove them
to be doctrines of Scriptures, I should not be bound to show
how they can be consistent with the divine perfections. He
signifies his disapprobation of all this, and declares that,
as I have proceeded thus, it is unnecessary to say any
thing more to show, that the imputation of our holding doc-
trines inconsistent with the divine perfections is not removed.
To this remarkable passage I request the reader to
give some close attention. The principle on which I pro-
ceeded in my reasoning, as Dr. Ware here observes, was
this ; that if I could clearly prove our doctrines to be
matters of fact, and doctrines of Scripture, 1 should not be
bound to show, in any other way, how they can be consist-
ent with the divine perfections. Now he says, as I have
contented myself with an attempt made according to
this principle, the imputation of our holding opinions in-
consistent with the divine perfections remains ; that is to
say ; my having clearly proved our doctrines to be doc-
trines of Scripture, if I had done it. would not be enough

to prove them consistent with the divine perfections ; —
for this is the same as his saying, that my having clearly
proved our doctrines to be doctrines of Scripture would
not remove the imputation of our holding doctrines in-
consistent with the divine perfections ; and this is the
same as to say, that, for aught we know, the Scriptures
may contain doctrines inconsistent with the divine per-
fections. I should be sorry to think, that this is the
ground-work of Dr. Ware's reasoning on this subject.
But it really is so, unless he is so unfortunate as not to
express what he intends; or unless I am so unfortunate
as to misinterpret his language. But truly I see not
how I could avoid the conclusion above stated. For if
the principle on which he says I proceeded, and on
which I indeed meant to proceed, that if I could clearly
prove our doctrines to be doctrines of Scripture, we
should be free from the imputation of holding doctrines
inconsistent with the divine perfections, — if this principle
is to be rejected ; it must be because the Bible may
contain doctrines inconsistent with those perfections.
Only let us agree in the position, that the Bible teaches
nothing really inconsistent with the divine perfections ;
then, of course, my proving the doctrines in question to
be doctrines of Scripture would be considered as remov-
ing every pretence, that I hold doctrines inconsistent
with those perfections. I know indeed that Dr. Ware
did not mean to admit that I had proved our doctrines to
be taught in the Bible. But what he says manifestly
implies, that if I had proved this, and proved it clearly,
and had done no more, I should still be chargeable with
holding doctrines inconsistent with the perfections of
God ; for this was the imputation, which he says would
not be removed.

As this subject is of very great consequence in the
regulation of our religious inquiries in general, and as
my wish is to make it perfectly intelligible to every
reader; I beg leave to exhibit my views in a varied
form.

The positions which I have laboured to establish, as
the regulating principles of our reasoning, and of our
faith, particularly on this subject, are these. 1. The
grand inquiry, and in truth the only inquiry is, what
is taught by the word of God? 2. Though the
Scriptures contain doctrines which may, to some, have
an appearance of being inconsistent with the divine per-
fections ; they contain none which are inconsistent in re-
ality. 3. As soon as any doctrine is clearly proved to
be a doctrine of Scripture, it is, for that reason alone, en-
titled to our faith; and even if we should entirely fail of
showing its consistency with the divine perfections, or
with moral agency, to the satisfaction of an objector ;
we could not, on that account, be justly charged with
holding a doctrine inconsistent with the divine perfec-
tions. But Dr. Ware's representation is, that as the Or-
thodox are charged with denying the moral perfection
of God, or with holding doctrines inconsistent with it;
the very point at issue is, whether our doctrines are in-
consistent with the divine perfections ; and that it was
my business in this controversy, to prove them to be con-
sistent. For the sake of clearing away this perplex-
ity, as satisfactorily as possible, I will, for the present,
admit these views of Dr. Ware to be correct, and will
undertake the task of giving the proof demanded. But
I claim the right of choosing my own method of proof.
And for the purpose of trying the principle, I do now
choose to make use of this method, and to rely upon this
method alone; that is, to prove that our doctrines are in

Jact consistent with the 'perfections of God, by proving them
to be doctrines of his word. Will Dr. Ware allow this
method of proof to be valid, and satisfactory ? If so, he
must alter the close of his second Letter. But if not, I
ask why ? Let him offer any reason whatever, to show
that this method of proof would not be valid; and then
see if the reason offered does not clearly imply, that the
Scriptures may contain doctrines inconsistent with the
divine perfections.

Should Dr. Ware say, as he has said, that he by no
means admits that I have proved the doctrines of Ortho-
doxy to be doctrines of Scripture, and so that I have
made out no such proof as this of their consistency with
the divine perfections; I should make this obvious reply.
The thing now under consideration is the principle of
reasoning, not the success of it. The present question is
not, whether I have actually proved our doctrines to be
doctrines of Scripture ; but whether, if I should do this,
though I should then stop, it would be a sufficient proof,
that our doctrines are consistent with the perfections
of God; or whether, after clearly proving them to be
doctrines of Scripture, the imputation might still lie
against me of holding doctrines inconsistent with the di-
vine perfections, because I did not in any other way,
show, nor attempt " to show, how they can be consist-
ent."

But possibly, after all that has been said, Dr. Ware's
real meaning may not be what I have understood from
his language ; and he may on reflection, cheerfully ac-
cede to the principle of reasoning which I have been la-
bouring to establish. The principle is this ; and if the
word of God is true, it will stand forever ; namely;
that clearly proving any doctrines to be doctrines of
Scripture, is, by itself, a satisfactory proof of their con-

sistency with the divine perfections ; that in this contro-
versy, the simple inquiry should be, what do the Scrip-
tures teach? and that in pursuing this inquiry, and in esti-
mating the value of evidence which bears upon it, we
ought not to be influenced by any apprehension, that the
doctrines in question are inconsistent with the character
of God, nor by any appearance of such inconsistency ; —
just as we should pursue the inquiry, whether there has
in reality been a general deluge, without any regard to
the question, whether we are able to show such a fact
to be consistent with the character of God. From this
principle it would follow, that if any man finds, in regard
to the doctrines of Orthodoxy, that he has been influen-
ced by an appearance or apprehension of their inconsis-
tency with the divine perfections, and that in this way
he has been prepossessed against those doctrines, and has
refused to be convinced of their truth by evidence, which
would be satisfactory in other cases; it is high time for
him to inquire, whether he has not done violence to the
principles of reasoning, and whether he is not in danger
of wandering irreclaimably from the path of divine truth.
He forgets' that such short-sighted creatures, as we are,
may, in a thousand cases, be unable to see how things
can be consistent, which really are so ; and that we may
think we see an inconsistency, when, if we had a great-
er extent or clearness of vision, we might see none.
While he rejects a doctrine, which is supported by such
evidence as is generally deemed sufficient, because he is
unable to see how the doctrine can consist with some-
thing else ; he places a reliance upon the strength
of his understanding, to which it is not entitled, and
opens the door for a wide-spreading skepticism ; and
he does this in relation to doctrines, which are of the

highest importance, and the truth of which is shown by
evidence of noon-day clearness.

Under the influence of such mistaken views, as those
just alluded to, a philosopher examines the proof of a
general deluge, and finds it clear and strong. But he
determines not to believe it, because he cannot sec how
it could have been consistent with the justice and good-
ness of God, to destroy a world by a deluge. You tell
him, it is clearly taught in the Bible, which he professes
to receive as the word of God, and that it ought, on that
account alone, to be believed, whatever difficulties may
seem to attend it. But he avers, with increasing warmth
of feeling, that it is totally inconsistent with the good-
ness of God, who is the Father of his creatures; " that
we can make no supposition upon the ground of which
we shall be able to see that it can be consistent ;" that
it ought therefore to be rejected; and that the few
texts of Scripture which seem to favour it, must be ex-
plained in some other way, so that they may give no
support to a fact, which " certainly admits of no recon-
ciliation with any notion we can have of the moral per-
fection of the Author of our being."

The same philosopher casts his eye over the destruc-
tion of Sodom by fire from heaven, and of Jerusalem by the
Roman army. His sensibilities are shocked by the idea
of such scenes of distress and desolation. That God
should visit so great a multitude of people, old and young,
including so many thousands of harmless infants, with
such overwhelming judgments, seems totally irreconcile-
able with his paternal character. Our philosopher, who
feels for his fellow-creatures, cannot think, that a Being
of infinite compassion could ever have taken pleasure in
witnessing so awful an event, brought about too by his
own agency. And though the evidence from history is

such as would satisfy him in other cases, he thinks
it cannot be satisfactory in this, as it would involve us in
the belief of a fact, so inconsistent with the moral per-
fection of God. So far as the Bible is concerned, instead
of openly rejecting its authority, he goes about to put
such a sense upon it, as he thinks it ought to have. He
claims the right of proceeding in this way from one sub-
ject to another, and of rejecting or modifying any texts
of Scripture, so that they may not oppose the notion
which he has suffered to preoccupy his mind, in regard
to the character of God. He seems to see that the com-
mon doctrines of depravity, atonement, election, regen-
eration, and the endless punishment of the wicked are
incapable of being reconciled with the divine perfections.
According to his maxim, therefore, these doctrines must
all be rejected ; and the Bible must be so explain-
ed, as to give them no support.

Now the foundation of such a philosopher's reason-
ing is just this : He has more confidence in his own pre-
conceptions, than in the word of God. While he ought
to guide his reason by the dictates of revelation ; he la-
bours to conform the dictates of revelation to the hasty
judgments of reason. See how clearly and strongly the
Scriptures assert the natural corruption of man. If with
half the clearness and strength they asserted his native
purity, how would Unitarians glory in the firm founda-
tion of their faith ? But no sooner docs the word of God
begin to assert man's native depravity, than it has to en-
counter a strong preconception, that the doctrine cannot
consist with God's moral perfection, and cannot be true.
Our opponents think that the Scriptures do not teach
the doctrine. But would they think so, were they not
biassed by a preconception against the doctrine ? And
must it not be evident even to themselves, that such a

preconception is likely to prevent all fair and impartial
investigation of the evidence which supports the doc-
trine ? How can there be a fair investigation of the
meaning of Scripture by those, who have prejudged
what its meaning must, or must not be ? Is it not
obvious, that they judge differently in regard to
other doctrines, against which their prejudices are not
arrayed ? Is not evidence of inferior clearness perfect-
ly satisfactory on a thousand other subjects ? But here,
according to the maxims which govern our opponents, it
seems utterly impossible they should ever be convinced.
Let the Scriptures say what they will ; let them assert
the doctrine of native depravity, and the other doctrines
allied to it, in language ever so plain, and in circumstan-
ces which show, according to all just rules of interpreta-
tion, what the sense must be ; and let it appear from
the conduct of the writers, and from what they exhibit-
ed of their own feelings, that they did actually regard
these doctrines, as divine truths ; it still answers no pur-
pose with our opponents. For they meet all this with
the argument, that these doctrines can never be recon-
ciled with the moral perfections of God. Viewing the
doctrines in this light, and entertaining this strong pre-
possession against them, they can receive no result of
experience, and no declaration of Scripture, as conclu-
sive evidence of their truth. I say then, that so long as
they suffer that notion of inconsistency to occupy their
minds, and to control their faith ; it is perfectly idle to
cite the Scriptures as evidence. If Paul himself were
here, and should declare the doctrines, as we understand
them, to be according to truth ; they would even then
reject them. Just so far as their maxim is adopted,
the authority of the Bible is given up, and the dis-
cussion proceeds on the ground of mere natural rea-

son. And even after it has been clearly proved that
any particular doctrines are taught in the Bible ; we
must still inquire at the oracle of reason, whether those
doctrines are worthy to be received.

I am aware that presenting the reasoning of our op-
ponents in this light may be thought to savour but little
of candour. But truly, 1 think they will not hesitate to
acknowledge, that so far as the exercise of candour is
concerned, I can justify myself by appealing to the stan-
dard which they themselves have established. For if
it is consistent with candour for them to charge us with
denying the moral perfection of God, or with holding-
sentiments implying such a denial ; why should I be
thought deficient in candour for endeavouring, accord-
ing to my serious conviction, to show, that they
entertain sentiments, or adopt a mode of reasoning,
which involves the denial of the truth and authority
of the Scriptures ?

The same remarks apply to the other part of the
objection against the evidence of native depravity ; name-
ly ; that it cannot be admitted to be conclusive, because
the doctrine is inconsistent with moral agency. But
without repeating these remarks, I will just say, that it
is altogether as proper for me to deny man's moral agen-
cy on account of its apparent inconsistency with the doc-
trine of depravity, as for others to deny man's depravi-
ty, on account of its apparent inconsistency with moral
agency.

Let it not however be supposed, from any of the
foregoing remarks, that I wish to discountenance direct
and free inquiry respecting the consistency of our doc-
trine of depravity with the moral perfection of God ; or
that I think there is no other way of meeting the ob-
jection under consideration, than the one I have thus far
11

pursued. I must, however, view this as sufficient.
And whether I succeed or not in my attempt to show,
by another mode of reasoning, that the doctrine of de-
pravity is reconcileable with the moral perfection of
God and the moral agency of man, I shall consider the
doctrine as worthy of unhesitating belief, if it has no
support but this, which is indeed the best support of all,
— that it is taught in the holy Scriptures.

Nor let it be supposed from the foregoing remarks,
that I apprehend any peculiar difficulty in showing the
consistency of native depravity with the divine perfections.
There is certainly no contradiction in the terms; that
is, the proposition which affirms the native depravity of
man, does not, in the terms of it, contain a denial of the
perfection of God. The inconsistency, if there is any,
must be made to appear by an investigation of the sub-
ject. If Dr. Ware soberly thinks that there is an incon-
sistency ; he ought not to content himself with such a
bare assertion of it, as is suited to make an impression on
those, who will not give themselves the trouble of think-
ing, or to excite prejudice in those who are governed by
sounds, and first appearances. It behoves him to sup-
port his charge of inconsistency by substantial evidence.
But it cannot surely be considered, as having any thing
of the nature of evidence, for him to say, that we can make
no supposition upon which we shall be able to perceive the
consistency between natural depravity and the divine good-
ness, or that the doctrine of native depravity certainly ad-
mits of no reconciliation with any notion we can have of
the moral perfection of God. These are strong affirma-
tions, and doubtless sincere ones, expressing the real con-
viction of the writer. But he cannot expect us to
receive them, as arguments. Should I think it best
to make affirmations in the same way, expressive of my

views on this subject ; I should say, in direct opposition
to what has just been quoted from our Author, that there
is a very plain supposition, upon which we are able to
perceive the perfect consistency of native depravity and
divine goodness ; and this supposition is, that the exist-
ence of man, with such a nature or character as we as-
cribe to him, may, in the administration of a perfect mor-
al government, be made ultimately conducive to the great
end of benevolence, that is, the happiness of the universe.
Or I should say thus; that man's native depravity is not
in the least inconsistent with divine justice, if it be
so that man, notwithstanding his native depravity, nev-
er sulfers more than what he truly deserves for his
own personal sins ; — not inconsistent with divine good-
ness, if man's depravity is made an effectual means of
promoting the object, at which goodness aims ; — and
not inconsistent with wisdom, if the system, of which
man's depravity is a part, is so contrived, that it is suit-
ed to promote the best end in the best manner.

But although, in this brief statement, I have made a
supposition, according to which the native depravity of
man must appear perfectly reconcileable with God's
moral perfections ; I shall not stop here ; but shall pro-
ceed, once for all, freely to investigate this subject, and
to inquire, whether there is any force in the objection,
so often and so triumphantly repeated, that the doctrine
of native depravity is totally inconsistent with the moral
perfection of God, and can, on no supposition whatever,
be reconciled with it.

What then do my opponents mean by saying, that
any thing is inconsistent with the moral perfection of
God ? that is, with his benevolence, or goodness ? Most
obviously they must mean, that if that doctrine is true,
or if that event takes place, God cannot be good ; in

other words, that he cannot have benevolent feelings, or
he cannot pursue the end of a benevolent administration.
It is clear that the end of true benevolence, whether in
feeling or in action, is to do good, or to promote real
happiness. And if the being who possesses perfect be-
nevolence, has also an infinite understanding, and is ca-
pable of comprehending a vast system of intelligent be-
ings, which extends to eternity ; the object of his benev-
olence must be the happiness of such a system — the
highest degree of happiness of which that system is ca-
pable, taken in its whole extent and duration. Now the
native depravity of man is plainly consistent with the di-
vine benevolence, if it is, on the whole, consistent with
the greatest good of the intelligent system. Do you ask
how it can possibly be made consistent ? My answer is,
it may, in one way or another, be the means of making
a brighter and more diversified display of the divine
perfections, and thus of giving the intelligent creation,
as a whole, a higher knowledge and enjoyment of God.
It may be the means of illustrating more clearly the ex-
cellence of the law and government of God, and of pro-
ducing ultimately, through his moral kingdom, a purer and
more ardent attachment to his character, and his admin-
istration ; so that his intelligent creatures, by means of
the instruction and discipline in this way afforded, may
be brought at length to a state of higher perfection and
enjoyment, than they could attain in any other way.
Through the vigilant wisdom and justice of civil rulers,
such a happy result of rebellion sometimes appears in
human governments. And why may it not be so in the
divine government, which is directed by wisdom and jus-
tice infinitely more vigilant, and controlled by power in-
finitely more efficacious, than any human government?
If in the ways here suggested, or in other ways, the de-

pravity of man may be made to subserve the end of the
divine administration; its existence is plainly consistent
with the divine goodness ; or, which is the same thing,
it may exist, and yet God show himself to be infinitely
good. The subject of native depravity is, in this respect,
explained on the same principle with that of moral evil
generally. If you ask, how the existence of moral evil
can be consistent with the moral perfections of God ;
you ask a question of as difficult solution as the one we
have been considering ; and the proper answer to it
must, in my view, be the same.

But has any thing ever taken place under the divine
administration, which in any degree illustrates this sub-
ject? Are there any facts which tend to show, that the
solution I have given of the difficulty, is conformable to
truth, and ought to be satisfactory ?

In reply to this, I refer the reader to all the instances
recorded in the Scriptures, and all which have occurred
in the common course of divine providence, in which the
sins of men have been made the occasion of glorv to
God, and of good to his kingdom. These instances
press upon our notice from every quarter. But I shall
content myself with suggesting one or two of those which
are most remarkable. No one will think it strange, that I
should here mention the case of the Egyptian king; which
I do, not because it is a case essentially different from
others, but because the Scriptures make it a subject of
particular remark, and give an explanation of it, which
fully confirms the general principle involved in my
reasoning. In a passage too weighty to be over-
looked, and in language too plain to be misunder-
stood, God himself expressly informs us of the very pur-
puse for which he raised that wicked man to the throne
of Egypt. Exod. ix. 16. Was not the purpose which

in that case God had in view, and which he actually ac-
complished, a benevolent purpose ? And were not all
the means he employed, consistent with his moral per-
fections ? And can any thing be clearer, than that the
principal means employed was the diversified display
the Egyptian monarch made of the most impious pride,
and the most unrelenting hardness of heart? It is utter-
ly in vain to attempt an enumeration of the instances,
more or less remarkable, in which the sinful passions and
actions of man have been made to praise God. The
work of redemption exhibits this wonderful subservien-
cy of moral evil to a benevolent end, with the greatest
possible clearness. All those acts of God in the salva-
tion of men, which are " to the praise of the glory of his
grace," and all the songs of thanksgiving among the
redeemed in heaven, are occasioned by human transgres-
sion. And a careful examination of this subject will
show not only the fact, that moral evil is so overruled
by the divine hand, as to be made actually subservient
to the end of benevolence, but something of the manner
in which it is done. I will only add here, that in regard
to this subserviency of evil to good, there can be no dis-
tinction between moral evil generally, and that moral
evil which is native. For if moral evil, occurring at any
period of man's life, may be made to contribute to the
end of a. benevolent administration ; why may not that
which occurs at the earliest period ?

Such, in brief, are my views, as to the actual consist-
ency of man's native depravity with the divine perfections.
I turn now to the objector, who thinks native depravity
to be inconsistent with the divine perfections. Let
him tell me definitely, why it is inconsistent. Because
man, from the first of his existence as a moral agent, is sin-
ful, does God cease to be good ? May not God so overrule
the corruption of our nature, that, in the final result of

his administration, it shall be the occasion of a brighter
display of his holiness, and an augmentation of hap-
piness in his universal empire ? Cannot Omnipotence
bring good out of evil in this case, as well as in
others ? How does it appear, that the moral perfection
of God must necessarily preclude the existence of sin in
man, at the commencement of his moral agency? Will
the objector say, that native sinfulness, if it should exist,
must of necessity be attributed to the immediate agency
of God, and that this would make him the cause of moral
evil in a sense, obviously inconsistent with his infinite ho-
liness ? I would request the objector, before adopting
such a conclusion, to ailow himself time for a little ^ree
inquiry. — Does not moral evil actually exist ? Are not
all men sinners ? If so, then it must be allowed by both
parties, that moral evil has a beginning in men. It is
true, indeed, that Unitarians dilfer from us as to the
time of its beginning. But when we assert that man is
a sinner, or begins to sin, as soon as he is a moral agent,
we no more attribute sin to the immediate agency of
God, than those do, who assert that sin begins at any
subsequent period. Show me how sin may begin to ex-
ist at any period of man's life, without implying an agen-
cy of God inconsistent with his holiness ; and I will show
you how it may begin to exist at the earliest period,
without implying any such agency ? If you say that sin,
when it exists in mature age, is the free, unconstrained
action of a rational and accountable being, and that all
its guilt is chargeable upon him, and not upon God ; 1
say the same respecting that sin, which we suppose be-
longs to man at his first existence. It is the act of a ra-
tional, accountable being ; an act as free and unconstrained
as any which takes place during his whole life ; and none
the less free and unconstrained, because for a time it

may begin and end in the affections, — the circumstances
of the case not permitting it to show itself outwardly in
a visible form. This is true of a thousand sins, of which
men are guilty in every period of their life ; sins which
exist merely in the affections of the mind, and are visi-
ble only to the eye of conscience, and of God. Now I
think it manifest, that between the affections found in a
state of manhood, and those in early childhood, there is
no difference as to their nature, though there is a vast
difference as to their strength. Nor can there be any
difference, as to the degree in which a child, and a per-
son of mature age, is dependent on God in the exercise of
his affections. From infancy to old age, man is in the
highest degree dependent. He always lives, and moves,
and has his being in God. The first movements of his
moral nature, which must of necessity be affections mere-
ly, have precisely the same relation to the divine agen-
cy, as any moral affections afterwards. If God can cre-
ate a being, who shall, at any time, be the subject of
feelings and actions of a moral nature, or who shall, at
any time, be a free, accountable agent ; he can, if he
please, create one who shall be a free, moral, accounta-
ble agent from the beginning. Suppose the first moral
feelings and actions of such a being to be sinful ; are
they not still his own feelings and actions, for which he
is justly accountable ? With regard to the agency of
God, it is evident that no difficulty attends that moral
evil which begins thus early, and is therefore called na-
tive, more than attends that which originates at any sub-
sequent period. Or to express it in another form ; if
God can, consistently with his holiness, create and pre-
serve an intelligent being, who shall be a sinner at any
period of his life ; he can create and preserve one who
shall be a sinner from the beginning. With respect to

the perfections and the agency of God, there appears no
difference between the supposition that moral evil be-
gins at the commencement of man's existence, and the
supposition that it begins at a subsequent period, unless
there is some intrinsic absurdity or difficulty in supposing
it to begin so early. If there is any such absurdity or
difficulty, it must relate to the subject of moral agency.
It is then important to inquire, whether the doctrine of
native depravity is inconsistent with a right view of mor-
al agency. This inquiry will be pursued in the next
chapter.

CHAPTER V.

Is the doctrine of native depravity inconsistent with
moral agency ?

It seems to be frequently taken for granted by Dr.
Ware, as well as by Dr. Taylor, and others, that man
becomes a moral agent in consequence of an antecedent
course of voluntary action ; and particularly, that he be-
comes a sinner by a course of misconduct, which precedes
his being a sinner. Dr. Ware says, pp. 33, 36, 37, that
men become sinners by yielding to temptations- — by obey-
ing the impulse of the passions and the calls of appetite,
in opposition to the direction of reason and the notices
of conscience, — by subjecting themselves to the dominion
of the inferior part of their nature, — by the abuse of
God's gifts, &c. But does he mean to say, that all this
conduct takes place, before men become sinners ? Then
he means to say, that they commit as great sins before
they are sinners, as after. For what worse can real sin-
ners do, than u yielding to temptation — obeying the im-
12

pulse of the passions in opposition to reason and con-
Science, subjecting themselves to the inferior part of their
nature, and abusing God's gifts ?" Or does Dr. Ware
mean only to say, that these are the ways in which they
manifest and increase their sinfulness? If so, his mean-
ing is doubtless correct. It is certainly sin, for men to
do the things above mentioned ; and in the very act of
doing; them, they are sinners.

But the question returns, whether native depravity
is inconsistent with moral agency. There is no way to
answer this satisfactorily, but by getting clear ideas
of moral agency, as well as of native depravity, and
then determining, by a careful comparison, whether
they are repugnant to each other. What then is
moral agency ? Or to make the question more con-
venient, what is a moral agent? Answer. A moral
agent is one who acts under a moral law, and is justly
accountable for his conduct. Now we find it to be the
opinion of Dr. Ware, pp. 21, 41, that " by their natural
birth men become reasonable, accountable beings." This
is as much as to say, they become moral agents. And if
they are moral agents, they are capable of moral action;
that is, capable of holiness and sin ; as Dr. Ware often
represents them to be. But if they are capable of sin,
there is no absurdity in supposing that they may actual-
ly be the subjects of sin ; and that they may be the sub-
jects of sin, as soon as they are moral agents. In one
place, which I have already noticed, Dr. Wrare says bold-
ly$ they are so. In explaining the phrase, "All have
sinned," he says it means, "all who are capable of sinning,
all as soon as they are capable of it, all as soon as they are
moral agents." For the assistance which these passages
afford, I am under particular obligations to Dr. Ware.
If these statements of his are correct, as I am persuaded

they are ; there can be no inconsistency between native
depravity and moral agency. Our Author seems here to
rise to the highest point of Orthodoxy ; for he says, first,
that " all who are capable of sinning, — all who are rnor*
al agents, are sinners ; and that they are sinners as soon
as they are capable of sinning, or as soon as they are
moral agents" And secondly, he says, that " men are
reasonable, accountable beings," that is, moral agents*
and of course capable of sin, — "by their natural birth."
All, by their natural birth, are moral agents, and as soon
as they are moral agents, they are sinners ; — moral agents
by nature, and sinners as soon as moral agents. To this
representation of Dr. Ware I fully accede ; nor do I
believe that any man can perceive in it the least ab-
surdity or inconsistency.

The great question with many is, how children can
be capable of sin at so early a stage of their existence,
as is supposed. But if God has made them moral agents ;
if from the first he has constituted them " reasonable, ac-
countable beings;" or if they are such " by their natural
birth," as Dr. Ware expresses it ; are they not of course
capable of sin from the first ? They must be as really
capable of sin at the commencement of their moral ex-
istence, as at any subsequent period. If the objector de-
nies this, then let him tell me how it can be, that men
become more truly capable of sin, after they have been
moral agents for some time, than when they begin to be
moral agents. I speak not here, as to the degree of ca-
pability, but the reality of it. If at the commencement
of moral existence, men are not as really capable of sin,
as afterwards ; it must be because they are not really
moral agents. And if they are not really moral agents,
it must be because they have not the properties which
s.re essentia) to morn) agency. But Dr. Ware asserts

that they have these properties by nature ; so that I
have no controversy with him on this subject.

But if men, at the beginning of their existence, are
not really moral agents ; the present discussion has
nothing to do with them at that period ; for the very
question, whether they are the subjects of moral evil,
manifestly implies that they are capable of moral evil.
I make it no part of my object in this discussion, to de-
termine precisely the time, when moral agency begins.
There are difficulties in the way of such a determination,
which I feel myself wholly unable to surmount. My
position is, that as soon as men are moral agents, they
are sinners. Dr. Ware's limitation of the universal ex-
pression, " all have sinned," p. 44, is undoubtedly just.
It seems to me as unreasonable and absurd to say, that
human beings are really sinners before they are moral
agents, as to say that birds or fishes are sinners. Dr.
Ware's position is mine, that men are sinners as soon as
they are moral agents.

But I wish to take a still nearer and more particular
view of this point. Let me say then, that if men at first,
have a low degree of moral agency, or a low and feeble
degree of those faculties which constitute them moral
agents, as we find the case actually is ; they must be
sinners in a correspondent degree. This view of the
subject appears to me perfectly reasonable. Men have
by nature the constitution — they have all the faculties,
essential to moral agency. But at first they have them
in a small degree. Of course they are in a small de-
gree accountable creatures — in a small degree capable
of sin ; and if they are really sinners, they must be so
only in the same degree. According to this view, there
must be the same difference between men of mature age
and little children in regard to their sinfulness, as there

is in regard to their intellectual and moral powers. In
early childhood, there is only the feeble dawn of reason
and conscience ; only the commencement, and that al-
most imperceptible, of intellectual and moral faculties,
and of moral agency — much like the commencement of
corporeal powers and corporeal action in infancy. As
childhood advances, the light of reason and conscience
waxes brighter ; the intellectual and moral powers grad-
ually increase, till they come to a good degree of strength*
Now reason and observation lead us to think it is so, in
regard to moral evil. In early childhood, there is a
small and almost imperceptible beginning of sinful affec-
tion, a beginning exactly corresponding to the feeble
dawn of reason and conscience, and to the incipient state
of moral agency. After this, sinful affection and action
gradually increase with the increasing strength of the
intellectual and moral faculties, till they rise to their ul-
timate state. Is there any thing incredible in all this?
Is it not fully confirmed by the actual appearances of
human nature from infancy to mature age, as well as by
the representations of Scripture ?

But our attention is called to another view of the
subject. In regard to moral agency, as well as many
other subjects, Dr. Ware seems to agree with Dr. John
Taylor, who invests his opinions and arguments with such
charms of genius and taste, as are found in few writers
of any age. Dr. Ware p„ 20, represents man as with-
out either sin or holiness, until he has, by the exercise of
his faculties, actually formed a character either good or
bad." He must mean an exercise of the faculties which
precedes the existence of either sin or holiness. In anoth-
er place, he seems fond of representing, that men make
themselves sinners ; which, connected as it is, must mean,
that they are not sinners before they make themselves

so, and that the effort, or the exercise of their faculties,
whatever it may be, by which they make themselves sin-
ners, takes place before they are in any degree the sub-
jects of sin. For it would hardly be to his purpose to
say, that men make themselves sinners by an exercise of
their faculties, after they have become sinners ; though
he might very justly affirm, that they make themselves
more and more sinful in that way.

This then, if I mistake not, is Dr. Ware's theory, as
it seems to be of many celebrated writers ; namely ;
that men make themselves sinners, or bring themselves
into a state of sinfulness, or form a sinful disposition in
themselves, by an exercise of their powers, or a course
of voluntary action, which is antecedent to the first ex-
istence of sin in them. It is most certainly Dr. Ware's
meaning, that the exercise or course of action, by which
men make themselves sinners, precedes the first exist-
ence of sin in them ; because it is his object to account
for the fact, that men first become sinners ; and we
should not expect that he would ascribe the commence-
ment or origin of moral evil in mankind to an exercise of
their faculties, which takes place after that same moral
evil has begun to exist. His theory then is, that before
men have any taint of sin, they go through an exercise
of their faculties, or a course of action, which results in
sin, or by which they make themselves sinners.

The difficulties, with which this theory is encumber-
ed, I have before hinted at. But I shall now set them
before the reader more particularly and fully.

1. When Dr. Ware, in stating this theory, speaks
of " the exercise of the faculties," he must mean those
faculties of moral agents, which he thinks men pos-
sess by their natural birth. I ask then, wheth-
er they can exercise those faculties, without being w

fact moral agents ; or in other words, without exercising
their moral agency ? My next question is, how they
can be moral agents, and perform the actions, or have
the feelings of moral agents, and yet have neither holi-
ness nor sin ? If they are moral agents, they are account-
able to God. Accountable for what ? Why, according
to one part of Dr. Ware's scheme, accountable for an ex-
ercise of the faculties, which is neither holy nor sinful ;
not holy, for if it were holy, it surely could not be the
way in which men " make themselves sinners ;" — and
not sinful, because, according to this scheme, sin begins
to exist as its consequence, not as its attribute, or attend-
ant circumstance. If then this theory is true, moral
agents, who are of course accountable to God, are, in this
case, accountable for an exercise of their powers, which
is neither holy nor sinful. What does such accountable-
ness amount to ? Further. If they are moral agents,
their actions have a relation to a moral law, and so must
be conformed or not conformed, obedience or disobedi-
ence. But here is an exercise of faculties or a course of
action in moral agents, which partakes neither of obedi-
ence nor disobedience. What then is its relation to law ?
And of what account is it in a moral view ?

But I have another question ; namely ; how can such
an exercise of the faculties, or such a course of action,
as is supposed by Dr. Ware, produce the effect attrib-
uted to it ? How can actions, which precede the existence
of moral evil, and so have in them nothing of the nature
of moral evil, tend to produce moral evil, as their result ?
Was there ever any thing like this in the history of the
human mind ? that is, that a rational, voluntary exercise
should produce an effect, of an entirely different nature
from itself? The exercise of reason may produce an im-
provement of reason, or may excite a rational affection.

The exercise of any perverse, corrupt passion may in-
crease the strength of that passion, and tend to bring
the mind under its influence. But show me any fact in
human nature, which can lead us to think, that actions,
in no degree sinful, will produce sin. In the case before
us, why should they produce sin, rather than holiness ?
Have they, or has the mind in which they exist, any ten-
dency to sin, rather than to holiness ? But this would
be contrary to Dr. Ware's scheme, as exhibited, p. 20, 21,
and elsewhere. Does sin, then, rather than holiness, re-
sult from those actions, by ckance, that is, without any
thing in them, which can be a cause of this result, rather
than of another ? If so, then the task still lies on Dr.
Ware's hands, of accounting by some adequate cause,
for the first existence of moral evil in the human mind.
The difficulties I have now suggested, though quick-
ly disposed of by men of superficial understanding, will
not easily be passed over by those, who are accustomed
to close and patient investigation. Dr. Ware attributes
the first existence of sin in the individuals of our race, to
a certain exercise of their rational faculties, or a certain
course of voluntary action, as its cause. I can well
enough perceive that, according to the knownlaws of
the human mind, the exercise of the faculties will
strengthen the faculties, and that any course of voluntary
action will strengthen and confirm all those dispositions
which it involves. But here is a scheme quite different ;
not that the faculties of the mind, not that the moral dis-
positions acquire strength by exercise, nor that intellectu-
al and moral habits are in this way generated, or con-
firmed ; but that an exercise of the faculties, or a course
of action, which has not the smallest degree of any thing
sinful in it, is yet the cause which produces sin, or the
very way in which men first make themselves sinners. I

ask for facts, plain, obvious facts, which men have been
conscious of in themselves or witnessed in others, to es-
tablish this theory. I can indeed readily admit, that
children and men may exercise their faculties for some
time, before they make a particular disposition or trait
of character, which belongs to them, manifest to others.
This may be owing to the weakness of the disposition,
or to the absence of those causes, which would excite it
in any sensible degree and give it a visible form, or to
the influence of causes which lead to a studied conceal-
ment. But in all such cases, the disposition exists — ac-
tually exists, though in a low and invisible degree. Mo-
tives excite it. Exercise strengthens it. Occasions give
it form, and bring it out to view. But according to the
settled constitution of human nature, no motives, no ex-
ercise of the mind, no occasions can ever produce a new
moral disposition or affection, that is to say, one which
does not in some way already belong to the mind. They
can no more do this, than they can produce a new intel-
lectual faculty, or a new bodily appetite. — It is readily
granted, that motives and occasions may produce a new
modification of a moral disposition, or a new combination
of different dispositions, and in that way may originate
a new form of affection, so that a new name will become
necessary ; as a man, who has a spirit of selfishness
lurking within him, may, at one time, be placed in cir-
cumstances, which will give his selfishness the form of
pride or vanity ; at another time, the form of covetous-
ness ; at another time, the form of envy or revenge.
But the general nature of pride, vanity, avarice, envy
and revenge is involved in that selfishness, which before
lurked in the mind, and which may be considered as the
original affection. In all these cases, there is nothing
new in its nature. The disposition, which is excited in

a course of voluntary action, is one which before existed
either in the same form, or in a different one. But Dr.
Ware's scheme is very diverse from this. He undertakes
to account for the origin of a sinful disposition, by an ex-
ercise of the faculties, in which that disposition is in no
sense involved. Let Dr. Ware prove, that there is any
connexion between such a cause and such an effect.

Before leaving* this part of Dr. Ware's scheme, take
one short view of it. He undertakes to account for the
first existence of sin in individuals of the human race.
But how does he account for it ? He says, they make
themselves sinners, and that they do it by yielding to
temptation, by obeying the impulse of passion in opposition
Co reason and conscience, and by subjecting themselves to the
dominion of the inferior part of their nature. But how
can all these things take place, without implying that
sin already exists ? These certainly are sins, if there is
any such thing as sin in the world. But these particu-
lar modes of sinning are represented as accounting for the
fact that men are sinners. Thus the same thing is made
to be cause and effect. But how will Dr. Ware account
for these particular modes of sinning ; namely, men's
yielding to temptations which it is in their power to re-
sist, obeying the impulse of passion, &c ? If sin in any
other form is to be accounted for by a proper cause ;
why not in these forms ? Or are we to stop short here,
as Dr. Ware seems, p. 37, to think necessary ? Speak-
ing with reference to the origin of sin, he says; " when
we have traced back the wickedness of men, as it actu-
ally exists, to the voluntary neglect, perversion, and
abuse of the nature God has given them, we can go no
farther." But after all, this is only tracing back the
wickedness of men, to itself — wickedness considered gen-
erally or in the gross, to wickedness in particular forms.

This corrupt nature of men is what they have made for
themselves ; and they have made it by the neglect, per-
version, and abuse of the nature God has given them.
But their nature must have been already corrupt, when
such neglect, perversion, and abuse took place. These
Avere sins. And one would rather suppose it rational to
make a corrupt nature account for these particular sins,
than to make these account for that ; because, manifest-
ly, if either precedes the other, and may act as a cause
of the other, it is the sinful disposition or corrupt nature?
not any particular modes of sinning. Common sense
leads us to ascribe sinful actions, or particular modes of
sinning, to a sinful disposition or heart, as the source, and
to speak of them as deriving from that source all their
criminality.

In the treatment of this subject, Dr. Ware seems to
have a very commendable motive, that is, a conviction
of the weakness and fallibility of man. He says, p. 37,
;i Questions may be asked upon this statement, which
cannot be answered, because we have not faculties which
enable us in any cases, to trace things up to the first
cause and spring of action." Had Dr. Taylor, and other
writers like him, observed this maxim, they never would
have attempted to trace back the existence of moral
evil in man to its first cause ; or if, while attempting
this, they had been under the guidance of reason or phi-
losophy, they never would have fixed upon the opera-
tion of a free-will, or self-determining power. Because
it is perfectly obvious, that the particular motions or de-
terminations of the will are prompted and governed by
the disposition or affections of the heart. This is one
of the laws of our nature. And if in any case it should
cease to be so, our volitions would cease to be either
good or bad. If a man should have any volition, or

make any choice, which was not prompted by a dis-
position or affection of the heart ; that volition or choice
would no more be of a moral nature, than an accidental
motion of the hand. This sentiment is recognized in all
the judgments we pass upon the volitions and external
actions of men. The moment you decide what was the
disposition of heart, which gave rise to any particular
volitions, or determinate acts of the will, you decide
the character of those volitions. But if, in any case,
you are unable to decide the former, you are of course
unable to decide the latter. Or if, in any case, you
could entirely separate particular volitions from the dis-
position of the heart ; you could no longer regard them,
as of a moral nature. This is the constitution of the
human mind; the irreversible appointment of God. The
prevailing disposition or affection of the heart prompts
particular acts or determinations of the will, and satisfac-
torily accounts for them. For example, the particu-
lar choice or determination of Judas to accept the thirty
pieces of silver, and deliver Christ to the rulers, arose
from his avarice, or from his resentment, or from both.
As long as men are free, they will follow their incli-
nation, or choose and act according to their disposition.
But was there ever any such thing in human nature, as
that particular volitions or determinate acts of the will
preceded and produced the disposition or affection of the
heart ? And if not, — then, how can any power or act
of free-will be considered philosophically, as the cause
of what is sinful in the human character?

There is another commendable motive which seems
to have influenced Dr. Ware. He says, p. 37, "No dif-
ficulty so great and insurmountable meets us, as, on the
opposite theory, is the moral difficulty in which it involves
the character of the Author of our being." My reply

is, first, that no proof has ever yet been given, that the
doctrine of native depravity involves the character of
God in any difficulty; and secondly; that if God's char-
acter is to be vindicated in relation to this subject, it
must be by something better than sophistical reasoning.
But after all, Dr. Ware seems to have no kind of
hesitation, as to the truth of his system, and the conclu-
siveness of his reasoning. He has told us, as though it
were perfectly obvious and certain, (and the same may
be repeated bv others,) " that man is by nature capable
of making a right or wrong choice, and no more in-
clined to one than the other; that he makes himself a
sinner by yielding to temptation and obeying the im-
pulse of passion ; that all his wickedness may be ac-
counted for without any native bias to sin ; that it may
all be but the effect of neglect to restrain appetites
in themselves good, to give proper direction to pow-
ers designed to be useful, and in general, of a failure
to exercise properly, in temptations and trials, the pow-
ers of direction and resistance, which were in themselves
sufficient." Now I have already granted that these are
ways in which men commit sin ; ways in which they ex-
hibit and increase their depravity. But I might say too,
that mankind sin by worshipping idols, by taking the
name of God in vain, by profaning the Sabbath, by cov-
etousnecs and revenge. And why would it not be just
as proper for me to account for the fact, that men are
sinners, by these forms of sin, and to say, that their de-
pravity is but the effect of idolatry, profaneness, covet-
ousness and revenge, as to do what Dr. Ware has done ?
The plain fact is, that the neglect and perversion and
abuse of our faculties, yielding to temptation, and the
other things which Dr. Ware has mentioned, and all the
more particular instances of sin, as idolatry, profaneness,

covetousness, slander, revenge, &c, constitute human wick-
edness. They make up the amount of man's sin; as the
parts of any thing, taken together, make up the whole.
But these various parts of human wickedness, or ways
of sinning, are not the cause of the depravity of the heart,
but spring from it ; as our Saviour teaches, Matt. xv. 19.
" Out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adul-
teries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies."
These things show the depravity of the heart, but do not
produce it, nor in any wise account for it. Name any form
of human wickedness, any thought, volition, choice, ac-
tion, which is sinful ; any instance of yielding to tempta-
tion ; any perversion or abuse of our faculties ; and you
name that which proceeds from depravity of heart.
If you say it is not so, then you say, that man can com-
mit sin with a sinless heart, or else without any heart at
all. Now take the earliest act of sin which men com-
mit, the first sinful thought, volition, or choice, the first
yielding to temptation, the first neglect or abuse of God's
gifts, which takes place in children ; and even that im-
plies a sinful disposition, or depravity of heart, and pro-
ceeds from it. The sinfulness of the heart must be re-
sorted to, as the fountain of every act and every form of
sin, from the commencement of moral agency. And
when Dr. Ware says, all men are sinners " as soon as
they are moral agents," he does as much as to say,
they have a sinful or depraved heart as soon as they
are moral agents ; as there is no other way in which they
can be sinners. If then he would account for the origin
of moral evil in man, he must account for the wrong dis-
position or sinfulness of heart, which is just as evidently
presupposed in every particular act and every mode of sin-
ning, as goodness of disposition is presupposed in every act of
obedience, or as the principle of gravitation is presupposed

in every instance in which a stone falls to the earth, or any
one body tends towards another. The first sinfulness or de-
pravity of the heart is no more produced by a sinful volition
or action, than the principle of gravitation is produced by
the falling of a stone, or the descent of a river. My position
is, that men have this sinfulness or depravity of heart by
nature, and that it is not the effect of any preceding vo-
lition or action in them, nor the effect of any change
they undergo after their birth. And in reality, this
seems to be taught by Dr. Ware himself in some re-
markable passages of his Letters. We gather from pp.
20, 21, 41,45, that men are by nature accountable be-
ings, or moral agents, but that they are destitute of holi-
ness, and not inclined to holiness. And is it not sin, for
those who are accountable beings, to be destitute of ho-
liness, and destitute of all inclination to holiness ? Js not
this the very case, upon which our Saviour put the
mark of his high displeasure, when he said, " I know that
ye have not the love of God in you ?" But every doubt
as to Dr. Ware's views would seem to be taken awav
by what we find pp. 44,47, where he represents all men
as reasonable beings or moral agents by nature, and sin-
ners as soon as moral agents ; and where he represents
Christians as delivered from the state of wrath in which
they had Ywed from their birth. This is all I would con-
tend for. Dr. Ware would hardly acknowledge this to
be really a part of his system. But it is a little remark-
able that, in a free investigation of the sense of Scripture.
he should let fall expressions so contrary to his own the-
ory, and so consonant to ours.*

* Dr. Ware appears to have been somewhat inadvertent in his language, or
unfortunate in his argument on some parts of this subject. In his remarks on
Ephes. ii. 3. "And were by nature children of wrath," he says, "it does not
poiui to anything inbred or native— not to the state of men as they come into
the world ;" but yet a few lines after, he says it denotes that very state. '• into
which they came by their birth.'1'1 p. 45.

100

We have now come in our reasoning, to an ultimate fact.
Man, in the state into which he is born, has a sinful heart,
or is inclined to sin. If any one thinks this supposition
inconsistent with moral agency ; I ask, how it is any
more inconsistent with moral agency for man to be a
sinner, or to be inclined to sin at first, than afterwards?
If you deny that man can begin to be a sinner at the
commencement of his moral agency, or that his
first moral affections or actions can be sinful ; then
tell me when he can begin to be a sinner. Can
he the second hour, or month, or year after his
moral agency commences ? But if he has been
exercising his moral agency an hour or month or year,
without sin, he has been exercising a holy agency ; and
he must have done something towards acquiring a habit
of holiness. Now is it more easy and more consistent
to suppose, that he will begin to sin after such a habit
of holiness is formed, than before? No supposition can
be made of sin's commencing in man at any period sub-
sequent to his first existing as a moral agent, which will,
in the smallest degree, relieve the difficulty attending the
supposition of its commencing at first. A being consti-
tuted, as man is, an accountable, moral agent, must be
blame-worthy for every affection and action which is not
conformed to the rule of duty, whenever that affection
or action takes place. If you deny this, you deny that
the rule of duty is just. If you allow this, you allow
that sin's commencing at the commencement of man's
moral existence does not prevent its ill-desert.

I have wished to dwell upon this point long enough
to make it perfectly plain, and to prevent, if possible, the
endless repetition of the saying, that man cannot be cul-
pable for any thing which he has by nature — for any thing
which is not the fruit or consequence of his own choice.

101

Nothing can be more groundless than this notion. For
whenever, and in whatever way, man has what the di-
vine law forbids, or is destitute of what it requires, he is
culpable; unless the law itself is in fault.

Mankind will indeed have difficulties respecting that
agency, which God is supposed to exercise in this case,
and the consistency of it with his infinite holiness and
goodness. An outcry is raised against the Orthodox for
charging it to the fault of sinners, that they are what
God made them. And though it has been shown a thou-

sand times, that our doctrine is liable to no valid objec-
tion in this respect ; the objection is still reiterated ; just
as though the writings of the Edwardses and others on
this subject had never been published, or had been fair-
ly confuted.

My general remark on this topic is, that, in regard
to the divine agency, and the divine goodness, the theory
which I advocate is liable to no such objection as that
above suggested, more than the theory of my opponent.
The difficulties attending his theory, are perfectly obvi-
ous to every intelligent man. Human beings, he would
say, are brought into being in a state where they are ex-
posed to danger. But if there must be danger, still why
are they not fortified against it ? Why are not poor,
frail creatures, who have as yet no moral principle to
guide them, so aided by divine goodness at the outset,
that they shall take a right direction? They are at
first, it seems, in a state of perfect equilibrium, inclined
neither one way nor the other. Their Maker sees this.
He has put them in this state. Why does he not, at
this critical period, when they are so weak, and so de-
pendent on him, just interpose, and turn the scale in fa-
vour of holiness ? Why does he leave all, when they
first act as moral beings, to act wrong — to catch the fa-
14

102

tai contagion of sin ? Why does he expose them to that
contagion ? And how does it happen that, without any
predisposition to evil, they all run into it ? The scale
equally balanced, without the least tendency one way or
the other, always turns the wrong way. And God stands
by, and sees it, and lets it be, when a very little help
from him would prevent. And is there no difficulty in
this ?

But considering the importance attached to the par-
ticular subject now before us, I shall extend my remarks
a little farther ; making it my object to show, that the
scheme of Unitarians is attended with as many, and as
great difficulties, as that of the Orthodox.

It will doubtless be consistent with Dr. Ware's views,
to admit any divine agency in dependent beings, which
is necessary to their existing and acting, and which is
suited to their rational and moral nature. Philosophical
Unitarians, who respect the authority of Hartley, or
Priestley, will maintain, as strenuously as any of the Or-
thodox, that all the volitions and actions of men, wheth-
er good or bad, result from causes, which operate accord-
ing to the settled laws of our nature ; and that those
causes are entirely under God's control, and are made
efficacious by his will. Indeed I see not how any man
can deny this, without falling into athesim. To prevent
misapprehension in the minds of any of my readers, I
will here add, that the agency which we ascribe to God
in the formation and preservation of moral agents, and
in the direction of those causes which determine their
moral actions, is not to be illustrated by the agency of
God in the natural world. God's forming a moral agent
is not like his forming a stone or a tree. His giving
activity to man, and efficacy to the moral causes
which operate upon him, is not like his giving efficacy to

103

the causes which relate to the growth of a tree, or to
the motion of the planets. The influence by which God,
in any case, leads men to act, is an influence suited to
their rational, active nature. It is not onlyconsistent with
their moral agency, but is its grand security. The caus-
es which, according to the divine appointment, act upon
moral agents, do indeed produce effects. But what are
those effects, but rational, moral actions, actions of such
a nature, that those, who perform them, are justly and
in the highest degree accountable ?

After these explanatory observations, I request my
opponents candidly to inquire, whether the Orthodox
theory is involved in any difficulty with respect to the
divine agency, from which theirs is free. Is more divine
agency necessary to account for moral action in the
first stage of our existence, than afterwards ? Or in ac-
counting for men's beginning to sin as soon as they be-
gin to be moral agents, is it necessary that the influence
which God exerts, or the causes which he appoints, should
be applied to them in a different manner from what
they are in regard to sins afterwards committed? Are
not men at all times equally dependent on God? Are
not their feelings and actions regulated by the same caus-
es at the beginning of their moral existence, as at any
other period? And are they not as really accountable,
when they first exist as moral agents, as when they have
been moral agents for years ? I speak not here, as to
the degree in which they exert their rational powers, or
the degree in which they are praise-worthy, or blame-
worthy ; but as to the fact of their really exerting them,
and the fact of their being accountable. Now how can
it be supposed, that the theory of native depravity in-
volves any greater difficulty in regard to the divine agen-
cy, than any other theory which admits that man is a

104

sinner ; inasmuch as the only difference in this respect
is, that, according to one, man begins to be a sinner ear-
lier, than according to the other ? Those who assert
that men begin to be sinners at a later period, are as
much obliged to account for that fact without in-
volving a divine agency that is inadmissible, as we
are to account for the fact that men are sinners
from the first. The fact which they are to account
for, is, that men who have been moral agents for some
time, and have, by the exercise of holiness, done some-
thing towards forming a habit of holiness, should then be-
ts o '

come sinners. The task of accounting for this is, to say
the least, as hard as what falls to us. For how is it
that the holy affections, which have for some time
been acquiring strength by exercise, should, in eve-
rv human being, so easily give place to sinful affec-
tions ? and that a habit, which has attained more or less
confirmation, should be so easily overcome ? How is it
that men can, according to the fixed laws which regulate
the mind, be uniformly induced to sin, by any causes
whatever ? Are not all the causes, which operate
upon them, under the direction of the Almighty ? Sup-
pose they are drawn aside from duty by temptations
arising from external objects. Who is it but God that
formed and arranged those objects ? And who is it but
God, that has given man that constitution of body and
mind, which exposes him to receive an impression from
those objects, and to be drawn aside by their influence?
Who is it that places him in such a situation, that those
objects acquire so mighty a sway over his feelings and
his actions ? How easy would it be for that God, who
contrives and rules all things, so to direct the circum-
stances of man, or, in all circumstances, so to
influence his mind, that he should never fall into

105

sin ? Or suppose he is drawn into sin by his appe-
tites and passions. Who gave him those appetites
and passions ? And who gave them power thus to in-
fluence his conduct ? Or who gave him a moral consti-
tution so weak, as to be uniformly overcome by such an
influence ? Or to go back a little farther. When God
formed the plan of this world, did he not clearly see how
the mind of man, placed under the influence of such
causes, would operate ? Did he not see how it would
evolve its powers and its affections; how it would be
impressed by other objects ; and what would ultimately
be its moral aspect? Did he not foresee all this? Did
he not form things as they are, with a perfect foreknowl-
edge of the result? Was it possible for him to adopt
such a scheme, made up of causes and effects in the
moral as well as in the natural world, with any other
view, than that the consequences which have actually
taken place, should take place ? Say, if you please,
that man's conduct and character are owing to his
own free will. Did not God give him his free will ?
And when he gave it, did he not know exactly what it
was, and how it would operate ? And is it not accord-
ing to his plan, that man's free will is influenced as it is
by the various causes which affect it ? Should it be said,
the will is prompted to act by no motive or cause ex-
traneous to itself; my reply would be, first, that this would
relieve no difficulty in regard to the character and agency
of God. For if the will were not actuated by external mo-
tives or causes, then we should be under the necessity of
concluding that God so constituted the will, that it should
be moved to act bv causes within itself, those causes, and
the influence they should have on the mind, being as
much dependent on a divine arrangement, as any ^hing
else. But I should reply, secondly, that as man is in

106

fact constituted, such a supposition is not admissible.
Because acts of the will, not prompted by the disposi*
tion of the heart, nor by any other motive, could have
no moral character. Of this any man may be satisfied,
who will allow himself to think. It is perfectly plain,
that any determinations of the will, in order to be vir-
tuous or vicious, must be influenced by motives, and by
motives of a moral nature. Motives are the proximate
causes of all voluntary actions ; and must be so, or we
cease to be moral agents. But are not these motives
wholly under the divine control ?

Now let Dr. Ware, in view of the whole subject,
clearly show, how the concern which God must have
with moral actions, in any instance of transgression, which
takes place in any period of life, can be admitted, with-
out dishonour to his character; and I will show how
it can be admitted in the case of that early trans-
gression, which our doctrine asserts. I insist that a mor-
al depravity, existing from the first, involves no greater
difficulty respecting the divine agency, than the scheme
advocated by our opponents.

The truth of Dr. Ware's declaration, that " we have
not faculties which enable us in any cases to trace things
up to the first cause and spring of action," I do not ad-
mit, without some limitation. It is indeed true in all
cases, where God has not, in one way or another, given
us sufficient information. But as to the subject now un-
der consideration, God has not left us in such profound
ignorance, as seems to be signified by the above cited
remark. And is there not an appearance, in this place,
of Dr. Ware's shrinking back from the task of tracing;
the universal wickedness of man up to its cause or spring,
lest he should run himself upon the same difficulty, which
he charges upon the Orthodox doctrine ? But in reali-

107

ty, how can he excuse himself from attempting, by some
adequate cause, to account for that universal wickedness
which, as a matter of fact, he frequently acknowledges ?
It behoves him at least, to admit candidly, and without
fear of consequences, the natural, obvious meaning of
those texts of Scripture, which expressly assign such a
cause; and not to impose upon himself, or his readers,
by a representation, which does nothing more or less,
than to make sin the cause of itself. He surely could
not mean to say, that it has no cause ; for this would be
the same as saying, that it takes place by chance — that
it is a mere accident, or mishap. And who ever thought
himself accountable for the freaks of chance ?

Possibly Dr. Ware might allow, that our rational,
moral nature has settled laws, and always acts under the
influence of moral causes, and yet say, it is not for us to
know, what those laws or causes are. But most certain-
ly, this must be regarded as a suitable subject of inquiry.
" The proper study of mankind is man." Nor does mod-
esty or humility forbid us to extend, as far as possible,
our knowledge of the properties of the mind, and of the
causes which influence its actions. Nor does honesty
permit us to stifle or conceal our convictions. Knowl-
edge in regard to this general subject is of the highest
practical importance. For there is no way, in which we
can exercise any salutary discipline over our own minds,
or attain any thing like self-government, unless we have
learnt, in a good degree, the attributes and laws of our
intellectual and moral nature. But how is this knowl-
edge to be obtained ? Plainly, by experience and obser-
vation. From ourselves and others we learn in what
manner, and under what causes the mind acts. Now it
might be easy enough for Dr. Ware to account for the
moral disorders which prevail in the world, if the single

108

fact were admitted, that men are actually depraved, 01
have become sinners. For it is what every body knows,
that men will act according to their prevailing disposition,
and that their disposition is strengthened and confirmed
by repeated acts. But the difficulty, which it behoves
my opponent to solve, is, that reasonable, moral beings,
coming into existence with a nature perfectly pure —
with a nature not in the least inclined to evil, should uni-
versally become sinners, as soon as they are capable of
action. No act of the will can account for this fact.
Certainly no right act of the will can account for it.
And there can be no wrong act of the will, before there
is a wrong disposition or affection of heart. But if men
have a wrong disposition, they are already depraved,
and their being so is not by any means to be accounted
for, by that sinful act of the will, which takes place after
they become so.

The corrupting influence of bad example is mention-
ed by Dr. Ware and others, to account for the early and
general depravity of mankind. But is this satisfactory?
Upon the supposition that men are iree from all wrong bias,
and perfectly pure, they can have no disposition to fol-
low a bad example, or in the least degree to be pleased
with it. And if they have no disposition to follow it, or
be pleased with it, it surely cannot injure them. There
is no conceivable way, in which any bad example, any
temptation or solicitation to sin from without, can be in-
jurious to us, but by meeting with a disposition in us
which concurs with it, and draws us into compliance.
The power of temptation, whenever it prevails, lies in
such a disposition in us. But such a disposition is
sinful. Where it exists, even in the smallest degree,
sin is already begun. Jesus was always, from the
first, perfectly free from any sinful disposition : and

109

therefore no temptation had any effect upon him, but to
exercise and confirm his virtue. Temptation never pro-
duces its effect upon moral agents, either in a compulso-
ry manner, or by chance. They have a propensity, oft-
en unperceived by themselves, to the sins, which they
are tempted to commit. The prevalence of temptation to
draw them into sin is always considered a proof, that there
is something wrong in their disposition. Were it possi-
ble that temptation should in any case have influence
to lead men into sin, when there is no sinful incli-
nation mixing with it, and giving it influence ; their
compliance might be a misfortune, but could not be a
crime. It appears therefore, that the influence of temp-
tation, though it may account for the first display of mor-
al evil, or for the first outward, palpable act of sin, can-
not account for the first existence of that which is the
root and essence of all sin, namely, a corrupt disposition
of heart.

The attempt of Dr. Taylor to account for the cor-
ruption of the world by the influence of bad example, is
particularly answered by Edwards. The following is a
summary of the answer. — It is accounting for the corrup-
tion of the world by itself. For the universal prevalence
of bad examples is the very corruption to be accounted
for. If mankind are naturallv no more inclined to evil
than to good ; how comes it to pass, that there are, in
all ages, so many more bad examples, than good ones ?
Or if there are not more bad ones than good, how is if,
that the bad are so much more followed ? And when
opposition has been made by good examples, how comes
it to pass that it has had so little effect to stem the gen-
eral current of wickedness ? There have in different
ages been examples of eminent piety and goodness, as
that of Noah, of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, of the Pro
15

110

phets, apostles, afid martyrs, but especially the exam-
ple of Christ, which was in all respects perfect, and
was exhibited in a manner and in circumstances to excite
the highest possible interest. These examples are con-
stantly held up to view in the Scriptures, and by the
ministers of religion, and would surely produce a gen-
eral effect in Christian lands, were there not a propensi-
ty in man to follow bad examples rather than good ones.

Again. The influence of bad example, without cor-
ruption of nature, will not account for children's univer-
sally committing sin, as soon as they are capable of it,
especially the children of eminently pious parents.

Several Unitarians have triumphantly repeated of
late, what Dr. Taylor said long ago, that the occurrence
of sin in Adam, who is admitted on both sides to have
been at first sinless, invalidates the grand argument of
the Orthodox in proof of native depravity.

I frankly acknowledge that this fact does invali-
date the argument of the Orthodox, so far as they
have attempted to prove the native depravity of men
from the naked fact, that they all comrmt sin. Although
all who have come to adult years, are sinners; this, by
itself, is no conclusive proof, that they were smners,from
their birth. For if an individual, and that individual the
parent of our race, may change from native innocence to
sin ; we could not, by our own reason, certainly
determine, that it would be impossible for the
whole race to change in like manner. We must look
then for facts. And for the evidence of facts, we must
rely wholly on our own experience and observation, and
on the word of God. If Ave could call to remembrance
several years at the commencement of our life, in which
we were wholly without sin ; or if we learnt, by care-
ful observation, that children generally live a number of

Ill

years in a perfectly sinless state ; or if the Scriptures
taught us that such is the state of human beings at the
beginning of their life ; we should be obliged to admit
the original purity of their nature, as we do that of Adam,
though they all become sinners afterwards. In regard
to Adam, there is satisfactory proof of the fact, that he
was, at first, in a state of holiness, and for a time continu-
ed in that state. But where is the evidence that such is
the first moral state of his posterity? We have seen
abundant evidence, that the contrary is true. In the
case of Adam, we have evidence, that his transgressing
the divine law implied a change of his moral nature, from
holiness to sin. But respecting his posterity, both ex-
perience and the word of God lead us to conclude, that
the only moral change they are capable of, is from sin
to holiness. The two cases then are materially different.
And we can by no means reason respecting the one, as
we do respecting the other. The sin of Adam can af-
ford no evidence, that his nature was corrupt from the
first. But the sin of his posterity, circumstanced as it
is, affords the most conclusive evidence, that they are,
from the first, subjects of a corrupt nature. Just as the
case may be in bodily diseases. A man may have a
consumption, when there is no proof that it is a native
or constitutional disorder. But a consumption in other
cases may be attended with circumstances, which prove
beyond a doubt, that the disorder was founded in the
original constitution. Both in regard to the bodily and
the spiritual disorder, our single inquiry is, whether the
circumstances of the case prove it to be natural. What
I have said, Chapter in, is the substance of the argument,
by which I prove the moral depravity of mankind to be
native. But there is no evidence at all that Adam's deprav-
ity was native. I say then, we cannot reason from one to

112

the other, because the circumstances of the two are materi-
ally different. 1 do not rely on the fact, taken by itself,
that mankind are all sinners ; because if there were any
reason to suppose that mankind exist for a time in a sin-
less state, as Adam did, their being sinners afterwards
would not show what their state was originally. But it
is as true of Adam, as of any other man, that ev-
ery sinful volition and act of his presupposed a sinful
disposition, and must have arisen from it. And the first
existence of that sinful disposition in his case is a
fact as hard to be accounted for, as the existence of
native depravity in his posterity. The commencement
of sin in both cases, as also in the case of the angels who
kept not their first state, is to be regarded as an ultimate
fact in God's empire ; a fact perfectly consistent with
the holiness of his character, and with the principles of
moral agency. 1 should be content to consider it in this
light, though I should be compelled to leave it totally
unexplained, and should find it encompassed with a host
of difficulties, still more formidable than any I have seen.
But if Unitarians choose to call up again the reasoning
of Dr. Taylor in order to show the weakness of one of
the arguments employed by the Orthodox ; 1 must say,
their success in this attempt will appear less complete
than they have imagined. It is a principle founded on
the laws of nature, that the fruit shows not only what
the tree now is, but what it was from its origin, from its
first vegetation, unless there is evidence that it has in
some way undergone a change since. I do not mean to
make an argument of a simile, nor to carry the analogy
implied in it beyond due limits. But in truth, it is as
plainly according to the general constitution of heaven,
to consider the life of man to be a development of his
intellectual and moral nature, under the influence of

113

those various causes which act upon it from the first, as
to consider the growth and fruit of a tree to be the de-
velopment of its original nature, acted upon by corres-
pondent causes. This principle holds good in all cases,
unless there is proof of such a change as has been sug-
gested above. -

CHAPTER VI.

I shall now consider the manner in which Dr.
Ware confutes several arguments, which the Orthodox
derive from Scripture in support of the doctrine of de-
pravity.

In my Letter, I cited Gen. vi, 5, not as a direct, but
an indirect proof of the Orthodox doctrine of depravity.
My object in quoting this particnlar passage was to il-
lustrate the general nature of the argument from the
Old Testament. I shall not take time to expose again
the objection, which Dr. Ware urges against it, as it is
the same with that, which I particularly noticed in Let-
ter V. Dr. Ware has made no attempt to invalidate
the argument, on which I chiefly relied for the confirm-
ation of my theory. I had stated, that the Apostle
quotes promiscuously from the Old Testament, passages
descriptive of the wickedness of mankind formerly, as
equally applicable to the human race at all times,
and that, if the passages referred to are not ap-
plicable to mankind universally, the Apostle has giv-
en us sophistry instead of argument. My reasoning on
the subject is given at length in my fifth Letter, to
which I beg leave to refer the reader. It was the

114

reasoning on which I rested for the truth of my position;
and it deserved the attention of Dr. Ware, as much as
any thing I had written. But without any particular at-
tention to my reasoning, he repeats the very objection
which I had endeavoured to answer. See Letters to Trini-
tarians p. 32. The passage in Gen. vi. 5-, he says, "re-
lates not to mankind universally, but to the degenerate
race of men of that age, so remarkably and universally
corrupt, beyond all that had gone before or have follow-
ed since, as to call for the most signal tokens of the ven-
geance of heaven."

I begin my remarks on this quotation by saying, that
there is not the least reason to think, that the men of
that age were corrupt beyond all who have appeared
since. There is certainly no evidence of this from the
description given of their character; for the Bible con-
tains many a description of human Avickedness, as dread-
ful as that. There is no evidence from the fact, that
the world was destroyed by a deluge ; for God might
intend to accomplish some important ends, by making
such a display of his holy vengeance once, though he
might not, on account of equal or even greater cor-
ruption, think proper to repeat it. It is clear too,
that many portions of the human race have suffer-
ed more distressing calamities, and of course more dread-
ful tokens of the divine vengeance,6 than being destroy-
ed by a deluge. Besides, there is no probability from
the circumstances of the case, that men, at that early
period of the world, and with privileges comparatively
small, could be guilty in so high a degree, as men of-
ten have been since. And in addition to all this, our Sa-
viour expressly cautions us against inferring the degree of
men's wickedness from the evils they suffer in the pre-
sent life. See Luke xiii. 1 — 5. So that, from the sig-

115

nal tokens of divine vengeance, which the contemporaries
of Noah experienced, we could not safely conclude that
they were corrupt above all others.

This however is a point of minor consequence. To
invalidate my reasoning, Dr. Ware first remarks, that the
text, quoted from Gen. vi. 5, "relates not to mankind uni-
versally, but to the degenerate race of men of that age."
He means by this remark to prove, that we cannot, in any
proper sense, apply such passages to mankind generally.
I had attempted to show that we can learn what human
nature is, or what man is, from the highest descriptions
of human wickedness found in the Old Testament ; that
those descriptions are substantially true in relation to all
men ; not that all men are criminal in the same degree,
but that all have the same nature, the same original pro-
pensities, the same ingredients of character. In all this he
thinks [ expressed myself rashly or carelessly. "Are we,"
he says, much in the manner of Dr. Turnbull, — " are
we to consider those places, which, singled out and dis-
tinguished from all others, are expressly declared to
have been destroyed for their enormous and incorrigi-
ble wickedness, as fair representatives of the usual state
and character of the human race ? People, who were
ordered to be wholly extirpated for the very purpose
of stopping the contagion of their vices &c, ? Are Pha-
raoh, Jeroboam, and Judas fair examples and represen-
tatives of human nature?" I answer, yes. For had
they any nature but the human ? If they were not
examples of human nature, of what nature were
they examples ? — of some nature above the human,
or below it ? The actions of an individual man always
result from his own nature, influenced as it is by exter-
nal causes. But his own nature is human nature. And
have not others the same ? And admitting the moral

116

nature of men to be the same, may we not satisfactorily
account for the variety of characters among them, from
the different circumstances in which they are placed,
and the different combination of causes under which they
act ? Or are we to resort to the strange supposition,
that all the different degrees of wickedness, which men
exhibit, are really to be traced back to a corresponding
difference in their original character? That is, are we
to suppose, that Pharaoh, Jeroboam and Judas had orig-
inally a moral nature as much worse than Moses, David,
and Paul, as their ultimate characters were worse ?
Nothing could be more unphilosophical ; nothing more
contrary to the word of God, and the common sense of
Christians.

Now just try the correctness of the principle which
Dr. Ware's reasoning involves ; namely, that the account
which the Bible gives of the wickedness of men at one
period, or in one country, does not make a fair display of
human nature, and does not show, what is substantially
the character of men at any other period, or in any oth-
er country. If this principle is correct, of what use to
us are the writings of historians, either sacred or pro-
fane ? It has generally been held up by the best wri-
ters, as a peculiar advantage of history, that it gives us
useful lessons respecting human nature, or makes us ac-
quainted with the character of our species. But if Dr.
Ware is right, this cannot be admitted. For according
to his opinion, history only gives us a description of the
passions, and dispositions, and conduct of particular men
or societies of men, who had no common nature, and to
whom no one can reasonably suppose that we bear
any moral likeness. We may read of the envy and mal-
ice of Cain ; but it is of no use to us, as it cannot be
supposed that men nowadays have any tendency in their

117

nature to envy and hate others who are better than they.
And when the Apostle John referred to the conduct of
Cain, for the purpose of counselling and warning those
to whom he wrote ; he must have done it inadvertently,
unless there happened to be something in their charac-
ter, which was different from what was common, and
which would render such a procedure suitable. History
may tell us of the great corruption and violence of the
antediluvian world. But at this day, we can have little
concern with what was so distant, except to gratify cu-
riosity. For it would be very unreasonable to suppose
that there is any thing in men generally, especially in
those who are born in a Christian land, which would
lead them into the same excesses, even if they should be
placed in the same circumstances. We may read the
history of the children of Israel in Egypt, at the Red
Sea, at Sinai, in the wilderness, and in the promised
land, and our astonishment may be excited at their
fickleness, unbelief, ingratitude, and obduracy. But what
is all this to us, who live in these better days, who are
born Christians, and who cannot, with the least degree
of justice, be charged with any disposition or tendency in
our nature like theirs? Admit that they were fickle,
unbelieving, ungrateful, and obdurate. Does that show
what we are, or what we should be likely to be in simi-
lar circumstances ? Are we to learn the character of
human nature generally, from their nature ? " Would
you go to a lazar-house or hospital to know what is the
usual state of human health ?" And what shall we
think of the Apostle to the Romans, who says, " Whatso-
ever things were written aforetime, were written for our
learning;" and who actually uses the passages of the
Old Testament which were descriptive of the wicked-
16

118

ness of the Israelites at particular times, as applicable
to men generally.

History tells us of the ambition, despotism, and cru-
elty of wicked kings and commanders. But are men,
holding similar stations now, to be suspected of any pro-
pensity to similar vices ? Indeed, as the moral consti-
tution of different parts of the human species, or the ba-
sis of their character is not the same ; no individual can
be presumed to have any thing like what appears in
any other. If I see some of my neighbours proud, self-
ish, envious, revengeful, in willing servitude to their pas-
sions ; I am not Warranted to conclude that any others
have similar traits of character. Those few men may
be the only ones in a whole nation, who have their na-
ture so infected. Of the thousands and millions of their
contemporaries, supposing them placed under the influ-
ence of the same external circumstances, there may not
be a single individual, possessing radically the same dis-
positions. And even if it should be found, that they all
have substantially the same traits of character ; that
they all in fact show themselves in a higher or lower de-
gree proud, selfish, envious, revengeful, slaves to their
passions ; still I am not to suppose that they have pre-
viously any likeness of moral nature, which occasions
this likeness of visible character. It may be quite an ac-
cidental thing, or it may be owing to some unfortunate
motion of free-will, happening to be the same in all, that
they have come universally to be subject to the same
corrupt passions. It is very certain that the sinful pas-
sions or conduct of individuals, or of a nation, or of the
whole world from generation to generation, does not
show at all what the nature of man is. The conduct of
the antediluvians does not show this, nor the conduct of
heathen nations, nor of the Israelites, nor of Christen-

119

dom generally. Indeed there is no common nature
among men. Human nature in one may have no sub-
stantial likeness to human nature in another ; and what
is said truly of some cannot be in any sense safely ap-
plied to others. The description which was given of
men in the Psalms and in the Prophets, cannot be a true
description of other generations or societies of men. And
when the Apostle, Rom. iii, applied what had been
said of men in seasons of uncommon corruption, to the
generality of those who lived in his day, did he not do
it rashlv? Or if he actually knew that the whole mul-
titude, on whom he heaped the reproaches contained in
that chapter, were so uncommonly depraved as to de-
serve them; it would still be the height of injustice to
suppose they are deserved by men in general at the
present day. And according to the same scheme, there
is not one of all the declarations of the Bible respecting
human corruption and guilt, which can be safely applied
to the men of this generation. For those declarations,
whatever appearance of universality some of them may
have, were all made with a view to men who lived in
times very distant from the present, and exhibited a
grossness of character now seldom found. The Apos-
tle Paul declared the carnal mind to be enmity against
God, and represented the Ephesian converts as having
been enemies to God. But it was a carnal mind which
existed and yielded its hateful fruits at that particular
time. Who will be so uncandid as to look upon the
bulk of mankind now, especially in Christian lands, as
having that carnal mind which is enmity against God f
We find also that Christ said, " that which is born of the
flesh is flesh," and on the ground of human corruption,
thus expressed, asserted the necessity of regeneration.
But he must have said it with reference to that carnal

120

race of men, by whom he Avas surrounded. Of those
who are born among us now, it cannot be said that they
are flesh in any such sense, as implies the necessity of
being bom again; any more than David's singular ac-
knowledgment that he was " shapen in iniquity and
conceived in sin," — made in very peculiar circumstances,
and under great depression of spirits, can be understood
as signifying any thing in regard to the native character
of men generally. The Bible contains commands, ex-
hortations, and warnings to saints and sinners, which were
occasioned by the depravity of their hearts, and referred
directly to their sinful passions and habits. But such
commands, exhortations, and warnings may be altogether
inapplicable to us, on account of our exemption from that
depravity which would render them suitable to our case.
The Apostle says; " they that are Christ's have crucified
the flesh with the affections and lusts." " If any man be in
Christ, he is a new creature." He says all this of those
Christians who lived in his day. To them it properly relat-
ed. But it cannot be supposed essential to the character of
the present generation of Christians, that they should be
the subjects of any such change. Indeed we must go still
farther. To give consistency throughout to the system,
on the ground of which these remarks have proceeded,
we must maintain that we are under no obligation to obey
the commands of the decalogue. For to whom did God
speak, when he said, " Thou shalt have no other gods be-
fore me ; thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image ;
thou shalt not take the name of God in vain ; remember the
Sabbath day," &c ? Did he not speak to those particular
persons who then surrounded the holy mount ? Is it
said, or intimated, that men of future ages should come
under the obligation of these strict and holy commands?
Has God ever spoken particularly to us, and required us

121

to observe the precepts of the decalogue ? What au-
thority then have the ministers of religion to urge the
high obligation of these precepts upon us, just as though
God had actually spoken to us in these last days, and
given us commands, as he did the Israelites encamped
at the foot of Sinai ? Surely when they do this, they
overlook the vast difference between us, who live in an
age of such intellectual and moral refinement, and the
posterity of Jacob, at that time in so uncultivated a state,
and just let loose from " the house of bondage." We
cannot look to any of the commands which God gave
them, to learn what he requires of us. Even supposing
that, by the authority of Prophets and Apostles, they
were enjoined on other generations of men who came af-
ter; where is the Prophet or Apostle, who has expressly
declared that men, living in the nineteenth century, and in
this particular part of the world, would all be under ob-
ligation to obey those very commands, which were en-
joined upon men thousands of years ago ? — The same al-
so as to the New Testament. Jesus said, repent. But
he said it to his contemporaries, not to us. He said too,
"He that believeth shall be saved ; and he that believ-
eth not shall be damned." But that awful alternative
was pressed upon that generation of Jews, not upon us.
And in fact, all parts of the Bible were addressed to men
of other times, and in other circumstances ; and there is
no doctrine contained in it respecting the present state
or future prospects of men, how true soever it might
have been when first declared, which can be assumed as
true and applicable now ; and no command, however just
and important in relation to those, to whom it was first ad-
dressed, which can bind us; and no warning of danger, how-
ever alarming once, which can properly alarm us ; and
no promise of good, however cheering and animating

122

once, which can cheer and animate us. The whole Bi-
ble, as really as that part which describes human cor-
ruption, was spoken and written in other times, and to
another race of men ; and nothing short of a new reve-
lation can convince us, that the book can be of any
practical use to us, except to inform us what the in-
habitants of the world once were, and how God once
treated them.

I hope to be excused for exhibiting at such length what
seems plainly implied in the system, which has here come
under notice, and what are its legitimate consequences.
The principle, on which that system sets aside the de-
scriptions of human depravity contained in the Bible, as
not in any way applicable to us, would, if closely adher-
ed to, lead on to all the extremities above suggested. It
would set aside one part of the Bible, as well as another.
It would invalidate, in regard to us, the doctrinal and
preceptive part, as well as that part which is descrip-
tive of man's depravity. The same principle, which
would free us from the mortification of applying to our-
selves the high charges of corruption and guilt, contained
in the Bible, would also deprive us of its high promises
of divine mercy. If any man who sets aside the account
of human wickedness found in the Scriptures, as inappli-
cable to us, still thinks the moral precepts applicable ;
I ask, on what principle such an application is founded?
Is there any express declaration in the Scriptures them-
selves, that the moral precepts, which were given thou-
sands of years ago, are to be thus understood ? Is it any
where in the Bible said, that the commands of God, there
announced, should be obligatory upon men in every coun-
try and in every age ? Not a word of this. In what
way then are we satisfied, that every human being is un-
der the same perfect obligation to obey the moral pre-

123

cepts of the Bible, as if God actually addressed them to
him in particular? How is it that we immediately con-
clude that all men, now living, are proper subjects of the
same law which God gave to men in former times, and
feel it to be right for us to enjoin it upon them to love
God supremely, to love their neighbours as themselves,
and to keep all the precepts of the Bible ? When the
ministers of Christ go to pagan nations, how is it that
they feel themselves authorized to do just what the apos-
tles did, — to call upon all men to forsake the vanities of
heathenism, to repent, and to worship the true God?
What could render all this proper, but the obvious prin-
ciple that, as to the essential properties of moral agents,
men in all ages and climates are alike ? Whenever we
meet a human being, we instantly take it for granted,
that he is a moral agent like ourselves, and like those
who first received the law, and that the law is as suita-
ble to him, as it was to them. When we see an infant,
we take it for granted, as we have a right to do, that he
is born to be a moral agent, and that it will be proper
to inculcate the divine precepts upon him, as soon as he
can understand them ; just as proper as though the divine
Lawgiver expressly directed us to inculcate them upon
that particular child. To all this I think the opposers of
Orthodoxy would readily agree. But it is upon the same
general principle that I proceed in my reasoning, with
respect to the subject under discussion. There is as real
evidence that men in all ages and climates are alike in
regard to the essential traits of moral character, as in re-
gard to the properties which constitute them proper sub-
jects of law. This is in truth the practical judgment of
men universally. Who does not know enough of human
nature to satisfy him, that it always has the same essen-
tial attributes? Who doubts that a man, whom he now

124

for the first time meets, will exhibit the same character-
istics, as other men — the same substantially, though per-
haps not in form ? The man whom we never saw be-
fore, we doubt not has pride, and that, in circumstances
which are likely to occur, he will show pride, — not in
this or that particular way, but in some way, according
to circumstances. We doubt not he has a culpable self-
love, which will lead him, in a manner not to be justified,
to prefer his own interest to that of others; a self-love
therefore, which will require strong motives, and watch-
ful discipline, and powerful influence from above to sub-
due it. We doubt not he has a tendency to resent an
injury, and to recompense evil for evil ; and to envy those
above him, especially if their superiority operates sensi-
bly to his disadvantage. And so of the rest. If in any
case we should regulate our conduct towards particular
men upon any other principle, than that they are sub-
ject to the same corrupt affections with others, and
that, acting under the influence of similar causes, they
are likely to exhibit similar traits of character ; we should
be charged, and very justly, with being deficient in the
knowledge of our own species. And if any man thinks
himself exempt from the moral depravity which men
have generally exhibited, and forms his judgment and his
maxims of conduct in regard to himself, on the principle,
that he has little or none of the wickedness which has
disgraced and ruined others ; he gives conclusive proof
of self-ignorance.

It is on this plain principle of the sameness of human
nature in all ages and countries, that I would apply the
mortifying description of human wickedness, found in the
Bible, to men of the present generation ; just as the
Apostle applied the description, which had been given
of other generations of men, to those who lived in his

125

day. It is on this principle that I have said, we may
draw practical instruction in regard to ourselves from the
history of Pharaoh, of Saul, of Jeroboam, and of the Jews
who crucified the Son of God. That history shows me not
only what was in those particular men, but what is in hu-
man nature, what is in my nature. It shows me what
is man. In ourselves we may find those very sinful dis-
positions which, after having been strengthened and ma-
tured by various causes, constituted those men just what
they were ; and which, operating in similar circumstan-
ces, would render us like them. We are as truly like
them in a moral view, as a man in an intellectual view,
is like those who have risen somewhat above him in the
acquisition of knowledge, but whom he would have
equalled, had he been in their circumstances.

Dr. Ware tells us, what indeed deserves special at-
tention, that the very passages of Scripture, which rep-
resent men as universally corrupt, " teach us with what
qualifications they are to be understood." He refers
particularly to Psalm xiv, and says, " that while it asserts
in the strong language of emotion and eastern hyperbole,
that all are gone aside, — that there is none that doeth
good, no, not one ; it goes on to speak of a generation
of the righteous.'* I might mention it as a fact of the
same kind, that an exception was made in favour of Noah,
Lot, and others, who lived in the midst of abounding
wickedness. And the Orthodox make just such an ex-
ception now. Wrhen they understand the language of
the Bible, which was descriptive of the great wickedness
of men formerly, as expressive of the universal depravi-
ty of those who live at the present day ; they have no
doubt there arc many exceptions ; — many good men, who
obey God, and are entitled to the happiness of heaven*
The question is. how these two representations of Scrip-

126

ture can consist together, and in what manner we are
to modify the sense of the one by the other. Here we
come to the grand principle of interpretation ; namely;
that the Bible, taken as a whole, must explain itself. How
then does the Bible account for the fact, that some men
are holy, while the generality are sinful ? Does it ever
represent them to be holy by nature ? No, never. It
may sometimes speak of their being holy, as a matter of
fact simply, without assigning the cause of it. But in
other places, it does, with the greatest explicitness, ac-
count for this fact. It represents the children of God
as being holy, in consequence of regeneration. They
who are in Christ, are new creatures. Old things are pass-
ed away ; all things are become new. The Bible teaches
all who are holv, to ascribe their holiness to the new-
creating Spirit of God ; while it represents their natural
character to be like that of others, and describes it in
the same language. So that the exception made in their
favour does not respect their own native character, but
the new character which they possess in consequence of
being born of the Spirit. The principle I am contend-
ing for, may be easily illustrated by natural things.
It may be said of a certain species of shrub or
tree, for example, the thorn-bush, that it bears no useful
fruit; although in consequence of a scion being ingraft-
ed into it from another tree, it may bear fruit that is de-
licious and salutary. Still the proper nature of the
shrub, and the just description of it, remain the same ;
and we never think of representing it as a property of
the thorn-bush, that it bears delicious fruit. Thus in the
passages above referred to, the universal terms which
describe human wickedness, instead of being limited as
Dr. Ware proposes, are truly applicable to all men with-
out exception, in regard to their own proper, original char-

127

acter. Those who are now Christians, are naturally sub-
jects of the same depravity with others ; and their being
different now is owing to " the washing of regeneration
and the renewing of the Holy Ghost."

Here we are furnished with an easy answer to some
of Dr. Ware's questions, p. 38. " Let it be asked," he
says, " why the cruelty and obstinacy of Pharaoh, rather
than the humanity, and piety, and meekness of Moses ;
why the idolatry, and unprincipled ambition and selfish-
ness of Jeroboam, rather than the piety, and tenderness
of conscience, and public spirit of Josiah; why the sin-
gle wretch who was so base as to betray his master,
rather than the eleven who were true and faithful to
him, should be selected as specimens of the race to which
they belong?" The answer is, that all these vices and
iniquities are the natural, spontaneous growth of human
nature. They are what the Apostle calls " the fruits of
the flesh ;" — of that flesh which, according to John iii. 6,
belongs to us by our natural birth ; while the virtues
enumerated are the fruits of the Spirit, or the effects of
that divine influence, by which men are delivered from
their natural character, and made new creatures. Those
men are justly selected, as specimens of the race to which
they belong, who are just what their own proper nature
makes them, or whose traits of character result from
their own moral constitution or nature, unchanged by the
Spirit of God. But it would be obviously unjust to se-
lect, as specimens of our race, or of the moral character
which properly belongs to us, those who are what they
are, not by nature, but by grace, or by the new-creating
Spirit of God. And if the Bible is made its own inter-
preter, this must be allowed to be fact with regard to
every human being who is the subject of holiness. But
the case which Dr. Ware afterwards brings into view, is

128

altogether different. He asks, " would you select the
period of seven years' famine, as an example of the usu-
al fertility of Egypt ? The desolating pestilence in the
days of David, as a fair specimen of the salubrity of the
climate of Israel ?" I answer, no. Because the famine
does not show the proper character of the soil of Egypt,
nor the pestilence, of the climate of Israel. They were
real exceptions to what was natural; and Dr. Ware can-
not justly adduce them, as he does, unless he can show,
that great depravity is as foreign to the moral nature of
man, as the famine was to the soil in one case, and the
pestilence to the climate in the other.

CHAPTER VII.

Dr. Ware's reply to the argument from John iii. 3. Rom. v. 12. Ephes. ii. 3.

Dr. Ware is convinced that the universal necessity
of regeneration, asserted in John iii. 3, may consist with
original innocency. Still, in his apprehension, the pas-
sage implies " the absence or want of that which was
necessary to becoming a subject of the kingdom of God ;"
p. 41 ; or as he expresses it, p. 42, "that men do not
possess by birth that character of personal holiness,
which is necessary to their being Christians." Let the
reader consider a moment the consistency between this,
and what is found in other places. Here, he says of all
who are born into the world in every age, that they are
by birth destitute of that holiness which is necessary to
their being Christians. But soon after, p. 47, he affirms,
that " those now born into the world in Christian lands,
are as the Ephesians were after their conversion to

129

Christianity, saved — quickened — fellow-citizens of the
saints." What he has written on this point, taken to-
gether, stands thus. According to one place, men by their
birth receive no moral character. According to another,
they are destitute of that which is necessary to their be-
coming subjects of God's kingdom. And according
to a third, "Jews and Gentiles were by nature,
what they were before they became Christians." But
here, p. 47, men are Christians by birth. In that very
state in which they are born, instead of being as before
described, without a moral character of any kind, they
have a character that is good. Instead of wanting that
which is necessary to their becoming subjects of the.
kingdom of God, as before, they are by their
birth, of the household of God, fellow-heirs with the
saints. Instead of being by their birth destitute of holi-
ness, they are subjects of holiness, quickened, sanctified,
as the Ephesians were after they became Christians.
Little children or infants, generally, instead of being
mere human beings, without any disposition or propen-
sity whatever, "are what men are to become by regen-
eration." p. 31.

I hope the reader will not attribute these contradic-
tions to the fault of Dr. Ware's understanding, so much
as to the fault of the system, which he has the misfortune
to defend. A man like him would not expose himself in
this manner, if his cause did not mislead him. With
this apology for him, let me proceed to a few more ob-
servations on these remarkable passages, compared to-
gether.

In p. 41, men are represented as "reasonable, account-
able beings by their natural birth." If accountable be-
ings, they are moral agents, they are under the divine
law, and must be judged according to that law. And

130

this is the same as saying, they will be condemned, if
they are not conformed to the law, and approved, if con-
formed to it. But while treating the same subject in
other places, our Author gives us " reasonable, account-
able beings," or moral agents, who have nothing in their
disposition or character which is either right or wrong,
and nothing for which they can be judged. Accounta-
ble beings, without any thing, either good or bad, for
which they are accountable ! Moral agents, without mo-
ral affections!

According to Dr. Ware's statements, it would seem
that the circumstances of our birth have an astonishing
and mysterious efficacy as to the formation of moral
character. Those who are born in Christian lands are,
by birth, what the converted Ephesians were, — Chris-
tians, children of God, heirs of heaven. But the moment
you pass the line which bounds Christendom, and enter
a pagan land, you find it quite different. There, in con-
sequence of an arrangement of divine providence, in which
human beings could have no agency, and over which
they could have no power, they are born without any
moral disposition ; and of course are destitute of that
holiness, which is necessary to their being admitted into
Christ's kingdom ; so that it is plainly necessary that
they should be born again, — should undergo " a great
moral change," and form " a new character." But here
in Christendom, it is not so. Either the atmosphere of
a Christian land, or the character and privileges of their
parents, or some other causes have so salutary an influ-
ence upon their birth, that they possess at once, as soon
as they are born, the character of converts. They are
sanctified, quickened, and members of God's household,
by their natural birth. So that, in regard to them, re-
generation is not necessary. They are as good by their

131

first birth, as the Ephesians were, after they were
"born again." — Now we should be much indebted to
Dr. Ware, if he would tell us by what arguments, from
Scripture or reason, he supports such an opinion as this.
He indeed makes it a subject of strong affirmation. Re-
ferring to the description of the converted Ephesians, he
says; "All this language was applied to the Ephesians
universally after their conversion, and all of it is as appli-
cable now universally to those who are Christians by birth."
We receive his affirmation, as showing clearly what his
opinion is. This is all we would ask of him in a similar
case ; and this no doubt is all he would ask of us.

Dr. Ware considers the whole passage, Rom. v, as so
intricate and obscure, that it can afford no solid support
to any doctrine, farther than it is explained by other
passages; and he seems to think I must view it in this
light. I did indeed say that the passage is "in some re-
spects very obscure." And so it may be, though in other
respects it is very clear. It is surely nothing uncommon,
either in inspired or uninspired writings, that a passage
should contain a particular doctrine with perfect plain-
ness and certainty, while its import, in regard to some
other points, can hardly be ascertained. Such in many
instances is the nature of the subject, that while, in some
parts it is plain and obvious, in other parts it is necessa-
rily obscure. The passage, Rom. v. 12 — 21, does, in
my view, teach an important Christian doctrine more
plainly and fully, and in language less capable of being
misconstrued, than any other passage of Scripture.
The writer declares his main doctrine again and again.
He declares it in a great variety of forms, and with great
strength of expression. He treats his principal subject.
as though he was determined, in that one passage, to
make it so plain, that no man could ever be at any loss

132

respecting it. And would not the opposers of Ortho-
doxy consider any passage in this light, if it should hap-
pen to teach, in the same clear, diversified, and forcible
manner, some doctrine in their creed? Dr. Ware
pleads the different meanings of the phrase E<p «, trans-
lated, for that, as a reason why we should not attach
much consequence to the passage. I will only say, that the
signification of the phrase, which is given in the common
version, and which is the only one that leaves to the
Apostle the credit of speaking good sense, fully supports
our scheme. Whatever variety of signification the
phrase may have in other circumstances, its signification
here is obvious, and the argument derived from the pas-
sage, conclusive.

I have no objection, as I have before suggested, to
the manner in which Dr. Ware proposes to limit the
sense of the assertion, that all have sinned. He says, it
is the assertion of a fact, which none will deny ; and
that, all circumstances being taken into view, it must
mean, "all who are capable of sinning, all as soon as they
are moral agents." I presume Dr. Ware would be reluct-
ant to undertake the task of determining, at what precise
period human beings become moral agents. If he should
undertake this, we might reasonably expect him to de-
termine it, as he seems already to have done in his Let-
ters, where he gives it as his opinion, that men are mo-
ral agents by their birth. Speaking, p. 21, of what
men are by nature, he represents them as having pas-
sions implanted in them, natural affections, reason and
conscience; which, taken together, make them account-
able beings, capable of right and wrong. This is per-
fectly equivalent to saying, they are moral agents. He
asserts nearly the same thing, p. 41. If these passages
are put together, and understood according to the fair
import of the words, they teach quite as much, as any

J33

friend of Orthodoxy believes, namely, that all men are
sinners as soon as they are born. I beg the reader to re-
view and compare the passages to which I have refer-
red, and see whether I have not given the just result of
Dr. Ware's own representations. And if he does indeed
entertain these views, we should suppose he might be
relieved from the difficulty he feels, in conceiving that
Adam's posterity should be subjected to death and oth-
er sufferings, as penal evils, without admitting that they
are charged with the sin of another. See his Letters^
p. 43. He says, " if this clause (all have sinned) be
understood in a sense which shall prove any thing to the
purpose, it will prove the genuine old Calvinistic doc-
trine, the imputation of Adam's sin/' But in the course
of his discussion, he makes it prove something to the
purpose, without any regard to that doctrine. We have
seen his representation to be, that all are sinners as soon
as they are capable of sin, or as soon as they are moral
agents, and that they are reasonable, accountable beings,
or moral agents, by their birth. The conclusion from
these premises must be, that they are sinners, or sinful
moral agents, by their birth. And if they are sinners,
or have a sinful disposition or character by their birth,
then obviously, in view of that sinfulness, death and other
evils which they suffer, may be penal evils, without any
thing like a literal imputation of Adam's sin. I stated
in my Letters, as the sentiment of the Apostle, that in
consequence of Adam's transgression, his posterity were
constituted sinners, and subjected to death and other suf-
ferings, as penal evils. Dr. Ware says, if this means any
thing to the purpose, and yet short of the common no-
tion of imputation, he is unable to perceive what it is.
But it is strange, that his own representation did not
help him to perceive. — All are sinners. This is a fact;
18

134

and according to the divine constitution here set forth
by the Apostle, this fact is the first or nearest conse-
quence of Adam's transgression. The fact intended is,
that all are sinners really, not in pretence ; in their own
persons, not in the person of another ; and that the
evils they endure relate directly to their own sinfulness,
as the meritorious cause, and remotely to the sin of
Adam, as the occasion ; that is, the occasion of the ex-
istence of that personal sinfulness, on account of which
penal evils are suffered. I do not admit that they are
sinners by the sin of Adam, in such a sense that they
suffer directly on his account, they themselves being free
from moral pollution; or in any sense but this, that they
are constituted and actually exist, sinners, that is, sinful,
ill-deserving creatures, not by the transfer of another's
guilt to them, (a thing utterly incongruous and incon-
ceivable,) but in their own persons; in short, that they
are essentially what they show themselves to be in their
subsequent life. Speaking of the representation of Stap-
fer, that God gives Adam a posterity like himself, Dr.
Ware very justly says, " if this means any thing, it must
mean sinners like himself;" that is, sinners in their own
persons, sinful in their character, ill-deserving in them-
selves, and so justly liable to suffering. Such they are,
or they are not like Adam.

On this part of the general subject of Dr. Ware's Let-
ters, I have only a few more remarks. Page 49 and
elsewhere, he makes much of man's having a natural or
communicated power to resist his sinful propensities, and
to be otherwise than what he is. Now in regard to
man's power, properly so called, our notions are proba-
bly as high as Dr. Ware's. We conceive man's power,
understood in its literal, proper sense, to be always com-

135

mensurate with his obligation. There can be no duty
without it, and none beyond it.

I hope Dr. Ware will reconsider what he has
written respecting a propensity to sin; namely; "that
the propensity itself is no sin, and implies no guilt."
p. 49. Every man must decide, and does decide, that
a propensity, inclination, or disposition to sin, is the very
essence of sin, and the only thing which makes any out-
ward action or any volition sinful. Before we impute real
blame to a man for any action, we either know, or take
it for granted, that he has a wrong disposition or propen-
sity. And in regard to ourselves; if, in any case where
our actions appear exceptionable in the view of man,
we are conscious of no bad disposition or propensity ;
we charge ourselves with no real guilt. But how fair so-
ever our actions may appear to man, if we are conscious
of having a sinful propensity or disposition, we condemn
ourselves, — we condemn ourselves for the disposition
itself, as bein£ the essence of sin.

In connexion with this subject, Dr. Ware makes one
representation of the scheme of Calvinism, on which I
beg leave briefly to remark. He says, p. 50; "If I
rightly understand the scheme of Calvinism, divine pun-
ishments are not, according to that scheme, disciplinary,
but vindictive. God punishes his offending creatures not
to reform them, but to vindicate his authority. The
sufferings of the wicked have no tendency to reform," &c.
But this cannot be admitted as a just account of Calvin-
ism, unless the remarks are understood to relate exclu-
sively to future punishment. So far as my information
extends, all Calvinists, whether higher or lower, consid-
er the sufferings of the present life, not only as tending
to vindicate the character and law of God, but as disci-
plinary, that is, as having a real tendency, under the dis-

136

pensation of mercj, to reform the wicked ; a tenden-
cy, which is in many cases effectual, and which would
be so in all cases, were it not counteracted by other
causes. In respect to this subject, the Scripture leads
us to make a clear distinction between the state of
probation, and of retribution. In the former, the evils
which God inflicts on men are corrective or disciplina-
ry, though at the same time suited to show God's jus-
tice, and to vindicate his authority. In the latter state,
as we understand the word of God, the reformation of
the wicked does not come within the design of punish-
ment. The end to be secured relates wholly to the di-
vine character and kingdom. But we cannot accede to
Dr. Ware's notion, that disciplinary punishment may be
inflicted by a righteous and benevolent God, without real
ill-desert in those who suffer. Is not disciplinary pun-
ishment intended for correction and reformation ? But
what place can there be for correction or reformation in
regard to those, who are not faulty, or blame-worthy ?
What need of reformation ? And what occasion for cor-
rection ? Suppose punishment is laid upon them. How
can it produce any good effect ? Certainly not accord-
ing to any physical laws. The effect to be produced is
in the mind, and must be produced, if produced at all,
according to the laws of our intelligent and moral nature.
Punishment, to be salutary, must relate to some fault,
some moral evil, and must express to us the divine dis-
pleasure on account of it. Where this is the case, there
is correction ; and if we are not refractory, there will be
reformation.

I can spend but a few moments upon the views of
our Author, p. 52. He thinks that the scheme of Uni-
tarians on the subject of depravity is suited to produce

137

much greater humility and self-abhorrence, than that of
the Orthodox. Those, who are familiarly acquainted
with what the advocates of Unitarian ism and of Ortho-
doxy have written on the subject of human corruption,
and with the views they respectively entertain as to the
proper estimate of our own character, must, I think, be
surprised at this opinion of Dr Ware. The truth is,
Unitarians have constantly complained, that the Ortho-
dox make too low an estimate of human virtue ; that
they indulge too debasing views of human nature, and
paint the wickedness of their species in too strong colours.
At the same time, Unitarians of an independent, liberal
judgment, like Dr. Priestley, have freely acknowledged
the tendency of our doctrine of depravity, erroneous as
they think it, to promote deep humility. And I have
been greatly mistaken, if the repugnancy of the doctrine
to the pride of the heart has not occasioned the chief
objection against it. Dr. Ware indeed says ; " we cer-
tainly have no cause to feel ourselves humbled under a
sense of any thing we are by nature." But he says it
very incautiously. For whatever he may think of those
born in Christian lands ; he hesitates not to allow that
the Ephesians " were by nature children of wrath ;" that
is, sinful, and deserving of wrath. Was not this a cause
for humility in them ? The foundation of Dr. Ware's
misapprehension must, I think, be, that he considers native
sinfulness to be, in its essential properties,different trom the
sinfulness exhibited in our life ; whereas these two must
be regarded as only the commencement, and the continu-
ance of the same thing. "Humility and self-condemna-
tion," Dr. Ware says, "should spring only from the con-
sciousness of a course of life not answering to the pow-
ers, and faculties, and privileges of our nature." Now
which should be the occasion of greater humility and

138

self-condemnation to a man, the consciousness that such
a course as this has extended through one or two years,
or that it has extended through his whole life ? Sin must
be considered as essentially the same thing, whether it
begin sooner or later. And other things being equal, a
man's guilt is proportionate to the duration of his sinful-
ness. Dr. Ware and other writers distinguish native
wickedness from active, voluntary wickedness. But they
do it without reason. For that which is native may be
as active and voluntary, as that which gets into the mind
afterwards. We certainly do not make such a distinction
in regard to other things. For example ; those appe-
tites which are given us with our original constitution
and are therefore called natural, are as strong and active
as others. It is true, these appetites have no direct rela-
tion to the moral law, and in regard to that law, are neither
right nor wrong. But w7e do not deny their relation to
the law because they belong to us from the first. It
is simply from a consideration of the real nature of any
affection or action of man, and not from a consideration
of the time or the occasion of its beginning to exist, that
we denominate it good or bad, praise-worthy or blame-
worthy. If man began to exercise love to God at his first
existence, surely our opponents would not, on that ac-
count, consider it, as any the less excellent and worthy of
approbation. Let any one read what Dr. Ware has
written respecting that gratitude, that love of truth, that
kindness, and those other dispositions and tendencies to
good, which he represents as native properties of man,
and see whether there is the least appearance of his
considering them any the less amiable or praise-worthy,
on that account. Why then should bad dispositions, or
tendencies to evil, which are natural, be, for the same rea-
son, considered as any the less odious and blame-worthy?

139

Dr. Ware has no difficulty in representing men who are
born in Christian lands, as having by their birth just what
the Ephesians had after their conversion ; that is, religion,
holiness. But where does he intimate that their holi-
ness was less estimable, because it was a native property ?
Our author seems fond of saying and of repeating,
that our doctrine ascribes human wickedness to the
agency of God ; that it traces sin to that constitution
which was given us by our Creator, &c. But though all
this is admitted, even in the offensive terms he uses ; the
difficulty is not a whit greater, than what attends his
system. He says, that human beings, created innocent
and pure, afterwards fall into sin by their own choice,
and in the exercise of their own free ao;encv. Now if
there is any truth in Philosophy or Revelation, it can
be proved that their falling into sin, at any period of
their life, is a thing as really to be ascribed to the op-
eration of their Maker, or to the constitution he has
given them, as native sinfulness. For suppose, accord-
ing to Dr. Ware's scheme, that a man, influenced by
strong temptation, at any time fails into sin. Who gave
him a constitution of mind, fitted to be wrought upon by
temptation ? And who ordered things so, that he should
be exposed to temptation, and to those particular temp-
tations which prevail to draw him into sin ? Did not
God know the result beforehand? Was it not a result
which naturally flowed from causes, which God directed
and controlled, operating upon a moral nature which he
created, and according to laws which he established?
The question I would ask him to solve, is, how, in such
a case, there can be any blame? I am far from saying,
that no difficulty attends the scheme of native depravi-
ty, in this respect. But the difficulty is, in my view, no
greater, than what attends any other scheme.

140

"But I must check my inclination to pursue this met-
aphysical mode of reasoning ; though it must be allowed
that I have an apology, in the metaphysical nature of
the arguments to he confuted. I will just add, that
the habit of attributing moral evil to God in such a
way as to destroy or diminish its criminality, is, in my
view, one of the worst habits, of which the human
mind is capable. It produces alarming stupidity of con-
science and hardness of heart, and leads to the most de-
structive fatalism.

CHAPTER VIII.

As to the practical importance of the subject of na-
tive depravity, which has now been discussed at such
length, any man may be satisfied, who will maturely con-
sider what connexion it must have with our views, gen-
erally, of Christian truth and piety. It is not enough to
say, that the denial of the original, native corruption of
man does in fact go in company with such and such no-
tions of Christianity. It may be shown, and it must be
remembered, that the connexion, which exists in fact, is
not accidental, but arises directly from the nature of the
subject. If we believe that our moral disease results
from our moral constitution, — that it is inwrought in our
very nature ; we shall surely have different views of the
remedy that is necessary, from what we should have, if
we considered our disease as merely accidental, or as
less deep and radical. Just as it is in regard to a bodily
disease. If it is a slight, superficial disorder, which first
appeared but yesterday, or which has appeared but a

141

few times, the original constitution being sound and vig-
orous ; we have little concern. Some gentle remedy
will be sufficient to remove it; or perhaps it will shortly
disappear of itself. But if the disease is rooted in our
constitution ; if it began to show itself very early, and
evidently results from onr original structure ; especially,
if there is evidence of its being hereditary; it becomes
an alarming case. Some powerful remedy is necessary ;
something that will effect a great and salutary change in
our very constitution. If this cannot be had, we despair
of a thorough cure. In like manner, those who serious-
ly believe themselves and others to be the subjects of a
native and entire depravity, must be convinced, that a
mighty operation of divine power is necessary to make
them holy. They must view it as indispensable, that
they should be born again. Passing by human efforts,
and all slight, common remedies, as totally inadequate,
they must found every hope of moral purification on
that energy of God, which gives men a new heart and
a new spirit, — which creates them in Christ Jesus unto
<^ood works. Though they have been born in a Chris-
tian land ; though they have enjoyed the best instruc-
tion, and witnessed examples of the greatest purity ;
though distinguished by the most correct habits, by the
most useful actions, and by the highest improvement of
their rational powers and natural sensibilities ; and though
applauded for their virtues by those who look only on the
outward appearance ; yet, while unrenewed, they find
in themselves that corruption of heart, which is the foun-
tain of ail iniquity ; — they find the utter want of that
holiness, without which no man can see the Lord. The
disease of their nature, that is, the earthly, selfish, un-
holy disposition, which has from the first borne sway in
their hearts, and influenced all their actions, spoils the

142

beauty of their fair exterior, lays them low in the dust,
and brings them to rely solely on the purifying grace of
God. They have a strong, humbling conviction that,
amiable and excellent as their character may appear to
others, they must be saved, if saved at all, by the wash-
ing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost.
Through their whole course, their religious feelings
and duties are materially affected by their belief of
the radical, native depravity of their hearts. While
sensible of this deep-rooted evil of their nature, they
suffer no proud self-complacency to possess their
minds. New reasons constantly occur for self-dis-
trust and self-abhorrence. In a greater or less degree,
the fountain of evil still remains within them. They
never account themselves to have attained complete vic-
tory over sin. They have perpetually an inward war-
fare, and in every part of their warfare, they confide in
that divine grace, which gives purity and strength to the
soul. In their latest moments, they deplore that obsti-
nate, hateful malady of their nature, which has so long
kept up its resistance to the best means of cure ; and,
with their dying breath, they cry for the Spirit of God
to complete their sanctification, and fit them for the
presence of him whom their soul loveth.

Consider now, how different are the views of those
who deny the native corruption of man, and believe him
to be originally pure; and how different the whole aspect
of their religion. On this subject, I would gladly ex-
cuse myself from saying what the case seems to require ;
because my controversy is with a man, whose talents
and office I would treat with invariable respect, whose
coolness of judgment and sobriety of character I wish to
copy, and whose candour, civility, and kindness towards
me I am most cordially disposed to reciprocate. I trust

143

it will be well understood, that, my animadversions re-
late not to him, personally, but to the system which he
has undertaken to unfold and vindicate. What then is
the scheme of practical religion, with which the denial
of innate depravity is associated ? If I believe, as a
general truth, " that young children are what men are
to become by regeneration;" that is, if I believe them
to be friends of God, subjects of real holiness ; if I be-
lieve that all, who are now born into the world in Chris-
tian lands, are already "saved by the grace of God, and
fellow citizens with the saints ;" I must treat them ac-
cordingly. I must treat them as persons, who have no
need of conversion, or of the grace of God to effect it ;
inasmuch as they are born Christians, and already pos-
sess the character of converts. And if at any time I
seem to see some mark of depravity common to children,
I must apologize for it, and soothe their feelings by tell-
ing them, it can " fairly be traced to causes which im-
ply no degree of depravity, and no fault of character or
disposition ;" so that they have no occasion for uneasi-
ness, or for reformation. And if I address sinners at
large, either in public or in private ; instead of depicting
their guilt, as the inspired writers do, and labouring to
make them feel, that they are dead in trespasses and
sins, and justly under the wrath of God ; I must not hes-
itate to say to them, as our Author does, p. 24, " that as
much as there is of wickedness and vice, there is far
more of virtue and goodness ; — that wickedness, far from
being the prevailing part of the human character, makes
but an inconsiderable part of it." And if I ever have
occasion to speak to men of the worst character., to liars,
thieves, adulterers, blasphemers, men of revenge and
blood, infidels, atheists, — I must soothe their feelings too,
not by persuading them to apply to that blood which

144

cieanseth from all sin — not by pointing them to mercy
higher than the heavens ; — but by so far forgetting the
word of God, as to tell them, 41 that even in the worst of
men, good feelings and principles are predominant," and
that, as " the greatest liar" may comfort himself with
the idea, that " by the constitution of his nature he
speaks many truths to every lie he utters ;" so other
monsters of wickedness should not deprive themselves
of the satisfaction of believing, " that in the course of
their lives, they perform many more good than bad
actions."* And if I am to carry such a flattering message
to " the worst of men :" with what sincere conoratula-
tions must I address myself to the generality ? As to
men who are destitute of holiness, enemies to God, dead
in sin, men whose imaginations and desires are only evil,
and who are ready to perish, — none can be found among
us. Through the healing influence of being born in
Christian lands, another race of men has sprung up, saints
by nature, needing no renovation ; of the household of
faith and of the kingdom of God by their first birth ; to
whom it would be altogether superfluous to be born
again of the Spirit of God.t

If men transgress the rules of morality, I must indeed,
according to Dr. Ware's views, tell them, they are sin-
ners, and urge them to repent. But here is the differ-
ence. If I am duly impressed with the common doc-
trine of depravity, I shall endeavour to convince them*
whether old or young, not only of the impropriety and
guilt of the particular acts of sin they have committed,
but of the corrupt principle, the depravity of heart, from
which they have proceeded, and from which, if it re-
main, sinful acts will continue to proceed ; and to show
them, that it is not more evidently their concern to re-

* See Letters to Trin. and CaJv. p. 25. + Do. p. 47.

145

pent of the particular sins committed, than it is to be
renewed in the Spirit of their minds. I shall take occa-
sion from what they have actually done, to turn their
thoughts within, to make them acquainted with the
plague of their own hearts, and lead them to feel that
the word of God does indeed address them, when it says,
"ye must be born again." And as to any repentance or
reformation short of this, I shall most seriously assure
them, it will avail nothing.

These are cutting, humbling truths, marring the beau-
ty of all external virtue, where the heart retains its na-
tive alienation from God. They make the great force
of that conviction, which the Holy Spirit produces, to
relate to that very inbred, entire depravity of the heart,
which is the subject of this controversy. Thus the
doctrine, as I have exhibited it, is a practical truth, con-
firmed by Christian experience. They who, being thor-
oughly illuminated by the Spirit of God, judge themselves
by the divine law, and receive salvation by grace, are as
really convinced of this doctrine by their own experi-
ence, as by the plainest declarations of Scripture. And
they who have this deep, heart-felt conviction, can no
more be induced to deny the doctrine, than to deny any
truth whatever which they know by their own con-
sciousness.

But if I should deny the doctrine of innate deprav-
ity, and entertain those opinions of human nature which
are set forth in the Letters to Trinitarians and Calvin-
ists ; my treatment of those, who transgress the rules
of morality, would be materially different. I should in-
deed exhort them to repent and reform. But I should
never occasion any uneasiness to their conscience, by di-
recting their attention to the badness of the tree which
bears bad fruit, or to the impurity of the fountain from

116

which impure streams flow. Only let them be careful
to guard against those particular sins to which they have
been inclined, and maintain a regular, decent behaviour;
and I should bid them be quiet, and give no place to
any gloomy apprehension respecting the necessity of an
inward change. Thus the thing would pass off, without
any great solicitude on my part, or on theirs.

I mean to treat this subject exactly according to
truth. If I exaggerate or discolour any thing, and by
such means do the least degree of injustice to those who
differ from me; it is totally contrary to my intention ;
and the temper of mind which would lead to this, I most
heartily reprobate. But if I mistake not, the general
conduct of those ministers, who hold the opinions of the
book, to which I have undertaken a reply, corresponds
substantially with the representation I have made.
Such I am well persuaded would be my conduct, should
I adopt those opinions. If sinners, deeply convinced of
their depravity, and of the total inefficacy of any refor-
mation, or any doings of theirs, while their heart remains
unrenewed — convinced too, that they are enemies to
God, without excuse, ready to perish, — and suffering the
agony of soul, which such conviction naturally produces;
if sinners in this condition should come to me, and in the
language of anxiety and distress should say, as multi-
tudes, through the mercy of God, are constantly saying
to their ministers, what shall ive do to be saved ? — I should
indeed pity fellow creatures in such distress ; but at the
same time, if I entertained the sentiments of Unitarians, I
should endeavour to satisfy them, that their distress was
without reason, and was occasioned by false views of re-
ligion, or by some fright of imagination, or some de-
rangement of the nervous system. I should labour to
relieve their sense of guilt, their anxiety and fear, by in-

147

culcating more comforting views of the nature which
God has given them, of the service he requires of them,
and of the treatment they have a right to expect at his
hand. In a word, I should look upon such persons to be
in a state more deeply to be deplored, than if they were
living in fashionable vice, totally regardless of God and
eternity. — If there are any ministers, who embrace the
prevailing system of Unitarianism, but still do not feel
and converse thus in reference to such cases ; I rejoice
that they have something within them to counteract an
influence, which I am persuaded would produce upon
me all the effect above described.

The denial of man's innate corruption must have a
direct influence on our views of the nature and necessi-
ty of the divine influence. It may indeed seem desira-
ble to Unitarians, that God should afford to men all the
assistance they need in regulating their passions, and in
pursuing a course of virtuous conduct. But their scheme
implies that, comparatively, but little divine aid is ne-
cessary. It ascribes to the Holy Spirit no such achiev-
ments, as we ascribe to him, when the heart is renewed,
and the sinner savingly converted. When rebels against
God — when those who have felt an entire hostility to
the spiritual religion of the Gospel, become penitent and
humble, friends to God, and obedient to his law ; the work
performed by the Spirit of God has, in our view, a great-
ness and glory, which entitle it to the admiration of
heaven and earth. But in what language do Unitari-
ans describe it ?

In regard to the whole of religion, our belief of hu~
man depravity has an influence on the mind, of the high-
est moment. It is one of the elements of a holy life.
It produces in Christians a strong conviction, that, in re-
spect to their good affections, their duties, and their

148

enjoyments, they are in a state of total dependance
on the Spirit of God. They apprehend their moral
disease to be so deep-wrought in their nature, that
it will yield, in no degree, to any power, but that
which is divine. If they have any degree of holiness,
they ascribe it, not to any goodness of disposition nat-
urally belonging to them, but to the grace of God.
To God alone they give the honour of all their suc-
cess in resisting temptation, in subduing the evils of their
hearts, in cultivating pious affections and habits, and in
doing good to their fellow creatures. They are fully
convinced that, without his effectual operation, they can
have nothing truly excellent in their character or life ;
nothing consoling in affliction, or peaceful in death. In
the best moral state which they ever attain on earth,
they perceive so much want of conformity to God's per-
fect law, — so much unlikeness to their Saviour, that the
language of the Apostle becomes the sober expression
of their feelings ; " O wretched men that we are ! Who
shall deliver us from the body of this death ?" Thus
they are led, as Jeremy Taylor directs, " so to live as if
they were always under a physician's hand." In short
it is manifest, that those Christians, who admit, in all its
extent, and with suitable impressions on their own minds,
the Orthodox doctrine of depravity, must find in it a va-
riety of motives, powerfully constraining them to con-
stant and fervent prayer, to self-denial, to a godly jeal-
ousy over their own hearts, to a watchful avoidance
of every thing which can minister to their moral cor-
ruption, and to efforts of the greatest intensity, to
" put off the old man with his deeds, and to put on
the new man, which after God is created in righteous-
ness and true holiness." 1 must decline here, as I did
in my Letters, any formal comparison between the gen-

149

eral character exhibited by the Orthodox, and that ex-
hibited by Unitarians. Indeed I am perfectly ready to
confess, that among those who profess to believe the
common doctrine of depravity, and even among those
who preach it, instances of wickedness sometimes occur
of the most hateful aspect, and stamping the perpetra-
tors with indelible infamy. These instances I regard?
as paint ul proofs of that very corruption, that deep, in-
veterate corruption of human nature, which has been
under discussion. At the same time I contend, that the
cordial belief of the doctrine tends to produce, and actu-
allv has produced all the salutary influence above de-
scribed ; and that those views of the human character,
which my opponents attempt to vindicate, lead on to all
the hurtful consequences which I have suggested.

CHAPTER IX.

Mr. Channing and others have accused the Orthodox
generally of maintaining certain opinions on the subject of
Election. We have repelled the accusation, by saying, that
we do not maintain those opinions. Dr. Ware's apology for
Mr. Channing is this ; — if the Orthodox " do not maintain
the opinions, against which the sermon of Mr.Channing is
directed, there seems to have been no good reason why
they should feel themselves at all concerned in the
charge. Calvinists only who do maintain them, can fairly
consider their opinions as attacked, and themselves called
upon to defend them." This apology would have been
satisfactory, if Mr. Channing had directed his sermon
against opinions merely, and not against men. But as
20

150

the charges contained in the sermon are made against the
Orthodox, we have this to do with them at least, that
is, to declare them untrue. And as Mr. Channing has
been distinctly informed that we disclaim the senti-
ments which he has charged and has been understood to
charge upon us ; it would be no unnatural expectation,
that he would have something to do, besides repeating
such groundless charges. Indeed it has become a question
of difficult solution with many, how it can be reconciled
with fairness or integrity for him to continue, without
abatement or correction, to publish charges, by which
the great body of Christians in the world are really as
much injured, as he himself would be, if the same charges
were published against him.

It must not be forgotten that the doctrine of Election,
which Orthodox Christians believe, and Orthodox Min-
isters preach, is not the doctrine, which our opposers
ascribe to us. The picture which Unitarians and Armi-
nians draw of the doctrine is, in its essential features, very
unlike the doctrine which we maintain. John Wesley
says, and one of his late biographers thinks he has stated
the case with equal force and truth ; "The sum of all is
this; one in twenty (suppose) of mankind, are elected;
nineteen in twenty are reprobated. The elect shall be
saved, do what they will ; the reprobate shall be damned,
do what they can." Now the fact is, that human ingenui-
ty could not make a representation of the doctrine, more
uncandid, distorted, or false. And if, after all the ex-
planations which have been given of our doctrine, any
man still chooses to represent it in this manner, I will
leave it to him to assign his reasons fordoing so.

In my Letters, I represented the doctrine of Election,
in a general view, as implying the eternal purpose of God

151

respecting his own acts in the work of redemption ; that is,
the eternal purpose of God to do what he actually does
in saving sinners. Dr. Ware thinks no Unitarian would
dissent from this form of the doctrine. It would seem
then, from this concession of his, that the eternal purpose
of God, as we understand it, is thought by Unitarians to
differ, in some important respects, from what really takes
place, and that it is on this account simply, that they object
to our doctrine. If this should prove to be the case, the
limits of the controversy would be very much narrowed ;
as all the objections against the doctrine of an eternal
purpose, from its alleged inconsistency with man's free-
dom and accountableness, with the invitations of the gos-
pel, &c. would be superseded, and the simple inquiry
would be, whether our doctrine gives a representation of
the Divine purpose, correspondent to the facts which
occur in divine providence.

The existence of an eternal purpose in a mind possessed
of eternal intelligence, is self-evident. And nothing is more
certain from Scripture, than that God eternally enter-
tained a design respecting human salvation. As to this
there can be no dispute. And it is equally clear, that
the purpose of God must correspond with what actually
takes place ; so that, by observing what comes to pass in
divine providence, we learn not merely that there was a
purpose in the divine mind, but what that purpose was.
The events which take place show us at once, what God
actually does, and what were his purposes. This, then,
I lay down, and repeat, as a universal truth, and a truth of
special importance in this controversy, that God's purpos-
es respecting the salvation of men, and all other subjects,
correspond perfectly with his administration, or rather,
that his administration corresponds with his purposes.

152

There can be no unforeseen occurrence, no event not
predetermined. I would say then, in pursuance of the
views expressed in my Letters, and to mrke the subject
still more plain, that so far as the acts of the divine
administration are right, the divine purposes are right.
In the discussion of this subject therefore, I find it most
convenient and satisfactory, to fix my attention on the
divine administration, which is a visible, definite thing,
actually exhibited before me, and from that to regulate
my opinions respecting the divine purposes. If I find what
God does in the government of the world, for what ends
he does it, and in what order ; I learn what was the plan
of the divine mind from eternity. If the acts of the divine
administration are holy, just, and good ; equally hoiy, just,
and good is the divine purpose respecting those acts. So
that whatever there may be in our doctrine which is
exceptionable, it cannot be our believing that God has a
purpose, or that his purpose is eternal and immutable.
For if the thing purposed, that is, the divine administra-
tion is wise and benevolent ; the purpose also is wise and
benevolent. And it is surely far enough from being a
dishonour to God, that he should eternally and unchange-
ably entertain a wise and benevolent design. Nor can
our doctrine be excepted to, because we maintain that
the purpose of God relates to all events which take place.
For if all events do in fact take place in such a manner
as is consistent with the perfections of God ; then clearly,
bis purposing that they should take place in just such a
manner is equally consistent with his perfections. It is
then altogether unreasonable to object to the declaration
in the Catechism, that God has " foreordained whatsoever
comes to pass ;" that is, that his purpose extends to all
events in his administration. For if every part of his

153

administration is right ; his having purposed every part is
right. There is then no danger of carrying the doctrine
of the divine purposes, properly understood, to too great
an extent. For it is as proper for God to determine all
his own acts, and all that shall result from them, as to
determine a part, if all are as wise and good as a part. I
say then, that no man in his senses can think we carry
the doctrine too far, when we assert that God predeter-
mines every thing which is comprised in his whole admin-
istration. There is indeed something faulty in our doctrine
of the divine purposes, if we say that God determines
any particular thing, which in fact he never does deter-
mine, and which never takes place ; or if we say he
determines it in a different manner from that in which it
actually takes place ; — in other words, if we give a
representation of the divine purposes, which, in one
respect or another, does not agree with the divine
administration. For example ; if we should maintain
that God determined to save Judas, or to cast off Paul ;
we should be chargeable with an error, in maintaining
that God determined what in fact he did not determine,
and what never took place. Or if we should say, God
determined to cast off and punish Judas for any reason,
but for his wickedness ; we should be chargeable with
misrepresenting the proximate reason of that particular
purpose. And our mistake would be of the same nature,
if we should maintain that God determined to bestow the
rewards of heaven upon Paul, without any regard to his
holy character and actions. And as to his character, we
should mistake, if we should maintain, that God deter-
mined it should be formed in any way, except that in
which it was really formed. My inquiry is, how was the
character of Paul and of Judas actually formed? Under

154

the influence of what causes, or series of events ; and
in what circumstances? The actual formation of charac-
ter in such circumstances, and under such an influence,
exactly answers to the divine purpose ; and the divine
purpose, to be stated correctly, must be stated as agree-
ing, in all respects, with what thus actually occurs in
the course of divine providence. By fixing our thoughts
in this manner on the things which really come to pass,
and on the order and manner in which they come to pass,
we may arrive at a view of the divine purposes, which
is liable to no uncertainty, and no difficulty.

These remarks are as applicable to the purpose of
God, which is called Election, as to any other. I have
represented Election, in a general view, as the purpose
of God to do just what he actually does in saving sinners,
and to do it in the manner in which he actually does it.
To this Dr. Ware thinks there is no objection. He al-
lows then, that there is an eternal, immutable purpose
of God respecting human salvation. And he must al-
low that God eternally purposed all which he actually
does in the work of salvation. We cannot make God's
purpose either too extensive or too particular, if we
make it agree entirely with his work. Now God does
in fact save a certain number of human beings. At the
judgment day, Christ will say to the multitude on his
right hand, consisting of a certain, definite number of indi-
vidual believers, " come, ye blessed of my Father, inher-
it the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of
the world." God must have eternally designed to do
just what he does in the present life, and what he will
do at the judgment day ; that is, he must have designed
to save that same definite number of individuals. And
if we thus represent the divine purpose as agreeing

155

with the divine acts, no one can have the least reason
to object to our doctrine, because we assert that God
eternally designed to save just such a number of human
beings, and just such individuals. For is it not granted
that God's purpose and his acts perfectly agree ; or
that he eternally purposed to do just what he actually
does in time ? Now God actually saves a definite num-
ber of individuals. He saves that definite number, and
no more, or less. He must then have determined to do
it. If any man denies this, he must say, either that God
does not in fact save a certain definite number of indi-
viduals, or that he does this without previously intend-
ing to do it.

By these remarks I wish to make it clear to every
reader, that there can properly be no dispute respect-
ing the doctrine of the divine purposes, taken by itself.
The controversy really respects the divine administra-
tion. The proper inquiry is, what God actually does.
If we agree in this, we shall of course agree as to his
purposes. By conducting the controversy in this way,
we shall simplify the subject of inquiry, and free it at
once from more than half its perplexity.

My object in this chapter is not to attempt a partic-
ular and full discussion of the subject, but merely to ex-
hibit, in its outlines, the manner in which I think the
doctrine may be satisfactorily stated and defended, and
in which it may be effectually guarded against the diffi-
culties which are supposed to attend it, and the miscon-
structions often put upon it. If we take care first to
learn from scripture and observation, what God actually
does, and in what manner he does it ; we can have no
difficulty in passing from this to a correct and satisfacto-
ry view of his purposes. In this way it is easy to correct

156

various mistakes which have been made in stating the
doctrine. Do you ask whether the doctrine of Election
implies, that only a small part of mankind are chosen to sal-
vation? To make out a proper answer, we first inquire
whether there is any thing in the word of God, which
shows this. And here we do indeed find some passages,
which declare the small number of good men who lived at
particular times ; but none which declare that there will
be only a small number saved, in reference to the whole
human race from the beginning to the end of the world.
The word of God plainly teaches the contrary. Second-
ly. We inquire what our own observation and the histo-
ry of past ages teach. Here we think the evidence
clear, that, through all generations past, only a small
part, comparatively, of the human species, have been
saved from sin. But this proves nothing as to the pro-
portion that will be saved, of our whole race. There
is abundant reason to believe that, in the ages to come,
it will be exceedingly different from what it has been
heretofore. Hence we conclude that the Scripture doc-
trine of Election does not imply, that only a small part
of mankind are chosen to salvation. It is therefore a
manifest error, to state the doctrine thus. And any one
who gets advantage against it from such a view, gets it
unfairly. And any one who justifies the representation
often made of our doctrine in this respect, justifies what
may justly be called religious calumny.

Again. Does the Scripture doctrine of Election im-
ply, that the elect will be saved, let them do what they
will ; that is, whether they repent, and obey the gospel,
or not ? Here, according to our general principle, we
consult the Scriptures to learn what God actually does.
The question must be considered in two views. First :

157

making salvation mean the blessedness of heaven, we
inquire whether God admits men to this, without any
regard to their character and conduct. Every thing in
the Bible stands against such a notion. Heaven is grant-
ed only to the penitent, the obedient, the holy. Sec-
ondly ; salvation may denote the regeneration or first
conversion of sinners. Agreeably to this view, the ques-
tion stands thus ; does God renew sinners, or beg-in the
work of salvation in them, on account of their previous
character or conduct ? The Bible and observation both
teach that he does not. Men possessing all the varieties
of character which the world has exhibited, have been
converted, or brought to repentance. If I should name
Saul of Tarsus as an instance, my opponents might object,
and say, it was ^miracle. My reply would be, that God
works no miracle, which violates the principles of a just
administration of government ; and that Paul makes no
such distinction between himself and others, but express-
ly represents his case, as a pattern to others who should
afterwards believe. 1 Tim. i. 15, 16. So that his dec-
laration is obviously just,' in regard to Christians generally,
that God first calls them and saves them from sin, "not
according to their works but according to his own pur-
pose and grace." This we consider as a universal truth.
Whenever God first makes men holy, h« must do it
without regard to any goodness in them. He can look
at no " works of righteousness which they have done,"
but must act from the impulse of his own infinite love.
And we are to view the purpose of God in relation to this
subject, as in all respects corresponding to the manner of
his acting. It seems then perfectly clear, that God did
not determine to regenerate men, or make them holy,
from any foresight of repentance, faith, or good works.
21

158

" as conditions or causes moving him thereunto." The
first production of holiness cannot surely have respect to
any previous holiness. But I could not say, in the same
sense, that God determined to give men the blessedness
of heaven, without any foresight of repentance or good
works, as conditions; because the Bible represents repen-
tance and good works, and perseverance in them, as
necessary conditions of final happiness. And if God now
in fact makes them conditions, he must have regarded
them as such, in his eternal purpose. That act of di-
vine grace which, so far as the conduct of sinners is con-
cerned is wholly unconditional, is, as I understand it, the
first formation of a holy character, or the commence-
ment of real goodness in the heart. Without enlarging
here, I would just say, in accordance with the general
principle laid down above, and more fully expressed in
my Letters, that the divine purposes are just as condi-
tional, and in the same sense, as the divine acts.

If then there is any objection against our doctrine
of the divine purposes, the objection must in reality lie
against what we assert to be matter of fact in the divine
administration. The two things, which seem to be re-
garded as particularly objectionable, are, 1, That the
conversion and salvation of men is a matter of mere
grace, all regard to personal merit being excluded ; 2,
That the grace of God in the conversion of sinners is
distinguishing; in other words, that it is so dispensed,
that of those who are equally unworthy of favour, and
equally deserving of punishment, some are renewed, and
others not.

The proper way to dispose of the first of these par-
ticulars, is to place it by the side of those texts, which
describe the moral character and state of all men, as

159

by nature entirely sinful, and those which represent
the death of Christ, as the grand procuring cause of all
the good conferred on human beings, and those which
declare, that salvation is wholly of grace, to the exclu-
sion of all works of righteousness. To these texts, I
might add others which show the actual views of good
men respecting themselves ; and then might refer to
the feelings of Christians generally.

As to the second point, namely, the difference among
men equally undeserving; — it is clear that we cannot
properly decide against it; because with our limited and
obscure views, we cannot possibly determine that infi-
nite wisdom may not see it to be necessary to make such
a difference in order to the highest interests of the uni-
verse. To say that, because we can see no reasons for
it, therefore there are none, would ill become creatures
like us. It is easy to show from Scripture, that such a
difference has been made, and from common observa-
tion, that it is now made. That divine grace, actually
makes a difference among those who are equally sinful,
renewing some and not others, is a plain, historic fact,
just as well attested, as that God makes a difference,
with respect to longevity, among men who live in the
same climate, and possess equal vigor of natural consti-
tution.

I am fully aware of the objection, that making such a
difference is unjust. My first remark in relation to this
objection is, that if it is in fact unjust to make the differ-
ence, it cannot be admitted that God would ever do it
in a single instance. For God will no more do injustice
in a single instance, than in ten thousand instances. But
I think it is generally admitted by my opponents, that a
difference like what I have asserted, has been made in
some extraordinary instances, as that of Paul and Mary

160

Magdalene. But can they mean to admit that God does,
in any instance whatever, commit an act of injustice ?

But to whom is it unjust for God to make such a dif-
ference ? To those who are saved ? Our opponents will
not say this. The injustice which they allege, must re-
late to those who perish. But how is the bestowment of
gratuitous blessings on others, any injustice to them? I
might rather say, how can it be unjust to inflict on them
an evil which they deserve, or to withhold a favour
which they deserve not ?

Dr. Ware endeavours to show that the method of
designating the heirs ot salvation, which the doctrine of
Election implies, can neither be reconciled with our
natural notions of the moral government of God, derived
from the use of the faculties he has given us, and our
observation of his conduct in the government of the
world, nor with what he has made known to us of his
character, and purposes, and government in the Christian
revelation."

His first objection is from our natural conceptions and
feelings. " Following," he says, " the light of our reason
and the natural impulse of our feelings, we find it impos-
sible to imagine, that the Author of our being can regard
and treat his offspring in the manner, which the doctrine
in question attributes to him."

This argument it is evident can have no weight, if it
is found, that our natural conceptions and feelings are
so disordered, as not to be a safe guide. Human reason,
when freed from wrong bias, and properly instructed,
and the feelings of the heart, when sanctified by the
divine Spirit, do, in my apprehension, perfectly approve
every thing contained in the doctrine of Election. That
reason, disordered as it is by sin, should mistake on this
subject, is no more strange, than that it should mistake

1GI

on a thousand other subjects. And that the feelings of
a world, which lieth in wickedness, should rise up against
the purpose of God in respect to salvation, is no more
strange, than that they should rise up, as they do, against
various dispensations of divine providence. "The fool-
ishness of man perverteth his way ; and his heart fret*
teth against the Lord." I allow, indeed, that the doc-
trine of Election, as set firth by Dr. Ware, p. 50, admits
of no defence. He represents it as implying, that with-
out any foreseen difference of character and desert in
men, God regarded some with complacency and love,
and others, with disapprobation and hatred and wrath ;"
that is, that God regarded with complacency that same
character in the elect, which, in the non-elect, he regard-
ed with disapprobation and hatred. This representation
has no resemblance to the Orthodox doctrine. It is an
imagination, a shadow. Any man will be convinced of
this, who examines what Dr. Ware quotes from my
Letters, or from the Westminster Divines. Our doctrine
is, that God regards those sinners who are to be saved,
not with approbation, or complacency, but with that
benevolence, or compassion, which is perfectly consistent
with the highest disapprobation ; that he chooses them
to salvation through sanctification of the spirit ; that he
determines to renew them, and so to make them objects
of his complacency ; they being naturally objects of his
strongest disapprobation. We maintain that God regards
things just as they are. And any representation of our
opponents, different from this, is at variance with our
doctrine.

I must make similar remarks on another clause, p. 59,
in which we are represented as holding that, " without
any reference to the future use or abuse of their nature,
God appoints some to everlasting happiness, and the rest

162

to everlasting misery ; and that this appointment, entire-
ly arbitrary, is the cause, not the consequence of holi-
ness in the one, and of the defect of holiness in the other."
Our doctrine does not imply, that God appoints some to
happiness and others to misery, without any reference
to their future conduct. We maintain that God does,
indeed, give the blessedness of heaven to his people, as
an unmerited gift, — that is, without seeing any thing in
their character which renders them deserving of such a
gift ; but not without a regard to that holiness in them,
which is a necessary qualification for heaven. He does
not admit them to heaven, as impenitent, unholy. He
first makes them holy ; and then receives them to heaven.
In his purpose he determines things in the same order.
As to the non-elect, God will actually doom them to
punishment, not without reference to their character and
conduct, but because they have been workers of iniquity.
He will do it for this reason, and for this only. And for
this same reason, he predetermines to do it. So the
Westminster Divines. " The rest of mankind God was
pleased to ordain to dishonour and wrath, for their sm."
If it is proper for God to inflict such an evil upon men
for their sin, it is proper that he should previously
determine to do it. No man can deny this. Yet we,
who assert this, are charged with making God a monster
of malevolence and caprice. And to give this charge
some colour of truth, we are represented as asserting,
that God appoints men to everlasting misery without
any regard to their conduct ; — a thing as far from our
belief, as atheism.

It really excites no small degree of surprise, that Dr.
Ware should assert what follows, as though it were
something different from the belief of the Orthodox and
incompatible with the doctrine of Election. He says,

163

p. 64, " The final distinctions that are to be made be-
tween men, we are again and again told, are to be wholly
according to the difference of moral character. It is
that these are righteous, and those wicked ; these have
done well, and those have done ill." — This is a view of
the subject upon which I have insisted a thousand times,
with more zeal than upon almost any other. This I con-
sider to be one of those plain truths of revelation, which
ought to limit and regulate our conceptions of other sub-
jects, and I make it a rule, not to admit any views of the
doctrine of Election or of salvation by grace, or of any
other doctrine, inconsistent with this.

It would be aside from my present purpose to en-
large on this topic. The difficulty, at which Dr. Ware
and others stumble, seems to arise from their not tak-
ing into view the whole subject. The Westminster
Divines and the Orthodox generally say, that God not
only appointed the elect to glory, but appointed all
the means thereunto. This is the same as saying,
that those whom he purposed to save, he purposed first
to sanctify ; or in the language of Scripture, he chose
them to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit.
How, and in what order does God actually proceed in
saving sinners ? First, he provides for them a Redeem-
er and invites them to accept him. Secondly, he calls
them with a holy calling, leads them to repentance, par-
dons their sins, and by an effectual discipline prepares
them for heaven ; and then he shows his approbation
of them, and graciously rewards them. Their holiness
is a condition, and on their part, the only condition of
their title to heaven. Such is the order of God's acts
in the salvation of sinners. Exactly answerable to this
is the purpose of God. His purpose, perfectly wise and
benevolent, is the exact counterpart of his administra-

164

tion. And as in his administration, the propriety of one
event depends entirely upon its connexion with another;
so it does in his purpose. And it is altogether unjust to
represent that God predetermines any event whatever,
without regard to its connexion with other events. It
is neglecting that order and connexion of things, on which
the character of the divine administration essentially de-
pends. But it is from overlooking or denying this order
and connexion, that the opposers of our doctrine get
all their advantage against it. With these views, we
cordially subscribe to the following declaration of Dr.
Ware, though he seems to think our belief very differ-
ent. " So far are the reasons of the final distinction to
be made between those who are saved and those who
perish, from being concealed in the divine mind, that no-
thing is more distinctly made known. The New Tes-
tament is full of it." I will only add, that it is, in my
apprehension, revealed with equal clearness, that God
makes a difference among men in respect of character, with-
out making known the reasons of what he docs.

But some of Dr. Ware's positions on this subject de-
serve more particular consideration. He says, p. 64,
that " in the appointment of men to privileges and
means, God has indeed given no account of his motives,
nor assigned his reasons for the infinite variety that ap-
pears. He has exercised an absolute sovreignty, of
which no account is given, and the reasons of which we
are not competent to understand." And p. 76, he ex-
presses his approbation of " a free and unconditional ap-
pointment to the participation of privileges." Now if
Dr. Ware will look through this subject, as he has stat-
ed it, he may possibly discover as formidable difficulties,
as those which attend our doctrine. For what is the
tendency and use of means and privileges ? Does not

165

their whole value consist in their influence upon the
character ? The word of God, which is the greatest
and best of our privileges, and which makes the princi-
pal difference between Christians and heathens, is the
means of turning men from sin, and bringing them to
love and obey God. "Sanctify them through thy truth;
thy word is truth." When God, in the exercise of that
absolute sovereignty, which Dr. Ware ascribes to him,
appoints one part of the human race, say the inhabitants
of New England, to the enjoyment of the Scriptures
and other religious means, he doubtless does it to pro-
mote virtue and piety, or to render men holy. And
the actual consequence of these privileges is, that many
become penitent and holy. Now does Dr. Wrare see
no difficulty in asserting that God, by an act of " ab-
solute sovereignty," grants to some in distinction from
others, privileges which are designed to produce, and to
a certain extent, do in fact produce, a sanctifying effect
upon their character ? — privileges without which, ac-
cording to the apostle, Rom. x, men cannot believe ?
in regard to the general difficulty, where is the differ-
ence between Dr. Ware's doctrine, and ours ? We say,
God determines to bring some men to repentance, and
make them holy, and therefore gives them those means
which, by his blessing, will produce the effect. Accord-
ing to Dr. Wrare, God in the exercise of his absolute sove-
reignty, appoints some men in distinction from others, to
the participation of those means, by which they are in
fact, formed to holiness. Their holiness is the real and
proper effect of the means which God gives them.
And he would doubtless allow too, that God gives them
these means, knowing infallibly what will be the conse-
quence, and intending that just such a desirable conse-
quence shall take place. Now is not this, in effect,
22

16(3

making a difference among men in respect of character,
as well as of means and privileges f If means and priv-
ileges do not tend- to make a difference in respect of
character, of what value are they ? Why are they be-
stowed ? Dr. Ware would doubtless go as far as we, in
extolling the happy consequences of the Christian reve-
lation upon those communities which enjoy it. Those
consequences respect moral and religious character
chiefly. To give that revelation is to contribute direct-
ly, and in many cases effectually, to the formation of a
holy character. And a previous determination to give
that revelation is, in effect, a determination to make men
holy. On the other hand, to withhold the Sacred Ora-
cles and the other means of religion, is to leave men
without any reasonable prospect of being brought to re-
pentance. The truths and precepts and promises of
Scripture are the only medicines, which can cure the
moral diseases of men. To withhold the Scriptures is
to leave men to the fatal influence of those moral dis-
eases, thus rendered incurable. Had the inhabitants of
Tyre and Sodom enjoyed the same means with those,
who were favoured with the Scriptures and the personal
ministry of Christ ; " they would have repented." The
means would have been, to a greater or less degree, ef-
fectual. If those means had been afforded to the in-
habitants of one of those places, and not of the other :
a difference between the inhabitants of those two places
in point of moral character would unquestionably have
been the consequence. In Great Britain and America
there is a large number of enlightened and sincere
worshippers of God, while among other equal portions
of the human race in Asia and Africa, none can be
found. How can this be accounted for ? According to
Dr. Ware, it must be ascribed to difference of circum-

1C7

stances. And difference of circumstances is traced bv
him to " the absolute sovereignty of God." Thus then
his scheme stands. In " the exercise of absolute sove-
reignty," God has given some men and not others, the
Scriptures and other means. These means are given
for the very purpose of producing an effect on the char-
acter; and to a great extent they actually accomplish
this purpose. The character, thus formed, determines
the condition of men in the future world. In all the in-
stances, in which men are thus turned from sin, and fit-
ted for the kingdom of heaven, these things make a con-
nected series ; — means of moral culture, — formation of
character, — condition in the future world. Condition in
the future world depends on character ; character, on
the enjoyment of means; and the enjoyment of means,
according to Dr. Ware, on " the absolute sovereignty of
Grod." Now just so far as these things are connected,
if God appoints one, he does in effect appoint the other;
especially as the connexion itself, whatever it is, depends
wholly on his will. And yet Dr. Ware objects strong-
ly to considering God's appointment as relating either to
men's character, or to their future condition. But why
should he object? What difficulty can he feel in ad-
mitting that the appointment of God relates to all these,
— and relates to them just in the order and manner in
which they take place ? The position which I would
defend in relation to this subject, is, that the purpose of
God exactly agrees with the acts of his administration.
This is the faith of the Orthodox, though expressed in
different ways. Some choose to say that God, by a sove-
reign act, first appointed the eternal condition of the
elect; and then " appointed all the means thereunto;"
that is, purposed to give them his word, and, by means of
that word, to make them holy, and thus prepare them

168

for heaven. Others prefer a different order, and say,
that God first determined to give men his word and
make them holy, and then to bestow the rewards of ho-
liness. But both come to the same thing. For accord-
ing to the first, the design of God to receive men to
heaven must be connected with a design to make them
holy, and that must be connected with a design to give
them the means of holiness. And according to the other,
his design to give them the means of religion must be con-
nected with a design to produce, by those means, a prop-
er eifect upon their character ; that is, to make them
holy ; and his design to make them holy must be con-
nected with his design to make them happy in his king-
dom. Thus things are connected in fact ; and thus, ac-
cording to both statements, must they have been re-
garded in the divine purpose.

If with Dr. Ware and others, we should assert a
conditional purpose of God, in regard to men's charac-
ter ; how should we be less encumbered with difficulty?
God determined to make men holy on condition of their
faithfully using the means he should afford them. But
in respect to those, who will actually be saved, he knew
that the condition would be performed. And he knew
it would be performed, not as a matter of chance, but
under the influence of proper causes, — causes of a moral
nature, — causes wholly under his control, and deriving
all their efficacy from him. Or thus. He determined
to put them in such circumstances, to hold up such mo-
tives, and to exert such an influence, as he knew would
persuade them, as moral agents, to use their privileges
aright, and to obey the gospel. Now this is substantial-
ly, though not in form, the same with the doctrine of the
Orthodox. They maintain, that God purposed to admit
to hraven a certain number of our race. But how ? As

169

unsanctified sinners ? No ; but in consequence of their
previous deliverance from sin, and their preparation for
heaven. Their possessing real holiness is an essential
prerequisite to their being admitted into heaven ; and,
in this sense, must be regarded as a condition of their
final happiness. The Orthodox maintain too, that God
determined to make his people holy. But how? By a
physical influence, operating upon them as machines ?
No ; but by an influence suited to their moral na-
ture. He determined to sanctify them through the
truth. Now this statement of the subject is as honoura-
ble to God, as conformable to reason, scripture, and fact,
and as free from difficulty, as the other.

The doctrine of Election is represented by my oppo-
nent as not reconcileable with the notions of the divine
character, " which we derive from our observation of his
conduct in the government of the world ;" that is, it is
not reconcileable with what we learn from fact. But
my apprehension is, that fact helps to prove the doctrine.
For what is fact ? A difference really exists among men
in respect of character. How is this difference to be
accounted for? If it is original, or if it springs from any
thing original in our nature, it must be traced to the
purpose and agency of the Author of our nature. This
Dr. Ware would by no means allow ; and of course must
say that the good and the bad are originally of the same
character. I ask then for the cause of the present
difference. Is it owing, as Dr. Ware in another place
suggests, to education, example, and other outward cir-
cumstances ? All these circumstances are ordered by
divine providence. In the appointment of men to these,
Dr. Ware asserts, that God "exercises an absolute sove-
reignty." And if it is more or less owing to means,
privileges, and outward circumstances, that somo men

170

are holy, while others are not ; the difference is, in the
same degree, to be' traced to what Dr. Ware calls the
" absolute sovereignty of God." But the characters of
men, who have the same outward privileges, differ; and
it will be said by Dr. Ware, that this difference depends
on the manner in which they use the means afforded
them. Some men voluntarily use their faculties and
privileges aright, and so acquire the habits of real good-
ness ; while others abuse their faculties and privileges,
and exhibit the marks of obstinate wickedness. Suppose
now this voluntary conduct to be the proximate cause of
the difference existing, among men in regard to character,
and that a part of the human race become holy, because
they rightly use their privileges. This right use of their
privileges is, then, a fact, — and a fact on which their
everlasting interest depends. How is this fact to be
accounted for ? Is it owing to the influence of any causes,
either physical or moral ? — Does it result from their dis-
position or choice ? How then is this disposition or choice
to be accounted for ? The Scripture accounts for it by
the divine influence. It represents God as working in
men both to will, and to do. If Dr. Ware is satisfied
with this mode of accounting for the fact, the controversy
is ended. But if he should say, that the gracious influ-
ence of God is always granted on the condition of men's
having previously some right desire, or choice, or con-
duct ; I would ask again, how we are to account for that
desire, choice, or conduct, which is not produced by the
spirit of God ? Where shall we look for the cause ? Is
the right desire or choice owing to the influence of
motives ? And is it not God, who has given men a mind
suited to be influenced by motives ? And does he
not so order things in his providence, that those motives

171

shall be presented before them, which will effectually
excite such a choice or desire ?

Thus common observation first leads us to notice
what exists in fact, — what God does in his providence
with respect to the characters, and consequently with
respect to the future condition of men ; and from this
Ave infer what his design was.

To the following remark of Dr. Ware it is hardly
necessary to make any additional reply. He says, that
according to our doctrine, what men are to be and how
they are to act, is determined beforehand, without any
reference to their exertions. A strange notion truly,
since it is impossible to conceive that men should be any
thing, or act in any way ivhatever, without including their
exertions.

Dr. Ware thinks that God's sovereign appointment
of the everlasting condition of men is " inconsistent with
all that implies the influence of motives." But he could
not have thought so, if he had only considered the divine
purpose as agreeing exactly with fact ; and, finding it a
fact that moral agents are, and from the nature of the
case must be, influenced by motives, had concluded, that
God's appointment was, that they should be influenced by
motives just as they are. The position of our opponents
if well examined, will evidently amount to this, — that
God's determining that men shall act from motives, hin-
ders them from acting in this manner ; that his deter-
mining that they shall be moral, accountable agents,
makes it impossible they should be so. Whereas we
have been very much inclined to think, that God's deter-
mination, if it has any influence, must tend to accomplish
the thing determined, not to prevent it.

This subject is placed in a very clear light by those
texts which show, that men have acted with perfect

172

freedom and voluntariness, while fulfilling the divine
purpose. The apostles declare, Acts iv. 26, 27, 28, that
the murderers of Christ did what the hand and counsel of
God determined before to be done. But did they act
without motives ? Here is a plain case. In those very
actions, which were predetermined, they were influenced
by motives, and were in all respects moral, accountable
agents. Nor is this a singular case. So far as our
subject is concerned, it is on a level with a thousand
other instances of wickedness, — yea, with all the instan-
ces which have ever occurred. From the single case of
Pharaoh, the Apostle draws arguments to establish a
general principle ; that is, he considers the conduct of
God in respect to Pharaoh, as proving that the same
conduct would be proper in respect to others. So I
reason here. If God predetermined the actions of those
who crucified the Saviour, he must have predetermined
the actions of other sinners. This none can reasonably
deny, unless they can offer some satisfactory reason why
God should determine the actions of Christ's enemies,
but not of others. And if the enemies of Christ, whose
actions were predetermined, were still influenced by
motives, and were in the highest degree moral agents ;
so may others be, whose actions were predetermined.

In some respects, Dr. Ware well illustrates the
general principle for which I contend, in a passage of his
Fourth Letter, p. 78. Speaking of the design of God
in raising up Pharaoh, he says ; " How did God actually
show his power in him, and make him the instrument of
his glory ? It was by giving him the opportunity to act
out his character ; by allowing him full scope for dis-
playing the incorrigible obstinacy of his disposition, and
by then inflicting upon him exemplary punishment for
the instruction and warning of mankind ; thus making

173

him the instrument of promoting some of the best pur-
poses of heaven, in the free and voluntary exercise of
his power." Here the perfect consistency of free and
voluntary action with the accomplishment of God's pur-
pose is fully asserted.

It will be seen then, how little reason Dr. Ware has
for what he has written, p. 61, 62, in which he repre-
sents the Orthodox doctrine as inconsistent " with all
that implies the influence of motives" — " with all that
implies guilt, ill-desert, blame-worthiness in the disobedi-
ent"— " and with all those promises, threatenings, warn-
ings, &c. which imply in those to whom they are address-
ed, a power of being influenced." — If the divine purpose
leaves men, I should rather say makes them, Jree, moral
agents, as we see is implied in the case of Pharaoh and
the murderers of Christ; they are certainly capable of
being influenced by motives, so that promises, threats,
warnings, &c. are proper and useful ; and if guilt can
exist in any case, it may here.

Dr. Ware says, p. 62, that this doctrine " represents
God as unjust,— exacting endless punishment for sins com-
mitted in following the nature which he had given us,
and acting in pursuance of his decree." I reply. If sin
exists, it must be committed in following our dispositions,
or the propensities of our nature. And I have before
shown, that the circumstance of our dispositions or pro-
pensities being natural or original, cannot render them,
or the actions resulting from them, less criminal. As
to the other part ; can Dr. Ware, after giving the expla-
nation, above quoted, of the divine conduct respecting
Pharaoh, think it unjust for God to punish men for sins
they commit, while acting in pursuance of his purpose ?
Did not Joseph's brethren, though their hearts meant
not so, act in pursuance of God's purpose ? Did not
23

174

those who carried the Israelites into captivity, and
those who murdered the Prince of life, act according
to God's purpose ? And was God unjust and cruel in
punishing them ?

I regret that Dr. Ware has made use of expres-
sions and arguments like those above recited. They
are such as men of liberal minds, who examine sub-
jects profoundly, and judge without prejudice, ought
never to employ. It would be easy enough, by means
equally plausible, to oppose those doctrines of Scripture,
which Dr. Ware believes, and to discredit the Scripture
itself.

I will allow myself here to turn aside from the book,
to which I am attempting a reply, just to notice the*
ravings of one of the most able opposers of the doctrine
of Election. To those who assert this doctrine, he says ;
" You represent God as worse than the Devil ; more
false, more cruel, more unjust. But you say, you will
prove it by Scripture. Hold ! What will you prove by
Scripture? that God is worse than the Devil ?"-"Upon
the supposition of this doctrine, one might say to our
adversary the Devil, thou fool, why dost thou roar about
any longer? Hearest thou not that God hath taken thy
work out of thy hands, and that he doth it more effec-
tually ?" — " Oh how would the enemy of God and man
rejoice to hear these things were so! How would he lift
up his voice and say, to your tents, 0 Israel ! flee from
the face of this God. — But whither will ye flee? Into
heaven ? He is there. Down to hell ? He is there also.
Ye cannot flee from an omnipresent, omnipotent tyrant."
My apology for introducing these extracts from
Wesley is, that the Reviewers in the Christian Disciple
for Nov. and Dec. 1820, profess to have perfect fellow-
ship, on this subject, with one, whom they consider

175

as mad with enthusiasm, and call this strain of violent
misrepresentation, scurrility, and outrage, " an over-
whelming flood of eloquence as well as argument."

Our opposers are much inclined to look at the diffi-
culties and objections, which attend our doctrine of the
divine purpose respecting the characters of men. Why
will they not pay equal attention to the difficulties, which
attend the denial of this doctrine? If they deny that
the characters of men exist in accordance with the eter-
nal purpose of God ; they must maintain either that
God had no design at all in regard to their characters,
or else that he designed they should be different from
what they really are. Will you say, God had no deter-
mination respecting the moral characters of men ? Then
he could have had no determination respecting any of
those natural or moral causes, which contribute to form
their character. And if so, then he could have had no
determination respecting " the privileges, means, and ex-
ternal condition" of men, to which it is perfectly obvi-
ous their characters are generally owing. But Dr. Ware
asserts that God has appointed men's privileges, means
and external condition, with absolute sovereignty. So it
comes to this; he has appointed every thing, which can
operate as a cause or means of moral character — every
thing to which the formation of character can be traced,
but has carefully abstained from determining what the
character shall be. And why ? Because his determining
what it shall be would be inconsistent with its being
what he determined.

But if you say, God had a determination respecting
the characters of men, but that his determination was
that they should be different from what they are ; then
God is disappointed. But every disappointment must

176

be owing to some defect of wisdom or power, and of
course must belong to an imperfect being. Let any man
who denies our doctrine, take which position he pleas-
es,— either that God has no design at all respecting
men's characters; or, that he designed they should be
different from what they are in fact ; and let him com-
pare the difficulties attending either of these positions
with those which attend the only remaining position,
namely, that of the Orthodox above stated.

I pass over many things in Dr. Ware's Letters, of
the same general nature with those on which I have al-
ready remarked, and proceed to notice the manner in
■which he attempts to invalidate my arguments from
Scripture.

My first argument was founded on those passages,
particularly in John xvii, in which Christ speaks of a part
of mankind, as given him of the Father. As an exam-
ple I quoted verse 2. "As thou hast given him power
over all flesh, that he should give eternal life to as many
as thou hast given him," The sense which I gave to
the text was this ; that the Father has given to Christ
a part of the human race, and that those who are thus
given to Christ, are the persons who shall have eternal
life.

Dr. Ware thinks our Saviour could not have meant
to assert the common doctrine of Election in this text,
because in Chapter xv, " he addresses the same persons
of whom he here speaks as given him of the Father, in
language implying that they might abide in him and
bring forth fruit, or failing to abide in him, might be
taken away," &c. " But," he says, " according to the
doctrine in question, there could be no such contingency
in the case." The reasoning is this. If God had a real
design to save those particular persons, whom he finally

177

does save, Christ could not have exhorted his disciples
as he did, to abide in him, and enforced his exhortation
by telling them the plain truth as to the consequences of
their faithful adherence to him, and the consequences of
their forsaking him. Which is the same as saying, if God
does certainly determine to save a particular number of
human beings, he cannot speak to them in the language
of direction, exhortation, and warning, — cannot address
them with motives, — cannot do any thing to excite their
hopes or fears, or persuade them to obedience. And all
this seems to me to be the same as saying, — if God de-
termines to train up a certain number of men for eter-
nal life, he cannot use proper means to carry his deter-
mination into effect. I must confess that all the reason,
which it has pleased God to give me, leads to a conclu-
sion directly opposite. If God really determines to
guide a certain number of men in the way to heaven, it
seems reasonable to expect, that he will use the means
best suited to accomplish his determination. And ad-
mitting those who are to be saved, to be moral agents, I
should think that God would of course, make use of all
those precepts, warnings, promises and threats, by which
moral agents are most effectually influenced. What
would Dr. Ware say, if we should apply the reasoning
he relies upon in this case, to events in the natural
world. The reasoning would stand thus. If God cer-
tainly determines to give us an abundant harvest, it will
be altogether inconsistent for him to cause the sun to
shine or rain to descend, or to use any other means to
secure that harvest which he has determined to give.
And I am sure it is equally absurd to reason thus in re-
gard to the moral world. If God determines to accom-
plish an event of a moral nature, I ask whether it is con-
sistent that he should use any means whatever ; and

178

then, whether it is consistent for him to use those which
are suited to moral agents. The remaining question
would be, whether warnings, exhortations, promises, and
threats, are suited to influence moral agents. It must
be perfectly obvious, that they can be influenced in no
other way; and that if God determines to bring a larg-
er or smaller number of men to serve him faithfully, and
so prepare them for future happiness, he must influence
them to do it by such means as those above mentioned,
or not at all ; — unless men cease to be moral agents, and
become capable of being moved like senseless machines.
We see then, that the very thing which Dr. Ware thinks
conclusive against the doctrine of Election, naturally and
necessarily results from it, supposing it to be true. We
see also, that all the contingency, which is implied in
the use of exhortations, conditional promises, and threats,
is perfectly consistent with the doctrine of Election.

If it were necessary still farther to defend the posi-
tion I have taken in regard to the use of means, I
could easily adduce particular instances, in which it
appears from Scripture, that God has actually determin-
ed the characters and actions of men, and yet, in those
very instances, has made use of all the means suited to
moral agents, and made use of them in such a manner
as to carry his determination into effect.

Those who urge the above-named objection against
our doctrine, commit one great mistake ; that is, they
do not consider that the divine purposes, like all parts
of the divine administration, respect men, as moral agents,
and are accomplished by a system of moral means,
exactly suited to operate upon such agents. Did they
not lose sight of this plain principle, they could not help
seeing, that it is just as consistent with our doctrine for
God to use warnings, exhortations, promises and threats

179

to influence his people, as to give them commands, or to
use proper means to accomplish any of his designs.

Another argument which Dr. Ware urges against my
reasoning from the passage in John xvii, is, that in a
previous chapter, we meet with the following sentence ;
" For the Father himself loveth you, because ye have
loved me," &c. John xvi. 27. "Here," Dr. Ware says,
" the love of God is represented, not as the cause, but
as the consequence of the faith and love of the disciples."
This view is admitted, so far as the meaning of this
particular text is concerned. But if we would understand
the subject fully, we must compare this text with others,
particularly with two passages from the same writer ;
1 John iv. 10, 19. " Not that we loved God, but that
he loved us." " We love him because he first loved
ws." Dr. Ware thinks if our doctrine of Election or
distinguishing grace is true, " it is impossible to see with
what propriety it could be said of the elect, that God
loved them, because of their love to Christ ; for his
distinguishing love was, by that supposition, the cause of
their love." I contend that in a most important sense,
it was the cause ; and that in the two texts last quoted,
it is clearly represented in this light; though in another
sense, it is as represented in the passage cited by Dr.
Ware ; that is, God's love to Christians does, in the
order of nature, follow their love to him. Now to avoid
a contradiction between the different passages above cit-
ed, we must refer to a very obvious distinction between
the different significations of the word love, as used in
these passages. When we speak of the love of God in
the sense in which it is used in the texts quoted from the
Epistle, and elsewhere, that is, as benevolence towards sin-
ners, operating powerfully for their salvation, we must con-
sider it as the cause of their love to him, yea, the cause of

180

every thing excellent in their character, and every thing
happy in their condition. And is it not common for devout
Christians, of all denominations, to attribute all good in
creatures to the benevolence or goodness of God ? The
love of God in this sense is mere good-will, kindness,
compassion ; and is exercised towards men, considered
as sinners, or enemies. Of course, it implies no appro-
bation of their character, no complacency in them. But
the word, as used John xvi. 27, evidently denotes com-
placency, or approbation, and actions expressive of it, and
so necessarily presupposes moral good in those who are
its objects. They enjoy the divine approbation, because
they love Christ. The love of God, thus understood, is
the reward of our faith and piety ; but it has no respect
to the doctrine of Election.; and the passage in John
xvi. 27, can no more disprove the doctrine, than any
other passage in the Bible. Thus the error, which lies
at the bottom of Dr. Ware's reasoning on this subject,
becomes obvious. He says ; " If by those who are given
to Christ we are to understand all to whom Christ will
actually give eternal life, and this appointment to Chris-
tian faith and eternal life is wholly independent of any
thing in them as the ground of this distinction from the
rest of the world -, it is impossible to see with what
propriety it could be said, that God loved them, because
of their love to Christ." But how impossible ? God's
love, here spoken of, most evidently does not signify his
original act in choosing men to salvation, but his appro-
bation of them and his peculiar favour towards them, in
consequence of their faithful attachment to Christ. But
how did he regard them before they had any love to
Christ, and when they were enemies ? Did he not look
upon them with benevolence and compassion, and send his
Son to die for them, and his spirit to renew them ? It is

181

impossible for any one to show the least incompatibility
between God's originally exercising infinite benevolence
towards a part of mankind, and choosing them to holiness
and salvation, independently of any thing in them as the
ground of this distinction, and his regarding them after-
wards with complacency, and manifesting himself to them
as their friend, on account of their love and obedience to
Christ.

Dr. Ware has another passage, p. 68, which must
not pass without notice. He represents "coming to
Christ, believing on him, &c. as events not flowing from
a sovereign appointment of God, but the result of the
faithful use of means, in the exercise of a right disposi-
tion, and that the difference of character thus appearing
between Christians and others, is the ground, not the
consequence of their being given to Christ." Now I ask
whether it is not a doctrine clearly taught in many parts
of the Bible, that believing in Christ, and the possession
of a right disposition and character, are fairly to be
ascribed to the divine influence as the cause ? And if so,
whether the effectual operation of that cause, being a
divine act, must not have been before settled in the
divine mind ? Nothing can be more evident, than that
the text, John vi. 37, represents coming to Christ as the
consequence of being given to Christ. " All that the
Father giveth me, shall come to me." Their coming
follows as the consequence of their being given. So this
mode of expression always means. There is an instance
of it in the same verse. "Him that cometh unto me I
will in no wise cast out." His not being cast out, i. e.
his being accepted, is the consequence of his coming to
Christ. And it is equally evident from this passage, that
men's corning to Christ is the consequence of their being
given to Christ. The mode of expression, here used,
24

182

always denotes, that the second thing mentioned is the
consequence of the first. Thus we say, those who
repent, shall be forgiven. All who seek God, shall find
him. All who are pure in heart, shall see God. Who-
soever believeth, shall have life. In all such cases, the
meaning is undoubted. And so I think Dr. Ware would
understand the phrase in John vi. 37, if instead of forc-
ing the passage to agree with a preconceived opinion, he
would attend to the established principles of interpreta-
tion. Suppose we should find in any book the following
declaration ; all who hear the gospel, shall be converted.
Or this • all who are born in a christian land, shall be saved.
Could we doubt that the writer meant in each case to
assert that the latter would follow as the consequence
of the former, and that the former would have a special
influence in producing the latter. But Dr. Ware inverts
the two parts of a sentence just like these, and makes
that which is set forth as the consequence, to be the
antecedent, or cause. The text is ; " All that the
Father giveth me, shall come to me." Dr. Ware's sense
of it is ; all who come to me, the Father shall give me. He
says, " those only are given him of the Father, who come
to Christ."

I would just remark that the construction which Dr.
Ware has put upon the text quoted, p. 70, at the bottom,
overlooks the idiom of the New Testament, as might
easily be shown.

The next passage I cited to prove the doctrine of
Election, was Eph. i, 3 — 11. On supposition that the
Apostle actually believed the doctrine as we do, it is
inconceivable that he could have asserted it more
plainly and emphatically, than he does in this passage.
He teaches us that God had a purpose, or choice,
respecting those who are saved ; and he teaches us what

183

the purpose or choice was. " He hath blessed us, &c. —
according as he hath chosen us in hi?n, that we should be
holy — having predestinated us to the adoption of children*
#r." Here also we learn the date of the divine purpose ;
" before the foundation of the world." 2 Tim. i. 9, is of
the same general import. " Who hath saved us and
called us, not according to our works, but according to
his own purpose and grace"

As the principle concerned in the interpretation of
these passages must be considered of great consequence,
and must determine the sense of other passages also, in
relation to the same subject ; I ask the attention of the
reader to a particular investigation.

Dr. Ware undertakes to prove that the passage in
Ephesians has no relation to the doctrine of Election.
And one argument which he adduces to prove this, is,
that the passage refers not to individuals as such, but to
the Christian community.

I will begin the examination of this subject by admit-
ting what Dr. Ware supposes, namely, that the passage
relates to the Christian community, or, to Christians taken
collectively. Now does this supposition remove any
difficulty ? If it is inconsistent for God to choose individ-
uals to holiness and salvation ; it is surely not less incon-
sistent for him to choose to the same blessings a large
society of men. If any purpose or conduct relative to
individuals is improper ; certainly it cannot be less
improper, because it relates to a community, comprising
a lar<re number of individuals. So that whatever the
purpose or conduct, which Dr. Ware supposes to be
ascribed to God in this passage ; that same purpose or
conduct must be as just and proper in regard to individ-
uals, as in regard to a community. It seems to me
impossible that any man should doubt this. On this

184

account it has long appeared to irie utterly irrelevant,
for the opposers of our doctrine to introduce this distinc-
tion between the choice of individuals, and the choice of
a community. If in any respect a divine purpose in
relation to individuals, is improper ; that divine purpose
is, in the same respect, equally improper in relation to a
community. There is no principle in ethics or theology,
according to which an act of injustice or partiality
towards individuals, changes its character when directed
towards a community.

The fact that a distinction is made, occasions cer-
tainly as great difficulty, when considered in relation to
a community, as in relation to individuals. It is indeed
an affair of great magnitude for particular persons to be
chosen to enjoy important blessings, while others are
passed by, and left without those blessings. But cer-
tainlv it is an affair of no less magnitude, for a commu-
nity, or large society of men to be chosen to enjoy those
blessings, and yet other communities be left without
them. Whether the blessings intended are temporal or
spiritual, the distinction which the divine purpose makes
must occasion as great difficulty, when it relates to com-
munities, as when it relates to individuals ; — as great
surely, when it relates to the larger object, as when it
relates to the less. I confess 1 should much sooner
think of objecting to the purpose of God, or any distinc-
tion he makes in his providence respecting large bodies
of men, than respecting individuals. I say then that
whatever may be the nature of that eternal purpose of
God which is spoken of in the text, and whatever bless-
ings it secures to some in distinction from others ; it is
wholly without use for Dr. Ware to say, that purpose
relates to communities, not to individuals ; since upon
any supposition the same divine purpose or conduct can-

185

not be less objectionable, when it relates to communities
or nations, than when it relates to individuals. It is the
opinion of Dr. Ware, that the divine purpose or choice
spoken of, refers to temporal blessings, or to religious
privileges, means and opportunities. Be it so then, just
as he supposes. I ask what occasion he can have to
represent it as relating to communities, and not to indi-
viduals; since he must be as well satisfied, as I am, that
suck a divine purpose may with perfect propriety relate
to individuals. And on the other hand, if the divine
purpose spoken of by the Apostle is to be under-
stood as securing the actual bestowment of spiritu-
al blessings, that is, sanctification, pardon, and eternal
life, upon those who are its objects ; then surely Dr.
Ware must find as many difficulties in supposing, that
such a purpose relates to a community, as to individuals.
Why then has this distinction been made ? What end
does it answer ? And why is it so much relied upon by
Dr. Ware and others in their reasoning against the doc-
trine of Election ?

Thus I have endeavoured to show that if the purpose
of God mentioned above, should be understood to refer
not to individuals, but to the Christian community ; it
would still be of no use to Dr. Ware's argument. But
there are reasons, which seem to me quite conclusive
against this.

First. A community is a collection of individu-
als, who retain perfectly their individual existence,
properties, and relations. Now is it possible, that
any purpose or conduct of God should refer to a com-
munity, or society of men without referring to the indi-
viduals of whom that society is composed ? Is it possi-
ble, for example, that a community should be visited
with sickness or famine, and yet the individuals, who

186

compose that community, escape ? Is it possible that a
community should receive any blessing, and yet the indi-
vidual members continue destitute of it ? Is it possible
that any law should be obligatory upon a public body of
men, which yet is not obligatory upon the individuals
composing that body ? Is it possible that we should love
a society, or that we should promote the welfare of a so-
ciety, without loving its members, and promoting their
welfare ? How then could Dr. Ware think it proper
to assert, that the purpose of God mentioned in the pas-
sage under consideration, relates not to individuals, but
to the Christian community ?

Nor can it be of any use to Dr. Ware's argument,
for him to say, that this divine purpose does not relate
" to individuals, as such ;" that is, to individuals, as indi-
viduals, or in their individual capacity. Suppose we
admit this. What then ? The divine purpose does
not refer to them in their individual capacity; still it
must refer to them, as members of the body, or in their
collective capacity. Now do men cease to be men, by
being collected together in society ? Do they lose any
of their intellectual or moral powers ? Does their ex-
istence or their happiness become less important? Do
they not stand in the same relation to God ? Have
they not as good a title to a just and proper treatment
from God in their collective, as in their individual capac-
ity ? If any purpose or act of God, which relates to
men as individuals, is liable to a charge of injustice or
partiality ; certainly it is not less liable, if it relates to
them as collected together in society; since after being
thus collected, they retain all their relations to God,
and have an undiminished right to expect from him all
that is just and equal.

That the purpose of God referred to, could not af-

187

feet men as members of a community, without affecting
them as individuals, will appear very evident, if we con-
sider the nature of that divine purpose, and to what kind
of blessings it related. The Apostle here speaks of
Christians being chosen in Christ, that they should be holy,
— predestinated to the adoption of children, — having re-
demption through Chrisfs blood, the forgiveness of sins,
and having obtained an inheritance. This is the nature of
the divine purpose or choice. These are the blessings to
which it related. Now of which of these blessings can
it be said, that it respects Christians not as individuals,
but as a community^ Is not a man holy in his individual
capacity ? Is he not adopted to be a child of God, as an
individual? Do not a man's sins belong to him as an in-
dividual ; and must not forgiveness respect him as an indi-
vidual ? And is it not as an individual, that a man is re-
deemed, and made an heir of heaven 9 There is no bless-
ing here spoken of, which is of such a nature, that it
can relate to men in any other capacity, than as individ-
ual moral agents.

But Dr. Ware says, the passage now before us, re-
fers " not to final salvation, but to Christian privileges."
It is indeed true that being made " holy," " forgiveness,"
and -'redemption through the blood of Christ," are
Christian privileges. But they are privileges connected
with "final salvation," and evidentlv involving: it. And
in the Epistle to the Thessalonians, the Apostle express-
ly mentions salvation, as the blessing secured by the di-
vine purpose, — a salvation attained through sanctifica-
tion of the spirit. "God hath from the beginning chos-
en you to salvation, through sanctification of the Spirit
and belief of the truth." Does not this refer to final
salvation ? And does not the predestination spoken of,

188

Rom. viii. 29, 30, refer to final salvation? Let the read-
er examine for himself.

But we must attend to the arguments, by which Dr.
Ware proves, that the passage under consideration re-
fers not to final salvation, but to Christian privileges.
His first argument is, " that the Epistle is addressed to
the whole Christian community at Ephesus, without
any intimation that any expressions in it are applicable
to some, and not to others." And where would have
been the propriety of intimating that any of the expres-
sions were applicable to some and not to others, when
the whole community was made up of those, who had
openly renounced their sins, and, in the face of persecu-
tion and death, boldly professed their faith in Christ. A
Christian community then was not what we generally
call so now. The population of Ephesus, before the in-
troduction of Christianity, were " without God in the
worlds-atheists. It was among such a people, that Paul
gathered a Church, that is, a society of those whom God
had "quickened," and " made nigh by the blood of Christ,"
and " sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise ;" whom, in
short, he had made entirely different from what they
were by nature. The rest of the Ephesians remained
as they were, " enemies to God by wicked works." Ac-
cordingly, the Christian community among the Ephe-
sians comprised those who were apparently quickened,
saved by grace, holy. But what is called a christian com-
munity among us, comprises all, both saints and sinners,
who live together in any place or country, where the
Christian religion has been established. If any man
should proceed in his reasoning, on the supposition that
a church, or Christian community among the Ephesians
was the same, as what we call a Christian community
here ; he would betray great want of attention to facts,

189

and would disregard one of the most important helps
to a right understanding of the Scriptures ; namely, that
we carefully consider the circumstances of those who
wrote them, and of those to whom they were written.

But Dr. Ware proceeds in his argument ; " That this
choice or predestination was not that of individuals to
eternal life, but of all who received the Christian faith,
to the profession and privileges of the gospel — appears
still farther from other expressions addressed in the
same manner. It is for these same persons, saints, chos-
en, &c, that the Apostle thought it needful very earn-
estly to pray to God, ' that they might be strengthened
with might by his spirit, — that Christ might dwell in
their hearts by faith ; that they might be rooted and
grounded in love ;' very suitable to be addressed to pro-
fessed believers as a promiscuous body ; but such as we
should hardly expect, if the persons designated, were
by the very designation understood to be those only
who were certainly chosen to eternal life, and were
already grounded in love, &c."

Nothing can be plainer than that this reasoning of
Dr. Ware does not answer his purpose. For every
Christian on earth, however advanced he may be in
holiness, and however strong his hope of heaven, does
offer up just such prayer as that above mentioned, for
himself. And is it not perfectly suitable that he should ?
And if it is suitable that the true Christian should pray
thus for himself, it must be suitable that he should pray
thus for other true Christians. Although the Christian
has repented, and believed, and is holy ; his repentance,
faith, and holiness are but begun. He prays that they
may be continued and increased, by the constant influ-
ence of divine grace. The prayer is perfectly consist-
ent with the attainments of the best man on earth. It
25

190

is plain then, that Dr. Ware's attempt to prove, from
the nature of the Apostle's prayer, that he did not mean
to address the saints at Ephesus as being true Christians,
already grounded in love, is entirely unsuccessful ; since
no prayer could have been more proper, on supposition
of their being true Christians.

Dr. Ware allows that the prayer, above referred to,
is very suitable to be offered up for " professed believ-
ers as a promiscuous body." He doubtless means the
whole body of professing believers, including the sincere
as well as the hypocritical. Certainly he cannot mean
that sincere Christians are to be excepted. But if they
are not to be excepted, then the prayer is suitable in
relation to them. Prayer cannot be properly offered up
for a promiscuous body, unless those, who compose that
body, have something in common, on account of which
the same prayer is suited to them all. In the case be-
fore us, those for whom the prayer was offered, had
common wants. Whether they were all sincere Chris-
tians or not, they all needed what the apostle supplicat-
ed for them. So that the prayer would have been per-
fectly proper, had they all been truly sanctified. And
none the less proper surely, on supposition they were
"certainly chosen to eternal life." Could such a choice
prevent their needing the blessings of the gospel ? If
because men are chosen to eternal life, they do not
need the blessings mentioned in the apostle's prayer;
then they do not need conversion, or faith, or any oth-
er blessing, — not even that very eternal life, to which
they are chosen. What dream of Antinomianism or
fatalism was ever so strange as this ?

But Dr. Ware says, the apostle " thinks it proper to
exhort these same persons to walk worthy of their vo-
cation, to put off the old man, and put on the new man.

191

and not to grieve the Spirit." — " Very suitable to be ad-
dressed to the promiscuous body of professing Christians ;
— very suitable, if by saints, chosen, predestinated, this
only were meant ; but certainly not so, if by these terms
were designated persons chosen from eternity to final
salvation, and already saints and faithful in the highest
and literal sense. Such, as distinguished from the rest
of the world, are not proper subjects of exhortation
to walk worthy of the Christian vocation."

But I ask why they are not proper subjects of such
exhortation ? Is it not the duty of all men to walk wor-
thy of the Christian vocation ? And can it cease to be
the duty of any, because they are already real saints,
and are chosen to salvation ? God has chosen them,
that they should be holy. Can this release them from the
obligation to be holy ? The grace of God in choosing
men to salvation, and in making them saints, is represent-
ed by the apostles, as a new motive to duty, not as a
reason for neglecting it. Now if walking worthy of
their vocation is the duty of those who are chosen to
salvation and are already saints; then clearly it is prop-
er that they should be exhorted to walk thus. For to
what can the Scriptures more properly exhort men, than
to do their duty.

But we may take another view. If God has deter-
mined to bring men to final salvation, he has de-
termined to do it by certain means. These means are
repentance, faith, and increasing, persevering holi-
ness. But these are active duties of rational moral agents.
Men must perform them, as moral agents. And as mor-
al agents they must be excited to perform them. But
how are moral agents excited to perform duty, but by
exhortations, commands, promises, and threats ? Now
do men cease to be moral agents, because they are " a!-

192

ready saints in the literal sense ?" Dr. Ware's reason-
ing implies that they do. If he would allow that they
continue to be moral agents, he must allow it to be prop-
er that they should be treated as moral agents, and be
exhorted and commanded to do their duty. — He thinks
" they cannot be exhorted to be renewed, — because by
the supposition their renewal is already certain." But
suppose it is certain that they are renewed, that is, that
their renewal is begun ; is it not necessary that it should
be continued and increased? Because they have begun
to obey, is their increasing, persevering obedience un-
necessary ? But if persevering obedience is necessary,
they must be influenced to it, and must be influenced by
motives. 1 spoke of active duties. To put off the old
man, and put on the new man, to be strengthened by the
Spirit in the inner man, &c. is to love God with in-
creasing ardor, and obey with increasing constancy and
delight. What in the creation can be more active than
this ? But Christians cannot be active without active
powers ; and they cannot exert their active powers in
doing their duty, without motives ; and what better mo-
tives can be used with them, than the exhortations and
warnings of Scripture ?

Dr. Ware says, renewal, being certain, "is what
they have no power either to prevent, or to bring about."
But does it follow, that because it is certain a man has
acted or will act in a particular way, he has no power
to act thus, and no power to act otherwise ? Christ's
word rendered it very certain, that Peter would deny
him, and Judas betray him. But did that certainty take
away their power to do what they did, or to refrain from
it ? Dr. Ware asks, " And with what propriety can
such," that is, those who are already saints, and chosen
to eternal life, " be exhorted not to grieve the Spirit of

193

God ?" I answer, with the same propriety that they
can be exhorted to avoid any sin, or perform any duty.
1 answer again, that the Apostle makes the very consid-
eration, that those, whom he addresses, are holy, and
that they are the objects of God's special favour, a mo-
tive to enforce such exhortations. He tells them they are
the temple of the Holy Ghost ; that they are the mem-
bers of Christ, and are not their own ; and makes use of
this as a reason for glorifying God by a pure and holy
life. See 1 Cor. vi. 15—20. 2 Cor. vi, 16, 17. So in a
multitude of places, the very consideration, that men are
Christians indeed, and that God has conferred so great a
blessing upon them as to make them heirs of heaven,
is urged as a powerful motive to gratitude and obedi-
ence. And a powerful motive it must surely be, if our
being real Christians, and heirs of an eternal inheritance,
is to be regarded as a divine favour.

The farther I proceed, the more am I satisfied of the
total mistake of Dr. Ware in supposing that the divine
purpose, which makes any future character or action of
men certain, is inconsistent with their moral agency, or
with the proper influence of motives. This supposition,
which mixes itself more or less with the reasoning of all
who oppose the doctrine of the divine purposes, may be
proved, and has been proved, both false and absurd, by
arguments which I think no man is able to invalidate.

Reasoning from Rom. ix.

Dr. Ware thinks that a similar method of investiga^-
tion to that which was applied to the passage in Ephe-
sians, will convince his readers, " that this passage has
no relation to an Election to eternal life." The candid
reader must decide whether his method of investigation
serves his purpose, in respect either to that passage or

194

this. In relation to Rom. ix, I have scarcely any
thing to add to my reasoning in my Letters, which, in its
main points, Dr. Ware has not even attempted to con-
fute. Most of what he says about the general scope
of the first part of the Epistle is doubtless correct.
What then? Does that disprove the doctrine of
Election ? No more than it disproves any thing else.
As to national distinctions, and religious privileges, I
have already expressed my views. If Unitarians will
consider the real influence of religious privileges, and
the momentous consequences of the distinction which
God has made respecting them, upon the character
and future condition of men ; they may find as great diffi-
culty in what Dr. Ware has said respecting Jacob
and Esau, p. 76, 77, as in the Orthodox doctrine.

Dr. Ware admits what I advanced in my Letters, that
the reflection of the Apostle, on the case of Jacob and
Esau, v. 16, implies a general principle of the divine
government, but thinks it must be confined to cases
similar to that of Jacob and Esau, and that it cannot
relate to final salvation. But it peems clear to me, that
the whole reasoning of the Apostle makes it relate to
final salvation, and that, without such a relation, his
reasoning is weakness itself. For he shows, as Dr. Ware
remarks, that those distinctions on which the Jews valu-
ed themselves, were done away. If the particular distinc-
tion he speaks of had been of the same nature with these,
he would have said at once, it is ended. But he shows
that a real distinction is still made among men, and justi-
fies God in making it. What was that distinction ? Not a
national one — not one in regard to religious privileges ; for
that we are informed, was done away. It must have been
a distinction, then really existing, — a distinction, with which
the Jews would find fault ', but which Paul would justify.

195

It must have been, a distinction, which would answer the
account the Apostle gave of it, a distinction between the
children of the flesh and the children of God ; between
those who were fitted to destruction, and those prepar-
ed unto glory. What distinction was this ? I hope when
Dr. Ware shall find time to review his remarks on this
subject, he will keep in mind, that the Apostle spoke of
a distinction then really existing, a distinction offensive
to the Jews, but which he meant to justify. He first
brings the distinction into view, v. 6. " They are not all
Israel who are of Israel." This distinction between true
saints, and those who had merely the name and external
privileges of saints, he illustrates and justifies by the
distinction once made between Isaac and Ishmael, and
between Jacob and Esau; and then by what God said
to Moses, asserting his sovereign right to have mercy on
whom he will, in another case ; v. 15, referring to Exod.
xxxiii. 19 ; and again by what he said of Pharaoh,
affirming that he raised him up for the purposes of his
glory, as Dr. Ware sets forth, p. 78. — Now mark well,
it is immediately upon this, the Apostle affirms, that God
exercised the right of hardening whom he would, and this
in opposition to showing them mercy. This he repre-
sented as a distinction then actually made, and against
which he knew the Jews would raise such objections as
he mentions, v. 19, though they would be far enough
from raising them against that external, national distinc-
tion, which they had always gloried in, but which vvas
then done away. This was the very distinction, which
the Apostle defends in the following verses, where he
speaks of God's making of the same lump, some vessels to
honour, and others to dishonour, and where, with his eye
upon the same subject, he speaks of vessels of merot
prepared unto glory, and vessels of wrath fitted to destfuction.

196

And let me say, finally ; it was to this distinction, then
actually existing, — then objected to by the pride of Jews, but
defended by the Apostle, — it was to this distinction, the
Apostle applied that general principle of the divine
administration which he vindicated, by referring to dis-
tinctions of another character, formerly made.

With these remarks, I leave this interesting passage
to the consideration of the attentive reader, especially
the discerning biblical critic.

As to the difference, which Dr. Ware mentions,
between my statement of the doctrine of Reprobation,
and the statement generally made by the Orthodox, I
have but a word to say. I did not mean to state it in
the same terms. But to what does the difference amount?
I represented the decree of Reprobation to be, " the
determination of God to punish the disobedientybr their
sins, and according to their deserts." The Assembly of
Divines say, in regard to the non-elect, "God was pleased,
according to the unsearchable counsel of his own will, &c.
to pass by them, and to ordain them to dishonour and
wrathjfor their sin, to the praise of his glorious justice."
If it is to the praise of his justice, it must be, as I stated,
not only for their sin, but according to it. Now, in real-
ity, what difference is there between God's determining
to punish the finally disobedient for their sins, and his
passing by the same persons, and ordaining them to
dishonour and wrath for their sins ?

The last paragraph of Letter iv, displays a frankness
and kindness of heart, which I love to acknowledge and
to honour in my opponent, and which I will ever strive
to copy ; though in this case, their exercise is attended
with misapprehension. Dr. Ware seems to suppose that
I shrink from the doctrine of Reprobation, because I
find it cannot be defended consistently with the moral

197

character of God, or that I think it desirable to keep
out of view the most offensive feature of Calvinism. But
this is not exactly the case. I do indeed think the doc-
trine has often been stated injudiciously and harshly, and
that it is very liable to be understood in a manner, which
really makes it inconsistent with the character of God.
And this is the reason why I deem it necessary to state
it with peculiar caution. A subject may be put into
such a posture in the minds of those whom we address,
that whatever we say concerning it, will be in danger of
being perverted, or misapplied. When we are apprised
that this is the case, we ought certainly to be very guard-
ed in our language, and to take special care to bring into
view those parts of the subject, which are apt to be
overlooked. This is what I have attempted to do. My
object is not to conceal the truth, but to make an exhibi-
tion of it, which shall be just and scriptural, and which,
at the same time, shall, if possible, be so well guarded,
that men can find nothing in it to oppose, except the
truth itself.

I am happy that Dr. Ware exhibits none of the vio-
lence, bitterness, or scurrility, with which many oppose
this doctrine : though he is not wanting; in zeal. But
when I soberly consider the real nature of the doctrine
against which he and others make such strenuous oppo-
sition, I hardly know what to sav. It would seem as
though creatures of yesterday, as we arc, instead of
wishing to limit the extent of Jehovah's dominion, would
rejoice in the highest degree of sovereignty which he
can exercise. 'Tis true, there are reasons enough against
our committing our eternal or even our temporal inter-
ests absolutely to the will of man. But is not the infi-
nite perfection of God sufficient to secure our implicit
and unlimited confidence in his administration ? And if

198

he tells us in his word, that he hath mercy on whom he will
have mercy ; that is, exercises a sovereign control over
our character and destiny; why should we not say, Amen,
fully persuaded that a Being of infinite wisdom and good-
ness will, in all respects, do right? Why should we not
cheerfully say, the Lord reigneth, and doeth all things af-
ter the counsel of his own will? since the more extensive
his dominion, the safer are the interests of the universe.

CHAPTER X.

ATONEMENT.

All that I can do on this subject is to give a state-
ment of Dr. Ware's scheme, and make a few general
remarks upon it.

Doctrine of redemption, as held by Dr. Ware.

" Christ was our Redeemer by those miracles, which
proved him to be a messenger and teacher from God ;
by those instructions and that example, which were to
remove our ignorance, and deliver us from the slavery
of sin ; by those high motives to repentance and holiness,
which are found in the revelation of a future life and
righteous retribution, and the persuasive efficacy given
to his example by his sufferings, &c." p. 92. " Christ's
sufferings are the means of delivering us from punishment,
only as they are instrumental in delivering us from the
dominion of sin. They are the grounds of our forgive-
ness, only as they are the means of bringing us to repen-

199

iance, only as they operate to bring us to that state ot
holiness, which has the promise of forgiveness, and qual-
ifies us for it, p. 93. — " Christ's being made a curse for
us redeemed us from the curse of the law, by its influ-
ence in bringing us back to repentance." p. 97.

The same views are expressed in a sermon of Dr.
Ware, and still more largely in Dr. John Taylor's trea-
tise on the atonement.

Although this notion of atonement, redemption, &c.
is affirmed with as much confidence as it could be, if it
were supported by the strongest evidence, and were
perfectly free from difficulty ; I must be allowed to pause
a while before receiving it, and to state briefly some of
the objections which seem to lie against it.

First, Dr. Ware's scheme assumes, that there is nothing
to hinder the forgiveness of sinners, but their continuance in
sin ; that it is an established principle of God's moral
government, that repentance shall put an end to the
consequences of sin.

Now I ask, in the first place, whether the divine law
supports such a principle. The law promises a reward
for obedience, and threatens a penalty for disobedience.
But where does it give us the least hint, that repentance
will set aside the penalty? — Should we expect this, from
considering the nature of the case? Suppose transgressors
repent. Does that alter the guilt of their past transgres-
sion ? Does God therefore cease to look upon past trans-
gression with displeasure ? " We may as well affirm,"
says a learned Divine, " that our former obedience atones
for our present sins, as that our present obedience makes
amends for antecedent transgressions." But if the guilt of
past transgression remains the same as before, and God
looks upon it with the same displeasure ; how will he do
justice to his own character, or to the principles of his

200

moral government, if in his conduct he shows no displeas-
ure ? How is it with a civil government ? Does it hold
out to criminals the prospect of pardon, in case they
repent? What would be the consequence, if it should?
But the consequence of such a principle in the divine
government would be as much more dreadful, as the
interests of the divine government are more important,
and require to be more watchfully guarded, than those
of any human government.

We may learn something on this subject from the
analogy of God's government in the present world. " In
the common occurrences of life, the man who, by the
practice of vice, has injured his character, his fortune,
and his health, does not find himself instantly restored
to the full enjoyment of these blessings on repenting of
his past misconduct. Now if the attributes of the Deity
demand, that the punishment should not outlive the
crime, on what ground shall we justify this temporal
dispensation ? The difference in degree, cannot affect the
question in the least. It matters not, whether the pun-
ishment be of long or short duration; whether in this
world or in the next. If the justice or the goodness of
God, require that punishment should not be inflicted,
when repentance has taken place ; it must be a violation
of those attributes to permit any punishment whatever,
the most slight, or the most transient. Nor will it avail
to say, that the evils of this life attendant upon vice, are
the effects of an established constitution, and follow in
the way of natural consequence. Is not that established
constitution itself the effect of the divine decree ? And
are not its several operations as much the appointment
of its Almighty framer, as if they had individually flowed
from his immediate direction ? But besides, what reason
have we to suppose that God's treatment of us in a fu-

201

ture state, will not be of the same nature as we find
it in this ; according to established rules, and in the
way of natural consequence ?"* Is it then consistent
with reason and propriety to assume, without proof,
that nothing could ever hinder the forgiveness of sin,
but impenitence ? Were there no appearances di-
rectly against this assumption, I should think it alto-
gether unsafe to adopt it, without positive evidence in
its favour. For even if civil government could always
grant forgiveness to offenders on their repentance ; and
if under the divine administration in the present life
repentance should be found to put an immediate end to
the visible consequences of particular sins ; how could
we certainly conclude that the Governor of the world
will not judge it best to guard the everlasting inter-
ests of his kingdom by higher sanctions ? How could
we certainly conclude, that rebels would find no oth-
er obstacles, besides their impenitence, in the way of
filial impunity ? I should certainly charge myself with
inexcusable temerity, if, without the best evidence, I
should venture to decide on a subject so vast and incom-
prehensible. And further; if we would be secure
against a wrong judgment in this case, we must not for-
get, that we ourselves are transgressors, and as such, are
extremely liable to be blinded by self-interest, and to
adopt any opinion favourable to our wishes, though ever
so destitute of evidence.

I have not intended by any thing which has now
been advanced, to admit, that repentance could ever
have actually taken place under the moral government
of God, if no atonement had been made. Indeed there
is no more reason to think that any instance of repen-
tance would have been found among apostate men, than
* Magee.

202

among the apostate angels, had not salvation been pro-
vided through an atonement. The supposition of re-
pentance, without regard to an atonement, has been
intended merely to assist in the investigation of prin-
ciples.

Second objection. Dr. Ware's scheme assumes, that
the words redemption, sacrifice, fyc. have the same significa-
tion when applied to the work of Christ, as they have in the
few passages he has selected, where they relate to other sub-
jects, and are obviously used in a very different sense. Dr.
Ware finds a few places, where redemption denotes mere
deliverance from temporal judgments, without any price
being paid. And these examples of the use of the term,
he says, "may lead us to some just notions of its meaning,
when it is said, we have redemption by the blood of
of Christ." — " He redeemed us by his blood, as the
children of Israel were redeemed by the mighty power
of God." See pp. 90, 91, 92. Now is it consistent with
sound principles of interpretation, to take it for granted,
that because the word redeem is sometimes used in this
secondary and imperfect sense, in relation to the deliv-
erance of men from temporal evils, it is used in the same
sense in regard to the eternal salvation of sinners? Is
this to be taken for granted, when the Bible itself makes
a most obvious and important difference, representing
the deliverence of men from temporal bondage to be
effected by the mere exercise of God's power, but rep-
resenting expressly, and in various forms, that redemp-
tion from eternal destruction by divine power is through
the blood of Christ, through the death of a Mediator, and
ascribing the whole of salvation to this, as the great
means of procuring it ? How can we reason from one
case to the other, when the Scripture represents them
as so widely different ?

203

I have the same general remarks as to sacrifice. I
admit the word is sometimes used in a very imperfect
sense, denoting a mere offering to God of prayer, praise,
or obedience, or a mere act of kindness. But upon
what principle can Dr. Ware draw from this unusual and
imperfect sense of the word, the broad conclusion, that it
is in a similar sense, * that sacrifice is applied to what-
ever was done by Jesus Christ for our benefit ?" Be-
cause such is the meaning sometimes, does it follow that
it is so here? This, then, 1 state as a serious objection
against the scheme of my opponent; that it overlooks
entirely the proper method of determining the meaning
of the words redemption, sacrifice, &c, as they are appli-
ed to the work of Christ, and rests on the assumption,
that their meaning here is similar to what it is, not gen-
erally in the Scriptures, but in a few texts, where the
words have a very unusual and imperfect sense.

My third objection to the scheme is, that it denies
the obvious sense of many passages of Scripture which re-
late to the subject, and gives them a meaning, in a high de-
gree unnatural and forced. Without supposing that Uni-
tarians have a preconceived opinion which they wish to
support, it is impossible for me to account for it, that
they should interpret the word of God as they do. The
passages which assert a real atonement are too many to
be repeated here. The Scriptures declare that Christ
is " the Lamb of God which taketh away the sin of the
world ; that he hath given himself for us an offering
and sacrifice to God; that he is the propitiation for our
sins ; that he died for us ; that he redeemed us from the
curse, being made a curse for us ; that we are forgiven
through his blood, &c." If such declarations as these
do not teach the doctrine of the atonement, as it is com-
monly held, nothing can. These texts assert it in Ian-

204

guage as plain, express, and emphatic, as any which can
be imagined. To say, they do not teach the doctrine,
seems to me about the same as saying, the inspired wri-
ters could not teach it, if they would. But this scheme
not only denies the plain meaning of Scripture, but
gives it a meaning exceedingly unnatural and forced.
When the Scripture declares that we have "redemp-
tion through Christ's blood, even the forgiveness of
sins;" Unitarians make it mean, that his blood pro-
motes our repentance. When the Scripture declares
that Christ died for us, and is the propitiation for our
sins ; Unitarians make it mean merely that his suffer-
ings confirmed his doctrines, and are instrumental in de-
livering us from the dominion of sin. When the Scrip-
ture declares, that Christ became a curse for us to re-
deem us from the curse of the law ; Unitarians will
have it, that this is only asserting its influence to bring
us back to repentance. Now let men of sober sense
collect the passages of Scripture which relate to the
work of redemption by Christ, and set them down on
one side ; and the passages from Dr. Ware's Letters,
which exhibit the Unitarian doctrine, and set them
down on the other side • and then compare them, and
see if they are of like signification. Let men of patient
research and critical acumen do this, and see if there is
any likeness between them.

Myfow'th objection is, that this scheme takes away
the difference which the Scripture uniformly makes between
the sufferings of Christ, and of his apostles. If the suf-
ferings and death of Christ are really nothing more than
Dr. Ware makes them; thev are in no sense distinguish-
able from the sufferings and death of Paul. Who can
say, that Paul did not give as much and as valuable in-
struction, as Jesus did? or that he did not as really con-

205

iirm his doctrines by his miracles, his sufferings and
death? Dr. Ware says, "Christ was our redeemer by
those miracles which proved him to be a messenger and
teacher from God ; by those instructions and that exam-
ple which were to remove our ignorance, and deliver us
from the slavery of sin ; by those high motives to re-
pentance and holiness, which are found in the revelation
of a future life and righteous retribution ; and especially
hy the confirmation his doctrines and promises received,
and the persuasive efficacy given to his example by his
sufferings, his voluntary death, and his resurrection."
Now in all these ways, except resurrection, Paul was as
really a redeemer, as Jesus Christ. Why then is it not
proper to speak of the redemption that is in Paul, to
celebrate the efficacy of his death, and to ascribe to it
the forgiveness of sin ? There is in fact, according to
the statement of Dr. Ware's opinion just quoted, not a
single point of dissimilitude between the work of Christ
as redeemer, and the work of Paul, excepting the resur-
rection. And if Dr. Ware's opinion is true, I am unable
to see why it would not be as proper to say of Paul, as
of Christ ; " Behold the Lamb of God which taketh
away the sin of the world ; — he is the propitiation for
our sins ; — we have redemption through his blood." But
the Bible does not speak thus of Paul. And why does
it not ? Can any answer be found, but in the peculiari-
ties of the Orthodox doctrine ?

This general argument acquires great weight, when
we attend particularly to the manner in which the Scrip-
ture speaks of Christ, compared with the manner in
which it speaks of prophets and apostles. Here we
have a test of truth — a test of special importance, and
lr^s liable to be misapplied, than perhaps any other.
Suppose I doubt as to the meaning of those passages.

206

which assert in direct terms, that Christ offered himself
a sacrifice for sin ; that he died for us, redeemed us by
his blood, &c. I go then to other passages of the in-
spired writers, particularly those, in which they freely
express their feelings with respect to Christ, their grat-
itude for his kindness, their estimation of the work he
performed, their reliance on his death, and their ascrip-
tions of glory to him as a Redeemer. From such pas-
sages I learn what were the habitual feelings of the
writers. I then ask, whether this expression of feeling
on the part of prophets and apostles agrees best with
the views of the Orthodox, or of Unitarians, respecting
the other passages ? Does it agree best with the notion,
that the influence of Christ's death was like the influence
of Paul's death ? or with the Orthodox doctrine, that
Christ's death was vicarious, and had an influence essen-
tially different from that of any other ?

My fifth objection, and the last I shall now state,
arises from a comparative view of the moral influence pro-
duced by the two systems. Dr. Ware ascribes a certain
influence to the death of Christ. But the death of
Christ as we understand it, has that same influence, and
has it in a still higher degree, than according to his scheme ;
and besides this, answers other important ends, to which,
according to his scheme, it has no relation. Dr. Ware
says, Christ's sufferings " are instrumental in delivering
us from the dominion of sin ;" — iC they are the means of
bringing us to repentance ;" — '; they operate to bring us
to that state of holiness, which has the promise of for-
giveness, and qualifies us for it." My position is, first,
that Christ's sufferings and death, as the Orthodox regard
them, have the same influence. According to the scheme
of Unitarians, Christ's sufferings and death confirm his
doctrines and promises, and give a persuasive efficacy to his

207

example. They do the same according to our views.
And Orthodox writers have described this influence
abundantly, and with great force.

But my position goes farther. The sufferings of
Christ, according to our scheme, have the same moral
influence in afar higher degree. I mean, that the suffer-
ings of Christ, as apprehended by the Orthodox, have a
much more powerful influence to lead sinners to repen-
tance, than as they are apprehended by Unitarians. What
are the motives, which lead sinners to repentance ?
Certainly one of these is, the evil of sin, and the
abhorrence with which God regards it. But these
are made to appear much greater according to our
scheme of the atonement, than according to the other.
The sufferings of Christ, as we view them, are a direct
and unequalled display of the evil of sin, and the abhor-
rence with which God regards it. They are intended
primarily for this very purpose. And we believe they
really answer this purpose in as high a degree as would
have been answered, by God's inflicting upon sinners the
whole penalty of the law. But as viewed by Unitarians,
they are intended for no such purpose, and answer no
such purpose. Now surely that scheme of the atone-
ment which gives the highest view of the evil of sin, and
the displeasure of God against it, must have the most
powerful tendency to lead men to repentance. This is
too plain to need any illustration. I might say the same
in regard to the penalty of the law, or the punishment
which sin deserves, as set forth by the death of Christ.
To those who receive the Orthodox doctrine, the death
of Christ shows the dreadfulness of that punishment,
in the most striking light possible. But to Unita-
rians it does not show it at all. Again ; to those
who receive the Orthodox doctrine, the death of Christ

208

exhibits a far higher degree of divine love and mer-
cy, than to Unitarians. These acknowledge indeed, that
the death of Christ showed divine love by giving
confirmation to his doctrines, authority to his precepts,
and a persuasive influence to his example. But accord-
ing to our views of the subject, the divine love was much
more gloriously displayed. For there was, as we ap-
prehend, a mighty obstacle in the way of forgiveness,
which no penitence, obedience, or suffering of sinners
could ever remove. But God, "for the great love where-
with he loved us," removed that obstacle by providing
a vicarious sacrifice, or by sending his son to die for us.
At such a vast expense, the love of God purchased our
forgiveness. This divine love, so often celebrated in the
Scriptures, is a grand motive to repentance. While it
shows sinners their inexcusable wickedness, it forbids
their despair, encourages their hopes and their efforts,
melts their hearts with pious grief, and attracts them to
obedience. In such ways as these, which I can only hint
at, it becomes perfectly obvious, that our doctrine invests
the sufferings of Christ with a power to lead sinners to
repentance, greatly superior to any which can be derived
from the doctrine of Unitarians. Thus the death of
Christ, according to our doctrine, has the same kind of
moral influence, which it has according to Dr. Ware's
scheme, and has it in a far superior degree ; besides
all the other and higher ends which it answers, in rela-
tion to the perfections and government of God, and the
interests of his universal empire. This then is my objec-
tion, that even in regard to that influence, which Dr.
Ware considers as the only thing of any consequence in
Christ's Death, his scheme is much inferior to the Or-
thodox. It takes away half the power of the cross to
bring men to repentance.

209

After this general view, I shall think it wholly un-
necessary to remark on all the particular passages in
Dr. Ware's fifth Letter, which seem to me erroneous.
I shall merely glance at a few of the principal.

I have been not a little surprised at Dr. Ware's say-
ing, that I have not explained the figurative language,
commonly used respecting the work of Christ. But I
have been most of all surprised, that he should charge
me with mixing the literal with the metaphorical sense,
especially in the following case. He sn>s, " W7hen
by a price paid by some friend, a captive is restored to
liberty, or the punishment of a criminal is remitted;
there is redemption in the original and literal sense of
the word. In the same manner, if Christ delivers us
from punishment by suffering an evil, which was equiv-
alent, so far as the ends of the divine government are
concerned, to the execution of the curse of the law upon
transgressors ; that is a literal redemption, and that, and
the other correspondent terms, such as bought and ran-
somed, are applied in the literal sense" p. 89. But can
this be correct ? The restoration of a captive by the
payment of a pecuniary price, is indeed redemption in the
literal sense. But the procuring of a sinner's spiritual
deliverance and restoration by an expedient of a moral
nature is redemption in a metaphorical sense. To make
the sense of the word metaphorical, it is not necessary
surely, that the spiritual restoration should be procured
without any 7neans whatever, nor without means which are
equivalent, in a moral view, to the execution of the pen-
alty of the law. Nor is it necessary that the means us-
ed should have a less intimate connexion with the spir-
itual deliverance procured, than the payment of money
has with the deliverance of a captive from temporal
bondage. It is sufficient to make a perfect metaphor, if

210

a transaction of a moral nature is represented under the
similitude of a pecuniary or civil transaction. Christ re-
deemed sinners, by paying a price equivalent, in a moral
view, to their punishment. Here is no mixture of a lit-
eral with a metaphorical sense. The redemption spok-
en of is of a moral nature ; and the price paid is of a mor-
al nature ; and so the words redemption, price, pay, are
all used in a metaphorical sense. I said in my Letters ;
"as the debtor is freed from imprisonment by the friend
who steps forward and pays his debt; so are sinners
freed from punishment by the Saviour, who shed his
blood for them." On this Dr. Ware says, " the pay-
ment is as literal in the one case as in the other." But
how so ? The deliverance of sinners from punishment
by the death of Christ is represented under the simili-
tude of a debtor's deliverance from prison by the pay-
ment of his debt. It is this representation of the moral
transaction in language derived from a common transac-
tion in civil life, which constitutes the metaphor. Just
so the representation of God's pouring out his Spirit, or
raining down righteousness, is a metaphor taken from
the pouring out of rain upon the earth. The metaphor
in both cases is perfect. — If in the case above referred
to, Dr. Ware had said, the payment in one case is an
important reality, as well as to the other, he would have
said the exact truth. All the doctrines of religion are
often expressed in metaphorical language. And this lan-
guage is so far from rendering their meaning obscure
and doubtful, that it gives them, and is designed to give
them, greater clearness and force.

My respected opponent expresses a serious objection
to our using the metaphorical language which the Scrip-
tures use, and other similar language, on the subject of
redemption, because it has been the occasion of mistake.

211

But I think, on further consideration, he must be satisfi-
ed that his objection is not valid, and that, with our best
efforts, it would be extremely difficult, if not impossible,
on such a subject, to avoid the use of metaphors. And
if we should succeed in our efforts to do this, it would
certainly have a most unhappy effect. The fact is, that
in most cases, if we confine ourselves to language which
is wholly free from a figurative sense, we cannot convey
the truth, so as either to correspond with our own
feelings, or to make a just impression on the minds
of others. The importance and necessity of metaphorical
language on moral and religious subjects, result from the
very constitution of our nature. And Unitarians have no
more right to expect that we shall lay aside the use of
metaphors on the subject of redemption, than on other-
subjects in religion. It is admitted, that some men will
misunderstand the metaphorical language now under con-
sideration. They will also misunderstand the metaphors
by which other divine truths are illustrated. Even the
texts which represent God as having hands and eves,
have by some men been understood literally, and are
often understood so now, especially by children. But
shall we on this account cease to speak of the hand of
God, to denote his active power, or the eyes of God to
denote his knowledge ? And shall we cease to pray.
" forgive us our debts," because our sins are not
debts literally? Or when we use such metaphors in re-
ligious discourse, or in prayer, must we always stop to
explain them ?

Dr. Ware, p. 05, speaks of our " charging Unitarians
with denying or explaining away the doctrine of atone-
ment, for the very reason that they explain the languages
in question as figurative." But he has quite mistaken
our meaning. We do not charge Unitarians with error,

212

because they explain the language as figurative, but be-
cause they do not give to the figurative language its true
and obvious sense. Just so we should do in other like
cases. When the Scriptures assert that " the eyes of
God are in every place," we say the language implies
that God is omniscient. But if, because it is a metaphor,
any one should deny that it denotes a knowledge or dis-
cernment in God, answering to natural vision in us ; we
should charge him with denying an important truth, not
because he considered the language metaphorical, but
because he denied the obvious meaning of the figure. In
explaining those texts which speak of our being bought
with a price, we assert that they denote something in the
work of redemption by Christ, which really answers to
the price which is paid for the deliverance of a slave or
captive ; and we become very confident in our explana-
tion, when we find that the Bible, in various ways, de-
scribes to us the very thing which is called the price, that
is, the death of Christ, and that many texts both of a fig-
urative and literal sense, represent that death as of the
utmost importance in the work of redemption, and as the
means of forgiveness and salvation to sinners. The
texts above referred to, must denote something which
fairly answers to the price paid for the deliverance of a
captive, and which may justly be represented by it ;
that is, the death of Christ must be the consideration
in the moral government of God, on account of which
sinners are saved ; as in the other case, the price paid
is the consideration, on account of which a captive is de-
livered, not merely a means of preparing him to receive
deliverance, — though such preparation must be includ-
ed, as a necessary circumstance.

In my Letters I signified, what I very honestly ap-
prehended to be true, that the denial of the doctrine

213

of atonement is " contrary to the humble spirit of
Christian faith." Dr. Ware, p. 102, seems to think it
would follow from this, that " it is unsafe to allow our-
selves to inquire about the doctrine." But how would
this follow ? He would doubtless unite with us in say-
ing, that the denial of the divine existence is contrary
to the humble spirit of Christian faith, and clearly
shows the want of moral virtue. But would this im-
ply, that it is unsafe to inquire into the subject of
the divine existence ? We should certainly deem it
proper in such a case, to persuade men to inquire with
the greatest diligence ; though we should set it down as
conclusive evidence against them, if they were not convinc-
ed. So we consider it contrary to the humble spirit of
Christian faith to deny the authority of the Scriptures.
But is it therefore unsafe to inquire into the subject ?
Free inquiry, properly conducted, is important as well
as safe, on all subjects ; because it is the only effectual
means of discovering the truth. But when, after all.
the truth fails of being discovered ; it becomes a seri-
ous question, whether the failure is owing to the want
of evidence, or to something wrong in the state of the
mind.

In pp. 103, 104, Dr. Ware has expressed an opinion
which I cannot pass over unnoticed, though it is the
same, substantially, with a principle which I controvert-
ed in my Letters. He says, that the Scriptures, " with-
out any reference to any kind of atonement, refer the
forgiveness of sin solely to the mercy of God, by which
he is ready to accept reformation and a return to vir-
tue." His meaning undoubtedly is, the Scriptures do
this in many instances. And so the reasoning is briefly
this. The Scriptures, in many places, speak of God as
merciful, and ready to forgive the penitent, without ex-

214

pressly referring to any atonement ; therefore forgiveness
rests solely on the mercy of God and the repentance of
sinners, and the atonement has nothing to do with it,
except as it may be conducive to repentance. But what
would Dr. Ware say, if I should reason in the same man-
ner ? Thus. The Scriptures in some places speak of
the death of Christ as the cause or means of our for-
giveness, without any mention of repentance or holiness
in us ; therefore the death of Christ is the sole cause or
means of our forgiveness, and neither our repentance,
nor the mercy of God has any thing to do with it. Or
thus. In some passages the Scriptures attribute our
forgiveness and salvation to faith, without mentioning
either the mercy of God, or the blood of Christ ; there-
fore faith is the only cause or foundation of our forgive-
ness, and neither the mercy of God, nor the blood of
Christ has any thing to do with it. To just such con-
clusions shall we be led, if we attempt to learn the whole
truth on the subjects of religion, from any particular
passages, while we disregard other passages containing
additional information on the same subjects.

There are indeed many texts, which declare God's
readiness to forgive those who repent. But we find too
that a propitiation for sin was appointed from the be-
ginning, and that the appointed propitiation, which was
set forth in the Mosaic law by various sacrifices, had
the same influence respecting human salvation before
the coming of Christ, as after. What that influence
was, we learn most clearly from the New Testament.
Wrhen all parts of Scripture are taken together, it be-
comes perfectly clear, that every declaration of God's
readiness to forgive the penitent, presupposes the pro-
pitiation or atonement, made by the death of Christ.
Now it is certainly a violation of every just princi-

215

pie of reasoning, to separate the declaration of God's
readiness to forgive from tlie consideration of that
atonement, which he appointed from the beginning
as the medium of forgiveness. Whether the two
tilings are always mentioned in the same passage or not,
they are mentioned, and connected together in the holy
Scriptures. These Scriptures we receive entire ; and
we learn from them, first, that the infinite love of God
was the original fountain of salvation ; secondly, that the
sacrifice of Christ was the grand expedient adopted by
the Governor of the world, to render human salvation,
which would otherwise have been wholly inadmissible,
consistent with law and justice; and thirdly, that the re-
pentance of sinners is indispensably necessary to their
enjoying the salvation thus graciously provided. So
that when we assert that the blood of Christ is, in one
respect, the sole ground of forgiveness, we do not, as
Dr. Ware supposes, forget those texts which attribute
forgiveness to the free and boundless love of God, nor
those which represent repentance as an indispensable
condition of forgiveness.

From p. 106, 107, it seems that Dr. Ware has mis-
apprehended my meaning as to the entire worthlessness
of all the good works and dispositions of men. What I
said related simply to justification. But because good
works and good dispositions are worthless in regard to
this single point, we do not consider them worthless in
other respects. Although we believe, what Paul abun-
dantly teaches in his Epistles, that our good works must
never be named in the presence of God, as the merito-
rious cause of our justification ; I am confident we con-
sider them of as high value, and enforce them by as ma-
ny and as powerful motives, as any of our opponents ; —
and with perfect consistency too. For it can never be

216

shown, that, because our personal holiness is of no ac-
count as a ground of our justification, it is therefore of
no estimation in the sight of God, and not worth our pur-
suit. Does our denying the value of a thing in one par-
ticular respect, certainly prove that we deny its value
in all other respects ? We not only reject with abhor-
rence the licentious consequence, mentioned by Dr.
Ware at the close of his fifth Letter, but we assert that
it does not by any means follow from the doctrine we
maintain ; nay, we think ourselves able to show, that
our doctrine guards against it far more effectually, than
any other.

CHAPTER XI.

ON DIVINE INFLUENCE.

Most of what Dr. Ware has said, Letter VI, in regard
to the use of means and motives, is perfectly agreeable
to the faith of the Orthodox. And let me here inquire,
■what reason he has to suppose, that the special, the
efficacious, or even the supernatural influence of the
Spirit, which we believe to be concerned in regeneration,
has any less connexion with means and motives, than that
divine influence which he asserts. We make the pecu-
liar character which we attribute to the divine influence,
to consist, not at all in its setting aside the use of means
and rational motives, but in its giving them their proper
effect, or producing its own proper effect by them. And one
•would think, that a divine influence, which renders means

217

and motives effectual to bring men to repentance, must
at least be more highly valued, than any influence which
falls short of this. It seems to me to be indeed very
strange, that any man should not see at once, that the
influence of God's spirit must be desirable and excellent,
in proportion to its efficacy, or in proportion to the cer-
tainty, with which it produces its effect.

Dr. Ware very justly and fairly represents our dif-
ferent views respecting divine influence, as intimately
connected with our views respecting the natural state of
man, p. 122, and elsewhere. Now if our views of man's
depravity arc admitted to be correct, our opponents must,
I think, be satisfied, that just such a divine influence as
we assert, is necessary to his renovation, and that no
influence short of this would answer the purpose. They
now think a less powerful influence sufficient, because
they think man less depraved. Should they ever be
convinced, that man has that degree of moral corruption
which we attribute to him, they would at the same time
be convinced, that he cannot be brought to a holy life,
without a divine influence sufficient to overcome a strong
and total opposition to holiness, and to effect a new
moral creation.

In a variety of passages, Dr. Ware asserts that our
notion of divine influence is inconsistent with human lib-
erty and activity, — inconsistent with the moral character
of God — with those texts which complain of the sins of
men, — with the commands of the gospel to repent and
believe, and with the sincerity of all the exhortations
and encouragements given to men. But of this inconsis-
tency, in any of the instances mentioned, what evidence
has he produced? And what evidence can he produce?
As to its inconsistency with human liberty and activity ;
I refer to the views J have already advanced. Our

218

doctrine is, that the divine influence effectually directs and
regulates the liberty and activity of those who are saved ;
that it induces them to use their voluntary and moral
powers in a right manner. Now is it setting aside their
liberty or activity, for the Spirit of God to direct it,
and regulate its operations, or induce them properly to
use it ? Dr. Ware says, that " in those, upon whom this
influence is exerted, its effects take place without any
agency or cooperation of theirs, for they are wholly
passive." But although something like this seems, in
not a few instances, to have been maintained by Ortho-
dox men ; I can by no means assent to it. The subjects
operated upon by the divine Spirit, are active, moral be-
ings ; and the effects produced in them are, primarily,
right moral affections, and secondarily, correspondent ex-
ternal actions. How can these " effects take place, with-
out any agency of theirs •?' when the effects are in fact
their agency itself, properly directed ?

And how can it be supposed to be inconsistent with
the moral character of God, for him to exert an influence
upon sinners, which will certainly secure their repentance
and salvation ? Should we not rather think, that a Be-
ing of infinite goodness would choose to exert an influence,
so important to the highest interests of men ? Indeed, if
there is any considerable difficulty in the case, it is the
fact, that so desirable an influence is not actually impart-
ed to all. But as to this, I hardly need to remark, that
no blessing which God bestows, is ever thought to lose
its value, because it is not granted to all. Nor, on the
other hand, is there any room for those who are left
destitute, to find fault, unless they can present a just
claim to the blessings withheld. So far at least this
subject is very plain.

Again. Is our doctrine "inconsistent with those

219

texts, which complain of the sins of men ?" The reason
which Dr. Ware assigns to prove such an inconsistency
is, that, if our doctrine is true, " men act according to
the nature given them, and could not act otherwise,
without an inlluence which is not given thetn." The
first part of the reason which is here assigned, and which
has a pretty obscure relation to the subject, is, that on
the supposition that our doctrine is true, " men act ac-
cording to the nature given them." — And how do they
act, on supposition the Unitarian doctrine is true ? Is
there any other way in which any accountable being in
the Universe can act, but according to his nature, wheth-
er that nature be good or bad ? — The other part of the
reason is, that "men could not act otherwise, without an
influence which is not given them." They "could not
act otherwise." But are men destitute of any power
which is necessary to moral agency, because they are not
made holy ? If they are not, then this reason has no
force. If they are, then none, who are not holy, have
the power which is necessary to moral agency ; which
is the same as to say, no sinners can be moral agents.
And this is the same as saying, that no moral agents can
be sinners ; and if so, there can be no sin in the universe.
It is said, that our doctrine is inconsistent with the
commands of the gospel to repent, believe, &c. Bat how
does this appear? Why, because "they have no power
to do this, till almighty power is exerted to make them
willing." But surely we are not to consider men as
wanting the power that is necessary to moral agency,
because God does not actually bring them to repent and
believe. Though they are sinners, and dependent on
the spirit of God for sanctilication, they are moral agents.
Their being sinners necessarily implies moral agency.
And if they are moral agents, it is most clearly their

220

duty to repent, believe, and obey. And is it not prop-
er that the gospel should command them to do their
duty?

Finally ; Dr. Ware signifies that our doctrine is in-
consistent with the sincerity of the exhortations and en-
couragements of the gospel to exertion, since it supposes
men incapable of willing to perform their duty ; that it
is not of themselves to will any thing good, &c. But
our doctrine makes men no otherwise incapable of wil-
ling to perform their duty, than as they are indisposed
or disinclined to perform it. And must the exhortations
to duty contained in the gospel, and the promises to those
who perform it, be considered insincere, because men are
not inclined to perform it ? If so, there is but little sin-
cerity in the Bible.

Dr. Ware's last Letter is a reply to mine, on the
moral influence of Orthodoxy compared with the influ-
ence of Unitarianism. To many of the remarks contain-
ed in this Letter, I cordially subscribe ; but not to all.

"Love to Christ," Dr. Ware says, " will depend on
our view of the nature and value of the benefits we re-
ceive through him, and not at all on the rank he holds
in the scale of being." p. 127. This is saying, that our
love to Christ will be the same, both in kind and degree,
whether he be possessed of mere human perfection, or
of divine perfection. And this is saying, that human
perfection is entitled to as high a regard, as divine. And
this is the same as to say, a perfect man may properly
be the object of as high an affection, as God. And if this
is true, it is of no practical consequence, whether we
consider the Supreme Being as any thing more than a
holy angel, or a holy man; as our "love to him will not

221

depend at all on the rank he holds in the scale of being."
Of course, all the labour of the inspired writers to invest
his character with divine glory is of no value, as it can
have no effect upon our feelings. Indeed, if Dr. Ware's
remark is true, it is no more proper to require us to love
God with all the heart and soul and mind and strength,
than to require us to love a perfectly holy man in this
manner ,- and the distinctions constantly made between
Jehovah and all inferior ranks of beings are of no impor-
tance. For, whether he holds a higher or lower rank,
our love, our confidence, our veneration, our worship will
all be the same. On this principle, the practice of the
Romish church in rendering divine worship to the mother
of Jesus, and other saints, is not so faulty as Protestants
have supposed. For those departed saints, being per-
fectly holy, may justly be regarded as objects of the
highest religious affection, inasmuch as the propriety of
this affection " depends not at all on the rank they hold
in the scale of being." Such is the favourite position of
Dr. Ware, and others; — a position hastily adopted by
them, I am sure, — and confounding; things which differ as

77 or?

much, as any one thing can, by the whole length and
breadth of infinity, differ from another. What effect
must it have upon us, to be told in earnest, that it is a
matter of no practical consequence, whether our Saviour
is the creator of the heavens and the earth, or a mere
creature, — God over all, or a mere child of Adam ; that,
whether he is the one or the other, our love to him is to
be the same, — our confidence and our worship the same ?
Certainly Unitarians have made the assertion, above
quoted, rashly ; and if they consider well what it implies,
they will not be fond of repeating it.

But I have a word more on this point. If Unitari-
ans do indeed think that "love to Christ depends not

222

at all on the rank he holds in the scale of being ;" why
do they charge us with giving him too high a place in
our affections ? Why do they charge us, as they often do,
with idolatry? According to Dr. Ware's position, Christ
deserves as high an affection, as if he were exalted to the
rank of divinity. To say he does not, is to say, the de-
gree of our affection must depend on his rank in the scale
of being. Indeed, Dr. Ware himself makes it depend on
this. He tells us, that Unitarians cannot give Christ the
"supremacy of affection, which is due to God only;" and
that they cannot do this, because they ascribe to Christ,
" only derived excellences, and a subordinate agency."
And this is the same as if he had said, they cannot give
him their supreme affection, because he holds the rank of
a mere creature; thus making our love to him depend,
directly and essentially, on the rank he holds in the scale
of being. They justify themselves in not giving him
their supreme affection, by alleging that he has only
the rank of a derived, dependent being. And they
are indeed justified, if that is his rank. On the oth-
er hand, our supreme affection is due to him, if he pos-
sesses supreme excellence. So that nothing can be more
contrary to reason and to fact, than the position that
"our love to Christ, depends not at all on the rank
he holds in the scale of being." The question between
us and Unitarians respecting the character of Christ, is,
in effect, a question respecting the degree of love and
veneration which is due to him. And every effort of
Unitarians to disprove the proper Deity of Christ, is, in
plain truth, an effort to convince us, .that we have exer-
cised towards him too high a degree of veneration and
love. B'jt for ourselves, we are satisfied that in this
respect, our great danger is that of falling below the
affection, which his glorious attributes demand, and which
the precepts and examples of the Apostles inculcate.

223

Dr. Ware asks upon what ground I can speak " of a
future reward to be obtained by virtuous efforts," since
I have said that no works of ours must be named in the
presence of God, and that we must rely on the blood of
Christ, as the sole ground of forgiveness. But can there
be any difficulty here ? May not an undeserved favour,
a mere gift, which has been procured for us by the kind-
ness of another, be proposed to us, on conditions which
we are to fulfil ? The rewards of heaven are the re-
wards of grace — procured wholly by the merit of Christ.
But may not our diligent exertion be the means of ob-
taining them? Suppose a man has servants, who owe
him a just debt to a large amount, but, through their own
fault, are rendered unable ever to make any payment.
And suppose he is moved by compassion to forgive the
debt, and besides this, to provide a charity fund to be
disposed of for their benefit. May he not encourage
good conduct in them, by making it still depend upon
their own exertions, whether they shall receive the gra-
tuity offered them? May not the gratuity be held up as
a reward of their good conduct ? And if they obtain the
reward, must not their hearts be constantly turned to-
wards the generosity of their disinterested benefactor ?
Deep in debt as they are, and depending on the mere
kindness of another, will they ever name their exertions,
as giving them any claim to their reward, or as making
it, in any proper sense, a purchase ?

At the bottom of p. 130, Dr. Ware says, that a mor-
al inability is in fact, to all practical purposes, the same
as a natural inability." A moral inability is an inability
Avhich results from moral causes. Thus a man's strong
disinclination to do any particular duty constitutes a mor-
al inability. But is this strong disinclination the same,
as an inability consisting in the want of physical power?

224

As to "practical purposes," these two kinds of inability
are extremely and totally different. The one constitutes
blame-worthiness ; the other frees from it. We are
criminal in proportion to the one, and exculpated in pro-
portion to the other.

On the reasoning of Dr. Ware, pp. 131, 132, I have
several remarks to offer. The reasoning relates to the
moral influence of punishment in preventing sin, and in
reclaiming men from it. I had represented, in my Let-
ters, that the salutary influence of the punishment
threatened must be in proportion to the greatness of the
evil which we apprehend to be involved in it ; and up-
on this principle, had endeavoured to show, that the
view which the Orthodox entertain of the inexpressible
greatness and endless duration of future punishment must
have the most powerful tendency to deter men from
the commission of sin. The argument which Dr. Ware
arrays against this reasoning is, in brief, that such a pun-
ishment is obviously disproportioned to the demerit of
sin, and so cannot be firmly believed ; that the " terror"
it excites is so " vague and indistinct, and so mingled
with incredulity," as to "destroy its practical effects."
But has not Dr. Ware entirely mistaken the real ques-
tion in debate ? When we would ascertain the influ-
ence of any particular sentiment, we do not surely look
to those who disbelieve and reject it, nor to those who
half-believe it. Who ever attempted to honour Chris-
tianity, by showing its happy influence upon Mahome-
tans or infidels ? When Dr. Ware speaks of the influ-
ence of the Unitarian doctrine, does he mean to speak
of its influence upon those who reject it, or upon those
■who receive it ? No doctrine can produce its proper
effect in any other way, than by being cordially believed.
The influence which any doctrine has, is the same thing
as the influence which the belief of it has. Let Dr..

225

Ware then come to the question, and inquire, what will
be the influence of our doctrine upon those who serious-
ly believe it. Let him look into the minds of those, who
have so deep an impression of the evil of sin, that end-
less punishment appears to be its just desert; who as
certainly believe that such punishment will be inflicted
on the wicked, as that endless happiness will be confer-
red on the righteous. And let him inquire what will be
the proper effect of the doctrine, thus cordially be-
lieved.

But Dr. Ware seems to think it impossible to believe
the doctrine of endless punishment. Doubtless he speaks
of an impossibility which Unitarians feel ; for he surely
would not charge us with insincerity, when we profess
to believe the doctrine. Now I admit that Unitarians
may find it difficult or impossible to bring themselves to
believe the doctrine of endless punishment. With the
same habits of thinking on religious subjects which they
have, I should find it impossible too. But there can be
no doubt that this doctrine would become perfectly credi-
ble to Unitarians, if their views of the law and govern-
ment of God, and the evil of sin, should be like those
which the Orthodox entertain. And if they should
come really to believe the doctrine, they could easily
judge of its influence.

In p. 135, and elsewhere, Dr. Ware represents the
obvious sense of any passage, as being the same with the
literal sense • whereas in a thousand cases, the Jigurativt
sense is the obvious one.

Dr. Ware speaks of the " little success, which has
attended all endeavours in modern times to extend the
bounds of Christianity by missions for the conversion of
barbarous pagan nations." If Dr. Ware could have the
pleasure of being fully acquainted with all the facts
which are before the public, and which have been the

226

subject of so much joy, and so much thanksgiving to
God, I am persuaded he would adopt language very
diiferent from this. And if he had known the character
of Missionaries as well as some of us do, he would hardly
have descended to notice, except with a sharp rebuke,
the disgust or the uncandid surmises of those, who are
unfriendly to the cause of missions. See pp. 142, 143.

To all that Dr. Ware says, pp. 148, 149, of the hap-
py influence of Unitarian sentiments to bring the learn-
ed, the wealthy, the refined, and those in exalted sta-
tions to be " efficient friends, and serious professors" of
religion, I have only this to reply ; that I should most
heartily rejoice in such an influence, and wish it increased
and perpetuated, could I be well satisfied, that the re-
ligion, thus promoted in the higher classes of society, is
indeed the religion which the inspired pages teach, and
which will bear the inspection of him, who will judge
the world at his coming.

Near the close of his Letters, Dr. Ware expresses
some surprise, that I should speak of the Unitarian sys-
tem as "indeed another gospel." But why should he be
surprised ? Does not every thing I have said in the
controversy imply a serious conviction of this ? And
have not the more bold and decided Unitarians in Ens;-
land and America given up all thought of any compro-
mise, and all desire of any alliance, between the two
systems ? And does not Dr. Ware himself, in his last
sentence, plainly signify, that one and only one of these
systems is to be considered as the true gospel ? "Chris-
tians," he says, " will venture to judge between the rival
svstems, and will take the liberty to decide, each one for
himself, whether the gospel, as it is held by Unitarians,
or as it is held by Trinitarians and Calvinists, be the gospel
of' Christ." Now we only ask for ourselves the liberty,
which belongs to all. Unitarians judge that their sys-

227

tern is the true gospel. We adopt a conclusion directly
opposite. In regard to this subject, on which we have
opinions so totally diverse, it would be inconsistent with
plain truth to pretend that we agree, or to do any thing
implying an agreement. On other subjects we may
agree, and ought to agree. Let there be no interrup-
tion of the advantages or pleasures of civil, social, or lit-
erary intercourse ; no interruption of the offices of kind-
ness, or of the feelings of benevolence. But in regard to
the great subject of controversy between us, let us re-
vere conscience and be faithful to the truth. If Unita-
rians soberly declare, that they regard us as guilty of
idolatry in the honour and worship we render to Christ,
and that they can have no communion with us ; instead of
crying out against them for bigotry, we cheerfully allow
them the rights of conscience and private judgment, and,
in this case, give them the credit of a manly consistency.
So on our part, if we declare our serious conviction, that
their system is another Gospel, and that it is inconsistent
with our allegiance to Christ to have any fellowship with
them in the peculiarities of their faith and worship ;
we request them to extend to us the exercise of the
same indulgence and candour, and to suffer us, without re-
proach, to serve God according to our own consciences.
If Dr. Ware were not very distant from the boast-
ing, which has characterized some Unitarians, I should
be disposed to animadvert upon a {e\v passages in p.
132, where he says not only that the moral influence of
the Unitarian doctrine is " far more certain, and power-
ful, and salutary, and purifying," than the influence of
Orthodoxy, but that the virtue of Unitarians " is of a
more pure, generous, and elevated kind," than that of their
opponents. I cannot bring myself to contest this last
point with Unitarians. I doubt whether I ought to
bestow upon any virtue, which we are conscious of pos-

228

sessing, the shining honours, which Dr. Ware here seems
willing to bestow upon the virtue of Unitarians. But af-
ter all, the language he generally uses on this subject, is
humility itself, compared with the inflated encomiums,
which some of his brethren have bestowed upon them-
selves, and upon one another. And let me add here,
because I love to honour my opponent, that the severest
censures he casts upon us, are, as to manner, courtesy
and mildness itself, compared with the spirit and lan-
guage of some, who boast of liberality and candour. Let
me be excused for one more remark in this place, and
that is, that I shall think I have not written or lived in
vain, if I may contribute in any measure to diminish the
incivility, and violence, and, I was ready to say, barbari-
ty, with which religious controversy has too generally
been carried on, and to promote a spirit of benevolence,
and kindness, and forbearance among those, who differ
from each other. Let it not be supposed, however, that
I wish, in any measure, to promote that timid, time-serv-
ing policy, which would either conceal the truth, or treat
it as though it were of little consequence. The Lord
deliver every friend of Orthodoxy from this. But I would
still remember the rebuke, which our blessed Saviour
administered to those, who in a moment of resentment
and impatience, wished for divine judgments upon some
who did not favour their cause. And I would ever im-
press upon my memory and my heart, the admonition of
the Apostle, that " the servant of the Lord must not
strive, but be gentle unto all men," even opposers. And
if in any thing which I have written in this controversy,
I have violated this excellent precept, the Lord forgive
such an offence against the spirit of love.

INI

m urns

.-•• ■.'•,^$-£fi&£.,.

■!,,!

Internet Archive Audio

Featured

Top

Images

Featured

Top

Software

Featured

Top

Books

Featured

Top

Video

Featured

Top

Mobile Apps

Browser Extensions

Archive-It Subscription

Save Page Now

Full text of "Letters to Unitarians occasioned by the sermon of the Reverend William E. Channing, at the ordination of the Rev. J. Sparks"

See other formats