servation was so circumscribed, and your means of knowledge so limited. It is no part of my undertaking to boast of the high religious attainments of those with whom I accord in sentiment, and unite in worship, or to hold them up as more holy than other christians, and ready to cry out on all occasions, like Jehu of old, "Come, see my zeal for the Lord." I aim at nothing more than a plain defence, a bare vindication. I shall not, therefore, impose any tax upon your patience by going into a history of their conversions, or detailing remarkable instances of their piety, self denial, humility; of their patience in tribulation, and meekness under persecution; of their forbearance when assailed by the reproaches and scorn of the world; of their perseverance through evil report and good report in accomplishing what their principles and the voice of conscience dictate, and in fine, of their joyful triumph over every calamity, even death itself, while sustained by the bright hopes, and cheering anticipations inspired by their views of the religion of the Saviour. These things I willingly leave to speak for themselves, and have much reason to hope and trust, that they will speak loudly to every honest inquirer and candid observer. Had you known more of the persons, with whose religious feelings you have dealt so harshly, I am constrained to believe you would have been less ready to ask, "who has ever heard” of these things? What strikes one most forcibly in your view of this subject, is, that you confound distinctions, and make no difference between conversion, and the object to be obtained by conversion. Yet surely these are not the same thing. Conversion is a means for the attainment of a certain end. And what is this end, but such a measure of knowledge, virtue, piety, and holiness, as constitutes a truly religious character ? Conversion is valuable only for its effects, and yet you speak of it as being itself the only thing of importance, and as if these effects could be produced in no way except by the influence of this doctrine, not as others think they ought to interpret it, but as you choose to interpret it yourself. Admit the fact, that Unitarians do not hold the necessity of conversion in the calvinistic sense; suppose them to believe that God is not limited in his power or wisdom, and may employ a great variety of means in bringing his rational creatures to a sense of their sins, a knowledge of their duty, an humble contrition, sincere repentance, and practical holiness. By what process can these facts be framed into an argument against their moral character? Morality does not consist in a doctrine, an opinion, or a pretence. The apostle says, that the fruit of the spirit is, in all, goodness, and righteousness, and truth. Where this fruit appears, why do you stop to ask by what operations of the spirit it has been produced? Are you not contented, that God should have taken his own way? Unitarians hold, not less than other Christians, that their sins must be forsaken, their wicked hearts renewed, and all their passions, thoughts, and affections, brought into subjection to the will of God, before they can expect his promised favour, or have any hopes of the rewards of his glory. But they do not, like Calvinists, hold that God is restricted in the mode he may adopt to accomplish this purpose; nor do they consider the mode of greater moment than the purpose itself. Let us now attend to the doctrine under consideration, as described by Calvinists, and then proceed to examine its moral influence, as compared with that of unitarian views of the same subject. The calvinistic notion of regeneration, or conversion, has for its basis the total depravity of human nature. Since this takes away all moral ability from man, he can do nothing towards regenerating himself. As the Confession of Faith testifies, he cannot even prepare himself for any good purpose. No alternative remains. It must be wholly the work of divine power. It is made sure by the sovereign decree of election, which men can do nothing either to resist, or procure. God has not only arbitrarily, and unconditionally, appointed a certain number to eternal life, but he has "fore-ordained all the means thereunto." The agency of man is as completely out of the question, as if he were a block of marble, or a stock of wood. "Neither are any other redeemed by Christ, effectually called, justified, adopted, sanctified, and saved, but the elect only." And to give a consistent finishing to the whole, it is added, "The rest of mankind, God was pleased to pass by, and to ordain them to dishonour, and wrath for their sin, to the praise of his glorious justice."* And again; "All those whom God hath predestinated unto life, and those only, he is pleased, in his appointed and accepted 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 removed by the Holy Spirit, he is thereby enabled to answer this call, and to embrace the grace offered and conveyed in it."† From these words it seems, that the conversion of a sinner consists in a simple execution of a divine decree made from all eternity, without any regard to the future disposition or conduct of the person to be converted, or as it is expressed in another place, " without any foresight of faith or good works." The sinner has no concern in the work, for he is declared to be "altogether passive therein." This is plain language, and needs no illustration. According to the calvinistic scheme, therefore, all who are saved are regenerated by the unalterable purpose, and irresistible power of the Almighty. The rest are condemned, and absolutely deprived of all means of regeneration, by the same arbitrary determination. The wrath of their Maker is kindled * Confession of Faith, chap, III. § 6. 7. + Ibid. chap. X. § 1. 2. against them from the moment of their birth, and he pursues them with his relentless rage throughout every period of their existence. This is a doctrine, it is true, which the wiser sort of Calvinists of the present day strive much to keep out of sight. The same prudent caution is exercised in your Sermon and Reply. It is nevertheless a most prominent doctrine of Calvinism; and in former times, when men loved mysteries more than truth, and while the darkness of the middle ages was still lingering in the human mind, it was a doctrine, which its advocates were not ashamed to avow, nor afraid to defend. That the above conclusions are not loosely drawn, and give no distorted view of the subject, as understood by Calvinists, might be shown, if it were necessary, by appealing to their most celebrated wri ters. No man, if I mistake not, is accounted a more able expounder of the dark things of Calvinism, than Herman Witsius; no man, perhaps, has descended farther into the hidden corners of this mystical system. He tells us, that "the covenant of grace, with respect to us, has no conditions ;" and also, "that a right to life, neither is, nor can be founded on any actions of ours, but on the righteousness of our Lord alone, who having perfectly fulfilled the righteousness of the law for us, nothing can in justice be required of us to perform, in order to acquire a right already purchased for us. And, indeed, in this all the orthodox readily agree." And afterwards he says of the covenant of grace, "it is not possible it should be made void by any unbelief of the elect, nor acquire |