of religion? These, I say, are the great questions; and no man, who reflects deeply, can help feeling that they are questions of momentous concern. They come home to our bosoms. They enter deeply into the essential welfare of our minds. And no weak, or morbid sensibility to the trials of controversy should withhold us from discussions that thus touch the vital interests of our being. I do not say, indeed, that such discussions altogether involve those interests. There are good men on both sides, in this controversy. But it does nevertheless affect their most precious interests; and that is enough to give it a claim upon our attention.

On the great questions at issue, both parties, of course, believe their adversaries to be in error. And I shall now undertake to state, in the third place, what are the errors, as we conceive them, in the popular system of religion, which we are bound, believing them such, not only to reject, but to oppose.

After all that is said and written on this subject, I do not think that the practical features and bearings of this system are made sufficiently conspicuous, and, therefore, I shall endeavour to unfold them in their true moral character, and with a careful regard, at the same time, to the most recent explanations.

The popular, or Calvinistic system, then, teaches that all men by nature are totally depraved. That is to say, the moral constitution of men as certainly develops sin and sin only, as their intellectual constitution develops memory or reason. There is amiableness, indeed, and a seeming goodness; but it is only seeming. According to the only true and righteous judgment of God and good men, everything in the human heart, and everything actually proceeding from it, is utterly wicked and abominable; and all the current language of discrimination, between the good and bad qualities of the mass of society around us, is the fruit of entire mistake and delusion, - for the simple reason, that there is really nothing good among them; that men, in general, are in every thought, word, and deed, only, and altogether, and always, bad! This entire wickedness, thus inevitably flowing from the very constitution which God has given to men, or from the circumstances in which he has placed them, is charged upon them as the most unspeakable guilt; such a guilt as to render an infinite atonement necessary. And here, in the popular system, is introduced the practical use of the doctrine of the Trinity. For it is contended, that, in order to expiate this guilt, and to render it proper that God should pardon it, it was necessary that the Almighty himself, in the second person of the Trinity, should take to himself human nature; and, that this complex being, one part of whom was the immaculate and omnipresent God, should hang upon the cross, and there die, as truly as ever any human culprit did. But this is only one of the doctrines that have sprung from the original stock,-viz. the native and total depravity of men. This depravity of course implies an absolute and supreme unwillingness to be good and holy so that it is rendered just as certain, that man, without the special interposition of God, will never fail or cease to sin, when the object of sinful affection is presented, as that he will never fail to think, when the object of thought is presented. This is the much explained doctrine of moral inability. It is not that a man is unable to be holy, in the same sense in which he is unable to lift a tree of the forest

from its roots. It is a moral inability, say its advocates: but still it is an inability, as invincible, as immoveable, by human power, though not in the same sense immoveable, as the oak of the forest. In other words, it is an unwillingness, originated in the soul by the will or by the Providence of Him who made it, springing up with the first exertion of its moral faculties, occupying and possessing the whole moral being of a man, and leaving in it, therefore, no prop, no power, whereby a holy disposition may be raised up. That disposition, whenever formed, arises, it is said, from no antecedent willingness in the sinful creature, but from the interposing aud special grace of God. And this leads us to notice the most distressing and tremendous feature of the whole system. The needful grace is withholden from multitudes; or, to use the most mild and cautious language, this special grace does not act, does not take effect upon multitudes. And, therefore, as an inevitable consequence, these multitudes, only for conforming to a law of their being or condition, no matter which-only for acting as they are certain to do, are doomed to remediless, endless, infinite woes! The being, born with the seeds of this awful malady within him, lives till they develop in his constitution the fatal disease, and then, after, it may be, one day or one month of suffering under this sickness, which he could not originally prevent, he is, for this sickness, a cherished, if you choose to say so, but still a natural sickness-he is sent down to those fires of hell, which, though they will burn for ever, will never purge away one plague-spot of the foul and loathsome distemper!

This is no fiction, no awful dream, no vision of horror, visiting the distempered imagination through the curtain of darkness and night: but it is an open and daylight reality, declared in the high places of the pulpit, preached to congregations of men, with all their waking senses and faculties about them. Awful as the statement is, I have weighed every word of it with extreme caution, and delivered it on mature deliberation; and I ask any intelligent Calvinist to deny it in any part or particular. It would give me the sincerest pleasure, if one step in this terrific procession of doctrines were denied to belong to it, if one link in that iron chain, which seems to me to bind justice and mercy equally, were fairly and for ever broken. Should any Calvinist revolt at the representation, then I would ask him to specify the part he would give up. I would say to him,-" Do you not believe that the nature of a man is what God gives him, and that this nature in every man is totally depraved? Or do you not believe that this nature is placed in such a condition, that total depravity is the certain result? Is not this total depravity an entire unwillingness to be holy? Is not this unwillingness, being total, so strong as to make it certain, in the eye of God, that, without his special interposition, it will continue till death? And continuing thus, is it not the very thing-though it sprang from nature, though it was just as certain to be developed in the constitution of man, as the appetite of hunger, or the faculty of reason-is it not the very thing, this native, total depravity, that will fix upon a man, according to your doctrine, the doom of endless suffering?"

And if all this be true, what is its aspect, I solemnly ask, towards piety, towards all our reverent, grateful, and affectionate thoughts of God? Would any man, I seriously ask, be willing to take to himself the character which he thus ascribes to his Maker? Would any parent

be, for the world, thought capable of treating his children thus-or any king, his subjects-or any master, his servants? And is there no reason for pausing at a system, which thus shocks all the moral sentiments of mankind?

And yet, this is the system that professes itself to be the only, and exclusively TRUE Gospel! And it is this language of exclusion, which I notice as a final reason for calling it into discussion.

A respectable body of men, against whom no prevailing corruption or viciousness is even alleged, who were once accounted as faithful and pious as any other men, have, after long, patient, and prayerful inquiry, arrived at the sincere and solemn conviction, that the doctrines of Calvinism are not the doctrines of Christ. We profess to revere and receive that Teacher and Saviour, but we see his instructions in a different light from our brethren. And now, what is the treatment we meet with? and what, I add, is our duty in the circumstances?

The treatment is but too well known. The very name of Christians is denied us. In the current nomenclature of the day, we are denied a place among the denominations called Christians.

66

Our duty, I believe, is earnest remonstrance. We hold this name too dear, to be silently bereft of it. Jesus Christ is precious to us, as he is to all them that believe." His character, his revelations, his doctrines, his promises, lay us under an obligation, and fill us, we trust, with a gratitude, which do not permit us calmly to bear the imputation of being his rejectors and enemies. Our accusers might well denominate us cold and indifferent to the Gospel, if we could sit down silently under this imputation.

I do hold that this is a very serious matter, and one that ought to be brought into discussion. For the controversy has come to this. It is not so much between Calvinists and Arminians, Trinitarians and Unitarians, as between the EXCLUSIVE SECT and the CATHOLIC SECT. These are the parties now arrayed against each other. It is on this ground that a new division of the community is taking place. And for my own part, it is the only question that has ever touched me very nearly. That a man is a Calvinist or a Trinitarian does not offend me. He differs with me only in the matter of a metaphysical creed. I can still have the most agreeable conversation, and happy intercourse, and intimate friendship, with him. But if he says, "I cannot acknowledge you as a Christian; you hold a belief which undermines the very foundation of piety and of all religious virtue; I consider you, and all who believe with you, as preparing for the fellowship of accursed spirits;" if this is the language he holds, or if this is the meaning of his heart, the case is totally changed. All valuable ties between us are broken. I want no hollow courtesies from that man. I can understand no hairbreadth distinctions, between a good man and a bad Christian. I know of but one kind of goodness, but one kind of worth, but one kind of piety; and if he denies me that, there is no foundation for respect and confidence, and without respect and confidence, there can be no friendship nor society. I wish the man, who denies me these, no ill. I will feed him, if he is hungry; I will clothe him, if he is naked; and if needy, I will accept the same offices from him. But for the intercourse of minds, for the best ties of society, no ground nor support is left.

And how unfortunate is it-for I am glad to forsake the crimina

tory part of this discussion, which no man can have been more reluctant to read, than I have been to write-how unfortunate is it, I say, that these ties should be broken! Here is a community of beings, frail, ignorant, erring, liable to prejudices, beset with difficulties in the way to truth; and how much might they help each other by quitting the banded ranks of party, and mingling together in a respectful and confiding intercourse, by visiting at each other's houses, and sitting down in each other's churches, and listening to each other's arguments and explanations, and witnessing the spirit of prayer which, I doubt not, would be found in both. Can any reasonable man help feeling that this is the proper attitude for those to take, who differ in the solemn concerns of a salvation, alike precious, eternally precious to all? Could any good man help delighting to see them meeting and mingling, on terms like these? Behold, how good and pleasant a thing is it for brethren and we are all brethren, in frailty, in affliction, in anxiety, and in the great hope of salvation - Behold, how good and pleasant a thing is it for brethren to agree! Agreed we should be in spirit, in desire, in prayer, and we might soon agree in faith. Would we thus help each other, "we might all soon come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, and unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ."

CURSORY OBSERVATIONS.

66

NO. II. ON THE TRINITY.

WHAT is the doctrine of the Trinity? It is, that the Almighty Father is God; that Jesus, whom he sent into the world, is God; and that the Holy Spirit-represented also as a separate agent-is God; and yet that these three, equal in power and glory," are but one God. This is what the advocate of the Trinity says. But now let me ask him to consider what it is that he thinks: not what are the words he uses, but what are his actual conceptions. If he conceives of only one Godone Infinite Mind-and then if all that he means by the Trinity is, that the Saviour and the Holy Spirit partook, in some sense, of the nature of God; this is nothing materially different from what we all believe. If he means that the Father, Son, and Spirit, are only representations of the same God, acting in their characters, then he is not a Trinitarian, but a Sabellian. But if he goes farther, and attempts to grasp the real doctrine of the Trinity; if he attempts to conceive of the Father, the Son, and the Spirit, as possessing each a distinct existence, consciousness, and volition-as holding counsel and covenant with each other; then, though he may call these Three one-though he may repeat it to himself all the day long, that they are but one; yet does he actually conceive of them as three agents, three beings, three Gods? The human mind, I aver, is so constituted, that it cannot conceive of three agents, sustaining to each other the relations asserted by the doctrine of the Trinity, without conceiving of them as three Gods.

Let the reader keep his mind free from all confusion on this point, arising from Christ's incarnation, or adoption of human nature. Before that event, the distinction is held by Trinitarians to be just as marked as it is now. Then it was that the Father covenanted with the Son. Then it was that the Son offered to assume human nature, and not the Father. Then it was, that the Father promised to the Son that he should "see the travail of his soul and be satisfied." Then it was that the Father sent the Son into the world. Is it possible for any human mind to contemplate these relations, without conceiving of those between whom they existed, as two distinct, self-conscious Beings? I aver that it is not. The Father, by supposition, must have known that he was not the Son. The Son must have known that he was not the Father. Two, who speak to one another-who confer together-the one of whom commissions, the other is commissioned-the one of whom sends the other into the world-these two are, to every human mind so contemplating them, and are, in spite of itself, two beings. If not, then